Loading...
Grading & Drainage CITY OF CAMPBELL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT Permit No DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS (for working within the public X-Ref.File. 70 North First St. right-of-way) Campbell,CA 95008 1,qi, C Application Date 6' (408)866-2150 Issued—4/ Application Expiration Date Fax(408)376-0958 Permit Expiration Date:qK U APN APPLICATION—Application is hereby made for a Public Works Permit in accordance with Campbell Municipal Code,Section 11.04. (Application expires in six(6) months if the permit is not issued. Application Fee is non-refundable.) A.Work address or tract# Utility trench location B.Nature of workl�Ut(1/t C.Attach four(4)copies of an engineered plan showing the location and extent of the work,and four(4)copies of the preliminary Engineer's Estimate of work. The plans shall show the relation of the proposed work to existing surface and underground improvements. When approved by the City Engineer,said plan becomes a part of this permit. D. All work shall conform to the City of Campbell Standard Specifications and Details for Public Works Construction; the General Permit Conditions listed on the reverse side;and the Special Provisions for this permit,listed below. Failure to abide by these conditions and provisions may result in job shutdown and/or forfeiture of Faithful Performance Sureties and cash deposits. (See General Permit Conditions I and 2.) E.The Contractor must have this permit and approved plans at the site and must notify th6 Public Works Department at least two days before starting work. Notice must be given to Public Works at least 24 hours before restarting any work. Name of Applicant, 65 PL- C� �/ TelephoneL'7 .� (print narn / Address S)4 1-ihr n�,, /'K 24-HOUR EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NO. 76--2 SS�' 'G K c E-Mail Address 9 R .�"!4,il K i i�i G✓ GU i., C',a 5 J - 't— I Is this work being done by the property owners at their own residence? Yes No The Applicant/Permittee hereby agrees by affixing their signature to this permit to hold the City of Campbell,its officers,agents and employees free,safe and harmless from any claim or demand for damages resulting from the work covered by this permit. The Applicant/Permittee hereby acknowledges that they have read and understand both the front and back of this permit,and they will inform their contractor(s)of the information. Applicant is advised that upon issuance of this permit, property owner, or property owner's successors,'shall be responsible for any and all damages arising out of the condition of ay pnv to rm rovemen in the public right-of-way. Accepted X L+�/irti1. �y` _C) �7 (6pplicant Permittee) (sign) Date [ Contractor (Print Na ) Date SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. Street shall not be open cut for underground installations. Minimum cuts may be allowed for connections or exploration holes. Such cuts may be specifically approved by the Inspector prior to cuttin.. _2. Pavement may be cut for underground installations and must be restored in accordance with the Standard Details Trench Restoration Method "A",unless otherwise approved by Inspector. _3. Work to be staked by a licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer and two(2)copies of the cut sheets sent to the Public Works Department before starting work. _4. Per Section 4215 of the Government Code this permit is not valid for excavations until Underground Service Alert(USA)has been notified and the inquiry identification number has been entered hereon. USA Phone 1-800-227-2600. USA TICKET NO. _5. Prior to any work,the property owner shall execute an Agreement for Private Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way,which shall be recorded. 6. Public Notification Requirements: ' —7. SEE PUBLIC WORKS FEE SCHEDULE FOR CURRENT FEES AMOUNT RECEIPT NO. C / PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $ U PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT $ j SECURITY FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE/LABOR&MATERIALS $ CONSTRUCTION CASH DEPOSIT $_,Y PLAN CHECK&INSPECTION FEE $ APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE I I IC For City Engineer Date Permit Expires 12 Months After Date of Issuance , t GENERAL PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. A Construction Cash Deposit is required. Charges will be made against this deposit if there is an emergency call-out,overtime inspection or when City ordered barricading is.required. Any such costs in excess of the deposit will be billed to the Permitter. 2. A one-year maintenance period and surety are required. Such period will begin on date of written acceptance by the City. 3. Refund of the cash deposit balance and refund or cancellation of the Faithful Performance Surety will be initiated by the written acceptance of the work by the City. 4. The Permitter must request in writing a final inspection and acceptance of the wort:upon completion. Acceptance by the City will be made in writing to the Permitter. 5. Maintain safe pedestrian and vehicular crossings and free access to private driveways,bus stops,fire hydrants and water valves. 6. A Construction Traffic Control Plan and a Construction Schedule are required for all lane closures, detours and street closures. This plan must be reviewed and approved prior to any lane closures. 7. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall conform to the Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones, dated 1990,available at Caltrans.-Traffic control equipment shall include Type II flashing arrow signs if required. 8. Replace as directed by the City Engineer any damaged or removed improvements in accordance with City Standards and Specifications at the sole expense of the Permitter. 9. Sawcut for all PCC or AC removals. All PCC removals shall be to nearest scoremark and shall be doweled to existing improvements. 10. Prior approval of inspector is required for any work done after normal working hours, on weekends or holidays and may require reimbursement of inspection costs at the current overtime rate. k11. Adequate signing and barricading is required on the job site. Failure to provide such signing and barricading may result in the City's providing signing and barricades and charging the cost(including all labor and materials)against the cash deposit. 12. Compaction testing of subgrade,base rock,and asphalt concrete by Permitter is required unless otherwise stated by the City Engineer. 13. The Contractor or Permittee will have a supervisory representative available for contact on the project at all times during construction. Contractor or Permitter shall provide a phone number at which they can be contacted outside the hours of 8:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. 14. No storage of materials or equipment will be allowed near the edge of pavement, the traveled way, or within the shoulderline which would create a hazardous condition to the public. 15. This permit shall not be construed as authorization for excavation and grading on private property adjacent to the work or any other work for which a separate permit may be required,nor does it relieve the Permittee of any obligation to obtain any other permit required by law. 16. This permit does not release the Permittee from any liabilities contained in other agreements or contracts with the City and any other public agency. 17. This permit is not transferable. Work must be performed by the Permitter,or his designated agent or contractor as specified thereon. 18. Call back(call out)due to emergencies regarding this permit shall be at the current overtime rate with a three(3)hour minimum charge per occurrence. 19. Pursuant to Chapter 14.02 of the Campbell Municipal Code,applicant shall not cause to be discharged any material into the municipal storm drain system other than storm water. Applicant shall adhere to the BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 20. If the public interest requires a modification of,or a departure from,the plans and specifications,the City shall have the authority to require or approve any modification or departure and to specify the manner in which the same is to be made for City-owned or maintained facilities. 21. Permitter must provide advance notification to all parties that may be affected by the permit activities. Notification shall be reviewed by City prior to .distribution and include dates of work and a contact name and phone number. Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all those providinwervices under the applicant are aware of and understand all of the above conditions. Applicant Date Contractor (Print Name) Date 7\forms\pwperm Rev. 11/9/05 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTILITY ENCROACHMENT&. MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT Effective July 1,2008 Zce (3oc.52 TO: City Clerk PUBLIC WORKS FILE NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS Please collect & receipt for the following monies: ACCT.. iTEM AMOUNT. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.. . 4722 Utility Encroachment Permit Application Fee UtilityArterial/Collector Street $585.00 Residential Street/Other Areas $325.00 Plan Check&Inspection Fee 4722 Utility<$100,000 Minimum Charge Per Location ($260.00) Conduits/Pipelines up to 500 Feet ($2.35/ft) Above 500 Linear Feet ($1.40/ft) ManholesNaults/Etc. ($130.00/ea) Pole Set/Removal ($130.00/ea) Street Tree Planting/Removal $150.00 **2203 Utility>$100,000* Actual Cost+20%** 4760 Storage Container Permit $130.00 4760 Project Plans&Specifications Project No. 4760 Standard Specifications&Details ($1/Pq$15.50/Bk 4760 Co ies of Engineering Maps&Plans Aerial Plot 24"x 36" $55.00 Aerial Print 8 1/2"x 11" $25.00 Aerial Search Fee $25.00 - Ma s and Plans 24"x 36" $12.50 4722 Penalties: Failure to restore public improvements $100/Calendar Da Muni Code Sec.11.34.010) 4722 Penalties: Failure to correct unsafe conditions $100/Calendar Da 47221 Work Without Permits 4 Times Applicable Fee :MISCELLANEOUS 511.74241 Postage Other Please Specify) *Engineer's Estimate shall be as approved by the City Engineer. " �{ TOTAL $ NAME OF APPLICANT NAME OF PAYOR r` "�G. �-- PHONE •]ls_-7 ADDRESS ZIP je'5_3 4- **Actual Cost Plus 20%Overhead Non-Interest bearinq deposit) FOR RECEI ED.B CITY CLERK { ONLY Date eaet t#.: �. _...._. J:tFORM%TemdatesVAdministrative\Receipt Foon Utility Enaoachment&M­08-09 Rev 10/08 S2 J :gGy: . . RECVD BY: ANNEB 01000215905 r zq: mmG #RIQ Tq#% 04/09/09 REGISTER DATE: 04Z0' TIME.- b a@ DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Emk6m»D FILING $S&m qS D= 1m55 3y§SID 9m & mebv RQm E ym.m my ID: Im: e W2+a«R ------ - . Taw DUE- TENDERED: 1845.00, ' qU+: «+ Z . \ ,� . -PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW ROUTE SHEET' DATE.; 00 -a I LI ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: PLAN CHECK NUMBER: � C DESCRIPTTON OF WORK: `f ;; f ,r _. 7-- f ND-P APPROVED: NO COMMENTS; DATE: APPROVED: CONDITIONS BELOW, 'NOT APPROVED; - RETURN TO BIJ DD\TG P RT APPLICATION PERMIT# }�L-0 2 )C_7 - �a s 1 �RI C� CITY OF CAMPBELL-BUILDING DIVISION DATE: BUR DING ADDRESS: [ 00 0 L )r!y C-4 t- >E e L SUITE PERAM TYPE: BUU DING, ELECTRICAL - PLUMBING MECHANICAL DEMOILMON­�\-- SIGN GRADING OTHER DESCRIPTION OF WORK SFD ICES.ADD REM M'COM NQX DEMO SIGNS(A) Wf�00�*-rt VS� VALUATION OWNER'S NAME: ! L 14 t FC C A Y PHONE#: ADDRESS: S C 5� T CITY: 5 A(. DL 1 CA ZIP: 0 Z- APPLICANT'S NAME: F)� , C C-5G�� fi b PHONE#: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: CONTRACTOR'S NAME: LICENSE# CONTACT PERSON: PHONE#: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: ARCHITECTlENG NAME: CONTACT PERSON: 7L•� C ��' `-7 LC /`'p PHONE#: WS ADDRESS: 16 2 S 7-f% X %E 610 CITY: ZIP: /2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: USED ON SITE: YES NO_ STORED ON SITE: YES NO (For use or storage of hazardous materials,provide a HazMat Formation Statement to the Fire Dept Hazardous Materials Specialist for review and comment FIRE SPRVOMERED: YES NO A.PN# 2 f r —013 *------------------------------• MetroScan / Santa Clara :-------------------------,. rOwrMfI :Harman Kfc Inv Parcel :305 21 013 CoOwner Bldg Id :1 Site :1805 Winchester Blvd Campbell 95008 Land :$679,173 Mail :199 1st St #212 Los Altos Ca 94022 Struct :$334,280 Xfered :02/07/2003 Doc # :16805642 Other Price :$955,000 Full Deed :Corporation Total :$1,013,453 LoanAmt Loan %Imprvd :33 Lender % Owned :100 VestTyp :Partnership IntTy Exempt LandUse :58 Com,Retail Not In Shopping Center Type Zoning :P-d TaxArea :10092 SubPlat 07-08 Tx :$15, 187.74 . Legal MLS Area :015 Census :Tract:5065.03 Block:l Phone MapGrid :853 E5 Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Rms Bldg SF :2,880 Units :1 Year Built :1971 Bedrooms Lot SF :18,295 Patio EffYearBlt :1971 Bathrooms UseableSF:18,200 Porch Garage Sp Stories :1 Lot Acres: .42 Elevator :No Garage SF Dining Rm Lot Dimen:130x140 Lease SF :2,880 Bldg Cond :6.5 Family Rm Pool Office SF: Bldg Class :6.5 Rec Room Fireplace: Sprinkler:Yes Bldg Shape :Square Cnt1Ht/AC :No Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representatrbns nr�nrrnnHor—to tho nr--,nr--lat--nfimfnrmnlinn—tni—d it thi,--t RECEIVE A kR 0 2 2008 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION Geotechnical / AS Soil and Foundation Investigation Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single Story Building 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California Prepared For: Edwin Bruce Associates 1625 The Alameda, Suite 610 San Jose, California File No. 08447-S February 2008 Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Engineers Geotechnical / Soil and Foundation Investigation Proposed Improvements — KFC An Existing Single Story Building 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California Prepared For: Edwin Bruce Associates 1625 The Alameda, Suite 610 San Jose, California File No. 08447-S February 2008 °1# T.1nc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers i 1 ASTADVANCE SOIL TECHNOLOGY, INC. Engineers,Geologists&Environmental Consultants 343 Baywood Avenue-San Jose,California 95128 Office:(408)-261-1155+Fax:(408)-261-1588 File No. 08447-S February 21, 2008 Edwin Bruce Associates Architects A I A 1625 The Alameda, Suite 610 San Jose, California 95126 Attention: Mr. Edwin Bruce Subject: Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single Story Building 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California GEOTECHNICAL / SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION Dear Mr. Bruce - Pursuant to your request and authorization, Advance Soil Technology, Inc. (AST) conducted a Geotechnical / Soil and Foundation Investigation for the Proposed Improvements to be associated with the existing single story wood frame structure located at 1805 South Winchester Boulevard in Campbell, California. At the time of this investigation, the subject property was occupied by one-story wood frame structure occupied by Kentucky Fried Chicken, a fast food restaurant with asphalt covered pavement, drive thru and drive way areas. Based on the information received from Ms. Franceska Gleason of Edwin Bruce Associates and the review of the forwarded information / conceptual site plan, it is our understanding that the proposed improvement at the subject property will include seismic upgrades to the building, underground utilities, flexible pavement section, some flat work and other miscellaneous items associated with them. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the existing soil conditions at the site and provide recommendations for the overall grading at the subject property, foundation, surface and sub-surface drainage, based on the physical properties and the laboratory analyses of materials underlying the site. In the proceeding sections, this report summarizes the results of our findings, conclusions and recommendations that are to be incorporated in the design process and during the construction phase of the project. The conclusions and recommendations are based on the soil conditions, physical properties, laboratory analyses and the materials encountered in s Proposed Improvements- KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-5 Page 4 our exploratory boring drilled at the site of the proposed improvement. Please note that all conclusions and recommendations presented in the proceeding sections of this report are contingent upon Advance Soil Technology, Inc. being retained to review the proposed improvement locations, foundation plans and grading plans and provide recommendations as deemed necessary, prior to construction and during the construction phase of the project. In addition, we shall observe and test any grading (earthwork) operations and observe all foundation excavation at the site. Most jurisdictions now mandate inspection and review letters to document the construction process. Please note that it is the sole responsibility of the owneror his representative to schedule the inspections for the purpose of documentation. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions derived from current standards of geotechnical practice and no warranty is intended, expressed or implied. This report is the property of Advance Soil Technology, Inc. and has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Edwin Bruce Associates, Inc. Any use of this report or presentation in any form by others without a written authorization of Advance soil Technology, Inc. will be done at their own risk and will be subjected to applicable laws. We are pleased to be of service to you in this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, ADVANCE SOIL TECHNOLOGY, INC. ` k�rcw yy C. Sao �Ir f ALvi%rza Al Mirza � ,�ti4 Alex A. Kassai PE/ REA Project Engineer "�`� Principal Am/aak/cj CC: File Copies: Enclosed (2) `:.+0C11nc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements- KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-5 Page 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS SOIL INVESTIGATION PAGE Front Page 1 Cover Page 2 Transmittal Letter 3-4 Table ofC ontent 5-6 1.0 Introduction / Site Description 7 2.0 Project Description 7 3.0 Scope ofW ork 7-8 4.0 Site Conditions 8 4.1 Surface Conditions 8 4.2 Field Investigation 8-9 4.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions 9 4.4 Groundwater 9-10 5.0 Laboratory Testing 10 6.0 Geologic Setting 10 6.1 Regional Geology 10 6.2 Local Geology 11 7.0 Geological Hazards 11 7.1 Liquefaction Evaluation &Analysis 11 7.2-7.6 Criteria for Evaluating the Liquefaction Potential with SPT 11-13 7.7 Lateral Spreading 13 8.0 Seismic Hazard Assessment 13 8.1 Seismicity - Ground Shaking 13-14 8.2 Peak Ground Acceleration 14 8.3 Ground Rupture 14 8.4 Regional Faults &Seismicity 14 8.5 IBC 2006 Site Characterization 15 8.6 Seismic Densification Settlement 15 8.7 Ground Lurching 15 8.8 Future Earthquake Probability 15-16 9.0 Conclusions & Recommendations 16-17 10.0 Plan Review and Construction Observation 17 11.0 Recommendations 18 11.1 Removal of Existing Surface and sub-surface structures 18 11.2 Subgrade Preparation for Building Pad Areas 18 11.3 Fill Materials 19 11.4 Subgrade Preparation for Parking Lot, Vertical Curb, Curb &Gutter 19-20 12.0 Pavement Design 20 12.1 Flexible Pavement 20 12.1 Rigid Concrete Pavement 20-21 12.3 Seepage Control 21 13.0 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Construction 21 13.1 Interior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 21-22 13.2 Exterior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 22 AST". Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers t J Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 6 SOIL INVESTIGATION PAGE 14.0 Foundation 23 14.1 Continuous Perimeter and interior Isolated Footings w/ interlocking grade Beams 23-24 14.2 Lateral Load Resistance 24 15.0 Active and Passive Pressures for Soil Retaining Structures 24-25 16.0 On Site Utility Trenching 25 16.1 Building Pad / Close to Building Foundation 25-26 16.2 Driveways / Paved Areas 26 17.0 Special Construction Requirements 26 18.0 Site Drainage 27 18.1 Sub-Surface Drainage 27 18.2 Surface Drainage 27 18.3 Drainage and Maintenance 27-28 19.0 Limitations & Uniformity ofC onditions 29-30 20.0 References 31-32 Appendix"A" Plate 1 Site Location Map Plate 2 Aerial View - Site Location Map Plate 3 Topographic Map Plate 4 Geologic Map Plate 5 Site Plan Plate 6 Key to Boring Log Plate 7-8 Boring B-1 Plate 9 Plasticity Index Appendix"B" Plate 10 IBC 2006 Seismic Hazard Analysis Plate 11 Peak Ground Acceleration Plate 12 Historical Groundwater Table Plate 13 California Nevada Fault Map Plate 14 Historical Earthquake Map / Epicenters of Earthquakes Plate 15 Magnitude/ Intensity Comparison Plate 16 Earthquake Probabilities S, £I'nc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers 6 i Proposed Improvements - KFC / An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 7 Geotechnical / Soil and Foundation Investigation Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California 1.0 Introduction / Site Description The subject property is a flat parcel of land located at 1805 South Winchester Boulevard in the City of Campbell - County of Santa Clara, California. It is located on the north-west corner of Winchester Boulevard and Latimer Avenue in a commercial / retail part of City of Campbell, California. It is a flat parcel of land and so is the natural topography of the area. At the time of this investigation, the subject property was occupied by a single-story wood frame structure surrounded with landscape areas and asphalt paved parking areas with driveway entrances and drive thru areas. The structure and the asphalt paved areas are currently being utilized by a fast food restaurant - Kentucky fried Chicken (KFC). The property was accessible from Winchester Boulevard located to the east and Latimer Avenue to the south of the subject property. It is bound on the north and south by an asphalt paved parking lot for Home Church and Latimer Avenue respectively. The east and west sides of the property are bound by asphalt paved parking lot for Home Church and Winchester Boulevard respectively. The purpose of this soil investigation was to gather sufficient data from the field investigation and to conduct laboratory analysis of the materials underlying the site and provide recommendations for the proposed improvements and other miscellaneous items associated with them. In the following sections, this report provides the details of this investigation, laboratory testing / analysis, results, conclusions and recommendations for earthwork operations at the subject property. Please refer to Plates (1) to (6) in Appendix "A"of this report. The general description referred to in this report is based on our site reconnaissance and the information / site plan furnished to us by the Edwin Bruce Associates. Please refer to site plan on Plate (5) in Appendix "A" of this report showing the boring location and the location of the proposed improvements with respect to the subject property. 2.0 Project Description Based on the information received from you, it is our understanding that the proposed improvements at the subject property will include seismic upgrade to the existing structure, underground utilities, flexible pavement section and other appurtenant improvements. 3.0 Scope of Work The scope of our work for the proposed improvements included the following: N -Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 8 ♦ A site reconnaissance of the subject property, location of the utility lines, boring location with respect to the areas of the proposed improvements and the utilities associated with them. ♦ Exploration of subsurface conditions by drilling one exploratory boring in close proximity to the areas of proposed improvements and retrieving soil samples for observation and laboratory testing. ♦ An overall assessment of the general surface and subsurface soil conditions at the site based on field and laboratory data and analysis. ♦ A laboratory testing and analysis of the field data to determine the physical and engineering properties of the soil underlying the site, including gradation, plasticity index, unconfined compression, cohesion and angle of friction. ♦ An evaluation to determine the suitability of the site for liquefaction. ♦ Recommendations for the foundation design, including design requirements for the slab- on-grade construction, skin friction and modulus of subgrade reaction. ♦ Recommendations for expected differential settlement of the structures. ♦ A seismic evaluation of the site including liquefaction, ground shaking, distance from the earthquake faults, seismic coefficients per the requirements of IBC 2006 and future earthquake probability. ♦ Design requirements for flexible and rigid pavement section. ♦ Design requirements for the pavement section seepage control. ♦ Recommendations for drainage requirement around the foundation and erosion control. 4.0 Site Conditions 4.1 Surface Conditions The subject property is a flat parcel of land located on the north-west corner of Winchester Boulevard and Latimer Avenue in a commercial / retail part of City of Campbell, California. It is a flat parcel of land and so is the natural topography of the area. It is occupied by a single-story wood frame structure surrounded with landscape areas and asphalt paved parking areas with driveway entrances and drive thru areas. The structure and the asphalt paved areas are currently being utilized by a fast food restaurant - Kentucky fried Chicken (KFC). The property was accessible from Winchester Boulevard located to the east and Latimer Avenue to the south of the subject property. It is bound on the north and south by an asphalt paved parking lot for Home Church and Latimer Avenue respectively. The east and west sides of the property are bound by asphalt paved parking lot for Home Church and Winchester Boulevard respectively. Topographic information was not available at the time of this investigation. However, our field observation indicates that the site is relatively level with the exception of the grade change on the north side of the parcel and so is the topography / street section. 4.2 Field Investigation The subsurface soil investigation at the subject property was performed on February 08, 2008. The field investigation included the drilling of one exploratory boring within / in close proximity to the area of proposed improvement to a depth of (50)-feet below the existing ground surface. A truck mounted drill-rig with an eight inch diameter hollow stem auger was utilized for drilling the boring at the subject property. Undisturbed soil samples were AIJTInc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 9 extracted as the boring progressed, by hammering a (2) inch O.D split spoon sampler into the ground. A 140-pound hammer 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. Soils encountered in the boring 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. Please refer to Plate (7) thru (8) in Appendix "A" of this report for the soil profile encountered during the drilling operation at the location of the exploratory boring drilled at the subject property. 4.3 Subsurface Soil conditions at the Site In order to determine the existing sub-surface soil conditions at the site, one exploratory boring was drilled at the site to a depth of approximately (50)-feet below the existing ground surface. The boring was drilled in close proximity to the areas of proposed improvement. Please refer to the site plan — Plate (5) in Appendix "A" of this report. Based on the information that was collected from the exploratory borings, the soils encountered at the site consisted of the following: At the location of exploratory boring B-1, an existing flexible pavement section of (2.5)- inches thick asphalt (1/2-inch asphalt overlay with fabric on the top and 2.0-inches of Asphalt below it) over (6) to (8)-inches of silty sandy gravel was encountered on the surface. Below this pavement section, dark brown silty clay to sandy silty clay with grayish mottling was encountered and extended approximately to a depth of (12.5)-feet below the existing grade. It was moist and stiff. At the above depth, dark to medium brown clayey silty sandy gravel to gravelly sand with rock fragments with grayish mottling was encountered and extended to a depth of approximately (18.0) to (18.5)-feet below the existing grade. It was moist and dense. Below this depth, dark to medium brown silty clay was encountered and extended approximately to a depth of (28.5) to (29.0)-feet below the existing grade. It was moist and very stiff. At the above depth, medium brown clayey silty sandy gravel to gravelly sand with rock fragments with interbedded clay layers were encountered and extended to the bottom of the boring — (50)-feet below the existing ground surface. It was dense to 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 and represents only an approximate location of the exploratory boring shown on the site plan. Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions may vary at other locations from the existing conditions that were encountered at the boring locations, due to the geological and environmental changes with the passage of time. 4.4 Groundwater Free groundwater was not encountered in the boring drilled at the site. 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, pumping water from the wells and other factors that were not evident at the time of this investigation. However, the localized perched water conditions may exist in this area due to excessive irrigation, over-saturated landscape areas, seepage from elevated parcels of land, rainfall or AS ..Jnc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 10 due to use of containment area for storm water disposal, bio-swales and elevated adjacent parcel of land. Please refer to Plate (7) and (8) in Appendix "A"for information. Based on the review of the CGS Seismic Hazard Report 058 - Liquefaction Map prepared for the San Jose West 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map - Santa Clara County, it is our understanding that the historic groundwater has been determined to be deeper than (50.0)- feet or more below the existing ground surface - for additional information, please refer to Plate (12) in Appendix"B" 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. Henceforth, in order to determine the consistency of the soil and moisture variation throughout the explored profile, all relatively undisturbed soil samples were tested for moisture content and dry density. The laboratory analyses were conducted in accordance with the criteria and guidelines set-forth by CGS Special Publication -117 "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, SCEC (1999) - Southern California Earthquake Center Report. 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. Henceforth, in order to determine the consistency of the soil and moisture variation throughout the explored profile, all relatively undisturbed soil samples were tested and analyzed for moisture content and dry density. To evaluate the strength characteristics of the soil for the foundation engineering design, unconfined compression and direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples collected at various depths. Atterberg Limits Tests were performed on the soil samples to determine the Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index of the soil samples. The results of laboratory testing are presented in Plates (7) thru (9) in Appendix "A" of this report. 6.0 Geologic Setting 6.1 Regional Geology Geologically, the site of the proposed development is located within the physiographic region known as the San Francisco Bay area, which itself is within the Coast Range geomorphic province of California, which is a series of northwest trending mountains and valleys along the western edge of the North American Continent. This region has undergone a complex geologic history of sedimentation,v olcanism, folding, faulting; uplift and erosion. The San Francisco Bay occupies a late Pliocene structural depression bounded by a series of nearly parallel mountain ranges with Diablo Range to the east and Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, which resulted from a down drop block of the Franciscan formation caused by faulting and warping. The northwest trending depression extends from Petaluma Valley on the north to Santa Clara Valley on the south. The bay is bound by the East Bay Hills to the east and the San Francisco-Marin Peninsulas to the west. The sediments in and around the bay are composed of mostly broad alluvial fans, flood plains, deltantic and marine deposits. These deposits vary in composition from alluvial sands, silts and clays to marshy deposits of the San Francisco Bay. IS 07 O' Alnc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-5 Page 11 6.2 Local Geology To identify and characterize the site, geologic maps of the San Jose West Quadrangle and CGS Seismic Hazard Zone Open File Report were reviewed to identify the geological conditions at the site. Review of the San Jose West 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Geologic Map by (Kevin B. Clahan, Elise Mattison and Anne M. Rosinski) and the quaternary units mapped by Knudsen and others in 2000 indicates that the site and the surrounding areas are underlain with Holocene alluvial fan deposits, Holocene alluvial fan levee deposits and modern stream channel deposits. The exploratory boring drilled at the site mostly encountered Holocene alluvial fan deposits consisting of stiff to very stiff silty clayey soils with predominantly medium to high plasticity and expansion potential on the surface and dense to very dense layers of coarse clayey silty gravelly sand and sandy gravels that extended to the depth of the boring. 7.0 Geological Hazards Since the site is located in a seismically active region, we have evaluated the potential for an earthquake induced geological hazards based on the geologic setting, existing soil conditions and the depth of groundwater at the site. The evaluation of the geological hazards that were incorporated as a part of this investigation included liquefaction, ground shaking, ground rupture, ground lurching; lateral spreading and differential compaction. A brief qualitative evaluation of the geological hazards was made during the investigation at the site and a brief summary concerning these hazards has been presented in the following section. 7.1 Liquefaction Evaluation and Analysis This report presents the evaluation of liquefaction potential at the subject property during a seismic event based on the recent publications and standards set-forth by CGS and SCEC. 7.2 Criteria for Evaluating the Liquefaction Potential with SPT Liquefaction is the transformation of clean, loose saturated sand and silt (cohesionless soil) and some sensitive clayey silt soil from a solid state to a semi-liquid state. This transformation occurs during a seismic event / ground shaking, when soil is subjected to cyclic stresses that cause increase in hydrostatic pressure that induces liquefaction. The resulting upward flow of water will often turn cohesionless soil into a liquefied condition (loss of density). At the ground surface, liquefaction is manifested by the formation of sand boils, ground cracking, and lateral spreading and in some cases development of quicksand like conditions, which results in the settlement or movement of the structures. Cohesive soils are generally not considered susceptible to soil liquefaction. However, the soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to moderately dense, saturated granular soils. Sensitive clays are vulnerable to significant strength loss under relatively minor strains. For general liquefaction potential evaluation, CGS (California Geological Survey) Special Publication 117 provided guidelines and requirements for evaluation of the liquefaction at a specific site along with a report by Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) that provides guidelines for implementation of Special Publication 117 with regard to an in-depth liquefaction potential evaluation. As per guidelines of SCEC and with respect to the A$ Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements— KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 12 requirement of Special Publication 117, to evaluate the liquefaction potential at any site, screening process for liquefaction was established as follows: ♦ 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. ♦ If clayey soils are encountered during site exploration, then the clayey soil shall comply with the following characteristics (Percent passing 0.005 mm < 15, LL<35, and water content >0.9xLL). If above condition exist at a site, then no further investigation is needed and the site is considered as non-liquefiable. However, if such conditions do not exist or cannot be fully evaluated, then a detailed investigation is required to evaluate the liquefaction potential. 7.3 Peak Ground Acceleration The maximum horizontal acceleration at the ground surface is also known as the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the ground motion caused during a seismic event is also characterized as ground surface displacement, velocity and acceleration. The design based peak ground acceleration (PGA) for this liquefaction study has been anticipated to be 0.57g to 0.62g (source: CGS) for additional information, please refer to Plate (11) in Appendix"B" of this report. However the UBE (Upper Bound Earthquake) Peak Ground Acceleration is anticipated to be 0.60g (2002 data) and 0.73g (1996) data respectively. 7.4 Historic Groundwater Based on the review of the CGS Seismic Hazard Report 058 - Liquefaction Map prepared for the San Jose West 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map - Santa Clara County, it is our understanding that the historic groundwater has been determined to be deeper than (50.0)- feet or more below the existing ground surface - for additional information, please refer to Plate (12) in Appendix"B" of this report. 7.5 Factor of Safety against Liquefaction The factor of safety against liquefaction is defined as follows: (FS) = CRR/CSR The higher the safety factor, the more resistant the soil is to liquefaction. A factor of safety against liquefaction greater than 1.3 indicates that the level of risk associated with liquefaction hazard is acceptable. A factor of safety against liquefaction less than 1.3 indicates that an evaluation of the hazard associated with potential liquefaction of the suspected liquefiable soil layers should be analyzed to determine the settlement due to liquefaction. The potential hazard includes liquefaction induced ground surface settlements and liquefaction induced ground damage. 7.6 Summary of Analysis Based on the results of the site investigation and laboratory analysis, it is our professional opinion that the potentially liquefiable materials were encountered in the borings drilled at eInc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 13 the site, below the existing ground surface. These layers mostly consist of silty sandy clays, clayey silty sands, sandy silts and fine silty sands with varying degree of composition. These potentially liquefiable layers were stiff to very stiff and dense to very dense and appear to be consistent. However, since no groundwater was encountered in the boring up to a depth of (50.0)-feet below the existing ground surface and that the historic groundwater elevation is being considered to be deeper than (50.0)-feet by CGS, it is our professional opinion that the probability of liquefaction potential at the site shall be considered to be low. 7.7 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form ofho rizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or "free" face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. However, based on the review of the USGS topographic map, it is our understanding that the site of the proposed development is not located in the immediate vicinity or in close proximity to any creeks or open bodies of water. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the probability of lateral spreading at the site during a seismic event is perceived to be low. 8.0 Seismic Hazard Assessment 8.1 Seismicity / Ground Shaking The site of proposed improvements is located in a highly seismically active region of California. It is located within the seismically active region classified as Seismic Region 1. A board 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 anticipated on the San Andreas Fault, however there area other faults within this broad system that have experienced movement at one time or another. A large number of earthquakes have occurred in the past with some of the significant regional earthquakes, which included the 1838 San Francisco / San Mateo Earthquake (M7), 1858 Mission Peak Area Earthquake (M6.1), 1861 San Ramon Valley Earthquake (M5.7), 1868 Hayward Earthquake (M7), 1903 the two San Jose Earthquakes (M5.5), 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (M7.9), 1911 Calaveras Earthquake (M6.6), 1957 Daly City Earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (M6.9). Epicenters of some of the significant earthquakes (M>5.0) within the vicinity of the site are shown on Plate (14) in Appendix "B" of this report. The earthquake database contains seismic events exceeding over approximately 5500 from 1800 to 2001. The active known faults that are located in close proximity to the site of proposed improvements are Monte Vista-Shannon (4.8) km, San Andreas Fault (1906 - 12.1 km), Hayward (SE Extension) (16.3) km, Sargent (16.9 km), Hayward (Total Length) (21.4 km), Calaveras (no. of Calaveras Reservoir - 21.4 km), Calaveras (so. of Calaveras Reservoir - 20.7 km). These faults have the potential for producing a strong ground motion at the site during a seismic event. Based on the information from CGS maps of active known Faults - near source a zone, the site is located approximately (4.8) and (12.1) km from the nearest grid point of the main trace of the Monte vista-Shannon and San Andreas Faults respectively. AST,nc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 14 Secondly, the site of proposed improvements does not lie within the state mandated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. This special studies zone has been established to evaluate the potential for direct fault offset from a seismic event. Since no faults are mapped as passing through the site, the potential for direct fault offset is non-existent. However, due to the seismic activity of the San Francisco Bay Region, the site will experience strong / severe seismic shaking during the lifetime of the proposed structures. 8.2 Peak Ground Acceleration The design based PGA (peak ground acceleration) for this liquefaction study has been anticipated to be 0.57g to 0.62g (source: CGS) for additional information, please refer to Plate (11) in Appendix "B" of this report. However the UBE (Upper Bound Earthquake) Peak Ground Acceleration is anticipated to be 0.60g (2002 data) and 0.73g (1996) data respectively. 8.3 Ground Rupture Regional fault map illustrating the known active faults by U.S. Geological Survey for the San Francisco Bay Region indicated that the site in question does not lies within the state mandated Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Act of 1972 for Special Studies Zones. This special studies zone has been established to evaluate the potential for direct fault offset from a seismic event. The site is located outside of any special study zones defined by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Act and no faults have been mapped to be passing through the site, therefore the potential for ground rupture from faulting across the site could be perceived to be low. 8.4 Table I - Regional Faults and Seismicity Fault Length Slip Rate Maximum Fault Site (Km) (Yr) / Magnitude TYPE Hayward Fault(North Segment) 86 9.0 7.1 A Hayward Fault(South Segment) 26 3.0 7.1 A Greenville-Marsh Creek Fault 73 2.0 6.9 B Calaveras Fault(North) 52 6.0 6.8 A Calaveras Fault(South) 100 15.0 6.2 B Concord-Green Valley Fault 66 6.0 6.9 B San Andreas (Peninsula Segment) 470 24.0 7.9 A San Gregorio Fault 129 5.0 7.3 A Healdsburg Rogers Creek Fault 63 9.0 7.0 A Sargent Berrocal Fault 53 3.0 6.8 B West Napa Fault 30 1.0 6.5 B Zayante-Vergeles 56 0.1 7.0 B Monte-Vista Shannon 41 0.4 6.8 B Hunting Creek- Berryessa 60 6 6.8 B A! '' 'lnc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements— KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 15 8.5 IBC 2006 Site Characterization Based on IBC 2006, we classify the site the site of proposed improvements as follows: Site Class D — defined as a stiff soil profile with shear velocities between 600 to 1200 ft/sec or SPT 15 < N < 50 or 1000 < Su < 2000 psf in the top 100 feet. Seismic Source Monte Vista-Shannon Fault (Type B) Seismic Region Region 1 For additional information, please refer to the Site Specific Response Spectra on Plate (10) in Appendix"B" of this report. 8.6 Seismic 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 clays, clayey silty sands and gravels encountered at the site are very stiff / hard and dense to very dense. As a result, they are not susceptible to seismic densification settlement. However, the granular layers in borings primarily consist of coarse sandy gravelly soils which will be susceptible to seismic densification settlement. Therefore, we estimate that the settlement risk due to seismic densification settlement to be one-inch with a post earthquake differential settlement of 1/2-inch to 3/4-inch. 8.7 Ground Lurching Ground Lurching is a lateral movement of portions of the ground normally accompanied by fissuring perpendicular to the direction of lurching, and usually occurs along the embankments, such as unconsolidated and unsupported stream banks. However there are no open channels or banks located in immediate vicinity of the site. Henceforth, it is our professional opinion that the possibility of ground lurching at the site is perceived to be low. 8.8 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 (2003) has concluded that the probability of a magnitude 7.0+ earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area over the next 30 years is 62 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 62 percent, possibly as high as 90 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 NdUnc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers 1 � Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-5 Page 16 be low. However, strong ground shaking will be experienced at the site. The probability of the maximum moment magnitude earthquake occurring on the following segments during the next (30) year period and they are as follows; Fault Segment (30) —Year Probability Earthquake Magnitude - M = 6.7 (Percentl San Andreas Peninsula Segment) 21 Hayward North & South 27 Calaveras 11 9.0 Conclusions & Recommendations Based on the results of soil and foundation investigation, it is ourpr ofessional opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed improvement to be located at the subject property from the standpoint of Geotechnical Engineering, provided the conclusions and recommendations presented in the preceding and the proceeding sections of this report are incorporated in the design process and during the construction phase of the project. 1. The soil and foundation investigation at the subject property was performed for an at-grade structure with some flat work associated with it. However, if there are any changes in the nature / location / design / type of structure, then additional borings may be required to provide pertinent information and recommendations. 2. The near-surface soil at the site has been found to have a high expansion potential, when subjected to fluctuations in moisture content. 3. All the existing subsurface structures, piping, all other underground utilities, buried footings and other miscellaneous items (if any encountered) that are not being considered as a part of the proposed improvements shall be capped or removed completely, backfilled and compacted as per the recommendations established in the grading section of this report. 4. All grading activities at the site shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements outlined in the "GRADING SECTION" of this report. 5. The proposed improvements to the existing structure shall be supported on a continuous perimeter and interior isolated footings. For additional information, please refer to the recommendations outlined in the foundation section of this report. 6. All concrete slab-on-grade construction / cement concrete pavements shall be supported in accordance and in compliance with the recommendations outlined under the rigid / Portland cement concrete pavement section. 7. Advance Soil Technology, Inc. (AST) shall be given the opportunity to review all grading and foundation plans, prior to the final design for conformance to the recommendations established in the Project Soils Report and to make any additional supplemental recommendations, if necessary. Please note that all the pertinent plans shall be prepared by the Project Civil Engineer including the grading, surface and P�Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 17 subsurface drainage, cross sections for the drainage / surrounding areas associated with the project. 8. All the underground utility trenches on-site shall be designed and located in compliance with the 2:1 slope criteria with respect to the proposed building foundation and shall be backfilled / compacted as per the recommendation established in the underground utility trench section of this report. 9. Drainage shall be provided in accordance with the recommendations established in the "surface and subsurface drainage section" of this report. The drainage shall be inspected by our representative for compliance to the recommendations established in this report. Please note that all pertinent surface and subsurface drainage shall be designed and approved by the Civil Engineer of Record. 10. The contractors shall visit the site, prior to bidding the project. The contractor shall include and incorporate all the necessary provisions associated with the grading / earthwork activities associated with the site. 11. 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. 12. If any unforeseen circumstances are encountered during the grading operation, the engineer shall be contacted immediately for additional recommendations, if necessary. The purpose of this precaution is to minimize the chances of the grading work not being approved by the engineer. 13. Please note that appropriate changes and field adjustments will be made as deemed necessary by the Project Soil Engineer during the grading and construction phase of the project. No deviations from the project specifications shall be made except upon written approval / authorization from the Soil Engineer / Architect / Structural Engineer. Advance Soil Technology, Inc. shall be notified minimum of (48) hours in advance, prior to any inspection at the site. 10.0 Plan Review and Construction Observation All conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Advance Soil Technology, Inc. (AST) being retained to review the building location, foundation plans and any grading plans, prior to construction. In addition to the above, we shall observe and test any grading (earthwork) operations and observe all foundation excavation at the site. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to schedule the inspections for the purpose of documentation. Al T,_'l4nc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements- KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-5 Page 18 11.0 Recommendations 11.1 Removal of Existing Surface and Subsurface Structures All existing utilities, surface and sub-surface structures that will not be incorporated in the final improvements shall be removed, prior to any grading operation. These objects shall be accurately located on the grading plan to assist the Soil Engineer in establishing proper control over their removal. This is to include, but not limited to any existing concrete foundation / footings, utility lines, underground pipes, septic tanks, leach fields and any other improvements. A representative from our firm shall be present during the removal operation for further recommendations as deemed necessary in the field. After the demolition / removal of the existing subsurface structures and debris, the loose material shall be removed and the bottom shall be scarified to a depth of (12) inches, moisture conditioned and then compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. Additional fill material placed in the trenches shall be benched into the supporting material (to minimize differential settlement) with 2:1 criteria (horizontal to vertical) and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. The material shall be moisture conditioned, prior to placement in the trenches and shall be placed in lifts not exceeding (12) inches, depending upon the equipment usage. The material shall be placed and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. 11.2 Subgrade Preparation for Building Pad Areas After the stripping, clearing and grubbing operation, if there are any existing utility lines located within the areas of proposed improvement and are not a part of the improvements, shall be relocated, prior to commencement of the grading operation. The holes left by the removal of subsurface structures shall be cleaned of all debris, backfilled with clean on site soil, and compacted to not less than 95% relative compaction, using ASTM D1557 test procedure. This backfill must be structural fill and the operation must be conducted under the supervision of the Soil Engineer. After the above operation, the entire area of the proposed new improvements and five (5)-feet beyond the foot print shall be scarified to a depth of (12) inches, moisture conditioned (if necessary) and then compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D1557 test procedure, prior to placement of any fill material. Please note that for all concrete slab-on-grade construction, the upper/ top (18) — inches of fill material shall be primarily granular fill and shall comply with the specifications set-forth in the fill material section. The material shall be placed and 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). After achieving the required subgrade elevation, the required section of the free draining gravel 3/4-inch clean washed crushed rock shall then be placed and vibrated to achieve the inter-locking action (please refer to the structural section "Interior Concrete Slabs-On- Grade" section for additional information). AInc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 19 11.3 Fill Materials In general, on-site soil with an organic content less than 3% by volume and free of any vegetation or hazardous substances may be used as engineered fill to achieve proposed grades with the exception of the upper (18)-inches of the fill material below the concrete slab-on-grade. The upper (18)-inches of the subgrade beneath slab shall consist of predominantly granular with low 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 Percent Passing Sieve #200 between 10 and 20% Maximum rock size (3) inches No rocks larger than three (3) inches in diameter shall be used during the grading operation / in the construction of the building pad. All imported soil / material shall be approved by the Project Soil Engineer, prior to hauling it to the site. All grading work shall be observed and approved by the Soil Engineer. The Soil Engineer shall prepare a final report upon completion of the grading operations. The grading plan shall be reviewed by Advance Soil Technology, Inc. for conformance to the requirements of this report. The Soil Engineer shall be notified at least two days, prior to commencement of any grading operations so that he may coordinate the work in the field with the contractor. 11.4 Subgrade Preparation for Parking Lot, Vertical Curbs, Curb and Gutter After the demolition / removal of the existing asphalt, all the buried abandoned structures and underground utility lines that are not being incorporated as a part of the proposed improvements shall be removed completely without exception, prior to any other grading operation at the site. The holes left by the removal of subsurface structures shall be cleaned of all debris, backfilled with clean on site soil, and compacted to not less than 95% relative compaction, using ASTM D1557 test procedure. This backfill must be structural fill and the operation must be conducted under the supervision of the Soil Engineer. After the demolition and backfill operation, the area of 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. If soft, unstable / pumping areas are encountered during the grading operation, then they shall be addressed on an individual basis and the recommendations will be provided as deemed necessary. 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 section 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. Q'Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-5 Page 20 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 a minimum of 95% relative compaction. For additional information pertaining to the pavement section, please refer to the pavement design for the flexible pavement in the following section. 12.0 Pavement Design 12.1 Flexible Pavement Bulk samples of the near surface soil were collected for laboratory analysis to determine the "R" (resistance) value of the material for the pavement design. The following pavement section designs are based on the laboratory resistance "R"value of 5 of the near surface soil samples and for the assumed traffic indices of 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, and 7.0 for parking areas, automobile drive thru areas and heavy truck traffic areas. Since the specific traffic index was not provided for the design purposes, we have provided alternate pavement section design, which satisfy the State of California Standard Design Criteria and the assumed traffic indices are presented in the following sections of this report. Proposed Pavement Sections for an Designed R-Value of 5 Traffic Traffic Asphalt Class II Total Subgrade % Relative Index Type (inches) Base Rock Pavement Native Compaction (inches) Thickness Material inches inches 4.5 Parking 2.5 9.5 12.0 12 950/0 5.0 Parking 3.0 10.0 13.0 12 95% 5.5 Drive Thru 3.0 12.0 15.0 12 950/o 6.0 Drive Thru 3.5 12.5 16.0 12 950/0 6.5 Truck 4.0 14.0 18.0 12 950/0 7.0 Truck 4.0 16.0 20.0 12 950/b * Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate base - minimum R-value of 78 and shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer 12.2 Rigid Concrete Pavement/ Portland Cement-Concrete Pavement Rigid Concrete Pavement (Portland Cement Concrete Pavement section) will be required at the truck loading dock ramps, stress pads at the trash enclosure areas and where movement of heavy traffic is anticipated. These rigid concrete 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 rigid concrete pavement section shall consist of a minimum of (6)-inches of concrete over (8) inches of class II_base rock compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. We recommend that a combined modulus of subgrade / sub-base reaction value of 120 pounds per cubic feet be used in the design. In addition to the above, based on the anticipated loading conditions, we recommend that the rigid concrete pavement be reinforced with a minimum of #4 rebar spaced (18)-inches on center both ways placed at mid-slab depth to minimize cracks in the slabs. Our design is based on an R-value of 5 and AST',nc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So, Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 21 a 28-day unconfined compressive strength for concrete of at least 3500 pounds per square inch. We recommend that adequate construction and control joints be used in the design of the Portland Cement Concrete Pavements to control the cracking inherent in this construction. To minimize the possibility of migration of surface and landscape water into the base rock, which could lead to pavement distress due to softening / unstable subgrade and base rock section, we recommend that vertical curbs with vertical cut-off (witha minimum penetration of (4)-inches into the subgrade) should be constructed directly over six inches of base rock (curb and gutter section only) and the soil subgrade compacted to a 95% relative compaction in accordance with the test procedure ASTM 1557. 12.3 Pavement Section (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 inches into the subgrade. The vertical cut-off will limit the moisture intrusion / water seepage into the pavement section and thereby extending the life of the pavement. ♦ Another alternate recommendation would be to provide sub-drains behind the curb on the landscaping side. Sub-drains shall consist of a four inch perforated pipe. The pipe shall be placed in one-foot wide trench; minimum (18)-inches deep filled with clean washed pea-gravel, enclosed in a filter membrane. The pipe shall be placed with the perforations down and shall be discharged on to a proper downspout location. The trench shall then be capped with a minimum of six inches of native material. ♦ No utility trenches (irrigation lines, electrical conduits, plumbing, etc.) shall be placed close to the foundations along the side of the buildings. 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 is 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. ♦ 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. 13.0 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Construction 13.1 Interior Concrete Slabs-on-grade All structural concrete slabs-on-grade shall be a minimum of five (5)-inches thick, reinforced with a minimum of #4 rebar, (18)-inches on center both ways for shrinkage control to i . .'Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 22 minimize the impact of expansion and shall be designed as per the latest addition of ACI. In addition to the above, they shall be supported as follows: ♦ (2) Inches of clean washed sand ♦ Puncture resistant vapor membrane shall be placed in between the free draining gravel and sand for capillary-break; minimum recommended impermeable vapor membrane is 10-mil Visquine or moistop ultra. The vapor barrier should be sealed at all seams and penetrations. ♦ (4)-inches of 3/4-inch clean washed crushed rock / free draining gravel. The free draining gravel shall be vibrated to achieve inter-locking action (no recycled rock shall be used in the building pads). ♦ (18)-inches of non-expansive material or (18)-inches of lime treated material (Four inches of base rock and two inches of sand shall not be considered as a part of the non- expansive import material). The slab thickness and 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 110 pounds per cubic inch. Post-construction cracking of concrete slabs is inherent on any project especially where soil has high expansion potential. However, to minimize the cracks in the slabs, it is recommended that proper expansion and contraction joints be provided in the slab every (20) feet on center. The vapor membrane should be covered with two-inches of sand to protect it during installation of rebar and to aid in the curing of concrete. Water should not be allowed to accumulate in the capillary break or in the sand, prior to casting the slab. The areas where moisture infiltration through the slab is not desired, we recommend the installation of a water proofing membrane. The waterproofing membrane should consist of a pre-applied, self-adhering high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or high quality bentonite product. However, the waterproofing shall be designed and approved by the waterproofing consultant or the Project Architect. In addition to the above, the Structural Engineer shall incorporate moisture protection considerations in the design to enhance the performance of the slabs. 13.2 Exterior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade All exterior concrete slabs-on-grade including patios, sidewalks and walkways shall have a minimum of five-inch thick concrete reinforced with #4 rebar spaced (18)-inches on center both ways supported over eight-inches of aggregate base (class II base rock) and compacted subgrade and The subgrade and base rock shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 and 95% relative compaction respectively. 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 110 pounds per cubic inch. To minimize the cracks in the slabs, it is recommended that proper expansion and contraction joints be provided in the slab every (5)-foot on center. k7 Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Q k Proposed Improvements- KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 23 14.0 Foundation The proposed improvements to the existing structure shall be supported on a continuous perimeter and interior isolated footings. Recommendations for this type of foundation has been outline and discussed in the following section of this report. 14.1 Continuous Perimeter and Isolated Interior Spread Footings The base of all the foundations for all at-grade structures shall be supported on compacted bottom to achieve a uniform condition. All the excavated footings shall be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction to a depth of (12)-inches below the excavated bottom to achieve a uniform condition. The continuous perimeter and isolated interior footings shall be a minimum of (18)-inches wide and shall be founded at a minimum depth of (24)-inches below the proposed subgrade elevation or the lowest adjacent rough soil pad grade or lowest adjacent grade (whichever governs) for one and two-story structures respectively. At the above depth, the footings may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot for dead loads, 3000 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads, and 4000 pounds per square foot for all loads including wind and seismic, provided if the bottom of the footings is compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction and supported on neatly excavated level bottom. These allowable bearing pressures are based on factor of safety of 3.0, 2.0 and 1.5 for dead, dead plus live and seismic loads respectively. These maximum allowable bearing pressures are net values; the weight of the footing may be neglected for design purposes. 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 International Building Code requirements for seismic effects. The Structural Engineer shall design the foundation of the proposed structures, based on the usage and the anticipated loading conditions. Footings located adjacent to an existing building foundation, structure or an underground utility trench shall be designed such that the bottom of the proposed or the new footing shall be established at the same elevation as the existing footing or deeper. The design of the new or the proposed footing shall include surcharge from the existing structure, existing utilities and drive thru areas. 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 18-inches in height and the slope a series of such steps shall not exceed the 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 concrete for the footings is 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 l N ,Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers a i Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-5 Page 24 minimum of 2 to 3% over the optimum moisture content), prior to pouring concrete. If saturated, soft / unstable areas are encountered then they shall be excavated to a firm base. It is essential that AST inspect all the foundation trenches for depth verification (per the depth established on the structural plans) 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. Foundation settlements should be primarily elastic with significant portion of the total static settlement occurring during the construction process or about 1/2 of the total settlement and the remaining will occur within a month following the application of the building loads. The total foundation movement under static loads will be less than 3/4-inch with post construction differential movement of less than 1/2-inch over an assumed span of 40-feet. In addition to the above, as mentioned preceding sections of this report, we estimate the settlement risk due to seismic densification to be about one-inch with a post earthquake differential settlement of 1/2-inch to 3/4-inch. If these estimated post-earthquake settlements are not considered acceptable, then AST shall be consulted to provide additional alternative foundation recommendations. 14.2 Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance shall be provided by the friction between the foundation and the supporting subgrade / bottom of the footing. In addition to above, lateral load resistance could also be provided by the passive pressures acting against the sides of the footings, provided that the footings and piers are constructed neatly against the undisturbed native soil and that the top foot is neglected in the computation process. It is recommended that an equivalent fluid pressure of 280 pounds per cubic foot be used for design purposes. This passive pressure has assumed to act at a depth of one-foot below the proposed subgrade. The allowable passive pressure may be increased by one-third for resistance to lateral loading due to wind or seismic forces. 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. It is recommended that the foundation design be reviewed by Advance Soil Technology, Inc. for conformance to the recommendations set-forth in the project soils report, prior to final approval/construction. 15.0 Active and Passive Pressures for Soil Retaining Structures Foundations for any concrete structures retaining soil mass shall conform to the requirements outlined in the "FOUNDATION" section of this report. The retaining walls shall be designed for a lateral earth pressure of (65) pounds equivalent fluid pressure, plus surcharge loads. If the retaining structures are restrained from free movements at both ends, they shall be designed for an allowable active pressure of (75) pounds equivalent fluid pressure. The Structural Engineer shall include the surcharge loads (if any, such as surrounding improvements, including roadways, utilities and adjacent structures) and shall discuss it with the Soil Engineer, prior to the design process. Typically a uniform pressure A!✓jTInc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 25 distribution load is considered for surcharge loads. These values will be provided based on the condition specified by the Structural Engineer. Since the site is located in a seismically active area, all below grade walls shall be designed to resist a seismic pressure increment equal to a rectangular distribution of 8H in pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the soil retained behind the basement wall. This dynamic increment shall be added to the active pressure, which is provided in the preceding section for both cantilevered and restrained walls. The retaining walls shall be designed for an allowable resistive lateral earth pressure (passive) of 280 pounds equivalent fluid pressure. The top foot of native soil shall be neglected for computation of passive resistance. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used for retaining wall design. If the walls are subjected to surcharge loads, then they should be designed to resist an additional uniform pressure equivalent to one-third or one-half the anticipated surcharge load depending upon the wall is restrained or unrestrained. The above values assume a drained condition and that the equivalent fluid pressure does not include hydrostatic pressures. However, surface water or perched subsurface water can infiltrate and accumulate behind the walls. Henceforth, we recommend that a subsurface drainage be installed behind the retaining walls to promote proper drainage. A layer of at least a foot of gravel or drain rock shall be placed between the facility and the retained material. Either weep holes or perforated pipes (perforations down) shall be included in the design to conduct excess water from behind the retaining structure. Drainage may be also provided by a prefabricated drainage system, such as Mirafi Miradrain 6000 (Total drain system) and a 12-inch wide zone of class II permeable material (State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications Section 68-1.025) or by an open graded gravel wrapped in a layer of non-woven geotextile filter fabric (140N or equivalent). The permeable material or open graded gravel drain should extend from the base of the wall to depth (18)- inches below the top of the wall. The upper (18) inches of the backfill shall consist of compacted native material. A perforated PVC pipe (schedule 40) or AdvanEDGE pipe shall be provided below the base of the wall and shall lead to a suitable outfall location or to a drainage facility / storm drain system. Please note that all the pertinent plans shall be prepared by the Project Civil Engineer including all the grading, surface and subsurface drainage associated with the project. We recommend waterproofing below-grade walls that are also interior walls and a thorough review by this office of the design pertaining to facilities retaining a soil mass. 16.0 On-Site Underground Utility Trenching All the underground utility trenches on-site must be compacted to a minimum of 90% or higher relative compaction per requirements of the local agency / project Soils Engineer and in accordance with the test procedure ASTM D1557-latest edition. The trenches shall be backfilled as follows: 16.1 Building Pads The utility trenches in the building pads shall not be placed closer to the foundation (continuous and isolated interior footings), than the required 2:1 slope criteria. This means AS. c. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-5 Page 26 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 in the building pad could be backfilled with native material, base rock, quarry fines and cement slurry or with concrete densified fill (minimum three-sack slurry) all the way up to the required subgrade elevation. The material shall be placed in (6) to (8) inch un-compacted lifts and each lift shall be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. The required section of the base rock shall then be placed and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction as per ASTM D1557-test procedure. However, the utility trenches crossing the building foundation shall be backfilled with concrete / cement slurry with 2:1 slope criteria from the bottom edge of the footing on either side or with native material, a minimum of four (4) feet on either side of the footing. 16.2 Driveways / Paved Areas The underground utility trenches located in the paved areas shall be backfilled with native material, base rock, quarry fines and cement slurry all the way up to the required subgrade elevation. The material shall be placed in (12) inch un-compacted lifts and each lift shall be compacted to minimum of 95% relative compaction. The material shall be moisture conditioned properly, prior to placement in the trenches. The top foot of the trench shall be backfilled with native material and shall be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. The trenches shall not be backfilled with pea gravel or crushed rock, except as a part of bedding material. No jetting will be allowed / permitted at any time during the backfill of the material. When trenches are deeper than five (5) feet, shoring is required and shall be installed in accordance with O.S.H.A. regulations. 17.0 Special Construction Requirements The final exterior grade adjacent to the proposed structures shall be such that the surface drainage will flow away from the structures. Rainwater discharge at down spouts must be directed on to pavement sections or other acceptable facilities, which will prevent erosion in the soil adjacent to the foundations. Surface water should not be permitted to pond or flow adjacent to the building foundation. One way to alleviate this condition is to grade the ground surface (with a minimum of 2% slope) adjacent to the proposed structures such that water flows away from the foundation and the slabs. In addition, roof down spouts and surface interceptor drains shall be provided to carry off all excess waters to a proper discharge facility. It is very important that all future occupants properly maintain drainage systems. In landscape areas, to minimize moisture changes in the natural soils and fills, we recommend the usage of drought resistant plants and / or a drip irrigation watering system. In addition, the plants for landscaping, including trees shall be planted at a minimum distance of one-half the anticipated mature height of the tree from slabs or pavements. Utility lines that cross under or through perimeter footings must be completely sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the areas under the slab and/or footing. The utility trench back-fill shall be of impervious material for at least four (4) feet on both sides of the exterior footings. ASTlvnc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 27 18.0 Drainage 18.1 Subsurface Drainage (Foundation, Landscape Areas & Retaining Walls) In order to minimize the impact of water from the elevated landscape areas and the adjacent properties, we recommend that an extensive sub-surface drainage system be designed and installed around the perimeter of the building foundation, below grade walls and the landscape areas. All subsurface drainage system shall be designed in such a way as to draw water down to an elevation sufficiently below the underlying subgrade. The drainage and the waterproofing shall be installed / provided where applicable and shall be approved by the Project Waterproofing Consultant. It shall be designed / outlined on the civil plans by the Project Civil Engineer/ Project Architect of Record. The subsurface drainage, however shall be provided by a prefabricated drainage system, such as Mirafi Miradrain 6000 and a 12-inch wide zone of class II permeable material (State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications Section 68-1.025) or by an open graded gravel (clean washed crushed rock) wrapped in a layer of non-woven geotextile filter fabric (140N or equivalent material approved by the Engineer and no recycled material shall used for drainage purposes). The permeable material or open graded gravel drain should extend from the base of the wall / footing to within (12) inches of the top of the wall. The upper (12) inches of the backfill shall consist native material compacted to 90% relative compaction. A perforated PVC pipe (schedule 40) or AdvanEDGE pipe shall be provided below the base of the wall and shall leading to a suitable outfall location / drainage facility / storm drain system as designed by the Civil Engineer. The pipe shall have a minimum of 1/4 inch perforations, placed facing down behind the heel of the wall with a minimum slope of 2%. The pipe shall be placed on a minimum of (3) inches of to 3/4" clean angular gravel at the bottom and a minimum of (2) feet on the top of the pipe. The drains shall be encased in a filter fabric such as 140N or similar. Clean outs shall be provided at all major bends. 18.2 Surface Drainage Positive surface drainage (minimum 2%) shall be provided at all times adjacent to the building to direct water away from the foundations and slabs to a suitable discharge facility, during and after the construction phase of the project. Additional recommendation for drainage has been established in Drainage and Maintenance section of this report. Please note that all the pertinent surface and subsurface drainage shall be designed and approved by the Project Civil Engineer of Record. 18.3 Drainage and Maintenance Over the years as Engineers, we have observed that most of the foundation; slabs, sidewalks, walkways and pavement failures / distress is usually caused by water or aggravated by excessive water. In general water is an instrument of nature and could cause problems, if it is not controlled. The problems mostly associated with it are as follows: ♦ Erosion of soil adjacent to the building foundation. ♦ Expansion of clays. ♦ Slabs heaving due to seepage through the soils and the base rock. ASTInc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 28 ♦ Saturation of the sub-surface soils and base rock, thereby causing unstable conditions. ♦ Settlement of foundations, concrete slabs including walkways, sidewalks and pavements due to excessive moisture seepage and consolidation of the material. To minimize the above-mentioned problems in the future, the following suggestions and recommendations should be utilized to constitute proper maintenance procedures that will enhance the drainage conditions: ♦ Do not place any loose or un-compacted soils against or underground utility trenches close to the building foundation. ♦ Do not compact soil or material in the trenches by flooding it with water, commonly called jetting. ♦ Water should not be allowed to pond or flow close / adjacent to the building foundation. ♦ Erosion areas should be corrected immediately and any water flowing toward those areas should be directed away from it. ♦ Periodically check to verify that subsurface drains are not clogged. ♦ Check roof drains, gutters and down spouts to make sure that they are clear. Depending upon their location, roofs can shed large quantities of water during heavy rains. Without proper gutters or other adequate drainage facility, water falling from eaves may collect against the foundation of the building. ♦ Water should be drained into lined ditches or closed pipes that discharge into an appropriate facility. ♦ Correct any damage to the drainage system as soon as possible. Prompt attention to the minor problems could prevent them from growing into major problems. ♦ Remove any and all obstructions from the surface drains. Make certain that all drain elements are in good condition and have a proper drainage. ♦ Never connect roof drains to subsurface drains. ♦ Do not obstruct or modify any part of drainage system without professional advice. ♦ Do not over water or irrigate the landscaping areas. The sprinkler system should not be left on longer than required and never overnight. ♦ Above all maintain a positive drainage at all times. All water should have a cleared flow route away from the building. ♦ In general common sense and awareness is all that is needed to prevent any expensive or a serious damage. 1M1��KInc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 29 19.0 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed at the locations of the borings drilled at the site. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions of this report are encountered during any phase of the construction, or if the proposed construction differs from that covered in the report, our office should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be provided. This report has been issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative, to make sure that the recommendations provided in this report will be incorporated in the design and construction of the project by the Architects and Engineers. Necessary steps shall be taken to make sure that the contractors and sub-contractors carry out the recommendations in the construction of the project. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they may be due to natural processes or to the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. Additional changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside our control. This report should therefore be reviewed in the light of future planned construction and the current applicable codes. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions derived from current standards of Geotechnical practice and no warranty is intended, expressed or implied. Client to hold harmless and defend Advance Soil Technology, Inc., its principals, employees, agents and subcontractors from and against any and all loss and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, court cost, injury, damage, liability or coast claims arising out of the services performed and from any third party, except where it is proven to be the sole negligence of willful misconduct of Advance Soil Technology, Inc. If a claim is made against Advance Soil Technology, Inc., its principals, employees, agents or subcontractors and the plaintive fails to prove such claim is a timely manner, or if the litigation is otherwise withdrawn, then the plaintive shall pay all attorney fees and other costs incurred by Advance Soil Technology, Inc., its principals, employees, agents or subcontractors in their defense against any and all claims. No claim or action out of or connected with a project may be brought against Advance Soil Technology, Inc., its principals, employees, agents or subcontractors unless such action is commenced within one year of the final billing to the client. The client must give immediate written notice of any suspected defect and allow Advance Soil Technology, Inc. to review and re-evaluate their recommendations. Failure of the client to notify and allow Advance Soil Technology, Inc. to re-evaluate the conditions; will constitute a release from any and all liability. In view of the inherent risks involved with this type of investigation, the client limits the total liability of any claims against Advance Soil Technology, Inc. to the original cost of the fee paid for the services, and to indemnify Advance Soil Technology, Inc. their principals, AST' l��,Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements- KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 30 employees, and agents for all liabilities in excess of this monetary limit, including and all litigation costs. Services provided to the client by the consultant under this agreement are expected by the client to be conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by the members of the Engineering Profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the locality of the project. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Advance Soil technology, Inc. is not liable for any third party law suits and will not be a party to it. All claims, disputes, and other matters in controversy between Consultant and Client arising out of or in any way related to this agreement will be submitted to "alternative dispute resolution" such as mediation and / or arbitration, before and as a condition precedent to other remedies provided by law. The consultant potential liability to the client is the consultant fee. This report is the property of Advance Soil Technology, Inc. The limitations contained in this report supersede all other contracts, agreements, scope of work implied or otherwise, except those stated or acknowledged here within. This report has been prepared for the sole use of our client "Edwin Bruce Associates." Unauthorized / illegal use of this report by anyone without prior authorization from Advance Soil Technology, Inc. would release Advance Soil Technology, Inc. from any liability from the use of this report and would be subjected to applicable copyright laws. SI(nc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements- KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 31 20.0 References > 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. CGS, San Jose West Quadrangle, Santa Clara County, 7.5 Minute Series - Seismic Hazard Zone Report 058, Kevin B. Clahan, Anne M. Rosinski and Elise Mattison (2002) California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1973. Environmental geological analysis of the South County Study Area Santa Clara County, California. Preliminary Report 18. > E. J. Helley, K. R. Lajoie, U.S. Geological Survey, 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). r Earthquake Ground Motion & Foundation Design, Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, Seminar Paper, Fall Seminar, 1992. Idriss, I.M. (1985), "Evaluating Seismic Risk in Engineering Practice", Theme lecture No. 6, Proceedings, XI International Conference on Soil Mechancs 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 > 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. > 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 coauthored and published by both the DMG and USGS. Probabilities of Large Earthquakes occurring in California on San Andreas Fault, by Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, USGS open file report 88-398. p 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 - March 1999. lTlS .#,Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Page 32 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. r WGONCEP (Working Group on Northern California Earthquake Potential). 1996. Database of Potential Sources for Earthquakes Larger than Magnitude 6 in Northern California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-705. > 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). 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 1t11J Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements- KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Appendix "A" Plate 1 Site Location Map Plate 2 Site Location Map — Aerial View Plate 3 Topographic Map Plate 4 Geologic Map Plate 5 Site Plan Plate 6 Key to Boring Log Plate 7-8 Boring B-1 Plate 9 Plasticity Index AS ..Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Mkt is Lei rv- 71. MO IT fffr,Qzk Aver , £ ,y I r s Eyck ' r3 tevr~>Cr� k find Sk� ns` �eei�BI� �� Burban � San Carlos Sk ,� t'�� 4` (an 3 jy 1q i i1�81kttarSpT } Yf , �Iln � cotk4Sk ,; A� C87J `iv is AV '' �' 4 �e 3 :�{ 17j r x ¢, £yy�� ��{.S E { h �U tvrU.1��81 .r t� r a a ,cI liK d 7 3--�-, x i,. x '91 € x � MV­ "��, g € €$t¢ �ayne A �£I M.. 3 j i[..e"` "T?z .� �k f""-'"- 5 I ✓ "`` '' d'�S. i...»...-_ 1- � C, u. Sti y4COS51incht r QIVI;JI f�, LjY 71 � < r � t �' Haml n ko t"�kla ltan Aue Campbell,,( A 95008i31152' 4 1� �� � �87 LLL 1 £1 1 jjjj q l� z E 3y�i!d 1 l I E; .�,,y L 4Y'O I4 Sf Y , S�t $Ttljl�lt`I) V 3 i£ # ,J, t+ fj 17Jd V£ {jy t �s j r 1 , �h Beni Dr ,�� t�47 8 z, mi" £ W br S ►Y9'Y , SVw .r'" t� ll�0 13Y , m kti�kjfkeypa ' i x ` 7 c a rt s0•�� � �1 Mcc47V4 7s^t .... P� y i4Y$ ti` _ fan Tomas n f {11 £e 3 r ,4 CambH6 �� gi22 ti x i b f Y j '�fly"=y,, £ Vason� t j jaodardd a a 1 tfQ 4 tU / I � � E , ambr�a4 bark , ° ! , f V, ?.m d Los CfIQ rp; UTE4 anaJDrTslepuss InG. '` E�� ham. n L N Base Map : MapPoint 2008 by Microsoft Inc. Navteq 2007 Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechni Environmental AST Se Construction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 1 �� ''� � E R , � � Itil ����i�,l�����I���� IIV��•�ud����I�r � y, +� � ! r� `nj its #§ r... l :. t v + , e a ,3 ` u � � � I ! a � i�i VUIi .fl Locatio p-Aerial View Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental ASTConstruction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 2 .��-�� , a # ., .,_ =_aJ,— _TZ9'w is I „� a � •�, �^ € � as m �."� �. _ '�'' ss J,.;:._:.,�!„m, t �„> ��.ro �. _�.�-�� ��� � P €'� g ..,..,<,,«.,,....�. #��, ��� �a Q v. _�_, ,•e,. � --x l��,�� '"F`5 :� T'a ar'^. i:,. a ~ a. z- ra, "3^ ""•s i Y &7a8 ,a ,_.sr .�g:"xr* # ^: ..s'. fir *: a t awar ,�'" ,.. r € m�meK,, z ti v nW � � ��.a r° : �#4€�_ ..,., �`a ."� d""i _.���'w*�^�`^J1���a.x� � -- �2��" � m S•j �„ tv. -g s G3i 24R a^ � tic' T Inc err ¢ 3r � ' � �y d kj *�,Y`.+a....�..Irl J'��' t V ".,fir Y5 '� � ,. ... * 4 to } .. wN zr z yg' .eai �t t a .� a* a � ? Zt 3l err- p �c ^� s 3 t i a. y .: Fsc ,^"*rg ii &� s jr„�.-exc.. =✓ q E` �y �� �,•*:-.,!rr % ---^-`-.,�. Ce. � a ZY €� � ,� sw� �.Y..,' �� a � .. f rr'� ��. '�.,„ 9.,.��-� "" � t a�•.� �`a �q `. 1�g.,:.r-.� - j � YF ,Sa � ��t �)$���`�'��q; his 9 �, r'c.gpd2a, "°.-.-�•� �� ��, �� ``3��r�-' t a `w' - '-�,^. �"" 4 a b e.ua " 4 "'a^. a '`„rer°`., ,. ...�._ .,� �•' ;,w,.a. ..,.. _ tt� � -n.._��.">�"°a ,�s .Lei-^«.,---�i-,,W;,,...�`..�._,,.�.,.«�.�,.. m'.4�r.;9���.�C`:x_.� !r•� SCALE 1:24,000 E s o €tie > ... r U:1J U :q®p aW 9CCa0 A41a'KI .SOaYi 4�co 71YJ f= s a a acWULT€zt Courtesy CGS Seismic Hazard Zone Report 058-San Jose west Quadrangle Map(2002) Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental AST Construction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. BayWood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 3 E t c r+ ��,,� 3 a $ { T arh v £ t g ,�,a �,y'' '. lF �E t Rb g J44 T ar� � € E, •+•� r� kg ' �y { I I� R' 8fae9i _ E 1 h � 1 �` U I y � r &L as i,gX y 5.,5,...,✓i,` � � "" i'� � L �_ �sM .w�. � ..G. �..8izd 4�°i� #S ��� 4.}t:^� k� u I Ga i , r SITE xtj.1 tl RP Ij a � E E "Sl "A,k Q:11 Qt a � 3 k -g S ��E �.. � :,: � P«� �$ � �• � 3 r l�swq n ,h �� �i �� �ro u s � Eta r, , � V �, %`A, � IJ x, x � {(}+ dl S Y "Pot � .„� f P3 � ff Py s'a•>'/,f�� �'G� 9 h � R SCALE N ,rs; 1' '1tt!Y O Y.AF 30CG V. 4"U ::lSq 4aQl 'n'A FLLi 1 G llilpl nm Geologic Map-Kevin B. Clahan,Anne M. Rosinski&Ellise Mattison Source:CGS Seismic Hazard Zone Report 058-San Jose West Quadrangle Map(2002) Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechni Environmental AST Se Construction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 4 Kinxisen Helley and %Ventworth UNIT Helley and Helle37 and and others CGS GIS ancl Ot"ers 'W7e'sl"_'g others (1 994� others(1979) database (2000a) (1989), (1999) Artificial fill. of Qj1a af at Artificial fill O"Fer Ba*v Mud aflam af bm .Art ifivial fill.leyvee alf alf Asti f i6al Strewn channel ac ac Modern strealn ciminel QhC Qjisc Q11sc Q1 11SC Q1C deposits Qhc Latest Holocene. Qhf7Y andepo�sits Q11fY affirvial f Latest Holocene allwial fan levee Q111Y Qhly deposit-, Latest Holocene strean-, Qhty terrace:deposits Holocene San Francisco Qjibin Qhbin Qhbni Qllbm Qhbin Bay Mud _Q hbm Holocene ba,,M' - estwrine complex Qffe {Albs Qhbs Q11fe deposits Holocene alliwial filn deposit-, Qhf Qhaff,Qhfp Qlmt Qhfp Qliam,Qhac Qjif Qlr:p Qhf Holocene allirvial fan deposits,fine.grained Q711 Qhaf Q11ff facies — Holooene affurTiadl fan Q111 levee deposits Q0 Qhl Q111 Q111 Holocenealluviiiin, Qha Qha Qha undifferentiated Latest Pleistocene to .Holoceae allu-vial fan Qf Qf deposits Latest Pteisrocene to Holocene alluvial fan Ql Q1 levee deposits Latest Pleistocene to Holocene affirvium, Q2 QA undifferentiated Latest Pleistocene alluvium, Q13a Qp-af Qpaf QP-1+ Qpa Qpa undifferentiated Bedrock br. br L br Source-CGS(California Geological Survey) Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental Construction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure AST 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 4(a) F # a i { ' i aaad a az:. w _ �xt } Y F a •� g . } w4dP K. 4� w # aid: mresk e I +k, 46. a v a �v x 411- 40m g XQ r Ae!r� N -indicates Approximate Exploratory Boring,Location Site Plan-Courtesy Bagoye&King,Inc Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental An Existing Single-Story Structure AST Construction Services 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 5 PRIMARY DIVISIONS Group SECONDARY DIVISION Symbol Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures,little or no GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS c'W fines MORE THAN 1/2 (LESS THAN 5% FINES) GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures,with OF COARSE lottle or no fines COARSE FRACTION IS GM Silty gravels,gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic GRAINED SOILS LARGER THAN GRAVELS fines MORE THAN HALF #4 SIEVE SIZE WITH FINES GC Clayey gravels,gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines OF MATERIAL SW Well graded sands,gravelly sands, little or no fines IS LARGER SANDS CLEAN SANDS THAN # 200 MORE THAN 1/2 (LESS THAN 5% FINES) SIEVE SIZE OF COARSE SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands,little or no fines FRACTION IS SM Silty sands,sand-silt mixtures,non-plastic fines SMALLER THAN SANDS #4 SIEVE WITH FINES SC Clayey sands,sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour,silty SILTS AND CLAYS ML clayey fine sands or clayey silt slight plasticity FINE GRAINED CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,gravelly SOILS LIQUID LIMIT IS clays,silty clays, lean clays MORE THAN HALF LESS THAN 50% OL Organic silts and organic silty clay of low plasticity OF MATERIAL MH Inorganic silts,diatomaceous or micaceous fine sandy IS SMALLER SILTS AND CLAYS or silt, elsatic silts THAN #200 CH Inorganic clays and silty clays of high plasticity, SIEVE SIZE LIQUID LIMIT IS fat clays GREATER THAN 50% OH Organic clays clays and silts of medium to high plasticity,organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils DEFINITION OF TERMS CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 75um 425um 2mm 4.75mm 3/4" 3" 12" SILTS AND CLAYS SAND I GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE I FINE COARSE #200 #40 #10 #4 AMERICAN STANDARD SIEVE SIZES GRAIN SIZES SANDS AND GRAVELS BLOWS/ FOOT SILTS AND CLAYS STRENGTH BLOWS/ FOOT Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 Loose 4 - 10 Soft 1/4 - 1/2 2 - 4 Medium Dense 10 - 30 Firm 1/2 - 1 4 - 8 Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 1 - 2 8 - 16 Very Dense Over 50 Very Stiff 2 - 4 16 - 32 Hard Over 4 Over 32 RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY +Number of blows of 1401b hammer falling 30 Inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. (1-3/8"I.D.) split spoon(ASTM D 1586). =Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq.ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by pocket penetrometer,torvane,or visual observation. - ®-F3 e- Proposed Improvements - KFC Advance Soil Technology, Inc. An Existing Single-Story Structure AST Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental Construction Services 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California Plate No. 6 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California JAST Project No. 08447-S I Date: February 2008 r ` Date: February 08,2008 Boring No.: B-1 AST Project No. 08447-5 Plate No.7 Client: Edwin Bruce Associates Drille Exploration Geo-Services Location: 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell Drilling Method: Hollow Stem AST County: Santa Clara Boring Diameter: 8" Elevation: Boring Depth: (50)feet below existing grade Indicates Historic Groundwater table 0 Indicates Groundwater Elevation � � Direct Shear o Sample Description a T ( v v o y o m o m s F m y a a .z p ,� m E o '^ > a) n — U v, '� E E = 3 L� � c cA N n 'O (0 fJ f0 O C O a O C ._ O W (n o a J N (n In f1 ra O o U Q w U 0 1/2-inch overlay with fabric/2.0"thick AC over(6)to (8)-inches of silty sandy gravel, moist ` r 1 Dark brown silty clay 2 moist,stiff CL 1-1 13 101.7 18.4 10 500 3 4 5 grayish mottling,moist,stiff CL 1-2 9 96.8 16.0 6 ------- 8 -------- 9 Dark brown sandy silty silty clay with grayish mottling 10 moist,stiff CL '- 1-3 9 108.9 11.5 11 - - -- 12 13 Dark to medium brown silty sandy gravel to gravelly sand, grayish mottling 14 -- 15 damp to moist,dense GC 1-4 35 114.2 2.7 16 -------- 17 -------- 18 -------- 19 Dark to medium brown silty clay 20 moist,very stiff CL 1-5 17 108.3 11.6 21 22 -------- TT 25 moist,very stiff CL _ 1-6 29 116.7 13.2 26 -------- 27 ------- Date: February 08, 2008 Boring No.: B 1(cont) AST Project No. 08447-S Plate No.8 Client: Edwin Bruce Associates Drille Exploration Geo-Services Location: 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell Drilling Method: Hollow Stem County: Santa Clara Boring Diameter: 8" AST Elevation: Boring Depth: (50)feet below existing grade Indicates Historic Groundwater table Indicates Groundwater Elevation aci v Direct Shear oaj o o y o Sample Description a v y .2 o LL y o m c o a n .10 v, p ,� m ,°J, v c 4 ' ^ > a — U c E E m 3 >u c m t o o N N '0 1O LT f0 ru m c 2 d O C ti.� w O U) o a J N !n U) a m L o U Q U 28 29 Medium brown clayey silty sandy gravel to clayey silty gravelly sand with rock fragments,moist,very dense 30 GC 1-7 54 126.4 7.3 31 32 33 34 35 very dense GC 1-8 62 131.9 9.1 36 37 38 39 ----- 40 very dense GC 1-9 50/4" Disturbec 5.4 Sample 41 43 -------- 44 45 very dense GC 1-10 50/6' 112.6 5.6 46 47 48 -------- 49 - - 50 very dense GC _ 1-11 50/6" 117.0 7.0 Exploratory Boring terminated at a depth of(50)-feet below - 51 the existing grade 52 ------- 53 54 55 . r Plasticity Data Key Boring Depth Liquid Limit Plasticity Unified Soil Symbol No. (feet) % Index% Classification Native Bag'A' 2.0 46 22 CL Material Plasticity Chart 60 ,50 CH a .40 d; A Line c' PI=0.73 LL-20 30 CL MH &OH 20 10 CL-ML ML&CL 0 ............. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LigJld Lmitt(LL))(%)) FARMa• Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements -KFC Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental An Existing Single-Story Structure AST Construction Services 343 So.Baywood Avenue-San Jose,California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No.08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 9 Proposed Improvements- KFC An Existing Single-Story Structure 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard Campbell, California AST Project No. 08447-S Appendix "'B" Plate 10 IBC 2006 Seismic Hazard Analysis Plate 11 Peak Ground Acceleration Plate 12 Historical Groundwater Table Plate 13 California Nevada Fault Map Plate 14 Historical Earthquake Map/ Epicenters of Earthquakes Plate 15 Magnitude/ Intensity Comparison Plate 16 Earthquake Probabilities f`#ST s,l;nc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Proposed Improvements - Canopy City of Milpitas Corporation Yard 1265 North Milpitas Boulevard Milpitas, California AST Project No. 07440-S Plate No. 10 Site Specific Spectra Seismic Hazard Assessment - Seismicity/ Ground Shaking The site of proposed improvements is located in a highly seismically active region of California. It is located within the seismically active region classified as Seismic Region 1. A board 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 anticipated on the San Andreas Fault, however there area other faults within this broad system that have experienced movement at one time or another. A large number of earthquakes have occurred in the past with some of the significant regional earthquakes, which included the 1838 San Francisco / San Mateo Earthquake (M7), 1858 Mission Peak Area Earthquake (M6.1), 1861 San Ramon Valley Earthquake (M5.7), 1868 Hayward Earthquake (M7), 1903 the two San Jose Earthquakes (M5.5), 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (M7.9), 1911 Calaveras Earthquake (M6.6), 1957 Daly City Earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (M6.9). Epicenters of some of the significant earthquakes (M>5.0) within the vicinity of the site are shown on Plate (36) in Appendix "B" of this report. The earthquake database contains seismic events exceeding over approximately 5500 from 1800 to 2001. The active known faults that are located in close proximity to the site of proposed improvements are Monte Vista-Shannon (4.8) km, San Andreas Fault (1906 - 12.1 km), Hayward (SE Extension) (16.3) km, Sargent (16.9 km), Hayward (Total Length) (21.4 km), Calaveras (no. of Calaveras Reservoir - 21.4 km), Calaveras (so. of Calaveras Reservoir - 20.7 km). These faults have the potential for producing a strong ground motion at the site during a seismic event. Based on the information from CGS maps of active known Faults - near source a zone, the site is located approximately (4.8) and (12.1) km from the nearest grid point of the main trace of the Monte vista-Shannon and San Andreas Faults respectively. Secondly, the site of proposed improvements does not lie within the state mandated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. This special studies zone has been established to evaluate the potential for direct fault offset from a seismic event. Since no faults are mapped as passing through the site, the potential for direct fault offset is non-existent. However, due to the seismic activity of the San Francisco Bay Region, the site will experience strong / severe seismic shaking during the lifetime of the proposed structures. Peak Ground Acceleration The design based PGA (peak ground acceleration) for this liquefaction study has been anticipated to be 0.57g to 0.62g (source: CGS) for additional information, please refer to Plate (13) in Appendix "B" of this report. However the UBE (Upper Bound Earthquake) Peak Ground Acceleration is anticipated to be 0.60g (2002 data) and 0.73g (1996) data respectively, Ground Rupture Regional fault map illustrating the known active faults by U.S. Geological Survey for the San Francisco Bay Region indicated that the site in question does not lies within the state ASIfnc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers • 7 Proposed Improvements - Canopy City of Milpitas Corporation Yard 1265 North Milpitas Boulevard Milpitas, California AST Project No. 07440-S Plate No. 10 mandated Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Act of 1972 for Special Studies Zones. This special studies zone has been established to evaluate the potential for direct fault offset from a seismic event. The site is located outside of any special study zones defined by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Act and no faults have been mapped to be passing through the site, therefore the potential for ground rupture from faulting across the site could be perceived to be low. Table I - Regional Faults and Seismicity Fault Length Slip Rate Maximum Fault Site (Km) (m / Magnitude TYPE Hayward Fault(North Segment) 86 9.0 7.1 A Hayward Fault(South Segment) 26 3.0 7.1 A Greenville-Marsh Creek Fault 73 2.0 6.9 B Calaveras Fault(North) 52 6.0 6.8 A Calaveras Fault(South) 100 15.0 6.2 B Concord-Green Valley Fault 66 6.0 6.9 B San Andreas (Peninsula Segment) 470 24.0 7.9 A San Gregorio Fault 129 5.0 7.3 A Healdsburg Rogers Creek Fault 63 9.0 7.0 A Sargent Berrocal Fault 53 3.0 6.8 B West Napa Fault 30 110. 6.5 B Zayante-Vergeles 56 0.1 7.0 B Monte-Vista Shannon 41 0.4 6.8 B Hunting Creek- Berryessa 60 6 6.8 B IBC 2006 Site Characterization Based on IBC 2006, we classify the site the site of proposed improvements as follows: Site Class D - defined as a stiff soil profile with shear velocities between 600 to 1200 ft/sec or SPT 15 < N < 50 or 1000 < Su < 2000 psf in the top 100 feet. Seismic Source Monte Vista-Shannon Fault (Type B) Seismic Region Region 1 For additional information, please refer to the Site Specific Response Spectra in the following sections of this report. ASS '[Inc. Geotechnical / Environmental Consulting Engineers Sa "(g) Vs �Sd'(in) 19 ;. 18° . . ; : 1 .. .. r e f z .. - .... .._ E .` 5 - w a Cnh Q9 __._ ._.. _... Q $ ....... . _... t f 3 a i E Q6 _ . E 0 4 _ , ..... 4:3 .. . E a E r'., .. ........ a ...... ....... .. x z I Q 5d 0 DATASET #1 Design Spectrum Sa Vs Sd 5% Damping Conterminous 43 States 2006 International Building Code Lat - 37.290869444444446 Lon - -121.95015833333333 Site Class -Site Class D Fa = 1.0 Fv = 1.5 DATASET #2 Site Modified Sa Vs Sd 5% Damping Conterminous 48 States 2006 International Building Code Lat - 37.290869444444446 Lon - -121.95015833333333 Site Class -Site Class D Fa 1.0 Fv 1.5 f' Ap 1 6 ... _ ..._ .... , f t 3 E i F f f < I ! 1.2 iEt i 0 9 ...... ....; i t : < f } 0:8 _.... .. ... .. . . ........" _ , f "� ....... .. ...._-_.. a ........ ... _ , 06 i Y 0-5 0:3 .. ............. ..... .._. . . ..... . : ........ .. ..... .._ : .......... . . _ r v , 3} 0 01 . 0 2 =0 3r_0:4." 0 0 6, 0 7 0.$ 1:�3 1_ 4 . " 1; 5 : 1 6 7 9.8 �`"'1 9 2 '.2 1 T (sec} K x DATASET #1 Design Spectrum Sa Vs T 5% Damping Conterminous 48 States 2006 International Building Code Lat - 37.290869444444446 Lon - -121.95015833333333 Site Class -Site Class D Fa = 1.0Fv = 1.5 DATASET #2 Site Modified Sa Vs T 5% Damping Conterminous 48 States 2006 International Building Code Lat - 37.290869444444446 Lon - -121.95015833333333 Site Class -Site Class D Fa = 1.0Fv = 1.5 1 �N 45 C. � / `,- IN W FUN &� ,� #� 69 �aY� ��� °�i ��y5?i ' ,, �r �h`�.� 5.� " .,. �eta u<,: � �• � �°. �� ,����i�", y wY` S:�" 3 � � *�^, �m ��IDS a~ ��✓'�aaR�t,+$ .� ��' �, x .r'".� x� k I ..�,2"` a�?'*"��,,,'�,y '4�y,. "��- 4.F"��`8^�f�s""""�,,. �e� r.� � k e• ,�,Cs+. �rf ,K �b� � $,. D� :i�s�� �'�.� '� ,�°�,�, 4'�*s;�.-� .� f r�� s:£,'t`r -� � r�,y�rr • �,� #f 6 �.- � �#{y j �t�w�i�x � r°�a �a�� V, kj TE #✓���s� j SI �; I"�` k £4 (� ���� � y"� "'� t �n }�t �.'i r9,.. �4 i3� •� ""���t'.��.� ."a'-. r"^� �v ' .tee aL�ww � Val nj, 93 s7( ` 7 'fc `1� r �a� '}d�J r "", �S �a TC" ` � 01 i,...� r j€ u a `€ r,e6 ? "' e I se "`r FBI $ #, £ �, f�° F §YC � H ',;,"` Y & � ,,,dap l 3� 1C$ rr�y� P µ� �� `"°'�`•� � Y qr... ' a ,a x rr'� � rc a d x A! ��, Sta rr& Y g 71 f47. " gYYY g N 7"`"" ibIK 1.4 t dr 1�j_ C rl 1.5: 3 N N-1 li lra-S San Jose West Quadrangle Map- Peak Ground Acceleration Source: CGS Seismic Hazard Zone Report 058 (2002) Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechni Environmental AST Se Construction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 11 � 9 f jr F 16 Y ta k3V,,'�? 9 1y},y y' acyf, '&.y` `y�'K .a'. aK�* rn ,X' ,pay•b.P 3 .fe N s`FF � L 771 & 1 ? SP ° ­iG CCU d dam,ti Z �I„p � a € gc-F 5:,5 t f + #- 1�316. � as i� ..: t ,.� as ^•"��ttiV �`�? �`� 5 �a � 4t}� y a 1 #y 4 XkQ �I sue € . 3 s� E,°' ,,,,,a f' � ^^4 � `a try.^ ✓` �'..'°i 10 If as Ci # €i p 6d g� y 3 z ✓" 3 •7' of �- � d ,k 4 rC.r �.-�.�� � +y� �4'?, ��„a'4# � s 3 F.• � ` �``•`�-�' ^, {',� .,«� Sty ' '� 8 < 3 C} c� t a fir" `•" a �a ',� ...8 a � `�..� ^"- e n 4 N% SCALE Y Ii1.CNLRR San Jose West Quadrangle Map-Historic Groundwater Elevation Source: CGS Seismic Hazard Zone Report 058 (2002 e o e Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental ASTConstruction Services An Existing Single-story Structure 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 12 i 1 12 " 1210 le a r k m R 711f i g �(( I METERSABOV t ' ! i 1 SEA LEVEL ' 41 a, 4000 1 niTlfN 4200 M r l I 3800 17 3400 a '' i•_ 3000 ! 1 1sNil( 2000 2200 rE - 18nUo � mit 1400 wA , 9 x 1000 000 1 200 yY fj1.14A 0 rlwy 0 km f � J 25 r Miles -IN ..•. 0 I -r9 12211 Source-USGS&ANSS(Advanced national Seismic System) a a Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC ASTGeological,Geotechnical,Environmental Construction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 13 {{ 41" 4i✓ -x j 'ALi d 40' ' . Rik ;1 M$ rl u e h 38° e vx 35, 34' �3 33t�t}' 9 �.0 IOD km � a 32° tm. -126' •125° -124' -123' -122' -121° -120' -110" -118' -117' -116° -1 15' -114' Li 1700-1799 1800.1099 1900-1999 2000- Year of Earthquake Source-California Geological Survey(CGS) Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC AST Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental Construction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 14 Matinlitycle I 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, hUnIall 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 1, Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. 11. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Ill. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially j on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not Magnitude I Intensity recognize 11 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 Mercall! At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors Intensity disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motorcars rocked noticeably. 3.0 .9 V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some 3 dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects 777 .7, overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. ;-4 4.9, IV V1. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture 5.0 -5.9 VI -VII moved; a few Instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. .............. 13X, vll. Damage negligible In buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate In weil-built ordinary 7.0 and Vill or structures; considerable damage in poorly built or higher higher i��i badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Vill, 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; welt-designed frame structures thrown Out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with 731 partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. "J 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. XIL Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechnical,Environmental ASTConstruction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. Baywood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 15 �4. S.lrr'a Ater 4` N.P. " l ' 4trn.n�i:s rrv, 9 Petutrtessao 0 probability for one or more � • �".�. ,;� magnitude 5.3 of greeter 4`fo eartllquakes from 2003 to 2032. % � This result incorporates 14%odds, } wsr,ti;; 2 �t of quakes not on shown faults. # ;1 'air {}ufas�ncf T�an�Si �� < :`ail t r t1171i!�t� � ��G .�a O�o ' �r 21 % , . 14.�yss�rat i,i�araNzrs; '�,,� Q � •!"fcu�;banitirs is+csfts`a >San � 3% � X. y Altsa '", K r 1V rQ t .=y 1 tP v 0 iC�"Alt. ',, z �, g a 0 20 K_0t1ETEPS '4 ao Prol>andityxof rat gttatr3tl 9 ` © ,y 4 °ryu}-,a 6,7 or qr ae�zr 4� tiotni3o(.Tarr ttet ,$ ttret}3 era tl ir-d<c,atod ieull Increasing proltabili;y } ra rtlong fa,-ill scxjmor:ts 4" Exp ending urban arrias Al+-nterey Source-USGS Open File Report 03-214 Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region 2002-2031 The Working Group of California Earthquake Probabilities-2003 Advance Soil Technology, Inc. Proposed Improvements - KFC Geological,Geotechni Environmental AST Se Construction Services An Existing Single-Story Structure 343 So. BayWood Avenue-San Jose, California 1805 So.Winchester Boulevard-Campbell,California AST File No. 08447-S Date: February 2008 Plate No. 16 01 , 45-3 1/Z'TOT ARC L 4'-9 1 UTILITY POLE r 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT op ABOVE GROUND TRANSFORMER ; UNDERGROUND / UTILITY ACCESS ` ''/ r - STREET LIGHT / ' ` 8'-a' I �8-T' / 10'-0" LIF L / ' X O I I I I I / 45-3 1/7'TOT ARC L - X -- --------- ..x UTILITY POLE TRAFFIC LIGHT ` ABOVEGROUND IN ARC LEN�=6�'-6" UNDERGROUND NDERGROUND UTILITY ACCESS 6 F' STREET LIGHT X, I / 1 101-01. X. X. -- L x -Xl x ie ---------------- 03 , 45-3 1/Z'TOT ARC L -- Fj 1, UTILITY POLE A— AFFIC LIGHT N+< , op ABOVEGROUND ! X UNDERGROUND TRANSFORMER UTILITY ACCESS STREET LIGHT '' � I , i' i 1 '. 10'-0" x - -- --� --{ i IT X: - i I --1 Xi X-'-------X •'i I '� i. I ; I x j -- I` ------- ---------------- P. Rui1ding BLD2008-00508 Name:HUFYIBER DESIGN GROUP Updated: 5.'12.�'2008 BB General Address:'1505 S 'J1iI1JCHESTER BL Description: Master# 'Project: - t Biiding SITE GRADING, DRAINAGE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR (N) RETAIL USE F rElectrical _ Plumbing Woi-k Covered I)y t1lis permit ' Received: ���12f�Qa8 Building: Electrical: Plumbing: Mechanical: Re-roofing: Issued - _ Mechanical - _ _-INy_ Expires: _ _ hi Finaled:;�� ' — Type ofWork. Grading Site Improvements _-_ _-_ Re-Roofing I Existing Use- commercial Proposed Use: Type of Gonst.: ype !-B Valuation. $ description Occ. Glass: 2 �i Valuation: Census Gat.: Haz. Mat.: —'Fire SprinklersT ' ASTADVANCE SOIL TECHNOLOGY, INC. Engineers,Geologists&Environmental Consultants 343 Baywood Avenue-San Jose,California 95128♦Office:(408)-261-1155oFax:(408)-261-1588 File No. 08447-GPR May 12, 2008 Edwin Bruce Associates 1625 The Alameda, Suite 610 San Jose, California 95126 Attention: Mr. Edwin Bruce Subject: Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single Story Building 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard - Campbell, California Grading Plan Review (On-Site Grading Plans) Dear Mr. Bruce - Pursuant to the request of Ms. Franceska Gleason of Edwin Bruce Associates, we are presenting herein our comments regarding the grading plan review for the Proposed Improvements to be associated with the existing single story wood frame structure located at 1805 South Winchester Boulevard in Campbell, California. Advance Soil Technology, Inc. (AST) has reviewed the plans and details (Sheets 2 to 5) prepared by the office of Humber Design Group, Inc., dated March 17, 2008. The review of the above mentioned plans and details revealed that they have been substantially prepared in accordance with the recommendations established in the project soil report and the amendment letter to the soils report with the exception of the following: f� The vertical curb shall extend an additional four-inch into the subgrade soils instead of being supported on four-inches of base rock (no base rock under the vertical Curb). Please refer to Pavement Section (Seepage Control) on Page (21) of the soil report. We are pleased to be of service to you in this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, = ADVANCE SOIL TECHNOLOGY, INC. �eFOFESS� �"` ,� ..� •� 411 . Eli C34882 m A vit,'Lrza � � EXPIRES 30 •�� /��ex�2assa� Al Mirza �T:� - •�� Alex A. Kassai PE / REA Project Engineer OF C � Principal Am/aa k/cj = Copies: Edwin Bruce Associates Attn: Ms. Franceska Gleason O •CA,y Edward Arango,P.E. �4 '0� Associate Civil Engineer r City of Campbell 0 r 0 0 70 North First Street s� A. Campbell, CA 95008 o R C H A p G Phone: (408) 866-2166 Fax: (408) 376-0958 E-Mail: eda@cityofcampbell.com Transmittal To: John Humber Date: May 8, 2008 Company: Humber Design.Group, Inc. Address: 1164 Monroe St., Ste 9 Salinas, CA 93906 Re: 1805 Winchester-Grading Plans ❑ Urgent Q For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Enclosure: Redlined Grading plans • Comments: John, please revise the grading plans. Call me when you start the revisions as I' d like to talk to you about Sheet 4 (Detail D, concrete walk transition warp; Text in hatch/grey area difficult to read, possibly unbold it). Thank you. JALandDev\PIan Check CommentsMinchester 1805 Trans.DOC CITY OFCAMPBELL " ;Print`Form DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION 70 North First Street,Campbell,CA 95008 Ph. (408)866-2150;Fx.(408)376-0958 CHECKLIST FOR ON-SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE APPLICATION NO(S): ADDRESS: U+% Instructions: This checklist provides advance notification to applicants of the City of Campbell's final on-site grading and drainage plans and submittal requirements, Using this checklist will expedite your application through the City's review process. Prior to submitting a final on-site grading and drainage plan list to the City Engineer,please place an"X"in the space to the right of each item below to indicate you have complied with,or place"N/A"to indicate that the particular item doesn not apply. Review applicable sections, which are referenced in parentheses,before checking off each item. SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF ENGINEER OF WORK I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT,THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF TiJE_RR65-CT—,A C LETION OF THIS CHECKLIST,AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSION CODE,AND THAT THE DESfGNTS CONS T TH CUR NT STANDA S. , ` �FOFESSIO� 9 ignature D e p o inted Name: v7� bP.� r a NO. 20941 m ��Q 20 08 RCE#: Expiration Date: !J�' OF CAI- (SEAL) ITEMS COMPLY NOT APPLY CITY COMMENTS 1. GENERAL OK (- N/A 1. City standard on-site title sheet with applicable notes. 2. 24"X36"sheet size used,including City Standard OK N/A borders and Blueprint for a Clean Bay Plan Sheet. OK ('- N/A 3. Title Block/Scale/North Arrow Shown. 4. Plans must be clearly readable before and after `� OK N/A microfilm reproductions. / 5. Engineer's name,number,expiration date and OK F— N/A signature included on all sheets. tK 6. Vicinity Map shown(must be microfilmable). OK F— N/A 7. Sheet Index and key map included for 3 or more OK N/A sheets. 8. Cross sections as needed for clarity. OK tF7' N/A f� V" 9. All adjacent streets labeled correctly. X OK r N/A 10. Reference to City benchmark. ft.­f OK N/A Pagel of 3 t `COOMPLY NOT APPLY CITY COMMENTS 11. Existing and proposed property easement lines. 1 OK r N/A 12. Streets dimensioned(existing right-of-way, pavement,curb,gutter,sidewalk and OK F- N/A parkways. 13. Adjacent Properties labeled as to use. OK (— N/A II. GRADING 14. 1'contour lines(existing and proposed). r OK N/A 15. Existing and proposed building locations and OK F— N/A pad elevations. 16. Proposed elevations at high points,grade breaks, OK F— N/A and other significant locations. 17. Finished grade elevations at building corners. OK r". N/A 18. Lot corner elevations and the elevation at the OK N/A high point in the yard. r 19. Side and rear yard topography extending a OK N/A sufficient distance beyond property line(20' minimum to determine that proposed grading will not impede existing drainage patterns. 20. Existing and proposed fences or retaining walls. F7 OK N/A OK r N/A 21. Quantities of cut and fill in cubic yards. 22. Lots numbered and dimensioned per final map. OK N/A 23. Grading conforms to approved preliminary I-- OK N/A plans. 24. Sufficient elevations on adjacent parcels must be indicated to demonstrate that proposed grading (� OK N/A will not impede existing drainage patterns. III. DRAINAGE 25. Location and elevation of overland release to public OK N/A storm system shown. 26. Roof drainage outlets shown. OK N/A 27. Interior drainage facilities identified(catch basin, OK N/A pipes,swales,etc.). 28. Size,grate elevation and invert elevation of all inlets OK N/A shown and cross section of drainage swales shown. r 29. Pipe materials,slopes and sizes shown. OK N/A 30 Channelization of flows to adjacent properties (— OK V-1 N/A will not be allowed. 31. Construction of french drains will not be allowed. OK N/A Page 2 of 3 COMPLY NOT APPLY CITY COMMENTS 32. Sheet flow across public property will not be allowed. OK r' N/A 33. Runoff from impervious areas should be channeled to OK r N/A pervious areas. Direction of flow from impervious to pervious areas shown. i 34. Amount of proposed pervious area and proposed OK K� N/A impervious area(in square feet). r \ 35. Drainage calculations using the numeric sizing OK r7 N/A criteria,if applicable. 36. Calculations sizing the selected BMP based on results r OK N/A from the numeric sizing criteria,if applicable. Y_ 37. Dimensions,cross sections and slopes,if OK N/A applicable,of the selected BMP to treat the site shown. 38. Vegetated drainage swales,filter strips and/or other treatment devices shall be designed to store runoff �: OK OK and drain when at capacity. Elevations of swale features(i.e.top of swale,basin of swale,top of overflow grate,etc.)shown. IV. NOTES 39. Cityof Campbell GENERAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE OK (—; N/A NOTES are included on the plans. V. SEAL OF ENGINEER OF WORK 40. Seal of Engineer of Work shown on plans as follows: w OK N/A SEAL OF ENGINEER OF WORK: I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project,that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code,and that the design is consistent with current standards. The design shown hereon is necessary and reasonable and does not restrict any historic drainage flows from adjacent properties nor increase drainage to adjacent properties. I understand that the check of project drawings and O PROFESS/O rY specifications by the City of Campbell is confined to a t�Q�ort�IA- h4/*2 9�F review only and does not relieve me,as Engineer of C .6 2� Work,of my responsibilities for project design. (7 NO. 20941 m EXP 9-3at Engi er of Work Name,P.E. Dat `r>y CML P (Firm Nam prn4"'r�-Pe$; rLs _ OF CALIF ( i Add ss) 11 to M07 1eac; 1SITS 376Z (Firm Telephone) ��/r3r RCE# /�q'f/ Expiration Date: 3 O J:Reina\Website\Land Dev Forms\Checklist for On-Site Grading and Drainage STATIC form2.pdf Page 3 of 3 Rev.5/04 Project Job No. G 6 05 HuMBERDESIGNGROUP Client �(�td� 6ate �«•e-A ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING 1164 MONROE STREET SURE No.9-SALINAS.CA 93906 TEL:831.442.8100 FAX:831.442.8008 Prepared B Checked By Sheet_ Of ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........ :::r:::......................:................:.... ..... .. .. ... .... ... ... :... .:.. ..... .... ................... `�..................... ...... .............i........ ..... ..... .... .. . ... .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ... ...... ... ..... ........ ...... . ..... ... .... .... .... ..... Q �. 2ooB \`' S .� ........ ... :. ,,... .......... .. .........w -t�''�°........... s.....aZ,Co�.� � ....� ®•Z°� .......e ................. pp ............................. ... ..... ..... ... ... .. ... ... .... ..... .... ..... .a .... ...... ... .. ...... .... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ...... ....:... ...:... ...:... ..... S ....... ... .................... .. .... .. ........ ........... .... .... .....:... ..... ..................... ... .........:..... ... .......... ....................:...........:............:.. t • r� :.. ....:... ... �•...�5 i> Is... ...h .r....... . . . .............. .... ......... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .. ... ... ................................... ... ..... .... ....................................................... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ................... ..... .... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... .......... ..... ...... ... ....... ........ .... ... .. ... .. ..... .... ........... ..... .... .... ...... . _................................. ......... ............... ........................... ....... .).......... ....... � .. � �.3 ...._y... ............ .... . .. . . .. ... ..... .. ........................... .,..3... ..... ... ... ........ ..:. .............. .. ..... .... ... .. aS aC ... .......... ............. ............ tv ... ... ............. .... .... .:.. ..... ...... ..... .......... � . ....... ... �+.pe ... P��° ........... _..o•..�r2................... 1.13. �....... .... ..... ... ...:.... ...:.... ...:. ............. ..... ...... ........ ...:... ...:. :: . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ram,. r,s®.oil....... .. 0. 3� ...f�-s.. .. ...:. ... ..... .... ..... ... ... .... . . ... �. tv ...........:...........:...........:. � ......1. ....... ... .....:....... ..:............ .... ............. . . ...... ...... _. ..a ' _..:.... ... ... . ..:..... ...:... .I�.. .L� �c� ............................. .......... : ..... r-ss'Ei:.� �'. .,r..:`�•.N - :9�t-sji�!t!••_ I s�� a°r .� r:::.: . r_x3'a= :"sie•a t: is' flBie � • .Ir'I Nal e: .a EFIE's �•..-.- �.....:t��,.,:�„..�.��'•-".L-�r33---ZT-�7:3::::���� w7�EMat HaffiiS�l:7lri °I "s-ie...; � _?• ::. ;:.....r;,R;�ijE3 92 Ei° is Ic:1:33N'•EaE:i^i; x:E9_ -xEi- t.-. n'{unl:'1:aa•• • =offi lall isMa-■a■U4■:.KwalYe=£E::.11i1Ci•�S.:URB.Qti.i=• i•i'EiF KuUinOYiiLii�iYii}iI�u�'iaa :•:••i:•i:re'.r —YEARSTORM y► .. ■w ,,.r.! NN r K INCI....w...B: •C� :'•aaa'C:::'•lll �.�•,t• •� :aa i• - "'rim Ywn Infw..n wm Homo 4 ooun -row ■■■ uu • •••••• W�lfaa�.L C i = 1 7 7 7' _ ! a a•' H .1. Ma it ail. :t 1 f�`1 � ••.��■ li U Uu-"MY 1Y�.5 i:ii.iirin N.M. If.i..�ii iiii:• 'i1.t'i�ull �ikiin 1 n rIW NIOWN■f►...Y.:rBIWII. MNf■Y.�..WIII.1ww1.N .� .I,i.aRl11 / .RR////.■�/��1tt i► �Iltlr.-Iwlw/■Lt11/1w►11Off.f.0ltl.tlw1tl111w11N II Iw111N11r. 1N �.tN1 ww��pwf.f.rgg��OOM.'�11ttppw�t► Ytl..tR/IIIIIN.� 1 IIIn1�11N14N1y1N� 5—YEAR STORM 1111 R114NN� M1u/ �� 1�1 •►�,Wp �-/1.MWpII�pf lit t Ili Nn 1 ' �g r� M01. III1i YI 1 Ix111411 ■ ■ ■p�11 1 1 *, / �ir�m1, a luvro,��l I�ii�uwlun■■�i■=mw �u u � 1� :ate r :W^"'+� a~: 9c::: --'..�_ •"'•Nasc=• :=.. «e3 :._.per 5_� =e° . .-'.'�-_er•s..-', e tI�..�:: uHI i C ME"CC::.' N% , STORM :, .�' * _ ...•'��.a•f11..•'�'-�•• :■!•r111 1'n.11tln 11 VCI~B).1 I r.l.a.l�:::: t.....�11:■.u■i:.i w■niin.nNa"n{ w .wr am nUM nB.���li. .-Vix c► a: zr ce----•:=—�=s5e-.::.•=-C.�e:• •' sr.=� 11._3:=1.M•:::1•u fu •.wMl.W Nap .8�1�:..m�M1YA: ...::...•:.rrlrl..l...::::jjj,,,:a•:•'�VwM.:w~11./••• Y�Y.r�r .■■r W I.4.W11■M...R.....:Ilrrl� .. ■ff .■ n.Y...B■ ■IVt 1 f �. tp`, SOa'!!Tr-�-1 .wm4a Np11IB u_�.�.�w�M.�1W�111 w�i ■■■CC =. ._.o. 'w'•i in. NIN1�fY�.ni.n.�llYlltl w fff ■..Cn MW Na. s=..�a �=-zseM'iea::se •- i:e:�rse�al::e ••e:-riir7BEE""-- ee.s�E ,. e. Big. f ii �nAw.. i�.'it■�i■iii Bi .•i rAA.A�A�.�w..Iru .f1..'■•••i.'u'�i� will 1 1 nn Btl1lwwYw'wll�■Nfrf ..n1/ u ■tltlwlwwrNNr �nw w I C:::::�e:■■;...11 :;/III IIM r111�4 •AINI/ 1 11 A■ww■%morrlari111 IIu1111N 1 ■ u � u' u N■uuu mnun m n u ro l m�IQ111■ Irm �■u■ an, Bum ^ n n iumn nn a nunlLilinlu�iiiimiil uiii Imiiiii ins u iux im"111" 1 x M _ . ; 11.. t�, Storm Drain Pipe KFC— HDG 061"- Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:lprogra-1Vmw\projectVm2 Worksheet HDG JN 06103 KFC Drain Pipe Flow Calcul Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 11 . 5 Channel Slope _ Depth 00 ft /- r� �40� �b� Diameter 0..50:. ft, 6e l Results /q /� s- aischar a Flow Area 0.20 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.57 ft Top Width 0.00 ft _ G� Critical Depth 0.40 ft Percent Full 100.00 % .Critical Slope 0.011022 ft/ft 'i►'elocotj FLO = .Ells Velocity Head 0.16 ft Specific Energy FULL ft Froude Number FULL Maximum Discharge 0.67 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 0.63 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.010640 ft/ft Mar 8,2008 None FlowMaster v4.1 c 15:50:09 Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Storm Drain Pipe KFC— HDG 061 Alto Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\progra-1\fmw\project3.fm2 Worksheet HDG JN 06103 KFC Drain Pipe Flow Calcul Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient0<1 Channel Slope0=0'f1064fl 1fit DepthY, Diameter (OrSb� ��o�t7— / Results Ii rg 048�K= T f Flow Area 0.14 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 0.95 ft Top Width 0.47 ft Critical Depth 0.35 ft A �df � Percent Full 66.00 % '-- Critical Slope 0 008744-ft/.ft, . �locity D "53"-�L�ft/s O l��C Velocity Head 0.19 ft3 Specific Energy 0.52 It �3 Froude Number 1.15 �3 Maximum Discharge 0.67 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 0.63 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.006357 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. Mar 8,2008 None FlowMaster v4.1c 15:50:34 Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 l-- Storm Drain Pipe KFC- HDG 06104- � Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File cAprogra-11fmMproject3.fm2 Worksheet HDG JN 06103 KFC Drain Pipe Flow Calcul Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 9905M 19 Pj� Channel Slope 0.OJ 64 t1ft Depth -3 ft Diameter WOT51 W ft n 1 4 9 9,5) Results ® II(L Isc 01 M s Flow Area 0.14 ftz -zG Wetted Perimeter 0.95 ft Top Width 0.47 ft Critical Depth 0.32 ft 1� Percent Full 66.00 % Critical Slope 0.011987 ft/ft city ".8 ft/s yalloci affiew 0.12 ft Specific Energy 0.45 ft Froude Number 0.92 Maximum Discharge 0.54 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 0.50 ft3/s (Q2 G Full Flow Slope 0.006357 ftlft Flow is subcritical. Jj Mar 8,2008 None FlowMaster v4.1c 15:51:54 Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 PPS ® � 29p$ ppM 00 ASTADVANCE SOIL TECHNOLOGIC, INC. Engineers,Geologists&Environmental Consultants 343 Baywood Avenue-San Jose,California 95128♦Office:(408)-261-1155*Fax:(408)-261-1588 File No. 08447-ASR March 11, 2008 Edwin Bruce Associates 1625 The Alameda, Suite 610 San Jose, California 95126 Attention: Mr. Edwin Bruce Subject: Proposed Improvements - KFC An Existing Single Story Building 1805 So. Winchester Boulevard - Campbell, California Amendment to the Soils Report (Sidewalks & Walkways) Dear Mr. Bruce - Pursuant to the request of Ms. Franceska Gleason of Edwin Bruce Associates, we are presenting herein supplemental information for sidewalk and walkways to amend the existing soils report for the Proposed Improvements to be associated with the existing single story wood frame structure located at 1805 South Winchester Boulevard in Campbell, California. Based on our discussion with Ms. Gleason, it is our understanding that the recommendation provided in the soils report for sidewalks and walkways exceeds the minimal criteria set- forth by the City of Campbell. Even though the recommendations exceed the established design criteria, AST recommends that all sidewalks and walkways at the site be supported on a minimum of (8)-inches of class II base rock compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction and subgrade compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. However, the thickness of the concrete and reinforcement could be as designed by the Structural / Civil Engineer/ Architect or as per the directive provided by the City of Campbell. We are pleased to be of service to you in this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, ADVANCE SOIL TECHNOLOGY INC. .4Lvu%rza � :� � ALexVZ12SS0 PIUS Al Mirza =. ' * Alex A. Kassai PE / REA Project Engineer ,.•' Principal Am/aak/cj `�r� Copies: Enclosed (2) ---^"� ZI CI II SI 'i « a, 61 IL Lz ' �o HUUHS IN ADVANCE TU MAP ARRANGEMENTS WHEN WORN o OF ENERGIZED FACILITIES. E DEVELOP] BEFORE BEGINNING PLEASE CALL THE - --R-F 0 INSPECTOR AT LEA' ADVANCE AT 725- BL / [L 0 4 > (408) 725-7773. 6 INSPECTED MAY BE ARE ANY CONFLICT M "" ❑ SUBSTRUCTURES IN LANDSCAPING CON1 PRIOR TO INSTALLA ' W / 6 M MEETING 04/29/2008 TELCO A LLJ THEY HAVE ADEQUATE FACILITIE = THEIR SERVICE RISER ON PT 11 ' u OU NAIN SItlTLFEO 1 PAD r—, Ml Ml III —JI U ------�----- --F, 800 A M S OLI - L 120/208 V I ' ° 4W 30 r w ® sv 55� `, PROPOSED PG&E sv � � , --- PT 31416-1 RISER QUADRANT -'-�F,�,. _.e,i` CATV TO MOVE '?�-% P P GROUND RODSe. "` 140' Ir ,� �t�` .1� spy ���L•�� �_�^+`•6 .C~ PT 14434 < F. iNf O TE S �'� PG&E SERVICE ' RISER TO BE L A TI M E R AVE 1. APPLICANT TO TRENCH JOINT WITH ELEC, GAS, TELCO AND CATV REMOVED 2. APPLICANT IS TO PROVIDE ALL ELECTRIC SUBSTRUCTURES AS SHOWN LEGEND 3. APPLICANT IS TO PROVIDE MANDREL AND PERFORM MANDREL TEST — s — 1-4" PVC PRIMARY DUCT BY APPLICANT WITH PG&E INSPECTOR STANDBY —s'— 2-5" PVC SERVICE DUCTS BY APPLICANT 4. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SWEEPS INSTALLED IN ANY DUCT RUN SHALL NOT EXCEED 330 DEGREES INCLUDING THE SWEEP AT FEED IN LOCATIC ®� 106" X 90" STYLE IIE TRANSFORMER PAD BY APPLICANT 5. APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE TO COORDINATE WITH TELCO AND CATV ° BARRIER POSTS REQUIRED REFERENCE PG&E DOCUMENT 051122 FOR THEIR CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS - � I � I I � I � � I I , II - II II I II I i I L _