Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1 LEGOLAND DR; ; CBC2019-0078; Permit
btyof Carlsbad Commercial Permit - Print Date: 08/01/2019 Permit No: CBC2019-0078 Job Address: 1 Legoland Dr Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Work Class: Tenant Improvement Status: Closed - Finaled Parcel No: 2111000900 Lot #: Applied: 02/25/2019 Valuation: $8,697.37 Reference #: Issued: 06/26/2019 Occupancy Group: Construction Type: Permit - Finaled: # Dwelling Units: Bathrooms: Inspector: PBurn Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check Final Plan Check #: Inspection: 8/1/2019 11:28:18AM Project Title: Description: LEGOLAND: 187 SF RESTROOM BUILDING (PRE-MANUFACTURED) FOR PUBLIC USE Applicant: Owner: BRET WILKES LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA LLC 1 Legoland Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008-4610 Po Box 543185 C/O Property Tax Service Co 760-918-5325 DALLAS, TX 75354 BUILDING PERMIT FEE ($2000+) $106.09 BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (BLDG) $74.26 ELECTRICAL BLDG COMMERCIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL $41.00 MECHANICAL BLDG COMMERCIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL $39.00 PLUMBING BLDG COMMERCIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL $49.00 S81473 GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE $1.00 STRONG MOTION-COMMERCIAL - -- $2.44 Total Fees: $312.79 Total Payments To Date: $312.79 Balance Due: $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 1760-602-2700 1760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov (City o f Carlsbad COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION B-2 Plan Check Est. Value PC Deposit Date (c? -? -"O Job Address Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Suite: APN: 211-100-09 CT/Project ii:CT 94-09 Lot #:18 Fire Sprinklers: yes Air Conditioning: Dyes BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Install new 187 S.F. pre-manufactured restroom building. IXI AdditionA 187 sf restroom bldg New SF and Use, ___New SF and Use, Deck SF, _________ Patio Cover SF (not including flatwork) El Tenant Improvement: SF, Existing Use Proposed Use SF, Existing Use Proposed Use El Pool/Spa: SF Additional Gas or Electrical Features? Electrical: lighting and HVAC D Gas: none. Solar: KW, -Modules, Mounted, Tilt: Yes / No, RMA: Yes / No, Panel Upgrade: Yes / No 0 Plumbing/Mechanical/Electrical Only: EM Other: Site work: minor grading & preparation of building pad, concrete pavement, fencing and gates. Private utilities to serve new bidg: storm drain, potable water, sanitary sewer, electrical (all connect to existing on-site private utilities, no new municipal connections or meters. APPLICANT (PRIMARY) PROPERTY OWNER Name: Bret Wilkes, LEGOLAND Resort Name: Merlin Entertainments Group US Holdings Inc. Address: I Legoland Drive Address: I Legoland Drive City: Carlsbad State:CA Zip: 92008 City: Carlsbad -State: CA Zip: 92008 Phone: (760) 918-5412 Phone: (760) 918-5412 Email: Bret.Wllkes@LEGOLAND.com Email: Bret.Wllkes@LEGOLAND.com Tenant Name: Occupancy: B Construction Type: li-B DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Name: Richard Apel, R.W. Apel Landscape Architects Address: 571-B Hygeia Ave. City: Leucadia State:- CA Zip: 92024 Phone: (760) 807-6564 Email: rwapel2@cox.net Architect State License: 2825 CONTRACTOR BUSINESS Name: T.B.D. RvQo C. 9I4 *surU),i,jc. Address: a e:LcL4a STfA Wry City: E40 CAP4.0s State: Zip: 910-70 Phone: C1)2.O(2'L Email: o N.c.iP1i1'@ fSCaJS1 C'OM State License: Bus. License: (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he/she is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law {Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code} or that he/she is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars {$500}). 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Email: BuiIdingccarlsbadCa.gov B-2 Page 1 of 2 Rev. 06/18 4 . (OPTION A ): WORKERS'COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I hearby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: ci I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work which this permit is issued. Cl I have and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Name: Policy No. Expiration Date: O Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to be come subject to the workers' compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers compensation coverage Is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000.00, In addition the to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for In Section 3706 of the Labor Code, Interest and attorney's fees. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE: DAGENT DATE: (OPTION B ): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that! am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the folio wing reason: O I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). JQ I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). O I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 Yes 0 No I (have/ have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address / phone I contractors' license number): I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone I contractors' license number): I will provide some of the work, butA v contracted (hired) ft following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address/ phone / type of work): 'OWNER SIGNATURE: , J-"Q"\ ) DAGENT 15AT.2 ( 2(( ' 'i' CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY, IF ANY: I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lender's Name: N/A Lender's Address: ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY: Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Dyes 0 No Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? 0 Yes M No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? DYes X No IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION: I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY INCONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT.OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'O' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 da from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at anytime after the work is commenced for a period d ys (Sect129J06AA.Ucd91rn Building Code). APPUCANT SIGNATURE: "DATE Pe r Ronchetti, LEGOLAND Resort 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Email: BuildingCarlsbadCa.gov B-2 Page 2 of 2 Rev. 06/18 Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 02/25/2019 Owner: LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA LLC Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 06/26/2019 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#94-09 LJNIT#02 & 03 Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 61/27/2020 Address: 1 Legoland Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008-4610 IVR Number: 17275 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-Plumbing Final No BLDG-Mechanical Final No BLDG-Structural Final No BLDG-Electrical Final No 08/0112019 08/01/2019 BLDG-Final 099303-2019 Passed Paul Burnette Complete Inspection Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-Plur/ibing Final Yes BLDG-Mechanical Final Yes BLDG-Structural Final Yes BLDG-Electrical Final Yes August 0l,2019 Page 3of3 Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 02/25/2019 Owner: LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA LLC Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 06/26/2019 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#94-09 UNIT#02 & 03 Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 01/27/2020 Address: 1 Legoland Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-4610 IVR Number: 17275 Scheduled Actual Date Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete 0711612019 0711612019 BLDG-21 097620.2019 Passed Paul Bumette Complete UndergroundlUnderf loor Plumbing Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Precon Yes BLDG-22 097621-2019 Passed Paul Burnette Complete SewerlWater Service Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed • BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 0711812019 0711812019 BLDG-81 097764-2019 Cancelled Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Underground • Combo(11,12,21,31) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-11 Foundation-Ftg-Piers No (Rebar) BLDG-12 Steel-Bond Beam - No BLDG-21 No Underground-Underfloor • Plumbing BLDG-31 No Underground-Conduit Wiring BLDG-Final 098024-2019 Cancelled Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Inspection • Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-Plumbing Final No BLDG-Mechanical Final No BLDG-Structural Final No BLDG-Electrical Final No 0712912019 0712912019 BLDG-Final 098911-2019 Failed Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Inspection Checklist Item COMMENTS • Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency • No BLDG-Plumbing Final • No • BLDG-Mechanical Final • No BLDG-Structural Final • No BLDG-ElctricaI Final • • No 0713012019 0713012019 BLDG-Final • 099108-2019 Failed Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Inspection August 01, 2619 • Page 2of3 Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 02/25/2019 Owner: LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA LLC Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 06/26/2019 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#94-09 UNiT#02 & 03 Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 01/27/2020 Address: 1 Legoland Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008-4610 IVR Number: 17275 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. lflspectionStatus Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date 0710212019 0710212019 BLDG-21 096295-2019 Partial Pass Andy Krogh Reinspection Incomplete undergroundlUnderf loor Plumbing Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Precon Yes BLDG-81 096142-2019 Cancelled Andy Krogh Reinspection Complete Underground Combo(11,12,21,31) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-il Foundation-Ftg-Piers No (Rebar) BLDG-12 Steel-Bond Beam No BLDG-21 No Underground-Underfloor Plumbing BLDG-31 I No Underground-Conduit Wiring 0710912019 0710912019 BLDG-21 096859.2019 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete UndergroundlUnderf loot Plumbing - Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Precon . Yes BLDG-22 096860-2019 Cancelled Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Sewer/Water Service Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-24 096954.2019 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete Rough/Topout Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 0711012019 07/10/2019 BLDG-24 097071-2019 Partial Pass Paul Burnette Reinspection Incomplete RoughlTopout Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes 07/15/2019 07/16/2019 BLDG-31 097495-2019 Passed Paul Bumette Complete UndergroundlCondu it - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes August 01, 2019 Page 1 of 3 EsGil V/ S A SAFEbuiItCompany DATE: March 5, 2019 0 APPLICANT U JURIS. JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK #.: CBC2019-0078 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 Legoland Dr. PROJECT NAME: Sea Life Restroom Building Legoland The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff.. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person: E The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: EsGil staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. F-1 EsGil staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: 4) Telephone #: Date contacted: ,//(by:.)) Email: Mail Telephone Fax In Person LII REMARKS: By: Kurt Culver Enclosures: EsGil 2/26/19 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad CBC2019-0078 March 5, 2019 (DO NOT PAY— THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK #.: CBC2019-0078 PREPARED BY: Kurt Culver DATE: March 5, 2019 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1 Legoland Dr. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: B BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Restroom 8,697 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE 8,697 Jurisdiction Code 1cb IBY Ordinance 1997 UBC Building Permit Fee 1997 UBC Plan Check Fee v Type of Review: EZI Complete Review E Structural Only Repetitive Fee Repeats El Other U Hourly Hr. © * EsGil Fee I $64.491 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 BUILDING CODE: MODULE DIMENSIONS: ROOF SLoPE/TRuss TYPE: GROUND SNOW LOAD: WIND LOAD: SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: ASCE 7-10 11'40"x20%8" 4/12 0 psf Vult - 115 mph Vasd -90 mph Exp. C Dl CALCULATION INDEX RECEIVED FEB 27 2019 iNc. CITY OF CARLSBAINGINEERS BUILDING DIVISION PLANNERS CDNSULTANTS 305 NORTH OAKLAND AVENUE • P.0. BOX 4DD • NAPPANEE, INDIANA 4GEBD PHDNB: 57-773-7975 WEB: WWW.NTAINC.COM FAX: 571-773-5739 CLIENT: Public Restroom Company - DATE: December 11, 2018 JOB No: PUB 120618-43 PROJECT: PRC 10523 - Legoland, Carlsbad, CA APPROVED By RADCO a GA Departaisat of Housing aaI Ccaaoofty Dawbd appd Uvtdpady design appioval agency DM820272 DRIE DAN MM 40MM APPROVAL NO. Page Description 1.1-1.8 Design criteria and load combinations 2.1 Roof framing 3.1-3.3 Walls 4.1-4.2 Cap beams 5.1-5.3 Connections 6.1-6.3 Slab check 12/14/2018 NOTE: These calculations are applicable only to the structural elements and loading criteria specifically noted herein. These calculations shall not be construed in any way to specify, certify, or design any aspects of the structure not contained herein. Structural elements not contained herein are to be constructed in accordance with the prescriptive requirements of the adopted building code or designed by other registered design professionals, as applicable. Specified design criteria are based solely on information provided by the client and must be verified and approved by the local authority having jurisdiction. NTA, Inc. is not responsible for fabrication or erection. If it is suspected that the calculations listed in this index have been modified, substituted, or altered in anyway, contact NTA, Inc. directly to obtain a file copy. NTA, Inc. holds the following Certificates of Authorization, to offer engineering services under the name of a corporation: AL CA-3760-E; AK AECC1245; AZ 15478-0; AR 1953; CT 1385; DE 3112; FL 8463; GA 2527; ID C- 589; IL 184.00567; KS 1454; KY 2925; LA 2393; MD 48065; MS 2056; MO 2009010402; MT 969; NE CA1981; NV 6285; NH 1822; NJ 24GA28140400; NC C-3412; ND 330PE; OH 3274; OK CA3705PE; RI PE.0005644-COA; SC 3977; SD C-2655; TX F-10672; VA 407005528; WA 2638; WI 3330-11; WV C00381-00; WY E-1097; Alberta, Canada, 13314; Ontario, Canada 100503403. Index c,ôCoIidw 00a S Seismic Loads: Seismic Importance Factor, IF = 1.00 Mapped Coefficients: Ss = 1.36 g 81 0.51g Response Coefficients: S08 = 0.90 g S01 = 0.51 g Site Ciass= D IBC Design Category = 0 iRC Design Category = Dl Basic Seismic-Force-Resisting System: - AT Special rein forced masonry shear walls Response Modification Factor R = 5.0 Design Base Shear C8 = 0.18 W Analysis Procedure: AT. Special reinforced masonry shear walls Flood Loads: Site Specific flood loads have not been assessed in this analysis. For Buildings located in flood hazard areas, as established in Section 1612.3 of the iBC, floods loads must be considered as required by Section 1612 of the iBC. Fwthemroie, when required, the design information required by IBC section 1603.1.6 must be provided on the construction documents. 16.1000 IBC Criteria 2010-12-15 12111/2018 10:41 AM Input Page loll Design Criteria Summary Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number: PU6120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Location(s); CARLSBAD, CA Substructure: UK Plan Dimensions: Vertical Dimensions: Roof Configuration: Ridge Length, B = 10.00 ft Stories Above Grade, n = I Framing Type: Rafter Gable Width, L = 18.67-ft Max. Blocking Height, hb Roof Slope, a 4.00 /12 pitchModule 8 in. Width, Lm = 9.33 It Sidewali/Eave Height, he = .97 in. Sidewall Overhang, LOH = 12 in. Mm. Mean Roof Height, h = 15 ft Endwali Overhang, BOH = 11 in. Roof Cavity insulation, R = 0 Uniformly Distributed Design Loads: Ground Floor Roof Floor Live, L = 50 pef Roof Load = 20.0 psI Floor Dead, D = 80 psf Roof Dead Load = 10 pet Wall Dead Load. D= 50ps1 Wail Height, h = 88 in. Misc. Design Parameters: Risk Category: II Roof/Snow Load: Ground Snow Load, P9 = 0.0 pet Ground Snow Load NY', P Ny = 0.0 pat Mm. Design Load, Lr= 20.0 psf Fiat-Roof Snow Load, P, = 0.0 psI Sloped Roof Snow Load = 0.0 psI Max. Unbalanced Load, Pub = 0.0 pat Snow Exposure Factor, C. = 1.0 Snow Load importance Factor, 19 = 1.00 Thermal Factor, C, = 1.2 Wind Loads: Wind Speed Vuit= - 115 mph Wind Speed Vasd = 90 mph Wind Exposure = C Internal Pressure Coefficient= +/-0.18 Mean Roof Height = 15.0 ft Components and Cladding Loads: End Zone Interior Zone component (pat) (psI) Window +17.71-2:3.7 +17.7/-19.2 Door +171-22.3 +17/-18.5 Roof Cladding +10.2/-41.6 +10.2/-16.2 Overhang -55.4 -33 NOTES: 1. Equivalent ground snow load at a thermal factor of 1.0 for use with the NYBC/NYRC ground snow load map. 16.1000 (BC Criteria 2010-12-15 Wind Wind Load Calculation Client Public Restroom Company Job Number: PUBI206I8-43 *Description: PRC 10523 Building Geometry: Loading Conditions: Ridge Length, B = 10.0 it Wind Speed Vasd = 90 mph Total Width,L= 18.7 ft Blocking Height, hb = 8 in. Exposure Category: C SidewalilEve Height, h0 = 97 in. Topographic Factor, V.4 = 1.0 Roof Slope, a = 4.0 /12 pitch Height & Exposure, Kb = 0.85 Roof slope, a = . 18.4 dog. Directionality, Kb = 0.85 Sidewall Overhang, LOM = 12 in. Wind Pressure, qh = 15.0 psf Endwali Overhang, Bom = 11 in. Internal Pressure, Goo = 0.18 -0.18 Main Windforce-Resistlng System Loads (MWFRS): Normal to Surface 12/11/2018 10:41 AM Page 1 of I Height Above Grade: Sidewall Eave, z = 8.8 ft Roof Peak, z = 12.2 ft Mean Roof Height, h = 15.0 ft Component Dimensions: Stud Height, h8 = 88 in Truss Span, s, = 112 in 1 2 3 4 5 6 IE 2E 3E 4E Trans +GCa 5.0 -13.0 -9.7 -8.9 -9.4 -9.4 9.0 -18.7 -12.8 -12.0 -GCpI 10.4 -76 -4.3 -3.5 -4.0 -4.0 14.4 -13.3 -7.4 -6.6. Max 10.4 -13.0 -9.7 -8.9 -9.4 -9.4 14.4 -18.7 -12.8 -12.0 Long +GC0 3.3 -13.0 -8.2 -7.0 -9.4 -9.4 6.4 -18.7 -10.6 -9.1 -GCpi 8.7 -7.6 -2.8 -1.6 -4.0 -4.0 11.8 -13.3 -5.2 -3.7 Max 8.7 -13.0 -8.2 -7.0 -9.4 -9.4 11.8 -18.7 -10.6 -9.1 Summed and Projected HORIZONTAL LOADS VERTICAL LOADS MMIMUM HORIZONTAL WALL LOADS End Zone Interior Zone End Zone interior Zone Windward Overhang Zone Wail Rciof Wail Roof ',W Roof LW Roof WW Roof LW Roof End Interior 1 4E 1 4 Trans .20.9 -5.9 1 14.0 -3.3 -18.7 -12.8 -13.0 -9.7 -26.2 -20.5 14.4 -12.0 10.4 -8.9 Long 15.6 -5.9 10.3 -3.3 -18.7 -10.6 -13.0 -8.2 -26.2 -20.5 14.4 -12.0 8.7 -7.0 Components and Cladding Loads (C&C: C&C End Zone Distance, a = 3.0 ft Area I Pressure (psf) Roof Components: (It) I Pee Nag Zone 1: maximum 10 10.2 -16.2 Minimum 100 10.0 -14.7 Truss/Rafter 29.0 10.0 -15.5 Overhang 1.0 We -33.0 Zone 2: Maximum 10 10.2 .28.7- Minimum 100 10.0 -20.7 Truss I Rafter 29.0 10.0 -24.7 Overhang 1.0 We -33.0 Zone 3: Maximum 10 10.2 -41.6 Minimum 100 10.0 -32.7 Truss I Rafter 29.0 10.0 -37.5 Overhang 1.0 n/a -55.4 Area I Pressure (pat) Wail Components: (ft') I Pea Nag Zone 4: Maximum 10 17.7 -19.2 Minimum 100 15.0 -16.5 Door 17.8 17.0 -18.5 Stud 17.9 17.0 -18.5 Zone 6: Maximum 10 17.7 -23.7 Minimum 100.0 15.0 -18.4 Door 17.8 17.0 -22.3 stud 17.9 17.0 -22.3 16.1000 IBC Criteria 2010-12-15 1211112016 10:41 AM Snow Page 1 off Snow Load Assessment Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number: PU8120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Design Parameters: Sloped Roof Snow Loads: Eave to ridge Distance, W = loft Ground Snow Load, p5 = 0 psf a C Exposure Factor, C5= 1.0 (deg) 1 C1=1.0 C1 1.1 C, =1.2 (psf) Thermal Factor, C, = 12 16.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 Importance Factor, Is = 1.0 Framing Type: Simple Prism atk,Rafters Snow Density (y): r=0'3p8 I4= 14 pot but not more than 30pcf Flat-RoOf Snow Load (pf): p1 = 0.7CeC1Pg = 0.0 psf Rain on Snow Surcharge: amax = 0.20667 dog pg'c=20pit prss= 0.0 psf pf= 0.0 psf Minimum Values for Low-Slope Roofs: Applicable to roof slopes less than Monoslope roofs = 15.0 deg or a,,=70/W+0.5= 7.3 deg 2.38 deg amin = 15.0 deg p5 <20p51 p,'=IP,= 0.0 psf Pg > 20psf p, =20! = 20.0 psf p1mm = 0.0 psf = 0.0 pef Unbalanced Snow Loads: Applicable to roof slopes between: = 70.00 dog 0mm = 701W + 0.5 = 7.27 dog ama = 2.38 deg governing governing a h = 2.38 deg Ice Dams Along Eves5: p, =2p1 = 0.0 psf Minimum Roof Live Load (Lr): (IBC 1607.11.2.1): R1 = 1.0 R2 = 1 F= 4.0 = 20R,R2 = 20.0 psf 12:~L, --~20 Unbalanced Loads: P LW S= 3.00/1 p y,y Ridge Length Eave W15 = 10.3 ft (psf) (psf (ft) (ps hd= 0.17 ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Notes: 1. Higher loads may apply were sliding snow or drifting occurs due to aerodynamic shade from higher protlons of the building. 2. Applies only to unventilated roofs with less than 1140, and ventilated roofs with less than R-20. No other loads, except dead loads shall be present on the roof when this uniformly distributed load is applied. 18.1000 IBC Criteria 2010-12-15 12/1112018 10:41 AM Seismic Page lofl Seismic Load Calculation Client Public Restroom Company Job Number: PUB120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Location: CARLSBAD, CA Design Classification: Response Acceleration: (ASCE 7, Figs. 22-1, 22-2) Occupancy Category II Short Period (5,) = 135.989 %g Importance Category, I: 1.00 1-Second Period (S1) = 51.359 %g Site Class: D ASCE 7 Design Category: D iRC Design Category: Dl Seismic Resisting System: AT SpecIal reinforced masonry shear walk Response Factor, R: 5.0 System Overstrenglh Factor, fl,: 2.5 Deflection Amplification Fctor, Cd: 3.5 Spectral Response Acceleration: Mapped Site Coeft Maximum Design Sc S, F F. Ses SAM Sos SD, 1.36 0.51 1.00 1.50 1.36 0.77 0.91 0.51 Fundamental Period; (ASCE 7. Sec. izai. 1) Period Coefficient, CT = 0.020 Height to Highest Level s h, = 8.1 ft C,I,,4 = 0.096 sec Seismic Response Coefficient: (LateralForce PtecedUfe, .ASCE 7, Sec. 25.5.2) Cb'O.O44S,,/s 0.040 1Min. For SDCEofF C 0.181 . '115 I fl1 c 1.07 i 0.051 I C,=, Seismic Response Coefficient: (Simplified Analysis, Sec. 1617.5) F= C 0.218 R Seismic Base Shear: Base Shear Coefficient, C, = 0.181 W Minimum interconnection Force: (ASCE 7. Sec. 12.1.3) O.l33X Sus = 0.121 W Min. = 0.050 W CSCXN 0.121 W Redundancy Factor, p: I per Table 12.3-3 Seismic Base Shear: Base Shear Coefficient. C. = 0.181 W Out of Plane Wall Forces: (ASCE 71211.1) Maximum out of plane for ASD = 12.7 psf Anchorage of Structural Wails: (ASCE 712.11.2) Maximum force for ASD = 558.5 pIt Anchorage of Structural Walls to Flexible Diaphragms: (ASCE 71211.2.1) Maximum force for ASD = 186.2 pIt Sec 12.8.1.1 Design C. = 0.181 Sec 12.14.8 Design C, = 0.216 16.2001 Vertical Load Cases Transverse Roof Estimated RXNs 2008-11-10 Roof Only Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Load Combinations Supporting Roof Purllns Perpendicular to Ridge - End Zone Wind Loads Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number: PUB120618-43 n___a_sI__. flnts mmn, 12/1112018 10:41 AM Page 1 of I IJcerJpuun; rr ivoz., - Location: CARLSBAD, CA Unit Geometry: Unit Wdith (B) = 9.33333 ft Unit Wdlth (L) = 10 ft Sidewall Overhang (B) = 12.0 In. Endwall Overhang (8J = 11.0 In. Roof Pitch= 4/12 Max.Truss Spacing, 5 = 24 In. cc Roof Loads: Wind Loads: Snow Load (S) = 0.0 psf Wwom WW LW Unbalanced Snow (Su) = 0.0 psf Transverse End Zone 46.2 -18.7 -12.8 Roof Live Load (Lr) = 20.0 psf InterIor Zone -20.5 -13.0 -9.7 TC Dead Load (TCDL) = 10.0 pet Longitudinal End Zone -26.2 -18.7 -10.6 BC Live Load (1) = 0.0 psf interior Zone -20.5 -13.0 -8.2 BC Dead Load (BçDL) = 0.0 psf End Zone WIdth 6.0 ft Vertical Load Cases: Combined Lateral & Vertical: LoadCmbb',atbn Shleesl! Malewall Endwall' Maximum Bending Case & Tension: 1 0 57 47 19 pit Load Combination Sidewall Endwall 2 S 0 0 Opif 1D 57 19 pit 3 8 0 0 0 pit 2 Wn -118 -43 pit. 4 Lr 113 93 38 pit Maximum Up -84 -31 pit 5 L 0 0 0 pit Lateral Pressure 14.4 14.4 pat 6 Wp 0 0 opit 7 11th -116 -87 43 pit S. 0.75(Lt4 86 70 29 pit Maximum Axial Load Case: 9 0.75(L48) 0 0 0 pit Load Combination Sidewall Endwall 10 0.75(L.6u) 0 0 0 pit 1 D+0.75(L+Lr) 142 48 pit 11 0.75(L.6+t) 0 0 0 pit 2 D+0.75(L+S) 57 19 pit 12 0.1 57 47 19 pit 3 D+0.75(L+Su) 57 19 pit 13 Osli 170 140 58 pit 4 0+0.75(L+S+Wp) 57 19 pit 14 D'S 57 47 19 pit . Maximum Down 142 48 pit 15 O.Qi 57 47 19 p1? Lateral Pressure 10.8 10.8 psf 16 D475(L.t4 142 117 48 pit 17 D40.75(L46) 57 47 19 pit 18 040.75(L4Su) 57 47 19 pIt 19 D.0.75(1,4.l) 57 47 19 pit 20 0.60.Wn -84 -59 -31 pit vrnInn IJnIfnr,n f narle at W(I! AM,flrI nnlul Sidewall: Matewal!: (total load) Endwall: Uplift Load = -84 plf(a6D'Wn) Uplift Load = -59 Of (0.6D..Wn) Uplift Load = -31 pll(0.60.Wn) Dead Load = 57 p11(0) Dead Load = 47 pit (D) Dead Load = 19 %f(D) Live Load = 113 Of (14 Live Load = 93 pttQ..r) Live Load = 38 pit (14 Total Load =. 170 Of (D44 Total Load = 140 Of (D4L4 Total Load = 68 Of (0.44 16.2101 Vertical Load Gases Slab Check 1211112016 10:42 AM Istofi. Page lofl Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Load Combinations Supporting I Floor, Roof and Ceiling Only-End Zone Wind Loads Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number: PUB120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Location: CARLSBAD, CA Unit Geometry: Unit Wdlth (8) = 0 In. Max.Jolst Spacing, & = 0 In. oc Ground Floor Loads: Floor live Load (L) = 50 pa? Floor Dead Load (D) = 80 psI Wall Dead Load (Dw) = 367 p1? Vertical Load Cases: Load CoMmlion Stieseti Endwail' 1 0 423 386p11 2 S 0 0 O 3 S. 0 Oplf 4 Is 113 38 Of 5 L• 0 0 O 6 Wp 0 0 O 7 Wn -118 -43 Of 8 0.75(L.t,) 85 29 Of 9 0.75(L48) 0 0 pIt 10 0.75(L4Su) 0 0 Of 11 0J5(L46iM) 0 0 pIt 12 Dii. 423 388 pIt 13 D4tr 537 424 Of 14 046 423 388 pIt 15. D4Su 423 386 pit 16 D475(L44 508 415 p11 17 0e0.75(L46) 423 386 pIt 18 D40.75(L*Su) 423 366 Of 19 D40.75(L46+Wp) 423 386 pIt 20 0.604f*i 0 Opit Govarnlno Uniform Loads at Walls! IVerth!al nnIv ..1 1----ir-4 One Floor, Roof & Ceiling Only 04n. Unit Width 90 mph (Exp ClEnd Zone) 0 psi Ground Snow, 4112 Pitch ted Lateral & Vertical: Maximum Bonding Case: Load Combination Sidewall Endwail ID 423 385 p1 2D+Wp 423 oplf Maximum Down 423 386 pIt Lateral Pressure 14.4 14.4 psI NDSLDF 1.6 Maximum Axial Load Case: Load Combination Newell Endweil 1 D+0.75(L+Lo 508 415 pit 2 D+0.75(L+S) 423 386 pIt 3 D+0.75(L+Su) 423 386 pit 4 D+0.75(L+S+Wp) 423 388 pit Maximum Down 508 415 pIt Lateral Pressure 10.8 10.8 psf Floor Load Only (at mateilne): Dead Load = 0 pIt (D) Live Load = 0 Of (L) Total Load = 0 pIt (D4 Sidewall: Endwall: Uplift Load = 0 plf((16D+Vtin) Uplift Load = 0 of (0.6DiWn) Dead Load = 423 p11(D) Dead Load = 386 p11(D) Live Load= 113 p11(14 live Load= 38 p11(1.4 Total Load = 537 p!f(D+Is) Total Load = 424 Of (Ott) 16.2501 Lateral Load Cases Gable Simple I Story 2008-09-10 12111/2018 11:14 AM I Story Simple Page 1 of 2 Lateral LoadAnalysis One-Story Building, Flexible Diaphragm Client Public Restroom Company Job Number: PUB120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Building Geometry: Loading Conditions: Ridge Length, B = 10.0 it Wind Speed = 90 mph Gable Width, L = 18.7 it Exposure Category: C Module Width = 9.3 it Blocking Height hb = 8.0 in. Height Above Grade: Sidewall/Eve Height, he = 97.0 in. Stories Above Grade = 1.0 Roof Slope, a = 4.0 /12 pitch Sidewall Eave (z) = 8.8 it Roof slope, a= 18.4 deg. Roof Peak (z)= 12.2 it Sidewall Overhang, 10H = 12.0 in. Mean Roof Height (h) = 15.0 ft Endwaii Overhang, 60H = 11.0 in. Foundation Type: Slab on grade Seismic Design Parameters: Seismic Use Group: ii Importance Category, i: 1.00 Site Class: D Response Factor, R: 5.0 ASO Adjustment Factor= 0.7 - Ground Other Roof IBC Seismic Design Cat.: D Wall Height, he (In.) 88 0 n/a IRC Seismic Design Cat: Dl Wail Dead Weight (psi) 50 0 We SD6 = 0.91 Floor/Level Dead Weight (psi) 80 0 10 Cs = 0.22 Bottom Chord Dead Weight (psi) - - 0 Seismic Live Load (pet) 0 0 0 Transverse Diaphragm Parameters: Wall Height = - 7.3 It Vertical Roof Projection = 3.4 it Misc. Framing Height = 0.8 ft/level Blocking Height = 0.7 it Endwali Weight = 8452 ibm Horizontal Wind Pressure (MWFRS) Net Wall End Zone 20.9 Interior 14.0 Net Roof End Zone Interior 0.0 0.0 12.0 Max. Wall End Zone Interior 8.9 Max. Roof End Zone 12.8 Interior 9.7 MWFRS End Zone, 2a = 6.0 it Transverse Lateral Forces . . Wind Net Seismic Weight Net list of I Story - End (pit) 85 - - . Interior (pit) 75 - - Diaphragm (pit) - 737 112 Endwails (!bf/wall) Q - 4226 644 Force to Endwali Shearwali (ibf) 433 15819 1205 Level OTM (ft-kip) 3.2 - 8.8 Base of I Story End(ptt) 85 - -- Interior (pIt) 56 - - Diaphragm (pit) - 2043 311 Endwails (lbfMaii) - 4226 644 Force to Endwali Foundation (ibi) 885 44704 3404 Base OTM (ft-kip)l 3.8 1 11.4 1U 18.2501 Lateral Load Cases Gable Simple 1 Story 2008-09-10 I Story Simple - Lateral Load Analysis One-Story Building, Flexible Diaphragm Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number PUB12061843 Description: PRC 10523 Longitudinal Diaphragm Parameters: Wail Height = 7.3 It Vertical Roof Projection = 3.4 ft MISb. Framing Height = 0.8 ftiievel Blocking Height = 0.66667 ft Sidewall Weight = 3667 Ibm 12/11/2018 11:14 AM Page 2 of 2 Horizontal Wind Pressure (MW FRS) Net Well End 15.6 Interior 10.3 Net Roof End - Interior - Max. Wall End 12.0 3 Interior 8.9 - Max. Root End Interior - MWFRS End Zone, 2a = 6.0 ft Wind Seismic Longitudinal Lateral Forces Net Weight Net let of I Story End Max (pIt) 94 - - Min(plf) 63 - - Interior Max (pIt) 77 - - Min(plt) 62 - - Diaphragm (pit) - 153 23 Sidewalls (IbflwaIl) -- 1833 279 Force to Sidewall Shearwall (ibt) 741 3260 496 Level OTM (ft-Ibt) 5.4 - 3.6 Roof Dlaphgram Only End Max (plf) 16 - - Min(plf) 0 - Interior Max (pit) 18 - - Mm (pit) 10 -- - Diaphragm (pit) - -44 -7 Force to Sidewall Shearwall (lbt) 91 407 -62 Ceiling Dlaphgram Only End Max(plt) 79 - - Min(plt) 63 - -. Interior Max (pIt) 60 - - Min(plt) 52 - - Diaphragm (pit) - 196 30 Force to Sidewall Shearwall (lbt) 651 1833 279 Base of I Story End Zone (pit) 63 -- -- Interior (pit) 42 -- - Diaphragm (pit) - 996 152 Sidowalis (IbfNail) -- 1833 279 Force to Sidewall Foundation (lb9 1258 11133.3 2192 Base OTM (ft-Ibf) 6.4 - 5.3 Material Properties: Tabulated C0 CFb Cr I Allowable Fb = 1000 1.15 1.30 1.15 1719 psi F = 180 1.15 -- - 207 psi .F5 625 -- - - 625 psi E = 1700000 - - - 1700000 psi Uniform Loads: Cantilever Roof Joist 1 Timber Beam Analysis 1211112018 11:14 AM Dim Output Page 1 of I Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number: PIJBI206I8-43 Description: Cantilever Roof Joist Member Properties: Grade: #1 plies = I Species: OF A = 8.3 in .2 b = 1.5 in. lx- 20.8 In .4 d = 5.5 in. Sx= 7.6 In.' Case Magnitude Position Concet Case Magnitude Position LL 40 pit Full Length DL 20 pit Full Length W 48.4 pit Full Length L Deflection Limit: LI 240 - - L+ 0.51) DefledtionLimit:- LI. 180 Beam Diagram: Wu Qfna I /a aniegorWdU Load Case 1.47" 7'-1 1° DL + LL -247 LL -164 373 -249 W 232 Flexural Sfrenath: Shear Strength: 351 Unsupported Length, lu = I In. Vu = 224 lbs Effective Length Factor = 2.06 Vn = 1139 lbs Effective Length. Is = 2.08 in. Vu1Vn = 0.20 OK Slenderness Ratio, Rb = 2.24 Fb* = 1719 psi Minimum Bearing at Supports: FbE = 331599 psi F/Fb* = 196.4 Pu = 373 lbs Stability Factor, CL = 1.00 Bearing Width, b = 1.5 in. Mm. Length 0.4 In. Mu- 3118 ln.-ibs Mn = 12999 in.-lbs Deflection Limits: Mu/Mn = 0.24 OK LL Deflection: L/ 1343 OK LL + 0.5131- Deflection: U 1074 OK Notes: 1. Multiple members must be equally loaded or Interconnected to transfer load sufficiently between individual members. 2. Restraint against lateral moment and rotation must be provided at all support locations. /1k!th Rctcif 301'.s"t 4o tcood UQ1 é &u JJ'rtg y yEmpcon Ot DO S0 , W&9(i tG& WâU + u./ U- Allowable Stress Design of Reinforced Masonry Side Walls Supporting Roof Purlins Perpendicular to Ridge Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number PUB12061843 Description: PRC 10523 LocatiOn: CARLSBAD, CA Unit Geometry: Unit Wdith(B) = 9.33333333 ft Unit Wdith (L) = loft Sidewall Overhang (BoH) = 12.0 in. Roof Pitch = 4/12 Endwafl Overhang (B) = 11.0 in. Wall Height = 8 it Design Loads: Axial Wind: -u pit Lateral Wind: 14.4 plf Lateral Seismic: 12.8923067 pIt nla Vertical Wall Check: Nominal Block Thickness = 4 In net thickness = 3.625 in CMU Denslty= 100 pd Depth to bars, do = 1.8125 in Mortar Density = 125 pd Grout Density = 140 pd Masonry Strength1 I'm = 1500 psi Allowable Comp Stress = 500 psi Allowable Shear Stress, Fv = 38.7 psi ASCE 5-2.3.5.2.2 a Modulus of Masonry, Em = 1125000 psi ASCE 5-1.8.2.2.1 Yield Stress of rebars = 60000 psi Modulus of Steel, E = 29000000 psi - Modular Ratio n = 25.78 Allowable rebar Stress, Fs = 24000 psi ASCE 5-2.3.2.1 Vertical rebar Size = 3 Area of bar, As = 0.11 in"2 Vertical bar Spacing = 8 As per Foot = 0.1650 ReInforcing Ratio, p = 0.0076 Meets ASCE 5- 1.14.6 k = 0.4310 j = 0.8563 Ks = 155.91 psi Km = 92.27 psi K governing, Kg = 92.27 psi Allowable Moment = 303.13 ft-lbf/ft Allowable Shear = 842.37 lbfffi Allowable pressure, bending = 37.89 psf Allow pressure, shear = 210.59 psf Allowable Lateral Pressure = 31.89 psf Applied/Allowable 0.38 <1 OK Allowable Uplift = 3960 Applied/Allowable 0.02 <1 OK Interaction Equation = 0.40 <1 OK 34 Allowable Stress Design of Reinforced Masonry End Walls Supporting Roof Purlins Perpendicular to Ridge Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number; PUB120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Location: CARLSBAD, CA Unit Geometry: Unit Wdith (B) = 9.33333333 It Unit Wdith (L) = 10 ft Sidewall Overhang (B,1) = 12.0 in. Roof Pitch = 4/12 Endwall Overhang (B0 ) = 11.0 in. . Wail Height = 8 ft Design Loads: Axial Wind: -31 pit Lateral Wind: 14.4 plf Lateral Seismic: 12.6923067 pif We Vertical Wall Check Nominal Block Thickness = 4 in - net thickness = 3.625 In CMU Density = 100 pcf Depth to bars, de = 1.8125 In Mortar Density = 125 pcf Grout Density = 140 pcf Masonry Strength, Im = 1500 psi Allowable Comp Stress = 500 psi Allowable Shear Stress, Fv = 38.7 psi ASCE 5-2.3.5.2.2 a Modulusof Masonry, Em = 1125000 psi ASCE 5-1.8.2.2.1 Yield Stress of rebars = 60000 psi Modulus of Steel, E = 29000000 psi Modular Ratio ñ = 25.78 Allowable rebar Stress, Fs = 24000 psi ASCE 5-2.3.2.1 Vertical rebar Size = 3 Area of bar, As = 0.11 lnA2 Vertical bar Spacing = 8 As per Foot = 0.1650 Reinforcing Ratio, p = 0.0076 Meets ASCE 5- 1.14.6 k= 0.4310 0.8563 Ks = 155.91 psi Km = 92.27 psi K governing, Kg = 92.27 psi Allowable Moment = 303.13 ft-Ibf/ft Allowable Shear = 842.37 ibflft Allowable pressure, bending = 37.89 psf Allow pressure, shear = 210.59 psf Allowable Lateral Pressure = 37.89 psf Applled!Ailowable = 0.38 <1 OK Allowable Uplift = 3980 Applied/Allowable 0.01 CI OK Interaction Equation = 0.39 ci OK ?tl Total= 10.00 Side Wail 2 Segments: Lengths, ft = 6.00 3.67 Total = 9.67 Vertical Bar Check: Maximum Tension = 920 lbf Corner Bar = 4 Number of Bars = 1 As = 0.2iflA2 677 lbf Shear IV, psi MNd Fv, psi 420 2.6 1.33 38.7 OK 257 2.6 2.18 38.7 OK 677 lbf Allowable Tension, ibf = 4800 OK Allowable Stress Design of Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls Client Public Restroom Company Job Nurnber PUB120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Location: CARLSBAD, CA End Walls Side Walls Wall Height = 8 ft 8 It Nominal Block Thickness = 4 in 4 in Masonry Strength, F, = 1500 psi 1500 psi Joint Reinforcement = Dur-O-Wall Ladur Type = 2-#B side rods 2-#9 side rods Vertical Spacing = 8 in o.c. 8 In o.c. As per foot = 0.052 OK>mlnH 0.052 0K> min H = 0.856 0.856 Shear Forces Wind = 389 Ibf 677 ibf Seismic = 1205 ibf 496 ibf Governing = 843 lbf 677 ibf End Wall A Segments Shear fv, psi M/Vd Fv, pal Lengths. It = 18.67 843 1.6 0.43 60.7 OK Total = 18.67 843 ibf End Wall B Segments: Shear IV, psi MNd Fv, psi Lengths, ft 3.67 422 4.2 2.18 38.70K 3.67 422 4.2 2.18 38.7 OK Total= 7.33 843 lbf Side Will I Segments: Shear fv, psi. MNd Fv, psi Lengths, ft = 10.00 677 2.5 0.80 44.0 OK Bending Capacity: Maximum Unbraced Length, Lb = 160 in. Lc = 40 in. Cb= 1.00 l/rT= 151.7 Fb= 7.4 ksi ALL = -0.014 in. DL&L = -0.014 in. Deflection: 4 Limit Fb 0.116 0.0 30.4 0.46 38.3 7.0 1.05 47.1 -1.2 105.3 7.4 Ratio: 0.22 OK bf = tf= Af = rT = Fu= 1.6 ksi L/ 6078 L/ 6078 Ratio: 0.04 OK Ratio: 0.04 OK AISC 04.001 Hoiiz Cap Beam © Wall A&B N 12/11/2018 11:01 AM Beam Design Page 1 of 1 AISC ASD Beam Analysis Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number: PUB120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 HOriz Cap Beam Col Line A&B Member Properties: Steel Properties: US Designation: I-1SS5x4x1/8 Grade: A500 Metric Designation: HSSI27XIOI.6X3.2 F = 46 ksi Beam Depth (d) = 5 in.. E = 29500 ksi Web Tickness (tv) = 0.12 in. Web Height (1) = 5.00 in.. Deflection Limits: Moment of Interia (lx) = 7.42 in.4 Live Load: U 240 Section Modulus (Sw) = 2.97 in.3 Dead+ Live Load: U. 240 Beam Weight (Wb) = 7.298345 plf Uniform Loads: Concentrated Loads: Case Magnitude Position Case Magnitude Position WL . 94.8 p11 Full Length Loading Diagram: Load Cam- 0" ti 18-8" 4t V-1 I" t 11-r WL -214 -611 -611 -274 Fb= 7.4 ksi ALL = -0.097 in. ADL+ALL = -0.097 in. Deflection: AISC 04.001 Horiz Cap Beam @ Wall 1&2 12/11/2018 11:01 AM Beam Design Page lofl AISC ASD Beam Analysis Client: Public Restroom Company . Job Number: PUB 120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Honz Cap Beam Col Line 1&2 Member Properties: US Designation: HSS5x4x1/8 Metric Designation: HSSI27XIOI. 6X3.2 Beam Depth (d) = 5 in. Web Tickness (t) = 0.12 in. Web Height (T) = 5.00 in. Moment of Interia (Ix) = 7.42 in.4 Section Modulus (Sx) = 2.97 in.' Beam Weight (Wb) = 7.298345 plf Uniform Loads: Case Magnitude Position WL 94.8 pIt Full Length Steel Properties: Grade: A500 F= 46 ksi E = 29500 ksi Deflection Limits: Live Load: LI 240 Dead + Live Load: LI 240 Concentrated Loads: Case V Magnitude Position Loading Diagram: Load Ca- WL .474 474 Bending Capacity: Maximum Unbraced Length, Lb = 160 in. Lq= 40 in. Cb= 1.00 I/rT= 151.7 bf= 4 V Limit Fb tf 0.116 0.0 30.4 Af = 0.46 38.3 7.0 rT= 1.05 47.1 -1.2 105.3 7.4 Fu = 4.8 ksi Ratio: 0.65 V OK L/ 1232 Ratio: 0.19 OK L/ 1232 Ratio: 0.19 OK c&c Pressure (pat) Pos Nag OH Zone 1 10.2 -16.2 -33.0 Zone 2 10.2 -282 -33.0 Zone 3 10.2 -41.6 -55.4 Zone 4 17.7 -19.2 nla Zone 17.7 -23.7 We 23.0407 Design Exterior Sheathing 2008-04.16 Exterior Sheathing Exterior Sheeting APA N375B Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number: PU8120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 1211112018 '10:43 AM Page 1 of 90 mph (Exp CiEnd Zone) 0 psf Ground Snow, 4112 Pitch Loadine Conditions: Roof Leads: Wind Loads (Vertical-End Zone): Snow Load (S) = 0.0 psf Positive (Wp) = 0.0 psi (MWFRS) Unbalanced Snow (So) = 0.0 psf Negative (Wn) = -18.7 psi (MWFRS) Mm. Roof Live Load (Li) = 20.0 psi Overhang (Ww4 = -26.2 psi (MWFRS) TC Dead Load (DL) = 10 psi Sidewall Overhang = 12.0 in. Endwaii Overhang = 11.0 in. End Zone, a= 36.0 in. Load Combination Assessment Lead Comb!natk,n NDS ISDF 0 10 psI 0.90 S Opel 1.15 0 PSI 1.15 If 20p51 1.25 tip (MWFRS) 0 pet 1.60 Wa (MWFRS) -28 psi 1.60 Governing Live Load: 45 psi i)Nn (C&C)) Governing Total Load: 45 psf (Wn (C&C)) NDS Design Load: 45 psi (Wn (C&C)) Load Duration Factor (Co): 1.60 C&C Deflection Load Reduction: 0.7 Less than 16% Moisture in Service: Yes Minimum Panel Width: 24.0 in. Roof Panel: Panel Thickness: 5/8 In. Span Rating: 40120 Panel Grade: Sheathing Panel Type: OSS Truss/Rafter Spacing, a = 24.0 In. as Support Width, w = 1.5 In. SW= 025 Parallel Perp Bending Stillness, El bt-In.!ft) 225000 55000 Bending Strength, FbS (lbt-lnift) 750 270 Shear In the Plane, Pa (lbf/ft) 265 165 Roof Panel Strenath: Load CombfnafIon NDSLDP 0.75(S.Wpi 0 psi 1.80 Dtr 30 psf 1.25 0+5 10 psf 1.15 0980 10 pat 1.15 040.75(S+Wp) . 10 psI 1.60 WP (CM 10 PSI 1.60 Wn (C&C) -45 p5f1 1.60 Deflection Limits: Ii Deflection Limit: LI 240 TL Deflection Limit L 100 CM,IJssth = 1.00 Cc= 1.00 1.00 Cs= 1.00 Strength Axis Span Condition Allowable Uniform Load (psi) Bending Shear ALL 6 Bending Stress Ratio Shear ALL A Overall Result Single Span 200.0 452.3 103.7 138,2 0.23 0.10 0.43 0.33 OK Perpendicular to Supports Two-Span 200.0 361.8 249.7 333.0 0.23 0.12 0.18 0.14 OK Three-Span 250.0 376.9 196.1 281.4 0.18 0.12 0.23 0.17 OK Single Span 72.0 281.6 25.7 34.3 0.63 0.16 1.75 1.31 ND Parallel to Supports Two-Span 72.0 225.3 61.9 82.6 0.63 0.20 0.73 0.54 OK Three-Span 90.0 234.7 48.6 64.0 0.50 0.19 0.93 0.69 1 OK Exterior Sheating (cont) Securement to Framing Roof Panel Attachment Thickness = 0.625 in. Din. (In.) Length (in.) SO W Zone I Edge Field Edge Zone 2 Field ON Edge Zone 3 Field ON Edge Roof Overall Field ON 0.092 1.5 0.55 40 6 12 6 8 7 6 5 4 6 5 4 0.113 2.25 0.55 91 6 12 6 12 12 6 12 9 6 12 9 0.131 2.50 0.55 122 6 12 6 12 12 0 12 12 6 12 12 0.148 3.00 0.55 174 6 12 6 12 12 6 12 12 6 . 12 12 16 Ga. 1.75' 0.55 70 3 6 3 6 8 3 6 8 3 8 6 15 Ga. 1.75 0.55 80 3 6 3 6 8 3 6 6 3 8 6 Notes 1 Weighted average of end/overhang pressures, based on typical spacing and overhang projection. 52- CtoC= 32 in UPnet- CWC 'itperp CtoC - - By Shear In plane OK by Inspection Bolt thru lop Plate Bag = 648 lbf Vpe!p 'CroC Ba = 0.298 bolt center to center 0.497 <10K allowable shear from previous caics <10K Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number PU8120618-43 Description PRC 10523-Legoland, Carisbad,CA Connection Top Plates to Walls DL= 57 pIt Nw = 23.7 pat Up= 118p11 Ht= 8 f Bw= 3.625 Upnet= IJp —.b'L)L= 83.8plf .HwHt Vperp = 2 94.8 p11 Check 112" anchor bolt in masonry wall dead, lateral pressure & uplift wall height & thickness net uplift shear from out of plane lateral loads ID = 8 in embedment depth Fm = 1500 psi masonry strength db = 0.5 in Fyb = 36 ksi diameter & yield of bolt ir•db2 . Ab = o.196 in 2 Bas= .ZAh.Pyb 1413.6751bf ApBW1b 2 = 58 0 . Bao= .S-Ap../i= 1123.165 lbf Be= mi(ao,as) = 1123.165 lbf Bv= 2n1n[12 Ab' Fyb,35 - (f'm - Ab) = area of bolt ASCE 5, 2-2 allowable tension based on steel approximate area in narrow wall ASCE 5, 2-1 allowable based on masonry allowable bolt tension 848.205 lbf ASCE 5.2-5 & 6, allowable bolt shear embed> 12 d Check minimum number of 112" anchor bars in masonry wall L = 18.67 n = 4 Module Length and number of anchors W = 10.00 n = 2 Module Width and number of anchors Upext(LorW) Vprp(LotW) n*Ba n*Bv Sidewall = 0.869754712 <1 OK Endwall = 0.931880049 <1 OK 18,0cc Masonry wall design 2010-05-20 12111/2018 10.43 AM Slab on Grade Page 1 of 2 Slab-on-Grade Foundation Deadweight Calculation Foundation Support lst Floor .of I Story Building Client: Public Restroom Company Job Number: PUB120618-43 Description: PRC 10523 Location: 90 mph (Exposure C) Building Geometry: Building Length (B) 10.00 it WIdth (1) 18.7 It Sidewall/Eave Height = 97 in. Sidewall Overhang, Sam = 12 in. End Overhang, LOH = 11 in. Roof Slope, a = 4 /12 Level Considered = I /1 Building Dead Loads: Roof DL= 10.0 psI Ground Other Assembly Floor Floors Floor DL(pst) 80 Na Wail DL (psI) 50 n/a Wail Height (in.) 88 We Perpendicular to Rldae: Design Pressures: Horizontal: Interior End Veiticat interior End was 14.0 20.9 WW Roof -13.0 48.7 Roof 0.0 0.0 WW Overhang -20.5 .26.2 LW Roof -9.7 -12.8 Horizontal Forces (4 in Direction of the Wind) Projected Moment - Area Pressure Force Arm Moment Surface (ii) (psi) (the) fin.) Ribs) Interior Walls 8 14.0 113 49 456 IntertorRoof 3 0.0 0 118 0 LV. 113 EM= 456 End Walls 8 20.9 169 49 684 End Roof 3 0.0 0 118 0 EV 169 EM 684 Vertical Forces (+ Upward) Interior WW Roof 9 -13.0 122 168 1703 Interior WWOverhang 1 -20.5 21 230 393 InterlorLWRoof 10 -9.7 100 50 418 LU 243 EM= 2515 End WWRoof 9 48.7 175 168 2447 End WW Overhang 1 -26.2 28 * 230 603 End LW Roof 10 -12.8 132 50 550 EU= 333 ZM= 3500 Dead loadlReslstlng Forces 0.6 Dead Load 19 54.0 -1008 112 -9408 0.6 Wall Dead Load 15 30.0 440 112 4101 EU = 4448 EM w .13515 Sidewall Forces: interior End Difference NET OTM Along Sidewall, U0 4ft.lbf/fi) -11000 -10315 0 Vertical Tension Force, U (p11) -589 -537 0 Endwali Forces: Interior , End Total Horlzonial Force, V(Ibt) 113 169 903 NET OTM Along Sidewall, Voym 456 684 3650 Moment Eaullibrium at Endwall: Max. OTM at Endwall Shearwall 3850 End ZcneOlfference 1.101 0 End WIN Overhang 9 -18.7 177 186 2750 End LW Overhang 9 -12.8 121 50 505 0.6End Wall Dead 137 30.0 -4108.67 112 48329 LU a -3808 ZM= 41425 Parallel to Ridge: Design Pressures: Horizontal: interior End Vertical: Interior End Wails 10.3 15.6 WW Roof -13.0 -18.7 WW Overhang -20.5 -28.2 LW Roof -8.2 -10.6 Horizontal Forces (, In Direction of the Wind) ,Projected Moment Area Pressure Force Arm Moment Surface (112) (psI) (the) (In.) (fl-the) End Zone Walls 58 15.6 865 56 4021 Interior Zone Walls 128 10.3 1318 61 6705 EV= 2183 IM 10725 Vertical Forces (+ Upward) End WIN Roof 6 -18.7 112 24 225 Interior WW Roof 15 -13.0 191 148 2358 LV= 304 EM= 2582 End LW Roof 8 -10.6 64 24 128 lnteriorLWRoof 15 -8.2 121 148 1491 EV= 186 EM= 1618 Sidewall Forces: I11vV LW NET OTM Along Sidewall, U0 (fl-ibfii't) -10932 41897 Vertical Tension Force, U (p11) -586 -637 Endwail Forces: Moment Equilibrium at Endwali: WW Overhang 19 -26.2 497 125.5 5195 0.6 End Wail Dead 137 30.0 .4106.67 120 -41066.661 LV. .3610 EM= 45872 Net Foundation Connection Forces: Shear Uplift Wind Perpendicular to Ridge (Ibflft) (lbfift) Sidewails Qong dimension) 90 0 Endwalis (short dimension) We We Tie-Down Each Corner n/a n/a Shear Uplift Wind Parallel to Ridge (lbf/ft) (Ibflft) Sldewalls (long dimension) n/a 0 Endwsiis (short dimension) 117 0 Tie-Down Each Corner Na n/a. ) Lip/lit at Sldewa/1s. Foundation Wt, DFND = 997 p11 Not Uplift, U-D 0= 0.0 pit OK Transverse Sliding: Contact Area 208 ft2 Sliding Resistance 1787 pit Lateral Bearing Resistance = 22 pit Total Sliding Resistance = 1809 pIt Applied Shear = 90 ib? OK Overturning Mornent. Foundation 'Ni, Dm = 997 pit Resisting Force = 598 pIt Applied Moment, OTM = -3142 ft-ibf Resultant Eccentricity = -5.3 It Kem Eccentricity = 3.1 ft Longitudinal Sliding: Endwali Contact Area = 205 ft2 Sliding Resistance = 957 pit Lateral Bearing Resistance = 22 pit Total Sliding Resistance = 980 pit Applied Shear= 117 Ibf OK WA IBicoc Masonry wall design 2010-05-20 Slab on Grade 12/11/2018 10:43 AM Page 2 of 2 Slab-on-Grade Foundation Deadweight Calculation Foundation Support 1st Floor of I Story Building 0 Founation Geometry: Length Width Depth Area Volume Qty (ft) (it) Qn) (ft' (it) 1 1 10.7 19.3 8.0 206 137 2 3 4 Total 206 137 Depth Below Grade = 8 In. Concrete/Grout Density = 145 pd Soil Properties: Presumptive Bearing = 1500 psi Weight = 120 pd Lateral Bearing = 100 psi/ft Lateral Sliding Resistance = 130 psflft Slab Check & Minimum Footing Width Client: Public Resfroom Company Job Number: PUB120518.43 Description: PRC 10523 Location: CARLSBAD, CA f'c: 2500 psi FY: 80000 pal Clear Span: 4.00 It d: 8 In DL: 80 psf 1.2DL: 96 psf Floor Live Load: 50 paf 1.GLL: 80 psf Mu: 352 ft-ibflft Vu: 352. lbflft Floor Point Load: 2000 lbs 1.6LL 3200 lbs Mu: 3200 ft-ibflft Vu: 1600 lbflft Rebars: 4 no Spacing: 7 in ox. Cover 1.250 in ASIft: 0.343 ml/ft do: 6.50 in T=AsFy: 20571 IN a = AsFyI0.851'cb 0.81 In GMn = ø(Asfy(d.a12)] 9406.24 ft-ibf/ft MuIøMn = 0.340 OK VcI2: 2925.00 ibf/ft MOW = 0.5470K fs = 213fy = 40000 psi smax = 15(400001fs)-2.5Cc = 12 in OK min thlckenss based on deflection = 2.40 in. min OK 0 RECEIVED FEB 27 2019 Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DIVISION February 25, 2019 To: Merlin Entertainment Group/US Holding, Inc. One Lego Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Lindsay Burroughs Project No. 10075.027 Subject: Geotechnical Review of Grading and Structural Plans, Proposed New Restroom in Sea Life Aquarium, LEGOLAND Theme Park, Carlsbad, California References: Leighton and Associates, 2018, Geotechnical Update Report, Proposed New Restroom Building Sea Life Aquarium, LEGOLAND Theme Park, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 10075.027, October 26, 2018 DCI Engineers, 2019, Grading Plans For: New Restroom at Sea life Aquarium LEGOLAND Drive, Carlsbad, California, Sheets I through H-4, received February 20, 2019. Public Restroom Company/NTA, Inc., 2018, Structural Foundation Plan: Restroom Building Sea Life Aquarium at LEGOLAND Resort, Carlsbad, California, Sheets: T-1, S-I and SD-1, dated December 13, 2018. In accordance with* your request, we have performed a geotechnical review of the referenced grading plans (DCI Engineers, 2019) and structural foundation plans by NTA Engineers, Inc. for the subject project. Our review was performed to identify potential conflicts with the intent of the referenced geotechnical document. Based on our review, the plans appear to be in general conformance with our recommendations. However, it should be noted that the seismic design parameters presented on the structural plans were slightly different than those provide in our geotechnical report. Subsequently, we received confirmation from Public RestrciOm Company/NTA, Inc., Engineer that the to" 3 urphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 a Fax 858.292.0771 • www.leightongroup.com 10075.027 seismic design parameters presented on the structural plans are more conservative than those presented in our report. Therefore, we take no exception to the use of the Public Restroom Company/NTA, Inc., Engineer's seismic design parameters. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this review are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information .is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can and do occur. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project. Only with these observations are we able to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for this site. If you have any questions regarding our letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this Opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. No. 45213 *\E*p.21i20J* William D. Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer. Distribution: (1) Addressee 4 Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY October 26, 2018 Project No. 10075.027 Merlin Entertainments Group US Holdings, Inc. do LEGOLAND California, LLC One LEGOLAND Drive Carlsbad, California 92088 Attention: Ms. Lindsay Burroughs Subject: Geotechnical Update Letter Proposed Sealife Restrooms LEGOLAND California Carlsbad, California RECE') FEB 27 2019 CITY OF CML3AD BUILDING DIVISION Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton), 2015, Geotechnical Update Report, Proposed Sealife Maintenance Building, LEGOLAND Theme Park, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 10075.009, dated May 18, 2015. In accordance with your request and authorization, we have prepared this geotechnical update letter for the proposed Sealife Restroom addition at LEGOLAND California. The purpose of this geotechnical update was to perform a site visit to observe existing conditions, review the referenced geotechnical report (Leighton, 2015), and provide updated geotechnical recommendations, as needed. Based on conversations with you, it is our understanding that the proposed project consists of the installation of a prefabricated restroom facility, approximately 13-feet by 20-feet. We anticipate that structure will be placed upon a concrete mat. Associated improvements are expected to include utility connections, and possible hardscape. CBC20I9-0078 I LEGOLAND DR LEGOLAND: 187 SF RESTROOM BUILDING (PRE-MANUFACTURED) FOR PUBLIC USE 3934 2111000900 2/27/2019 ____ CBC20I 9-0078 10075.027 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our site visit on October 12, 2018 and review of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2015), it is our professional opinion that the conclusions and recommendations in the referenced geotechnical document are still considered applicable and should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of this project unless superseded by recommendations presented below. The following recommendations should be used in conjunction with those presented in the referenced report: Seismic Parameters The seismic parameters provided in the referenced report were based on the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). From a geotechnical view point, the changes in the updated 2016 CBC do not affect the recommended soil or seismic parameters provided by the geotechnical consultant. That is, the seismic parameters determined using the 2016 CBC are the same as the values determined using the 2013 CBC, as such the parameters provided in the referenced report remain applicable. Engineered Fill The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. All fill soils should be brought to at least 2 percent optimum moisture conditions (i.e., depending on the soil types) and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557, 95 percent for wall backfill soils or if used for structural purposes (such as to support a footing, wall, etc.). The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix B of the attached report. 2 40 Leighton 10075.027 Trench Backfill Pipe bedding should consist of sand with a sand equivalent (SE) of not less than 30. Bedding should be extended the full width of the trench for the entire pipe zone, which is the zone from the bottom of the trench, to one foot above the top of the pipe. The sand should be brought up evenly on each side of the pipe to avoid unbalanced loads. Onsite materials will probably not meet bedding requirements. Except for predominantly clayey soils, the onsite soils may be used as trench backfill above the pipe zone (i.e. in the trench zone) provided they are free of organic matter and have a maximum particle size of three inches. Compaction by jetting or flooding is not recommended. Preconstruction Utility Survey Based on past experience during renovations and additions at the park, we suggest that the owner/contractor perform a survey to identify existing subsurface utilities in the vicinity of the project, with special attention to the building footprints. Any utilities that are identified should be relocated as necessary to reduce project delays during excavation and grading. 3 Leigitcn 10075.027 If you have any questions regarding our update letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ImP$.C43971 1~md I Benjamin R. Grenis, RCE 83971 Project Engineer N .2457 ENGINEERING GE L G ST ik4 S Mike D. Jensen, CEG 2457 enior Project Geologist ro.o' L/iL&Z_ No. 45283 op co William D. Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer Attachments: Appendix A - 2015 Leighton Report Distribution: (1) Digital Copy IVIZ Leightcn 10075.027 APPENDIX A 2015 LEIGHTON REPORT ECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT PROPOSED SEALIFE MAINTENANCE BUILDING LEGOLAND THEME PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: MERLIN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP! US HOLDING, INC. One Lego Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Project No. 10075.009 May 18, 2015 fox Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY May 18, 2015 Project No. 10075.009 To: Merlin Entertainment Group/US Holding, Inc. do LEGOLAND California, LLC One Lego Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Chris Romero Subject: Geotechnical Update Report, Proposed Sealife Maintenance Building, LEGOLAND Theme Park, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has conducted a geotechnical update for the proposed Sealife Maintenance Building that is planned for the LEGOLAND Theme Park in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). This report presents the results of our review of pertinent geotechnical documents, previous laboratory testing, limited geotechnical analyses, and provides our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed redevelopment area. Based on the result of our current geotechnical study, the proposed redevelopment project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided our recommendations are implemented in the design and construction of the project. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. HAL o& Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6 W— No. 45283 V. lEXP. William D. Olson, RICE 45289 \* Associate Engineer Civ Distribution: (4) Addressee 0.2457 iIL CERTIFIEb -4 I i ENGINEERING I Mike D. Jensen, CEG 2457 Senior Project Geologist 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 • www.leightongroup.com 10075.009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... I 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................................................................I 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ I 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................I 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS....................................................3 2.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................................................3 2.2 SITE-SPEcIFIc GEOLOGY ........................................................................................3 2.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Not Mapped)....................................................4 2.2.2 Artificial Fill Documented (Map Symbol - Af) ................................................4 2.2.3 Quaternary-Aged Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) ................................4 2.2.4 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - isa) ...................................................... 4 2.4 LANDSLIDES ...........................................................................................................5 2.5 SLOPES..................................................................................................................6 2.6 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ON-SITE SOIL...................................................6 2.6.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential ..................................................6 2.6.2 Expansive Soils.............................................................................................7 2.6.3 Soil Corrosivity ..............................................................................................7 2.6.4 Excavation Characteristics............................................................................7 2.6.5 Infiltration Characteristics..............................................................................7 3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY.................................................................................9 3.1 FAULTING...............................................................................................................9 3.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................................9 3.3 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS .............................................................................10 3.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture.............................................................................10 3.3.2 Liquefaction.................................................................................................11 3.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches................................................................................11 4.0 CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................12 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................14 5.1 EARTHWORK ........................................................................................................14 5.1.1 Site Preparation...........................................................................................14 5.1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material .............................................................15 5.1.3 Cut/Fill Transitions.......................................................................................15 5.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................16 5.2.1 Conventional Foundations...........................................................................16 Leighton 10075.009 5.2.2 Mat Foundation .17 5.3 FLOOR SLAB CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. . ................ 17 5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN ......................................................................................18 5.5 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION ........................................................................19 5.6 CONCRETE FLATWORK..........................................................................................19 5.7 PLAN REVIEW.......................................................................................................20 5.8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ..............................................................................20 6.0 I..IlVllrArlONS .................................................................................................21 Tables Table I - 2013 Mapped Spectral Accelerations Parameters - Page 10 Table 2 - Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) - Page 18 Figure Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Rear of Text Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map - Rear of Text Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications LciJ:':tC! F2 . ' ;•.j;kA 10075.009 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scone This report presents the results of our updated geotechnical study for the proposed Sealife Maintenance Building attraction that is to be constructed in the southern portion of LEGOLAND Theme Park in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our update report was to identify and evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed development. Our scope of services included: Review of pertinent documents regarding the geotechnical conditions at the site (Appendix A). A site reconnaissance to observe existing site conditions. Limited geotechnical evaluation and analysis of existing data. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations with respect to the proposed geotechnical design, site grading and general construction considerations. 1.2 Site Location and Description The LEGOLAND Theme Park is located north of Palomar Airport Road and west of College Boulevard in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The location of the proposed Sealife Maintenance Building is in the southwest portion of the LEGOLAND Park (see Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map). Currently, the site is occupied by mounded berm and landscaping with shrubs and trees. Topographically, the site grades, excluding the mounded berm, are relatively level with a slight slope to the towards the south with an approximate elevation of 152 feet above mean sea level (msl). 1.3 Proposed Development It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of a tall single story building (approximately 50 feet by 45 feet) that will house the new holding 40 -1- Leighton 10075.009 pools and equipment. We anticipate the site earthwork will consist of remedial grading to account for disturbed fill and general grading (i.e., cuts and fills) to reach the proposed site finish grades. We anticipate the foundation system for the proposed building will be shallow conventional footings or mat-type foundations. Preliminary grading and foundation plans or structural loads were not available prior to the preparation of this report. -2- Leighton 10075.009 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Geologic Setting The site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California. Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as "San Diego Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California batholith. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today. 2.2 Site-SDecific Geology Based on our previous subsurface exploration, geologic mapping during previous grading operations (Leighton, 1998), and review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, the geologic units underlying the site consist of documented artificial fill soils, Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits and Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Specifically, the site of the proposed Sealife Maintenance Building attraction is overlain by 15 to 20 feet of documented Artificial Fill (Af). A brief description of the geologic units present on the site are presented in the following sections. The approximate aerial distributions of those units are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). -3- Leighton 10075.009 2.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Not MaDDed) Areas of undocumented fill up to approximately 5 feet in thickness may be encountered in planters and landscape areas. The fill was derived from on- site excavations that were placed following the rough grading operations which occurred in the late 1990's. 2.2.2 Artificial Fill Documented (Mar) Symbol - Afi The artificial fill consists of moist, red-brown, dense, silty sands. The fill was derived from on-site excavations that was placed and compacted during the rough grading operations in the late 1990's. The fill soils were compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 (Leighton, 1998). The upper 3 to 5 feet of previously placed documented fill is weathered or disturbed by existing improvements and should be removed and reprocessed prior to the placement of additional fills or construction of new improvements. 2.2.3 Quaternary-Aged Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Quaternary Terrace Deposits are present in the eastern portion of the site beneath the artificial fill. These Terrace Deposits consist of brown to reddish brown, dry to moist, medium dense to very dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sandstone. It should be noted that the top 3 to 5 feet of Terrace Deposits that were weathered and/or disturbed by previous agricultural use were removed and replaced by compacted fill during grading operations (Leighton, 1998). Sand lenses within the Terrace Deposits are known to contain layers that transmit water seepage. If cut slopes are planned they should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. 2.2.4 Santiago Formation (Man Symbol - Tsa) Santiago Formation is present in the western portion of the site beneath the artificial fill. Santiago Formation consists of gray-brown to off-white damp, very dense, silty fine to medium sandstone. We do not anticipate that Santiago Formation will be encountered during site grading with the exception of deep foundation (if any) associated with the proposed improvements. 40 -4- Leighton 10075.009 2.3 Ground Water No indication of surface water or evidence of surface ponding was observed during our site reconnaissance. However, surface water may drain as sheet flow across the site during rainy periods. Ground water was not observed in the original exploration borings or during the site grading (Leighton, 1998). Perched ground water levels may develop and fluctuate during periods of precipitation. Based on our experience and given the approximate elevation of the site, we anticipate the ground water to be at a depth of 75 feet or more. However, it should be noted that previous nearby investigations have encountered perched ground water accumulated on the geologic contact between the Santiago Formation and the Terrace Deposits observed at the site. These conditions will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis during site grading and within sandy layers in the Terrace Deposits. Therefore, based on the above information, we do not anticipate ground water will be a constraint to the construction of the project. 2.4 Landslides Landslides are deep-seated ground failures (several tens to hundreds of feet deep) in which a large arcuate shaped section of a slope detaches and slides downhill. Landslides are not to be confused with minor slope failures (slumps), which are usually limited to the topsoil zone and can occur on slopes composed of almost any geologic material. Landslides can cause damage to structures both above and below the slide mass. Structures above the slide area are typically damaged by undermining of foundations. Areas below a slide mass can be damaged by being overridden and crushed by the failed slope material. Several formations within the San Diego region are particularly prone to landsliding. These formations generally have high clay content and mobilize when they become saturated with water. Other factors, such as steeply dipping bedding that project out of the face of the slope and/or the presence of fracture planes, will also increase the potential for landsliding. Based on our site reconnaissance and geologic mapping, the materials on site are generally massive with no distinctive structure. No active landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were noted at the site during our field reconnaissance, site grading, or our review of available -5- Leighton 10075.009 geologic literature, topographic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs. Furthermore, our field reconnaissance and the local geologic maps indicate the site is underlain by favorable oriented geologic structure, and no nearby slopes. Therefore, the potential for significant landslides or large-scale slope instability at the site is considered low. 2.5 Slopes If grading of the site includes the construction of new slopes, we recommend that permanent slopes be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Fills over sloping ground should be benched to produce a level area to receive fill. Benches should be wide enough to provide complete coverage by the compaction equipment during fill placement. If cut slopes are proposed to reach site grades, they should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading plan review and grading. All slopes may be susceptible to surficial slope instability and erosion given substantial wetting of the slope face. Surficial slope stability may be enhanced by providing proper site drainage. The site should be graded so that water from the surrounding areas is not able to flow over the top of slopes. Diversion structures should be provided where necessary. 2.6 Engineering Characteristics of On-Site Soil Based on the results of our previous geotechnical investigations and our professional experience on adjacent sites with similar soils, the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils are discussed below. 2.6.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential Based on the dense nature of the on-site documented fill, Terrace Deposits and Santiago Formation, it is our opinion that the potential for settlement and collapse at the site is low. Existing undocumented fills and disturbed soils that are present are considered compressible but are expected to be removed by planned grading and/or remedial grading. -6- Leighton 10075.009 2.6.2 Expansive Soils Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected during our previous explorations and grading activities (Appendix A) indicate the soils at the site possess a very low to low expansion potential. Locally, soils may have a low to medium potential expansion. Soils generated from excavations in the Terrace Deposits are also expected to possess a very low to low expansion potential. Laboratory testing upon completion of remedial and fine grading operations for the proposed building pad is recommended to determine actual expansion potential of finish grade soil at the site. 2.6.3 Soil Corrosivity Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected during our previous explorations and grading activities (Appendix A) indicate the soils possess a low soluble sulfate content, neutral pH, low soluble chloride content, and low electrical resistivity. These findings indicate that the corrosive effects to buried ferrous metal are expected to be moderate to severe. Affects to properly designed and placed concrete are considered low. Laboratory testing upon completion of remedial and fine grading operations for the proposed building pad is recommended to determine actual soluble sulfate content of finish grade soil at the site. 2.6.4 Excavation Characteristics It is anticipated the on-site soils can be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. Localized loose soil zones and friable sands, if encountered, may require special excavation techniques to prevent collapsing of the excavation. 2.6.5 Infiltration Characteristics Based on our experience, we anticipate that the underlying undocumented fill consisting of a mixture of soils and the underlying formation will have permeable and impermeable layers can transmit and perched ground water in unpredictable ways. Therefore, Low Impact Development (LID) 4 -7- Leiçjhtcn 10075.009 measures may impact down gradient improvements and the use of some unlined LID measures may not be appropriate for this project. All Infiltration and Bioretention Stormwater Systems design should be reviewed by geotechnical consultant. -8- Leighton 10075.009 3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 3.1 Faulting Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the California Geological Survey, an active fault is a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and most recently revised in 2007 (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Aiquist-Priolo Act. Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest active regional fault is the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 4.6 miles (7.4 kilometers) west of the site. 3.2 Seismic Design Parameters The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern California. The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the California Building Code and state-of-the-art seismic design practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Provided below in the Table I are the risk-targeted spectral acceleration parameters for the project determined in accordance with the 2013 California Building Code (CBSC, 2013a) and the USGS Worldwide Seismic Design Values tool (Version 3.1.0). 4 -9- Leighton 10075.009 Table I 2013 CBC Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters Site Class D Site Coefficients Fa = 1.048 F= 1.565 Mapped MCER Spectral Ss = 1.131g Accelerations S1 = 0.435g Site Modified MCER Spectral SMS = 1.185g Accelerations SMI = 0.6819 Design Spectral Accelerations SDS = 0.790g SDI = 0.454g Utilizing ASCE Standard 7-10, in accordance with Section 11.8.3, the following additional parameters for the peak horizontal ground acceleration are associated with the Geometric Mean Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEG). The mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration (PGA) is 0.449g for the site. For a Site Class D, the FPGA is 1.051 and the mapped peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects (PGA,1) is 0.472g for the site. 3.3 Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, lateral spreading, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections. 3.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture No active faults are mapped crossing the site, and the site is not located within a mapped Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. 40 -10- Lekjhton 10075.009 3.3.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most clayey material are not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement and, possibly, sand boils where insufficient confining overburden is present over liquefied layers. Where sloping ground conditions are present, liquefaction-induced instability can result. Based on the results of our previous studies, reports (Appendix A), and geotechnical analysis it is our professional opinion that the site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction resulting from ground shaking at the design ground motion. 3.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be very low. -11- Leightcn 10075.009 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical review of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that we expect may affect development of the site. The location of the proposed improvements is within an area underlain by existing documented fill placed as part of the original rough grading of the park and by Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits and Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Areas of undocumented fill and disturbed soils up to approximately 3 to 5 feet in thickness may be located in areas of existing improvements and landscape areas. These materials, if encountered, should be removed prior to the placement of additional fills or construction of improvements. The upper I to 2 feet of previously placed documented fill is weathered and should be removed and reprocessed prior to the placement of additional fills or construction of improvements. Additional overexcavation or undercutting may be needed, if cut to fill transitions are encountered. Existing underground utilities and construction debris should be anticipated during future grading and construction. The depths and location of these utilities are unknown at this time. It should be noted that backfill associated with utility trenches should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may require complete removal prior to placement of additional fill or construction of foundations. We anticipate that the soils present on the site will be generally rippable with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Although foundation plans have not been finalized and building loads were not provided at the time this report was drafted, we anticipate that a lightly loaded conventional foundation system, consisting of continuous and spread footings with slab-on-grade flooring supported by competent documented fill materials or Terrace Deposits, will be utilized for the site structures. Additionally we anticipate that some of the interior tank structures and/or equipment may utilize mat foundations. Based on previous laboratory testing, the soils on the site generally possess a very low to low expansion potential. Nevertheless, there may be localized areas -12- Leiq :itcn 10075.009 across the site and between our exploration locations having a higher expansion potential. Based on previous laboratory testing, the soils present on the site have a negligible potential for sulfate attack on normal concrete, and are moderately to severely corrosive to buried ferrous metals. These tests should be confirmed upon completion of the grading activities where appropriate. A corrosion consultant should be consulted. The existing onsite soils are suitable material for fill construction provided they are relatively free of organic material, debris, and cobbles or rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension. Ground water was not encountered during the site investigation or grading. Therefore, ground water is not considered a constraint on the proposed project development. However, perched ground water and seepage may develop within sandy layers and along the less permeable clay and silt layers within the Terrace Deposits and along the fill and Terrace Deposit contact during periods of precipitation or increased landscape irrigation. Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity or project toward the site. However, the proposed project is located in the seismically active region of southern California and can expect to be subjected to seismic shaking during its design life. Our review of the geologic literature (Appendix A) along with the results of our study, indicate that the probability of geologic hazards including, tsunamis and seiche, Iandsliding, liquefaction, and seismic induced settlement are considered low for the site. Low Impact Development (LID) measures may impact down gradient improvements and the use of unlined LID measures may not be appropriate for this project. -13- Leighton 10075.009 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during earthwork operations and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. A review of the grading and foundation plans should be performed prior to construction. 5.1 Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of remedial grading of the undocumented fill and disturbed documented fill for new site improvements; utility construction; subgrade preparation in pavement areas; foundation excavation; and retaining wall construction and backfill operations. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix B. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix B. 5.1.1 Site Preøaration The areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures, or hardscape should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris and undocumented or loose weathered fill soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removals beneath the proposed building and/or structures should extend at least 2 feet below the proposed footing bottoms into the competent documented fill soils and laterally approximately 5 feet beyond the building/structure footprint. Removals beneath the proposed surface pavements should extend at least 2 feet below the proposed subgrade elevation into the competent documented fill soils. Virk -14- Leighton 10075.009 Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, brought to above optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557. If clayey soils that are more expansive (El>70) are encountered, increased moisture and revised recommendations may be needed. 5.1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material Shallow excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Localized heavy ripping may be required if cemented and concretionary lenses are encountered in deeper excavations. Shallow, temporary excavations, such as utility trenches with vertical sides, in the engineered fill and formational materials should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions or seeps. In accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored or be laid back to if workers are to enter such excavations. Temporary sloping gradients should be determined in the field by a "competent person" as defined by OSHA. For preliminary planning, sloping of surficial soils at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) may be assumed. Excavations greater than 20 feet in height will require an alternative sloping plan or shoring plan prepared by a California registered civil engineer. 5.1.3 Cut/Fill Transitions In order to minimize potential differential settlement, we recommend that proposed buildings and settlement sensitive structures be entirely underlain by a layer of properly compacted fill. Cut portions of areas planned for structures, if any, should be ovérexcavated to a minimum depth of 2 feet below lowest footing bottom elevation and replaced with properly compacted fill. The overexcavated areas should be graded with a 1 percent gradient sloping toward the deeper fill areas, if possible. -15- Leighton 10075.009 5.2 Foundation Design Considerations As discussed in the preceding section, we anticipate that the proposed improvements will be supported on spread footings, drilled piles (CIDH), and/or mat slabs. The following sections address the recommendations for these types of foundation systems. 5.2.1 Conventional Foundations Footings should extend at least 18-inches beneath the lowest adjacent finish grade. At these depths, footings founded in properly compacted fill soil or formational material may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 psf. The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 15 inches for continuous footings and 18 inches for square or round footings. Continuous footings should have a minimum reinforcement of four No. 5 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom). Footings should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements. The recommended allowable bearing capacity for spread footings is based on a maximum allowable total and differential settlements of 1-inch and 3/4-inch. Since settlements are functions of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns, where large differential loading conditions exist. With increased footing depth to width ratios, differential settlement should be less. We recommend a horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes and retaining wall for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures. The distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2 and need not be greater than 15 feet. Utility trenches that parallel or nearly parallel structural footings should not encroach within a 1:1 plane extending downward from the outside edge of footing. Please note that the soil within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be 'p 40 -16- Lcighton iDI.1.1sIsI subject to lateral movement, and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade beam foundation system to support the improvement. Deepened footings should meet the setback as described above. 5.2.2 Mat Foundation A soil modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch is recommended for design of structural mat foundations. Structural foundations should be designed by the project structural engineer utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. 5.3 Floor Slab Considerations Slab-on-grade floors should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 4 rebars 18 inches on center each way (minimum) placed at mid-height in the slab. We recommend control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. Where moisture-sensitive finishes are planned, underslab moisture protection should be designed by the project architect in accordance with Section 4.505 of the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CBSC, 2013). Prior to placement of the sand layer, the upper 6-inches of slab subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at or above the laboratory optimum moisture content. The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of the slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thickness and increased reinforcing may be required. 4 1 —17— Lekjhtoii 10075.009 5.4 Retaining Wall Design For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values in Table 2 for level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with very low to low expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 50). Table 2 Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 85 Passive 3 00 (maximum of 3 ksf) 150 (sloping down) Active earth pressures are considered are considered appropriate for walls that are allowed to rotate an amount equal to 0.002H at the top of the wall, where H is equal to the wall height. Where walls are not allowed to rotate that minimum amount, at-rest pressures are considered appropriate. Retaining structures should be provided with a drainage system, as illustrated in Appendix B, to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. For sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the soil-concrete interface. The lateral passive resistance can be taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structures will remain intact with time. Retaining wall footings should have a minimum embedment of 12 inches below the adjacent lowest grade unless deeper footings are needed for other reasons. To account for potential redistribution of forces during a seismic event, retaining walls providing lateral support where exterior grades on opposites sides differ by more than 6 feet fall under the requirements of 2013 CBC Section 1616A.1.11 and/or ASCE 7-10 Section 12.7.2 and should also be analyzed for seismic loading. For that analysis, an additional lateral seismic force of 8H2 pounds per foot acting at 0.6 of the wall height needs to be considered for the design of the retaining walls, where H is the height of the wall. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed MIS ø -18- Leiçjhtan 10075.009 to be equivalent to a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf, which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure given above. For other uniform surcharge loads, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 0.35q should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in psf). If segmental walls are planned, a friction angle of 28 degrees and a unit weight of 120 to 125 pcf are considered appropriate for the onsite materials. The design should be performed in accordance with NCMA methodology (NCMA, 2009) and design requirements of the wall system. 5.5 Surface Drainage and Erosion Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The proposed structures should have appropriate drainage systems to collect runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structure toward suitable drainage facilities. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structure or pavements. Over-watering of the site should be avoided. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest City of Carlsbad grading ordinances. 5.6 Concrete Flatwork Concrete sidewalks and other flatwork (including construction joints) should be designed by the project civil engineer and should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches. For all concrete flatwork, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 prior to the concrete placement. These recommendations are assuming low expansive materials are present within the upper 2 feet below subgrade. Control joints should be provided at a distance equal to 24 times the slab thickness in inches, not exceed 12 feet. Expansion joints should be incorporated where paving abuts a vertical surface, where paving changes direction and at 30 feet maximum spacing, joints should be laid out so as to create square or nearly square areas. Sidewalks should be reinforced with 6x6-6/6, or heavier, welded wire mesh slip dowels should be provided across control joints along ADA walkways, curbs, and at doorways. -19 45 - Leighton 10075.009 5.7 Plan Review Foundation and grading plans should be reviewed by Leighton to confirm that the recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans. 5.8 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information, our experience during rough grading, and subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced excavations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Construction observation of all onsite excavations and should be performed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. All footing excavations should be reviewed by this office prior to steel placement. -20- Lejhtcii 10075.009 6.0 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon field reconnaissance and our previous geotechnical study with widely spaced subsurface explorations. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. -21- Figures 0 2.000 4.000 Feet Project: 10075.009 EnglGeol: WDOIMDJ Scale:1 "= 2,000 Date: May 2015 Base Map: ESRI ArcOIS Online 2015 Thematic Information: Leighton Author: Leighton Geometics (mmwphy) SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 LEGOLAND - Sealife Maintenance Building I Carlsbad, California Nip Sued m V:tdmft110075t0oatM.p.410075-00e-FOI_SLM_2045.05-I9mld on 61191 015 5:2201 AM .LGND ::::T LIMITS 0 CUT FILL RZ IN GEOLOGIC CONTACT (DOTTED IN ' 0 0 0 s 00 WHERE BURIED) o 0 0 0000 2Z AREA OF ARTIFICIAL FILL AND DEBRIS \ Af ARTIFICFIAL FILL DOCUMENTED ) \\ J) - O\o 0 k 0 Afd ARTIFICIAL FILL & DEBRIS (CIRCLED WHERE BURIED) Qt QUATERNARY-AGED TERRACE ______- ,.-.. ( I fr 0 o. DEPOSITS (CIRCLED WHERE BURIED) SANTIAGO FORMATION (CIRCLED Tsa WHERE BURIED) Site Qt / \ \ I ôa T:\Tsa \Af \' ) \ \ • Pir4od 10075.000 E0WG.0twoiMDJ Rguru 2 Ga, M,.y2015 GEOTECKNICAL MAP LEGOLAND - Sealife Maintenance Building Catisbad, California I? APPENDIX A References 10075.009 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute (Ad), 2006, Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials. Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E. W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Aiquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, dated 1997 with 2007 Interim Revision. California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 2013, California Building Code. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey, 1:100,000 scale. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1995, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lego Family Park and Pointe Resorts, Lots 17 and 18 of the Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 950294-001, dated October 5, 1995. 1996, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Lego Family Park, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 960151-001, dated July 23. -, 1998, Final As-Graded Report of Rough-Grading, LEGOLAND, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960151-003, dated February 10. A-I 10075.009 APPENDIX A (Continued) NCMA, 2009, Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, 3rd Edition Tan, S. S. and Kennedy, M. P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Division of Mines and Geology (0MG) Open-File Report 96-02, San Luis Rey and San Marcos Quadrangles. Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 93-02, 45 p. United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 2013, US Seismic Design Map Tool/Calculator, Version 3.1.0. A-2 APPENDIX B General Earthwork and Grading Specifications LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. -1- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearina and Grubbin Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. -2- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. 2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical -3- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/AcceDtance of Fill Areas All areas to receive full, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 lmrort If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. -4- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method 01557). 4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method 01557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 ComDaction of Fill SloDes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557. 4.5 Compaction Testing Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to -5- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. -6- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 Safety The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 Bedding and Backfill All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.3 Lift Thickness Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction'unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. 7.4 Observation and Testing The densification of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. -7- PROJECTED ?LANE 1:1 - (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND EXISTING GROUND SURFACE - - UNSUITABLE 2L1 'BENCH HEIGHT MATERIAL (4 FEET TYPICAL) II I CI fiD 2 FEET MIN. LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) ALL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING. GROUND SURFACE BENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) 15 FEET MN. LOWEST 2 FEET-I BENCH (KEY) MIN. KEY \ DEPTH REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO .- FILL PLACEMENT TO ALLOW VIEWING OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS EXISTING GROUND SURFACE - CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT OVERBUILD AN TRIM BACK DESIGN SLOPE-.-., PROJECTED PLANE :- 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND f I -- 15 FEET MIN. 2 FEET MIN- LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) I UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1. MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET. I GENERAL EARTHWORK AND KEYING AND BENCHING GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL A Too FINISH GRADE --------------------------- SLOPE FACE -...... - - uN ------------------------------------ -------------- --------- - VPCSEI5 J-------------- WW tL / U MIN 10 ------------------------ - ----- OVERSIZE WINDROW _ OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION. EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE ROCK. BRCKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE VOIDS. DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEE OF FINISH GRADE. WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE. zole— GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY DETAIL FL000INC OR JETTING. E7TED OR FLOODED GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL B MOVE SUITABLE TERIAL B TRENCH SEE DETAIL BELOW 6" M:N. OVERLAP CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FT3/FT) WRAPPED ,':.". IN FILTER FABRIC ,'• ".• ..'. ..FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)' 6" MIN. COVER 4" MIN. BEDDING COLLLC FUR PIPI SHALL BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL 0 FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS DESIGN FINISH GRADE 10' MIN. ,,,...FILTER FABRIC BACKFILL / (MIRAFI I40N OR APPROVED CIMPACTED / EQUIVALENT) --CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FT-3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC 23' MIN. '15' MIN. 6" øMIN. PIPE PERFORATED NONPERFORATED 6"0 MIN. CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL C MIN. i 15' OUTLET PIPS 4" 12, NONPERFORATED PIPE, 100' fAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX O.C. VERTICALLY —BACK CU 1:1 OR FLATTER -BENCH SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET II WIDTH I AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS I-KEY DEPTH (15' MIN.) (2' MIN.) 12" MIN. OVERLA— FROM THE TOP HOG RINSS TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR Y2 ROCK (3 FT-3/FT) WRAPPED IN FIVER FABRIC r4" 0 I NON-PEFORA"ED I CUTLET PIPE _'- - - - - PROVIDE POSITIVE SEAL AT THE JOINT T-CON%IECTIOM FOR COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE ICOVER '•, ': PERFORATEDL PIPE ( -'----.--.- 5Z MIN ______ 4 MIN. —FILTER FABRIC BEDDING ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdoin collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or, unless otherwise designoted by :he geotechriicol consultant Outlet pipes Sf011 be non-perforoted pipe. The subdrain pipe shall hove at least 8 perfootions uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be 1/4" to 1/2" if drill holes ore used. All subdrain pipes shall hove a qrodiehi of at least 2% towards the outlet. SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdron pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40, or ASTM D303. SOR 23.5. Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride f'Io:t.c (PVC) pipe. All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wider than tNice the subdrain pipe. BUTTRESS OR GENERAL EARTHWORK AND REPLACEMENT GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Aga 71 FILL SUBDRAINS STANDARD DETAIL D CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVA110N REMOVE UNSUITABLE 3ROUND- -. I- -r 5 IMIN. I.. -------------- - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- XVOVX?OXSXkcJ - -COMPACTED P11± - - - -- E' MIN. ,(\/• - OVEREXCA VAlE TYPICAL AND RECOMP ACT - - - i'_• I' BENCHING - - - - UNWEATI-ERED BEDROCK )R MATERIAL APROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT TRANSITION LOT FILLS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL E SOIL BACKrILL. COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM 01557 RETAINING WALL- WALL WATERPROOFING -... PER ARCHITECTS SPECIFICATIONS FINISH GRADE ----------------------------- - :-:-:-:.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:coupAcT(D FIW-:-:- WALL. FOOTING I .. •N. •- 'vE' FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE o• :-:-:-:-:---(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED 0 • EOUIVALENT) 0 - 1 MN. 3/4" TO 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL • ? 4 (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED ---: PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR 00 EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS 0 :-:-:-:-: ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED 0 • 0 MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT 0 TO SUITABLE OUTLET 0 0 -- --- 3" MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE CEO1ECHNICAL CONSULTANT. COMPOS! IE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS SDECIFICATIONS RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL F FABRIC ACTIVE ZONE GRAVEL- DRAINAGE FILL MIN 6" BELOW WALL MIN 12" BEHIND UNITS NOTES: / / REINFORCED . RETAINED / ZONE : / / BACKDRAIN / TO7O%OF / WALL HEIGHT / LTER / / FABRIC •- -: / SUBDRAIN \ REAR SUBDRAIN: 4" (MIN) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE I FOUNDATION SOILSI (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN. SURROUNDED BY 1 CU. FT/FT OF 3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT) OUTLET SUBDRAINS EVERY 100 FEET, OR CLOSER, BY TIGHTLINE TO SUITABLE PROTECTED OUTLET 1) MATERIAL GRADATION AND PLASTICITY REINFORCED ZONE- r.RAVFL DRAINAGE FILL SIEVE SIZE PASSING 1 INCH 100 SIEVE SIZE 1 INCH % PA.SSING 100 NO.4 20-100 3/4 INCH 75-100 NO. 40 0-60 NO.4 0-60 NO. 200 0-35 NO. 40 0-50 FOR WALL HEIGHT <10 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX <20 NO. 200 0-5 FOR WALL HEIGHT 101020 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX <10 FOR TIERED WALLS, USE COMBINED WALL HEIGHTS WALL DESIGNER TO REQUEST SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR WALL HEIGHT >20 FEET CONTRACTOR TO USE SOILS WITHIN THE RETAINED AND REINFORCED ZONES THAT MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF WALL DESIGN. GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT TO BE DESIGNED BY WALL DESIGNER CONSIDERING INTERNAL, EXTERNAL, AND COMPOUND STABILITY. 3) GEOGRID TO BE PRETENSIONED DURING INSTALLATION. IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ACTIVE ZONE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO POST-CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT. ANGLE a=45+442, WHERE 'I' IS THE FRICTION ANGLE OF THE MATERIAL IN THE RETAINED ZONE. BACKDRAIN SHOULD CONSIST OF J-DRAIN 302 (OR EQUIVALENT) OR 6-INCH THICK DRAINAGE FILL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC. PERCENT COVERAGE OF BACKDRAIN TO BE PER GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW. SEGMENTAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND 4 I GRADING SPECIFICATIONS RETAINING WALLS I STANDARD DETAIL G r.w.Apel landscape architects inc. TRANSMITTAL Date: May 28, 2019 To: City of Carlsbad Building Department Faraday Center ,rr iyj j Z MAY 282019 CITY C. CARLSBAD BUILD:NG DIVISION From: Richard Apel Subject: CBC 2019-0078. Building permit plan check resubmittal for project "New Restroom at Sea Life Aquarium Carlsbad". (2st review) Sent via: - Mail -X-Hand Delivery _Express Mail - Other Transmitted is the following: Document Date Quantity Description 5/20/2019 A sets Construction drawings, "New Restroom at Sea Life Aquarium Carlsbad". 5/24/2019 ( copies Letter to City of Carlsbad Fire Prevention Bureau, Subject: Response to Plan Check Comments, R. W. Apel. Comments: The attached plans are resubmitted for plan check. The plans have been revised to address Fire Prevention comments (Cynthia Wong dated 4/11/19) on the first plan check submittal. We received no comments from Esgil, Planning or Engineering and have been informed they have signed off on the first plan check. Please call Richard Apel at telephone (760) 807-6564 if you have any questions. 571-B Hygeia Avenue, Leucadia, CA 92024 tel & fax 760-943-0760• rwapel2@cox.net CA License 2825 r.w.Apel landscape architects inc. TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED FEB 27 2019 Date: February 27, 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD To: City of Carlsbad Building Department BUILDING DIVISION Faraday Center From: Richard Apel Subject: CBC 2019-0078. Building permit plan check for project "New Restroom at Sea Life Aquarium Carlsbad". Additional Submittal Items (15t review) Sent via: - Mail _X-Hand Delivery _Express Mail - Other Transmitted is the following: Date Quantity Description 12-11-2018 1 Structural calculations for proposed restroom building, prepared by NTA Inc. 12-18-2018 1 CA Building Energy Efficiency Standard Certificate of Compliance for proposed restroom building, prepared by Public Restroom Company. 2-25-2019 1 Letter re: Geotechnical Review of Grading and Structural Plans, Proposed New Restroom in Sea Life Aquarium, LEGOLAND Theme Park, Carlsbad, CA, prepared by Leighton and Asso. Inc. 10-26-2018 1 Letter & report, Geotechnical Update Letter Proposed Sealife Restrooms LEGOLAND California, Carlsbad, CA., prepared by Leighton and Associates., Inc. Comments: Please add these items to your plan check, they were missing from the original submittal made on 2/25/2019. We have submitted a second copy of these items directly to Esgil Corp for their plan check to avoid delays (hand delivered today). Any questions, please call Richard Apel at telephone (760) 807-6564. 571-B Hygeia Avenue, Leucadia, CA 92024 . tel & fax 760-943-0760 rwapel2@cox.net CA License 2825