Information_Handout_-_Foundation_Report_Hazel_Ave_RW.pdf

FOUNDATION REPORT

HAZEL AVENUE RETAINING WALL

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

ERS NO: 24E0037

03-SAC-50-PM 15.4/16.9

EA: 03-3E380

Prepared For:

MARK THOMAS

701 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95826

March 25, 2026 PARIKH Project No.: 2022-110-GEO

PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC.

1497 N Milpitas Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035

(408) 452-9000

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 EXCEPTIONS TO POLICY AND PROCEDURES

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

6.1 Geology

6.2 Surface Conditions

6.3 Subsurface Conditions

7.0 GROUNDWATER

8.0 AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA

9.0 SCOUR EVALUATION

10.0 CORROSION EVALUATION

11.0 SEISMIC INFORMATION

11.1 Ground Motion Hazard

11.2 Other Seismic Hazards

11.2.1 Seismic Sources

11.2.2 Surface Fault Rupture

11.2.3 Liquefaction Potential

11.2.4 Lateral Spreading

11.2.5 Seismic Slope Stability

11.2.6 Tsunami Risk

12.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 RW Recommendations

12.1.1 Settlement Under Embankment

12.1.2 Slope Stability

13.0 NOTES FOR SPECIFICATIONS

14.0 NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION

14.1 General

14.2 Ground Anchor Walls

14.3 Excavation and Rippability

14.4 Pre-Construction Survey and Monitoring Program

15.0 REPORTS COPY LIST

16.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS

17.0 REFERENCES

TABLES PAGE

Table 1 – Boring Summary Table 2 – Existing Foundation Details Table 3 – Groundwater Information Table 4 – Corrosion test results Table 5 – Recommended Ground Motion Parameter for Geotechnical Design Table 6 – SHGA Wall Design Parameters Table 7 – Bearing Capacity Recommendations Table 8 – Slope Stability Analysis Results Table 9 – SHGA Wall Zones Table 10 – Difficult Ground Anchor Installation Table 11 – Geotechnical Report Distribution List

APPENDIX I: SITE MAP

Plate 1: Project Location Map Plate 2: Site Plan Plate 3: Geologic Map Plate 4: Fault Map

APPENDIX II: GROUND MOTION DATA SHEET

APPENDIX III: LOG OF TEST BORINGS

APPENDIX IV: FIELD TESTING & LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX V: CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX VI: REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX VII: STRUCTURAL PLANS

FOUNDATION REPORT

HAZEL AVENUE RETAINING WALL

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

ERS NO: 24E0037

03-SAC-50-PM 15.4/16.9

EA: 03-3E380

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This “Foundation Report” provides foundation information for the proposed “Hazel Ave

Retaining Wall in County of Sacramento, California, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”. The work was performed in general accordance with the scope of work outlined in our proposal to

Mark Thomas (Designer).

The scope of work performed for this investigation included a review of the readily available soils and geologic literature pertaining to the project site; site reconnaissance; field investigation; engineering analyses; and preparation of this report. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on General plans provided by the Designer dated March 6, 2026.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the general subsurface soil conditions at the project site, to evaluate their engineering properties, and to provide foundation recommendations for the proposed retaining wall. The approximate location of the project site is shown on the

Project Vicinity Map (Plate No. 1) and Site Plan (Plate No. 2).

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The County of Sacramento (County), in cooperation with the California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Rancho Cordova, is proposing the Hazel Avenue/U.S.

50 (US 50) Interchange Project to modify the existing interchange and extend and grade-separate Hazel Avenue over Folsom Boulevard and the Sacramento Placerville Transportation

Corridor Joint Power Authority (SPTC-JPA) rail corridor. Hazel Avenue will be extended further south to a proposed intersection with the future Atlanta Street (a new roadway to be constructed as part of the Easton Place development).

This project proposes to improve the existing Hazel Avenue interchange on U.S. Route 50 and the roadway associated with the extension and grade separation of Hazel Ave south of Folsom

Blvd. A widening is proposed for the existing Hazel Ave Overcrossing (OC) over US 50 with an additional tie-back retaining wall projected in front of the south abutment to allow for a new auxiliary lane to be added to the eastbound loop on-ramp. A new viaduct bridge is proposed over the Hazel Ave Interchange to improve traffic access to future developments near Aerojet

Rd. A west-bound off-ramp undercrossing and west-bound on-ramp undercrossing are proposed to improve traffic flow and allow for bike path traffic under the ramps. A new overhead structure is proposed to carry traffic on Hazel Ave over Folsom Blvd and the adjacent rail lines, and a new viaduct is proposed at Alder Pond Creek to widen eastbound US 50. The

Mark Thomas Hazel Avenue Retaining Wall PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO March 26, 2026

County of Sacramento will advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for the project.

Hazel Avenue Retaining Wall

A Sub Horizontal Ground Anchor (SHGA) is planned at the existing Hazel Avenue overcrossing

Abutment 1 location. SHGA wall length will be 219′ and the maximum height will be 15′-0′′.

We understand that project is using NGVD29 vertical datum. It is our understanding that any boring drilled before 1991 used NGVD29 datum for registering elevations. Therefore, as-built borings were considered as NGVD29 datum.

3.0 EXCEPTIONS TO POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Exceptions to the policy are not required.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Three (3) borings were drilled at the RW location. Borings R-23-008, R-23-009 and R-23-010 were drilled in August and December of 2023. The borings were advanced with track mounted

CME 75 rig using a 4.5-inch diameter solid stem auger and rotary wash method. The drilling contractor was GeoEx Subsurface Exploration from Dixon, CA. The hammer efficiency of the drill rig is 89.1%.

The borings were drilled under the technical supervision of our engineers, who classified and continuously logged the soils encountered during drilling and supervised the collection of soil samples at various depths for visual examination and laboratory testing. The soil samples were visually classified in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System and then transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with cement grout. The boring locations, stations, and relevant information are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 – Boring Summary Boring No. Date Completed Location Surface

Elevation (ft) Boring Depth (ft)

Northing Easting

R-23-008 08/03/2023 1992284.8 6785230.0 134.0 41.4

R-23-009 08/29/2023 1992326.5 6785305.4 138.0 120.0

R-23-010 12/14/2023 1992377.0 6785419.1 158.0 16.5

The soil samples were obtained from the borings during drilling at various depths by driving a

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

2.5-inch Inside Diameter (I. D.) Modified California Sampler or a 1.375-inch I.D. (at shoe)

Standard Penetration Sampler (ASTM Test Method No. 1586). The sampler was driven into the subsurface soils under the impact of a 140 pounds hammer having a free fall of 30 inches. The blow counts required to drive the sampler for the last 12 inches are presented on the Log of

Test Boring (LOTB), Appendix II. When correlating standard penetration data in similar soils, the blow counts for the Modified California sampler can be converted to equivalent Standard

Penetration Test sampler by multiplying a non-standard sampler conversion factor of 0.65 and

0.41 for cohesive soil and cohesionless soil, respectively, per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, “Soil Correlations” module (March 2021).

The logs presented in Appendix III were prepared from the field logs which were edited after visual re-examination of the soil samples in the laboratory and results of classification tests on selected soil samples as indicated on the logs.

It should be noted that the descriptions of the soils encountered and relevant boring information presented on the LOTB depict subsurface conditions only at the locations indicated on the plan and on the particular date noted on the LOTB. Because of the variability from place to place within soil/rock in general, subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the boring locations explored. The abrupt stratum changes shown on the logs may be gradational and relatively minor changes in soil types within a stratum may not be noted on the logs due to field limitations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the soil conditions at these locations due to environmental changes.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples recovered from the borings to evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the subsoil. The following tests were performed for this study: Moisture Contents (ASTM D2216), Unit Weight (ASTM D7263), Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90), Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422), and Corrosivity Testing (CTM

643, 422, and 417). The laboratory test results are attached in Appendix IV.

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

6.1 Geology

The Project site is located in the Great Central Valley Geomorphic Province. Plate 3 shows the locations of geological units in the Project area. The distribution and description of geological units in the project area were derived from the “Preliminary Geologic Map of the

Sacramento 30´ by 60´ Quadrangle, California”, California Department of Conservation, PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

California Geological Survey.

The project is mapped as being underlain by dredge tailings deposited during gold dredging operations conducted from the early to mid 1900’s. Dredge tailings are visible on historical aerial photographs and topographic maps as being stacked directly at the Project site. The process of dredging involved a large dredge floating in a pool using a series of buckets on a conveyor which dug alluvial material down to a depth of greater than 100 feet. The gravels were separated in the dredge with the fine fraction consisting of sand, silt, and clay discharged into the dredge pool and the gravels discharged and stacked to the rear and sides of the dredge. The significance of the presence of dredge tailings is that a wet fine layer of unknown thickness underlies coarser material.

Well completion reports from the project vicinity suggest that depth to bedrock is greater than 100 feet.

6.2 Surface Conditions

Site topography is relatively flat and slopes gently to the north and north-west. The primary topographic site features are embankments created for the Hazel Avenue

Overcrossing.

The area enclosed by the east-bound SR 50 on-ramp loop appears to contain a drain flowing from south of the SR 50 off-ramp, across and underneath SR 50 to the north.

Site geologic and elevation data do not indicate the presence of geologic hazards such as landslides, slope failure, rockfalls, or debris flows.

6.3 Subsurface Conditions

Boring R-23-009 encountered medium stiff to hard lean clay, lean clay with sand, silt and medium dense to very dense clayey gravel, silty sand with gravels and cobbles up to 76 feet (Elev. 62 feet) below existing surface underlain by very dense silty gravel with sand, poorly graded gravel with clay, clayey gravel to the maximum explored depth of 120 feet

(Elev. 18 feet). Boring R-23-008 encountered very dense clayey gravel and poorly graded gravel up to 18.5 feet from the existing surface underlain by dense to very dense silty sand and clayey sand to the maximum explored depth of 41.4 feet (Elev. 92.6 feet). Boring R-

23-010 was drilled on the embankment at Hazel Avenue. Boring R-23-010 encountered very stiff lean underlain by very dense silty gravel with sand to the maximum explored depth of 16.5 feet (Elev. 141.5 feet).

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

We also reviewed the as-built LOTB (1990). Based on the as-built LOTB (1990), gravelly cobbles and occasional boulders were encountered in upper 4-5 feet from the surface.

Below the cobbles and boulders, medium dense to very dense silty fine sand with some interbedded layers of sandy silt, clayey silt, sandy clay and gravels were encountered to the maximum explored depth of 63.5 feet (Elev. 75 feet). As-built LOTB borings and locations are attached in Appendix III.

Due to limitations inherent in geotechnical investigations, it is neither uncommon to encounter unforeseen variations in the soil conditions during construction nor is it practical to determine all such variations during an acceptable program of drilling and sampling for a project of this scope. Such variations, when encountered, generally require additional engineering services to attain a properly constructed project. We, therefore, recommend that a contingency fund be provided to accommodate any additional charges resulting from technical services that may be required during construction.

7.0 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not measured due to rotary wash drilling method. Groundwater measured in other nearby borings drilled for the other proposed structure for this project, shows the groundwater elevation varies between 81.5 feet and 131 feet.

Based on the as-built LOTBs, the groundwater was encountered at about 18.4 feet (Elev.

117.40 feet) below existing surface in 1990. Groundwater was encountered at about 10 feet

(Elev. 126.2 feet) below existing surface in 1958.

We also reviewed DWR Well reports from the following reference and summarized in the table below. (https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels) https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

Table 2 – Existing Foundation Details

*Well Locations are shown in the map, attached in Appendix VI.

As shown above, the groundwater elevation varies significantly within the project area between the years of 1958 and 2023. Considering the groundwater variation, the design ground water elevation of 121 feet is considered for the purpose of engineering analysis.

Please note that groundwater may vary with the passage of time due to seasonal groundwater fluctuation, surface and subsurface flows, ground surface run-off, and other factors that may not be present at the time of investigation.

8.0 AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA

Based on the as-built plans of existing Hazel Ave OC (1996), we understand that the existing overcrossing is approximately 270 feet long and 99 feet wide, and is a cast-in-place pre-stressed concrete box girder bridge with two spans having a minimum vertical clearance of 16.17 feet.

Following table shows foundation details based on the as-built plans.

Table 3 – Groundwater Information

Support Foundation Type As-built Pile Specified

Tip Elevation (ft) Average As-built Pile

Probable Elevation (ft) Abut 1 Class 70 Steel Pile 104.0 99.0 Bent 2 Class 70 Steel Pile 104.0 99.0 Abut 3 Class 70 Steel Pile 104.0 99.0

9.0 SCOUR EVALUATION

A scour evaluation is not needed since there is no waterway underneath the structure.

DWR Well No* Groundwater Depth

(feet) Approximate Groundwater

Elevation (feet) Date Measured

09N07E16_084405 20 120 04/16/1979

09N07E16_0953688 52.72 87.28 09/19/2008

09N07E16_0953684 53.38 86.62 09/19/2008

09N07E16_0079511 47 93 06/30/2004

09N07E16_087684 35 112 09/05/1979

09N07E16_087637 35 111 09/05/1979

09N07E16L001M -

109 01/1982

118 01/1983

116 01/1984

110 01/1985

110 01/1986

108 01/1987

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

10.0 CORROSION EVALUATION

The available corrosion test results are shown in the table below:

Table 4 – Corrosion test results

Boring ID Sample Depth

Soil pH Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Chloride Content (ppm)

Sulfate Content (ppm)

Corrosive/ Non-Corrosive

R-23-009 6.11 6.11 3090 4.4 9.5 Non-Corrosive

According to Caltrans Corrosion Guideline, March 2018 (Version 3.0), Caltrans considers a site to be corrosive to foundation element if one of the following conditions exists for the representative soil/water samples taken at the site:

• Chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm,

• Sulfate concentration is greater than or equal to 1,500 ppm,

• pH is 5.5 or less.

Based on the corrosion test results, the site is considered non-corrosive per Caltrans guidelines.

The test results are presented in Appendix III.

11.0 SEISMIC INFORMATION

The project is located in a seismically active area of northern California. The major fault zones of the San Andreas Fault system have been major earthquake sources and are expected to be sources of future earthquakes.

The closest active faults to the Project site are the latest Quaternary aged (<15,000 years)

Cordelia and Green Valley faults which lay about 56 miles to the west and south-west. Plate 4 shows the location of the Cordelia and Green Valley faults and others in the project region.

The Cordelia and Green Valley faults are right lateral and part of the San Andreas fault system.

The Cordelia fault dips vertically and strikes about 350°. The Green Valley fault dips from about 59° east to 89° south-west and strikes an average of about 346.

11.1 Ground Motion Hazard

The recommended design response spectrum for the proposed overcrossing structure was determined using the Caltrans ARS Online tool (V3.1.0) which is consistent with the

Caltrans SDC V2.0.

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

For SDC 2.0, the Design Spectrum is based on the USGS 975-year uniform hazard spectrum only. Effective December 1, 2019, the USGS hazard spectrum is based on the 2014

National Hazard Map per the memorandum from the State Bridge Engineer. The updated

Design Spectrum continues the use of near-fault adjustment factors and basin amplification factors. The only change to these factors is the use of the Campbell-

Bozorgnia (2014) and Chiou-Youngs (2014) basin amplification factors, updated from their

2008 models.

The development of the design ARS curve is based on several input parameters, including site location (longitude/latitude), average shear wave velocity for the top 30m/100 feet

(Vs30), and other site parameters, such as fault characteristics and site-to-fault distances.

Based on information obtained from the geophysical surveys (MASW), the time-average shear wave velocity (VS30) for the upper 100 feet of soil at the site are estimated to be 375 and 393 m/sec. Shear wave velocity of 393 m/sec was used in ARS curve.

Based on the existing subsurface data, the site is classified as “Class S2 Soil” per Caltrans

SDC, V2.0. The site location and the relevant parameters are summarized in the table below, and the recommended design curve is presented in Appendix II.

The site location and the relevant parameters are summarized in the table below.

Table 5 – Recommended Ground Motion Parameter for Geotechnical Design

Site Parameter Design Ground Motion Parameter

(Return Period = 975 years)

Locations Shear-Wave

Velocity 𝑽𝒔𝟑𝟎,m/sec

Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration

(𝐇𝐏𝐆𝐀)(𝟏), g

Mean Earthquake M, Moment Magnitude

Mean Site-source

Distance (km, for Sa at 1s) km Latitudes degrees

Longitude, degrees

38.6307 -121.2172 393 0.18 6.72 114.2

1. Based on the Caltrans web tool ARS Online (Version3.1.0)

2. No adjustment was needed for basin effect.

For determining the seismic coefficient, kh, we have reviewed Caltrans Geotechnical

Manual “Seismic Design of Retaining Walls”, dated January 2021. The wall design is expected to be governed by the overturning mode due to the presence of competent materials. Therefore, a kh of 0.09 as 1/2×PGA is recommended for design based on the

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO assumption that the wall is capable of displacements of 1 to 2 inches during the design seismic event (per Section 11.6.5.2.2 of AASHTO LRFD BDS).

11.2 Other Seismic Hazards

Potential seismic hazards may arise from three sources: surface fault rupture, ground shaking and liquefaction.

11.2.1 Seismic Sources

Based on available geological and seismic data, the project site is expected to experience moderate ground shaking. PGA was calculated as 0.18g for the site in Section 11.1.

11.2.2 Surface Fault Rupture

An Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map and Seismic Hazard Zone Report have not been prepared for the site enclosing Folsom Ranch 7.5 minute Quadrangle. Hence, the Project does not lay within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or Seismic Hazard Zone.

The USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database shows the Project is not located within 1,000 feet of an unzoned fault that is Holocene/Latest Pleistocene (15,000 years) or younger in age.

Accordingly, as per the Caltrans Fault Rupture module, a Surface Fault Rupture Displacement

Hazard Analysis is not required.

In assessing seismic risks, we consider that surface fault rupture does not contribute to the seismic hazards at the site during the useful life of the Project. The preceding statements do not make inferences on the potential for aseismic surface cracking.

11.2.3 Liquefaction Potential

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary but essentially total loss of shear strength under the reversing, cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquake shaking. Submerged cohesionless sands and silts of low relative density are the type of soils, which usually are susceptible to liquefaction. Clays are generally not susceptible to liquefaction.

The liquefaction potential was evaluated in accordance with the methods proposed in

Liquefaction Evaluation Module of Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (January 2020). The evaluation was done using the boring data from all the available borings using a Magnitude

7.11 earthquake and a peak ground acceleration of about 0.74g. This method compares the

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO estimates of the earthquake-induced shear stress to the susceptibility of soil liquefaction.

According to Bray (2006), liquefaction appears to occur in soils where these fines are either non-plastic or are low plasticity silts and/or silty clays (PI<12%, and LL<37%), and with high water content relative to their liquid limit (w>0.85 LL). In a separate study (EERI MNO-12 by

Idriss and Boulanger, 2008), it is suggested that in engineering practice, fine-grained soil can reasonably be expected to exhibit clay-like behavior if they have a PI more than 7. Both criteria have been adopted in engineering practice.

The soil data from the borings were analyzed per Youd (2001) and the analysis results are presented in Appendix V.

Based on our liquefaction analysis of subsurface data, the liquefaction potential at the project site does not exist. Therefore, liquefaction potential will not be a design issue.

11.2.4 Lateral Spreading

Per Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-15 dated May 2017, “Lateral Spreading Analysis for New and Existing Bridges”, lateral spreading is caused by the accumulation of incremental displacements that develop within liquefied soil under cyclic loading. Depending on the number and amplitude of stress pulses, lateral spreading can produce displacements that range from a few inches to tens of feet. Flow liquefaction occurs when a slope becomes unstable under static loading due to strength loss caused by liquefaction.

Lateral spreading refers to the more moderate movements of gently sloping ground due to soil liquefaction. The geologic conditions conducive to lateral spreading (gentle surface slope, shallow water table, and liquefiable cohesionless soils) are frequently found along streams and other waterfronts in recent alluvial or deltaic deposits, as well as in loosely packed, saturated, sandy fills.

In our opinion, the potential for lateral spreading does not exist, since there is no liquefiable soils identified in our analysis.

11.2.5 Seismic Slope Stability

As discussed in Section 12.3.2, the slope stability of the embankment and the walls should be satisfactory. The pseudo-static analysis was performed with a horizontal seismic coefficient (kh) equal to 0.09g (1/2 × PGA) as discussed in Section 11.1. It appears that seismic slope stability is not a design concern. Slope stability analysis output is attached in Appendix V.

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

11.2.6 Tsunami Risk

Based on Memo to Designers 20-13 (MTD 20-13), the tsunami hazard is significantly reduced at locations beyond one-half mile of the coast or at elevation greater than 40 feet above mean sea level. Tsunami Risk is not a concern for this structure.

12.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are for the proposed Retaining wall. Our design recommendations were developed based on the available boring data and the plans dated

March 6, 2026, provided by the designer (Mark Thomas).

12.1 RW Recommendations

SHGA wall is planned for the retaining wall. Based on the plans, the retaining wall is approximately 219′ long and the maximum design height will be 14′-0′′.

Based on the available data, the subsurface conditions at the project site predominantly consist of very dense granular materials including gravels and cobbles. The materials at shallow depth tend to be more variable in terms of material characteristics and consistency. Geotechnical design parameters for the materials are provided below:

Table 6 – SHGA Wall Design Parameters

Soil Type Total Unit

Weight (pcf)(1) Friction Angle

(deg) Cohesion

(psf) Ultimate Bond Stress, qu (psi)

Medium dense to very dense Sand & Gravels with silt & clays

125 32 100 21.7

Note: Groundwater is assumed at Elev. 121 feet for design purposes.

Based on the terrain, the existing slope is at about 2H:1V (approx. 26.5 degrees).

• An average Ka of 0.85 for design purposes, and this value is based on an average friction angle of 34 degrees for the sand with a backslope of 1.5H:1V.

• Traffic surcharge = Extra 2 feet of soil with a unit weight of 125 lb/ft3

• Earth Pressure Diagram: Please refer to Figure 3.11.5.7.1-1 (b) of AASHTO LRFD BDS or Figure 5-12.1 (b) of Caltrans Memo-To-Designer 5-12.

• Earth Pressure: PTotal=1.44×Pa=1.44×½×0.85×125 pcf×H2 = 76.5H2 lb/ft

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

• Kh=0.09 (1/2×PGA, assuming that the wall will move as one “block” during an earthquake. Sufficient displacement, 1 to 2 inches, could occur to develop the seismic active earth pressure).

• KAE,sloping = KAE,level × (KA,sloping/KA, level) = 0.32×(0.85/0.28) = 0.97, based on NCHRP 611 approach.

• KAE = KAE – Ka = 0.97 – 0.85 = 0.12

• The seismic increment should be the same distribution as the static lateral earth pressure diagram, and PKAE=1/2×KAE××H2 = 7.5H2 lb/ft (=125 pcf) o For a single level of SHGAs, the magnitude (similar to pa) can be calculated per equation 5-12.1.

o For multiple levels of SHGAs, the magnitude (similar to pa) can be calculated per equation 5-12.2.

• Based on the as-built plans of the existing overcrossing, it is understood that battered piles were constructed in the front row of the abutment. According to the proposed Overcrossing Widening Plans, which are part of this project, battered piles are also proposed for the front row of the widened section to maintain consistency with the existing foundation system. Given the use of battered piles in the front row, the lateral load transfer from these piles to the proposed wall is expected to be minimal and can therefore be considered negligible.

• For vertical design, bearing capacity should not be an issue for the wall shotcrete facing. For design purpose, following values are recommended.

Table 7 – Bearing Capacity Recommendations

Bearing Resistance (ksf)

Nominal 7.60

Service 2.53

Strength 4.18

Extreme 6.08

• A friction coefficient of 0.4 is recommended for the wall shotcrete facing.

• Settlement is not expected for the proposed cut wall with no fills.

• For the proposed SHGA wall, the seismic stability is not a design concern since no adverse conditions were noted.

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

• Unbonded & Bonded Zone: The minimum required unbonded zone for the SHGAs typically should be the distance between the wall face and at least 5 feet beyond the active wedge or 15 feet, whichever is greater. Active wedge can be considered at an angle of 45+φ/2 from horizontal, where φ is 32 degress.

12.1.1 Settlement Under Embankment

Since new fills are not expected, settlement will not be a design issue.

12.1.2 Slope Stability

As discussed in Section 6.3, the subsoils generally consist of medium stiff to hard lean clay, silt and medium dense to very dense gravel, silty sand with gravels and cobbles. In our opinion, the slope stability of the retaining wall should be satisfactory. This is supported by the results of the slope stability analyses performed at the retaining wall in front of the Hazel Avenue OC structure. The results are presented in Appendix V and summarized in the following table.

Table 8 – Slope Stability Analysis Results

Location Static Condition

Seismic Condition (Pseudo-Static Analysis))

Factor of Safety

Resistance Factor

Factor of Safety

Resistance Factor

Hazel Avenue OC RW 1.89 0.53 1.57 0.63

13.0 NOTES FOR SPECIFICATIONS

19-3.01D (2) Ground Anchor Wall Zones

The wall zone for the SHGA wall at Retaining Wall are as shown in the following table:

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

Table 9 – SHGA Wall Zones

Wall Zone Beginning Station End Station Upper Elevation (ft) Lower Elevation (ft)

1 “RW1” Line 10+16.43 “RW1” Line 10+52.81 148.23 133.15

2 “RW1” Line 10+52.81 “RW1” Line 11+23.98 148.23 133.15

3 “RW1” Line 11+23.98 “RW1” Line 11+99.81 148.23 133.15

4 “RW1” Line 11+99.81 “RW1” Line 12+35.43 148.23 133.15

46-2.01D(2)(b)(i) Locations and Number of Ground Anchor Performance Tests

Performance test a minimum of 3 anchors but at least 5 percent of total production of anchors.

The Engineer determines which anchors are to be performance tested.

46-2.03A Expected Difficult Ground Anchor Installation due to Geotechnical Issues

Expect difficult ground anchor installation due to the presence of the following conditions:

Table 10 – Difficult Ground Anchor Installation

Structure Number

Beginning Station End Station Elevation Condition

24E0037 “RW1” 10+16.43 “RW1” 12+35.43 All ground anchors

- Perched water

- Very dense sand; refer to LOTBs.

- Very dense gravel with possible cobbles and boulders; refer to LOTB.

- underground and overhead utilities

- noise control and vibration monitoring

- traffic control.

- Existing bridge abutment piles.

14.0 NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION

14.1 General

To a degree, the performance of any structure is dependent upon construction procedures and quality. Hence, observation of grading operations and anchor installation should be carried out by the responsible Agency. If the encountered subsurface conditions differ from those forming the basis of our recommendations, this office should be informed in order to assess the need for design changes. The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon good quality control and these geotechnical observations during construction.

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

14.2 Ground Anchor Walls

The strength of the anchors shall be verified during construction by proof tests per

Caltrans standard specifications. Prefabricated vertical drainage or geocomposite drain should be provided. The facing should be reinforced and shotcreted as quickly as possible to maintain the integrity of the cut. Hard drilling conditions should be anticipated for drilling into the very dense sand and gravels with possible cobbles and boulders. The contractor should make his own interpretation and perform an independent study of the constructability of the anchors.

Cleaning of the drilled holes and proper grouting of the anchors (using proper grout mix) is critical to the success of the project. Therefore, proper quality control by the contractor and experienced inspection by the agency should be implemented.

The anchors, wire mesh, rebar, and shotcrete should be installed as soon as possible.

Generally, if excavated slope appears loose or unstable, the area of excavation should be limited to an area that can be excavated, anchored, mesh and rebar installed and shotcreted in a day. Leaving cuts unsupported for longer duration may result in instability.

14.3 Excavation and Rippability

It is possible that unknown old, buried utilities or abandoned structures, concrete rubble, etc. are located along the alignment. It might require special equipment and additional efforts to remove these buried objects. The contractor should verify the utility lines, be aware of the existing conditions and plan the construction activities accordingly.

In our opinion, conventional equipment may be used to excavate the on-site materials, which primarily consist of medium dense to very dense sand and gravels with possible cobbles and boulders. Prospective contractors for the project must evaluate construction-related issues on the basis of their own knowledge and experience in the local area, similar projects in other localities, or the additional field investigation on the site performed by them, taking into account their proposed construction methods and procedures. In addition, construction activities related to excavation and lateral earth support must conform to safety requirements of OSHA and other applicable municipal and State regulatory agencies.

It is recommended that the excavations be supported as quickly as practical to maintain the integrity of the cut and prevent surficial sloughing. Generally, if excavated slope

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO appears loose or unstable, the area of excavation should be limited to areas where placement of laggings, anchored, mesh, rebar, and shotcrete can be completed in a day.

Leaving cuts unsupported for a longer duration may result in instability.

Localized subgrade pumping may be encountered during earthwork construction depending on the weather, moisture condition of the subsurface soils, and surface drainage conditions. Equipment mobility may also be difficult if the subgrade is wet. In which case, the subgrade soils may require reworking, aeration, or over-excavation, and replacement with dry granular fill, and potentially with geotextile or geogrid to facilitate earthwork construction.

It should be noted that these discussions are primarily based on available boring data at specific locations. This information should only be used as a general guide, as many other factors should also be considered, including the experience of the equipment operator, and the equipment and excavation methods selected.

14.4 Pre-Construction Survey and Monitoring Program

There are existing abutment piles next to the proposed retaining wall. For the proposed construction, the contractor should develop a comprehensive pre-construction survey and monitoring program since the proposed excavation is in proximity to the existing piles.

The results of the pre-construction survey should also serve as a basis to developing appropriate mitigation options for restoration of the existing improvements if needed.

Structural surveys, including a review of as-built plans, should be performed for all facilities within a plane extending at 45 degrees from the bottom of the excavation.

15.0 REPORTS COPY LIST

This report is prepared for Mark Thomas (Designer) for Hazel Avenue Retaining Wall which is part of Hazel Avenue Interchange Project in the County of Sacramento, California. A copy of this report will be submitted to the designer. The report should be distributed to those listed under

Report Distribution in the Communications and Reporting section of Offices of Geotechnical

Design – Quality Management Plan. A geotechnical report distribution list is provided below as reference.

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

Table 11 – Geotechnical Report Distribution List

Addressee Report Title(s) District 1 District 4 District 3

District Project Manager All N/A N/A Alex Biaheza

Project Liaison Engineer (Structures)

SPGR N/A N/A Minh Vo

Structures Construction R.E.

Pending File

FR No longer needed.

Structures Office Engineer FR To Be Determined

District Materials Engineer All N/A N/A To Be Determined

Geotechnical Archive All http://svgcgeodog.dot.ca.gov

16.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS

Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices and are based on our site reconnaissance and the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate from observed conditions. All work done is in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness, is made or intended in connection with our work or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.

The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in structures, soil, surface water, groundwater or air, below or around this site. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by taking soil samples and excavating test borings;

different soil conditions may require that additional expenditures be made during construction to attain a properly constructed project. Some contingency fund is thus recommended to accommodate these possible extra costs.

This report has been prepared for the proposed project as described earlier, to assist the engineer in the design of this project. In the event any changes in the design or location of the facilities are planned, or if any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless the changes or variations are reviewed, and our recommendations modified or approved by us in writing.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the designer's responsibility to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project and http://svgcgeodog.dot.ca.gov/

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO that necessary steps are also taken to see that the recommendations are carried out in the field.

The findings in this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the subsurface conditions can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur, whether they result from legislation or from the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings in this report might be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control.

Respectfully submitted, Kandeep Saravanapavan, P.E., G.E. 3040 Y. David Wang, Ph.D., P.E.52911 Senior Project Engineer Project Manager

Respectfully submitted, Kandeep Saravanapavan, P.E., G.E. 3040

Senior Project Engineer

12/31/27

PARIKH Project No.:2022-110-GEO

17.0 REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2017, “AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications”, 8th Edition.

California Department of Transportation, “Caltrans ARS Online, v3.0.2”

(https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)

California Department of Transportation, “Caltrans Fault Data Base (V2b)”

California Department of Transportation, “Caltrans Test Methods”

California Department of Transportation, 2018, “Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.0”, Division of

Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion and Structural

Concrete Field Investigation Branch.

California Department of Transportation, “Geotechnical Manual”

(https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineering-services/manuals/geotechnical-manual)

California Department of Transportation, “Memo To Designers”

(https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineering-services/manuals/memo-to-designers)

California Department of Transportation, 2012, “Methodology for Developing Design Response

Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations.”

California Department of Transportation, 2022, “Standard Plans”

California Department of Transportation, 2022, “Standard Specifications”

Gutierrez, C.I., (compiler) 2011, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Sacramento 30´ by 60´

Quadrangle, California. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey.

U.S Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States, Accessed April 28, 2022, at: http//earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/.

Parikh Consultants, Inc, Preliminary Foundation Report, Hazel Avenue Overcrossing Retaining

Wall, dated April 17, 2023.

APPENDIX I

SITE MAP

HAZEL AVENUE OC RETAINING WALL

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

JOB NO.:2022-110-GEO PLATE NO.: 1

PROJECT VICINITY MAP

Approximate Project Location

Scale 0 2 Miles

Ame rica n R iver

Go ld Po in te Ln

E3

Fo lso m Blv d

Ae roj et Rd

Bir km on t D r

Ak ron

St

N im b u s R d

F lo ri d a R d

Hazel A ve

Nimbus

Water

Water t Pl t t t t t t t t t t Qr

Qm

MPm

MPm

MPm

Pl t

Qtl

Qhc

Qhc af af af

0 2,000

Feet GEOLOGIC MAP

Scale: 1:10,000

El Dorado Hills

Citrus Heights Folsom

Carmichael

Rancho Cordova

Holocene, San Francisco Bay Mud

Map Location

Legend

Geologic Data Source:

Gutierrez, C.I., (compiler) 2011, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Sacramento 30´ by 60´ Quadrangle, California. CGS.

Miocene, Mehrten Fm - undivided

Pliocene, Laguna Fm

Pleistocene, Turlock Fm

Pleistocene, Riverbank Fm, undivided

Pleistocene, Modesto Fm, undivided

Latest Holocene, stream channel deposits

Historic, dredge tailings

Artificial fill

MPm

Pl

Qtl

Qr

Qm

Qhc t af

HAZEL AVENUE OC RETAINING WALL

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

JOB NO.: 2022-110-GEO PLATE NO.: 3

Approximate Project Location

FAULT MAP

0 30

Miles

Scale: 1:1,100,000

MAP LOCATION

California

Fault data source:

Legend

60 mile radius m ile ra di us m ile ra diu s

Project Location

D unnigan H ills

F oothills - Lone flt

G reat V

. 01 G reat V . 02

G reat V. 03

G reat V. 03a

M idland

H ayw ard N th

G reat V. 04a

R io

V is ta

G reenville-M arsh C k

G reen V.

C oncord

C ordelia

G reen V.

Foothills

F oothills -

R escue flt

F oothills - P oorm an G ulch

F oothills -

S pencerville flt

F oothills -

C leveland H ill flt

Foothills -

D ew itt flt Foothills -

H w y 49 flt

V aca

Fault trace Fault name

CascadeHistoric <150 yrs

Latest Quaternary <15,000 yrs

Quaternary <1.6 million yrs

USGS & CGS. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. Accessed 4/28/2022.

JOB NO.: 2022-110-GEO PLATE NO.: 4

APPENDIX II

GROUND MOTION DATA SHEET

Site Information Recommended Response Spectrum

Latitude: 38.6307

Longitude -121.2172

VS30 (m/s) = 393 0.0 0.18 1 1 0.18

0.1 0.34 1 1 0.34

6.72 0.2 0.44 1 1 0.44

0.3 0.44 1 1 0.44

0.5 0.38 1 1 0.38

114.2 0.75 0.3 1 1 0.3

1.0 0.23 1 1 0.23

2.0 0.12 1 1 0.12

3.0 0.08 1 1 0.08

4.0 0.06 1 1 0.06

5.0 0.05 1 1 0.05

Source:

1. Caltrans ARS Online tool (V.3.1.0, https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)

Project No.: 2022-110-GEO Appendix II

HAZEL AVENUE OC RETAINING WALL

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Period

(sec)

Spectral

Acceleration

(2014) (g)

Adjusted for Near

Fault Effect

Adjusted For

Basin Effect

Design Spectral

Acceleration

(2014) (g)

Mean Magnitude

(for PGA) mean site-source distance (km, for Sa at 1s)=

2. Caltrans SDC 2.0 was adapted in September 1, 2019. Design Spectrum is based on the USGS 975 year uniform hazard spectrum only.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

S p e c tr a l A c c e le ra ti o n

S a g

Period (sec)

RECOMMENDED ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM

(5% Damping)

3/2/2026 ARS CURVE_OffRamp.xlsx https://parikhnet.sharepoint.com/sites/projects2/Ongoing_Projects/2022/2022-110-GEO MARK THOMAS Hazel Avenue US 50/Calc/PSE Phase/ARS/Hazel Ave OC(widen)/

APPENDIX III

LOG OF TEST BORINGS

APPENDIX III

AS-BUILT LOG OF

TEST BORINGS

HAZEL AVENUE OVERCROSSING (WIDEN) PROJECT

PLATE NO.:

AS-BUILT BORING MAP

JOB NO.:2022-110-GEO 5

Cf) z o l e:( a:

w u..

o z o U I,!:

U) U)

5':3 Uo

LLU)

Ou:

>-0

ULL

z W U) en z o U

~£X/Sf;ng sfrucfureT

Y, 01 ST COUNTY ROUTE

03 SAC 50

GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONAL

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT

15.76

SHEET TOTAL

NO. SHEETS

110. ___ _

PLANS APPROVAL DATE \ E~

~--------------------------~" ~ .- J'".

'I/, " OF

I I I i H~ze/ Avenue --------------------+I--------~----_+l--------- -------+-------------------~~--------_r-------

I 11 / B-3 - 8-/ A til

. '.36 .5 ~ 136.07[~ ~2". - tt{N\ a 2 Ff ~5p;"lf Con ere te over1S<:nJ«omp<>ctj ~--~ ~ - r or~ngeobrownCLAYEYf'rne-c""rseSANOY -' M"i Loose) brown fineocoarseGRAVELLY COCJSL£S wrfh f(ne-cOJrse GRAVEL -- ~ very T,;'e - Co;wse SAND and occasion;;/ BOULDER

- - fT.7TI'P;n>e i!--_ I 1 4 17 - 5ftFF to very sflFf" or,;;ng9 -6rowI7 fi- - 0 ' , ~~:.~ { {4 20 oS· f b SILTY -c -c=rse SANDY CLAY wifh ('/;'60 164122 • 2 12.51341 '';W' em,cornp"'c rOWr) very une-CoarSe" co." .... GRAVEL· ~ . Ii~ 2 1.4 1(; SAND .WI.·fh Fine GRAv!:L .': - .

o t707Ir<"j-~ 3 1.4134 ~-;::. 3 1.4/4 \(: . .. . .'

Sem/~ornp.>ctbrown SILTYv~ryf'meSfl}Jq~:.- _ 1//4110 ':"~~ 4- 1.415 ,{, very Fmc SANDY SILT t: 4 /.4 16 7¥.~ 5. 1.4 14

Very deMe ",,:ddonsebrownSIL1Y 184132 ~~; 5 2-5 92+ r~ -.Y. - Comp",cf ",nd dense grau.;;nd brown SIl.TY Ver" Fme -Fme SAND ~~ -' G 14 50 '-~- G 1.4 58 . ,1 oJ z _. - .. i., very Fine SAND;- ver'j F/ne SANDY SILT .

I _'Iii' 7 /.435 .

/1-3<)-30 ., 11·30-90

(I

DRAWN BY

DESIGN OVERSIGHT t------j-------------I fiELD INVEST IGATOR

CHECKED BY

$IGH OfF 01. rE DATE

(- 0 ' -I'

"\-1

B-/ ..- 1.1h.n :a

~ ,Loosqbrown f'/ne-co;,r.se GRAVELLY COBBLES ~:_ wi!A fineico",rse SAND .;md BOULDERS

.lid 1;(/41191 i ... - - .

~~- Sem;comp~cf browr) SIL.TYf'/ne GRAVeLLY very

':~. 2 11.4119lfme-codrse SAND !~~,l--'-'-'-'-''-'

• -o::r--::-r--:T-:-1

~\ 31/.4-119 I .. <ji'if /'

,_,:,- /' c .

\lfiOl85133 ::f.-- 4 1/.413Q ICqmp;,cf deJrK brown SILTY very Fme-

-_-:~._ . fme SAND r;-;;r;;=;'r:;c:-k," ~.

14.9187132 ,~::.,... "5~rl.-;-I.4-:l.1"'188=lj , . -

~:.\';; Very dense dnd dense light hr.own SIL.TY ;,_-;. very -fine - fine SAND

1r-.5.2-r~1~96-r12-9~};'~~ 6 1/.41571

15.0169

:ii:;.~

'7 1/.41791

Ir:03.81-;;r:;7:::15W-;:9:cl~r B 1/.41671, . t> Very den.se and dense brown SILT ;}nd cemented

~I SILT Fr~Smenls w/lh ~L.AY ..

I~ 6 __ '0"8"3:1"3"'7'/",,- ') 11.41 t2211

::~:: Very dense brown very fi'ne-m",d/~m SAND /oc';'//Ij cemenh:d ,,![·illm~~).~~ I ,fo very Fine SANDY SILT/SILTY SAND .::md "'- *. 2h.5ILT~ndcernenfedSILT - .. -

~:o I~" ;.:i:-IT.,,'ib",i"'fll"'IO'"fl , 11-27¢-2<9-.90

PLAN

Sc;;;le: 1"-20'

_120 <7'" I

/10

_90

70 _

PROFILE

S I -- Vert/cOi'/ ,_/H=/O'

Coi e: .

PREPARED FOR THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OR I G I NAL SCALE I N I NCHES I I I I I I I

FOR REDUCED PLANS 0 I 2 3

HOrlzonlal: None

PROJECT ENGINEER

cu 03102

EA 38080 I

E lev.;; lion ReFerence_· T8M- <t H;;,zel Avenue af nor-Ih endoF overcross;ng

Elev- 155AO-S::;cr';;menfo Counfy dafum

I.ll 69 51 ...... 9 11.4149 O~e brown SILT ;,nd cemen~ed SILTPr~gmenf5 with ~~~

. .f~tn/:lje,-so'!.~_~It:!~ ".:~X fin,! ~"':~~__014.7 77144 r<;:-:'~f-{O-') 1-,/.4-'-3-'7 0_ ___ __. ___ ._ .

12:1ITi2D;s:-f:~~ ',,_, II. ." . . :;" .. .. '.

'__ -E_!:l. ~_~-~E]·~. illc"I;_[I __ @_W __ ._o ______ o_.o _________ _

.... 1.3-.,....,57"'4"'[4'". "Lc1<:"~}l3lliDt~2~+

• I, ",,/t·J

Very dense brown SILTY Iter::! fine-fine SAND -"'ndvery?).~ fine SANDY SILT w/ff, cemen/ed f'r~'3menf.5 -::0:':pz.illJilXill

. vi.

~;J

Dense brown very f'i~e SANOY SILT wifh cemented l~- -,---~- rr--::p:-:R::-:-I~N-T=-E-D---.., . __ fr~gmenfs _ ___ . ____ .. 0 _ o •••.• ______ _ _ ~ 15ibitl4 __ __ _ .0 , 11-29-90 FEB 071992

IMBSEN & ASSOCIATE3. INC_

Engineering Consultants

BR I DGE NO.

24-0168 AVENUE OVERCROSSING

POST MILE

LOG 15.76

'DISREGARD PRINTS BEARING

EARLIER REVISION QATES ~

OF TEST

REVISION DATES (PRELIMINARY

I I I

BORINGS -1

STAGE ONLY) SHEET

l

OF

Appendix III-1

,I

C/) z o a:

UJ

Q.

o C> 0::

o

III

II..

o o z

UJ

C>

UJ

..J

, ,,':1, o

• l'l

I!' ,". ill!iJ []] [[]j CJ <S> [3fS] ..

z o c( U Ii:

iii", C/)-'

~O U'" >-0::

uO Zll..

UJ

f- !Q C/) z o u c _ 2 u.

- M, ~ .5 0 .. Cil a. _

.j

I

I

I.

I., I

"; I I

: :··"Z ,"

I " 1'1 ILl " , . ",.. . . is .. ' ' • I;: . , It:

J ". I~~L ", ,,' ;', ',' ."' __ ~:,' , , "II. ..'/ laJ -, I D'

[ , ", J" w ,_ I i " '.' 'CI .1 I • 0

(II· "I"~

I" I j

I

I I I

I I

Gl

I I r'·-

I 'I~ .

,I.r\ I , I' , , , :ll " , ',' I

I q , 1,1'

'I, '

'I

I' , I , I, I '

, ,I

. Ii-

- - - -'"7 -1- - .-.- - - -.- - - - - -'.~ - - - - - - - - - --. , OIST COUNTY ROUTE

03 50

I , , , , GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONAL

MQ. ----

" I

/\ Y .20 fOO P.O T

'. I, " .I , I

Y L>Y"'"_-=-' __ \ V a .. f>9:5f 40 POT.

~----------------1+9----------------------~----~87'~3~tJ~-------------------------------~+/~~-----"~-

.B',G. • I I,"

1:-. ~. , ·.1

I I I I '

. "'J " JI '~r

" ,I

.' I II

, I (., 'I, : i i'

I

, ,II

, I" , i'

PLANS APPROVAL DATE,

~ .. "" ,.u 1'-' •• I'i":" • ::" ~~';.

7 CAL. 4tf' . ~

NQ A~/!.h.r C"lI',fCS"

AS GUlLT . r~ _. :.".: -;,.-:,. ;:(.7..1. '5"'I'''''~ ... , •. 11

, r ... " I'p,r • c'. " w"~·;.:..' ..<.~-,-'..:".-:;3..c4_·..:..;: I '-_,,,. \ _I 1 ...... _

OATE ___ • ____ . ___ _

It ~ ,,~

-'''' ~'.'.', ~':,-, ............ ~I~ ~~3 ----------; ~~~ . .c:.-------'-------'--.,-r-----:---:--rt-.-,-------I..;O E:L 1.!!If> :t ~ EL 1..!!I6'" E"L '~~

·~J~----------------~~I~-------------!~------II--;~~"u~~~~.~~~~~~J-------------~O ~--- , ... ~--;'f, !lp. ------

~~ n XI~:'+)----.------_+~-'-------------.I,J~z,on ~I\-----:-'~', -'--, --------;--" --\:.~'61 "~I---II.----_-t---------_:__IIO

'fiC'--;~:':--4----------~I--;r-I~ ~_~ ~ ~~-------'---------II-----T~"~"--t-------------------------------7~O 100-,-,--!---------- I'll ;5 / "rH:!l"-.-----------------------)-'I 1- ,"

.1 rl, I' ) I I 'I

~,--~I~',~4_-----------~~~==::~==::=------.--------------~~~~~"~~:;==~~k~~.JI ___________________ ~~r,------- ------------------------;--~;---1-----.~\,.'''-------------------------------~O ", o*)J • • ~

DRAWN,BY

~. TaM~' P€OF'JL&" .'.

" .sET TOP .5 E: I!fOl..T IN ..sc",,-c r·/O' , "

, CONCeETE I!fAS£ EI..ECr.eOLie:e . '.

" r--.~L----~~:-.~ ;:r':r:et' 6f};e' "'<:ii. -,lJ,-, ~ ELEV" ....... .. "'''"' --------------------...:.....----t------,.~' -------------------------------.-80 t:JO--,--+-----IL.-_I~/./O.1 _ -" ~ , , I, ._-I" , I •

, " I::" ;', I I" II, ',,"

I II -', 1',,,,

"I I .' , ~', I' " J I i \'

I ... ': I, "'\":"1,:" , 1'1"

\ .' I, • r'., , •

I,,: II,. ;:. . ::1 ~'".

. " i' ", I, " ill • '1:1' I 'I ' t' .',1 ,. ,I ' ,'. ,\, ~ ,I ,.' , I ',I I"'.' I , \; , , I I "I,. , , '! ) ) f'

, 'I.· I,'," I ..

, ,I • I,~,'

. ,I ·"1 ,'"

,'" I I '.", ," , " ',I,' ,I "

, . , .. ,r·. '

II, \

-' 1--::-:::::-:-":-:::':::=:'~11-1

":;. I PRINT''EP'

fEB '0.7 j992 ·IDIIA"'I!G·C"b2S2-'1.0 ~ , '. '., , [~I~'~.~J~&!~~·\~T.E~3 .. "~i~N~C·.IJi I ' ~e, G:<o5"Z- ""'. ' , ,I" '''.",C'''''', f.;;';';ultalho I " "I 'I

. ' PREPARED FOR THE "

BRIUGE·NU

24-0168 HAZEL AVENUE', OV'ERCROSSING" , , ' ~ 'f

~DE:":'SICH~o:-n:":'~S::-:IOIi-T------'---------- I---~" ------+-------------------,-; fI £LD INVUTI GATOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROJECT ENGINEER POST MILE

'1,5.76…