201-12-04 Geotechnical Report - Lock N Stor GEOTECHNICAL STUDY I INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I EXISTING SELF-STORAGE
LOCK N STOR SELF-STORAGE
APN #326-06-050
10655 Mary Avenue
Cupertino, California
Submitted to:
Mr. Curtis Leigh I Director of Development
C/O BASS CUPERTINO, LLC
10121 Miller Avenue, Suite 200
Cupertino, California
File No. 16346-S
July2017
A 'lnc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
i(% T
ADVANCE SOIL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Engineers I Geologists I Environmental Consultants
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 95128
sT Office: (408)-261-1155 1 Fax: (408)-261-1588
File No. 16346-S
July 07, 2017
Mr. Curtis Leigh I Director of Development
C/O BASS Cupertino, LLC
10121 Miller Avenue,Suite 200
Cupertino, California
Subject: Proposed Improvements I Existing Self-Storage Facility
Lock N Stor Self Storage
Designated Parcel Nos. 326-06-050
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino, California
Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Dear Mr. Leigh -
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. ("AST") is pleased to present herein the results of our
geotechnical study/investigation for the Proposed Improvements to the existing self-
storage facility located at 10655 Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California.
In the proceeding sections of this report, enclosed please find the results of our
geotechnical investigation/evaluation of the site of proposed development, results of
subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and analysis, which formed the basis of our
conclusions, considerations and recommendations related to the geotechnical and
foundation design aspects of this project.
Based on the results of our investigation and analysis, it is our professional opinion that
the site is suitable for the proposed development and construction of the above-
mentioned structures, provided the recommendations presented in our report are
incorporated in the design and during the construction phase of the project.
Please note that the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are
based on the subsurface soil investigation, variations between anticipated and actual
soil conditions may occur in localized areas during the construction phase of the
project. It is recommended that Advance Soil Technology, Inc. (AST) be retained during
construction phase of the project to observe earthwork operations, and installation of
foundations/verification to make changes and provide additional recommendations as
deemed necessary, due to varying subsurface soil conditions.
Furthermore, it is also recommended that AST review all the plans and specifications
pertaining to the grading and foundation aspects of the project, prior to completion of
the final construction documents to assure compliance to the recommendations
presented in this report. Please do not over-rely on the construction recommendations
included in this report. These recommendations are not considered final, because they
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 3
were developed principally from AST's professional judgment and opinions. AST's
recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions
revealed during the construction phase of the project. AST cannot assume responsibility
or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction
observation.
Please also note that sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by AST should be
provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent
with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design
changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated,
and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with
our recommendations. Retaining AST for construction observation for this project is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
In the event conclusions or recommendations based on these data are made by others,
such conclusions and recommendations are not our responsibility, unless we have been
given an opportunity to review and concur with such conclusions and recommendation
in writing.
We appreciate the opportunity for providing our services to you on this project and trust
this report meets your needs at this time. If you have any questions concerning the
information presented, please feel free to contact this office at (408)-261-1155 at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
ADVANCE SOIL TECHNOLOGY, INC. gpt✓ESSIQN
C9 �
w C34 $
Al Mirza Ex � * Al s�6 sai
Al Mirza * Alex A. Kassai PE/REA
Project Engineer ' Principal Engineer
Am/aak/am/cj OF C PE #34882
Cc: File
Copies: Enclosed
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical Environmental Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SOIL INVESTIGATION PAGE
Front Page 1
Transmittal Letter 2-3
Table of Content 4-6
1.0 Introduction 7
2.0 Project Description 7-8
3.0 Purpose and Scope of Services 8-10
4.0 Site Conditions 10
4.1 Surface Conditions 10
4.2 Recent History 10
4.3 Field Investigation 10-1 1
4.4 Subsurface Soil Conditions 1 1-12
4.5 Groundwater 12-13
5.0 Laboratory Testing 13
5.1 Plasticity& Expansion Potential 13
5.2 Environmental Services 14
5.2 Corrosivity Analysis 14
6.0 Geologic Setting 15
6.1 Regional Geology 15
6.2 Local Geology 15-16
7.0 Seismic Hazard Assessment 16
7.1 Seismicity&Ground Shaking 16-18
7.2 Historical Earthquakes 18-19
7.3 Future Earthquake Probability 19
8.0 Geological Hazard 20
8.1 Surface Fault Rupture 20
8.2 Historical Ground Failures 20-21
8.3 Liquefaction Potential 21
8.3.1 Liquefaction Evaluation &Analysis Criteria 21
8.3.2 Peak Ground Acceleration 21-22
8.3.3 Historic Groundwater 22
8.3.4 Summary of Analysis 22
8.3.5 Lateral Spreading 22
8.4 Sand Boils 22
8.5 Seismic Settlement/Cyclic Densification 23
8.6 Differential Compaction 23
8.7 Ground Lurching & Landsliding 23
8.8 Flooding & Reservoir Inundation 23
8.9 Seismically Induced Waves-Tsunamis &Seiches 23-24
9.0 CBC Design Criteria 24
9.1 CBC Site Classification &Seismic Coefficients 24-25
10.0 Discussion&Conclusions 26
10.1 Presence of High Expansive Soils 26
10.2 Strong Seismic Shaking 26
10.4 Plans,Specifications and Construction Review 26
11.0 Recommendations 27
11.1 Existing Utilities 27
ASJrtInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 5
SOIL INVESTIGATION PAGE
11.2 Earthwork-Demolition,Clearing &Site Preparation 27
11.3 Pad Preparation 27-28
11.4 Lime Treatment 28
11.5 Geotechnical Requirements for Import Materials 28
11.6 On-site Recycled Materials 29
11.7 Weather/Moisture Considerations 29
11.8 Temporary Slopes,Trench Excavations 29-30
11.9 Underground Utility Trench Backfill 30
12.0 Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floors 30
12.1 Structural/Interior Concrete Slab-on-Grade 30-32
12.2 Exterior Concrete Slab-on-Grade 32
13.0 Foundation 32
13.2 Continuous Perimeter& Isolated Spread Footings 32-33
13.1 Structural Rigid Mat Foundation 33-35
13.3 Foundation Settlement 35
13.4 Lateral Load Resistance 35
14.0 Soil Retained Structures(Retaining Walls) 35
14.1 Retaining Walls 35
14.2 Static Earth Pressures 35-36
14.3 Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure 36-37
14.4 Drainage Provisions 37
14.5 Compaction Adjacent to Walls 37
14.6 Foundation for Retaining Walls 37
15.0 Pavement Design 38
15.1 Subgrade Preparation for Parking Areas,Vertical Curbs,Curb &Gutter Areas 38
15.2 Pavement Cut-Off/Seepage Control 38
15.3 Rigid Concrete Pavement/PCC Pavements 39-40
15.4 Permeable Pavers/Pavements 40
15.5 Flexible Pavement 41
16.0 Site Drainage 41
16.1 Surface Drainage 42
16.2 Storm Water Treatment Design Considerations 42
16.3 Bioswale Constructions Adjacent to Pavements 42
16.4 Irrigation & Landscape Limitations 42-43
17.0 Additional Services 43
17.1 Plan Review and Construction Observation 43
17.2 Construction Acceptance 43-44
17.3 Seasonal Limits 44
17.4 Unusual/wet conditions 44
18.0 Summary of Compaction Recommendations 44-45
19.0 Limitations 45-46
20.0 References 47-50
ASFE Document
AgInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 6
SOIL INVESTIGATION PAGE
Appendix "A"
Plate 1 Site Location Map
Plate 2 Site Location Map-Aerial View
Plate 3 Topographic Map
Plate 4 Description of Map Units
Plate 5 Geologic Map
Plate 6 Peak Ground Acceleration
Plate 7 Historical Groundwater
Plate 8 Site Plan (Boring Locations)
Plate 9 Geological Cross Section A-A'
Appendix "B"
Plate 1 1 Seismic Site Characterization
Plate 12 Regional Faults
Plate 13 Historical Earthquake Map/ Epicenters of Earthquakes
Plate 14 Magnitude/Intensity Comparison
Plate 15 Bay Area Probabilities
Appendix "C"
Plate 16-18 Soil Classification,Terminology &Abbreviations
Plate 19-26 Exploratory Boring Logs (EB-1 thru EB-04)
Plate 27 Plasticity Index
Plate 28 Grain Size Distribution
Plate 29 Results of Corrosivity Analysis
Appendix "D"
➢ DESIGN MAPS SUMMARY REPORT
ASrinc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 7
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY I INVESTIGATION
LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
PROPOSED NEW IMPROVEMENTS I BUILDINGS
10655 Mary Avenue (APN #326-06-050)
Cupertino, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. ("AST") conducted a geotechnical investigation at the
above-mentioned site for the Proposed Improvements/development to be associated
with the existing Lock N Stor Self-Storage Facility located at 10655 Mary Avenue in
Cupertino, California.
The site is approximately (±4.03)-acre parcel with an Assessor Parcel Number (APNs):
326-06-050, located in a residential part of City of Cupertino, California with Santa
Clara Valley Water District easement bordering to the north and west along with
Highway (280) and Highway (85) respectively. The site is bound to the south by City of
Cupertino Park Maintenance Department and Mary Avenue to the east with a
driveway entrance to the property.
At the time of this investigation, the site was occupied by seven single-story wood
frame structures, overhead antennas/cell towers for various wireless carriers and
overhead power lines crossing the site.
Based on the review of the conceptual design, it is our understanding that the
proposed improvements at the site will include demolition and remodeling of existing
buildings and construction of new one, two and three-story structures/buildings with
variable square footage and footprints along with portable storage units and manger's
office with living quarters and patio areas.
Other improvements at the site will include at-grade parking areas, underground
utilities, flatwork, bio-retention, landscape areas and miscellaneous on and off-site
street improvements associated with them. Please refer to the site plan enclosed in
Appendix "A" of this report.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the review of the conceptual design/drawings and the information received, it is
our understanding that the proposed improvements/ development will include demolition
of the existing single story-structures and construction of the following:
(1) Two-story Manger's Office Structure/Apartment
(2) One-Story Self-Storage Buildings
(2) Two-Story Self-Storage Buildings
(2) Three-Story Self-Storage Buildings
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 8
Multiple Portable Storage Units
➢ At-grade Parking Areas
The site of proposed development is a flat parcel of land and so is the natural topography
of the area in general. Based on the review of the existing available topographic maps/
information, geological maps and aerial photographs for the site, it is our understanding
that the elevation at the site has been determined to be approximately (±270) to (±280)-
feet above mean sea level (msl).
Based on the review of the available FEMA Flood Zone Map (#06085CO208H, dated 2009), it
is our understanding that the site is located in Zone D, which identifies the site with
undetermined chance of flood but possibility of having flood. We recommend that the Project
Civil Engineer should confirm this information and verify the base flood elevation in the
vicinity of the site (if appropriate).
2.1 COLUMN LOADS -
➢ Typical Interior Column Loads TBD kips (Dead plus Live Loads)
➢ Maximum Interior Column Loads TBD kips (Dead plus Live Loads)
➢ Typical Perimeter Column Loads TBD kips (Dead plus Live Loads)
2.2 WALL LOADS -
Typical Perimeter Wall Loads TBD KLF (Dead plus Live Load)
Maximum Perimeter Bearing Wall Loads TBD KLF (Dead plus Live Load)
In the proceeding sections, this report presents and explains the details of this investigation,
laboratory testing and analysis, conclusions and recommendations for earthwork operations
at the site. Please refer to Plate (1) thru (7) for the location of the site of the proposed
development.
3.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our investigation has been to evaluate the existing subsurface soil conditions
at the site as necessary to characterize subsurface strata, geologic hazards and develop
geotechnical recommendations for the structural design and construction of the proposed
development. The scope of our services for this study included the following:
➢ Reconnaissance of the site of proposed improvements, location of the existing utility
lines and subsurface structures (if any) with respect to the Exploratory Boring Locations,
prior to drilling. Mark boring locations and notify Underground Service Alert at least (48)-
hours prior to the planned exploration activity.
➢ Exploration of subsurface soil conditions at the site of proposed improvements included
advancing a total of (4)-Exploratory Borings for analysis and to evaluate the subsurface
soil conditions.
➢ Review of Existing Geotechnical Reports by other consultants for various other projects in
the area and historic aerial photographs for topographic changes and information
pertaining to tonal variations (if any) at the subject property.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 9
➢ Research and review pertinent geotechnical and geological maps and reports relevant
to the site area regarding seismic and geologic history of the site and the immediate
vicinity.
➢ Evaluation of the potential local and regional geologic hazards at the site, including
liquefaction and resulting seismic settlements as per the requirement of the California
Geological Survey (CGS)
➢ Perform laboratory testing and analysis of the soil samples to evaluate the engineering
characteristics of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests included Soil Classification,
Gradation (Particle Size Distribution), Atterberg Limits Tests, Corrosion Testing on selected
samples, in-situ Moisture Density and other tests as deemed necessary.
Engineering analyses based on the results of laboratory testing and strength characteristics
of the subsurface soils included the following:
➢ Define site specific subsurface soil conditions to the depth of the explored soil profile
encountered at the location of the exploratory borings and near surface bag samples,
such as expansive clays, compressible soils and mitigation measures etc.
➢ Soil classification, seismic design parameters and peak ground acceleration, based on
ASCE 7-10 and IBC 2015/CBC 2016 (California Building Code). Depth and Impact of the
shallow groundwater on the design and construction of the proposed improvements (if
any).
➢ Seismic evaluation of the site including seismic compaction, ground shaking, distance
from the earthquake faults, seismic coefficients per the requirements of ASCE 7-10 and
2015 IBC/2016 CBC and future earthquake probability.
➢ Review of published geology and seismology reports and fault maps pertinent to the site
area regarding the conditions in the vicinity of the site. Geology and seismicity of the
project, including the appropriate soil profile type and other seismic parameters per
2016 Edition of CBC/ASCE 7-10.
➢ Evaluation of Potential for liquefaction during a seismic event, anticipated total and
differential settlements, impacts and mitigations.
➢ Recommendations for the type of foundation based on anticipated structural loads and
type of structures for the proposed improvements, Estimated total and differential
settlements etc.
➢ Recommendations for conventional foundation system and rigid structural mat
foundation for the proposed structures and maintenance requirements for surrounding
areas.
➢ Overall assessment of the general surface and subsurface soil conditions and impact of
the site settlement due to liquefaction and under structural loads.
➢ Recommendations for retaining walls including lateral earth pressures (active and at-
rest), seismic increments, drainage behind walls etc.
➢ Design criteria and requirements for supporting structurally floor slabs, non-structural
slabs and modulus of subgrade reaction.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 10
➢ Impact of soil corrosion on buried elements, including concrete foundation, buried steel
and underground utilities (if any).
➢ Recommendations for overall site grading, fill materials, lime treatment, surface and
subsurface drainage, stormwater requirements and bioswales.
➢ Recommendations for Flexible (Asphalt), Rigid (PCC) Pavements and Design criteria for
Permeable Pavers/ Pavement Design Sections.
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
At the time of this investigation/study, the site of the proposed improvements/development
was occupied by a single-story wood frame self-storage structures and a manager's office
with asphalt paved drive thru areas in between the structures. Based on the review of the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map for the Cupertino Quadrangle 7.5-
minute series, it is our understanding that the subject property is located at the following co-
ordinates Latitude 37.3316541 north and -122.0513921 West Longitude respectively. The subject
property is located on relatively flat terrain, and so are the surrounding areas and the vicinity in
general. Topographic information was not available at the time of this study; however, our
field observation indicates that the site of proposed development is a relatively flat parcel
of land and so is the natural topography of the area with ground surface elevations at the
site ranging from approximately (±270) to (±280)-feet above mean sea level (NGVD).
4.2 RECENT HISTORY
Aerial photographs from 1939 to 2017 and existing topographic maps from 1897 to 2012
were reviewed online to determine the usage of the property, site conditions and the
vicinity in general. The subject property (±4.03-Acre parcel) is currently occupied by seven
single-story wood frame structures being utilized as a self-storage facility since 1977-1978
and has three wireless transmitters/antennas with overhead PG&E lines crossing the site. It
covered with paved driveways in between the buildings and parking areas. At the time of
the site reconnaissance, the subject property was being utilized as a self-storage facility,
however in the past it was utilized as a part of an orchard or/ was a vacant parcel of land.
4.3 FIELD INVESTIGATION
4.31 SOIL BORINGS
In addition to the above, the investigation also included drilling of exploratory borings to
further evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the site. Exploration Geo-services was
subcontracted to provide subsurface drilling services for the borings drilled at the site. A
total of (4)-exploratory borings were drilled on the entire site on June 15, 2017 to a depth of
(40) to (50)-feet below the existing ground surface and within /or in close proximity to the
areas of proposed improvements.
The exploratory borings were advanced using a truck mounted drill-rig with an eight-inch
diameter hollow stem auger was utilized for drilling the borings. Undisturbed soil samples
were extracted as the borings progressed, by hammering a (3.0)-inch O.D split spoon
sampler and Terzaghi standard split spoon sampler into the ground. A 140-pound hammer
Mrinc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 11
with the free fall of (30)-inches was utilized to drive the sampler into the ground. Undisturbed
soil samples were retained within brass liners inside the split spoon sampler and the soils
encountered in the borings were continuously logged in the field during the drilling
operation. Blow counts for the last one-foot of driving were recorded in the field during the
drilling operation. Prior to commencement of the drilling operation, the approximate boring
locations were identified and marked as selected by AST based on the conceptual
architectural site plan and the proposed location of the structures. All boring locations were
cleared by a private underground utility service locator and USA, prior to commencement
of the drilling operation. Upon completion, the boreholes were grouted and the drill cuttings
were spread on-site.
The locations of the borings were estimated by AST based on rough measurements from the
existing features at the site. Topographic information and existing borings elevations are
unknown and shall be considered as approximate at this time, until completion of the
topographic survey by the Civil Engineer.
4.4 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS AT THE SITE
At the location of Exploratory Boring EB-1, (1'/2) to (2.0)-inch thick asphalt over three to four-
inches of silty sandy gravel on the surface. Below this depth, dark brown silty sandy clay with
varying amounts of gravel and rock fragments was encountered in the upper layers of the
soil and extended to a depth of approximately (±6.0) to (±6.5)-feet below the existing
ground surface. It was moist and stiff. Below this depth poorly graded gravelly coarse sand
to coarse sandy gravel was encountered and extended to a depth of (±19.0) to (±19.5)-feet
below the existing ground surface. It was moist and medium dense. At the above depth,
dark brown sandy silty clay was encountered and extended to a depth of (±28.5) to (±29.0)-
feet below the existing ground surface. It was moist and stiff to very stiff. At the above
depth, gravelly coarse sand to coarse sandy gravel was encountered and extended to a
depth of (±38.0) to (±38.5)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was medium dense to
dense. At this depth, dark to reddish brown silty clay was encountered and extended to a
depth of (±43.0) to (±43.5)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was moist and very stiff.
Below this depth, fine to coarse sandy gravel (sub-angular) to gravelly coarse sand was
encountered and extended to the bottom of the exploratory boring. The boring was
terminated at a depth of (50)-feet below the existing ground surface.
At the location of Exploratory Boring EB-2, (1'/2) to (2.0)-inch thick asphalt over three to four-
inches of silty sandy gravel on the surface. Below this depth, dark brown silty sandy clay with
varying amounts of gravel and rock fragments was encountered in the upper layers of the
soil and extended to a depth of approximately (±3.0) to (±3.5)-feet below the existing
ground surface. It was moist and stiff to very stiff. Below this depth Clayey silty sand with
gravel to gravelly clayey silty sand was encountered and extended to a depth of (±10.5) to
(±11 .0)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was moist and medium dense. At the
above depth, poorly graded gravelly coarse sand to coarse sandy gravel was encountered
and extended to a depth of (±16.0) to (±16.5)-feet below the existing ground surface. It
was moist and dense. At the above depth, dark brown lean silty clay to sandy silty clay was
encountered and extended to a depth of (±23.0) to (±23.5)-feet below the existing ground
surface. It was moist and very stiff. Below this depth, fine to coarse sandy gravel (sub-
angular) to gravelly coarse sand was encountered and extended to a depth of (±38.0) to
(±38.5)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was moist and medium dense to very
dense. At this depth, dark to reddish brown silty clay to sandy silty clay was encountered
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 12
and extended to a depth of (±42.0) to (±42.5)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was
moist and very stiff. Below this depth, fine to coarse sandy gravel (sub-angular) to gravelly
coarse sand was encountered and extended to the bottom of the exploratory boring. The
boring was terminated at a depth of (45)-feet below the existing ground surface.
At the location of Exploratory Boring EB-3, (1'/2) to (2.0)-inch thick asphalt over four-inches of
silty sandy gravel on the surface. Below this depth, dark brown silty sandy clay with varying
amounts of gravel and rock fragments was encountered in the upper layers of the soil and
extended to a depth of approximately (±7.5) to (±8.0)-feet below the existing ground
surface. It was moist and stiff. Below this depth poorly graded gravelly coarse sand to
coarse sandy gravel was encountered and extended to a depth of (±18.0) to (±18.5)-feet
below the existing ground surface. It was moist and medium dense. At the above depth,
dark brown sandy silty clay was encountered and extended to a depth of (±29.0) to (±29.5)-
feet below the existing ground surface. It was moist and very stiff. At the above depth,
gravelly coarse sand to coarse sandy gravel was encountered and extended to a depth of
(±38.0) to (±38.5)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was moist and medium dense to
dense. At this depth, dark to reddish brown silty clay to sandy silty clay was encountered
and extended to the bottom of the exploratory boring. The boring was terminated at a
depth of (40)-feet below the existing ground surface.
At the location of Exploratory Boring EB-4, (2.0)-inch thick asphalt over four to five-inches of
silty sandy gravel on the surface. Below this depth, dark brown silty sandy clay with varying
amounts of gravel and rock fragments was encountered in the upper layers of the soil and
extended to a depth of approximately (±6.5) to (±7.0)-feet below the existing ground
surface. It was moist and stiff. Below this depth poorly graded gravelly coarse sand to
coarse sandy gravel was encountered and extended to a depth of (±18.0) to (±18.5)-feet
below the existing ground surface. It was moist and medium dense to very dense. At the
above depth, dark brown sandy silty clay was encountered and extended to a depth of
(±29.0) to (±29.5)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was moist and very stiff. At the
above depth, gravelly coarse sand to coarse sandy gravel was encountered and extended
to a depth of (±38.0) to (±38.5)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was moist and
medium dense to dense. At this depth, dark to reddish brown silty clay to sandy silty clay
was encountered and extended to a depth of (±38.0) to (±38.5)-feet below the existing
ground surface. It was moist and very stiff. At the above depth, gravelly coarse sand to
coarse sandy gravel was encountered and extended to the bottom of the exploratory
boring. It was very dense and the boring was terminated at a depth of (50)-feet below the
existing ground surface.
Please note that the above information depicts the existing subsurface soil conditions at the
specific boring location as reflected on the site plan. Stratification lines represent the
approximate boundaries between the material types. The actual transitions between the
materials may be gradual. Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions may vary at other
locations from the conditions that were encountered at the boring locations with the
passage of time. For subsurface soil information, please refer to the boring logs on Plates
(18) thru (29) enclosed in Appendix "C" of this report.
4.5 GROUNDWATER
Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings drilled at the site. However, based on
the review of the CGS (2002) Seismic Hazard Zone Map Report (068) for the Cupertino
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 13
Quadrangle, it is our understanding that the historic groundwater elevation in the vicinity of
this site is being considered to be deeper than (±50.0)-feet below the existing ground
surface.
Please note that seasonal groundwater studies were beyond the scope of this investigation,
it shall be noted that groundwater level and elevation may fluctuate due to variations in
rainfall, geological changes, temperature, natural springs, pumping water from the wells
and other factors that were not evident at the time of this investigation. For information
pertaining to the depth of groundwater elevation, please refer to the boring logs for
information pertaining to the groundwater elevation enclosed in Appendix "C" of this
report.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing program performed on the soil samples collected from the site was
directed towards a quantitative determination of the physical and engineering properties
of the soils underlying the site. To evaluate the strength characteristics of the soil for the
foundation engineering design, tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples
collected from various depths and from different boring locations at the site.
In addition to the above, Unit Weight, Moisture content, Atterberg Limits Tests to determine
the Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index of the soil samples and particle size distribution were
performed on various samples.
➢ Grain Size Analysis (ASTM D 422-63/07) - Sieve analyses were performed on select
samples collected from the site to determine their grain size distribution.
➢ Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318-10) - Atterberg Limits tests were conducted on selected
samples to determine their liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index values. The test
provides water content values for the liquid and plastic phases of the soil tested.
➢ Moisture-Density Determinations (ASTM D 2216-10 and D 2937-10) - Moisture content and
dry density tests were performed on selected samples in order to evaluate the density
and moisture at the sample locations.
➢ Unconfined Compression Tests (ASTM D2166) - To evaluate the strength characteristics of
the soil for the foundation engineering design, unconfined compression tests were
performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples collected at various depths.
The laboratory analyses were conducted in accordance with the criteria and guidelines
set-forth by CGS Special Publication 1 17A - Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, SCEC (1999) Southern California Earthquake Center Report. The results
of these laboratory testing are presented on Plates (19) thru (29) in Appendix "C" of this
report.
5.1 PLASTICITY AND EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Atterberg Limits test performed on the selected samples from the upper layers of the soil
revealed moderate to high plasticity index (PI) and expansion potential of ±18 to ±19, when
subjected to moisture fluctuations. For information, please refer to Plate No. (27), enclosed
in Appendix"C" of this report.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 14
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR SOIL OFFHAUL
Environmental services for the excess soil off-haul; usually generated during construction
phase of the project was not requested as part of this project scope. However, AST did
perform the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project site and is aware of the
existing known environmental concerns at the site. AST could provide soil sampling services,
if needed to satisfy the requirement of the contractor's disposal facility during the grading
operation/construction phase (if needed).
5.3 CORROSIVITY ANALYSIS
The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) defines corrosion as "deterioration
of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment." For inland
construction, the "environment is the surrounding soil and the "substances" are reinforced
concrete foundation or/ various types of steel substructures such as piers, pipes, metal
fittings etc. that are in contact with the soil. The results of the analysis have been presented
in the table below.
Please note that AST Inc. does not practice the field of corrosion engineering. It is
recommended that a competent corrosion engineer could be retained to evaluate the
corrosion potential on-site, if needed to provide recommendations and mitigation measures
to minimize the impact of soil corrosion on buried concrete, metal pipes, fittings, post
tensioning strands, anchors etc.
TABLE II - RESULTS OF CORROSIVITY ANALYSIS
Corrosion
ASTM Method Chemical Analysis Range of Results Classification
D512C Chlorides 2 mg/kg Non-corrosive
D516A (SM 4500) Sulfates 70 mg/kg Non-Corrosive
D2976/D4972/G51 pH 7.7 Non-Corrosive
G 57 Saturated Resistivity 36,348 ohm-cm Non-Corrosive
D1498 Sulfide Negative PG&E (OK)
D516A (SM 4500) Redox 507 Non- Corrosive
Furthermore, we recommend retaining a corrosion consultant to provide specific design
recommendations for corrosion protection for buried metals and concrete elements. The
design team should also consider specific requirements for underground improvements
constructed in such environment. The 2016 CBC references the 2008 American Concrete
Institute Manual, ACI 318 (Chapter 4, Sections 4.2 and 4.3) for concrete requirements. ACI
Tables 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 provide sulfate exposure categories and classes, and concrete
requirements in contact with soil based upon the exposure risk as excerpted below.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 15
6.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING
6.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Geologically, the site under evaluation is located within the physiographic region known as
the San Francisco Bay Area, which itself lies within the Coast Range geomorphic province of
California, which consists of a series of northwest trending mountains and valleys along the
western edge of the North American Continent. The San Francisco Bay Area itself lies within
the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, a more or less discontinuous series of northwest
trending mountain ranges, ridges, and intervening valleys characterized by complex folding
and faulting. Geologic and Geomorphic structures within the San Francisco Bay Area are
dominated by tectonic deformation and along the San Andreas Fault system. This right-
lateral strike-slip fault extends on land from the Gulf of California in Mexico, to Cape
Mendocino, on the Coast of Humboldt County in northern California. It forms a portion of
the boundary between two independent tectonic plates on the surface of the earth. To the
west of the San Andreas Fault, the Pacific plate moves north relative to the North American
plate, located east of the fault. In the San Francisco Bay Area, movement across this plate
boundary is distributed across the San Andreas Fault and a number of other faults including
the Hayward, Calaveras, and San Gregorio. Together, these faults are referred to as the San
Andreas Fault system. The general trend of the faults within this system is responsible for the
strong northwest-southeast structural grain of geologic and geomorphic features in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
For most of the length of the San Andreas Fault, basement rock on the east generally
consists of a chaotic mixture of highly deformed marine sedimentary, submarine volcanic
and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex. The Franciscan rocks are generally
considered Jurassic and Cretaceous age (about 65 to 205 million years old). Overlying the
basement rocks are Cretaceous marine, as well as Tertiary (about 65 to 1.6 million years old)
marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks with some continental volcanic rock. These
Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks typically have been extensively folded and faulted largely as
a result of movement along the San Andreas Fault System over about the last 25 million
years.
6.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY
To identify and characterize the site, geologic maps of the Cupertino Quadrangle and CGS
Seismic Hazard Zone Open File Report (068) were reviewed to identify the geological
conditions at the site. In the Cupertino Quadrangle, Knudsen (unpublished) identifiedl6
Quaternary map units and the Plio-Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation (QTsc).
Roughly the northeastern half of the Cupertino Quadrangle, approximately 30 square miles,
is covered by Quaternary alluvial sediment shed from the Santa Cruz Mountains. The alluvial
deposits primarily consist of Holocene and late Pleistocene alluvial fan material (Qhf, Qpf).
The surfaces of the alluvial fans slope gently to the north and northeast. Additionally,
Knudsen (unpublished) mapped Holocene stream terrace deposits (Qht, Qhty) along most
of the creeks, and Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium and stream terrace deposits (Qa, Qpt,
and Qt) along the upper reaches of several creeks. Artificial fill (af) was mapped along
Calabazas Creek where the channel has been straightened and cutoff meanders have
been filled. Bedrock exposed in the Cupertino Quadrangle is characterized by two
basement assemblages that are separated by the San Andreas Fault, which extends
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 16
through the southwestern corner of the quadrangle (Brabb and others, 1998). Southwest of
the San Andreas Fault is the Salinian Complex, a basement assemblage of granitic and
gabbroic plutonic rocks. Northeast of the San Andreas Fault is a composite Mesozoic
basement assemblage consisting of the Franciscan Complex, the Coast Range Ophiolite,
and the Great Valley Sequence. Brabb and others (1998) further subdivide bedrock
sequences in the area into individual fault-bounded structural blocks based on differing
stratigraphic sequences and geologic history of the basement assemblages and overlying
Tertiary rocks.
Subsurface soils that were encountered in the exploratory borings during the investigation
at the site included mostly very stiff to hard sandy clays with gravels and dense to very
dense poorly graded clayey sandy gravels and gravelly coarse sands that extended to the
depth of the borings/refusal. For additional information, please refer to geologic map on
Plate (4) in Appendix "A" of this report.
7.0 SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
7.1 SEISMICITY/GROUND SHAKING
The San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most
seismically active regions in the United States. A broad system of inter-related northwest-
southeast trending strike slip faults represents a segment boundary between the pacific and
North American crustal plates. For 15 million years, the Pacific Plate has been slipping
northwest ward with respect to the North American Plate (Atwater, 1970; Graham, 1978).
The majority of the movement has been along the San Andreas Fault System; however,
there are other faults within this broad system that have experienced movement at one
time or another. The faults of Santa Clara County are characterized by both strike-slip and
dip-slip components of displacement. There are three major fault systems that display large
right-lateral offsets, the San Andreas, the Pilarcitos and the San Gregorio fault zones. These
fault systems trend roughly N30W. Movement on the many splays of the San Andreas Fault
system has produced the dominant northwest-oriented structural and topographic trend
seen throughout the Coast Ranges today. This trend reflects the boundary between two of
the Earth's major tectonic plates: The North American plate to the east and the Pacific
plate to the west. The San Andreas Fault system and its major branching faults is about 40
miles wide in the Bay area and extends from the San Gregorio Fault near the coastline to
the Coast Ranges-Central Valley blind thrust at the western edge of the Great Central
Valley as shown on the historical Fault Map.
The site and the entire San Francisco Bay Area are seismically dominated by the presence
of the active San Andreas Fault system. An active fault, as defined by the California
Geological Survey (CGS), is a fault that has experienced seismic activity during historic time
(i.e., since 1800), or exhibits evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time
(younger than about 11,000 years old).
According to plate tectonics theory, the San Andreas Fault system is the general boundary
between the northward-moving Pacific Plate (west of the fault) and the southward-moving
North American Plate (east of the fault). In the Bay Area, this movement is distributed across
a complex system of generally strike-slip, right lateral parallel and sub-parallel faults, which
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 17
include the San Andreas and Hayward faults, among others. In the vicinity of the site, the
active Cascade, Hayward, Calaveras, Monte Vista-Shannon and San Andreas Faults are
located to the northeast, east, and southwest of the site, respectively. The site is not located
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no mapped active fault traces are
known to transverse in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, the risk of ground rupture due to
fault displacement within the limits of the site is considered low. Because of the proximity to
the Hayward fault, we believe that the site will be subjected to very strong ground shaking
during a major earthquake on these, as well as other active faults in the area. For instance,
a recent publication prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey regarding earthquake
probabilities in the Bay Area (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003)
concludes that there is a 62 percent chance that one of the major faults within the Bay
Area will experience a major (M6.7+) earthquake during the period of 2003-2032. As has
been demonstrated recently by the 1989 M6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake, the 1994 M6.7
Northridge earthquake, and the 1995 M6.9 Kobe earthquake, earthquakes of this
magnitude range can cause severe ground shaking and significant damage to modern
urban societies. Therefore, design of the proposed new retail building and its improvements
should take into consideration the anticipated earthquakes.
In general, the site will experience strong to severe seismic shaking during the lifetime of the
proposed structures from the above and other faults mentioned in the following sections of
this report. The faults that are capable of generating significant earthquakes are generally
associated with well defined areas of crustal movement, which generally trend in the
northwesterly direction. Table II reflected below presents the considered active faults within
a 100 km (62 miles) radius of the site of proposed improvements and they are as follows:
TABLE III - NEAREST SEISMIC SOURCE WITHIN 100 KILOMETERS
Fault Site Distance Source Type Maximum • Rate
Magnitude mm/yr
Cascade Fault 0.7 B 6.7 ----
Monte Vista-Shannon 3.0 B 6.5 0.40
San Andreas (1906) 8.5 A 7.9 24.0
Hayward (SE Extension) 20.2 B 6.5 3.0
Sargent Berrocal Fault 23.5 B 6.8 3.0
Hayward (Total Length) 24.1 A 7.1 9.0
Calaveras Fault (North) 25.1 A 6.8 6.0
Calaveras Fault (South) 25.6 B 6.2 15.0
Zayante-Vergeles 27.9 B 6.8 0.10
ASTInc.Geotechnical I Environmental Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 18
Fault Site Distance Source Type Maximum • Rate
Magnitude mm/yr
San Gregorio 29.6 A 7.3 5.0
Monterey Bay-Tularcitos 46.1 B 7.1 0.50
Greenville 48.9 B 6.9 2.00
Palo Colorado-Sur 59.4 B 7.0 3.00
Concord-Green Valley 62.2 B 6.9 6.00
7.2 HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES
A large earthquake occurred in June 1838 on the Peninsula segment of the San Andreas
Fault (Ellsworth 1990). Toppozada and Borchardt (1998), Hall and others (1999), and Bakun
(1999) reevaluated the data for this earthquake and estimated (local) magnitudes of 7.5,
7.0 to 7.4, and 6.8, respectively. Severe shaking with Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VIII to
IX occurred with structures shaken down and damage to walls of adobe structures
(Toppozada and Borchardt, 1998). An earthquake having an estimated ML of 6.1
(Bakun, 1999) occurred in the San Jose region on November 26, 1858. This earthquake
resulted in cracking of almost every brick, adobe, or concrete building (Townley and Allen,
1939), corresponding to MMI VII to VIII (Toppozada and Others, 1981). The discrete fault
source of this event has not been determined.
A strong earthquake occurred on October 08, 1865 and apparently was centered in the
Santa Cruz Mountains, (10) km north of Loma Prieta. This earthquake had an estimated
ML of 6.5 (Bakun, 1999), and caused damage to buildings in San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, San Jose, and other areas (Townley and Allen, 1939). The reported damage
from the 1865 earthquake corresponds to MMI VII to IX in San Mateo, Santa Clara, New
Almaden, and San Jose (Toppozada and Others, 1981).
The 1868 Hayward earthquake occurred along the southern segment of the Hayward Fault
and had an estimated ML of 6.9 (WG99). Surface rupture apparently extended from
Oakland southward to the Warm Springs area of Fremont. The event reportedly resulted in
damage and/or the complete destruction of every building in Hayward, as well as damage
to buildings as far south as Gilroy (Townley and Allen 1939). The reported damage in San
Mateo County corresponds to MMI of IX to X.
During the MW 7.8 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the San Andreas Fault ruptured from
Shelter Cove near Cape Mendocino southward to near San Juan Bautista. Maximum lateral
displacements of 15 to 20 feet occurred north of the Golden Gate at Olema in Marin
County (Lawson, 1908). Landslides, liquefaction, and ground settlement occurred
throughout the San Francisco Bay Region as a result of this earthquake. Extensive damage
occurred to many buildings in San Jose, corresponding to MMI VIII to IX (Toppozada and
Parke, 1982). Youd and Hoose (1978) also report that ground failures resulting from the 1906
earthquake were locally observed in the coarse gravelly bottom of Coyote Creek. More
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 19
recent earthquakes in the region include the 1957 Daly City earthquake on the San Andreas
Fault (ML 5.3); the Coyote Lake and Morgan Hill earthquakes of 1979 and 1984 on the
Calaveras Fault (M 5.9 and 6.1, respectively); the 1980 Livermore earthquake on the
Greenville Fault (M 5.8); and the 1989 M7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake on the San Andreas
Fault or a parallel subsidiary fault. Of these earthquakes, the strongest shaking and most
damage resulted from the October 17, 1989, M 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake. The 1989
earthquake ruptured on or southwest of the Santa Cruz Mountains segment of the San
Andreas Fault and produced MMI IX effects in San Bruno.
During the period of 1910 through October 14, 2009, ANSS catalog contains a record of
4,656 earthquakes between magnitude 3.0 and 3.99, 537 earthquakes between 4.0 and
4.99, 32 earthquakes between 50 and 5.99, 4 earthquakes between 6.0 and 6.99 and only
one earthquake of 7.0 or above. Epicenters of some of the significant earthquakes (M>5.0)
within the vicinity of the site are shown on Plate (13) enclosed in Appendix "B" of this report.
7.3 FUTURE EARTHQUAKE PROBABILITY
The presence of faults in the San Francisco Bay Area Region and the seismic activity in the
recent past has led USGS to constantly upgrade the predictions for the possibility of the next
major earthquake in the Bay Area. Per the information received from the review of the
documents, it is our understanding that The Working Group on California Earthquake
Probabilities (2008) has concluded that the probability of a magnitude 7.0+ earthquake in
the San Francisco Bay Area over the next 30 years is 63 percent. This probability is a low
estimate since only three active faults in the area; the Hayward Fault, San Andreas Fault
and Rodgers Creek Fault were included in the study.
Schwartz (1994) concludes that the probability of occurrence of one or more magnitude
6.7+ earthquakes in the Bay Area is substantially higher than 63 percent, possibly as high as
99.7 percent. It shall be noted that significant earthquakes could occur on an active fault
or a potentially active fault for which probabilities might not have been estimated. Even
though research on earthquake predictions has increased tremendously in recent years,
seismologists still cannot predict when or where an earthquake of that magnitude will
occur. Based on the information that is available, it is our understanding that the site will
likely be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake within 50 years of the
proposed construction. During such an earthquake, the possibility of fault offset could be
perceived to be low. However, strong ground shaking will be experienced at the site. The
probability of the maximum moment magnitude earthquake occurring during the next (30)
year period are presented in the table below and they are as follows:
TABLE IV - EARTHQUAKE PROBABILITIES
Fault Segment 1) —Year Probability
Earthquake •• •-
Hayward (North & South) 31
San Andreas (Peninsula Segment) 21
Calaveras 7
San Gregorio 6
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 20
8.0 GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
This section presents our geologic hazards review per the requirements of the California
Geological Survey (CGS) for the proposed development to be located at 10655 Mary
Avenue in San Jose, California. The site is located approximately at Latitude 37.331694' W
and Longitude -122.051392' N. Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate
to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary
effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic
hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, and round lurching. In the proceeding
sections, potential geologic hazards related to the site are addressed as below:
8.1 SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
Earthquakes generally are caused by a shift or displacement along a discrete zone of
weakness, termed a fault, in the Earth's crust. Surface fault rupture, which is a manifestation
of the fault displacement at the ground surface, usually is associated with moderate- to
large-magnitude earthquakes (magnitudes of about 6 or larger). Generally, primary surface
fault rupture occurs on active faults having mapped traces or zones at the ground surface.
In other words, major faults tend to rupture on pre-existing planes of weakness. The amount
of surface fault displacement can be as much as (20)-feet, depending on the earthquake
magnitude and other factors. Large earthquakes also can "trigger" slip on adjacent faults,
which may or may not be mapped at the surface, causing co-seismic ground deformation
(e.g., Lawson 1908; Schmidt and Others, 1995).
Potential surface fault rupture hazards exist along the known active faults in the greater San
Francisco Bay Region. The faults which have been identified as potential surface rupture
hazards by the California Geologic Survey in close proximity to the site include the
Hayward, Calaveras, San Andreas, San Gregorio and Monte Vista-Shannon Faults, which
are located in close proximity to the site. These faults show historic (last 200 years)
displacement associated with mapped surface rupture or/ surface creep.
8.2 HISTORIC GROUND FAILURES
Many historical earthquakes have occurred on active faults and fault branches throughout
coastal California. Hayward and San Andreas Fault are considered to be some of the major
active faults of the region generating damaging earthquakes in 1836 and 1868, as well as
the great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, which had an approximate Richter Magnitude
of 8.3, and the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989. Lawson (1908) reported considerable
damage from the 1906 earthquake in the Bay Area.
Very few observations of the 1868 Hayward earthquake record specific evidence for
liquefaction in the region. However, Lawson (1908) reports that water spurted up in the
streets of San Jose, and out in the road between Milpitas and San Jose, to the height of
several feet. Lawson (1908) described damage resulting from the 1906 earthquake in the
downtown area of San Jose as; severe structural damage too many brick and mortar
buildings and many chimneys were toppled. The main part of San Jose and surrounding
areas shook at Rossi-Fore) intensity VIII (many chimneys fall) to IX (partial or complete
collapse of some buildings). Witter et, al., (2006) indicate four historical occurrences of
ground deformation within the "Qhf" mapping unit within the region. These ground failures
were concentrated close to the bay several miles north of the site. Youd and Hoose (1978)
ASTInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 21
report that following the 1906 earthquake numerous cracks were observed on both sides of
Coyote Creek from Milpitas "all the way to San Jose." They also report that within the valley
no cracking was observed along Alum Rock Road east of Coyote Creek
Co-seismic contractional deformation occurred within the south bay area during the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake in an area traversed by several northwest-trending reverse faults,
including the Monte Vista, Shannon, and Berrocal faults (Haugerud and Ellen, 1990). These
breaks coincide with the projections of vegetation lineaments and linear depressions on
both the northwestern and southeastern sides of Los Gatos Creek. Schmidt et al., (1995)
documented cases of co-seismic damage in the region however they did not document
any evidence of such damage at or/ near the site of proposed development.
8.3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soil is subject to a
temporary, but essentially total, loss of shear strength because of pore pressure buildup
under the reversing cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquakes. Maps prepared by
the Associations of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, 2001) indicate that the site of proposed
improvements/development is not located within the zone designated with the potential for
liquefaction, as identified by the California Geologic Survey (formerly the California Division
of Mines and Geology) in a map titled, Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Cupertino Quadrangle
(2002), Santa Clara County prepared by the California Geologic Survey.
As part of this geotechnical study, we have performed liquefaction analyses on the data
collected from the borings, based on guidelines provided in CGS Special Publication 117A
(2008), Youd et al. (1997), Seed et al. (1982), Boulanger and Idriss (2004) and Bray and
Sancio (2006). SPT blow counts of saturated silt and sand layers identified in this study as
potentially liquefiable were utilized to calculate the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR). The scaled
Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) is divided by the CSR to determine the factor of safety (F.S.)
against liquefaction within the given soil profile layer.
8.3.1 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATIN AND ANALYSIS CRITERIA
Evaluation of liquefaction potential at the site during a seismic event is based on the recent
publications and standards set-forth by SCEC and CGS Special Publication 117A, which
states that a site is not considered to be liquefiable, only if the screening process complies
with the following criteria:
➢ Maximum past, current and maximum future groundwater levels are determined to be
deeper than (50) feet below the existing ground surface.
➢ If bedrock or similar lithified formational material underlies the site.
➢ If corrected standard penetration blow counts is greater than 30 in all samples with a
sufficient number of tests or if corrected cone penetration test tip resistance is equal or
greater than 160.
8.3.2 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Moderate to severe (design-level) earthquakes can cause strong ground shaking, which is
the case for most of the sites within the Bay Area. According to the Seismic Hazard Zone
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 22
Report for the Cupertino Quadrangle (2002), the site has a PHGA of approximately 0.728g
considering alluvium conditions and a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years
(475-year return interval). We have also performed a probabilistic site hazard assessment
(PSHA) for the site using coordinates and an estimated an average shear wave velocity of
270 meters/second for the upper (30)-meters of site soils. Based on the above, a PHGA of
1.30g was estimated for the site considering a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50
years (2475-year return interval) to be utilized for this liquefaction analysis.
8.3.3 HISTORIC GROUNDWATER
Based on the review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Map Report (068) by California Geological
Survey (CGS) for the Cupertino Quadrangle (2002), it is our understanding that the historic
groundwater elevation at the site and in general vicinity is being considered to be deeper
than (50)-feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).
8.3.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
The site of proposed improvements is not located within an area zoned by the State of
California as having potential for seismically induced liquefaction hazards (CGS, 2004). The
sands and gravels encountered at the site are generally medium dense to dense and very
dense. In addition to the above, free groundwater was not encountered in our borings and
is usually considered to be deeper than (50)-feet below ground surface (bgs). For these
reasons, we judge the potential for liquefaction to occur at the site to be low.
8.3.5 LATERAL SPREADING
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that
has formed within an underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization, the surficial
blocks are transported down slope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and
gravitational forces. As the failure tends to propagate as block failures, it is difficult to
analyze and estimate, where the first tension crack will form. In general, lateral spreading is
considered when an open face (Height = D) is not within about 40D of a site.
The site and surrounding areas are generally level with no open face in the immediate vicinity of
the site. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon that is usually associated with liquefaction and
since the liquefaction at the site is being considered to be low, we judge the probability of
lateral spreading at the site during a seismic event is perceived to be low.
8.4 SAND BOILS
Ishihara (1985) has shown that the presence of a sufficient thickness of a non-liquefiable
surface layer may prevent the observable effect of at-depth liquefaction from reaching the
surface. A more recent study by Youd and Garris (1995) expanded on the work of Ishihara
to include data from over 300 exploratory borings, 15 different earthquakes, and several
ranges of recorded peak ground acceleration. Considering the capping effects from
overlying non-liquefiable layers and additional engineered fill to be placed to raise site
grades, the soil above the potentially liquefiable soils are thick enough to resist upward
pressure and the liquefiable lenses are thin enough to provide only a limited reservoir of
water. Accordingly, we do not anticipate the occurrence of sand boils at the site.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 23
8.5 SEISMIC SETTLEMENT/CYCLIC DENSIFICATION
Seismic densification can occur during strong ground shaking in loose, clean granular
deposits above the water table and over the hard / dense material, resulting in ground
surface settlement. The soil layers below the subsurface mostly consist of clays that are too
cohesive with thin layers of sand and are usually not susceptible to densification. We judge
the settlement due to seismic densification to be low.
8.6 DIFFERENTIAL COMPACTION
If near surface soil varies in composition both vertically and laterally, strong earthquake
shaking can cause non-uniform compaction of soil strata, resulting in movement of near
surface soils. Based on the nature of the soils encountered at the site, we judge the
probability of differential compaction at the site to be low.
8.7 GROUND LURCHING & LANDSLIDING
Seismically Induced Ground Lurching / Landsliding are a lateral movement of portions of
the ground normally accompanied by fissuring perpendicular to the direction of lurching. It
usually occurs along steep slopes and embankments, such as unconsolidated and
unsupported stream banks. However, there are no open channels or banks located in
immediate vicinity of the site. Our interpretation of the landslide potential is based on our
geologic reconnaissance, aerial photographs interpretation and review of the previous
geotechnical investigation, research of published maps and reports and our subsurface
exploration. The published maps reviewed show no landslides occurring at the site. Since
the site is located in a flat area, we judge the possibility of Ground Lurching/Landsliding at
the site could be perceived to be low.
8.8 FLOODING AND RESERVOIR INUNDATION
Based on our internet search of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
the review of the available FEMA Flood Zone Maps, it is our understanding that the site is
located in Zone D, which identifies the site with undetermined chance of flood but possibility of
having flood. We recommend that the Project Civil Engineer be retained to confirm this
information and verify the base flood elevation (if appropriate).
8.9 SEISMICALLY INDUCED WAVES -TSUNAMIS & SEICHES
Tsunamis are seismic sea waves that are typically is open ocean phenomena caused by
underwater landslides, volcanic eruptions and seismic events, which primarily impact low-
lying coastal areas. Seiches are earthquake-generated waves or oscillations (sloshing) of
the water surface in restricted bodies of water, such as the San Francisco Bay. The 1868
earthquake on the Hayward fault is reported to have generated Seiches activity in the bay.
Seiches are extremely rare in the Bay, which generally attenuates such activity due to its
irregular shape and shallow shoreline.
Ritter and Dupre (1972) indicate that the coastal lowland areas, immediately adjacent to
San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean Coastline are subject to possible inundation from
tsunami with a run up height of 20-feet at the Golden Gate Bridge. Based on the review of
the Tsunami Inundation Maps for Emergency Planning for the Santa Clara Quadrangle, it is
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 24
our understanding that the site is not located within the tsunami hazard zone mapped by
the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA). Furthermore, the site is not
located next to any major drainage areas that would be affected by or generate a
seismically induced wave. Therefore, this potential is judged to be low.
9.0 CBC - CODE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA -
9.1 2016 CBC SITE CLASSIFICATION & SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS
The following table summarizes site specific design criteria obtained from 2016 California
Building Code based on 2015 International Building code (IBC) and ASCE 7-10. The data
was calculated using U.S. Seismic Design Maps web application provided by the USGS. The
short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Ste Class based on
the discussion in Section 1613A.3.2 of the 2016 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. The
values presented below are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER).
Based on the results of the exploratory borings at the site and review of local geology, the
site is underlain with soft to stiff soil with Typical SPT "N" values being 15 <_ N <_ 50 blows per
foot. Therefore, we have classified the site with the soil classification "D" with alluvium
conditions. The mapped spectral acceleration parameters Ss and S1 were calculated using
the USGS computer Program Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, version 5.10 revision
date February 10, 2011 based on the site coordinates presented in table below and the site
classification along with other factors used to determine the seismic coefficients and
parameters. The mapped acceleration parameters were adjusted for local site conditions
based on the average soil conditions for the upper 100-feet of the soil profile. Based on site
classification used in our hazard analysis, we estimated the average shear wave velocity for
the top 30-meters of the soil profile to be approximately 270 m/s based on the alluvium soil
conditions encountered in our explorations and available geologic data.
TABLE V - ASCE 7-10/2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter -
Site Class (5% Damped) D
Site Latitude 37.331690 N
Site Longitude -122.051390 W
0.2-Second Period Mapped Spectral Acceleration, Class B (short), Ss 1.894g
1-Second Period Mapped Spectral Acceleration - Class B, S 1 0.721 g
Short Period Site Coefficient - Fa 1.0
ASTInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 25
Parameter V. -
Long Period Site Coefficient - Fv 1.5
Seismic Design Category (per Section 1 1.6, ASCE/SEI 7-05, where S1 > 0.75g) D
0.2-second Period Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response 1.894g
Acceleration Adjusted for Site Effects (short), SMS
1.0-second Period, Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response 1.081 g
Acceleration Adjusted for the Site Effects, SM1
0.2-second Period, Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration, SIDS 1.262g
1.0-second Period, Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration, SD1 0.721 g
Long Period Transition - TL 12-secs
TABLE VI - ASCE 7-10 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Parameter Value
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration 0.728g Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.0 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG
Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.728g Section 1 1.8.3 (Eqn. 1 1.8-1)
However, the Structural Engineer needs to confirm the final design of the proposed structure
having a period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds, for the site to be classified
"Site Class "D". If not, a site-specific hazard analysis has to be performed to be in
accordance with ASCE 7-10. Conformance to the criteria reflected in the tables below for
seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant
structural damage or/ ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs.
The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such
design may be economically prohibitive. Table VI above presents the mapped maximum
considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for the projects located in
Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 26
10.0 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field observations and the results of our laboratory analysis, it is our
professional opinion that the site of proposed development could be developed as
planned, provided if the conclusion and recommendations of this report are incorporated
in the design and during the construction phase of the project. However, if there are any
changes that are being proposed to the original scope of work or/ to the nature of
development, location, design changes, type of structures or/addition of any subsurface
structures, then additional CPTs or/ exploratory borings and further review of the subsurface
soil conditions may be required to provide recommendations.
The primary geotechnical concerns for the proposed improvements are as follow:
➢ Presence of Moderate to Highly Expansive Soils
Potential for Strong Seismic Shaking
➢ Plans & Specifications
10.1 PRESENCE OF MODERATE TO HIGH EXPANSIVE SOILS
Moderate to Highly expansive clays were also encountered in the upper layers of the
subsurface soils. These expansive near-surface soils are subject to high volume changes
during seasonal fluctuations in moisture content, which can cause cracking of shallow
foundations, floor slabs, concrete flatwork and pavements, exterior concrete flatwork such
as sidewalks. These effects can be mitigated by moisture conditioning the expansive soil
and placing a minimum of (12)-inches of non-expansive imported fill material or/ (18)-inches
of lime treated material below all slabs below the zone of severe moisture change and /or
designing foundations and slabs to resist ground movements associated with the volume
changes. Recommendations for subgrade preparation, engineered fill, placement and non
-expansive material are presented in the "Recommendation Section" of this report.
10.2 STRONG SEISMIC SHAKING
Strong Seismic Shaking should be anticipated at the site. We recommend that at a
minimum, the proposed structures be designed in accordance with the seismic design
criteria reflected in CBC 2016/ASCE 7-10. Site seismic coefficients are presented in the
preceding sections of this report.
10.3 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW
Subsurface soil conditions may vary from those encountered during our field exploration. To
verify our established recommendations have been properly implemented, we recommend
that AST be retained to review the final construction plans and specifications and to
observe the earthwork and foundation depth during the construction phase of the project.
These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from AST's
professional judgment and opinion. AST's recommendations can be finalized only by
observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during the construction phase of the
project. Retaining AST for construction observation for this project is the most effective
method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. In the event
conclusions or recommendations based on the submitted data are made by others, then
such conclusions and recommendations are not our responsibility, unless we have been
given an opportunity to review and concur with such conclusions and recommendation in
writing.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 27
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS -
11.1 EXISITNG UTILITIES
Existing utilities located within the areas of proposed improvements should be removed in
their entirety. Utilities within the proposed areas of improvements could be considered for
in-place abandonment, provided they do not conflict with new improvements, that the
ends and all laterals are located and completely grouted, and the previous fills associated
with the utility trenches do not pose a risk to the proposed improvements.
Utilities outside the areas of proposed improvements should be removed or abandoned in-
place by grouting or plugging ends with concrete. Fills associated with utilities abandoned
in place could pose some risk of settlement; utilities that are plugged could also pose some
risk of future collapse or erosion should they leak or become damaged. The potential risks
are relatively low for smaller diameter pipes abandoned in place and increasingly higher
with increase in diameter.
11.2 EARTHWORK SECTION - DEMOLITION, CLEARING & SITE PREPARATION
Any areas to be graded should initially be cleared of all obstructions, including the buried
foundation (if any), footings, underground utility pipes, including drain lines, landscape
areas, brush, trees not designated to remain, debris, stumps, root balls, existing pavements,
rubble and debris should be removed and hauled off from the site. Roots greater than 'p-
inches diameter shall be removed completely. All active or inactive utilities within the
construction area should be protected, relocated or abandoned. Any underground utility
pipes abandoned in place should be filled with sand cement slurry (pressure grout).
Depressions/Holes/excavated areas resulting from the removal of the existing foundation
or/ underground obstructions, root balls etc. below the existing or/ proposed finished
subgrade levels should be cleared for engineered fill given below.
Please note that all earthwork operations at the site including demolition and fill placement
shall be observed by Advance Soil Technology, Inc. ("AST") or/ by its representative. It is
important that during the demolition, excavation/removal of buried footings, buried
structures, underground utilities, below grade structures, stripping and scarification process
our representative be present to observe whether any undesirable material is encountered
in the construction area and whether exposed soils are similar to those encountered during
our geo tech nical/field investigation.
11.3 PAD PREPARATION
Following the clearing and grubbing operation, demolition, excavation, removal of the
existing fills and disturbed soils areas/backfill of the existing subsurface structures and
underground utilities, the existing exposed grade shall be scarified to a minimum depth of
(12)-inches, moisture conditioned as needed and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative
compaction as per ASTM D1557, prior to any placement of any fill material.
After the completion of the above, the entire building pad area and five-feet beyond the
footprint shall be excavated to a depth of minimum two-feet below the existing grade. The
bottom of the excavation shall be uniformly graded to an even elevation; scarified to a
depth of (12)-inches below the excavated bottom, moisture condition to ±2 to 3% over
ASTInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 28
optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction as
per afore-mentioned procedure. Additional engineered fill material shall then be placed in
(8) to (12)-inch lifts, moisture conditioned as needed and compacted to 95% relative
compaction as per ASTM D1557. The upper (18)-inches of the subgrade material under all
"Concrete Slab-On-Grade Construction" and five-feet beyond the building footprint shall
consist of lime treated material or/ non-expansive fill material placed in lifts and
compacted to 95% relative compaction as per ASTM D1557 respectively.
Recommendations for lime treatment; please refer to Section (11 .5) in the following sections
of this report.
Soft, unstable, pumping and over-saturated areas may be encountered during the initial
grading operation may require additional excavation and stabilization of these areas by
means over-excavation and usage of stabilization fabric and dry material. Upon achieving
the compaction of the existing bottom, the entire site shall then be graded uniformly (high
and low areas) by means of "Cut and Fill" operation to achieve a uniform condition and to
minimize differential settlement, prior to placement of any an additional fill material or/
importing any material to the site.
Please note that all areas of proposed improvements/graded areas, including at grade
building pad areas, walkways, patios and trash enclosure areas etc. shall be scarified to a
depth of (12)-inches; moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative
compaction as per ASTM D1557. The structural section for slab-on-grade construction shall
be in accordance with the recommendations established under the "Concrete Slab-on-
Grade" Section of this report.
11.4 LIME TREATMENT
Due to the presence of high expansion potential in the soil at the site, the subgrade soils
and areas with excessive moisture could be lime (HiCal Lime) cement treated to lower the
moisture content and expansion potential. The lime treatment shall penetrate the proposed
subgrade / the bottom of the excavation to a minimum depth of (18)-inches, below the
exposed ground surface. Lime treatment shall be conducted with appropriate equipment,
such that a uniform mix (5% Lime by dry weight of the soil approximately (I20.0)-pounds per
cubic feet) is achieved over the entire area.
Upon achieving the uniform mix, the lime treated material shall then be compacted to a
minimum of 95% relative compaction as per ASTM D1557. After the initial mix and hydration,
the treated material shall be allowed to mellow a minimum of (36)-hours, prior to the re-
mixing the material. Upon completion of the mellowing time of (36)-hours, the material shall
be moisture conditioned as needed, remixed and re-hydrated to the full depth of
treatment, prior to achieving the desired degree of 95% relative compaction as per ASTM
D1556. The lime treatment contractor shall discuss the treatment procedure with the Soil
Engineer and submit the process for review and recommendations for the type of
equipment usage.
11.5 GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORT MTERIALS
Any and all imported non-expansive fill material required from an off-site source shall
comply with the following geotechnical criteria for evaluation and acceptability of the
material. This is to include but not limit the materials in the pad areas, under concrete slab-
on-construction and for backfill behind walls or/ retained structures shall be primarily
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 29
granular material with low plasticity and expansion potential and shall comply with the
following:
➢ Resistance R-Value Not less than 25
➢ Plasticity Index 12 or less
➢ Liquid Limit 30% or less
➢ Expansion Index 20% or less
➢ Passing Sieve #200 Between 10 and 20%
➢ Maximum rock size <_ (3)-inches
11.6 ON-SITE RECYCLED MATERIALS
If desired, the existing on-site asphaltic concrete and aggregate base could be considered
for use as engineered fill provided the materials are broken down to meet class II
aggregate base particle size and placed in a separate stockpile outside the limits of
grading. The material may be blended with site soils and placed within street or parking
areas below subgrade. We understand that the Regional Water Quality Control Board
generally accepts the reuse of asphaltic concrete as recycled aggregate base without
additional analytical testing provided that the material will be encapsulated under an
asphalt/concrete roadway. The roadway surface should be relatively impervious to
infiltration to limit percolation. Additionally, recycled asphaltic concrete materials must be
placed at least five feet above the seasonal high groundwater elevation. We do not
recommend placement of recycled material within the building footprint. Reuse of existing
paving materials as engineered fill in roadways could increase the R-value of the subgrade
soil, add a "green" recycling component to the project and reduce the cost to export and
dispose these materials.
11.7 WEATHER/MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS
All imported soil/fill material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, prior to
hauling the material to the site. Based on our experience in the area, grading during the
rainy season may be difficult due to the type of soil at the site. If earthwork operations and
construction for this project are scheduled to be performed during the rainy season or in
areas containing saturated soils, provisions may be required for drying of soil or providing
admixtures to the soil prior to compaction. If desired, we can provide supplemental
recommendations for wet weather earthwork and alternatives for drying the soil prior to
compaction. Conversely, additional moisture may be required during dry months. Water
trucks should be made available in sufficient numbers to provided adequate water during
earthwork operations. If site grading is performed during the rainy months, the site soils
could become very wet and difficult to compact without undergoing significant drying. This
may not be feasible without delaying the construction schedule. For this reason, drier import
soils could be required or lime treating may be needed if construction takes place during
winter months.
11.8 TEMPORARY SLOPES & TRENCH EXCAVATIONS
The contractor should be responsible for all temporary excavations, slopes and trenches
excavated at the site and the design of any required shoring system. Shoring, bracing and
benching shall be performed by the contractor in accordance with the strict governing
safety standards. Temporary shoring is usually considered as a construction issue (means
and methods) and has to be addressed by the contractor. Shoring and bracing should be
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 30
provided in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal safety regulations,
including but not limited to the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards.
Surface water inflows into excavations must be prevented from causing caving and running
ground conditions. Field conditions must be carefully assessed before excavations are
made so that appropriate measures can be taken to prevent sloughing, caving and
excessive ground movement during the construction phase.
11.9 ON-SITE UNDERGROUND UTILITY TRENCHING
Bedding and embedment materials around the underground utility lines should be well-
graded sand or gravel and should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
project specifications, local requirements and governing jurisdictions.
To provide uniform support, pipes or conduits should be bedded on a minimum of four
inches of sand or fine gravel. After pipes and conduits are tested, inspected (if required),
and approved, they should be covered to a depth of six inches with sand or fine gravel,
which should then be mechanically tamped. Where trenches extend below the
groundwater level, it will be necessary to temporarily dewater them to allow for placement
of the pipe and/or conduits, and backfill. All underground utility trenches on-site must be
compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction per requirements of the local
governing agency or/ as recommended by the Soils Engineer and in accordance with the
test procedure ASTM D1557. Utility trenches located adjacent to the existing or proposed
structures shall be no closer than the required 2:1 slope criteria. This means that no trenches
should be located within an area, which would intercept the hypothetical slope line drawn
from the bottom edge of the footing at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope.
The trenches could be backfilled with native material, base rock, quarry fines, cement slurry
or with concrete densified fill all the way up to the required subgrade elevation. The
material shall be moisture conditioned (±2 to 3% over optimum) and shall be placed in (8)
inch un-compacted lifts and each lift shall be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative
compaction as per ASTM D1557. Locally, flexible utility connections may be needed to
accommodate up to several inches of vertical ground settlement. Trenches that are
crossing the building foundation shall be backfilled with concrete / cement slurry or/ non-
permeable material, a minimum of four (4.0)-feet on either side of the footing. Trenches
located in the landscape areas should be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative
compaction with the exception of the top-foot, compacted to a minimum of 85% relative
compaction as per ASTM D1557. Please note that jetting of the trenches will not be
permitted (without any exception) at any time during the backfill operation.
12.0 CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS
12.1 STRUCTURAL/INTERIOR CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION
All interior structural concrete slabs on grade shall be a minimum of five (5.0)-inches thick,
reinforced with a minimum of #4 rebar spaced (16)-inches on center both ways for
shrinkage control to minimize the impact of expansion and shall be designed as per the
latest edition of ACI and supported as follows:
➢ (2) Inches of clean washed sand
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-5 Page 31
➢ Vapor membrane for capillary-break, Perminator or/ min. 15 mil-Visquine (Stego wrap).
➢ Four (4)-inches of 3/4-inch clean crushed rock compacted properly to achieve locking
action. (No recycled rock shall be used on the building pads). Please see the table
below for gradation requirements for the free draining gravel.
➢ Areas where movement of traffic is anticipated, the slab should be supported on
minimum (6.0)-inches of clean crushed rock compacted properly to achieve locking
action or/ Class II Aggregate Base Compacted to 95% relative compaction (No
recycled rock shall be used on the building pads).
➢ (18)-inches of non-expansive import material shall be in compliance with the material
requirements reflected in Section (11 .5) of the grading recommendations. (Please note
that (4.0)-inches of rock and (2.0)-inches of sand shall not be considered as a part of the
non-expansive material).
The slab reinforcing mentioned above could exceed the minimum requirement depending
on the anticipated usage and loading conditions. However, the Project Structural Engineer
shall determine the final thickness and reinforcing based on a modulus of subgrade
reaction equal to 45 pounds per cubic foot. Post-construction cracking of concrete slabs is
inherent on any project especially where soil has high expansion potential. To minimize the
cracks in the slabs, we recommended that proper spacing of expansion and contraction
joints. Where the risk of moisture penetration through interior floor slabs is to be reduced, the
slab should be constructed on a layer of capillary break material covered by a continuous
impermeable membrane vapor barrier. The capillary break material should be at least (4)-
inches thick, and should consist of free-draining crushed rock or gravel graded such that
100 percent will pass the 1-inch sieve and none will pass the No. 4 sieve.
It should be emphasized that we are not floor moisture proofing experts. While the current
industry standard is to place a vapor barrier over a gravel layer as described above, this
system may not be completely effective in preventing floor slab moisture problems. These
systems typically will not necessarily assure that floor slab moisture transmission rates will
meet floor-covering manufacturing standards and that indoor humidity levels be
appropriate to inhibit mold growth. The design and construction of such systems are totally
dependent on the proposed use and design of the proposed building. All elements of
building design and function should be considered in the slab-on-grade floor design.
Building design and construction may have a greater role in perceived moisture problems
since sealed buildings/rooms or inadequate ventilation may produce excess moisture in a
building and affect indoor air quality.
Recommendations for slab-on-grade or slab-on-grade construction presented above are
based on ACI 302.2R-06, "Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring
Materials," published in 2006. The architect and design engineer should review that
reference for background on moisture vapor penetration through concrete slabs and issues
regarding protection from delamination of flooring, blistering, staining, mold growth, and
other problems related to performance of moisture-sensitive flooring.
Since 1999, water-based flooring adhesives have replaced solvent-based adhesives
because of restrictions by the EPA, which has lead to an increase in moisture-related
problems. The performance of flooring is complicated as described in ACI 302.2R-06 and
depends on many factors including sub-slab relative humidity, concrete materials and
water-cement ratio, internal relative humidity, and construction aspects, such as curing,
ASTInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 32
length of drying, environmental conditions, pH, etc. As noted above, the architect and
design engineer should review pertinent background materials and decide what measures
are needed depending on the type of flooring that will be used. Please note that the
recommendations presented above are not intended to resolve every issue regarding
moisture vapor penetration through on-grade concrete slabs. If additional concerns need
to be addressed, then additional information needs to be provided and reviewed by the
geotechnical engineer and probably by an expert in vapor moisture transmission through
concrete slabs.
12.2 EXTERIOR CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE
All exterior concrete slabs-on-grade / flatwork should be a minimum of (5.0)-inch thick
reinforced with a minimum of #3 rebar spaced (12)-inches on center both ways, supported
on (4)-inches of class II base rock over properly prepared subgrade and (12)-inches of non-
expansive fill material compacted to 95% relative compaction as per ASTM D1557. The
subgrade soils below the non-expansive fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of (8)-
inches below the surface and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction as per
ASTM D1557.
Areas where vehicle loading or/ movement traffic is anticipated, we recommend a
minimum of (6)-inches of Class 2 Aggregate Base and (12)-inches of non-expansive fill
material, under the flatwork compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction as per
ASTM D1557. The subgrade soils below the non-expansive fill shall be scarified to a minimum
depth of (8)-inches below the surface and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative
compaction as per ASTM D1557.
Flatwork should not be attached to the building as cracking could result in the event of
differential movement between the building and the flatwork. To minimize the cracks in the
slabs, it is recommended that proper expansion and contraction joints be provided in the
slab.
13.0 FOUNDATION
Provided the subgrade is prepared as described above, the proposed commercial
buildings/self-storage structures shall be supported on a structural rigid mat foundation or/
on a continuous perimeter and interior isolated spread footings or/ on a structural rigid mat
foundation. Recommendations for this type of foundation has been outlined and discussed
in the following sections of this report.
13.1 CONTINUOUS PERIMETER & INTERIOR ISOLATED SPREAD FOOTINGS
The proposed structures could be supported on a continuous perimeter and interior isolated
spread footings, designed as to minimize the differential movement due to potential soil
expansion and seismic movement. The excavated bottom of all the footings shall be
compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction as per ASTM D1557 and the
foundation shall be supported on neatly excavated level bottom.
All the continuous perimeter and isolated spread footings shall be a minimum of (24)-inches
wide and shall be founded at a minimum depth of (24) and (36)-inches below the proposed
subgrade elevation or/ the lowest adjacent rough soil pad grade or/ lowest adjacent
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 33
subgrade (whichever governs) for a one, two and three-story structures. At the above
depth, the footings may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3000 pounds per
square feet for total design loads (Dead plus live Load). The bearing pressure could be
increased by one-third for all other loads including wind and seismic. If required, the widths
of the footing may be increased to satisfy the allowable soil bearing capacity.
All footings should be reinforced with top and bottom steel to provide structural continuity
and help span local irregularities. The design of the structures and foundations shall meet
California Building Code requirements for seismic effects. The Structural Engineer shall
design the foundation of the proposed structures, based on the type of usage and
anticipated loading conditions. The proposed foundation shall be designed as a rigid
foundation system to adequately spread the structural loads and as well as to resist the
impact of varying differential settlement across the structure.
Footings located adjacent to a building foundation, structure or/ an underground utility
trench shall be designed such that the bottom of the proposed new footing shall be
established at the same elevation as the existing footing/trench or/ deeper. The design of
the new or the proposed footing shall include surcharge from the existing structure and
utilities. To maintain the desired support for the foundations, footings located adjacent to
the utility lines or other existing footings, including those for the retaining walls and stepped
footings should be deepened as necessary so that their bearing surfaces are below the
hypothetical plane having an inclination of 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical, extending upward
from the bottom edge of the footing / utility trench. Individual steps in continuous footings
shall not exceed 12-inches in height and shall comply with above-mentioned criteria of 2.0
horizontal to 1 .0 vertical. The steps shall be detailed on the drawings and the local effects
due to the discontinuity of the steps shall be considered in the design of the foundation.
Please note that it is the responsibility of the contractor-in-charge to make sure that the
footings are placed on level bottom, neatly against the undisturbed soil. It is critical that all
visible cracks at the bottom of the footing excavation be sealed by moisture conditioning
(24) hours, it is recommended that the trenches be moisture conditioned a minimum of 2 to
3% over the optimum moisture content, prior to pouring concrete. However, if saturated,
soft / unstable areas are encountered then they shall be excavated to a firm base and the
depth of excavation should be replaced with lean concrete.
AST shall also observe all the foundation trenches for depth verification and to make sure
that the footings are founded in the anticipated bearing soil, after the excavation and prior
to the placement of steel and to make changes as deemed necessary.
13.2 STRUCTURAL RIGID MAT FOUNDATION
The proposed structure could be supported on a structural rigid mat foundation depending
the anticipate loading condition and to limit the amount of differential settlement, The
proposed structural rigid mat foundation should be of uniform thickness (minimum of (12)-
inch thick) with a thickened edge extending below the bottom of the mat to reduce the
potential for movement of the mat due to shrink and swell of the expansive clay, we
recommend mat foundations have a thickened edge embedded at least (12)-inches
below the lowest adjacent rough soil pad grade.
The mat foundation system shall be designed for an at-grade allowable surface bearing
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-5 Page 34
value of 1500 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads and could be increased by
one-third for all short-term loads including wind and seismic forces, provided the load
bearing surfaces are prepared in accordance with the "Subgrade Preparation"
requirement established in the preceding sections of this report. The allowable bearing
values are net values; the weight of the mat can be neglected for design purposes. The
thickness of the mat foundation will be based on the anticipated structural loads and
stiffness as designed by the Structural Engineer. The mats foundation should also be
designed to span an unsupported area with a diameter of (10.0)-feet or/ less in the center
and a cantilever distance of (5.0)-feet or less at the edge or corner of building. These
evaluations for "area of non-support" are empirical and are not intended to model actual
mat performance; the purpose of these criteria is to establish foundation stiffness and to
control differential movement.
The mat shall be designed for a uniform subgrade modulus of "V of 25 kips per cubic foot
(kcf) and a coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used at the bottom of the mat. We
recommend that a more detailed analysis (Discrete Area Method) be performed using SAFE
iterations in conjunction with variable "V. Using a lower "k" in the center of the mat and a
higher "V towards the edges and corners will allow for a more accurate prediction of
shears and moments.
The mat shall be placed neat against the undisturbed soil, if possible. It is critical that the
excavation not be allowed to dry our before placing concrete. If shrinkage cracks appear
in the area of excavation, then the subgrade shall be thoroughly moisture conditioned to
close all cracks, prior to placement of concrete. The area of excavation should be
monitored by AST to assure compliance with appropriate moisture control and to confirm
the adequacy of the bearing materials. If soft or loose materials are encountered at the
bottom of the excavation, then material should be excavated removed and shall be
backfilled with lean concrete as soon as possible following excavation. The use of lean
concrete eliminates the disturbance of the easily disturbed sandy soils exposed at the
bottom of the excavation to weather and construction activities following excavation.
Disturbance of the soils at the bottom may occur during construction and will require re-
compaction as per the subgrade preparation.
The mat foundation shall be designed and supported as follows:
➢ Mat foundation as designed
➢ Rat slab in between the waterproofing membrane (if needed)
➢ (4)-inches thick layer of free draining gravel - 3/4-inch clean washed drain rock vibrated
and compacted to achieve the desired interlocking action - to be approved by the
geotechnical engineer (no recycled rock shall be used in the pad area).
➢ (18)-inches of non-expansive material or/ lime treated material compacted to a
minimum of 95% relative compaction as per ASTM D1557 testing procedure.
➢ Subgrade prepared and compacted as per the grading recommendations established
on (11.2) and (11 .3)
Proper concrete placement in accordance with applicable specifications and curing of
concrete slabs inhibits moisture migration. The concrete slab water-cement ratio should be
maintained during concrete mixing and placement. ACI 302.2R-306 (2006, pg 37) indicates
that water-cement ratios in the range of 0.4 to 0.5 with a compressive strength not less than
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 35
4,000 psi may provide a reasonable drying time; however, the architect and design
engineer should select the desired concrete properties based on the performance
requirements. It is essential that we observe the subgrade of the mat foundation. The pad
surface which is considered as a mat bearing surface shall be compacted in accordance
with the recommendations outlined in the project soils report and shall be kept moist (2 to
3% over optimum moisture content) to prevent desiccation cracks. Furthermore, it is the
responsibility of the contractor-in-charge to take all necessary precautions to protect the
subgrade soils from any in flow of water or moisture seepage during construction, especially
prior to casting the slab.
13.3 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
Settlements under static loads are expected to be primarily elastic with one-third of the
total settlement occurring immediately upon application of the structural loads. However,
for the design consideration, post construction total settlements have been anticipated to
be in the range of approximately one-inch with a differential settlement of ('/2) to (3/4)-inch
between adjacent columns over a horizontal span of (40)-feet.
13.4 LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE
Lateral load resistance shall be provided by the friction between the foundation and the
supporting subgrade. The lateral load resistance could also be provided by the passive
pressures acting against the sides of the foundation, provided they are constructed neatly
against the undisturbed native soil. It is recommended that an equivalent fluid pressure of
280 pounds per cubic foot be used for design purposes. This passive pressure has been
assumed to act at a depth of one-foot below the proposed subgrade elevation. The
allowable passive pressure may be increased by one-third for resistance to lateral loading
due to wind or seismic forces. Areas where the ground slopes downward from the footing
with a 4:1 or greater than anticipated, we recommend neglecting the passive resistance
and requesting evaluation of the slope and analysis for additional recommendations,
based on the footing location and geometry. A coefficient of 0.3 may be utilized for the
above, provided the combination of both friction and passive pressure may be used
provided that one of them is reduced by 50 percent.
14.0 SOIL RETAINING STRUCTURES
14.1 RETAINING WALLS
Retaining structures that are free to rotate or translate laterally (e.g. cantilevered retaining
walls) through a horizontal distance to wall height ratio of no less than 0.004 are referred to
as unrestrained or yielding retaining structures. Such walls can generally move enough to
develop active earth pressure conditions. Retaining structures that are unable to rotate or
deflect laterally (e.g. restrained basement walls) are referred to as restrained or non-
yielding walls and subject to at-rest earth pressure conditions. Backfill materials behind the
wall and within a 1 h: 1 v projection up from the foundation should consist of granular soils
meeting the requirements of Section 11 .5.
14.2 STATIC EARTH PRESSURES
Cantilevered walls with granular soil Backfill can be designed for active earth pressures
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 36
using an equivalent fluid weight of 45 pcf for horizontal backfill and drained conditions (no
hydrostatic loading). Restrained walls with granular soil backfill should be designed for at-
rest earth pressures estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 45 pcf assuming drained
and horizontal backfill conditions plus an additional uniform lateral pressure of 8H psf, where
H is the height of the backfill above the top of the wall footing in feet. Wherever, walls are
subjected to surcharge loads, they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral
pressure equal to '/2 or 1/3 the anticipated surcharge loads for restrained or unrestrained
walls, respectively.
Retaining walls with sloping backfill should be designed for an additional uniform lateral
pressure of 1 pcf for 3 degrees of slope inclination. The lateral earth pressure distributions
should be applied along a vertical line through the heel of the wall between the
intersection of the vertical line with the ground surface above the wall and a point defined
by the elevation of the lowest structural member of the wall. Surcharge loads usually induce
additional pressures on earth retaining structures. Uniform area surcharge pressures for
retaining walls may be assumed equal to 0.5 of the applied surcharge pressure. Lateral
pressures for other surcharge loading conditions can be provided, if required.
14.3 DYNAMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
The increase in lateral earth pressure on walls from earthquake loading can be estimated
using the Mononobe-Okabe theory, as described by Seed and Whitman (1970). That theory
is based on the assumption that sufficient wall movement occurs during seismic shaking to
allow active earth pressure conditions to develop. The increase in lateral earth pressure
resulting from earthquake loading can also be estimated using the Mononobe-Okabe
theory. Because that theory is based on the assumption that sufficient movement occurs
such that active earth pressure conditions develop during seismic shaking, the applicability
of the theory to restrained or basement walls is not direct. However, Nadim and Whitman
(1992) suggest the theory that can be used for such walls.
In the Mononobe-Okabe approach, the total dynamic pressure can be divided into static
and dynamic components. For the proposed project, the estimated dynamic lateral force
increase (based on seismic loading conditions) for either unrestrained or restrained walls
with level backfill surfaces may be taken as 45 x PHGA x H2 in pounds per linear foot of wall.
In the above formula, peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) equals the horizontal
ground acceleration and H is the height of wall in feet. The centroid of that dynamic lateral
force increase should be applied at a distance of 0.6H above the base of the wall, where H
is equal to the below-grade portion of the wall height in feet.
TABLE VIII - RETAINING WALL EARTH PRESSURES (DRAINED CONDITION)
Backfill Static Condition Seismic Condition - • • •
DE (PGA 0• .•
(At Rest Pressure) Active plus Active plus
Backfill (EFP, pcf) Seismic Pressure Seismic Pressure
increment increment
Level Backfill 45 pcf+8H psf 45 pcf+23H2 plf 45 pcf+34H2 plf
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 37
In this procedure, the seismic increment is a function of the anticipated peak ground
acceleration at the project site. Table above presents the at-rest and seismic pressures
(active plus seismic pressure increment) for two code levels of shaking, the DE and the MCE
event. All of these values assume the soil upslope of the permanent walls is relatively flat. All
parameters are presented as equivalent fluid weights (triangular distribution).
14.4 DRAINAGE PROVISIONS
Drainage measures should be provided behind the walls to help collect groundwater
seepage and prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Drainage measures can consist
of constructing a vertical drainage system behind the wall by placing free-draining backfill
(meeting the requirements of Section 11 .5) directly behind the wall. The free-draining
material should be at least (1 .0)-foot wide and a perforated pipe should be placed at the
base of the material to collect and convey water to an outlet. Depending on the type of
free-draining material that is used, filter fabric may be required to separate the drainage
material from the adjacent soils or backfill. The backside of retaining walls should be
waterproofed to prevent potential effervescence (salt buildup) from forming on the front
side of the wall.
However, in lieu of using a (1 .0)-foot-wide zone of free-draining backfill material to provide
drainage behind the wall, geo-composite drains (for example, Miradrain, manufactured by
Mirafi, Inc., or similar) can be used to control groundwater and prevent hydrostatic
pressures on the walls. If drainage panel products are used, they should be appropriate for
the proposed use and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
In either case, a perforated pipe should be placed at the base of the material to collect
and convey water to an outlet.
14.5 COMPACTION ADJACENT TO WALLS
Backfill placed within (5.0)-feet of the retaining structures (measured horizontally behind the
wall) should be compacted with lightweight, hand-operated compaction equipment to
reduce the potential for developing compaction-induced stresses. If large or heavy
compaction equipment is used, lateral earth pressures could exceed those presented
previously. If larger or heavier compaction equipment is to be used, further evaluation of
the potential for compaction-induced stresses in the walls is recommended.
Backfill material should be brought up uniformly behind below-grade walls (i.e., the backfill
should be at about the same elevation all around the wall as the backfill is placed). That is,
the elevation difference of the backfill surface around the wall should not be greater than
about (2.0)-feet, unless the wall is designed for the potential for differential backfill heights.
The backfill material shall be placed and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative
compaction as per ASTM D1557. However, if the backfills are deeper than (5.0)-feet then
they should be compacted to 95% relative compaction as per ASTM D1557.
14.6 FOUNDATION FOR ON-SITE RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls could be supported and as designed in accordance with the
recommendations outlined in the "Foundation Section" of this report.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 38
15.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN
15.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION FOR PARKING AREAS, VERTICAL CURBS, CURB & GUTTER
The proposed improvements / the existing grade shall be graded uniformly, scarified to a
depth of (12)-inches (ripped and cross ripped); moisture conditioned, mixed thoroughly to
achieve a uniform mix, prior to being compacted. Upon achieving a uniform mix, the soil
shall then be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction according to ASTM
D1557 test procedure, prior to placement of any additional fill material.
Additional fill material, if required shall be placed in lifts and each lift shall then be
compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction all the way up to the required /
proposed subgrade elevation. The subgrade preparation for the proposed pavement areas
shall extend a minimum of two (2)-feet beyond the curb line and shall also be compacted
to not less than 95% relative compaction, using the aforementioned procedure. The
material shall be moisture conditioned slightly over the optimum moisture content and shall
be spread in lifts not exceeding (8) inches (un-compacted thickness) and compacted to
not less than 95% relative compaction using the ASTM D1557 test procedure. Upon
achieving the desired subgrade elevation and compaction, the required base rock section
shall be placed in lifts and each lift shall be compacted to 95% relative compaction as per
ASTM D 1557.
15.2 PAVEMENT CUT-OFF/SEEPAGE CONTROL
Concrete slabs around the landscaping areas should be protected from water seepage.
The water seepage from these areas usually creates over-saturation of the base rock and
the subgrade, thereby causing unstable conditions. Henceforth, we recommend the
following:
➢ Provide vertical cut-off or a deep vertical curb section all along the proposed
pavement section and the landscape areas. The vertical cut-off should extend through
the base rock and a minimum of four (4.0)-inches into the subgrade. The vertical cut-off
will limit the moisture intrusion / water seepage around the foundation, into the
pavement section and thereby extending the life of the pavement.
➢ All the utility trenches in the concrete slabs shall be capped with at least one foot of
native material or concrete or cement slurry. We recommend that the utility lines
located close to the foundations and along the side of the buildings be inspected to
make sure they are installed correctly and compacted properly.
➢ Utility trenches (irrigation lines, electrical conduits, plumbing, etc.) shall not be placed
close to the foundation especially, parallel to the building. This means that no trenches
should be located within an area, which would intercept the hypothetical slope line
drawn from the bottom edge of the footing at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. If the
trenches are excavated close to the foundation, then 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope
criteria shall be achieved at all times. If the above-mentioned criteria are not honored
or utilized, then the trenches become a pathway for water intrusion into the footing and
slab areas, resulting in soil distress and settlement problems.
➢ In landscape areas, to minimize moisture changes in the natural soils and fills, we
recommend the usage of drought resistant plants with a drip irrigation watering system.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 39
15.3 RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT/PORTLAND-CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Rigid Concrete Pavement (Portland Cement Concrete Pavement section) will be required
at truck loading dock ramps, stress pads at the trash enclosure areas and where movement
of heavy traffic is anticipated. Portland cement concrete pavements are typically better
able to resist the intense stresses induced in pavements by the turning motions of vehicles -
particularly delivery and garbage trucks.
Concrete pavements should be used in areas frequented by such vehicles as well as in
driveway and entry aprons. Concrete pavement sections presented in the table below are
based on current Portland Cement Association (PCA) design procedures and the
assumptions reflected below:
➢ Modulus of subgrade reaction = 50 psi/in
➢ Modulus of rupture of concrete = 550 psi
➢ Aggregate Interlock Joints
➢ No concrete shoulders
➢ 20-year design life
➢ Load Safety Factor = 1 .0
TABLE IX- RECOMMENDED PORTLAND CEMENT-CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Portland
AveraBase . . . . -
Cement Aggregate
Propose Concrete Scarification
Truck Traffic
Inches Feet Inches Feet (i n Lch
Light Duty 15 6.0 0.50 8.0 0.67 12
Heavy Duty 30 7.0 0.58 8.0 0.67 12
Portland cement concrete pavement sections provided above are contingent on the
following recommendations being implemented during construction phase of the project
and they are as follows:
➢ Pavement areas shall be supported on a subgrade, scarified to a depth of (12)-inches;
moisture conditioned to 2 to 3% over optimum moisture content and compacted to a
minimum of 95% relative compaction as per testing procedure ASTM D1557, prior to
placement of the base rock section. The base rock shall be placed and compacted to
a minimum of 95% relative compaction.
➢ Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the
subgrade soils are not allowed to become wet.
➢ Concrete pavement should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi.
Concrete slumps should be from 3 to 4 inches. The concrete should be properly cured in
accordance with PCA recommended procedures and vehicular traffic should not be
allowed for 3 days (automobile traffic) or a minimum of 7 days (truck traffic).
➢ Construction and/or control joint spacing should not exceed (12)-feet.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 40
➢ Over-finishing of concrete pavements should be avoided. Typically, a broom or burlap
drag finish should be used.
➢ To help offset plastic shrinkage, concrete pavement may be reinforced with at least No.
4 bars, 16 inches on-center, both ways (located 1/3 of the slab thickness from the top of
the slab).
➢ Thickened edges should be used along outside edges of concrete pavements. Edge
thickness should be at least (4)-inches greater than the concrete pavement thickness
and taper to the actual concrete pavement thickness (36)-inches inward from the
edge. Integral curbs may be used in lieu of thickened edges.
The above pavement recommendations should be incorporated into project plans and
specifications by the Project Architect and/or Civil Engineer.
15.4 PERMEABLE PAVERS/PAVEMENTS
Permeable Pavers/Pavements may be considered as a potential component of the site's
surface water management system. Our evaluation of potential site constraints such as
subsurface infiltration rate at the site suggests low permeability of the subsurface soils.
According to Jackson (2003), the best locations for permeable pavers/pavements are
parking lots and low-volume roads. Areas with high frequency and/or heavy truck loading
should not be considered. Cahill et al. (2004) recommend permeable pavers/pavements
be designed to a ratio of 5:1 impervious area to infiltration area, and be laid on flat slopes
with inclinations of 6 percent or less. A typical permeable paver/pavement section, from
top to bottom, includes a porous asphalt course, permeable concrete/ pavers with a top
filter course, a reservoir course, an optional bottom filter course, and filter fabric overlying a
level base of native un-compacted soil. The thickness of the reservoir course is typically
designed to allow complete drainage within 72 hours; however, capacity should be
designed by an engineer proficient in hydrology and storm water design, and should
comply with local regulations.
Permeable Pavers/Pavements should be maintained to promote unobstructed drainage
and prevent the accumulation of fines within the system. Pavement edges are usually lined
with unpaved stone or catch basins to provide additional drainage pathways to the
reservoir course if the asphalt course is repaved or becomes impermeable. Additionally, the
section bottom is typically designed with positive overflow elements to prevent saturation of
the porous pavement if the native soil subgrade becomes impermeable. Our review of
relevant literature suggests that the long-term performance of permeable pavers/
pavement systems is generally unknown and may require periodic maintenance.
Permeable Pavers/Pavements, if being proposed for the site should be designed with
proper drainage and supported as follows:
➢ (2)-inch of 3/8-inch gravel and compacted as needed before or/ after the installation
or/ placement of pavers
➢ (4)-inches of 3/4-inch clean washed drain rock, compacted to achieve locking action
➢ (10)-inches of 1'/4-inch clean washed drain rock, compacted to achieve locking action
➢ Four-inch Perforated Pipe installed at the intersection of the slopes and connected to a
drain inlet/storm drain
➢ Mirafi RS580i or/ Equal
➢ (12)-inches of subgrade compacted to 90% relative compaction as per ASTM D1557
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 41
15.5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The following pavement section design is based on an estimated resistance "R" value of 5
of the near surface soil samples and for the assumed traffic indices for parking areas,
automobile drive thru and heavy truck traffic areas has been presented in the following
sections of this report.
TABLE X - RECOMMENDED ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Class . • •• ade % Relative
General Traffic • • • Base Rock Pavement N• - Compaction
Condition Index (inches) R = 78 min. Thickness Material
(inches) (inches) (inches)
Automobile 4.0 3.0 8.0 11.0 12 95%
Parking 4.5 3.0 9.0 12.0 12 95%
Automobile 5.0 3.0 10.0 13.0 12 95%
Driveway Aisles 5.5 3.0 12.0 15.0 12 95%
Truck Traffic & 6.0 4.0 12.0 16.0 12 95%
Access Areas 6.5 4.0 14.0 18.0 12 95%
Recommended Pavement Sections have been highlighted.
CALTRANS Class 2 Aggregate Base—minimum R-value of 78 and shall be approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer
16.0 SITE DRAINAGE
16.1 SURFACE DRAINAGE
Bio-swales if proposed for the site, then they shall be located at a minimum of (10.0)-foot
offset from the exterior face of the building foundation/footing to the top of slope of the
bio-swale and a minimum of (5.0)-feet from any concrete slabs on grade or/ any pavement
areas.
Positive surface drainage should be provided around the building to direct surface water
away from the foundations. To reduce the potential for water ponding adjacent to the
building, we recommend the ground surface within a horizontal distance of five feet from
the building slope down away from the building with a surface gradient of at least two
percent in unpaved areas and one percent in paved areas.
In addition, roof downspouts should be discharged into controlled drainage facilities to
keep the water away from the foundations. As mentioned above, Infiltration basins or bio-
swales should not be placed within (10)-feet of the foundations. Because the subgrade soil
consists predominantly of clay, it will have a relatively low permeability. If infiltration basins
or bio-swales are planned, drains should be provided that direct the water away to an
appropriate outlet.
ASTInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 42
16.2 STORM WATER TREATMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
If storm water treatment improvements, such as shallow bio-retention swales, basins or/
pervious pavements, are required as part of the site improvements to satisfy Storm Water
Quality (C.3) requirements, we recommend the following items be considered for design
and construction. General Bioswale Design Guidelines are as follows:
➢ If possible, avoid placing bioswales or/ basins within (10.0) feet of the building perimeter
foundation or/ within (5.0)-feet of exterior flatwork or pavements. If bioswales must be
constructed within these setbacks, the side(s) and bottom of the trench excavation
should be lined with a heavy-duty liner to reduce water infiltration into the surrounding
expansive clays.
➢ Bioswales constructed within (5.0)-feet of proposed buildings may be within the
foundation / from the exterior face of the footings zone of influence for perimeter wall
loads. Therefore, where bioswales will parallel foundations and will extend below the
"foundation plane of influence," an imaginary 2:1 plane projected down from the
bottom edge of the foundation, the foundation will need to be deepened so that the
bottom edge of the bioswale filter material is above the foundation plane of influence.
➢ The bottom of bioswale or detention areas should include a perforated drain placed at
a low point, such as a shallow trench or sloped bottom, to reduce water infiltration into
the surrounding soils near structural improvements, and to address the low infiltration
capacity of the on-site clay soils.
16.3 BIOSWALE CONSTRUCTIONS ADJACENT TO PAVEMENTS
If bioswales or/ bio-detention areas are located adjacent to proposed parking lots or
exterior flatwork, we recommend that mitigation measures be considered in the design and
construction of these facilities to reduce potential impacts to flatwork or pavements.
Exterior flatwork, concrete curbs, and pavements located directly adjacent to bio-swales
may be susceptible to settlement or lateral movement, depending on the configuration of
the bioswale and the setback between the improvements and edge of the Swale. To
reduce the potential for distress to these improvements due to vertical or lateral movement,
the following options should be considered by the project civil engineer:
➢ Improvements should have an offset from the vertical edge of a bioswale such that
there is a minimum of (2.0)-foot of horizontal distance between the edge of
improvements and the top edge of the bioswale excavation for every 1 foot of vertical
bioswale depth, or/
➢ Concrete curbs for pavements, or lateral restraint for exterior flatwork, located directly
adjacent to a vertical bioswale cut should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures in
accordance with the recommendations in the "Retaining Walls" section of this report,
or/ concrete curbs or edge restraint should be adequately keyed into the native soil or/
engineered fill material to reduce the potential for lateral movement of the curbs.
16.4 IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING LIMITATIONS
The use of water-intensive landscaping around the perimeter of the buildings should be
avoided to reduce the amount of water introduced to the expansive clay subgrade. In
addition, irrigation of landscaping around the buildings should be limited to drip or bubbler-
type systems. The purpose of these recommendations is to avoid large differential moisture
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 43
changes adjacent to the foundations, which has been known to cause large differential
settlement over short horizontal distances in expansive soil, resulting in cracking of slabs and
architectural damage.
Moderately to highly expansive native clay is expected to be present at or near the
subgrade level. For this condition, prior experience and industry literature indicate some
species of high water-demand trees can induce ground surface settlement by drawing
water from the expansive soil and causing it to shrink. Where these types of trees are
planted adjacent to structures, the ground-surface settlement may result in damage to
structure. This problem usually occurs ten or more years after project completion as the
trees reach mature height.
To reduce the risk of tree-induced, ground-surface settlement, we recommend trees of the
following genera shall not be planted within a horizontal distance from the building equal
to the mature height of the tree such as Eucalyptus, Populus etc. This limited list does not
include all genera that could induce ground-surface settlement. Therefore, the project
landscape architect should exercise proper judgment in limiting other types or trees with
similar properties in the vicinity or close proximity to the building foundation.
17.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
17.1 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
All conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. (AST) being retained to review the grading plans, prior to
construction. The general contractor/grading contractor/sub-contractors shall comply with
the recommendations of the soil engineer at all times. Appropriate field adjustments will be
made as deemed necessary during the construction phase of the project. If any unforeseen
circumstances are encountered during the grading operation, the engineer shall be
notified immediately for recommendations to minimize the chance of the grading work not
being approved by the engineer.
In addition to the above, we shall observe and perform compaction test as deemed
necessary during the grading (earthwork) operation at the site. It is the responsibility of the
owner or his representative to schedule the inspections for the purpose of documentation.
The site preparation and grading, excavation, cutting and backfilling shall be carried out
under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer.
AST will perform appropriate field and laboratory tests to evaluate the suitability of the fill
material, proper moisture content for compaction and the degree of compaction as
needed per the requirements of this report. Any fill material that does not meet the
specification requirements shall be removed or replaced and reworked until the
requirements are completely satisfied. Grading, shaping, excavating, conditioning,
backfilling and compacting procedures require approval of AST as they are performed in
the field.
17.2 CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE
A representative from AST shall be present during the entire grading operation, so that he
can provide recommendations as deemed necessary during the construction phase of the
ASTInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 44
project. Unobserved and unapproved grading work will not be accepted under any
circumstances. The grading operation shall be performed under the supervision of the soil
engineer and in accordance with the requirements of the specifications of this report.
17.3 SEASONAL LIMITS
No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. If
the grading operation is interrupted due to heavy rain, fill operations shall not be resumed
until field density / moisture test have been taken and indicate that the moisture content of
the fill is as previously specified or approved / directed by the soil engineer.
17.4 UNUSUAL / WET CONDITIONS
In the event that any unusual conditions, not covered by the special provisions, are
encountered during grading operations, the soil engineer shall be immediately notified for
supplemental recommendations.
18.0 SUMMARY OF COMPACTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Compaction requirements for the earthwork activities during the grading operation at the
site shall be as follows:
Areas Compaction Recommendation
General Engineered Fill Compact to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at a
minimum of 2 percent over the optimum moisture
content. Where fills are deeper than (5.0)-feet, the
portion below (5)-feet should be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.
Imported "Non-Expansive" Fill Compact to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at
near the optimum moisture content.
Underground Utility Trenches Compact to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at a
minimum of 2 percent over the optimum moisture
content with the exception of upper (3.0)-feet
compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction.
Exterior Flatwork Compact to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at a
minimum of 2 percent over the optimum moisture
content. Areas where exterior flatwork is subjected to
vehicular traffic; compact upper 12 inches of subgrade
to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction at a
minimum of ±2 percent over the optimum moisture
content. Compact base rock to a minimum of 95
percent relative compaction at or/ near the optimum
moisture content.
Parking and Access Driveways Compact upper (12)-inches of subgrade to a minimum
of 95 percent relative compaction at a minimum of ±2
percent over the optimum moisture content, Compact
ASTInc.Geotechnical Environmental Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 45
Areas Compaction Recommendation
base-rock to minimum 95 percent relative compaction
at or/ near optimum moisture content.
Landscape Areas Compact to 90 percent relative compaction with the
exception of upper (12)-inches to 85 percent relative
compaction.
General Notes:
➢ Depths are below finished subgrade elevation.
➢ All compacted surfaces should be firm, stable, and non-yielding under compaction
equipment or/ fully loaded water truck
➢ All compaction requirements refer to relative compaction as a percentage of the
laboratory standard described by ASTM D1557. All lifts to be compacted shall be a
maximum of (8)-inch loose thickness, unless otherwise recommended.
19.0 LIMITATIONS
The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that subsurface soil
and groundwater conditions do not deviate from those disclosed at the location of the
exploratory borings drilled at this site. If any variations or undesirable conditions are
encountered during construction, the effects of these conditions on the recommendations
presented herein should be evaluated again and if necessary, supplemental
recommendations developed and provided as deemed necessary. The report and
recommendations have been for the exclusive use of our client Bay Area Self Storage LLC
and for their project titled Lock N Stor Self-Storage Facility located at 10655 Mary Avenue in
Cupertino, California as described above in this report.
In the performance of our professional services, AST, its employees, and its agents will
comply with the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our
profession practicing in the same or similar localities. This report may not provide all of the
subsurface information that may be needed by a contractor to construct the project. No
warranty, either expressed or/ implied, is made or intended in connection with the work
performed by us, or/ by the proposal for consulting or/ other services, or/ by the furnishing
of oral or written reports or findings. We are responsible for the conclusions and
recommendations provided in this report, which are based on data related only to the
specific project and locations discussed herein.
This report is for the sole use of the Client and only for the purposes stated for this specific
engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year
from the date of issuance of this report. The work performed was based on project
information provided by Client. If Client does not retain AST to review any plans and
specifications, including any revisions or modifications to the plans and specifications, AST
assumes or/ has no responsibility for the suitability of our recommendations.
In addition, if there are any changes in the field conditions or/ to the plans and
specifications, Client must obtain written approval from AST that such changes do not
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-5 Page 46
affect our recommendations. Failure to do so will invalid recommendations and the report
in its entirety. Do not over-rely on the construction recommendations included in this report.
These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from AST's
professional judgment and opinion. AST's recommendations can be finalized only by
observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during the construction phase of the
project. AST cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we
do not perform construction observation.
Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by AST should be provided during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated
by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions
revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not
earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining
AST for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing
the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. In the event conclusions or/
recommendations are made or/ provided by others, based on these data reflected in this
report, then such conclusions and recommendations are not our responsibility unless we
have been given an opportunity to review and concur with such conclusions and
recommendation in writing.
Xqlnc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-5 Page 46
20.0 REFERENCES
➢ Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. (1997), Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation
Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1,
January/February, pp. 94-127.
➢ Abrahamson, N.A. (2000), Effects of Rupture Directivity on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis, Proceedings of the 6fh International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Palm
Springs, California, November 12-15.
➢ Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. (2008), Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA
Ground-Motion Relations, Earthquake Spectra, February 2008, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 67-
97.
➢ Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L. (1995). "Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral
Spread." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, vol.121 . No. 4, pp.316-329.
➢ Bray; J.D. and Sancio, R.B. 2006. Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine
grained soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Engineering, ASCE
132(9); 1165-1177.
➢ Boatwright, J. and D.K. Keefer, (2005). The distribution of violent shaking in the 1906 San
Francisco earthquake (abs.), Seism. Res. Lett., 74, in press.
➢ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2004, Evaluating the Potential for Liquefaction or Cyclic
Failure of Silts and Clays, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of
Engineering, University of California at Davis.
➢ Boore, D.M., Joyner W.B., and Fumal T.E. (1997), Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes,
Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February.
➢ Boore, D.M. and Atkinson, G.M. (2008), Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the
Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods
between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra, February 2008, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp.
99-138.
➢ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. 2006. Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and
Clayey, soil; Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Engineering, ASCE
132(1 1); 1413-1426.
➢ Bryant, W., 1981, Fault Evaluation Report Calaveras Reservoir and Milpitas Quadrangles:
California Division of Mines and Geology, FER 105.
➢ CGS Geologic Map and Seismic Hazard Zone Report 068 for Cupertino Quadrangle,
Santa Clara County, 7.5 Minute Series (2002) by Clahan Kevin B., Mattson Elise, Rosinski,
Anne M & Knudsen, Keith L.
➢ Cahill, T.H., Adams, M., Marm, C., and Hansen K. (2004), "Stormwater Management,
Pavements that are Stormwater Management Friendly," published September 4.
➢ Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2003), Updated Near-source Ground Motion
(Attenuation) Relations for the Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground
Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectra, Bull. Seismology Society of America
February Vol. 93 No. 1, 314-331.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 47
➢ Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (May 2007), Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion
Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground
Motion Parameters, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. PEER
2007/02.
➢ Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (2008), NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric
Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic
Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra, February
2008, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 139-171 .
➢ California Building Code 2016/ASCE 7-10, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Vol. 2.
➢ Chiou, B.S, and Youngs, R.R. (2008), An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal
Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra", Earthquake Spectra,
February 2008, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 173-215.
➢ Cooper-Clark & Associates, 1974, Technical report, Geotechnical Investigation, City of
San Jose's Sphere of Influence: Report submitted to City of San Jose Department of
Public Works, 185 p., 26 plates, scale 1: 48,000.
➢ Dibblee, Jr., T.W., 2005, Geologic Map of the Milpitas Quadrangle, Alameda and Santa
Clara Counties, California: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
➢ E. J. Helley, K. R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair. 1979. Flatland deposits, their
geology and engineering properties and their importance to comprehensive planning.
USGS Professional Paper 943 (PP 943).
➢ Earthquake Ground Motion & Foundation Design, Structural Engineers Association of
Northern California, Seminar Paper, Fall Seminar, 1992.
➢ Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), 2009, FIRM City of San Jose,
California, Map Number 06085CO253H, effective date, May 18, 2009.
➢ Fenton, C. H., and Hitchcock, C. S., 2001, Recent Geomorphic and Paleoseismic
Investigations of Thrust Faults in Santa Clara Valley, California, in Ferriz, H., and Anderson,
R., (Eds.) Engineering Geologic Practice in Northern California; California Department of
Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 210.
➢ Graymer, R.W., Bryant, W., McCabe, C.A., Hecker, S., and Prentice, C.S., 2006, Map of
Quaternary-Active Faults in the San Francisco Bay Region: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Map 2919, Scale 1: 275,000.
➢ Haugerud, R.A., and Ellen, S.D., 1990, Coseismic ground deformation along the
northeast margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
90-274, p. 32-37.
➢ Helley, E.J., 1990, Preliminary contour map showing elevation of surface of Pleistocene
alluvium under Santa Clara Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report
OF-90-633, scale 1: 24,000.
➢ Helley, E.J., Graymer, R.W., Phelps, G.A., Showalter, P.K., and Wentworth, C.M., 1994,
Quaternary geology of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo
Counties, California: a digital database: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-94-
231, scale 1 : 50,000.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 48
➢ Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C., 1994, Geomorphic investigations of
deformation along the northeastern margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-94-187, scale 1 : 24,000.
➢ Hitchcock, C.S., Brankman, C. M., 2002, FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT: Assessment of late
Quaternary deformation, eastern Santa Clara Valley, San Francisco Bay region, U. S.
Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Award Number
01 HQGR0034
➢ Idriss, I.M. (1985), "Evaluating Seismic Risk in Engineering Practice", Theme lecture No. 6,
Proceedings, XI International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, San Francisco, California, August, pp 265-320.
➢ Idriss, I.M. (1987), "Earthquake Ground Motions", lecture presented at the EERI course on
"Strong Ground Motion-Seismic Analysis, Design and Code Issues', in Pasadena,
California, on 10 April, 1987.
➢ Jackson, N. (2003), Design, Construction and Maintenance Guide for Porous Asphalt
Pavements, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Information Series 131.
➢ Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity of California and adjacent areas with locations and
ages of recent volcanic eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic
Data Map Series, Map No. 6, scale 1 : 750,000.
➢ Mualchin L. and Jones A.L. 1992. Peak acceleration from maximum credible
earthquakes in California (rock and stiff soil sites). CDMG Open-File Report 92-1 .
➢ Nadim, F. and Whitman, R.V. (1992), Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls,
ASME, OMAE, Volume II, Safety and Reliability.
➢ Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Technical Report TR-2077-SHR, Seismic
Design Criteria for Soil Liquefaction by J.M. Ferrito, June 1997.
➢ Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Chao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and D.P. Schwartz. 1996. Probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment for the State of California. (Also U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-
706). This report was co-authored and published by both the DMG and USGS.
➢ Poland, J.F., 1971, Land Subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley, Alameda, San Mateo and
Santa Clara Co., California: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-
335.
➢ Probabilities of Large Earthquakes occurring in California on San Andreas Fault, by
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, USGS open file report 88-398.
➢ Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California 1996 Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, USGS open file report 96-706.
➢ Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 by
Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California - (2008).
➢ Ritter, J.R. and Dupre W.R. 1972 Map Showing Areas of Potential Inundation by Tsunamis
in the San Francisco Bay Region, California: San Francisco Bay Region Environment and
Resources Planning Study, USGS Basic Data Contribution 52, and Miscellaneous Field
Studies Map MF-480.
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S Page 49
➢ Seed R.B., Cetin K.O., Moss R.E.S., Kammerer A.M., Wu J., Pestana J.M., Riemer M.F.,
Sancio R.B., Bray J.D., Kayen R.E. and Faris A. - Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction
Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework.
➢ Schwartz, D.P and Coppersmith, K.J. (1984), Fault Behavior and Characteristic
Earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones", Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 89, No. B7, pp 5681-5698.
➢ Schmidt, K.M., et al, 1995, breaks in Pavement and Pipes as Indicators of Range-Front
Faulting Resulting From the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake near the Southwest Margin of
the Santa Clara Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 95-820.
➢ Toppozada, Tousson R.; Real, Charles R.; Parke, David L., California Division of Mines and
Geology, Map sheet; 39, 1978, Col. Map (220.3 R38 1978a).
➢ T. Toppozada and others, 2000, Epicenters of and areas damaged by M > 5 California
earthquakes, 1800-1999 (CDMG Map Sheet 49); Updated (3/2004) with data from:
Toppozada, T. R. and D. Barnum (2002) California M >= 5.5 earthquakes, history and
areas damaged, in Lee, W. H., Kanamori, H. and Jennings, P., International Handbook of
Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, International Association of Seismology and
Physics of the Earth's Interior; National Earthquake Information Center Nevada Bureau of
Mines and Geology Toppozada, T. et. al., 2000, Epicenters of Earthquakes and Areas of
Damaged by M>5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1999, pages 861-878.
➢ The known active fault segments shown on the index map came from Figure 25 of USGS
Open-File Report 96-532: "National Seismic Hazard Maps, June 1996: Documentation" by
Arthur Frankel, Charles Mueller, Theodore Barnhard, David Perkins, E.V. Leyendecker,
Nancy Dickman, Stanley Hanson, and Margaret Hopper. For northern California, the
potential sources of earthquakes larger than magnitude 6 are documented in Open-File
Report 96-705 by the Working Group on Northern California Earthquake Potential
(chaired by Jim Lienkaemper).
➢ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2009 Java Ground Motion Parameter Calculator: Version
5.1.7, USGS Hazards Program.
➢ WGONCEP 2008 (Working Group on Northern California Earthquake Potential). The
Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF2), U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437.
➢ Youd T.L. Brigham Young University, sponsored by MCEER Highway Project / FHWA,
National Science Foundation, Updating Assessment Procedures and developing a
Screening Guide for Liquefaction.
➢ Youd T.L. and Garris C.T., 1995, "Liquefaction Induced Ground Surface Disruption.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121 No. 11, p. 805-809.
➢ Youd, T.L. and Hoose, S.N., 1978, Historic Ground Failures in Northern California
Associated with Earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 993.]
AS1 Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
IIplant Infopmation ' IIul Yo
Geolechnical EngineePing RePOPI
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes
The following • • provided • help you manage your
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight of the
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure,
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team,or
their clients.A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer • project ownership.
may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil
engineer.Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique,each geo- As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
technical engineering report is unique,prepared solelyfor the client.No one changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact.
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one-not that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they
even you-should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one were not informed.
originally contemplated.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
Read the Full Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of time; by
Do not read selected elements only. man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site;or by natu-
ral events,such as floods,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations.Always
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it
A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors is still reliable.A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique,project-specific factors major problems.
when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include:the client's
goals,objectives,and risk management preferences;the general nature of the Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure Opinions
on the site;and other planned or existing site improvements,such as access Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
roads,parking lots,and underground utilities.Unless the geotechnical engi- subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.Geotechnical engineers
neer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise,do not rely on review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment
a geotechnical engineering report that was: to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual
• not prepared for you, subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly from those indi-
• not prepared for your project, cated in your report.Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your
• not prepared for the specific site explored,or report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of
• completed before important project changes were made. managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
engineering report include those that affect: Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your re-
the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a port. Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engineers
parking garage to an office building,or from alight industrial plant develop them principally from judgment and opinion.Geotechnical engineers
to a refrigerated warehouse, can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction.The geotechnical engi- to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such
neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for outcomes,geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these
observation. provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin
and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical engineer should
Misinterpretation respond fully and frankly.
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer-
ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your Geoenviponmental Concerns Are Not Covered
geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
after submitting the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geolechnical
pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.Contractors study.For that reason,a geotechnical engineering report does not usually re-
can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by late any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated
conferences,and by providing construction observation. contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous
project failures.If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental in-
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs formation,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,construction, op-
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize eration,and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from grow-
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. ing on indoor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be devised
for the express purpose of mold prevention,integrated into a comprehensive
Give Contractors a Complete Report and plan,and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention
Guidance consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, wa-
they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent costly problems,give con- ter infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report,butpreface it with a geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in-this report,
clearly written letter of transmittal.In that letter,advise contractors that the the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's consultant; none of the services performed in connection with
accuracy is limited;encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted
who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/or to conduct ad- for the purpose of mold prevention.Proper,implementation of
ditional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself
A prebid conference can also be valuable.Be sure contractors have sufficient he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the struc-
timeto perform additional study.Only then might you be in a position to give ture involved.
contractors the best information available to you,while requiring them to at
least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unantici- Rely on Youp ASFE-Member Geotechnical
pated conditions. Engineer For Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engi-
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely neers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine
Some clients,design professionals,and contractors do not recognize that benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led
ASFE
The Best People on Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:'301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE,Inc.Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with ASFE's specific
written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE,and only for purposes
of scholarly research or book review.Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report.Any other firm,
individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation.
1IGER06045.0M
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S
Appendix "A"
Plate 1 Site Location Map
Plate 2 Site Location Map-Aerial View
Plate 3 Topographic Map
Plate 4 Description of Map Units
Plate 5 Geologic Map
Plate 6 Peak Ground Acceleration
Plate 7 Historical Groundwater
Plate 8 Site Plan (Boring Locations)
Plate 9 Geological Cross Section A-A'
Xqlnc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
�u •, PRINCt 1UN WAY q r �� Ao p" Gv�V
IV
rn
CaQ 125 y r �A�' o c
4
�+ x z FORSES—AVE t S
ca 3 t} p'"� � v \
P4 PRUN£RIDGE,AVE W
x a GEN r Y
TRACY 4 b
-I5D T ESTELLA DR
MAURICIA AVE t�7 x LONI
lu
z =` Qa �� 0
4 ° ' Meridian w
z McxINLFrDR`:
STEVENS CREEK BLVD p
O
ALBANY DR o
Al
r, C]
(j CAPISTRANO.AIIE� - x
e KIELY BLVD Q
Site of Proposed x
a ^ Improvements .DR ° Q
LA rla
o� T�•;s�T MaoRPARK. p _
ELjNURST DR
v a
� j o BLALKFQRU.AVE a
z 5o,
A I`IggRk -�j -
DR MANTANITA R y Q
5 • c,F ,, a 04 r BDR7Hq D C7 �� x 3
CASTLEWOOD DR .iy2ac
a `-} WILLIAMS RD
U o - r
4
61
2 Q
Site Location Map
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No. 1
� 1
x ti
1
w
ry � BlpliO. •,� •.rf� � � ,
A
0461
Vv
wow
Ak
l r
if
(A.4
x. w
hgllla� t" .j, C1►�'' a^�
Yla � _ • ,
. :.
`° -! r
• r
Cati°h
• w v.
•
•
i
•
Site of Proposed
Improvements >� as 1 --4
N-
V
kf�mor
S b4ta
S&
CZ RQ4D
4 1
Dr URI,
Goffa Falft
M It
Park
Ilk 410
IN
MCC fella
JH
Sch k
2
23-
24
JV
Y
N
SCALE 1--k4,C=
lwl�
low a 36w ADZI mom dam 7aW FVW
K111.0mum
CGS Official Map-Cupertino Quadrangle Map-Dated February 2002 A
Seismic Hazard Zone Report(068) by Kevin B.Clahan, Ellise Mattison,Rosinski,Anne&Knudsen,Keith L.
Topographic Map
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
AST
Consulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Bayvvood Avenue-San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S —7 Date:July 2017 1 Plate No.3
=NINO �R
.10 i pe
a
Site of Proposed
Improvements
Ir Imp
LILS
40
Geologic Map
ASTAdvance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
eo
AST Geological,Gtechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
Consulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S
UNIT Knudsen and others Helley and Helley and others CGS GIS database
(2000) Grayrner(1997) (1979)
Sowers
(unpublished)
artificial fill of of of
gravel quarries and
percolation ponds g� GP g�
artificial levee fill alf alf alf
artificial stream ac Qhasc ac
channel
modern stream Qhe Qhsc Qhsc Qhc
channel deposits
latest Holocene
alluvium Qhay Qhay
undifferentiated
latest Holocene
alluvial fan levee Qhly Qhly
deposits
latest Holocene
stream terrace Qhty Qh fp2 Qhty
deposits
Holocene San Qhbrn Qhbm Qhbrn Qhbm
Francisco Bay mud
Holocene basin Qhb Qhb, Qhbs Qhb
deposits
Holocene alluvial fan Qhf,Qhf1,Qhf2 Qhaf Qham, Qhfp Qhf
deposits
Holocene alluvial fan
deposits,fine grained Qhff Qhaf Qhff
facies
Holocene alluvial fan Qhl Qhf Qhl
levee deposits
Holocene stream Qht Qhfp Qht
terrace deFosits
Holocene alluvium, Qha Qhaf Qha
undifferentiated
latest Pleistocene to
Holocene alluvial fan Qf Qf
deposits
latest Pleistocene to
Holocene alluvial fan Ql Ql
levee deposits
latest Pleistocene to
Holocene stream Qt Qt
terrace deFosits
latest Pleistocene to
Holocene alluvium, Qa Qa
undifferentiated
Description of Mapped Units
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue-San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No.5
11111111141111111 .
,
,,,L f F-O;Ww-
I!lj
J „ll
11,111he Ilk
0 see -4
won
A129111'11111rp—H�N P.
_ II
!WIN
now 0
y ., -r IE ■ lug �� w� III, I`�, �II�
IPA
l " - - . r41
ELJE�._; . 1
• • •• •- • -• • 11
• • • • - -•• 1. • - • • - • • -• - • -
Peak Ground Acceleration
ASTAdvance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study Investigation
AST Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental
Consulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 • Baywood Avenue I Son • -,California 10655 MaryAvenue I Cupertino,California
• • t2017 - . -
:; _^, , �►
���► i IN
Site of Proposed
IL
�!
imp
I tool;
64 11A Ir L I AN
i
W VV, low all
Irk
r.. ►
► t , \ � -fr
... 2000 3000 4000 5000
_---------
CGS
Official •• -Cupertino Quadrangle •• Dated February 2002
Seismic Hazard • - Report(068) by -vin B.Clahan,Ellise Mattison,Rosinski,Anne&Knudsen,
Historical Groundwater
ASTAdvance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
AST Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental
Consulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 . Baywood Avenue I SonJose, . . . 10655 MaryAvenue I Cupertino,California
■ t2017 - . -
LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS l
r.wLarr L��L wL3LCH weacrs li
eLwn - sw N.ea w ww a _ .
Noxd wccrs3 ca cwrcn.asw gyp}; r�'�.'�y .. .'..
cYr cwaucRr[o uFrwL rvc " _.". � r
•u`nR+e LwE wml noon - — — -- — — - ro cL Eaee wr arwr�n�rl 1�dP- •x .".JOf.�=:-
rcwrr�.LwLv.ewr xs Hvr[n � of awu mLcry� ra.rLsno• r - -.�:,::: '�'
LILT P Nsi G.6Y'it
SYfLC[i leeXT L'L rLFCeRiC e9at L.sw 91V' � •_ ��-:::'.:• IE`I __
tak+L E4eek,e aREwKLR '• f" _ .dig;T:" _
e lRc rIY PRANr Fy E[wa [Lr,rnKGee,R-C .• _
SYonM oR,urL eL:ae+HCLF � EFL SLFcnuc FLLrER � �__
[Cued LwY a Fw L nu{NLppR,
ufri ]Y!GUY w3RC �� GCN
ruvL r�oLE i. a eR.Nisssn
CATCH"SV-!Dn 1-4r a[a
wank wens Les Lr.ed�cw.{ �=ip uun�
ffi wrr nORTFIrRYMRTaEE e•u' r..w7 1 ; , 11I l
x rLWY enLY[e+rCR .-+ Mi LLML•OPf '[P �1ain"ea 1
YTl[YIY a k RP'm v fsl 0 reO_ NULLa[a f ...
S�Cw w- ofL nrilLiK REC� - •'r [ ... _...v.-...-
.OLL b iCdL w-c
ifFEC We 5,3E—b&,I—"— R ov Lr a ilr
F �
s.ot FLEvw�ax � a tr Luv.rw.. ����+• �" �� E i' '.�_ ��..�y�•
a3
w[R,AL sror eLcvar,e+. .- scrwv s=Lw'rrAL u.., r'.. ! t
roNiouR - .. reLY nw,tvs u.w.eae•rF.nnrwrr qP
LAN.
Cuwa a evrnR unur..+m �a rpx,ree_ a:l c:wwr'ni IeJ❑ I
u[as vLiMK iawx v ws] I EE!`
W[FLC6 ��L�,_ G w�liLr Gurfle - � � �-�_
asn wATFR Wef �'.'a•. ,y -��' - xn� _ 1 71,q_'-+Jy1`
E OGE DF•AYLALl/LT ._._. >N ` d� .�.:� �J_ -'i"":Lv-." 1 1 '' I „v:.c t l' TRACT 1d0. 43BI 1I
w,wTax ,,f� '.•...A - ,.. u +ns.a
�d� '+` �y / ..,r Sys'° S 1 ��. �.✓ynwr.r-�I II
nv[RH[,.n � _ - i r'`� r �.:���•� :c..Krr�.eesraa i .1 rr-..t � "ramea� �; � --. -
xwNrrREereH -- e nwn.w ,� r •3Cr- , ..,I ..� ± r
a•e•era•- �-" 1
LtCHTveG CLwOwT ----�� L�Lor er' •�� E B-01 o„E„L„Li , �� , :► r i
. E
-- -
r O csrq CT AL
a 1,,.. .1
fee
L> '.�.vs- r ...' --..•nussc�r rr8b I'AILC.'I=1.'•.4•• oHE s•ruRr mwAt%T cL wow uc �� f ... ,
o
•�� -• _LT2]t:3 �=�� �� EB-
-koP-
i
.e .ow .ve - or<E s.okr.LFr4$—
�1 cc euuo.Nc i9•A ' - — ""` _
n
>w 1 3eLY�, ..
ME:1'1--10Et DRIVE
..LLEe,..sreR.ee euR e,Ne T .-- +ne.-- fur•a rxc --- --• --- _.
Y z•�e•oe-warn .^�. ".. _ � �rs]n•� a.."or is a � ... � — uo3�-�
L�L!JUS CF'
E:f7M G� CLEP�ft71:7❑ � � C �; �,�� i
® -Approximate Exploratory Boring Locations
Site Plan
ASTAdvance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE BASS Cupertino, LLC
AST Consulting&Construction Services
Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California 10121 Miller Avenue,Suite 200 1 Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No.8
SW Elevation Varies ±270'-0" - 280'-0"msl NE
276
Existing Existing
Existi
building Building Existing
Building
xisting
271 uildin
0 0 o Existing
Cal qpf Im f I>n uilding
266 w LU Q W
261
_ 256 -
N
Q f
R 251
d
w
246
241 Q P
ottom of
236
Boftc m
231
Q pf Bottom Q Pf
Bot om
of Boring
226
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560
Horizontal Distance(Feet)
Legend:
Qhc - Modern Stream Channel Deposits EB-03 - Projected SE 96'-0" Qpf - Latest Peistocene Alluvial Fan Deposits
(CL 27%;SM-SP 27%;GC-GM-GP-GW 21%;Other 25%)
Idealized Geological CrossSection
AST Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE BASS Cupertino, LLC
AST Consulting&Construction Services
Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California 10121 Miller Avenue,Suite 200 1 Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No.9
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S
Appendix "B"
Plate 11 Seismic Site Characterization
Plate 12 Regional Faults
Plate 13 Historical Earthquake Map / Epicenters of Earthquakes
Plate 14 Magnitude/ Intensity Comparison
Plate 15 Bay Area Probabilities
ARInc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
Site Characterization
Nearest Seismic Source
AST Project No: 16346-S
Project Name: LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
Fault Data File Name: CDMGUBCR.DAT
Site Co-ordinates:
Site Latitude: 37.331694' W
Site Longitude: -122.05139' N
Seismic Zone: 0.4
Soil Profile Type: SD
Nearest Type"A" Fault: MW 7.1 1 MW 7.9
Fault Name: San Andreas Fault(1906) 1 Hayward Fault(Total Length)
Distance to the Fault: 8.5 Km 24.1 km
Nearest Type"B" Fault: MW 6.5 MW 6.2
Fault Name: Monte Vista-Shannon I Hayward Fault(SE Extension)
Distance to the Fault: 3.0 Km 120.2 km
Localized Fault Name: Cascade Fault
Distance to the Fault: 0.77 km
Caution: The digitized data points used to model faults are limited in number and have been digitized from
small-scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently, the estimated fault-site distances may be in error by
several kilometers. Therefore it is important that the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and adjusted
as needed, before they are used in the design.
Seismic Analysis
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) l (R,SS,DS,BT)
CASCADE FAULT I 0.7 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.40 1 R
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 1 3.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS
SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 8.5 1 A 1 7.9 1 24.00 1 SS
HAYWARD (SE Extension) 20.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS
SARGENT 23.5 1 B 1 6.8 1 3.00 1 SS
HAYWARD (Total Length) 24.1 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 25.1 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 SS
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I 25.6 1 B 1 6.2 1 15.00 1 SS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES 1 27.9 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.10 1 SS
SAN GREGORIO I 29.6 1 A 1 7.3 1 5.00 1 SS
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 46.1 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.50 1 DS
GREENVILLE I 48.9 1 B 1 6.9 1 2.00 1 SS
PALO COLORADO - SUR 1 59.4 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 SS
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 62.2 1 B 1 6.9 1 6.00 1 SS
ORTIGALITA I 68.6 1 B 1 6. 9 1 1.00 1 SS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 74.3 1 B 1 5.0 1 34.00 1 SS
QUIEN SABE 75.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 SS
RINCONADA 77.5 1 B 1 7.3 1 1.00 1 SS
RODGERS CREEK 87.9 1 A 1 7.0 1 9.00 1 SS
WEST NAPA I 94.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 SS
POINT REYES I 97.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.30 1 DS
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 1 125.4 1 B 1 6.9 1 6.00 1 SS
HOSGRI 1 134.8 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 1 SS
MAACAMA (South) 1 149.5 1 B 1 6. 9 1 9.00 1 SS
COLLAYOMI 1 170.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 0. 60 1 SS
BARTLETT SPRINGS 1 182.5 1 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS
MAACAMA (Central) 1 188.4 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 198.1 1 A 1 7.8 1 34.00 1 SS
SAN JUAN 1 240.5 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 SS
GENOA 1 247.9 1 B 1 6. 9 1 1.00 1 DS
LOS OSOS 1 248.8 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.50 1 DS
MAACAMA (North) 1 248.8 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 1 256.1 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.20 1 DS
ROBINSON CREEK 1 260.6 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
ANTELOPE VALLEY 1 262.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.80 1 DS
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 1 263.7 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 SS
MONO LAKE 1 266.0 1 B 1 6. 6 1 2.50 1 DS
HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 269.4 1 B 1 6. 6 1 0.50 1 DS
HILTON CREEK 1 282. 9 1 B 1 6.7 1 2.50 1 DS
Regional Faults
ART Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study Investigation
Geotechnical,Geological, Environmental Proposed Improvements
ASTConsulting &Construction Services Lock N Stor Self Storage
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No. 11
,�:ai � '' '1��;��• _ fSp;A; - ;�r k•�\ 'y«�'Fr����y 4^,^:H'"..�:r3'.F"^,4�. ., 's .: T�� �f- ..�S�a'.'y�.. �- ,
M.
l
�. •. :n ,�•� _� �;;, .., � .} -� , ter_ � -{ _.�_
'I1.�
SIN+ RA ,_ .,,
� ��,w. ,.�A'NNlt NCJ.s�U W5r .:�.^ u^ •��51.1��� n...,��';w -,?, � � i j .'<1.1�`Y^y
91
it
Site of Proposed
Improvements
Zo
\� � .�, �,lr 7':" �` -iY of . . 1• �w • 3
Y r. ' N tie
Regional Faults San Francisco - San Jose by Bortugno, et. al (CDMG 1991)
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No. 12
Bay Area ~ Shakeout Area
Historical Epicenters Earthquake Oot,ntry Alliance EMA
wn'ra eri in ehrs ru�rner.
L a K E { Y t1 IS A N E V A o A Historical Fpicenters
CO1-U
� SA
`.-. - - - By Magnitude
€
.I ME N 0 C I NC) iai ��
PLACER S
!T"- <,-S U T T E R Auburn 3.00 - 3.99
FL D o R A D O 4.0❑ - 4.99
i
�`\t �••��-� 7�,� - 'sue' kn�r.nne ` - -
Z Placerville
a t c, Cierusw�iq;cs 5.00 - 5.99
Woodland Norm wlgii�nndv $0 y
� - '
Sacramento Rancho card— 6 00 - 6_99
1 �-
1_ santa R asa �x Z f 89 Y S A C R A M E N T OAMADOR
189
"_. -� 'L 101 �.' � '. •` .I _I�c-� lie JJ - Jackson
a ...\� L A IL ON, _ 7.00 - 7.90
'� '1 F II'f leld i
fi_4 i � _r` L_ � C A L A V E R A S
� 6 _ '•r San Prod teas
'Q i +�" Lodi Known Earthquake Faults
L
Freeway
SAN J 0 A 0 U I N �
Martinez'
State Highways
■ San Rafael ,, S,, r •,[ 1StocKton Sonora
And.l�-�-'��H anL.Nfllr
inat,Grc!nk -A - fry T U O L U
San 1� �.-
O N T R AN G 0 4'.•1 A) .r; `� 5hakeOut Areas
F,ranciscopaKland --
s A N F R A N C I S C /�I pp yic r�
11 T.U. ��.•� �'f� \. /�1 .{�i� s
6 `-.
786
P 11IM" un city f ] A L A M Ems- Modesto
etaSite of ••• -• STANISLAUS - - M A R I
('Redwood' w -` -
�S • • Tv
IS A IL�Ek)A O , -
`
74a-
r --� 1838 aF � ; 3
R� & 1_9$4- ',� $$ Merced
Sources:
6.1 M E R C E D Earthquake Faults-Ca Geologic Survey
66.1 86� Ir
picertars-Ca Geologic Survey and ANSS
5 AST T A_ L t 5 N T `�-- ANSS is corrrprisr�d of NCEpC and various
LP A .�C'L A R 1�j7 memberorg'anrzetions
6:9 ■ ��
`1 989� _ http:/NVWW ncadc.crg/acknowlsdgr k?-htrrll
f 101
r
Santa Cruz .=` 18 _tiv-•Y.I� - M A Ct E F•2 IA N
- vuarson: e 6:¢ ❑ a 'I 2a
fi ly. Mlles
l 89H~Hollister ,
ce Created by Cal-EMA GI S Unit Kris Higgs
1 1 3 $R E hJ 1 T O F R E S N O. septerrN�er s•2009. Revised June a 2010
M O N T ER E Y - - - lldata ladrnin Lshakevvf regibnsVprbjectsiJun® 10
' _ - - 5ay.�Rraa epic®nt�rs 70-mxd
Historical Seismicity
ASTAdvance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE BASS Cupertino, LLC
AST Consulting&Construction Services
Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California 10121 Miller Avenue,Suite 200 1 Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No. 13
Magnitude 1 Intensity Comparison
Magnitude and Intensity measure different characteristics of earthquakes. Magnitude measures the
energy released at the source of the earthquake. Magnitude is determined from measurements on
seismographs_ Intensity measures the strength of shaking produced by the earthquake at a certain
location. Intensity is determined from effects on people, human structures, and the natural environment_
The following table gives intensities that are typically observed at locations near the epicenter of
earthquakes of different magnitudes_
Abbreviated Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
I_ Not felt except by a very few under especially
favorabie conditions.
II_ Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on
upper floors of buildings.
III_ Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially
on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not
Magnitude 1 Intensity recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motorcars
Comparison may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of
a truck. Duration estimated.
Typical Maximum IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day.
Magnitude Modified Mercalli At night. same awakened. Dishes, windows, doors
Intensity disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like
heavy truck striking building. Standing motorcars
1.0 - 3.0 1 rocked noticeably.
V_ Felt by nearly everyone: many awakened. Some
3.0 - 3,9 II - III dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects
4.0 - 4.9 IV -V overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture
5.0 - 5.9 VI - VII moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage
slight.
6.0 - 6.9 V11 - IXM V11. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and
construction: slight to moderate in well-built ordinary
7.0 and Vill or structures; considerable damage in poorly built or
higher higher badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.
VII1. Damage slight in specially designed structures;
considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings
with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built
structures. Fall of chimneys. factory stacks, columns,
monuments, and walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
IX. Damage considerable in specially designed
structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out
of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with
partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
X_ Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most
masonry and frame structures destroyed with
foundations. Rails bent.
XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing.
Bridges destroyed, Rails bent greatly.
XI1_ Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted.
Objects thrown Into the air.
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No. 14
.'ice yl # probability for one or more
magnitude 6.7 or greeter
S° eal-Ehquakes from 200710 W36_
� 5tarlcE�n
� �•fr- �-afnaxc
x
r
r L�175}il�e fQ.,
� Dald ind .4
�+ San Franc-
#a .
+ Ha;.,rar , Li}ern#o
re r.R
R teasantion
Pacifica bin
Half lia Im-'
•S
e J4 M1 v
jr _ ..
O ZG P.11LEv
4 20 KILOMETE=�S
�; 7 r
EL7 or greater gUall
Ill 2036 on the '' 7°I
indkWed faun
blorifenry
Increasing Rrotility MEMEN0EA
"Y
a ong fault dents Bay �Y.
Y' - -
ErkQ urban areas
JW
Source - USGS Open File Report 2007-1437 CGS Special Report 203 (WGCEP 2008)
ProbabilitiesSan Francisco Bay Area Region Earthquake
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-5 Date:July 2017 Plate No. 15
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S
Appendix "C"
Plate 16-18 Soil Classification,Terminology &Abbreviations
Plate 19-26 Exploratory Boring Logs (EB-1 thru EB-04)
Plate 27 Plasticity Index
Plate 28 Grain Size Distribution
Plate 29 Results of Corrosivity Analysis
=Inc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS FINE-GRAINED SOILS
LESS THAN 50% Fines MORE THAN 50% FINES*
GROUP ILLUSTRATED GROUP NAMES MAJOR GROUP ILLUSTRATED GROUP NAMES MA30R DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS DIVISIONS SYMBOLS
GW
Well graded gravel GRAVELS CL Lean clay
Well graded gravel with sand More than Sandy clay with gravel
Poorly graded gravel Half of Silt SILTS &CLAYS
C'P Poorlygraded ravel with sand ML liquid limit less
9 9 coarse Sandy, Clayey silt with fine sand than 50
GM Silty gravel fraction is OL Organic clay
Silty gravel with sand larger than Sandy organic clay with gravel
i 4 sieve Clayey gravel No. Clayey gravel
GC Clayey gravel with sand size CH Clayey gravel with sand
Well graded Sand Elastic Silt SILTS &CLAYS
SW Well MH liquid limit more
Well graded sand with gravel More than Sandy elastic silt with gravel than 50
SIP Poorly graded sand half of OH Organic clay
Poorly graded sand with gravel coarse ISandy organic clay with gravel
Silty Sand fraction is Peat
SM Silty Sand with gravel smaller PT Highly organic silt HIGHLY
Clayey sand than No. 4 ORGANIC SOILS
SC Clayey sand with gravel sieve size
Note Coarse grained soils receive dual symbols if: Note: Fine Grained soils will receive dual symbols if their limits in
The fines are CL-ML or GC-GM or SC-SM the hatches zone on the PlasticityChart
* If the contain 5-12% fines
SOIL SIZES PLASTICITY CHART
COMPONENT SIZE RANGE so
For classification of fine-grained sails
BOULDERS and fin�ractlonof coarse-grained
Above 12 in. sous.
a 50
COBBLES 3 in. to 12 in. Equationof A'-line
X Horizontal at PI-4 to LL=25 5,
W then PI=0.73(L1_-20}
GRAVEL No. 4 to 3 in. z 4° Equation of"u"-line
Vertical atLL=l6toPI=7 /
Coarse 3/4 in. to 3 in. then P1=0.9(LL-8) // G
30
Fine No. 4 to 3/4 in.
SAND
No. 200 to No. 4 J 20 / H on OM
Coarse No. 10 to No. 4
/
10 Medium
No. 40 to No. 10 7-- � ML oR OL
a -
Fine No. 200 to No. 40 ° TI I
0 10 ils 20 30 40 so eo 70 eo 90 100 110
FINES Below No. 200 LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
Note: Classification is based on the portion Reference: ASTM D2487-00. Standard Classification of Soils for
of a sample that passes the 3-inch sieve Engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)
General Notes: The tables list 30 out of a possible 110 group names, all of which are assigned to unique proportions of constituent soils. Flow
Charts in ASTM D2487 aid assignment of the group names. Some general rules for fine grained soils are: less than 15%sand or gravel is not
mentioned; 15%to 25%sand or gravel is termed "with sand or with gravel,and 30 to 49%sand or gravel is termed as sandy or gravelly. Some
general rules for coarse-grained soils are uniformly-graded or gap-graded soils are poorly graded (SP or GP); 15%or more sand or gravel is
termed "with sand" or"with gravel". 15%to 25%clay and silt is termed clayey and silty and any cobbles or boulders are termed "with cobbles"
or"with boulders".
Unified Soil Classification
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No. 16
Soil Types
Boulders Particles of rock that will not pass a 12-inch screen
Cobbles Particles of rock that will pass a 12-inch screen; but not a 3-inch sieve
Gravel Particles of rock that will pass a 3-inch sieve; but not a #4 sieve
Sand Particles of rock that will pass a #4 sieve; but not a #200 sieve
Silt soil that will pass a #200 sieve; that is non-plastic or very slightly plastic, and
that exhibits little or no strength when dry
Clay soil that will pass a #200 sieve; that can be made to exhibit plasticity (putty-like properties)
within a range of water contents, and that exhibits considerable strength, when dry
Measures of Consistency of Cohesive Soils (Clays)
Very Soft N=0-1* C=0-250 psf Squeezes between fingers
Soft N=2-4 C=250-500 psf Easily molded by finger pressure
Medium Stiff N=5-8 C=500-1000 psf Molded by strong finger pressure
Stiff N=9-15 C=1000-2000 psf Dented by Strong finger pressure
Very Stiff N=16-30 C=2000-4000 psf Dented by slight finger pressure
Hard N=30 C=4000 psf Dented slightly by pencil point
*N=blows per foot in the Standard Penetration Test. In cohesive soils, with the 3-inch diameter ring sampler. 140-pound
weight, divide the blow by 1.2 get N
Moisture & Density
Moisture Condition an observation term, dry, moist, wet or saturated
Moisture Content the weight of water in a sample divided by the weight of dry soil in the soil sample, expressed as
a percentage
Dry Density pounds of dry soil in a cubic foot
Measures of Relative Density of Granular Soils (Gravels, Sands and Silts)
Very Loose N=0-4* RD=0-30 Easily push a 1/2-inch Reinf Bar by hand
Loose N=5-10 RD=30-50 Push a 1/2-inch Reinf Bar by hand
Medium Dense N=11-30 RD=50-70 Easily drive a 1/2-inch Reinf Bar
Dense N=31-50 RD=70-90 Drive a 1/2-inch Reinf Bar one-foot
Very Dense N=50 RD=90-100 Drive a 1/2-inch Reinf Bar a few inches
*N=blows per foot in the Standard Penetration Test. In granular soils, with the 3-inch diameter ring sampler. 140-pound
weight, divide the blow by 2 get N
Reference_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
*ASTM Designation D2487. Standard Classification of soils for Engineering Purposes
*Means R.E. and Parcher J.V. Physical Properties of Soils (1963)
*Terzaghi, Karl and Peck Ralph B. Soil Mechanics Engineering Practice (1967)
*Das B.M. (1994) Principles of Geotechnical Engineering
*Sivakugan N. Soil Classification (2000)
Soil Terminology
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study I Investigation
AST Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
Consulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So. Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No. 17
Sampler Symbols
- Split Spoon Sampler 3.0-inch O.D. - Shelby Tube - Grab Sample
- Standard Penetration Test Sampler
(Terzaghi Sampler) - Rock Core
Groundwater Symbols
® - Indicates historic groundwater elevation msl - mean sea level
- Indicates final groundwater elevation bgs - below ground surface
- Indicates initial groundwater elevation
Geotechnical Abbreviations
* - Stratifications shown on borings are approximate, transition between materials may be gradual
ppt - Pocket Penetrometer Test (tsf)
UC - Unconfined compressive strength ASTM D2166
TXUU - Triaxial Compression test Unconsolidated Undrained ASTM D2850
TXCU - Triaxial Compression test Consolidated Undrained ASTM D4767
TXCD - Triaxial Compression test Consolidated Drained ASTM (USACE)
consol - Consolidation Test ASTM D2435
Fines Content - Passing Sieve #200
PI - Plasticity Index
ILL - Liquid Limit
PL - Plastic Limit
Blows/foot - No. of blows per foot of the driven sampler
SPT - N value, Standard Penetration Test
C - Cohesion
0 - Friction Angle
Notes & Abbreviations
5TAdvance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-5 Date:July 2017 Plate No. 18
OT Date:June 15,2017 Boring No.: EB-1
AST Project No,16346-5 Plate No. 19
Client:BASS Cupertino,LLC Driller:EGI
Location:10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,CA Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
® Indicates Historic Groundwater Elevation Sampler:Modified California&SPT
V Indicates Final Groundwater Elevation Boring Diameter:8.0-inches
0 Indicates Initial Groundwater Elevation Boring Depth:(50)-feet below existing grade
_ IDS
U LLO a) C
N
N O .9 N T C
c 2 Sample Description&Soil Type � 0 3 E u U o
c
L a a m o —
f= i= LL U.7 0 O ` O) L t=
±276' 0 (1'/2)to (2.0)-inches of AC over(3.0)to (4.0)-inches of silty
sandy gravel,Damp
1
Silty Sandy Clay with some gravel,Dark Brown (CL) 1-1 8 36 19 43.6 120.4 12.8
2 moist,stiff
3
4
1-2 10 7.6 113.5 5.3
±271' 5 moist,very stiff(CL)
6
Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy
7 Gravel (SP/GM)
moist,medium dense
8
9
1-3 21 5.33 120.4 4.5
±266' 10 moist,medium dense
11
12
13
14
1-4 25 5.7 122.6 4.8
±261' 15 medium dense
16
17
18
19
1-5 29 24.0 134.9 9.3
±256' 20 Silty Lean Clay, Dark Brown (CL)
moist,very stiff
21
22
23
24
1-6 13 65.1 114.4 15.9
±251' 25 moist,stiff
26
27
OT Date:June 15,2017 Boring No.: EB-1 (cont)
AST Project No,16346-5 Plate No. 20
Client:BASS Cupertino,LLC Driller:EGI
Location:10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,CA Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
® Indicates Historic Groundwater Elevation Sampler:Modified California&SPT
V Indicates Final Groundwater Elevation Boring Diameter:8.0-inches
0 Indicates Initial Groundwater Elevation Boring Depth:(50)-feet below existing grade
IDS
00 � C
O N
N O c N > C
o Sample Description&Soil Type z 0 3 E 0 o
c
a L a a m LL o —
E E 5 o m E
28
29
Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy 1-7 18 37.2 122.8 10.8
±246' 30 Gravel (SP/GM)
Brown to Grayish Brown,moist,medium dense
31
32
33
34
1-8 34 5.9 121.2 3.7
±241 35 moist,dense
36
37
38
39 Silty Clay,Reddish brown (CL)
moist,very stiff 1-9 20 114.0 7.4
±236' 40
41
42
43
44 Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy Gravel (SP/GM)
moist,dense 1-10 33 21.2 141.9 7.5
±231' 45
46
47
48
49
1-11 36 131.0 9.4
±226' 50 Dense....
Exploratory Boring terminated at a depth of(50)-feet below
51 the existing ground surface (bgs)
52
53
54
55
OT Date:June 15,2017 Boring No.: EB-2
AST Project No,16346-5 Plate No. 21
Client:BASS Cupertino,LLC Driller:EGI
Location:10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,CA Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
® Indicates Historic Groundwater Elevation Sampler:Modified California&SPT
V Indicates Final Groundwater Elevation Boring Diameter:8.0-inches
0 Indicates Initial Groundwater Elevation Boring Depth:(45)-feet below existing grade
_ IDS
U LLO a) C
N
N O .6 N T C
o 2 Sample Description&Soil Type z 0 3 E u U o
c
L a a m o -
f= i= LL U.7 0 O ` O) L r=
±278' 0 (1'/2)to (2.0)-inches of AC over(3.0)to (4.0)-inches of silty
sandy gravel,Damp
1
Silty Sandy Clay with some gravel and rock fragments 2-1 17 34 18 119.7 6.0
2 Dark Brown (CL)
moist,very stiff
3 Clayey Silty Sand with Gravel to Gravelly Clayey Silty Sand
(SC/SM)
4 moist,medium dense
2-2 13 107.2 5.9
+273' 5
6
7
8
9
2-3 10 112.6 4.5
±268' 10 moist,medium dense (SC/SM)
11
Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy
12 Gravel (SP/GM)
moist,medium dense
13
14
2-4 36 105.7 3.6
±263' 15 Dense
16
17 Silty Lean Clay to Sandy Silty Clay,Dark Brown (CL)
moist,very stiff
18
19
2-5 21 124.3 14.4
±258' 20 moist,very stiff
21
22
23
24 Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy
Gravel (SP/GM) 2-6 19 114.9 6.8
±253' 25 moist,medium dense
26
27
OT Date:June 15,2017 Boring No.: EB-2(cont)
AST Project No,16346-5 Plate No. 22
Client:BASS Cupertino,LLC Driller:EGI
Location:10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,CA Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
® Indicates Historic Groundwater Elevation Sampler:Modified California&SPT
V Indicates Final Groundwater Elevation Boring Diameter:8.0-inches
0 Indicates Initial Groundwater Elevation Boring Depth:(45)-feet below existing grade
IDS
00 � C
O N
N O c N > C
o Sample Description&Soil Type z 0 3 E 0 o
c
a L a a o o —
E E a° 5 u o m E
W o g ° o°- 3 ¢ U °-
28
29
Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy 2-7 17 37.2 122.8 10.8
±248' 30 Gravel (SP/GM)
Brown to Grayish Brown,moist,medium dense
31
32
33
34
2-8 50/4" 5.9 121.2 3.7
±243' 35 moist,very dense
36
37
38
Silty Clay,Reddish brown (CL)
39 moist,very stiff
2-9 32 113.2 10.2
±238' 40
41
42
43 Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy
Gravel (SP/GM)
44 Brown to Grayish Brown,moist,very dense
2-10 50/3" 114.3 3.8
±233' 45
Exploratory Boring terminated at a depth of (45)-feet below
46 the existing ground surface (bgs)
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
OT Date:June 15,2017 Boring No.: EB-3
AST Project No,16346-5 Plate No. 23
Client:BASS Cupertino,LLC Driller:EGI
Location:10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,CA Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
® Indicates Historic Groundwater Elevation Sampler:Modified California&SPT
V Indicates Final Groundwater Elevation Boring Diameter:8.0-inches
0 Indicates Initial Groundwater Elevation Boring Depth:(50)-feet below existing grade
_ IDS
U LLO a) C
N
N O .6 N T C
c 2 Sample Description&Soil Type � 0 3 E u U o
c
L a a m o —
f= i= LL U.7 0 O ` O) L r=
±278' 0 (1'/2)to (2.0)-inches of AC over(3.0)to (4.0)-inches of silty
sandy gravel,Damp
1
Silty Sandy Clay with some gravel,Dark Brown (CL) 3-1 10 118.6 5.0
2 moist,stiff
3
4
3-2 12 114.6 5.4
±273' 5 moist,very stiff(CL)
6
7
8 Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy
Gravel (SP/GM)
9 moist,medium dense
3-3 26 117.8 4.4
±268' 10
11
12
13
14
3-4 27 113.23 3.0
±263' 15 medium dense
16
17
18
19 Silty Lean Clay,Dark Brown (CL)
moist,very stiff 3-5 21 114.2 14.3
±258' 20
21
22
23
24
3-6 26 116.0 12.1
±253' 25 very stiff
26
27
OT Date:June 15,2017 Boring No.: EB-3(cont)
AST Project No,16346-5 Plate No. 24
Client:BASS Cupertino,LLC Driller:EGI
Location:10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,CA Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
® Indicates Historic Groundwater Elevation Sampler:Modified California&SPT
V Indicates Final Groundwater Elevation Boring Diameter:8.0-inches
0 Indicates Initial Groundwater Elevation Boring Depth:(40)-feet below existing grade
IDS
00 � C
O N
N O c N > C
o Sample Description&Soil Type z 0 3 E 0 o
c
a L a a o o —
E E a° 5 u o m E
W o g ° o°- 3 ¢ U °-
28
29
Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy 3-7 17 118.8 5.6
±248' 30 Gravel (SP/GM)
Brown to Grayish Brown,moist,medium dense
31
32
33
34
3-8 36 122.1 3.7
±243' 35 moist,dense
36
37
38
39 Silty Clay,Reddish brown (CL)
moist,very stiff 3-9 28 112.9 10.6
±238' 40
Exploratory Boring terminated at a depth of(40)-feet below
41 the existing ground surface (bgs)
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
OT Date:June 15,2017 Boring No.: EB-4
AST Project No,16346-5 Plate No. 25
Client:BASS Cupertino,LLC Driller:EGI
Location:10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,CA Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
® Indicates Historic Groundwater Elevation Sampler:Modified California&SPT
V Indicates Final Groundwater Elevation Boring Diameter:8.0-inches
0 Indicates Initial Groundwater Elevation Boring Depth:(50)-feet below existing grade
_ IDS
U LLO a) C
N
N O .6 N T C
c 2 Sample Description&Soil Type � 0 3 E u U o
c
L a a m o —
f= i= LL U.7 0 O ` O) L r=
±278' 0 (1'/2)to (2.0)-inches of AC over(3.0)to (4.0)-inches of silty
sandy gravel,Damp
1
Silty Sandy Clay with some gravel,Dark Brown (CL) 4-1 13 117.8 5.0
2 moist,stiff
3
4
4-2 11 118.9 5.2
±273' 5 moist,stiff(CL)
6
7 Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy
Gravel (SP/GM)
8 moist,medium dense
9
4-3 23 4.96 117.5 3.9
±268' 10 moist,medium dense
11
12
13
14
4-4 48 5.6 118.18 3.6
±263' 15 dense
16
17
18
19 Silty Lean Clay,Dark Brown (CL)
moist,very stiff 4-5 26 119.9 14.9
±258' 20
21
22
23
24
4-6 36 135.2 8.4
±253' 25 moist,very stiff,hard
26
27
OT Date:June 15,2017 Boring No.: EB-4(cont)
AST Project No,16346-5 Plate No. 26
Client:BASS Cupertino,LLC Driller:EGI
Location:10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,CA Drilling Method:Hollow Stem Auger
® Indicates Historic Groundwater Elevation Sampler:Modified California&SPT
V Indicates Final Groundwater Elevation Boring Diameter:8.0-inches
0 Indicates Initial Groundwater Elevation Boring Depth:(50)-feet below existing grade
IDS
00 � C
O N
N O c N > C
o Sample Description&Soil Type z 0 3 E 0 o
c
a L a a m LL o —
E E 5 o m E
28
29
Poorly Graded Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy 4-7 22 121.6 9.8
±248' 30 Gravel (SP/GM)
Brown to Grayish Brown,moist,medium dense
31
32
33
34
4-8 32 120.9 4.2
±243' 35 moist,dense
36
37
38
39 Silty Clay,Reddish brown (CL)
moist,very stiff 4-9 20 1 1 1.3 8.9
±238' 40
41
42
43
44 Gravelly Coarse Sand to Coarse Sandy Gravel (SP/GM)
moist,dense 4-10 33 138.6 6.9
±233' 45
46
47
48
49
4-1 1 36 129.9 8.6
±228' 50 Dense....
Exploratory Boring terminated at a depth of(50)-feet below
51 the existing ground surface (bgs)
52
53
54
55
Plasticity Data
Key Boring Depth Water Liquid Plasticity Plasticity Unified Soil
Symbol No. (feet) Content We/LL Limit Limit Index Classification
(Wc) % % % % &Description of Soil
EB1-1 2.0 12.8 0.36 36 17 19 Sandy Lean Clay
❑ EB2-1 2.0 6.0 0.18 34 16 18 Sandy Lean Clay
Plasticity Chart
60 777
Z
For Fine Grained Soils and Fine
50
Fractions of Coarse Grained Soils
G
40 /
a /
ac
A 30 /
MHorOH
cyv 20
❑�
10
......... ..... .
7 Cl:'Dr'ML �or OL
4 ....... ............
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(LL)(%)
IndexPlasticity
F RI I Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I San Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No.16346-S Date:July 2017 Plate No.27
100
90
80
70
60
050
40
30
20
-Boring EB-1, Sample 1-3
---Boring EB-1, Sample 1-7
Boring EB-2, Sample 2-4
10
-Boring EB-2, Sample 2-8
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve Size (nnnn)
Grain Size Distribution
Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Geotechnical Study Investigation
Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
ASTConsulting&Construction Services Proposed Improvements
343 So.Baywood Avenue I Son Jose,California 10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST File No. 16346-S _F Date:July 2017 1 Plate No.28
CDPER Corrosivity Tests Summary
CTL# 132-097 Date: 6/20/2017 Tested By: Pi Checked: Pi
Client: AST Project: Lock n Stor Self Storage Cupertino Proj.No: 16346-S PLATE NO. 29
Remarks:
Sample Location or ID Resistivity @ 15.5°C(Ohm-cm) Chloride Sulfate pH ORP Sulfide Moisture
As Rec. Min Sat. mg/kg mg/kg % (Redox) Qualitative At Test
Dry Wt. Dry Wt. Dry Wt. EH(MV) At Test by Lead % Soil Visual Description
Boring Sample,No. Depth,ft. ASTM G57 Cal 643 ASTM G57 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 ASTM G51 ASTM G200 Temp°C Acetate Paper ASTM D2216
Bag - 36,348 2 70 0.0070 7.7 507 23 Negative 4.5 Olive Brown SAND w/Clay&Gravel
(Silty)
BASS Cupertino LLC I LOCK N STOR Self Storage
10655 Mary Avenue I Cupertino,California
AST Project No. 16346-S
Appendix "D"
➢ DESIGN MAPS SUMMARY REPORT
Xqlnc.Geotechnical I Environmental I Consulting Engineers I Construction Services
�� Design Maps Summary Report
User-Specified Input
Report Title LOCK N STOR SELF STORAGE
Wed July 5, 2017 21:31:31 UTC
Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
Site Coordinates 37.331690N, 122.05139°W
Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil"
Risk Category IV (e.g. essential facilities)
oocisid� Sta,lfnrd ';
AV
MountanyView■ — t "• , k—
LusAltos Kill s'LoSAItps �'-`r=_� ���i -
�, F "a cr�111Si3 Yh11riX7,1 S.iri'.:-�y��I., ... ' .• - .
Sunnyvale Jovolrit 7zllpo t '. _ `Alum Rock
:..+ Santa Clara•
#Sari 1 CIS e
.� Cu`pertt n o
F f
CarnpWil
s arat0{3.a.
�PEOom 1-h11 I
USGS-Provided Output
SS = 1.894 g SH,s = 1.894 g Sps = 1.262 g
Sl = 0.721 g SN11 = 1.081 g Spl = 0.721 g
For information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and
select the"2009 NEHRP" building code reference document.
bACEa ResPOn:S*Spectrur Design Respwse Spectrum
1d3
1-90 1311
1-71 1-1J
132 I-M
133 451
' 1-It CLM
Q95 i9 am
Q7i6 am
4]J C73
C QW
419 CLU
am am
Perlc+�L r(sec) (sec)
For PGAM,TL, CRS, and CR1 values, please view the detailed report.
Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey,we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the
accuracy of the data contained therein.This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge.
USIGS Design Maps Detailed Report
ASCE 7-10 Standard (37.331690N, 122.05139°W)
Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category IV (e.g. essential facilities)
Section 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters
Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal
spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric
mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain SS) and
1.3 (to obtain SJ. Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B.
Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3.
From Figure 22-11'] SS = 1.894 g
From Figure 22-2[21 S1 = 0.721 g
Section 11.4.2 — Site Class
The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or
the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in
accordance with Chapter 20.
Table 20.3-1 Site Classification
Site Class VS N or N,,, S.
A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf
D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf
E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf
Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the
characteristics:
Plasticity index PI > 20,
Moisture content w >_ 40%, and
• Undrained shear strength su < 500 psf
F. Soils requiring site response See Section 20.3.1
analysis in accordance with Section
21.1
For SI: 1ft/s = 0.3048 m/s 1lb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/mz
Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake
Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient Fa
Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period
SS :5 0.25 SS = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS >_ 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of SS
For Site Class = D and SS = 1.894 g, Fa = 1.000
Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient Fv
Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period
S1 <_ 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 S1 = 0.40 S1 >- 0.50
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4
F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S,
For Site Class = D and S, = 0.721 g, F� = 1.500
Equation (11.4-1): Sr,s = FaSs = 1.000 x 1.894 = 1.894 g
Equation (11.4-2): SN11 = F�S1 = 1.500 x 0.721 = 1.081 g
Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters
Equation (11.4-3): Sos = % Sms = 3/3 x 1.894 = 1.262 g
Equation (11.4-4): SDI = % SM1 = 2/3 x 1.081 = 0.721 g
Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum
From Figure 22-12[31 T,_ = 12 seconds
Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum
T<TQ:9.=So®(0.4+ISTJTq)
w�1262 -- 7o5T5Te:S.=
T,<T5T,:Sa=S.,1T
o i i T>TL:S.=—%17L172
Sal-0-721 —r----------rt----------
CE
To CL114 Tsr4-.`71 1.00D
PerIC4 T(eec)
Section 11.4.6 — Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum
The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by
1.5.
--
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
O I I
� I I
I I
- I I
� I I
I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
To.4.114 Ts 0,571 1.ODD
PeFIC4 f(eec)
Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design
Categories D through F
From Figure 22-7 E41 PGA = 0.728
Equation (11.8-1): PGA, = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.728 = 0.728 g
Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA
Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA
Class
PGA <- PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA >_
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA
For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.728 g, FPIA = 1.000
Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for
Seismic Design)
From Figure 22-17151 CRS = 1.011
From Figure 22-18161 CRl = 0.957
Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category
Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF SDI
I or II III IV
SDI < 0.167g A A A
0.167g <_ SDI < 0.33g B B C
0.33g <_ SDI < 0.50g C C D
0.50g <_ SDI D D D
For Risk Category = IV and SDI = 1.262 g, Seismic Design Category = D
Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF SDI
I or II III IV
SDI < 0.067g A A A
0.067g <_ SDI < 0.133g B B C
0.133g <_ SDI < 0.20g C C D
0.20g <_ SDI D D D
For Risk Category = IV and SDI = 0.721 g, Seismic Design Category = D
Note: When S, is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for
buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective
of the above.
Seismic Design Category = "the more severe design category in accordance with
Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = D
Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category.
References
1. Figure 22-1: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-1.pdf
2. Figure 22-2: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf
3. Figure 22-12: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-12.pdf
4. Figure 22-7: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7.pdf
5. Figure 22-17: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-17.pdf
6. Figure 22-18: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-18.pdf