Santa Clara University

Scholar Commons
Civil, Environmental and Sustainable
Engineering Senior Theses Engineering Senior Theses

Spring 2019

Design of Sustainable Mixed Use Complex in Santa

Clara, California
Spencer Larsen

Joao Etrusco

Marek Kossik

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/ceng_senior

Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Larsen, Spencer; Etrusco, Joao; and Kossik, Marek, "Design of Sustainable Mixed Use Complex in Santa Clara, California" (2019).
Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Senior meses. 75.
https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/ceng_senior/75

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Engineering Senior Theses at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
 SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY
Department of Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering

I hereby recommend that the SENIOR

DESIGN PROJECT REPORT
prepared under my supervision by

SPENCER LARSEN
JOAO ETRUSCO
&
MAREK KOSSIK

entitled

DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE MIXED USE COMPLEX IN SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

BACHELORS OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING

Advisor Date

Department Chair Date

i
DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE MIXED USE COMPLEX IN SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

by

Spencer Larsen
Joao Etrusco &
Marek Kossik

SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT REPORT

submitted to
The Department of Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering of

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering

Santa Clara, California

Spring 2019

ii
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following individuals:
● Professor Reynaud Serrette for his advising throughout the project’s duration.
● Community Stakeholder Kirk Vartan for his assistance in implementing features
desired by the community into the design.
● Professor Steve Tarantino for his assistance in the design of the water systems and
continued support during the design process.
● Professor Sukhmander Singh for his help in designing the foundations of the
buildings.
● Vince Cantone of The CORE Companies for providing the team with the initial plans
of the Agrihood project that the team based the project off of.
● Santa Clara Civil Engineering Alumni Gabriel Alcantar for providing the team with
valuable information and how WeWork buildings operate and for giving the team a tour
of the building he works in.
● Alain Castro of Seattle based civil engineering firm Coughlin Porter Lundeen for
assisting the team in designing and laying out the piping for potable water, sanitary
sewer, and stormwater systems.

iii
 DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE MIXED USE COMPLEX IN SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

Marek Kossik, Spencer Larsen, and Joao Etrusco

Department of Civil Engineering Santa

Clara University, Spring 2019
Abstract
Lying in the heart of the Silicon Valley, the City of Santa Clara is a hotbed of
development and has long been viewed as the model for rapid development, as the area needs
to keep up with the demands of the rapidly growing technology industry. For this senior design
project, the team decided to address this issue of massive urban growth by proposing a
development design that is both sustainable and establishes a community feel that enhances
local growth and business. The team drew initial inspiration from San Jose based The CORE
Companies’ Agrihood project, a community development already in progress at the site that the
team chose, across from Valley Fair Shopping Center. Using some of the basics of the already
proposed Agrihood project, the team’s Santa Clara Sustainable Community (SCSC) focused on
cultivating a community in which people work, play, and live while prioritizing sustainability to
combat the rapid growth that the technology boom in the Silicon Valley is causing. The team
has expanded the site to include and integrate the existing Veterans Center and also added and
completely designed a cooperative workspace building that includes an updated Veterans Center
with the goal of integration all parts of the community. In addition, the team designed the
structural components of two apartment buildings, which will also be integrated, as opposed to
separate buildings for different socioeconomic groups. Along with all of structural design and
layout of the site, the team also designed all of the water resource components of the site
including the potable, stormwater, and sanitary sewer design.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Report Section Page
Certificate of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Title Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Initial Research/Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
General Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Assessment of Project Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Summary of Alternative Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Design Criteria and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Description of Designed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Summary of Site Layout and Significance of Layout Decisions . . . . . . . 7
Design Summary of Integration Building and Veterans Center . . . . . . . . . 8
Mixed Use Integration Building Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Design Summary of Apartment Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Potable Water System Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Stormwater System Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Sanitary Sewer System Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendices
A. Mixed Use Integration Building Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
B. Apartment Building Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
C. Water System Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

v
Initial Research/Background
The team initially planned on choosing a brand new project to start with but ended up
finding a proposed project that was being developed at a location ideal for this project. Across
from Valley Fair Shopping Center, 90 North Winchester Boulevard is the location of the
proposed Agrihood development being developed by The CORE Companies. It is a project that
revolves around a farm community and includes a variety of separate kinds of living space,
including low income and elderly living spaces. A sample of this project is shown below in
Figure 1. This project became the springboard for the Santa Clara Sustainable Community
(SCSC) project and provided the team some of their basic pieces that were already designed to
some extent, which allowed the team to focus on the sustainability and community aspects of
this project’s development.

Figure 1: Proposed site layout by The CORE Companies.

Following the discovery of the Agrihood project, the team arranged various meetings to
gain a better grasp of the project as a whole. The first step was meeting with Vince Cantore, the
lead developer for the project at The CORE Companies. He

1
provided the team with the most updated plan set, along with connecting the team with a very
important community resource, Kirk Vartan. Kirk is a community stakeholder that has spent the
last few years advocating for the improvement of this project. He felt that while its initial ideas
were effective and beneficial for the community, the final product being developed made no
notable progress towards what the community needed and therefore had a number of suggestions
about what could be changed or done differently in the Agrihood development. The team found
this input from Kirk and the community to be a very important meeting because it provided
insight into what the people around the site actually want for it. This desire is vital because
having the approval of the developments surrounding the project site is essential in the
successful integration of the SCSC community into the surrounding areas that have already been
established.
Following the meetings, the team began to formulate what the SCSC project would look like by
incorporating the ideas from Kirk and Vince, as well as the team’s own unique design concepts.

General Site Description

The site is located at 90 North Winchester Boulevard in Santa Clara, California, almost
directly to the west of the Valley Fair Shopping Center. Including the area where the Veterans
Center currently is (since it is being incorporated into the development), the site area is about
273,300 square feet (SF), or 6.3 acres. The grading is very mild with a slight slope in the
northeastern direction (Figure 2). Water and sewer mains follow Worthington Circle and
ultimately tie into the mains on Winchester Boulevard to the east of the site. There are housing
developments to the south, west, and north of the site, and the site is flanked on the eastside by
Winchester Boulevard.

2
 Figure 2: Current grading at the site.

Assessment of Project Issues

It is imperative to take into account the multitude of issues when thinking about a project.
Before beginning and narrowing down the scope of the project: the political, environmental,
economic, safety, aesthetic, and ethical issues must be evaluated. The largest political issue that
arose was community leaders speaking out against the currently proposed project. After
attending a Santa Clara City Council meeting where the project was discussed, and speaking
with community leader Kirk, it was apparent that not everyone was in favor of the current
proposal. They did, however, like some aspects of the proposal, such as the agricultural open
space and reduced parking, as these encouraged a strong local community. Unfortunately, there
were also a number of complaints regarding the Agrihood development. The first was that the
ground floor was not activated enough. Besides the cafe, there is no building that is purposed for
any sort

3
of public use, thus not encouraging a vibrant pedestrian experience. Another problem
community leaders had was the project density. Instead of a medium-density development, they
called for increased density within the development to help Santa Clara’s housing needs. Kirk
also criticized the planning of the development, saying it did not have holistic planning. The
largest mishap was that the two apartment buildings were to be separated, with one being
senior housing and the other being low income and market rate apartments. Integrated and
intergenerational buildings help keep seniors active and engaged with the entire community.
Separating the two buildings does not encourage frequent social interaction. Another missed
opportunity was the fact that the Santa Clara County Veterans Services Office could have been
integrated into the proposed Agrihood development. Lastly, the site layout was criticized for
having too many driveways and not focusing enough on the pedestrians. All of these concerns
were reviewed and discussed by the team, as there were many great points. Due to other
concerns that arose, it was difficult to implement a solution to all of these concerns.
When looking at the environmental issues relating to the proposed project, the completed
Environmental Impact Report had to be evaluated. Additionally, the materials and construction
methods used in the project were weighed in relation to their environmental impact.
Economically, The CORE Companies project proposal had been criticized for not
pushing the envelope in terms of prioritizing community engagement and instead prioritizing
economic gains, meaning the proposal was just a way for developers to quickly gain profit
without concern about the use and needs of the community. It was this team’s goal in this
project to innovate, or go beyond commonly accepted boundaries of development in the
Silicon Valley, while still trying develop sustainably in terms of economics and environmental
impact. Due to this goal, ideas that pushed the envelope while still keeping costs down in the
long term is where the focus of the development was. In addition to evaluating the
environmental impacts of the materials and construction methods used, the economic evaluation
was considered as well.
Safety is an issue that must always be addressed when dealing with projects involving
any kind of construction. All OSHA requirements must be met in order for construction to take
place on the site, as safety is of the utmost importance.
Additionally, it was important to assess the safety of having underground structures. It was
important to ensure no pipes exist underneath proposed digging. It is also imperative to make
sure digging will not structurally compromise surrounding buildings or roads.
The largest aesthetic issue that had to be considered was the surrounding neighbors to the
project. It is not ideal if an extremely tall building adjacent to the project boundary was directly
adjacent to a neighboring house/yard. This aesthetic issue was considered when determining the
site layout.

4
 Many ethical issues arose when the issues discussed above were considered. One ethical
issue was if the project density was to increase, it meant larger buildings, which are not as
aesthetically pleasing because they would not fit as well in the existing community.
Additionally, there were economical ethical issues with the majority of the issues listed above.
One final ethical issue was the fact that the land is currently owned by the City of Santa Clara,
to be sold to the current developers. Community leaders therefore feel the City should be
stricter about what the developers plan to build and advocate for a more activated ground floor.
How much of the design should be for the public versus how much should be for residents is
something that had to be dealt with.

Summary of Alternative Analyses

During the design process, the team experienced a number of situations in which a
proposed idea was evaluated and proved to be not viable for this application. A green roof on
the buildings was discussed to collect water and irrigate. This idea quickly lost momentum as
the team weighed it against simpler bioretention areas on the ground since California does not
get adequate rain for it to be financially viable to use a green roof. Not only would green roofs
be expensive, but they also would have added load to the building, which would have
complicated the design and potentially necessitate increasing the sizes of the building
foundations. Through the same logic (California simply not being wet enough with typically 15
inches of rain a year) the team was able to rule out the use of any water collection system, as it
simply would not be a fiscally responsible move for the development. Instead of using a water
collection system, the team decided to collect and treat water from the already existing system
in the surrounding area using a membrane bioreactor. The membrane bioreactor design is out of
the scope of the teams design but was determined to be an effective potential method for
treatment and reuse of wasterwater.
Another decision was whether or not to include the existing Veterans Center in the
development. After speaking with community stakeholder Kirk who had reached out to the City
of Santa Clara Veterans Service Office about the issue, it was clear that the best option was to
incorporate a new and improved Veterans Center into this community. Kirk had actually
received a letter from the Veterans Service Office Director offering the existing half acre site the
Veterans Center was on to be integrated into the development. The decision to integrate a new
and improved Veterans Center both expanded the site size and allowed for more variability in
design and placement of buildings, but also added a great community concept to the
development supporting the veterans and assisting in their transition into the working world.
Another major decision the team faced was how to arrange the housing in the
development. The initial Agrihood project plans shown to the team by The CORE Companies
depicted separate buildings for different incomes and ages, which immediately rose red flags
because this kind of separation would not be conducive to a

5
community centered environment. It was therefore decided to design all buildings to the same
standards and to not separate units by cost or age.
The final, and arguably one of the most important decisions was the layout of the
development. The team deliberated a number of layouts. Each layout came with its pros and
cons and forced the team to prioritize what was most important in the SCSC development. The
design process consisted of the proposal of a layout, followed by a discussion of the advantages
and disadvantages of that particular design. Another major design decision was whether or not
to add a building into the development and the purpose of it if added. A shopping center was
initially considered, but was ruled out due to the close proximity to Valley Fair Shopping
Center. Then investigated was adding a variation of a WeWork building that would allow for
people to not only live in the SCSC development but also work there. This idea quickly
solidified as the team realized how flexible WeWork facilities are. The building was designed
so that the first floor contains the updated Veterans Center and lobby, with the other four floors
being work spaces managed like a cooperative workspace similar to a WeWork layout. This
would not only encourage working and living in the community, but it would also encourage
collaboration within the community which nurtures the community feel of the development.
This process of weighing alternative solutions ultimately allowed the team to reach
conclusions on how to best design the site to maximize both sustainability and community
centricity. This project ended up incorporating a number of different solutions to meet the
ultimate goal of creating a sustainable community centric development.
The design decisions that were selected for the development are the alternatives that best
met the needs of the community. From the beginning of this project, the team consistently
revolved the design process around sustainability and community centricity. Each of the design
alternatives that were decided upon met these criteria and thus moved the project in the right
direction. The team also chose to incorporate the Veterans Center into the development because
the Veterans Center serves as a community centerpiece, and allows for the development to make
better, more sustainable use of the land that the Veterans Center previously occupied.

Design Criteria and Standards

For the water system design, the team followed City standards for the City of Santa
Clara. This included the 2016 California Building and Plumbing Code.
For the design of the light frame wood portion of the apartment building, the 2016
California Building Code was used, per city of Santa Clara regulation. From the building code, a
risk category II was assigned for the building because it should never service over 5,000 people.
Also from the building code, live loads for floor areas were given. For unit space, a live load of
40 pounds per square foot (psf) was assigned. Corridors were

6
100 psf, balconies 100 psf, and roof live load was to be 20 psf. Dead loads were estimated for
the floor, roof, and walls. The dead load for the floor was 25 psf, roof 25 psf, and the walls
were 15 psf. The light frame wood construction design was done in accordance with the 2015
National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction. All calculations were done using
allowable stress design.
The design of the structural steel Mixed Use Integration Building followed primarily the
2016 California Building Code along with steel specific documents incorporated in the code:
ANSI/AISC 360-10 (design provisions) and ANSI/AISC 341-10 (seismic provisions).
Minimum design loads were compliant with ASCE 7-10 and were as follows: Dead load was 60
psf, including structural material weight and excluding 15 psf of miscellaneous components.
Live load was 100 psf, established above 80 psf required for office space because the team did
not want to specify corridor location where present and taking a more conservative route that
would allow changes and office space optimization. Roof live load was 40 psf to allow for
future solar panel installation. Deflection limit for all members was determined as L/360 (with L
being the length of member in inches).
The lateral force resisting system was designed based on forces found through the
Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure. Base shear was determined as 595 kips and building
period as 1.02 seconds. Special Steel Moment Frames were selected to resist the loads and per
ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1 its Response Modification Coefficient, R, equals 8; System
Overstrength Factor, Ω0 equals 3; and its Deflection Amplification Factor, Cd, equals 5.5.

Description of Designed Development

Summary of Site Layout and Significance of Layout Decisions

Each decision in the development was not without thought, and the layout is no
exception. A finalized layout can be seen in Figure 3. The layout chosen for the SCSC project
placed the Mixed Use Integration building in the southeast section of the development with the
townhomes on the southern side of the site, the apartments in the northeast and southwest
corners, and the farm space in the northwest corner. The team chose to place the townhomes in
the southern part of the site so that the development could better integrate into the area around
it. The area to the south of the site is housing, so locating the townhouses along that side of the
site was an effective method to ease into the larger apartment buildings without them being too
disruptive to the surrounding community. The Mixed Use Integration Building was placed along
the main road both to add to the bustling feel that the building will have, and it simultaneously
blocks the road from polluting the rest of the site with noise and visual pollution. The farm
space is tucked into the north west corner of the site so that the housing developments
surrounding it do not have to face large apartments and instead have a

7
beautiful farm space view and even take part in if they so choose. Placing the farm in this
location was an attempt to incorporate the surrounding community into the development,
further enhancing the goal of creating a community within this development.

Figure 3: Proposed site layout presented by the team.

Design Summary of Integration Building and Veterans Center

The layout proposed for SCSC allowed for an extra building to be added to the
development. After assessing the available land area, the team decided that a square building
would physically fit the land better and would allow a multiple entrance/exit building to attract
people from other neighboring communities. The 150 feet by 150 feet building has a typical floor
area of 22,500 SF and six stories (Figure 4). Each floor is 15 feet high and the building extends
75 feet above grade. Steel W sections for columns, beams, and girders, and concrete for metal
deck infill were chosen as main materials for construction, classifying the building as a Type II
construction.

8
 Figure 4: 3D model of mix use integration building.

The first floor (Figure 5) sits on a slab 15 feet below grade and serves as a parking
garage. The parking garage contains 70 parking spaces with 10 feet wide one way road serving
as entrance and exit. The parking garage is also the first stop of the four elevators and two stairs
that give access to the above levels of the building.

9
 Figure 5: Parking lot layout with road flow direction.

The gravity load resisting system of the building consists of simply connected beams and
girders, each extending 30 feet, that along with the concrete filled metal deck, make up the
composite deck. The floor structural design (Figure 6) is made so beams are spaced 10 feet on
center (o.c.) and, four beams, two in each side, connect to each girder. The metal deck runs
perpendicular to beams, with the deck dimensions dictating shear studs spacing of 12 inches;
and parallel to girders with two shear studs per row, spaced three (3) inches from each other,
and nine (9) inches from next pair.
Since girders have regions of low shear in between point loads, shear stud spacing is increased
and only three pair of studs are found in this area. The metal deck fill consists of a 5½ inch
lightweight concrete slab with welded wire mesh reinforcement as

10
recommended by deck manufacturer with fiber spray underneath the deck for two-hour fire
rating protection. All details for structural composite deck can be found in Appendix A,
Figures A1-A4 and Tables A1-A3.

Figure 6: Grade level structural framing layout - 30ft. beams @ 10ft. o.c. and 30 ft. girders.

The gravity load system columns are all W14 steel I sections that splice four (4) feet
above the third level. Corner columns have lighter sections than interior columns due to
assigned areas loads (Appendix A, Figure A6 and Table A4). W14 sections were chosen to
facilitate splice design since sections carry similar dimensions. All non- moment resisting
columns were modeled as fixed bottom and pinned top supports.
Gravity columns sections and details can be found in Appendix A, Figures A5-A8, and Tables
A4.
Although design was intended to be typical, member sizes vary due to their
serviceability. The first floor holds a gym and rehabilitation facility that required specific
location design due to increased live loads. The increase from 100 psf to 150 psf

11
resulted in larger sections in the specified area (Figure 8). Details and members sections can be
found in Appendix A, Figure A9, and Table A5. The building’s roof is currently designed as a
composite deck section with the lightest members of the building being unoccupiable.
Structural redesign of roof framing will be necessary once mechanical design has been
developed and HVAC unit weight and location have been established.

Figure 7: N-S elevation view with lighter columns at corner and splice above third floor.

The lateral force resisting system consists of two bays of moment frame in each side of
the building, adding up to a total of eight bays (Figure 9). The frames were designed to meet
maximum allowed interstory drift and resist seismic base shear since seismic forces governed
over wind lateral forces in this design. Period and forces for this structure’s design were
developed using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (ELFP) and can be seen at Appendix A,
Table A6. The location of SCSC assigns the building’s Seismic Design Category as D and its
serviceability a Risk Category II. It is important to note that the moment frames and beams do
not participate in the composite floor system and are the heaviest members of the structure. It is
also important to note that optimization of member sizes for this system is recommended, as
limits and other design criteria can be met with W14 sections in order to facilitate splice design.
Moment connections were not included in the scope of work due to their degree of complexity,
but plastic hinge locations and maximum moment at plastic hinge location were computed in
SAP2000. Details on design limiting factors, interstory drift, and member sizes can be found in
Figures A10-A11, and Tables A6-A7 in Appendix A.

12
Figure 8: Area that underwent redesign for increased gym loads

13
 Figure 9: Highlighted moment frames on two sides of building

Mixed Use Integration Building Layout

The design process for the mixed use integration building took multiple steps to reach
the final product. While size of the building was determined to be 150 feet by 150 feet and five
stories, the inside of the building had to be designed. Once the structural design of the building
was completed, a preliminary design for the layout was drafted based on online research and
intuition. The team then accompanied Santa Clara Alumni Gabe Alcantar on a tour of the
WeWork building that he works in to give a better idea of what the layout of a building like a
WeWork should look like. After the visit to the building, it became clear that this project’s
design needed to change. The building visited had a number of major differences from the
proposed design that make the building a much more effective workspace. The first change was
to downsize all of the cubicles and office spaces after seeing how small the cubicles were in the
WeWork building. The hallways were then made much smaller, and more use of the window
space was made. Finally, the team organized the design with meeting rooms and cubicles
primarily on different sides of the building with the elevator and maintenance equipment in the
center of the building, flanked by the restrooms. An example of a floor layout for a cooperative
work floor can be seen in Figure A-13 in Appendix A. The team ultimately decided to diversify
the type of offices and rooms in the building, as to cater to all businesses, big and small, as well
as cater to people who simply need a workspace. The team also had to make sure to slightly
differ the design of the first floor since there is a large designated space on the first floor for the
renovated Veterans Center. In addition to the Veterans Center, the first floor will also include a
gym and rehabilitation

14
facility as well as a daycare. An example of the ground floor layout can be seen in Figure A-12
in Appendix A.

Design Summary of Apartment Buildings

The two apartment buildings on the team’s site are identical so the design of one was
only needed. The building totals 165 units, 90 parking spaces, and is just under 70 feet tall at its
highest point. It is a five story building with floors two through five being light frame wood
construction, Type VA construction, and the ground floor being a concrete podium that the
frame sits on, Type IA construction. The building underwent one major change in that an
underground story was added. This is to add to the 90 parking spaces on the ground floor. This
change is needed because there is a parking requirement of one parking space per dwelling unit.
The design of the concrete podium or underground parking was not in the project scope but it is
assumed that at least 165 parking spaces will result from the underground parking addition.
Figure 10 shows an elevation view of the apartment complex with the type of construction for
each level labeled. One thing to note is that while it does say senior housing apartments, all of
the senior, low income, and market rate housing will be in both of the two apartment buildings
as it allows for individuals to be around various types of people.

Figure 10: Elevation view of apartment building with construction types indicated.

Of the four floors of light frame wood construction, floor three and four, which are
identical, were the largest square footage. Due to this fact, these were the floors that were the
focus for the design. For the floorplan there are three unit types that are identical that are
constant throughout the entire building. There is a studio unit that is 420 SF, one bedroom unit
that is 526 SF, and a two bedroom unit that is 720 SF. These three unit types can be shown in
Figure 11. The fact that there are only three unit types made the design of the building much
easier, as the design of each unit only needed to be done once and then carried out throughout
the building.

15
Figure 11: All three unit types in building: studio (left), one bedroom (middle), and two bedroom (right).

For the floor framing it was decided to use engineered wood I-joists over sawn lumber
because engineered wood I-joists have much better performance and can span much farther.
They also produce less waste than traditional floor framing in sawn lumber. Lastly, they were
chosen because they make the installation of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing of the
building much easier because holes can be easily cut through the web of the joists. The I-joists
were 11 ⅞” deep and either 2 ½” or 3 ½” wide. A complete picture with all the dimensions of
the I-joists can be seen in Figure 12 below. These two sizes are consistent throughout the entire
building. The joist are from Weyerhaeuser Company, who makes a variety of wood products.

Figure 12: Dimensions of two I-joists that will be used.

Figure 13 shows the floor framing of a studio unit. The unit is very small, so a single
16’ long and 3½” wide joist spans across the unit with a spacing of 16” on center (OC). The
manufacturer had tables of live and dead loads and allowable spans. From the table of a live
load of 40 psf, dead load of 25 psf, and subflooring of ⅞” thick

16
oriented strand board (OSB) it can be deemed that a span of 20’-9” is allowed for the 3½” wide
joist. The deflection limit of the joist also needed to be checked. The calculation of every joist
deflection can be found in Table B-1 in Appendix B. A detail at the end of the joist where it
intersects a party wall is shown in Figure B-1 in Appendix B.

Figure 13: Floor framing of studio unit.

Figure 14 shows the floor framing of a one bedroom unit. In this unit the joists span
about half the width of the unit and come together at a beam approximately in the middle of the
unit. A detail of what this will look like is shown in Figure B-2 in Appendix
B. This beam will be 3½” by 11⅞” so that it will be flush with the joists and studs it will sit on.
The spans of 12’ and 11’ were deemed to be allowed based off the tables given by the I-joist
manufacturer. There is a special case however, where the joist spans over the balcony, because
the live load became 100 psf. The maximum shear, 2,415 lbs, and moment, 6,310 ft-lbs, are
higher than the calculated shear and moment at this location. This calculation can be seen in
Figure B-11 in Appendix B.

17
 Figure 14: Floor framing of one bedroom unit.

Figure 15 shows the floor framing of a two bedroom unit. The floor framing is similar to
the one bedroom unit framing in that a beam spans across the unit and I-joists meet at that beam.
2 ½” wide joists span 11½’ and 3 ½” wide joists that span 17 ½’ as that is the longest span in the
building. It was first designed where the 17½’ joists would span the whole unit but after
calculations, the deflection limit where the joist was supporting the balcony was greater than the
deflection limit. Therefor the balcony has joists spanning the shorter distance. This special case
had to be done with hand calculations and can be found in Figure B-12 in Appendix B. A detail
at the end of the joist where it comes in intersects an exterior wall is shown in Figure B-3 in
Appendix B.

18
 Figure 15: Floor framing of two bedroom unit.

Figure 16 shows an example of the corridor floor framing that is consistent throughout
the entire building. The placement of the headers allows for a six foot continuous span
throughout the corridors of the building. A detail of what these orange headers look like can be
found in Figure B-4 in Appendix B. The live load of the corridors is 100 psf, much larger than
the unit live load, so hand calculations were performed to check the maximum shear, moment,
and deflection are not exceeded.
These hand calculation can be found in Figure B-13 in Appendix B. An interesting detail is
where the I-joists come together perpendicularly. This detail can be found in Figure B- 5 in
Appendix B. One thing to note is the 1¾” minimum bearing the I-joist must sit on.
Due to the I-joists being 2½” wide, 2x6 wall framing is needed in these locations.

19
 Figure 16: Floor framing example of corridor throughout the building.

Moving into the wall framing of the apartment building, douglas fir larch sawn lumber
was chosen as the building material. This is because engineered lumber was deemed not
necessary. For sawn lumber, douglas fir larch has the highest rated compression parallel to grain
value, making it a great material to use for wall framing and is a very common building
material in Northern California. The adjusted design values calculated for each grade of lumber
(select structural, No.1, 2, & 3) can be found in Table B-2 in Appendix B. For this calculation
the effective column length was reduced to 54 inches because the slenderness ratio is not
allowed to exceed 50. This means that a brace must be placed between all studs as seen in
Figure B-10 in Appendix B. All of the values such as the minimum modulus of elasticity,
reference design compression parallel to grain value, as well as other necessary factors were
obtained from the 2015 NDS for Wood Construction and NDS Supplement Design Values.
When comparing the design value from Figure 17 to the calculated adjusted design values
(Table B-2

20
Appendix B), it can be seen that the adjustment factors, determined based on allowable stress
design, result in a significant decrease in the design values that are used to size the studs.
Figure 17: Douglas fir larch design values from NDS for Wood Construction Supplement.

Once all of the adjusted parallel to grain values were calculated, the loads that each stud
carried at their respective floor were calculated. First, all the different types of bearing walls
were found based on the different loads going to each wall. As shown in Figure 18 below, it can
be seen that there are seven different types of bearing walls.
The figure shows all the different wall types for the third and fourth story of the building. These
wall types are the same on all four stories of the light frame wood construction stories. Wall
types range from walls shared between units to exterior walls and interior bearing walls. Any
walls in a unit that are not colored, as indicated in the legend, are non-load bearing walls. These
non-load bearing walls will be a standardized 2x4 grade No.3 lumber framing to maximize
floor space. Other walls that are not colored in, such as the stairs and elevator, are not part of
the team’s building design and thus are to be contracted out to another engineer.

21
 Figure 18: Floor plan with each bearing wall type labeled.

Figures B-6 through B-9 show the team’s load calculations for every stud, every wall
type, and every story of the light frame wood construction portion of the building. One thing to
note is that the worst possible condition was used to determine each wall type. For example, the
walls separating units, indicated in yellow, was standardized based on the wall between two
studio units. They were designed to this standard because it has the largest floor area framing
into walls between units. Table 1 organizes the size and grade of wood for each wall type and
each story of the building. When choosing wood sizes, interior bearing walls for the one and
two bedroom units were kept at 2x4 to maximize floor space, with fire and noise ratings not
needed to be considered. Meanwhile, for walls that are between units, exterior walls, or shared
corridor walls were kept as 2x6. This was due to a multitude of factors including fire and sound
requirements, as well as the minimum bearing length of joists sitting on top of the studs. The
fire rating for walls between units was found to be 1 hour while the sound transmission class
(STC) rating was found to be at least 50 for all exterior and shared walls. The Gypsum
Association has a Fire Resistance Design Manual with details of insulation so that the fire and
STC ratings are met. Figure B-10 in Appendix B shows a

22
detail of the wall framing of a wall that is shared between units. It shows that the studs are
sized at 2x6 spaced at 16” on center. They sit on a sill plate and are double plated at the top
where the joists sit. Between each stud there is a brace that reduces the effective column length
in half, resulting in better performance of the studs.

Table 1: Size and grade of douglas fir larch sawn lumber at each type of wall at each story.

23
Potable Water System Design
The first step in designing the water systems in the development was to finalize the
layout of the site. Once the layout was finalized and the team had established the building sizes
and location, the piping was laid out, as seen in Figure 19. In the case of potable water, there
was no need to take grading into account because all the pipes in the system are pressure pipes
and thus are not impacted by grading. The simplest layout was two mains through the site
running east-west and connecting to the main on both sides to ensure flow can run in either
direction. Once the pipes were laid out, the team used the Green Building Initiative’s (GBI)
Green Globe Consumption Calculator to find the potable flows and used 2016 California Fire
Code to determine each building’s fire flow. The flows are shown in Table 2, below, and as
shown, the fire flows are much larger than the potable flows and thus dictate the pipe size. More
specifically, the fire flows of the buildings dictate the number of hydrants and where they are
located, and ultimately it is the hydrants that govern the flow. Each hydrant demands about
1000- 1500 GPM of flow during fire flow times and thus must have pipes sized to meet this
demand. In the potable water system, the team made use of both existing hydrants as well as
hydrants added to limit construction and limit the sizes of the pipes. After placing the hydrants
as required by the 2016 California Fire Code, the team was able to size the pipes to be 12 inch
mains with 8 inch supply lines to the hydrants and lateral sizes of one (1) inches and two (2)
inches. The larger two inch laterals run to the apartments and Mixed Use Integration Building,
while the one inch laterals will run to the cafe and the townhomes.

Table 2: Fire flows for each building on the site.

Construction Area per Total Area Fire Flow Reduced Flow Duration
Building Floors
Type floor (sf) (sf) (gpm) (gpm) (hours)
Apartment 1 Type 5A 41878 3 125634 6500 3250 1
Apartment 2 Type 5A 41878 3 125634 6500 3250 1
Townhome 1 Type 5A 9126 3 27378 1750 875 1
Townhome 2 Type 5A 9126 3 27378 1750 875 1
Townhome 3 Type 5A 5475 3 16425 1500 750 1
Cooperative
Work &
Type 2 22500 5 112500 4750 2375 1
Veterans
Center

24
 Figure 19: Layout of potable water system with hydrants and pipe sizes.

STORMWATER SYSTEM DESIGN

The design of the stormwater system for this site was difficult due to how flat the site
itself is. To combat this issue, the team established two main areas that would contain the bulk
of the draining: the buildings through rooftop drains, and stormwater drains in the parking lot
and along the sidewalk. The general grading of the site, as shown below, is a slight downward
slope of about 0.7% from the southwest corner to the northeast corner of the site. This slope
dictated the design of the stormwater system, as shown below.
Each building has at least one roof drain, and each parking lot area or road has at least
one drain and in most cases has more than one. The largest pipe will be running through the
middle of the site from south to north with another pipe going the same direction on the right
side of the site just beyond the edge of the Mixed Use Integration building, as shown in Figure
20. All of the water collected will be tied into the existing system in the northeast corner of the
site. Using the rational method based on the area takeoffs shown in Figure 21 and tabulated in
Table C-1 in Appendix C, the flows in the system were estimated. During this process, it was
vital that the team verified that every area on the site drained somewhere. If this process was to
be overlooked, flooding on the site could occur and ultimately compromise the feasibility of

25
the site. As specified in the City of Santa Clara Drainage Manual, the system must be designed
for a peak 10 year, three hour storm. Using the rational method areas and the given peak storm,
the team determined that the pipes had to increase in size cumulatively as more area was
gathered, as demonstrated in Table C-2 in Appendix C. Each pipe was sized base on the
cumulative flow coming into the pipe and because of this, pipe sizes increased gradually along
the pipe system. The pipe on the east side starts at four inches, while the pipe in the middle of
the site starts at six inches. They both increase in size and ultimately tie in to the 15 inch
stormwater main in the northeastern corner of the site. The entirety of the pipe sizing for each
individual pipe can be seen below in Table 3.

Figure 20: Layout of stormwater drainage system.

26
 Figure 21: Rational method area takeoffs performed on site. Table 3: Tabulation of sizes

for all pipes in stormwater system.

Pipe Size (inches)
RD1 to MH1 6
MH1 to SD5 8
SD5 to SD6 10
RD4 to SD6 5
SD6 to SD8 10
SD7 to SD8 6
SD8 to RD6 12
RD6 to RD7 12
RD7 to SD10 15
SD15 to SD14 3
SD13 to SD14 4
SD14 to RD8 6
RD8 to SD12 8
SD12 to SD11 8
SD11 to RD7 8

27
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
The sanitary sewer system is a gravity sewer so it needed to be connected at the low
point of the site so that water can flow downhill towards it. This low point turned out to be the
northeastern corner of the SCSC site, making this the point where the pipes tied into the local
sanitary sewer system into the main. Due to the grading of the site, the pipe layout was
governed primarily by the slope from the southwest corner of the site to the northeast corner of
the site. Once the pipes had been laid out in the most efficient manner to maximize usage of the
grading, pipe flows were calculated based on the types of buildings and number of units, as
depicted in the Water and Wastewater textbook verified by the publisher’s board of professional
engineers for design principles, practice, and code. The table used is shown in Table C-4 in
Appendix C, obtained from the aforementioned textbook.
Once the flows were calculated for each building, as shown in Table 4, a peaking factor
of 4.0 was determined based on the development size and type as shown in Figure C-2. The
peak flow of 4.0 was used to find the peak flow for the system so that the pipes could be sized
for a peak flow situation. Finally, once the peak flow had been determined based on the
aforementioned peak flow factor, the pipes were sized based on a capacity of 50% to 80% pipe
flow (Figure C-3 in Appendix C), as is specified by code for sanitary sewer pipe systems. This
resulted in a necessary pipe size of six inches with four and six inch laterals to the buildings,
depending on the building size.
The apartments and mixed use building have six inch laterals and the townhomes have four inch
laterals. The entire system ties into the main in the northeastern corner of the site, as seen in
Figure 22.

Table 4: Tabulation of unfactored sanitary sewage flows for all buildings.

Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations
Building Type Units TYP (L/Unit-d) Estimted Flow (L/d) Estimated Flow (GPD) GPM
Appartment 1 Apartment 176 450 79200 20922.42 14.53
Appartment 2 Apartment 176 450 79200 20922.42 14.53
Townhome 1 Apartment 12 450 5400 1426.53 0.99
Townhome 2 Apartment 12 450 5400 1426.53 0.99
Townhome 3 Apartment 8 450 3600 951.02 0.66
Cooperative Work
Office 200 50 10000 2641.72 1.83
& Veterans Center
Café Restaurant 20 35 700 184.92 0.13
Total 33.66

28
 Figure 22: layout of stormwater piping system.

Conclusion
Through this project, the team was able to establish a community that is based on
integration and sustainability with an emphasis on integrating veterans into the SCSC
development. The work and final product produced by the team creates a framework to be used
by other developers in the Silicon Valley and worldwide in the coming years of technological
boom. The team created a development that is not only an excellent community for those
within through the opportunities to work, live and play in one space, but also a development
that benefits surrounding communities through ground floor activation. The team feels that
community must be at the forefront of any development and with the help of Kirk, the SCSC
development was able to create a community with an emphasis on the people in and around the
site as opposed to economic gain. It is worth noting that while the SCSC development may be
more costly in the short term, it is designed to be economically and environmentally viable in
the long term.
Each portion of the design was done with meticulous detail and designed to meet
required standards both in California and specifically in the City of Santa Clara. Not only was
design done according to code, but each design decision was made with the community
integration aspect of the development in mind. Specifically, the decision to integrate the
Veterans Center upon the recommendation of Kirk and the Office of Veteran Services proved to
be an incredibly powerful tool of integration. Allowing the Veterans to be part of a community
and ease their transition into the workplace is an

29
extremely effective way to empower the entirety of the Santa Clara community and not just the
area in and around the development.

30
 References

2016 California Building Code

2016 California Fire Code 2016

California Plumbing Code

AISC 341-10 – American Institute of Steel Construction Seismic Provisions AISC

360-10 – American Institute of Steel Construction Design Provisions AISC Design

Manual

City of Santa Clara Construction Standards

Davis, M. L. (2017). Water and wastewater engineering: Design principles and practice. New
York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Green Building Initiative: Green Globes Water Consumption Calculator. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.thegbi.org/

NDS for Wood Construction, 2015 Edition

NDS Supplement: Design Values for Wood Construction, 2015 Edition

Weyerhaeuser. (n.d.). Trus Joist® TJI Joist® Specifier's Guide. Retrieved from
https://www.weyerhaeuser.com/application/files/8015/2908/4132/TJ-4510.pdf

31
 Appendix A- Mixed Use Integration Building Figures and Tables

Figure A-1: Detail of cambered members in the building with deck span direction and stud spacing.
Camber is necessary to meet deflection limits.

A-1
 Figure A-2: Grade level framing plan.

Table A-1: First floor framing member table. Cambered also indicated in the necessary members.

A-2
 Figure A-3: 2nd - 5th floor framing plan.

Table A-2: 2nd-5th floor framing member table. Cambered also indicated in the necessary
members.

A-3
 Figure A-4: Roof framing.

Table A-3: Roof framing member table. Cambered also indicated in the necessary members.

A-4
 Figure A-5: North Elevation.

Figure A-6: Corner column. Green columns represent column 1 and blue column represents column 2.
Splice 4 feet above third level indicated with yellow line. Columns indicated in Table A-4

A-5
 Figure A-7: Interior columns indicated with red squares. View before splice, indicating columns from
parking garage to splice on third floor.

Table A-4: Column table. Column before splice called COLUMN 1 and those after splice, up to the roof,
called COLUMN 2.

A-6
Figure A-8: Interior columns indicated with yellow squares. View after splice, indicating columns from
third floor to roof. Members indicated in Table A-4.

A-7
Figure A-9: Gym area member detail. Members indicated on drawing and on Table A-6.

Table A-5: Gym area member table.

A-8
 Table A-6: Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure summary table. Allowed per code due to height of
building

Figure A-10: Moment frame. Columns in light blue, before the splice, called COLUMN 1. Columns
in purple, after the splice, called COLUMN 2 in Table A-7. Beams in dark red also indicated in
Table A-7

A-9
 Table A-7: Moment frame member table.

Figure A-11: Typical moment frame, column-beam connection detail. As required per code, these
connections need special weld in order to be moment resisting and require special inspection during
construction.

A-10
Figure A-12: Grade level facilities area.

A-11
Figure A-13: Second to Fifth floor office area layout.

A-12
Appendix B: Apartment Building Figures and Tables

Table B-1: Deflection calculation for all joists.

Figure B-1: Joist detail at wall shared between units.

B-1
Figure B-2: Example detail of beam that joists meet flush with.

Figure B-3: Joist detail at wall shared between units.

B-2
Figure B-4: Header detail for where joist would sit on top of an opening.

Figure B-5: Joist detail at I-joists meeting perpendicularly.

B-3
Table B-2: Calculated adjusted compression parallel to grain value for each grade of wood.

B-4
Figure B-6: Calculation of studs for walls separating units.

B-5
Figure B-7: Calculation of studs for walls between units & corridors.

B-6
Figure B-8: Calculations of studs for exterior walls.

B-7
Figure B-9: Calculation of studs for interior bearing walls.

B-8
Figure B-10: Wall framing at wall shared between units.

B-9
Figure B-11: One bedroom floor calculation of maximum shear and moment at balcony.

B-10
Figure B-12: Two bedroom floor calculation of maximum shear and moment at balcony.

B-11
Figure B-13: Calculation of maximum shear and moment of corridor floor framing.

B-12
 Appendix C: Water Systems Figures and Tables

Figure C-1: Farm area water demand calculation.

Figure C-2: Table used to calculate peak sanitary flow based on population and average flows.

C-1
 Table C-1:
Cumalative Analysis for Sizing Stormwater Pipes
Number Pipe Contributions Flow (GPM) Size (inches)
1 RD1 to MH1 SD1,RD1,RD2 237.13 6
2 MH1 to SD5 SD1,SD2,SD3,SD4,RD1,RD2,RD3 486.82 8
3 SD5 to SD6 SD1,SD2,SD3,SD4,SD5,RD1,RD2,RD3 512.95 10
4 RD4 to SD6 RD4 95.98 5
5 SD6 to SD8 SD1-6,RD1-4 657.78 10
6 SD7 to SD8 SD7 158.64 6
7 SD8 to RD6 SD1-9,RD1-6 1083.66 12
8 RD6 to RD7 SD1-9,RD1-7 1192.98 12
9 RD7 to SD10 ALL 1653.72 15
10 SD15 to SD15 21.04 3
SD14
11 SD13 to SD13 49.26 4
SD14
12 SD14 to RD8 SD13-15,RD9 172.30 6
13 RD8 to SD12 SD13-15,RD8-9 286.64 8
14 SD12 to SD12-15,RD8-9 395.98 8
SD11
15 SD11 to RD7 SD11-15,RD8-9 412.47 8

C-2
 Table C-2:
Rational Method Flow Calculations at Maximum Intensity (3 hours 10 year storm)
Runoff Intensity of Time of Time of
Drainage
Drain Acres Coefficient, Rainfall I, in/hr Concentration, Concentration, Q=CIA (cfs) Q (GPM)
Area (sf), A
C at 10 yr flow, I sec (using 6fps) min
RD1 5582 0.13 0.45 1.12 173.66 2.89 0.06 28.99
RD2 8990 0.21 0.45 1.12 142.16 2.37 0.10 46.69
RD3 23639 0.54 0.45 1.12 126.92 2.12 0.27 122.76
RD4 18482 0.42 0.45 1.12 107.58 1.79 0.21 95.98
RD5 3176 0.07 0.45 1.12 53.58 0.89 0.04 16.49
RD6 21051 0.48 0.45 1.12 31.42 0.52 0.24 109.32
RD7 21051 0.48 0.45 1.12 7.50 0.13 0.24 109.32
RD8 22019 0.51 0.45 1.12 58.66 0.98 0.25 114.35
RD9 9125 0.21 0.45 1.12 95.00 1.58 0.11 47.39
SD1 23318 0.54 0.60 1.12 144.49 2.41 0.36 161.46
SD2 3579 0.08 0.60 1.12 125.45 2.09 0.06 24.78
SD3 6639 0.15 0.60 1.12 116.49 1.94 0.10 45.97
SD4 8113 0.19 0.60 1.12 103.32 1.72 0.13 56.18
SD5 3774 0.09 0.60 1.12 98.16 1.64 0.06 26.13
SD6 7055 0.16 0.60 1.12 80.32 1.34 0.11 48.85
SD7 22912 0.53 0.60 1.12 60.66 1.01 0.35 158.65
SD8 8938 0.21 0.60 1.12 47.25 0.79 0.14 61.89
SD9 11487 0.26 0.60 1.12 36.92 0.62 0.18 79.54
SD10 - - 0.60 1.12 - - - -
SD11 9353 0.21 0.60 1.12 17.00 0.28 0.14 64.76
SD12 15790 0.36 0.60 1.12 52.16 0.87 0.24 109.33
SD13 7114 0.16 0.60 1.12 101.83 1.70 0.11 49.26
SD14 7887 0.18 0.60 1.12 90.16 1.50 0.12 54.61
SD15 3039 0.07 0.60 1.12 105.83 1.76 0.05 21.04
total 272113 6.25 - - - - 3.68 1653.72

C-3
 Table C-3: Pipe sizes for Copper Type K piping used in potable water system

Table C-4: Typical wastewater flow rates from commercial sources in United States

C-4
 Figure C-3: PVC sewer pipe capacities for 50% flow

Table C-5: Stormwater pipe sizing (2016 California Plumbing Code)

C-5