geotechnical engineering report - reno

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report Lemmon Drive U-Haul Moving & Storage of North Valleys Development

Reno, Nevada

Revised January 30, 2019

Terracon Project No. NB185091

Prepared for:

AMERCO Real Estate Company/U-Haul Int’l

Phoenix, Arizona

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Sacramento, California

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 50 Goldenland Court, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95834

P (916) 928 4690 F (916) 928 4697 terracon.com

REPORT C OVER LETTER TO SIGN


AMERCO Real Estate Company/U-Haul Int’l

2727 N Central Avenue #5N

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Attn: Ms. Sabrina Perez, EIT

P: (602) 263-6502 x516409

E: [email protected]

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Lemmon Drive U-Haul Moving & Storage of North Valleys Development

U.S. Highway 395 North and Lemmon Drive

Reno, Nevada

Terracon Project No. NB185091

Dear Ms. Perez:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This

study was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PNB185091 dated June

4, 2018. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical

recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations and floor

slabs for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions

concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Nicholas Novotny, P.G. Robert Holmer, P.E., G.E.

Senior Staff Geologist Principal Engineer

mailto:[email protected]

Responsive Resourceful Reliable

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT TOPICS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 2 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 3 LIQUEFACTION ........................................................................................................... 16 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 4

EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................ 5 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................... 10 DEEP FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................. 12 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 15

FLOOR SLABS ............................................................................................................ 16 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................. 18

PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 19 CORROSIVITY ............................................................................................................. 23

GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 23

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced

section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the

logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at

client.terracon.com.

http://client.terracon.com/


ATTACHMENTS

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Exhibit A-2 Exploration Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-4 thru A-16 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Test Description Exhibit B-2 Atterberg Limits Test Results Exhibit B-3 & B-4 Grain Size Analysis Exhibit B-5 R-Value Test Results Exhibit B-6 Corrosivity Test Results

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 Unified Soil Classification Exhibit C-2 Description of Rock Properties Exhibit C-3 Seismic Design Maps Detailed Report

APPENDIX D – PHOTOGRAPHY LOG

Exhibit D-1 Site Photographs

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Lemmon Drive U-Haul Moving & Storage of North Valleys Development Reno, Nevada

Revised January 30, 2019 Terracon Project No. NB185091

Responsive Resourceful Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Terracon has completed this geotechnical study for the Lemmon Drive U-Haul Moving and

Storage of North Valleys Development, located at the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 395 North

and Lemon Drive in Reno, Nevada. The project will consist of a new U-Haul self-storage facility

consisting of multiple 1 to 3 story structures, asphalt and concrete pavements, and canopy

structures.

Based on the information developed form this study, the site can be developed for the proposed

development. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:

Subsurface conditions:

o Native subgrade materials encountered at the site consisted of dense to very dense low

plasticity clayey sand to clayey gravel with variable gravel and cobbles to the maximum

depth explored of 10.5 feet.

o Very dense clayey sand with gravel soils were encountered in the northern portion of

the site. Practical auger refusal was encountered on this stratum at multiple boring

locations at depths on the order of 2.42 to 10.5 feet bgs.

o Groundwater was not encountered at any time during our exploration.

Earthwork for this project will include stripping of vegetation, general site grading,

excavation, and fill placement. Near surface sands and gravels encountered during our

investigation were very dense and cemented. Utility excavations for this project will be

difficult and the grading contractor for this project should plan for difficult excavation

conditions. Near surface granular soils encountered in our investigation exhibit low

expansion potential and are considered suitable for use as general purpose fill for this

project. Onsite or imported materials may be suitable for use as engineered fill for this

project, provided they meet the specifications presented in Earthwork.

The proposed 1 to 3 story buildings may be supported by spread footings that bear on

undisturbed native soils. The proposed RV canopies may be supported on either shallow

pad footing foundations or drilled shafts. However, auger refusal was encountered on very

dense cobbly soils at multiple boring locations at depths ranging from 2.42 to 10.5 feet

across the site. Pier drilling, if selected, should anticipate very hard drilling conditions at

this site.

On-site drives and parking area pavements for automobile and truck/RV traffic are

anticipated to consist of asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC). The

Pavement design period is 20 years. The following are anticipated design Estimated

Single Axel Loads (ESAL’s) for onsite pavements:




Responsive Resourceful Reliable ii

o Auto parking and drives: ESAL = 4,710 to 23,500

o Truck and RV drives: ESAL = 89,800 to 288,000

o Heavy truck drives: ESAL = 288,000 to 487,000

Earthwork on this project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation

of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade

preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during

construction. The observation and testing are considered an extension of this study.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1

INTRODUCTION


Lemmon Drive U-Haul Moving & Storage of North Valleys

Development

U.S. Highway 395 North and Lemmon Drive

Reno, Nevada Terracon Project No. NB185091


INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering

services performed for the proposed U-Haul facility to be located at the southeast corner of U.S.

Highway 395 North and Lemmon Drive in Reno, Nevada. The purpose of these services is to

provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

Subsurface soil conditions Foundation design and construction

Groundwater conditions Floor slab design and construction

Site preparation and earthwork Seismic site classification per IBC

Pavement design and construction Lateral earth pressures

Excavation considerations

The geotechnical engineering scope of services for this project included the advancement of

thirteen (13) test borings to depths of approximately 2.42 to 10.5 feet below existing site grades,

where auger refusal was encountered at all boring locations on very dense clayey sands and

gravels.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples

obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and as separate

graphs in the Exploration Results section of this report.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the

field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.





Item Description

Parcel Information

The project is located at the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 395 North

and Lemon Drive in Reno, Nevada

The property is approximately 20 acres in size

Assessor Parcel Number: 570-081-27

Approximate Latitude/Longitude: 39.6089°, -119.8507°

See Site Location

Existing

Improvements

The site currently consists of undeveloped land. Memorial Road traverses

the southern portion of the site.

Current Ground

Cover The site is covered by native vegetation and exposed soil.

Existing Topography

There is a northeast trending drainage that bisects the site. The site slopes

from both the southeast and the northwest, down towards this drainage in

roughly the central portion of the site, where surface run-off drains to the

northeast. There is approximately 52 feet of vertical relief across the site.

We also collected photographs at the time of our field exploration program. Representative photos

are provided in our Photography Log presented in Appendix D of this report.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed in the

project planning stage. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated,

and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided Email received from U-Haul on May 23th providing site map and information.

Project Description

The site plans providing details for the proposed development were

not available at the time this report was written. We anticipate the

proposed new storage unit buildings will consist of 1 to 3 story

structures.

Other improvements will be on-site paved parking and drive areas.

The project may also include canopy structures for recreational

vehicles (RV).

Building Construction The buildings are anticipated to be constructed of wood or light gauge steel framing, and founded on a shallow spread footing foundation system with slab on grade floor.





Item Description

Maximum Loads (Assumed)

Columns: 150 kips

Walls: 10 kips/ft.

Slabs: 150 psf

Grading/Slopes

Finished floor elevation is anticipated to be within 5 feet of existing

site grades.

Minimal grading with cuts and fills on the order of 5 feet are

anticipated.

Pavements

On-site drives and parking area pavements for automobile and truck/RV traffic are anticipated to consist of asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC). The following are anticipated design Traffic Indexes (TI’s) for onsite pavements:

The following are anticipated design Estimated Single Axel Loads (ESAL’s) for onsite pavements:

Auto parking and drives: ESAL = 4,710 to 10,900

Truck and RV drives: ESAL = 89,800 to 164,000

Heavy truck drives: ESAL = 288,00 to 487,000

The Pavement design period is 20 years

Estimated Start of Construction

Unknown

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions

based upon our review of the data and our understanding of the geologic setting and planned

construction. The following table provides our geotechnical characterization.

The geotechnical characterization forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation

of site preparation, foundation options and pavement options. As noted in General Comments,

the characterization is based upon widely spaced exploration points across the site, and variations

are likely.

Stratum Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Description Consistency/Density

1

Undetermined: Borings

terminated within this

stratum at the planned depth

of approximately 10.5 feet

Cemented Clayey Sand with

Gravel to Clayey Gravel

Medium Dense to Very

Dense





Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs shown

in the Exploration Results section and are attached to this report. Stratification boundaries on

the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in native soil types; in situ, the

transition between materials may be gradual.

Groundwater Conditions

The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of

groundwater. The water levels observed in the boreholes can be found on the boring logs in

Exploration Results, and are summarized below.

Groundwater was not observed in the remaining borings while drilling, or for the short duration the

borings could remain open. However, this does not necessarily mean the borings terminated above

groundwater, or the water levels summarized above are stable groundwater levels.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff

and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater

levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than

the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be

considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Native subgrade materials consist of very dense clayey sands and gravels. Excavations through

this material will be very difficult and may require the use of heavy equipment including, but not

limited to, pneumatic hammers and ripping teeth to achieve the proposed site grades.

Native clayey sands exhibit low plasticity and may be suitable for use as engineered fill beneath

structures, provided they are processed to conform to the requirements for engineered fill

presented in this report. Additional site preparation recommendations including subgrade

improvement and fill placement are provided in the Earthwork section.

The proposed structures may be supported on dense native clayey sand and gravel soils. The

Shallow Foundations section addresses support of the building bearing on native soils or

engineered fill. The Floor Slabs section addresses slab-on-grade support of the building.

Pole supported carport canopy structures are typically supported on drilled piers. Pier drilling will

be very difficult where hard soils are encountered. We are providing recommendations for both

pier and pad foundations for these structures.

Both rigid and flexible pavements are recommended for this site. The Pavements section





addresses the design of pavement systems.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork will include clearing and grubbing, excavations, over excavation of undocumented fill,

and fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of

specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria as necessary to

render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations,

floor slabs, and pavements.

Site Preparation

Prior to placing fill, existing vegetation and root mat should be removed. Complete stripping of the

topsoil should be performed in the proposed building and parking/driveway areas.

The subgrade should be proof-rolled with an adequately loaded vehicle such as a fully loaded

tandem axle dump truck. The proof-rolling should be performed under the direction of the

Geotechnical Engineer. Areas excessively deflecting under the proof-roll should be delineated

and subsequently addressed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Such areas should either be removed

or modified by stabilizing with lime. Excessively wet or dry material should either be removed or

moisture conditioned and recompacted.

Site Grading

As noted in Geotechnical Characterization, native soils at the site consist of cemented sands

with variable gravel and cobbles and will likely necessitate the use of specialty excavation

methods. Such methods may include, but are not limited to ripping teeth or pneumatic hammer

excavation depending on the density of the material being cut. The material that is likely to present

the most difficulty during site grading is the very dense clayey sand with gravel encountered on

the northern portion of the site.

Non-expansive materials cut from the existing slopes may be stockpiled for reuse in fill areas if

desired. Native clayey sands exhibit low plasticity and may be suitable for use as engineered fill

beneath structures, provided they are processed to conform to the requirements for engineered

fill presented in this report.





Fill Material Types

All general purpose fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and

fragments not larger than four inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-

graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical

engineer.

Approved imported materials or onsite fill materials with low volume change properties may be

used as fill material for general site grading and as compacted non-expansive engineered fill

beneath floor slabs.

Materials cut from the native clayey sand with gravel and cobbles will likely require additional

efforts to sufficiently process this material so that is meets the specifications for engineered fill

provided in this report.

Fill required to achieve design grade should be classified as engineered fill and general fill.

Engineered fill is defined as material used within 10 feet of structures, pavements, or constructed

slopes. General fill material is used to achieve grade outside of these areas. Earthen materials

used for engineered and general fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Soil Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Parameters (for Engineered Fill)

Low Plasticity Cohesive

CL,CL-ML,

ML, SM, SC

Liquid Limit less than 35, plasticity index less than 15

High Plasticity

Cohesive 2

CH, MH Not recommended for this project

Granular GW, GP, GM, GC,

SW, SP, SM, SC Less than 40% passing the No. 200 Sieve

On-Site Soils SC, GC

Onsite soils may be used as engineered fill provided that all organic materials and inert

materials greater than 3 inches in any dimension are removed.

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. An appropriate factor of safety has been applied. These bearing pressures can be increased by 1/3 for transient loads unless those loads have been factored to account for transient conditions. Values assume that exterior grades are no steeper than 20% within 10 feet of structure.

2. Values provided are for maximum loads noted in Project Description.

Non-expansive engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using

equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities

throughout the lift. Fill lifts should not exceed eight inches in loose thickness.





Fill Compaction Requirements

Compaction requirements for other structural and general fill should meet the following

compaction requirements.

Item Engineered Fill General Fill

Maximum Lift Thickness

8 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy,

self-propelled compaction equipment is used

4 to 6 inches loose thickness when hand-guided

equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor)

is used

Same as Structural Fill

Minimum compaction

Requirements 1,2

95% of Max. below foundations and in pavement areas

90% of max.

Water Content

Range 1

Low plasticity cohesive: -1% to +3% of optimum

High plasticity cohesive: not recommended for

this site

Granular: -1% to +3% of optimum

As required to achieve min. compaction requirements

1. The maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM 1557).

2. High plasticity cohesive fill should not be sued at this site.

Grading and Drainage

All final grades must provide effective drainage away from the building improvements during and

after construction. Water permitted to pond next to the building can result in greater soil

movements than those discussed in this report. These greater movements can result in

unacceptable differential floor slab movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks.

Estimated movements described in this report are based on effective drainage for the life of the

structure and cannot be relied upon if effective drainage is not maintained.

Exposed ground should be sloped at least 2 percent away from the building extending a minimum

of 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the building. After building construction and landscaping, we

recommend the Civil Engineer/Surveyor verify final grades to document that effective drainage

has been achieved. Grades around the structure should also be periodically inspected and

adjusted as necessary, as part of the structure’s maintenance program.

Planters located within 10 feet of the structure should be self-contained to prevent water

accessing the building and pavement subgrade soils. Locate sprinkler mains and spray heads a

minimum of 5 feet away from the building line. Collect roof runoff in drains or gutters. Discharge





roof drains and downspouts onto pavements which slope away from the building or extend down

spouts a minimum of 10 feet away from the structure.

Downspouts, roof drains or scuppers should discharge into splash blocks or extensions when the

ground surface beneath such features is not protected by exterior slabs or paving. Sprinkler

systems should not be installed within 5 feet of foundation walls. Landscaped irrigation adjacent

to the foundation system should be minimized or eliminated.

Estimated Percolation Rates

Percolation testing was not performed as part of our scope. We were requested to estimate

percolation rates in the vicinity of our Borings B-05 and B-08, based on our experience and

judgement. The native subgrade materials encountered in these borings consisted of 2.5 to 3.0

feet of clayey sand overlying cemented clayey sands and gravels. Percolations rates in the

surficial clayey sands (upper 2.5 to 3.0 feet) are anticipated to be on the order of 30~60

minutes/inch. Percolation rates in the underlying cemented materials are anticipated to be over

120 minutes/inch.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

As noted in Geotechnical Characterization, native soils at the site consist of cemented sands

with variable gravel and cobbles and may necessitate the use of specialty excavation methods.

Such methods may include, but are not limited to ripping teeth or pneumatic hammer excavation

depending on the density of the material being cut. The material that is likely to present the most

difficulty during site grading is the very dense clayey sand with gravel encountered on the northern

portion of the site.

At the time of our study, moisture contents of the surface and near-surface native soils ranged

from 2 to 16 percent. Based on these moisture contents, some moisture conditioning may be

needed for the project.

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture

content prior to construction of the floor slab. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade

should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of

surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become

desiccated, saturated, frozen, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these

materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted prior to floor slab and

pavement construction.

Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during construction.

Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the





building and pavement areas. Any water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas

should be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. Surface water control in

the form of sloping surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and sump pits and pumps will be

important to avoid ponding and associated delays due to precipitation and seepage.

Groundwater was not encountered in our borings during our exploration. Based on our

understanding of the proposed development, we do not expect groundwater to affect construction.

If groundwater is encountered during construction, some form of temporary or permanent

dewatering may be required. Conventional dewatering methods, such as pumping from sumps,

should likely be adequate for temporary removal of any groundwater encountered during

excavation at the site. Well points would likely be required for significant groundwater flow, or

where excavations penetrate groundwater.

All excavations should be sloped or braced as required by OSHA regulations to provide stability

and safe working conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading

operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and

constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the

excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All

excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including

the current Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trench Safety

Standards.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Monitoring should include documentation of adequate removal of vegetation and top soil, proof-

rolling and mitigation of areas delineated by the proof-roll to require mitigation.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked as necessary until approved

by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested

for density and water content at a frequency of at least one test for every 2,500 square feet of

compacted fill in the building areas and 5,000 square feet in pavement areas. One density and

water content test for every 50 linear feet of compacted utility trench backfill.

In areas of foundation excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated under the direction

of the Geotechnical Engineer. In the event that unanticipated conditions are encountered, the

Geotechnical Engineer should prescribe mitigation options.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the

continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the

continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including

assessing variations and associated design changes.





SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

The proposed structures may be supported on shallow spread footing foundations bearing directly

on native clayey sand materials. The proposed RV canopies may be supported on either shallow

pad foundations or drilled shafts bearing on native soils.

If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the

following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations.

Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

Item Description

Maximum Net Allowable Bearing

pressure 1, 2

4,000 psf

Required Bearing Stratum 3 Native Clayey Sand Soils

Minimum Foundation Dimensions Columns: 12 inches

Continuous: 24 inches

Ultimate Passive Resistance 4

(equivalent fluid pressures) 400

Ultimate Coefficient of Sliding Friction 5

Cohesive: not encountered

Granular: 0.40

Minimum Embedment below

Finished Grade 6

Internal Footings: 12 inches

External Footings: 24 inches

Washoe County Frost Depth 24 inches

Estimated Total Settlement from

Structural Loads 2

Less than about 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement 2, 7

About 2/3 of total settlement





Item Description

3. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. An appropriate factor of safety has been applied. These bearing pressures can be increased by 1/3 for transient loads unless those loads have been factored to account for transient conditions. Values assume that exterior grades are no steeper than 20% within 10 feet of structure.

4. Values provided are for maximum loads noted in Project Description. 5. Unsuitable or soft soils should be over-excavated and replaced per the recommendations presented in the

Earthwork. 6. Use of passive earth pressures require the sides of the excavation for the spread footing foundation to be

nearly vertical and the concrete placed neat against these vertical faces or that the footing forms be removed and compacted structural fill be placed against the vertical footing face.

7. Can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable soil/materials. Should be neglected for foundations subject to net uplift conditions.

8. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations. For sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade within 5 horizontal feet of the structure.

9. Differential settlements are as measured over a span of 50 feet. 10. A factor of safety of shall be used for uplift resistance.

Foundation Construction Considerations

As noted in Earthwork, the footing excavations should be evaluated under the direction of the

Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose

soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing

soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during

construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the

footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within five feet of the foundations. The

allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. The

design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include

transient conditions, such as wind or seismic. The weight of the foundation concrete below grade

may be neglected in dead load computations.

Additional foundation movements could occur if water, from any source, saturates the foundation

soils; therefore, proper drainage should be provided during construction and in the final design.

Total and differential settlements should not exceed predicted values, provided that:

◼ foundations are constructed as recommended, and

◼ essentially no changes occur in water contents of foundation soils.

Footings and foundations should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress

caused by differential foundation movement.





If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at the base of the planned footing excavation, the

excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils, and the footings could bear directly on

these soils at the lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations. This is

illustrated on the sketch below.

Over-excavation for structural fill placement below footings should be conducted as shown below.

The over-excavation should be backfilled up to the footing base elevation, with engineered fill

placed, as recommended in the Earthwork section.

DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Drilled Shaft Design Parameters

RV canopy structures may be supported on either shallow pad footings designed in accordance

with the specifications provided above, or on drilled piers. Based on the relative density of the

subgrade soils encountered in our investigation, installation of drilled shaft foundations are likely

to encounter very difficult drilling conditions and shallow refusal.





However, should this option be further explored, soil design parameters are provided below in the

Drilled Shaft Design Summary table for the design of drilled shaft foundations. The values

presented for allowable side friction and end bearing include a factor of safety.

Drilled Shaft Design Summary 1, 2

Approximate

Elevation

(feet)

Stratigraphy 3 Allowable Skin

Friction

(psf) 4

Allowable

End Bearing

Pressure

(psf) 5

Passive

Resistance

(psf/ft.) No. Material

2 to 8.5 1 Clayey Sand with

Gravel 600 5,000 400

1. Design capacities are dependent upon the method of installation, and quality control parameters. The

values provided are estimates and should be verified when installation protocol have been finalized.

2. Design capacities can be increased by 33% for highly transient loads.

3. See Subsurface Profile in Geotechnical Characterization for more details on stratigraphy.

4. Applicable for compressive loading only. Reduce to 2/3 of values shown for uplift loading. Effective weight

of shaft can be added to uplift load capacity.

5. Shafts should extend at least one diameter into the bearing stratum (or to a depth equal to the bell diameter

for belled shafts) for end bearing to be considered.

Tensile reinforcement should extend to the bottom of shafts subjected to uplift loading. Buoyant

unit weights of the soil and concrete should be used in the calculations below the highest

anticipated groundwater elevation.

Drilled shaft should have a minimum (center-to-center) spacing of three diameters. Closer spacing

may require a reduction in axial load capacity. Axial capacity reduction can be determined by

comparing the allowable axial capacity determined from the sum of individual piles in a group

versus the capacity calculated using the perimeter and base of the pile group acting as a unit.

The lesser of the two capacities should be used in design.

A minimum shaft diameter of 12 inches should be used. Drilled shafts should have a minimum

length of 5 feet and should extend into the bearing strata at least one shaft/pile/bell diameter for

the allowable end-bearing pressures listed in the above table.

Post-construction settlements of drilled shafts designed and constructed as described in this

report are estimated to range from about ½ to ¾ inch. Differential settlement between individual

shafts is expected to be ½ to ⅔ of the total settlement.





Drilled Shaft Lateral Loading

The following table lists input values for use in LPILE analyses. LPILE will estimate values of kh

and E50 based on strength; however, non-default values of kh should be used where provided.

Since deflection or a service limit criterion will most likely control lateral capacity design, no

safety/resistance factor is included with the parameters.

Stratigraphy 1

L-Pile Soil

Model Su (psf)

2

2 (pcf)

2,3 ε50

2 K

(pci)

2

Lateral

Resistance

(pci) 2 No. Material

1 Lean Clay

(Hardpan)

Sand /

Gravel --- 36° 125 --- 225 400

1. See Subsurface Profile in Geotechnical Characterization for more details on Stratigraphy.

2. Definition of Terms:

Su: Undrained shear strength

: Internal friction angle,

Moist unit weight

ε50: Non-default E50 strain

K: Horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction

qu: Non-default soil modulus – static. Refer to software guidelines for cyclic loading.

3. Buoyant unit weight values should be used below water table.

Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations

Based on the relative density of the subgrade soils encountered in our investigation, installation

of drilled shaft foundations are likely to encounter very difficult drilling conditions and shallow

refusal.

To prevent collapse of the sidewalls, the use of temporary steel casing and/or slurry drilling

procedures may be required for construction of the drilled shaft foundations. Significant seepage

could occur in case of excavations penetrating water-bearing sandy soil and/or highly broken

bedrock layers. The drilled shaft contractor and foundation design engineer should be informed

of these risks.

The drilled shaft installation process should be performed under the direction of the Geotechnical

Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer should document the shaft installation process including

soil/rock and groundwater conditions encountered, consistency with expected conditions, and

details of the installed shaft.





SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design

Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted

average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear

strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7-10.

DESCRIPTION VALUE

2015 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) 1 C

Site Latitude N 39.6088°

Site Longitude W -119.8506º

Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.562g

S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.519g

SMS Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral

Response Acceleration Value (Short Period), SMS

1.562g

SM1 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral

Response Acceleration Value (1-Second Period), SM1

0.675g

Design Spectral Acceleration Value (Short Period), SDS 1.041g

Design Spectral Acceleration Value (1-Second Period), SD1 0.450g

1Note: The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for

seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. Borings extended

to a maximum depth of 10.5 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that similar soils continue below the maximum

depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be necessary to confirm and/or modify the

above site class.

The site is located in western Nevada, which is a seismically active area. The type and magnitude

of seismic hazards affecting the site are dependent on the distance to causative faults, the

intensity, and the magnitude of the seismic event. The table below indicates the distance of the

fault zones and the associated maximum credible earthquake that can be produced by nearby

seismic events, as calculated using the USGS Unified Hazard Tool.

Characteristics and Estimated Earthquakes for Regional Faults

Fault Name

Percent

Contribution

(%)

Approximate

Distance to Site

(kilometers)

Maximum Credible

Earthquake (MCE)

Magnitude

Peavine Peak 50 14.10 4.39 6.33

Mount Rose 50 3.36 13.72 6.87

Freds Mountain 50 2.44 1.41 6.74





Based on the ASCE 7-10 Standard, the peak ground acceleration (PGAM) at the subject site

approximately 0.592g. the mean magnitude for the site based on the USGS design maps Unified

Hazard Tool is 6.52 for this site. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault

Zone based on our review of the State Fault Hazard Maps 1.

LIQUEFACTION

Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation of high pore water

pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear strength. Liquefaction is

typically a hazard where loose sandy soils exist below groundwater. The United States Geological

Survey has designated certain areas as potential liquefaction Susceptibility zones. These areas

are considered at risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon

mapped surficial deposits and the presence of a relatively shallow water table. The project site is

not located within a potential liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the United States

Geological Survey (USGS).

A liquefaction analysis was not part of our scope of services; however, based on the, density of

subgrade soils, and the relative depth to groundwater at this site, we conclude that the potential

for liquefaction at this site is low. Therefore, other seismically induced hazards, such as lateral

spreading, should also be considered low.

FLOOR SLABS

Design parameters for floor slabs assume the requirements for Earthwork have been followed.

Specific attention should be given to positive drainage away from the structure and. positive drainage

of the aggregate base beneath the floor slab.

Floor Slab Design Parameters

Item Description

Floor Slab Support 1 Native soils

Capillary Break Minimum 6 inches of free-draining (less than 6% passing the U.S. No. 200

sieve) crushed aggregate compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D 698 2, 3

Estimated Modulus of

Subgrade Reaction 2

100 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loads

1 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), “Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zones of California”, CDMG Compact Disc 2000-003, 2000.





Item Description

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor

slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.

2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the subgrade

condition, the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the floor slab support as noted in this table. It is

provided for point loads. For large area loads the modulus of subgrade reaction would be lower.

3. Free-draining granular material should have less than 5 percent fines (material passing the #200 sieve).

Other design considerations such as cold temperatures and condensation development could warrant more

extensive design provisions.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade covered with

wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will

support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder,

the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding

the use and placement of a vapor retarder.

Saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of

cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual. Joints or cracks should

be sealed with a water-proof, non-extruding compressible compound specifically recommended

for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments.

Where floor slabs are tied to perimeter walls or turn-down slabs to meet structural or other

construction objectives, our experience indicates differential movement between the walls and

slabs will likely be observed in adjacent slab expansion joints or floor slab cracks beyond the

length of the structural dowels. The Structural Engineer should account for potential differential

settlement through use of sufficient control joints, appropriate reinforcing or other means.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

Finished subgrade within and for at least 10 feet beyond the floor slab should be protected from

traffic, rutting, or other disturbance and maintained in a relatively moist condition until floor slabs are

constructed. If the subgrade should become damaged or desiccated prior to construction of floor

slabs, the affected material should be removed and structural fill should be added to replace the

resulting excavation. Final conditioning of the finished subgrade should be performed immediately

prior to placement of the floor slab support course.

The Geotechnical Engineer should approve the condition of the floor slab subgrades immediately

prior to placement of the floor slab support course, reinforcing steel and concrete. Attention should

be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier, and to areas where backfilled

trenches are located.





LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Design Parameters

Structures with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth

pressures at least equal to values indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be

influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction

and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions

are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever

retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement

and is commonly used for basement walls, loading dock walls, or other walls restrained at the top.

The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not

provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls (unless stated).

Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Earth Pressure

Condition 1

Coefficient for

Backfill Type2

Surcharge

Pressure 3, 4, 5

p1 (psf)

Effective Fluid Pressures

(psf) 2, 4, 5

Active (Ka) 0.25 (0.25)S (30)H

At-Rest (Ko) 0.30 (0.30)S (40)H

Passive (Kp) 3.25 --- (400)H

1. For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements 0.002 H

to 0.004 H, where H is wall height. For passive earth pressure, wall must move horizontally

to mobilize resistance.

2. Uniform, horizontal backfill, compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 maximum

dry density, rendering a maximum unit weight of 120 pcf.

3. Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure.

4. Loading from heavy compaction equipment is not included.

5. No safety factor is included in these values.





Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils or low plasticity cohesive soils.

For the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out and up from the base of

the wall at an angle of at least 45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and passive cases,

respectively.

Subsurface Drainage for Below-Grade Walls

A perforated rigid plastic drain line installed behind the base of walls and extends below adjacent

grade is recommended to prevent hydrostatic loading on the walls. The invert of a drain line

around a below-grade building area or exterior retaining wall should be placed near foundation

bearing level. The drain line should be sloped to provide positive gravity drainage to daylight or

to a sump pit and pump. The drain line should be surrounded by clean, free-draining granular

material having less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve, such as No. 57 aggregate. The free-

draining aggregate should be encapsulated in a filter fabric. The granular fill should extend to

within 2 feet of final grade, where it should be capped with compacted cohesive fill to reduce

infiltration of surface water into the drain system.

As an alternative to free-draining granular fill, a pre-fabricated drainage structure may be used. A

pre-fabricated drainage structure is a plastic drainage core or mesh which is covered with filter

fabric to prevent soil intrusion, and is fastened to the wall prior to placing backfill.

PAVEMENTS

General Pavement Comments

Pavement designs are provided for the traffic conditions and pavement life conditions as noted in

Project Description and in the following sections of this report. A critical aspect of pavement





performance is site preparation. Pavement designs, noted in this section, must be applied to the

site, which has been prepared as recommended in the Earthwork section.

Pavement Design Parameters

Design of Asphaltic Concrete (AC) pavements are based on the procedures outlined in the

Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Highway Design Manual. Design of Portland

Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement sections were designed using PCA “Thickness Design for

Concrete Highway and Street Pavements.”

A Design R-Value of 39 was used for the AC pavement designs, and a modulus of subgrade

reaction of 150 pci was use for the PCC pavement designs. The values were determined through

lab testing, and also empirically derived based upon our experience with the describe soil type

subgrade soils and our understanding of the quality of the subgrade as prescribed by the Site

Preparation conditions as outlined in Earthwork. A modulus of rupture of 500 psi was used for

pavement concrete.

Pavement Section Thicknesses

Assuming the pavement subgrades will be prepared as recommended within this report, the

following pavement sections should be considered minimums for this project for the traffic indices

assumed in the table below. AC pavement sections were designed using the CalTrans “Highway

Design Manual.” PCC pavement sections were designed using PCA “Thickness Design for

Concrete Highway and Street Pavements.” As more specific traffic information becomes

available, we should be contacted to reevaluate the pavement calculations.

Typical Pavement Section (inches)

Traffic Area ESAL Range Alternative

Asphalt

Concrete

(AC) Surface

Course

Portland

Cement

Concrete

(PCC) 1

Aggregate

Base (AB)

Course

Total

Thickness

Car Parking

and Drives

4,710 to

23.500

PCC -- 5.0 4.0 9.0

AC 2.5 -- 6.0 8.5

Truck and

RV Drives

89,800 to

288,000

PCC -- 6.0 6.0 12.0

AC 3.5 -- 8.5 12.0

PCC -- 6.0 6.0 12.0





Typical Pavement Section (inches)

Traffic Area ESAL Range Alternative

Asphalt

Concrete

(AC) Surface

Course

Portland

Cement

Concrete

(PCC) 1

Aggregate

Base (AB)

Course

Total

Thickness

Heavy Truck

Drive Areas

288,000 to

487,000 AC 4.0 -- 10.0 14.0

1. Minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days, minimum modulus of rupture of 500

psi/in., 6-sack min. mix. PCC pavements are recommended for trash container pads and in any

other areas subjected to heavy wheel loads and/or turning traffic.

The above sections represent minimum design thicknesses and, as such, periodic maintenance

should be anticipated. The Portland cement concrete pavement should have a minimum 28-day

compressive strength of 4,000 psi.

The estimated pavement sections provided in this report are minimums for the assumed design

criteria, and as such, periodic maintenance should be expected. Areas for parking of heavy

vehicles, concentrated turn areas, and start/stop maneuvers could require thicker pavement

sections. Edge restraints (i.e. concrete curbs or aggregate shoulders) should be planned along

curves and areas of maneuvering vehicles. A maintenance program including surface sealing,

joint cleaning and sealing, and timely repair of cracks and deteriorated areas will increase the

pavement’s service life. As an option, thicker sections could be constructed to decrease future

maintenance.

Concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi,

and be placed with a maximum slump of 4 inches. A minimum 4-inch thick base course layer is

recommended to help reduce potential for slab curl, shrinkage cracking, and subgrade pumping

through joints. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and

shrinkage cracking. Joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled

where necessary for load transfer.

Where practical, we recommend early-entry cutting of crack-control joints in PCC pavements.

Cutting of the concrete in its “green” state typically reduces the potential for micro-cracking of the

pavements prior to the crack control joints being formed, compared to cutting the joints after the

concrete has fully set. Micro-cracking of pavements may lead to crack formation in locations other

than the sawed joints, and/or reduction of fatigue life of the pavement.

Openings in pavements, such as decorative landscaped areas, are sources for water infiltration

into surrounding pavement systems. Water can collect in the islands and migrate into the

surrounding subgrade soils thereby degrading support of the pavement. This is especially

applicable for islands with raised concrete curbs, irrigated foliage, and low permeability near-

surface soils. The civil design for the pavements with these conditions should include features to





restrict or to collect and discharge excess water from the islands. Examples of features are edge

drains connected to the storm water collection system, longitudinal subdrains, or other suitable

outlet and impermeable barriers preventing lateral migration of water such as a cutoff wall

installed to a depth below the pavement structure.

Dishing in parking lots surfaced with ACC is usually observed in frequently-used parking stalls

(such as near the front of buildings), and occurs under the wheel footprint in these stalls. The use

of higher-grade asphaltic cement, or surfacing these areas with PCC, should be considered. The

dishing is exacerbated by factors such as irrigated islands or planter areas, sheet surface

drainage to the front of structures, and placing the ACC directly on a compacted clay subgrade.

Pavement Drainage

Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond

on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature

pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide positive

drainage within the granular base section. Appropriate sub-drainage or connection to a suitable

daylight outlet should be provided to remove water from the granular subbase.

Based on the possibility of shallow and/or perched groundwater, we recommend installing a

pavement subdrain system to control groundwater, improve stability, and improve long term

pavement performance.

Pavement Maintenance

The pavement sections represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic

maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore, preventive maintenance should be planned and

provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Maintenance activities are

intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the pavement investment.

Maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching)

and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the priority

when implementing a pavement maintenance program. Additional engineering observation is

recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost-effective program. Even with periodic

maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required.

Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive

maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and

layout of pavements:

Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a minimum 2%.

Subgrade and pavement surfaces should have a minimum 2% slope to promote proper

surface drainage.





Install below pavement drainage systems surrounding areas anticipated for frequent

wetting.

Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately.

Seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to

subgrade soils.

Place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter.

Place curb, gutter and/or sidewalk directly on clay subgrade soils rather than on unbound

granular base course materials.

CORROSIVITY

The table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, electrical resistivity,

and pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the on-

site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for

project construction.

Corrosivity Test Results Summary

Boring

Sample

Depth

(feet)

Soil Description

Soluble

Sulfate

(ppm)

Soluble

Chloride

(ppm)

Electrical

Resistivity

(Ω-cm)

pH

B-5 2.5’ GM 18.6 0.0 17,000 7.7

B-11 1.0’ SM 0.0 0.0 37,000 7.1

Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate samples of the on-site soils tested possess negligable

sulfate concentrations when classified in accordance with Table 4.3.1 of the ACI Design Manual.

Concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual,

Section 318, Chapter 4.

GENERAL COMMENTS

As the project progresses, we address assumptions by incorporating information provided by the

design team, if any. Revised project information that reflects actual conditions important to our

services is reflected in the final report. The design team should collaborate with Terracon to

confirm these assumptions and to prepare the final design plans and specifications. This facilitates

the incorporation of our opinions related to implementation of our geotechnical recommendations.

Any information conveyed prior to the final report is for informational purposes only and should

not be considered or used for decision-making purposes.

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical

conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur





between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in the final report, to

provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations

appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are

noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately

notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our scope of services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or

biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of

pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for

such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the

sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and

are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with

no third party beneficiaries intended. Any third party access to services or correspondence is

solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance

upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties.

Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No

warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any

use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there

may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact

excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site

characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering

requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location

of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid

unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

ATTACHM ENTS

ATTACHMENTS

SITE LOC ATION AND EXPLOR ATION PLAN S

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

SITE LOCATION

A-1REV JAN 2019

RH

HP

RH

RH

AS SHOWN

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

Exhibit

185091.ExhibitsDIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION

ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES50 Goldenland Court, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95834

PH. (916) 928-4690 FAX. (916) 928-4694

LEMMON DRIVE 20 ACRES

LEMMON DRIVE & US 395

RENO, NEVADA

NB185091

EXPLORATION PLAN

A-2

NB185091

JREV AN 2019

RH

HP

RH

RH

AS SHOWN

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

Exhibit

185091.ExhibitsDIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION

ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES50 Goldenland Court, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95834

PH. (916) 928-4690 FAX. (916) 928-4694

LEGEND:

B-1APPROXIMATE BORING

LOCATION

B-1

B-2

B-3B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7B-8

B-9

B-10

B-11B-12

LEMMON DRIVE 20 ACRES

LEMMON DRIVE & US 395

RENO, NEVADA

B-13





EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

13 2.42 to 10.5 Planned building area and

pavement areas

Boring Layout and Elevations: Unless otherwise noted, Terracon personnel provide the boring

layout. Coordinates are obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of

about ±10 feet) and approximate elevations are obtained by interpolation from Google Earth

Imagery. If elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend borings be

surveyed following completion of fieldwork.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advance the borings with a truck-mounted rotary drill

rig using continuous flight augers (solid stem and/or hollow stem as necessary depending on soil

conditions). Four samples are obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring and at intervals of 5

feet thereafter. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel

sampling spoon is driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30

inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal

18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT

resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths.

Ring-lined, split-barrel sampling procedures are similar to standard split spoon sampling

procedure; however, blow counts are typically recorded for 6-inch intervals for a total of 12 inches

of penetration. We observe and record groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. For safety

purposes, all borings are backfilled with auger cuttings after their completion. Pavements are

patched with cold-mix asphalt and/or pre-mixed concrete, as appropriate.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information are recorded on the

field boring logs. The samples are placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory

for testing and classification by a geotechnical engineer. Our exploration team prepares field boring

logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs include visual classifications of the materials

encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples.

Final boring logs are prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the geotechnical

engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and

tests of the samples in our laboratory.

EXHIBIT A-3

295 31-21-10

50/4"

performed an offset boring 5' away to confirm refusal materials.Auger refusal encountered at 2 feet.

2.0

2.9

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, low plasticity, brown, withgravel to 2 inches in dimension

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, brown,very dense, with gravel to >2.5 inches in dimension

Auger Refusal at 2.86 Feet

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

Hammer Type: Rope and CatheadStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

Lemmon Drive and US 395 Reno, NVSITE:

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:6" HSA

Abandonment Method:Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: NB185091

Drill Rig: CME 75

Boring Started: 06-18-2018

BORING LOG NO. B-01AMERCO Real Estate CompanyCLIENT:Phoenix, AZ

Driller: ANDRESON DRILLING

Boring Completed: 06-18-2018

Exhibit: A-4

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

PROJECT: Lemmon Drive 20 Acres

50 Golden Land Ct, Ste 100Sacramento, CA

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSGroundwater not encountered

DEPTH

LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

Latitude: 39.6095° Longitude: -119.8513°

Lemmon Drive 20 Acre Self-Storage Development

296

28-41-50/2"

performed an offset boring 5' away to confirm refusal materials.Auger refusal encountered at 1.5 feet.

2.7

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, brown,medium dense, with gravel to 2.5 inches in dimension

tan to gray, very dense, with gravel and cobbles to >2.5 inches in dimension


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-5







DEPTH




10 10912-19-22

28-50/3"


3.0

4.0

4.8

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, brown, medium dense, with gravel to 1.5 inches in dimension

CLAYEY SAND (SC), with fine gravel, fine to coarse grained, subangular, lowplasticity, brown to orange, medium dense to dense, weak cementation

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), fine to coarse grained, angular, tan to orange, dense,moderate cementation, gravel and cobbles to >2.5 inches in dimension


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-6







DEPTH




328 7940-50/2"

performed an offset boring 5' away to confirm refusal materials.Auger refusal encountered at 2.5 feet.

2.7

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, brown, with gravel and cobbles to 2.5 inches in dimension

subangular, gray to light brown, very dense, moderate cementation, gravel andcobbles to >3 inches in dimension


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-7







DEPTH




49

16

9

94

119

34-50/2"

32-50/5"


2.5

4.5

4.9

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, tan to brown, gravel to 2 inches in dimension

CLAYEY SAND (SC), with fine gravel, fine grained, angular, low plasticity, darkbrown to orange, very dense, moderate cementation

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), fine to medium grained, angular, orange to brown,very dense, gravel and cobbles to >2.5 inches in dimensionAuger Refusal at 4.92 Feet

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-8







DEPTH




305

50/2"

performed an offset boring 5' away to confirm refusal materials.Auger refusal encountered at 1 foot.

0.5

2.7

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, brown,with gravel and cobbles to 1.5 inches in dimensionCLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), fine to coarse grained, angular, gray to tan, verydense, strong cementation, with gravel and cobbles to >2.5 inches in dimension


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-9







DEPTH




3610 37 29-18-1150/5"2.4

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, tan with orange, with gravel and cobbles to 2.5 inches in dimension

fine to medium grained, brown to orange, very dense, strong cementation


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-10







DEPTH




20

10

9

7

12

120

105

124

9-19-22

15-28-30

19-39-50/4"

3.0

7.0

8.3

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, brown, with gravel and cobbles to 2.5 inches in dimension

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium grained, angular, low plasticity, brown toorange, medium dense, moderate cementation, with fine gravel to 1/8 inch indimension

dark brown to orange, dense, strong cementation

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), fine to coarse grained, angular, brown to orange, verydense, strong cementation, with gravel to >3 inches in dimension


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-11







DEPTH




32

6

4

50/3"

50/4"

50/1"2.6

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, light brown, with gravel and cobbles to 2 inches in dimension

light brown to orange, very dense, gravel and cobbles to >2.5 inches in dimension


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-12







DEPTH




13

36

8

9

14

12

101

89

20-50/3"

30-50/3"

35-50/5"

2.5

7.9

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, brown to orange, with gravel and cobbles to 2.5 inches in dimension

CLAYEY SAND (SC), with fine gravel, fine to medium grained, angular, lowplasticity, light brown to orange, very dense, moderate cementation, with gravel to1/8 inch in dimension

strong cementation


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-13







DEPTH




28

2

10 11212-12-14N=26

50/5"

2.0

4.4

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, light brown to tan, with gravel and cobbles to 2 inches in dimension

CLAYEY SAND (SC), with fine gravel, fine to medium grained, angular, lowplasticity, brown to orange, medium dense, weak cementation, fine gravel to 1/4inch in dimension

with gravel, very dense, strong cementation, with gravel to 1 inch


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-14







DEPTH




35

6

12

14

8

10

108

107

120

96

32-21-116-7-17

8-9-16

7-11-29

9-15-41

2.5

7.0

10.5

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, brown to light brown

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium grained, low plasticity, reddish brown toorange, medium dense, weak cementation

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, low plasticity,brown to orange, medium dense to dense, moderate cementation, gravel andcobbles to >2.5 inches in deimension

dense


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-15







DEPTH




38

41

8

9

6

14

9

106

109

88

97

32-50/4"

7-43-50/5"

50/5"

24-42-45

2.5

8.0

9.5

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, lowplasticity, brown with orange, gravel and cobbles to 2.5 inches in dimension

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, fine to medium grained, angular, lowplasticity, light brown to orange, very dense, moderate cementation, fine gravel to1/8 inch in dimension

fine grained, strong cementation

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained, angular, tan tolight brown, very dense, moderate cementation, gravel to >3 inches in dimension


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/1

1/1

8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75





Exhibit: A-16







DEPTH




EXPLOR ATION RESULTS

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING





Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviews the field data and assigns various laboratory tests to better

understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata as necessary for this project.

Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases,

variations to methods are applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards

noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily

applicable to describe the specific test performed.

ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of

Soils

ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

ASTM D2166/D2166M Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of

Cohesive Soil

AWWA 4500H pH Analysis

ASTM D516 Water Soluble Sulfate

ASTM D512 Chlorides

ASTM G57 Minimum Resistivity

ASTM D844 Standard Test Method for Resistance Value (R-Value)

The laboratory testing program often includes examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based

on the material’s texture and plasticity, we describe and classify the soil samples in accordance

with the Unified Soil Classification System.

EXHIBIT B-1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

CH o

r

OH

CL o

r

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTSASTM D4318

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

PROJECT NUMBER: NB185091PROJECT: Lemmon Drive 20 Acres

SITE: Lemmon Drive and US 395 Reno, NV

CLIENT: AMERCO Real Estate Company Phoenix, AZ

EXHIBIT: B-2


LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

. A

TT

ER

BE

RG

LIM

ITS

NB

1850

91

LEM

MO

N D

RIV

E 2

0 A

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 7

/11

/18

0.5 - 2

2 - 2.4

2.5 - 4

B-01

B-07

B-12

USCSLL

29

36

35

10

11

11

21

18

21

31

29

32

Fines

SC

SC

SC

CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

DescriptionBoring ID Depth PIPL

CL-ML

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

3/4 1/23/8 30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

16 20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 10 14 506 2001.5 81 140

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

BY

WE

IGH

T

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM D422 / ASTM C136




EXHIBIT: B-3


LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

. G

RA

IN S

IZE

: US

CS

1 N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/5

/18

SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL SAND

mediumfine coarse fine

SieveSieveSieve

100.086.686.683.282.878.468.358.850.543.637.231.6

100.094.990.385.975.466.458.350.643.237.131.8

100.079.079.077.375.372.568.261.553.845.737.128.8

1 1/2"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#50#100#200

1 1/2"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#50#100#200

1"3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#50#100#200

% Finer% Finer% Finer

0 - 1

2 - 2.7

2.58

% SILT

CC

D10

D30

% SAND% GRAVEL% COBBLES

COEFFICIENTS

coarse

BORING ID

CU

SOIL DESCRIPTION

28.8

31.8

31.6

REMARKS

GRAIN SIZE

DEPTH

0.083

43.7

43.6

46.8

27.5

24.6

21.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

B-02

B-04

B-09

USCS% CLAY% FINES

D60 1.034 1.365 1.288

hepaulo

Text Box

Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

hepaulo

Text Box


hepaulo

Text Box


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

3/4 1/23/8 30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

16 20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 10 14 506 2001.5 81 140

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

BY

WE

IGH

T

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM D422 / ASTM C136




EXHIBIT: B-4


LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

. G

RA

IN S

IZE

: US

CS

1 N

B18

509

1 LE

MM

ON

DR

IVE

20

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

7/5

/18

SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL SAND

mediumfine coarse fine

SieveSieveSieve

100.097.496.893.084.770.456.345.435.128.2

100.096.582.159.841.829.720.213.3

100.081.881.878.074.969.061.554.848.642.536.330.4

3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#50#100#200

1 1/2"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#50#100#200

3/8"#4#8#16#30#50#100#200

% Finer% Finer% Finer

0.5

2.5 - 3.3

2.5 - 4

% SILT

CC

D10

D30

% SAND% GRAVEL% COBBLES

COEFFICIENTS

coarse

BORING ID

CU

SOIL DESCRIPTION

30.4

13.3

28.2

REMARKS

GRAIN SIZE

DEPTH

0.305 0.09

38.6

83.2

64.8

31.0

3.5

7.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

B-06

B-10

B-11

USCS% CLAY% FINES

D60 2.021 1.187 0.717

hepaulo

Text Box


hepaulo

Text Box

Clayey Sand (SC)

hepaulo

Text Box

Clayey Sand (SC)

JOB NAME: JOB #:SAMPLE NUMBER: B-10 Location:SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION:

300 0300 90

NOTES:

39R-VALUE AT 300 PSI

EXUDATIONPRESSURE:

Mid-Southern ParcelNB185091Lemmon Dr. 20 Acres

red silty sand w/rock (gradation prep)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0100200300400500600700800

R-VA

LUE

(ADJ

USTE

D)

EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI)

R-VALUE GRAPH

Exhibit B-5

25712 Commercentre Drive

Lake Forest, California 92630

949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Terracon -- Sacramento

RE: Lemmon Drive - 20 Acres

Sacramento, CA 95834

50 Goldenland Court, Suite 100

Nick Novotny

Alexandra Huerta

Project Manager Assistant

Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 06/28/18 12:00. If you have

any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

02 July 2018

Exhibit: B-6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:


50 Goldenland Court, Suite 100 NB185091

Nick Novotny

Lemmon Drive - 20 Acres

07/02/18 10:39Sacramento CA, 95834



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled

ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES

Date Received

B5-1-1 T182101-01 Soil 06/27/18 00:00 06/28/18 12:00

B11-1-1 T182101-02 Soil 06/27/18 00:00 06/28/18 12:00

Alexandra Huerta, Project Manager Assistant

SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of

custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 1 of 8

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

Exhibit: B-6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:



Nick Novotny


07/02/18 10:39Sacramento CA, 95834



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

DETECTIONS SUMMARY

Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method

T182101-01B5-1-1

Notes

Reporting

Sample ID:

pH 7.7 0.1 pH Units EPA 9045B

Resistivity 17000 100 ohmcm SM2510b/120.1

Sulfate as SO4 18.6 10.0 mg/kg EPA 300.0

Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method

T182101-02B11-1-1

Notes

Reporting

Sample ID:

pH 7.1 0.1 pH Units EPA 9045B

Resistivity 37000 100 ohmcm SM2510b/120.1




Page 2 of 8

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

Exhibit: B-6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:



Nick Novotny


07/02/18 10:39Sacramento CA, 95834



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

ResultAnalyte Limit Batch

Reporting

Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits

B5-1-1

T182101-01 (Soil)

SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods

EPA 9045B7.7 8062820 06/28/18 06/28/18 pH Units 1pH 0.1

Miscellaneous Physical/Conventional Chemistry Parameters

SM2510b/12

0.1

17000 8062834 06/28/18 06/28/18 ohmcm 1Resistivity 100

Anion Scan by EPA Method 300.0

ND EPA 300.006/29/18 06/30/18 mg/kg 80629011Chloride 10.0

"18.6 " " "" "Sulfate as SO4 10.0




Page 3 of 8

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

Exhibit: B-6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:



Nick Novotny


07/02/18 10:39Sacramento CA, 95834



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

ResultAnalyte Limit Batch

Reporting

Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits

B11-1-1

T182101-02 (Soil)


Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods

EPA 9045B7.1 8062820 06/28/18 06/28/18 pH Units 1pH 0.1

Miscellaneous Physical/Conventional Chemistry Parameters

SM2510b/12

0.1

37000 8062834 06/28/18 06/28/18 ohmcm 1Resistivity 100

Anion Scan by EPA Method 300.0

ND EPA 300.006/29/18 06/30/18 mg/kg 80629011Chloride 10.0

ND "" "" ""Sulfate as SO4 10.0




Page 4 of 8

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

Exhibit: B-6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:



Nick Novotny


07/02/18 10:39Sacramento CA, 95834



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Result Limit

Reporting

Units Level

Spike

Result

Source

%REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods - Quality Control


Batch 8062820 - General Preparation

Duplicate (8062820-DUP1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06/28/18 Source: T182099-02

pH pH Units12.4 0.1 12.4 200.0804




Page 5 of 8

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

Exhibit: B-6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:



Nick Novotny


07/02/18 10:39Sacramento CA, 95834



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Result Limit

Reporting

Units Level

Spike

Result

Source

%REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

Miscellaneous Physical/Conventional Chemistry Parameters - Quality Control



Duplicate (8062834-DUP1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06/28/18 Source: T182101-01

Resistivity ohmcm17000 100 17300 152.15




Page 6 of 8

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

Exhibit: B-6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:



Nick Novotny


07/02/18 10:39Sacramento CA, 95834



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Result Limit

Reporting

Units Level

Spike

Result

Source

%REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

Anion Scan by EPA Method 300.0 - Quality Control



Blank (8062901-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06/29/18

Chloride mg/kgND 10.0

Sulfate as SO4 "ND 10.0

LCS (8062901-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06/29/18

Chloride mg/kg248 10.0 250 70-13099.2

Sulfate as SO4 "248 10.0 250 70-13099.1

Matrix Spike (8062901-MS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06/29/18 Source: T182101-02

Chloride mg/kg238 10.0 259 8.53 70-13088.6

Sulfate as SO4 "234 10.0 259 8.07 70-13087.0

Matrix Spike Dup (8062901-MSD1) Prepared & Analyzed: 06/29/18 Source: T182101-02

Chloride mg/kg243 10.0 261 8.53 2070-13089.7 1.80

Sulfate as SO4 "237 10.0 261 8.07 2070-13087.9 1.53




Page 7 of 8

Exhibit: B-6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:



Nick Novotny


07/02/18 10:39Sacramento CA, 95834



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Notes and Definitions

Sample results reported on a dry weight basis

Relative Percent DifferenceRPD

dry

Not ReportedNR

Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limitND

Analyte DETECTEDDET




Page 8 of 8

Exhibit: B-6

SUPPORTING INFORM ATION

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM



UNIFIED SOIL C LASSIFIC AT ION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse fraction

retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes No. 4

sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A”

line J

CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded

sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

EXHIBIT C-1

DESCRIPTION OF ROCK PROPERTIES



ROCK VER SION 1

WEATHERING

Term Description

Unweathered No visible sign of rock material weathering, perhaps slight discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces.

Slightly weathered

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored by weathering and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its fresh condition.

Moderately weathered

Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a continuous framework or as corestones.

Highly weathered

More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones.

Completely weathered

All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.

Residual soil All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed. There is a large change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported.

STRENGTH OR HARDNESS

Description Field Identification Uniaxial Compressive Strength, psi (MPa)

Extremely weak Indented by thumbnail 40-150 (0.3-1)

Very weak Crumbles under firm blows with point of geological hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife

150-700 (1-5)

Weak rock Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty, shallow indentations made by firm blow with point of geological hammer

700-4,000 (5-30)

Medium strong Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife, specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of geological hammer

4,000-7,000 (30-50)

Strong rock Specimen requires more than one blow of geological hammer to fracture it

7,000-15,000 (50-100)

Very strong Specimen requires many blows of geological hammer to fracture it 15,000-36,000 (100-250)

Extremely strong Specimen can only be chipped with geological hammer >36,000 (>250)

DISCONTINUITY DESCRIPTION

Fracture Spacing (Joints, Faults, Other Fractures) Bedding Spacing (May Include Foliation or Banding)

Description Spacing Description Spacing

Extremely close < ¾ in (<19 mm) Laminated < ½ in (<12 mm)

Very close ¾ in – 2-1/2 in (19 - 60 mm) Very thin ½ in – 2 in (12 – 50 mm)

Close 2-1/2 in – 8 in (60 – 200 mm) Thin 2 in – 1 ft. (50 – 300 mm)

Moderate 8 in – 2 ft. (200 – 600 mm) Medium 1 ft. – 3 ft. (300 – 900 mm)

Wide 2 ft. – 6 ft. (600 mm – 2.0 m) Thick 3 ft. – 10 ft. (900 mm – 3 m)

Very Wide 6 ft. – 20 ft. (2.0 – 6 m) Massive > 10 ft. (3 m)

Discontinuity Orientation (Angle): Measure the angle of discontinuity relative to a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the core. (For most cases, the core axis is vertical; therefore, the plane perpendicular to the core axis is horizontal.) For example, a horizontal bedding plane would have a 0-degree angle.

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) 1

Description RQD Value (%)

Very Poor 0 - 25

Poor 25 – 50

Fair 50 – 75

Good 75 – 90

Excellent 90 - 100

1. The combined length of all sound and intact core segments equal to or greater than 4 inches in length, expressed as a percentage of the total core run length.

Reference: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No FHWA-NHI-10-034, December 2009 Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil Elements

EXHIBIT C-2

Design Maps Detailed Report

From Figure 22-1 [1]


ASCE 7-10 Standard (39.6088°N, 119.8506°W)

Site Class C – “Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock”, Risk Category I/II/III

Section 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters

Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontalspectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometricmean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain SS) and1.3 (to obtain S1). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B.Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3.

SS = 1.562 g

S1 = 0.519 g

Section 11.4.2 — Site Class

The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/orthe default has classified the site as Site Class C, based on the site soil properties inaccordance with Chapter 20.

Table 20.3–1 Site Classification

Site Class vS N or Nch su

A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A

B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A

C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf

D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf

E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf

Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics:• Plasticity index PI > 20,• Moisture content w ≥ 40%, and• Undrained shear strength su < 500 psf

F. Soils requiring site responseanalysis in accordance with Section21.1

See Section 20.3.1

For SI: 1ft/s = 0.3048 m/s 1lb/ft² = 0.0479 kN/m²

Page 1 of 6Design Maps Detailed Report

7/2/2018https://prod01-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitud...

EXHIBIT: C-3

Section 11.4.3 — Site Coefficients and Risk–Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake(MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters

Table 11.4–1: Site Coefficient Fa

Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period

SS ≤ 0.25 SS = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS ≥ 1.25

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0

D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0

E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9

F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7

Note: Use straight–line interpolation for intermediate values of SS

For Site Class = C and SS = 1.562 g, Fa = 1.000

Table 11.4–2: Site Coefficient Fv

Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1–s Period

S1 ≤ 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 S1 = 0.40 S1 ≥ 0.50

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3

D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5

E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4


Note: Use straight–line interpolation for intermediate values of S1

For Site Class = C and S1 = 0.519 g, Fv = 1.300



EXHIBIT: C-3

Equation (11.4–1):





SMS = FaSS = 1.000 x 1.562 = 1.562 g

SM1 = FvS1 = 1.300 x 0.519 = 0.675 g

Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters

SDS = ⅔ SMS = ⅔ x 1.562 = 1.041 g

SD1 = ⅔ SM1 = ⅔ x 0.675 = 0.450 g

Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum

TL = 6 seconds

Figure 11.4–1: Design Response Spectrum



EXHIBIT: C-3

Section 11.4.6 — Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ResponseSpectrum

The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by1.5.



EXHIBIT: C-3





Section 11.8.3 — Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for SeismicDesign Categories D through F

PGA = 0.592

PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.592 = 0.592 g

Table 11.8–1: Site Coefficient FPGA

SiteClass

Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA

PGA ≤0.10

PGA =0.20

PGA =0.30

PGA =0.40

PGA ≥0.50

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0

D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0

E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9


Note: Use straight–line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA

For Site Class = C and PGA = 0.592 g, FPGA = 1.000

Section 21.2.1.1 — Method 1 (from Chapter 21 – Site-Specific Ground Motion Proceduresfor Seismic Design)

CRS = 0.934

CR1 = 0.935



EXHIBIT: C-3

Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category

Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter

VALUE OF SDS

RISK CATEGORY

I or II III IV

SDS < 0.167g A A A

0.167g ≤ SDS < 0.33g B B C

0.33g ≤ SDS < 0.50g C C D

0.50g ≤ SDS D D D

For Risk Category = I and SDS = 1.041 g, Seismic Design Category = D

Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter

VALUE OF SD1

RISK CATEGORY

I or II III IV

SD1 < 0.067g A A A

0.067g ≤ SD1 < 0.133g B B C

0.133g ≤ SD1 < 0.20g C C D

0.20g ≤ SD1 D D DFor Risk Category = I and SD1 = 0.450 g, Seismic Design Category = D

Note: When S1 is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E forbuildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespectiveof the above.

Seismic Design Category ≡ “the more severe design category in accordance withTable 11.6-1 or 11.6-2” = D

Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category.

References

1. Figure 22-1:https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-1.pdf








EXHIBIT: C-3

MISC APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX D

PHOTOGRAPHY LOG

Project Name Lemmon Drive 20 Acres Project No. NB185091 Photo Date: 06/18/2018

Photo #1 Boring # 9 South-Western Parcel

Photo #2 Boring # 13 Southern Parcel

Photo #3 Boring # 11 South-Eastern Parcel

Photo #4 Boring # 12 Southern Parcel

EXHIBIT D-1


Photo #5 Boring # 8 Eastern Parcel Photo #6 Boring # 10 Mid-Southern Parcel

Photo #7 Boring # 7 Mid-Parcel Photo #8 Boring # 7 Mid-Parcel (Encountered Refusal on cobble layer)

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

EXHIBIT D-1


Photo #9 Boring # 1 Northern Parcel Photo #10 Boring # 1 Northern Parcel (Encountered Refusal on cobble

layer)

Photo #11 Boring # 3 Northern Parcel Photo #12 Boring # 6 Mid-Western Parcel

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

EXHIBIT D-1


Photo #13 Boring # 6 Northern Parcel (Encountered Refusal on

cobble layer)

Photo #14 Boring # 5 Eastern Parcel

Photo #15 Boring # 2 Northern Parcel Photo #16 Profile north of boring #2

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

EXHIBIT D-1


Photo #17 Boring # 4 Mid-Northern Parcel

Nmnovotny

Typewriter

EXHIBIT D-1

geotechnical engineering report - reno

Documents