36C26120B0011-0001001.pdf

August 28, 2019

Mr. Scott Simmons

Apogee Engineers and Architects

215 West Oak Street, Suite 800A

Fort Collins, Colorado 80521

Pavement Design Report

MATHER VA HOSPITAL PARKING LOTS

10535 Hospital Way

Mather, California

WKA No. 12447.01

As authorized, we have completed a pavement design report for the proposed Mather VA

Hospital Parking Lots facility to be constructed at 10535 Hospital Way in Mather, California (See

Figure 1). The purpose of our study has been to explore the existing soil, rock, and groundwater conditions at the site, and to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations regarding design and construction of the proposed parking lots and associated improvements. This report presents the results of our study.

Our study has been performed in accordance with our Proposal letter, dated July 11, 2019, and agreement authorized on July 11, 2019.

Scope of Services

Our scope of services for this project has included the following tasks:

1. Performed a site reconnaissance to mark out the proposed test pit locations for clearance by Underground Service Alert and its affiliates;

2. Reviewed previous geotechnical studies performed near the site;

3. Reviewed historical aerial photographs, soil surveys, and topographic maps of the project area;

4. Performed subsurface explorations that included the excavation and sampling of test pits to a maximum depth of 10 feet below existing grades.

5. Collected discrete samples at various depths in the test pits by using a hand-driven core sampler, as well as representative bulk samples of anticipated pavement subgrade soils;

6. Performed laboratory testing;

7. Performed engineering analysis; and

8. Prepared this report.

Pavement Design Report Page 2

MATHER VA HOSPITAL PARKING LOTS

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019

Proposed Improvements

We understand the proposed parking lots have been identified as a “north” and “south” sites.

The north parking lot is generally triangular and encompasses an approximate area of 5 acres.

The south parking lot is roughly rectangular and encompasses a total area of approximately 10 acres. Associated improvements will include the construction of exterior flatwork, underground utilities, landscaped areas, bioretention ponds, lighting, and perimeter fencing.

Review of the preliminary Grading Plans, dated June 5, 2019, indicates maximum excavations and fills on the order of 5 to 10 feet for development of the proposed parking lots.

Site Description

The subject site is located near 10535 Hospital Way in Mather, California (see Figure 1). The

“north” property is bounded to the northwest by International Drive; to the east by Femoyer

Street; and to the south by a parking lot. The “south” property is bounded to the north by vacant land; to the east by a residential development; to the south by Airpark Drive; and to the west by

Femoyer Street.

Topography across the proposed sites are essentially flat with an average surface elevation across the site of about +95 feet relative to mean sea level (msl), based on review of the 2015

USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map of the Carmichael, California Quadrangle.

At the time of our field explorations on July 25, 2019, both parcels were vacant with a fill pad located middle east of the “south” site. Moderately dense growth of volunteer weeds and grasses covered most of the sites. We also noticed a backhoe clearing vegetation in the eastern corner of the “north” site.

Site History

We also reviewed historical aerial photographs of the site available from the Google Earth website. Available photographs were from the years 1947, 1957, 1964, 1966, 1993 through

2018. Review of the aerial photograph taken in 1993 revealed the site as generally vacant with grass and weeds visible. In 1957 some dredge tailings were visible northeast of the north eastern corner of the “south” site, as well as some buildings were visible south of the “north” site. In 1993 the area was generally developed, International Drive and Femoyer Street were visible. In 2006 the fill pad was visible on the “south” site. In 2007 light colored gravel was visible along the western side of the “south” site. In 2011 the south of the “north” site showed

Pavement Design Report Page 3

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019 visible storage containers. Since October 2011, the site remained relatively unchanged from the conditions observed at our recent site visit.

Field Explorations, Sampling, and Laboratory Testing

On July 25, 2019, we completed 10 test pits that were excavated and sampled to a maximum depth of 10 feet below existing grades at the locations shown in Figure 2. The test pits were excavated by using a Case 580M backhoe equipped with an 18-inch-wide bucket. Soil samples were collected at various depths from the test pits but using a hand-driven core sampler equipped with 2-inch-diameter by 6-inch-long, clean brass sleeves. Bulk samples of anticipated pavement subgrade soils were collected from the test pits. The samples were returned to our laboratory for additional classification. Selected soil samples were tested of in-situ dry density in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method D2937, natural moisture content (ASTM D2216), and Resistance (“R”) values in accordance with California Test 301 test method.

FINDINGS

General Site Geology

The Geologic Map of the California, dated 2010, prepared by the California Department of

Conservation, reveals the project site to be underlain by quaternary alluvium and marine deposits which consists of alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits; unconsolidated and semi-consolidated. The mapped geologic conditions are consisted with soils encountered within previous test pits performed near the subject site as well as site conditions documented from our recent site visit.

Subsurface Soil Conditions

In general, the near-surface soils at the test pit locations consist of gravels with clay and sandy clay to depths of 3½ to 8½ feet below the existing site, except for test pit TP1, TP8 and TP 9. At

Test Pit TP1, the surface and near-surface soil consisted of silt with gravels to a depth of about

8 feet below existing site grades, underlain by clayey sand to a depth of 8½ feet below existing site grades. At Test Pit TP8, the near-surface soil consisted of sandy cobble fill up to six inches in diameter to a depth of about 4½ feet below existing grades, underlain by clayey sand fill to a depth of about 5½ feet below existing grades and gravelly sand to a depth of about 8 feet. At

Test Pit TP9, the near-surface soil consisted of gravelly sand fill to a depth of about 3½ feet, underlain by sandy clay to a depth of about 7½ feet and cemented cobbles to a depth of about 8

Pavement Design Report Page 4

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019 feet.

Most of the cobbles ranged from about 4 to 6 inches, up to a maximum of 11 inches in diameter.

Cobbles were found at TP1, TP2, TP3, TP6, TP7, and TP8 at depths ranging from 0 to 11½ feet. An 18-inch-diameter boulder was also found at TP4 at a depth of 8½ feet.

For specific information regarding the soil conditions at a specific location, please refer to the

Logs of Test Pits, Figures 3 through 5. An explanation of the symbols and classification system used on the test pit logs is contained in Figure 6.

Groundwater Conditions

Permanent groundwater was not encountered during our recent field explorations performed on

July 25, 2019. To supplement our groundwater data, we reviewed available groundwater information at the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) website. The DWR periodically monitors groundwater levels in wells across the state. Their website shows a well located about 2½ miles northwest of the site. The well is identified as Well No.

09N06E34R001M with a ground surface elevation of +98.8 feet relative to mean sea level (msl), that is similar to the project site. Groundwater data for this well has been recorded from April

17, 1962 to at least March 23, 2010. The historical high groundwater depths recorded at these locations ranged from about 52 to 87 feet below existing grades at the well.

Although permanent groundwater is not anticipated to impact the proposed development, based on nearby drainage features and the underlying geology, we anticipate that perched groundwater conditions are likely to be encountered, especially after period of heavy rainfall.

CONCLUSIONS

Effect of Previous Site Activities on New Construction

Review of historical aerial photographs revealed one pad area was previously constructed at the site; at the middle east section of the “south” site. The approximate limits of this pad area are presented on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The undocumented fills in this area are not considered suitable for support of the proposed pavements. Specific recommendations to remove and recompact these areas are included in this report.

Pavement Design Report Page 5

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019

Soil Suitability for Engineered Fill Construction

The on-site soils encountered in the test pits are considered suitable for use in engineered fill construction. On-site soils used in engineered fill construction should not contain significant organics, rubble, and other deleterious debris, and be at moisture contents capable of achieving the desired degree of compaction.

Pavement Subgrade Quality

Laboratory testing of near-surface soil samples indicates the samples possess Resistance (“R”) values ranging from 16 to 28 when tested in accordance with California Test 301 (see Figures 7 and 8). Based on the laboratory test results, the near-surface samples are considered to possess moderate to good subgrade qualities for support of asphalt concrete pavements. We have used a design R-value of 15 for the calculation of alternative pavement sections for this project.

The recommendations presented below are appropriate for typical construction in the late spring through fall months. The on-site soils likely will be saturated by rainfall in the winter and early spring months, and will not be compactable without drying by aeration or the addition of lime (or a similar product) to dry the soils. Should the construction schedule require work during wet conditions, additional recommendations can be provided, as needed.

Site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this report. A representative of the Geotechnical Engineer should be present during site grading to evaluate compliance with the recommendations provided in this report. The Geotechnical Engineer of

Record referenced herein should be considered the Geotechnical Engineer that is retained to provide geotechnical engineering observation and testing services during construction.

Soil Corrosion Potential

One sample of near-surface clay soil were submitted to Sunland Analytical of Rancho Cordova, California for testing to determine minimum resistivity, pH, and chloride and sulfate concentrations to help evaluate the potential for corrosive attack upon reinforced concrete and buried metal. The results of the corrosivity testing revealed a soil pH of 6.18 and a minimum soil resistivity of 4820 ohm-centimeters. Chloride was detected at concentration of 2.6 parts per million (ppm). Sulfates were detected at concentrations of 12.1 ppm and 13.2 ppm. Copies of the corrosion test reports are presented in Figures 9 and 10.

Pavement Design Report Page 6

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019

The California Department of Transportation Corrosion and Structural Concrete Field

Investigation Branch, Corrosion Guidelines (2015), considers a site to be corrosive to foundation elements if one or more of the following conditions exists for the representative soil and/or water samples taken: has a chloride concentration greater than or equal to 500 ppm, sulfate concentration greater than or equal to 2000 ppm, or the pH is 5.5 or less. Based on this criterion, the on-site soils tested are not considered corrosive to steel reinforcement properly embedded within Portland cement concrete (PCC). However, the relatively low resistivity test results of the samples tested indicate the near-surface clay soils may be moderately to highly corrosive to unprotected metal.

Table 4.2.1 – Exposure Categories and Classes, American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-11, Section 4.2, as referenced in Section 1904.1 of the 2016 CBC, indicates the severity of sulfate exposure for the sample tested is S1 - Moderate. Ordinary Type I-II Portland cement is considered suitable for use on this project, assuming a minimum concrete cover as detailed in

ACI 318-11, Section 7.7 is maintained for all reinforcement.

Wallace-Kuhl & Associates are not corrosion engineers. Therefore, if it is desired to further define the soil corrosion potential at the site a corrosion engineer should be consulted.

Seasonal Water

Based on available groundwater information for the site, it is our opinion that permanent groundwater should not be a significant factor in the proposed development of this site.

However, perched water should be anticipated above the relatively dense and variably cemented soils encountered at various depths across the site.

During the wet season, infiltrating surface runoff water can create saturated surface conditions.

Grading operations attempted following the onset of winter rains and prior to prolonged drying periods will be hampered by high soil moisture contents. Such soils, intended for use as engineered fill, will require considerable aeration and/or drying to reach a moisture content that will permit the soils to be properly compacted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

General

The recommendations presented below are appropriate for typical construction in the late spring through fall months. The on-site soils likely will be saturated by rainfall in the winter and early

Pavement Design Report Page 7

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019 spring months and will not be compactable without drying by aeration or the addition of lime (or a similar product) to dry the soils. Should the construction schedule require work during wet conditions, additional recommendations can be provided, as needed.

Site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this report. A representative of the Geotechnical Engineer should be present during site grading to evaluate compliance with the recommendations provided in this report. The Geotechnical Engineer of

Record referenced herein should be considered the Geotechnical Engineer that is retained to provide geotechnical engineering observation and testing services during construction.

Site Clearing

Prior to site grading, the site should be cleared of all existing pavement, utilities designated for removal, vegetation, debris, rubbish, rubble, and deleterious debris, to expose firm and stable soils. Adequate removal of debris may require laborers handpicking to clear the subgrade soils to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative. All debris should be removed from the site.

Existing surface vegetation and organically laden soil within construction areas should be removed by stripping. Stripping should not be used in general fill construction areas supporting structural improvements. Strippings maybe stockpiled for later use in landscape areas or disposed of off-site. If used in landscape areas, the strippings should be kept at least five feet from the pavements and other surface improvements, moisture conditioned and compacted, and not to exceed a total depth of two feet. Discing of the organics into the surface soils may be a suitable alternate to stripping, depending on the condition and quantity of the organics at the time of grading. The decision to utilize discing in lieu of stripping should be made by the

Geotechnical Engineer at the time of earthwork construction. Discing operations, if approved, should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative and be continuous until the organics are adequately mixed into the surface soils to provide a compactable mixture of soil containing minor amounts of organic matter. Pockets or concentrations of organics will not be allowed.

Depressions resulting from site clearing operations, as well as any loose, soft, disturbed, saturated, or organically contaminated soils, as identified by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative, should be cleaned out to firm, undisturbed soils and backfilled with engineered fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

Undocumented fills located in the “south” parking lot areas must be completely removed to expose native, firm undisturbed soils, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer’s

Pavement Design Report Page 8

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019 representative. Stockpiled and undocumented fill soils may be reused as engineered fill material, provided they do not contain significant organics, clays, rubble, rubbish, or other unsuitable materials.

Subgrade Preparation

Following site clearing operations, construction areas should be scarified to a minimum depth of

12 inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content, and uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The relative compaction and moisture content should be based on the ASTM D1557 maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content.

Compaction should be performed using a heavy, self-propelled, sheepsfoot compactor capable of achieving the required compaction. Difficulty in achieving subgrade compaction may be an indication of loose, soft or unstable soil conditions associated with prior site activities. If these conditions exist, the loose, soft or unstable materials should be excavated to firm and stable soil conditions. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with engineered fill as described in the Engineered Fill Construction section of this report.

Engineered Fill Construction

On-site soil and rock materials primarily less than 12 inches in maximum dimension may be used as engineered fill. Screening of on-site materials may be necessary to achieve primarily

12-inch minus material.

Imported fill materials, if needed, should be compactable, well-graded, granular soils with a

Plasticity Index of 15 or less when tested in accordance with ASTM D4318; an Expansion Index of 20 or less when tested in accordance with ASTM D4829, and should not contain particles greater than four inches in maximum dimension. Import fill materials to be used in pavement areas should have a Resistance (“R”) value greater than 20 when tested in accordance with

California Test 301. In addition, we recommend that the contractor supply a certification for any imported fill materials, other than aggregate base, that indicates the fill materials are free of known contaminants, and have satisfactory corrosion characteristics. Imported soils should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to being transported to the site.

Fill materials consisting of predominantly fine-grained native or imported soils (particles less than ¾-inch size) should be placed in lifts not exceeding six inches in compacted thickness, moisture conditioned to near the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90

Pavement Design Report Page 9

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density and tested the Geotechnical Engineer using conventional field density testing procedures.

Fill materials consisting predominantly of rock greater than ¾-inch should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in compacted thickness. The fill materials should be uniformly mixed to avoid nesting of larger rocks and to provide a compactable mixture. Compaction of these rocky materials should be undertaken with liberal watering and the fill materials should be uniformly and thoroughly moisture conditioned to the full depth of each lift. Compaction should be achieved by at least four successive coverages with a heavy, self-propelled, sheepsfoot compactor (Caterpillar 825 sheepsfoot or equivalent). Compaction effort should be applied uniformly across the full width of fill construction. Large rocks that cannot be uniformly incorporated into the engineered fill should be broken down into smaller pieces less than 12 inches in maximum dimension or removed from the fill.

The upper six inches of final pavement subgrades should be properly processed, thoroughly moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and uniformly compacted by at least six complete coverages with a Caterpillar 825 compactor, or at least 95 percent of the

ASTM D1557 maximum dry density, regardless of whether final grade is achieved by excavation, engineered fill, or left at-grade. Compaction of pavement subgrades should be accomplished just prior to placement of aggregate base materials and while the subgrade materials are at the minimum specified moisture content.

All earthwork operations should be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations contained within this report. We recommend that the representative of the Geotechnical

Engineer be present on a full-time basis during site preparation and fill placement to verify compliance with these recommendations and the project specifications. This is especially important on this project since a performance criterion has been specified for compaction of rocky fills that cannot be tested using conventional moisture/density testing equipment.

Utility Trench Backfill

Bedding and initial backfill for utility construction should conform to the pipe manufacturer’s recommendations and/or the applicable sections of the governing agency standards. General trench backfill should consist of native soils, or suitable fill material, backfilled in maximum 12-inch thick loose lifts, moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content, and be mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by

ASTM D1557. Within the upper six inches of final subgrade for pavements, trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.

Pavement Design Report Page 10

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019

Pavement Design

Based on laboratory test results for near-surface soils present at the site, we used a Resistance

(“R”) value of 15 for design of untreated pavement subgrades. Pavement sections presented in

Table 1 have been calculated using the above R-value and traffic indices (TIs) assumed to be appropriate for this project. The procedures used for pavement design are in general conformance with Chapters 600 to 670 of the California Highway Design Manual, dated

November 20, 2017. The project civil engineer should determine the appropriate traffic index for pavements based on anticipated traffic conditions. If needed, we can provide additional pavement sections for different traffic indices.

TABLE 1 – ON-SITE PAVEMENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Traffic

Index

(TI)

Pavement Use

Untreated Subgrades

R-value = 15

Type A

Asphalt Concrete

(inches)

Class 2 Aggregate

Base (inches)

Portland Cement Concrete

(inches)

4.5

Automobile

Parking Areas

Only

2½* 8 --

-- 6 4

6.0

Automobile, Light to Moderate Truck

Traffic, Fire Lanes and Trash

Enclosures

2½ 13 --

3½* 11 --

-- 6 5

Notes: * = Asphalt concrete thickness contains the Caltrans safety factor.

We emphasize that the performance of pavement is critically dependent upon uniform and adequate compaction of the soil subgrade, as well as all engineered fill and utility trench backfill within the limits of the pavements. We recommend that pavement subgrade preparation (i.e.

scarification, moisture conditioning and compaction) be performed after underground utility construction is completed and just prior to aggregate base placement.

The upper six inches of pavement subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at no less than two percent above the optimum moisture content for clayey soils and the optimum moisture content for granular soils, maintained in a moist condition and protected from disturbance. All aggregate base should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.

Pavement Design Report Page 11

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019

Pavement subgrades should be stable and unyielding under heavy wheel loads of construction equipment. To help identify unstable subgrades within the pavement limits, a proof-roll should be performed with a fully-loaded, water truck on the exposed subgrades prior to placement of aggregate base. The proof-roll should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative.

In the summer heat, high axle loads coupled with shear stresses induced by sharply turning tire movements can lead to failure in asphalt concrete pavements. Therefore, Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements should be used in areas subjected to concentrated heavy wheel loading, such as entry driveways and/or in front of trash enclosures (if any). PCC pavement sections have been provided in Table 1 above.

We suggest the concrete slabs be constructed with thickened edges in accordance with

American Concrete Institute design standards, latest edition. Reinforcing for crack control, if desired, should be provided in accordance with ACI guidelines. Reinforcement must be located at mid-slab depth to be effective. Joint spacing and details should conform to the current PCA or ACI guidelines. PCC should achieve a minimum compressive strength of 3,500 pounds per square inch at 28 days.

All pavement materials and construction methods of structural pavement sections should conform to the applicable provisions of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition.

Surface Drainage

Surface drainage should be accomplished to provide positive drainage of surface water away from the pavements into a nearby drainage collection system. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed adjacent to pavements. Landscape berms, if planned, should not be constructed in such a manner as to promote drainage toward the buildings.

Geotechnical Engineering Observation and Testing During Earthwork

Site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Geotechnical testing and observation during construction is considered a continuation of our geotechnical engineering investigation. Wallace-Kuhl & Associates should be retained to provide testing and observation services during site preparation and earthwork construction at the project to verify compliance with this geotechnical report and the project plans and specifications, and to provide consultation as required during construction. These services are beyond the scope of work authorized for this investigation.

Pavement Design Report Page 12

WKA No. 12447.01 August 28, 2019

In the event that Wallace-Kuhl & Associates is not retained to provide geotechnical engineering observation and testing services during construction, the Geotechnical Engineer retained to provide these services should indicate in writing that they agree with the recommendations of this report, or prepare supplemental recommendations as necessary. A final report by the

“Geotechnical Engineer” should be prepared upon completion of the project.

Additional Future Services

We recommend that our firm be retained to review the final plans and specifications prior to site grading to determine if the intent of our recommendations has been properly implemented in those documents. Plans recommended for review include the civil drawings and the foundation plans for the various structures.

LIMITATIONS

Our recommendations are based upon the information provided regarding the proposed project, combined with our analysis of site conditions revealed by the field exploration and laboratory testing programs. We have used engineering judgment based upon the information provided and the data generated from our investigation. If the proposed construction is modified or re-sited; or, if it is found during construction that subsurface conditions differ from those we encountered at our test pit locations, we should be afforded the opportunity to review the new information or changed conditions to determine if our conclusions and recommendations must be modified.

We recommend that our office be retained to review the final plans and specifications to determine if the intent of our recommendations has been implemented in those documents.

We emphasize that this report is applicable only to the proposed construction and the investigated site and should not be utilized for construction on any other site. The conclusions and recommendations are considered valid for a period of three years after the date of the report. If design and construction begin after three years, the report should be reviewed and updated as necessary by a Geotechnical Engineer.

n n n n n n n n

SITES

FOLSOM BLVD

RO

UT

IE

R

RD

INT

ER

NATIONAL DR

COLOMA RD

WHITE ROCK RD

PROSPECT PAR K

DR

CAPITALC ENTER

DR

BRIDGEWAY DR

TOWER PARK DR

MATHER FIELD RD

WHITE ROCK RD

ZINFANDEL DR

MATHER BLVD

DATA DR

MALAGA WAY

OL

D

PL

AC

ER

VI

LL

E

RD

DAW

ES ST

MACREADY AVE

OLSON DR

W

LA LOMA DR

LA LOMA DR

DISK DR

HORN RD

ROCKINGHAM DR

ROD BEAUDRY DR

MI

LL

S S

TA

TIO

N R

D

BEXLEY DR

SPOTO DR

NORDEN AVE

ALERT RD

FEMOYER ST

DOLECETTO DR

WHITE ROCK RD

QUALITY

DR

BEAR HOLLOW

DR

BLECKLEY ST

CORV INA DR

RIBIER WAY

N MATHER BLVD

RINDA DR

MISSILE WAY

MILLS TOWER DR

HAPPY LN

GOLD CENTER DR

MILLS PARK

DR

NEBULA WAY

NEELY WAY

KING DR

PASEO DR

ARAMON DR

PETER A MCCUEN BLVD

HUNT DR

WHIT E HE A D

S T

BAROQUE DR

CHASE DR

ASTRAL DR

LAS CASA S WAY

LA

UR

ELH

URST DR

VANGUARD DR

SPAATZ WAY

ELLENWOOD AVE

EL SEGUNDO

D R

SY STEMS PKWY

BU R LINE ST

S W

HI

TE

R

OC

K

RD

CHETTEN HAM

DR

BA

RBE

RA

WA

Y

FURMINT WAY

SC ORPIO

DR

LIN

COLN VILLAGE DR

JUPITER DR

HOGARTH DR

NUT PLAINS DR

RESERVE DR

LOS AMIGOS DR

BARDEN DR

BULLARD STEXPLORER DR

FIT

E

CI

R

BALADA WAY

DEBELLEVUE ST

B EN NY

W

A Y

BAZLEY WAY

VERDECA WAY

BRADVIEW DR

EVADNA DR

RIOJO WAYDENKER ST

C A PITALES DR

BRAVADO DR

SATURN DR

BASIE WAY

KACHINA WAY

GLENMOOR DR

B IAN C O W AY

SUN CENTER DR

PATRIOT LN

CROYDON WAY

QUEENS ARBOR DR

GILBERT WAY

ALICANTE WAY

CRO E TTO WAY

TR ONERO

W

A Y

TE

MP

LE

S

T

LOS PAL OS DR

NEWT ON WA Y

W

ESTON WAY

SCHRIEVER AVE

POLARIS

DR

ENVERO WAY

COUNTRY WAY

R A MSG A TE WAY

LA PLACITA D R

SCHIRRA AVE

LEMAY ST

DEBINA WAY

EL CHORLITO DR

CRAWFORD WAY

REDSTONE DR

G

EM INI WAY

AIRPARK DR

CHARBONO WAY

AGNES CIR

EKNES ST

CALLE DEL SOL WAY

TANNAT WAY

DO YLE

WAY

EL MERCADO DR

RA

MOS CI R

RIVE R M IST WAY

HAR TSELL E WAY

ANA N DA LN

SUN OL W AY

GW

ENDOLYN WAY

JOERGER ST

RICKEN BACK E R

AV E

SATOW DR

GANZAN

WAY

MUSCAT WAY

EL P

AVO WAY

ABINGTON W AY

BELLONE WAY

VERD ELLO

WAY

BOMBARDIER CT

BROMLEY WAY

RAVENS WAY

FRO O M CIR

C AMELLIA

MATHER

D R

SHAW

N WAY

CAPITAL VILLAGE LN

THORLEY WAY

SILVER W

INGS ST

BOUCHET WAY

EL B U RLON CIR

UNNA MED

RD

LORD WAY

HUSC H WAY

EL

C

AN

TO

C

IR

PITKIN WAY

OAKHAM DR

JULIANA WAY

W

ILD

W

IN

D

CT

ILIFF CT

DAIN CT

SARAMENT CT

BLUESTAR CT

VILLAGE LN

CROYDON WAY

ROCKI NGHAM DR

£¤50

WKA NO. 12447.01

FIGURE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

PROJECT MGR

DATE

RWO

KRL

MMW

08/19

VICINITY MAP

MATHER VA HOSPITAL PARKING LOTS

Mather, California

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

Street data courtesy of Sacramento County.

Hydrography courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey acquired from the GIS Data Depot, December, 2007.

Projection: NAD 83, California State Plane, Zone II

³E³

³

³E³

³

³E³

³

³E³

³

³E³

³

³E³

³

³E³

³

³E³

³

³E³

³

³E³

³

EAST LOT

NORTH LOT

EQUIPMENT/

CONSTRUCTION

STORAGE

VERNAL

POOL

LOCATION

TP9

TP8

TP7

TP6

TP5

TP4

TP3

TP2TP1

TP10

FEMOYER ST

DA

TA

D R

VERDECA WAY

INTE

RNAT

IONAL D

R

AIRPARK DR

BLECKELY ST

PETER A MCCUEN BLVD

DENKER ST

UNNAMED RD

HOSPITAL WAY

AUVERNAT DR

WKA NO. 12447.01

FIGURE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

PROJECT MGR

DATE

RWO

KRL

MMW

08/19

SITE PLAN

MATHER VA HOSPITAL PARKING LOTS

Mather, California

0 150 300

Feet

Street data courtesy of Sacramento County.

Hydrography courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey acquired from the GIS Data Depot, December, 2007.

Projection: NAD 83, California State Plane, Zone II

Legend Approximate Site Boundary

³E³

³ Approximate Test Pit Location Existing Elevated Fill Area

RWO

KRL

MMW

08/19

LOGS OF TEST PITS

Mather, California 12447.01

KRL

MMW

08/19

LOGS OF TEST PITS

KRL

MMW

08/19

LOGS OF TEST PITS

KRL

MMW

08/19

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

12447.01

RWO

KRL

MMW

08/19

RESISTANCE VALUE TEST RESULTS

MATHER VA HOSPITAL PARKING LOTS

Mather, California

RESISTANCE VALUE TEST RESULTS

(California Test 301)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION:

LOCATION:

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

Specimen No.

Moisture @ Compaction

Exudation

(psi) Pressure Expansion

(dial, inches x 1000) Value R

(psf)

(psf) R

Value ExpansionPressure

(psi)

Exudation

@ Compaction

Moisture

No.

Specimen

(pcf) Weight Dry Unit

LOCATION:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION:

Red-brown, clayey sand with rock

TP2 @ 2’

10.9 10.2 9.4

R-Value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 16

TP7 @ 1’

9.1 9.8 10.5

(dial, inches x 1000)

R-Value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 18

Red-brown, clayey sand with rock

12447.01

RWO

KRL

MMW

08/19

RESISTANCE VALUE TEST RESULTS

MATHER VA HOSPITAL PARKING LOTS

Mather, California

RESISTANCE VALUE TEST RESULTS

(California Test 301)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION:

LOCATION:

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

Specimen No.

Moisture @ Compaction

Exudation

(psi) Pressure Expansion

(dial, inches x 1000) Value R

(psf)

Red-brown, clayey sand with rock

TP7 @ 7’

9.2 8.3 7.8

R-Value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 48

KRL

MMW

08/19

CORROSION TEST RESULTS

KRL

MMW

08/19

CORROSION TEST RESULTS