HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2021-0020; LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023; GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE; 2022-03-23GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
MAR 2 4 2022
CITr OF CA~LSBAD
PLANNING DIVISIO'.\J
DVBE • SBE • SDVOSB • SLBE
Mr. Tom Storer, Senior Project Manager
Merlin Entertainment Group
March 23, 2022
NOVA Project No. 2021170
c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC
One Legoland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject:
References:
Dear Mr. Storer:
Geotechnical Update
Responses to Third-Party Geotechnical Review Comments
LEGOLAND Project 2023
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
CDR Commercial Development Resources (2022), Grading and Improvement Plans,
Project 2023, Legoland, California, Resubmittal #2, March 21.
Hetherington Engineering, Inc. (2021 ), Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First),
Legoland 2023, 1 Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California, GR2021-0048/SDP2021-0020,
Project No. 9568.1, Log No. 212727, December 21 .
NOVA (2021), Geotechnical Investigation, SDP 2021-0020 LEGOLAND Project 2023,
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA, 92008 NOVA Project No. 2021170, November 22.
TLC Engineering Solutions (2021 ), Foundation Plans, Project 2023, Legoland,
California, December 30.
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) prepared this geotechnical update to respond to third-party review
comments from the Hetherington Engineering (2021) for the LEGOLAND Project 2023. NOVA is
retained by LEGOLAND California, LLC as the geotechnical consultant of record for the project.
The review comments and our responses are provided below.
Comment 1: The Consultant should review the project grading, improvement, and foundation
plans, provide any additional geotechnical analyses/recommendations considered necessary,
and confirm that the plans have been prepared in accordance with the geotechnical
recommendations.
Response: NOVA reviewed the referenced grading and improvement plans (CDR Commercial
Development Resources, 2022) and foundation plans (TLC Engineering Solutions, 2021 ).
NOVA's review was limited to the geotechnical aspects of the plans . Based upon our review, it is
NOVA's opinion that the plans have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations
contained in the project geotechnical report (NOVA, 2021 ).
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292. 7575
www.usa-nova.com 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
C
Response to Third-Party Geotechnical Report Review
LEGOLAND -Project 2023, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
March 23, 2022
Comment 2: The Consultant should provide an updated geotechnical map utilizing the current
grading plan for the project to clearly show (at minimum): a) existing site topography, b) proposed
structures/improvements, c) proposed finished grades, d) geologic conditions, e) locations of the
subsurface exploration, f) temporary construction slopes, g) remedial grading, key locations, etc.
Response: Plate 1 presents the updated geotechnical map.
Comment 3: The Consultant should provide geologic cross-sections utilizing the current grading
plan to clearly show (at minimum): a) existing topography, b) proposed structures/improvements,
c) proposed finish grades, d) geologic contacts, e) geologic structure, f) locations of the
subsurface exploration, g) temporary construction slopes, and h) remedial grading, etc.
Response: Plate 2 presents the updated geologic cross-section.
Comment 4: The Consultant should provide the Site Seismic Design Category and Risk Category.
Response: According to the project structural engineer, the Seismic Design Category is D and
the Risk Category is 11.
Comment 5: The Consultant should provide minimum recommendations for the reinforcement of
conventional continuous/spread footings.
Response: Minimum two No. 5 bars at top and bottom is recommended. However, the project
structural engineer should design the actual reinforcement of footings.
Comment 6: The Consultant should provide a minimum recommendation for the diameter of CIDH
piles.
Response: Minimum 24-inch diameter is recommended.
Comment 7: The Consultant should address impacts to adjacent property and improvements as
a result of site grading and construction.
Response: The adjacent property and improvements should not be impacted as a result of site
grading and construction provided the recommendations contained in the project geotechnical
report (NOVA, 2021) are followed.
Comment 8: The Consultant should provide hardscape minimum thickness and reinforcement
from a geotechnical standpoint.
Response: Minimum thickness of 4 inches and reinforcement of No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center
each way are recommended (see Section 7.4 of the project geotechnical report).
Comment 9: The Consultant should specify the sulfate exposure category based on the soluble
sulfate testing or default to a severe category.
Response: Based on the soluble sulfate testing and in accordance with ACI 318, the sulfate
exposure class is SO and the exposure severity is N/A.
2
Response to Third-Party Geotechnical Report Review
LEGOLAND -Project 2023, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
March 23, 2022
Comment 1 O: The Consultant should provide a list of recommended testing and observation
during grading and construction.
Response: The following geotechnical observation and testing services during grading and
earthwork construction are recommended:
• Attend the grading preconstruction meeting
• Observe shoring installation
• Observe ground preparation prior to fill placement
• Observe and map the geologic conditions exposed during grading
• Observe placement and compaction of fill , backfill, and paving materials and perform field
density testing
• Perform laboratory tests on fill, backfill, and paving materials used
• Observe foundation excavations to evaluate conformance with the project plans and
geotechnical recommendations
• Prepare daily field reports summarizing the day's activity with regard to earthwork
• Prepare supplemental reports and letters as needed and a final report upon completion of
the earthwork summarizing the results of our geotechnical observation and testing and
our conclusions regarding conformance with the project plans and specifications
If you have any questions, please call us at 858.292. 7575 x 406.
Sincerely,
NOVA Services, Inc.
Tom Canady, PE
Principal Engineer
Attachments: Plate 1 -Subsurface Investigation Map
Plate 2 -Geologic Cross-Section
3
Melissa Stayner, P
Senior Engineering Geologist
'
I
-1s:,,,
fj !'--./ t ~ -y
r"\ -:·t '-j • [ i
'
..... ~~ '' \. }
'x-,_
~
~~ti. l'H".'Rfl W, :mz. ,i~lt"
.,,
', r T ' · 1 ,a:, .
t a·.
1'1.r Si ~~· I . . 'f
i l
;;1 \ ·(i );
i \.
• ! •. '! J • . .~ ~:-·~~4 . ·~ • J,. •(• •s~• ..;... ...I~ .. #,. .r -f'"v:.., ,
• -.-• .. \'. • k.·•1 ·r, • .... _;,,. ·: .--·. 'T'""_\\{·.1· ... _~.
I
I , \ ',,
ii;
t, '-~-=-" -. t
--=-1·1 ',,: .
.....:;:....:.: ~ ~-
\ ,I~~ ~ \7~~~~-'[~ ... i ... :~
lrllJ!'!)._; . '""' . . . . ''
=--<ll " ,.-:"'l
" . ,
. .. . '•. ":-..,... ~-...
••. -• -.ff'S-:.. ., • "\. •• .. l • . • . . -:, .. "\ .• l •
. ,. .. ·;: ... t . '\ .. \· ·v 'b"'· ·v ~ . ,· \ ...• :1: ... \ .• ·C. · 1 •
I ~-• • ' • • • • • • •
.. .,.., ., .
;:-__,.· . •·t
J -~ ~~ ....
►ROPOSE0 TEMPORARY
.~CONSTRUCTION SLOPE.
-.::" ~-"'-,-{ ....a...,..J' -' , . ·, . •· ~ . .
~ ~ -.l -,--'-'--. u ·, • '"!',' i
~'
,,_ :-.. -~ .-..
,.; . -~ . . ..... , .·.·.· ~ ., .. ,
• • ' ,. 1-.!~-~ --~ •........
c,; "· • I ,, .,. '/
,,,. ,(I· 1 1 · .•, 'f/.'" j, ,,, ,
-.:...:........,
. -·;:i ,t_: -rl .: ~ ·:c:i'"=-
:;.,...c..J
"7--~r ~<
a"'il.!,S"f."
-~-•,·j,·.~~-~~.:~··:~~ ,.. ...... ,. ~
,, .. -;.·t-. : :~~: f· ~~ . . . . . . 1' .• \· .
• . . 0 .. \ ... ·~ ... ~
·s:~-a • ', ,.,.."'.. . ...:..-'4~-----=---~~,:~--~:.:;:~.~,
: ? :: .... : ~~~~::~<-
KEY TO SYMBOLS
afu FILL
Qop
8-2
8
A A'
OLD PARA.UC DEPOSITS
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
L.......J GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
,',.,' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
SLOPES/ REMEDIAL GRADING
"NOTE: B-3 IS OFFSITE ANO IS
NOT SHOWN ON MAP
0 ~ 20' ~ 40'
==S,fCTIOH • lo<onc""'"'
NOVA, ..... _,_,.,...
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San O,ego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
9" Calie Ama,,8C8f, Su,te F
San Ci.tnente, CA 92673
P'. 9'9.388.n l0
www.usa-nova.com
C"')
N
0
N <t:
I-z 0 a:: w ~ -, ::i 0 <t: a:: ()
D.. 6
C ~ z Cl) <( ...J
...J ~ 0 ()
(!) w ...J
PROJECT NO. 2021170
DATE MARCH2022
DRAWN BY OTJ
REVIEWED BY MS
SCALE 1'=20'
DRAWING TITLE.
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PLATE NO. 1 OF2
• QEOUC>NCAL ........... __ ......,,..
KEY TO SYMBOLS NOVA 0¥9f:•9al•~--afu Fill
4373 VteWndge Avenue, Su=t• 8
Qop OLD PAAAllC DEPOSITS San O,-go, CA 92123
P. 858 292 7575
944 cane Ama.nec:.r. S1111• F
B-2 San ci.menie, CA 92673
1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING P 949 388 n10
'PROJECTED www us.a-nova.com T0-31.5'
f?J GEOLOGIC CONTACT,
QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN
,',.,,' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION C"') SLOPES/ REMEDIAL GRADING
) N
A A' 0 N . '--~ 200 200 I .... z
0 0::: 0 PROPOSED BUILDING w LL -, ...J
180 '--180 0 <(
et: u
/ EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY /.PROPOSED GRADE ~ 6
FS:112'\ C <( B-2" co 8-1* FS:&182' z Cl) -160 ..... -""' I ,--J -160 5 ...J ' , 0::: ' , <( .,., ' FF.151.IT
,
' , .,., 0 u ,
' , 1---?--------?-....__'-__ .. , (,!) ? ........ ~ ----?------w 140 .... -140 ..J
_,_ _,_
Qop TD-31.5' TD-211.5'
Qop
') I I I I I I I I 120 120 PROJECT~O. 2021170 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 DATE. MARCH2022
DRAWN BY DTJ
REVIEWED BY MS
SCALE 1"=20'
DRAWING TITLE
GEOLOGIC
CROSS-SECTION AA'
0 20' 40' ~ I I PLATE NO. 20F 2
"'
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SDP 2021-0020
LEGOLAND Project 2023 MAR ?-4 1012
0 L I d D . C I b d CA c,--v , , ...,fl,. ,L0!:)Au ne ego an nve, ar s a ' M:".>LA[\JNING DIVISION
. --
••• :::: lOfDNI
. ···~
-::~
::: NNOPM.Mll
. --..............
L-------::~mn --------
Merlin Entertainment Group
c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC
One Legoland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
4&\ ,.,
NOVA
Services
4373 Viewridge Avenue
Suite B
San Diego, California 92123
858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer
Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
949.388.7710
www.usa-nova.com
GEOT NICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
Mr. Tom Storer, Senior Project Manager
Merlin Entertainment Group
c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC
One Legoland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation
SOP 2021-0020
LEGOLAND Project 2023
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Storer:
DVBE • SBE • SDVOSB • SLBE
Revised November 22, 2021
NOVA Project No. 2021170
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) is pleased to present our report describing the geotechnical
investigation performed for the new attraction proposed at LEGOLAND California. We conducted
the geotechnical investigation in general conformance with the scope of work presented in our
proposal dated July 28, 2021 as authorized on August 6, 2021.
This site is considered geotechnically suitable for the proposed development provided the
recommendations within this report are followed.
NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to LEGOLAND on this project. If you have any
questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call us at 858.292.7575 x 413 .
. Sincerely,
NOVA Services, Inc.
Tom Canady, PE
Principal Engineer
Allen Rekani, GIT
Staff Geologist
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
_ _, Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SOP 2021-0020
LEGOLAND Project 2023
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Revised November 22, 2021
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
2. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................. 3
2.1. Field Investigation ........................................................................................................ 3
2.2. Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................................... 4
2.3. Analysis and Report Preparation ................................................................................. 4
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 5
3.1. Site Description ............................................................................................................ 5
3.2. Proposed Construction ................................................................................................ 5
4. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................... 6
4.1. Site-Specific Geology .................................................................................................. 7
4.2. Groundwater and Perched Water ................................................................................ 7
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................... 8
5.1. Faulting and Surface Rupture ...................................................................................... 8
5. 1. 1 Strong Ground Motion .................................................................................... 8
5.1.2 Faulting in the Site Vicinity ............................................................................. 8
5.2. Site Class ..................................................................................................................... 8
5.3. CBC Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................................ 9
5.4. Landslides and Slope Stability ................................................................................... 1 O
5.5. Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ....................................................................... 10
5.6. Flooding, Tsunamis, and Seiches .............................................................................. 10
5.7. Subsidence ................................................................................................................ 11
5.8. Hydro-Consolidation .................................................................................................. 11
6. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 12
7. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 13
7.1. Earthwork ................................................................................................................... 13
C 0 Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
7. 1. 1 Site Preparation ............................................................................................ 13
7. 1.2 Remedial Grading -Building Pad ................................................................ 13
7. 1.3 Remedial Grading -Pedestrian Hardscape ................................................. 13
7. 1.4 Remedial Grading -Vehicular Pavements ................................................... 14
7.1.5 Remedial Grading-Site Walls and Retaining Walls .................................... 14
7. 1.6 Expansive Soil .............................................................................................. 14
7. 1. 7 Compacted Fill .............................................................................................. 14
7.1.8 Imported Soil ................................................................................................ 15
7. 1. 9 Subgrade Stabilization .................................................................................. 15
7. 1. 10 Excavation Characteristics ......................................................................... 15
7. 1. 11 Oversized Material ...................................................................................... 15
7.1.12 Temporary Excavations .............................................................................. 15
7.1.13 Temporary Shoring ..................................................................................... 16
7. 1. 14 Groundwater Seepage ............................................................................... 16
7.1.15 Slopes ......................................................................................................... 16
7. 1. 16 Surface Drainage ........................................................................................ 16
7. 1. 17 Grading Plan Review .................................................................................. 17
7 .2. Foundations ............................................................................................................... 17
7.2.1 Spread Footings ........................................................................................... 17
7.2.2 CIDH Piles .................................................................................................... 18
7.2.3 Settlement Characteristics ............................................................................ 18
7. 2.4 Foundation Plan Review ............................................................................... 18
7.2.5 Foundation Excavation Observations ........................................................... 18
7 .3. Interior Slabs-On-Grade ............................................................................................ 18
7 .4. Hardscape ................................................................................................................. 19
7.5. Conventional Retaining Walls .................................................................................... 19
7 .6. Pipelines .................................................................................................................... 21
7. 7. Corrosivity .................................................................................................................. 21
7.8. Pavement Section Recommendations ....................................................................... 21
8. CLOSURE .............................................................................................................. 23
9. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 24
ii
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
List of Plates
Plate 1
Plate 2
Subsurface Investigation Map
Geologic Cross Section AA'
List of Appendices
Appendix A Use of the Geotechnical Report
Appendix B Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Testing
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Site Vicinity Map
Figure 1-2. Site Location Map
Figure 2-1 . Locations of Borings
Figure 4-1 . Regional Geology Map
Figure 5-1 . Fault Map
Figure 7-1 . Typical Conventional Retaining Wall Backdrain Details
List of Tables
Table 5-1.
Table 7-1 .
ASCE 7-16 Mapped Site Coefficients
AC and PCC Pavement Sections, R Value = 16
iii
Revised November 22, 2021
1.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation NOVA performed for the new
attraction proposed at LEGOLAND California. We understand the project will consist of design
and construction of a new ride complex. The purpose of our work is to provide conclusions and
recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project. Figure 1-1 presents a site
vicinity map, and Figure 1-2 (following page) presents the site location.
,,
y
Q c.t-
F-F
a n M_,,,,
olM_...'"9 -"'"""
Gill ,, Gill Gill
V"99,.Gnlt
Iii COll<.o
Figure 1-1. Site Vicinity Map
..
H,lt..,G<INI
V«.Mt.U
Chlt>M
Mo<llnv
w
L(GOUNO
C1111omt1
-t
•
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
Figure 1-2. Site Location Map
2
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
2. SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work provided during this investigation was generally as described in the proposal
dated July 28, 2021. NOVA provided the following scope of work.
2.1. Field Investigation
NOVA's field investigation consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the site and drilling three (3)
geotechnical borings (B-1 through B-3) to depths between about 21½ and 31½ feet below the
existing ground surface (bgs) using a track-mounted limited access drill rig equipped with a hollow
stem auger. At the time of the investigation, there were two potential sites under consideration for
the project. Since that time, the site location has been finalized. Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled
at the selected site, whereas boring B-3 was drilled about 300 feet to the north. Therefore, the
findings of boring B-3 are largely ignored in the geotechnical discussion for the new attraction.
Figure 2-1 presents the approximate locations of the borings.
KEV TO SYMBOLS
B-3 8 GEOTECHNICAL BORING
Figure 2-1 . Locations of Current and Previous Borings
A NOVA geologist logged the borings and collected samples of the materials encountered for
laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a modified California
(CAL) sampler, a ring-lined split tube sampler with a 3-inch outer diameter and 2½-inch inner
diameter. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the borings using a 2-inch outer
3
•
C _, Geotechnlcal Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
diameter and 1 ¾-inch inner diameter split tube sampler. The CAL and SPT samplers were driven
using an automatic hammer with a calibrated Energy Transfer Ratio {ETR) of about 74%. The
number of blows needed to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of an 18-inch drive is noted on
the logs. Sampler refusal was encountered when 50 blows were applied during any one of the
three 6-inch intervals, a total of 100 blows was applied, or there was no discernible sampler
advancement during the application of 10 successive blows. The field blow counts, N, were
corrected to a standard hammer {cathead and rope) with a 60% ETR. The corrected blow counts
are noted on the boring logs as N&o-Disturbed bulk samples were obtained from the SPT sampler
and the drill cuttings. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. Soils are classified
according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
2.2. Laboratory Testing
NOVA tested select samples to evaluate soil classification and engineering properties and
develop geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. The laboratory tests consisted of
particle-size distribution, Atterberg limits, expansion index, R-value, and corrosivity. The results
of the laboratory tests and brief explanations of the test procedures are presented in Appendix C.
2.3. Analysis and Report Preparation
The results of the field and laboratory testing were evaluated to develop conclusions and
recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction. This report
presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
4
C O Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1. Site Description
LEGOLAND California is located on a 128-acre lot at One Legoland Drive in the city of Carlsbad,
California. The planned development is located on the western portion of the park (hereinafter
'the site'). The site of the new attraction is bounded on the west by LEGOLAND Drive, and on all
other directions by other attractions. The site is currently occupied by the western extent of the
Driving School track and landscaping areas. This area is currently flat with an elevation of
approximately 162 feet msl, with a shallow 3-foot slope descending to LEGOLAND Drive.
Review of historic aerial photography of the site vicinity indicates that from at least 1953, the date
of the earliest available imagery, until 1999, the area was used for agricultural purposes. Park
construction began in 1999 and was completed around 2002. The existing park structures have
been in place since the park was opened.
Review of historical topographic maps indicates that prior to construction of LEGOLAND, there
was an approximately 20-foot deep natural drainage swale that extended in a north-south
direction below the western portion of the site, with drainage falling toward the south. This subtle
depression is part of the pre-existing canyon system that drained to the large east-west canyon
just south of Palomar Airport Road. It appears that during the relatively recent grading for
LEGOLAND this depression was filled, whereby creating the existing flat configuration of the park.
This infilled depression appears to be the reason for the deep fills identified below the site, as
discussed further in Section 4.
3.2. Proposed Construction
Based on discussions with the design team and our review of provided plans, NOVA understands
that the project will include demolition of the existing attraction and construction of the new ride.
This ride will consist of a building structure with an at-grade level and a pit level, as well as a
structurally separate mechanical system on a structural foundation that will be located within the
pit level of the structure. Plate 1 following the text of the report indicates the proposed building
configuration. Development will also include new pedestrian hardscape, utilities, and shade
structures.
5
•
Geotechnlcal Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
4. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, which
stretches from the Los Angeles basin to the tip of Baja California in Mexico. This province is
characterized as a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by subparallel fault
zones and a coastal plain of subdued landforms.
The mountain ranges are underlain primarily by Mesozoic metamorphic rocks that were intruded
by plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith, while the coastal plain is underlain by
subsequently deposited marine and nonmarine sedimentary formations. The site is located within
the coastal plain portion of the province, underlain by Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits, Units 2-4.
Figure 4-1 presents the regional geology in the vicinity of the site.
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Qop•,u OlO PARALIC DEPOSITS,
UNIT 2◄, UNDIVIDED
VERY OLD PARALIC
DEPOSITS, UNIT 13
SANTIAGO FORMATION
OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS.
UN IT 6-7. UNDIVIDED
Figure 4-1. Regional Geology Map
(Source: Kennedy and Tan 2007)
6
Qa
Qls
AlllNIAL FLOOD-PI.AIN
DEPOSITS
LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS.
UNDIVIDED
4.1. Site-Specific Geology
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
NOVA's subsurface investigation indicates that the site is underlain by fill and Old Paralic Deposits
to the maximum depth explored. Descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are
presented below. Plate 1 following the text of the report presents the site-specific geology, and
Plate 2 presents a geologic cross-section below the new attraction.
FIii (afu): The fill encountered in borings B-1 and B-2 extended to a depth of about 18 feet
bgs. As encountered in the borings, the fill generally consisted of orange brown to dark
brown, medium dense to dense silty sand and clayey sand.
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Qop2:4}: Beneath the fill, the site is underlain by
Quaternary-aged old paralic deposits. As encountered in the borings, the old paralic
deposits consisted of orange brown, moderately cemented, dense to very dense silty and
clayey sandstone.
4.2. Groundwater and Perched Water
Neither groundwater nor perched water were encountered in the borings. The permanent
groundwater table is not expected to be a constraint to development. As presented on Plate 2,
grading and construction operations for the pit level will be taking place near the contact of the fill
and the Old Paralic Deposits. It is not uncommon for nuisance water to perch above the
fill/formational contact. These seeps can be difficult to predict, and recommendations for
mitigation can be provided during construction if necessary.
7
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1. Faulting and Surface Rupture
5. 1. 1 Strong Ground Motion
The site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of southern California, and the
potential for strong ground motion is considered significant during the design life of the proposed
structure. Major known active faults in the region consist generally of en echelon, northwest
striking, right-lateral, strike-slip faults. These include the San Andreas, Elsinore, and San Jacinto
faults located northeast of the site, and the San Clemente, San Diego Trough, and Agua Blanca-
Coronado Bank faults located to the west of the site. The fault zone with the most potential for
strong ground motion in Carlsbad is the major north and northwest striking Newport-Inglewood-
Rose Canyon Fault Zone (NIRC). This fault zone is estimated to be able to generate earthquakes
of MW= 6.9.
The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing a web-based analytical tool provided by the
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). This evaluation shows the site-adjusted
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) is 0.564g.
5. 1. 2 Faulting in the Site Vicinity
Earthquake Fault Zones (formerly known as special study zones) have been established along
known active faults in California in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No active surface faults
are mapped across the site. The nearest mapped active fault is offshore about 4.9 miles to the
southwest, within the Oceanside section of the NIRC fault zone. Due to the lack of active faulting,
the probability of fault rupture at this site is considered very low. Figure 5-1 (following page)
presents faulting in the site vicinity.
5.2. Site Class
Site Class is determined by the weighted average of shear-wave velocity of the upper 100 feet of
the soils/rock underlying a site. Standard penetration resistances (N-values) may be used to
determine site class. Rock displaying blow counts higher than 50 blows per foot are considered
Site Class C. The blow counts NOVA encountered within the Old Paralic Deposits, approximately
18 feet below ground surface, were observed to be between 50 and 100 blows per foot to the
maximum depth encountered. Based on regional geologic mapping and NOVA's extensive
experience with geotechnical exploration in this area of Carlsbad, this site is known to be underlain
at depth by Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation, recognized to be very dense with high blowcounts.
Therefore, the site is considered to be Site Class C per ASCE 7-16 (Table 20.3-1 ).
8
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
ACTIVE WITHIN 150 YEARS
ACTIVE <15,000 YEARS
LATE QUATERNARY <130,000 YEARS
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY <1.6 MILLION YEARS
Revised November 22, 2021
Figure 5-1. Fault Map
5.3. CBC Seismic Design Parameters
A geologic hazard likely to affect the project is ground shaking caused by movement along an
active fault in the vicinity of the subject site. The site coefficients and maximum considered
earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration parameters in accordance with the 2019 CBC
and ASCE 7-16 are presented in Table 5-1 (following page).
9
~-.' Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
Table 5-1. 2019 CBC and ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Parameters
Site Coordinates
Latitude: 33.12725592° Longitude: -117 .31424133°
Site Coefficients and Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Value
Site Class C
Site Coefficients, Fa 1.2
Site Coefficients, Fv 1.5
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period, Ss 1.066g
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period, S1 0.385g
Mapped Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Period, Sos 0.853g
Design Spectral Acceleration at 1-Second Period, S01 0.385g
Site Peak Ground Acceleration, PG.AM 0.564g
5.4. Landslides and Slope Stability
Evidence of landslides, deep-seated landslides, or slope instabilities were not observed at the
time of the field investigation. Additionally, there are no mapped landslides in the vicinity of the
project site. Due to the flat-lying geologic structure underlying the site, the potential for landslides
or slope instabilities to occur at the site is considered very low.
5.5. Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, generally fine sands and silts are subjected to strong
ground shaking. The soils lose shear strength and become liquid, resulting in large total and
differential ground surface settlements, as well as possible lateral spreading during an
earthquake. Due to the lack of shallow groundwater and the relatively dense nature of the
materials beneath the site, the potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement is considered
low.
5.6. Flooding, Tsunamis, and Seiches
The site is mapped within an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2019). The site is not located
within a mapped inundation area on the State of California Tsunami Inundation Maps (Cal EMA,
2009); therefore, damage due to tsunamis is considered negligible. Seiches are periodic
oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays, or reservoirs. The site is not
located adjacent to any lakes or confined bodies of water; therefore, the potential for a seiche to
affect the site is considered negligible.
10
C-
5.7. Subsidence
0 Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
The site is not located in an area of known subsidence associated with fluid withdrawal
(groundwater or petroleum); therefore, the potential for subsidence due to the extraction of fluids
is considered negligible.
5.8. Hydro-Consolidation
Hydro-consolidation can occur in recently deposited sediments (less than 10,000 years old) that
were deposited in a semi-arid environment. Examples of such sediments are eolian sands, alluvial
fan deposits, and mudflow sediments deposited during flash floods. The pore spaces between
the particle grains can re-adjust when inundated by groundwater, causing the material to
consolidate. The fill materials may be considered susceptible to hydro-consolidation. The potential
for hydro-consolidation can be reduced by over-excavation and recompaction of these susceptible
materials. Remedial grading recommendations are provided in subsequent sections of this report.
The relatively dense materials underlying the site are not considered susceptible to hydro-
consolidation.
11
.. Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
6. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our investigation, we consider the proposed construction feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed.
Geotechnical conditions exist that should be addressed prior to construction. Geotechnical design
and construction considerations include the following.
• There are no known active faults underlying the site. The primary seismic hazard at the
site is the potential for moderate to severe ground shaking in response to large-magnitude
earthquakes generated during the lifetime of the proposed construction. The risk of strong
ground motion is common to all construction in southern California and is typically
mitigated through building design in accordance with the CBC. While strong ground motion
could affect the site, the risk of liquefaction is considered negligible.
• The site is underlain by fill and Quaternary-aged old paralic deposits. The old paralic
deposits are considered suitable for support of structural or fill loads. The upper fill is
potentially compressible and unsuitable for support of structural or fill loads and should be
removed. Recommendations for remedial grading are provided in this report.
• Based on our laboratory testing, the on-site silty sand and clayey sand have a very low
expansion potential. These soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill. Any on-site clays,
if encountered, are not suitable for direct support of buildings or heave-sensitive
improvements. Recommendations for expansive soils are provided herein.
• In general, excavations should be achievable using standard heavy earthmoving
equipment in good working order with experienced operators.
• The proposed structure can be supported on shallow spread footings with bottom levels
bearing entirely on compacted fill. Recommendations for foundations are provided herein.
• Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. The groundwater table is expected to
be below a depth that will influence the planned construction. However, groundwater
levels may fluctuate in the future due to rainfall, irrigation, broken pipes, or changes in site
drainage. Because groundwater rise or seepage is difficult to predict, such conditions are
typically mitigated if and when they occur.
12
C 0 Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding earthwork construction as well
as preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the design of the proposed improvements.
These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard
of practice in southern California. If these recommendations appear not to address a specific
feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or revisions to the recommendations.
The recommendations presented herein may need to be updated once final plans are developed.
7.1. Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the CBC and the
recommendations of this report. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific
aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered
subject to revision based on field conditions observed by our offices during grading.
7. 1. 1 Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing improvements, vegetation, and debris.
Subsurface improvements that are to be abandoned should be removed, and the resulting
excavations should be backfilled and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this
report. Pipeline abandonment can consist of capping or rerouting at the project perimeter and
removal within the project perimeter. If appropriate, abandoned pipelines can be filled with grout
or slurry as recommended by and observed by the geotechnical consultant.
7. 1. 2 Remedial Grading -Building Pad
Beneath the pit, the existing fill should be excavated to expose competent old paralic deposits.
Additionally, old paralic deposits within 2 feet of the deepest pit level bottom of footing elevation
should be over-excavated and replaced with compacted fill to provide a relatively uniform
thickness of compacted fill beneath the entire pit and reduce the potential for differential
settlement. Beneath the at-grade portion of the structure, the existing fill should be excavated to
a depth of at least 5 feet below the deepest bottom of footing elevation. Horizontally, excavations
should extend at least 2 feet outside the planned perimeter foundations or up to existing
improvements, whichever is less. NOVA should observe the conditions exposed in the bottom of
excavations to evaluate whether additional excavation is recommended. The resulting excavation
should then be filled to the finished pit or pad subgrade elevation with compacted fill having an
expansion index of 50 or less.
7. 1.3 Remedial Grading -Pedestrian Hardscape
Beneath proposed hardscape areas, the on-site soils should be excavated to a depth of at least
2 feet below planned subgrade elevation. Horizontally, excavations should extend at least 2 feet
outside the planned hardscape or up to existing improvements, whichever is less. If competent
formational materials are exposed, excavation need not be performed. NOVA should observe the
conditions exposed at the bottom of excavations to evaluate whether additional excavation is
13
• --Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
recommended. The resulting surface should then be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture
conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction. If competent formational materials are exposed, scarification and recompaction need
not be performed. The excavation should be filled with compacted fill having an expansion index
of 50 or less.
7. 1. 4 Remedial Grading -Vehicular Pavements
Beneath proposed vehicular pavement areas, the existing soils should be excavated to a depth
of at least 1 foot below planned subgrade elevation. Horizontally, excavations should extend at
least 2 feet outside the planned pavement or up to existing improvements, whichever is less.
NOVA should observe the conditions exposed in the bottom of excavations to evaluate whether
additional excavation is recommended. The resulting surface should then be scarified to a depth
of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at
least 90% relative compaction. If competent formational materials are exposed, scarification and
recompaction need not be performed. The excavation should be filled with material suitable for
reuse as compacted fill.
7. 1. 5 Remedial Grading -Site Walls and Retaining Walls
Beneath proposed site walls and retaining walls not connected to buildings, the existing fill should
be excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of footing. Horizontally, the excavations
should extend at least 2 feet outside the planned hardscape, wall footing, or up to existing
improvements, whichever is less. If competent formational materials are exposed, excavation
need not be performed. NOVA should observe the conditions exposed at the bottom of
excavations to evaluate whether additional excavation is recommended. Any required fill should
have an expansion index of 50 or less.
7. 1. 6 Expansive Soil
The on-site soils tested have expansion indices of O and 2, classified as very low expansion
potential. To reduce the potential for expansive heave, the top 2 feet of material beneath building
footings, concrete slabs-on-grade, hardscape, and site and retaining wall footings should have an
expansion index of 50 or less. Horizontally, the soils having an expansion index of 50 or less
should extend at least 5 feet outside the planned perimeter building foundations, at least 2 feet
outside hardscape and site/retaining wall footings, or up to existing improvements, whichever is
less. We expect that most of the on-site silty sand and clayey sand will meet the expansion index
criteria.
7. 1. 7 Compacted Fill
Fill and backfill beneath the structure should be placed in 6-to 8-inch-thick loose lifts, moisture
conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative
compaction. The maximum density and optimum moisture content for the evaluation of relative
compaction should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Outside the structures, utility
trench backfill and subgrade soils beneath pedestrian hardscape should be compacted to at least
14
• NOVA
I""'\
·.,_,; Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
90% relative compaction. The top 12 inches of subgrade soils beneath vehicular pavements
should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.
7.1.8 Imported Soil
Imported soil should consist of predominately granular soil, free of organic matter and rocks
greater than 6 inches. Imported soil should be observed and, if appropriate, tested by NOVA prior
to transport to the site to evaluate suitability for the intended use.
7. 1. 9 Subgrade Stabilization
Excavation bottoms should be firm and unyielding prior to placing fill. In areas of saturated or
yielding subgrade, a reinforcing geogrid such as Tensar® Triax® TX-5 or equivalent can be
placed on the excavation bottom, and then at least 12 inches of aggregate base placed and
compacted. Once the surface of the aggregate base is firm enough to achieve compaction, then
the remaining excavation should be filled to finished pad grade with suitable material.
7. 1. 10 Excavation Characteristics
It is anticipated that excavations can be achieved with conventional earthwork equipment in good
working order. Difficult excavation should be anticipated in cemented zones within the very old
paralic deposits. Gravel, cobbles, and potentially boulders should also be anticipated.
7. 1. 11 Oversized Material
Excavations may generate oversized material. Oversized material is defined as rocks or
cemented clasts greater than 6 inches in largest dimension. Oversized material should be broken
down to no greater than 6 inches in largest dimension for use in fill, use as landscape material,
or disposed of off-site.
7.1.12 Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations 3 feet deep or less can be made vertically. Deeper temporary excavations
in fill should be laid back no steeper than 1: 1 (horizontal:vertical). Deeper temporary excavations
in very old paralic deposits should be laid back no steeper than ¾: 1 (h:v). The faces of temporary
slopes should be inspected daily by the contractor's Competent Person before personnel are
allowed to enter the excavation. Any zones of potential instability, sloughing, or raveling should
be brought to the attention of the engineer and corrective action implemented before personnel
begin working in the excavation. Excavated soils should not be stockpiled behind temporary
excavations within a distance equal to the depth of the excavation. NOVA should be notified if
other surcharge loads are anticipated so that lateral load criteria can be developed for the specific
situation. If temporary slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are
recommended along the tops of slopes to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and
eroding the slope faces.
Slopes steeper than those described above will require shoring. Additionally, temporary
excavations that extend below a plane inclined at 1 ½: 1 (h:v) downward from the outside bottom
edge of existing structures or improvements will require shoring. Soldier piles and lagging,
15
· · ,,., Geotechnlcal Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
internally braced shoring, or trench boxes could be used. If trench boxes are used, the soil
immediately adjacent to the trench box is not directly supported. Ground surface deformations
immediately adjacent to the pit or trench could be greater where trench boxes are used compared
to other methods of shoring.
7. 1. 13 Temporary Shoring
For design of cantilevered shoring with level backfill, an active earth pressure equal to a fluid
weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) can be used. An additional 20 pcf should be added for
2:1 (h:v) sloping ground. The surcharge loads on shoring from traffic and construction equipment
working adjacent to the excavation can be modeled by assuming an additional 2 feet of soil behind
the shoring. For design of soldier piles, an allowable passive pressure of 350 pounds per square
foot (psf) per foot of embedment can be used, over two times the pile diameter up to a maximum
of 5,000 psf. Soldier piles should be spaced at least three pile diameters, center to center.
Continuous lagging will be required throughout. The soldier piles should be designed for the full
anticipated lateral pressure; however, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in
the soils. For design of lagging, the earth pressure can be limited to a maximum of 400 psf.
7. 1. 14 Groundwater Seepage
Seepage from perched groundwater may occur locally in excavations due to conditions not
observed during our investigation. If dewatering is necessary, the dewatering method should be
evaluated and implemented by an experienced dewatering subcontractor.
7.1.15 Slopes
Permanent slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2: 1 (h:v). Faces of fill slopes should be
compacted either by rolling with a sheepsfoot roller or other suitable equipment, or by overfilling
and cutting back to design grade. Fills should be benched into sloping ground inclined steeper
than 5:1 (h:v). In our opinion, slopes constructed no steeper than 2:1 (h:v) will possess an
adequate factor of safety. An engineering geologist should observe cut slopes during grading to
ascertain that no unforeseen adverse geologic conditions are encountered that require revised
recommendations. Slopes are susceptible to surficial slope failure and erosion. Water should not
be allowed to flow over the top of slope. Additionally, slopes should be planted with vegetation
that will reduce the potential for erosion.
7. 1. 16 Surface Drainage
Final surface grades around structures should be designed to collect and direct surface water
away from structures, including retaining walls, and toward appropriate drainage facilities. The
ground around the structure should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the
structure without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to the structure
slope away at a gradient of at least 2%. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired
should have a minimum gradient of at least 5% within the first 5 feet from the structure. Roof
gutters with downspouts that discharge directly into a closed drainage system are recommended
on structures. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained
16
C-0 Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
throughout the life of the proposed structures. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum
necessary to sustain landscape growth. Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or
unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater can develop.
7. 1. 17 Grading Plan Review
NOVA should review the grading plans and earthwork specifications to ascertain whether the
intent of the recommendations contained in this report have been implemented, and that no
revised recommendations are needed due to changes in the development scheme.
7 .2. Foundations
The foundation recommendations provided herein are considered generally consistent with
methods typically used in southern California. Other alternatives may be available. Our
recommendations are only minimum criteria based on geotechnical factors and should not be
considered a structural design, or to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or by
the structural engineer. The design of the foundation system should be performed by the project
structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described herein and the
requirements of applicable building codes.
The proposed structure can be supported on shallow spread footings with bottom levels bearing
entirely on compacted fill. Site walls and retaining walls not connected to buildings can be
supported on spread footings with bottom levels bearing on compacted fill. Shade structures,
covered walkways, and other pole-type structures can be supported on cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH)
concrete piles.
7.2.1 Spread Footings
Footings should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. A minimum width
of 12 inches is recommended for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated or wall footings.
An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf can be used for footings supported on compacted fill.
The allowable bearing capacity can be increased by 500 psf for each foot of depth below the
minimum and 250 psf for each foot of width beyond the minimum up to a maximum of 5,000 psf.
The bearing value can be increased by ½ when considering the total of all loads, including wind
or seismic forces. Footings located adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a depth
such that a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet exists between the lower outside footing edge
and the face of the slope.
Lateral loads will be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings and passive pressure on
the faces of footings and other structural elements below grade. An allowable coefficient of friction
of 0.35 can be used. An allowable passive pressure of 350 psf per foot of depth below the ground
surface can be used for level ground conditions. The allowable passive pressure should be
reduced for sloping ground conditions. The passive pressure can be increased by ½ when
considering the total of all loads, including wind or seismic forces. The upper 1 foot of soil should
not be relied on for passive support unless the ground is covered with pavements or slabs.
17
7.2.2 CIDH Piles
"''" Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
CIDH piles should be spaced at least three pile diameters, center to center, and be embedded in
compacted fill and/or formational materials. The axial downward capacity of piles can be obtained
from skin friction and end bearing. An allowable downward skin friction of 300 psf and an allowable
end bearing of 5,000 psf can be used. If end bearing is used, the bottom of drilled holes should
be cleaned of loose soil prior to placing concrete. The axial uplift capacity of piles can be obtained
from skin friction and the weight of the pile. An allowable uplift skin friction of 100 psf can be used.
Lateral loads can be resisted by passive pressure on the piles. An allowable passive pressure of
350 psf per foot of embedment acting on twice the pile diameter up to a maximum of 5,000 psf
can be used, based on a lateral deflection up to %-inch at the ground surface and level ground
conditions. The uplift and passive pressure values can be increased by ½ when considering the
total of all loads, including wind or seismic forces. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be relied on
for passive support unless the ground is covered with pavements or slabs.
7.2.3 Settlement Characteristics
Total foundation settlements are estimated to be less than 1-inch. Differential settlements
between adjacent columns and across continuous footings are estimated to be less than %-inch
over a distance of 40 feet. Settlements should be completed shortly after structural loads are
applied.
7. 2.4 Foundation Plan Review
NOVA should review the foundation plans to ascertain that the intent of the recommendations in
this report has been implemented and that revised recommendations are not necessary as a
result of changes after this report was completed.
7.2.5 Foundation Excavation Observations
A representative from NOVA should observe the foundation excavations prior to forming or
placing reinforcing steel.
7 .3. Interior Slabs-On-Grade
Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an
expansion index of 50 or less. We recommend that conventional concrete slabs-on-grade floors
be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with at least No. 4 bars at 18 inches on center each way.
To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with
construction or 'weakened plane' joints at frequent intervals. The project structural engineer
should design on-grade building slabs and joint spacing.
Moisture protection should be installed beneath slabs where moisture-sensitive floor coverings
will be used. The project architect should review the tolerable moisture transmission rate of the
proposed floor covering and specify an appropriate moisture protection system. Typically, a
plastic vapor barrier is used. Minimum 15-mil plastic is recommended. The plastic should comply
18
C 0 Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
with ASTM E1745. The vapor barrier installation should comply with ASTM E1643. The slab can
be placed directly on the vapor barrier.
7 .4. Hardscape
Hardscape should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an expansion index of 50 or
less. Exterior slabs should be at least 4 inches in thickness and reinforced with at least No. 3 bars
at 18 inches on center each way. Slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints. Joints
should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute {ACI) guidelines. The project
architect should select the final joint patterns. A 1-inch maximum size aggregate mix is
recommended for concrete for exterior slabs. The corrosion potential of on-site soils with respect
to reinforced concrete will need to be taken into account in concrete mix design. Coarse and fine
aggregate in concrete should conform to the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction.
7.5. Conventional Retaining Walls
Conventional retaining walls can be supported on spread footings. The recommendations for
spread footings provided in the foundation section of this report are also applicable to
conventional retaining walls.
The active earth pressure for the design of unrestrained retaining walls with level backfill can be
taken as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 35 pcf. The at-rest earth pressure for the
design of restrained retaining wall with level backfill can be taken as equivalent to the pressure of
a fluid weighing 55 pcf. These values assume a granular and drained backfill condition. Higher
lateral earth pressures would apply if walls retain clay soils. An additional 20 pcf should be added
to these values for walls with 2:1 {h:v) sloping backfill. An increase in earth pressure equivalent
to an additional 2 feet of retained soil can be used to account for surcharge loads from light traffic.
The above values do not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be
incorporated into the design. If any other surcharge loads are anticipated, NOVA should be
contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. If required, the seismic earth pressure can
be taken as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid pressure weighing 20 pcf. This value is for level
backfill and does not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be
incorporated into the design. This pressure is in addition to the un-factored, active earth pressure.
The total equivalent fluid pressure can be modeled as a triangular pressure distribution with the
resultant acting at a height of H/3 up from the base of the wall, where H is the retained height of
the wall. The passive pressure and bearing capacity can be increased by ½ in determining the
seismic stability of the wall.
Retaining walls should be provided with a backdrain to reduce the accumulation of hydrostatic
pressure or be designed to resist hydrostatic pressure. Backdrains can consist of a 12-inch-wide
zone of ¾-inch crushed rock. The crushed rock should be separated from the adjacent soils using
a non-woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. A perforated pipe should be installed
at the base of the backdrain and sloped to discharge to a suitable storm drain facility, or weep
holes should be provided. As an alternative, a geocomposite drainage system such as Miradrain
19
_,,. Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
6000 or equivalent placed behind the wall and connected to a suitable storm drain facility can be
used. The project architect should provide dampproofing/waterproofing specifications and details.
Figure 7-1 presents typical conventional retaining wall backdrain details. Note that the guidance
provided on Figure 7-1 is conceptual. Other options are available.
Wall backfill should consist of granular, free-draining material having an expansion index of 20 or
less. The backfill zone is defined by a 1 :1 plane projected upward from the heel of the wall.
Expansive or clayey soil should not be used. Additionally, backfill within 3 feet from the back of
the wall should not contain rocks greater than 3 inches in dimension. Backfill should be compacted
to at least 90% relative compaction. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved
adequate structural strength. Compaction of wall backfill will be necessary to minimize settlement
of the backfill and overlying settlement-sensitive improvements. However, some settlement
should still be anticipated. Provisions should be made for some settlement of concrete slabs and
pavements supported on backfill. Additionally, any utilities supported on backfill should be
designed to tolerate differential settlement.
RETAINING
WALL
FINISHED
GRADE
CONCRETE
BROWDITCH
GROUND SURFACE
L-------FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
12"
EQUIVALENT)
3/4" CRUSHED ROCK
(1 CU.FT./FT.)
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE
MIRAFI 140N OR
EQUIVALENT
4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40
PERFORATED PVC PIPE
OR TOTAL DRAIN
,,"--/>-'.%'-. ,-.:::;:./'f./~ EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL AS
EVALUATED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
Figure 7-1. Typical Conventional Retaining Wall Backdrain Details
20
7 .6. Pipelines
0 Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
For level ground conditions, a passive earth pressure of 350 psf per foot of depth below the lowest
adjacent final grade can be used to compute allowable thrust block resistance. A value of 150 psf
per foot should be used below groundwater level, if encountered.
A modulus of soil reaction {E') of 1,500 psi can be used to evaluate the deflection of buried flexible
pipelines. This value assumes that granular bedding material is placed adjacent to the pipe and
is compacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
Pipe bedding as specified in the "Greenbook· Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction can be used. Bedding material should consist of clean sand having a sand
equivalent not less than 20 and should extend to at least 12 inches above the top of pipe.
Alternative materials meeting the intent of the bedding specifications are also acceptable.
Samples of materials proposed for use as bedding should be provided to the engineer for
inspection and testing before the material is imported for use on the project. The on-site materials
are not expected to meet "Greenbook" bedding specifications. The pipe bedding material should
be placed over the full width of the trench. After placement of the pipe, the bedding should be
brought up uniformly on both sides of the pipe to reduce the potential for unbalanced loads. No
voids or uncompacted areas should be left beneath the pipe haunches. Ponding or jetting the
pipe bedding should not be allowed.
Where pipeline inclinations exceed 15%, cutoff walls are recommended in trench excavations.
Additionally, we do not recommend that open graded rock be used for pipe bedding or backfill
because of the potential for piping erosion. The recommended bedding is clean sand having a
sand equivalent not less than 20 or 2-sack sand/cement slurry. If sand/cement slurry is used for
pipe bedding to at least 1 foot over the top of the pipe, cutoff walls are not considered necessary.
The need for cutoff walls should be further evaluated by the project civil engineer designing the
pipeline.
7. 7. Corrosivity
Representative samples of the on-site soils were tested to evaluate corrosion potential. The test
results are presented in Appendix B. The project design engineer can use the sulfate results in
conjunction with ACI 318 to specify the water/cement ratio, compressive strength, and
cementitious material types for concrete exposed to soil. A corrosion engineer should be
contacted to provide specific corrosion control recommendations.
7.8. Pavement Section Recommendations
The pavement support characteristics of the soils encountered during NOVA's investigation are
considered low to medium. An R-value of 16 was assumed for design of preliminary pavement
sections. The actual R-value of the subgrade soils should be determined after grading, and the
final pavement sections should be provided. Based on an R-value of 16, the following preliminary
pavement structural sections are provided for the assumed T raffle Indexes on Table 7-1 {following
page).
21
• '-~ Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
Table 7-1. AC and PCC Pavement Sections, R Value = 16
Traffic Type
Parking Stalls
Driveways
Fire Lanes
AC: Asphalt Concrete
AB: Aggregate Base
I
! Traffic Index
I
4.5
6.0
7.5
PCC: Portland Cement Concrete
Asphalt Concrete ! Portland Cement Concrete
' (inches) I (inches)
3AC/6AB 6 PCC/6AB
4AC/9AB 7PCC/6AB
SAC/ 12AB 7½PCC/6AB
Subgrade preparation should be performed immediately prior to placement of the pavement
section. The upper 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near
optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. All soft or yielding
areas should be stabilized or removed and replaced with compacted fill or aggregate base.
Aggregate base and asphalt concrete should conform to the Caltrans Standard Specifications or
the "Greenbookn and should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Aggregate base
should have an R-value of not less than 78. All materials and methods of construction should
conform to good engineering practices and the minimum local standards.
22
C 0 Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
8. CLOSURE
NOVA should review project plans and specifications prior to bidding and construction to check
that the intent of the recommendations in this report has been incorporated. Observations and
tests should be performed during construction. If the conditions encountered during construction
differ from those anticipated based on the subsurface exploration program, the presence of
personnel from our offices during construction will enable an evaluation of the exposed conditions
and modifications of the recommendations in this report or development of additional
recommendations in a timely manner.
NOVA should be advised of changes in the project scope so that the recommendations contained
in this report can be evaluated with respect to the revised plans. Changes in recommendations
will be verified in writing. The findings in this report are valid as of the date of this report. Changes
in the condition of the site can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to
natural processes or work on this or adjacent areas. In addition, changes in the standards of
practice and government regulations can occur. Thus, the findings in this report may be
invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. This report should not be relied upon
after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and
recommendations to site conditions at that time.
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those
encountered at the boring locations and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are
based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data,
interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for interpretations by others
of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation
only, and no warranty whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the
work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or
by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
23
•
.. ,_; Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
9. REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
14) and Commentary, dated September.
California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), California Geological Survey, University
of Southern California, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, San Luis Rey
Quadrangle, dated June 1.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2018, Standard Specifications.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019, FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Diego
County, Firm Panel 06073C0764H, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search, accessed in September.
International Code Council, 2018, 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2018 International Building Code, Effective January
1, 2020.
Historic Aerials Website, https://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed September 2021.
Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2008, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle,
California, California Geological Survey, Scale 1:100,000.
Public Works Standards, Inc., 2018, "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction, 2018 Edition.
Specht, 2021, Site Plan and Building Section, Project 2023, LEGOLAND, California, September.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2021, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps:
found at https://seismicmaps.org.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2020, USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center, U.S.
Quaternary Faults, accessed September.
USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer,
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html, accessed September 2021.
24
C 0 Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
PLATES
~
1 ~~
KEY TO SYMBOLS
afu
Qop
B-2
8
A A'
L--J
Fill
OU) PIJW.IC DEPOSITS
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
GEOI.OGIC CAOSS-SECTION
"NOTE: B-3 IS OFFSITE AND IS NOT SHOWN ON MAP
[/
~• xl ..... _...,.. --. .,,.._-.-:;_.;;_;;; __ ,._-------
~
(',, .;. .......... -
I .lit • MF--9
~
I
TIIEMEO / FENCUGATf /
UIC A8 I ,-J' .~,
-it,. I ~,~
I 'o ,,.,__ ~;,,;;: I .._ I
I
HIWWAlK~l-
,ll;ClSSelE~DI
~
(/
D,
~~
0 20' ~ ~
Specht 53:eMOllt ~ Al.. St..-A -.TX717SI ltl:~12)312-"'38
(
,q
~
Sill Plan
A-001
"EXISTING ELEVATION INFORMATION FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY
COR. SEPTEMBER 2021.
a 1=-NOV A, _____ ,...
4373 V419Wndge Avenvit. S4Jlle 8
San Ooego CA 92123
P ass 292. ,s ,s
9A' Calli Amanecar Sule F
San Oement• CA 92673
P 9'938a.n10
,,,_ uu.nova ~ --
("')
N 0
N ~ I-z
(.) Q:'. w ~ -, ::i 0 <{ a:: 0
Q. ci
c ~ z Cl) < ...J
.J ~ o o
C) w
..J
PROJECT NO 2021170
DATE NOVEMBER 2021
DRAWN BY DTW
REVIEWED BY MS
SCALE 1-.20'
DRAWING T1n.E
SUBSURFACE
INVESTIGATION MAP
PLATE NO.
• -.. ,__, --
NOVA ~ .... .,,,.,... .....
4373 Vll'Wridge A._..nut, &itl 8
San0iego.CA92123
P: &58.292.7575
944 Cale~. &,ite F
San CJtmente, CA 92673
P: 9'9.388.nto
www.uu-nova.com
A A'
200 200
I PROPOSED BUILDING I CW')
11l0 N 180 C) PROPOSED N < LANDSCAPE WALL EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROPOSED DESIGN t-z PROALE 0:: B-2' 0 0 FFe11Z' B-1' w lJ..
180 1110 -, :::::i 0 < .., .., ~ (.)
_,_
, _____ , _,_ CL 6 __ , ______ , ----,----C < Ill 140 1'0 z Cl}
5 __J ... 0:: --,_., < Gap 0 (.)
120 (!) 120 w 0 20 40 80 80 100 120 140 180 11l0 ...I
PROJECT NO.: 2021170
KEY TO SYMBOLS DATE: NOVEMBER 2021
DRAWN BY· DTW
llfu ALL REVIEWED BY: MS
SCALE: 1"z20'
Qop OLD PARAI.IC DEPOSITS DRAWING TITLE:
B-2 l GEOTECHNICAL BORING
GEOLOGIC 'PROJECTED
TD-31.5' CROSS-SECTION AA'
,r,J GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN
() 20' 40' ----
PLATE NO. 2
_,, Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
APPENDIX A
USE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Im ortant Information About Your -
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Suhc:,urfacc probtmc;; r1rr· a princ1pr1/ cauc;;c' of conc;;tructmn dl /aye;; cm/ o,rrrunc;; clc11m~ and d1\puft1<;
Thi~ folio.: tnq mformatwn Vi provided to help you mr1nagr your mk-,
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 so/elyfor 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 Engineeri~ Re_port 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 'J(J.X 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 ~e 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 llnal, 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 goo-
technical engineer carter with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's 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
Geotechnlcal 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
report's 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 geoenvironrnental 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-
vironrnental 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/fhe 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.
A5FE
TU 1111 PH.II II l ■rll
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document. In whole or In part. by any means whatsoever. Is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE'S
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting. or otherwise extracting wording from this document Is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly researr:h 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
llnn, Individual. or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be comm/ting negligent or Intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045 OM
C Q Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
Revised November 22, 2021
., ~ ~
.
-MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES
GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH OR WITHOUT
CLEAN GRAVEL SAND
WITH LESS THAN
UJ GRAVEL 15% FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH OR > GP UJ WITHOUT SAND iii MORE THAN HALF 0 0 COARSE FRACTION "' ci IS LARGER THAN GM SIL TY GRAVEL WITH OR WITHOUT SAND enZ NO.4 SIEVE GRAVEL WITH :::!~ 15% OR MORE o::c en I-FINES Ca:: GC CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH OR WITHOUT SAND UJ UJ ~en ~~ "O WELL-GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUT wU SW GRAVEL en en CLEAN SAND a::-< LL WITH LESS THAN O-' u~ SAND 15% FINES POORLY GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUT z SP GRAVEL < ::t MORE THAN HALF I-COARSE FRACTION UJ a:: IS FINER THAN NO. SM SIL TY SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL 0 4SIEVE SIZE ::i: SAND WITH 15%
OR MORE FINES
SC CLAYEY SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL
SILT WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR
UJ ML GRAVEL > UJ iii
0 SIL TS AND CLAYS LEAN CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR 0
"' CL ci LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR LESS GRAVEL
enZ -'Z
0~ ORGANIC SILT OR CLAY OF LOW TO en I-OL MEDIUM PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT Ca:: SAND OR GRAVEL UJUJ ~z
~u: ELASTIC SILT WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR "!Q MH wu. GRAVEL
z-' -< LL ::t SIL TS AND CLAYS z FAT CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR < CH GRAVEL ::t LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50% I-
UJ -a:: ORGANIC SILT OR CLAY OF HIGH 0 ::i: OH PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR
GRAVEL
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
Y/'SZ LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS RELATIVE DENSITY OF CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS GROUNDWATER/ STABILIZED COHESIONLESS SOILS CR CORROSIVITY
181 BULK SAMPLE MO MAXIMUM OENSITY POCKETPENETROMETER SPT N60 SPTN60 OS DIRECT SHEAR RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT MEASUREMENT (TSF)
IZI El EXPANSION INDEX SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586) AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS VERY LOOSE 0 -4 VERY SOFT 0-2 0-0.25
MOD. CAL. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550) RV RESISTANCE VALUE LOOSE 4 -10 SOFT 2-4 0.25-0.50
CN CONSOLIDATION MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 MEDIUM STIFF 4-8 0.50-1.0
* NO SAMPLE RECOVERY SE SAND EQUIVALENT DENSE 30-50 STIFF 8 -15 1.0-2.0
VERY DENSE OVER50 VERY STIFF 15 -30 2.0 -4.0 --GEOLOGIC CONTACT HARD OVER30 OVER4.0
--SOIL TYPE CHANGE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 1◄0 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH 0 .0.
(1-318 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE
(ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST).
IF THE SEATING INTERVAL (1st 6 INCH INTERVAL) IS NOT ACHEIVED, N IS REPORTED AS
REF. a GEOTECHNICAL www.usa-nova.com
MATERJALS 4373 V18Wndge Ave , Swte 8 1944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F SPECIAL INSPECTION San Diego, CA 92123 San Clemenle, CA 92673 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND P· 858 292 7575 P· 949 388.7710
NOVA OYBE. see. SOVOSB
DATE DRILLED:
ELEVATION:
SAMPLE METHOD:
[
J: I-ll.. w C
w ~ ..J
w II..
..J ~ a: ll.. ~ en ~z I-en ll.. en :.::: en 3: ..J :::i 0 ::, < ..J ID 0 ID
0
-J -
-
-I 30
LOG OF BORING 8-1
AUGUST 131 2021 DRILLING METHOD: ...;H.;.;Oa..all.aaaO.;;;.W"'--"S"'"TE~M.;.;..;.aAUG=Eaaa.R.a..... ____________ _
± 161 FTMSL DRILLING EQUP.: FRASTE PL-G GROUNDWATER DEPTH: NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAMMER: 140 LBS.1 DROP: 30 IN (AUTOMATIC) NOTES: ETR-88.3%, Nao -W·N-1.47'N
~ w en a: ffii ::, -0 I-~ c-.. en->-z 0 a: :ii C
29
c,j en-~en og
..J::, c5-en
SC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
FILL (afu): CLAYEY SAND; BROWN WITH SLIGHT ORANGE STAINING, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE,
FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, SCATTERED ROOTLETS
TRACE ROOTLETS
~ w I-
ID ~
SA Al
El
RV
5 -~~ .... -----------------------------------------------------~--
/ 25 37 SM SIL TY SAND; DARK BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,
---
-
-
-
-
-" 15 -I ---
-
SCATTERED WHITE MINERALIZATION
ORANGE BROWN
20 __ 29 __________ ~-------------------------------------~--
SM SIL TY SAND; BROWN, VERY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SIL TY SANDSTONE; BROWN, VERY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE,
FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, POORLY CEMENTED
20 --~ ---------------~-------------------------------------~--
-
-
----
-
25 37 ISM/ SC SIL TY SANDSTONE I CLAYEY SANDSTONE; ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED
-----------------------------------------------------~--
SM SIL TY SANDSTONE; ORANGE BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINED,
MODERATELY CEMENTED
25 -~
30
91/11 134/11 -
-[7 -55
-
• NOVA
81
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
DVBE • SBE • SDVOSB • SLBE
www.usa-nova.com
4373 Vlewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575 I 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.nl0
BORING TERMINATED AT 28½ FT DUE TO AUGER REFUSAL ON DENSE OLD PARALIC
DEPOSITS. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
LOGGED BY: AR
LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FIGURE B.1
I REVIEWED BY: MS I PROJECT NO.: 2021170
DATE DRILLED:
ELEVATION:
SAMPLE METHOD:
w 8 _J
w a. ~ IL _J a: [ a. <(
~ en ~z ~ I-::c a. en
I-:.:: en 3: ::i a. _J 0 w :::> <( _J 0 CD 0 CD
0
-
---/__ 15
-
5-
57 -
-
-
-
10 I
' J
17 ---
-
-" 15 ~ 17 -
-
-
20 -
-
-
25 -
-
-
-
-
30
LOG OF BORING 8-2
AUGUST 13, 2021 DRILLING METHOD: ~H~O~L_LO=W~S_TE=M~AU=G=E=R~-------------
± 165 FTMSL DRILLING EQUP.: FRASTE PL-G GROUNDWATER DEPTH: NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTOMATIC)
0 <O z
22
54
25
25
32
51
62
~ w ci5 a: ~R => ~ I-t!-o-en-1;: 6 ~ 0
GEOTECHNICAI.
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SOIL DESCRIPTION en en~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS s (/) (USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) og
_J :::> 5-en
SC FILL (afu): CLAYEY SAND; DARK BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,
SCATTERED ROOTLETS
BROWN
LIGHT GRAY
DARK BROWN WITH GRAY MOTTLING, VERY DENSE
DARK BROWN WITH LIGHT AND DARK GRAY MOTTLING, MEDIUM DENSE, TRACE GRAVEL
ORANGE BROWN
SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SIL TY SANDSTONE; ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE
FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, POORLY CEMENTED
DARK ORANGE BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, DENSE
ORANGE BROWN, VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINED, MODERATELY CEMENTED
LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DVBE • SBE • SDVOSB • SLSE FIGURE 8.2
www.usa-nova.com
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Otego. CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575 I 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemenle, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710 LOGGED BY: AR I REVIEWED BY: MS I PROJECT NO.: 2021170
en I-en w I-
CD s
SA
AL
El
CR
DATE DRILLED:
ELEVATION:
SAMPLE METHOD:
w 8 ...,
w a.. ::E 11. ..., a: [ a.. < ~ en ~z I-::c en a.. en
I-~ en 3:: a.. ..., :::i 0 w ::::, < ...,
C Ill 0 Ill
30 V -42
-
-
-
35 -
-
-
-
-
40 -
-
-
-
-
45 -
-
-
-
-
50 -
-
-
-
-
55 -
-
-
-
-
60
• N OVA
LOG OF BORING 8-2 CONTINUED
AUGUST 13, 2021 DRILLING METHOD: -'HO-'-"--LL=O"-W~S~TE=M ... A~U~G=E ... R'----------------
± 169FTMSL DRILLING EQUP.: FRASTE PL-G GROUNDWATER DEPTH: NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTOMATIC) NOTES: ETR-88.3%, Ngg -ljr•N-1.47•N
lil z
62
~ w en a: ~~ =>-I-~ c -en ->-0 a: ::E C
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
c,j en-5en
0~ ..., ::::, 5 -en
SM
DVBE • SBE • SDVOSB • SLBE
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS CONTINUED (Qop): SIL TY SANDSTONE; ORANGE BROWN, SLIGHTLY
MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINED, MODERATELY CEMENTED
BORING TERMINATED AT 31 ½FT.NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FIGURE B.3
www .usa~nova.com
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575 I 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710 LOGGED BY: AR I REVIEWED BY: MS I PROJECT NO.: 2021170
en ~ w I-
~
.
,.
.
' LOG OF BORING 8-3
DA TE DRILLED: AUGUST 131 2021 DRILLING METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER
ELEVATION: ± 168FTMSL DRILLING EQUP.: FRASTE PL-G GROUNDWATER DEPTH: NOT ENCOUNTERED
SAMPLE METHOD: HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN {AUTOMATICl NOTES: ETR-88.3%, N.o -81ii•N-1.47•N
w 8 ....J
w D.. ~ u. ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION ....J a: c,.i [ D.. :E Cl) ~z w en CJ>-SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Cl)
< I-a: ffi & SC/) (USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) t;;
J: (/) D.. (/) =>-(.)g w I-ll:: (/) 3: 0 I-* o~ I-:::i "' (/)~ ....J ::> D.. ....J 0 z 0 >-5~ CD w ::> < ....J a: s 0 ID (.) ID :E 0 (/)
0 4 INCHES OF ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 12 INCHES OF AGGREGATE BASE. -
-)' SM FILL (afu): SIL TY SAND; LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN, MOIST, LOOSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEC
-7 7
----------------------------------------------------------SC CLAYEY SAND; LIGHT BROWN WITH GRAY MOTTLING, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO 5 -1 MEDIUM GRAINED
-15' --22 ------------------------------------------------'" ---SM SIL TY SAND; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST TO WET, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED --
-
-
10-~ -44 42 SC OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SANDSTONE; ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE
TO MEDIUM GRAINED, MICACEOUS, MODERATELY CEMENTED -
-
-' 15
-I 32 47 SLIGHTLY MOIST --
-
-
20 ------------------~---------------------------------------V 52 76 SM SIL TY SANDSTONE; ORANGE BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
-GRAINED, MICACEOUS, MODERATELY CEMENTED
-BORING TERMINATED AT 21 ½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
-
-
25 -
-
-
-
-
30
"
GeOTECHNICAL LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023
MATERIALS ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE ·-SPECIAL INSPECTION
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
NOVA DVBE • SBE • SDVOSB • SLBE FIGURE B.4
www.usa•nova.com
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B I 944 Calla Amanecer, Suite F I I San [),ego, CA 92123 San Clemente, CA 92673 LOGGED BY: AR REVIEWED BY: MS PROJECT N0.:2021170 P: 858.292.7575 P: 949.388. 7710
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA
NOVA Project No. 2021170
Revised November 22, 2021
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
..
'
•
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance w1C/the generally accepted American Society for Testing an~ aterials (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 B.
• GRADATION ANALYSIS {ASTM 06913 and/or ASTM 07928): Tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance
with ASTM D6913. The grain size distributions of selected samples were determined in accordance with ASTM D6913 and/or ASTM D7928. The results
of the tests are summarized on Appendix C.2 through Appendix C.3.
• ATTERBERG LIMITS {ASTM D 4318): Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic
limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System.
• EXPANSION INDEX {ASTM D 4829): The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. Specimens
were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch
diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were
made for a period of 24 hours.
• A-VALUE {ASTM D 2844): The resistance Value, or R-Value, for near-surface site soils were evaluated in general accordance with California Test (CT)
301 and ASTM D 2844. Samples were prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure. The equilibrium R-value is reported as
the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated results.
• CORROSIVITY (CAL. TEST METHOD 417, 422, 643): Soil PH, and minimum resistivity tests were performed on a representative soil sample in general
accordance with test method CT 643. The sulfate and chloride content of the selected sample were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417 and CT
422, respectively.
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
ovee • see • sovose • SLBE
www usa-nova.com
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Otego. CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
944 Cane Amanece,, Su1le F
San Clemente, CA 92673
p· 949 388 n,o BY:AR
LAB TEST SUMMARY
LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DATE: NOV 2021 PROJECT: 2021 170 APPENDIX: C.1
"'
l
~ Size (Inches) )( -, Hydrometer Analysis ' U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes , ..... ,
~ 0 0 ~ ~ 8
~ ;Ii ~ CD ... N ... N
~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100.0 -z z z z z z z -., ... ..... I -~ I
I I I
I I I I
90.0 I ' I I
I I I I
I I I I, I
I I I \ I
I I I I
80.0 I I I \I I I I
I I I
m 70.0 I I I II\
C I I I I I \ iii I I I I I
I I I I ' I • 'l ftl I I I I I
Q. 60.0 I I I I . -I I I I \ I C I I I I I • \ u I I I I I ... I I I I ' I • 50.0 Q. I I I I I
I I I I ., I I I I
40.0 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
30.0 ' ' ' I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I 20.0
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
10.0 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
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.0(
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
Coarse I Fine CoarseJ Medium Fine
Sample Location: B -1 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318):
Depth (ft): 0 -5 Liquid Limit, LL: 28
uses Soil Type: SC Plastic Limit, PL: 14
Passing No. 200 (%): 37 Plasticity Index, Pl: 14
• GEOTECHNICAL CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE NOVA DVBE t SBE • SDVDSB • SLBE CARLSBAD, CA 92008
www.usa-nova.com
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite 8 944 CaJ1e Amanecer, Suite F
San Diego, CA 92123 San Clemen1e, CA 92673 BY:AR DATE: NOV 2021 PROJECT: 2021170 FIGURE: C.2
P: 858.292.7575 P: 949.3ea.n10
-., '7
~
•
~ Size (Inches) )( --Hydrometer Analysis ~ U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ,,, ' ,,,
~ 0 0 ~ 8 8
"! ~ ~ 00 .., N .., N
~ ~ ?I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100.0 z z z z z z z ·--,.._ -....._ I I I I
I I I ~ I
I I I I I
90.0 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 80.0
I I I I ' I I I I I
I I I I : ,
Cl 70.0 I I I I
C ' -;; I I I I I .,, I I I I I
CII I I I I I \ 0. 60.0 I, I I 11 I I, -I I I I I C I I I I I \ QI u I I I I I ' ... I I I I I I\ QI 50.0 0. I I I I I \1
I I I I I !, I I I I I
40.0 I I I I I
I I I I I II
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
30.0 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 20.0
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
10.0 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0,01 0.0(
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
1 Coarse!
Silt or Clay
Coarse Fine Medium Fine
Sample Location: B -2 Atterberg Limits !ASTM D431 8):
Depth (ft): 10 -15 Liquid Limit, LL: 26
uses Soil Type : SC Plastic Limit, PL: 13
Passing No. 200 (%): 36 Plasticity Index, Pl: 13
"
GEOTECHNICAL CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS
MATERIALS , __ SPECIAL INSPECTION LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
NOVA 0VBE • see • SDVOSB • SLBE CARLSBAD, CA 92008
www usa-nova.com
4373 Viewndge Avenue. Suite B 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San DMl!lo. CA 92123 San Clemente, CA 92673 BY:AR DATE: NOV 2021 PROJECT: 2021170 FIGURE: C.3
P: 858.292.7575 P: 949.388 TT10
Sample
Location
B -1
B -2
,a~ .,
NOVA
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829)
Sample
Location
B -1
B-2
Sample Depth
(ft.)
0-5
10 -15
Expansion
Index
0
2
Expansion
Potential
Very Low
Very Low
Resistance Value (Cal. Test Method 301 & ASTM D2844)
Sample
Location
B -1
Sample
Depth
(ft.)
0 -5
R-Value
16
Corrosivity (Cal. Test Method 41724222643)
Sample Depth Resistivity Sulfate Content Chloride Content
(ft.)
10 -15
10 -15
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
DVBE • SBE • SDVOSB • SLBE
pH (Ohm-cm)
8.0 1600
7.7 990
(ppm) (%) (ppm)
42 0.004 32
110 0.011 85
LAB TEST RESULTS
LEGOLAND PROJECT 2023
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
(%)
0.003
0.009
www.usa-nova.com
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
BY:AR DATE: NOV 2021 PROJECT: 2021170 APPENDIX: C.4