Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEV 2017-0074; ROYAL JET HANGER EXPANSION; REVISDE REPORT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2017-01-12RECORD COPY —' i[zth2 REVISED REPORT ntia1 Date PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ___ 1JLIIllhI*IIIE ______ lull Is - Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 2220 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California PREPARED FOR Royal Jet, Inc. 8355 La Jolla Shores Dr. La Jolla, CA 92037 PREPARED BY A NOVA OCT 03 2017 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING NOVA Services, Inc. 4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B San Diego, CA 92123 NOVAProject Project No. 2016553 12 JANUARY 2017 REVISED 02 OCTOBER 2017 jg. GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • SPECIAL INSPECTI Nov SBE • SLBE. SCOOP Royal Jet, Inc. 10 October 2017 Attention: Mr. Hadi Stein NOVA Project 2016553 8355 La Jolla Shores Dr La Jolla, CA 92037 Subject: Revised Repert Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Study Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 2220 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Stein: Attached hereto please find the above-referenced report. The work reported herein was completed by NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) for Royal Jet, Inc. in accordance with NOVA's proposal dated November 18, 2016. NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to Royal Jet. Should you have any questions regarding this report or other matters, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, NOVA Services, Inc. Wall Mota Project Manager 2 4 / 1 ~rii~_an Miller-Hicks, C.E.G. 1323 Senior Geologist r 51- Brien, P.E., G.E. ngineer / cI 1tIc fl1LiI0 I D.( 'i1G1 I D ,\ 1... 4373 Viewridge Avenue, Ste. B I San Diego, CA 92123 1 P:858.292.7575 I F: 858.292.7570 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 REVISED REPORT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 2220 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Terms of Reference..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Objective, Scope and Limitations of This Work .....................................................................2 1.3 Limitations ................................... . ........................................................................................... 4 1.4 Understood Use of This Report...............................................................................................4 1.5 Report Organization.................................................................................................................4 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION...........................................................................................5 2.1 Site Description ........................................................................................................................5 2.2 Planned Development..............................................................................................................5 2.3 Design of the Existing Hangar.................................................................................................8 2.4 Earthwork to Develop the Existing Site ................................................................................10 2.5 Condition of the Existing Hangar..........................................................................................10 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .....................................14 3.1 Overview................................................................................................................................14 3.2 Engineering Borings..............................................................................................................15 3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing...........................................................................................16 3.4 Corrosivity Testing................................................................................................................17 3.5 Percolation Testing ........................................................................ ........................................ 17 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................19 4.1 Geologic Setting ....................................................................................................................19 4.2 Faulting and Seismicity .........................................................................................................19 4.3 Site Conditions.......................................................................................................................20 5.0 REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS ...................................................22 5.1 Overview................................................................................................................................22 Page i of iv NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 5.2 Geologic Hazards...................................................................................................................22 5.3 Soil Hazards...........................................................................................................................23 5.4 Other Hazards........................................................................................................................24 5.5 Quantitative Evaluation of Embankment Stability................................................................25 6.0 EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATIONS.......................................................................29 6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 29 6.2 Building Condition Survey....................................................................................................30 6.3 Seismic Design Parameters....................................................................................................30 6.4 Corrosivity and Sulfates ........................................................................................................31 6.5 Earthwork..............................................................................................................................32 6.6 Alternative 1, Shallow Foundations.......................................................................................33 6.7 Alternative 2, Deep Foundations...........................................................................................35 6.8 Control of Moisture Around Foundations .............................................................................37 6.9 Retaining Walls .....................................................................................................................38 7.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION..............................................................................40 7.1 Current Planning for Stormwater Infiltration BMPs .............................................................40 7.2 Site Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 40 7.3 Infiltration Test Results .........................................................................................................41 7.4 Design Infiltration Rate .........................................................................................................42 7.5 Review of Geotechnical Feasibility Criteria .......................................................................... 42 7.6 Suitability of the Site for Stormwater Infiltration..................................................................44 8.0 PAVEMENTS .................................................................................................................45 8.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 45 8.2 Subgrade Preparation.............................................................................................................46 8.3 Flexible Pavements................................................................................................................46 8.4 Rigid Pavements ..................................................................................................................... 47 9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................48 List of Appendices Appendix A Use of the Geotechnical Report Appendix B Logs of Borings Appendix C Laboratory Analytical Results Appendix D Percolation Testing Page ii of iv d Ak NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 List of Figures Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map Figure 2-1. Approximate Site Limits and Location Figure 2-2. Conceptual Planning for Hangar Improvements Figure 2-3. North Elevation Figure 2-4. Current Planning for New Stormwater BMPs and Retaining Wall Figure 2-5. Foundation Plan for the Existing Hangar Figure 2-6. Existing Hangar Located Relative to 1963 Topography Figure 2-7. Cracked Concrete Pavement Near the South Embankment Figure 2-8. Horizontal and Vertical Separation at a Control Joint Figure 2-9. Slab Cracking and Control Joint Separation, Southwest Corner of the Hangar Figure 2-10. Concrete Spalling and Control Joint Separation Figure 2-11. Rotational Separation of Tilt up Panels, East Wall Figure 3-1. Boring Locations Figure 4-1. Geologic Map of the Site Vicinity Figure 4-2. Alignment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone Figure 4-3. Surface Conditions, South Property Limits, December 2016 Figure 5-1. Worst Case Embankment Stability, F = 1.18 in a Seismic Event Figure 5-2. Red Hand Probe Easily Penetrated Through Looser Surface Soils of the Embankments Figure 6-1. Common Micropile Installation Approaches Figure 7-1. Current Planning for New Stormwater BMPs and Retaining Wall Page iii of iv Ak NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 List of Tables Table 3-1. Abstract of the Engineering Borings Table 3-2. Abstract of the Soil Index Testing Table 3-3. Abstract of the Soil Expansivity Testing Table 5-1. Soil Strength Parameters Used for Embankment Stability Analyses Table 6-1. Seismic Design Parameters, ASCE 7-10 Table 6-2. Summary of Corrosivity Testing of the Near Surface Soil Table 6-3. Exposure Categories and Requirements for Water-Soluble Sulfates Table 6-4. Lateral Earth Pressures Table 7-1. Percolation Test Results Table 8-1. Preliminary Recommendations for Flexible Pavements Table 8-2. Recommendations for Concrete Pavements List of Plates Plate 1: Site Vicinity Map Plate 2: Subsurface Investigation Map Plate 3: Regional Geologic Map Plate 4: Fault Activity Map Plate 5: Subsurface Investigation Map Plate 6: Aerial Site Map with Topo 1963 Plate 7: Aerial Site Map with Topo 1973 Plate 8: Topographic Site Map Page iv of iv as NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Terms of Reference 1.1.1 This report presents the findings of a preliminary geotechnical investigation, for a planned expansion of the existing Royal Jet aircraft hangar at Palomar Airport Carlsbad, California. The work reported herein was completed by NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) for Royal Jet, Inc. in accordance with the scope of work detailed in NOVA's proposal dated November 18, 2016. Figure 1-1 depicts the site vicinity. I Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map Page 1 of 48 dAft NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 1.1.2 Revisions to Prior Work The revisions are limited to the infiltration section and worksheet "C" of the report. 1.2 Objective, Scope and Limitations of This Work 1.2.1 Objective The objectives of the work reported herein were threefold, namely: characterize the subsurface conditions; provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction; and provide recommendations for design of stormwater infiltration BMPs. 1.2.2 Scope The scope of NOVA's services may be considered as the task-based activities described below. Task 1, Background Review. Review background data, including geotechnical reports, fault investigation reports, topographic maps, geologic data, fault maps, and preliminary develOpment plans for the project. Structural loads for the proposed development were obtained and reviewed. Task 2, Field Exploration. Completed a subsurface exploration that included the following subtasks. Subtask 2-1, Reconnaissance. Conducted a site reconnaissance, including layout of exploratory borings. Dig Alert was notified for underground utility mark-out services. Subtask 2-2, Permitting. Obtained a drilling permit from the County of San Diego, Environmental Health Department. Subtask 2-3, Engineering Borings. Drilled, logged and sampled four (4) engineering borings to depths of 22 feet below existing ground surface (bgs). The borings were logged and sampled by a NOVA geologist. Subtask 2-4, Percolation Testing. Drilled, logged and sampled two (2) percolation test borings to depths of approximately 5 feet and 8 feet bgs. The borings were logged and sampled by a NOVA geologist, following which percolation testing was completed after guidance provided in Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and HydromodJlcation Management (February 2016). Subtask 2-5, Building Condition Screening. A NOVA engineer conducted a brief screening of the condition of the existing hanger as a basis for evaluating the potential effects of the new construction on the existing structure. Page 2 of 48 1 8 di'l Ski, NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 Task 3, Laboratory Testing. Laboratory testing of disturbed samples was completed. Testing addressed soil gradation, plasticity, in-situ moisture content and density, expansion potential, compressibility, strength, and corrosivity. Task 4, Engineering Evaluations. Conducted an evaluation of the site, utilizing field and laboratory information obtained during the preceding tasks. Evaluations addressed: seismic design; foundations, earthwork and pavements; soil corrosivity; stormwater infiltration; and, wall design. Task 5, Reporting. Preparation of this report presenting NOVA's findings and preliminary geotechnical recommendations completes the scope work described NOVA's proposal. Page 3 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 1.3 Limitations The construction recommendations included in this report are not final. These recommendations are developed by NOVA using judgment and opinion and based upon the limited information available from the borings and soundings. NOVA can finalize its recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. NOVA cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations of this report if NOVA does not perform construction observation. Note also that the Building Condition Screening completed as Subtask 2-5 for this report (and discussed in Section 2.5 herein) is not intended as a Building Condition Survey or an assessment of the structural integrity of the existing hanger. NOVA's screening was for s use in preparation of this report only. This report does not address any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site. Appendix A to this report provides important additional guidance regarding the use and limitations of this report. This information should be reviewed by all users of the report. 1.4 Understood Use of This Report NOVA expects that the findings and recommendations provided herein will be utilized by Royal Jet, Inc. and its Design Team in decision-making regarding the planned development. NOVA's recommendations are based on its current understanding and assumptions regarding project development. Effective use of this report by the Design Team should include review by NOVA of the final design. Such review is important for both (i) conformance with the recommendations provided herein, and (ii) consistency with NOVA's understanding of the planned hangar expansion. 1.5 Report Organization The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the presently available project information; Section 3 describes the field investigation; Section 4 describes the surface and subsurface conditions; Section 5 describes site hazards; Section 6 provides recommendations for site preparation for earthwork and foundation design; Section 7 describes the site stormwater infiltration evaluation; and, Section 8 provides recommendations for pavement design and construction. The report is supported by four appendices. Appendix A provides guidance regarding the use and limitations of this report. Appendix B presents logs of the engineering borings. Appendix C provides records of the geotechnical laboratory testing. Appendix D provides the results of percolation testing. Page 4 of 48 am 1 111 NOVA I Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangtr Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016553 I 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Description 2.1.1 Location The existing hangar is located at 2220 Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad, Carifornia and within the limits of McClellan- Palomar Airport. The hangar is sited on a parcel of land identified in ' County of San Diego tax records as APN 760-221-96. Figure 2-1 depicts the location of the hangar and the approximate limits of the property (also referenced herein as "the site"). I I I I I I I 1 I 171 I Figure 2-1. Approximate Site Limits and Location (source: Google Earth 2016) 2.2 Planned Development 2.2.1 General The current hangar is approximately 84 feet by 121 feet in plan dimension. This approximately 9,894 square foot (sf) hangar is accessed by a concrete taxi-way at the front of the hangar. Figure 2-2 depicts the existing hangar. Project planning is currently only conceptual. As presently envisioned, the project will consist of expanding the existing hangar with 7,000 sf of additional hangar space and 2,340 sf of office space on the eastern side of the hangar. Site improvements will include two stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP's) structures, a two to three-foot-high retaining wall, and a trench drain. I Page 5 of 48 I NOVA I Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 I Figure 2-2 provides a plan view of the current layout of the hangar improvements, showing the proposed hangar and office/garage space. Figure 2-2. Conceptual Planning for Hangar Improvements (source: Proposed New 5te Plan, Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar, Sheet Al, Hagman and Associates, 2016) 2.2.2 Structural Design is in preliminary stages, with limited details regarding structural design available at this time. Based upon review of available drawings, it appears that the new hangar space will be developed utilizing a pre-engineered hangar system. The new hangar space will extend approximately 50 feet West from the face of the existing structure, as is depicted on Figure 2-3. The new space will likely be developed in steel construction, with stacking hangar doors similar to those presently employed. NOVA expects that working loads (DL+LL) to cntinuous exterior footings will be on the order of 7 to 9 kips per lineal foot. Page 6 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Haiigar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 As may also be seen by review of Figure 2-4, the new office and garage Space will be developed off of the rear of the existing hangar, extending 20 feet to the East. This new space will be relatively lightly loaded, likely able to be supported on continuous exterior footings. IDIlIlIVIlIE Figure 2-3. North Elevation (source: North Eleva 'ion, Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar, Sheet A4, Hagman and Associates, 2016) 2.2.3 Civil Civil-related infrastructure developed to support the expansion will include development of permanent storm water Best Management Practices (BMP' s) on the West South and East periphery of the site. Additionally, a new 2 to 3-foot-high retaining wall will be developed near the location of the existing fueling area. Figure 2-4 depicts current planning for this infrastructure. 'ROYAL JET HANGAR PROPOAD AN 0 .. )1 /)V/'•\ // - - • / . - /1 ;EXiTiNO / ROAL 1 1.\ /.1ACRES XISTINGCO E v WAI TRENCH DRAIN Figure 2-4. Current Planning for New Stormwater BMPs and Retaining Wall (source: Concept Plan, Terramar Consulting Engineers, October 2016) Page 7 of 48 Ak NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 2.2.4 Potential for Earthwork It is NOVA's understanding that that no below ground construction is planned. NOVA expects that the planned finished floor for the structure will be about ±318 feet msl. The surface elevations in the vicinity of the existing hanger is ±316 feet msl. As such it is anticipated that limited earthwork will be necessary for the expansion. 2.3 Design of the Existing Hangar 2.3.1 Foundations The North East and South sides of the building has concrete walls of 'tilt-up' construction, supported on shallow foundations. of the building include a continuous 16-inch-wide exterior footing set about 30 inches below surrounding grade, with shallow foundations spaced about 24 feet on center. The floor slab is supported at grade. The slab is 5 inches thick, reinforced by welded wire mesh, including control joints at 24 feet on center each way. The West side, which includes the sliding doors, supported by a 5-foot wide continuous thickened edge of the floor slab. Figure 2-5 (following page) reproduces the 1983 foundation plan. 2.3.2 Structure The North East and South sides of the building has concrete walls of 'tilt-up' construction, NOVA understands that the building will be built using 'tilt-up' construction methods. Tilt-up construction is common for development of structures such as the hangar, characterized by relatively taller floor-to- ceiling heights and larger interior column spacing. The existing hangar stands about 36 feet in height. The roofing system is steel framed. Based upon review of the foundation system depicted on Figure 2-5, it appears that all roof and wall loads are carried by shallow foundations- continuous and isolated footings- set along the periphery of the hangar. NOVA has not been provided any structural information. Bearing pressures for foundations are not indicated on the structural drawings. Based upon experience with similar structures, NOVA expects that working loads (DL + LL) to continuous footings are on the order of 7 kips per lineal foot. It is expected that the individual footings support working loads on the order of 150 kips to 250 kips. Page 8 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 :*_r1i M2Ibh__ 1 1> _ 1 TM 4 CB ORREn I! cc --NELMO - - S INIck MMETE SJS %c 1?X H!ib SEFE.fl 10 MfL3 fl'flT FF04 7 1 I - r I W 1: H4 7' - CE L Figure 2-5. Foundation Plan for the Existing Hangar (source: Foundation Plan, Sheet SI.0, Lusardi Construction and Engineering Co., Job 82-075, 3/9/1983) Page 9 of 48 ; A 'd Am NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Gotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 2.4 Earthwork to Develop the Existing Site The existing ground surface at the hangar site is developed to about Elevation +316 feet msl. Historical topography of the site area obtained by NOVA indicates that prior to development the ground in the vicinity of the existing hanger was relatively steeply sloping, with elevations ranging from about ±275 feet msl to ±304 feet msl in the vicinity of the hangar. Figure 2-6 reproduces topographic information from 1963. Figure 2-6. Existing Hangar Located Relative to 1963 Topography Comparison of existing site grades with historical topography shows that the area of the hangar was developed with fill ranging in thickness from ±12 feet to perhaps as much as ±40 feet. 2.5 Condition of the Existing Hangar 2.5.1 Pavements As may be seen by review of Figure 2-6, the existing hangar is surrounded by both aspl lt and concrete pavements. The pavements apJear to be in generally good condition. However, the concrete pavement has a crack aligned approximately East to West parallel to the slope near the existing fueling area. Figure 2-7 (following page) depicts a portion of the cracked concrete pavement. NOVA believes this crack may be associated with long-term movement of the embankment that forms the southern boundary of the site. 2.5.2 Exterior The exterior of the existing structure appears to be in generally good condition. There is no visual indication of architectural damage to the building on the building exterior. Page 10 of 48 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation C Cctober2Cl7 Proposed Roya Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA project No. 2016553 Figure 2-7 Cracked Concrete Pavement Near the South Embankment 2.5.3 Interior Floor Slabs As is discussed in Section 2.3, the existing hangar floor slab is supported at grade. The slab is 5 inches thick, reinforced by welded wire mesh, including control joints at 24 feet on center eacI wa'. Several modes of damage, appear to result from long-term movement of the slab as described below. Contrl Joint Separations. The floor slab shows separation at control joints, includiig both horizontal and vertical differential movement. Figure 2-8 depicts a 0.4 inch hotizortal separation and an approximately 0.2 inch vertical separation at a control joint near the Eas: wall. a) C) N. UL - N MMM U, Figure 2-8. Horizontal and Vertical Separation at a Control Joint Cracking. Individual ground supported slabs have cracked near the periphery of the interior. This cracking is most evident in the southwest corner of the building, but also occurs in tie Northwest corner of the building. Figure 2-9 (following page) depicts this condition. Page 11 of 48 U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geoteclriical Investigation 02 Octobe2Cl7 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Pro et No. 2016553 Figure 2-9. Slab Cracking and Control Joint Separation, Southwest Corner of the Hangar 3. Spalling. Spalling and slight cracking is evident in the concrete floor slab in several areas at the intersection of control joints. Figure 2-10 depicts one such circumstance. Figure 2-10. Concrete Spalling and Control Joint Separation Page 12 of 48 ill NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016553 2.5.4 Tilt-Up Walls The separate panels that comprise the tilt up walls are in generally good condition on the North and the East. However, the panels along the East wall may be affected by foundation settlement. As may be seen by review of Figure 2-11, tilt up panels near the center of the East wall appear to have rotated away from each other, creating a separation at the joint and a change to roof a1ignmnt. The separation app ears to increase with increasing wall height, suggesting that panel rotation is related to foundation niovment. Figure 2-11. Rotational Separation of Tilt up Panels, East Wall I I Page 13 of 48 I I I I I I I I [ I I I I I I ill NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Gectechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Overview The field exploration was completed on December 12-13, 2016. Two engineering borings 13-1 and B-2) and two percolation borings (P-i and P-2) were completed by a drilling subcontractor retained by NOVA. The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. Figure 3-1 presents a plan view of the site indicating the location of the engineering borings and the percolation tests borings. TRENCHDHAIM Ts a ' I-.l:N.6OO$F .. p' •.c-' ROYAL JET HANGAR\ \ PROED ,,-1 ... PROTECT INPLACE V\" ' % fQ av,\ •. %$ 1:44. I_t . 11\ I I \ '2 / : -: #-...i•-- -, /EYWINL I. ROYAL LEASEHOIb -, / 11 ACRES 4'. 7A AYAC C.E. S S Oaf LM I .-,-- 61 - V ,.,..-- PROPOSED ';• // 8MS ALL 'ED zx KEY TO SYMBOLS Oaf AR1 FIC /L P :LL F Tsa SANTIAW F09MATION PPROPA&1E PEHOLT3N tNFlLT:ATIC! orci APPROX FAA7E GE CTE( - k I..L BOR rG _C.Z,4TJC14 Figure 3-1. Boring Locations Page 14 of 48 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I a NO Milk NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016553 3.2 Engineering Borings 3.2.1 Drilling The engineering borings were advanced by a truck-mounted drilling rig utilizing hollow stem drilling equipment. The engineering borings were each extended to 22 feet bgs. Table 3-1 abstracts the indications of the engineering borings. Table 3-1. Abstract of the Engineering Borings Boring Approx. Elevation m (feet, sl) Total Depth (feet) Approximate Thickness of Artificial Fill (feet) Elevation of Top of Geologic Formation (feet, msl) B-i +316 22 >22 <+294 B-2 +316.5 22 ?22 <+293 B-3 +317 22 >22 <+295 B4 +317 22 ?22 <+295 Notes: The referenced 'geologic formation' is the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation No groundwater was encountered in the borings. Boring locations were determined in the field by the NOVA geologist who measured distances and estimated right angles from existing site features. As these methods are not precise, the boring locations shown on Figure 3-1 should be considered approximate. 3.2.2 Sampling Both disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples were recovered from the boings, sampling soils as described below. The Modified California sampler ('ring sampler', after ASTM D 3550) was driven using a 140- pound hammer falling for 30 inches with a total penetration of 18 inches, recording blow counts for each 6 inches of penetration. The Standard Penetration Test sampler ('SPT', after ASTM D1586) was driven in the same manner as the ring sampler, recording blow counts in the same fashion. SPT blow counts for the final 12 inches of penetration comprise the SPT 'N' value, an index of soil consistency. Bulk samples were recovered from the upper 5 feet of the subsurface, providing composite samples for testing of soil moisture and density relationships, corrosivity, and R-value. The NOVA geologist maintained a log of all sampling, as well as a depiction of the subsurface materials based on the indications of the samples and observation of the drilling itself. The recovered samples were transferred to NOVA's geotechnical laboratory for visual inspection and laboratory testing. Records of the engineering borings are presented in Appendix B. 3.2.3 Closure Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings to match the existing surfacing. Page 15 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing 3.3.1 General Soil samples recovered from the engineering borings were transferred to NOVA's geotechnical laboratory where a geotechnical engineer reviewed the soil samples and the field logs. Representative soil samples were selected and tested in NOVA's materials laboratory to check visual classifications and to determine pertinent engineering properties. The laboratory program included visual classifications of all soil samples as well as index, expansivity and strength testing in general accordance with ASTM standards. Records of the geotechnical laboratory testing are provided in Appendix C. 3.3.2 Index The visual classifications were further evaluated by performing moisture content, grain size, and plasticity (Atterberg limits) tests. The index testing may be used to estimate a variety of soil characteristics and physical properties. Table 3-2 provides an overview of this testing. Table 3-2. Abstract of the Soil Index Testing Sample Ref Plasticity Classification after ASTM D2488 Boring Depth (feet) LL P1 B-i 16 58 41 CH Notes: 1. 'LL' and 'P1' indicates 'Liquid Limit' and 'Plasticity Index', respectively, after ASTM D4318 (Atterberg limits). 3.3.3 Expansivity An Expansion Index test (ASTM D5402) was performed to evaluate the potential for expansion of fine grained soils. Expansion test was performed on a remolded sample of a clayey soil from Unit 2. Table 3-3. Abstract of the Soil Expansivity Testing Sample Ref Testing Conditions Expansion Index Expansion Potential Boring Depth Initial Initial Density (feet) Moisture (%) (lb/k.3) B-3 14 9 110 57 Medium Page 16 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 3.3.4 Mechanical Characteristics The mechanical characteristics (strength and compressibility) of the soils were tested as described below. Compressibility. A single sample (Boring B-3 at 6 feet depth) from Unit 1 was tested in one dimensional consolidation after ASTM D2435. This testing indicated the soil is over- consolidated and will be relatively incompressible under loads expected loads from the new hangar. 2. Resistance Value. A bulk sample of soils representative of Unit 1 was tested to measure the potential strength of this soil for use as the subgrade in new pavements. The R-Value testing was completed after ASTM D2844, indicating R = 24. Testing after ASTM D1557 (the 'Modified Proctor') to determine the moisture-density relationship of the Unit 1 soil indicated a maximum dry unit weight of 130 lb/ft3 at 6.5% moisture content. 3.4 Corrosivity Testing Resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride contents were determined to estimate the potential corrosivity of the soils. These chemical tests were performed on a representative sample of the near surface soils by Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc. 3.5 Percolation Testing 3.5.1 General NOVA directed the excavation and construction of two (2) percolation test borings, following the recommendations for percolation testing presented in Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodflcation Management (February 2016), which has been adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The locations of these borings (referenced as P-i and P- 2), is shown on Figure 3-1. 3.5.2 Drilling Borings were drilled with a truck mounted 8-inch hollow stem auger to an approximate depth equal to the proposed depth of the bottoms of the detention/infiltration basins. Field measurements were taken to confirm that the borings were excavated to approximately 8-inches in diameter. The boreholes were logged by a NOVA geologist, who observed and recorded exposed soil cuttings and the boring conditions. The bottom (depth below surrounding ground level) of the boring was recorded at approximately 8 feet for P-i and 5.5 feet for P-2. The bottom of borings P-i and P-2 terminated in Unit 1 fill, comprised of silty sand (SM). 3.5.3 Conversion to Percolation Wells Once the test borings were drilled to the design depths, the borings were converted to percolation wells using %-inch gravel and 3-inch diameter Schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe. After placing an approximately 2-inch layer of gravel on the bottom, the perforated PVC pipe was lowered, extending from the surface to the 2-inch layer of gravel at the bottom of the excavations. Page 17 of 48 A MR NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 The 3/4-inch gravel was used to fill the annular space around the perforated pipe to at least 12-inches below existing finish grade to minimize the potential of soil caving. 3.5.4 Percolation Testing The percolation test holes were pre-soaked before testing, and immediately prior to testing. The pre-soak process consisted of filling the hole twice with water before testing. Consecutive measurements indicated that less than 6 inches of water percolated in 25 minutes. The percolation tests holes were then filled with water and allowed to presoak overnight. Water level readings took place the following day. After filling the test borings with water and recording the initial water level, the subsequent water levels were recorded every 30 minutes for at least six hours (minimum of 12 readings), or until the water percolation stabilized. After each reading, the water level was raised to close to the previous water level to maintain a near constant head before each reading. Water depth measurements were obtained from the top of the pipe. Records related to the percolation testing are provided in Appendix D. Page 18 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 Geologic Setting 4.1.1 Regional The project area is located in the western San Diego County portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California (Nom's and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain mostly by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The most abundant rocks in the embayment are gently folded and faulted Eocene marine, lagoonal and nonmarine rocks. The surface topography is characterized geomorphically by eroded and dissected mesa terrain. 4.1.2 Site Specific Like much of this coastal area, the site area was eroded into a series of interconnected ridges and intervening drainages. The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa) is the primary sedimentary deposit at the site. This geologic unit consists primarily of sandstones and claystones/siltstones. Figure 4-1 depicts the geology of the site area, from which it can be seen that the Santiago Formation (Tsa) is the most commonly occurring geologic unit in the site vicinity. \' 76 lu 4.M uNITE A7OA 5 A (S Figure 4-1. Geologic Map of the Site Vicinity (Brown-shaded area maps the extent of the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa)) 4.2 Faulting and Seismicity As is well known to residents of the area, this area Southern California is seismically active. The site is reasonably proximate to the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, a system capable of generating large magnitude Page 19 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Gèotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 seismic events. Figure 4-2 maps the occurrence of nearby major faulting segments associated with the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located just offshore about 7 miles from the hangar site. ' \ •Vista O'nsid ?\ aikd \\ San Marcos I \ \\ t.c.ELL4N Escon \\A1Ri - \% N Figure 4-2. Alignment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone Review of the literature indicates there are no known active faults on or near the hangar site. Moreover, the site is not within and Earthquake fault zone. No known fault traces across the site, nor was there evidence of historic ground ruptured noted during NOVA's reconnaissance of the site. 4.3 Site Conditions 4.3.1 Surface The site area comprises about 3.5 acres. The existing hangar, constructed in 1983, covers the eastern 0.7 acres. The remainder of the site is covered with asphalt and concrete pavement. A fueling station is located at the South central portion of the site, including an aboveground fuel storage tank. The ground surface is relatively level, averaging about Elevation +316 feet msl across the site. As is previously discussed, the area of the hangar and related pavements was developed by placement of artificial fill that may be as thick as about 40 feet toward the Eastern portion of the site. The site is bounded to the East and South by man-made slopes. These well vegetated slopes are set at inclinations that range from as steep as 1.5H : 1V (Horizontal : Vertical) to about 3H: 1V, typically rising about 20 feet. Figure 4-3 (following page) depicts the site's embankment conditions at the time of NOVA's field exploration. Page 20 of 48 I NOVA I Revised Report of Preliminary Ceotechrical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 20 7 NOVA Project No. 2016553 Figure 4-3. Surface Conditions, South Property Limits, December 2016 I 4.3.2 Subsurface The engineering borings only penetrated fill placed to develop site grades. For the purposes of this report, the subsurface at the site may be gereralized to occur as the sequence of soil and rock described below. 1 1. Unit 1, Fill. Undocumented artificial fill (Qaf) covers the entire site. The fill is characteristicaly sandy, of medium dense to dense consistency. SPT blowcounts ('N') are in the range N = 20 to I SO, suggesting denser sandy soils. Borings ff1, B-3 and B-4 encountered clayey so--Is at various intervals between depths of 10 feet to 20 feet, with Nave 28. This resistance suggests clays of stiff to very stiff consistency. 1 2. Unit 2, Sandstone. Though not encountered, the site is known to be underlain by sandstones and siltstones of the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa) underlie the entire site. Soils of this geologic unit are locally of sufficient strength to refuse the SPT sampler (i.e., with SPT I blowcounts ('N') ranging to N> 100 blows/foot). This geologic unit likely extends to depths greater than 75 feet across the site. I 4.3.3 Groundwater Ground water was not encountered in the borings by NOVA. It is expected that groundwa:er does not occur within 30 feet of the existing ground surface. Local zones of perched groundwater may locally I occur within the near-surface deposits due to local seepage or prolonged wet weather. 4.3.4 Surface Water I No surface water was evident on the site at the time of NOVA's work. There is no visual evidence of historic problems with surface water (e.g., seeps, springs, eroded gullies, rilling erosion, etc. I I Page 21 of 48 I El I I I I I a I AR NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geoteclmical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 5.0 REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS 5.1 Overview This section provides review of soil and geologic hazards common to this region of California, considering each for its potential to affect the site. The primary geologic and seismic hazard during the life of the planned development is the likelihood of moderate-to-severe ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. While there is no risk of liquefaction or related seismic phenomena, strong ground motion could affect the site. 5.2 Geologic Hazards 5.2.1 Strong Ground Motion The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone (Hart and Bryant, 2007). No known active faults are mapped on the site area. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault system, located offshore approximately 7.5 miles west of the site. This system has the potential to be a source of strong ground motion. The site may be subjected to a Magnitude 7 or greater seismic event at the Rose Canyon Fault, with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of PGA = 0.41 g. 5.2.2 Fault Rupture As is discussed in Section 4, there are no known active faults on or near the site. The potential for surface rupture at the site is thus considered low. Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. 5.2.3 Landslides As used herein, 'landslide' describes downslope displacement of a mass of rock, soil, and/or debris by sliding, flowing, or falling. Such mass earth movements are greater than about 10 feet thick and larger than 300 feet across. Landslides typically include cohesive block glides and disrupted slumps that are formed by translation or rotation of the slope materials along one or more slip surfaces. The causes of classic landslides start with a preexisting condition- characteristically, a plane of weak soil or rock- inherent within the rock or soil mass. Thereafter, movement may be precipitated by earthquakes, wet weather, and changes to the structure or loading conditions on a slope (e.g., by erosion, cutting, filling, release of water from broken pipes, etc.). The site is set in a relatively flat area, such that NOVA considers the landslide hazard to be 'low' for the site and the surrounding area in their current condition. Page 22 of 48 RI NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotecimical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 5.3 Soil Hazards 5.3.1 Embankment Stability As used herein, 'embankment stability' is intended to mean the safety of localized natural or man-made embankments against failure. Unlike landslides described above, embankment stability can include smaller scale slope failures such as erosion-related washouts and more subtle, less evident processes such as soil creep. No new slopes are planned as part of the hangar expansion. Slopes currently exist on the East and South boundaries of the site. These well vegetated slopes are formed as steep as about 1.5H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical). Based upon the indications of the borings conducted in the vicinity of the slopes, the slopes are constructed of a sandy artificial fill (SM) of medium dense to dense consistency. The existing hanger is set back greater than 15 feet from the crest of these slopes. NOVA completed quantitative analyses of these embankments that are discussed in more detail in Section 5.6 of this report. These analyses show the existing slopes are stable under static loading, with a factor of safety (F) ofF> 1.6. A major seismic event will stress these slopes, but they will maintain adequate stability at F> 1.2. As is discussed in additional detail in Section 5.6 herein, NOVA's assessment of the safety of the slopes that bound the site is highly contingent on proper maintenance, as described below. Control of Surface Water. Absent care to control drainage over the slopes and to vegetate slopes to limit erosion. Absent such protection, surficial instability or 'sloughing" and "rilling erosion" could occur. If such smaller-scale losses of ground occur repairs should be effected to avoid larger scale loss of ground. Control of Infiltration. Surface water drainage and ground cover should be established such that surface water does not infiltrate within 50 feet of the crest of the slopes. Saturation of the slopes will weaken soils, potentially creating stability problems. Roof drains should not discharge to ground near slopes. Stormwater infiltration BMPs should not be established within 50 feet of the crest of the slopes. 5.3.2 Liquefaction "Liquefaction" refers to the loss of soil strength during a seismic event. The phenomenon is observed in areas that include a shallow water table and coarse grained (i.e., 'sandy') soils of loose to medium dense consistency. The ground motions increase soil water pressures, which causes the soils to lose strength. Because of the low ground water levels, as well as the geologic age and cemented nature of the saturated soils, the potential for "liquefaction" of soils during a seismic event is considered to be extremely low. 5.3.3 Seismically Induced Settlement During a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose to moderately dense, unsaturated granular soils, separate from liquefaction. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non- uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. Based on NOVA's evaluation, the seismically induced settlement under the existing hanger is anticipated to on the order of 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch. Seismically induced differential settlement is expected to be less than 1/2 inch over a span of 40 feet. Page 23 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 5.3.4 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, a liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground. Due to the low susceptibility for liquefaction and laterally confined topography of the site, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low. 5.3.5 Expansive Clays Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrinking or swelling) due to variations in moisture content. These volume changes can be damaging to structures. Nationally, the value of property damage caused by expansive soils is exceeded only by that caused by termites. In consideration of the largely sandy near surface soils, expansive soils will not be problematic. 5.3.6 Collapsible Soils Collapsible soils occur with some frequency in and climates such as this area of California. Collapsible soils would have been removed during the original site grading. Collapsible soils do not constitute a hazard to site development. 5.3.7 Corrosive Soils Chemical testing of the near surface soils indicates the soils contain low concentrations of soluble sulfates (33 ppm), and chlorides (21 ppm). Saturated soil resistivity is 2,200 Ohm-cm, with a pH of 8.7. The tested soils should not be corrosive to construction materials. Section 6 addresses this consideration in more detail. 5.4 Other Hazards 5.4.1 Flood The site is not located within a FEMA-designated flood zone, designated as Flood "Zone X" (FEMA, 2006). Zone X is an "Area of500-year flood. areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood". 5.4.2 Tsunami Tsunami ('tidal wave') describes a series of fast moving, long period ocean waves caused by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. The altitude and distance of the site from the ocean preclude this threat. 5.4.3 Seiche Seiches are standing waves that develop in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water such as lakes or reservoirs. Harbors or inlets can also develop seiches. Most commonly caused by wind and atmospheric pressure changes, seiches can be effected by seismic events and tsunamis. The site is not located near a body of water that could generate a seiche. Page 24 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 5.5 Quantitative Evaluation of Embankment Stability 5.5.1 General In planned typically 15 foot to 20 foot high earth embankments that border the hangar to the south and east were evaluated to assess global embankment stability for the both static and seismic conditions. Limit equilibrium analyses of global slope stability were performed. NOVA utilized the computer program SLIDE (Rocscience 2012) to calculate factors of safety against slope failure using limit equilibrium procedures and assuming two-dimensional, plane strain conditions. SLIDE completes 2D stability calculations in rocks or soils offering the user the choice of procedures of varying rigor. NOVA used both the Spencer and Bishop Simplified methods for both deterministic analyses, calculating the lowest single factor of safety for a set of soil parameters and slope geometry. Like all limit equilibrium methods of slope stability analysis, the factor of safety (FS) calculated by the Spencer and Bishop procedures use the following definition: FS = shear strength of the soil (resisting force) shear stress required for equilibrium (driving force) 5.5.2 Modeling Input Slope Geometry The analyses by NOVA conservatively considered a generic 24-foot-tall embankment inclined at 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. The numerical model assumed the hangar expansion would add load to the embankment at about 200 psf, set back 15 feet from the embankment crest. Stratigraphy Based upon the indications of the site-specific borings completed by NOVA for this area the stratigraphy in the area of concern was modeled as described below. Unit 1, Fill. Undocumented artificial fill (Qaf) covers the entire site. The fill is characteristically sandy, of medium dense to dense consistency. Stability modeling assumed the fill extends to at least 25 feet. Unit 2, Sandstone. Sandstones and siltstones of the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa) underlie the entire site. Locally, Unit 2 is locally of sufficient strength to refuse the SPT sampler, with SPT blowcounts ('N') ranging to N> 100 blows/foot. This geologic unit likely extends to depths greater than 75 feet across the site. Soil Strength Table 5-1 (following page) provides the soil strength parameters used in the global stability analyses. Page 25 of 48 I a dAft 21 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016553 Table 5-1. Soil Strength Parameters Used for Embankment Stability Analyses Soil Unit Description Soil Parameters __________ Cohesion (c', psI) Friction Angle (o', degrees) Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) 1 Engineered Fill 100 33 125 2 Santiago Formation 200 35 125 3 Deep Santiago Formation 400 37 130 Notes: groundwater assumed to occur below 40 feet depth all analyses are effective stress-based NOVA compared the findings of the Bishop and Spencer methods to each other. Both methods provide similar estimates (within a few percent) of global embankment stability. As a practical matter, for the conditions evaluated this at this site, FSBishop = FSspencer for both static and seismic conditions. Seismic Analysis Seismic loads were emulated using a pseudostatic horizontal constant (kh) of kh = 0.15. For perspective, kh = 0.1 is normally employed for slopes at sites where M < 6.5, while kh = 0.2 is employed at sites expected to be affected by violent and catastrophic earthquakes. This guidance derives from that originally developed by Seed (1979). No pseudostatic vertical force (ky) was used (i.e., k= 0). Target Factor of Safe-1E NOVA recommends that design seek long term global static stability that is in general conformance with the standards for such analyses provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Slope Stability, Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1902, 31 Oct 2003). USACE 2003 recommends that long term static embankment stability for circumstances such as this embankment target a design Factor of Safety (FSstatic) of FSstatic ?1.5. USACE and the industry allows more judgment in the assessment of allowable factor of safety for seismic slope stabiity (i.e., FSseismic). As a matter of practice, both FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), both federal regulators of embankment dams, seek seismic stability in the range FSseismic> 1 to FSseismic? 1.1 for slopes evaluated using the pseudostatic methods described herein. As a matter of its San Diego area practice, NOVA considers that FSseismic? 1.1 a practical minimum for civil works. The calculated stability of the embankment addressed in this report is compared to these standards. 5.5.3 Findings Embankment Stability The above-described analyses show that the existing embankment is stable for both static and seismic conditions, with FSstatic> 1.5. and FSseismic> 1.15. Figure 5-1 provides graphical output from evaluation of embankment stability in a seismic event. Page 26 of 48 d Al NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 Note that analyses of both static and seismic stability addressed the potential for failure that extended to and inboard of the embankment crest and threaten the structure. A major seismic event will cause widespread sloughing along the in the slope face, but will not threaten the structure if set back 10 feet from the slope crest. Similar, localized sloughing could occur under static conditions and should be repaired/restored, as is discussed below. 1.183 hiM 2 Samago Fm Unit 3 Deep Santiago Fm] Figure 5-1. Worst Case Embankment Stability, F = 1.18 in a Seismic Event Structural Setback for Shallow Foundations As may be seen from Figure 5-1, in the event of an embankment failure, the upper portion of the failure surface will extend approximately 5 to 8 feet inboard from the crest of the embankment. Accordingly, if the expansion is developed on shallow foundations, NOVA recommends that no element of the hangar expansion foundations be set closer than 10 feet from the crest of the embankment. This setback is approximately half of the slope height (i.e., 11/2). Foundations closer than 1-112 should be developed on deep foundations (i.e., piles or caissons). This consideration is considered in more detail in Section 6. Embankment Maintenance During its inspection of the embankment, NOVA observed that the surficial few feet of soil is locally very loose. Figure 5-2 depicts this circumstance, showing a 3-foot long hand probe easily penetrated the surface of the South embankment. Page 27 of 48 1 id ;ak NOVA I Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Pr:ject No. 201655 - . . • S .• . .. - i... i..J ....v ..... .. _.. ;.. - - ..iY' M .'WKI :,'- . ! :- - Figure 5-2. Red Colored Hand Probe Easily Penetrated Through Looser Surface Soils of the Embankments The occurrence of looser surficial soil is common in older earthen embankments. The occurrence of the soils does not diminish global embankment stability, though the looser near surface soil can lead to shallow 'sloughing' that must be repaired. These surficial soils must rem:in in pace. As is discussed in Section 5.3.1, NOVAs assessment that the embankments that bound the si:e are stable is highly contiagent on proper maintenance of these embankments, as desribed lelow. Control of Surface Water. Absent care to control drainage over the slopes and tD vegetate slopes to limit erosion. Absent such protection, surficial ins-ability or "sloughing" and "rilling erosion" could occur. If such smaller-scale losses of ground occur rpairs sould be effected to avoid larger scale loss of ground. Control of Infiltration. Surface water drainage and ground cover should be stalrlished such that surface water does not infiltrate within 50 feet of the crest of the slopes. Saturation of the slopes will weaken soils, potentially creating stability problems. Roof drains should not discharge to the ground near slopes. Stormwater infiltration BMPs should n:'t be es:ablishec within 50 feet of the crest of the slopes. [7] I U I U I I I 1 I [j I I I I I I Page 28 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 6.0 EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATIONS 6.1 Overview 6.1.1 Alternatives for Foundations Based upon the indications of the field and laboratory data developed for this investigation, as well as review of previously developed subsurface information, the site is suitable for the planned hangar provided the geotechnical recommendations described herein are followed. Additions to the structure will be constrained by the existing embankment slopes to the South and East of the structure. Planning that has been reviewed by NOVA indicates that the 20-foot-wide office/garage extension to the East of the structure will approach the crest of the slope in that area. As is discussed in Section 5, evaluations of embankment stability show that shallow foundations should be set back approximately 10 feet (about half the embankment height, H) from the crest of slopes. With this constraint, foundation alternatives for the hangar expansion will be as described below. Alternative 1, Shallow Foundations. Shallow foundations (isolated footings, continuous footings, etc.) may be utilized if these foundations are set back a minimum of 10 feet from the crest of the embankments. Secticn 6.6 herein addresses design for this alternative. Alternative 2, Deep Foundations. Deep foundations should be employed if the hangar expansion extends closer than 10 feet to the crest of the embankments. No structural element of the hangar expansion should be set closer than 5 feet from the crest of the embankments. Section 6.7 herein addresses design for deep foundations. 6.1.2 Limitations to StDrm Water BMPs Section 7 provides additional discussion of relevance to foundation design. In particular, stormwater infiltration BMPs planned for the periphery of the structure to the East may saturate and weaken the embankment, threatening embankment and foundation stability. 6.1.3 Review of Final Design NOVA should review the grading plan, foundation plan and geotechnical-related specifications as they become available to confirm that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans prepared for th project. All earthwork related to site and foundation preparation should be completed under the observation of NOVA. NOVA cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations of this report if NOVA does not perform construction observation. The subsections following provide geotechnical recommendations for the planned development as it is now understood. It is intended that these recommendations provide sufficient geotechnical information to develop the project in general accordance with 2013 California Building Code (CBC) requirements. Page 29 of 48 SRI 216, NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016553 6.2 Building Condition Survey 6.2.1 Source of the Existing Building Movement NOVA believes that the wall and slab movements discussed in Section 2-5 are related to long term foundation settlement. It is the judgment of NOVA that the observed movements and cracking of the ground supported slab, as well as the observed separation of tilt up wall panels, occur as a result of foundation movement. This foundation movement may be settlement caused in part by long term settlement of the artificial fill in which the foundations are set. Poor foundation preparation during the original construction may also be a factor. 6.2.2 Building Condition Survey As is noted in Section 1.3, the building condition screening provided herein is not intended as a complete assessment of the structural integrity of the existing hanger. Conduct of such an assessment is beyond the scope of NOVA's work for this project. Moreover, NOVA does not practice Structural Engineering. A more formal Building Condit- on Survey addressing structural integrity of the hangar may be appropriate. 6.3 Seismic Design Parameters 6.3.1 Site Class The Site Class has been determined from ASCE 7, Table 20.3-1. Based on estimated average N-values in the upper 100 feet of the soil/rock profile, the site corresponds to a Site Class D. 6.3.2 Seismic Design Parameters Table 6-1 provides seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with 2016 CBC and mapped spectral acceleration parameters. Table 6-1. Seismic Design Parameters, ASCE 7-10 Parameter Value Site Soil Class D Site Latitude (decimal degrees) 33.12586 Site Longitude (decimal degrees) -117.27453 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.074 Site Coefficient, FV 1.588 Mapped Short Perioc Spectral Acceleration, 5s 1.066 Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.412 Short Period Spectrai Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, 5MS 1.144 g One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, SMI 0.654 g Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.763 g Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, 5D1 0.436 g Source. U.S. Seismic Design Maps, found at http://earth quake. usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php Page 30 of 48 jilifti NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 6.4 Corrosivity and Sulfates 6.4.1 Corrosivity Electrical resistivity, chloride content, and pH level are all indicators of the soil's tendency to corrode ferrous metals. Chemical tests were performed on representative samples by Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc. of Chula Vista. The results of the testing is tabulated on Table 6-2. Table 6-2. Summary of Corrosivity Testing of the Near Surface Soil Parameter Units Value pH standard unit 8.7 Resistivity Ohm-cm 2,200 Water Soluble Chloride ppm 21 Water Soluble Sulfate ppm 33 Caltrans considers a site to be corrosive if one or more of the following conditions exist for representative soil and/or water samples taken at the site: chloride concentration is 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater; sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm (0.2%) or greater; or, the pH is 5.5 or less. Based on the Caltrans criteria, the on-site soils would not be considered 'corrosive' to buried metals. Records of this testing are provided in Appendix C. These records include estimates of the life expectancy of buried metal culverts of varying gauge. 6.4.2 Sulfates and Concrete As shown on Table 6-2, the soil sample tested indicated water-soluble sulfate (SO4) content of 33 parts per million ('ppm,' 0.003% by weight). With SO4 < 0.20 percent by weight, the American Concrete Institute (ACT) 318-08 considers a soil to have no potential (SO) for sulfate attack. Table 6-3 reproduces the Exposure Categories considered by ACI. Table 6-3. Exposure Categories and Requirements for Water-Soluble Sulfates Exposure Category Class Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4) In Soil (percent_by_weight) Cement Type (ASTM C150) Max Water- Cement Ratio Min. f' (psi) Not SO SO4 <0.10 - - - Moderate 51 0.10 SO4 <0.20 TI 0.50 4,000 Severe S2 0.20 SO4 2.00 V 0.45 4,500 Very severe S3 SO4 > 2.0 V + pozzolan 0.45 4,500 Adapted from: AC! 318-C8, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete 6.4.3 Limitations Testing to determine several chemical parameters that indicate a potential for soils to be corrosive to construction materials are traditionally completed by the Geotechnical Engineer, comparing testing results with a variety of indices regarding corrosion potential. Like most geotechnical consultants, NOVA does Page 31 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 not practice in the field of corrosion protection, since this is not specifically a geotechnical issue. Should more information be required, a specialty corrosion consultant should be retained to address these issues. 6.5 Earthwork 6.5.1 General Earthwork for the hangar expansion will consist of minor fine grading, and excavations for foundations and utilities. Based upon the indications of the engineering borings, the Unit 1 fill can be readily excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. Earthwork should be performed in accordance with Section 300 of the most recent approved edition of the "Standard SpecijI cations for Public Works Construction" and "Regional Supplement Amendments." All fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction after ASTM D1557 (the 'modified Proctor') following moisture conditioning to 2% above the optimum moisture content. Fill placed in loose lifts no thicker than the ability of the compaction equipment to thoroughly densify the lift. For most construction equipment, this limit loose lifts to on the order of 10-inches or less. 6.5.2 Select Fill The sandy Unit 1 fill will be suitable for use as fill. Should a sufficient amount of this material not be available, a 'select' soil shoulc be imported. 'Select' soil should be a mineral soil free of organics with the characteristics listed below: at least 40 percent by weight finer than '/4-inch; maximum particle size of 6 inches; and, El (after ASTM D4829) of less than 50. All select fill should be compacted to 90% relative compaction after ASTM D1557. 6.5.3 Site Preparation Pavements should be removed from the area plan for the hangar extension and the new office /garage space. Abandoned utilities and improvements, vegetation, and debris and rubble should be removed and properly disposed off-site before the start of grading operations. Abandoned underground utilitLes should either be excavated and the trenches backfilled or the lines completely filled with sand-cement slurry. 6.5.4 Remedial Grading Ground level slabs for the new additions may be supported at grade on subgrade prepared as described in this section. Preparation of the subgrade should be completed as described below. Excavation. The Unit 1 fill should be removed to a depth of 4 feet below ground surface or to 2 feet below conventional foundations, whichever is greater. This excavation should extend to a minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the footprint of the hangar additions. Replacement and Compaction. The Unit 1 will be suitable for reuse following moisture conditioning using the step-wise procedure described below. Page 32 of 48 dAft NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 Step 1, Inspect/Approve Exposed Surface. After excavation and prior to replacement with any engineered fill, the exposed soils should be examined by a Geotechnical Engineer from NOVA to identify any localized loose, yielding or otherwise unsuitable materials. Prior to the replacement of the fill, the bottom of the removal area that is disturbed by excavation should be recompacted. Step 2, Moisture Conditioning. The excavated soils should be moisture conditioned to about 2% to 4% above optimum moisture. Step 3, Replacement. The moisture conditioning soils should be replaced in relatively thin lifts within the excavated area and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction after ASTM D1557 (the 'Modified Proctor'). 3. Timely Foundation Construction. Foundations should be constructed as soon as possible following subgrade approval. The Contractor should be responsible for maintaining the subgrade in its approved condition (i.e., moist, free of water, debris, etc.) until the foundation is constructed. 6.5.5 Remedial Grading for Flatwork and Pavements Non-structural areas outside of building pads, such as pavements, sidewalks and other flatwork, etc., should be over-excavated a minimum of 24 inches below existing grade or finished subgrade, whichever is greater, moisture conditioned, and be replaced as described above. Depending on the observed condition of the Unit 1 fill, deeper over-excavation may be required in some areas. The over-excavation for flatwork should extend a horizontal distance of at least two feet beyond the limits of the flat work. 6.5.6 Temporary Excavations All temporary excavations should comply with local safety ordinances. The safety of all excavations is the responsibility of the contractor, and should be evaluated during construction as the excavation progresses. Based on the data interpreted from the borings, the design of temporary slopes may assume California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Soil Type C. 6.6 Alternative 1, Shallow Foundations 6.6.1 General The building may be supported on shallow foundations, including a hangar floor slab supported at grade. The following subsections provide recommendations for these foundations. Shallow foundations designed as described in this section will settle on the order of 0.75", with 80% or more of this settlement occurring during construction. 6.6.2 Setback from the Crest of Slopes Shallow foundations for the hangar expansion may be employed if these foundations are set back a minimum of 10 feet from the crest of slopes that bound the property to the east and south. Page 33 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 6.6.3 Conventionally Reinforced Concrete Slab A conventionally reinforced on-grade concrete slab may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 110 pounds per cubic inch (110 pci). NOVA recommends the slab be a minimum of 5" thick. Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal. Cracking is aggravated by a variety of factors, including high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due during curing. The use of low- slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with construction or 'weakened plane' joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels. 6.6.4 Isolated and Continuous Foundations Shallow foundations- isolated or continuous footings- may be employed as described below. Isolated Foundations Isolated foundations may be designed for an allowable contact stress of 3,000 psf. This value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind and seismic. These foundation units should have a minimum width of 30 inches, embedded a minimum of 24 inches below surrounding grade. Continuous Foundations Continuous foundations may be designed for an allowable contact stress of 2,200 psf, for footings a minimum of 18 inches in width and embedded 24 inches below surrounding grade. This bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind and seismic. Resistance to Lateral Loads Lateral loads to shallow foundations may be resisted by passive earth pressure against the face of the footing, calculated as a fluid density of 350 psf per foot of depth, neglecting the upper 1 foot of soil below surrounding grade in this calculation. Alternatively, a coefficient of friction of 0.35 between soil and the concrete base of the footing may be used with dead loads. Because of the strain incompatibility, passive resistance and concrete-soil friction will not act in concert. 6.6.5 Moisture Barrier Capillary Break NOVA recommends that the requirements for a capillary break ('sand layer') be determined in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction." A "capillary break" may consist of a 4-inch thick layer of compacted, well-graded gravel or crushed stone should be placed below the floor slab. This porous fill should be clean coarse sand or sound, durable gravel with not more than 5 percent coarser than the 1-inch sieve or more than 10 percent finer than the No. 4 sieve, such as AASHTO Coarse Aggregate No. 57. Page 34 of 48 Ska NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 Vapor Barrier Membranes set below floor slabs in should be rugged enough to withstand construction. If a vapor barrier is desired, a minimum 15-mil polyethylene membrane should be placed over the porous fill to preclude floor dampness. NOVA recommends that a minimum 15-mil low permeance vapor membrane be used. For example, Carlisle-CCW produces the Blackline 4008 underslab, vapor and air barrier, a 15-mil low density polyethylene (LDPE) rated at 0.012 perms after ASTM E 96. Limitations of This Recommendation Recommendation for moisture barriers are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation recommendations, though these requirements are primarily the responsibility of the Structural Engineer or Architect. If there is particular concern regarding moisture sensitive materials or equipment to be placed above the slab-on-grade, a qualified person (for example, such as the flooring subcontractor and/or Structural Engineer) should be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. NOVA does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission, since this is not specifically a geotechnical issue. 6.7 Alternative 2, Deep Foundations 6.7.1 General A variety of deep foundation options are available in the event foundations for the hangar expansion must be set closer than 10 feet to an embankment crest. NOVA expects that drilled cast-in-place piles (also known as 'augercast piles' or 'auger cast-in-place' piles ('ACIPs')) will prove economical on a basis of cost and performance. If drilled cast-in-place piles are employed, these piles should be drilled through the Unit 1 fill, and extended 10 feet into the Unit 2 sandstone. Based on the indications of the field exploration, Unit 2 will be encountered at about 20 feet below existing site grade. In the event Unit 1 is thicker than anticipated, in no case should piles extend greater than 35 feet in total depth. 6.7.2 Allowable Axial and Lateral Pile Capacities NOVA estimates that a 16-inch diameter drilled cast-in-place pile founded to as described above, may be designed for an axial capacity of 80 kips in compression, 20 kips in tension with a safety factor of at least FS = 2.5 in compression and FS = 1.5 in tension. Assuming fixity and a pile cap that approximates 'fixed head' conditions (i.e., the top of the individual pile may not rotate) piles designed for top shear of 15 kips will translate approximately 0.1 inch laterally. 6.7.3 Settlement Piles founded as described in this section will gain axial support from embedment in both Unit 1 and Unit 2. Settlement will be on the order of 0.5 inch and will be primarily elastic, with about 80% of this movement occurring as load is applied during construction. Page 35 of 48 dAft 4121 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 6.7.4 Connection with the Existing Hanger The existing hanger is supported on shallow foundations. If the hangar expansion is supported on deep foundations, the expansion will move differentially from the existing structure. This differential behavior will occur during both static loading and in a seismic event. It is unusual to combine shallow and deep foundations in the same structure, as the differential performance is commonly problematic. If deep foundations for the hangar expansion, design should include connections flexible enough to accommodate this differential movement of about 1 inch between the structures. 6.7.5 Conventionally Reinforced Concrete Slab If piles are employed, the hanger slab may be developed as a conventionally reinforced on-grade concrete slab designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 110 pounds per cubic inch (110 pci). NOVA recommends the slab be a minimum of 5" thick. Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal. Cracking is aggravated by a variety of factors, including high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due during curing. The use of low- slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with construction or 'weakened plane' joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels. 6.7.6 Micropile Alternative to Drilled Piles General Micropiles are small diameter drilled and grouted piles, a subset of cast in place replacement piles. Innovative drilling and grouting methods permit high concrete/concrete bond values to be generated along the micro piles periphery. To exploit this benefit, high-capacity steel casings can be used as the principal loadbearing element with the surrounding concrete serving only to transfer, by friction, the applied load between the soil in the steel. Micropiles could be extended to penetration depth similar to those for the drilled piles. Recent years and recent advances in design have seen micropiles become more common in use in new foundations and in seismic retrofitting of structures. As the practice of micro pile installation has matured, the language of micropile design has come to consider a variety of classifications of these foundation units. Micro piles are known by four classifications (Types 'A' through 'D'), considering both (i) design behavior and (ii) the method of installation/ grouting. Construction of these units are depicted on Figure 5-1, showing the range of compressive capacities achievable by different pile types. Page 36 of 48 I NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016553 3-10 Tons 15-75 Tons 40-100 Tons 25-75 Tor U H Driven MicroiIe Compaction Grout Mbropile Post Grouted Micropile Pressure Grouted Micropile Figure 6-1. Common Micropile Installation Approaches (Left to Right, 'Type A' through 'Type D') Source: http://geonusa.com!micror•ile.htm ExDected Performance Micropile construc:icn is provided by a number of specialty contractors throughout the United States. Micropiles have been employed in a number of instances in nearby Southern California. NOVA expects tha: an eight-inch to 10-inch diameter Type C or D micropile penetrating to a I depth of about 25 feet would develop allowable axial capacity on the order of 4C kips. 6.8 Control of Moisture Around Foundations I 6.8.1 General Design for foundations- whether shallow foundations (Alternative 1) or deep foundatiors (Alternative 2) should include care to control accumulations f moisture around and below foundations 6.8.2 Erosion and Moisture Control During Construction I Surface water should be coitrolled during construction, via berms, gravel/sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, siLation basins, positive surface grades, or other method to avoid damage to the finish work or adjoining properties. The Contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such I time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. After grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond. I I Page 37of48 I I I I I I I I I I a AN Me NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 6.8.3 Design Drainage Rainfall to roofs should be collected in gutters and discharged in a controlled manner through downspouts designed to drain away from foundations. Downspouts, roof drains or scuppers should discharge into splash blocks to slabs or paving sloped away from buildings. Surface Grades Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs. In areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure, NOVA recommends that protective slopes be provided with a minimum grade (away from the hangar) of approximately 2 percent for at least 10 feet from the perimeter. A minimum gradient of 1 percent is recommended in hardscape areas. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent, directing drainage away from the structure to approved drainage facilities. 6.8.4 Utilities Design for Differential Movement Underground piping within or near structures should be designed with flexible couplings to accommodate both ground and slab movement, so that minor deviations in alignment do not result in breakage or distress. Utility knockouts should be oversized to accommodate the potential for differential movement between foundations and the surrounding soil. Backfill Above Utilities. Excavations for utility lines, which extend under or near structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. 6.9 Retaining Walls 6.9.1 Shallow Foundations for Retaining Walls Continuous shallow foundations for CMU retaining walls may be designed as described below. Minimum Dimensions. Footings should be at least 24 inches wide and embedded at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For foundations adjacent to slopes, the bottom of foundations should be excavated to depths such that the distance to daylight from the bottom of foundations is at least 7 feet in distance laterally from the slope face. Contact Stress. Continuous footings placed on properly compacted fill may be designed using an allowable (net) contact stress of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) based on the minimum embedment and width mentioned above. Page 38 of 48 4. NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Ceotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 6.9.2 Lateral Earth Pressures NOVA understands that design will include smaller (perhaps 3 feet tall) cantilevered, conventionally reinforced concrete retaining wall. This section provides recommendations for wall pressures. Lateral earth pressures for wall design are provided on Table 6-4 (following page) as equivalent fluid weights, in psf/foot of wall height or pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These values do not contain a factor of safety, such that design should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. 6.9.3 Resistance to Lateral Loads Lateral loads to the wall may be resisted by a combination of frictional and passive resistance as described below. Frictional Resistance A coefficient of friction of 0.4 between the soil and base of the footing. Passive Resistance. Passive soil pressure against the face of footings or shear keys will accumulate at an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in calculations of passive resistance. Table 6-4. Lateral Earth Pressures Loading Condition Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf) for Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill Sloping Upwards Active (wall movement allowed) 35 60 "At Rest" (no wall movement) 65 100 'Passive" (wall movement toward the soils) 260 220 Note A: 'approved' means select soil with El < 50 after ASTM D4829. Note B: assumes wall includes appropriate drainage. 6.9.4 Drainage The above recommendations assume a wall drainage panel or a properly compacted granular free- draining backfill material (El of 50 or less). The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. 6.9.5 Uplift Foundation resistance to uplift caused by overturning may be calculated assuming soil unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft'). Page 39 of 48 I / LXSTING 9,600 SF \ ROYAL JET HANGAR\ PROTECT IN PLACE I I I I I I 02 - EXXISJIN LEASEHOL 1.11 ~CRES co CIVI-Q CENT I ER PROPOSED BMP' PROOSp_j\4 TRENCH DRAIN - \ PROPOSED \ .k' ~ I, XISTING cO4C?TE / V-GUTTER TO DEMOLISI-IEO 01 I iI NOVA I Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016553 1 7.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION 7.1 Current Planning for Stormwater Infiltration BMPs As is discussed in Section 2, current planning envisions development of permanent storm water Best Management Practices (BMP's) on the West, South and East periphery of the site. Figure 7-1 depicts this infrastructure. I Figure 7-1. Current Planning for New Stormwater BMPs and Retaining Wall (source: Cncep1 Plan, Terramar Consulting Engineers, October 2016) 7.2 Site Evaluation Based upon the indications of -.he field exploration and laboratory testing reported herein, NOVA has evaluated the site as abstractec below after guidance contained in the February 2016 County of San Diego BMP Design Manual for Perir anent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment, and Hydromodfication Management (hereafter, 'the EMP Manual'), adopted by the City of Carlsbad. There are no areas of contaminated soil or contaminated groundwater known to be within the site or within 1,000 feet of the site (GeoTracker 2016). Page 40 of 48 I I Ii I I I dAft, Ik NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion 02 October 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016553 There are no 'brownfield' sites within 1,000 feet of the site. There are descending slopes steeper than 25% within the site limits. There are no known water supply wells, permitted UST's (GeoTracker, 2016) or permitted graywater systems within 1,000 feet of locations contemplated for retention/b iofiltrationlBMPs. Soil types have been rigorously mapped. The site is largely underlain by the sequence of soils and rock listed below. Fill. A generally sandy artificial fill of medium dense to dense consistency. It is likely that the Eastern portion of the site is locally greater than 20 feet in thickness. Bedrock. The fill is underlain by naturally occurring geologic units consisting of siltstones and sandstones of the Santiago Formation (Tsa). Section 3 provides a description of the field work undertaken to complete the testing. Figure 3-1 depicts the location of the testing. This section provides the results of that testing and related recommendations for management of stormwater in conformance with the BMP Manual. As is well-established by the BMP Manual, the feasibility of stormwater infiltration is principally dependent on geotechnical and hydrogeologic conditions at the project site. The remainder of this section provides NOVA's assessment of the feasibility of stormwater infiltration BMPs utilizing the information developed by the field exploration described in Section 3, as well as other elements of the site assessment. 7.3 Infiltration Test Results Table 7-1 provides a summary of the testing to determine the infiltration rate. The percolation rate of a soil profile is not the same as its infiltration rate ('I'). Therefore, the measured/calculated field percolation rate was converted to an estimated infiltration rate utilizing the Porchet Method in accordance with guidance contained in the BMP Manual. Table 7-1. Percolation Test Results Test Depth of Test (feet below Infiltration Rate Infiltration Rate Boring existing grade) (inches/hour) (in/hour, F=2)' P-i 8.0 0.01 0.01 P-2 5.5 0.18 0.09 Note: 'F=2' indicates 'Factor of Safety of 2' Records related to the infiltration testing are provided in Appendix D. Page 41 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 7.4 Design Infiltration Rate NOVA considers the infiltration rates presented in Table 7-1 to be representative of the infiltration rate that may be expected at this site. In consideration of the nature of Unit 1 fill, as well as the Unit 2 sandstones and siltstones beneath it, the infiltration rates presented in Table 7-1, column 3, are to be used with a minimum factor of safety (F) of F= 2 for design and location of the infiltration/retention basins. As may be seen by review of Table7-1, column 4, the resultant design infiltration rates (I) should be approximately I = 0.01 inches/hour and I = 0.09 inches/hour using a preliminary factor of safety (F) of F= 2. These infiltration rates in themselves indicate that the locations would be suitable for partial infiltration, however, the subject site is underlain by over 20 feet of existing fill, which is neither a natural soil nor a geologic condition. According to the BMP manual, no infiltration in any appreciable amount is feasible on this site. 7.5 Review of Geotechnical Feasibility Criteria 7.5.1 Overview Section C.2 of Appendix C of the BMP Manual provides seven factors should be considered by the project geotechnical professional while assessing the feasibility of infiltration related to geotechnical conditions. These factors are listed below C.2.1 Soil and Geologic Conditions C.2.2 Settlement and Volume Change C.2.3 Slope Stability C.2.4 Utility Considerations C.2.5 Groundwater Mounding C.2.6 Retaining Walls and Foundations C.2.7 Other Factors The above geotechnical feasibility criteria are reviewed in the following subsections. 7.5.2 Soil and Geologic Conditions The engineering borings and percolation tests borings completed for this assessment disclose the artificial fill described below. Unit 1, Fill (Oaf). Undocumented silty to sandy fill covers the site; this fill is of moderate density. This material is expected to have moderate to low permeability and large variability in composition and thickness throughout the site. Page 42 of 48 A a NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 7.5.3 USDA NRCS Review The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) provides soil data and information for the entire United States. Data available from the USDA NRCS include a description of the soils, their location on the landscape, and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Review of USDA NRCS data (USDA 2007), indicates that 100 percent of the subject site is underlain by soil unit "LvF3", Loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex, 9 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded. The Loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex profile is described as "drainageways", where the parent material is alluvium derived from mixed sources. The loamy alluvial land profile is classified as hydrologic Soil Unit Group B, described as "...soils that have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission (0.15-0.30 in/hr) ". The Huerhuero profile landform is described as "Ridges"; the parent material is described as residuum weathered from calcareous sandstone and shale. The Huerhuero is classified as hydrologic Soil Unit Group D, described as "soils have high runoffpotential." They have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high-water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very low rate of water transmission (0-0.05 in/hr)." 7.5.4 Settlement and Volume Change The soils at the tested infiltration locations are of sufficient density that saturation should not affect settlement or soil collapse. However, the large variability and clayey soils at depth may have an effect on the volume of the soils if stormwater infiltration is introduced. 7.5.5 Slope Stability The site includes areas with descending slopes. Infiltration BMPs if planned should not be planned near descending slopes steeper than 25%. This limitation precludes the area of P-2 as a feasible storm water infiltration BMP site, because of the limited space available. 7.5.6 Utilities Stormwater infiltration BMPs should not be sited within 10 feet of underground utilities. NOVA is not aware of any utility trenches within 10 feet of the locations of perspective BMPs. Accordingly, NOVA sees no constraint to the feasibility of stormwater BMPs by this consideration. 7.5.7 Groundwater Mounding Stormwater infiltration can result in damaging ground water mounding during wet periods. Mounded water would not be considered damaging to utilities, development infrastructure (pavements, flat work, etc.) and building foundations and retaining walls, due to the design and location of the proposed basins. As is discussed in Section 5.3.2, the infiltration testing reported herein indicates that vertical infiltration rates are low, (infiltration of I = 0.01 and I = 0.09 inches/hour in the areas tested); groundwater level is expected to be much deeper than 30 feet. As such, the implementation of stormwater infiltration BMPs may result in minimal groundwater mounding near individual BMPs. Page 43 of 48 SRI Elk NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 7.5.8 Retaining Walls and Foundations The BMP Manual recommends that stormwater infiltration BMPs be sited a minimum 10 feet from the retaining walls and foundations. Infiltration in close proximity to retaining walls and foundations can be impacted by increased water infiltration and result of potential increases in lateral pressures and reductions in soil strength. 7.5.9 Other Factors. Due to the considerable fill depth of the subject site, the extension of the BMPs down to natural soil is infeasible. NOVA is not aware of all subsurface conditions on nearby sites and cannot address the potential effects of added saturation to geotechnical hazards like saturation, heave, settlement or hydrocollapse, liquefaction, etc. Accordingly, NOVA recommends potential for lateral migration of water from stormwater BMP's be limited by siting any such structures away from property lines. 7.6 Suitability of the Site for Stormwater Infiltration In consideration of the site evaluation- the depth, extent and variability of the existing fill soils and the limited space between the existing building and the existing slope in the area of P-2 on the eastern periphery of the site - it is the opinion of NOVA that the site is not suitable for application of stormwater infiltration BMPs as currently envisioned. As such, alternative stormwater retention and treatment BMP's should be considered. Page 44 of 48 4k NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 8.0 PAVEMENTS 8.1 Overview 8.1.1 General For the purposes of this section, NOVA has assumed that traffic in the vicinity of the hangar will be principally related to automobiles, with some truck traffic. Business jets and other aircraft will also use the area. The structural design of pavement sections depends primarily on anticipated traffic conditions, subgrade soils, and construction materials. For the purposes of the preliminary evaluation provided in this section, NOVA has assumed a Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0 for the passenger car parking, and 6.0 for the driveways. These traffic indices should be confirmed prior to final design. 8.1.2 Design for Drainage An important consideration with the design and construction of pavements is surface and subsurface drainage. Where standing water develops, either on the pavement surface or within the base course, softening of the subgrade and other problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected. Furthermore, good drainage should minimize the risk of the subgrade materials becoming saturated over a long period of time. The following recommendations should be considered to limit the amount of excess moisture, which can reach the subgrade soils: site grading at a minimum 2% grade away from the pavements; compaction of any utility trenches for landscaped areas to the same criteria as the pavement subgrade; sealing all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture migration to subgrade soils; and, concrete curbs bordering landscape areas should have a deepened edge to provide a cutoff for moisture flow beneath the pavement (generally, the edge of the curb can be extended an additional twelve inches below the base of the curb). 8.1.3 Maintenance Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for. Preventative maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. 8.1.4 Review and Surveillance The Geotechnical Engineer-cf-Record should review the planning and design for pavement to confirm that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans prepared for the project. The preparation of subgrades for roadways should be observed on a full-time basis by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record. Page 45 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 8.2 Subgrade Preparation Subgrades for any new pavements should be prepared in a manner similar to that described in Section 6.6 for the hangar floor. Following removal of existing pavements, the Unit 1 fill will be disturbed by that action. This relatively sandy soil should be re-densified by vibratory densification to a minimum of 95% relative compaction after ASTM D 1557 using the following general approach. Moisture Conditioning. The soils should be moisture conditioned to 2% over optimum moisture content (with reference to ASTM D 1557) to a depth of 12". Re-Densification. The Unit 1 soils should be densified by compaction using a heavy vibratory drum roller, completing at least five passes in the forward direction over the area of the new hangar floor slab. This densification should affect ground improvement to a minimum of 24 inches depth. Quality control testing should be undertaken to confirm that the upper 12 inches of Unit 1 is densified to at least 95% relative compaction after ASTM D 1557. Proof-Rolling. The entire area of the new hangar floor slab should be proof rolled by a heavy wheeled vehicle (for example, a loaded dump truck). Areas that appear soft during the proof rolling process should be re-densified/improved. 8.3 Flexible Pavements Provided the subgrade in paved areas is prepared per the recommendations in Section 8.2, an R-value of 25 can be assumed. This R-value was verified by laboratory testing reported herein (see Appendix C). Table 8-1 provides recommended sections for flexible pavements. The recommended pavement sections are for planning purposes only. Additional R-value testing should be performed on actual soils at the design subgrade levels to confirm the pavement design. Table 8-1. Preliminary Recommendations for Flexible Pavements, R = 25 A Area Estimated Traffic Asphalt Base Course Subgrade R-Value Index Thickness (in) Thickness (in) Auto Driveways/Parking 25 5.0 4.0 6.0 Roadways 25 6.0 j 4.0 7.5 The sections assume properly prepared subgrade consisting of at least 24 inches of soil compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. The aggregate base materials should also be placed at a minimum relative compaction of 95%. Construction materials (asphalt and aggregate base) should conform to the current Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ('Green Book'). Page 46 of 48 NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hanar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 8.4 Rigid Pavements 8.4.1 Pavement Section The flexible pavement specifications used in roadways and parking stalls may not be adequate for wheel loads from aircraft, including areas for engine runup, loading and turnaround. In this event, NOVA recommends that a rigid concrete pavement section be provided. The pavement section should be 6 inches of concrete and a 6-inch base course. The concrete should be obtained from an approved mix design with the minimum properties shown on Table 8-2. Table 8-2. Recommendations for Concrete Pavements Property Recommended Requirement Compressive Strength @ 28 days 3,250 psi minimum Strengt Requirements ASTM C94 Minimum Cement Content 5.5 sacks/cu. yd. Cement Type Type Il/V Portland Concrete Aggregate ASTM C33 Aggregate Size 1 inch maximum Maximum Water Content 0.5 lb/lb of cement Maximum Allowable Slump 4 inches Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/ contraction and isolation. Sawed joints should be cut within 24-hours of concrete placement, and should be a minimum of 25% of slab thickness plus 1/4 inch. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and doweled where necessary for load transfer. Where dowels cannot be used at joints accessible to wheel loads, pavement thickness should be increased by 25 percent at the joints and tapered to regular thickness in 5 feet. Page 47 of 48 Ak NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 9.0 REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2002, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02. American Concrete Institute, 2015, Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, AC! 302.1R-15. ASCE, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-10. APWA, 2015 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ('Greenbook') California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 California Building Standards Code. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, DMG Open File Report, 96-02, Geologic Maps of Northwest Part of San Diego County California. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/ttsb/corrosionlpdf/20 12-11- 19-Corrosion-Guidelines.pdf. California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library: found at http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/ California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2007, Geologic Map of The Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California. Scale 1:100,000. Plate 1 of 2. City of Carlsbad, Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydroraodfication Management, February 2016. Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W. A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones In California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Jennings, C. W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6. Structural Engineers Associaion of California, Seismic Design Recommendations, Tilt up Buildings, SEAOC Blue Book, Article 9.02.010, September 2008. Tan, S. and Giffen, G., California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1995, DMG Open File Report, 95-04, Landslide Hazards In The Northern Part Of The San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Cailfornia. San Diego County, Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management, February 2016. Seed, H.B., Nineteenth Rankine Lecture: Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments, Geotechnique, Vol. 24, No. 3, September 1979. Terramar Consulting Engineers, Concept Plan, (undated). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Engineering and Design: Stability of Earth and Rock-fill Dams, Engineering Manual (EM)1 110-2-1992, 1970. USACE, Slope Stability, EM 1110-2-1902, 31 Oct 2003. USGS, Earthquake Hazards Program, Seismic Design Maps & Tools, accessed 30 Dec 2016 at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps. Page 48 of 48 L 41c, ' - - - -- - - '' Lir - r. : isi.,J, \\ I 7 g&and SITE flew Sil \ p ••.. •__"_S isi; •11 'T k2 Sit ri '. rAirpon -j bl sit 521 A CL 1 POinsettia Lone ( \\I \ I \ I E Carlsbad Poinsew. '\\ - - . 'ar- ... ... \ . . 51 tj - •- —:. •':I. - - - a( way 1 • — nas - 45 11J 521 L L OPENSTREETMAP SITE VICINITY MAP ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION NOVA I 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B '4 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA HONE: 858-292-7575 FAX. 858-292-7570 FDATEN 2017 - PROJECT: 2016553 PLATE: 1 KEY TO SYMBOLS /\j APPROXIMATE SITE PERIMETER A NOVA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA E: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-757C SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2016 SITE LOCATION MAP ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION / 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD - CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: JAN 2017 PROJECT: 2016553 PTE: 2 V voplo-1 1 ft I _:' KEY TO SYMBOLS Tsa SANTIAGO FORMATION QvoplO-11 VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, UNITS 1011 MzU METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCKS, UNDIVIDED QvoplO VERY OLD PARALICDEPOSrS, UNIT 10 SOURCE: OCEANSIDE 30'X60 QUADRANGLE REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP NOVA 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 4373 IIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B DATE: ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION CARLSBAD, CAL FORNIA SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA JAN 2017 PROJECT: 2016553 PLATE: 3 HONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-757C ild San Marcos. 1CIE LLA Escondidd PAWMAP itas risid? ,Vista ( 'I 'I \ ees KEY TO SYMBOLS 16, _/ 4!! -----------.- HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT ------------- LATE QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT PRE-QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT SOURCE: FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA NOVA f 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B / SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 FAULT ACTIVITY MAP ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: JAN 2OI7 I PROJECT: 2015553 I PLATE:4 , '1 /# O 37. fill B-2 EXISTING CIVIC HELICOPTER LEASEHOLD KEY TO SYMBOLS I L. Ts V XISTING CONtCETE / bV V GUTTER TO BE / DEMOLISHED V / \ 1 PROPOSED / TRENCH DRAIN ' - ,600 SF ;a HA GAR IN CE &PROPOSED Oaf 7 ,1 Tsa EXISTING - )EXISTING' WESTERN \ " P RO'fAL JE 'lp FLIGHT c' LEASEHOLD LEASEHOLD \> / '3 1 ACRES TAXIWAY ACCESS Oaf - Tsa B-1 - P1. - ACCESS GATE PROPOSED PROPOSED - \' TRENCH ) \ \ Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL P-2 Tsa SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 APPROXIMATE GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATION Able NOVA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 858-292-7575 858-292-7570 (FAX) WWW. USA-NO VACOM z 0 z Cr cc x0 cl: LLI z '2 o <0 00u w c ) C —J (\J >- 0 PROJECT NO: 2016553 DATE: JAN 2017 DESIGN BY: JDB/AJS DRAWN BY: AJS CHECKED BY: WM REVIEWED BY: JDB SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION MAP 0 50, 100 PLATE: 5 I I I I Li I I I I I I I I I I CONCEPT PLAN T E RR MA R CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, SUITE 303 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 P: 760.603.1900 F: 760.603.1909 ) IN T1 'NG L 3/6.0 3/8.0 7 x297 04.0 "I/ ~ 950 30 KEY TO SYMBOLS APPROXIMATE SITE LIMIITS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - oft •x 3/1.5 A ill, NOVA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 858-292-7575 858-292-7570 (FAX) WWW.USA-NOVA.COM z 0 U, z <a xo < cc z cr Er o - — <cr -1 Z CC co 00(1) cr —<a: C) C) w -, c _I >- 0 PROJECT NO; 2016553 DATE: JAN 2017 DFSIGN RY JDB/AJS DRAWN BY: AJS CHECKED BY: WM REVIEWED BY: JDB AERIAL SITE MAP TOPO 1963 0 200 400' PLATE: 6 3/3.0 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I N / 3085 3I5-- v v-------- 3/9.0 3/80 / 5 --2820 /7 J / ( .770, Ak , rl It Las ( ) / 3?zoti\304.5 r i CALS BAD .RACT NO.j / 3045 oss '4 P 3 M A P N 8054' KEY TO SYMBOLS fps..I APPROXIMATE SITE LIMIITS A NOVA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 858-292-7575 858-292-7570 (FAX) WWW.USA-NOVA.COM z 0 Cl) z ZLi z I cr— 'cr Z 0- Io co <cr w c ) CJ _J c\J 0 PROJECT NO: 2016553 DATE: JAN 2017 DFSIflN RY JDB/AJS DRAWN BY: AJS CHECKED BY: WM REVIEWED BY: JDB AERIAL SITE MAP TOPO 1973 (ij) 0 200' 400' PLATE: 7 k _ - C CIVIC HIELICO Oft FILI t XyN( -.STERN 1LV •,) I -- Y FLIGHT ?2' / .NG - C IC - - -' OV 1020 ~po - ST Sr iANGArZ ' I EC I ' N ,7 TING EXISTINIZIC WIES LEASEHOLD EHOLD 1.31 ACRES CIVICCENTER 1## 06 %T CON GVV___ - V-UTrER TO -'TA5dWAY ACCESS BE / - _ M A TE - DEOLISHED -- -•" I KEY TO SYMBOLS SS PROPOSED ' R0POSD / - 7 FRENCH DRAIN , I EN OLD N 0 \7'\ 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 858-292-7575 858-292-7570 (FAX) WWW. USA-NOVA.COM z 0 z C,0 LL — zo- cc X<0 I— LI cr CC cn 00(1) <I oO w cj —) c —J c J lq: >- 0 CC PROJECT NO: 2016553 DATE: JAN 2017 DESIGN BY: JDB/AJS DRAWN BY: AJS CHECKED BY: WM REVIEWED BY: JDB TOPOGRAPHIC SITE MAP 0 160' PLATE: 8 /'\J 1963 CONTOUR LINES NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 APPENDIX A USE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Geotechnical Engineering Report Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design teams plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the reports accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study, For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFr= The nest People on Earth 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asle.org Copyright 2004 byASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 APPENDIX B LOGS OF BORINGS EQUIPMENT: B-51 GPSCOORD.: N/A LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS CR CORROSIVITY MC MAXIMUM DENSITY DS DIRECT SHEAR El EXPANSION INDEX AL AUERBERG LIMITS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RV RESISTANCE VALUE DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2C16 EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING I BORING LOG B-i I GROUNDWATER DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 315 FT CN CONSOLIDATION - SE SAND EQUIVALENT 11 uj I I Iw°- -J w >- I p I SOIL DESCRIPTION Ir I -j I SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS X I I 0 (USGS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) ir lI _iw 2 0 wl cr-I< J 0 Co 0 0 D -J REMARKS o ASPHALT/CONCRETE SM 50/5" ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oaf): SILTYSAND; LIGHTBROWN, RED BROWNAND BROWN, MOIST, MC 130 plc @6.8% -- * MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED RV 24 50/2" — * I LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN 5— . 38 29 - LIGHT BROWN TO YELLOWISH BROWN AC FRAGMENTS 10 - / 16 - — 24 — LIGHT BROWN AND REDDISH BROWN, DAMP MOTTLED - — 22 - .15— / / CH 25 ------------------------------------------------------- FAT CLAY WITH SILT; LIGHT GRAY TO REDDISH BROWN AND TAN, MOIST, VERY AL MOTTLED STIFF, FINE GRAINED 20 — / — --- ML 5/5" -------------------------------- SANDY SIL UGHTGRAY AND ó7s BROWN (RUST), MOTTLED — BORING TERMINATED A T21.5 FT. NO GROUND WA TER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING. 25 30 KEY TO SYMBOLS ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD Z BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Z SPTSAMPLE(ASTM D1586) GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017 D CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550) — — — SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 A like NOVA APPENDIX B-i I BORING LOG B-2 I LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR CORROSIVITY MC MAXIMUM DENSITY DS DIRECT SHEAR EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETERAUGER BORING El EXPANSION INDEX GPS COORD.: N/A AL A1TERBERG LIMITS I SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RV RESISTANCE VALUE GROUNDWATER DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 318.5 FT CN CONSOLIDATION SE SAND EQUIVALENT -J w,. Cl) w < w SOIL DESCRIPTION LL z SUMMARY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS I Cl) - Cl) 0 (USGS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) cc -I-- a- 0 o U) M Q- -j REMARKS 0 3"ASPHALT/CONCRETEOVER4"BASE - - - E—] SM 47 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oaf): SILTYSAND; LIGHT OLIVE GRAY, BROWN GRAY, MOIST, CR - MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED 20 DARK OLIVE GRAY 5 AC FRAGMENTS 38 I ML 65 ICLAYEY SILT; LIGHT GRAYAND REDDISH BROWN (RUST), MOIST, HARD f MO1TLED ML-SM 61 SANDY SILT-SILTY SAND; LIGHT GRA YAND REDDISH BROWN (RUST), MOIST, HARD, I I VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINED 59 BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FT. NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING. KEY TO SYMBOLS ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD I BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SPTSAMPLE(ASTMD15B6) GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017 fl CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550) - - - SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 110 4 120 I 1 25 A 'JIM NOVA F-1 9 9:1 kllql 61041 -IN BORING LOG B-3 DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR MC DS EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 6 INCH DIAMETEF AUGER BORING GPS COORD.: N/A El AL SA RV DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 317 FT CN GROUNDWATER SE w LLJ - -J Cl) LU SOIL DESCRIPTION -J SUMMARY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS I Cl) Q- 0 cli (USGS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) cr CL 0 0ci ...JUJ LU 0 < o in -J 0 - SM ARTIFICIAL =ILL (Oaf): SILTY SAND; LIGHT BROWN WITH REDDISH BROWN AND - - - - 47 YELLOW FRAGMENTS, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED CR 46 CORROSIVITY MAXIMUM DENSITY DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX AUERBERG LIMITS SIEVE ANALYSIS RESISTANCE VALUE CONSOLIDATION SAND EQUIVALENT REMARKS LIGHT BROWN, DENSE CLAY FRAGMENTS 5 70 107.lpcf 12.3% CL 39 SILTY CLAY; OLIVE GRAY MOIST, VERYSTIFF 31 - 26 El 57 (MEDIUM) 29 si SILTY SAND; RED BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED 40 BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING. KEY TO SYMBOLS ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD Al V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Z SPT SAMPLE (ASTM D1586) __ GEOLOGIC CONTACT NOVA LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017 D CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTMD355O) - - - SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 APPENDIX B-3 10 15 120 I 1 25 BORING LOG B-4 LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR CORROSIVITY MC MAXIMUM DENSITY J DS DIRECT SHEAR EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING GPS COORD.: N/A El EXPANSION INDEX AL AUERBERG LIMITS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RV RESISTANCE VALUE GROUNDWATER DEPTH: -GROUNDWATER OT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 317 FT CN CONSOLIDATION SE SAND EQUIVALENT W —J C/) O Cl) W SOIL DESCRIPTION I p O -j SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 0 ' <F- - ..j C-) (USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) Cc u_I o- < CJ) 0 Cc JW 0 co cc 0m n < 0 LJ °- —J REMARKS ° — SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oaf): SILTY SAND; LIGHT BROWN TO MEDIUM BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED 55 fu 73 '7 57 32 10 — IN, — CL — — SILTY CLAY; OLIVE GRAY, WET, STIFF SILTY 1 15— 7 20 ------ — --- -------------------- SM -------------------------------------------------------------- SIL TV SANDOARK GRAY VERYMOIST FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED ODOR 20— 32 I BORING TERMINATED AT2I.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING. 1 251 -ORGANIC 30 KEY TO SYMBOLS ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION 'V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD id AAA~ BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA NOVA Z SPTSAMPLE(ASTMD1586) __ GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN O CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM 03550) - - — SOILTYPECHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 APPENDIX B-4 A IAN NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 APPENDIX C LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed are presented below: . CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System and are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM 04829): The expansion index of a selected soil was determined in accordance with ASTM 04829. A 1.0 inch thick by 4.0 inch diameter specimen was prepared by compacting the soil with a specified energy at approximately 50.0 percent saturation. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom and a total normal pressure of 144.7 psf. was applied. The specimen was allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes and then saturated. The change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. SOLUBLE SULFATES (California Test Method 417): The soluble sulfate content was determined for samples of soil likely to be present at the foundation level. The soluble sulfate content was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417. MOISTURE-DENSITY (ASTM D2937): In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the exploration logs presented in Appendix A. MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557 METHOD A,B,C): The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determned in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D- 1557, Method A, Method B, Method C. ATtERBERG LIMITS PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM D4318): The Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plastic Index were determined for representative soil samples in order to help classify the soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM 04318 RESISTANCE VALUE ( California Test Method 301 and ASTM D2844): The Resistance Value, for near-surface site soils was evaluated in general accordance with California Test Method 301 and ASTM 02844. Samples were prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure. GRADATION ANALYSIS (ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D422): Tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM 0422. The grain size distributions of selected samples were determined in accordance with ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D422. CONSOLIDATION TEST (ASTM 02435): Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general accordance with ASTM 02435. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. Ill, I LAB TEST SUMMARY ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION N OVA 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I BY:AJS I DATE: JAN 2O17 I PROJECT: 2016553 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 APPENDIX: C.1 Expansion Index Test (ASTM D4829 Sample Sample Initial Compacted Final Volumetric Expansion Expansion Depth Moisture Dry Density Moisture Swell Location (ft) (%) (pcf) (%) (INCH) Index Potential B-3 14.0 8.9 110.2 24.7 0.060 57 Medium Corrosivity Test (Cal. Test Method 417,422,643) Sample Sample Depth Resistivity Sulfate Content Chloride Content Location (ft) pH (Ohm-cm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (%) B-2 1,0-3.0' 8.4 800 12.0 0.013 110 0.011 Plastic Index (ASTM D424) Sample Sample Liquid Plastic Plastic USCS Location Depth Limit Limit Index (% Finer (ft) LL PL P1 than No. 40) B-i 16.0' 58.0 18.0 41 CH USCS (Entire Sample) CH Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D1557 Sample Maximum Optimum Moisture Sample Depth Dry Density Content Location (ft) Soil Description (pcf) (%) B-i 1 .0' - 5.0 Light Brown Silty Sand 130.0 6.8 Resistance Value (Cal. Test Method 301 & ASTM D2844 Sample Sample Depth Location (ft) Soil Description R-Value B-i 1 .0' - 5.0' Light Brown Silty Sand 24 LAB TEST RESULTS NOVA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA BY: AJS PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: JAN 2017 I PROJECT: 2016553 APPENDIX: C.2 100 90 80 70 pit a. 60 U 50 40 30 20 10 0. 100 'K--- Size (inches) —4< U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes > < Hydrometer Analysis a C CD 0 0 0 0 ó 6 6 6 a 6 6 7 2 2 2 Z I I I it±t I I I I II I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I II I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I i I p p I ii I ii I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I II I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - I II I I : I p I I I - - - - - - - :- - I I —t i —i- II I II I I I p I -t---- p I - —i---- I I I I - - - - I I I l II I I - - - —r - I I I I I I I I I I P I I II ii II I I I I I 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size (mm) Gravel Sand Silt or Clay. Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Sample Location P-i Depth (ft) 6.5' USCS Soil Type SM Passing No. 200 (%) 36 I GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS I I ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION 1 1 NOVA I 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA I I I I I BY: DATE: I PROJECT: APENDIX:C.3 I 'HONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 I I 0.1 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FEET, (ksf) 1.0 10.0 --- Loading Prior to H20 —e-- Loading After H20 --*-- Rebound Boring Number: B-3 Depth (II): 6.0 Soil Type: Light Browi Silty Sand (SM) NOTES: SAMPLE TESTED AT FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT. WATER ADDED AFTER SEATING LOAD. PERFORMED IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH ASTM D2435. 4A I GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANS ON NOVA 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT RCAD 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA BY: AJS DATE: JAN 2017 PROJEC1: 201E553 APENDIX: C.4 -lONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 A. NOVA Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017 Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553 APPENDIX D RECORDS OF PERCOLATION / INFILTRATION TESTING i PERCOLATION BORING LOG P-i LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR CORROSIVITY MC MAXIMUM DENSITY I DS DIRECT SHEAR EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING GPS COORD.: N/A El EXPANSION INDEX AL A1TERBERG LIMITS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RV RESISTANCE VALUE GROUNDWATER DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 315 FT CN CONSOLIDATION - SE SAND EQUIVALENT uJ ui Cl) uJ >- — SOIL DESCRIPTION Z SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 0 '- I - ) <F— - ..J 0 (USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) Cc w O -JuJ 0 co 0 -Co CL. —J REMARKS I ° ASPHALT/CONCRETE SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oaf): SILTY SAND; OLIVE GRAY, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO AC AND GRAVEL MEDIUM GRAINED FRAGMENTS 5— I 27 SA - / 19 LIGHT GRAY, TAN, RED-BROWN, FINE GRAINED MOTTLED I — — BORING TERMINATED AT8 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING. Ii 10 — I15 I20 1 25- 30 KEY TO SYMBOLS ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD I 'V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Alk, I Z NOVA SPT SAMPLE (ASTMD1586) GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017 CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550) - - - SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 APPENDIX P-i PERCOLATION BORING LOG P-2 DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR CORROSIVITY MC MAXIMUM DENSITY DS DIRECT SHEAR EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING GPS COORD.: N/A El EXPANSION INDEX AL A1TERBERG LIMITS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS RV RESISTANCE VALUE GROUNDWATER DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 318.5 FT CN CONSOLIDATION - SE SAND EQUIVALENT uJ uJ >- 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION < Z — SccI SUMMARY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS I 0 Cl) a- (J) -J 0 (USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) cr I-. w < U) 0 cc 0 co 0 1) -J REMARKS 0 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oat): SILTY SAND WITH CLAY; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED MEDIUM BROWN 5 24 / BORING TERMINATED AT 5.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING 10 15 20 25 KEY TO SYMBOLS ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 'V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA NOVA Z SPTSAMPLE(ASTM D1586) __ GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017 CAL. MOD, SAMPLE (ASTMD3550) - - - SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 APPENDIX P-2 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response 1 to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive x evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: The infiltration rate of the existing soils for locations P-i and P-2 based on the on-site infiltration study was calculated to be less than 0.5 inches per hour (P-i =0.01 inches per hour and P-2=0.09) after applying a minimum factor of safety (F) of F=2. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, 2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this X Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: The infiltration rate of the existing soils for locations P-i and P-2 based on the on-site infiltration study was calculated to be less than 0.5 inches per hour (P-1=0.01 inches per hour and P-2=0.09) after applying a minimum factor of safety (F) of F=2. Geotechnical hazards need not be evaluated in this Criterion for infiltration rates below 0.5 inches per hour. 1-3 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Water contamination was not evaluated by NOVA services. Can infiltration grater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: The potential for water balance was not evaluated by NOVA services. If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part 1 The feasibility screenng category is Full Infiltration Result * If any answer from :0w 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but Proceed to Part 2 would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-4 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists ; Part 2 - Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any 5 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: The infiltration rates of the existing soils for locations P-i and P-2 based on the on-site infiltration study was calculated to be P-1=0.01 inches per hour and P-2=0.09 inches per hour after applying a minimum factor of safety (F) of F=2. Infiltration rates of less than 0.5 inches per hour and greater than 0.01 inches per hour imply that soil and geologic conditions allow for partial infiltration. However, due to the considerable existing fill depth at these locations, this is not a natural soil or geologic condition. Furthermore, it would be infeasible to extend the BMP down to natural soil and geologic formations at the locations tested. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope 6 stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response X to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: C2.1 A geologic investigation was performed at the subject site. C2.2 Settlement and volume change due to water infiltration is possible as clayey soils were noted at depths within the relatively variable fill. C2.3 The subject site is bounded to the south and east by descending slopes that are steeper than 25% that may be subject to saturation and failure if BMPs are planned within 50 feet of these slopes. C2.4 Stormwater infiltration can potentially damage subsurface and underground utilities if BMPs are sited within 10 feet of said utilites. C2.5 Stormwater infiltration can result in damaging groundwater mounding during wet periods. C2.6 Stormwater infiltration has the potential to increase lateral pressure and reduce soil strength which can impact foundations and retaining walls if BMPs are sited within 10 feet of said foundations and retaining walls. C2.7 Other Factors: Due to the considerable fill depth of the subject site, the extension of the BMPs down to natural soil is infeasible. In consideration of the significant fill depth, the proximity to existing slopes, building foundations, possible existing utilities, and the particularly low measured infiltration rates, the condition in these locations do not allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume without increasing the risk of geotechnical hazards. 1-5 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Water contamination was not evaluated by NOVA services. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream 8 water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: The potential for water balance was not evaluated by NOVA services. If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. Result * No Infiltration If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-6 February 2016