HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 13018 Parcel 1 Geotechnical Report of Compaction Test Rough GradingPROJECT NO:
FILE CATETORY:
Geotechnical Report of Compaction Test Results
EnGEN Rough Grading Operations
41625 Enterprise Circle South,
B-2.Temecula California 92590 Platts Residence
951.296.3511 -Fax 951.296.3711• Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 13018
www.engencorp.com South of Green Tree Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
1
Project Number: 4166C
December 81h, 2015
Prepared for:
Dr. and Mrs.John Platts
41575 Avenida Bourdox
Temecula, California 92592
ill-1i4M iaW'dIh3Z rt'hI
Platts Residence
Project Number:4166C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION................................................................................................. 1
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK...........................................................................................................................................2
t2.1 TIME OF GRADING..................................................................................................................................................2
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT.................................................................................................................................2
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS............................................................................................................................................2
2.4 FINISH PAD ELEVATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................2
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY............................................................................................................................................2
3.1 SLOPE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................2
4.0 TESTING ........................................................................................................................................................3
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................................................3
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING..................................................................................................................................3
5.1 GENERAL...............................................................................................................................................................3
5.2 CLASSIFICATION......................................................................................................................................................3
5.3 IN-SITU MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY TEST..........................................................................................................3
5.4 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIONSHIP TEST................................................................4
5.5 EXPANSION TEST....................................................................................................................................................4
6.0 EARTH MATERIALS........................................................................................................................................4
6.1 EARTH MATERIALS..................................................................................................................................................4
6.2 CORROSIVE SOILS ...................................................................................................................................................4
6.3 EXPANSION INDEX TEST...........................................................................................................................................4
7.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................4
7.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................4
7.2 FOUNDATION SIZE ..................................................................................................................................................5
7.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT.......................................................................................................................................I...5
7.4 BEARING CAPACITY.................................................................................................................................................5
7.5 SETTLEMENT..............................................................................................................................................I...........5
7.6 LATERAL CAPACITY..................................................................................................................................................5
7.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................6
7.8 EXTERIOR SLABS.....................................................................................................................................................6
7.9 DRIVEWAY.............................................................................................................................................................6
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................7
8.1 GENERAL...............................................................................................................................................................7
8.2 SUITABILITY FOR PROPOSED USE................................................................................................................................7
8.3 POST ROUGH GRADING OBSERVATION ANDTESTING.....................................................................................................7
9.0 CLOSURE.......................................................................................................................................................7
1
EnGEN Corporation
Platts Residence
Project Number:4166C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE
tAPPENDICES:
APPENDIX 1-LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX 2-FIELD COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX 3-PLATE
1
1
t
1
1
1
EnGEN Corporation
1
i
G M
December 81h, 2015
Dr. and Mrs. Platts
41575 Avenida Bourdox
Temecula, California 92592
Subject: Geotechnical Report of Compaction Test Results Rough Grading
Plaits Residence-Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 13018, South of Green
Tree Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: 4166C
References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Feasibility Study — Platts
Residence, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 13018— South of Green Tree Road,
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California —APN: 940-180-009,
dated: May 22"d, 2015.
2. Hendrickson Building Design- Manning Engineering, Inc. —
Foundation Plan, Platts Residence, 41784 Green Tree Road,
Temecula, California, 92592, dated: August 27th, 2015.
3. Bratene Construction and Engineering, Inc., Precise Grading Plan,
Platts Residence, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 13018, Green Tree Road, City
of Temecula, Riverside County, California, dated: September 14, 2015.
Dr. and Mrs. Platts:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field
observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site. Submitted, herein, are
the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data.
1.0 SITEIPROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
1.1 Site Description
tThe subject property consists of approximately 2.60 Acres located south of Green Tree Road, in the City
of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Vertical topographic relief across the site is approximately
20-feet with overall site drainage toward the south.
1.2 Project Description
The proposed development of the subject property is represented to be a single-family residence that
will encompass minor site improvements for the proposed development (see Plate 1). The grading of
the site consisted of a cut and fill operation in order to create a level building pad for the proposed
structure. In addition, imported soils were needed to complete the building pad to the approved finish
grade elevations.
1
1
41625 Enterprise Cirde South, B-25ernecula California 92590 951.296.3511 - Fax: 951.296,371 1
Platts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Page 2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 Time of Grading
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction operations from
October 12, 2015 through November 21, 2015.
2.2 Contractor and Equipment
The grading operations were performed by Advanced Erosion Services through the use of(1) Loader, (1)
Skip-Loader and (1)Water hose via domestic supply.
2.3 Grading Operations
The subject pad area was very gently sloping to the south & grading of the site essentially involved minor
cuts and fills to achieve a level pad area and facilitate surface draining to suitable discharge facilities.
Grading within the proposed structure area involved the removal & re-compaction of native ground to
create a uniform compacted soil mat to support the future structure. The over-excavation extended to a
depth of 34eet below existing surface elevation and 5 feet beyond the proposed structure footprint.
Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into competent natural ground with a minimum relative
compaction of 85% by a representative of this firm, prior to placement of engineered fill. Native soils were
supplemented with imported soils in order to construct the pad to the approved finished grade elevations.
2.4 Finish Pad Elevations
The pad areas were generally graded to the elevations noted on the referenced number 1 report.
However, the actual pad locations, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were
surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY
3.1 Slope Maintenance and Protection Recommendations
The design and construction of slopes are planned to create slopes that are grossly stable. Surficial
slumping, creep, pop-outs, and other factors are beyond the control of the project Geotechnical
Consultant. The following recommendations are presented for slope protection and maintenance.
Surface Drainage
Surface water should not be allowed to flow over the slopes other than incidental rainfall.
No alteration of pad gradients should be allowed that will prevent pad and roof run-off from
being expediently directed to an approved disposal areas away from the tops of slopes.
Slope Berms
Top of slope berms should be constructed and compacted as part of finish grading and
should be maintained by the resident and/or the property owner. The recommended
drainage patterns should be established at the time of finish grading and maintained
throughout the life of the project.
EnGEN Corporation
Platts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Page 3
Slope Protection
It is recommended that slopes be planted with ground cover, shrubs and trees that possess
deep, dense root structures that require a minimum of irrigation. It should be the
responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of the owner to
maintain such planting. Alteration of the planting scheme is at the property owner's risk.
Excessive Irrigation
If automatic sprinkler systems are installed on the slopes, the use should be adjusted to
account for natural rainfall.
Burrowing Animals
The resident and/or the owner should maintain a program for the elimination of burrowing
animals. This should be an on-going program to protect slope stability.
4.0 TESTING
4.1 Field Testing Procedures
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D
2922-03 and ASTM D 3017-01 procedures for determining in-place density and moisture content,
respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative compaction test results were within the 90 percent
required for all material tested,which is an indication that the remainder of the fill placed has been properly
compacted. Test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test locations were
determined from review of the referenced grading plans.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
5.1 General
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the grading of the subject
site. Laboratory tests results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests which were performed. The samples obtained will be discarded 30
days after the date of this report. This office should be notified immediately if retention of samples will be
needed beyond 30 days.
5.2 Classification
The field classification of soil materials encountered in the exploratory borings was verified in the
laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System, ASTM D 2488-00, Standard
Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures).
5.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test
The in-situ moisture content and dry density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-
98 and ASTM D 2937-00 procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The
dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined as a percentage
of the oven dry weight of the soil.
EnGEN Corporation
tPlatts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Page 4
5.4 Maximum Dry Density/ Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test
Maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on samples
of near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-02 procedures using a 4.0-inch
diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and compacted in five (5) layers
using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25 blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry
density versus the moisture content of the specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content determined from the plot.
5.5 Expansion Test
Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-surface earth material in general
accordance with the California Building Code Standard (CBC 18-2). In this testing procedure, a remolded
sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch diameter mold to a total compacted thickness of
approximately 1.0-inch by using a 5.5-pound weight dropping 12-inches and with 16 blows per layer. The
tsample is compacted at a saturation of between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is
confined under a pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (psf) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The
resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded and the
Expansion Index (EI) calculated.
6.0 EARTH MATERIALS
6.1 Earth Materials
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consists of medium to fine silty sand. Import
soils consists of coarse to fine sand with some silt.
6.2 Corrosive Soils
The soils present on the subject property are comprised of decomposed granitic material. Based on this
firm's experience in the area of the subject site and the material properties associated with corrosive soils,
it is our opinion that the soils to be in contact with concrete at the subject do not possess corrosive
properties, and therefore Type II concrete may be used.
6.3 Expansion Index Test
One (1) soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing within the area of the future proposed
building upon completion of rough grading operations. The expansion test was performed in accordance
with CBC 18-2. The material tested consisted of Brown, Silty Sand, which has an Expansion Index of 0.
This soil is classified as having a low expansion potential. The results are presented in the Summary of
Expansion Index Results in the Appendix of this report.
7.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Foundation Design Recommendations
Foundations for the proposed structures may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall
footings founded in properly compacted fill. The recommendations presented in the subsequent
EnGEN Corporation
Platts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Page 5
paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based upon a low expansion potential for the
supporting soils and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Project Structural
Engineer should determine the actual footing width and depth in accordance with the latest edition of the
California Building Code to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces.
7.2 Foundation Size
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches and should be continuously reinforced
with a minimum of one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) No. 4 steel
reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential
movements which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal
moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by
18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the
same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided across doorway
entrances.
7.3 Depth of Embedment
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a minimum depth of 12-
inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the proposed structure. Perimeter footings for two-story
structures should be placed to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent grade.
7.4 Bearing Capacity
Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing width, and minimum depth of
embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction, the allowable bearing
value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is
1,500 psf for footings in properly compacted fill. The allowable bearing value has a Factor of Safety of at
least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such
as wind or seismic forces.
7.5 Settlement
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the maximum assumed wall and
column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement
of 0.50-inch in properly compacted fill under static load conditions.
7.6 Lateral Capacity
Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to static lateral forces,
are as follows:
Table 1 -Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure) Passive Case
Soil Type Design Value
Compacted Engineered Fill 200 psf—per foot
Bedrock 400 pcf/ft.
Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.35
EnGEN Corporation
Platts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Page 6
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base of foundations
and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings and stem walls below grade
when in contact with undisturbed, properly compacted fill material. The above values are allowable design
tvalues and may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads.
The allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading,
such as wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of
material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum
recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design value.
7.7 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding FCC pavement, are based
upon the anticipated building usage and upon a very low expansion potential for the supporting material
as determined by Chapter 18 of the California Building Code. Concrete slabs should be designed to
minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be
placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should
be taken during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio)
of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could
result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete
proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and
procedures. Slab-on-grade reinforcement and thickness should be provided by the structural engineer
based on structural considerations, but as a minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor slabs be at
least 4-inches nominal in thickness and reinforced with at least No.3 steel reinforcing bars placed 24-
1
inches on center both ways, placed at mid-height of the slab cross-section. In areas where moisture
sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor
barrier with a minimum of 10.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should
be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered top and bottom by a 1.0-inch to 2.0-inch minimum layer
of clean, moist(not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
7.8 Exterior Slabs
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the exception of FCC
pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use
of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the current local standards.
7.9 Driveway
The driveway was constructed via standard cut/fill hillside grading practices and was tested to verify
compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum density in all fill areas. The driveway is considered
adequate to provide support for fire trucks and other typical emergency vehicles.
1
EnGEN Corporation
Platts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Page 7
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General
There were no conditions encountered which would cause a change in the previously provided design
and construction recommendations. As a result, design and construction should adhere to the
recommendations provided in the Referenced No. 1 Geotechnical Engineering Study.
8.2 Suitability for Proposed Use
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site, in the areas noted as test
tlocations, has been completed in accordance with the Referenced Reports, or as amended in the field
based on conditions encountered, the project plans and the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. The
graded site, in the areas noted as graded, is determined to be adequate for the support of a typical
residential development. Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be
performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent
grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placement and excavation of temporary and
permanent cut and fill slopes.
8.3 Post Rough Grading Observation and Testing
EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to
installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the
conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement,
finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill,
slab pre-saturation, or other earth work completed for the development of the subject site should be
performed by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical
conditions are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN
Corporation.
9.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above. It may or may
not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings and recommendations
expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing performed during the rough grading
operation and on generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties are
implied or expressed beyond the direct representations of this report.
1
EnGEN Corporation
1 Platte Residence
Project Number: 4166C
1
December 2015
Page 8
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions regarding this
1 report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
1 EnGEN Corporation
1 H.Wayne dga, P ' 1pal jorn raten , P al
Project Ma r GE 16
1 HWB/OB:ch 1 R FESSt
WQ
O
O
p04 BR,1 F2
Distribution: 2 Addressee y 0
2 c
1 or Zm
No. 162 m
K
v Z}
1
0 CFIN`
P\
Q'
q OFCAUF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 EnGEN corporation
tPlatts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Appendix
Appendix 1 — TEST RESULTS
Laboratory Test Results — Summary
Expansion Index:
The expansion potential of representative samples was evaluated using the guidelines of ASTM D 4829. The
test results are presented below:
SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Pad Area Silty Sand, Brown 0 Low
1
MAXIMUM DENSITY—OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTMD—D—1557-00 Method A)
SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OPTIMUM MOISTURE MAXIMUM DENSITY
Pad Area Silty Sand,Brown 127.2 10.1
Import Material Coarse to fine sand with silt 122.3 10.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EnGEN Corporation
Platts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Appendix
Field Compaction Test Results
Summary of Field In-Place Compaction Test Results
NG = Nuclear Density Test/ SC= Sand Cone Test
SG = Subgrade / FG = Finish Grade
OPT.
DEPTH MAX MOISTURE MOISTURE DRY
TEST TECK ELEVATION DENSITY CONTENT CONTENT NSITY
RELATIVE REQUIRED +
TESTCOMPACTIONCOMPACTIONON
NO. DATE TEST LOCATIONS INTIALS (FT) SOIL TYPE (PCF)PCF) TYPE
1 10/12/15 Pad Bottom PB 1239.7 Al 127.2 10.1 5.1 114.7 90.2% 85% NG
2 10/13/15 Pad Fill P6 1241.7 Al 127.2 10.1 7.3 115.1 90.5% 90% NG
3 10/13/15 Pad Bottom PB 1239.7 Al 127.2 10.1 9.2 109.2 85.8% 85°% NG
4 10/13/15 Pad Fill PB 1241.7 Al 127.2 10.1 10.2 121.0 95.1% 90% NG
5 10/14/15 Pad Bottom DJ 1239.7 Al 127.2 10A 12.6 116.2 91.4% 185% NG
6 10/14/15 Pad Fill N 1243.7 Al 127.2 10.1 11.4 116.8 91.8% 90% NG
7 10/15/15 Pad Fill PB 1241.7 Al 127.2 10.1 8.6 116.0 91.2% 90% NG
8 10/15/15 Pad Fill PB 1241.7 Al 12T2 10.1 9.7 120.7 94.9% 90% NG
9 10/16/15 Pad Fill DJ 1243,7 Al 127.2 10.1 11.2 120.2 94.5% 90% NG
10 10/16/15 Pad FII DJ 1243.7 Al 127.2 10.1 11.2 1 119.1 93.6% 90% NG
11 1 10/16/15 Pad Bottom DJ 1239.7 Al 127.2 10.1 9.2 116.7 91.7% 85% NG
12 11/21/15 Pad FG DJ FG Al 1272 10.1 5.4 121.7 95.7% 90% NG
13 11/21/15 Pad FG Di FG Al 127.2 10.1 4.6 117.4 92.3% 90% NG
14 11/21/15 Pad FG DJ FG Al 127.2 1CA 4.5 123.5 97.1% 90% NG
15 11/21/15 Pad FG DJ FG Al 127.2 10.1 7.3 1220 95.9% 90% NG
16 11/21/15 Pad FG DJ FG Al 127.2 10.1 5.3 1 119.4 93.9°% 1 90% NG
17 11/21/15 Patio Area DJ 1239 Al 127.2 1C.1 4.9 118.9 93.5% 90% NG
18 11/21115 Patio Area Di 1241 A2 122.3 10.5 6.6 114.7 93.8% 90% NG
19 11/30/15 SW Pad Area DJ FG Al 127.2 10.1 6.2 124.3 9T7% 90% NG
20 11/30/15 SW Patio Area DJ FG A2 122.3 10.5 7.7 114A 93.5% 90% NG
EnGEN Corporation
Platts Residence
Project Number: 4166C
December 2015
Appendix
1
1
PLATE
1
1
1
EnGEN Corporation
PLATE 1
VICINITY MAPsY
6
i/,
E NOT TO SCALE
i :far': / - i:. / i a
I
r/ i I
N
IFORNIP ROAD40
SUE
x III\ RANCHO VISTA
i
i .',!':. i 11 11 1
Z
OREENTREE.
RD
PAUBA RD
I r
i i ir;l `
II I \
a,
1'jai r Il ill'II
1` \; 11 \\ / I1i11 \ \ \
1
GRAPHIC SCALE
90 00 120 1w M
LEGEND 2.6o nc1G S
2.45i1AC N
Approximate Location of Compaction Tests 1\ 1
Y`
Horizontal Limits of Over-X Area n I \\•''f'I ;
II,
COMPACTION TEST REPORT SITE PLAN
PROJECT NAME' PlattS Residence DATE: November 2015
PROJECT NUMBER: 4166-C CLIENT: Mr. & Mrs. John Platts
41625 Enterprise Circle South,B-2 Temecula,California 92590 951.296.3511 Fax: 951.296-3711 www.engencorp.com Legal Description: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 13018 Plate No. 1