36C26118R0214-013.pdf

Reno VASNHCS Parking Garage Design Page 1

PARKING GARAGE DESIGN

VA Contract No.: VA261-16-C-0096

Project # 654-250

For the Department of Veterans Affairs

VA Sierra Pacific Network (VISN 21) VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System

975 Kirman Avenue Reno, NV 89502

Bid Documents Vol. 1: Divisions 1-14

03/05/2018

GUIDON DESIGN INC.

CARL WALKER, INC.

PK ELECTRICAL

AINSWORTH ASSOCIATES

Reno VASNHCS Parking Garage Design Page 2

PROJECT CONTACTS:

OWNER: RENO VASNHCS

Attn: C. Patrick Cassady VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System 975 Kirman Avenue Reno, VN 89502 Phone: 775-326-5788 Email: Clarence.Cassady@va.gov

ARCHITECT &

CIVIL ENGINEERS: GUIDON DESIGN INC.

Attn: Stacey Paul, PM, Civil Eng.

Lindsey Lynch, Arch 905 N. Capitol Ave.

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: 317-800-6388 Email: spaul@guidondesign.com

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: PK ELECTRICAL

Attn: Jason Aviles 681 Sierra Rose Drive Reno, NV 89511 Phone: 775-826-9010 Email: javiles@pkelectrical.com

FUNCTIONAL &

STRUCTURAL DESIGN: CARL WALKER, INC.

Attn: Raymond Smith 8910 Purdue Rd Indianapolis, IN 46268 Phone: 269-381-2222 Email: rsmith@carlwalker.com

MECHANICAL &

PLUMBING ENGINEER: AINSWORTH ASSOCIATES

Attn: Roger Gravelle 1420 Holcomb Avenue Reno, NV 89502 Phone: 775-329-9100 Email: rgravelle@aa-me.com

VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System, Reno NV 03-05-2018 VA: 654-250 Bid Documents Parking Garage Design 12-01-17

00 01 10-1

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VHA MASTER SPECIFICATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 00 01 10

DIVISION 00 - SPECIAL SECTIONS DATE

00 01 15 List of Drawing Sheets 07-15

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 00 00 General Requirements 10-17 01 32 16.15 Project Schedules (Small Projects – Design/Bid/Build 04-13 01 33 23 Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples 05-17 01 35 26 Safety Requirements 02-17 01 42 19 Reference Standards 05-16 01 45 29 Testing Laboratory Services 08-17 01 57 19 Temporary Environmental Controls 01-11 01 74 19 Construction Waste Management 09-13 01 81 13 Sustainable Construction Requirements

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 Demolition 08-17

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

03 11 00 Concrete Formwork 03 15 00 Concrete Accessories 03 20 00 Concrete Reinforcement 03 30 00 Cast-in-Place Concrete 12-15 03 38 00 Post-Tensioned Concrete

DIVISION 04 – MASONRY

04 05 13 Masonry Mortaring 10-17 04 05 16 Masonry Grouting 02-16 04 20 00 Unit Masonry 08-17

DIVISION 05 – METALS

05 12 00 Structural Steel Framing 02-16 05 50 00 Metal Fabrications 07-14

DIVISION 06 – WOOD,PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 Rough Carpentry 10-17

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

00 01 10-2

07 11 13 Bituminous Damproofing 07 18 16 Vehicular Traffic Coatings 07 19 00 Silane Water Repellents 07 22 00 Roof and Deck Insulation 02-16 07 54 23 Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) Roofing 07 60 00 Flashing and Sheet Metal 07-14 07 71 00 Roof Specialties 10-15 07 72 00 Roof Accessories 10-15 07 84 00 Firestopping 02-16 07 92 00 Joint Sealants 10-17 07 95 13 Expansion Joint Cover Assemblies 02-16

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 Hollow Metal Doors and Frames 08-16 08 36 13 Sectional Doors 05-15 08 41 13 Aluminum-Framed Entrances and Storefronts 08-16 08 44 13 Glazed Aluminum Curtain Walls 03-17 08 71 00 Door Hardware 01-16 08 71 13.11 Low Energy Power Assist Door Operators 08-16 08 80 00 Glazing 10-15

DIVISION 09 – FINISHES

09 06 00 Schedule for Finishes 04-15 09 22 16 Non-Structural Metal Framing 05-16 09 63 40 Stone Flooring 10-15 09 91 00 Painting 01-16

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 14 00 Signage 10-15

DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

13 05 41 Seismic Restraint Requirements for Non-Structural

Components 01-14

DIVISION 14– CONVEYING EQUIPEMENT

14 24 00 Electric Hydraulic Elevator 09-17

DIVISION 21- FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 12 00 Manual Dry Standpipe Systems

DIVISION 22 – PLUMBING

22 05 11 Common Work Results for Plumbing 07-16 22 13 00 Facility Sanitary and Vent Piping 09-15 22 14 00 Facility Storm Drainage 09-15 22 14 29 Sump Pumps 09-15

00 01 10-3

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR

CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 05 11 Common Work Results for HVAC 08-17 23 23 00 Refrigerant Piping 02-15 23 81 00 Decentralized Unitary HVAC Equipment 02-11

DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL

26 05 11 Requirements for Electrical Installations 01-16 26 05 19 Low-Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables 01-17 26 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems 01-17 26 05 33 Raceway and Boxes for Electrical Systems 05-14 26 05 41 Underground Electrical Construction 01-17 26 05 73 Overcurrent Protective Device Coordination Study 12-15 26 08 00 Commissioning of Electrical Systems 11-16 26 09 23 Lighting Controls 05-14 26 23 00 Low-Voltage Switchgear 01-17 26 24 16 Panelboards 05-14 26 27 26 Wiring Devices 01-16 26 43 13 Surge Protective Devices 01-17 26 51 00 Interior Lighting 08-14 26 56 00 Exterior Lighting 05-14

DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS

27 05 11 Requirements for Communications Installations 06-15 27 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Communications Systems 06-15 27 05 33 Raceways and Boxes for Communications Systems 06-15 27 08 00 Commissioning of Communications Systems 11-16 27 10 00 Control, Communication and Signal Wiring 06-15 27 11 00 Communications Equipment Room Fittings 06-15 27 15 00 Communications Structured Cabling 01-16

DIVISION 28 – ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 05 00 Common Work Results for Electronic Safety and Security 09-11 28 05 13 Conductors and Cables for Electronic Safety and

Security 09-11

28 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electronic Safety and Security

09-11

28 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Electronic Safety and Security

09-11

28 08 00 Commissioning of Electronic Safety and Security Systems 11-16 28 13 00 Physical Access Control System 10-11 28 23 00 Video Surveillance 09-11 28 31 00 Fire Detection and Alarm 10-11 28 52 31 Emergency Call System 06-15

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

00 01 10-4

31 20 00 Earthwork 07-16

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 05 23 Cement and Concrete for Exterior Improvements 08-16 32 12 16 Asphalt Paving 09-15 32 17 23 Pavement Markings 32 90 00 Planting 08-16

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

33 40 00 Storm Sewer Utilities 12-17

Parking Garage Design 07-01-15

00 01 15 - 1

SECTION 00 01 15

LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS

Drawing No. Title

GENERAL

GI000 COVER SHEET

GI101 CODE ANALYSIS

GI102 LIFE SAFETY PLAN

GI103 BID ALTERNATES

CIVIL

CI001 GENERAL CIVIL NOTES

CI002 PHASING PLAN

CD101 DEMOLITION PLAN

CS101 SITE PLAN

CS501 SITE DETAILS

CS502 SITE DETAILS

CS503 SITE DETAILS

CG101 GRADING PLAN

CU101 UTILITY PLAN

CU501 UTILITY DETAILS

CU502 UTILITY DETAILS

CJ101 EROSION CONTROL PLAN

CJ501 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS

STRUCTURE

SI001 GENERAL NOTES – STRUCTURAL

SI002 GENERAL NOTES – STRUCTURAL

SB100 FOUNDATION PLAN – STRUCTURAL

SB501 SLAB ON GRADE & FOUNDATION DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SB502 FOUNDATION DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SB503 FOUNDATION DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SB601 FOUNDATION SCHEDULE & TYPICAL DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF101 LEVEL 1 PLAN - STRUCTURAL

SF102 LEVEL 2 PLAN – STRUCTURAL

SF103 LEVEL 3 PLAN – STRUCTURAL

SF104 LEVEL 4 PLAN – STRUCTURAL

SF301 BUILDING SECTIONS – STRUCTURAL

SF401 EAST STAIR ENLARGED PLANS – STRUCTURAL

SF402 WEST STAIR ENLARGED PLANS – STRUCTURAL

SF511 CIP COLUMN DEETAILS – STRUCTURAL

00 01 15 - 2

SF521 POST TENSIONED FRAMING DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF522 POST TENSIONED FRAMING DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF531 PT SLAB DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF541 WATERPROOFING DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF551 STANDARD & MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF561 ENLARGED PLAN DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF562 ENLARGED PLAN DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF611 CIP COLUMN SCHEDULE – STRUCTURAL

SF622 PT BEAM & GIRDER DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF631 RC BEAM SCHEDULES AND DETAILS

ARCHITECTURAL

AS001 ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AS101 LEVEL 1 ARCHITECTURAL PLAN

AS102 LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL PLAN

AS103 LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL PLAN

AS104 LEVEL 4 ARCHITECTURAL PLAN

AS105 ROOF PLAN AND DETAILS

AS201 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS202 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS212 DOOR SCHEDULE AND STROREFRONT ELEVATIONS

AS213 CURTAINWALL ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS

AS311 WALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS

AS401 ENLARGED STAIR PLANS

AS411 STAIR SECTIONS AND DETAILS

AS800 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

FUNCTIONAL

AP101 LEVEL 1 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP102 LEVEL 2 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP103 LEVEL 3 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP104 LEVEL 4 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP501 STRIPING & PAINTED GRAPHICS – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP511 SIGN MOUNTING DETAILS – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

MECHANICAL

MH001 LEGEND AND SCHEDULES

MH002 PLUMBING CALCULATIONS

MH101 FIRST FLOOR MECHANICAL PLAN

MH102 SECOND FLOOR MECHANICAL PLAN

00 01 15 - 3

MH103 THIRD FLOOR MECHANICAL PLAN

MH104 FOURTH FLOOR MECHANICAL PLAN

MH105 ROOF MECHANICAL PLAN

MH501 MECHANICAL DETAILS

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TN001 TELECOM GENERAL NOTES & LEGEND & LABELING

TN002 TELECOM DETAILS

TN003 TELECOM ONE LINE DIAGRAMS

TN004 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE CAMERA SCHEDULE AND DETAILS

TN005 DOOR ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DETAILS

TN006 ENLARGED TELECOM ROOM PLANS

TN101 TELECOM SITE PLAN

TN201 TELECOM PLAN – LEVEL 1

TN202 TELECOM PLAN – LEVEL 2

TN203 TELECOM PLAN – LEVEL 3

TN204 TELECOM PLAN – LEVEL 4

ELECTRICAL

EE001 ELECTRICAL AND FIRE ALARM LEGEND, SHEET LIST AND BID

ALTERNATES

EE002 FIXTURE SCHEDULE AND ENERGY COMPLIANCE FORMS

EE003 LIGHTING CONTROL DETAILS AND SCHEDULES

EE004 SCHEDULES AND LOAD CALCULATIONS

EE005 NEW WORK ONELINE DIAGRAM

EE501 DETAILS

EE502 DETAILS

EL101 LIGHTING PLAN – LEVEL 1

EL102 LIGHTING PLAN – LEVEL 2

EL103 LIGHTING PLAN – LEVEL 3

EL104 LIGHTING PLAN – LEVEL 4

EL401 ENLARGED LIGHTING PLANS

EP101 POWER & SIGNAL PLAN – LEVEL 1

EP102 POWER & SIGNAL PLAN – LEVEL 2

EP103 POWER & SIGNAL PLAN – LEVEL 3

EP104 POWER & SIGNAL PLAN – LEVEL 4

EP401 ENLARGED ELECTRICAL PLANS

ES101 OVERALL ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN

- - - END - - -

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED VA HOSPITAL PARKING GARAGE

EAST OF 975 KIRMAN AVENUE

RENO, NEVADA

Prepared For

Mr. Ugljesa Janjic Guidon Design, Inc.

905 Capital Avenue, Suite 100 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Job No. 6876.01-A

May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017 Job No: 6876.01-A

Guidon Design, Inc.

905 Capital Avenue, Suite 100 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Re: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed VA Hospital Parking Garage East of 975 Kirman Avenue Reno, Nevada

Dear Mr. Janjic;

Pezonella Associates Inc. (PAI) is pleased to present this report containing the results of our geotechnical investigation and providing conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the referenced project.

As presented in the attached report, based on the results of our investigation, knowledge of the project area, and understanding of the project, we conclude that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the site is suitable for the intended use provided the recommendations provided in this report are followed during all aspects of project planning and development. The primary geotechnical concern is the existence of approximately 4 to 7 feet of undocumented fill beneath the site, potential areas of near-surface, highly expansive clay soils, an abundance of cobbles and boulders beneath the site, and the presence of remnants from previous development.

We appreciate your selecting Pezonella Associates, Inc. to perform this investigation and trust that the results will fulfill project design requirements. If you, or any of your design consultants, have any questions, please contact us.

Respectfully, PEZONELLA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Joseph E. McKinney, Senior Geophysicist/Geologist

Raymond M. Pezonella, President

RMP/jem 05/23/2017

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED VA HOSPITAL PARKING GARAGE

EAST OF 975 KIRMAN AVENUE

RENO, NEVADA

Prepared For

Guidon Design, Inc.

905 Capital Avenue, Suite 100

By

Joseph E. McKinney

Senior Geophysicist/Geologist

Raymond M. Pezonella

President

Pezonella Associates, Inc.

520 Edison Way

Reno, Nevada 89502

(775) 856-5566

May 23, 2017

Job No. 6876.01-A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION

II DOCUMENT REVIEW

III FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

IV SUBSURFACE SOILS AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

V GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

A. Geology

B. Faulting, Seismicity, and Slope Stability

C. Seismically-induced Liquefaction

D. Tsunami or Seiche

E. Radon

F. Flooding

VI CONCLUSIONS

VII RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Site Preparation and Grading

B. Fill Placement and Compaction

C. Site Surface Drainage

D. Foundation Support

E. Lateral Resistance and Loads

F. Concrete Slab-On-Grade

G. Corrosion

H. Utilities, Trench Excavation, and Backfilling

I. Pavement Sections

J. Additional Geotechnical Engineering Services

VIII DISTRIBUTION

LIST OF PLATES

VA Parking Garage PEZONELLA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Geotechnical Investigation, Job #6876.01-A 525 Gentry Way May 23, 2017 Reno, Nevada

I INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation performed on the proposed parking garage structure to be located east of 975 Kirman Avenue, in the City of Reno, Washoe County, Nevada. The site location is shown on the attached Location Plan, Plate 1. This investigation was conducted in general accordance with our March 3, 2017 Work Order authorized on March 6, 2017.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are founded on selected points of exploration, an engineering analysis of the data acquired during our investigation, and our experience with similar site characteristics. If, during grading and construction, site conditions or project plans are found to vary from those described in this report, PAI should be contacted immediately to verify that the recommendations contained herein remain applicable to the final project design. Accordingly, this report may be revised at any time. To provide project continuity and observe that the provided geotechnical recommendations are followed, we recommend retaining PAI for construction testing and monitoring services.

A. Purpose and Scope of Services

The purpose of this geotechnical engineering investigation is to characterize the site subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed building site and provide appropriate and economic design-level engineering conclusions and recommendations pertaining to these conditions. Our scope of services included:

1. Pre-marking of all borings in the field and notification of Underground Service Alert (USA) for utility location,

2. Field reconnaissance of the site,

3. Review of any previous geotechnical and construction testing and inspection reports in the site vicinity,

4. Exploration of the subsurface conditions by drilling, logging, and sampling within six (6) test borings to depths ranging from 8 .5 to 40.5 feet,

5. Measurement of an in-situ shear-wave velocity profile along one (1) Refraction

Microtremor (ReMi) line,

6. Laboratory testing on select samples acquired from our exploratory borings,

7. Engineering evaluation and preparation of a geotechnical engineering report addressing project design and construction.

Included in this report are conclusions and recommendations regarding:

1. Local bedrock (if encountered), soil, and groundwater conditions,

2. Potential geologic hazards,

3. Earthquake site response,

4. Site grading and structural design,

5. Fill placement and compaction,

6. Site surface drainage,

7. Trench excavation, utility line bedding, and trench backfilling,

8. Foundation support,

9. Lateral resistance and loads,

10. Slab-on-grade support,

11. Exterior concrete flatwork,

12. Corrosion,

13. Pavement sections,

14. Additional geotechnical engineering services.

This report is geotechnical in nature and not intended to identify other site constraints such as environmental hazards, wetlands determinations and/or the potential presence of buried utilities.

Recommendations included in this report are specific to development within the limits of the property and are not intended for off-site development. Proposed development outside the limits of our investigation or any conceptual changes to site development, such as the use of alternative foundations or grade changes, could require additional subsurface exploration, laboratory tests and engineering analyses.

B. Site Location and Description

Our site description is based on our site visits conducted in March of 2017 and conversations with Mr. Ugljesa Janjic of Guidon Design, Inc. (GDI).

The approximately one-acre site is located about 580 feet southeast of the intersection of Kirman Avenue and Belli Drive in the City of Reno, Washoe County, Nevada. The site is currently developed, with a two-story parking structure to the north, Kirman Avenue to the west, and single family residences to the south and east. The proposed parking garage location currently contains mobile office buildings, a delivery receiving building, and a parking lot. Most of the site is paved with asphaltic concrete (A/C) and is relatively flat. Based on the condition of the pavement and utility clearance markings, the site contains numerous underground utilities. These underground utilities appear to be both public and private.

According to the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), the project site is located in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 13, Township 19 North, Range 19 East, Mt. Diablo Meridian. The site is relatively flat, at an elevation of approximately 4450 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), based on Google Earth Imagery and the WGS84 EGM96 Geoid vertical datum. The project site generally drains to the southeast.

At the time of writing, final site plans were not available. We recommend providing PAI with a copy of the final site plans, when available, so that we can evaluate if the recommendations in this report remain applicable.

C. Proposed Development

Information about the proposed development is based on our site reconnaissance, conversations with Mr. Janjic of GDI, Mr. Douglas P. Gannon of Carl Walker, Inc., and a request for Geotechnical Consulting Services Proposal (RFP) prepared by GDI dated February 8, 2017. We also reviewed a 35% Schematic Design plan prepared by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Facilities Management dated May 5, 2017 (Drawing Numbers CD101, CS101, and CU101), and a topographic survey prepared by Tri State Surveying, LTD dated April 2017 (Sheets 1 and 2).

According to Exhibit B of the referenced RFP, the project as currently proposed consists of constructing a four-level parking garage with one at-grade level and three supported levels, containing approximately 300 spaces. Construction is anticipated to consist of cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete (CIP), with up to 62-foot beam spans. The columns will be spaced an estimated 62 feet in the north-south direction, and 23 feet in the east-west direction. An elevator shaft will be located near the northwest corner of the structure. The typical loads (service, not ultimate) for interior columns and exterior columns are 700 kips and 350 kips, respectively. Wind and seismic loads will be resisted by the foundations. Typical exterior basement/retaining wall loads are anticipated to consist of self-weight + lateral soil. Slab-on-grade and wheel loads are expected to consist of 100 psf live load and 3.000-lb wheel load, respectively.

Floor elevations are anticipated to be 11’ 4” floor-to-floor height for the first supported level and 11’ 4” for floor-to-floor distance of typical levels. Typical shallow foundation bottoms are anticipated to be 4’ 0” to 5’ 0” below slab-on-grade.

Total maximum allowed settlement is 1½ inches, and the total maximum allowed differential settlement is ¾ inches. Exterior asphalt concrete (A/C) pavement will wrap around the north perimeter of the structure; the remainder of the perimeter will consist of river rock landscape mulch. Cuts and/or fills needed to achieve finish design grades are anticipated to be minimal.

II DOCUMENT REVIEW

The following documents pertaining to previous investigations within the subject project vicinity were reviewed, with a summary of their findings and conclusions.

Pezonella Associates, Inc. (1993). Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Veteran’s Administration Hospital Expand Warehouse, Reno, Nevada. Job No. 2920.03-A. 27 Pages.

• The upper four to six feet is comprised of fill material consisting of medium dense, clayey sand with gravel and cobbles. Beneath the fill, native soils consist of very stiff to hard clay with varying amounts of sand, gravel, and cobbles to approximately ten feet in depth.

Beneath this depth, dense, clayey gravel with sand and cobbles was encountered to the maximum explored depth.

• A seismic refraction survey suggests that the clayey gravel extends to at least twenty-five feet below existing ground surface (BEG).

• Groundwater was not encountered at a maximum explored depth of 15 feet BEG.

• Based on geologic mapping, no faults have been mapped as crossing the subject property.

• The primary soil and geological conditions effecting development are fill material across the site, moderately to highly expansive clayey soils, and abundant cobbles/boulders.

• Recommended at least 24 inches of structural fill beneath footings, and 18 inches beneath concrete slabs.

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. (2004). Geotechnical Investigation, Veterans Hospital Parking Garage. Project No.: 0748-01-1. 21 pages.

• Site soils consist of a surface layer of clay-rich soils underlain by coarse granular soils.

• Groundwater was not encountered at a maximum explored depth of 31 feet BEG.

• Potentially active Pleistocene faults exist near the project site. No mapped faults pass through the site, and none were observed during exploration; therefore, no additional fault investigation is necessary.

• Liquefaction potential is minimal due to the groundwater depth and material types.

• Highly expansive clay soils exist under the site.

• Recommended at least 2 feet of structural fill beneath footings, concrete slabs, and asphalt pavements (excluding any aggregate base sections).

III FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

A. Field Exploration

Soil Borings Subsurface soil conditions were explored on March 17, 19, and 26, 2017 by drilling six exploratory borings to depths ranging from 8.5 to 40.5 feet below the existing ground surface (BEG). The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted Central Mine Equipment (CME-55) rubber-tired drill rig using an 8-inch outside diameter hollow-stem auger and rope-and-cathead hammer. All of the exploratory borings met refusal on cobbles or boulders.

The test borings were located in the field based on the referenced RFP, locations of underground utilities, accessibility, boring locations from previous geotechnical investigations, and are depicted on Plate 2. Our field geologist recorded the location of each boring using a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. All locations are approximate and considered accurate to within ±15 feet. No greater accuracy is inferred.

Bulk, grab, and relatively undisturbed drive samples were obtained within the exploratory borings.

The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a Modified California Sampler (MCS) with six-inch tubes; grab samples were acquired using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Occasionally, grab samples were taken from the auger flights. Drive-tube samples were obtained using a 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. The number of blows for each 6-inch sample increment were recorded and converted to blows per foot and are shown on the test boring logs, included at the end of this report. Blow counts were corrected for sampler type by multiplying the MCS-obtained blow counts by a factor of 0.63. The soils were visually classified and logged by our geologist in the field following the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D2488.

Logs of the exploratory borings are presented on Plates 3 through 8. A key to the symbols on the boring logs is presented on Plate 9.

Refraction Microtremor Survey PAI performed a seismic refraction microtremor (ReMi) survey at the project site on March 17, 2017 using the SeisOpt® ReMi™ Vs30 method. The purpose of the ReMi survey was to determine the in-situ weighted-average shear-wave velocity (Vs) profile of the top 100-feet (30 meters) of soil beneath the site. Based on the known subsurface geologic conditions at the site, this evaluation was selected to determine the Site Class in accordance with Chapter 16A, Section 1613A.3.2 and Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10.

The ReMi survey is performed at the surface using the same conventional seismograph and P-wave geophones used for seismic refraction surveys (as referenced in ASTM D5777). The seismic source consists of passive ambient seismic microtremors which are constantly generated by cultural activities and natural noise in the area, and active noise generated by walking up and down the line and striking a sledge hammer off the ends of the geophone spread. The data were collected during a series of 28 recording periods, each consisting of one 30-second noise burst at a sample interval of 2 milliseconds. The Vs Model, presented in Plate 20, shows the subsurface shear-wave velocity profile that was developed for the site from the SeisOpt® ReMi™ data.

The resulting subsurface shear wave model for the site indicates that the weighted-average seismic shear wave velocity for the upper 100 feet of the subsurface (Vs30) is 1,409 feet per second (fps). This velocity corresponds to a Site Class of “C” (very dense soil and soft rock), as described in Chapter 20, Table 20.3-1 Site Classification of ASCE 7-10.

B. Laboratory Testing

The samples from our exploratory borings were returned to our laboratory and reviewed by our senior geologist to confirm their field classifications and to select representative samples for laboratory testing. Index tests were performed which were in turn correlated with typical engineering design parameters for similar soils. The following tests were performed:

- Particle size analysis (Plates 10 through 14),

- Atterberg Limits (Plates 15 and 16),

- R Value (Plate 17),

- Expansion Index (Plate 18),

- Corrosion (Plate 19).

IV SUBSURFACE SOILS AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

A. Soils

Most of the site is paved with approximately 4 to 5 inches of asphalt-concrete (A/C) over about 8 inches of aggregate base (AB). The pavement section is underlain by undocumented fill to depths of approximately 4 to 7 feet BEG. The fill consists of brown, moist, medium-dense clayey sand and clayey sand with gravel (SC) with a varying number of cobbles.

Beneath the fill, native soils consist of a layer of stiff to very stiff sandy lean clay or sandy fat clay (CL or CH). Expansion Index (EI) testing on the fat clay encountered in Boring B-6 at a depth of 6 feet resulted in an EI of 165, considered a very high potential for expansion. Below about 7 feet native soils consist of well-graded gravel with sand (GW), silty gravel with sand (GM), clayey gravel with sand (GC), poorly graded sand with gravel (SP), silty sand and silty sand with gravel (SM), and clayey sand and clayey sand with gravel (SC). The soils encountered were generally in a dry to moist condition. Numerous cobbles were encountered, and some boulders.

Based on our field observations and laboratory evaluations, the on-site soils should be excavatable with conventional grading equipment.

B. Groundwater

At the time of our exploration in March of 2017, ground water was not encountered in any of the borings to the maximum explored depth of 40.5 feet BEG. Ground water should not affect construction at this site.

Depths to groundwater may vary significantly over time due to seasonal precipitation and snow fall/melt that may significantly affect surface and near-surface water seepage.

V GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

To delineate possible faulting and to evaluate any other geological hazards on the site, our investigation included a review of available geological literature.

A. Geology

The site is located in the Truckee Meadows, which is a structural basin bounded by Peavine Mountain to the north, Steamboat Hills to the south, the Virginia Range to the east, and the Sierra Nevada to the west. The basin is transitional between the Basin and Range physiographic province to the east and the Sierra Nevada to the west. The geologic structure of the area is characterized by high-angle extensional normal faults trending in a north-northeast direction. The Truckee Meadows is a down-dropped graben with neighboring horsts to the east and west.

According to geologic mapping completed by H.F. Bonham Jr. and E.C. Bingler (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno Folio Geologic Map, 1973), the materials in the general site vicinity are composed of the following:

Qto Tahoe Outwash Gray, sandy, cobble to boulder gravel with lenses of light brown to light gray medium sand and light gray clayey silt. Gravel and sand are well stratified with fluvial crossbedding, and are moderately to poorly sorted. Gravel composed dominantly of well-rounded volcanic and granitic clasts; granitic boulders as much as 3m (10 ft.) in diameter occur in Truckee Meadows and giant Mzv blocks as much as 10 m (33 ft.) in diameter occur at Mustang. Deposits typically occur in terrace remnants and underlie much of Truckee Meadows at shallow depths.

Soil typically has strongly developed argillic B horizon 20-60 cm (12-24 in.) thick.

B. Faulting, Seismicity, and Slope Stability

Faulting The United States Geological Survey (USGS) publishes a Quaternary fault and fold database for use with Google Earth. This database allows the user to view possible faults at or near a location.

The database shows a Latest Pleistocene/Holocene fault associated with the Mount Rose Fault Zone located approximately 500 feet north of the project site. This fault does not trend into the site. In our opinion, no further evaluation of this fault is necessary at this time.

Seismicity The project site is in an area of anticipated strong ground shaking, as is most of California and Nevada.

Slope Stability According to the Earthquake Hazards Map, Reno Folio by E. C. Bingler, 1974, the site is subject to pronounced slumping and ground disturbance along steep cuts or embankments and locally may manifest amplified ground motion during a major seismic event. Due to the relatively level nature of the site and the compact density state of the underlying materials, we do not believe that slumping and/or ground disturbances will impact the site.

C. Seismically-induced Liquefaction

Liquefaction, a loss of soil shear strength, is a phenomenon associated with loose, relatively clean, saturated granular soils (poorly graded sands and silty sands) subjected to earthquake shaking. Liquefaction can result in unacceptable settlements of foundations and other structural elements supported by these soils. According to the referenced earthquake hazards maps, the site is not located in an area susceptible to liquefaction. Due to the generally dense and coarse nature of the outwash soils beneath the site and depth to groundwater, the potential for seismically-induced liquefaction is considered negligible.

D. Tsunami or Seiche

A tsunami, or a seiche, is a great wave produced by an earthquake or by volcanic activity. The difference between a tsunami and a seiche is that a seiche develops in enclosed bodies of water.

There are no large bodies of water near the site; therefore, the potential for tsunamis or seiches is considered nonexistent.

E. Radon

Radon, a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas derived from the natural decay of uranium, is found in nearly all rocks and soils. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that remedial action be taken to reduce radon in any structure with average indoor radon level of 4.0 pCi/L or more. Based on studies completed by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology in cooperation with the Nevada Division of Health and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Radon In Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 108, 1994), most areas of Northern Nevada have the potential for exceeding this active level. Our office can be of assistance if radon testing is desired.

F. Flooding

Based on studies completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Number 32031C3043G, effective March 16, 2009, the project site is within Flood Hazard Zone X (unshaded), which is classified as areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.

VI CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of our investigation, experience in the project area, and understanding of the proposed project, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for development, provided the recommendations presented in this report and subsequent reports are followed during the design and construction phases of the project. The primary identified geotechnical constraints are:

• Approximately 4 to 7 feet of undocumented fill,

• Potential areas of near-surface, highly expansive clay soils,

• An abundance of cobbles and boulders beneath the site,

• The presence of remnants from previous development.

Following are our conclusions.

1. Site soils consist of near-surface potentially expansive clay underlain by granular soils at depth. Cobbles and boulders are present throughout the subsurface.

2. Four to seven feet of undocumented fill was encountered in all our borings. The fill consists of brown, moist, medium-dense clayey sand and clayey sand with gravel (SC) and cobbles.

3. Due to the presence of variable depths of undocumented fill material, the potential exists for foundations to bottom on cut native soils and fill material. Consideration should be given to potential differential settlement which may occur in transition zones.

4. Based on our ReMi Vs30 shear wave analysis, the soil profile corresponds to a Site Class of “C” (very dense soil and soft rock), as described in Chapter 20, Table 20.3-1 Site Classification of ASCE 7-10.

5. The project site is within Flood Hazard Zone X (unshaded), which is classified as areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain

6. There are no apparent geologic hazards that would place unusual constraints on the project; however, strong ground shaking associated with earthquakes should be expected to occur during the life of the project.

7. There are pre-existing structures and infrastructure within the project site, some of which will be demolished or abandoned-in-place. All existing foundations, slabs, pavement, abandoned utilities, underground storage tanks (UST’s), septic systems, etc. should be properly removed and backfilled.

VII RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Site Preparation and Grading

Areas to be developed should be cleared of any existing and pre-existing improvements and vegetation. This includes any pre-existing foundations, slabs, pavement, slabs, abandoned utilities, UST’s, and septic systems. These materials should be removed from the site. Attention should be given to complete removal of root systems associated with landscaping, and all remnant foundations. Any voids created by such removal should be properly backfilled and compacted.

Root layers or organic soils should be stripped as directed by the geotechnical engineer (or their representative in the field). Stripped soil and any excavated soils that are not considered suitable for structural backfill should be removed from the site, or used in nonstructural areas. If expansive materials, existing fill deeper than seven feet, or any unusual soil conditions not addressed in this report are encountered, PAI should be notified immediately.

We understand the bottom-of-footings are proposed be four to five feet below the slab-on-grade.

This will found most of the footings within the potentially expansive clay layer. Footings should not bear directly on this clay. We recommend deepening the footing excavations below the undocumented fill and clay layer to the native coarse-grained soil beneath. All other structural elements should be separated from undocumented fill and expansive clay by at least 24 inches of properly compacted structural fill. Accordingly, we recommend supporting all structural elements and flatwork as follows:

- Remove and replace all undocumented fill material.

- Footings: should be deepened to extend below the expansive clay layer into the coarse soils below, in which case the footings can be founded directly on the existing native coarse soils.

- Interior concrete slabs: underlain by 24 inches of properly compacted structural fill.

- Exterior Concrete Flatwork: underlain by a minimum 12 inches of properly compacted structural fill.

- Pavement Sections: underlain be a minimum 12 inches of properly compacted structural fill.

- Overexcavation depths do not include aggregate base sections.

After excavation, all exposed subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned within 3 to 5 percent of optimum moisture content, and then compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557.

Scarification and moisture conditioning may be waived by the Geotechnical Engineer (or their representative) if it is determined that the exposed materials exist at a suitable moisture content for attaining compaction or contain oversize material which will inhibit compaction procedures and result in a lesser density state. Surfaces which contain oversize material should be “proof-rolled” under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer (or their representative) to ensure that adequate compaction has been attained. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for obtaining approval for each prepared surface prior to proceeding with placement of structural components or fills.

B. Fill Placement and Compaction

Suitability of On-site Soils The upper four to seven feet of the on-site soils (i.e. the existing fill) are considered suitable for use as properly compacted structural fill, provided any deleterious material and/or cobbles larger than six inches are removed. Soils excavated during construction that do not meet the criteria in Table 1 below should be removed off-site, or used in nonstructural areas of the development.

Fill Material Specifications Import soils used as structural fill should be free of organic matter and in general conform to the following requirements:

TABLE 1

IMPORT STRUCTURAL FILL SOIL

REQUIREMENTS

Sieve Size % Passing (by dry weight) 6-inch 100

3/4-inch 70 – 100 No. 4 50 – 100

No. 200 15 – 40

Liquid Limit = 40 maximum Plasticity Index = 15 maximum Expansion Index = 36 maximum R-Value = 50 minimum Non-deleterious to concrete (low sulfate)

The Earthwork Contractor shall ensure that all proposed fill materials are approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to use. Representative imported material samples shall be made available for testing 10 working days prior to hauling to allow for material quality tests.

The recommendations for structural fill are intended as a guideline and define a readily attainable, acceptable material. Adjustments to the specified limits to address the use of other potentially acceptable materials, such as those containing oversize rock or which deviate from the classification requirements, can be made provided: 1) the Earthwork Contractor can demonstrate their ability to place and compact the material in substantial conformance with industry standards to achieve an equivalent finished product as that specified; 2) the Geotechnical Engineer gives their written approval (requires a minimum of 5 working days from request); 3) the Geotechnical Engineer (or their representative) directly observes and approves the placement method; and 4) all parties understand that the Standard ASTM Compaction Test procedures may be invalid for certain material containing oversize aggregate. Compaction approval would only be achieved based on other criteria, such as a performance specification with full-time on-site observation.

This will result in a substantial increase of Technician time and the subsequent the cost of inspection services.

Fill Placement All properly compacted structural fill will be uniformly moisture conditioned to near optimum and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, based on the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557. Lift thickness shall be restricted to 8 inches (maximum loose lift) and individually tested unless the Earthwork Contractor can demonstrate their ability to uniformly achieve the required compaction for the entire placed layer.

C. Site Surface Drainage

Adequate drainage for surfaces adjacent to foundations and improvements should be provided to restrict water from infiltrating into the supporting soils. In order to allow water to drain away from the structure and prevent ponding against perimeter foundations, the ground surface should be permanently sloped at least one-half percent for concrete, one percent for A/C pavement, and two percent for soil. Runoff from roof downspouts should be contained and directed away from the structure. Landscape adjacent to structural areas should be limited and consist of native vegetation utilizing drip-type irrigation.

To mitigate the potential for water to collect within the structural sections and elevator shaft, and to prevent potential buildup of hydrostatic pressure, a provision such as a gravity outlet, French drain or sump pump, should be considered.

D. Foundation Support

Conventional spread foundations should be supported on competent native coarse-grained material.

In preparation for foundation construction, the earthwork contractor shall ensure that field density tests have been performed to document the relative compaction of the upper 6 inches of exposed materials, and shall be responsible for maintaining the recommended moisture content during construction. Preparation of these materials shall be documented prior to placement of structural components.

We understand the footings will be of conventional continuous spread design. We recommend extending the footings below the undocumented fill and native clay soil to the granular native soils beneath. Footings founded directly on these competent, undisturbed, non-expansive granular soils can be designed for a net allowable bearing capacity of 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

This pressure can be increased by one-third when considering total design loads, including wind or seismic forces. For instances where the actual depth to coarse material is deeper than anticipated, the footing may be maintained at the proposed bearing elevation and supported on a Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM, also referred to as “flowable fill”). The CLSM should be designed to mimic the granular native soils. A compressive strength of 50 to 100 psi provides an allowable bearing capacity similar to well-compacted soil. For later excavatability, the CLSM must be kept below 200 psi. Samples of the CLSM should be obtained during placement and tested by PAI according to ASTM procedures. Since CLSM does not need manual compaction, trench width or the size of the excavation can be reduced; as such, placing CLSM does not require personnel to enter the excavation. We do not recommend backfilling beneath the footings with lean concrete.

The lean concrete will be too strong compared to the native soil, and will effectively increase the size of the footing, resulting in a transition, or differential settlement situation.

For structural elements supported by a minimum of two feet of structural fill, a bearing capacity of 3,000 psf may be used. This pressure can be increased by one-third when considering total design loads, including wind or seismic forces.

Estimated total and differential settlement for footings designed for these bearing capacities should be less than 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively.

Seismic Design Parameters

We obtained the site seismic design parameters using the U.S. Seismic Design Maps application.

The web-based application can be found at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php, and is used for determining seismic design values according to ASCE/SEI 7-10 (erratum released July, 2013) and the 2012/2015 International Building Code. Design parameters are presented in the following table:

TABLE 2

2012/2015 IBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

Description Value Latitude 39.51607 deg Longitude -119.79647 deg Site Class C Risk Category IV Short-Period (0.2 sec) Spectral Response, SS 1.832 g Long-Period (1.0 sec) Spectral Response, S1 0.617 g Short-Period (0.2 sec) Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Long-Period (1.0 sec) Site Coefficient, FV 1.300 Short (0.2 sec) MCE Spectral Response, SMS 1.832 g Long (1.0 sec) MCE Spectral Response, SM1 0.802 g Short (0.2 sec) Design Spectral Response, SDS 1.221 g Long (1.0 sec) Design Spectral Response, SD1 0.535 g PGA 0.679 g Seismic Design Category D

Site Classification Based on our exploratory borings and knowledge of the site vicinity, a Site Classification of “C” may be used for design.

E. Lateral Resistance and Loads

Soil Strength Parameters Used in Design For the purpose of our evaluation, and based on our laboratory testing, we have assumed the 1following strength parameters:

Lateral Resistance Resistance to lateral loads can be obtained from passive earth pressures and soil friction against the bottom of concrete foundation elements. For design, we recommend the use of a coefficient of friction of 0.45 with a passive pressure of 325 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid) per foot of depth.

Lateral Loads The on-site existing fill soils are considered suitable for use as retaining wall backfill, provided all deleterious material and material larger than six inches is removed. All backfill materials should meet the requirements of Table 1 Import Structural Fill Requirements. Accordingly, for level backfill using select granular materials, the recommended active pressure can be taken as 35 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressure). For restrained retaining walls, the design at-rest pressure can be taken as 55 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressure). Backfill should extend laterally a minimum 10 feet into native soil.

Retaining Wall Drainage Subsurface drainage of any retaining structures is required to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures behind the retaining wall. Drainage structures should at a minimum consist of perforated 4-inch in diameter drain pipe within 12 inches of drain rock, extended laterally behind the wall, enveloped by drainage fabric. The drain pipe should outlet to proper drainage devices.

Actual drainage design should also incorporate project waterproofing requirements. The design of the system should be performed by the Project Civil Engineer. Moreover, the retaining wall should be designed either with a drainage swale or other mechanism to divert water away from the top of the wall. Water should never be allowed to pond adjacent to any retaining wall.

F. Concrete Slab-On-Grade

In preparation for flatwork construction, the Earthwork Contractor shall ensure that soils have been prepared as recommended and that field density tests have been performed to document that the relative compaction of the slab subgrade is at least 95 percent relative compacted, based on the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557. Preparation of the native soils shall be documented prior to placement of select fill, aggregate base or structural components.

Interior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be supported on properly compacted structural fill meeting the requirements of Table 1, Import Structural Fill Soil Requirements. Structural slab design is the responsibility of the project structural engineer.

To protect the interior concrete slab from distress associated with repeated cycles of heavy equipment use (such as forklift trucks), we recommend installing greased dowels whenever the slab is placed in such a manner that construction joints are required.

For slab-on-grade design, a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) of 150 pounds per square inch per inch may be used for materials meeting the requirement for structural fill.

Due to the potential for seasonal surface water and lateral vapor migration to occur, associated with seasonal moisture change and differences between the building interior and exterior ambient conditions, a vapor inhibitor should be considered if moisture sensitive floor coverings are proposed. Vapor barriers should be designed in accordance with current American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines.

Exterior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

All dedicated exterior flatwork should conform to standards provided by the governing agency including section composition, supporting material thicknesses and any requirements for reinforcing steel.

Exterior concrete flatwork (i.e. curb and gutter, walkways, stoops and patios) should be supported on properly compacted structural fill meeting the requirements of Table 1, Import Structural Fill Soil Requirements. Lightly loaded exterior flatwork, such as walkways, should consist of at least

4 inches of Type II Portland cement concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) with entrained air, underlain by at least 6 inches of compacted (95 percent relative compaction) aggregate base material.

Concrete mix proportions and construction techniques, including the addition of water and improper curing, can adversely affect the finished quality of the concrete and result in cracking and spalling of the slabs. We recommend that all placement and curing be performed in accordance with procedures outlined by the American Concrete Institute and Portland Cement Association. Special considerations should be given to concrete placed and cured during hot or cold weather conditions. Proper control joints and reinforcing should be provided to minimize any damage resulting from shrinkage.

G. Corrosion

Corrosive tests performed on the on-site soils indicate that the material is considered very corrosive to buried metal conduit. Appropriately, protection of buried metal conduit, per manufacturer’s guidelines, is recommended. The soils are not considered detrimental to normally formulated concrete.

H. Utilities, Trench Excavation, and Backfilling

The Earthwork Contractor must comply with the "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction" as directed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA Standards, Volume III, Part 1926, Subpart P) while excavating and backfilling.