Soils - Geotech - Mesa - Geotech Report - 7.24.23

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY

810 SOUTH COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
MESA, ARIZONA
KA PROJECT NO. 112-23060

JULY 24, 2023
Prepared for:
MS. CHERRY MIAO

DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
PUBLIC STORAGE
701 WESTERN AVENUE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
Prepared by:
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
1100 OLYMPIC DRIVE, STE 103
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92881
(951) 273-1011
& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING  ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
July 24, 2023 KA Project No. 112-23060
Ms. Cherry Miao

Development Manager
Public Storage
701 Western Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201
RE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

810 S. Country Club Drive
Mesa, Arizona
Dear Ms. Miao:
In accordance with your request, we have completed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the
above-referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (951) 273-1011.
Respectfully submitted,
Dean L. Alexander
Principal Engineer
RCE No. 27446
With Offices Serving the Western United States

1100 Olympic Drive, Ste. 103  Corona, Ca 92881  (951) 273-1011  Fax: (951) 273-1003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE..................................................................................................................................... 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2
SITE LOCATION, SITE HISTORY AND SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 2
GEOLOGIC SETTING ...................................................................................................................................... 3
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................................... 3

Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures .................................................................................................................. 3
Faulting ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
SITE COEFFICIENT ......................................................................................................................................... 4
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................... 4
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 5
GROUNDWATER.............................................................................................................................................. 5
OTHER HAZARDS ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Expansive Soil .................................................................................................................................................. 6
SOIL CORROSIVITY........................................................................................................................................ 6
INFILTRATION TESTING ............................................................................................................................... 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 7

Administrative Summary................................................................................................................................... 7
Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction ............................................................................................ 8
Site Preparation ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Overexcavation and Recompaction – Building and Foundation Areas ................................................................ 9
Overexcavation and Recompaction – Exterior Flatwork and Parking Areas ...................................................... 10
Fill Placement ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Engineered Fill................................................................................................................................................ 11
Drainage and Landscaping .............................................................................................................................. 12
Utility Trench Backfill .................................................................................................................................... 12
Foundations - Conventional ............................................................................................................................. 13
Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork ................................................................................................................... 13
Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls .................................................................................................... 14
Pavement Design ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Asphalt Concrete (Flexible) Pavements ........................................................................................................... 15
Infiltration Testing .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Soil Cement Reactivity.................................................................................................................................... 17
Compacted Material Acceptance ..................................................................................................................... 18
Testing and Inspection..................................................................................................................................... 18

LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... Following Text

LOGS OF BORINGS (1 TO 9) .......................................................................................... Appendix A
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................. Appendix B
GENERAL PAVING SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................ Appendix C

July 24, 2023 KA Project No. 112-23060
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

810 SOUTH COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
MESA, ARIZONA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed new
Public Storage facility to be located at the physical address of 810 South Country Club Drive in the city
of Mesa, Arizona. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions
and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, Engineered Fill, utility trench backfill, drainage and
landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior flatwork, retaining walls, soil cement
reactivity, and pavement design.
A site plan showing the approximate boring locations is presented following the text of this report, the
attached Site Map, Figure 1. A description of the field investigation, boring logs, and the boring log
legend are presented in Appendix A. Appendix A contains a description of the laboratory testing phase
of this study; along with the laboratory test results. Appendices B and C contain guides to earthwork
and pavement specifications. When conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general
specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions at the subject site, to
make geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in design of specific construction elements, and
to provide criteria for site preparation and Engineered Fill construction.
Our scope of services was outlined in our proposal (KA Proposal No. G23025CAC) dated March 13,
2023 and included the following:
 A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at
the project site.
 A field investigation consisting of drilling a total of nine (9) borings to depths of approximately
15 feet below existing site grades for evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the project site.
 Performance of laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings to
evaluate the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils.

1100 Olympic Drive, Ste. 103  Corona, CA 92881 (951) 273-1011  Fax: (951) 273-1003
KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 2
 Performance of one (1) infiltration test at the subject site in order to determine the estimated
infiltration rates for the near surface soil.
 Collection of a bulk sample for laboratory testing of R-value used in our pavement design
recommendations.
 Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and an engineering analysis to provide
recommendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction specifications.
 Preparation of this report summarizing the results, conclusions, recommendations, and findings
of our investigation.
Environmental services, such as a chemical analysis of soil and groundwater for possible environmental
contaminates, were not in our scope of services.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We have reviewed the Site Plan, provided by the client, prepared by KSP Studio dated April 4, 2023 for
the proposed development; which was used as a base map for the attached Site Map, Figure 1. On the
proposed plan is one (1) three-story structure with a building footprint of approximately 138,843 square
feet. The plan also indicates the proposed development will include driveways, landscaping and
hardscaping areas. The proposed building will be constructed of wood, metal, or masonry with a slab-
on-grade floor and a shallow foundation system. The project will include Portland Cement Concrete
(PCC) pavement, Asphaltic Concrete (AC) parking areas, and a trash enclosure.
The anticipated finished grade elevation for the proposed structure is assumed to be relatively close to
the existing site grades. As a result, only minor cuts and fills are anticipated at the site to account for site
drainage. In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria,
the Soils Engineer should be notified so that we may update this writing as applicable.
SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is rectangular in shape and encompasses an area of approximately 1.9 acres. The subject
site is located at the physical address of 810 South Country Club Drive, in the city of Mesa, Arizona, see
the attached Vicinity Map, Figure 2. The site is bound to the west and south by commercial
developments, to the east by Country Club Drive and commercial developments beyond, and to the north
by W. 8th Avenue and a car dealership beyond. Review of historical aerial photographs indicate that the
project site was previously utilized as a self-storage facility that was damage by a fire in 2022.
Remains of the previous development were removed except for the slab-on-grade floors, foundations,
and asphalt pavements that are still standing at the project site. The site topography is relatively flat and
level with no major changes in topography at an approximate elevation of 1,227 feet above mean sea
level. The site currently drains to the east side of the property. The latitude and longitude of the site is
33.39994° and -111.84073°.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 3
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The subject site is located in the Sonoran Desert Section of the Basin and Range physiographic province,
which is typified by broad alluvial valleys separated by steep discontinuous, sub parallel mountain
ranges. The mountain ranges generally trend north-south and northwest-southeast. The basin floors
consist of alluvium with thicknesses extending to several thousands of feet.
The basins and surrounding mountains were formed approximately 10 to 18 million years ago during the
mid- to late-tertiary. Extensional tectonics resulted in the formation of horsts (mountains) and grabens
(basins) with vertical displacement along high-angle normal faults. Intermittent volcanic activity also
occurred during this time. The surrounding basins filled with alluvium from the erosion of the
surrounding mountains as well as from deposition from rivers. Coarser-grained alluvial material was
deposited at the margins of the basins near the mountains.
The surficial geology of the site is described as late to middle Pleistocene deposits consisting of sand,
silt, clay, and moderately bedded gravel (Dempsey, 1989). According to the United States Department
of Agriculture Soil Map, the surficial soil is considered very gravelly sandy loam.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The following section describes potential hazards at the subject site, including subsidence and earth
fissures.
Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures
Groundwater depletion, due to groundwater pumping, has caused land subsidence and earth fissures in
numerous alluvial basins in southern Arizona. It has been estimated the subsidence has affected more
than 3,000 square miles and has caused damage to a variety of engineered structures and agricultural
land (Schumann and Genualdi, 1986). From 1948 to 1983, excessive groundwater withdrawal has been
documented in several alluvial valleys where groundwater levels have been reportedly lowered by as
much as 500 feet. With such large depletion of groundwater, the alluvium has undergone consolidation
resulting in large areas of land subsidence.
In Arizona, earth fissures are generally associated with land subsidence and pose an on-going geologic
hazard. Earth fissures generally form near the margins of geomorphic basins where significant amounts
of groundwater depletion have occurred. Reportedly, earth fissures have also formed due to tensional
stress caused by differential subsidence of the unconsolidated alluvial materials over buried bedrock
ridges and irregular bedrock surfaces (Schumann and Genualdi, 1986).
Based on review of available information and geologic reconnaissance, there are no known earth fissures
near or adjacent to the subject site, see the attached State of Arizona Hazards Map, Figure 3. In general,
land subsidence and earth fissures are not anticipated to be a concern for the proposed development.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 4
Faulting
The site lies within the Sonoran zone, which is a relatively stable tectonic region located in southwest
Arizona, southeastern California, southern Nevada, and northern Mexico (Euge et al., 1992). This zone
is characterized by sparse seismicity and few Quaternary faults. Based on our field observations, there
are no faults located on the subject site. The closest active fault to the subject site is the Big Chino-Little
Chino Fault, located approximately 179 miles from the site.
SITE COEFFICIENT
The site class, per Table 1613.2.2, 2018 IBC, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that
a Site Class D is appropriate for building design at this site. For seismic design of the structures, in
accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2018 IBC, we recommend the following parameters:
2018 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE

Seismic Item Value IBC Reference
Site Class D Section 1613.2.2
Site Coefficient Fa 1.600 Table 1613.2.3 (1)
SS 0.182 Section 1613.2.1
SMS 0.292 Section 1613.2.3
SDS 0.194 Section 1613.2.4
Site Coefficient Fv 2.400 Table 1613.2.3 (2)
S1 0.059 Section 1613.2.1
SM1 0.143 Section 1613.2.3
SD1 0.095 Section 1613.2.4
TS 0.490 Section 1613.2
PGAM 0.118
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Subsurface soil conditions were explored by drilling a total of nine (9) borings (B-1 to B-9) to a depth of
approximately 15 feet below existing site grade, using a truck-mounted drill rig. A bulk subgrade
sample was obtained from the site for laboratory R-Value testing. The approximate boring and bulk
sample locations are shown on the attached, Site Map, Figure 1. During drilling operations, penetration
tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information
regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Soil samples were retained for laboratory
testing. The soils encountered were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System. A more detailed description of the field investigation is
presented in Appendix A.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 5
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and
engineering properties. The laboratory testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation
of natural moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation potential, R-Value, and moisture-
density relationships of the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests were performed to
evaluate the corrosivity of the soils to buried concrete and metal. Details of the laboratory test program
and results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix A. This information, along with the field
observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix A.
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the
geologic region of the site. Groundcover at the site consisted of approximately 6 inches of concrete
where the previous buildings sat and approximately 3 to 4 inches of asphalt paving for the rest of the
project site. In general, the upper soils consisted of 2 to 4 feet of firm to very stiff fill material consisting
of sandy clay material. The clay material seems as though it was placed uniform and consistent
throughout the subject site. Below the sandy clay fill, medium dense to very dense clayey sand with
varying amounts of gravel and silt content were encountered from a depth of approximately 2 feet below
site grades up to the maximum depth explored, 15 feet below site grades. Field and laboratory tests
suggest that these soils are fairly strong and moderately compressible. Penetration resistance ranged
from 7 to 40 blows per foot to over 50 blows per six inches. Dry densities ranged from 86 to 99 pcf.
Representative soil samples consolidated approximately 1.0 to 1.7 percent under a 2 ksf load when
saturated. Representative soil samples had angles of internal friction of 27 and 28 degrees with
cohesion values of approximately 300 psf, respectively.
For additional information about the soils encountered, please refer to the logs of borings in Appendix
A.
GROUNDWATER
Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately following
the drilling operations. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings drilled as part of this
investigation. Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, groundwater is anticipated to be
present at depths in excess of fifty (50) feet below ground surface.
It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon
seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Therefore,
water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during
the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 6
OTHER HAZARDS
Rockfall, Landslide, Slope Instability, and Debris Flow: The subject site is relatively flat and level. It is
our understanding that there are no significant slopes proposed as part of the proposed development.
Provided the recommendations presented in this report are implemented into the design and construction
of the anticipated development, rockfalls, landslides, slope instability, and debris flows are not
anticipated to pose a hazard to the subject site.
Seiches: Seiches are large waves generated within enclosed bodies of water. The site is not located in
close proximity to any lakes or reservoirs. As such, seiches are not anticipated to pose a hazard to the
subject site.
Hydroconsolidation: The near surface soils encountered at the subject site were found to be firm to very
stiff. The underlying native soils were found to be medium dense to very dense. Provided the
recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed
development, hydroconsolidation is not anticipated to be a significant concern for the subject site.
Expansive Soil
The near-surface clayey soils encountered at the site may be susceptible to expansion potential.
Expansive soils have the potential to undergo volume change, or shrinkage and swelling, with changes in
soil moisture. As expansive soils dry, the soil shrinks; when moisture is reintroduced into the soil, the
soil swells.
SOIL CORROSIVITY
Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried structures. The tests consisted
of sulfate content, chloride content, and resistivity and the results of the tests are included as follows:
Parameter Results Test Method

Resistivity 4,200 ohms-cm CA 643
Sulfate 325 ppm CA 417
Chloride 108 ppm CA 422
pH 7.6 EPA 9045C
INFILTRATION TESTING
Estimated infiltration rates were determined using the results of open borehole percolation testing
performed at the subject site. The location of the infiltration test IT-1 is presented on the Site Plan,
Figure 1. The percolation testing indicated that the near surface clayey sand soil was found to have an
infiltration rate of approximately 0.45 inch per hour. Detailed results of the infiltration tests are included
in Appendix A in tabular format. The soil infiltration rates are based on tests conducted with clean
water. The infiltration rates may vary with time as a result of soil clogging from water impurities. A
factor of safety should be incorporated into the design of the infiltration system to compensate for these

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 7
factors as determined appropriate by the designer. In addition, routine maintenance consisting of

clearing the system of clogged soils and debris should be expected.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geotechnical
experience in the project area, the following is a summary of our evaluations, conclusions, and
recommendations.
Administrative Summary
In brief, the subject site and soil conditions, with the exception of the loose surficial soils, the remnants
of the previous development, and the potential for expansive soils, appear to be conducive to the
development of the project. The surface fill soils have a loose consistency. These soils are disturbed,
have low strength characteristics and are highly compressible when saturated. Accordingly, it is
recommended that the surface soils be recompacted. This compaction effort should stabilize the surface
soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation.
Fill material was encountered at the subject site at depths in the order of 2 to 4 feet below existing site
grades. However, fill may be located between or beyond our borings. The thickness and extent of fill
material was determined based on limited test borings and visual observation. Verification of the extent
of fill should be determined during site grading. It is recommended that fill soils that have not been
properly compacted and certified be excavated and recompacted. Prior to backfilling, the bottom of the
excavation should be observed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. to verify no additional removal is required.
Presently, the site is vacant from any above grade structures except for the slab-on-grade floors,
foundations, and pavement sections from the previous development that are still present at the site from
the previous development. The site was previously utilized as a self-storage facility that was damage
during a fire in 2022. Associated with these developments may be buried structures, such as utility lines
and irrigation lines that may extend into the project site. Demolition activities should include proper
removal of any buried structures or loosely backfilled excavations encountered. The resulting
excavations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. It is suspected that demolition activities of the
existing structures will disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended that these
disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted. This compaction effort should stabilize the upper soils
and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation.
To reduce post-construction soil movement, provide uniform support for the buildings and other
foundations, and reduce settlement, overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building
footprint areas should be performed to a minimum depth of at least five (5) feet below existing grades or
three (3) feet below bottom of the proposed foundation bearing grades. In addition, the fill soil present
in the building area should be removed and re-placed as compacted Engineered Fill. The actual depth of
the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during
construction. The exposed subgrade at the base of the overexcavation should then be scarified,
moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted. The overexcavation and recompaction should also

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 8
extend laterally five feet (5’) beyond edges of the proposed footings or building limits. Any
undocumented fill encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill.
It is recommended that the upper 24 inches of soil supporting lightly loaded foundations (less than 1,000
psf) and slab-on-grade areas consist of Non-Expansive Engineered Fill. The intent is to support the
lightly loaded foundations and slab areas with 24 inches of non-expansive fill. The footings should have
a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is
lower. The footing should have a minimum width of 15 inches, regardless of load. Ultimate design of
foundations and reinforcement should be performed by the project Structural Engineer. It is anticipated
that the upper 2 to 4 feet of fill encountered at the site would not be acceptable to be use as Non-
Expansive Engineered Fill in the upper 24 inches.
When concrete slabs-on-grade and shallow foundations are placed on expansive soils that have been
allowed to lose moisture, the soil is likely to swell as water re-enters the soil structure. Conversely,
when slabs and foundations are constructed on moist to wet soils that are allowed to lose moisture, the
soil will shrink, as the moisture is lost. This can result in distress to structures founded on these soils,
and in particular, lightly loaded concrete slabs. Thus, it is very important that clayey soils within at least
the upper 24 inches of the subgrade in the building pad areas be replaced with non-expansive fill. Based
on the expansion potential of the soils encountered at the subject site, we recommend that exterior
concrete flatwork surrounding the buildings be supported by a minimum 24-inch thick layer of non-
expansive fill. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations it is anticipated that this
will require the use of imported select fill soil. Additional investigation may be performed following
preparation of final grading plans and building locations in order to evaluate the expansion potential of
the near surface soil at each building location.
To reduce post-construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the exterior flatwork and
proposed parking and drive areas, overexcavation and recompaction of the near surface soil in the
proposed parking area should be performed to a minimum depth of at least 12 inches below existing
grades or proposed subgrade, whichever is deeper. The actual depth of the overexcavation and
recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction. The overexcavation
and recompaction should also extend laterally at least three (3) feet beyond edges of the proposed paving
limits or to the property boundary. Any undocumented fill encountered during grading should be
removed and replaced with Engineered Fill.
After completion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for shallow footing
support. The proposed structure footings may be designed utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of
2,400 psf for dead-plus-live loads. Footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches.
Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction
Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the
zone of structural influence or affect the construction of foundations and pavements for the project.
However, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may
become saturated, “pump,” or not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures
include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 9
and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement
product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable
subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations.
Site Preparation
General site clearing should include removal of vegetation; existing utilities; structures including
foundations; existing stockpiled soil; existing pavement sections; trees and associated root systems;
rubble; rubbish; and any loose and/or saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a minimum
depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. Deeper
stripping may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for use as Engineered
Fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas.
Fill material was encountered at the subject site at depths in the order of 2 to 4 feet below existing site
grades. However, fill may be located between or beyond our borings. The thickness and extent of fill
material was determined based on limited test borings and visual observation. Verification of the extent
of fill should be determined during site grading. It is recommended that fill soils that have not been
properly compacted and certified be excavated and recompacted. Prior to backfilling, the bottom of the
excavation should be observed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. to verify no additional removal is required.
Any excavations that result from clearing operations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. Krazan
& Associates’ field staff should be present during site clearing operations to enable us to locate areas
where depressions or disturb soils are present and to allow our staff to observe and test the backfill as it
is placed. If site clearing and backfilling operations occur without appropriate observation and testing
by a qualified geotechnical consultant, there may be the need to over-excavate the building areas to
identify uncontrolled fills prior to mass grading of the building pads.
Overexcavation and Recompaction – Building and Foundation Areas
To reduce post-construction soil movement, provide uniform support for the buildings and other
foundations, and reduce settlement, overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building
footprint areas should be performed to a minimum depth of at least five (5) feet below existing grades or
three (3) feet below bottom of the proposed foundation bearing grades. In addition, the fill soil present
in the building area should be removed and re-placed as compacted Engineered Fill. The actual depth of
the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during
construction. The exposed subgrade at the base of the overexcavation should then be scarified,
moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted. The overexcavation and recompaction should also
extend laterally five feet (5’) beyond edges of the proposed footings or building limits. Any
undocumented fill encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill.
Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 8 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-
conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density
based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Fill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 10
It is recommended that the upper 24 inches of soil supporting lightly loaded foundations (less than 1,000
psf) and slab-on-grade areas consist of Non-Expansive Engineered Fill. The intent is to support the
lightly loaded foundations and slab areas with 24 inches of non-expansive fill. The fill placement serves
2 functions: 1) it provides a uniform amount of soil which will more evenly distribute the soil pressures
and 2) it reduces moisture content fluctuation in the clayey material beneath the structure area. The non-
expansive fill material should be a well-graded silty sand or sandy silt soil. A clean sand or very sandy
soil is not acceptable for this purpose. A sandy soil will allow the surface water to drain into the
expansive clayey soil below, which may result in soil swelling. Imported Fill should be approved by the
Soils Engineer prior to placement. The non-expansive fill should be placed as specified as Engineered
Fill. It is anticipated that the upper 2 to 5 feet of fill encountered at the site would not be acceptable to
be reuse as Non-Expansive Engineered Fill in the upper 24 inches.
Overexcavation and Recompaction – Exterior Flatwork and Parking Areas
To reduce post-construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the exterior flatwork and
proposed parking and drive areas, overexcavation and recompaction of the near surface soil in the
proposed parking area should be performed to a minimum depth of at least 12 inches below existing
grades or proposed subgrade, whichever is deeper. The actual depth of the overexcavation and
recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction. The overexcavation
and recompaction should also extend laterally at least three (3) feet beyond edges of the proposed paving
limits or to the property boundary. Any undocumented fill encountered during grading should be
removed and replaced with Engineered Fill.
Any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and the resulting
excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum
dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas
extending below planned finished subgrade levels should be cleaned to firm, undisturbed soil and
backfilled with Engineered Fill. In general, any septic tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures
should be entirely removed. Concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3
feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the Soils Engineer. Any other buried
structures encountered, should be removed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils
Engineer. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill.
The upper soils, during wet winter months become very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of the
soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils,
which may require removal to grade a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting
of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the construction phase should be
performed.
A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and
observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as
acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of
the material. The Soils Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability
requirements. Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 11
earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section and the Engineered Fill
section.
Fill Placement
Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 8 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-
conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density based
on ASTM Test Method D1557. Fill material should be moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to
a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557.
The upper soils, during wet winter months, may become very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of
the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils,
which may require removal to grade a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting of
placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the construction phase should be
performed.
Engineered Fill
The on-site upper fill soils are predominately sandy clays. These soils will not be suitable for reuse as
Engineered Fill in the upper 2 feet of any structural element. These soils would be suitable to reuse as
General Engineered Fill below the upper 2 feet, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics, debris,
and fragments greater than 6 inches in diameter.
The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the
exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the
construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since he has complete control of
the project site at that time.
Imported Fill should consist of a well-graded, slightly cohesive, fine silty sand or sandy silt, with
relatively impervious characteristics when compacted. This material should be approved by the Soils
Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the following characteristics:
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 20 to 50

Plasticity Index 10 maximum
UBC Standard 29-2 Expansion Index 15 maximum
Fill soils should be placed in lifts approximately 6 inches thick, moisture-conditioned to a minimum of 2
percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve at least 95 percent maximum dry
density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift
did not meet the required density or if soil conditions are not stable.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 12
EXPANSIVE SOIL MITIGATION

When concrete slabs-on-grade and shallow foundations are placed on expansive soils that have been
allowed to lose moisture, the soil is likely to swell as water re-enters the soil structure. Conversely,
when slabs and foundations are constructed on moist to wet soils that are allowed to lose moisture, the
soil will shrink, as the moisture is lost. This can result in distress to structures founded on these soils,
and in particular, lightly loaded concrete slabs. Thus, it is very important that clayey soils within at least
the upper 24 inches of the subgrade in the building pad areas be replaced with non-expansive fill. Based
on the expansion potential of the soils encountered at the subject site, we recommend that exterior
concrete flatwork surrounding the buildings be supported by a minimum 24-inch thick layer of non-
expansive fill. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations it is anticipated that this
will require the use of imported select fill soil. Additional investigation may be performed following
preparation of final grading plans and building locations in order to evaluate the expansion potential of
the near surface soil at each building location.
Drainage and Landscaping
The ground surface should slope away from building and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets
or other surface drainage devices. We recommended that adjacent paved exterior grades be sloped a
minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Ideally, asphalt concrete
pavement areas should be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent, with Portland cement concrete sloped at a
minimum of one percent toward drainage structures. These grades should be maintained for the life of
the project. Roof drains should be designed to avoid discharging into landscape areas adjacent to the
building. Downspouts should be directed to discharge directly onto paved surfaces to allow for surface
drainage into the storm systems or should be connected directly to the on-site storm drain.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practice following OSHA
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a Contractor experienced in such work.
The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the Contractor. Traffic and
vibration adjacent to trench walls should be reduced; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes
should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow
into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of
precipitation.
Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at
least 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Utility trench
backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry
density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with pipe
manufacturer's recommendations.
The Contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the
backfill location and compaction requirements. The Contractor should use appropriate equipment and
methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 13
Foundations - Conventional
The proposed structures may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on a minimum of
three (3) feet of Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for the following
maximum allowable soil bearing pressures:
Load Allowable Loading

Dead Load Only 1,800psf
Dead-Plus-Live Load 2,400 psf
Total Load, including wind or seismic loads 3,200 psf
The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent
exterior grade, whichever is lower. Footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches, regardless of
load.
The total soil movement is not expected to exceed 1 inch. Differential movement measured across a
horizontal distance of 30 feet should be less than ½ inch. Most of the settlement is expected to occur
during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post-construction settlement may
occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated.
The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete. It is
recommended that footings be reinforced by at least one No. 4 reinforcing bar in both top and bottom.
Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.25
acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can
alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 200 pounds per cubic
foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil
may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A ⅓ increase in the
above value may be used for short duration, wind, or seismic loads.
Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork
In areas where moisture-sensitive floor coverings will be utilized, concrete slab-on-grade floors should
be underlain by a water vapor retarder. The water vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with
accepted engineering practices. The water vapor retarder should consist of a vapor retarder sheeting
underlain by a minimum of 3 inches of compacted, clean gravel of ¾-inch maximum size. To aid in
concrete curing an optional 2 to 4 inches of granular fill may be placed on top of the vapor retarder. The
granular fill should consist of damp clean sand with at least 10 to 30 percent of the sand passing the 100
sieve. The sand should be free of clay, silt, or organic material. Rock dust which is manufactured sand
from rock crushing operations is typically suitable for the granular fill. This granular fill material should
be compacted.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 14
Unless designed by the project structural engineer, concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of five
(5) inches thick. It is recommended that the concrete slab be reinforced to reduce crack separation and
possible vertical offset at the cracks. We recommend at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch
centers, be used for this purpose. Thicker floor slabs with increased concrete strength and reinforcement
should be designed wherever heavy concentrated loads, heavy equipment, or machinery is anticipated.
The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation
system. Exterior finish grades should be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from all interior slab
areas to preclude ponding of water adjacent to the structures. All fills required to bring the building pads
to grade should be Engineered Fills.
Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the
moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor can travel through the vapor membrane and penetrate the
slab-on-grade. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew
in the structure. To reduce moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be
installed. It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in
our report, to reduce the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to
the immediate drainage and irrigation around the building is recommended. Positive drainage should be
established away from the structure and should be maintained throughout the life of the structure.
Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over-irrigation within landscaped
areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed. In addition, ventilation of the structure (i.e.
ventilation fans) is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture.
Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls
Walls retaining horizontal backfill and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent of its height at
the top may be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 44 pounds per square foot per foot
of depth. Walls incapable of this deflection or are fully constrained walls against deflection may be
designed for an equivalent fluid at-rest pressure of 63 pounds per square foot per foot of depth.
Expansive soils should not be used for backfill against walls. The wedge of non-expansive backfill
material should extend from the bottom of each retaining wall outward and upward at a slope of 2:1
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of
hydrostatic water pressures generated by infiltrating surface water that may accumulate behind the
retaining walls; or loads imposed by construction equipment, foundations, or roadways.
During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed
to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall
height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures. Within this zone, only
hand-operated equipment (“whackers,” vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to
compact the backfill soils.
Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pipe encased in free-
draining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a minimum width of 12
inches and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. The upper 12 inches of

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 15
backfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic concrete, or other suitable backfill to reduce
surface drainage into the wall drain system. The aggregate should conform to Class 2 permeable
materials graded in accordance with the Arizona Department of Transportation Standard Specifications.
Prefabricated drainage systems, such as Miradrain®, Enkadrain®, or an equivalent substitute, are
acceptable alternatives in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firm should
review the system for final acceptance prior to installation.
Drainage pipes should be placed with perforations down and should discharge in a non-erosive manner
away from foundations and other improvements. The pipes should be placed no higher than 6 inches
above the heel of the wall, in the center line of the drainage blanket and should have a minimum
diameter of four inches. Collector pipes may be either slotted or perforated. Slots should be no wider
than ⅛ inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than ¼ inch in diameter. If retaining
walls are less than 6 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lieu of weep holes on 4 feet
maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 4-inch diameter holes (concrete walls) or
unmortared head joints (masonry walls) and not be higher than 18 inches above the lowest adjacent
grade. Two 8-inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to CalTrans Standard
Specifications for “edge drains”) should be affixed to the rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard
soil piping.
Pavement Design
Based on the established standard practice of designing flexible pavements in accordance with State of
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for projects within Arizona, we have developed flexible
pavement sections in accordance with the procedure presented in ASHTO Pavement Design Guide.
Asphalt Concrete (Flexible) Pavements
One (1) near-surface soil sample was obtained from the soil borings at the project site for laboratory R-
Value testing. Results of the test are as follows:
Sample Depth Description R-Value at Equilibrium
R1 0-36" Clayey Sand (SC) 51

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 16
The test results are moderate and indicate great subgrade support characteristics under dynamic traffic
loads. The following table shows the recommended pavement sections for various traffic conditions.
Traffic Asphaltic Concrete Class II Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade**
Conditions
Light Traffic 2.5" 4.0" 12.0"
Heavy Traffic 3.0" 4.0" 12.0"
Trucks 4.0" 5.0" 12.0"
* 95% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557
** 100% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557
We recommend that the subgrade soil be prepared as discussed in this report. The compacted subgrade
should be non-yielding when proof-rolled with a loaded ten-wheel truck, such as a water truck or dump
truck, prior to pavement construction. Subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 3 feet laterally
behind the edge of pavement or back of curbs.
Pavement areas should be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water off the
site. A cross slope of 2 percent is recommended in asphalt concrete pavement areas to provide good
surface drainage and to reduce the potential for water to penetrate into the pavement structure.
Unless otherwise required by local jurisdictions, paving materials should comply with the materials
specifications presented in the Arizona Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. Class 2
Aggregate should comply with the materials requirements for Class 2 Base found in Arizona Department
of Transportation Standard Specifications.
The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, ½-inch or ¾-inch maximum, medium grading, for the wearing
course and ¾-inch maximum, medium grading for the base course, and shall conform to the
requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. Asphalt concrete should be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum laboratory compacted (kneading compactor)
unit weight.
ASTM Test procedures should be used to assess the percent relative compaction of soils, aggregate base
and asphalt concrete. Aggregate base and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at
least 100 percent based on the Standard Proctor maximum compacted unit weight obtained in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D698. Compacted aggregate base should also be stable and
unyielding when proof-rolled with a loaded ten-wheel water truck or dump truck.
If traffic indices are not available, an estimated (typical value) index of 4.0 may be used for light traffic
and an index of 7.0 may be used for heavy traffic. Following grading operations, it is recommended
additional R-Value testing be performed to verify the design R-Value.

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 17
The following recommendations are for light-duty and heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement
sections.
PORTLAND CEMENT PAVEMENT

LIGHT DUTY
Traffic Index Portland Cement Concrete*** Class II Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade**
4.5 5.0" 4.0” 12.0"
HEAVY DUTY
Traffic Index Portland Cement Concrete*** Class II Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade**
7.0 6.0" 4.0” 12.0"
* 95% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557
** 98% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557
***Minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi
Infiltration Testing
The shallow soil conditions present at the subject site were evaluated by drilling one (1) shallow boring
in the vicinity of the infiltration test. The borings drilled at the site indicated the subsurface soil
conditions consisted of medium dense clayey sand.
Infiltration rates were determined using the results of open borehole infiltration testing performed at the
subject site. Infiltration testing performed on the near surface silty sand soil indicate infiltration rates of
approximately 0.45 inch per hour at a depth of approximately 10 feet below existing site grades.
It is recommended that the location of the infiltration systems not be closer than ten feet (10’) as
measured laterally from the edge of the adjacent property line, ten feet (10’) from the outside edge of
any foundation and five (5’) from the edge of any right-of way to the outside edges of the infiltration
system.
If the infiltration location is within ten feet (10’) from the proposed foundation, it is recommended that
this infiltration system should be impervious from the finished ground surface to a depth that will
achieve a diagonal distance of a minimum of ten feet (10’) below the bottom of the closest footing in the
project.
Soil Cement Reactivity
Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement
in concrete (or stucco) and the soil. HUD/FHA and ADOT have developed criteria for evaluation of
sulfate levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water.
One soil sample was obtained from the site and tested in accordance with State of California Materials
Manual Test Designation 417. The sulfate concentration detected from the soil sample indicated
moderate sulfate exposure value as established by HUD/FHA and ADOT. Therefore, it is recommended

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 18
that concrete in contact with soil utilize Type II Cement and have a minimum compressive strength of
4,000 psi with a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.50.
Electrical resistivity testing of the soil indicates that the onsite soils may have a moderate potential for
metal loss from electrochemical corrosion process. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted
regarding the corrosion effects of the onsite soils on underground metal utilities.
Compacted Material Acceptance
Compaction specifications are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such
activities. However, the compaction test is the most universally recognized test method for assessing the
performance of the Grading Contractor. The numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be
used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance of
compacted materials will also be dependent upon the stability of that material. The Soils Engineer has
the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of compaction if that material is
considered to be unstable or if future instability is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill
material passing the required percent compaction is a fill which has been compacted with an in-situ
moisture content significantly less than optimum moisture. This type of dry fill (brittle fill) is
susceptible to future settlement if it becomes saturated or flooded.
Testing and Inspection
A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork
activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork.
This activity is an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon
compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of
these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates,
Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor.
LIMITATIONS
Soils Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering
is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although
your site was analyzed using the most appropriate and most current techniques and methods,
undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to
advancements in the field of Soils Engineering, physical changes in the site, either due to excavation or
fill placement, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure after the soils
report is completed may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of this, the
Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical
review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that 2 years be
considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report.
Foundation and earthwork construction are characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil
and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk
is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited

KA No. 112-23060
Page No. 19
sampling of the earth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil
conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. If any variations
or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the Soils Engineer should be notified so
that supplemental recommendations may be made.
The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed
construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may
not be valid. The Soils Engineer should be notified of any changes so the recommendations may be
reviewed and re-evaluated.
This report is a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil
conditions in terms of foundation design. The scope of our services did not include any Environmental
Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater,
or atmosphere; or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or
on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for
descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous
and/or toxic assessment.
The geotechnical engineering information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation
utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It
is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical
engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and
should not be used for any other sites.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (951) 273-1011.
Respectfully submitted,
Dean L. Alexander
Principal Engineer
RCE No. 27446
Expires 09/30/2023

B1
B2
B6/R1
B5
B4
B3
B8 B7
B9
IT1
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION
Scale: Date:
SITE MAP NTS Jul., 2023
PROPOSED PUBLIC STORAGE Drawn by: Approved by:
MESA OS JP
Project No. Figure No. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
810 S. COUNTRY CLUB DRVE,
112-23060 1
MESA, ARIZONA
SUBJECT SITE
Scale: Date:
VICINITY MAP NTS Jul., 2023
MESA OS JP
112-23060 2
MESA, ARIZONA
SUBJECT SITE
Source: Interactive Map of Natural Hazards in Arizona, American Geosciences Institute, 2023
STATE OF ARIZONA Scale: Date:
HAZARDS MAP NTS Jul., 2023

MESA OS JP GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Project No. Figure No.
112-23060 3
MESA, ARIZONA
SUBJECT SITE
Source: Arizona Geological Survey, Geologic Map of Arizona
Scale: Date:
GEOLOGIC MAP NTS Jul., 2023
21206 OS JP
112-23060 4
MESA, ARIZONA
Appendix A
Page A.1
APPENDIX A
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Field Investigation
Our field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program
consisted of drilling, logging and sampling a total of nine (9) borings.
A member of our staff visually classified the soils in the field as the drilling progressed and recorded a
continuous log of each boring. Visual classification of the soils encountered in our exploratory borings was
made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). A key for the
classification of the soil and the boring logs are presented in this Appendix.
During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil
consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsoils. Samples
were obtained from the borings by driving either a 2.5-inch inside diameter Modified California tube
sampler fitted with brass sleeves or a 2-inch outside diameter, 1⅜-inch inside diameter Standard
Penetration (“split-spoon”) test (SPT) sampler without sleeves. Soil samples were retained for possible
laboratory testing. The samplers were driven up to a depth of 18 inches into the underlying soil using a
140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded
for each 6-inch penetration interval and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12
inches are shown as blows per foot on the boring logs.
The approximate locations of our borings and bulk samples are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These
approximate locations were estimated in the field based on pacing and measuring from the limits of
existing site features.
Laboratory Investigation
The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of
the soil underlying the site. The laboratory-testing program was formulated with emphasis on the
evaluation of in-situ moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation potential, and R-value of
the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the soil/cement
reactivity and corrosivity. Test results were used in our engineering analysis with respect to site and
building pad preparation through mass grading activities, foundation and retaining wall design
recommendations, pavement section design, evaluation of the materials as possible fill materials and for
possible exclusion of some soils from use at the structures as fill or backfill.
Select laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs, with graphic or tabulated results of
selected tests included in this Appendix. The laboratory test data, along with the field observations, was
used to prepare the final boring logs presented in the Appendix.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
Description Blows per Foot
(more than 50% of material Is larger than No. 200 sieve size.) Granular Soils
Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) Very Loose <5
~~~ Loose 5-15
.....
....:4
GW
Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines Medium Dense 16-40
GRAVELS
Dense 41-65
More than 50%
of coarse
~
.
~ Q'c
GP
Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines Very Dense > 65
fraction larger Gravels with fines (More than 12% flnesl Cohesive Soils
than No. 4
sieve size
Very Soft <3
GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Soft 3-5
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay Firm 6-10
GC
lo mixtures Stiff 11 -20
Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines) Very Stiff 21-40
:::::: SW
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, Hard >40
SANDS ~=~=~=
.'· :,··
little or no fines
50% or more ·:.·' Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
::.:. ·: SP
..
of coarse .•.
little or no fines Grain Type Standard Sieve Size Grain Size in
fraction smaller Sands with fines {More than 12% finesl Millimeters
than No. 4
II Boulders Above 12 inches Above 305
sieve size SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Cobbles 12 to 13 inches 305 to 76.2
~
~
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Gravel 3 inches to No. 4 76.2 to 4.76
Coarse-grained 3 to% inches 76.2 to 19.1
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Fine-grained % inches to No. 4 19.1to4.76
(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.)
Sand No. 4 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.074
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock
ML flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey Coarse-grained No. 4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2.00
SILTS silts with slight plasticity Medium-grained No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.042
AND
~
CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to medium Fine-grained No. 40 to No. 200 0.042 to 0.074
~
Liquid limit CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silty clays, lean clays Silt and Clay Below No. 200 Below 0.074
less than
50% -
~ ·-
...:.-_ Organic silts and organic silty clays of
- OL PLASTICITY CHART
1- -
- - low plasticity
~
MH
Inorganic sllts, micaceous or
dlatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, !
60
50
,v
SILTS elastic silts
~ CH ./
v
AND t1 40
CLAYS II" ALINE:
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat Cl /p1 = o·73(L. -20)
CH !:
Liquid llmlt
50%
clays
5
30
20
CL v MHA.OH
or greater
Organic clays of medium to high v
OH
plasticity, organic silts §
IL
10 ..... CLctlll. ·. ,, ,_ ./
ML&,OL
,,\1, 0
HIGHLY 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ORGANIC i.!L ~ PT Peat and other highly organic soils
LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)
SOILS ,\I/
Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler
California Modified Split Spoon Sampler

Log of Boring B1
Project: Public Storage Mesa Project No: 112-23060
Client: Public Storage Figure No.: A-1
Location: 810 S. Country Club Drive, Mesa, Arizona Logged By: Gabriel Ramirez
Depth to Water> Not encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
ASPHALT PAVING = 4.0 INCHES
BASE = 0
FILL; SANDY CLAY
2 Firm; dark brown, moist, drills easily
CLAYEY SAND (SC) with GRAVEL

4 SILT
Medium dense, medium to fine-grained;
brown, moist, drills easily
112.5 12.7 7
6
10
103.3 17.7 18
12
14
13.0 25
End of Borehole
16 Water not encountered
Backfilled with soil cuttings
18
20
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Drill Date: 6-11-23
Drill Rig: CME 75 Krazan and Associates Hole Size: 8 Inches
Driller: Resilient Drilling Elevation: 15 Feet

Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B2
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
BASE = 0
FILL; SANDY CLAY
2 Stiff; dark brown, moist, drills easily
SILT
4 Medium dense, medium to fine-grained;
109.9 12.8 16
6
104.1 15.0 17
10
End of Borehole
Water not encountered
12
14
16
18
20

Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B3
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
BASE = 0
FILL; SANDY CLAY

4 SILT
107.1 13.7 18
6
106.7 15.2 17
10
End of Borehole
12
14
16
18
20

Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B4
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
SLAB-ON-GRADE = 6.0 INCHES
FILL; SANDY CLAY
Stiff; dark brown, moist, drills easily
2
91.6 12.6 19
4 SILT
98.4 11.6 23
6
10
103.9 14.1 40
12
14 Very dense below 14 feet

16.5 50+
End of Borehole
18
20

Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B5
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
FILL; SANDY CLAY
Firm; dark brown, moist, drills easily
2
SILT
93.2 16.3 19
6
100.0 15.8 20
10
End of Borehole
12
14
16
18
20

Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B6
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
BASE = 0
FILL; SANDY CLAY
2 Firm; dark brown, moist, drills easily
SILT
93.1 11.4 17
6
100.9 12.7 24
10
End of Borehole
12
14
16
18
20

Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B7
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
FILL; SANDY CLAY
Firm; dark brown, moist, drills easily
2

4 SILT
91.7 15.1 18
6
104.6 14.5 18
10
End of Borehole
12
14
16
18
20

Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B8
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
BASE = 0
FILL; SANDY CLAY

4 SILT
97.8 12.9 26
6
101.7 15.0 40
10
End of Borehole
12
14
16
18
20

Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B9
Penetration Test
Dry Density (pcf)

blows/ft
Water Content (%)
Moisture (%)
Description
Depth (ft)
Blows/ft.
Symbol
Type
20 40 60 10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
0
FILL; SANDY CLAY
Stiff; dark brown, moist, drills easily
2
4
SILT
Medium dense, medium to fine-grained; 94.4 11.9 11
6 brown, moist, drills easily
10
100.5 12.0 22
12
14 Very dense below 14 feet

No Recovery 50+
End of Borehole
18
20

Sheet: 1 of 1
Sieve Analysis
Project Number : 11223060
Project Name : PS Mesa
Date : 7/22/2023
Sample Location : B-4 @ 10'
Soil Classification : CL
Wet Weight : 527.70

Dry Weight : 527.70
Moisture Content : 0%
Sieves Sieve Retained Retained. Cum Cum.

Size/Number Size, mm Weight % % Retained % Passing.
1-1/2" 37.50 100.0
1" 25.00 100.0
3/4" 19.00 100.0
1/2" 12.50 100.0
3/8" 9.50 4.9 0.9 0.9 99.1
#4 4.75 23.2 4.4 5.3 94.7
#8 2.36 14.5 2.7 8.1 91.9
#16 1.18 12.7 2.4 10.5 89.5
#30 0.60 27.3 5.2 15.7 84.3
#50 0.30 35.4 6.7 22.4 77.6
#100 0.15 55.4 10.5 32.9 67.1
#200 0.08 66.7 12.6 45.5 54.5
Krazan Testing Laboratory

Grain Size Analysis
3 1 1/2 #30 #200
100.0
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
#16
#4 #8 #50 #100
1-1/2 3/4 3/8 90.0
80.0
70.0
PERCENT PASSING
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)

Project Name PS Mesa
Project Number 11223060
Soil Classification CL
Sample Number B-4 @ 10'

Sieve Analysis
Date : 7/22/2023
Soil Classification : SC w/ GRAVEL & SILT
Wet Weight : 493.40

Dry Weight : 493.40

1-1/2" 37.50 100.0
1" 25.00 100.0
3/4" 19.00 100.0
1/2" 12.50 10.2 2.1 2.1 97.9
3/8" 9.50 18.6 3.8 5.8 94.2
#4 4.75 52.3 10.6 16.4 83.6
#8 2.36 45.9 9.3 25.7 74.3
#16 1.18 26.3 5.3 31.1 68.9
#30 0.60 24.8 5.0 36.1 63.9
#50 0.30 26.8 5.4 41.5 58.5
#100 0.15 30.9 6.3 47.8 52.2
#200 0.08 43.6 8.8 56.6 43.4

Grain Size Analysis
3 1 1/2 #30 #200
100.0
#16
#4 #8 #50 #100
1-1/2 3/4 3/8 90.0
80.0
70.0
PERCENT PASSING
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001


Soil Classification SC w/ GRAVEL & SILT

Sieve Analysis
Date : 7/22/2023
Soil Classification : SC w/ GRAVEL & SILT
Wet Weight : 581.20

Dry Weight : 581.20

1-1/2" 37.50 100.0
1" 25.00 100.0
3/4" 19.00 100.0
1/2" 12.50 5.2 0.9 0.9 99.1
3/8" 9.50 10.2 1.8 2.6 97.4
#4 4.75 30.6 5.3 7.9 92.1
#8 2.36 24.2 4.2 12.1 87.9
#16 1.18 41.2 7.1 19.2 80.8
#30 0.60 41.2 7.1 26.3 73.7
#50 0.30 36.5 6.3 32.5 67.5
#100 0.15 65.8 11.3 43.9 56.1
#200 0.08 74.2 12.8 56.6 43.4

Grain Size Analysis
3 1 1/2 #30 #200
100.0
#16
#4 #8 #50 #100
1-1/2 3/4 3/8 90.0
80.0
70.0
PERCENT PASSING
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001


Soil Classification SC w/ GRAVEL & SILT

Direct Shear of Consolidated, Drained Soils
ASTM D - 3080 / AASHTO T - 236
Date : 7/22/2023
Soil Classification : SC
Sample Surface Area : 0.0289
STRESS DISPLACEMENT DATA

Lat. Disp. Normal Load Normal Load Shear force Shear Stress
(in.) 1000 2000 3000 psf lbs psf
0 0 0 0 1000 23.2 803
0.030 18.2 50.3 68.2 2000 39.0 1349
0.060 21.3 60.1 81.3 3000 52.2 1807
0.090 30.3 74.2 106.9
0.120 38.2 102.3 124.3
0.150 45 114.5 141.3
0.180 63.5 120.3 158.6
0.210 70.3 114.2 162
0.240 62.8 154.3
0.270
0.300
0.330
0.360
3.50
Cohesion: 0.3 Ksf
Angle of Internal Friction: 27 °
3.00
2.50
Shear Strength, Ksf
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Normal Load, Ksf

Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
Project Number Boring No. & Depth Soil Type Date
11223060 B-2 @ 5' SC 7/22/2023
Cohesion: 0.3 Ksf

3.00
2.00
Shear Strength, Ksf
1.00
0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Normal Load, Ksf

Direct Shear of Consolidated, Drained Soils
Date : 7/22/2023
Sample Surface Area : 0.0289
STRESS DISPLACEMENT DATA

Lat. Disp. Normal Load Normal Load Shear force Shear Stress
(in.) 1000 2000 3000 psf lbs psf
0 0 0 0 1000 23.2 803
0.030 16.3 41.9 53.9 2000 37.7 1305
0.060 24.6 68.2 74.8 3000 54.4 1884
0.090 30.5 76.9 81.6
0.120 47.5 90.6 103.6
0.150 51 105.8 120.4
0.180 58.6 109.5 136.9
0.210 70 116.9 151.7
0.240 61.3 102.7 169
0.270 57.6 161.3
0.300 152.9
0.330
0.360
3.50
Cohesion: 0.3 Ksf
3.00
2.50
Shear Strength, Ksf
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Normal Load, Ksf

Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
Project Number Boring No. & Depth Soil Type Date
11223060 B-7 @ 5' SC 7/22/2023
Cohesion: 0.3 Ksf

3.00
2.00
Shear Strength, Ksf
1.00
0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Normal Load, Ksf

One Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soil
Date : 7/22/2023
Sample Condition : Undisturbed
LOAD (ksf) Reading % Consolidation

0.1 0.0009 --
0.5 0.002 0.20
1 0.0032 0.32
2 0.0054 0.54
Satur. 0.0165 1.65
4 0.0214 2.14
8 0.0278 2.78
0.1 0.0106 1.06
Load in Kips per Square Foot
0.1 1 10 100
0.00
% Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 1.7 %

1.00
2.00
3.00
Percent Consolidation
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00

Consolidation Test
Project No Boring No. & Depth Date Soil Classification
11223060 B-1 @ 5' 7/22/2023 SC

0.1 1 10 100
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00

One Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soil
Date : 7/22/2023
Sample Condition : Undisturbed
LOAD (ksf) Reading % Consolidation

0.1 0 --
0.5 0.0008 0.08
1 0.0015 0.15
2 0.0026 0.26
Satur. 0.0097 0.97
4 0.0136 1.36
8 0.0216 2.16
0.1 0.0089 0.89
0.1 1 10 100
0.00

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00

Consolidation Test
Project No Boring No. & Depth Date Soil Classification
11223060 B-3 @ 5' 7/22/2023 SC

0.1 1 10 100
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00

RESULTS OF INFILTRATION TESTS - REVERSE BOREHOLE
Project # 112-23060 Date 7/22/2023
Project Name Public Storage Mesa
Project Address 810 S. Country Club Drive, Mesa, AZ
Test No: IT-1 Total Depth (in.) 120 Test Size (in) 8
Depth To Water >>50' Soil Classification SM
Incremental
Elasped Incremental Time Initial Depth To Final Depth To Incremental Fall of
Reading Infiltration Rate
Time(min.) (min.) Water(in.) Water(in.) Water(in.)
(in/hr)
Start 0 0.00 12.00 -- --
1 10.00 10.00 12.00 17.00 5.00 0.56
2 20.00 10.00 17.00 21.50 4.50 0.53
3 60.00 10.00 21.50 25.70 4.20 0.51
4 80.00 10.00 25.70 29.80 4.10 0.52
5 100.00 10.00 29.80 33.60 3.80 0.50
6 120.00 10.00 33.60 37.10 3.50 0.48
7 140.00 10.00 37.10 40.30 3.20 0.46
8 160.00 10.00 40.30 43.30 3.00 0.45
Infiltration Rate in Inches per Hour 0.45
IT-1
0.7
Infiltration Rate (inches/hour)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (minutes)
ANAHEIM TEST LAB, INC
196 Technology Drive, Unit D
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone (949) 336-6544
DATE: 6/23/2023
1100 Olympic Drive, Ste. 103 P.O. NO.: Verbal
Corona, CA 92888
LAB NO.: C-7133
SPECIFICATION: CTM-643/417/422
MATERIAL: Soil
Project No.: 11223060

Project: Mesa, AZ
Sample ID: B-1 @ 0-5’
ANALYTICAL REPORT
CORROSION SERIES
SUMMARY OF DATA
pH MIN. RESISTIVITY SOLUBLE SULFATES SOLUBLE CHLORIDES

per CT. 643 per CT. 417 per CT. 422
ohm-cm ppm ppm
7.6 4,200 325 108
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
________________________________
WES BRIDGER LAB MANAGER
ANAHEIM TEST LAB, INC
196 Technology Drive, Unit D
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone (949) 336-6544
TO:
DATE: 6/23/2023
1100 Olympic Drive, Ste. 103 P.O. NO.: Verbal
Corona, CA 92888
LAB NO.: C-7133
SPECIFICATION: CA 301
MATERIAL: Brown, Clayey Sand

w. Gravel
Project No.: 11223060

Project: Mesa, AZ
Sample ID: R-1 @ 0-3’
ANALYTICAL REPORT
“R” VALUE
BY EXUDATION BY EXPANSION
51 N/A
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
________________________________
WES BRIDGER LAB MANAGER
"R" VALUE CA 301
Client: Krazan & Associates, Inc. ATL No.: C 7133 Date: 6/23/2023
Client Reference No.: 11223060
Sample: R-1 @ 0-3' Soil Type: Brown, Clayey Sand w. Gravel
TEST SPECIMEN A B C D
Compactor Air Pressure psi 100 350 200
Initial Moisture Content % 9.6 9.6 9.6
Moisture at Compaction % 10.5 9.6 10.1
Briquette Height in. 2.45 2.46 2.49
Dry Density pcf 125.4 127.2 126.1
EXUDATION PRESSURE psi 291 726 393
EXPANSION PRESSURE psf 22 130 74
Ph at 1000 pounds psi 30 20 24
Ph at 2000 pounds psi 65 40 53
Displacement turns 3.61 3.05 3.16
"R" Value 50 71 61
CORRECTED "R" VALUE 50 71 61
Final "R" Value
BY EXUDATION: 51
@ 300 psi
BY EXPANSION: N/A
TI = 5.0
90
5
80
70
60
50
"R" Value
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Exudation Pressure
Appendix B
Page B.1
APPENDIX B
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the
recommendations in the report have precedence.
SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork
associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and
equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for
receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines
and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials.
PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all
earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and
tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the
Geotechnical Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be
certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Geotechnical Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the
Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements
embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all
work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and the Civil Engineer.
No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Geotechnical
Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect.
No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical
Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the
commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.
The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during
the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement
shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend,
indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in
connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence
of the Owner or the Engineers.
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to the minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent. Soil moisture content requirements presented in the Geotechnical Engineer’s
report shall also be complied with. The maximum laboratory compacted dry unit weight of each soil
placed as fill shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-00 (Modified Proctor).
The optimum moisture content shall also be determined in accordance with this test method. The terms
“relative compaction” and “compaction” are defined as the in-place dry density of the compacted soil
divided by the laboratory compacted maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method
D1557-00, expressed as a percentage as specified in the technical portion of the Geotechnical Engineer's
report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be as determined by the Geotechnical
Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon
which the Geotechnical Engineer will judge satisfactory completion of work.

Appendix B
Page B.2
SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and
to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report.
The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contract for any loss
sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the
actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.
DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any
dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation
either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor
leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all
claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work.
SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing, over-excavation of the proposed building pad
areas, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, construction of Engineered Fill including the
placement of non-expansive fill where recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and
shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface
and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the
Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Site stripping to remove organic materials and organic-laden
soils in landscaped areas shall extend to a minimum depth of 2 inches or until all organic-laden soil with
organic matter in excess of 3 percent of the soils by volume are removed. Such materials shall become
the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site.
Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to
such an extent that would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots
removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface. Backfill of tree
root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the
Geotechnical Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning
in areas that are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted.
Excavations required to achieve design grades, depressions, soft or pliant areas, or areas disturbed by
demolition activities extending below planned finished subgrade levels should be excavated down to
firm, undisturbed soil and backfilled with Engineered Fill. The resulting excavations should be
backfilled with Engineered Fill.
EXCAVATION: Following clearing and grubbing operations, the proposed building pad area shall be
over-excavated to a depth of at least three (3) feet below existing grades or one foot below the planned
foundation bottom levels, whichever is deeper, and the remaining areas of the building and adjoining
exterior concrete flatwork or pavements at the building perimeter shall be over-excavated to a depth of at
least one foot below existing grade. The areas of over-excavation and recompaction beneath footings
and slabs shall extend out laterally a minimum of five feet beyond the perimeter of these elements.

Appendix B
Page B.3
All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown
on the project grading plans. All over-excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the
Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS.
SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill or to support structures directly,

shall be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary and compacted in
accordance with the TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, above.
Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be should be excavated down to firm, undisturbed
soil, moisture-conditioned as necessary and backfilled with Engineered Fill. All ruts, hummocks, or
other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill
materials. All areas that are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer
prior to the placement of any of the fill material.
FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence
of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for
construction of site fills, with the limitations of their use presented in the Geotechnical Engineer’s report,
provided the Geotechnical Engineer gives prior approval. All materials utilized for constructing site fills
shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer,
and shall comply with the requirements for non-expansive fill, aggregate base or aggregate subbase as
applicable for its proposed used on the site as presented in the Geotechnical Engineer’s report.
PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill
materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the
responsibility of the Contractor. Fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, each
not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Due to equipment limitations, thinner lifts may be
necessary to achieve the recommended level of compaction. Compaction of fill materials by flooding,
ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the
Geotechnical Engineer. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the
required dry density (relative compaction) or if soil conditions are not stable. The compacted subgrade
in pavement areas should be non-yielding when proof-rolled with a loaded ten-wheel truck, such as a
water truck or dump truck, prior to pavement construction.
Both cut and fill shall be surface-compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
final acceptance.
SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing,
or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill
operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and
density of previously placed fill is as specified.

Appendix C
Page C.1
APPENDIX C
PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
1. DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated
aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which
surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed.
The term “Standard Specifications”: hereinafter referred to is the Standard Specifications of the State of
Arizona, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual" is the Materials Manual of Testing
and Control Procedures, State of Arizona, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The
term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum
laboratory density as defined in the applicable tests outlined in the Materials Manual.
2. SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and
equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the
plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included."
3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various
subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the
plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the
Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.
4. UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted
on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The
aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of the Standard Specifications for Type 2
material, 1½ inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted in
accordance with the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not
exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Soils
Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
5. AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared
subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate
subbase material shall conform to the requirements of the Standard Specifications for Type 2 material.
The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and
it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with the Standard Specifications. Each layer of
aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of
successive layers.

Appendix C
Page C.2
6. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture

of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and
compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades and dimensions shown on the plans.
The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be PG 64-10. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, ½ inch
maximum size, medium grading and shall conform to the requirements set forth in the Standard
Specifications. The drying, proportioning and mixing of the materials shall conform to standard
specifications.
The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment and spreading and compacting mixture shall
conform to the applicable chapters of standard specifications, with the exception that no surface course
shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50º F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a
combination steel wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in standard specifications. The surface
course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.
7. FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied
in accordance with the requirements of standard specifications.


Soils - Geotech - Mesa - Geotech Report - 7.24.23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soils - Geotech - Mesa - Geotech Report - 7.24.23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soils - Geotech - Mesa - Geotech Report - 7.24.23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY

KA PROJECT NO. 112-23060

MS. CHERRY MIAO

KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

July 24, 2023 KA Project No. 112-23060

Ms. Cherry Miao

RE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

Dear Ms. Miao:

With Offices Serving the Western United States

PURPOSE AND SCOPE..................................................................................................................................... 1

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2

SITE LOCATION, SITE HISTORY AND SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 2

GEOLOGIC SETTING ...................................................................................................................................... 3

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................................... 3

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................... 4

SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 5

OTHER HAZARDS ............................................................................................................................................ 6

INFILTRATION TESTING ............................................................................................................................... 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 7

With Offices Serving the Western United States

FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... Following Text

GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................. Appendix B

GENERAL PAVING SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................ Appendix C

With Offices Serving the Western United States

July 24, 2023 KA Project No. 112-23060

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

With Offices Serving the Western United States

SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

2018 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

Parameter Results Test Method

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

factors as determined appropriate by the designer. In addition, routine maintenance consisting of

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

Overexcavation and Recompaction – Building and Foundation Areas

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

Overexcavation and Recompaction – Exterior Flatwork and Parking Areas

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 20 to 50

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

EXPANSIVE SOIL MITIGATION

Drainage and Landscaping

Utility Trench Backfill

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

Load Allowable Loading

Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls