HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 23561-2 Parcel 23 SIP Soils Report
March 7, 2024
Mahir Investments, Inc. CWE 2220384.04
2661 Pummelo Ct.
Escondido, California 92027
Attention: Mr. Chintu Patel
Subject: Addendum and Update Geotechnical Report
Proposed Self-Storage Facility, Assessor’s Parcel Number 910-272-002
Madison Avenue, Temecula, California
References: 1) Christian Wheeler Engineering “Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Self-Storage
Facility Assessor’s Parcel Number 910-272-002, Madison Avenue, Temecula, California”, dated
September 23, 2022 (CWE 2220384.01)
2) Christian Wheeler Engineering “Preliminary Storm Water Infiltration Feasibility Study, Proposed
Self-Storage Facility Assessor’s Parcel Number 910-272-002, Madison Avenue, Temecula,
California”, dated September 26, 2022 (CWE 2220384.02)
3) Christian Wheeler Engineering “Response to Third-Party Geotechnical Peer Review, Proposed
Self-Storage Facility Assessor’s Parcel Number 910-272-002, Madison Avenue, Temecula,
California”, dated November 28, 2022 (CWE 2220384.03)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this updated geotechnical report to for the subject project.
This report has been prepared as an addendum to our referenced geotechnical reports. As such, unless specifically
modified or addressed herein, all of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the above
referenced reports remain applicable.
PRELIMINARY SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site is an undeveloped commercial lot, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 910-272-002,
which is located adjacent to and northeast of Madison Avenue, Temecula, California. Topographically, the
site is characterized by a relatively level pad with an elevation of about 1052 to 1055 feet. An engineered slope
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Geotechnical & Geological Consulting ✦ Materials Inspection & Testing ✦ Building Envelope Consulting ✦ Laboratory Services
www.christianwheeler.com ✦ info@christianwheeler.com ✦ (619) 555-1700
APPROVED BY
CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC WORKS
david.pina 04/28/2025
04/28/2025 04/28/2025
04/28/20
CWE 2220384.04 March 7, 2024 Page No. 2
up to approximately 10 feet in height ascends from the northeast perimeter of the lot at an approximate
inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) to the Interstate 15 Freeway. The site was mass graded approximately
30 years ago and review of the referenced aerial photographs indicates that the site was first used for
agricultural purposes since at least the 1930s. As noted during our surface reconnaissance of the site
conducted on March 7, 2024, the current site conditions are generally the same as they were at the time of our
field investigation and the preparation of the above refenced geotechnical report (CWE, 2022a).
We understand that the subject project will consist of the construction of an approximately 28,000-square-foot,
four-story, concrete and/or masonry structure with parking and drive areas. The self-storage building and
associated improvements are expected to be supported by conventional shallow foundations and the structure will
have a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Planned site grading is expected to consist of cuts and fill less than five feet
from the current grades. As part of the storm water management for the project two bio-retention basins have
been proposed within the northerly and southerly portions of the site.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, it is our professional opinion and judgment that the subject property is suitable for the construction of
the subject project. The recommendations contained in the referenced report remain applicable unless superseded
by the recommendations contained herein.
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS
Updated Seismic design parameters were determined in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2022 California Building
Code (CBC) and the applicable sections of ASCE/SEI 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings
and Other Structures. For the subject site, correlated shear wave velocities measured/estimated in our CPT-1
indicate that the upper 100 feet of geologic subgrade can be characterized as Soil Site Class D (CWE, 2022a). It
can be noted that sites underlain by liquefaction-susceptible soils should be designated as Soil Site Class F,
requiring a site response analysis. However, as discussed in Section 20.3.1 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, for structures
having a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 second, it is not required to perform a site
response analysis and the site classification can be determined based on the code. We anticipate that the
proposed structures will have a fundamental period less than 0.5 second and can therefore be designed using
Soil Site Class D as described above.
CWE 2220384.04 March 7, 2024 Page No. 3
In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, structures on Soil Site Class D or E sites that have a
mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter (S1) value greater than or equal to 0.2 require a site-
specific ground motion hazard analysis or the seismic response coefficient (CS) must be adjusted to
adequately characterize the site response (Exception 2). As noted in the Commentary for Section 11, “In
general, this exception effectively limits the requirements for site-specific hazard analyses to very tall and or
flexible structures at Site Class D sites.” The following Table I presents the updated seismic design
parameters based on Exception 2 in Section 11.4.8.
TABLE I: CBC 2022/ASCE 7-16 – SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
CBC – Chapter 16 Section Seismic Design Parameter Recommended Value
Section 1613.2.2 Soil Site Class D
Figure 1613.2.1 (1) MCER Acceleration for Short Periods (0.2 sec), Ss 1.578 g
Figure 1613.2.1 (2) MCER Acceleration for 1.0 Sec Periods (1.0 sec), S1 0.589 g
Table 1613.2.3 (1) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.000
Table 1613.3.3 (2) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.711
Section 1613.2.3 SMS = MCER Spectral Response at 0.2 sec. = (Ss)(Fa) 1.578 g
Section 1613.2.3 SM1 = MCER Spectral Response at 1.0 sec. = (S1)(Fv) 1.008 g
Section 1613.2.4 SDS = Design Spectral Response at 0.2 sec. = 2/3(SMS) 1.052 g
Section 1613.2.4 SD1 = Design Spectral Response at 1.0 sec. = 2/3(SM1) 0.672 g
Section 1613.2.5 Seismic Design Category D
ASCE 7-16 Fig. 22-14 Mapped Long-Period Transition Period, TL 8 sec
Section 1803.2.12 PGAM per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7 0.73 g
Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the
magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects
of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements.
CLOSURE
If you have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity
to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
David R. Russell, C.E.G. #2215 Shawn Caya, R.G.E. #2748
DRR:scc:drr
ec: chintupatel80@gmail.com; dcamargo@noaainc.com; jch@noaainc.com
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
APN 910-272-002, MADISON AVENUE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
MAHIR INVESTMENTS, INC.
2661 PUMMELO COURT
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92027
PREPARED BY
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
3980 HOME AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n Di e g o , C A 9 2 1 05 6 1 9 -5 5 0- 1 7 00 F A X 61 9 - 55 0 - 17 0 1
September 23, 2022
Mahir Investments, Inc. CWE 2220384.01
2661 Pummelo Ct.
Escondido, California 92027
Attention: Mr. Chintu Patel
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Self-Storage Facility
Assessor’s Parcel Number 910-272-002, Madison Avenue, Temecula, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In accordance with our Proposal dated July 19, 2021, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical
investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herein our findings and recommendations.
In general, we found the subject property suitable for the proposed construction, provided the
recommendations provided herein are followed. The site was mass graded approximately 30 years ago and the
site is underlain by Quaternary-age sedimentary deposits of the Pauba Formation and compacted fill.
Remedial grading is recommended for the proposed surface improvements due to exposure of the fill over
time and the cut/fill transition beneath the proposed structure. Specific recommendations are presented in
the attached report.
If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This
opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
_____________________________ _______________________________
Shawn Caya, R.G.E. #2748 David R. Russell, C.E.G. #2215
cc: chintupatel80@gmail.com
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n Di e g o , C A 9 2 1 05 6 1 9 -5 5 0- 1 7 00 F A X 61 9 - 55 0 - 17 0 1
Submit updated soils report and/or
letter dated within one year.
CWE 2220384.01
Proposed Self-Storage Facility
Madison Avenue, Temecula, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction and Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 1
Project Scope ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Site Description .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
General Geology and Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................... 3
Geologic Setting and Soil Description ................................................................................................................... 3
Artificial Fill ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Pauba Formation ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Groundwater .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Tectonic Setting ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Geologic Hazards ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
General ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Surface Rupture .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Seismic Hazard ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Landslide Potential and Slope Stability .................................................................................................................. 6
Flooding ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Tsunamis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Seiches ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Liquefaction .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
General ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Description of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Earthquake Parameters ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Potential for Liquefaction......................................................................................................................................... 7
Post Liquefaction Reconsolidation Settlement ..................................................................................................... 8
Lateral Spreading ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Grading and Earthwork ................................................................................................................................................ 9
General ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Observation of Grading.......................................................................................................................................... 10
Clearing and Grubbing ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Remedial Grading .................................................................................................................................................... 10
Excavation Chracteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Imported Fill Material ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Processing of Removal Bottom ............................................................................................................................. 11
Temporary Cut Slopes ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Surface Drainage ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Grading Plan Review ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Foundations .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
General ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Conventional Shallow Footings............................................................................................................................. 12
Lateral Load Resistance .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Settlement Characteristics....................................................................................................................................... 13
Expansive Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Foundation Plan Review ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Foundation Excavation Observation ................................................................................................................... 13
Soluble Sulfates ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
On-Grade Slabs ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
CWE 2220384.01
Proposed Self-Storage Facility
Madison Avenue, Temecula, California
General ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Interior Slabs ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
Under-Slab Vapor Retarders .................................................................................................................................. 14
Exterior Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................................................... 14
Preliminary Pavement Sections .................................................................................................................................. 15
Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Review, Observation and Testing .............................................................................................................................. 16
Uniformity of Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Change in Scope ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
Time Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Professional Standard .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Client's Responsibility .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Field Explorations............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................................................................ 18
TABLES
Table II: CBC 2019/ASCE 7-16 – Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................................. 6
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1
PLATES
Plate 1 Site Plan and Geotechnical Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Boring Logs and Cone Penetration Test Results
Appendix B Liquefaction Analyses
Appendix C Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D References
Appendix E Recommended Grading Specifications - General provisions
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
APN 910-272-002, MADISON AVENUE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed for a proposed self-storage facility
to be constructed along the east side of Madison Avenue, Temecula, California. The following Figure
Number 1 presents a vicinity map showing the location of the project.
To assist us in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a Preliminary Grading Plan prepared by
Hariya, Inc. The precise grading plan has been used as the base for our geotechnical mapping, which is
included herewith as Plate Number 1. We have also been provided with a preliminary architectural set of
drawings prepared by NOAA Group Architects.
The site currently is currently vacant. We understand that an approximately 28,000-square-foot, four-story,
concrete and/or masonry structure will be constructed and parking and drive areas will also be constructed
along the north and northeast sides of the proposed structure. The self-storage building and associated
improvements are expected to be supported by conventional shallow foundations and the structure will have
a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Planned site grading is expected to consist of cuts and fill less than five feet
from the current grades.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mahir Investments, Inc. and their consultants for
specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering for
conformance with our recommendations and to determine whether any additional subsurface investigation,
laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed,
our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering
principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied.
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n Di e g o , C A 9 2 1 05 6 1 9 -5 5 0- 1 7 00 F A X 61 9 - 55 0 - 17 0 1
PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
APN 910-272-002, MADISION AVENUE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE:SEPT 2022
BY:SD
JOB NO.:2220384.01
FIGURE NO.:1
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
SITE VICINITY
2SHQ6WUHHW0DSFRQWULEXWRUV
PROJECT SITE
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 2
PROJECT SCOPE
Our geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining
representative soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data and review of relevant
geologic literature. More specifically, our intent was to provide the services listed below.
Drill six small-diameter borings to explore the subsurface conditions of the site and to obtain
samples for laboratory testing.
Backfill the boring holes using a grout or a grout/bentonite mix as required by the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health.
Advance six Cone Penetrometer Tests to explore the subsurface conditions of the site.
Backfill the CPT holes using grout or a grout/bentonite mix as required by the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health.
Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our past experience with similar soil types, the engineering
properties of the various soil strata that may influence the proposed construction, including bearing
capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential.
Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards and liquefaction potential
that could have an effect on the proposed construction, and provide the seismic design parameters in
accordance with the 2019 edition of the California Building Code.
Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions,
groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide geotechnical recommendations to deal with these
difficulties.
Quantitatively address the potential for soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement at the site in the
event of a design level seismic event.
Provide site preparation and grading recommendations for the anticipated work.
Provide foundation recommendations for the proposed structure and develop soil engineering design
criteria for the recommended foundation designs.
Prepare this report, which includes, in addition to our conclusions and recommendations, a plot plan
showing the areal extent of the geological units and the locations of our exploratory borings,
exploration logs, and a summary of the laboratory test results.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 3
FINDINGS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is an undeveloped commercial lot, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 910-272-002,
which is located adjacent to and northeast of Madison Avenue, Temecula, California. Topographically, the
site is characterized by a relatively level pad with an elevation of about 1052 to 1055 feet (Hariya, 2022). An
engineered slope up to approximately 10 feet in height ascends from the northeast perimeter of the lot at an
approximate inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) to the Interstate 15 Freeway. The site was mass graded
approximately 30 years ago and review of the referenced aerial photographs indicates that the site was first
used for agricultural purposes since at least the 1930s.
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the northeasterly
portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. Based on the results of our subsurface
explorations, our experience in the vicinity of the site, and analysis of readily available, pertinent geologic and
geotechnical literature, it was determined that the site is underlain by man-placed fill materials over
Quaternary-age sedimentary deposits of the Pauba Formation. Although the site is situated north of, but in
relatively close proximity to, the now infilled location of the Santa Gertrudis Creek bed, no unconsolidated
alluvium was encountered in our subsurface explorations. The encountered subsurface materials are described
below in order of increasing age:
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf): Compacted fill underlies the southern and western portion of the
subject lot (see Plate No. 1). Although no documentation of this fill has been obtained, based on the
results of our subsurface explorations, the fill appears to have been well compacted when originally
placed approximately 30 years ago. As noted in our exploratory borings B-1, B-4, B-5, and B-6, the
fill was noted to extend to depths of approximately 4 feet, 3½ feet, 8 feet and 3 feet below existing
site grades, respectively. In general, the fill was noted to predominantly consist of light brown to
brown, dry to moist, dense to very dense, clayey sands (SC) and silty sands (SM). Within boring B-1,
the fill was noted to consist of dry to moist, stiff, sandy clay (CL).
PAUBA FORMATION (Qpfs): Quaternary-age sedimentary deposits of the Pauba Formation were
encountered below the fill within the southern and western portions of the site and these materials crop
out at grade within the northern and eastern portions of the site (see Plate No. 1). Materials of the Pauba
Formation extended to depths in excess of our maximum explored boring depth of 46½ feet and the
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 4
maximum explored CPT depth of 65 feet below existing site grades. These materials typically consist of
interbedded layers of light brown to grayish-brown, silty sand (SM) and clayey sands (SC). With boring
B-5, a layer of dark grayish-brown, clayey sand-sandy clay (SC-CL) was encountered at a depth of 44 feet
below existing site grades. These materials are damp moist above the water table and saturated below.
The materials of the Pauba Formation were noted to be generally dense/hard to very dense in
consistency.
GROUNDWATER: Groundwater was encountered at a depths of about 33 and 32 feet below existing site
grades within our borings B-3 and B-5 (respectively), this correlates to elevations of approximately 1020 feet
to 1021 feet. We reviewed available groundwater data in the vicinity of the site to determine the historic high
groundwater level. The groundwater depths from the nearest monitoring wells generally correlate to the
findings at the subject site
It should be noted that variations in subsurface water (including perched water zones and seepage) may result
from fluctuations in the ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, precipitation, irrigation, and
other factors that may not have been evident at the time of the investigation. It should also be recognized that
minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after development of a site even where none were present
before development. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage
patterns and/or an increase in irrigation water. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most
effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur.
TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site. However, it should be noted that
much of Southern California, including the Riverside County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-
age fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to
northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as
“active” according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are
those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000
years).
The Division of Mines and Geology used the term “potentially active” on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until
1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age (last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible
zonation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and identified all Quaternary-
age faults as “potentially active” except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct
geologic evidence of inactivity during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be
“potentially active” would be considered to be “active” but lack specific criteria used by the State Geologist,
such as sufficiently active and well-defined. Faults older than Quaternary-age are not specifically defined in Special
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 5
Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, published by the California Division of Mines and
Geology. However, it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period
may be considered to be “inactive”.
The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. A review of available geologic maps indicates
that the nearest active fault zone is the Elsinore Fault Zone. Active Faults associated with the Wildomar Fault,
which marks the eastern margin of the Elsinore Fault Zone in the Temecula area, are located approximately 900
feet and 1,200 feet southwest of the site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site
include the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast; the Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank, San
Diego Trough and San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest; and the Newport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes
Fault Zones to the west.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
GENERAL: The site is located in an area where the risks due to significant geologic hazards are relatively
low. No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude the construction of the subject project are
known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the
proposed improvements.
SURFACE RUPTURE: There are no known active faults that traverse the subject site; therefore, the risk for
surface rupture at the subject site is considered low.
SEISMIC HAZARD: Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate,
depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely
that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the
proposed improvements.
Seismic design parameters were determined in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2019 California Building Code
(CBC) and the applicable sections of ASCE/SEI 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and
Other Structures. For the subject site, correlated shear wave velocities measured/estimated in our CPT-1 indicate
that the upper 100 feet of geologic subgrade can be characterized as Soil Site Class D. It can be noted that sites
underlain by liquefaction-susceptible soils should be designated as Soil Site Class F, requiring a site response
analysis. However, as discussed in Section 20.3.1 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, for structures having a fundamental
period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 second, it is not required to perform a site response analysis and
the site classification can be determined based on the code. We anticipate that the proposed structures will
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 6
have a fundamental period less than 0.5 second and can therefore be designed using Soil Site Class D as
described above.
In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, structures on Soil Site Class D or E sites that have a
mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter (S1) value greater than or equal to 0.2 require a site-
specific ground motion hazard analysis or the seismic response coefficient (CS) must be adjusted to
adequately characterize the site response (Exception 2). As noted in the Commentary for Section 11, “In
general, this exception effectively limits the requirements for site-specific hazard analyses to very tall and or
flexible structures at Site Class D sites.” Table II presents the seismic design parameters based on Exception
2 in Section 11.4.8.
TABLE I: CBC 2019/ASCE 7-16 – SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
CBC – Chapter 16 Section Seismic Design Parameter Recommended Value
Section 1613.2.2 Soil Site Class D
Figure 1613.2.1 (1) MCER Acceleration for Short Periods (0.2 sec), Ss 1.578 g
Figure 1613.2.1 (2) MCER Acceleration for 1.0 Sec Periods (1.0 sec), S1 0.589 g
Table 1613.2.3 (1) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.000
Table 1613.3.3 (2) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.711
Section 1613.2.3 SMS = MCER Spectral Response at 0.2 sec. = (Ss)(Fa) 1.578 g
Section 1613.2.3 SM1 = MCER Spectral Response at 1.0 sec. = (S1)(Fv) 1.008 g
Section 1613.2.4 SDS = Design Spectral Response at 0.2 sec. = 2/3(SMS) 1.052 g
Section 1613.2.4 SD1 = Design Spectral Response at 1.0 sec. = 2/3(SM1) 0.672 g
Section 1613.2.5 Seismic Design Category D
ASCE 7-16 Fig. 22-14 Mapped Long-Period Transition Period, TL 8 sec
Section 1803.2.12 PGAM per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7 0.73 g
LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY: Based on the absence of significant slopes on or
within the vicinity of the subject site, the potential for slope failures can be considered negligible.
FLOODING: As delineated on the referenced Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C2720G, prepared by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the site is located in Zone X which is considered to be an “area
of minimal flood hazard.” Areas of minimal flood hazards are located outside of the boundaries of both the
100-year and 500-year flood zones.
TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Due to
the site’s elevation and location, it will not be affected by a tsunami.
SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs.
Due to the site’s location, it should not be affected by seiches.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 7
LIQUEFACTION
GENERAL: The subject site is in an area considered susceptible to liquefaction. In order to be subject to
liquefaction, three conditions must be present: loose sandy or cohesionless silty deposits, shallow
groundwater, and earthquake shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration. Based on our site-specific study,
it appears that shallow groundwater is present at the site and strong earthquake shaking may affect the site.
However, as described in the Geologic Setting and Soil Description section of this report above, no
unconsolidated alluvial sediments were encountered on-site and the materials below the water table in the
project area consist of generally dense to very dense materials of the Pauba Formation. Nevertheless, we have
conducted liquefaction analyses to quantitatively address the liquefaction potential at the site.
It should be noted that the following discussion is in no way a guarantee that the analysis will accurately
predict the liquefaction potential at the site. The analysis provides general information only on the site
liquefaction potential. It should be noted that many of the parameters used in liquefaction evaluations are
subjective and open to interpretation, and that much is yet unknown about both the seismicity of the San
Diego area and the phenomenon of liquefaction.
DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS: Our analysis was performed using the Cliq (version 3.0) software
developed by Geologismiki, in which the results of our CPT soundings were input and evaluated in
accordance with the procedure recommended by the National Center For Earthquake Engineering Research
(NCEER, 1998). An algorithm was applied within the software to make corrections for thin stiff layers
embedded within softer zones (Robertson, 2009). Our analyses were limited to the upper 50 feet of the
existing soils as liquefaction below that depth is not considered to have a significant effect on surface
improvements.
EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS: Our calculations were performed using a peak ground acceleration
(PGAM = 0.73g) as determined using the procedures set forth in Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-16. We have also
performed a seismic hazard deaggregation using the interactive program available on the U. S. Geological
Survey website. Within the USGS program, the site coordinates were entered and a deaggregation was
performed based on the peak ground acceleration with two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years
(0.74g) for soil with Vs30 = 260 m/s (Soil Site Class D). For the subject site, this yielded a mean earthquake
magnitude of 7.0, which is the value used in our liquefaction evaluation.
POTENTIAL FOR LIQUEFACTION: Using the parameters described above, the results of our
liquefaction analyses indicate that much of the saturated sandy and silty portions of the Pauba Formation
below the water table possess factors-of-safety against soil liquefaction greater than 1.0 and are therefore not
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 8
considered liquefiable. It can be noted that very minor zones of potentially liquefiable material were
encountered in our CPTs at depths below about 40 feet below the existing grade. The potential for these
layers to adversely impact the planned structure is very low.
POST LIQUEFACTION RECONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT: The potential amount of total
vertical settlement due to reconsolidation of the liquefied soils was estimated within the Cliq software using
the methods presented by Zhang et al, 2002 with a depth-weighted dynamic settlement profile (Cetin et al,
2009) as recommended by Dr. Peter Robertson (2014). The estimated settlements for the two CPT soundings
performed on-site ¼- and ½-inch. It can be noted that, for sites with relatively small lateral displacement (i.e.
less than one foot), predicted settlements are typically within a factor of two relative to those observed (Seed
et al, 2003).
In terms of differential settlement, CGS Special Publication 117 notes that considerable difficulty exists in
trying to “reliably estimate” the amount of differential settlement at a site caused by soil liquefaction. As such,
a conservative estimate of differential settlement at any given site can be assumed to be two-thirds of the total
liquefaction-induced settlement (CGS, 2008). Using this criterion, without any deep ground modification
procedures, the subject project area may be assumed to be subject to approximately ¼-inch (or less) of
liquefaction-induced, differential settlement. This estimated differential settlement can be assumed to occur
over a horizontal distance of approximately 40 feet (500 inches), which equates to an angular distortion of
0.0005L.
LATERAL SPREADING: Lateral ground spreading can occur when viscous liquefied soils flow downslope,
usually towards a river channel or shoreline. Such factors as the level nature of the site and surrounding areas
and the relatively gentle hydraulic gradient of the water table across the area are considered favorable with
regards to limiting potential lateral spreading. Based on these conditions and the very minor amount of
liquefiable materials encountered, it is our professional opinion and judgment that the likelihood of
downslope lateral spread displacements is very low.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable to support the proposed self-storage facility provided
the geotechnical design and construction criteria presented in the following section are followed. Based on our
investigation, we offer the conclusions listed below.
The planned project area was graded approximately 30 years ago and the western and southern
portions of the site are underlain by up to 8 feet of compacted fill soil. The northern and eastern
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 9
portions of site were cut down from the original site grades, resulting in formational soils exposed at
current grades.
The existing fill is considered suitable to support the planned addition, but will require
overexcavation and recompaction of the exposed soils at the surface.
Undercutting of the formational soils exposed at pad grade within the northern and eastern portions
of the site may be required to ensure that the entirety of the self-storage building is underlain by a
uniform mat of properly compacted structural fill.
Groundwater is expected at a depth of about 32 feet below existing site grades. Due to the site’s
location, variations in the groundwater table associated with seasonal fluctuations as well as climatic
changes should be anticipated. Any deep excavations, if required, may require dewatering.
Small zones of saturated soils below an approximate depth of 40 feet have been found to be
potentially liquefiable. Based on our evaluation using CPT data, we estimate that a potential differential
settlement of approximately ¼ -inch could occur over a horizontal distance of 500 inches (0.0005L) as
a result of the design-level seismic event. In order to be supported by a shallow foundation system, the
estimated differential settlement (static plus seismic) cannot exceed the thresholds given in Table 12.3-3
of ASCE/SEI 7-16. For this project, the table specifies that “multistory structures with concrete or
masonry wall systems” in Risk Category II have a limiting differential settlement of 2.5 inches over a
distance of approximately 500 inches (0.005L). Since the estimated differential settlement does not
exceed the threshold, the proposed addition can be supported by a shallow foundation system.
It is our opinion that the risk for lateral spreading, bearing loss, and differential settlement are negligible
and that the shallow foundations need not be designed in accordance with Section 12.13.9 of
ASCE/SEI 7-16.
As part of the storm water management for the site, we understand that a bio-retention basin is
proposed. Our feasibility analysis to address the potential for storm water infiltration on-site will be
submitted under separate cover.
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRADING AND EARTHWORK
GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix J of the California Building
Code and the minimum requirements of the City of Temecula, except where specifically superseded in the text
of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be present at the pre-
construction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to review the earthwork
schedule.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 10
OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential
during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in
design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general
accordance with the recommendations contained herein.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the removal of any existing
improvements that are designated for demolition. The removals should include all abandoned utilities, signs,
vegetation, construction debris and other deleterious materials from the site. This should include all significant
root material. The resulting materials should be disposed of off-site in a legal dumpsite.
REMEDIAL GRADING: Within the area of the proposed self-storage building, the existing soil should be
overexcavated to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of footing or subgrade elevation or 5 feet
below the existing or proposed grade, whichever depth is greater, and be recompacted. Horizontally, the
overexcavation should extend at least 5 feet outside areas of the structure or to a horizontal distance equal to
the depth of the removal area, whichever is greater.
In areas that will support settlement-sensitive surface improvements (i.e. concrete slabs-on-grade, trash
enclosures, concrete driveways, pavement, concrete walkways, etc.), the existing soil should be overexcavated
to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of footing or subgrade elevation or 2 feet below the existing
grade, whichever depth is greater, and be recompacted. Horizontally, where feasible, we recommend that the
overexcavations generally extend at least 5 feet outside areas to receive settlement-sensitive improvements.
Once exposed, the bottom of the overexcavation should be observed by our project geologist, engineer, or
technician supervisor. Depending on the conditions exposed, deeper removals might be required. Once a
competent bottom has been established, but prior to placing fills or constructing improvements, all areas to
receive fill should be processed as described below in the “Processing of Fill Material” section of this report.
After the bottom is processed, the previously removed material can be replaced as structural fill where
necessary in accordance with the “Compaction and Method of Filling” section of this report. Our firm should
be notified if the proposed plans change so that, if necessary, we may provide recommendations regarding the
grading and earthwork of the modified project.
EXCAVATION CHRACTERISTICS: Based on our exploratory excavations, the subsurface materials at
the site appear to be excavatable to the anticipated excavation depths with conventional heavy-duty
earthmoving equipment in good operating condition. Significant caving of the exploratory excavations was
not encountered at the time of our subsurface explorations. It should be expected that some gravel and
cobble will be encountered.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 11
IMPORTED FILL MATERIAL: Soils to be imported to the site should be evaluated and approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to being imported. At least five working days’ notice of a potential import
source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that appropriate testing can be accomplished. The
type of material considered most desirable for import is granular material containing some silt or clay binder,
which has an expansion index of less than 50. At least 75 percent of the material should pass through the
Standard #4 sieve and 15 to 35 percent of the material should pass through the Standard # 200 sieve. Soils
not meeting there criteria should not be used for structural fill or backfill.
PROCESSING OF REMOVAL BOTTOM: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new
improvements in areas that have been overexcavated as recommended in the “Site Preparation” section of this
report, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction.
FILL SOIL AND METHOD OF COMPACTION: Fill and backfill soil should be thoroughly mixed and
placed at a moisture content at least 1 percent above optimum moisture content, in lifts 6 to 8 inches thick, with
each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris,
roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our field personnel. Fill material should be
free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of 12 inches in maximum dimension. However, in the upper 5 feet of
pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of 6 inches should be allowed. Subgrade soil should be free of
rocks or lumps of soil in excess of 3 inches.
SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Subgrade is considered to be the upper 12 inches of soil in areas to support
surface improvements such as vehicular pavements or other roadway structures, flatwork, curbs and gutters,
driveways, or sidewalks. Preparation of subgrade should be performed just prior to the placement of subbase,
aggregate base, or the surface improvement, and should not be considered to be completed as part of the mass
grading requirements or operation. The preparation of subgrade should result in a uniform soil having a
moisture content that is minus 1 percent of optimum or wetter just prior to compaction. Achieving this
condition will likely require the contractor to scarify, overexcavate, or otherwise loosen the subgrade soil and
perform moisture-conditioning by adding water or allowing the existing material to dry. The moisture-
conditioned material should be thoroughly mixed and compacted. Proof rolling with a fully loaded water truck
may be requested in order to verify that a uniform, stable subgrade has been achieved. Areas that exhibit rutting,
pumping, yielding, and/or low compaction should be stabilized as discussed above.
COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS: All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative
compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 12
In areas to support vehicular pavements, the upper 12 inches of subgrade and the aggregate base course (if
placed) should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density.
TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES: The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable,
temporary excavations and will need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to
maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The contractor’s “competent person”, as defined in the OSHA
Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations
as part of the contractor’s safety process. We anticipate that the existing on-site soils will consist of Type C
material. Our firm should be contacted to observe all temporary cut slopes during grading to ascertain that no
unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as foundation loads, or soil or equipment
stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the
slope height.
SURFACE DRAINAGE: The ground around the proposed structure should be graded so that surface water
flows rapidly away from the structure without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to
structure slope away at a gradient of at least 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet. If the minimum
distance of 10 feet cannot be achieved, an alternative method of drainage runoff away from the building at the
termination of the 5 percent slope will need to be used. Swales and impervious surfaces that are located within
10 feet of the building should have a minimum slope of 2 percent. Rain gutters with downspouts that discharge
runoff away from the structure into controlled drainage devices are also recommended.
GRADING PLAN REVIEW: The final grading plans should be submitted to this office for review in order to
ascertain that the geotechnical recommendations remain applicable to the final plan and that no additional
recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated development. Our firm should be notified of
changes to the proposed project that could necessitate revisions of or additions to the information contained
herein.
FOUNDATIONS
GENERAL: We expect that the proposed structure will be supported by conventional spread footings. The
following design recommendations are considered the minimum based on anticipated soil conditions and are
not intended to be lieu of structural considerations. All foundations should be designed by a qualified structural
engineer.
CONVENTIONAL SHALLOW FOOTINGS: Shallow footings should be embedded at least 24 inches
below the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 18 and
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 13
24 inches, respectively. The allowable bearing capacity for foundations with such dimensions is 4,000 pounds
per square foot for dead plus live loads. The bearing value may be increased by one-third for combinations of
temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads.
LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the
bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of
friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.35. The passive resistance may be considered to be
equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot. These values are based on the assumption that
the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is
used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third.
SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential foundation settlement for
the static condition is expected to be less than one inch and one inch in forty feet, respectively, provided the
recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally
occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore
some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical
movements.
EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The foundation soils are expected to have a “low” expansion index.
The site preparation and foundation recommendations reflect this condition.
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The final foundation plan and accompanying details and notes should
be submitted to this office for review. The intent of our review will be to verify that the plans used for
construction reflect the minimum dimensioning and reinforcing criteria presented in this section and that no
additional criteria are required due to changes in the foundation type or layout. It is not our intent to review
structural plans, notes, details, or calculations to verify that the design engineer has correctly applied the
geotechnical design values. It is the responsibility of the design engineer to properly design/specify the
foundations and other structural elements based on the requirements of the structure and considering the
information presented in this report.
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All foundation excavations should be observed by
the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing reinforcing steel or formwork in order to determine if the
foundation recommendations presented herein are followed. All footing excavations should be excavated
neat, level, and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 14
SOLUBLE SULFATES
The water-soluble sulfate content was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417 for a
representative soil sample from the site. The result of these tests indicate that the foundation soils may be
categorized as negligible (S0) per ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.
It should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an
analysis is considered necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in
this field to consult with them on this matter. The results of our tests should only be used as a guideline to
determine if additional testing and analysis is necessary.
ON-GRADE SLABS
GENERAL: It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed structure will consist of a concrete
slab-on-grade. The following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil
conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of structural considerations.
INTERIOR SLABS: We recommend that the interior slab-on-grade floors be at least 5 inches thick. Interior
slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars spaced at least 18 inches on center each way. The owner
and the project structural engineer should determine if the on-grade slabs need to be designed for special
loading conditions. For such cases, a subgrade modulus of 100 pounds per cubic inch can be assumed for the
subgrade provided it is prepared as recommended in this report.
UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDERS: Where floor coverings are installed, steps should be taken to
minimize the transmission of moisture vapor from the subsoil through the interior slabs where it can potentially
damage the interior floor coverings. We recommend that the owner/contractor follow national standards for
the installation of vapor retarders below interior slabs as presented in currently published standards including
ACI 302, “Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction” and ASTM E1643, “Standard Practice for
Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs”.
EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK: Exterior concrete on-grade slabs that are not subject to vehicle
loads should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Exterior slabs abutting perimeter foundations should be
doweled into the footings. All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Alternative patterns consistent with ACI guidelines can also be
used. A concrete mix with a 1-inch maximum aggregate size and a water/cement ratio of less than 0.6 is
recommended for exterior slabs. Lower water content will decrease the potential for shrinkage cracks. Both
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 15
coarse and fine aggregate should conform to the latest edition of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction” (‘Greenbook”).
Special attention should be paid to the method of concrete curing to reduce the potential for excessive
shrinkage and resultant random cracking. It should be recognized that minor cracks occur normally in
concrete slabs due to shrinkage. Some shrinkage cracks should be expected and are not necessarily an
indication of excessive movement or structural distress.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS
We expect that new concrete vehicular pavement may be installed in the driveway and parking areas. Portland
cement concrete (PCC) pavement should have a thickness of 6 inches. The PCC pavement section was
determined in general accordance with the procedure recommended within the American Concrete Institute
report ACI-330R-08 Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots. We recommend that the
referenced ACI-330R Guide be used to determine the appropriate requirements for control joint
configuration, reinforcing, and dowelling of the construction joints. Concrete pavement construction should
comply with the requirements set forth in Sections 201-1.1.2 and 302-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (concrete Class 560-C-3250).
The outside edge of concrete slabs that will support wheel loads should have a thickened edge or integral curb.
The thickened edge should be at least 2 inches thicker than the slab and should taper back to the recommended
slab thickness 3 feet from the edge of the slab. PCC pavement placed in front of trash enclosures or in areas
with concentrated loads should be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars placed at 12 inches on center each way.
Asphalt concrete may be used for new parking stalls. We expect that these areas will primarily support
passenger cars, light pickup trucks, and sports utility vehicles. Based on the anticipated subgrade soil and
traffic conditions, we recommend that this pavement section consist of at least 3 inches of asphalt concrete
over 6 inches of aggregate base. The base material could consist of Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) or Class II
Aggregate Base. The Crushed Aggregate Base should conform to the requirements set forth in Section 200-
2.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. The Class II Aggregate Base should
conform to requirements set forth in Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications for California
Department of Transportation. Asphalt concrete should be placed in accordance with ‘Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook), Section 302-5.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 16
LIMITATIONS
REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications.
Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so
that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the California Building Code.
It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering
services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to start of construction.
UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements
based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and
on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be
recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed
or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any
unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be
brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary.
CHANGE IN SCOPE
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may
determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or
modified by a written addendum.
TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur
with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent
properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such
changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 17
Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the
suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client
recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our test pits,
surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on
the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but
shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of
professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is
made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for
consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
It is the client’s responsibility, or its representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations
contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and
incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary
measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during
construction.
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Twelve subsurface explorations were made during this investigation at the locations indicated on the Site Plan
included herewith as Plate Number 1 on September 27, 2021. These explorations consisted of six small-diameter
borings and six Cone Penetration Test soundings. The borings were drilled with a Mobile B-61 drill rig
advancing 8-inch hollow stem auger. The CPT probes were performed by Kehoe Testing, using an integrated
electronic cone system. The boring logs and CPT results are presented in Appendix A. The fieldwork was
conducted under the observation and direction of our engineering geology personnel.
The borings were carefully logged when made. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils
Classification. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture, and the density
or consistency is provided. The density of granular soils is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or
very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Page 18
hard. Relatively undisturbed drive samples were collected using a modified California sampler The sampler,
with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1 inch long, thin, brass rings with inside diameters of
approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 3550-84. The driving weight is permitted to
fall freely. The number of blows per foot of driving, or as indicated, are presented on the boring logs as an
index to the relative resistance of the sampled materials. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in
the brass rings, and sealed. Relatively undisturbed bulk samples of the earth materials encountered were also
collected. Samples were transported to our laboratory for testing.
On the logs of the CPT soundings, the soils are described in terms of the Soil Behavior Type (SBT). The
stratigraphic expression of the soil types, SBT, is based on the relationships between the measured cone
bearing, sleeve friction, and penetration pore pressures measured almost continuously within each sounding.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed and the
subsequent results are presented in Appendix C.
CPT-7 Approximate Cone Penetrometer Test Location
(CPT-2 encountered refusal at 2')
Approximate Boring Location
Approximate Percolation Test Location
Artificial Fill over
Pauba Formation
Pauba Formation
Approximate Geologic Contact
Qaf
Qpfs
Qpfs
CWE LEGEND
B-6
PT-8
CPT-3
CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-7
CPT-6
CPT-5
CPT-4
B-2
B-3
B-6
B-4
B-1
B-5
Qaf
Qpfs
Qpfs
PT-1
PT-2
PT-3
PT-5
PT-6
PT-7
PT-8
PT-4
DATE: SEPT 2022
BY:SD
JOB NO.:2220384.01
PLATE NO.:1
SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
APN 910-272-002, MADISON AVENUE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G
00 40'80'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
Appendix A
Boring Logs and Cone Penetration Test Results
SUMMARY
OF
CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
Prepared by:
KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
5415 Industrial Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1518
Office (714) 901-7270 / Fax (714) 901-7289
www.kehoetesting.com
Project:
Madison Avenue Temecula
Temecula, CA
August 4, 2022
Prepared for:
Mr. Dave Russell
Christian Wheeler Engineering
3980 Home Avenue
San Diego, CA 92105-5925
Office (619) 550-1700 / Fax (619) 550-1701
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK
3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES
4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION
APPENDIX
• CPT Plots
• CPT Classification/Soil Behavior Chart
• Pore Pressure Dissipation Graphs
• CPT Data Files (sent via email)
SUMMARY
OF
CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Cone Penetration Test (CPT) program carried out for the
Madison Avenue Temecula project located in Temecula, California. The work was performed
by Kehoe Testing & Engineering (KTE) on August 4, 2022. The scope of work was performed
as directed by Christian Wheeler Engineering personnel.
2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK
The fieldwork consisted of performing CPT soundings at six locations to determine the soil
lithology. A summary is provided in TABLE 2.1.
LOCATION
DEPTH OF
CPT (ft)
COMMENTS/NOTES:
CPT-1 65
CPT-3 15 Refusal
CPT-4 65
CPT-5 29 Refusal
CPT-6 4 Refusal
CPT-7 20 Refusal
TABLE 2.1 - Summary of CPT Soundings
3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES
The CPT soundings were carried out by KTE using an integrated electronic cone system
manufactured by Vertek. The CPT soundings were performed in accordance with ASTM
standards (D5778). The cone penetrometers were pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig. The cone
used during the program was a 15 cm^2 cone with a cone net area ratio of 0.83. The following
parameters were recorded at approximately 2.5 cm depth intervals:
• Cone Resistance (qc) • Inclination
• Sleeve Friction (fs) • Penetration Speed
• Dynamic Pore Pressure (u) • Pore Pressure Dissipation (at selected depths)
4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION
The Cone Penetration Test data is presented in graphical form in the attached Appendix. These
plots were generated using the CPeT-IT program. Penetration depths are referenced to ground
surface. The soil behavior type on the CPT plots is derived from the attached CPT SBT plot
(Robertson, “Interpretation of Cone Penetration Test…”, 2009) and presents major soil lithologic
changes. The stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone resistance
(qc), sleeve friction (fs), and penetration pore pressure (u). The friction ratio (Rf), which is
sleeve friction divided by cone resistance, is a calculated parameter that is used along with cone
resistance to infer soil behavior type. Generally, cohesive soils (clays) have high friction ratios,
low cone resistance and generate excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils (sands)
have lower friction ratios, high cone bearing and generate little (or negative) excess pore water
pressures.
The CPT data files have also been provided. These files can be imported in CPeT-IT (software
by GeoLogismiki) and other programs to calculate various geotechnical parameters.
It should be noted that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based on qc, fs and
u. In these situations, experience, judgement and an assessment of the pore pressure data
should be used to infer the soil behavior type.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call our office at
(714) 901-7270.
Sincerely,
KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
Steven P. Kehoe
President
08/09/22-aa-4470
APPENDIX
Project:Christian Wheeler / Madison Avenue
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 65.10 ft, Date: 8/4/2022Temecula, CA
CPT-1
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
6005004003002001000
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/5/2022, 9:36:44 AM 1
Project file:
Project:Christian Wheeler / Madison Avenue
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 15.17 ft, Date: 8/4/2022Temecula, CA
CPT-3
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
6005004003002001000
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/5/2022, 9:36:45 AM 2
Project file:
Project:Christian Wheeler / Madison Avenue
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 65.03 ft, Date: 8/4/2022Temecula, CA
CPT-4
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
6005004003002001000
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/5/2022, 9:36:45 AM 3
Project file:
Project:Christian Wheeler / Madison Avenue
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 29.02 ft, Date: 8/4/2022Temecula, CA
CPT-5
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
6005004003002001000
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/5/2022, 9:36:46 AM 4
Project file:
Project:Christian Wheeler / Madison Avenue
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 4.73 ft, Date: 8/4/2022Temecula, CA
CPT-6
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
6005004003002001000
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/5/2022, 9:36:46 AM 5
Project file:
Project:Christian Wheeler / Madison Avenue
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 20.35 ft, Date: 8/4/2022Temecula, CA
CPT-7
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
6005004003002001000
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/5/2022, 9:36:46 AM 6
Project file:
TEST ID: CPT-4
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2 DEPTH (ft)
65.018
Appendix B
Liquefaction Analyses
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
7.00
0.73
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Proposed Self-Storage Facility Location : Madison Avenue,Temecula, CA
Christian Wheeler Engineering
3980 Home Avenue
San Diego, California 92105
CPT file : CPT-1
32.00 ft
32.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
400200
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
*
(
C
S
R
*
)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2 , sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/21/2022, 1:46:31 PM
Project file: W:\2022 Jobs\2220384 - Apollo Self Storage Temecula\Reports\2220384.01 Geotechnical Investigation\2220384 CLiq.clq
1
This software is licensed to: Christian Wheeler Engineering CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
400200
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
100-10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sandClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandClay & silty claySand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/21/2022, 1:46:31 PM 2
Project file: W:\2022 Jobs\2220384 - Apollo Self Storage Temecula\Reports\2220384.01 Geotechnical Investigation\2220384 CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
7.00
0.73
32.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
32.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: Christian Wheeler Engineering CPT name: CPT-1
Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)
400300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Total cone resistance
L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s ( i n t e r m e d i a t e r e s u l t s )
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc
109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Corrected norm. cone resistance
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/21/2022, 1:46:31 PM 3
Project file: W:\2022 Jobs\2220384 - Apollo Self Storage Temecula\Reports\2220384.01 Geotechnical Investigation\2220384 CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
7.00
0.73
32.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
32.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: Christian Wheeler Engineering CPT name: CPT-1
CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI
20151050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0.250.20.150.10.050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/21/2022, 1:46:31 PM 4
Project file: W:\2022 Jobs\2220384 - Apollo Self Storage Temecula\Reports\2220384.01 Geotechnical Investigation\2220384 CLiq.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
7.00
0.73
32.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
32.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
7.00
0.73
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Proposed Self-Storage Facility Location : Madison Avenue,Temecula, CA
Christian Wheeler Engineering
3980 Home Avenue
San Diego, California 92105
CPT file : CPT-4
32.00 ft
32.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
400200
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
*
(
C
S
R
*
)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2 , sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/21/2022, 1:46:32 PM
Project file: W:\2022 Jobs\2220384 - Apollo Self Storage Temecula\Reports\2220384.01 Geotechnical Investigation\2220384 CLiq.clq
5
This software is licensed to: Christian Wheeler Engineering CPT name: CPT-4
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
400200
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
1050-5
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClayVery dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClayVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soil
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/21/2022, 1:46:32 PM 6
Project file: W:\2022 Jobs\2220384 - Apollo Self Storage Temecula\Reports\2220384.01 Geotechnical Investigation\2220384 CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
7.00
0.73
32.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
32.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: Christian Wheeler Engineering CPT name: CPT-4
Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)
500400300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Total cone resistance
L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s ( i n t e r m e d i a t e r e s u l t s )
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc
109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Corrected norm. cone resistance
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/21/2022, 1:46:32 PM 7
Project file: W:\2022 Jobs\2220384 - Apollo Self Storage Temecula\Reports\2220384.01 Geotechnical Investigation\2220384 CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
7.00
0.73
32.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
32.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: Christian Wheeler Engineering CPT name: CPT-4
CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI
20151050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/21/2022, 1:46:32 PM 8
Project file: W:\2022 Jobs\2220384 - Apollo Self Storage Temecula\Reports\2220384.01 Geotechnical Investigation\2220384 CLiq.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
7.00
0.73
32.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
32.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Appendix C
Laboratory Test Results
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix C, C-1
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed
are presented below:
a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The
final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and are
presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities
were determined for selected soil samples in accordance with ATM D 1188 and ASTM 2937. The
results are summarized in the subsurface exploration logs presented in Appendix A.
c) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST: The maximum
dry density and optimum moisture content of selected soil samples were determined in the laboratory
in accordance with ASTM D 1557, Method A.
d) DIRECT SHEAR: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of the on-site soils in
accordance with ASTM D 3080.
e) EXPANSION INDEX TEST: Expansion index tests were performed on selected remolded soil
samples in accordance with ASTM D 4829.
f) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distribution of selected samples was determined
in accordance with ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D 422.
g) COLLAPSE POTENTIAL: Collapse potential tests were performed on selected undisturbed soil
samples in accordance with ASTM D 5333.
h) CONSOLIDATION TEST: Consolidation tests were performed on selected “undisturbed”
samples. The consolidation apparatus was designed to accommodate a 1-inch-high by 2.375-inch or
2.500-inch diameter soil sample laterally confined by a brass ring. Porous stones were placed in
contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition of pore fluid during testing.
Loads were applied to the sample in a geometric progression, after vertical movement ceased,
resulting deformations were recorded. The percent consolidation is reported as the ratio of the
amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The test sample was inundated at
some point in the test cycle to determine its behavior under the anticipated loads as soil moisture
increases. In addition, at a selected vertical load, time versus settlement was recorded to determine
the time rate characteristics of the soil.
i) SOLUBLE SULFATES: The soluble sulfate content of selected soil samples was determined in
accordance with California Test Method 417.
j) R-VALUR: The R-Value of a selected soil sample was determined in accordance with California
Test Method 301.
Appendix D
References
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix D, Page D-1
REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asce7hazardtool.online
Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L., 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineers, v. 121, no. 4, p. 316-329.
Bryant, W. A. (compiler), 2005, Digital Database of Quaternary and Younger Faults from the Fault Activity Map
of California, version 2.0: California Geological Survey Web Page,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/information/publications/QuaternaryFaults_ver2.htm
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG
Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, organized
through the Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California.
California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,
Special Publication 117.
California Geological Society, 2018 Revision, Special Publication 42, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for
Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault
Rupture Hazards in California.
California Geological Survey, 2022, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
ConeTec Investigations Ltd., 2002, CPT Liquefaction Analysis Spreadsheet, LQCPTV2, Application of the
Integrated CPT Method (Version 2) for Estimating Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) and Liquefaction Induced
Soil Deformations, Release 1.00, Revision C, October 31, 2002.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008, Riverside County, California and Incorporated Areas Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06065C2720G, effective date August 28, 2008.
GeoTracker, 2022, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Hariya, Inc., 2022, Grading Plan, Storage Building, Madison Avenue and Interstate 15, Temecula, CA 92562,
Project No.: 22-014, dated September 14, 2022.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix D, Page D-2
Historic Aerials, NETR Online, historicaerials.com, 1938, 1967, 1978, 1985, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012,
2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020.
Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R. W., 2008, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Oakland, CA: Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes," Theme Lecture, Proceeding of the XI
ICSMFE, Vol. 2, pp. 321-376.
NOAA Group Architects, 2022, Preliminary Architectural Plans, Temecula Parcel 23, print date August 29,
2022.
Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1998. Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation based on the CPT Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1998, Vol. 35, August.
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc., 1988, Geotechnical Investigation, A Portion of North Jefferson Business Park
(Phase 4), P.M. No. 23561, (Formerly P.M. 19581-1), Rancho California, California, dated June 1, 1988, revised
July 12, 1988.
Seed et al, 2003, Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework,
Keynote Presentation, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Long Beach, CA.
Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California”, in
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 91, No. B12, pp 12,587 to 12,631, November 1986.
Yoshimine, M., Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1999, Undrained Shear Strength of Clean Sands to Trigger
Flow Liquefaction, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.36, No.5, pp.891-906
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder,
L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki,
Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix D, Page D-3
Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from
the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using
the SPT and CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871
Appendix E
Recommended Grading Specifications – General Provisions
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix E, Page E-1
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS
PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
APN 910-272-002, MADISON AVENUE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
GENERAL INTENT
The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground,
preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the
accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or
the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede
the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in
conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications
will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed
by the Geotechnical Engineer.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the
earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the
work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical
Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he
may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions
or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer
shall be contacted for further recommendations.
If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as
questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,
construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend
rejection of this work.
Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following
American Society for Testing and Materials test methods:
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix E, Page E-2
Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D1557
Density of Soil In-Place - ASTM D1556 or ASTM D6938
All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM
testing procedures.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL
All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of.
All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris.
After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches,
brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of
compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is
defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density.
When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit),
the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil.
The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and
shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should
be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as
specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when
considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All
underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10
feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure
should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer.
This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water
lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the
Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary.
All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements
set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix E, Page E-3
feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the
well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer.
FILL MATERIAL
Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of
vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill
the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in
the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low
strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only
with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site.
PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in
compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the
compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be
uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to
economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil
compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either
the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report.
When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be
carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions
is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-structural fills is
discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable.
Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the
Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than
the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical
Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained.
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by
sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix E, Page E-4
two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-
back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all
fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions
section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the
Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable.
Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to
determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems
arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report.
If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the
necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction
is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer.
CUT SLOPES
The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during
the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the
preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be
analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are
necessary.
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency.
ENGINEERING OBSERVATION
Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and
compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with
acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or
the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to
the specified degree of compaction.
CWE 2220384.01 September 23, 2022 Appendix E, Page E-5
SEASON LIMITS
Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain,
filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can
be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before
acceptance of work.
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS
RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural
ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot
subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of
50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2.
OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil
over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of
placement of such material are provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils
shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve.
TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the
cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and
recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special
footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required.