PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE DESIGN REPORT - Reno.gov

SKY MOUNTAIN APARTMENTSGITY OF RENO, NEVADA

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE DESIGN REPORT

Prepared by:Reno Engineering Corporation

Silas Callahan, PEOne East First Street, Ste 1400 . Reno, Nevada 89501

October 10,2017

SILAS R.CALLAI-IAN

Exp:12-31-18

C IVIL

PREFACE

This preliminary report determines required storm drain imprr:vements for the conversion of a

commercial parking lot to multi-family development. The site is idr-'ntified as APN 400-040-15. The siteis re-development, with an existing commercial use building converted to RV storage (RV storageconversions is not a part of this project) and parking lot conrrerted to a multi-family apartmentdevelopment.

-5.tt! ' '

','|i,'

i..

.:, '

The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone X per FEMA FIRM Panels 32031C038G dated March16,2009.

This report is prepared in compliance with Reno Municipal Codes, Washoe County Developmentsguidelines, and Truckee Meadows Regional Drainage Manual.

The following narrative details the drainage design concepts and the assumptions made to complete thedesign.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed development consists of 12 apartment buildings with a total domestic unit count of 288 (3

stories and 24 units each) and a club house with pool. The total parcel area is L0.6L acres.

Development surrounding the parcel includes proposed RV storage to the North, single family

residential to the East, existing commercial and future commercial pads to the South and South

McCarran to the West. Currently, the site currently consists of an ersphalt pavement parking lot formerlyused as commercial parking. The parcel generally slopes West to East at approximately 0.8% grade.

Existing private storm drainage infrastructure will be the discharge points of all runoff contributed by

the proposed development. As a conversion from a highly asphaltic parking lot surface to a multi-family

development, total inflow to existing infrastructure is anticipated to decrease. Existing infrastructure

includes a 1-5" ,2!" and 24" point of connection, originally designed to drain the parking lot and aligned

through the adjacent lot proposed as RV storage to the North (2L" and 24"1and the existing commercial

to the South (L5").

ONSITE RUNOFF AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

The contributing area to each of the existing pipes was evaluatecl in the existing and proposed area forthe 100-year event and pipe capacity of each existing pipe estinrated to evaluate compatibility of theproposed development with existing infrastructure. Proposed basins are similar to existing as fullypossible. Based on the preliminary grading plan, NOAA atlas L4 trDF values and a rational coefficient ofO.7 for proposed multifamily and 0.9 for the existing parking lot, all contributories are less in theproposed condition than the existing. Refer to attached calculations for further analysis. 5-year

calculations have not been performed since the 100-year values are more conservative.

Onsite storm drainage shall be based on either the 5-year or 100 year flow, depending on the inletcondition. On grade conditions are typically sized to the 5-year €rvent, while sag conditions without 100year releases are size for the 100 year event flow.

EXISTING DRAINAGE FACITITIES

Each of the existing pipe capacities has been determined based on Manning's formula. The proposed

100 year flow of each basin is less than the pipe capacity. Thus, no adverse condition is observed fromthis development. Refer to attached calculations for further analysis. 5-year calculations have not beenperformed since the 100-year values are more conservative.

tOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

Open area adjacent to buildings will utilize swales for use as LID features and areas large enough forponding will be used to create shallow depth ponds for storm water quality enhancements. Final designwill be conducted using the City of Reno LID workbook and checked for passing conditions on all basins.

IMPACTS OF DEVETOPMENT CONCTUSIONS AND RECOMMEN DATIIONS.

. The proposed development has less impervious coverage than the existing ac parking lot and basins

are similar enough to prevent adversely affect contributing flow to the existing storm drainageinfrastructure. Proposed L00-year peak flows are less than the existing for all basins.

. Existing infrastructure capacity is greater than the 100-year storm flows for all existing pipes utilizedin the design. No adverse conditions are created from the proposed development.

Exhibits and Supports lnformation

. Drainase summary calculation sheet. All pertinent informatic,n regarding site drainage. Thissummary sheet is intended to give the plan reviewer an executive summary of all pertinent sitespecific drainage design inputs and conclusions.

Date I TOltOltTRENO ENGINEERING

Client

Project

Calcs

Checked

200

5.76

PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES

by duration for ARI:

0.1

o.2

0.3

0.5

1.0

2.0

3.0

6.0

12.O

24.O

46.7

72.O

93.3

168.0

240.0

480.0

720.o

1080.0

1440.0

o3bi-l- 037f f-94ry-. l-.-q6lZ*-L*q'8al-o:oiT- oics I o,91lj-e.3Zz-;-9tl----'-'--'t--

--^-:----l--;;,^ I nrqo I n?45

=*i l -0.'e. : i . -.,.-'uq-

j--qoj_g-1j:*gqe't -ea1r-li:e.L{l--'-eq1-r 9 93

j-qs1qryl _0,e1-r- i-is16 ffg+ : :l;-i +#:

0.006 lo.ooztqqoe0.007

3lHr StormGraph the : i-*1001-Y!-- - L-

-;J-----I too Yr' 3 Hr Event

y = 1.0838r0's2

1.5 2.O

i-----lii1|_:---i ritif-=-_-!.l.lilif--Y--i\I'rl_='- _-\--€-I \-

-0.315 !o.seg lq44-n.ruJ_p.rn,q

J_9,?!9[-q$-J- q'{9-i-o'-r99

T o.oss I o.nz 1 o-!24li_-----i o.o74 i o.oss i 0.096i --

---..i.-- .F --_--I o.oes i o.ozs | 0.082

fn.*. f-ors f-gq9qo.o33io.osslo.o4?

!c>acoc

Time of Concentration (hr)

1of1

RENO ENGINEERING

crient '6;;;tre-et I

Project:lSfy rvrnt I

lDFStorm Event: lry3PqlDFParameters: b:11.08381

Storm Factor: I __11Basin lD A (ac.) C

Calced By:recked By:

'' lEozzl I

i= u-t*"')

roc (hr) i (in/hrl A,.c I Q (cfs)

EXISTING

A 4.20 0.90 0.20 3.15 5./ 11.9

B 4.80 0.90 0.20 3.15 4.: 13.6

c 1.30 0.90 o.t7 3.s0 44I.J 4.t

PROPOSED

A s.30 0.70 0.20 3.15 3., tt.7B 4.20 o.70 0.20 3.15 2.1 4 9.2

c 0.80 0.70 o.L7 3.50 0. 6 2,O

Date: LOILOILT

niloH8rxEnil8

Client:Project Mnt

calced ay 'FAE-Ichecked gv 'Fn-l

Pipe Report

tolto/L7

Name Length Manning Slope

ft n ftftPipe Size Pipe Size Depth

inftftDepth/PS Vpeak

Ratio fps

vt/2fps

Flow Full Calc Depth

CfS ft IE UP IE DOWN

7.59 0.43

72-9t 1.30

15.44 !.t2

0.43 0.35 5.19

1.30 0.74 6.07

t.tz 0.56 s.13

6.18

5.37

4.97

SKY MOUNTAIN APARTMENTSGITY OF RENO, NE\/ADA

Preliminary Sewer Report

-rTPrepared bY:

Reno Engineering CorPoration

Silas Callahan, PE

One East First Street, Ste 1400 ' Reno, Nevada 89501

October 10,2017

SILAS R.

CALLAHAN

ExP: 12-31-18

CIVlL

PREFACE

This preliminary sanitary sewer report determines calculated rsewer demand requirements of theproposed project and verifies the capacity of the public sewer systems planned to dischargeinto. The site is identified as APN 400-040-15. The following narrative details the sanitarysewer design concepts and the assumptions made to complete the design.

:

' .'ff o

1 r-r1 . I'

'l,fi

PROJECTI OCATTON

PROJEGT DESCRIPTION

The proposed development consists of 12 aparlment buildings with a total domestic unit countof 288 (3 stories and24 units each) and a club house with pool. The total parcel area is 10.61acres. Development surrounding the parcel includes proposerd RV storage to the North, singlefamily residential to the East, existing commercial and future r:ommercial pads to the South andSouth McCarran to the West. Currently, the site currently consists of an asphalt pavementparking lot formerly used as commercial parking. The parcel generally slopes West to East atapproximately 0. 8% grade.

All onsite sewer will be privately maintained. An offsite line located through apn 400-040-14 isproposed as a part of the project, which will connect to the existing 8" public main located at theexisting entrance of APN 400-040-14.

SANITARY SEWER PEAK DEMAND

The expected sewage flows from the proposed project are calculated based on the domesticunit count, per the City of Reno Public Works Design Manual. The estimated peak flow for theproposed project is:

caD oal2.0-+ x 2BB du * 350# = 20'1,600 gpd = 0.3L cf sdu du-day

Flow contribution from the RV storage must be included as part of the public main demand andhas an estimated flow of:

B.93acres * E,ooo:J4 -^ = 26,790 gpd - 0.04 cf s

acre - day

Prior to the conversion to apartments and RV storage, the site consisted of commercialdevelopment with an estimated contribution of :

19.54 acres. to,ooo;ffi= 19s,400 gpd =0.30 c/s

The expected peak flow increase from the original design and current known acceptablecapacity of public mains to the proposed uses is a 0.05 cfs increase (16% increase). Thisincrease is anticipated to have negligible impact on existing purblic sewer mains.

SANITARY SEWER MAIN SIZING

Using Manning's equation with a slope of 0.4% and coefficient of 0.014, a public main size of 8"will be 50% full and have a velocity of 2.O fps. Since the develcpment is at the terminus of a

public main and downstream slopes are likely greater than O.4o/o, the public main is estimated tohave adequate capacity.

Onsite sewer pipe functioning as private mains will be 6" in diameter, matching the existingconnection of 6". Onsite pipe will be O.60/o or greater, yieldingl a maximum depth of 72o/o at totalpeak flow. While the onsite sewer diameter and depth are outside the City of Reno designcriteria, the selected size is preferred due to increased velocilies. Since the development is atthe terminus of the main, a pipe capaclty of 72o/o is acceptabk: and allows for a 13% upperdeviation from the estimated peak flow. Since the system will be private, City of Reno publicmain design requirements are not required.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development project is anticipated to increase lrewage peak flow from the originalcommercial flow of 0.3 cfs to the proposed flow of 0.35 cfs. This is a minor increase withnegligible impact to existing public mains.

All sewage flow will connect to the existing 6" lateral for the e>:isting commercial building. Allonsite private sewer will be 6" diameter, matching the existing lateral size. While the anticipateddepth is higher and diameter is smaller than the City of Reno Design recommendations, bothare considered appropriate for private mains.

The above conditions are per City of Reno Public Works Design Manual - Chapter lV "Sanitary

Sewer" (January 2009).

Traffic Impact Study Sky Mountain Apartments

June 13, 2017

Page 1 of 9

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED QUICKLY

Why did you perform this study?

This Traffic Impact Study evaluates the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Sky Mountain Apartments project. This study of potential traffic impacts was undertaken for planning purposes and to determine what traffic controls or mitigations may be needed to reduce potential impacts, if any are identified.

What does the project consist of?

The project consists of 288 Apartment units. The project is located on the parking lot of a former K-mart store and the building has been repurposed as a mini-storage facility. As such, the existing infrastructure was intended to serve a major big box retail site and has available capacity for redevelopment. The project will utilize three existing driveways.

How much traffic will the project generate?

The Sky Mountain Apartments project is anticipated to generate up to 1,915 net new daily trips, 147 net new AM peak hour trips, and 179 net new PM peak hour trips.

Are there any traffic impacts?

With the addition of project traffic, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS conditions (LOS “C” or better) under “Existing Plus Project” conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Are any mitigation measure required?

No mitigation measures are recommended since no significant traffic impacts were identified through this analysis and all the study facilities are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS conditions with the addition of project traffic.


June 13, 2017

Page 2 of 9

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Study Area

2. Site Plan

3. Existing Lane Configurations

4. Existing Traffic Volumes

5. Project Trips

6. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Existing Conditions LOS Calculations

B. Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS Calculations


June 13, 2017

Page 3 of 9

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of a Traffic Impact Study completed to assess the potential traffic impacts on local intersections associated with construction of the Sky Mountain Apartments project. This traffic impact study has been prepared to describe existing traffic conditions, quantify traffic volumes generated by the proposed project, identify potential impacts, document findings, and make recommendations to mitigate impacts, if any are found.

Study Area and Evaluated Scenarios

The project is located at the former Kmart/Great Western Marketplace parking lot on Sky Mountain Drive in Reno, NV. The project location and study intersections are shown in Figure 1 and the site plan is provided in Figure 2. The following intersections were analyzed:

Summit Ridge Drive / Summit Ridge Court Sky Mountain Drive / S. McCarran Boulevard Summit Ridge Drive / Project Driveway 1 Summit Ridge Drive / Project Driveway 2 Summit Ridge Drive / Sky Mountain Drive Project Driveway 3 / Sky Mountain Drive / Arbor Ridge Drive

This study includes analysis of both the weekday AM and PM peak hours as these are the periods of time in which peak traffic conditions are anticipated to occur. The evaluated development scenarios are:

Existing Conditions (no project) Existing Plus Project Conditions

Future year scenarios have not been evaluated at this time due to the relatively small size and low trip generation of the project, and the anticipation that no RRIF waiver agreement would be pursued for off-site improvements.

Analysis Methodology

Level of service (LOS) is a term commonly used by transportation practitioners to measure and describe the operational characteristics of intersections, roadway segments, and other facilities. This term equates seconds of delay per vehicle at intersections to letter grades “A” through “F” with “A” representing optimum conditions and “F” representing breakdown or over capacity flows.


June 13, 2017

Page 4 of 9

The LOS for a Two-Way STOP Control (TWSC) intersection is defined by the worst movement delay. The complete methodology is established in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2010, published by the Transportation Research Board. Table 1 presents the delay thresholds for each level of service grade at un-signalized and signalized intersections.

Level of service calculations were performed for the study intersections using the Synchro 9.0 and Vistro 5.0 software packages with analysis and results reported in accordance with the 2010 HCM methodology.

Table 1: Level of Service Definition for Intersections

Level of Service

Brief Description

Un-signalized Intersections

(average delay/vehicle in seconds)

Signalized Intersections

(average delay/vehicle in seconds)

A Free flow conditions. < 10 < 10 B Stable conditions with some

affect from other vehicles. 10 to 15 10 to 20

C Stable conditions with significant affect from other vehicles.

15 to 25 20 to 35

D High density traffic conditions still with stable flow.

25 to 35 35 to 55

E At or near capacity flows. 35 to 50 55 to 80 F Over capacity conditions. > 50 > 80

Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2010), Chapters 16 and 17 Level of Service Policy

The 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (2040 RTP) establishes level of service criteria for regional roadway facilities in Washoe County, the City of Reno, and City of Sparks. The current Level of Service policy is:

“All regional roadway facilities projected to carry less than 27,000 ADT at the latest RTP horizon – LOS D or better.” “All regional roadway facilities projected to carry 27,000 ADT or more at the latest RTP horizon – LOS E or better.” “All intersections shall be designed to provide a level of service consistent with maintaining the policy level of service of the intersecting roadways”.

According to the most recent (2015) data from NDOT’s Traffic Records Information Access (TRINA) database, S. McCarran Boulevard within the study area carries more than 27,000 ADT. All other roadways currently operate under 27,000 ADT. Hence, the 2040 RTP stated level of


June 13, 2017

Page 5 of 9

service threshold specific to this study area is LOS “E” for the Sky Mountain Drive / S. McCarran Boulevard intersection only and LOS “D” for all other study intersections.

However, NDOT strives to maintain LOS “D” or better on all state facilities, which McCarran Boulevard is, therefore LOS “D” should be considered the goal for all studied intersections.

EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

Roadway Facilities

A brief description of the key roadways in the study area is provided below.

S. McCarran Boulevard is a four-lane north-south major arterial roadway in the project area roadway with two travel lanes in each direction. It is classified as a “High Access Control Arterial” in the 2040 RTP. The posted speed limit is 50 mph within the project area.

Summit Ridge Drive is a two-lane east-west roadway with one travel lane in each direction. It is classified as a “Low Access Control Collector” in the 2040 RTP. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) within the project area.

Sky Mountain Drive is a two-lane north-south roadway with one travel lane in each direction and a continuous center turn lane north of Summit Ridge Drive. The posted speed limit is 35 mph within the project area.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks are present on both sides of all study roadways, except that there is sidewalk only on the east side of S. McCarran Boulevard south of Sky Mountain Drive. Bike lanes exist on all study roadways except for Summit Ridge Court.

Transit Service

RTC Route 3 currently operates immediately in front of the project site, as shown in Exhibit 1. Route 3 has a stop at the Sky Mountain Drive / Summit Ridge Drive intersection and at the former Kmart driveway. These stops are not in service when snow is present.

Exhibit 1. Transit Routes

Project Site


June 13, 2017

Page 6 of 9

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Traffic Volumes

Existing traffic volumes were determined by collecting turning movement counts during the AM and PM peak periods at the study intersections on an average mid-week days in May and June 2017. The existing lane configurations and intersection controls are shown in Figure 3 and the existing peak hour intersection traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4, attached.

Level of Service Analysis

Level of service calculations were performed using the existing traffic volumes, lane configurations, and traffic controls. The results are presented in Table 2 and the calculation sheets are provided in Appendix A, attached.

Table 2: Existing Conditions Level of Service Summary

Intersection Intersection Control

AM Peak PM Peak LOS Delay LOS Delay

Summit Ridge Court / Summit Ridge Drive All-Way STOP

Overall B 10.0 B 13.7

S. McCarran Boulevard / Sky Mountain Drive Side Street STOP

Eastbound Right C 19.7 B 13.1

Sky Mountain Drive / Summit Ridge Drive Signalized

Overall A 6.8 A 8.1

Project Driveway 3/ Sky Mountain Drive / Arbor Ridge Drive

Side-Street STOP

Northbound Left A 7.8 A 7.7 Eastbound Approach B 11.1 B 12.1

Southbound Left A 7.5 A 8.0 Westbound Approach B 11.6 B 12.8

Summit Ridge Drive / Project Dwy 1 Side-Street STOP

Southbound Approach A 9.9 B 11.2

Eastbound Left A 7.6 A 7.7 Summit Ridge Drive / Project Dwy 2

Side-Street STOP

Southbound Approach B 10.9 C 16.8 Eastbound Left A 7.6 A 7.7

As shown in Table 2, all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable level of service (“C” or better) conditions.


June 13, 2017

Page 7 of 9

PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC

Project Description

The project is located at the former Kmart site parking lot on Sky Mountain Drive in Reno, NV. The project location is shown in Figure 1 and the site plan is provided in Figure 2. The project consists of 288 apartment units.

Trip Generation

Trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Table 3 provides the Daily, AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour trip generation calculations for the proposed project.

Table 3: Trip Generation Estimates

Land Use Size Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak

Total Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Entry Exit

220 - Apartment

288 Dwelling Units 1915 958 957 147 29 118 179 116 63

As shown in Table 3, applying the ITE Trip Generation Manual trip rates, the proposed project is anticipated to generate up to 1,915 total daily trips, 147 total AM peak hour trips, and 179 total PM peak hour trips.

Trip Distribution and Assignment

Traffic generated by the project was distributed to the road network based on the location of the project, major activity centers, and local roadway connections. The following trip distribution percentages were used for distributing the project traffic:

65% travelling to/from the north to I-80 via S. McCarran Boulevard 5% travelling to/from the east on Summit Ridge Drive 30% travelling to/from the south on S. McCarran Boulevard

Project generated trips were assigned to the adjacent roadway system based on the distribution outlined above. The project trip assignment is shown on Figure 5, attached.


June 13, 2017

Page 8 of 9

Project Access

Three primary access points are proposed for the development, one located on Sky Mountain Drive aligned with and opposite Arbor Ridge Drive and two located on Summit Ridge Drive, as shown on Figure 2. All access points are appropriate as a full access intersections allowing for all possible movements with minor-street STOP control.

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

Traffic Volumes

Existing Plus Project traffic volumes were developed by adding the project generated trips (Figure 5) to the existing traffic volumes (Figure 4) and are shown on Figure 6, attached.

Intersection Level of Service Analysis

Table 4 presents the level of service analysis summary for the “Existing Plus Project” scenario. Detailed calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B, attached.

Table 4: Existing Plus Project Conditions Level of Service Summary

Intersection Intersection Control

AM Peak PM Peak LOS Delay LOS Delay

Summit Ridge Court / Summit Ridge Drive All-Way STOP Overall B 10.5 C 17.1

S. McCarran Boulevard / Sky Mountain Drive Side Street STOP

Eastbound Right C 22.3 C 15.5

Sky Mountain Drive / Summit Ridge Drive Signalized Overall A 7.3 A 9.0

Project Driveway 3 / Sky Mountain Drive / Arbor Ridge Drive

Side-Street STOP

Northbound Left A 7.8 A 7.7 Eastbound Approach B 10.3 A 9.6

Southbound Left A 7.5 A 8.0 Westbound Approach B 12.7 B 14.4

Summit Ridge Drive / Project Dwy 1 Side-Street

STOP

Southbound Approach B 10.8 B 13.0

Eastbound Left A 7.7 A 7.9 Summit Ridge Drive / Project Dwy 2

Side-Street STOP

Southbound Approach B 10.8 C 18.0

Eastbound Left A 7.7 A 7.7


June 13, 2017

Page 9 of 9

With the addition of project traffic, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable level of service (LOS “C” or better) conditions. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project at the study intersections.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is a list of our key findings and recommendations:

Proposed Project: The project consists of 288 Apartment units. The project is located on the parking lot of a former K-mart store and the building has been repurposed as a mini-storage facility. As such, the existing infrastructure was intended to serve as a major big box retail site and has available capacity for redevelopment.

Project Trips: The Sky Mountain Apartments project is anticipated to generate up to 1,915 net new daily trips, 147 net new AM peak hour trips, and 179 net new PM peak hour trips.

Project Access: Three primary access points are proposed for the development, one located on Sky Mountain Drive aligned with and opposite Arbor Ridge Drive and two located on Summit Ridge Drive. All access points are appropriate as a full access intersections allowing for all possible movements with minor-street STOP control.

Existing Level of Service: The studied existing intersections currently operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS “C” or better) conditions.

Plus Project Level of Service: With the addition of project traffic, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS conditions (LOS “C” or better) under “Existing Plus Project” conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Summary of Proposed Improvements: No project specific mitigation measures are recommended since no significant traffic impacts were identified through this analysis and all the study intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS conditions with the addition of project traffic.

The RTC Ride bus stops at the former shopping center driveway should be relocated south to the Project Driveway / Arbor Ridge Drive intersection where the pedestrian demand will be post project. This action is understood to be an RTC function. With potentially higher transit usage at this location, benches may be appropriate at the relocated bus stops.

Figure 1

Study AreaTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

NO SCALE

Sky Mountain Apartments

Project Site

Study LocationsSummit Ridge Dr / Summit Ridge Ct1Sky Mountain Dr / S. McCarran Blvd2Summit Ridge Dr / Project Dwy 13Summit Ridge Dr / Project Dwy 24

I-80S.

McC

arra

n Bl

vd

Summit Ridge DrSum

mit Ridge Ct

Arbor Ridge Dr

2 Sky Mountain Dr

1

5

6

3 4

Sky Mountain Dr / Summit Ridge Dr5Project Dwy 3 / Sky Mountain Dr / Arbor Ridge Dr6

Figure 2

Site PlanTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

NO SCALE

Sky Mountain Apartments

§̈¦80

Figure 3

NO SCALE Lane ConfigurationsTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDYSky Mountain Apartments

1

2

Project Site

Summ

it Ridge Ct

Arbor Ridge Dr

Sky Mou

ntai

n Dr

Summit Ridge Dr

S. McCarran Blvd

6

543

Project Dwy 3 / Sky Mountain Dr / Arbor Ridge Dr

6

Sky Mountain Dr / Summit Ridge Dr

5

Summit Ridge Dr / Summit Ridge Ct

1

All-Way

Sky Mountain Dr / S. McCarran Blvd

2

Free

Summit Ridge Dr / Project Dwy 1

3


4

§̈¦80

1

2

Project Site

1

(6) 8(60) 73(28) 22

69 (71)15 (49)83 (82)

(172) 108(84) 60

(6) 6

162 (382)97 (149)22 (90)


Summ

it Ridge Ct

Arbor Ridge Dr

Sky Mou

ntai

n Dr

Summit Ridge Dr

S. McCarran Blvd

Figure 4

NO SCALE Existing Traffic VolumesTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDYSky Mountain Apartments

AM Volume (PM Volume)

2

(194) 165526 (446)

96 (210)710 (1401)


(1257) 1169(621) 281

5

(229) 75(296) 70

(189) 198

7 (16)60 (68)147 (112)

12 (52)30 (73)54 (85)


(3) 5(145) 181

(49) 53

6

(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0

1 (2)0 (0)12 (6)

7 (13)105 (305)0 (0)


(0) 1(191) 227

(0) 0

6

543

3

(7) 16(607) 327

16 (7)151 (195)


(18) 4(18) 4

4

(5) 7(609) 336

7 (4)160 (198)


(7) 3(7) 3

§̈¦80

1

2

Project Site

Summ

it Ridge Ct

Arbor Ridge Dr

Sky Mou

ntai

n Dr

Summit Ridge Dr

S. McCarran Blvd


Figure 5

NO SCALE Project TripsTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDYSky Mountain Apartments

1

(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0

0 (0)0 (0)35 (19)

19 (75)0 (0)0 (0)


(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0

5

(19) 5(1) 2

(16) 31

1 (3)1 (3)0 (0)

0 (0)5 (18)5 (18)


(2) 4(28) 46(10) 18

6

(0) 0(0) 0

(36) 67

0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)

0 (0)0 (0)10 (39)


(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0

2


(19) 3577 (41)

9 (35)0 (0)

(0) 0(74) 19

3

(53) 13(23) 6

4 (14)28 (15)


(15) 29(4) 7

6

543

4

(4) 1(34) 34

1 (6)21 (24)


(2) 4(6) 11

§̈¦80

1

2

Project Site

Summ

it Ridge Ct

Arbor Ridge Dr

Sky Mou

ntai

n Dr

Summit Ridge Dr

S. McCarran Blvd


Figure 6

NO SCALE Plus Project Traffic VolumesTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDYSky Mountain Apartments

1


(6) 8(60) 73(28) 22

69 (71)15 (49)118 (101)

(172) 108(84) 60

(6) 6

181 (457)97 (149)22 (90)

2


(213) 200603 (487)

105 (245)710 (1401)

(1257) 1169(696) 300

5


(248) 80(197) 72

(205) 229

8 (19)61 (71)147 (112)

12 (52)35 (91)59 (103)

(5) 11(170) 258

(59) 88

6


(0) 0(0) 0

(36) 67

1 (2)0 (0)12 (6)

7 (13)105 (305)10 (39)

(0) 1(176) 227

(0) 0

6

543

3

(60) 29(630) 333

20 (21)179 (210)


(33) 33(22) 11

4

(6) 8(643) 370

8 (10)181 (222)


(9) 7(13) 14

Appendix

Existing LOS Calculations

HCM 2010 TWSC3: S. McCarran Blvd & Sky Mountain Rd


Appendix

Conditions LOS

Calculations



Geotechnical Investigation Sky Mountain Drive, 3475002

Washoe County, Nevada

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 22.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 33.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 34.0 EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................ 35.0 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................ 46.0 GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................... 57.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................... 58.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 6

8.1 General Information ...................................................................................................................... 68.2 Seismic Design Values ................................................................................................................. 78.3 Site Preparation............................................................................................................................. 78.4 Grading and Filling ........................................................................................................................ 88.5 Trenching and Excavation ............................................................................................................. 98.6 Foundations ............................................................................................................................... ... 98.7 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................................... 108.8 Slope Stability and Erosion Control ............................................................................................ 118.9 Site Drainage ............................................................................................................................... 118.10 Concrete Slabs ............................................................................................................................ 128.11 Structural Pavement Sections ..................................................................................................... 138.12 Asphalt Design Life ..................................................................................................................... 13

9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES ................................... 1410.0 STANDARD LIMITATION CLAUSE ............................................................................... 1411.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 15

TABLESTable 1 – Summary of Test DataTable 2 – Summary of ASCE 7 10 Seismic Design ValuesTable 3 – Guideline Specification for Imported Structural FillTable 4 – Allowable Foundation Bearing PressuresTable 5 – Lateral Earth PressuresTable 6 – Structural Pavement Sections

FIGURESFigure 1 – Project Development AreaFigure 2 – Geologic MapFigure 3 – USGS Mapped Faults

APPENDICESAppendix A – Geotechnical PlatesA 1a – Vicinity MapA 1b – Site Map and Approximate Exploration LocationsA 2 – Logs of BoreholesA 3 – Unified Soil Classification and Key to Soil DescriptionsA 4 – Laboratory Testing Results

Appendix B – USGS Design Maps Detailed Report



1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subject property is located in Reno, Washoe County, Nevada and is contained in Section 9, Township19N, Range 19E, M.D.M. The overall property was originally developed for a large retail facility. Thecurrent project consists of developing twelve apartment buildings, with associated parking and driveareas, in what was the parking area for the original development. It is anticipated that the existingpavement will be removed and replaced as part of the overall development plan.

The overall site encompasses a total area of approximately 19.5 acres with approximately 8.5 acres to bedeveloped. The development is bordered by a commercial building and an I 80 freeway east ramp to thenorth, vacant parcels border along the southern extents, Sky Mountain Drive fronts the property to theEast, and South McCarran Boulevard bounds the property to the west. Apparent cuts run along the westand southwest limits of the property. The project site is paved with asphalt concrete. The site slopes atapproximately 1% to the south, southwest.

Soils encountered across the site consisted of medium plasticity clay and clayey sand to the depthsexplored. Although difficult to specifically differentiate, we have assumed the site was graded with abalance of cuts and fills and there is a likelihood fills placed as part of the original grading may be presentwithin the current development footprint. Soil consistency, as indicated by in situ penetration tests, wasconsistent with medium dense soils whether native or fills.

We recommend the foundations be separated by 12 inches of structural fill from the medium plasticclay and clayey sand soils. No structural fill separation is required below the base course for flatwork orasphaltic pavements. Chemical testing of sulfates yielded results in the negligible level; no specialconcrete provisions are required for sulfate resistance.

With the incorporation of the grading requirements standard spread foundations should performadequately for the planned improvements.



2

1.0 INTRODUCTIONPresented herein are the results of Wood Rodgers’ geotechnical exploration, laboratory testing, andassociated geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed development to be located in Reno,Washoe County, Nevada. The assessments and recommendations presented in this geotechnical reporthave been framed, in part, around the surface and subsurface conditions identified by our explorationprogram which was developed to be consistent with locally accepted industry practices regardingexploratory methods and geotechnical investigations for similar type projects. The proposed structures,topography, grading design, soils, and bedrock are all unique and therefore the engineering judgmentemployed by those in responsible charge of geotechnical design considerations, as defined by the Stateof Nevada, is considered the established and accepted standard of care for evaluation and analysesassociated with this report.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions set forth in the InternationalBuilding Code (IBC, 2012) and the amendments and modifications adopted by the City of Reno. Thesedocuments establish the minimum level of structural integrity, life safety, fire safety and livability forinhabitants of dwelling units. Geotechnical considerations for public improvements have been formulatedaround the requirements of the City of Reno and the Standard Specifications for Public WorksConstruction. Performance standards around which our primary recommendations have been framed arebased solely upon the requirements of the referenced documents. Any expectations of performanceinconsistent with, outside the purview of, or exceeding the requirements of the referenced documentsare subjective, a function of materials, design, workmanship, and ownership and unless specificallystipulated or quantified herein are considered in excess to the scope and design standards of this report.

The objectives of this study were to:

1. Explore, test, and assess general soil, bedrock, and ground water conditions pertaining to designand construction considerations for the proposed development.

2. Provide recommendations associated with the design and construction of the project, as relatedto the identified geotechnical conditions and the stipulated design levels and performancestandards established herein.

The area covered by this report is shown in Figure 1 and on Plate A 1b (Site Map & ApproximateExploration Locations) in Appendix A. Our study included field exploration, laboratory testing, andengineering analyses to identify the physical and mechanical properties of the various on site materials.Results of our field exploration and testing programs are included in this report; in consideration of thestated design levels and performance standards, these results form the basis for all conclusions andrecommendations.



3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The site is located on Sky Mountain Drive with thenearest cross street Summit Ridge Drive in Reno,Washoe County, Nevada. Figure 1 presents thedevelopment area which consists of approximatelythe southwestern half of APN 400 040 07. Theproject consists of developing twelve apartmentbuildings and associated parking and drive areas.Structures will consist of wood frame constructionwith slab on grade flooring. Foundation loads areexpected to be light to moderate.

All parking and drive improvements will be evaluatedin accordance with local practices and City of Renodesign standards. Underground utilities will beprovided by a variety of public and private companies. Paved drive areas will facilitate access to thehousing units. Import structural fill will be required as a separation between structural sections and themedium plastic clay and clayey sand soils. Cuts and fills are anticipated to be minimal.

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

The overall site, located in Reno, Washoe County, Nevada, encompasses a total area of approximately19.5 acres with approximately 8.5 acres to be developed. The development is contained in Section 9,Township 19N, Range 19E, M.D.M. As shown in Figure 1, the development is bordered by a commercialbuilding and an I 80 freeway east ramp to the north, vacant land parcels immediately along the southernextents, Sky Mountain Drive to the East, and South McCarran Boulevard to the west. Apparent cuts runalong the west and southwest limits of the property. The project site is paved with asphalt concrete whichis utilized for parking purposes. The site slopes at approximately 1% to the south, southwest. Planters arepresent throughout the project site with curbs, plants and shrubs. The northwestern portion of theproperty is currently being utilized for temporary RV sales and rental business.

4.0 EXPLORATION

On May 17, 2017 seven boreholes were advanced with a truck mounted CME 55 drill rig using an 8 inchO.D. hollow stem continuous flight auger. The approximate locations of the boreholes are presented onPlate A 1b (Site Map and Approximate Exploration Locations) in Appendix A. The maximum depth ofborehole advance was 10.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Location and depth of boring weredetermined based on site conditions and accessibility, anticipated soil and rock conditions, and proposeddevelopment location.

FIGURE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AREA



4

Disturbed soil samples were obtained in accordance with ASTM D1586 at various intervals using two inchOD split spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the ground by the force of a 140 pound hammerfalling approximately 30 inches. The number of blows to drive the sampler one foot into undisturbed soilis an indication of the consistency and shear strength of the material.

Wood Rodgers’ personnel examined and classified all soils in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 2488(Description and Identification of Soils). During exploration, representative bulk samples were placed in sealedplastic bags or buckets and returned to our Reno, Nevada laboratory for testing. Additional soil classifications,as well as verification of the field classifications, were subsequently performed in accordance with ASTM 2487(Unified Soil Classification System [USCS]) upon completion of laboratory testing as described below in theLaboratory Testing section. Logs of the bore holes are presented as Plate A 2. A USCS chart has been includedas Plate A 3 (Unified Soil Classification and Key to Soil Descriptions).

Measurement of shear wave velocity, to a maximum depth of 100 feet, was also conducted. Shear wavevelocity measurements have been relied upon for the development of geotechnical designcharacterization of soil stiffness. This information also aids in the determination of an appropriate SiteClass (IBC, ASCE 7) and to provide a screening tool for liquefaction potential.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

All soil testing performed in the Wood Rodgers’ laboratory is conducted in accordance with the standards andmethods described in Volume 4.08 (Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics) of the ASTM Standards.Samples of significant soil types were analyzed to determine their in situ moisture contents (ASTM D 2216), grainsize distributions (ASTM D6913), and plasticity indices (ASTM D 4318). Additional testing included chemical testingfor the potential of corrosion to concrete. Results of these tests are shown in Appendix A on Plate A 4c (ChemicalTesting Results). Table 1 presents a summary of the test data. The test results were used to classify the soilsaccording to the USCS (ASTM D 2487) and to verify the field logs which were then updated.

Table 1 Summary of Test Data

Test Hole Depth(Ft.)

Moisture(%)

%Gravel(+ #4)*

% Sand(#4

#200)

%Fines( #200)

LiquidLimit

PlasticIndex USCS

ASTM Standard D2216 D6913 D4318 D2487BH 1 5 6.5 32 11BH 4 0 5 18.5 10.0 47.8 42.2 40 16 SCBH 6 2.5 4 15.1 3.0 70.0 27.0

* Since ASTM D2487 is limited by a maximum particle size of 3", the gradation test data presented is based on a maximum particle size of 3".



5

6.0 GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Based on the USGS Geologic Map of Nevada, the siteis mostly mapped in a geologic setting of Alluvial FanDeposits (Qfo), which consists of older fan depositsundivided from early to middle Pleistocene. Thenorth, northwest extents of the property boardersintermediate age fan deposits from the latePleistocene (Qfi). Natural Resource ConservationServices’ (NRCS) Soil Survey Maps indicate that theeastern portion of the project site mostly consists ofsilty sand with gravel to ½ feet overlying a clay orsandy clay; the western side is described asconsisting mostly of cobbly clay or silty clay to 5 feet.Bedrock is expected to be be present approximately5 to 8 feet below the existing surface but may vary to as shallow as 1 foot. The soils encountered in ourexplorations, clay and clayey sands, are somewhat consistent with NRCS and the geologic map.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of our explorations.

7.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS

The Truckee Meadows lies within the western extreme of the Basin and Range physiographic provincesandwiched between the Pah Rah Range to the east and the Carson Range to the west. The Basin andRange province is characterized by a series of valleys bounded by north/south trending mountain ranges,byproducts of the seismically active zones of the Wasatch Front in Utah and the Sierra Nevada Mountainsalong the California/Nevada border. Faulting and seismic activity are integral to the formation of thisseries of alternating valleys and mountain ranges. As a consequence, the presence of faults, active andinactive, is common in western Nevada.

Guidelines adopted by the City of Reno present that faults with evidence of movement within the past10,000 years (Holocene time) are considered Holocene Active. Faults with evidence of displacementwithin the last 130,000 years are considered Late Quaternary Active and faults with movement within thelast 1.6 million years are considered Quaternary Active. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, wasaccessed to review the proximity of any active faults as previously characterized. Two faults of theUnnamed Quaternary fault zone in Truckee River Canyon intersect at the project site as shown in Figure3. These faults are dated as being < 1.6 million years with a reported slip rate of 0.2 mm/year; this sliprate translates into less than 1 inch of total displacement in 100 years. Houses and apartments built onfaults of similar activity and definition have survived their design life without notable structural impactdue to the activity of those older faults. In fact, a significant portion of development within the northwest

FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC MAP



6

area of Reno has been built upon crossing faults ofsimilar activity and definition. Therefore, no furtherstudy of the faults is recommended.

Liquefaction is a loss of soil shear strength that can occurduring a seismic event as excessive pore water pressurebetween the soil grains is induced by cyclic shearstresses. This phenomenon is limited to unconsolidated,clean to silty sand (up to 35 percent non plastic fines)lying below the ground water table (typically less than 40feet deep). Based on the information obtained duringour exploration and research programs, liquefactionpotential does not exist at the site due to the competentnature of the subgrade soil and bedrock.

8.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 General InformationThe following definitions characterize terms utilized in this report:

Rockfill possesses more than 30 perent retained on the 3/4 inch sieve. Rockfill may or may notpresent oversize, i.e. particles greater than 6 inches.Fine grained soil possesses more than 40 percent by weight passing the number 200 sieve and exhibitsa plasticity index lower than 15.Clay soil possesses more than 30 percent passing the number 200 sieve and exhibits a plasticity indexgreater than 15.Granular soil does not meeting the above criteria and has a maximum particle size less than 6 inches.

The recommendations provided herein, particularly under Site Preparation, Grading and Filling,Foundations, Site Drainage, and Construction Observations and Testing Services are intended to reducerisks of structural distress related to consolidation or expansion of native soils and/or structural fills.These recommendations, along with proper design and construction of the planned structure(s) andassociated improvements, work together as a system to improve overall performance. If any aspect ofthis system is ignored or poorly implemented, the performance of the project could suffer. Any evaluationof the site for the presence of surface or subsurface hazardous substances is beyond the scope of thisstudy. When suspected hazardous substances are encountered during routine geotechnicalinvestigations, they are noted in the exploration logs and reported to the client. No such substances wereidentified during our exploration.

The boreholes were advanced at the approximate locations shown on the site plan. All boreholes werebackfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of drilling.

FIGURE 3 USGS MAPPED FAULTS



7

Structural areas referred to in this report include all areas of buildings, concrete slabs, asphalt pavements,as well as pads for any minor structures. In addition, the structural zone shall be considered to extend ata 1:1 (H:V) slope out from the structure footprint. All compaction requirements presented in this reportare relative to ASTM D 15571.

8.2 Seismic Design ValuesIn accordance with the 2012 IBC and based on the measured shear wave velocity profile, Site Class C hasbeen assigned to the subject project. Based on a representative latitude and longitude of the site(39.52269°N, 119.86044°E), the USGS seismic design values based on ASCE 7 10 are presented in Table2. The detailed USGS report is presented in Appendix B.

Table 2 Summary of ASCE 7 10 Seismic Design Values

Lat. Lon. SS S1 SDC Fa Fv SMS SM1 SDS SD1 FPGA PGAM

39.523 119.860 1.583 0.589 D 1.0 1.300 1.583 0.765 1.055 0.510 1.000 0.562

8.3 Site PreparationAll vegetation and topsoil present within the planter boxes should be removed and stockpiled asappropriate for use in landscaping. The existing pavement section should be removed and can beprocessed as recycled base as described in Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

Geotechnical exploration indicated the presence of clay soils across the project site. Therefore, aminimum structural fill separation of 1 foot is required beneath the foundation grade. No additionalseparation is required below flatwork or pavements other than the prescribed base course layer. Overexcavation shall extend at least 2 feet beyond the building pad limits and at a 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) below foundation grade.

The site was graded during the original development of the property. Because Wood Rodgers is not privyto original plans and/or construction documents we cannot readily discern the extent of fills and/or thequality of the fill materials placed. We therefore recommend that once pavements have been removedfrom the development areas, additional test pits be advanced to attempt to discern the presence andquality of fills that may have been placed during original grading. Utility trenches should also be examinedfor the presence of fills. Regardless of the degree of diligence employed during construction, the potentialfor the presence of unidentified fills will remain.

Areas to receive structural fill or structural loading should be densified to a minimum depth of 8 inches toat least 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D 1557. It is recommended that soilshave moisture contents of plus or minus 3 percent of optimum moisture (ASTM D 1557) prior to 1 Relative compaction refers to the ratio (percentage of the in place density of a soil divided by the same soil’s maximum dry density) asdetermined by the ASTM D 1557 laboratory test procedure. Optimum moisture content is the corresponding moisture content of the same soilat its maximum dry density.



8

densification. Higher moisture contents will be acceptable if the soil horizon is sufficiently stable anddensity can be achieved in subsequent structural fill lifts. Scarification and moisture conditioning may berequired to achieve the required soil moisture content recommendations. Where the in situ bedrock iscompetent and undisturbed in footing trenches, the 90 percent compaction requirement may be waivedby the ICC inspector or geotechnical engineer.

Because the development area is paved, there is an increased likelihood that subgrade soils will be nearor above optimum moisture content and the potential to encounter pumping subgrade soils exists. Thispotential also increases where landscaping or utility trenches may not have been sufficiently compacted.Where pumping soils are encountered, the area may be scarified and allowed to dry or removed andreplaced with a layer of rockfill. Typically a stabilization depth of 12 inches is adequate to develop a firmand relatively unyielding subgrade but variations may exist. Subgrade stabilization is a trial and errorprocess. The contractor should propose a stabilization protocol that is consistent with his readily availablemeans and methods for review by the owner, the general contractor, and grading inspector.

8.4 Grading and FillingStructural fill is defined as any material placed below structural elements and includes foundations, concreteslabs on grade, pavements, or any structure that derives support from the underlying soil. Granular, finegrained soil, and rockfill generated on site that is substantially free of vegetation, organic matter and otherdeleterious material can be used as structural fill. Oversize material (> 6 inch and will not break down duringcompaction) shall be screened from the soils prior to reuse. Imported structural fill should be substantiallyfree of organic matter, any deleterious material, and meet the requirements of Table 3.

Table 3 Guideline Specification for Imported Structural FillSieve Size (ASTM D6913) Percent by Weight Passing

6 Inch 100

4 Inch 90 100¾ Inch 70 100No. 40 15 70

No. 200 5 30Maximum Liquid Limit (ASTM D4318) 40Maximum Plasticity Index 15Soluble Sulfate Level (ACI 318, Table 4.3.1) NegligibleR Value (ASTM D2844) 30 Min.

Adjustments to the recommended limits presented in Table 3 can be provided to allow the use of othergranular, non expansive material, including rock fills. Any such adjustments must be made and approvedby the geotechnical engineer, in writing, prior to importing fill to the site. It is our intent that rockfillsconsist of a 6 inch minus, well graded soil.



9

Structural fill should be placed in maximum 12 inch thick (loose) level lifts or layers and densified to atleast 90 percent relative compaction. All soils should have moisture contents of at least plus or minus 3percent of optimum moisture (ASTM D1557) prior to densification. If rockfill is imported for use, aplacement specification shall be developed by the contractor and approved by the geotechnical engineeras part of the submittal process.

Site grading and pad preparation shall be observed and tested under the full time services of a materialstesting and inspection firm accredited by AASHTO in ASTM E329. In addition, it is recommended that fieldtesting and inspection personnel be ICC certified in Soils or NAQTC certified in Sampling and Density. Fielddensity testing (ASTM D6938, or ASTM D1556) shall be performed at a minimum rate of 1 test per 1,000cubic yards of material placed for mass graded fills and one density test per 300 feet of trench forbackfill of footing over excavation trenches. The testing frequency shall be increased if the contractor ishaving difficulty achieving and maintaining the required moisture levels or if fill is placed in localizedzones where additional testing is required to document compaction efforts.

The exterior face of any embankment should be constructed with an inclination of no steeper than 2H:1V.The surface of the slope should be compacted to the same percent compaction as the body of the fill. Thismay be accomplished by compacting the surface of the embankment as it is constructed or byoverbuilding the fill and cutting back to its compacted core. However, the cut away material should beplaced and compacted as outlined above rather than left at the base of the slope. Minor variations inslope gradient due to sculpting or landscaping of the slope face shall not be considered to be inconsistentwith the recommendations of this report or adverse to the ultimate performance of the global stability ofthe overall slope.

8.5 Trenching and ExcavationRegulations amended in Part 1926, Volume 54, Number 209 of the Federal Register (Table B 1, October 31,1989) require that the temporary sidewall slopes be limited to maintain trench stability. Based on the resultsof our exploration program, it is our opinion that the bulk of the site soils appear to be predominately Type C.All fills should be considered Type C. All trenching should be performed and stabilized in accordance with local,state, and OSHA standards. Bank stability is the responsibility of the contractor who is present at the site, ableto observe changes in ground conditions, and has control over personnel and equipment. Additionally,trenching and excavations difficulty is anticipated to increase below 5 feet from the original groundsurface due to cementitious material and sedimentary bedrock.

8.6 FoundationsIt is our understanding that spread footings will be utilized for this project. Provided the foundation soilshave been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of this report, the bearing pressurespresented in Table 4 can be utilized for design.



10

Table 4 Allowable Foundation Bearing Pressures

Loading Condition Maximum Net Allowable BearingPressure (PSF)1

Dead Load Plus Full Time Live Load 3,000

Dead Load Plus Live Loads, PlusTransient Wind or Seismic Loads 4,0001 Net allowable bearing pressure is that pressure at the base of the footing in excess of the adjacent overburdenpressure.

For frost protection, footings should all be set at least two feet below adjacent outside or unheatedinterior finish grades. Footings not located within frost prone areas should be placed at least 12 inchesbelow surrounding ground or slab level for confinement. Regardless of loading, individual pad foundationsand continuous spread foundations should be at least 18 and 12 inches wide, respectively, or as requiredby code.

Lateral loads, such as wind or seismic, may be resisted by passive soil pressure and friction on the bottomof the footing. The recommended coefficient of base friction is 0.45, and has been reduced by a factor of1.5 on the ultimate soil strength. Design values for active and passive equivalent fluid pressures are 35and 375 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, respectively. In designing for passive pressure, theupper one foot of the soil profile should not be included unless confined by a concrete slab, or pavement.These design values are based on spread footings bearing on native granular soils, native fine grainedsoils, or structural fill and backfilled with structural fill.

If loose, soft, wet, or disturbed soils are encountered at the foundation subgrade, these soils should beremoved to expose suitable foundation soils and the resulting over excavation backfilled with compactedstructural fill. The base of all excavations should be dry and free of loose materials at the time of concreteplacement.

Total settlement for the structures is anticipated to be on the order of 1 inch, or less. Differentialsettlement between foundations with similar loads and sizes is anticipated to be ½ of the total settlement.

8.7 Retaining WallsRecommended lateral earth pressures for consideration in the design of retaining structures arepresented in Table 5. Changes in earth pressures due to seismic influences were assessed via theMononobe Okabe protocol. In addition, we have assumed that some wall displacement is allowable dueto the design event, and our recommended values have therefore been based on 70% of the USGS’predicted PGA. The values presented in Table 5 do not consider hydrostatic pressures or surchargeloading. Traffic loading should be modeled by increasing the wall backfill load by an additional height oftwo feet. Unless confined by slab or pavement, the surface foot of soil should be ignored when consideringpassive resistance.



11

Table 5 Lateral Earth Pressures

ConditionActive (psf/f) Passive (psf/f)

At RestStatic Pseudo

Static Static PseudoStatic

Level 35 75 375 300 53

Excessive retaining wall pressures can be developed due to heavy compaction equipment proximate tothe wall during backfill placement. Therefore, due care during placement and compaction of backfill isrequired. Backfill behind retaining structures should be compacted to not less than 90 percent of the soils’maximum dry density. French drains, a drainage backfill geotextile such as Mirafi 140 N, or a premanufactured drain system such as Tensor ® DC1200 may be utilized if buildup of hydrostatic pressure ispossible. Soil preparation for retaining wall foundations and allowable bearing capacities shall beconsistent with the Site Preparation and Grading and Filling sections of this report.

8.8 Slope Stability and Erosion ControlStability of cut and filled surfaces involves two separate aspects. The first concerns true slope stabilityrelated to mass wasting, landslides or the enmasse downward movement of soil or rock. Cut and fillslopes, with gradients of 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, are suitable for the project soils. Thespecified slope is based on an overall slope average. It is not intended to imply that localized sculpting ofthe slope face, resulting in limited minor increases to slope gradient at isolated locations, would beconsidered inconsistent with the requirements of this report.

The second aspect of stability involves erosion potential and is dependent on numerous factors involvinggrain size distribution, cohesion, moisture content, slope angle and the velocity of the water or wind onthe ground surface. Erosion protection should be in accordance with City of Reno requirements.

Temporary (during construction) and permanent (after construction) erosion control will be requiredfor all disturbed areas. The contractor shall prevent dust from being generated during construction incompliance with all applicable city, county, state and federal regulations, and shall submit an acceptabledust control plan as required by Washoe County prior to starting site preparation or earthwork. Theproject specifications should include an indemnification by the contractor of the owner and engineerfor any dust generation during the construction period. The owner will be responsible for mitigation ofdust after his acceptance of the project.

8.9 Site DrainageAdequate surface drainage must be constructed and maintained away from the structures. Thepermanent finish slopes away from the structure should be sufficient to allow water to drain awayquickly from and prevent any ponding of water adjacent to the structure. All runoff should be collected



12

within permanent drainage paths that can convey water off the property. A system of roof gutters anddownspouts is recommended to collect roof drainage and direct it away from the foundations.

Foundation and stem wall backfill should be densified to at least 90 percent relative compaction inaccordance with the requirements given in the Grading and Filling Section. Compacting the backfillmaterial decreases permeability and reduces the amount of irrigation and storm water available toenter under floor areas.

8.10 Concrete SlabsA 4 inch minimum base course (Type 2, Class B, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction)compacted to 95% relative compaction is recommended beneath concrete slabs on grade subject solelyto foot traffic. The recommended base course section should be increased to 6 inches where vehicle orheavy traffic is anticipated. All dedicated and public easement improvements shall be constructed inaccordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

Wood Rodgers does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation.Therefore, if a vapor retarder/barrier system more rigorous than the requirements of the IBC is desired,we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted with to evaluate the general andspecific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. Thisperson/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisturevapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed appropriate. If special conditionsdo not exist, Wood Rodgers typically recommends a moisture vapor barrier, consisting of Stego Wrap (20mil), or equal, be placed as part of the moisture vapor system.

All concrete placement and curing should be performed in accordance with procedures outlined by theAmerican Concrete Institute (ACI). Special considerations should be given to concrete placed and curedduring hot or cold weather conditions. Proper control joints and reinforcing should be provided tominimize any damage resulting from shrinkage.

Sulfate testing on the native soils in the immediate area yielded results in the negligible range. No specialprovisions are required to address sulfate resistance.

Western Nevada is a region with absorptive aggregates and exceptionally low relative humidity. As aconsequence, concrete flatwork will shrink and curl in a manner which is not typical of other US regions.Proper sub grade preparation and placement of reinforcement are imperative. Joint spacing, locally, istypically on 10 to 12 foot centers. Cracking that occurs within the slab on grade will often reflect throughoverlying improvements even if adequate substrate preparation has occurred.



13

8.11 Structural Pavement SectionsTable 6 presents our minimum structural pavement sections for parking and driveways within thedevelopment. Concrete pavement sections have been developed consistent with City of Reno standardsfor driveway aprons subject to heavy trucks.

Table 6 Structural Pavement Sections

Condition PavementThickness (In.) Pavement Type1 Type II Base Course

Thickness (In.) 2

Dedicated Roadways andMain Access Drives 4 2” Type 3 + Lime / 2”

Type 2 6

Parking and AutomobileTraffic Driveways 3 Type 3 + Lime 6

Equipment Offload &Loading Areas, Truck Zones 4 Type 2 + Lime 8

Dumpster Aprons 6 Reinforced PortlandCement Concrete 6

1 Per the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction2 Recycled Aggregate Base can be used in lieu of Type II Base course

All roadway construction shall be in accordance with the approved plans and the Standard Specificationsfor Public Works Construction. Roadway subgrade shall be prepared in accordance with the requirementsof this report. The Contractor should submit a pavement mix design to the Owner, for approval, at least 5working days prior to paving. When pavement is placed directly adjacent to concrete flatwork, the finishcompacted grade of the pavement should be at least ½ of an inch higher than the edge of adjacentconcrete surface to allow adequate compaction of the pavement without damaging the concrete.

8.12 Asphalt Design LifeMaintenance is mandatory to long term pavement performance. Maintenance refers to any activityperformed on the pavement that is intended to preserve its original service life or load carrying capacity.Examples of maintenance activities include patching, crack or joint sealing, and seal coats. If thesemaintenance activities are ignored or deferred, premature failure of the pavement will occur.

The cost associated with proper maintenance is generally much less than the cost for reconstruction dueto the premature failure of the pavement. Therefore, since pavement quality is an integral considerationin the formulation of our design recommendations, we strongly recommend the owner/project managerimplement a pavement management program.

Premature failure of asphaltic concrete frequently occurs adjacent to poorly graded ponding areas and/orlandscape areas. Failures may occur due to excessive precipitation, irrigation and landscaping waterinfiltrating into the subgrade soils causing subgrade failure. As such, in areas where saturation of thesubgrade soils beneath asphaltic pavement may occur, we strongly recommend the owner/projectmanager install a subdrain system to eliminate the potential for saturation of subgrade soils. The subdrain



14

system should discharge into a permanent drainage area that will not impede drainage flow to cause thesystem to back up and/or clog. Appropriate maintenance procedures should be implemented to ensurethe subdrain system does not plug and allow for proper drainage of surface and subsurface water beneathpaved areas. Subdrain location and configuration should be evaluated once final grading and landscapingplans have been prepared. If the ultimate traffic exceeds the anticipated levels, it may be necessary toreevaluate and overlay the pavement at some time in the future.

9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES

The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that the contractors performtheir work as required by the project documents and that owner/project manager provides sufficientfield testing and construction review during all phases of construction. Prior to construction, theowner/project manager should schedule a pre job conference including, but not limited to, the owner,architect, civil engineer, the general contractor, earthwork and materials subcontractors, building official,and geotechnical engineer. It is the owner's/project manager responsibility to set up this meeting andcontact all responsible parties. The conference will allow parties to review the project plans,specifications, and recommendations presented in this report, and discuss applicable material quality andmix design requirements. All quality control reports should be submitted to the owner/project managerfor review and distributed to the appropriate parties.

During construction, Wood Rodgers Incorporated should have the opportunity to provide sufficient onsite observation of site preparation and grading, over excavation, fill placement, foundation installation,and paving. These observations would allow us to document the geotechnical conditions are in fact justas anticipated and that the contractor's work meets with the criteria in the approved plans andspecifications. Verification of horizontal and vertical control must be provided by whoever wasresponsible for establishing those boundaries and constructing associated improvements.

10.0 STANDARD LIMITATION CLAUSE

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local geotechnical practices. Theanalyses and recommendations submitted are based upon field exploration performed and the conditionsencountered as discussed in our report. This report does not reflect soils variations that may becomeevident during the construction period, at which time re evaluation of the recommendations may benecessary. We recommend our firm be retained to perform construction observation in all phases of theproject related to geotechnical factors to document compliance with our recommendations. Theowner/project manager is responsible for distribution of this geotechnical report to all designers andcontractors whose work is related to geotechnical factors.

It is the contractor’s responsibility for the grading and construction of the designed improvements. Thisresponsibility includes the means, methods, techniques, sequence, and procedures of construction andsafety of construction at the site. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the most recently



15

adopted version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the requirements ofWashoe County, Nevada. Failure to inspect the work shall not relieve the contractor from his obligationto perform sound and reliable work as described herein and as described in the Standard Specificationsfor Public Works Construction.

All plans and specifications should be reviewed by the design engineer responsible for this geotechnicalreport, to determine if they have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained inthis report, prior to submitting to the building department for review. It is the owner's/project managerresponsibility to provide the plans and specifications to the engineer.

This report has been prepared to provide information allowing the architect and engineer to design theproject. In the event of changes in the design, location, or ownership of the project after presentation ofthis report, our recommendations should be reviewed and possibly modified by the geotechnicalengineer. If the geotechnical engineer is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review,we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation or misapplication of our recommendations or theirvalidity in the event changes have been made in the original design concept without our prior review. Theengineer makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice providedunder the terms of this agreement and included in this report.

This report was prepared by Wood Rodgers, Inc. for the benefit of Reno Land Development Inc. Thematerial in it reflects Wood Rodgers’ best judgment in light of the information available to it at the timeof preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to bemade based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Wood Rodgers’ accepts no responsibility fordamages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

11.0 REFERENCES"318-11: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary." American Concrete

Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2014, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics,Volume 4.08.

The Asphalt Institute, 1991, Thickness Design Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets, ManualSeries No. 1 (MS 1).

Ramelli, A.R., and Henry, C.D., 2010, Preliminary Revised Geologic Maps of the Verdi , Reno, and Vista 7.5’Quadrangles, Reno Urban Area, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Open File Report10 11, scale 1:24,000



16

Bowles, J. E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill. 5th Edition

International Building Code 2012 (including Northern Nevada Amendments); International Conference ofBuilding Officials.

International Residential Code 2012 (including Northern Nevada Amendments); InternationalConference of Building Officials

Koerner, Robert M., 1984, Construction and Geotechnical Methods in Foundation Engineering, McGrawHill Book Company

Sowers, George, F., 1979, Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering

Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2016 (Washoe County, Sparks Reno, Carson City,Yerington, Nevada).

APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL PLATES

Imag

e R

efer

ence

: G

oogl

e Ea

rth

Phon

e 77

5.82

3.40

68 F

ax 7

75.8

23.4

066

VIC

INIT

Y M

AP34

7500

205

/30/

17

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n

Proj

ect N

o.:

PLAT

E

A-

1a

SKY

MO

UN

TAIN

DR

IVE

APN

: 400

-040

-07

WA

SHO

E C

OU

NTY

,NEV

AD

A

1361

Cor

pora

te B

oule

vard

, Ren

o, N

V 89

502

Dat

e:

Imag

e R

efer

ence

: G

oogl

e Ea

rth*P

ropo

sed

borin

g re

mov

ed fr

om e

xplo

ratio

n pl

an

PLAT

E

A-

1b13

61 C

orpo

rate

Bou

leva

rd, R

eno,

NV

8950

2

SKY

MO

UN

TAIN

DR

IVE

APN

: 400

-040

-07

WA

SHO

E C

OU

NTY

,NEV

AD

A

Dat

e:Ph

one

775.

823.

4068

Fax

775

.823

.406

6

SITE

MAP

AN

D A

PPR

OXI

MAT

E EX

PLO

RAT

ION

LO

CAT

ION

S 34

7500

205

/30/

17

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

n

Proj

ect N

o.:

Phone 775.823.4068 Fax 775.823.4066

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION

ANDKEY TO SOIL DESCRIPTIONS

Geotechnical Investigation

Project No.: 3475002 PLATE A-31361 Corporate Boulevard, Reno, NV 89502

SKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE

NOTE: Percentages are presented within soil description for soilhorizon with laboratory tested soil samples.

FINE SAND NO. 40 TO NO. 200MINUS NO. 200 SIEVEFINES (SILT OR CLAY)

05/30/17Date:

APN: 400-040-07WASHOE COUNTY,NEVADA

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

LITTLESOMEMOSTLY

DESCRIPTION OF ESTIMATED PERCENTAGES OF GRAVEL, SAND, AND FINES

15% - 20%30% - 45%50% - 100%

GRAVEL MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTIONIS LARGER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

SAND MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

TRACEFEW

Particles are present but est. < 5%5% - 10%

SILT AND CLAY

LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR LESS

SILT AND CLAY

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50%

CLEAN SANDSWITH LITTLEOR NO FINES

CO

AR

SED

-GR

AIN

ED S

OIL

S

M

OR

E TH

AN H

ALF

IS C

OAR

SER

TH

AN

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

COBBLES ABOVE 3 INCHES

COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND

FINE GRAVEL 3/4 IN. TO NO. 4 SIEVESAND NO. 4 TO NO. 200

NO. 4 TO NO. 10NO. 10 TO NO. 40

SANDS &GRAVELS

SPT BLOW*COUNTS (N)

SILTS &CLAYS

SPT BLOW*COUNTS (N)

3 IN. TO 3/4 IN.

* The Standard Penetration Resistance (N) In blows per foot is obtained bythe ASTM D1585 procedure using 2” O.D., 1 3/8” I.D. samplers.

HARD 30 +

GRAVEL 3 IN. TO NO. 4 SIEVE COARSE GRAVEL

DEFINITIONS OF SOIL FRACTIONSSOIL COMPONENT PARTICLE SIZE RANGE

VERY STIFF

5 - 8 STIFF 9 - 15 DENSE 31 - 50

5 - 103 - 4

VERY DENSE

11 - 30

50 +16 - 30

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

CONSISTENCY RELATIVE DENSITY

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX (P

I)

0 - 2SOFT

MEDIUM STIFF

VERY SOFT VERY LOOSE

ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCKFLOUR, SILTS WITH SANDS AND GRAVELSINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITYCLAYS WITH SANDS AND GRAVELS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUSFINE SANDY OR SILTY SOLID, ELASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OR HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

CL

OL

MH

WELL GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND,LITTLE OR NO FINESPOORLY GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUTSAND, LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY GRAVELS, SILTY GRAVELS WITH SAND

CLAYEY GRAVELS, CLAYEY GRAVELS WITH SANDGC

SM

SC

GRAVELS WITHOVER 12% FINES

CLEAN SANDS WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES

SANDS WITH

GP

SW

SP

GW

GM

MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL NAMES

FIN

E-G

RA

INED

SO

ILS

MO

RE

THAN

HAL

F IS

FIN

ER

THAN

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

WELL GRADED SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL,LITTLE OR NO FINESPOORLY GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL,LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL

CLAYEY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVELOVER 12% FINES

Pt

CH

OH

MEDIUM DENSE

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

0 - 4LOOSE

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY

10

20

30

40

50

60

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CL - ML

CL

CH

MH & OH

ML & OL

Dat

e:

05/3

0/17

Phon

e 77

5.82

3.40

68 F

ax 7

75.8

23.4

066

CH

EMIC

AL T

ESTI

NG

RES

ULT

S

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

nSK

Y M

OU

NTA

IN D

RIV

EA

PN: 4

00-0

40-0

7W

ASH

OE

CO

UN

TY,N

EVA

DA

Proj

ect N

o.:

3475

002

PLAT

E

A-

4c13

61 C

orpo

rate

Bou

leva

rd, R

eno,

NV

8950

2

WA

SHO

E C

OU

NTY

,NEV

AD

APr

ojec

t No.

:34

7500

2PL

ATE

A-5

1361

Cor

pora

te B

oule

vard

, Ren

o, N

V 89

502

Dat

e:

05/3

0/17

Phon

e 77

5.82

3.40

68 F

ax 7

75.8

23.4

066

ReM

i RES

ULT

S

Geo

tech

nica

l Inv

estig

atio

nSK

Y M

OU

NTA

IN D

RIV

EA

PN: 4

00-0

40-0

7

APPENDIX B USGS DESIGN MAPS DETAILED REPORT

Design Maps Detailed Report

From Figure 22-1 [1]


ASCE 7-10 Standard (39.52269°N, 119.86044°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 horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain SS) and 1.3 (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 = 1.583 g

S1 = 0.589 g

Section 11.4.2 — Site Class

The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class C, based on the site soil properties in accordance 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 response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1

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

5/30/2017https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=39...

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 = 1.583 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 = 0.589 g, Fv = 1.300



Equation (11.4–1):





SMS = FaSS = 1.000 x 1.583 = 1.583 g

SM1 = FvS1 = 1.300 x 0.589 = 0.765 g

Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters

SDS = SMS = x 1.583 = 1.055 g

SD1 = SM1 = x 0.765 = 0.510 g

Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum

TL = 6 seconds

Figure 11.4–1: Design Response Spectrum



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

The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5.







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

PGA = 0.562

PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.562 = 0.562 g

Table 11.8–1: Site Coefficient FPGA

Site Class

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 = 0.562 g, FPGA = 1.000

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

CRS = 0.933

CR1 = 0.913



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 = 1.055 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 D

For Risk Category = I and SD1 = 0.510 g, Seismic Design Category = D

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

Seismic Design Category “the more severe design category in accordance with Table 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








Documents

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE DESIGN REPORT - Reno.gov