TM17-1532 › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 08 › ...7,0! 7 may 19 pm i: 38 n >-· ., .-•v -d i \ t:..l., t:.i t:. pla nn ing department file# rm, p-/)"' ~ '}_ el dorado county

7,0!7 MAY 19 PM I: 38 n >-· ., .- • V - D i \ t:.. l., t:. I t:.

PLA NN ING DEPARTMENT

FILE# rm, p-/)"' ~ '}_ EL DORADO COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATION

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s)_1_16_-_03_0_-2_8_a_n_d.....;3;....;;0 ____________________ _

PROJECT NAME/REQUEST: (Describe proposed use) Sierra Sunrise - 8 single-family residential lot subdjyjsjon

IF SUBDIVISION/PARCEL MAP: Create 8 lots, ranging in size from 17,329 to 261,280 aere(e) ~ IF ZONE CHANGE: From to IF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: From to----IF TIME EXTENSION, REVISION, CORRECTION: Original approval date Expiration date ______ _

APPLICANT/Ael!tff Same as Property Owner

Malling Address __ __,,...,......,.,..,..,..,....,,.,,..,....,=--------=,..,-------===--P.O. BOx or street c1fy state

Phone ( ___________ FAX(

PROPERTY OWNER Pacific States Development Corporation

Mailing Address 991 Governor Dr., #103 - El Dorado Hills. CA P.O. BOx or street Cify state

Phone ( 916 ) 933-6601 FAX (

LIST ADDITIONAL PROPERTY OWNERS ON SEPARATE SHEET IF APPLICABLE

~~~AASHFFeS'F CTA Engineering & Surveying Malling Address 3233 Monier Circle, Rancho Cordova, CA

P.O. Box or street Clfy

Phone ( 916 ) 638-0919 FAX ( 916

state

638-2479

LOCATION: The property is located on the ______ ___,e..,,....,..,. .. ,_- --- side of Woodleigh Lane N/E/W/S street or road

of the intersection with Bass Lake Road

zip cOde

95762 zip code

95742 zip code

2,000 +/-~ .$€-N/ E/W /S ---m-a-~o-r_s_tree~t-or_ro_a_a~---------

PROPERTY SIZE _ ___,,...,...,....=1,.0""'.0""'0==-r==..,..----acreage I square footage

FOR OFFICE Use ONLY Date ~!ICZ/'.'.k:217Fee s J'.l_,~G > .q)Rece;pt# :

',

~

'EL Dli>RADO COUNTY·P.LANNING;SERVICES ' " ' . . \ - . . ~ ~ . - . ' :.._ ~-' . ·-· ·· · .

- ·---"'~"""··="""""'· ~~ .... • ..... ~ - --· ----·---·- · ·--- -. ··- - -:"'-·-- ·-. ·-·

REiaU!BEp SVBMll'T:AL INFORM:ATiON · tor~· , · · · l:'eill!JMp subCIMillorii".'IP

FORMS ANQ,;MAP.S .REQUIRED CheCk N> . ..

Acplicant County

J 1) /

-===-- ·- ·--- 2)

./ . . ~ 3) ./ -=-~_, 4) v"' . 5)

: _ _:::_;=-~: .~--- -

.. _ !. .~ :~· 6) -· V"" .,.,,,.....,,.,~ 7) .- i./ -~· 8)

~ ·...:-- 9)

cli ___ J:O) . . ' ~ ' - .. 11') -- ·

r """ ..:J" ..... w

N :i: .. or Q"\ UJ~ ......

d > c--w N w o N L) O ::>- LU~ • a:: rr ..... "Z :t:: --~ ..,_. r- ..a: c_;;; _J C--' c..

"~

Application fonn an(I Agre,ment to Pay;Tlft1e;"and M~terlals, ·complete(;l i~*(slga -property owner(s). · , - .

t··'! . . ·W

Letter of A~thc)i'l~tion: When there are mul~ple owneij_, 'a ."L~~~t,;;~fi-'.~, required frt>m'

Aoolicant Cou11ty

a_/_~_12>

nl~ _13)

'

(\t~. _ .15)

j ·- ~---=- ~16)

! :--· _17)

,,. .

..

;.

..

:Acplicant Gounty _

~: _--_- 21)

/110. --- _22) & _23)

:) _24)

-7 _25)

j - -- --- --- _26)

j -_ -- ' -=-- ~7)

. -- ../__ -· --~ ··- 28)

An on-site-bi_()IQgical study:~h811 be .. req1,1it plant or anlrt1al species ,or natural com· . proposed mltfga~on .measures.: If ·appllca~le. · . ~ .

• ' j;. 'I

An air g4a11ty ·lmpac,. analysts-shall.be pro'-?~ed :Utilizjr;tg tti~ieJ mo_i;aa& Conto:>PDistritt's;.Gtiide ti) Air Quality. Asse~f?lent. · - ~ •• '-_ ' ' \ ~; •:li _

A traffic study--sball be p~vided,utjllzing- Ehll>orado ~uhty{ll>~Raif!nJe'il,i>ldf~lrni ·"" Generlp Traffic; r:.Sl,1.1,dy S.'cqll!J of Worlc or ott1er latest .traffic st\,i(iy; JrE!q determined-t>f ee:r. Appllcatlons sham - -. ' - . a) ' - DemonJJ@~" consist!3ncy with 2004 ·Ge'neral.·Plan· Trai:lspo~. -

Element1Pollcies. _ '• ~ .. b) Identify access t9 9ounty R~~(s); ·describe pmposed ffV'~ .;· a~d Iii

impro~ements·(oorslte ·and off•site). , . '· ; ,.i--

Copy:ofrprevious parcel map or .. subdivlsion map; if appfica~ll)

BEQUll~~llflNFOBMAT!ON :QN IENiJiATl&'E ·MAP elieck-{ ~ --

Apcli¢antCounty

-__ :::- -: ·-::_:-_- _ _::: 1)

. . -· ·-- -- -- -:,... ____ , 2)

,----...,--__ - -~- 3)

~ :_-___ 5)'

-- -: _ .:..=.- . -----=-'--" -. ___ 6)

North arrow and·scale.

Project boundades wlt;h-dlmensJons !

The approximate dimen~lon) ·a11d-area of aWlots. (g-rpss 1and,,,M~t) . ·~et · non-bulldable areas such as road ·rlght(s) of1.way.:;. b~le$.-.9f:.water,,an. · -~ orgreater slo~. PE!rc_el ~lze.s must be eonslsteht wit(i ,Z()r:iir;l'g'and:_Gem_ unJess:tbe ~ppli~tlon is aceoin_panied-by- ~,f~1$iined li>~vel,bpmer:it; 1B~ Plan Amendrri~nt aP.plication(s).'.

,..~ .. - 1

Show the !Cation, names 0and: right.;of-way'.ajdth of adj~cem street~,1 bi.9,m~~ ~ ·~n.et "'" -; ~ 1..; .... i· '

Show access easements 1to a cpnnectlon wtth a .. publ.lc· · rq~cit;'.'togetJ:l~ ' -~~a(~~! reference doeumenting such aceess. . "" • -

Ndte .all existing encfioachments to the publfc;road . on:·a·~ja~t P.,~·rcels. 1 if 'Q -propos.e

-···~·8)

.....__. ---- 9) - - ·•

. ---~ 10) .....,...__ ~ 11)

~·.---..... 12)

- ~i ~: .. ,14)

15)

~·~ 17)

----- - 18)

---··- 19)

--,~

.-.-.--~ -·-~ . ·- ' .. - . - -----

~ . - . - . . ' ---' '"' --·--

Purpose, width and .app~xlmate localiQn of :a11.propos8di2~nd~em~U; than roads). · · · ·

Approximate radii of centenlne' Qt1 all·street curves .

Names of.adjQilt subdivisions.

G~es .and ·Widths of RroposEld and .Etxistl"9Ji:q-·qr·1r lmproyement ~8"ection (or atl propo~£,bdZeXlstfng • and tuml,rpunds; ··· · · ··

All e~d1tt.111.structures,•buUdfngs, 'utility, tr&nsr:rJsS!J~o·llnes and• .. . eXlsttop~and propesed·property.lines. Show111tracturesWithi.11~

The l~tl9'1 of. all structures for resldentJal,.commercial, Ji. whlCh permits have elther;been applied for .Qr granted, b(if·

Fire hydrant location, existing and/or proposed,

Exfstll19 water and sewer line locations.

Contour,.l.fnes shown at 5-foot Intervals If any slopes Ol'a'F:~"P. ~· (cont()urs not required If all slopes are 10 percent or.leSJ)~~ieen foot or 20-foot IQtervals on parc81,s of 1c> acre1ror·lt1Fger-(u~lng_ • survey)1d . · · . ; · • < • •· topographlCalehanges, efo.

Areas of. 30percent orgreater·slope shall ~·id~tltled.

The location, If present,. of rock•outcropplr:ig •• ,ava: ~ps,. d~lha reservol,., ri~ers, streams, .·spring •a•s isu~ct. lg inun ·· respectfve.100-toot(alld '.00-foot ·septlc·systern1•a&ks· ~~foot and 1()(:)..fool setbacks from rlfiartan. l!lndi;.wfiUa tei)tatfve map.

lde.ntify &r&llls sobj$t ;to .a 1 OO-year flooct(~l'@nn"t., waterJevel (1.()(:)..yelilr) on map. Where' this:.data,ls !'}Ot re level can•be shOWnilf known.

Show any other subdlvlslQil;:related improvcaments:.sl;fcb &tS= s .. slgnage, landscaptngtparklng, storm drains, ~tet'I basi · · . ·.·. .1'11f areas, parks, utlltty ·faclf~es (electric, gas, ph(>t:ie,·ca .. TV)i·? .· Improvements m•yitJlsubmltted on a sepaijite~>mlq!fmap:ff.fi'PP~

The followl119 infom,atJonJs·to be listed on the tentJtive. m@pln·N>~I order: · ·· · · ·.· · · · a) · Ownerofrecc>fd(nameand;84dress) b) Name of a~pllca~ (Otlme a11d address} c) Map prepar@d bY·':(name and address) d) scale ... · . · e) Contour ln~iyatt(lf any) f) Source of topotjfc!Pf'Y g} Sectl~n. To~p and Range h) Assessor's Pa~! Number(s) i) Rre8$nt zoning. ·

.j) Total a~a k} Total nti"'1ber of ~rcels '> Mlnrmum,·pa~i·ilrea m) WatertJlJPPIY ·. n) Sewage,tdlsp_osal

o) p) q)

Planning Commission:

Approval/Denial Date:

Board of Supervl&,Ots: ____ ~~~~~~~~

Approval/Denlal.f)ate: ~........:"""""'~~ ......... ~~~~~#i.

DESIGN WAIVER REQUEST SIERRA SUNRISE

The Design Waiver requested is subject to specific findings under Section 120.08.020 of the El Dorado County Subdivision Ordinance described below.

A There are special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the property proposed to be subdivided which would justify the waiver.

B. Strict application of the design or improvement requirements of this chapter would cause extraordinary or unnecessary hardship in developing the property.

C. The waiver would not be injurious to adjacent properties or detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the public.

D. The waiver would not have the effect of nullifying the objectives of this subpart or any other law or ordinance applicable to the subdivision.

The following describes the requested Design Waivers and responds to the required findings criteria.

Design Waiver 1: Increase allowed narrow access portion of flag lots 8 to 232 feet in length.

A Increased access length will allow lot 8, and adjacent lots, to better conform to the existing topography and natural features on the site.

B. The shorter access length would increase the landform disturbance and require more extensive grading work, additional retaining wall, and would impede the applicant's ability to reduce impacts.

C. This request will not be detrimental to health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the public.

D. The proposed waiver would not have the effect of nullifying this subpart or any other law or ordinance applicable to the subdivision.

TM17-1532

File# ______ _ Date Filed ______ _

EL DORADO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Project Title Sierra Sunrise Lead Agency _E_D_c _______ _

Name of Owner Pacific States Development Corporation

Telephone ( 916 ) _9_3_3=="-6...,..6_0_1,,.......,.......,,.,,,..,.... Address 991 Governor Drive, Suite 130, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

Name of Applicant Same as Property Owner

Telephone (,_ __ _,) _______ _

Address ____________________ ~--------------------------~---------------Project Location Cameron Park

Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 116-030-028 and 030 Acreage _1_0._o ___ Zoning __ R_1 __ _

Please answer all of the following questions as completely as possible. Subdivisions and other major projects wm require a Technical Supplement to be flied together with this form.

1. Type of project and description: Single-family residential lot subdivision

2. What is the number of units/parcels proposed? __ a _______________ _

GEOLQGY ANO SOILS

3. Identify the percentage oi &aro

Tentative Subdivision Map Environmental Questionnaire

Page2 of4

9. Will the project result in the physical alteration of a natural body of water or drainage way? If so, in what way?

no

10. Does the project area contain any wet meadows, marshes or other perennially wet areas? no

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

11. What is the predominant vegetative cover on the site (trees, brush, grass, etc.)? Estimate percentage of each: shrubby chaparral species (100%)

12. How many tr~s of &-inch diameter will be removed when this project is implemented? Ttiere 1s 1-6" oak tree on the property (will remain}

FIRE PROTECTION

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

In what structural fire protection district (if any) is the project located? Cameron Park CSD (Fire Department)

What is .the nearest emergency source of water for fire protection purposes (hydrant, pond, etc.}? Fire hydrant(s) that front the property

What is the distance to the nearest fire station? 2.25 miles to Sta. 88

Will the project create any dead-end roads greater than 500 feet in length? no

Will the ~~ect involve the burning of any material including brush, trees and construction materials?

NOISE QUALITY

18. Is the project near an industrial area, freeway, major highway or airport? no

If so, how far?

19. What types of noise would be created by the establishment of this land use, both during and after construction?

construction earth moving equipment

AIR QUALITY

20. Would any noticeable amounts of air pollution, such as smoke, dust or odors, be produced by this project? __ n_o _____________________________ _

WATER QUALITY

21. Is the proposed water source ~ public or 0 private, 0 treated or 0 untreated?

Name the system: El Dorado Irrigation District

22. What is the water use (residential, agricultural. industrial or commercial}? residential

AESTHETIC§


Page 3 of4

23. Will the project obstruct scenic views from existing residential areas, public lands, public bodies of water or roads?

yes

ARCHAEOLOGY/HISTORY

24. Do you know of any archaeological or historical areas within the boundaries or adjacent to the project? (e.g., Indian burial grounds, gold mines, etc.) __ no _________________ _

SEWAGE

25. What is the proposed method of sewage disposal? 0 septic system [8] sanitation district Name of dis.trict:

El Dorado Irrigation District

26. Would the project require a change in sewage disposal methods from those currently used in the vicinity? no

TRANSPORTATION

27. Will the project create any traffic problems or change any existing roads, highways or existing traffic pattems? ___ n_o __________________________________________________________ _

28. Will the project reduce or restrict access to public lands, parks or any public facilities? no

GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

29. Will the project result in the introduction of activities not currently found within the community? no

30. Would the project serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas, or increases in development intensity of already developed areas (include the introduction of new or expanded public utilities, new industry, commercial facilities or recreation activities)?

no

31. Will the project require the extension of existing public utility lines? If so, identify and give distances: no

GENERAL

32. Does the project involve lands currently protected under the Williamson Act or an Open Space Agreement? ~-no ________________________________________________________ ~

33. Will the project involve the application, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, including pesticides, herbicides, other toxic substances or radioactive material?

no

34. Will the proposed project result in the removal of a natural resource for commercial purposes (including rock, sand, gravel, trees, minerals or top soil)?

no

35. Could the project create new, or aggravate existing health problems (including, but not limited to, flies, mosquitoes, rodents and other disease vectors)? .......;n.-o...._ _______________ _

36. Will the project displace any community residents? no


Page4 of4

DISCUSS ANY YES ANSWERS TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 17. The contractor may elect to burn the vegetation that is cleared as a result of clearing and gnibbing operations. No other burning 1s anticipated. 23. Construction of new homes on the easterly side of Waad!eigh

Lane opposite of the homes directly across the street will likely obstruct the views that the existing homes

presently enjoy to the east.

MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)

Proposed IT!itigatiof1.n:ieasures for any of ~e above que~tions where there will be an ~dverse impact: 17. If burning act1v1t1es are to occur during construction, the developer shall obtain the necessary hmning permits

•nd liiir polh,1tion permits from tl'le GA Dept. ef Ferestry (GDF) a11d fio111 tl1e Ai1 Quality Management District (AQMD) prior to said burning activities. 23. ement of homes and construction that fits i · he neighborhood.

Fonn completed by: - L----..--__,.,,,c,,.,£-------Date: £.S:' I ? (revised 12112/06)

I ~1~' .

I: I It Jj

I -' ' I t;-' ' I I I ;

I I I l ~I

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY for·

SIERRA SUNRISE . Woodleigh La.n.e

Came·ron Park, California

YOUNGDAHL &ASSOCIATES INC.

GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION LAB.

TM17-1532

I I I I I I I r

I f

I f

I

I

Project No. 98326.1 27 October 1998

Pacific States Development, Corp. 991 Governor Drive, Suite 103 El Dorado Hills, California 95762

Attention:

Subject:

Reference:

Mr. Bill Fisher

SIERRA SUNRISE . Woodleigh Lane, Cameron Park

El Dorado County, California GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

. '

1)

2)

Propos~d Improvements for Sierra Sunrise, APN 103-040-28 & 30, rentative Map No. 88-1095, El Dorado County, prepared by Cooper, Thorne & Associates, Inc., dated 21 July 1998.

Sierra Sunrise Project - Lack of Serpentine or Serpentinite Technical Memo prepared by Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. dated 19 August 1998.

Dear Mr. Fisher:

In accordance with your authorization, Youngdahl & Associates, Inc., has performed a geotechnical engineering study for the project site located on the east side of Woodleigh Lane and north of Nantucket Court in Cameron Park, El Dorado County, California. The purpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the surface and subsurface soil and rock conditions at the site and to develop geotechnical information· and design criteria for the proposed project.

Our study consisted of a site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, as well as surface and subsurface soil and rock sampling. We also performed a review of available published and. unpublished literature and reports pertaining to the subject site as well as historic aerial photographs pertirient to the project site. Field and laboratory testswere performed on selected soil samples collected during the field study in order to evaluate the materials and to determine the strength of the soil as it relates to the proposed project. We performed an engineering analysis of the data and information obtained from our field study, laboratory testing, and literature review. Recommendations for site preparation and grading, geotechnical design criteria for foundations, retaining structures, slabs-on-grade, asphalt concrete pavements, and underground facilities are included in this report.

We received your written authorization for our evaluation on 16 September 1998. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Palisad~ Development, Inc. and their consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering

practice. ~ci i1 C. Slf&k r

1234 GLENHAVEN COURT • EL DORADO HILLS, CA 95762 ' PHONE (916) 933-0633 FAX (916) 933-6482

~ Sierra Sunrise l!.l!I Page 2


I Shoµld you have any questions _or require additional information, please contact our office at your convenience.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l

Very truly yours, Youngdahl & Associates, Inc.

tli~ Staff Geologist· ·

Distribution: (4) Pacific States Development Corp., Attn:·. Mr. Bill Fisher '.'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope .................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................... 1

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................... 2 3.1 Background .................................................... 2 3.2 Surface Conditions ............................................... 2 3.3 Subsurface Conditions ....................... : ................ , .... 2 3.4 Regional Geologic Conditions .................................. · .... 3 3.5 Site Geology ........... .' ......................... , ......... : .... a· 3.6 Laboratory Testing .............................. : .......... ,. ...... 4 ·

4.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................. · .... 4· . · ' '

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... ; ~:· ...... 6 5.1 General .................................................. ; .... 6 5.2 Site Preparation .................................................. 6 5.3 Engineered Fills ................................................. 7 5.4 Finish Soilgrade Preparation ....................................... 9 5.5 Drainage Considerations .......................................... 9 5.6 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................... 9 5. 7 Foundations ................................................... 1 o 5.8 Slab-on-Grade Construction ...................................... 11 5.9 · Underground Facilities Construction ................................ 12 5.1 O Retaining Walls ................................ , ..............• 12 5.11 Pavement Design ...........................•.................... 13

Table 1. Recommended Pavement Design Thickness .................... 14 .

6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ......................... 15 Checklist of Recommended Services ..................................... 17

APPENDIX A .............................................................. 18 Field study ........................................ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Vicinity Map (Figure A-1) ............•........................ , ......... 20 Site Plan (Figure A-2) ..................................•.............. 21. Logs of Exploratory Pits {Figures A-3 through A-6) : .......................... 22 Soil Classification Chart and Pit Log Legend (Figure A-7) ...................... 25

APPENDIX B ........................... · ................................... 26 Laboratory Testing ................................................... 27

APPENDIX C ..................... ; ........................................ 31 Figure C-1 - Geologic Map ............................................. 32 Table C-1 - Seismicity Table ............................................ 33 References ........................... · ...................... · ........ 34

APPENDIX D ............................................................. 35

Recommended Grading Specifications .......................................... 36 Guide. Specifications for Rock Under Floor Slabs ............................ 41

1.0 INTRODUCTION

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY for

SIERRA SUNRISE Woodleigh Lane

Cameron Park, California

This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Study performed for Sierra Sunrise located on the east side of Woodleigh Lane and north of Nantucket Court in Camerori Park, El Dorado County, California.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the surface and subsurface soil and rock conditions at the site and to develop geotechnical information and design criteria for the proposed project. The scope of this study includes the following items:

1. A review of available published and unpublished geotechnical and geologic da:ta as well as historic stereo aerial photographs pertinent to the project site. .,

2. A field study consisting of a visual site reconnaissance, followed by a subsurface exploration program for characterization of the subsurface soil, rock, and. groundwater conditions within the proposed village.

3. A laboratory testing program performed on representative soil samples collected during our field study.

4. Engineering analysis of the data and information obtained from our field study, laboratory testing, and literature review. Development of recommendations for site preparation and grading, and geotechnical design criteria for foundations, retaining . structures, slabs-on-grade, asphalt concrete pavements, and underground facilities.

5. Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project site.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . Proposed construction for 18 lots in this phase of development is expected to include one- to two- · story single family residences along with associated driveways, street pavements and underground utilities (see Figure A-2, Appendix A). The structures are expected to be of wood frame construction with foundation loads anticipated to be relatively light and typical of low rise wood frame construction.

The site slopes predominately down to the west. Subsequently, for the purposes of this report, we have assumed that grading operations will primarily consist of cuts from the west portions of individual lots and streets and subsequent fill placement on the east portions of individual lots and streets. At the time of this report, grading plans had not been completed. For the purposes of this report, we have assumed that the site will be graded with cuts and fills on the order of ten feet or less.

r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

~ Sierra Sunrise ._. Page2

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 eackground


The project site consists of an irregularly shaped area that includes approximately 15 acres for this phase of development and is located on the east side of Woodleigh Lane and north of Nantucket Court in Cameron Park, El Dorado County, California. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 103-040-28 & 30. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure A-1 in Appendix A. · ·

3.2 Surface Conditions

The overall topography of Sierra Sunrise includes the crest of a hill and generally slopes down· to the east with slope gradients ranging from 10H:1V (10 horizontal feet to 1 vertical foot) to' greater than 2.2H:1V. At the time of our site visit, vegetation consisted of a heavy growth of manzanita bushes and sparse tree growth. Numerous scattered.boulders and dense boulder outcrops were a prominant feature of the site. No groundwater was observed at the subject site.

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

Our field study included a site reconnaissance by a Youngdahl & Associates, Inc., representative followed by a subsurface exploration program conducted on 5 October 1998, which included the excavation of 4 test pits under her direction at the approximate locations shown on Figure A-2, Appendix A. Excavation of the test pits was accomplished with a CASE 580 SK rubber tire-mounted backhoe equipped with a 18 inch wide bucket. As the excavation proceeded, relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected by hand driving 2.0 inch O.D. brass liners into the test pits. The undisturbed soil and rock samples were collected from the pits, sealed and returned to our laboratory for testing. Bulk and bag samples were also collected from the pits. After each test pit was completed, the pit was backfilled with the excavated soil.

The Exploratory Test Pit Logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradual, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the sample type, sample number and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the test pits~

The test pits completed for this investigation encountered relatively similar soil and rock conditions within the maximum 7 foot depth of exploration. Test Pits 1 through 4 typically encountered surface soils consisting of predominantly brown sandy SILT or silty SAND in a dry and stiff condition to depths varying from Y:a foot to 2% feet below current site grades.

Underlying the native soils, weathered gabbro BEDROCK was encountered to the maximum depth explored. The bedrock graded from highly weathered to slightly weathered. The highly weathered bedrock degraded during excavation to brown silty sand with a trace of clay. Groundwater was not encountered during our study. A more detailed description of the soils encountered is presented graphically on the "Exploratory Test Pit Logs", Figures A-3 and A-6, presented in Appendix A. These logs show a graphic representation of the soil profile, the location and depths at which samples were collected and the laboratory test results. An explanation of the descriptions and symbols used on the test pit logs is presented on the "Soil Classification Chart and Test Pit Legend", Figure A-7, Appendix A.

'·•·· .. I I I I I I

·· :3A Regional Geologic Conditions

Project No. 98326.1 27October1998.

.·The projectsite is situated on the west side of El Dorado County, located within the foothills of the. ·· •Sierra Nevada geomorphic province of California. This province consists mostly of the Sierra 'Nevada Mountain Range. Tectonic building of the range occurred since the late Triassic period ·. With the onset of active plate subduction along the continental margin. Continuing during much of . the Jurassic period, island arc, atolls, and other remnants of land collided with the continental land mass and resulted in the uplift of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Extensive mountain formation caused by subduction, granitic intrusive activity and uplift continued on into the Cretaceous period. Concurrently, large volumes of material were eroded off the mountain terrain and carried to deep marine basins, which now comprise the Great Valley sedimentary beds to the west. During the late Tertiary period, the marine sediments were buried by extensive lava flows, ash flows, and volcanic mud flows from eruptions of andesitic volcanoes high in the SiEWa Nevada. Volcanic flows were channeled down the Tertiary streams that coursed westward. The volqanic deposits were resistant over long periods to erosion and exist presently as ridge forming outcrops in the foothills. Faults in the province, which generally strike northwest and dip eastward,· were typically generated by either collision or subduction along the tectonic plate margin last ·active in the Quaternary age (approximately 600 thousand to 1.6 million years before present) and are represented in the vicinity today by the Mormon Island Shear Zone and the west branch of the Bear Mountains Fault Zone to the west and the east branch of the Bear Mountains and Melones Fault Zones to the east (Lloyd, 1984). The Mormon Island Shear zone straddles the EIDorado County-Sacramento County line about 6Y2 miles west of the site. The Bear Mountains Fault Zone has two traces in the Sierra foothills. The west branch of this fault zone is mapped approximately 4 miles to the west of the site. The east branch is mapped approximately 3'!12 miles to the east of the site. The Melones Fault Zone is located about 9'!12 miles east of the site. Other active and potentially active faults within a 100 kilometer radius, as well as their estimated empirical ground motion potentials are listed in the Seismicity Table C-1, Appendix C.

3.5 Site Geology The geologic portion of this report included a review of geologic data pertinent to the site, and an interpretation of our observations and the exploratory pit logs excavated during the field study on 5 October 1998. ·

The site is located at the base of the Sierra Foothills region of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. According to the "Generalized Geology of the Folsom 15-Minute Quadrangle" (CDMG, 1984) and confirmed by our subsurface exploration, the site is underlain by gabbroic rocks of the Foothill Melange -Ophiolite Terrane (gb) (Figure C-1, Appendix C). The gabbroic·bedrock is characterized by a gray color, predominantly fine grained and is usually observed to contain various degrees of fracturing and weathering. The degree of weathering typically decreases with depth. The onsite soils are derived mainly from the weathering of the underlying bedrock and consists of sandy silts with abundant outcrops of boulders and cobbles. No other rock types were observed at the project site either during the field study or during previous site visits. ·

The east and west branch of the Bear Mountains Fault Zone are the closest faults to the site and are located approximately 3.5 miles to the west and 4.0 miles to the east, respectively. These ,;;£' faults are considered only potentially active, per Alquist-Priolo (fault hazard) criteria. No evidenc~: of recent shear movement, such as soil off-set, springs, seeps, sag ponds or other indications>ofEA recent ground rupture were observed on the project site. In addition, we did not observeta6 evidence of slope· instability or landsliding during our field study. ··

I I I I I

Sierra Sunrise Page4

3.6 Laboratory Testing

Project No. 98326. 1 27 October 1998

The laboratory testing of collected samples was directed towards determining the physical and engineering properties of the soil underlying the site. A description of the tests performed and their results are presented in Appendix B. A modified proctor test (ASTM D1557-91A) was conducted to provide the optimum moisture andmaximum dry density on the near surface material. The result of the modified proctor test is presented in Figure B-1 in Appendix B. The strength parameters of the foundation soils were based on a direct shear test (ASTM D3080-90) performed on a representative remolded sample of the near-surface soils within proposed building pad ~nvelopes. The results of the direct shear test is presented on Figure B-2 in Appendix B. Pavement design criteria were based on an R-value test (California Test Method 301-F} perfo.rmed on representative samples of the near surface soils. The results of the R-value test is presented on Figure B-3 in Appendix B.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS , Development plans call for one-to two-story single residences with slab-on-grade or elevated wood lower floors along with associated driveways, street pavements and underground utilities. The structures are expected to be of wood frame construction with foundation loads anticipated to be relatively light and typical of low rise wood frame construction. We offer the following general geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning this development project.

Bearing Capacity: The native soils, rock, and/or engineered fills composed of like materials and processed and compacted as recommended below are considered suitable for support of the planned improvements. Due to the potential for adverse differential movement, specific grading recommendations are being given to provide uniform residential structure support on both cut/fill transition lots as well as on lots with highly variable fill depths.

Expansive Soils: The sandy silts, sands, and bedrock encountered on the site are non-plastic materials which are considered to be relatively non-expansive. No layers of clay were encountered in the test pits. We recommend that a representative of our firm observe grading operations to identify clays and provide recommendations for the proper disposition of clays when present. We

· also recommend that foundation excavations be observed by a representative of our firm prior to reinforcement and f ormwork placement to verify that no expansive clays are present and to verify that mitigation efforts during grading were effective. ·

Groundwater: Free groundwater was not encountered in the test pits completed for this project and is not expected to be a factor in the design or construction of most of the planned improvements. At the time of excavation (October 1998), perched groundwater was not encountered in our explorations. Because our explorations were performed during an extended period of generally dry weather, these perched groundwater measurements may closely represent the yearly low levels; our experience in the area indicates that significantly higher levels probably occur during the winter and spring months. At all times of the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to precipitation patterns, off-site construction activities, and site utilization.

A perched water table often develops in shallow, fractured and weathered bedrock horizons as surface water percolates down through the surface soils and perches on top of the relatively impermeable, deeper, less weathered bedrock horizon. The perched water can saturate surface soils. Saturated soils may be unstable under construction equipment, and may require considerable aeration in order to achieve a moisture cqntent which will allow compaction. The prospect of saturated soils should be considered in construction scheduling. Water inflow into any

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I



excavation approaching hard rock surface is likely to be experienced in all but the driest summer and fall months.

Subdrainage: Building pads or pavement areas constructed in cut which approach the weathered bedrock horizon may require subdrainage measures. Such m·easures may include an increase in the crushed rock capillary break and/or installation of subdrain trenches beneath or around the building pads and/or design pavement section. Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. should review the project grading plans when available to obtain a preliminary indication of where subdrainage may be required. Final subdrainage requirements should be based on our observation of buildir:ig pad and pavement areas following rough grading.

Excavation: The test pits were excavated using a Case 350 SK backhoe equipped with an 18 inch wide bucket. The degree of difficulty encountered in excavating our test pits is an indicatipn· of the effort that may be required for excavation during construction. Based on our test P.its., we expect that the site soils can be excavated using normal earthmoving equipment such as a rubber tired backhoe. The underlying rock materials can likely be excavated to depths of several feet using dozers equipped with rippers. We expect that the upper, weathered portion of the rock, indicated to extend from % to 2% feet below the rock surface at most locations, will require use of Caterpillar 08 equipped single or multiple shank rippers, or similar equipment. We anticipate that a ripper equipped 08 can penetrate at least as deep as our test pits at most locations with moderate effort. Deeper excavation into the less weathered rock may require or would be greatly facilitated through use of heavier equipment, such as a 09, or a 010. Blasting associated with the isolated hard or resistant silicified zones cannot be precluded.

Utility trenches will likely encounter hard rock excavation conditions especially in deeper cut areas. Utilify contractors should be prepared to use special rock trenching equipment such as rock wheel excavators or large excavators such as a CAT 235 or CAT 245. Blasting to achieve utility line grades, especially in planned cut areas, cannot be precluded. Water inflow into any excavation approaching hard rock surface is likely to be experienced in all but the driest summer and fall months.

Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength and sudden increase in porewater pressure caused by shear strains, as could result from an earthquake. Research has shown that saturated, loose to medium-dense sands with a silt content less than about 25 percent located within the top 40 feet are most susceptible to liquefaction. Due to the depth to groundwater in the area and the dense soils encountered during our study, the potential for liquefaction on the subject site is considered nil. ·

Slope Stability: The project site is proposed to have moderate cuts and fill with a maximum slope orientation of 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical). Generally a cut slope orientation of 2H:1V is considered stable with the material types encountered on the site. A fill slope constructed at the same orientation is considered stable if compacted to the engineered fill recommendations as stated in the recommendations section of this report. All slopes should have appropriate drainage and vegetation measures to minimize erosion of slope soils. The existing slopes on the project site were observed to have adequate vegetation on the slope face, appropriate drainage away from the slope face, and no apparent tension cracks or slump blocks in the slope face or at the head of the slope.

Seismic Considerations: Based on our literature review and subsurface interpretations, we recommend that the project be designed in accordance with the 1997 USC, Chapter 16. This site

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

~ Sierra Sunrise_ ._. Page6


is located within Seismic Risk Zone 3 and based on our subsurface interpretations is classified as Soil Profile Type SA.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General The site is suitable for the proposed improvements provided the recommendations pres~nted in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications.

All grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by Youngdahl & Associates, In~ .• hereinafte·r described as the Geotechnical Engineer, prior to contract bidding. A review should be performed to determine whether the recommendations contained within this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Grading specifications are provided in Appendix b. · ·

The Geotechnical Engineer should be notified at least two working days before site clearing or grading operations commence, and should observe the stripping of deleterious· material and provide consultation to the Grading Contractor in the field.

Field observation and testing during the grading operations should be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer so that an opinion may be formed regarding the adequacy of the site preparation, the acceptability of fill materials, and the extent to which the earthwork construction and the degree of compaction comply with the project geotechnical specifications. Any work related to grading performed without. the full knowledge of, and under direct observation by the Geotechnical Engineer may render the recommendations of this report invalid.

OuL recommendations are based on limited windows into the subsurface conditions. Section 3317.8 in Appendix Chapter 33 of the 1997 {and previous) Uniform Building Code states that, in regard to the transfer of responsibility, if the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the project site is not maintained through the grading phase of the project, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed in writing to accept their responsibility within the area of technical competence for approval upon completion of the work. Our design recommendations should not be relied upon without our consultation, observation and testing services during all aspects of grading on the site.

5.2 Site Preparation Preparation of the project site should involve temporary drainage, demolition, clearing, stripping, overexcavation, subgrade compaction, and groundwater considerations. The following paragraphs state our geotechnical comments and recommendations concerning site preparation.

Temporary Drainage: We recommend that initial site preparation involve intercepting and diverting any potential sources of surface or near-surface water within the construction zones. Because the selection of an appropriate drainage system will depend on the water quantity, season, weather conditions, construction sequence, and contractor's methods, final decisions regarding drainage systems are best made in the field at the time of construction.

Clearing and Stripping: Trees, roots, vegetative matter, and organic topsoil should be removed from all structural areas. Surface grass stripping operations may be necessary depending upon the in-situ conditions at the time of mass grading. Dry grasses may be pulverized and lost within fill materials provided no concentrated pockets of organics result. General site clearing should also include removal of any loose, soft or saturated materials from the proposed structural

I I I I I I I I I I I I

.1

I I I I I I

~ Sierra Sunrise lllll Page 7


improvement and pavement areas. Any underground structures such as old foundations, abandoned pipe lines, septic tanks and leach fields should be removed from the site. A represer:itative of our firm should be present during site clearing operations to identify the location and depth of fills not disclosed by this report. The final stripping and excavation should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to further grading operations.

Subgrade Compaction: Exposed subgrades following initial site preparation activities should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to the r:equirements for engineered fill. Prior to placing fill, the exposed subgrades should be in a firm, unyielding .state. Any localized zones of soft or pumping soils observed within a subgrade ·should either be scarified and recompacted or be overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill as d~fined b.elow in Section 5.3.

' . Groundwater Considerations: Due to the nature of the soils encountered in the area 9f. the project site, we anticipate that a perched groundwater table may be encountered near the bedrock contact. Where cuts are proposed, subdrains may need to be installed to catch the water flowing along the soil/bedrock contact. ·

5.3 Engineered Fills "Engineered fill" refers to all fills placed on the subject site with consultation, observation, and testing services of the Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with this report. Generally, fills constituting any materials used for roadway embankments and detention pond berms, slopes, foundation support, retaining walls, slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other structures. Any fills placed without direct knowledge of the Geotechnical Engineer, or without consultation, observation, and testing services, is considered non-engineered fills and should be disclosed to future owners of the property. Our comments and recommendations concerning engineered fill are presented in the following paragraphs.

On-site Soils: We anticipate that a large amount of on-site soils will be generated during mass grading operations. We expect that soil generated from excavations on and adjacent to the site, excluding deleterious material, may be used as engineered fill.

Rock fragments or boulders exceeding 24 inches in maximum dimension shall not be placed within the upper five feet of lot and street grade. The upper two feet of lot or street grades shall consist of predominantly rocks and roc.k fragments less than 12 inches in maximum dimension with no more than 20 percent between 12 and 24 inches in maximum-dimension. The rock fragments shall be thoroughly mixed with soil so that a uniform mixture of rocks and compacted soil is obtained without voids. Boulders over 24 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed within the deeper portions of fill embankments below a depth of 5 feet and a minimum of 5 feet from the finish slope face. The individual boulders shall be spaced such that compaction of finer rock and soil materials between the boulders can be achieved. Materials placed between the boulders shall consist of predominantly soil and rock less than 12 inches in maximum dimension. The soil/rock mixture shall be placed between the boulders so as to preclude nesting or the formation of voids and compacted to the requirements of engineered fill. Should insufficient deep fill areas exist for oversize rock disposal, contractor should (at his. option} either dispose of the excess materials to an offsite location or mechanically reduce the rocks to less than 24 inches in maximum dimension.

Fill Placement and Compaction: All areas proposed to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on the ASTM 01557-91 test method. The materials used for fill should

~ Sierra Sunrise ll.ll Page 8


be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The material should be a soil or soil-rock mixture which is free from organic matter or other deleterious substances. The fill should be thoroughly blade m{xed to obtain uniformity of material in each layer placed. The fill should be placed in thin, uniform horizontal lifts not to exceed 12 inches in uncompacted thickness. The fill should be moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to a relative compaction of not less than 90% based on the ASTM 01557-91 test method. The upper 8 inches of fills placed under prop9sed pavement areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of not less than 95% based on the ASTM 01557-91 test method. Compaction of fill materials. is fµrther described in Section5.1, Appendix 0.

When grading operations result in a transition from cut to fill on a lot, the ci.Jt portion to a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the structural envelope (or as designated by the Geotechriical Enginer) should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 30 inches or to one-third the maximum fill depth on the lot, whichever requires more excavation. The Geotechnical Engineer should be ,notifiec:l"oy the contractor to inspect and verify all cut overexcavations on structural pads. The overe~cavated bottom should then be ripped to a minimum depth of 6 inches and moisture. conditioned. Engineered .fill materials should then be placed to restore design grades. ·

If Expansive clays are encountered or planned to be placed as fill at the subject site, special design considerations should be made relating to the recommendations presented in this Geotechnical Report. Expansive soils can have detrimental effects on structures if not treated and placed properly. The Geotechnical Engineer should be notified if expansive clays are encountered or planned to be used as fill on site so that special recommendations can be made at that time.

Field density tests should be performed at least every 2 feet in height or per 1,000 cubic yards (whichever occurs first) of compacted fill height by the Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with ASTM Test Procedures 01557-91, 01556-82, 02922-81, 03017-88 or 02216-90.

Import Materials: If imported fill material is needed for this project, import material should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to transporting it to the project. It is preferable that import material meet the following requirements:

1. Plasticity index not to exceed 12. 2. "R"-value of not less than 25. 3. Should not contain rocks larger than 8 inches in diameter. 4. Not more than 15% passing through the No. 200 sieve.

If these requirements are not met, additional testing and evaluation may be necessary to determine the appropriate design parameters for foundations, pavement and other improvements.

Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Fill soil compaction should be verified by means of in-place density tests performed during fill placement so that adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses.

Soil Moisture Considerations: The near-surface fine grained soils may become partially or completely saturated during the rainy season. Grading operations during this time period may be difficult since compaction efforts may be hampered by saturated materials. It is, therefore, suggested that consideration be given to the seasonal limitations and costs of winter grading operations on the site.

I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

~ Sierra Sunrise R1I Page9


Slopes: Slopes should be graded at gradients equal to or less than 2H:1V (2 horizontal feet to 1 vertical foot) for fill and cut slopes. Steeper slopes in bedrock material should be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and the governing city or county agency. Placement of fill material on natural slopes should be stabilized by means of keyways and benches. For natural slopes equal to greater than 5H:1V, a keyway should be constructed at the base of:the fill. · Keyways should extend at least 2 feet into firm material and should be a minimum· of one equipment width wide. The base of the keyway excavation should be tilted into th.e existing slope at a gradient of at least 2%. Benches should be cut at regular intervals into the original slope as the fill placement progresses. Each bench should consist of a level surface e~cavation and successive benches should not exceed 36 inches. Fill slopes should be compacted progressively or over-built and cut back into compacted material. After fill slopes have been graped they should be track-rolled completely and provisions made for erosion control as specified ·by El Dorado County Erosion Control Requirements and Specifications. · ·

5.4 Finish Soilgrade Preparation Finish building pad soilgrades should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ·maximum dry density as determined by ASTM 01557 test method. Pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM 01557 test method and should be proof-rolled with a full water truck or equivalent immediately before paving, in order to verify their condition.

5.5 Drainage Considerations All final grades should be provided with positive drainage away from all foundations. Final grades should provide rapid removal of surface water runoff; ponding water should not be allowed on building pads or adjacent to foundations. During wet weather operations, the soil should be graded to drain and should be sealed by rubber tire rolling to minimize water infiltration.

Section 1806.6.6 of the 1994 and 1997 Uniform Building Code states that for graded soil sites, the top of any exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at the point of discharge or the inlet of an approved drainage device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent.

Special attention should be given regarding the drainage of the project site. If the project is expected to work through the wet season, the contractor should install appropriate temporary drainage systems at the construction site and should minimize traffic over exposed subgrades due · to the moisture-sensitive nature of the on-site soils. If the project improvements are constructed prior to the wet season, but are not proposed to be fine graced for permanent drainage until the next dry season, temporary drainage or erosion protection provisions should be made to address the possibility of erosion to cut and fill slopes. Recommendations for permanent provisions regarding drainage around structures and subdrains are found later in the drainage section of this report.

5.6 Seismic Design Criteria Based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Chapter 16, Division IV, and our site investigation findings, the following seismic parameters are recommended from a geotechnical perspective for structural design. The final choice of design parameters, however, remains the purview of the . . project structural engineer.

I f ... · r I~~

IE I:

Sierra Sunrise Page 10

16-1

16-J

16-Q

16-R

16-S,-T

16-U

5.7 Foundations

Seismic Zone Factor Z

Soil Profile Type

Seismic Coefficient (Ca )

Seismic Coefficient ( Cv)

Near Source Factors (Na. Nv)

Seismic Source Type


0.30

SA 0.30

0.30

1.0

c

In our opinion, continuous and shallow spread footings will provide adequate support for the proposed buildings if the subgrades are properly prepared as described in the Site P(eparation section. We offer the following comments and recommendations for purposes of footing design and construction. ·

Footing Configuration: Continuous spread footing foundations should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one located near the bottom of the footing and one near the top of the stem wall. All footings should be founded below an imaginary 2.5:1 plane projected up from the bottoms of adjacent footings, downhill slopes and/or parallel utility trenches. In addition, foundations adjacent. to the tops of slopes should be based at a depth such that the horizontal distance from the outside toe of the foundations to the slope face is at least 8 feet.

Footing Depths and Widths: Foundations for one and two-story structures should be a minimum of 12 inches in width. Footings for one-story and two-story structures should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade; based on seismic loading, footings for multi-story structures may require additional depth. If clay soils are encountered in the building pads for the subject site, special foundation design considerations should be made based upon the expansion index of the soil. Where expansive soil is encountered, all foundation and slab areas should be presaturated and verified by a representative of our firm prior to concrete placement. The depth and width of footings should be based on the actual loads being supported.

Bearing Capacities: An allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 2,500 p.s.f. may be used for design of footings based on native soils or engineered fills. An allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 4,500 p.s.f. may be used for design of footings based on weathered bedrock. A total settlement of less than % inch is anticipated.

Transient Bearing Capacities: The above allowable pressures are for support of dead plus live . . loads and may be increased by one-third for short term wind and seismic loads.

Subgrade Conditions: Footings should never be cast atop soft, loose, organic, slough, debris, nor atop subgrades covered by ice or standing water. A representative of our firm should be retained to observe all subgrades before any concrete is poured in order to verify that they have been adequately prepared. ·

Footing I Stemwall Backfill: We recommend that all footing or stemwall excavations be backfilled after the concrete has been poured. Either imported engineered.fill or non-organic on-site soils can

,, 1· I I I 1· I I I I I I I I I I I I I

~ Sierra Sunrise RJI Page 11


be used for this purpose. All footing backfill soil should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM:D-1557).

Lateral Pressures: Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings and/or friction between the soil' and the bottom of the footing. For esistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.35 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of spread footings in undisturbed native materials or engineered fill. A passive resistance of 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings. If friction and passive pressures are combined, the lesser value should be reduced by 50%.

5.8 Slab-on-Grade Construction . It is our opinion that soil-supported slab-on-grade floors could be used for the main floor, contingent on proper subgrade preparation. We offer the following comments and recomm~naations concerning slab-on-grade floors. '

Moisture Protection: Where interior concrete slabs-on-grade are to be constructed, the slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clean crushed rock to serve as a cushion and a capillary break. Where floor coverings or storage are anticipated, a Visquene-type membrane should be placed between the cushion and the slab to provide an effective vapor barrier, and thus to minimize moisture condensation on the bottom of the slab. It is suggested that a 1 to 2 inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete. The Visquene-type membrane is only effective if it is above the exterior grades. As an addition or alternative to the Visquene vapor barrier, a concrete additive called Moxie 1800 could be used to seal the slab. ·

Slab thickness and Reinforcement: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade not subject to heavy loads should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. A 4 inch thick slab should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 deformed reinforcing bars placed at 36 inches on center both ways, at the center of the structural section. The aforementioned reinforcement may be used for anticipated floor loads not exceeding 250 psf. If floor loads greater than 250 psf are anticipated, the slab should be evaluated by a structural engineer.

For expansive soil conditions, the spacing of reinforcing bars should be 18 inches on center in both directions for a highly expansive soil and 24 inches on center in both directions for a moderately expansive soil. All foundation and slab areas should be presaturated and verified by a representative of our firm prior to concrete placement. -

Fiber mesh, if used as a concrete additive, should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer's specified requirement of 1.5 pounds per cubic yard of concrete. Where fiber mesh is used, zip strips or other joint systems should be provided to divide the slab into nearly square sections at a spacing of 60 times the thickness of the slab. Fiber mesh should not be used in a 4 inch slab as structural reinforcement in lieu of reinforcing bars. Joints should be provided at a spacing of less · than 30 times the slab thickness for unreinforced slabs to divide the slab into nearly square sections.

Concrete Placement: All slabs should be poured at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. A water reducing agent or plasticizer may be added to the concrete to increase workability while maintaining a water/cement ratio which will limit excessive shrinkage.

1·

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1·

I I •



Vertical Deflections: Soil-supported slab-on-grade floors can deflect downward when vertical loads are applied, due to elastic compression of the subgrade. For design of concrete floors, a modulus of subgrade reaction of k = 150 psi per inch would be applicable for native soils and engineered fills.

Exterior Flatwork: Exterior concrete flatwork need not be underlain by a rock cushion where non-expansive soils are encountered. However, some vertical movement of slabs should be anticipated when arranging outside concrete flatwork joints where rock is omitted. Where expansive soils are encountered, a 4 inch rock cushion under concrete flatwork is recommended. Where expansive soil is encountered, all flatwork and driveway areas should be presaturated and 'verified by a representative of our firm prior to concrete placement. ·

Where exterior flatwork abuts the interior slab on grade, the edge of the interior slab should be sealed prior to the placement of the exterior concrete. ·. . ·

5.9 Underground Facilities Construction It is our opinion that proposed underground facilities can be excavated using conventional excavation equipment. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning underground facility construction.

Trench Sidewalls: Trenches or excavations in soil greater than 5 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back at a 1 :1 slope in accordance with OSHA regulations prior to persons entering them.

Backfill Materials: Native soil should be used for trench backfill within structural areas and 5 feet beyond for underground facilities extending outside of structures in order to prohibit rapid lateral migration of drainage waters. Beyond the 5 foot distance from structures, native or import material may be used.

Backfill Compaction: All backfill, placed after the underground facilities have been installed, should be compacted a minimum of 90% relative compaction within the structural areas and 85% in ·· landscaped areas. Compaction should be accomplished using lifts which do riot exceed 12 inches. However, thickness of the lifts should b.e determined by the contractor. If the contractor can achieve the required compaction using thicker lifts, the method will be acceptable by field verification by a representative of our firm using standard density testing procedures.

5.1 O Retaining Walls Our design recommendations and comments regarding retaining walls for the project site are discussed below.

Overturning Forces: In general, retaining walls should be designed to resist active lateral pressures exerted from a soil media having an equivalent fluid weight as follows:

Flat 40

2:1 5

I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I l~if ... · .. ,,,,~: .. ' I I '

~ Sierra Sunrise II.JI Page 13


For restrained conditions, an additional lateral loading of 1 O H psf should be added to the equivalent fluid weight over the entire retained height (H) of the wall.

Resisting Forces: Lateral forces on the retaining walls may be .resisted by passive pressure acting against the side of the wall footing and/or friction between the soil and the bottom of the footing. A passive equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf may be used against the sides of shallow footings founded in native soil or engineered fill. A friction factor of 0.35 may be used at the base of footings founded on soil or engineered fill. All backfill placed.behind retaining walls or against retaining wall footings should be compacted in accordance with the "Engineered Fill" ,section of this report. The allowable bearing pressure and depth of foundation should be as given. in the "Foundations" section of this report. ·

Wall Drainage: The above criteria is based on fully drained conditions. For these conditions', we recommend that a blanket of filter material be placed behind all proposed walls. Th~ blanket of filter material should be a minimum of 12 inches thick and should extend fromthe·:bottom of the wall to within 12 inches of the ground surface. The filter material should conform· to Class One, Type B permeable material as specified in Section 68 of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications, current edition. A typical 1 "x #4 concrete coarse aggregate· mix approximates this specification. A clean pea gravel is also acceptable. The top 12 inches of · wall backfill should consist of a compacted native soil cap. A filter fabric should be placed on top of the gravel filter material to separate it from the native soil cap. A 4 inch diameter drain pipe should be installed near the bottom of the filter blanket with perforations facing down. The drain pipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter-type material. As an alternative to drain pipe, weep holes may be provided, if applicable. Adequate gradients should be provided to discharge water that collects behind.the retaining wall to an adequately controlled discharge system.

5.11 Pavement Design We understand that asphaltic pavements will be used for the proposed roadways. The following comments and recommendations are given for pavement design and construction purposes. All pavement construction and materials used should conform to applicable sections of th.e latest edition of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications.

Subgrade Compaction: After installation of any underground facilities, the top 8 inches of subgrade soils under pavements sections should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% based on the ASTM 01557-91 test method at a moisture content above optimum. Aggregate bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% based on the aforementioned test method. All subgrades should be proof-rolled with a fulrwater truck or equivalent immediately before paving, in order to verify their condition.

Design Criteria: Critical features that govern the durability of a pavement section include the stability of the subgrade; the presence or absence of moisture, free water, and organics; the fines content of the subgrade soils; the traffic volume; and the frequency of use by heavy vehicles. Soil conditions can be defined by a soil resistance value, or R-value, and traffic conditions can be defined by a Traffic Index (Tl).

Design Values: An R-value of 12 was determined for the sandy SILTS tested (California Test Method 301-F). Based on our test results as well as our experience in the area, a preliminary design R-value of 12 is considered appropriate for the site. Table 1 provides recommended pavement sections based on an R-value of 12. The recommended design thicknesses presented

1~

I:

I·

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •

. ~ Sierra Sunrise ll.ll Page 14


in Table 1 were calculated in accordance with the methods presented in the latest update of the Fifth Edition of the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual.

A minimum traffic index of 4.5 is recommended for low volume .residential roadways. All roadways should be designed in accordance with local city or county governing agency requirements. The actual traffic index used should be based on cost and desired level of future maintenance'.

Table 1. Recommended Pavement Design Thickness

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

NOTES: * Asphaltic Concrete: ** Aggregate. Base:

2.5 8.5

2.5 9.0

3.0 10.5

3.5 12.0

must meet specifications for CAL TRANS Type B Asphaltic Concrete· must meet specifications for CAL TRANS Clas.s II Aggregate Base

("R"-Value =minimum 78) · ·

Due to the redistribution of materials which occurs during mass grading operations, we should review pavement subgrades to determine the appropriateness of the provided sections. Deep cut areas may have better support characteristics thari those used in determining the above sections.

I··· I; ,-_:

I~,;£;.·

. .

:+~':·: -.

I,

6.0

1.

2 .

3.


LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS


This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Pacific States Development, Corp. for specific application to the Sierra Sunrise project. . Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. has endeavored to comply with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice c.ommon to the local area. Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. makes no other warranty, express or implied.

The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those as interpolated from our exploration locations. The exploration logs indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations where samples were obtained, only at the time they were obtained, and only to the depths penetrated. Samples cannot be relied on to accurately reflect the strata variations that may exist between the sampling locations. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encoµnt.ered during the development of the site, Youngdahl & Associates, Inc., _will provide.-:supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions.

As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they be due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Legislation or the broadening of knowledge may result in changes in applicable standards. Changes outside of our control may cause this report to be invalid, wholly or partially. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of three years without our review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied.

4. Section 3317.8 in Appendix Chapter 33 of the 1997 (and previous) Uniform Building Code is applicable to this report. This section states that, in regard to the transfer of responsibility, if the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the project site is not maintained into and through the grading phase of the project, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed in writing to accept their responsibility within the area of technical competence for approval upon completion of the work.

WARNING: Do not apply any of this report's conclusions or recommendations if the nature, design, or location of the facilities is changed. If changes are contemplated, Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. must review them to assess their impact on this report's applicability. Also note that Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with any other party's interpretation of this report's subsurface data or reuse of this report's subsurface data or engineering analyses without the express written authorization of Youngdahl & Associates, Inc.

5. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on limited windows into the subsurface conditions and data obtained from subsurface exploration. The methods used indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations where samples were obtained, only at the time they were obtained, and only to the depths penetrated. Samples cannot be relied on to accurately reflect the strata variations that usually exist between sampling locations.

6. The recommendations included in this report have been based in part on assumptions about strata variations that may be tested only during earthwork. Accordingly, these recommendations should not be applied in the field unless Youngdahl & Associates, Inc.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

•

~ Sierra Sunrise -.JI Page 16


is retained to perform construction observation and thereby provide a complete professional geotechnical engineering service through the observational method. Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of its recommendations when they are used in the field without Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. being retained to observe construction. Unforseen subsurface conditions containing soft native soils, loose or previously placed non-engineeredfills should be a consideration while preparing for the grading of the property. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to notify Youngdahl & Associates, Inc., in writing, a minimum of 48 hours before any excavations commence at the site ..

I


Project No. 98326. 1 27 October 1998

Checklist of Recommended Services

Observe and provide recommendations regarding demolition

Observe and provide recommendations regarding site stri

Observe and provide recommendations on the installation of subdrain facilities

Observe and provide testing services on fill areas and/or im orted fill materials

Review as-graded plans and provide additional foundation recommendations, if necessa

Observe and provide c9mpaction tests on storm drains, water lines and utili trenches

Observe foundation excavations and provide supplemental recommendations, if necessa , rior to lacin concrete

Included

,/

,/

,/

,/

,/

,/

,/

,/

Included

Included

,/

,/

APPENDIX A

Field Study

Vicinity Map Site Plan

Logs of Test Pits

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I

~ Sierra Sunrise lllll Page 19

Introduction


The contents of this appendix shall be integrated with the geotechnical engineering study of which it is a part. They shall not be used in whole or in part a~ a sole source for information or recommendations regarding the subject site.

Field study

Our field study included a site reconnaissance by a Youngdahl & Associates, Inc., representative followed by a subsurface exploration program conducted on 5 October 1998, which included the excavation of 4 test pits under her direction at the approximate locations shown on. Figure A-2, this Appendix. Excavation of the test pits was accomplished with a CASE 580 SK rubber tire-mounted backhoe equipped with a 18 inch wide bucket. As the excavation proceeded, bulk samples were collected from the test pits and relatively undisturbed 2.0 inch O.D. tube samples yve~e obtained to determine the in place dry density and moisture content. The samples collected from the test pits were sealed and returned to our laboratory for testing. · ·

The soils encountered were logged during excavation and provide the basis for the "Logs of Test Pits", Figures A-3 through A-6, this Appendix. These logs show a graphic representation of the soil profile, the location and depths at which samples were collected. An explanation of the descriptions and symbols used on the exploratory test pit logs on is presented on the "Soil Classification Chart and Test Pit Legend", Figure A-7, this Appendix.

t::::l=3:=:E:=C:::=':i:Y.r:=3:=E:::::3==::::E==:::i0:=:=:==::==::==========::::::3'1 Mile 1000 0 1000 3000 4000 · 5000 6000 7000 Feet e::=:==::i::===::e:=:==:c===::::e:==~==:::::E==:::::::C==::::::i

BASE MAP REF: U.S.G.S. Topographic Map, Clarksville Quadrangle, California, Dated 1953, Photorevised 1980 U.S.G.S. Topographic Map, Shingle Springs Quadrangle, California, Dated 1949, Photorevised 1973

Project No.: 98326.1 VICINITY MAP Sierra Sunrise

Cameron Park; California

\ \ ):

..

. ;..

...

\ ~

I a:

t -~

......

~·~

...,

i

6~

~

'. •

,

........

~Vt

...

CD

'>

&l I A..i

. Q

')

~·.·

{ l I 1---

-,-

.-f

: . .

_,-·-.

-r---

.. .,.

,,,.

-:"

-.

1

-· ..

----

...

_..

...-

· I_

. .....

~

-~-

__

_..

..

t _ . .,.

,.·""'

.

I I I I I I I I I I

' ' I i t

Logged By: LLO Date: 5 October 1998 Location: Between Lots 9 & 10 Pit No.

TP-1 Equipment: Case 580 SK with 18" bucket Pit Orientation: E - W

Depth (Feet)

@0-1.5'

Geotechnical Description & Unified Soil Classification

Red brown sandy SILT (ML}, with trace of gravel, stiff, dry

@ 1.5' - 2' Semi-cemented weathered BEDROCK

@ 2'.,. 5.5' Gray to grayish brown gabbro BEDROCK with red and black oxide stains, highly weathered, degrades to yellowish brown silty sand with trace of clay.

@5.5'-6.0'

0 1'

Grades moderately to slightly weathered, moderately fractured, and well indurated

. Test pit terminated at 6' due to refusal No free water encountered No caving noted

2· 3' 4' 5· 6· 7' 8' 9·

Sample Tests & Comments

,)\(_ Bulk B-1 Moisture Density Lab Results U@ 0-1.5' 00=120.3 pcf MC=6.8%

a Tube T-1 @0.5'-1'

10'

1 · .... --':f!..:... ......... --------------------------------------------~---------1 I

Note: The test pit log indicates subsurface conditions only at the specific location and time noted. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels, at other locations of the subject site may differ significantly from conditions which, in the opinion of Youngdahl & Associates Inc., exist at the sampling locations, Note, too, that the passage of time may affect conditions at the sampling locations.

EXPLORATORY PIT LOG Sierra Sunrise

Cameron Park, California I I ----------------------

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~- .· .·

I I I

Logged By: LLO Date: 5 October 1998 Location: Between Lots 2 & 3 Pit No.

TP-2 Equipment: Case 580 SK with 18" bucket Pit Orientation: E - W

Depth (Feet)


@ 0-0.5' Red brown silty SAND (SM) with trace of gravel, & cobbles, and boulders up to 3' diameter, stiff, drY

@ 0.5' - 3' Gray to grayish brown gabbro BEDROCK with red and black oxide stains, slightly weathered, degrades to yellowish brown silty sand with trace of clay, moderately fractured, well indurated

Test pit tenninated at 3' due to refusal No free water encountered Slight caving due to bedrock

Sample Tests & Comments

No samples taken due to low volume of soil and high volume pf rock

' ''


:~·· YOUNGDAHL ··. · · & ASSOCIATES INC. · GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CONS7RUCTION LAB



1. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Logged By: LLO I Date: 5 October 1998 Location: Between Lots 6 & 7 Pit No. TP-3. Equipment: Case 580 SK with 18" bucket Pit Orientation: NE • SW

Depth (Feet)

@0-2.5'


Red brown silty SAND (SM) with gravel and cobbles, stiff, dry

@ 2.5' - 7' BEDROCK, highly weathered, closely spaced fractures, weak, degrades to yellowish brown silty sand with trace of clay.

0

@ 7' - Grades slightly weathered, moderately fractured, and moderately to well indurated

Test pit terminated at 7' due to refusal No free water encountered No caving noted

: · 1· ; 2' l 3' l 4· l 5' ! 6' 7' ' 9'

Sample

R BulkB-3 U@1·-2·

n Tube T-3 u @6"-1'

10· I

Tests & Comments

Moisture Density Lab Results 00=120.8 pcf MC=9.2%

i r




Date: 5 October 1998 Location: Emergency Access.Area Pit No.

TP-4 Pit Orientation: E • W


Red brown sandy SILT (ML), stiff, dry

BEDROCK, highly weathered, closely spaced fractures, weak, degrades to yellowish brown silty SAND with trace of clay.

Grades slightly weathered, moderately fractured, and strong to moderately strong

Test pit terminated at 6.5' due to refusal No free water encountered No caving noted

5· 2' ' 3' 4' s· 7' 8' 9·

Sample

~ BulkB-4 U@1'-2'

a Tube T-4 @6"-1'

Tests & Comments

Moisture Density Lab Results DD=108.5 pcf MC=9.2%

11'

• •. · Note: The test pit log indicates subsurface conditions only at the specific location and time noted. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater · levels, at other locations of the subject site may differ significantly from conditions which, in the opinion of Youngdahl & Associates Inc., exist at -the sampling locations, Note, too, that the passage of time may affect conditions at the sampling locations.

·~·~···.·.·.. YOUNGDAHL

::.;-

1.

II)

::! Cl) ~-~ Q .. w8 !:~ 12 /\ CJ~ wo 1/)11)

a: lii - oo tJ

., Clean GRAVELS >

.!! With Utue .. rn .... Or No Fines ...... ~i C>"' GRAVELS With lii

> Over 12% Fines 0

., Clean SANDS >

"* With Little

rn .i; Or No Fines o,.. :i1lf! mg

SANDS With lii 0 Over 12"A. Fines

SILTS & CLAYS Liquid Limit < 50

SILTS & CLAYS Liquid Limit > 50

Silty GRAVELS, poorly graded GRAVEL-SAND· SILT mixtures

Clayey GRAVELS, poorly graded GRAVEL.SAND· CLAY mixtures

Silty SANDS, poorly graded SAND.SILT mixtures

~: > , . Clayey SANDS. poorly graded SAND.CLAY • .· • mixtures

Inorganic SILTS, silly or clayey fine SANDS, or clayey SILTS with plasticity

Inorganic CLAYS of low to medium plasticity, gravelly, sandy, or silty Cl.,&.YS, lean CLAYS .

Inorganic SILTS, mlcaceous or dlamaclous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic SILTS

Inorganic CLAYS of high plasticity, fat CLAYS

Organic CLAYS of medium to high plasticity, organic SILTS

80

60 >< CH w Q

!:

~ 40 CL tJ i=

MH&OH ~- 20 ll.

0 -20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE DRIVING RECORD BLOWS PER

FOOT DESCRIPT!bN'

25 25 Blows drove sampler 12 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating

son• 50 Blows drove sampler 7 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating

5013" 50 Blows drove sampler 3 inches during or after initial 6 inches of seating

HIGHLY ORGANIC CLAYS Note: To avoid damage to sampling tools, driving is limited to 50 blows per 6 inches during or after seating interval.

s·

BOULDER COBBLE

150

Standard Penetration test

2.5" O.D. Modified California Sampler

3" O.D. Modified California Sampler

Shelby Tube Sampler

Bulk Sample

.:g. Water Level At Time Of Drilling

Water Level After Time Of Drilling

Perched Water

Cl, Water Seepage

-YOUNGDAHL '&ASSOCIATES INC.

GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSf RUCTION LAB

SOIL GRAIN SIZE 3• %" 4 10 40 200

GRAVEL SAND SILT

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

75 19 4.75 2.0 .425 0.075 0.002

Roots

Q!W Moisture Density Test

~ Nuclear Gauge Test NFWE. '. No Free Water Encountered FWE Free Water Encountered DD Dry Density (pcf) MC Moisture Content(%) LL Liquid Limit Pl Plasticity Index pp Pocket Penetrometer

ucc Unconfined Compression (ASTM D2166) TVS El

Pocket Torvane Shear Expansion Index (ASTM 04829)

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART & LOG EXPLANATION

Sierra Sunrise Cameron Park, California

CLAY

'+-0 a.

~

>. ...... ·-(I)

c OJ

"O

>. L..

Cl

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST 138 \

\ , ' \

,.,- ....__ \ 136 , '\ J " \ '

I \ \ 134

j .~ ' I \

I \\ r ~ \

J l , ..

132 I \ \ I \ \ J

1 ' J k \

130 \ ,

\ \

' 128

l

2 4.5 7 9.5 12 14.5 17

ZAV for

Sp.G.= 2.93

Water content. 3 Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Method A, Modified

Classification Not. uses AASHTO Moist.

SC

TEST RESULTS

Maximum dry density= 135.9 pcf

Optimum moisture= 10.5 3

No.: 98326.1

(Woodleigh Lone)

MOISTURE-DENSI1Y RELATIONSHIP TEST

Sp.G.

- 2.90

% < No .4 No.200

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Dk Reddish Brown Clayey

SAND w/trace gravel

Remarks:

F

Documents

TM17-1532 › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 08 › ...7,0! 7 may 19 pm i: 38 n >-· ., .-•v -d i \ t:..l., t:.i t:. pla nn ing department file# rm, p-/)"' ~ '}_ el dorado county