HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2023-0026; LEGOLAND DRIVING SCHOOL RELOCATION; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR LEGOLAND DRIVERS SCHOOL RELOCATION; 2023-12-15
4373 Viewridge Avenue Suite B San Diego, California 92123 858.292.7575 944 Calle Amanecer Suite F San Clemente, CA 92673 949.388.7710
usa-nova.com
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California
Merlin Entertainment Group
c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC
One Legoland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Jl \ , ••
NOVA
Services
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION DVBE SBE SDVOSB SLBE
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
usa-nova.com 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
Ms. Flora Liu, Senior Project Manager December 15, 2023
Merlin Entertainment Group NOVA Project No. 2023234
c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC
One Legoland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California
Dear Ms. Lui:
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) is pleased to present our report describing the geotechnical investigation
performed for the new Driver’s School Relocation project proposed at LEGOLAND California. We
conducted the geotechnical investigation in general conformance with the scope of work presented in
our proposal dated October 18, 2023.
This site is considered geotechnically suitable for construction of the proposed development provided
the recommendations within this report are followed.
NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to LEGOLAND California, LLC on this project. If
you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call us at 949.388.7710.
Sincerely,
NOVA Services, Inc.
_________________________
Paul Kim, GE, CEG
Senior Engineer
_________________________ _________________________
Giovanni Norman, GIT Tom Canady, PE
Staff Geologist Principal Engineer
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
i
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2. SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Field Investigation ...............................................................................................................3
2.2. Laboratory Testing ..............................................................................................................3
2.3. Analysis and Report Preparation .........................................................................................4
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 5
3.1. Site Description ...................................................................................................................5
3.2. Site History ..........................................................................................................................5
3.3. Proposed Construction and Anticipated Earthwork .............................................................5
4. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................... 6
4.1. Site-Specific Geology ..........................................................................................................7
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................. 9
5.1. Faulting and Surface Rupture .............................................................................................9
5.1.1 Strong Ground Motion ............................................................................................9
5.1.2 Faulting in the Site Vicinity .....................................................................................9
5.2. Site Class ..........................................................................................................................10
5.3. CBC Seismic Design Parameters......................................................................................11
5.4. Landslides and Slope Stability ..........................................................................................11
5.5. Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ...............................................................................11
5.6. Flooding, Tsunamis, and Seiches .....................................................................................11
5.7. Subsidence ........................................................................................................................12
5.8. Hydro-Consolidation ..........................................................................................................12
6. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 13
7. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 14
7.1. Earthwork ..........................................................................................................................14
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
ii
7.1.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................14
7.1.2 Remedial Grading – New Building .......................................................................14
7.1.3 Remedial Grading – Pedestrian Hardscape .........................................................14
7.1.4 Remedial Grading – Vehicular Pavements ..........................................................15
7.1.5 Remedial Grading – Site Walls and Retaining Walls ...........................................15
7.1.6 Expansive Soil ......................................................................................................15
7.1.7 Compacted Fill .....................................................................................................15
7.1.8 Imported Soil ........................................................................................................16
7.1.9 Subgrade Stabilization .........................................................................................16
7.1.10 Excavation Characteristics ...................................................................................16
7.1.11 Oversized Material ...............................................................................................16
7.1.12 Temporary Excavations .......................................................................................16
7.1.13 Temporary Shoring ..............................................................................................17
7.1.14 Groundwater Seepage .........................................................................................17
7.1.15 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................17
7.1.16 Grading Plan Review ...........................................................................................17
7.2. Foundations .......................................................................................................................17
7.2.1 Spread Footings ...................................................................................................18
7.2.2 CIDH Piles ............................................................................................................18
7.2.3 Settlement Characteristics ...................................................................................18
7.2.4 Foundation Plan Review ......................................................................................19
7.2.5 Foundation Excavation Observations ..................................................................19
7.3. Hardscape .........................................................................................................................19
7.4. Conventional Retaining Walls ............................................................................................19
7.5. Pipelines ............................................................................................................................21
7.6. Pavement Section Recommendations ..............................................................................21
7.7. Corrosivity .........................................................................................................................22
8. CLOSURE .................................................................................................................... 23
9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 24
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Site Vicinity Map
Figure 1-2. Site Location Map
Figure 2-1. Subsurface Exploration Map
Figure 4-1. Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4-2. Fill in Boring B-2
Figure 4-3. Old Paralic Deposits in Boring B-3
Figure 5-1. Regional Faulting in the Site Vicinity
Figure 7-1. Typical Conventional Retaining Wall Backdrain Detail
List of Tables
Table 5-1. 2022 CBC and ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Parameters
Table 7-1. AC and PCC Pavement Sections
List of Plates
Plate 1 Geotechnical Map
Plate 2 Geologic Cross Section AA’
List of Appendices
Appendix A Use of the Geotechnical Report
Appendix B Boring Logs
Previous Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation NOVA performed for the new Driver’s
School Relocation attraction proposed at LEGOLAND California. Based on our review of the provided
site development plan (Merlin Entertainment, 2023), we understand the Driver’s School Relocation
will consist of the design and construction of an approximately 1,877 square foot (sf) single-story
building that will include a queue area, bench seating area and storage area. An additional separate
220 sf single-story building will also be constructed. Additionally, the project will include pavements
for the driving track, landscaping, and hardscape. 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. Figure 1-2 presents a site location map.
Figure 1-1. Site Vicinity Map
Carlsbad
Flower
Fields
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
2
Figure 1-2. Site Location Map
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
3
2. SCOPE OF WORK
2.1. Field Investigation
NOVA’s field investigation consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the site and drilling three
geotechnical borings (B-1 through B-3) to depths between about 5 and 11½ feet below the ground
surface (bgs) using a hand auger. NOVA also performed borings to the west and east of the project
site in 2021 and 2022 to depths of between about 10½ and 21½ feet bgs. Figure 2-1 presents the
approximate locations of the borings.
Figure 2-1. Subsurface Exploration Map
NOVA geologists logged the borings and collected samples of the materials encountered for
laboratory observation and testing. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained from the hand auger
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 of the materials to evaluate soil classification and engineering properties
and develop geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. The laboratory tests consisted of
8-1
8
B-3
B-2
8
8-2 8
B-4
B-3
8
...... ...
KEY TO SYMBOLS
8-3 8
8-4
8
B-3
' ....
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2023)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2022)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2021)
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
4
particle-size distribution, Atterberg limits, expansion index, R-value, and corrosivity. Appendix C
presents brief explanations of the test procedures and the results of the laboratory tests.
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.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
5
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1. Site Description
LEGOLAND California is located on a 128-acre property at One Legoland Drive in Carlsbad,
California. The project site is located within the western portion of the park property. The planned
development is within the Fun Town area of the park and in the area of the existing Fun Town Police
and Fire Academy attraction. This area is currently flat at an elevation of about 164 feet msl.
3.2. Site History
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 1998 and was completed around 2002. The project area has generally been in
its existing configuration since the park was opened. Review of historical topographic maps indicates
that prior to construction of LEGOLAND, there was a natural north-south trending drainage course
below the western portion of the site. This drainage course drained to the south into the larger, main
east-west draining canyon just south of Palomar Airport Road. Along the eastern portion of the site,
there was a north-northwest trending ridge composed of Santiago Formation. It appears that during
the relatively recent grading for LEGOLAND, this ridge was cut down and the drainage course was
filled, creating the existing project area. The previous site topography accounts for the relatively deep
fills encountered below the south and western portion of the site and the formational materials
encountered at shallower depths on the northeastern portion of the site.
3.3. Proposed Construction and Anticipated Earthwork
Planning for the proposed construction is preliminary at this time. Based on our review of the provided
site development plan (Merlin Entertainment, 2023), we understand the Driver’s School Relocation
will consist of the design and construction of an approximately 1,877 sf single-story building that will
include space for a queue lines, bench seating, and storage/maintenance area. An additional separate
220 sf single-story building will also be constructed. Most of the attractions are planned to be open
space, i.e., not enclosed by walls. Additionally, the project will include pavements for the driving track,
landscaping, and hardscape. The total area of the planned development will encompass
approximately 0.43 acres. Deepened foundations will also be needed for canopies and light poles.
Although grading plans are not available at this time, NOVA assumes that the proposed site grades
will generally match existing grades and there will be minimal site grading to achieve final grades.
However, variable fill conditions should be expected. Earthwork is anticipated to consist of remedial
and fine grading, excavations for foundations, backfilling of underground utilities, subgrade
preparation, and pavement construction.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
6
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 western Peninsular Ranges 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 old paralic deposits and
Santiago Formation. Figure 4-1 presents the regional geology in the vicinity of the site.
Figure 4-1. Regional Geologic Map
(Source: Kennedy and Tan 2007)
KEY TO SYMBOLS
~ ALLUVIAL FLOOD-PLAIN I Qop2-4 I OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, I Qvop13 I VERY OLD PARALIC
DEPOSITS UNIT 2-4, UNDIVIDED DEPOSITS, UNIT 13
~ YOUNG ALLUVIAL I Qop6-7 I OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, ~ SANTIAGO FORMATION FLOOD-PLAIN DEPOSITS UNIT 6-7, UNDIVIDED
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
7
4.1. Site-Specific Geology
NOVA’s subsurface investigations indicate that the site is underlain by fill, old paralic deposits, and
Santiago Formation. The Santiago Formation was not encountered during our current investigation.
However, previous work indicates the Santiago Formation underlies the site at depth. Descriptions of
the materials encountered in the borings are presented below. Plate 1 following the text of the report
presents the site-specific geology.
Fill (af): Fill was encountered in the existing planters in each of the borings. As encountered
in the borings, the fill extended to depths between about 4½ and 11 feet bgs and generally
consisted of loose to medium dense silty and clayey sand and stiff sandy clay with varying
amounts of gravel and cobble. Asphalt and concrete debris were observed within Boring B-2.
Figure 4-2 presents a photograph of the fill encountered in Boring B-1.
Figure 4-2. Fill in Boring B-2
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Qop): Quaternary-aged old paralic deposits were
encountered beneath the fill in Borings B-1 and B-3. As encountered in the borings, the old
paralic deposits generally consisted of dense clayey sand. Figure 4-3 presents a photograph
of the old paralic deposits encountered in Boring B-3.
Figure 4-3. Old Paralic Deposits in Boring B-3
.
' .,
~;.\
' . . .
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
8
Groundwater: Groundwater seepage and wet soils were encountered in boring B-1 at a depth
of about 2 feet bgs, corresponding to an elevation of about +167 feet NGVD 29. This
groundwater is believed to be due to irrigation within the planter where the boring was drilled.
However, perched groundwater may still be encountered in the future due to rainfall, irrigation,
broken pipes, or changes in site drainage. Because perched groundwater conditions are
difficult to predict, such conditions are typically mitigated if and when they occur.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
9
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 = 6.99.
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
Accelerations (PGAM) to be 0.529g.
5.1.2 Faulting in the Site Vicinity
Earthquake Fault Zones have been established along known active faults in California in accordance
with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The State Geologist defines an “active” fault as
one which has had surface rupture within recent geologic time (i.e., Holocene time, <11,700 years
before present). Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated to encompass traces of known,
Holocene-active faults to address hazards associated with fault surface rupture within California.
Where developments for human occupancy are proposed within these zones, the state requires
detailed fault evaluations be performed so that engineering geologists can identify the locations of
active faults and recommend setbacks from locations of possible surface fault rupture.
The site is not located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No active surface faults are
mapped across the site. The nearest active fault is within the Oceanside section of the NIRC Fault
Zone about 5 miles to the southwest. Due to the lack of active faulting, the probability of fault rupture
at this site is considered very low. Figure 5-1 on the following page presents regional faulting in the
site vicinity.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
10
Figure 5-1. Regional Faulting in the Site Vicinity
(Source: Fault Activity Map of California – California Geological Survey)
5.2. Site Class
Site Class is determined by the weighted average of shear-wave velocity or standard penetration
resistance (N-value) within the upper 100 feet of the soil and rock underlying a site. A site underlain
by soil and rock with an average N-value greater than 50 blows per foot within the upper 100 feet is
classified as Site Class C in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The penetration resistances
NOVA encountered during our previous geotechnical investigations at the site vicinity within the old
paralic deposits and Santiago Formation generally exceeded 50 blows per foot. Therefore, the site is
classified as Site Class C.
Fault along which historic (last 200
years) displacement has occurred
---- -------4
Holocene fault displacement (during past
11,700 years) without historic record.
'y
I
I
I
Vista
Carlsbad S/TE
/ ,~''°'"'
\ ---' -KEY TO SYMBOLS
-----------4
Late Quaternary fault displacement
(during past 700,000 years).
Quaternary fault (age undifferentiated).
E
I
7
---- -------...q...
Pre-Quaternary fault (older than 1.6 million years) or
fault without recognized Quaternary displacement.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
11
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 2022 CBC and ASCE 7-16
are presented in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. 2022 CBC and ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Parameters
Site Coordinates
Latitude: 33.128164° Longitude: -117.313463°
Site Coefficients and Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Value
Site Class C
Site Coefficients, Fa 1.200
Site Coefficients, Fv 1.500
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period, Ss 1.061g
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period, S1 0.384g
Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Period, SDS 0.849g
Design Spectral Acceleration at 1-Second Period, SD1 0.384g
Site Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.561g
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 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 (CGS, 2022b);
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.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
12
5.7. Subsidence
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 readjust when inundated by groundwater, causing the material to consolidate. The
materials underlying the site are not considered susceptible to hydro-consolidation.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
13
6. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of NOVA’s 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 fills of varying thickness and formational materials consisting of old
paralic deposits and Santiago Formation at depth. The formational materials are suitable for
support of fill or structural loads. The fill, however, is potentially compressible and unsuitable
for support of fill or significant structural loads. However, the fill can be used to support the
proposed lightly loaded improvements provided the remedial grading recommendations
contained in this report are followed.
• Based on the results of our laboratory testing, the on-site near-surface silty sand and clayey
sand have a very low expansion potential. These soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill.
The zones where sandy clays were observed, however, may be expansive and not suitable for
direct support of 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. However, localized cemented formational
materials and concretions may require extra excavation effort. Seepage should also be
anticipated in excavations.
• The proposed new building can be supported on shallow spread footings with bottom levels
bearing on compacted fill underlain by the existing fill. Site walls and retaining walls not
connected to buildings can be supported on spread footings with bottom levels bearing on
formational materials or compacted fill. Shade structures, covered walkways, and other pole-
type structures can be supported on CIDH concrete piles. Recommendations for foundations
are provided herein.
• Groundwater seepage from the planter was encountered at a depth of about 2 feet bgs.
Groundwater seepage should be anticipated during construction. 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.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
14
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
The remainder of this report presents preliminary 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 – New Building
Beneath the proposed building pad, the existing soils should be excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet
below the deepest footing bottom elevation. Horizontally, excavations should extend at least 5 feet
outside the planned perimeter building foundations or up to existing improvements or the limits of
grading, whichever is less. If competent old paralic deposits are exposed, excavation need not be
performed. However, over-excavation may be necessary such that foundations for the building be
supported either entirely on compacted fill or entirely on formational materials. NOVA should observe
the conditions exposed in the bottom of excavations to evaluate whether additional excavation is
recommended. The excavation should be filled with compacted fill having an EI of 50 or less.
7.1.3 Remedial Grading – Pedestrian Hardscape
Beneath proposed hardscape areas, the existing fill 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 old paralic deposits
are exposed, excavation need not be performed. 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 above the optimum
moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The excavation should be filled
with compacted fill having an EI of 50 or less.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
15
7.1.4 Remedial Grading – Vehicular Pavements
Beneath proposed vehicular pavement areas, the existing fill 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 pavement or up to existing improvements or the limits of grading, whichever is
less. If competent old paralic deposits are exposed, excavation need not be performed. 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 above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction. The excavation should be filled with material suitable for reuse as compacted fill.
7.1.5 Remedial Grading – Site Walls and Retaining Walls
Beneath 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 wall footing, up to existing improvements, or up to the limits of grading,
whichever is less. If competent old paralic deposits are exposed, excavation need not be performed.
The resulting surface should then be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned to
above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. NOVA
should observe the conditions exposed in the bottom of excavations to evaluate whether additional
excavation is recommended. Any required fill should have an EI of 50 or less.
7.1.6 Expansive Soil
The on-site soils tested have EIs of 9 and 20, classified as very low expansion potential. To reduce
the potential for expansive heave, the top 2 feet of material beneath footings and hardscape should
have an EI of 50 or less. Horizontally, the soils having a very low or low expansion potential should
extend at least the width of the crane/dinosaur model footings, at least 2 feet outside hardscape and
site/retaining wall footings, or up to existing improvements, whichever is less. We expect that the on-
site silty and clayey sand will meet the EI criteria. The on-site sandy clay, however, may not meet the
EI criteria.
7.1.7 Compacted Fill
Excavated soils free of organic matter, construction debris, rocks greater than 6 inches, and expansive
soil as described above should generally be suitable for reuse as compacted fill. Areas to receive fill
should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned to above the optimum moisture
content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. If competent formational materials are
exposed, scarification and recompaction need not be performed. Fill and backfill should be placed in
6- to 8-inch-thick loose lifts, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted
to at least 90% relative compaction. Utility trench backfill below structures, pavements, and hardscape
should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The top 12 inches of subgrade beneath
pavements should be 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.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
16
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® InterAx™ NX650 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. Extra excavation effort should be anticipated in very dense/cemented materials.
Excavations may also generate oversized material that will require extra effort to screen or export from
the site. Seepage should also be anticipated in excavations.
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 and old paralic deposits should be laid back no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). 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 1½:1 (horizontal:vertical) downward from the outside bottom
edge of existing structures or improvements will require shoring. Soldier piles and lagging, 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.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
17
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
(horizontal:vertical) 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
Groundwater seepage is anticipated to occur locally in excavations due to irrigation. If dewatering is
necessary, the dewatering method should be evaluated and implemented by an experienced
dewatering subcontractor.
7.1.15 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 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.
7.1.16 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
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
18
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 building can be supported on shallow spread footings with bottom levels bearing entirely
on compacted fill or entirely on formational materials. Site walls and retaining walls not connected to
buildings can be supported on spread footings with bottom levels bearing on formational materials or
compacted fill. Shade structures, covered walkways, and other pole-type structures can be supported
on CIDH concrete piles.
7.2.1 Spread Footings
Footings should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. A minimum width of
18 inches is recommended for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated or wall footings. An
allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf can be used. The bearing value can be increased by ⅓ 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 ⅓ 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.
7.2.2 CIDH Piles
CIDH piles should be spaced at least three pile diameters, center to center, and be embedded at least
3 feet below grade in fill. The axial downward capacity of piles can be obtained from skin friction only.
An allowable downward skin friction of 300 psf. 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 200 psf per
foot of embedment acting on twice the pile diameter up to a maximum of 3,000 psf can be used, based
on a lateral deflection up to ½ inch at the ground surface and level ground conditions. The axial and
passive pressure values can be increased by ⅓ 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. The provided axial and lateral pile capacities can be updated
once pile size, pile spacing, and boundary conditions are known.
7.2.3 Settlement Characteristics
Total foundation settlements are estimated to be less than 1 inch. Differential settlements are
estimated to be less than ¾ inch between adjacent columns and across continuous footings over a
distance of 40 feet. Settlements should be completed shortly after structural loads are applied.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
19
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. Hardscape
Hardscape should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an EI 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.
7.4. 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 (horizontal:vertical) 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 23 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 ⅓ in determining the seismic stability of the wall.
Retaining walls should be provided with a backdrain to reduce the accumulation of hydrostatic
pressures or be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains can consist of a 2-foot-wide zone
of ¾-inch crushed rock. The crushed rock should be separated from the adjacent soils using a non-
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
20
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 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 a
typical conventional retaining wall backdrain detail. Note that the guidance provided on Figure 7-1 is
conceptual. Other options are available.
Figure 7-1. Typical Conventional Retaining Wall Backdrain Detail
RETAIN ING
WALL
FINISHED
GRADE
CONCRETE
BROWDITCH
GROUND SURFACE
WATER PROOFING
PER ARCHITECT
~-----~-FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
12"
EQU IVALENT)
3/4" CRUSHED ROCK
(1 CU.FT./FT .)
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE
MIRAFI 140N OR
EQUIVALENT
4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40
FOOTING PERFORATED PVC PIPE
OR TOTAL DRAIN
/\"--,'-..."-/>/~ EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL AS
EVALUATED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
21
Wall backfill should consist of granular, free-draining material having an EI 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.
7.5. Pipelines
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 1,400 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. Open
graded rock should not be used for pipe bedding or backfill due to 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.
7.6. Pavement Section Recommendations
Based on the classification of the near surface soils, 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 Traffic Indexes on Table 7-1.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
22
Table 7-1. AC and PCC Pavement Sections
Traffic Type Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Portland Cement Concrete
(inches)
Parking Stalls 4.5 3 AC / 6 AB 6½
Driveways 6.0 4 AC / 10 AB 7
Fire Lanes 7.5 5 AC / 14 AB 7½
AC: Asphalt Concrete
AB: Aggregate Base
PCC: Portland Cement Concrete
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 above the 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 “Greenbook” 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.
7.7. Corrosivity
Representative samples of the on-site soils were tested to evaluate corrosion potential. The test
results are presented in Appendix C. 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. The project design engineer should review and consider
the resistivity levels in the project design. A corrosion engineer should be contacted to provide specific
corrosion control recommendations.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
23
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.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
24
9. REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14)
and Commentary, dated September.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2018, Standard Specifications.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces Note 36, Electronic
Copy, Revised December 2002.
______, 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, Scale 1:100,000.
______, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special
Publication 117A, September 2008.
______, 2011, Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides in California.
______, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
______, 2022a, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed in
July 2023.
______, 2022b, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, County of San Diego; Produced by the California Governor’s
Office of Emergency Services; dated October 7, mapped at 1:72,000 scale.
California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed December 2023.
Commercial Development Resources (CDR), 2022, Topographic Map, Legoland 24 Dino, 1 Legoland
Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, undated.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019, FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Diego County,
Firm Panels 06073C1027H and 06073C0764H, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search, effective
December 20; accessed December 2023.
Google Earth Pro, found at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html, accessed December 2023.
Historic Aerials Website, https://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed December 2023.
International Code Council, 2021, 2022 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title
24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2021 International Building Code, Effective 1/1/23.
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.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1998, Final As-Graded Report of Rough-Grading, LEGOLAND,
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960151-003, February 10.
Merlin Entertainments, 2023, Driver’s School Relocation, Legoland California Resort, Site
Development Plan, dated September 8.
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
25
OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF), OpenStreetMap website: https://www.openstreetmap.org,
accessed December 2023.
NOVA Services, 2021, Geotechnical Investigation, SDP 2021-0020 LEGOLAND Project 2023, One
Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA, Nova Project No. 2021170, Revised November 22.
______, 2022, Geotechnical Investigation, LEGOLAND Fun Town Theatre, One Legoland Drive,
Carlsbad, CA, Nova Project No. 2022146, October 10.
Public Works Standards, Inc., 2021, “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction, 2021 Edition.
Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and
Geology.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2023, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps: found
at https://seismicmaps.org/, accessed in December 2023.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center, U.S. Quaternary
Faults, accessed December 2023.
B-3
B-1
B-2
B-1
B-2 B-3
B-4
A A'B-3
0 40'80'
NW E
N
S
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
NOVA
LE
G
O
L
A
N
D
DR
I
V
E
R
’
S
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
ON
E
L
E
G
O
L
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
0
0
8
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
DVBE
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2023234
DJ
PK
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=40'
PLATE NO.1 OF 1
SBE SDVOSB SLBE
KEY TO SYMBOLS
af FILL
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2023)
B-3
Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
B-3
B-4 GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2022)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2021)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONAA'
af
Qop
Q
I
□
J -I
r-
'° ~
I
I
I EXISTING RESTAURANT
I I
r
II !
1-
• iF
,·1,
;
I I
r-
I I
\
, --:......:_,;_ ... __ ~
~'
:
/
·.Li:
.·--,
-=
G
t I
I
•1 I \
I
f I
",.1
\
,., '-,;_.f
10
PROJECT BOUNDARY
SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
UTILITY ROOM --~
EXIT/ENTfsANCE =-~ r-
\ ,\ ry
\
1
ff'
•
L.......J
0
B-1B-3
210
130
170
A
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
A'
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
e
e
t
(
M
S
L
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
e
e
t
(
M
S
L
)
210
130
170
360 400
TD=5'
TD=21½'
B-2
TD=10½'
B-4
TD=13½'
afaf
Qop Qop
PROPOSED BUILDING EXISTING AMPHITHEATER
0 40'80'
NW E
N
S
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
NOVA
LE
G
O
L
A
N
D
DR
I
V
E
R
’
S
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
ON
E
L
E
G
O
L
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
0
0
8
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
DVBE
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2023234
DJ
PK
GEOLOGIC
CROSS-SECTION AA'
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=40'
PLATE NO.1 OF 1
SBE SDVOSB SLBE
KEY TO SYMBOLS
af FILL
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2023)
B-3
Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
B-3
B-4 GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2022)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2021)
,a~ , __
. . .
l
1
1
,__ -
r--
-;
--------
_i_ --_t-_I_ ------r----~
-r--~
I I I I I I I l I I I l J I I I J I I
0
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
PLATES
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
APPENDIX A
USE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Im ortant Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.
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 solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
-not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering R~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 your project.
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building , or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly-
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design 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
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
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 geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold
from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial
Engineer for Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
The Best People 10 larlh
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 research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiling negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES
GRAVEL
MORE THAN HALF
COARSE FRACTION
IS LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE GRAVEL WITH
15% OR MORE
FINES
CLEAN GRAVEL
WITH LESS THAN
15% FINES
CLEAN SAND
SAND
MORE THAN HALF
COARSE FRACTION
IS FINER THAN NO.
4 SIEVE SIZE
SAND WITH 15%
OR MORE FINES
WITH LESS THAN
15% FINES
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR LESS
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50%
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH OR WITHOUT
SAND
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH OR
WITHOUT SAND
SILTY GRAVEL WITH OR WITHOUT SAND
CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH OR WITHOUT SAND
WELL-GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUT
GRAVEL
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUT
GRAVEL
SILTY SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL
CLAYEY SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL
SILT WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR
GRAVEL
ELASTIC SILT WITH OR WITHOUT SAND
OR GRAVEL
FAT CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR
GRAVEL
ORGANIC SILT OR CLAY OF HIGH
PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR
GRAVEL
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
FI
N
E
-
G
R
A
I
N
E
D
S
O
I
L
S
CO
A
R
S
E
-
G
R
A
I
N
E
D
S
O
I
L
S
MO
R
E
T
H
A
N
H
A
L
F
I
S
F
I
N
E
R
T
H
A
N
N
O
.
2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
M
O
R
E
T
H
A
N
H
A
L
F
I
S
C
O
A
R
S
E
R
T
H
A
N
N
O
.
2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
RELATIVE DENSITY OF
COHESIONLESS SOILS
RELATIVE DENSITY
VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
VERY DENSE
SPT N60
BLOWS/FOOT
0 - 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
OVER 50
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
CONSISTENCY
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
OVER 30
NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D.
(1-3/8 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.
0 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.50
0.50 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
OVER 4.0
LEAN CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND
OR GRAVEL
ORGANIC SILT OR CLAY OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY WITH OR
WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL
SLBE
SPT N60
BLOWS/FOOT
POCKET PENETROMETER
MEASUREMENT (TSF)
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
MOD. CAL. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
UNRELIABLE BLOW COUNTS
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
*
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE CORROSIVITY
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
MAXIMUM DENSITY
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATIONCN
CR
DS
EI
MD
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
AL
RESISTANCE VALUERV
SIEVE ANALYSISSA
SAND EQUIVALENTSE
REFUSALREF
LOG ABBREVIATIONS
2 /Y
~
181
IZI
□
-
I I
a I ..
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
DRILLING EQUPMENT:
ELEVATION (FT):
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT):
DRILLING METHOD:
DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD:
NOTES:REVIEWED BY:N/A
LOGGED BY:
LOG OF BORING B-1
11/08/2023
± 169 MSL
N/A
3½ IN HAND AUGER HAND AUGER
HAND AUGER GN
PK
APPENDIX: B.1
LEGOLAND - DRIVER'S SCHOOL RELOCATION
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT: 2023234DRAFTED BY: GN
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
DR
I
V
E
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
AUGER REFUSAL AT 5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
DRILLING EQUPMENT:
ELEVATION (FT):
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT):
DRILLING METHOD:
DATE DRILLED:
NOTES:REVIEWED BY:
LOGGED BY:
FILL (af): CLAYEY SAND; DARK BROWN, MOIST, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED, WITH ORGANICS, ROOTS, ROOTLETS, SOME CLAY BLEBS
SC
5
10
15
0
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SAND; LIGHT REDDISH BROWN AND DARK GRAY
AND PALE BROWN, WET, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
SC
MEDIUM BROWN
SANDY CLAY; MEDIUM YELLOWISH BROWN, WET, STIFF, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND,
VERY POROUS, SOME MINOR DARK GRAY AND PALE BROWN
INCREASED DRILLING RESISTANCE
CL
SA
AL
EI
CR
-
-
~
-
X
---- - - - - ------------------------------------------------... - -
J
-
-' X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A4~1 ~--. • •
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
DRILLING EQUPMENT:
ELEVATION (FT):
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT):
DRILLING METHOD:
DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD:
NOTES:REVIEWED BY:N/A
LOGGED BY:
LOG OF BORING B-2
11/08/2023
± 166½ MSL
N/A
3½ IN HAND AUGER HAND AUGER
HAND AUGER GN
PK
APPENDIX: B.2
LEGOLAND - DRIVER'S SCHOOL RELOCATION
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT: 2023234DRAFTED BY: GN
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
DR
I
V
E
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
DRILLING EQUPMENT:
ELEVATION (FT):
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT):
DRILLING METHOD:
DATE DRILLED:
NOTES:REVIEWED BY:
LOGGED BY:
FILL (af): CLAYEY SAND; MEDIUM BROWN, MOIST, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, FINE GRAINED,
WITH ORGANICS, ROOTS, ROOTLETS, SOME CLAY BLEBS, ABOUT 5-10% GRAVEL
SC
5
10
15
0
SC
WITH SOME DARK GRAY SANDY CLAY
SANDY CLAY; BLACK, MOIST, STIFF, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SAND
PEGMATITE GRAVEL
CLAYEY SAND; LIGHT REDDISH BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,
MICACEOUS, WITH DARK GRAY CLAY INCLUSION
SM SILTY SAND; LIGHT REDDISH BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,
MICACEOUS
WITH SOME MINOR CLAY
TRACE ASPHALT DEBRIS
TRACE CONCRETE DEBRIS
AUGER CHATTER
AUGER REFUSAL AT 8 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
RV
CL-------------------------------------------------------~---x
-~------------------------------------------------------~--x --------------------------------------------------------~--x --
J
-,
'
-
-
. .
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
DRILLING EQUPMENT:
ELEVATION (FT):
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT):
DRILLING METHOD:
DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD:
NOTES:REVIEWED BY:N/A
LOGGED BY:
LOG OF BORING B-3
11/08/2023
± 169 MSL
N/A
3½ IN HAND AUGER HAND AUGER
HAND AUGER GN
PK
APPENDIX: B.3
LEGOLAND - DRIVER'S SCHOOL RELOCATION
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT: 2023234DRAFTED BY: GN
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
DR
I
V
E
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
6
I
N
N
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
DRILLING EQUPMENT:
ELEVATION (FT):
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT):
DRILLING METHOD:
DATE DRILLED:
NOTES:REVIEWED BY:
LOGGED BY:
FILL (af): CLAYEY SAND; MEDIUM BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED, ROOTS, ROOTLETS, WITH MINOR DARK GRAY AND LIGHT BROWN CLAY
INCLUSIONS, ABOUT 5% GRAVEL
SC
5
10
15
0
AT 2 FT, ENCOUNTERED IRRIGATION PIPE, STEP-OUT
AT 2 FT, ENCOUNTERED ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, STEP-OUT
BLACK AND LIGHT GRAY, MICACEOUS
BROWN, TRACE GRAVEL, WITH DARK GRAY CLAY INCLUSIONS
SA
AL
EI
AUGER REFUSAL AT 11½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SAND; REDDISH BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO
MEDIUM GRAINED, SLIGHTLY MICACEOUS
SC
DARK GRAYISH BROWN AND LIGHT BROWN
INCREASED MOISTURE CONTENT
-
-
-
-
-
--x
--
-J
-'
--
-J -,
X
-
-
-
A4~1 ~--. • •
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
PREVIOUS BORING LOGS
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
N
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DRILLING EQUP.:ELEVATION:GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
LEGOLAND - PROJECT 2023
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB
LOGGED BY:PROJECT NO.:REVIEWED BY:
DRILLING METHOD:DATE DRILLED:
SAMPLE METHOD:NOTES:
LOG OF BORING B-3
AUGUST 13, 2021
± 168 FT MSL
HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTOMATIC)
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
FRASTE PL-G NOT ENCOUNTERED
FIGURE B.4
AR MS 2021170
4 INCHES OF ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 12 INCHES OF AGGREGATE BASE.
SM
ETR~88.3%, N60 ~ 88.360*N~1.47*N
7 7
15 22
CLAYEY SAND; LIGHT BROWN WITH GRAY MOTTLING, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO
MEDIUM GRAINED
SILTY SAND; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST TO WET, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEDSM
SLIGHTLY MOIST
SM
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 12 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SANDSTONE; ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE
TO MEDIUM GRAINED, MICACEOUS, MODERATELY CEMENTED
44 42
32 47
52 76
SC
SLBE
FILL (afu): SILTY SAND; LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN, MOIST, LOOSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
SC
SILTY SANDSTONE; ORANGE BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED, MICACEOUS, MODERATELY CEMENTED
=~= ---------------"-------------------------------------"--
-1 --------------------------------------------------------
-
1-
' I -
-7 ---------------~-------------------------------------~--
• •
I I
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
N
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DRILLING EQUP.:ELEVATION:GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
DRILLING METHOD:DATE DRILLED:
SAMPLE METHOD:NOTES:
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
LEGOLAND FUN TOWN THEATRE
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT: 2022146BY: DM REVIEWED BY: MS
LOG OF BORING B-1
AUGUST 8, 2022
± 164 FT MSL
HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTOMATIC)
8-INCH HOLLOW STEM AUGER
FRASTE NOT ENCOUNTERED
ETR~88.3%, N60 ~ 88.360*N~1.47*N
3 INCHES OF ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 6 INCHES OF AGGREGATE BASE
SM
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT; BROWNISH YELLOW, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE
GRAINED
SP-SM
BORING TERMINATED AT 19½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
DARK YELLOWISH BROWN
SILTY SAND; DARK YELLOW BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
26 38
28 41
APPENDIX: B.1
29 43
19 28
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED
SC
FILL (af): CLAYEY SAND; REDDISH BROWN, MOIST, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, TRACE
COBBLES UP TO 6 INCHES (≤ 5%)
SC
-
--
-X
-/ ---
-
X
-J /
-, -
-
'
--
-
-~ - - - - - ----- - - - - --------------------------------------->-- -
-
-
--
-X - - - - - ------------------------------------------------>-- -
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
♦ ♦ ♦
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
N
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DRILLING EQUP.:ELEVATION:GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
DS
DRILLING METHOD:DATE DRILLED:
SAMPLE METHOD:NOTES:
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
LEGOLAND FUN TOWN THEATRE
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT: 2022146BY: DM REVIEWED BY: MS
LOG OF BORING B-2
AUGUST 8, 2022
± 164 FT MSL
HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTOMATIC)
8-INCH HOLLOW STEM AUGER
FRASTE NOT ENCOUNTERED
ETR~88.3%, N60 ~ 88.360*N~1.47*N
2 INCHES OF ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 9 INCHES OF AGGREGATE BASE
BORING TERMINATED AT 10½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
YELLOWISH BROWN, VERY DENSE
12 18
28 41
APPENDIX: B.2
31 46
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SAND; DARK YELLOWISH BROWN, MOIST, DENSE,
FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
SC
FILL (af): CLAYEY SAND; BROWN AND DARK GRAY, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED
SC
50/6" 48/6" 10.1 113.9
DENSE
-
-z -
-~ -
-
-
-
-[7 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
♦ ♦ ♦
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
N
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DRILLING EQUP.:ELEVATION:GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
SA
AL
CR
DRILLING METHOD:DATE DRILLED:
SAMPLE METHOD:NOTES:
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
LEGOLAND FUN TOWN THEATRE
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT: 2022146BY: DM REVIEWED BY: MS
LOG OF BORING B-3
AUGUST 8, 2022
± 158 FT
HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTOMATIC)
8-INCH HOLLOW STEM AUGER
FRASTE NOT ENCOUNTERED
ETR~88.3%, N60 ~ 88.360*N~1.47*N
2 INCHES OF ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 6 INCHES OF AGGREGATE BASE
BORING TERMINATED AT 14½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
DENSE2841
APPENDIX: B.3
50/6" 48/6"
CLAYEY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEDSC
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND; YELLOWISH RED, MOIST, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED
SM
50/3" 48/3"
50/5" 48/5"
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): SILTY SANDSTONE; LIGHT BROWNISH GRAY, MOIST, VERY
DENSE FINE GRAINED, FRIABLE TO WEAKLY CEMENTED13.5 113.2
-
-
X
-
-
-~ -
-
-x-- - ----- - - - - ------------------------------------------.... - -
-7
-
X
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
♦ ♦ ♦
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
N60
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
N
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
BU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
T
E
S
T
S
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DRILLING EQUP.:ELEVATION:GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
(%
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(p
c
f
)
SA
AL
EI
DRILLING METHOD:DATE DRILLED:
SAMPLE METHOD:NOTES:
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
LEGOLAND FUN TOWN THEATRE
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT: 2022146BY: DM REVIEWED BY: MS
LOG OF BORING B-4
AUGUST 8, 2022
± 164 FT MSL
HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTOMATIC)
8-INCH HOLLOW STEM AUGER
FRASTE NOT ENCOUNTERED
ETR~88.3%, N60 ~ 88.360*N~1.47*N
2 INCHES OF ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 9 INCHES OF AGGREGATE BASE
BORING TERMINATED AT 13½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED.
30 44
APPENDIX: B.4
DARK YELLOWISH BROWN
FILL (af): SILTY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, FINE TO COARSE GRAINEDSM
32 47
33 49
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND, BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED
SM
-
-X -
-
-I
X
--
-/__
-
-
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
♦ ♦ ♦
Geotechnical Investigation
LEGOLAND – Driver’s School Relocation, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project No. 2023234
December 15, 2023
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested
procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed are presented below:
LAB TEST SUMMARY
·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 D6913): Gradation analyses were performed on representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM
D422. The grain size distributions of the samples were determined in accordance with ASTM D6913.
·ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318): Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limits, plastic
limits, and plasticity indexes in general accordance with ASTM D4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System.
·EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D4829): The expansion indexes of selected materials were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D4829. The
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 distilled water. Readings of
volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours.
·R-VALUE (CT 301 and ASTM D 2844): The resistance value, or R-Value, for near-surface site soils was evaluated in general accordance with California
Test (CT) 301 and ASTM D 2844. The sample was 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 TEST (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 contents of the selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with CT
417 and CT 422, respectively.
Soil samples not tested are now stored in our laboratory for future reference and evaluation, if needed. Unless notified to the contrary, samples will be disposed
of 60 days from the date of this report.
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
FIGURE: C.1BY: GN PROJECT: 2023234
LEGOLAND - DRIVER'S SCHOOL RELOCATION
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
REVIEWED BY: PK
A,a~I ~--. . •
CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS
Gravel Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B-1
1½ - 2
FIGURE: C.2
SC
28
32
12
20
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318):
Liquid Limit, LL:
Plastic Limit, PL:
Plasticity Index, PI:
BY: GN PROJECT: 2023234
LEGOLAND - DRIVER'S SCHOOL RELOCATION
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
REVIEWED BY: PK
<E----Size (Inches) '/ U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ' / Hydrom eter Analysis ' ,, .... ,, .... /
0 0
~ 0 0 0 ~ 0
~ :1: ~ ~ " N " <D N
~ ~ <") ~ <") c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i
100.0 -z z z z z z z
---·
...... I -.... I I I I
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 11 I I
I I I I I I I
80.0 I I I I I ' I I
I I I I I \ I I
I I I I I I I
Cl 70.0 I I I I I I I
C: \ "' I I I I I I I
"' I I I I I I I
n, I I I I I :, I I l. 60.0 " 1, I ' ' ' ' ... I I I I I I \ I I C: I I I I I I ,11 I I Q) I I I I I I I I CJ \ ... I I I I I I I I Q) 50.0 l. 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
40.0 I I I I I I \I I
I 11 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
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 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 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 I I I I I
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
I I I I I I I
j,a~I ~--. . .
CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS
Gravel Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
FIGURE: C.3
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B-3
3½ - 5
SC
32
42
15
27
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318):
Liquid Limit, LL:
Plastic Limit, PL:
Plasticity Index, PI:
BY: GN PROJECT: 2023234
LEGOLAND - DRIVER'S SCHOOL RELOCATION
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
REVIEWED BY: PK
<E------Size (Inches) ' ---/ Hydrometer Analysis --/' U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ,.. ..... ,..
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 "' ~ ~ ~ ..,-N ..,-<O N ---"' ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
100.0 -z z z z z z z -.. -..... I I I I I I
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 I I I I I
80.0 ,r--I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
Cl 70.0 I I I I I I I I
C: 11 II I I II \ I I II
1/) I I I I I I I
1/) I I I I I I I
ns I I I I ,, I I a. 60.0 11 11 I ' I, ' ' I, -I I I I I I I C: I I I I ,\ I I Q) I I I I I . I I (.) ... I I I I I I I Q) 50.0 a. I I I I I \ I I
I I I I I \ I I
I I I I I ,, I
40.0 I I I I I 'J.. I
11 11 I I II "' II
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 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
I I I I I I I
j,a~I ~--. . .
LAB TEST RESULTS
Corrosivity (Cal. Test Method 417,422,643)
Sample
Location
Sample Depth
pH
Resistivity Sulfate Content Chloride Content
(ppm)(%)(Ohm-cm)(ft.)(ppm)(%)
Water-Soluble Sulfate Exposure (ACI 318 Table 19.3.1.1 and Table 19.3.2.1)
Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4)
in Soil (% by Weight)
Exposure
Class
Cement Type
(ASTM C150)
Exposure
Severity
Max.
W/C
Min. fc'
(psi)
SO4 < 0.10
0.10 ≤ SO4 < 0.20
0.20 ≤ SO4 ≤ 2.00
SO4 > 2.00
N/A
Moderate
Severe
Very Severe
S0
S1
S2
S3
No type restriction
II
V
V plus pozzolan or slag cement
N/A
0.50
0.45
0.45
2,500
4,000
4,500
4,500
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
½ - 2 7.4 1380 27 603 0.0600.003B-1
FIGURE: C.4
Sample
Location R-Value
Sample
Depth
(ft.)
R-Value (Cal. Test Method 301 & ASTM D2844)
B-2 16½ - 2½
Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
B-1
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829)
½ - 2
Sample Depth
(ft.)
Expansion
Potential
9 Very Low
Expansion
Potential
Classification of Expansive Soil (ASTM D4829)
Expansion
Index
0-20
21-50
51-90
91-130
>130
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
B-3 3½ - 5 20 Very Low
BY: GN PROJECT: 2023234
LEGOLAND - DRIVER'S SCHOOL RELOCATION
ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
REVIEWED BY: PK
j,a~I ~--. . .
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B San Diego, CA 92123 P: 858.292.7575
usa-nova.com 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F San Clemente, CA 92673 P: 949.388.7710
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION DVBE SBE SDVOSB SLBE
Ms. Flora Liu, Senior Project Manager March 11, 2024
Merlin Entertainment Group NOVA Project No. 2023234
c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC
One Legoland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Responses to Third-Party Geotechnical Report Review Comments – 1st Review
LEGOLAND California Driving School Relocation
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California
References: City of Carlsbad, (Carlsbad) (2024), Third-Party Geotechnical Report Review,
Legoland Driver’s School (1st review), Project ID: SDP2023-0026, Grading Permit No:
GR2024-0003, February 5.
Commercial Development Resources, (CDR) (2024), Legoland California Driving
School Relocation, Grading Plan, SDP Project No. 2023-0012, Sheet C-003,
undated.
R.L. Plowfield & Associates, Inc., (RLPA) (2024), Legoland California Driving School
Relocation, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California, 100% Construction
Documents, OWP Project No. 4166, February 16, plotted February 22.
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) (2023), Geotechnical Investigation, LEGOLAND –
Driver’s School Relocation, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California, NOVA Project
No. 2023234, December 15.
Dear Ms. Liu:
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) prepared this letter to respond to the referenced third-party review
comments (Carlsbad, 2024) for the LEGOLAND Driving School Relocation project. 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: As the submitted report indicates that it was based on the review of preliminary plans for
the proposed new driver’s school, please review the most current grading and building plans for the
project and provide any additional and/or revise recommendations for the proposed project as
necessary.
Response: NOVA reviewed the referenced grading plans (CDR, 2024). The current plans are consistent with preliminary plans reviewed during the preparation of the referenced geotechnical report. Additional analysis and/or recommendations are not considered necessary at this time.
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
2
Comment 2: Please provide an updated “Geotechnical Map” (providing all the geotechnical information
currently shown) using the most current revision of the project grading plan by Commercial
Development Resources (sheet 3) as the base map.
Response: The requested geotechnical map is attached to this response letter at Plate 1.
Comment 3: Please provide an updated “Geologic Cross Section A-A’” based on the updated
“Geotechnical Map” requested in Comment #2 above. Along with the geologic information shown on
the current cross section, please also show the geologic contact between the Old Paralic Deposits and
underlying Santiago formation bedrock as applicable.
Response: The requested geologic cross-section is attached to this response letter at Plate 2. Based
on our review of previous exploration throughout Legoland, the depth to the Santiago Formation
increases going to the west and southwest across the proposed Driving School. A review of historical
topographic maps indicates that an old drainage channel existed to the west and southwest thus
suggesting that the depth to encounter the Santiago Formation would increase. It should be noted
that the east adjacent borings B-3 and B-4 (NOVA 2022) were mislabeled.
Comment 4: Strength (direct shear) testing of the on-site soils is not provided in the report. Please
provide the appropriate laboratory testing to substantiate the values for passive pressure, coefficient
of friction and active/at-rest earth pressures that are presented in the report (as they exceed the values
of Class 4 and 5 presumptive values are being recommended by the consultant, please state the
reference and use values consistent with the appropriate soil type in Tables 1806.2 and 1610.1 of the
2022 California Building Code (please justify the soil type by laboratory testing if something other than
soil class 5 in Table 1806.2 is provided as the basis for the assumed values.
Response: The passive pressure provided is based on the recorded blow counts of the fill encountered
during exploration of the entire LEGOLAND amusement park. The fill observed through the vicinity of
the site generally consists of silty and clayey sand to sandy clay. The recorded SPT blow counts were
corrected to a 60% energy transfer ration and overburden (N160). The corrected SPT value was then
utilized to obtain equivalent friction angles or unconfined compressive strengths, after Bowles, 1977.
Passive pressures provided for conventional foundations were based on foundations embedded into
compacted fill. Based on NOVA’s previous experience with compacted fill within Legoland, a minimum
90% relative compaction would typically result in a dense soil with a relative density greater than 50%.
This would correlate to a friction angle greater than 35. Given the onsite soils would have some
cohesion, utilizing a conservative value of cohesion equal to 100 pcf and a friction value of 35 degrees,
the calculated passive pressure would approximate to a value of 350 pcf.
Conservatively utilizing the lowest corrected SPT N160 value of 10 for the existing artificial fill soils, an
equivalent friction angle of 32.5 degrees or unconfined compressive strength of 2.5 ksf is obtained.
The calculated passive pressure is approximately 265 pcf, which is greater than the provided value of
200 pcf.
Utilizing the above values would result in a coefficient of friction value greater than 0.35.
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
3
Comment 5: Please provide revised shoring and CIDH pile parameters as necessary based on the
results of the strength testing requested in comment #4 above.
Response: See above comment for passive values. Where shoring extends into formational materials,
the passive resistance will be considerably greater.
Comment 6: Exploratory borings B-1 and B-2 of the recent investigation identify sandy clay soils
several feet beneath the existing ground surface that do not appear to have been part of the laboratory
testing program. Please address the expansion potential of the clay soils as they relate to the
proposed structures and improvements and provide recommendations to address as necessary (see
comment #7 below).
Response: An expansion index (EI) test following ASTM D 4829 was performed on a sample from
Boring B-1 at 2 feet bgs. The results indicate a very low expansion potential (EI = 6).
Comment 7: The test of the report under “Conclusions (page 13) indicates the on-site soils are
considered to have “Very Low” expansive potential, however other pages in the report (page 14, 15
and 18) appear to provide grading and foundation recommendations or soils with an Expansion Index
less than 50 (“Low” expansion potential). As soils with expansion index (EI) over 20 are considered
expansive and require mitigation in accordance with Sections 1803.5.3 and 1808.6 of the 2022 CBC,
please revise the report as necessary to recommend the use of the soils with an Expansion Index less
than 20 or provide foundation and floor slab recommendations to address expansive soils (for soils
with and EI between 20 and 50) in accordance with Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building
Code Building Code. Please provide the methods (1806.1 through 1806.4) and any geotechnical
parameters (Effective Plasticity Index, etc.) that are being recommended to address expansive soils
(for soils with EI between 20 and 50) and satisfy Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building Code
for the proposed slab-on-ground construction; and provide a statement that the foundation system for
the proposed structure will meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building
Code. Please provide the basis for all parameters provided.
Response: The recommendations provided conservatively account for expansive soils up to an EI of
50, despite onsite soils having a very low expansion potential. The foundation recommendations will
meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2022 CBC.
Comment 8: There are currently no recommendations in the report for the concrete floor slab and
underlayment for the proposed structures. Please provide geotechnical recommendations for concrete
floor slabs and associated underlayment/vapor retarder based on the results of comment #7 above to
address expansive soils.
Response: Concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an EI of 50
or less. We recommend that conventional concrete slabs-on-grade floors be at least 4 inches thick
and reinforced with at least 4x4 W2.1xW2.1. 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.
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
4
Slabs should be provided stiffening beams in accordance with the WRI design manual. An Effective
Plastic Index of 20 should be used for design. As a minimum, beams should not be spaced more than
21 feet in each direction.
If moisture intrusion is not desired, 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 10-mil plastic is recommended.
The plastic should comply with ASTM E1745. The vapor barrier installation should comply with ASTM
E1643. The slab can be placed directly on the vapor barrier.
Comment 9: Please provide the minimum reinforcement requirements for new foundations from a
geotechnical standpoint.
Response: Minimum one No. 4 bar at top and bottom are recommended. However, the project
structural engineer should design the actual reinforcement of foundations.
Comment 10: Please provide the Seismic Design Category for the project in accordance with Section
1613 of the 2022 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16.
Response: The Seismic Design Category for the project is ‘D’ in accordance with Section 1613 of the
2022 CBC and ASCE 7-16.
Comment 11: Please clarify the expansion index (EI) for any fill used to establish the driver’s school
road course.
Response: As stated in the referenced geotechnical report, any required fill should have an EI of 50
or less. The recommended foundations account for this expansion potential.
Comment 12: Please clarify the pavement section recommendations for the proposed driver’s school
road course.
Response: The proposed driver’s school road course will support vehicles that are suitable for children.
The planned vehicles to be used will possess a gross weight significantly less than that of regular
passenger vehicles that traverse city roads and highways. There are no minimum recommendations
or requirements to the pavement section for the planned driver’s school road course. The pavement
section in the referenced report was provided in case a road was planned to the proposed driving
school for delivery or heavy equipment.
Comment 13: Please provide the minimum diameter for CIDH piles for any proposed shade structures
or other structures having a pole-type foundation (or shoring) from a geotechnical standpoint.
Response: The minimum diameter for CIDH piles for any proposed shade structures or other
structures having a pole-type foundation should be 12”.
Comment 14: Please evaluate and discuss the potential for storm water infiltration at the subject site
as part of the proposed project.
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
5
Response: The project is not a Priority Development Project and is not subject to evaluation for the
potential of stormwater infiltration.
Comment 15: Please provide a complete summary list of the geotechnical observation/testing services
that should be performed as part of the construction of this proposed development.
Response: The geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction of the proposed
development should conform to the local jurisdictional agency and Chapter 17 of the 2022 CBC. We
recommend that the following geotechnical observation and testing services be performed during site
grading and earthwork construction:
• Attend the grading preconstruction meeting.
• 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.
• 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.
NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to LEGOLAND California, LLC on this project. If
you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned at 949.388.7710.
Sincerely,
NOVA Services, Inc.
_________________________
Paul Kim, GE, CEG
Senior Engineer
Attachments: Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map Plate 2 - Geologic Cross-Section
NOVA
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
PLATE 1
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
B-3
B-1
B-2
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
A A'B-3
0 40'80'
NW E
N
S
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
NOVA
LE
G
O
L
A
N
D
DR
I
V
E
R
’
S
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
ON
E
L
E
G
O
L
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
0
0
8
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
DVBE
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2023234
DJ
PK
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=40'
PLATE NO.1 OF 1
SBE SDVOSB SLBE
KEY TO SYMBOLS
af FILL
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2023)
B-3
Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
B-3
B-4 GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2022)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2021)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONAA'
af
Qop
PROJECT LIMITS
\ \
\
\
r EXISTING RESTAURANT
•
PROJECT BOUNDARY GS , .ANDSCAPE DRAWIN
J
EXISTING
F&B
8
L.......J
0
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
PLATE 2
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
B-1B-3
210
130
170
A
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
A'
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
e
e
t
(
M
S
L
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
e
e
t
(
M
S
L
)
210
130
170
360 400
TD=5'
TD=21½'
B-2
TD=10½'
B-4
TD=13½'
af
af
Qop Qop
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING AMPHITHEATER
EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED
BUILDING
0 40'80'
NW E
N
S
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
NOVA
LE
G
O
L
A
N
D
DR
I
V
E
R
’
S
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
ON
E
L
E
G
O
L
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
0
0
8
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
DVBE
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2023234
DJ
PK
GEOLOGIC
CROSS-SECTION AA'
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=40'
PLATE NO.1 OF 1
SBE SDVOSB SLBE
KEY TO SYMBOLS
af FILL
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2023)
B-3
Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
B-3
B-4 GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2022)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2021)
,a~ , __
.. .
l
1
1
-
~ -"-, _ -
i---
......_
I---_._ -----
"-
--; -
--r I y ----== -~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
'
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B San Diego, CA 92123 P: 858.292.7575
usa-nova.com 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F San Clemente, CA 92673 P: 949.388.7710
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION DVBE SBE SDVOSB SLBE
Ms. Flora Liu, Senior Project Manager March 11, 2024
Merlin Entertainment Group NOVA Project No. 2023234
c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC
One Legoland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Responses to Third-Party Geotechnical Report Review Comments – 1st Review
LEGOLAND California Driving School Relocation
One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California
References: City of Carlsbad, (Carlsbad) (2024), Third-Party Geotechnical Report Review,
Legoland Driver’s School (1st review), Project ID: SDP2023-0026, Grading Permit No:
GR2024-0003, February 5.
Commercial Development Resources, (CDR) (2024), Legoland California Driving
School Relocation, Grading Plan, SDP Project No. 2023-0012, Sheet C-003,
undated.
R.L. Plowfield & Associates, Inc., (RLPA) (2024), Legoland California Driving School
Relocation, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California, 100% Construction
Documents, OWP Project No. 4166, February 16, plotted February 22.
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) (2023), Geotechnical Investigation, LEGOLAND –
Driver’s School Relocation, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California, NOVA Project
No. 2023234, December 15.
Dear Ms. Liu:
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) prepared this letter to respond to the referenced third-party review
comments (Carlsbad, 2024) for the LEGOLAND Driving School Relocation project. 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: As the submitted report indicates that it was based on the review of preliminary plans for
the proposed new driver’s school, please review the most current grading and building plans for the
project and provide any additional and/or revise recommendations for the proposed project as
necessary.
Response: NOVA reviewed the referenced grading plans (CDR, 2024). The current plans are consistent with preliminary plans reviewed during the preparation of the referenced geotechnical report. Additional analysis and/or recommendations are not considered necessary at this time.
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
2
Comment 2: Please provide an updated “Geotechnical Map” (providing all the geotechnical information
currently shown) using the most current revision of the project grading plan by Commercial
Development Resources (sheet 3) as the base map.
Response: The requested geotechnical map is attached to this response letter at Plate 1.
Comment 3: Please provide an updated “Geologic Cross Section A-A’” based on the updated
“Geotechnical Map” requested in Comment #2 above. Along with the geologic information shown on
the current cross section, please also show the geologic contact between the Old Paralic Deposits and
underlying Santiago formation bedrock as applicable.
Response: The requested geologic cross-section is attached to this response letter at Plate 2. Based
on our review of previous exploration throughout Legoland, the depth to the Santiago Formation
increases going to the west and southwest across the proposed Driving School. A review of historical
topographic maps indicates that an old drainage channel existed to the west and southwest thus
suggesting that the depth to encounter the Santiago Formation would increase. It should be noted
that the east adjacent borings B-3 and B-4 (NOVA 2022) were mislabeled.
Comment 4: Strength (direct shear) testing of the on-site soils is not provided in the report. Please
provide the appropriate laboratory testing to substantiate the values for passive pressure, coefficient
of friction and active/at-rest earth pressures that are presented in the report (as they exceed the values
of Class 4 and 5 presumptive values are being recommended by the consultant, please state the
reference and use values consistent with the appropriate soil type in Tables 1806.2 and 1610.1 of the
2022 California Building Code (please justify the soil type by laboratory testing if something other than
soil class 5 in Table 1806.2 is provided as the basis for the assumed values.
Response: The passive pressure provided is based on the recorded blow counts of the fill encountered
during exploration of the entire LEGOLAND amusement park. The fill observed through the vicinity of
the site generally consists of silty and clayey sand to sandy clay. The recorded SPT blow counts were
corrected to a 60% energy transfer ration and overburden (N160). The corrected SPT value was then
utilized to obtain equivalent friction angles or unconfined compressive strengths, after Bowles, 1977.
Passive pressures provided for conventional foundations were based on foundations embedded into
compacted fill. Based on NOVA’s previous experience with compacted fill within Legoland, a minimum
90% relative compaction would typically result in a dense soil with a relative density greater than 50%.
This would correlate to a friction angle greater than 35. Given the onsite soils would have some
cohesion, utilizing a conservative value of cohesion equal to 100 pcf and a friction value of 35 degrees,
the calculated passive pressure would approximate to a value of 350 pcf.
Conservatively utilizing the lowest corrected SPT N160 value of 10 for the existing artificial fill soils, an
equivalent friction angle of 32.5 degrees or unconfined compressive strength of 2.5 ksf is obtained.
The calculated passive pressure is approximately 265 pcf, which is greater than the provided value of
200 pcf.
Utilizing the above values would result in a coefficient of friction value greater than 0.35.
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
3
Comment 5: Please provide revised shoring and CIDH pile parameters as necessary based on the
results of the strength testing requested in comment #4 above.
Response: See above comment for passive values. Where shoring extends into formational materials,
the passive resistance will be considerably greater.
Comment 6: Exploratory borings B-1 and B-2 of the recent investigation identify sandy clay soils
several feet beneath the existing ground surface that do not appear to have been part of the laboratory
testing program. Please address the expansion potential of the clay soils as they relate to the
proposed structures and improvements and provide recommendations to address as necessary (see
comment #7 below).
Response: An expansion index (EI) test following ASTM D 4829 was performed on a sample from
Boring B-1 at 2 feet bgs. The results indicate a very low expansion potential (EI = 6).
Comment 7: The test of the report under “Conclusions (page 13) indicates the on-site soils are
considered to have “Very Low” expansive potential, however other pages in the report (page 14, 15
and 18) appear to provide grading and foundation recommendations or soils with an Expansion Index
less than 50 (“Low” expansion potential). As soils with expansion index (EI) over 20 are considered
expansive and require mitigation in accordance with Sections 1803.5.3 and 1808.6 of the 2022 CBC,
please revise the report as necessary to recommend the use of the soils with an Expansion Index less
than 20 or provide foundation and floor slab recommendations to address expansive soils (for soils
with and EI between 20 and 50) in accordance with Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building
Code Building Code. Please provide the methods (1806.1 through 1806.4) and any geotechnical
parameters (Effective Plasticity Index, etc.) that are being recommended to address expansive soils
(for soils with EI between 20 and 50) and satisfy Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building Code
for the proposed slab-on-ground construction; and provide a statement that the foundation system for
the proposed structure will meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building
Code. Please provide the basis for all parameters provided.
Response: The recommendations provided conservatively account for expansive soils up to an EI of
50, despite onsite soils having a very low expansion potential. The foundation recommendations will
meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2022 CBC.
Comment 8: There are currently no recommendations in the report for the concrete floor slab and
underlayment for the proposed structures. Please provide geotechnical recommendations for concrete
floor slabs and associated underlayment/vapor retarder based on the results of comment #7 above to
address expansive soils.
Response: Concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an EI of 50
or less. We recommend that conventional concrete slabs-on-grade floors be at least 4 inches thick
and reinforced with at least 4x4 W2.1xW2.1. 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.
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
4
Slabs should be provided stiffening beams in accordance with the WRI design manual. An Effective
Plastic Index of 20 should be used for design. As a minimum, beams should not be spaced more than
21 feet in each direction.
If moisture intrusion is not desired, 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 10-mil plastic is recommended.
The plastic should comply with ASTM E1745. The vapor barrier installation should comply with ASTM
E1643. The slab can be placed directly on the vapor barrier.
Comment 9: Please provide the minimum reinforcement requirements for new foundations from a
geotechnical standpoint.
Response: Minimum one No. 4 bar at top and bottom are recommended. However, the project
structural engineer should design the actual reinforcement of foundations.
Comment 10: Please provide the Seismic Design Category for the project in accordance with Section
1613 of the 2022 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16.
Response: The Seismic Design Category for the project is ‘D’ in accordance with Section 1613 of the
2022 CBC and ASCE 7-16.
Comment 11: Please clarify the expansion index (EI) for any fill used to establish the driver’s school
road course.
Response: As stated in the referenced geotechnical report, any required fill should have an EI of 50
or less. The recommended foundations account for this expansion potential.
Comment 12: Please clarify the pavement section recommendations for the proposed driver’s school
road course.
Response: The proposed driver’s school road course will support vehicles that are suitable for children.
The planned vehicles to be used will possess a gross weight significantly less than that of regular
passenger vehicles that traverse city roads and highways. There are no minimum recommendations
or requirements to the pavement section for the planned driver’s school road course. The pavement
section in the referenced report was provided in case a road was planned to the proposed driving
school for delivery or heavy equipment.
Comment 13: Please provide the minimum diameter for CIDH piles for any proposed shade structures
or other structures having a pole-type foundation (or shoring) from a geotechnical standpoint.
Response: The minimum diameter for CIDH piles for any proposed shade structures or other
structures having a pole-type foundation should be 12”.
Comment 14: Please evaluate and discuss the potential for storm water infiltration at the subject site
as part of the proposed project.
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
5
Response: The project is not a Priority Development Project and is not subject to evaluation for the
potential of stormwater infiltration.
Comment 15: Please provide a complete summary list of the geotechnical observation/testing services
that should be performed as part of the construction of this proposed development.
Response: The geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction of the proposed
development should conform to the local jurisdictional agency and Chapter 17 of the 2022 CBC. We
recommend that the following geotechnical observation and testing services be performed during site
grading and earthwork construction:
• Attend the grading preconstruction meeting.
• 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.
• 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.
NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to LEGOLAND California, LLC on this project. If
you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned at 949.388.7710.
Sincerely,
NOVA Services, Inc.
_________________________
Paul Kim, GE, CEG
Senior Engineer
Attachments: Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map Plate 2 - Geologic Cross-Section
NOVA
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
PLATE 1
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
B-3
B-1
B-2
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
A A'B-3
0 40'80'
NW E
N
S
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
NOVA
LE
G
O
L
A
N
D
DR
I
V
E
R
’
S
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
ON
E
L
E
G
O
L
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
0
0
8
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
DVBE
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2023234
DJ
PK
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=40'
PLATE NO.1 OF 1
SBE SDVOSB SLBE
KEY TO SYMBOLS
af FILL
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2023)
B-3
Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
B-3
B-4 GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2022)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2021)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONAA'
af
Qop
PROJECT LIMITS
\ \
\
\
r EXISTING RESTAURANT
•
PROJECT BOUNDARY GS , .ANDSCAPE DRAWIN
J
EXISTING
F&B
8
L.......J
0
Responses to Third-Party Review Comments – 1st Review LEGOLAND Driving School Relocations, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project No. 2023234
March 11, 2024
PLATE 2
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
B-1B-3
210
130
170
A
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
A'
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
e
e
t
(
M
S
L
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
e
e
t
(
M
S
L
)
210
130
170
360 400
TD=5'
TD=21½'
B-2
TD=10½'
B-4
TD=13½'
af
af
Qop Qop
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING AMPHITHEATER
EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED
BUILDING
0 40'80'
NW E
N
S
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
NOVA
LE
G
O
L
A
N
D
DR
I
V
E
R
’
S
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
ON
E
L
E
G
O
L
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
0
0
8
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
DVBE
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2023234
DJ
PK
GEOLOGIC
CROSS-SECTION AA'
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=40'
PLATE NO.1 OF 1
SBE SDVOSB SLBE
KEY TO SYMBOLS
af FILL
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2023)
B-3
Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
B-3
B-4 GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2022)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
(NOVA, 2021)
,a~ , __
.. .
l
1
1
-
~ -"-, _ -
i---
......_
I---_._ -----
"-
--; -
--r I y ----== -~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
'