Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2023-0012; LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025; UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2023-08-09 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. 2022239 August 9, 2023 LEGOLAND California Project 2025  One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Merlin Entertainment Group c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC One Legoland Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 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 Mr. Tom Storer, Senior Project Manager August 9, 2023 Merlin Entertainment Group NOVA Project No. 2022239 c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC One Legoland Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025 One Legoland Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Storer: NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) is pleased to present our report describing the updated geotechnical investigation performed for the LEGOLAND California Project 2025 project. We conducted the geotechnical investigation in general conformance with the scope of work presented in our change order dated May 22, 2023. This site is considered geotechnically suitable for construction of the proposed improvements 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 call us at 858.292.7575 x 417. Sincerely, NOVA Services, Inc. _____________________________ _________________________ Gillian Carzzarella Dean, PE C87787 W. Lee Vanderhurst, PG, CEG 1125 Senior Engineer Senior Engineering Geologist ___________________________ Tom Canady, PE, 50057 Principal Engineer Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 i UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION LEGOLAND California Project 2025 One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1  2. SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................................... 3  2.1. Field Investigation ...............................................................................................................3  2.2. Laboratory Testing ..............................................................................................................4  2.3. Analysis and Report Preparation .........................................................................................4  3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 5  3.1. Site Description ...................................................................................................................5  3.2. Site History ..........................................................................................................................5  3.3. Proposed Construction ........................................................................................................5  4. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................... 6  4.1. Site-Specific Geology ..........................................................................................................7  5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................. 9  5.1. Faulting and Surface Rupture .............................................................................................9  5.2. Site Class ..........................................................................................................................10  5.3. CBC Seismic Design Parameters......................................................................................10  5.4. Landslides and Slope Stability ..........................................................................................10  5.5. Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ...............................................................................10  5.6. Flooding, Tsunamis, and Seiches .....................................................................................11  5.7. Subsidence ........................................................................................................................11  5.8. Hydro-Consolidation ..........................................................................................................11  6. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 12  7. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 13  7.1. Earthwork ..........................................................................................................................13  7.1.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................13  7.1.2 Remedial Grading – Rollercoaster Building .........................................................13  7.1.3 Remedial Grading – Airboat Ride ........................................................................13  Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 ii 7.1.4 Remedial Grading – Pedestrian Hardscape .........................................................14  7.1.5 Remedial Grading – Retaining Walls and Site Walls ...........................................14  7.1.6 Remedial Grading – Vehicular Pavements ..........................................................14  7.1.7 Expansive Soil ......................................................................................................14  7.1.8 Compacted Fill .....................................................................................................14  7.1.9 Imported Soil ........................................................................................................15  7.1.10 Subgrade Stabilization .........................................................................................15  7.1.11 Excavation Characteristics ...................................................................................15  7.1.12 Oversized Material ...............................................................................................15  7.1.13 Temporary Excavations .......................................................................................15  7.1.14 Groundwater Seepage .........................................................................................16  7.1.15 Slopes ..................................................................................................................16  7.1.16 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................16  7.1.17 Grading Plan Review ...........................................................................................16  7.2. Foundations .......................................................................................................................17  7.2.1 Spread Footings ...................................................................................................17  7.2.2 Mat Foundations ..................................................................................................17  7.2.3 CIDH Piles ............................................................................................................18  7.2.4 Settlement Characteristics ...................................................................................18  7.2.5 Foundation Plan Review ......................................................................................18  7.2.6 Foundation Excavation Observations ..................................................................18  7.3. Pedestrian Hardscape .......................................................................................................19  7.4. Conventional Retaining Walls and Site Walls ....................................................................19  7.5. Pavement Section Recommendations ..............................................................................21  7.6. Pipelines ............................................................................................................................21  7.7. Corrosivity .........................................................................................................................22  8. CLOSURE .................................................................................................................... 23  9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 24    Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 iii List of Figures Figure 1-1. Site Vicinity Map Figure 1-2. Site Location MAPI Figure 2-1. Subsurface Exploration Map Figure 4-1. Regional Geologic Map Figure 4-2. Fill in Boring B-5 Figure 4-3. Old Paralic Deposits in Boring B-4 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 List of Appendices Appendix A Use of the Geotechnical Report Appendix B Boring Logs Appendix C Laboratory Testing Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 1 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the update geotechnical investigation NOVA performed for the LEGOLAND California Project 2025 project. We understand the project will consist of the design and construction of an indoor rollercoaster building, an airboat ride, and associated improvements. 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 Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 2 Figure 1-2. Site Location Map Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 3 2. SCOPE OF WORK 2.1. Field Investigation NOVA’s current field investigation (NOVA, 2023) consisted of drilling three geotechnical borings (B-3 through B-5) to depths between about 11½ and 21½ feet below the ground surface (bgs) using a track-mounted, limited-access drill rig equipped with a solid stem auger and a hand auger. NOVA’s previous field investigation (NOVA, 2021) consisted of drilling two geotechnical borings (B-1 and B-2) to depths of about 28½ and 31½ feet bgs using a track-mounted, limited-access drill rig equipped with a hollow stem auger and a hand auger. Figure 2-1 presents the approximate locations of the borings. Figure 2-1. Subsurface Exploration Map A NOVA geologist logged the borings and collected samples of the materials encountered for laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a modified California (CAL) sampler, a ring-lined split tube sampler with a 3-inch outer diameter and 2½-inch inner diameter. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the borings using a 2-inch outer diameter and 1⅜-inch inner diameter split tube sampler. The CAL and SPT samplers in borings B-1 and B-2 were driven using an automatic hammer with a calibrated Energy Transfer Ratio (ETR) of 88.3%. The CAL and SPT samplers in borings B-3 through B-5 were driven using an automatic hammer with a calibrated ETR of 95.7%. The number of blows needed to drive the sampler 18 inches is noted in Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 4 three, 6-inch intervals on the logs. Sampler refusal was encountered when 50 blows were applied during any one of the three 6-inch intervals, a total of 100 blows was applied, or there was no discernible sampler advancement during the application of ten successive blows. The field blow counts, N, were corrected to a standard hammer (cathead and rope) with a 60% ETR. The corrected blow counts are noted on the boring logs as N60. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained from the SPT sampler and the drill cuttings. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. Soils are classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. 2.2. Laboratory Testing NOVA tested select samples of the materials encountered to evaluate soil classification and engineering properties and develop geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. The laboratory tests consisted of particle-size distribution, Atterberg limits, expansion index, R-value, and corrosivity. The results of the laboratory tests and brief explanations of the test procedures are presented in Appendix C. 2.3. Analysis and Report Preparation The results of the field and laboratory testing were evaluated to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 5 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1. Site Description LEGOLAND California consists of a 128-acre property located at One Legoland Drive in Carlsbad, California. The Project 2025 site is currently occupied by the Driving School track and facilities. This area slopes slightly to the south, with elevations ranging from about +160 feet to +166 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). In the southwest corner of the site, a 3-foot slope and an 8- to 9-foot slope descends towards the service road adjacent to Legoland Drive. In the southeast corner of the site, a 6-foot slope descends towards the Legoland walking path. 3.2. Site History Review of historic aerial photography indicates that from at least 1947, the date of the earliest available imagery, until 1997, the area was used for agricultural purposes. The park’s construction began in 1998 and was completed around 2002. The existing park structures have been in place since the park was opened. Review of historic topography indicates that prior to LEGOLAND development, the general area consisted of a natural north-northwest trending ridge that rose to an elevation of about 180 feet NGVD 29 in the east. The project area consisted of an approximately 20-foot-deep natural drainage swale that extended in a north-south direction below the western portion of the site, with drainage falling toward the south. This subtle depression is part of the pre-existing canyon system that drained to the large east-west canyon just south of Palomar Airport Road. It appears that during the relatively recent grading for LEGOLAND this depression was filled to create the existing, relatively flat configuration of the area. The historic topography indicates the eastern part of the site was within the ridge discussed above. This indicates that the site is likely underlain by a cut/fill transition or transitions from shallow fill to deep fill. 3.3. Proposed Construction Based on discussions with the design team and our review of provided plans (RWS, 2023), NOVA understands the proposed construction will consist of design and construction of an indoor rollercoaster building, an outdoor airboat ride, an outdoor play structure, and an outdoor tot lot. We anticipate that foundations for the rollercoaster and enclosure building will consist of shallow spread footings or cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles. No below-grade building construction is anticipated. Site improvements are anticipated to consist of pavement, hardscape, underground utilities, and retaining walls. The limits of work encompass approximately 85,250 square feet (sf) (RWA, 2023), which includes the proposed rollercoaster building and associated improvements. Based on our review of the project plans (CDR, 2023), we understand the proposed site grades will generally match current grades, and that minor site grading will be required. Earthwork is anticipated to consist of remedial and fine grading, excavations for foundations, backfilling retaining walls and underground utilities, and subgrade preparation. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 6 4. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The sites are 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 and is underlain by old paralic deposits. Figure 4-1 presents the regional geology in the vicinity of the site. Figure 4-1. Regional Geologic Map (Source: Kennedy and Tan 2007) Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 7 4.1. Site-Specific Geology As encountered in the borings, the site is underlain by fill and old paralic deposits. Descriptions of the materials encountered are presented below. The Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) and Geologic Cross- Section (Plate 2) following the text of the report present the site-specific geology. Fill (af): Fill was encountered at the ground surface in borings B-1, B-2, and B-5 and beneath the existing pavement sections in borings B-3 and B-4 to depths up to about 18 feet bgs. As encountered in the borings, the fill generally consisted of medium dense to very dense silty and clayey sand and stiff sandy clay. NOVA has no records regarding the placement and compaction of the fill; therefore, it is at risk for wide variations in quality. Figure 4-2 presents a photograph of the fill encountered in Boring B-5. Figure 4-2. Fill in Boring B-5 Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 8 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Qop): Quaternary-aged old paralic deposits were encountered beneath the fill in the borings and extended to the maximum explored depths of about 31½ feet. As encountered in the borings, the old paralic deposits consisted of poorly to moderately cemented, medium dense to very dense silty and clayey sand. Figure 4-3 presents a photograph of the old paralic deposits encountered in Boring B-4. Figure 4-3. Old Paralic Deposits in Boring B-4 Groundwater: Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. However, perched groundwater may 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. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 9 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1. Faulting and Surface Rupture The nearest known active fault is the Oceanside section of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone, located about 5 miles to the southwest. The site is not located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No active surface faults are mapped across the site. No active faults are known to underlie or project toward the site. Due to the lack of active faulting, the probability of fault rupture at this site is considered low. Figure 5-1 presents regional faulting in the site vicinity. Figure 5-1. Regional Faulting in the Site Vicinity (Source: Fault Activity Map of California – California Geological Survey) Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 10 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 average penetration resistances NOVA encountered within the old paralic deposits exceeded 50 blows per foot. Therefore, the site is classified as Site Class C. 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 California Building Code (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: 33.12754° Longitude: -117.31376° Site Coefficients and Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Value Site Class C Site Amplification Factor at 0.2 Second, Fa 1.200 Site Amplification Factor at 1.0 Second, Fv 1.500 Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period, SS 1.064g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period, S1 0.385g Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period, Adjusted for Site Class, SMS 1.277g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period, Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 0.577g Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Period, SDS 0.851g Design Spectral Acceleration at 1-Second Period, SD1 0.385g Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.563g   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. The potential for landslides or slope instabilities to occur at the site is considered very low. 5.5. Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, generally fine sands and silts are subjected to strong ground shaking. The soils lose shear strength and become liquid, resulting in large total and differential ground surface settlements, as well as possible lateral spreading during an earthquake. Due to the Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 11 lack of shallow groundwater and given the relatively dense nature of the materials beneath the site, the potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement to occur is considered very 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, 2022); 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 very low. 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 very low. 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 fill and old paralic deposits underlying the site are not considered susceptible to hydro-consolidation. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 12 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 fill and old paralic deposits. The old paralic deposits are considered suitable for support of structural or fill loads. The fill, however, is potentially compressible and is not considered suitable for support of structural and fill loads. Recommendations for remedial grading are provided herein.  The on-site soils tested have a very low expansion potential. These soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill. Expansive clays, however, are not considered suitable for direct support of structures or heave-sensitive improvements. Recommendations for expansive soils are provided herein.  In general, excavations should be achievable using standard heavy earthmoving equipment in good working order with experienced operators. However, localized cemented formational materials and concretions may require extra excavation effort.  The proposed roller coaster building can be supported on spread footings with bottom levels bearing entirely on aggregate piers or on 3-sack sand/cement slurry that extends down to old paralic deposits, or it can be supported on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles embedded in old paralic deposits. The proposed airboat ride can be supported on shallow spread footings or a mat foundation with bottom levels bearing entirely on compacted fill. Site and retaining walls not connected to buildings can be supported in compacted fill or old paralic deposits. Recommendations for foundations are provided herein.  Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. However, perched groundwater commonly occurs where permeable material overlies less permeable materials. Groundwater seepage may occur in the future due to rainfall, irrigation, broken pipes, or changes in site drainage. Because groundwater seepage is difficult to predict, such conditions are typically mitigated if and when they occur. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 13 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 – Rollercoaster Building Beneath the proposed rollercoaster building pad, the existing soils should be excavated to a depth of 2 feet below planned pad grade elevation. Horizontally, excavations should extend 5 feet outside the planned perimeter foundations or up to existing improvements or the limits of grading, whichever is less. NOVA should observe conditions exposed in the bottom of the excavation to determine if additional excavation is recommended. The resulting surface should then be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The excavation should then be filled to the finished pad grade with compacted fill having an expansion index (EI) of 50 or less. 7.1.3 Remedial Grading – Airboat Ride Beneath the proposed airboat ride pad, the existing fill should be excavated in its entirety to expose competent old paralic deposits. Excavations up to about 4 feet deep are anticipated. Additionally, the old paralic deposits should be excavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below the proposed finished pad elevation or 2 feet below the deepest planned foundation bottom, whichever is deeper. Horizontally, excavations should extend at least 5 feet outside planned perimeter foundations or up to existing improvements or the limits of grading, whichever is less. NOVA should observe the conditions exposed in the bottom of excavations to evaluate whether additional excavation is recommended. The resulting excavation should be filled to finished pad grade with compacted fill having an expansion index (EI) of 50 or less. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 14 7.1.4 Remedial Grading – Pedestrian Hardscape Beneath proposed pedestrian hardscape areas, the existing soils should be excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below the existing grade or planned subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. Horizontally, excavations should extend at least 2 feet outside the planned hardscape 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 at 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. 7.1.5 Remedial Grading – Retaining Walls and Site Walls Beneath proposed site walls and retaining walls not connected to buildings, the existing soils should be excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below the bottom of the footing. Horizontally, the excavations should extend at least 2 feet outside the planned wall footing, 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 at 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 Remedial Grading – Vehicular Pavements Beneath vehicular pavement areas, existing soils should be excavated to a depth of at least 1 foot below existing grade or planned subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. 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 suitable formational materials 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 excavation should be filled with material suitable for use as compacted fill. 7.1.7 Expansive Soil The on-site soils tested have EIs ranging from 0 to 5, classified as very low expansion potential. To reduce the potential for expansive heave, the top 2 feet of material beneath footings and concrete slabs should have an EI of 50 or less. Horizontally, the soils having an EI of 50 or less should extend at least 2 feet outside footings and concrete slabs or up to existing improvements or the limits of grading, whichever is less. We expect that the on-site silty sand and clayey sand will meet the EI criterion. Clays, if encountered, are not expected to meet the EI criterion. 7.1.8 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 near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. If competent old paralic deposits are exposed, scarification and re-compaction 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 Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 15 least 90% relative compaction. The maximum density and optimum moisture content for the evaluation of relative compaction should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. 7.1.9 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. 7.1.10 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® InterAxTM 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. 7.1.11 Excavation Characteristics It is anticipated that excavations can be achieved with conventional earthwork equipment in good working order with experienced operators. However, localized cemented formational materials and concretions may require extra excavation effort. Excavations may generate oversized materials that will require extra effort to screen or export from the site. 7.1.12 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. 7.1.13 Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations 3 feet deep or less can be made vertically. Deeper temporary excavations in fill or old paralic deposits should be laid back no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) (h:v). The faces of temporary slopes should be inspected daily by the contractor’s Competent Person before personnel are allowed to enter the excavation. Any zones of potential instability, sloughing, or raveling should be brought to the attention of the engineer and corrective action implemented before personnel begin working in the excavation. Excavated soils should not be stockpiled behind temporary excavations within a distance equal to the depth of the excavation. NOVA should be notified if other surcharge loads are anticipated so that lateral load criteria can be developed for the specific situation. If temporary slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of slopes to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Slopes steeper than those described above will require shoring. Additionally, temporary excavations that extend below a plane inclined at 1½:1 (h:v) 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 Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 16 box is not directly supported. Ground surface deformations immediately adjacent to the pit or trench could be greater where trench boxes are used compared to other methods of shoring. 7.1.14 Groundwater Seepage Seepage from perched groundwater may occur locally in excavations due to conditions not observed during our investigation. If dewatering is necessary, the dewatering method should be evaluated and implemented by an experienced dewatering subcontractor. 7.1.15 Slopes Permanent slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2:1 (h:v). Faces of fill slopes should be compacted either by rolling with a sheepsfoot roller or other suitable equipment, or by overfilling and cutting back to design grade. Fills should be benched into sloping ground inclined steeper than 5:1 (h:v). In our opinion, slopes constructed no steeper than 2:1 (h:v) will possess an adequate factor of safety. An engineering geologist should observe cut slopes during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse geologic conditions are encountered that require revised recommendations. Slopes are susceptible to surficial slope failure and erosion. Water should not be allowed to flow over the top of slope. Additionally, slopes should be planted with vegetation that will reduce the potential for erosion. 7.1.16 Surface Drainage Final surface grades around structures should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from structures, including retaining walls, and toward appropriate drainage facilities. The ground around the structure should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the structure without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to the structure slope away at a gradient of at least 2%. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of at least 5% within the first 5 feet from the structure. Roof gutters with downspouts that discharge directly into a closed drainage system are recommended on structures. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the proposed structures. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscape growth. Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater can develop. 7.1.17 Grading Plan Review NOVA should review the grading plans and earthwork specifications to ascertain whether the intent of the recommendations contained in this report have been implemented, and that no revised recommendations are needed due to changes in the development scheme. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 17 7.2. Foundations The foundation recommendations provided herein are considered generally consistent with methods typically used in southern California. Other alternatives may be available. Our recommendations are only minimum criteria based on geotechnical factors and should not be considered a structural design, or to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or by the structural engineer. The design of the foundation system should be performed by the project structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described herein and the requirements of applicable building codes. Foundations for individual structures should not be underlain by cut/fill transitions. The proposed roller coaster building should be supported on spread footings with bottom levels bearing on aggregate piers or 3-sack sand/cement slurry that extends down to old paralic deposits or on CIDH concrete piles embedded in old paralic deposits. The proposed airboat ride should be supported on shallow spread footings or a mat foundation with bottom levels bearing entirely on compacted fill. Site and retaining walls not connected to buildings should be supported in compacted fill or old paralic deposits. 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 retaining wall footings. An allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 psf can be used for spread footings supported on competent old paralic deposits or on 3-sack sand/cement slurry or aggregate piers extending down to competent old paralic deposits. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf can be used for spread footings supported on compacted fill. The allowable bearing capacity can be increased by 500 psf for each foot of depth below the minimum and 250 psf for each foot of width beyond the minimum up to a maximum of 5,000 psf. The bearing value can be increased by 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 Mat Foundations The allowable bearing capacity values provided above are also applicable to mat foundations. Mat foundations typically experience some deflection due to loads placed on the mat and the reaction of the soils underlying the mat. A design modulus of subgrade reaction, K, of 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used for the subgrade soils in evaluating such deflections. This value is based on an area of 1 square foot and should be adjusted for larger mats. Adjusted values of the modulus of subgrade reaction, Kv, can be obtained from the following equation for square mats of various widths: Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 18 𝐾௏ ൌ𝐾൤B ൅ 1 2B ൨ଶ ሺ𝑝𝑐𝑖ሻ Where B is the width of the mat in feet. Adjusted values of the modulus of subgrade reaction, K’, can be obtained from the following equation for rectangular mats: 𝐾ᇱ ൌ 𝐾௩ ቆ1 ൅ 0.5 ቀ𝐵𝐿ቁቇ 1.5 ሺ𝑝𝑐𝑖ሻ Where B is the width and L is the length of the mat in feet. 7.2.3 CIDH Piles CIDH piles should be spaced at least three pile diameters, center to center, and be embedded in compacted fill and/or formational materials. The axial downward capacity of piles can be obtained from skin friction and end bearing. An allowable downward skin friction of 300 psf and an allowable end bearing of 4,000 psf can be used. If end bearing is used, the bottom of drilled holes should be cleaned of loose soil prior to placing concrete. The axial uplift capacity of piles can be obtained from skin friction and the weight of the pile. An allowable uplift skin friction of 100 psf can be used. Lateral loads can be resisted by passive pressure on the piles. An allowable passive pressure of 350 psf per foot of embedment acting on twice the pile diameter up to a maximum of 5,000 psf can be used, based on a lateral deflection up to 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. 7.2.4 Settlement Characteristics Total foundation settlements are estimated to be less than ¾ inch. Differential settlements are estimated to be less than ½ inch between adjacent columns and across continuous footings over a distance of 40 feet. Settlements should be completed shortly after structural loads are applied. 7.2.5 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. 7.2.6 Foundation Excavation Observations A representative from NOVA should observe the foundation excavations prior to forming or placing reinforcing steel. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 19 7.3. Pedestrian Hardscape Pedestrian hardscape should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an EI of 50 or less. The top 12 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. If suitable formational materials are exposed, scarification and re-compaction need not be performed. Subgrade preparation should be performed immediately prior to placement of the hardscape. 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 and Site 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 40 pounds per cubic foot (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 60 pcf. These values assume a granular and drained backfill condition. Higher lateral earth pressures would apply if walls retain clay soils. An additional 20 pcf should be added to these values for walls with 2:1 (h:v) sloping backfill. An increase in earth pressure equivalent to an additional 2 feet of retained soil can be used to account for surcharge loads from light traffic. The above values do not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design. If any other surcharge loads are anticipated, NOVA should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. The seismic earth pressure can be taken as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid pressure weighing 14 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- 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 Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 20 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. 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. Figure 7-1. Typical Conventional Retaining Wall Backdrain Detail Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 21 7.5. Pavement Section Recommendations Based on the results of our laboratory testing, 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 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. 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 / 7 AB 6½ PCC / 4 AB Driveways 6.0 4 AC / 10 AB 7 PCC / 4 AB Fire Lanes 7.5 5 AC / 14 AB 7½ PCC / 4 AB AC: Asphalt Concrete AB: Aggregate Base PCC: Portland Cement Concrete   Subgrade preparation should be performed immediately prior to placement of the pavement section. The top 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. All soft or yielding areas should be stabilized or removed and replaced with compacted fill or aggregate base. Aggregate base and asphalt concrete should conform to the Caltrans Standard Specifications or the “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. 7.6. 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 1,500 psi can be used to evaluate the deflection of buried flexible pipelines. This value assumes that granular bedding material is placed adjacent to the pipe and is compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Pipe bedding as specified in the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction can be used. Bedding material should consist of clean sand having a sand equivalent not less than 20 and should extend to at least 12 inches above the top of pipe. Alternative materials meeting the intent of the bedding specifications are also acceptable. Samples of materials proposed for use as bedding should be provided to the engineer for inspection and testing before the material is imported for use on the project. The on-site materials are not expected to meet “Greenbook” bedding specifications. The pipe bedding material should be placed over the full width of the trench. After placement of the pipe, the bedding should be brought up uniformly on both sides of the pipe to reduce the potential for unbalanced loads. No voids or uncompacted areas should be left beneath the pipe haunches. Ponding or jetting the pipe bedding should not be allowed. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 22 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. 7.7. 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. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 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. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 24 9. REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary, dated September. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2023, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool: found at https://asce7hazardtool.online/, accessed August 2023. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2018, Standard Specifications. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces Note 36, Electronic Copy, Revised December 2002. , 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, September 2008. , 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. , 2011, Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides in California. , 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. , 2022, 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 July 2023. Commercial Development Resources (CDR), 2023, Combined Topographic Survey, Legoland, Driving School, Carlsbad, CA 92008, Topo-22156.dwg, dated February 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019, FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Carlsbad, Firm Panels 06073C0764H, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search, effective December 20; accessed July 2023. Google Earth Pro, found at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html, accessed July 2023. Historic Aerials Website, https://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed July 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., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey, Scale 1:100,000. NOVA, 2021, Geotechnical Investigation, SDP 2021-0020 LEGOLAND Project 2023, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA, Project No. 2021170, November 22. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2018, “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2018 Edition. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 25 R.W. Apel Landscape Architects Inc. (RWA), 2023, Area Development Illustrative Plan, 50% Construction Documents, Project 2025, One Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 USA, Project No. 4139.00, Sheet L-101, dated April 28. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology. United States Geological Survey (USGS), USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center, U.S. Quaternary Faults, accessed July 2023. Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 PLATES EX.SITELIGHT EX. BUILDING TO REMAIN(+-166.30FF) (164.65FS)STEPS (162.84FS)MIGHT BEREMOVED SAFETY SURFACE2% MAX 162.77FS (162.71FS) (165.10FS) (162.99FS) (165.10FS) 162.88FS 162.71FSEX. RAMPTO REMAIN 162.50TG(163.20FS) (164.52TW) 162.10FS-BW(163.20EG)164.57TW162.60FS-BW(163.15EG) 167.00TW162.55FS-BW EX. SDCBTO REMAIN162.00PROP.SDMH RIM (161.54TC)(161.52FS) 7.2% (161.52TC)(161.02FS) 2.0% 1.5% 166.75TW162.20FS-BW 162.55FS 162.75DOOR 162.75DOOR 162.30TG 162.75DOOR 2.0% 162.33TG 162.75DOOR 162.75FFE162.33PAD 161.95TG 162.75DOOR 162.20FL-HP 162.75DOOR 162.00TG 161.88TG 162.30TG 162.75FFE162.33PAD(5" CONC SLAB)162.30TG 1.1% (161.21FS)EX. PRIVATE 24" STORMDRAIN TO REMAIN(PENDING CAMERA/INSPECTION/CITYAPPROVAL) ADJUSTEX. SDMH TO GRADE OFSLAB/GRAVEL156.92RIM(162.53RIM) (161.54TC)(161.04FS) 161.95TG 2.0% 162.25FS 161.86TG 161.80TS(4) 6-3/4"RISERS 159.55FS-BS 2.0%162.25FS 162.50TC162.09TG162.00FG 162.62TW162.29FS161.00FG-BW 162.87TW162.54FS161.00FG-BW 162.75DOOR 162.25FS 162.25FS 162.25FS 1621611.0%160158.80TG 159160 164 165166 164 163 163 164 162 160 160 160 161 162 162163 161 EX LANDSCAPING(N.A.P.) EX LANDSCAPING(N.A.P.) 163 162 161.47FL-HP (158.05.FS)1.0%161 1621.0% 162.75DOOR 1.0% 162.75FFE162.33PAD(5" CONC SLAB) 162.75DOOR 162.75DOOR 161.07TG (158.85FS) 161.95-TGLOWPOINT 2.0% 161.57FG-HP 161.95TG 2.0%162.50FS 156.92FFE156.42PAD(6" GRAVEL) 2.0% (160.15FS) 162.75DOOR 162.70FS162.62FS 162.90FFE 162.62FS-HP 165.50TW162.62FS-BW(163.53EG) 2.0% 1.2% (164.91FS)(164.52TW)162.10FS-BW(163.10EG) 162.34FS 162.62FS (164.52TW)162.70FS-BW(163.20EG) 162.62FS 162.62FS 1.2% 164.36TW162.67FS-BW(163.17BW) 1.5% 163.00DOOR 162.76FS 162.50FS 162.21TG 161.90TG163.00DOOR 163.00FFE162.58PAD(5" CONC SLAB)162.75DOOR 162.75DOOR (162.53FS) MATCH 162.82TC(162.49FS) 162.00TG 162.64FS 162.48FS162.44RIM 162.18TG 162.33FS 162.25TG (162.57FS) MATCH (162.57FS)MATCH (162.70FS)162.66FS 162.56FS 162.98FS 162.55FS 162.40TG 162.48FS(164.40FS) (164.20FS) 162.54FS 1.4% 1.0% 162 2:1MAX 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2:1MAX 2:1 2.0 % MAX 2.0 % 2.0 % 161 1.5 % 2.0%2. 0 % 162 162 162 161 1.0 % 162 159 2.0% 1.8% 161 162 2.0 % 16 1 161 163 162 1.5% 162 162 1 6 1 1 60 164 163 1.0 % 160 1.5% 2.0 % 2.0 % 1.0% 1.5% 162 161 1.0% 1.0% 1.8 % 1.8 % 2.0 % 1.0 % 1.0% 1.0% 1. 0%1. 0 % 16 2 162 16 2 1.9 % B-1 af Qop B-5 B-3 B-4 A A' B-2 4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710 NOVA LE G O L A N D C A L I F O R N I A P R O J E C T 2 0 2 5 ON E L E G O L A N D D R I V E CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS SPECIAL INSPECTION DVBE www.usa-nova.com PROJECT NO.: DATE: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: 2022239 AUG 2023 DTJ GD GEOTECHNICAL MAP DRAWING TITLE: SCALE:1"=40' PLATE NO.1 OF 2 SBE SDVOSB SLBE 0 40' 80' NW E N S *BASE MAP: CDR, 2023 *NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE KEY TO SYMBOLS af FILL Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS GEOTECHNICAL BORING(NOVA, 2023) B-5 GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONAA' GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN? LIMITS OF REMEDIAL GRADING GEOTECHNICAL BORING (NOVA, 2021) B-2 160 200 A 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320120 El e v a t i o n , f e e t ( N G V D 2 9 ) 360 400 TD=21½' TD=11½' B-4 TD=28½'TD=31½' B-1(PROJECTED 32' NORTH)B-2 PROPOSED ROLLERCOASTER BUILDING QopQop af af 160 200 A' 120 El e v a t i o n , f e e t ( N G V D 2 9 ) PROPOSED AIRBOAT RIDE ???????? (PROJECTED 6' SOUTH)B-5(PROJECTED 69' NORTH)FSE=162.3 FFE=156.92 EXISTING GRADE 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 DVBE www.usa-nova.com GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION PLATE NO.2 OF 2 SBE SDVOSB SLBE KEY TO SYMBOLS af FILL 0 40' 80' *NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS GEOTECHNICAL BORING(NOVA, 2023) GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN? B-5 GEOTECHNICAL BORING (NOVA, 2021) B-2 LE G O L A N D C A L I F O R N I A P R O J E C T 2 0 2 5 ON E L E G O L A N D D R I V E CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 PROJECT NO.: DATE: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: 2022239 AUG 2023 DTJ GD DRAWING TITLE: SCALE:1"=40' FFE=FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FSE=FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 APPENDIX A USE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 2023 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGENDNOVA 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 HALFCOARSE FRACTIONIS LARGER THANNO. 4 SIEVE GRAVEL WITH15% OR MOREFINES CLEAN GRAVELWITH LESS THAN15% FINES CLEAN SAND SAND MORE THAN HALFCOARSE FRACTIONIS FINER THAN NO.4 SIEVE SIZE SAND WITH 15%OR MORE FINES WITH LESS THAN15% 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 WITHOUTSAND POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH ORWITHOUT SAND SILTY GRAVEL WITH OR WITHOUT SAND CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH OR WITHOUT SAND WELL-GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUTGRAVEL POORLY GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUTGRAVEL SILTY SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL CLAYEY SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL SILT WITH OR WITHOUT SAND ORGRAVEL ELASTIC SILT WITH OR WITHOUT SAND ORGRAVEL FAT CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND ORGRAVEL ORGANIC SILT OR CLAY OF HIGHPLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND ORGRAVEL 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 LEAN CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND ORGRAVEL ORGANIC SILT OR CLAY OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUTSAND OR GRAVEL RELATIVE DENSITY OFCOHESIONLESS SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE SPT N60BLOWS/FOOT 0 - 4 5 - 10 11 - 30 31 - 50 OVER 50 CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS CONSISTENCY VERY SOFT SOFT MEDIUM STIFF STIFF VERY STIFF HARD SPT N60BLOWS/FOOT 0 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 8 9 - 15 16 - 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 ACHIEVED, N IS REPORTED AS REF. IFMORE THAN 50 BLOWS ARE RECORDED IN ANY 6-INCH INTERVAL, N60 IS REPORTED AS REF. POCKET PENETROMETER MEASUREMENT (TSF) 0 - 0.25 0.26 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.0 1.1 - 2.0 2.1 - 4.0 OVER 4.0 DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX ATTERBERG LIMITS SIEVE ANALYSIS RESISTANCE VALUE CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT CORROSIVITY MAXIMUM DENSITYMD DS EI AL SA RV CN SE LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS CR REFUSALREF LOG ABBREVIATIONS BULK SAMPLE SPT SAMPLE (ASTM D1586) MOD. CAL. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550) UNRELIABLE BLOW COUNTS GEOLOGIC CONTACT SOIL TYPE CHANGE * GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE DE P T H ( F T ) N60 BL O W S P E R 6 I N 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 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 ) FILL (af): CLAYEY SAND; BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TOMEDIUM GRAINED, SCATTERED ROOTLETSSC 29 37 SILTY SAND; DARK BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, SCATTERED WHITE MINERALIZATION CLAYEY SAND; DARK BROWN WITH GRAY MOTTLING, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, SCATTERED GRAVELSC SILTY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEDSM BORING TERMINATED AT 28½ FT DUE TO AUGER REFUSAL ON VERY DENSE OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. SILTY SAND; ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINED, MODERATELYCEMENTED SC 35 29 35 REF 81 TRACE ROOTLETS SM ORANGE BROWN CLAYEY SAND; ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, POORLY CEMENTED SM EI SAAL RV CR 61317 121312 131918 10911 81113 4150/5" 212530 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 APPENDIX: B.1 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PROJECT: 2022239DRAFTED BY: AR DRILLING EQUIPMENT: ELEVATION (FT): GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT): DRILLING METHOD: DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD: NOTES:REVIEWED BY:ETR~88.3%, N60 ~ 88.360*N~1.47*N LOGGED BY: LOG OF BORING B-1 AUG 13, 2021 ± 162 NGVD 29 N/A FRASTE PL-G HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTO) 6-INCH HOLLOW STEM AUGER AR MS/GD 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 FILL (af): CLAYEY SAND; DARK BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,SCATTERED ROOTLETSSC 22 54 DARK BROWN WITH GRAY MOTTLING, VERY DENSE DARK BROWN WITH LIGHT AND DARK GRAY MOTTLING, MEDIUM DENSE, TRACE GRAVEL ORANGE BROWN, VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINED, MODERATELY CEMENTED 25 25 32 51 ORANGE BROWN DARK ORANGE BROWN, DENSE BROWN LIGHT GRAY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND; ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, POORLY CEMENTED SM SAALEICR 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 APPENDIX: B.2 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PROJECT: 2022239DRAFTED BY: AR 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 EQUIPMENT: ELEVATION (FT): GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT): DRILLING METHOD: DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD: NOTES:REVIEWED BY:ETR~88.3%, N60 ~ 88.360*N~1.47*N LOGGED BY: LOG OF BORING B-2 AUG 13, 2021 ± 165 NGVD 29 N/A FRASTE PL-G HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTO) 6-INCH HOLLOW STEM AUGER AR MS/GD 5510 102433 789 589 151012 71619 35 40 45 50 55 60 30 62 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS CONTINUED (Qop): SILTY SAND; ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINED, MODERATELY CEMENTEDSM BORING TERMINATED AT 31½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. 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 APPENDIX: B.3 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PROJECT: 2022239DRAFTED BY: AR 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 EQUIPMENT: ELEVATION (FT): GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT): DRILLING METHOD: DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD: NOTES:REVIEWED BY:ETR~88.3%, N60 ~ 88.360*N~1.47*N LOGGED BY: CONTINUED LOG OF BORING B-2 AUG 13, 2021 ± 165 NGVD 29 N/A FRASTE PL-G HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTO) 6-INCH HOLLOW STEM AUGER AR MS/GD 171824 DE P T H ( F T ) N60 BL O W S P E R 6 I N 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 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 BORING TERMINATED AT 16½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED 3 IN OF ASPHALT CONCRETE DRILLING EQUIPMENT: ELEVATION (FT): GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT): DRILLING METHOD: DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD: NOTES:REVIEWED BY:ETR~95.7%, N60 ~ 95.760*N~1.6*N LOGGED BY: LOG OF BORING B-3 MAY 24, 2023 ± 162½ NGVD 29 N/A WARHAWK LAR HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTO) 4½-INCH SOLID FLIGHT AUGER DM GD 91014 38 142128 78 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN AND BROWN, VERY DENSE APPENDIX: B.4 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PROJECT: 2022239DRAFTED BY: GN OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND; DARK YELLOWISH BROWN, MOIST, DENSE,FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEDSM 688 26 CL FILL (af): SANDY CLAY; DARK GRAY AND LIGHT GRAY, MOIST, STIFF, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND SILTY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEDSM CLAYEY SAND; GRAY TO BLACK, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINEDSC SILTY SAND; PALE OLIVE AND GRAY, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEDSM SA DE P T H ( F T ) N60 BL O W S P E R 6 I N 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 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 BORING TERMINATED AT 11½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED 2 IN OF ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 10 IN OF AGGREGATE BASE DRILLING EQUIPMENT: ELEVATION (FT): GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT): DRILLING METHOD: DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD: NOTES:REVIEWED BY:ETR~95.7%, N60 ~ 95.760*N~1.6*N LOGGED BY: LOG OF BORING B-4 MAY 24, 2023 ± 162 NGVD 29 N/A WARHAWK LAR HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTO) 4½-INCH SOLID FLIGHT AUGER DM GD 131830 77 APPENDIX: B.5PROJECT: 2022239DRAFTED BY: GN SILTY SAND; DARK YELLOWISH BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEDSM CL FILL (af): SANDY CLAY; GRAY BROWN AND DARK GRAY, MOIST, STIFF, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): CLAYEY SAND; DARK YELLOWISH BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, TRACE GRAVEL SC SAALEI 91011 34 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DE P T H ( F T ) N60 BL O W S P E R 6 I N 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 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 EQUIPMENT: ELEVATION (FT): GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT): DRILLING METHOD: DATE DRILLED:SAMPLE METHOD: NOTES:REVIEWED BY:ETR~95.7%, N60 ~ 95.760*N~1.6*N LOGGED BY: LOG OF BORING B-5 MAY 24, 2023 ± 162 NGVD 29 N/A WARHAWK LAR HAMMER: 140 LBS., DROP: 30 IN (AUTO) 4½-INCH SOLID FLIGHT AUGER DM GD 7810 29 91315 45 APPENDIX: B.6PROJECT: 2022239DRAFTED BY: GN OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SILTY SAND; DARK YELLOWISH BROWN, MOIST, DENSE,FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINEDSM 567 21 SC FILL (af): CLAYEY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SAND,SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL, SCATTERED ROOTS SILTY SAND; DARK GRAYISH BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, TRACE FINE GRAVELSM SA BORING TERMINATED AT 21½ FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED 152133 86 SANDY CLAY; LIGHT GRAY, MOIST, STIFF, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SANDCL CLAYEY SAND; MOTTLED DARK GRAY BROWN AND LIGHT GRAY, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, TRACE GRAVEL CL CLAYEY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINEDSC SCATTERED 3 IN COARSE GRAVEL, SMALL COBBLE SA CR LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Update Geotechnical Investigation LEGOLAND California Project 2025, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NOVA Project No. 2022239 August 9, 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 D2844. 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 representative soil samples in general accordance with test method CT 643. The sulfate and chloride contents of the selected samples were 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 DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.1 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 0 - 5 SC 37 DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.2 28 14 14 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318): Liquid Limit, LL: Plastic Limit, PL: Plasticity Index, PI: 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 (%): 26 13 13 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318): Liquid Limit, LL: Plastic Limit, PL: Plasticity Index, PI: B-2 10 - 15 SC 36 DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.3 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-3 2½ - 4 SC 30 DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.4 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 (%): 26 11 15 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318): Liquid Limit, LL: Plastic Limit, PL: Plasticity Index, PI: B-4 4 - 8 SC 37 DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.5 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-5 1 - 3 SC 37 DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.6 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-5 9 - 12 SC 26 DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.7 LAB TEST RESULTS 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 SampleLocation ExpansionIndex Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) Sample Depth (ft.)ExpansionPotential ExpansionPotential 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-1 00 - 5 Very Low DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.8 B-2 210 - 15 Very Low B-4 54 - 8 Very Low 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 ≤ 0.20 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 10 - 15 8.0 1500 42B-1 0.004 32 0.003 DRAFTED BY: GN PROJECT: 2022239 LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025 ONE LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REVIEWED BY: GD APPENDIX: C.9 10 - 15 7.7 990 110B-2 0.011 85 0.009 9 - 12 7.4 1990 24B-5 0.002 72 0.007 SampleLocation R-Value SampleDepth(ft.) R-Value (Cal. Test Method 301 & ASTM D2844) B-1 160 - 5