1951 Shattuck Avenue Letter Report - City of Berkeley

Appendix F Geotechnical Study

May 17, 2017 Project No. 17-1318 Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited One California Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Subject: Geotechnical Study Proposed Mixed-Use Building

1951 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California

Dear Mr. Buster:

This letter presents the results of our geotechnical study for the site at 1951 Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley, California. Our geotechnical study was performed in accordance with our Agreement for Professional Services dated March 31, 2017.

The subject property is an L-shaped lot on the southeastern corner of the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way, as shown on the Site Location Map and Site Plan, Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The site has maximum plan dimensions of approximately 120 by 135 feet and is currently occupied by a one-story retail building. Conceptual plans are to demolish the existing building and construct a mixed-use building that will occupy the entire site. The mixed-use building will be eight stories high with one to three levels of subterranean parking.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The objectives of our study were to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and develop preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. A subsurface investigation was not performed for this study. For our study, we reviewed available geotechnical data from the surrounding area to develop preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the following:

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 2

soil and groundwater conditions at the site

regional seismicity and seismic hazards

appropriate foundation type(s) for the proposed building

foundation design parameters

BART zone-of-influence lines

2016 California Building Code (CBC) seismic design recommendations

construction considerations, including shoring, underpinning, and dewatering.

DATA REVIEW

For our study, we reviewed available nearby geotechnical reports in our files. Specifically, we reviewed the following documents:

Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Building, 2012 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California, prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical, Inc., dated March 27, 2017.

Geotechnical Investigation Report, Berkeley Way Project, University of California, Berkeley, prepared by A3GEO, dated June 17, 2015.

There is a San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) subway below Shattuck Avenue. We reviewed available as-built documents we previously obtained from BART for the Berkeley-Richmond line near the site.

SITE CONDITIONS

The subject property is an L-shaped lot on the southeastern corner of the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way. The site has maximum plan dimensions of approximately 120 by 135 feet and is currently occupied by a one-story retail building. The site is bordered by a one-story retail building to the south, the two-story Channel Church building to the southeast, and a walkway for the Channel Church building and a three-story office building to the east.

There is a BART subway below Shattuck Avenue. The approximate alignment of the BART right-of-way near the project site is shown on Figure 2. New construction located within the BART subway’s zone-of-influence (ZOI), defined as a line extending upward

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 3 at an inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) from the base of the subway, will require measures to be taken to avoid surcharging the subway structure. Based on the as-built documents we obtained from BART, we estimate the subway right-of-way is located about 50 feet west of the southwestern corner of the site and 95 feet west of the northwestern corner of the site. The base of the subway is about 47 feet below the ground surface (bgs). A generalized cross section showing the approximate location and depth of the BART subway and the ZOI is presented on Figure 3.

ANTICIPATED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The Regional Geologic Map (see Figure 4) indicates the site is underlain by Holocene-age alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qhaf). The results of borings drilled in the site vicinity indicate the site is likely underlain by alluvium consisting of medium stiff to hard clay with varying sand and gravel content interbedded with occasional layers of medium dense to very dense clayey sand and clayey gravel. The alluvium is underlain by bedrock below depths of about 33 to 38 feet bgs. Bedrock underlying the site is likely to consist of siltstone and sandstone. The bedrock near the surface is likely to be friable to weak, has low hardness, and is deeply to moderately weathered. Typically, the bedrock becomes stronger, harder, and less weathered with depth.

ANTICIPATED GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

A3GEO (2015) performed a geotechnical study for the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) development located on the northeastern corner of Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way. Twelve borings were drilled using hollow-stem augers at the site. During drilling, groundwater was recorded at depths ranging from 16 to 31 feet bgs about 15 to 40 minutes following the completion of drilling; we judge these readings do not represent stabilized groundwater levels because there was insufficient time for the groundwater to stabilize. One boring (Boring B-10 located about 170 feet east of Shattuck Avenue and 40 feet north of Berkeley Way) was converted to a piezometer after drilling. Between August 2009 and January 2010, groundwater was measured in the piezometer on four occasions at depths ranging from 11-1/2 to 14-1/2 feet bgs (A3GEO, 2015).


REGIONAL SEISMICITY

The site is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California that is characterized by northwest-trending valleys and ridges. These topographic features are controlled by folds and faults that resulted from the collision of the Farallon plate and North American plate and subsequent strike-slip faulting along the San Andreas Fault system. The San Andreas Fault is more than 600 miles long from Point Arena in the north to the Gulf of California in the south. The Coast Ranges province is bounded on the east by the Great Valley and on the west by the Pacific Ocean.

The major active faults in the area are the Hayward, Calaveras, San Andreas, and San Gregorio. These and other faults in the region are shown on Figure 5. For these and other active faults within a 50-kilometer radius of the site, the distance from the site and estimated mean characteristic Moment magnitude1 [2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) (USGS 2008) and Cao et al. (2003)] are summarized in Table 1.

1 Moment magnitude is an energy-based scale and provides a physically meaningful measure

of the size of a faulting event. Moment magnitude is directly related to average slip and fault rupture area.


TABLE 1 Regional Faults and Seismicity

Fault Segment Approximate Distance from

Site (km)

Direction from Site

Mean Characteristic

Moment Magnitude

Total Hayward 1.2 East 7.0

Total Hayward-Rodgers Creek 1.2 East 7.3

Mount Diablo Thrust 20 East 6.7

Green Valley Connected 23 East 6.8

Total Calaveras 24 East 7.0

N. San Andreas - Peninsula 28 West 7.2

N. San Andreas (1906 event) 28 West 8.1

Rodgers Creek 28 Northwest 7.1

N. San Andreas - North Coast 29 West 7.5

West Napa 33 North 6.7

San Gregorio Connected 33 West 7.5

Greenville Connected 38 East 7.0

Great Valley 5, Pittsburg Kirby Hills

40 East 6.7

Monte Vista-Shannon 48 South 6.5

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 6 Since 1800, four major earthquakes have been recorded on the San Andreas Fault. In 1836, an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of VII on the Modified Mercalli (MM) scale occurred east of Monterey Bay on the San Andreas Fault

(Toppozada and Borchardt, 1998). The estimated Moment magnitude, Mw, for this earthquake is about 6.25. In 1838, an earthquake occurred with an estimated intensity of about VIII-IX (MM), corresponding to a Mw of about 7.5. The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 caused the most significant damage in the history of the Bay Area in terms of loss of lives and property damage. This earthquake created a surface rupture along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Bautista approximately 470 kilometers in length. It had a maximum intensity of XI (MM), a Mw of about 7.9, and was felt 560 kilometers away in Oregon, Nevada, and Los Angeles. The most recent earthquake to affect the Bay Area was the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989, with a Mw of 6.9. This earthquake occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains about 99 kilometers southwest of the site.

In 1868, an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of X on the MM scale occurred on the southern segment (between San Leandro and Fremont) of the Hayward Fault. The estimated Mw for the earthquake is 7.0. In 1861, an earthquake of unknown magnitude (probably a Mw of about 6.5) was reported on the Calaveras Fault. The most recent significant earthquake on this fault was the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake (Mw = 6.2).

The U.S. Geological Survey's 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has compiled the earthquake fault research for the San Francisco Bay area in order to estimate the probability of fault segment rupture. They have determined that the overall probability of moment magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Region during the next 30 years (starting from 2014) is 72 percent. The highest probabilities are assigned to the Hayward Fault, Calaveras Fault, and the northern segment of the San Andreas Fault. These probabilities are 14.3, 7.4, and 6.4 percent, respectively.


GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Because the project site is in a seismically active region, we evaluated the potential for earthquake-induced geologic hazards including ground shaking, ground surface rupture, liquefaction,2 lateral spreading,3 and cyclic densification4. We used the results of nearby borings to evaluate the potential of these phenomena occurring at the project site.

Ground Shaking

The seismicity of the site is governed by the activity of the Hayward Fault, although ground shaking from future earthquakes on other faults, including the San Andreas, Calaveras, and San Gregorio faults, will also be felt at the site. The intensity of earthquake ground motion at the site will depend upon the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the earthquake epicenter, and magnitude and duration of the earthquake. The site is less than two kilometers from the Hayward Fault. We judge that strong to very strong ground shaking could occur at the site during a large earthquake on one of the nearby faults.

Liquefaction and Associated Hazards

When a saturated, cohesionless soil liquefies, it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength created by a temporary rise in excess pore pressure generated by strong ground motion. Soil susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low-plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits. Flow failure, lateral spreading, differential settlement, loss of bearing strength, ground fissures and sand boils are evidence of excess pore pressure generation and liquefaction.

The site is not located within an area of Berkeley that is designated as a potential liquefaction hazard zone on the map prepared by CGS titled State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones, Oakland West Quadrangle, Official Map, dated February 14, 2003 (Figure 6). We evaluated the liquefaction potential of soil encountered below groundwater at the

2 Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, cohesionless soil experiences

temporary reduction in strength during cyclic loading such as that produced by earthquakes. 3 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 downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and gravitational forces.

4 Cyclic densification is a phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is compacted by earthquake vibrations, causing ground-surface settlement.

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 8 site using data collected in nearby borings. Considering the soil encountered in nearby borings below the estimated historic high groundwater level (8 feet bgs) generally consists of clay and clayey sand or gravel, we judge the soil is not susceptible to liquefaction because of its cohesion or high relative density. Therefore, we conclude the potential for liquefaction to occur at the site is very low.

Cyclic Densification

Cyclic densification (also referred to as differential compaction) of non-saturated sand (sand above groundwater table) can occur during an earthquake, resulting in settlement of the ground surface and overlying improvements.

The results of nearby borings indicate the soil above the groundwater at the site generally consists of cohesive soil, interbedded with relatively dense granular soil, which are not susceptible to cyclic densification due to their relatively high fines content and high density. Therefore, we conclude the potential for ground surface settlement resulting from cyclic densification at the site is very low.

Fault Rupture

Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. We, therefore, conclude the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low. In a seismically active area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously existed; however, we conclude the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure from previously unknown faults is also very low.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From a geotechnical standpoint, we conclude the conceptual development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical concerns at the site are: 1) a relatively high design groundwater level for a building with one to three subterranean levels, 2) providing adequate foundation support, and 3) providing lateral support for the proposed excavation while minimizing the impact on the surrounding improvements. These and other geotechnical issues, as they pertain to the proposed development, are discussed in the remainder of this section.

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 9 BART Subway Zone-of-Influence

The BART subway right-of-way is located about 50 feet west of the southwestern corner of the site and 95 feet west of the northwestern corner of the site. The base of the subway is about 47 bgs. As shown on Figure 3, the BART ZOI line daylights about 6 feet inside the subject property at the southwestern corner of the site, which is the most critical location. The BART guidelines state that “all structures shall be designed as not to impose any temporary or permanent adverse effects including unbalanced loading and seismic loading, on the adjacent BART subways”. Considering the proposed building will have one to three subterranean levels, we anticipate the foundation for the proposed building will derive support below the ZOI and will not impose any temporary or permanent loads on the BART subway.

The BART guidelines also state that temporary shoring located within the ZOI “shall be required to maintain at-rest soil condition and monitored for movement.” Therefore, temporary shoring system along the western property line and within the BART ZOI line should be designed for at-rest soil conditions. Although the BART guidelines do not state installation of tiebacks is prohibited within the ZOI, it is our experience that tiebacks will not be allowed within this zone.

Design Groundwater Level

Considering the groundwater data presented above, we preliminarily conclude a design groundwater depth of 8 feet bgs should be used for design of the proposed building. The basement walls, building foundations, and mat/floor slabs extending below the design groundwater level should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic pressures.

Foundations

The foundation level of the proposed building with one to three subterranean levels will be underlain by firm alluvium that can support moderate building loads. Therefore, we conclude the proposed structure can be supported on shallow foundations. Considering the foundation will need to resist hydrostatic uplift pressure and will need to be waterproofed, we conclude a mat foundation would be more appropriate than spread footings.

If the weight of the building and foundation is not sufficient to resist hydrostatic uplift, additional uplift resistance will be required. We believe that tiedown anchors can be used for this purpose.

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 10 Considering the large area of the mat, we expect the average bearing stress under the mat to be moderate; however, concentrated stresses will occur at column locations and at the edges of the mat. For preliminary design, we recommend the mat be designed for allowable bearing capacities of 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads; this value may be increased by one-third for total loads (including wind and seismic loads). To evaluate the pressure distribution beneath the mat foundation, we recommend a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of 40 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be used; this value has already been scaled to take into account the plan dimensions of the foundation and may be increased by one-third for total load conditions. Once the structural engineer estimates the distribution of bearing stress on the bottom of the mat, we should review the distribution and revise the modulus of subgrade reaction, if appropriate.

Our preliminary settlement analyses indicate total settlement of a mat foundation designed using the allowable bearing pressures presented will be on the order of one inch and differential settlement would be less than 1/2 inch across a horizontal distance of 30 feet.

Lateral loads can be resisted by a combination of passive pressure on the vertical faces of the mat and friction along the bottom of the mat. Lateral resistance may be computed using an allowable passive pressure of 2,000 psf (uniform distribution) for transient loads, including wind and seismic, and equivalent fluid weights (triangular distribution) of 250 and 125 pcf for sustained loads above and below the groundwater table, respectively. Passive resistance in the upper one foot of soil should be ignored unless it is confined by slabs or pavement. Where the mat is underlain by waterproofing membrane, the allowable friction factor will depend on the type of waterproofing used at the base of the mat. For bentonite-based waterproofing membranes, such as Paraseal or Voltex, a friction factor of 0.12 should be used (assumes a bentonite friction angle of 10 degrees). If Preprufe is used, a base friction factor of 0.20 should be used. Friction factors for other types of waterproofing membranes can be provided upon request. The above-recommended passive pressure and frictional resistance values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5 and may be used in combination without reduction.

Temporary Shoring

We anticipate an excavation extending about 13, 25, and 36 bgs will be needed to construct a building with one, two, and three subterranean levels, respectively. Assuming the footprint of the basement garage will occupy the entire site, shoring or underpinning will be required.

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 11 We judge that a soldier pile-and-lagging shoring system is most appropriate for support of the edges of the excavation adjacent to public sidewalks along the northern and western sides of the excavation, and adjacent to the Channel Church walkway and three-story office building along the eastern side of the excavation. A soldier pile-and-lagging system usually consists of steel H-beams and concrete placed in predrilled holes extending below the bottom of the excavation. Wood lagging is placed between the piles as the excavation proceeds from the top down. Where the required cut is less than about 14 feet, a soldier pile and lagging system can typically provide economical shoring without tiebacks and, therefore, would not encroach beyond the property line. Where cuts exceed about 14 feet in height, soldier pile-and-lagging systems are typically more economical if they include tieback anchors. However, tieback anchors will require an encroachment agreement with the City of Berkeley and neighboring building owners. Based on our experience, we judge tiebacks will not be permitted within the BART ZOI line. Where it is not feasible to install tiebacks and the excavation height is too great for a cantilevered soldier pile system, internal bracing of the excavation will be required.

Underpinning

There are adjacent buildings to the southeast and south of the site; these buildings appear to be constructed at-grade. Assuming the below-grade levels for the proposed structure extend to the property line and below the elevation of the foundations for the adjacent buildings, underpinning of neighboring structures would be required to provide temporary vertical and lateral support of their foundations during construction of the proposed project. We judge conventional hand-excavated, end-bearing piers or slant piles would be the most suitable underpinning methods for this project. Hand-dug underpinning piers should extend at least 24 inches below the bottom of excavation. Underpinning piers will likely require tieback anchors to provide additional lateral support.

Underpinning piers and slant piles will extend beneath the neighboring properties, which will require an encroachment agreement with neighboring property owners. If it is not feasible to install the underpinning beneath an adjacent property, the basement wall should be offset from the property line by at least 18 inches to provide space for the shoring and the shoring should be designed to resist surcharge loads from neighboring foundations in addition to at-rest soil pressures.

Temporary Dewatering

The proposed excavation will extend below the design groundwater level. During excavation of the subterranean levels, groundwater will flow into the excavation unless

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 12 collected and removed prior to reaching the work area. Therefore, a temporary dewatering system should be installed to provide a firm, relatively dry base from which to construct the foundation system. We anticipate an active dewatering system consisting of a series of extraction wells installed both inside (where there is insufficient space outside the excavation) and outside the excavation would be the most appropriate temporary dewatering system.

BART guidelines indicate groundwater should not be lowered more than two feet within the BART ZOI as a result of temporary dewatering activities. To comply with this guideline, it would be necessary to install a low-permeability shoring wall, such as a soil-mix wall or a secant wall along the western edge of the excavation and possibly along a portion of the northern and southern sides of the excavation.

The dewatering system should be designed and installed by an experienced contractor. Groundwater removed during dewatering should be disposed of in accordance with applicable state and local regulations.

Basement Walls

Below-grade walls should be designed to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by earthquakes, vehicular surcharge pressures, and surcharges from adjacent foundations, where appropriate. We preliminarily recommend restrained below-grade walls at the site be designed for the more critical of the following criteria:

At-rest equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf above the design groundwater table and 90 pcf below, plus a traffic increment where the wall will be within 10 feet of adjacent streets.

Active pressure of 40 pcf plus a seismic increment of 36 pcf (triangular distribution) above the design groundwater level, and 80 pcf below the groundwater level plus a seismic increment of 17 pcf (triangular distribution).

The recommended pressures above are based on a level backfill condition with no additional surcharge loads. Where the basement wall will be subject to vehicular loading within 10 feet of the wall, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 50 psf applied to the upper 10 feet of the wall. If neighboring building foundations are not underpinned and rest on soil above an imaginary line that lies at an inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) projected upward from the bottom edge of the basement wall, the basement wall should be designed for surcharge pressures from the neighboring building foundations.

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 13 To protect against moisture migration, below-grade basement walls should be waterproofed and water stops should be placed at all construction joints. In recent years, we have observed numerous leaks in below-grade portions of buildings constructed with waterproofed, shotcrete walls. In areas where there is a high sensitivity to leaks, we recommend cast-in-place concrete be considered.

If backfill is required behind below-grade walls, the walls should be braced, or hand compaction equipment used, to prevent unacceptable surcharges on walls (as determined by the structural engineer).

Seismic Design

The final seismic design for the project will depend on the results of the final geotechnical investigation. For preliminary seismic design, we recommend Site Class C be used. The latitude and longitude of the site are 37.87287° and -122.26811°, respectively. Hence, in accordance with the 2016 CBC, we recommend the following:

SS = 2.372 g, S1 = 0.986 g

SMS = 2.372 g, SM1 = 1.282 g

SDS = 1.581 g, SD1 = 0.855 g

Seismic Design Category E for Risk Categories I, II, and III.

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

A site-specific geotechnical investigation should be performed to further evaluate subsurface conditions and provide final conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project.

Mr. Steve Buster Grosvenor USA Limited March 17, 2017 Page 14 We trust this letter provides the information you need. If you have any questions, please call.

Sincerely yours, ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Linda H. J. Liang, P.E., G.E. Craig S. Shields, P.E., G.E. Associate Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Site Plan Figure 3 – Generalize Cross Section A-A’, Zone-of-Influence for BART Subway Structures Figure 4 – Regional Geologic Map Figure 5 – Regional Fault Map Figure 6 – Seismic Hazards Zone Map

Project No. FigureDateROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICAL 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

SITE

Base map: The Thomas Guide Alameda County 2002

0 1/2 Mile

Approximate scale

1/4

05/15/17 17-1318

1951 SHATTUCK AVENUEBerkeley, California

HE

NR

Y S

TR

EE

T

UNIVERSITY AVENUE

SH

AT

TU

CK

A

VE

NU

E

BERKELEY WAY

BERKELEY WAY

A

A

'

0

Approximate scale

50 Feet

2

SITE PLAN

Date Project No. Figure

ROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICALBase map: Google Earth, 2016.

EXPLANATION

Approximate project limits

Approximate right-of-way of Bay Area RapidTransit (BART) limits

Location of generalized cross section showingzone-of-influence for BART Subway Structures,see Figure 3

Note: Location of BART right-of-way limitsestimated using the Record Map of Right ofWay, Berkeley-Richmond Line, Russell Streetto Grove Street, by Parsons Brinckerhoff TudorBectel Engineers, Package R-005, ContractK-501, Sheet RRW17, March 11, 1965

A A'

05/16/17 17-1318

Berkeley, California 1951 SHATTUCK AVENUE

75'

46'

ZONE OF INFLUENCE

BART EASEMENT

BART SUBWAY

11.51.5

1APPROXIMATELY 47'

PROPERTY LINE

A A'

14'-6"

NOTE: GENERALIZED CROSS SECTION FOR BART SUBWAY STRUCTUREDEVELOPED BASED ON RECORD MAP OF RIGHT OF WAY, BERKELEY-RICHMONDLINE, RUSSELL STREET TO GROVE STREET, BY PARSONS BRINKEROFF TUDORBECTEL ENGINEERS, PACKAGE R-005, CONTRACT K-501, SHEET RRW17 (MARCH11, 1965); AND SHEETS CT34-0 AND SE 6-2 (MAY 10, 1966).

50'

50' AT SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SITE(INCREASING TO 95' AT NORTHWESTERN

CORNER OF SITE)

3Date Project No. FigureROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICAL

GENERALIZED CROSS SECTION A-A'

ZONE-OF-INFLUENCE FOR BART

SUBWAY STRUCTURES

Approximate Scale

40 Feet

0

0

40 Feet

05/16/17 17-1318

Berkeley, California 1951 SHATTUCK AVENUE

−−Depositional or intrusive contact, dashed where approximately located, dotted where concealed

−−Dashed where approximately located, small dashes where inferred, dotted where concealed, queried where location is uncertain.

−−Dotted where concealed

−−Shows fold axis, dotted where concealed

Contact - Depositional or intrusive contact, dashed where approximately located, dotted where concealed

Fault - Dashed where approximately located, small dashed where inferred, dotted where concealed, queried where locations is uncertainReverse or thrust fault - Dotted where concealed

Anticline -Shows fold axis, dotted where concealed

Syncline

Overturned bedding

Strike and dip of bedding

Flat beddingVertical beddingStrike and dip of foliationVertical foliation

Vertical jointStrike and dip of joints in plutonic rocks

0 4,000 Feet

Approximate scale

2,000

EXPLANATION af

Qhaf

Qhl

Qpaf

Tmb

KJfs

KJfm

Ku

Kfn

Kfgm

Jsv

sp

fg

Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Holocene)

Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits

Keratophyre and quartz keratophyre (Late Jurassic)

Sandstone of the Novato Quarry terrane ofBlake and others (1984) (Late Cretaceous)

Franciscan complex, melange (CretaceousLate Jurassic), includes mapped locally:

Chert blocks

Artificial fill (Historic)

Natural levee deposits (Holocene)

Morage Formation (late Miocene)

Franciscan complex, sandstone, undivided(Late Cretaceous to Late Jurassic)

Undivided Great Valley complex rocks(Cretaceous)

Fine-grained quartz deiorite (Late Cretaceous (?)

Greenstone blocks

Project No. FigureDate

SITE

4

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP

Base map: USGS MF 2342, Geologic Map and Map Database of the Oakland Metropolitan Area, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties, California (Graymer, 2000).

ROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICAL 05/15/17 17-1318


Project No. FigureDate

Base Map: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Seismic Hazards Maps - Fault Sources, 2008.

10 Miles

Approximate scale

0 5

5ROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICAL

REGIONAL FAULT MAP

SITE

EXPLANATION

Strike slip

Thrust (Reverse)

Normal

05/15/17 17-1318


Point Reyes Fault

San Andreas FaultSan G

regorio Fault

Monte Vista-Shannon Fault

West N

apa

Mount Diablo Thrust

Greenville Fault

Great Valley 05

Great Valley 4b

Calaveras Fault

Green Valley

Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault

Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault

Project No. FigureDate 6

0 4,000 Feet

Approximate scale

2,000EXPLANATION

SITE

SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONE MAP

Earthquake-Induced Landslides; Areas where previous occurence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements.

Liquefaction; Areas where historic occurence of liquefaction, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurfacewater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements.

Reference:State of California "Seismic Hazard Zones" Oakland West Quadrangle.Released on February 14, 2003

ROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICAL 05/15/17 17-1318


Documents

1951 Shattuck Avenue Letter Report - City of Berkeley