The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP 15-26; LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H2O; STORM WATER MITIGATION PLAN; 2015-12-10( City of Carlsbad, CA PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT STORM WATER MITIGATION PLAN FOR LLC H20 ENGINEER OF WORK Damon A. Smith, P.E. PREPARED FOR: S'DP 15 ,J-b/ 0D P ls---S-o Merlin Entertainment Group, US Holdings c/o Project Management Advisors, Inc. December 10, 2015 462 Stevens Street, Suite 106 Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858) 704-1962 PREPARED BY: Damon A. Smith, P.E. DCI Engineers 2600 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 892-4950 RECEIVED DEC 10 2015 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION C TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Declaration of Responsible Charge 2.0 Summary of Project Information 3.0 Pre-Project Site Conditions and Drainage Patterns Narrative 4.0 Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Narrative 5.0 Sources of Pollutants from the Site 6.0 Project Hydrologic Location 7.0 Identification of 303(d) Impaired Receiving Waters 8.0 Identification of Pollutants Associated with Priority Project Category 9.0 Identification of Pollutants of Concern 10.0 Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) Applicability Determination 11.0 Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) 12.0 Identification of BMPs Applicable to Individual Priority Project Categories 13.0 Implementation of Site Design Low Impact Development (LID) Practices 14.0 Treatment Facilities for Special Circumstances 15.0 Summary of OMA Treatment Practices 16.0 Projected Storm Water BMP Maintenance Mechanism 17.0 Summary and Conclusion Narrative LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( Appendices LLC H20 Appendix A Vicinity Map Appendix B Soil Type Exhibit Appendix C Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map Appendix D Pre-Project Site Condition & Drainage Pattern Exhibit Appendix E SWMP BMP Exhibit Appendix F Storm Water Standards Questionnaire Appendix G Geotechnical Report Appendix H Covenant and Agreement Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( 1.0 Declaration of Responsible Charge I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code. I understand and acknowledge that the check of this Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan by the City of Carlsbad is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, of my responsibilities for project design. As Engineer of Work, I agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all liability, claims, damages, or injuries to any person or property which might arise from the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the Engineer of Work, my employees, agents or consultants. LLCH20 Engineer-of-Work Damon A. Smith, P.E. Print Name DCI Engineers Company LLC H20 # C80896 RCE Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan 12/10/15 Date DCI Engineers ( C 2.0 Summary of Project Information Project Name Application Number(s) Project Address Assessor Parcel Number(s) Total Parcel Area Proposed Project Description and Land Use Applicable Priority Development Project Categories Redevelopment Project that Creates or Replaces 5,000 square feet of Impervious Surface Project Disturbed Area Pre-project Impervious Area Proposed Impervious Area LLC H20 LLCH20 1 Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA 206-042-28-00 7.10 Acres 40,521 Square Feet The proposed project consists of a new three story hotel with pool and outdoor amenities over an existing asphalt parking lot. Project will include re-location of 97 ADA parking stalls as well as grading for a surface parking lot for hotel ests D New Development that creates more than 10,000 SF of impervious surfaces [8J Creating or replacing 5,000SF or more of impervious surface D New or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 SF or more of impervious surface and supports a restaurant D New or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 SF or more of impervious surface and supports a hillside development project D New or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 SF or more of impervious surface and supports a parking lot D New or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 SF or more of impervious surface and supports a street, road, highway, or driveway D New or redevelopment project that creates 2,500 SF or more of impervious surface and discharges directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area D Automotive Repair Shop D Retail Gasoline Outlets Land Disturbance eater than one acre □Not Applicable 7.lOAcres 6.42Acres 5.03 Acres [8l Increases or Increases or Replaces >50% Replaces <50% of Pre-Project of Pre-Project Impervious Impervious Surface Surface 309,276 Square Feet 279,655 Square Feet 219,107 Square Feet Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers Proposed Pervious Area 2.07 Acres 190,169 Square Feet ( Project Hydrologic Unit D Santa Margarita D San Luis Rey Watershed [XI Carlsbad Project Hydrologic Soil Group □A 1~B l □c l □o Number of Discharge Locations 1 Location(s) Required to Implement HMP 0Yes ,~No C LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers / \ \ 3.0 Pre-Project Site Conditions and Drainage Patterns Narrative The proposed LLC H20 (Hotel) project is situated fully within the existing theme park property just north of Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad. The site is currently graded and developed with a surface parking lot. The project site is characterized by a gentle-sloping topography with an average slope of 3.5%. At regular intervals, landscape berms are located within the parking lot where grade drops up to 6-7 feet. Existing drainage patterns generally direct surface water flows to the east in the direction of an existing detention basin located along the back of the Right of Way along Palomar Airport Road. An analysis of record drawing prepared by Nolte Associates, Inc. indicates that the original detention basin was sized to handle the volume of runoff from the entire park property at fully developed conditions. 3.1 Geotechnical Conditions An original Subsurface field investigation was conducted in 2008 and consisted of four small- diameter hollow-stem auger borings at depths ranging from 21 to 75.5 feet below the existing surface. An update to the Geotechnical investigation of the project site was conducted by Leighton and Associates in 2008 with an update in May of 2011 and again in 2015. The soil was excavated to a maximum depth of 51 feet using procedures in line with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and the Modified California Ring samplers at selected intervals. Geotechnical exploration showed the presence of artificial fill soils, agricultural debris. Quaternary-aged Alluvium, Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits and the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Artificial fill can be found on the proposed site at depths of 10 to 55 feet beneath ground surface. The fill was derived from on-site excavation sin the late 1990s during the construction of the original Theme Park. Compaction on the soils appears to be at a minimum of 90% relative compaction. During the construction of the original theme park, large quantities of agricultural debris were discovered and removed from beneath the surface of the park's parking lot. Additional agricultural debris is not anticipated on this site. Beneath the artificial fill, Terrace Deposits and the Santiago Formation form a bed of silty-fine and medium grained sands to the maximum depth of the investigation Groundwater was not encountered at maximum depths during either of the geotechnical investigations on the site. During the investigation, however, perched groundwater conditions were observed in Boring B-1 at an approximate depth of 65 feet below surface. Due to the nature of the sub-surface soils on the site, the Geotechnical Engineer recommends that infiltration of stormwater be avoided. In areas where localized infiltration is proposed, an underdrain system is recommended at low points of the pavement sub-grade. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( ( \ I \ 3.1 Existin~ Utilities The proposed hotel is located atop an existing asphalt parking lot designed and constructed in 1998. Under the original site design, domestic water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain piping were provided in a public utility easement along the perimeter of the facility. Proposed and existing utilities are included in Appendix D of this report. In order to facilitate the construction of the original portion of the hotel, dry utilities, including a private 12 kV duct bank and a private telecom duct bank were routed through the parking lot and are now situated beneath the proposed structure. Prior to the construction of the proposed hotel expansion, the utilities will require re-location by a licensed contractor. Table 3.1 Site Development Constraints ·.~~H~i~I~;i~,t~'.19~~;'1~{wJijt!~~~~fii1nl;;•• D Limited Available Hydraulic Head [8J Low Permeability of Soils D High Groundwater D Contaminated Soils D Geotechnical Instability [8J Perimeter Conditions D High Intensity Land Use D Heavy Pedestrian Traffic D Heavy Vehicular Traffic D Restricted Right-of-Way D Existing Easements D Inadequate Down-Stream Drainage Infrastructure D Public Safety Concerns [8J Other This site is located in an area subject to the San Diego County Hydromodification Plan Comments: LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers I \ 4.0 Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Narrative The proposed hotel expansion sits on the site of existing fill soils, remnants of the original Carlsbad Ranch. While vegetative debris was encountered in the immediate area during previous construction, the limits of the artificial fill are not expected to impact this development. A geotechnical investigation conducted by Leighton and Associates, indicated that the construction of the expansion is feasible and provided recommendations for the earthwork. Due to the original topography of the ranch, the Theme Park parking lot was originally designed as a series of three terraced steps descending down the hill towards Palomar Airport Road. Between each terrace, an approximately 30 foot wide landscape planter slopes at approximately 20% to make up 6 feet vertically. The design of the hotel intended to minimize the amount of earthwork by balancing the cut and fill on the site to the best extent practical. Retaining walls are anticipated on the south and east ends of the site to support the proposed construction of the hotel and fire access. The wall is intended to reduce the impact of the project to the existing parking on the lower parking lot tier. With minor modifications, the existing parking drive aisle can be used as a fire access road to serve the south side of the hotel. 4.1 Proposed Site Development The proposed hotel projects has been designed to maintain the existing flow conditions on the property. The site has been divided into three main components, closely matching the three drainage basins in the original hydrology study prepared by Nolte Associates in 1998. Flows in Basins 100-300 shall be conveyed into a series of catch basins and underground pipes discharging into an existing 60 inch conveyance running parallel to Legoland Drive. On the eastern part of the site (Basin 400), an existing catch basin will be replaced, connecting into the existing 36 inch storm drain system running north to south under the current hotel. The existing western side of the parking lot contributed approximately 18.10 CFS, approximately 10% of the total flows, into the 60 inch RCP drainage pipe. On the eastern side, the asphalt surface contributes approximately 10. 78 CFS to the existing 36 inch storm drain under the original Hotel structure (for a 10 year design storm). Under the proposed conditions, the impervious asphalt is replaced with a new hotel with landscaping, amenities, and a pervious fire access road which is expected to reduce the overall impervious conditions at the site. By design, the proposed hotel expansion will limit runoff to a total of 22.63 CFS (proportionately split between the two drainage basins), a reduction in the overall runoff of the site1• By reducing the total impervious area and promoting the capture of runoff through pervious areas, the project is exempt from hydro-modification criteria. In 2007, the Water Resources Control Board passed new regulations requiring the treatment of the water quality volume by all new priority developments. Order No. R9-2007-0001 required all priority developments to capture, treat, and infiltrate or release the volume equivalent to the 85th percentile storm event. In addition, the permit stipulates that Hydro-modification Management be implemented for all Priority Development Projects, with an exemption available if the amount LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( I \ of impervious area is being reduced, and the overall site peak runoff is reduced by the new development. Under the guidance of the City of Carlsbad's SUSMP plan, the Hotel expansion qualifies as a Priority Development Project as it results in the addition or replacement of over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. Utilizing the criteria set forth in the Carlsbad SUSMP, the 85th Percentile storm event for the region of Carlsbad, CA is approximately 0.65 inches. From section 4 in the City of Carlsbad SUSMP LID Design Guide, the water quality volume can be calculated with the following equation: WQV=AxCxUV Where WQV = Design water quality Volume (CF) A = Tributary Area (SF) C = Runoff Coefficient UV= Minimum Unit Volume (85th Percentile rainfall) As an alternate means of calculating the water quality design storm, an equivalent rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour can be utilized for flow-based BMPs. For the purposes of this project, the flow-based calculation has been used to size the appropriate MWS systems. In addition to water quality treatment, the proposed expansion falls within the Loma Alta Creek watershed of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, a receiving water body that is susceptible to erosion downstream. As a result, the project must meet the minimum standards for hydro- modification as set forth in Provision D.1.g of California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order R9-2007-0001. By maintaining or reducing the total pervious area, and reducing the peak flows from the site, this condition is waived, enabling the project to take advantage of more cost-effective treat and release systems. The proposed Hotel project is located within an area of Carlsbad that is subject to locations of former artificial fill, and agricultural debris. While these have been removed from the location, large-scale infiltration on the site is not preferred. The design of the project was developed to allow for stormwater runoff from the parking lot to flow towards a series of manufactured bio- filtration systems (Modular Wetland System) along the pre-existing drainage patterns for the site. The MWS systems use a proprietary bio-filtration media to treat the stormwater runoff in accordance with Low Impact Design guidelines. Overflows from the system will bypass treatment and enter the private storm drain system wen rout e to a pre-designed drainage basin located along Palomar Airport Road. Landscaped areas throughout the project site reduce the portion of impervious areas and promote small scale infiltration into native soils. Within landscaped areas, area drains have LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers been designed to capture excess water and convey the flows into the sub-surface on-site storm drainage system. Onsite runoff is conveyed via pipe flow towards the south end of the project into the MWS system for treatment. IOiltlftl .(ln~Ffttt : Slln~Ffttl ~Ilion leillnlOO latift HO ·lasln lOO llsift«IO llotat I .... 100 · laain ZGO · llatln JOO lalln «IO ITotal lmoervlOU$ ltOOf 0 0 0 ( I 0 0 70,046 ( 70.041 COn11ent1Qn,1l A$¢1alt 81,936 93,305 47,023 51,39() 219,65'1 40,985 40,lOS 45,005 126,095 ConvcntiOnal Concrete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,SU 7,94, 25,45' otal 81936 9'3,305 47,023 57,390 ffl,6!14 40985 40,lOS 87557 52,947 221.51111 Pervious Landscaping 828 10,368 8.298 10,128 29,622 1,268 405 58,:370 26,59( 86,633 Porous A~phalt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C !Porous Concrete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C !Crushed Stone 0 0 ll 0 0 0 1,92( 1,92C rotal 828 10,368 8,298 10,128 U,W 1,268. 40S 58,370 2a,s10 .. ,$SJ 4.2 Proposed Stormwater Drainage Patterns For the purposes of this project, existing drainage conditions, identified in detail in Section 3.3, were maintained to the maximum extent practical. In keeping with the original grading concept for the Theme Park, runoff from the property will flow in the southerly direction over the asphalt parking lot into a series of curb-opening catch basins located on the southern boundary of our proposed limits of work. Drainage from the roof and inner hotel courtyards will be captured in area drains and piped underground in the direction of the existing stormwater flows. The proposed project has been split into four basins, each of which ranges in size from 40,000 square feet to 146,000 square feet. In accordance with the San Diego County Hydrology Manual of 2003, a Rational Method Analysis was conducted to account for the peak runoff from the project site. The analysis uses the equation Q=CxlxA Where Q = Peak Runoff at (xx) storm interval in CFS C = Runoff Coefficient I= Intensity per Figure 3-1 of the S.D. Hydrology Manual in inches/hour A= Total size of the tributary area in acres LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers C The rainfall intensity was determined based on a minimum time of concentration of 5 minutes for developed areas within San Diego County. The Intensity Duration Design Chart, located as Figure 3-1 of the SDHM converts the adjusted 6 hr precipitation value obtained from Isopluvial maps into an average rainfall intensity using the following equation: I = 7.44 X p6 X D -0.645 Where I= Average intensity for a given duration (inches/hour) P6 = Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (in inches) D = Total rainfall duration (in minutes) A rational method study was performed for the proposed site with the design storm frequencies of 10 year, 25 year, 50 year and 100 year storm events. The total peak runoff has been tabulated in Table 1 below. Due to the increase in pervious areas on the site, the peak runoff throughout the design intervals was reduced from the pre-project conditions. T bl I Pak a C : C fff runo romca u • tn stin2 con chS boos· Exi · lions f1ow to Southwnt Comer lflc,w to Southeut Comer Design Storm Event Basin 100 IBa8in 200 8a8in300 8a8in 400 Total Peak Runoff (CFSI 10 Yr-24 h(tUC 8,464' 9.63' 4.8577~ 592875 28,K< 25 Yr-24 hour 1L2tlt 12.85 6.47. 7.90: 38.52 ISO Yr-24 hour 1222~ U9:Z: 7.016T. 8.56375 41.73 100 Yr-24 hour 14-1075 16.06! 8.0962!! 9.88JZ!i 48.l.! Table 1: Peak runoff from each Sub-basin Pron<l'U'ti conditions Flow to Scruthwnt Comer Flow to Southent Corner Design Storm Event Buin100 Basin200 Basin JOO Buin400 Total Peak Runoff ICFSl 10 Yr-24 hour 3-9721! 4.14.'\1 9.04; 5.4691: 22.(,.1005 25 Yr-24 ht.1ur 5.2% 5524 12,lN 7.29: 30.1734 50 Yr-24 hour 5.737'1' 5.9845 13.06' 7.90075 32.~785 100Yr-24hour 6.62025 6.90525 15.cm 9.116'!.S 37.71675 LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( Table 4.1 Site Development Opportunities D Adequate Available Hydraulic Head D Permeable Soils [8J Groundwater Separation [8J Geotechnical Stability D Perimeter Conditions D Existing Natural Areas D Undevelopable Areas [8J Adequate Down Stream Drainage Infrastructure 00ther Comments: The proposed plan intends to reduce the overall impervious are on the site, reducing stormwater runoff, and increasing the developed time of concentration. As a result of this reduction by design, hydro-modification is not applicable and only water quality treatment must be provided. Water quality treatment shall be provided in accordance with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's MS4 permit. Down-stream flow control parameters are met with the existing infrastructure. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( 5.0 Sources of Pollutants from the Site Based on the project's land use and anticipated operations, the development of a hotel at this project site may lead to the potential for the generation of additional or different pollutants than the original use. Certain pollutants of concern are included on the EPA' s 303( d) list of impairments to the downstream water bodies of the Loma Alta Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina and the Pacific Ocean. These pollutants have been addressed in this Storm Water Management Plan. Anticipated Pollutants of Concern include: Selenium, Sediment Toxicity Due to the existence of parking areas, routine generation of trash, and landscape requirements on the site, pollutants of concern include bacteria and trash and debris. Due to the landscaping surrounding the development and associated parking surfaces, excessive generation of nutrients is also addressed by this SWMP. Oils and grease are not as significant of a concern as the community is designed for temporary habitation by guests and does not include long-term parking or vehicle maintenance. During construction activities, grading and earthwork on the site will increase the potential for sediment from the site. Sediment discharge will be addressed with the applicable permits during construction and is not anticipated to be a concern post- construction. Pollutants of Concern ·.· •· ·.· Circle One: E= Expected to be Pollutant of concern Additional Information and Comments N=Not Expected to be of concern Suspended-Solid/ ; C-' ; ' . N ; Sediment . . ; ' ····~ '"··· .. ---J•-«••-···-«·-···-·· Nutrients N ?'" . ···-··· ······r··-G ~---- Heavy Metals ~ E --'----·--··· --------• ·····-·-~ ·----.-·-··------·-·-' Pathogens . C, . ' ' . ; ' . N ' (Bacteria/Virus) i ' i ? r ® I Pesticides E -.,.. -·--· -h~-1 Oil and Grease E . ···----------------- Toxic Organic . . l E Compounds ' ' LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers I Trash and Debris N I 6.0 Project Hydrologic Location The proposed development is located to the west of Interstate 5 and north of Palomar Airport Road in the central part of Carlsbad, CA. The project is situated within the existing Theme Park and in located approximately 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean. Stormwater runoff from the area is captured in a series of catch basins and conveyed to an existing engineered detention basin prior to discharge into the existing municipal storm drain system underneath Palomar Airport Road. The proposed development is located in the Loma Alta Creek sub-watershed within the greater Carlsbad watershed. [gl Loma Alta 904.10 Not Applicable ~ Carlsbad 904.00 D Buena Vista Creek 904.20 0 El Saito 904.21 0 Vista 904.22 D Agua Hedionda 904.30 D Los Monos 904.31 LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers / \ ( \. 7.0 Identification of 303(d) Impaired Receiving Waters ~ Loma Alta Creek 90410000 / 18070303 LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan Selenium Toxicity DCI Engineers ( ( \ 8.0 Identification of Pollutants Associated with Priority Project Category D Detached Residential Development D Attached Residential Development ~ Commercial Development D Heavy Industry or Industrial Development D Automotive Repair Shop ~ Restaurants LLC H20 Sediment Nutrients Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil &Grease Bacteria & Viruses Pesticides Sediment Nutrients Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances (if landscape exists on-site) Oil & Grease (if uncovered parking areas exist on-site) Bacteria & Viruses Pesticides Sediment (if landscape exists on-site) Nutrients (if landscape exists on-site) Heavy Metals Organic Compounds (if uncovered parking areas exist on-site) Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances (includes solvents) Oil &Grease Bacteria & Viruses (if land use includes food or animal waste products) Pesticides includes solvents Sediment Heavy Metals Organic Compounds Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil &Grease Heavy Metals Organic Compounds (includes petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents) Trash & Debris Oil &Grease Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil &Grease Bacteria & Viruses Pesticides (if landscape exists on-site) Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( ( D Hillside Development Water Quality D Environmentally Sensitive Area (WQESA) [gl Parking Lots D Retail Gasoline Outlets D Streets, Highways & Freeways [gl Land Disturbance Greater than One Acre LLC H20 Sediments Nutrients Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil &Grease Pesticides Apply General Pollutant Categories consistent with related Priority Project Categories Sediments (if landscape exists on-site) Nutrients (if landscape exists on-site) Heavy Metals Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances (if landscape exists on- site) Oil &Grease Pesticides if landsca e exists on-site Heavy Metals Organic Compounds Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil &Grease Sediments Nutrients (if landscape exists on-site) Heavy Metals Organic Compounds (including petroleum hydrocarbons) Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances (includes solvents) Oil &Grease Bacteria & Viruses Pesticides if landsca e exists on-site Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals Organic Compounds Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil &Grease Bacteria & Viruses Pesticides Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers 9.0 Identification of Pollutants of Concern Chloride Sediment/Siltation [g!Sediment □copper D Nutrients D Sediment Toxicity [gl Selenium [gl Sediment D Phosphorus D Sulfates □Sediment Total Nitro en as N 0 Chloride Sulfates D Total Dissolved [gl Nutrients D Eutrophic Solids D Nutrients D Nutrients D Total Nitrogen as N D Phosphorus Toxici □copper D Sulfates [gl Heavy Metals □Manganese D Total Dissolved [gl Heavy Metals Solids D Sediment Toxicity [gl Toxici Organic Eutrophic [gl Toxicity Organic Com ounds D Sediment Toxici Com ounds D Eutrophic D Total Dissolved \ [gl Trash & Debris □Nutrients Solids [gl Trash & Debris D Sediment Toxici Toxici [gl Oxygen D Eutrophic D Sulfates □oxygen D Total Dissolved Demanding □Nutrients Solids Demanding Substances D Phosphorus D Total Nitro en as N Substances [gl Oil & Grease D Eutrophic □Toxicity [gl Oil & Grease [gl Sediment Toxici D Enterococcus D Indicator Bacteria [gl Bacteria & Viruses D Eutrophic D Total Coliform [gl Bacteria & Viruses D Fecal Coliform Copper D Eutrophic D Sediment Toxicity [gl Pesticides □Phosphate D Sulfates D Pesticides D Total Nitrogen as D Toxicity N LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers c· Sediment Modular Wetland System Integrated Landscape management; Street Sweeping of Streets, drivewa s and arkin lots; Heavy Metals Modular Wetland System Street Sweeping of Streets, drivewa s and arkin lots; Organic Compounds Modular Wetland System Integrated Landscape Mana ement; Trash and Debris Common Area Litter Control; Modular Wetland System; Designated trash enclosures; Bacteria and Viruses Modular Wetland System Resident Educational Outreach Pro ams; Oil and Grease Installation of Grease Street Sweeping of Streets, Interce tor drivewa s and arkin lots; Pesticides Integrated Landscape Mana ement; ( LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers 10.0 Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) Applicability Determination NO YESorN/A NO YES End of Decision Matrix NO NO Redealgn Enecgy Olsslpalion System NO 14. Hydromodificalion Conlrols Required Go to Figure 6-2 or Declsion Matrix Figure 6-1 . HMP Applicability Determination LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers Table 10.1 HMP A Node 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LLC H20 Component Priority Development Pro'ect Proper Energy Dissipation rease Impervious Area rease Unmitigated Peak ws to Any Outlet Direct Discharge to an Exem tS stem Direct Discharge to a Tidally Influenced Lagoon Area Direct Discharge to Stabilized Conveyance to Exem tS stem Does Stabilized Conveyance Have Capacity to Convey Ultimate Q10 Discharge to Highly Urbanized Area Urban Infill Project Discharging to Stabilized Conve ance Determine Domain of Analysis Stabilized Conveyance Extends Beyond Domain of Analysis and Eventually Discharges to LOW Susce tibili Stream Cumulative Future Impacts Represent <3 % Im ervious Area Increase Response ~ Yes-GotoNode2 Yes -Go to Node 3 D Yes-GotoNodeS D Yes-Go to Nodes D Yes -Exempt D Yes -Potentially Exempt D Yes-Go to Node 8 D Yes -Exempt D Yes -Exempt D Yes-Go to Node 11 D Yes -Go to Node 12 See HMP Section 5.2 D Yes -Go to Node 13 D Yes -Exempt Response 0No-Exempt Intentionally left blank ~ No -Go to Node 4 ~No-Exempt D No-Goto Node 6 D No-Goto Node 7 D No -Go to Node 9 D No-Go toNode9 D No -Go to Node 10 D No -HMP Controls Required GotoNode14 Intentionally Left Blank Does Not Apply to Node 11 D No -HMP Controls Required GotoNode14 D No -HMP Controls Required GotoNode14 Go to HMP Manual, Figure 6-2 of Decision Matrix for HMP Mitigation Criteria and Implementation Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( ( 11.0 Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) As a part of the Storm Water Mitigation Plan for the Hotel Project, various measures shall be taken by the property owners and operators to ensure the protection of water quality for the life of the facility. In addition to the design of structural Best Management Practices such as the proposed Modular Wetland Systems, the facility will implement a detailed plan for education, employee outreach, and training regarding the protection of water quality on the site. The following source control measures shall be implemented throughout the life of the facility: Nl Education for Property Owners, Tenants, and Occupants The proposed hotel project will include continuing education to promote the goals of protecting the water quality of local waterways in the Carlsbad region. A water quality component will be included during initial employee training to promote proper implementation of BMPs and source control measures during daily hotel operations. Occupants of the facility as well as maintenance personnel will be reminded of available water conservation measures and provided with access to facilities for the proper disposal of wastes. N2 Activity Restrictions The facility will restrict on-site and associated activities with the potential to cause a degradation in the water quality of downstream waters. During periods of inclement weather, activities that may increase the potential for sediment, oils and greases, or pathogens to enter the storm drain system will be temporarily suspended. During construction, activities with a potential for increased sediment or pollutant loading will be scheduled around forecasted weather conditions. N3 Common Area Landscape Management The project will utilize common area landscape management to control the over-irrigation of landscaping and promote the natural growth of landscaping on the project. Irrigation on the site will be provided through recycled water. Quantities and timing of irrigation will be adjusted based on the season and weather conditions to prevent run-off caused by over-irrigation. Facility maintenance shall maintain responsibility for the treatment and maintenance of all common area landscaping. Where possible, drought tolerant plantings will be used to reduce the need for irrigation and thus reduce the potential for over-watering. N4 BMP Maintenance Proper care and maintenance of construction and post-construction BMPs is an important part of this project. During construction, contractors will provide weekly inspections of deployed BMPs to check for potential deficiencies or problems with BMPs. After the conclusion of construction, permanent structural control BMPs will be routinely inspected per the site specific operations and maintenance plan. Landscaped areas and BMPs utilizing landscaping will be maintained by the site landscape team and cleared of trash, debris, and evasive plants which could affect the performance of the BMP. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( ( C Title 22 CCR Compliance The Hotel project is committed to the protection of the environment and compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations regarding the management of hazardous substances. The project will comply with the standards set forth in Title 22 of the CCR in all future operations. Maintenance crews will receive initial training regarding the proper care, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials including used oil, universal waste, and fluorescent lighting. Wastes generated at the facility will be properly labeled, stored in appropriate sealed containers, and disposed of only by trained and licensed disposal contractors. Under no circumstance will hazardous and non-hazardous wastes be mixed. Training will include proper procedures for spill containment and response as well as lists of contact personnel in the event of an emergency. NlO Uniform Fire Code Implementation This project will comply with all applicable local and state fire codes for hotels within this classification. The proposed structure will contain an internal fire sprinkler system. Roadways, drive aisles, and parking lots have been designed according to current Fire Department standards to allow access for fire personnel in the event of an emergency. The corrugated metal pipe design has accounted for the maximum possible loading of a full-capacity fire vehicle in the event of an emergency. Nll Common Area Litter Control Common area litter control will be provided at the facility through a comprehensive maintenance program intended to prevent trash, debris, and other pollutants from entering storm drain systems. Maintenance personnel will implement daily inspections of trash facilities to prevent overflowing. Waste bins located throughout the facility will be emptied on a recurring basis and taken to the waste disposal area within the loading dock for final pickup by a waste management service. Outdoor waste bins will be covered to prevent contact of trash and debris with wind or water. Parking areas will be swept on a routine basis to prevent the accumulation of trash, debris, and sediment on hotel property. N12 Employee Training The proposed facility will include continuing education to promote the goals of protecting the water quality of local waterways in the region of northern San Diego County. A water quality component will be included during initial employee training to promote proper implementation of BMPs and source control measures during daily hotel operations. Employees and tenants will be instructed on proper care and maintenance of facilities, including proper handling and storage of trash and waste materials. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( \ ( N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection The proposed hotel will include a series of Modular Wetland Systems that will capture parking lot flows within the site through curb inlets. Additionally, drainage throughout the site is handled through a series of landscape area drains, roof downspouts that will also be collected, conveyed, and treated before discharge into the park's storm drain system. Maintenance crews shall be responsible for the weekly inspection of these drainage appurtenances and signs of blockages or maintenance concerns shall be addressed immediately. N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Sediment control is an important part of the regular operations and maintenance of the property. During construction, the driveway and parking areas on the property will be swept daily to prevent sedimentation of storm drain systems. Post-construction, weekly sweeping will be implemented to remove sediment as well as trash or debris that may accumulate throughout daily operations. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers i " 12.0 Identification of BMPs Applicable to Individual Priority Project Categories S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage As a commitment to the protection of the water quality of our regional watersheds, the project will take part in a program to educate residents to the issues surrounding littering through the use of storm drain stencils on project storm drain inlets. Catch basins installed outside of the project boundaries as a part of the construction project will be stamped with a stencil indicating "No Dumping, Drains to Ocean." Additionally, storm drain inlets leading to post-construction structural control BMPs with ties into the storm drain system will also be stenciled with the logo. Stencils will be re-stenciled as necessary to maintain legibility but at a minimum once every five years. Storm drain stenciling is intended to raise awareness of the potential pollution associated with illegal dumping or dumping of trash onto public or private roadways and parking lots. S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction. In an effort to reduce the amount of trash and debris that is deposited onto the project property through contact with wind and water, a separate trash storage area has been designed for the common use of the facility guests. The concrete loading area will contain separate marked areas for trash disposal and contains the trash to a confined area. Trash containers will remain closed to prevent contact with rain or wind and will be emptied along a regular interval through a designated waste management contractor. In the event of spills or leaks in the trash containers, spill kits will be located within the loading areas or accessible to maintenance staff. S4 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control. The proposed project will utilize water conservation measures, efficient irrigation systems, and recycled water to reduce the water consumption on the project as well as reduce the potential for run-off associated with over-irrigation. Drip irrigation will be utilized wherever possible to limit the potential for non-stormwater runoff from the project site. A water conservation plan will be implemented throughout the property, including education for employees and hotel occupants on ways to reduce water consumption. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( ( 13.0 Implementation of Site Design Low Impact Development (LID) Practices [gl Conserve Natural Areas Comment: [gl Minimize Impervious Surfaces Comment: LLC H20 [gl Preserve natural drainage features D Preserve existing trees and vegetation [gl Minimize soil disturbance [gl Clustering or concentrating development on the least environmentally sensitive areas; consistent with SUSMP §4.1 (e.g. developing on ... previously graded areas, areas containing of non-native vegetation and etc. D Incorporation of open space Lot(s) D An alternate method, as approved by the City En ·neer D Not Applicable [gl Minimize the impervious footprint by increasing building density and/ or by incorporating multiple- storied architecture [gl Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lot drive aisles to minimum widths, provided public safety is not com romised D Incorporate landscape buffers between sidewalks, streets, and other flatwork [gl Minimize impervious surfaces in landscape design; such as decorative or stam ed concrete [gl Using permeable surfaces (porous concrete, pavers, as halt in overflow arkin or low-traffic areas An alternate method, as approved by the City En · eer D Not Applicable Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( ( [gl Disconnect Impervious Surfaces Comment: D Protect Slopes and Channels Comment: LLC H20 [gl Direct runoff from impervious flatwork areas (i.e. sidewalks, patios, and etc.) to pervious or landscape areas rior to dischar · to storm water conve ance [gl Direct roof drains/down spouts to landscape or pervious areas prior to discharging to storm water conve ance D Maximize Canopy interception by preserving existing native trees and shrubs, and/ or planting additional drou ht tolerant native trees and shrubs D Minimize soil compaction D An alternate method, as approved by the City En ineer D Not Applicable D Minimize disturbance to natural drainages D Convey runoff safely from the tops of slopes Vegetate slopes with native or drought tolerant landsca e D Stabilize permanent channel crossings D Install Energy Dissipaters An alternate method, as approved by the City En ineer [gl Not Applicable Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers I \ 14.0 Treatment Facilities for Special Circumstances DMA Impervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface T pe Area R-Roof 0 PCC-1 Conventional Concrete 0 AC-Conventional Asphalt 40,985 ft2 GP-Grouted Unit Paver 0 SUP-Solid Unit Paver 0 Total Impervious Area (ft2) 40,985 ft2 DMA Pervlous Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type Area L-1 Landscape 1,268 ft2 PA-Porous Asphalt 0 PUP-Porous Unit Paver 0 CS-Crushed Stone 0 RT-Reinforcement Turf 0 AS-Amended Soil 0 Total Pervious Area (ft2) 1,268 ft2 Percent Impervious 97% Soil Type B C = Runoff Coefficient per SD County Hydrology Manual, Table 3·1 0.97 I = Rainfall Intensity (inches) 0.2 in Water Quality Flow (Treatment Only)= WQflow = CIA 0.175 CFS Manufacturer Modular Wetland System Model MWS-L-4-15 Capacity 0.175 cfs The location of each Proprietary Vault/free Well and the contributing OMA are delineated on the SWMP BMP Exhibit. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( DMA Impervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface T pe Area R-Roof 0 PCC-1 Conventional Concrete 0 AC-Conventional Asphalt 40,105 ff GP-Grouted Unit Paver 0 SUP-Solid Unit Paver 0 Total Impervious Area (ft2) 40,105 ff DMA Pervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type Area L-1 Landscape 405 ff PA-Porous Asphalt 0 PUP-Porous Unit Paver 0 CS-Crushed Stone 0 RT-Reinforcement Turf 0 AS-Amended Soil 0 Total Pervlous Area (ft2) 405 ff Percent Impervious 99% f \ Soll Type B C = Runoff Coefficient per SD County Hydrology Manual, Table 3-1 0.99 I = Rainfall Intensity (inches) 0.2 in Water Quality Flow (Treatment Only) = WQflow = CIA 0.18 Manufacturer Modular Wetland System Model MWS-L-4-17 Capacity 0.206 cfs LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers / ' ' OMA Impervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type Area R-Roof 70,045 ft2 PCC-1 Conventional Concrete 17,511 ft2 AC-Conventional Asphalt 0 GP-Grouted Unit Paver 0 SUP-Solid Unit Paver 0 Total Impervious Area (ft2) 87,556 ft2 OMA Pervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type Area L-1 Landscape 58,370 ft2 PA-Porous Asphalt 0 PUP-Porous Unit Paver 0 CS-Crushed Stone 0 RT-Reinforcement Turf 0 AS-Amended Soil 0 Total Pervious Area (ft2) 58,370 ft2 Percent Impervious 60% / Soll Type B ' C = Runoff Coefficient per SD County Hydrology Manual, Table 3-1 0.60 I = Rainfall Intensity (inches) 0.2 in Water Quality Flow (Treatment Only) = WQflow = CIA 0.400 Manufacturer Modular Wetland System Model MWS-L-8-16 Capacity 0.462 cfs LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( DMA Impervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type Area R-Roof 0 PCC-1 Conventional Concrete 7,942 ft2 AC-Conventional Asphalt 45,005 ff GP-Grouted Unit Paver 0 SUP-Solid Unit Paver 0 Total Impervious Area (ft2) 52,947 ft2 DMA Pervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type Area L-1 Landscape 26,590 ft2 PA-Porous Asphalt 0 PUP-Porous Unit Paver 0 CS-Crushed Stone 1920 RT-Reinforcement Turf 0 AS-Amended Soil 0 Total Pervious Area (ft2) 28,510 ff Percent Impervious 86% ( Soll Type B C = Runoff Coefficient per SD County Hydrology Manual, Table 3-1 0.8 I = Rainfall Intensity (inches) 0.2 in Water Quality Flow (Treatment Only) = WQflow = CIA 0.243 Manufacturer Modular Wetland System Model MWS-L-4-21 Capacity 0.268 cfs LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers / I \ 15.0 Summary of DMA Treatment Practices Self-Treating DMAs Self-Retaining DMAs •11•1! Surfaces Draining to Self-Retaining DMAs Bioretention IMPs Flow Through Planter IMPs Infiltration IMP Conventional Vegetated Swale Extended (Dry) Detention Basins Media (Sand) Filter Wet Pond Constructed Wetland Proprietary Vault/Tree Well Proprietary Inlet Filter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309,276 0 Areas not Feasible to Treat 0 0 Total Project DMA 309,276 Total Parcel Area 309,276 Comment: LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 l!i!, 1 .. ;11•!~;,lti(aj"' 7.10 0.00 :.a..~~~· '0·1111~-- 0.00 7.10 1!' ,l,t. 7.10 DCI Engineers ( ( ( 16.0 Projected Storm Water BMP Maintenance Mechanism As a subsidiary of Merlin Entertainment Group and the operator of the proposed Hotel, the Theme Park maintains full responsibility for the operations, maintenance, and repair of the aforementioned BMPs on the project site. The proposed Modular Wetland System vaults have been designed by a registered California Professional Engineer to ensure effectiveness and longevity. In addition, the owner shall submit a Covenant and Agreement form indemnifying the City of Carlsbad from any maintenance in the future. A copy of the Covenant form is included in this SWMP for reference. Table 16.1 Maintenance Mechanism D Conditional Use Permit -For discretionary projects only, the City may assure maintenance of storm water BMPs through the inclusion of maintenance conditions in the conditional use ermit. A non-refundable securi ma be re uired. ~ Project Proponent Agreement to Maintain Storm Water BMPs -The City may enter into a contract with the project proponent obliging the project proponent to maintain, repair and replace the storm water BMP as necessary into perpetuity. A non-refundable security may be re uired. D Lease Provision -In those cases where the City holds title to the land in question and the land is being leased to another party for private or public use, the City may assure storm water BMP maintenance, re air and re lacement throu h conditions in the lease. D Assessment District -The City may approve an Assessment District or other funding mechanism created by the project proponent to provide funds for storm water BMP maintenance, repair and replacement on an ongoing basis. Any agreement with such a District shall be sub"ect to the Public Enti Maintenance Provisions below. D Public Entity Maintenance -The City may approve a public or acceptable quasi-public entity (e.g., the County Flood Control District, or annex to an existing assessment district, an existing utility district, a state or federal resource agency, or a conservation conservancy) to assume responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of the BMP. Public entity maintenance agreements shall ensure estimated costs and front-funded or reliably guaranteed, (e.g., through a trust fund, assessment district, fees, bond, letter of credit or similar means). In addition, the City may seek protection from liability by appropriate releases and indemnities. The City Engineer shall have the authority to approve storm water BMPs proposed for transfer to any other public entity within its jurisdiction before installation. The City shall be involved in the negotiation of maintenance requirements with any other public entities accepting maintenance responsibilities within their respective jurisdictions; and in negotiations with the resource agencies responsible for issuing permits for the construction and/ or maintenance of the facilities. The City must be identified as a third party beneficiary empowered to enforce any such maintenance agreement within their res ective ·urisdictions. D Alternative Mechanism -The City may accept an alternative maintenance mechanism if such mechanism is as protective as those listed above. An alternative mechanism must be a roved b the Ci Attorne and the Ci En · eer. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers I I .. ( Comment: A copy of the Covenant and Agreement Regarding Operations and Maintenance Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification has been included in Appendix Hof this SWMP. The original document has been signed and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for Recording. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( ( C 17.0 Summary and Conclusion Narrative The proposed Hotel has been designed in collaboration with a team of Architects, Engineers, and Developers to provide a safe environment for children, families, and physically challenged while maintaining the protection of the natural hydrologic flows from the project site. Throughout the design Low-Impact-Development design was utilized to promote landscaping and pervious areas, pre-treatment, and promote the natural filtration of stormwater through biological and physical means. The proposed development utilizes combinations of heavy landscaped areas and proprietary vault filtration in the form of Modular Wetland Systems to capture stormwater flows and fully treat the design water quality flow-rate. Treatment of runoff through the MWS systems is considered an acceptable method of bio-filtration by the San Diego Regional Board. The Modular Wetland System is designed to capture runoff from the parking lot and treat it through bio-filtration before releasing it into the existing municipal storm drain system. By designing the project site to simultaneously reduce the total peak runoff and to treat the design water quality flow-rate, this project achieves compliance with the LID requirements of the City of Carlsbad and the provisions of the San Diego County Hydromodification Plan. LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( \ ( LLC H20 References RWQCB. 2007. California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Diego Region. Order No. R9-2007-0001 (Municipal Permit) City of Carlsbad. 2011. Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) Guidelines Leighton and Associates. 2008. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Legoland Hotel, Carlsbad, California. Leighton and Associates. 2011. Updates Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Legoland Hotel, Carlsbad, California Nolte and Associates, Inc. 1997. Legoland Carlsbad Hydrology Map, Ultimate Condition. Hofman Planning and Engineering. 2011. Legoland Hotel Precise Grading Permit. Michael Wall Engineering. 2011. Legoland Hotel Electrical Design Plans Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers C I \ Appendices LLC H20 Appendix A Vicinity Map Appendix B Soil Type Exhibit Appendix C Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map Appendix D Pre-Project Site Condition & Drainage Pattern Exhibit Appendix E SWMP BMP Exhibit and Storm Water Calculations Appendix F Storm Water Quality Assessment Form Appendix G Geotechnical Report Appendix H Covenant and Agreement Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers I \ ( LLC H20 Priority Development Project -Storm Water Mitigation Plan DCI Engineers ( Appendix A: Vicinity Map ( Connon Rd Gemological • lnsUtUI• of Am<nC. \ M1niland USA :., g Ca(isbld Pr•m,um 0Utlel$ • i \ ',2 Carl,badBy Tho S.o ~son ------{i3RoJECT SITE .,. Palomar Airport Rd • eo.tco Wllotuolt PROJECT VICINITY MAP 1 LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD,CA l ( Appendix B: Soil Type Exhibit ( 33" 7' 34"N 33" 7'2S"N I i i §1 i U' ii. 3 I;! !!l ~ 470660 3 ~ !!l ~ N A Soil Marr-San Diego County Area, California 470740 470020 470700 470740 470700 470020 470860 470900 Map Scale: 1: 1,860 if JJTIEd a, A lcndscape (11" x 8S) sl1EH. ----====-------=======~ 0 25 SO 100 150 ---====-----=====feet 0 SO 100 200 300 Map IX1Jjedicn: WdJ Mel3Ir <:cmer-axrdnates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zale 11N WGS84 Natural Resources Conservation Service WebL. "urvey National Coo •ve Soil Survey 470980 471020 470940 470980 471020 3 ii! !!l ~ 471060 11/ PaA, s ffi i I §1 * 5l j ; I 471060 3 ii! !!l ~ 15 1f 3 33" 7'34"N 33" 7'25" N " Soil Ma~San Diego County Area, California MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) □ Area of Interest (AOI) Soils =i Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines C Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Fea.turH ~ rm • ◊ ~ . .. 0 A. • ~ 0 0 V + .. . . 0 3» tJ Natural Resources Conservation Service Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscelaneous Water Perennial Water Rocle Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot I;; Spoil Area 0 Stony Spot m Very Stony Spot ,e, Wet Spot f:.,, Other ~-Special Line Features Water Futures -Streams and Canals Transportation t+t Rails ,,.., Interstate Highways _,.,,, US Routes ---~. Major Roads Local Roads Background • Aerial Photography Web }urvey National Cool. ,.ive Soil Survey The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: San Diego County Area, California Version 9, Sep 17, 2015 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 :50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014-Nov 22, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 11 Pai;I \15 ,f 3 Soil Map-San Diego County Area, California Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol CbB LeE2 MIC Totals for Area of Interest USDA Natural Resources a.Iii Conservation Service San Diego County Area, California (CA638) Map Unit Name Acres In AOI Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes Las Flores loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes, er oded Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey Percent of AOI 0.6 0.3 7.5 8.4 7.5% 3.2% 89.3% 100.0% 11/16/2015 Page 3 of 3 ( Appendix C: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map • MAP SCALE 1" • 500' iii O 2M .. 7IO 1.0:-FEET I_,. . ' I• I @) Ii 1m; :(@l'j :I 1 '0IQ !'! ; 11 '· __ 1 l Ci) : I,., i I~: .:I ' ::~J I I 1)!!! i~ I' PANEL 07SIG FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 768 OF 2375 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUD ~ ~ CARL.SSAD. C1TY OF IM!!KB. ~ Mm 000285 07'68 G NaoetoL!N1.The:Mlp.......,thCJMlbeto.l;'thaul:1 ~UMd ---~..-.por.ll:B:lheC---, .......... ab::1¥1 ~ oa ~ a1 --.nnce 1",:1C!Mlnl kif lhe IUtlied. ~,. MAP NUMBER 06073C0768G MAP REVISED MAY 16, 2012 1-·ec1en1 t■crgcacy l\taaagc■cot Agcacy iNa-■ an ollclal cepv d • ponlon dtha ...._ NIINnced-map. a -ex1racted uaing F-MIT Or>-Une. 1Na map -IIGI Nlact changaa « -ane1•---bNn mad9 •~ to the-. on the We block. F« the ..._t ~ lnbmalion abaut Nalonol Flood.,_...,. Poc,gram toad m..-c_heck-FEMA A_oocl ~s-Ill_'""""'·"'""·---- ( ( Appendix D: Pre-Project Site Condition & Drainage Pattern Exhibit 2 3 4 5 A C D \ ' . I ; i It DRAINAG EXISTl1NG 4.5 CFS F Q H DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING PEA LOW I I I 1 +-t-+ 2 ' 7'f--tule-t-+ LI ! I I I l-trttiri--t-ifM77Tt-ii1~~~:t~~ I' ) llTITT l ldfi1 I lJ u WJ 11U l lt!J.1-'+-' ~ \ " ,_,, ) \ \ EXISTING CONDITIONS: TOTAL AREA= 264,627 SF ASPHALT= 151 ,199 SF CONCRETE = 58, 324 SF ROOFTOP = 24,626 SF LANDSCAPING = 30, 478 SF PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 88% EXISTING PEAK RUNOFF = 16.9 CFS e 7 -T-------.. .--;z;:.r._-LJ" ·r f" I T T t r I DRAINAGE FROM THESE AREAS IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO CHANGE ------DUE DIRECT REPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CONTRACTOR NOTE All EXIS11NC UTIUTCS SHOWN ON Pl.ANS ARE TO BE \ffilFlEO HORIZONTALLY ANO \ffiTICALL Y PRIOR TO NI.Y CONSlRUCTION. All EXIS11NC FEATURES INQ.OONC BUllED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN AS INDICATED ON RE COAD MAPS NI.D SURVEYS f\JRNISHED BY OTHERS. WE ASSUME ND LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY or THOSE RECORDS ANO SURVEYS. CONTACT THE UTILITY OWNER/AGENCY FOR THE FINAL LOCATION or EXISTING UTILITIES N AREAS CRITICAL TO CONSlRUCTION. ~ GRAPHIC SCALE »~ " » ~---I I (INJ'Zl'T) tlnch •SO ft. UNDERGROUND SERVICE AllRT ® ONE-CAU NUMBER 8-1-1 CAU. TWO IVSIN£!5 CATS IEFOM YOU DIG ~ ~ 1 ~11~~ SllIT TITLE, EXISTING CONDITIONS Appendix E: SWMP BMP Exhibit I ---------~=---=--=-~-=---- i((fi[isr~~~~~~i i ~ ~ ~ i~ ii iii iii i ~ii iii~~~ i ~ii Iii iii ii ~ii:: l ~; l ~ l l iii i Ii I::::::::::::::: / 4 9-· :;:t/\8~1~:;:~:~;~~i~~: ---·-.->:-:: ··:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:•:-:-:.: . 'BASlff"300 - .. 3.35AC r,WQf=="O.i;J:O"CFS . _ • a ,a • a .. ''''"" • aaa., . ,' . ---- PCC-300 (TYP.) f •• •• -•• • •• •• •' -.-.·.·.·.·.·.· . -: : : : : : : :: : :=: :: : : : : : : :: . . --. -' : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : :: : : : :. -: : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : ::::::: :: : : : : : : .:-: <:: :: : : : ., . . . . ...... . ";.,:;.<:/.:·t.'~.:(-,;·· .'-';'; .'.:J~::,,.c ·-.•~--~-~ -;• ..... ·,.,.',:·;::·,~~ -~.,-.·•·?•.j•. ·"•-,-: :.~. :~'; ·: REFERENCE NOTES: (!) NEW MODULAR M:TLAND SYSlEM PER DETAIL 1/C6.0. UNIT SIZE PER PLAN. ('j;J PROPOSED lRASH ENCLOSURE WllH COVER PER CASQA NO. SD-32. <J} CATCH BASIN INLETS TO BE STAMPED/PAINTED WllH "NO DUMPING. DRAINS TO OCEAN" OR EQUIVALENT. SEE CASQA NO. SlD-13. SWMP PROJECT INFORMATION: TOTAL AREA: 7.12 AC TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA= 5.15 AC TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA= 1.97 AC . LLCH20 .. FFE= 15 9,'4-l ,-, EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA TABULATION: AREA (SQUARE FEET) SURFACE TYPE BASIN 100 BASIN 200 BASIN 300 BASIN 400 ROOF 0 0 0 0 CONVENTIONAL ASPHALT 81,936 93,305 47,023 57,390 CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 81,936 93,305 47,023 57,390 EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA TABULATION: AREA (SQUARE FEET) SURFACE TYPE BASIN 100 BASIN 200 BASIN 300 BASIN 400 LANDSCAPE 828 10,368 8,298 10,128 CRUSHED STONE 0 0 0 a TOTAL 828 10,368 8,298 10,128 TOTAL 0 279,654 0 279,654 TOTAL 29,622 0 29,622 -.. ----... -.. ----..... -. ---.. ~ ----. --. --. --- . -----.. -. -... t\t~;/ }::;~k?i\}~~:;t.;: "\ * -------:-:-:-:--:-· .-?·· '"G-:-:-:-:-:-:·:.:-:-:-:-:-: l :,, .,,~-.., !oP-.. "',, \/'-'•i, \ \ ',;,•r::; . . . . . . -...... ---. --4 \ "'-..:,., ·-;;:-~-C-~-:-: t'-' .. ;ii~~~~\~ •• ;:.,-. I_.,. . . " ' :}~:.:2-t:.;:. ~, ",\___, .-:-:?-;;.-.-·.· 1, " .... ,. / .. \ ' -._ / I ! ' \ / j ! '-'- ' 1_ ; ' \ ............ -1 -.....___i_ '-.. /' -;..,. ) I'" j I I I,, l't. ' I ' I / , .... ✓ / \" 1 \ ,/\ ),.,,; I ·, ,""_,.,,.-/ -.,----,. .tr \···-,} ,I ' ; ): \ \ / -\ __ -,,-,.,:_ / \ j \ ..,.../ I _,.. " ,, ,-t.---i, I ___ .,. .,/' t \ ,,. --~--J1 J \..,,-" // ' ' / -'-,,, f ~..{ ' ,:..--''.""-;Y f j .,/ ·:-:--:/_ PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA TABULATION: AREA (SQUARE FEET) SURFACE TYPE BASIN 100 BASIN 200 BASIN 300 BASIN 400 ROOF 0 0 70,046 a CONVENTIONAL ASPHALT 40,985 40,105 12,095 45,005 CONVENTIONAL CONCRElE 0 0 8,326 7,942 TOTAL 40,985 40,105 90,467 52,947 PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA TABULATION: AREA (SQUARE FEET) SURFACE TYPE BASIN 100 BASIN 200 BASIN 300 BASIN 400 LANDSCAPE 1,268 405 55,460 26,590 CRUSHED STONE a a 0 1,920 TOTAL 1,268 405 55,460 28,510 TOTAL 70,046 138,190 16,268 224,504 TOTAL 83,723 1,920 85,643 SWMP NO. ____ _ PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: NAME MERLIN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP ADDRESS 1 LEGOLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CONTACT CHRIS ROMERO PHONE NO. (760) 918-5460 PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME DAMON A. SMITH, P.E. COMPANY DCI ENGINEERS ADDRESS 2600 MICHELSON, SUITE 930 IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE NO. (949) 892-4950 BMPNOTES: SIGNATURE CERTIFICATION # C 80896 1. THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS. 2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 5. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. 6. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION . BMP TABLE BMP ID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * MAINTENANCE * TREATMENT CONTROL HYDROMODIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL HYDROMODIFICATION LOW IMPACT DESIGN (L.I.D.) © MWSUNIT I I 4EA. SOURCE CONTROL ('j;J TRASH ENCLOSURE SD-32 1 EA. <JJ NO DUMPING STENCILS DRAIN TO OCEAN SD-13 4EA. SURFACE LEGEND: t .... · ...... ,' ... · ··1 :::::::::::::::::::: L-XX . . . . . . . . . --.. -... -- I I R-XX AC-XX DCI enGlnEERS 2600 MICHELSON DRIVE• SUITE 930 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 PHONE: (949) 892-4950 • FAX: (949) 892-4970 WEBSITE: www.dci-engineers.com CIVIL/ STRUCTURAL ©copyright 12/2015 D'Amato Conversanc Inc. All Rights Reserved This doc"mont end th@ ;,J..., ond designs mo:y not be reused. in whole er in port. without written pormFSsion from 0'/1.rnalo C.:,..,.rsono Inc. D'An,o\o Con-,.,no tnc, disclaim, ony respM!libility for its u11<JLrlhoriied """' LANDSCAPING ROOF CONVENTIONAL ASPHALT CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE CONTRACTOR NOTE Al.l EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON PLANS ARE TO BE VERIFIED HORIZONTAI.l Y AND VERTICALLY PRIOR TO ANY CONSlRUCTION. All EXISTING FEA 1\JRES INCLUDING BURIED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN AS INDICATED ON RECORD MAPS AND SURVEYS FURNISHED BY OlHERS. M: ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR lHE ACCURACY OF lHOSE RECORDS AND SURVEYS. CONTACT lHE UTILITY OWNER/AGENCY FOR lHE FINAL LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES IN AREAS CRlllCAL TO CONSlRUCTION. FREQUENCY FREQUENCY QUARTERLY ANNUALLY GRAPHIC SCALE 20 .. i I ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 40 ft. UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT ONE-CALL NUMBER 811 CALI.. 1WO BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING + INTERIOR DESIGN LANDSCAPE DESIGN 4798 NEW BROAD STREET, SUITE 100 ORLANDO, FL 32814 407.425.2500 CNIL & STRUCTURAL DCI ENGINEERING 2600 MICHELSON DRIVE SUITE930 IRVIN,CA92612 T: 949.892.4950 MEP EXP ENGINEERS 2601 WESTHALL LANE MAITLAND, Fl 32751 T: 407,660.0088 TRAFFIC CONSULTANT STC TRAFFIC, INC. 2794 LOKER AVENUE WEST, SUITE 102 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 T: 760.585.4494 PLANNING CONSULTANT HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 3152 LIONSHEADAVENUE CARLSBAD, CA92010 T: 760.692.4100 0 C\I I () _J _J STAMP: PROJECT NUMBER: 'ft 'ft 0.... 0.... oo (/) u B0700016-015 ISSUED: NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. SOP/CDP 12/10/15 SWMP BMP SITE PLAN c-s.o SITE SPECIFIC DATA* PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION STRUCTURE ID PERFORMANCE DATA TREATMENT VOLUME (CF) TREATMENT HGL (FIJ 3.4 BYPASS Fl.OW RAiE (CFS) DEPENDANT ON PIPE SIZE PROJECT PARAMETERS PIPE DATA I.E. MAiERW DIAMETER INLET PIPE I OUTLET PIPE 1 RIM E/£'/AnDN INLET PIPE SEE NOTES SURFACE LOADING REQUIREMENT PARKWAY FRAME & PRETREATMENT BIOF/URAllON DISCHARGE COVER JO OPEN MElJIA 24 WETlANDMED!A VOLUME (CQ MElJIA DE/JVERED ORIFICE SIZE (DIA) MAX PICK WEIGHT (LBS) NOTES, 'PER ENGINEER OF RECORD INSTALLATION NOTES I. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A/.1 lABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO omoAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURERS SPEC/ACAT/ONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STAiED IN MANUFACllJRERS CONTRACT. 2. MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6'1.EVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY Tl/£ PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIF/CATIONS. J. All PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE. (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). 4. INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE Fl.USH WIT/I DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. 5. All GAPS AROUND PIPES SHALL BE SEAi.ED WA/ER TIGHT WIT/I A NON-SHRINK GRDUT PER MANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL AND Sl'.ALL MEET OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDARDS. 6. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF A/.1 RISERS, MANHOLES, AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO GRO/JT ALL MANHOLES AND HATCHES TO MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPEC/RED OTHERWISE GENERAL NOTES I. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MA/ERl4LS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, 2. All DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. FDR PROJECT SPEC/RC DRAWINGS DETA/UNG EXACT DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PlEASE CONTACT MANUFACTURER. s· WETW/DMED!A BED DRAIN DOWN UN£ OUTLET DRAIN DOWN FIL/ER VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD PLANVIEW A/XESSIIAlC/1 fWi'll'WAY lOAl)JNG A!l4 WMP!JMT 4'-0"--.-j r------1·-10·---4-•--< Pl?ETREATMENT 4 ,,, BIORLTRATION CHAMBER CHAMBER r-----------15'-0"----------I e------------16'-0"-----------.j TH£ PRDDJJCT DlSCRI8EJJ U4Y BE PRCH£C!B) er ON£ QR MORE: CF "J1fE RJl.1JJWFNG /JS PATEHlS: 7,425,262; 7,47-!l~ 7,674,JlB; 8.Jrx!,Q1fi; RE!.ATEll FORE!GH P,AJEMS OR OftiER PATBflS PfN{)lf{fJ ELEVATION VIEW PROPRIETARY ANO CONFIDENT/Al: 1H£ !NfrJRMArKJr( C0NWMJJ IN 1'HIS OPAWING IS THE SOI.£ P!lOP£RTY OF AIOlXJW WET1MlJS S$TEJIS. ANY R£PR001JCTION IN fWfT Of? AS A lfflOl.I wmlOIIT TH£ WliITTfN P£RlllS$K,N OF MODUi.AR wtfW{{JS SYSfDIS IS PRO/f/Sm;f). j .,MODUL R LEFT END VIEW MANHOLE RIGHT END VIEW MWS UNIT DESIGN DATA TREATMENT CAPACrrY (CFS} 0.775 OPERATING HEAD (FT} 3.4 PRETREATMENT WADING RATE (GPM/SF} 2.0 WETLAND LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) 7.0 MWS-L-4-15-UG-V STORMWATER 8/0FILTRATION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM DETAIL NTS C) SCALE : ·---------------------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR NOTE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHO\\N ON PLANS ARE TO BE VERIFIED HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICAll Y PRIOR TO ANY CONSlRUCTION. All EXISTING FEATURES INCLUDING BURIED UTILITIES ARE SHOl'IN AS INDICATED ON RECORD MAPS AND SURVEYS FURNISHED BY 01HERS. WE ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR 1HE ACCURACY OF 1HOSE RECORDS ANO SURI/E'IS. CONTACT 1HE UTILITY Ol'INER/AGENCY FOR 1HE FINAL LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES IN AREAS CRITICAL TO CONSlRUCTION, UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT ONE-CALL NUMBER 811 CALL 1WO BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING + INTERIOR DESIGN LJl.NDSCAPE DESIGN 4798 NEW BROAD STREET. SUITE 100 ORLANDO, FL32814 407.425.2500 CIVIL & STRUCTURAL DCI ENGINEERING 2600 MICHELSON DRIVE SUfTE930 IRVIN, CA 92612 T: 949.892.4950 MEP EXP ENGINEERS 2601 WESTHALL LANE MAITI..AND, FL 32751 T: 407.660.0088 TRAFFIC CONSULTANT STC TRAFFIC, INC. 2794 LOKER AVENUE WEST, SUITE i02 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 T: 760.585.4494 PLANNING CONSULTANT HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 3152 UONSHEAOAVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 T: 760.692.41 OD 0 C\I I 0 -' -' STAMP: PROJECT NUMBER: '#:, '#:, 0.... 0.... oo Cf) u B0700016-015 ISSUED: NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. SDP/CDP 12/10/15 ' DETAILS C-6.0 f;s--r~ :::: 0. l.r 10 · 0 (N.N'iJSb;LJJ I I I I I I I l ll!llillllllllllll ll I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII fTTIJ I I II I IIITITTlI I I EQUATION ,~...+--P,-d--P-!~~,",k-Pl-.!;~;T'!,!;HtlHtttitttttttttttitttt-tttt1itt I = 7_44 P 6 D-0.645 ~+..µj...+~!-d-H~*PHd,'i~l,trtioi.i-ftttttt+ttttt-HitttttH I = Intensity (in/hr) P5 = 6-Hour Precipitation (in) b--!=~-A-d--HP-1--H-Nd-tf"!,qffl,ttfl',;ff~ffl#ffl::tttttttttttH D = Duration (min) 1"' iT "'lJ ~rr 11' "T"T J. I 1 !i' mr r,.-'r-~~~ I'!.,,. I ~ ,~, rtN-...1 .._ I I I I I I I 11111111 1111 .. t-... ,. . I ' ' ' Ill I " 1' ~ I I :,,..I", "i--. 2. 0 , I • ,,.__ 1 ,. 1 r,~ r....""' ~ """ • 1 , , 1111 '? I ..,l'h. i..~ 1, , • to-:I: ,. ,. ' 0 I .. . I I :-.. " """ ,. ,,.~ C: .... ~ I N ~ " I. "'~ ~~ =o .._-:-,."'. ,~ N 1 ...... '" , , ~~ ~ ::, , I c.. " ~ ~~~ -~ 0 ~ ~ ~I-.. r.... " ... "' ,. i, ~ ~.. I l---6.o == G) ,,~~ I ... ~ 5.5 Q) .r: !o.l I I I I',, ' e. g 1.0 I I I I I ,. I , ... i,,. 1' ~ I I 5.0 g ·-~ I "" ~ ?/'-' I I r--1 ' ,. ' I " ~ 1! 0.8 I ! . I ' ~ I ~ I ~ 4.0 i6 ~ 0.7 I ,. I"--i-,.. ,,. 1 3.5 ~ -I I I', " i ~~ I I 0.6 I I II 1, i',r-. ,. 3.0 . 0.5 I I rll I "-.. ,.t~~ 2.5 I I I I r....:-.. I~ "1 ll 0.4r 1 1 , r ,, I ~,. ill'· 2.0 0.3 I I I I I I I I I 0.2 11 1 1111111 111111111 il l 0.1\ l I l ! I I ! I I I I I I 111111111 1111 111111111 q11111111111t1111\111111\IIII I I I I 111 Ill 11q1111111111111 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minutes Hours Duration 1.5 1.0 Intensity-Duration Design Chart-Template Directions for Application: (1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr and 24 hr amounts forthe.selected frequency. These maps are included in.the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50, and 100 yr maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). (2) Adjust 6 hr precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (not applicaple to Desert). (3) Plot 6 hr precipitation on the right side of the chart. (4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. (5) This line is the intensity-duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Fonn: (a) Selected frequency J.Q__ year ·O. --p / (b) P6 = I -o in. P24 = 3.::, _§_ = S %(2) --• --'P24 -- (c) Adjusted p6(2l = ~ in. (d) 1x = ~ min. (e) I= 4. 'o in./hr. Note: This chart replaces the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since 1965. ' I ' P6 1 ! 1.5 I 2 : 2.5 I 3 · 3.5 4 . 4.5 5 5.5 6 Duration -f i I I I I I I ' I I I I I I 5 2.63 I 3.951 5.27 i 6.59 i 7.901 9.22 10.54 ; 11.86 13.17 14.49 15.81 7 ·2.12 13.18!4.24 15.30 !6.36;7.42 8.48 . 9.54 10.60 11.66112.72 10 1.68 12.53 i 3.37 , 4.21 ! S.05 5.90 6.74 ! 7.58 8.42 927 10.11 15 1.30 11.9512.59 i 3.2413.89" 4.54 5.19 ; 5.84. 6.49 7.13 7.78 20 1.08 j_ 1.621 2.15 I 2.69 1 3.23 3. 77 4.31 I 4.85 5.39 5.93 6.46 ·-·--25 :-o.93 {40f1,a11 2.33 ! 2.eo 3.21 3.73 4.20 4.~5.13 5.60- 30 0.83 1.2411.6612.07 I 2.49 2.90 3.32 3.73 4.15 4.56 4.98 --40 0.69 1.03 I 1.38 ~~0.?.J.2.:.~)_ 2.76 3.10 3.45 I 3.79 4.13 50 0.60 0.90i 1.19 11.4911.7912.09 -239-'T.ss '2.98 3.28 3.58 --60 -0.53-0.80D_.06 , 1.33;i-:-sii·t 1.86 2.12 2.39 2.65 2.92-3jif 90 0.41 0.61 10.82 11.02 1.23 1.43 r-1.63 1.84 .... £64-!-225 2.45- 120 0.34 0.51 1 i~.8511.0211.19 1.36 1.53 1.70 1,87 2.04 ~ 0.29 o:-44)" 0.59 o:n i 0.8811.03 1.18 1.32 1.47 1.62 Liif 180 0.26 0.39\ 0.52 i 0:65 ' 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.18 1.31 1.44 1.57 240 0.22 0.33 ! 0.43_j 0.54 0.65 . 0.76 0.87 0.98 1.08 U9 1.30 300 0.19 0.28, 0.38 1 0.47 0.56 0.66 0.75 0.85 0.94 1.03 1.13 360 0:17 0.251 0.33 I 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.75 0.84 0..92 1.00 FIGURE ~ ! l I l l • I, I .- I = Ps = D = EQUATION 7.44 P5 o~0.645 _Intensity (ih/hr) 6-Hoar Precipitation (In). Duration (min) lli1l1 II : h I -zol ~ "~ t l"'r,."'r,~~ ~ ~ 111'1oll ----- I 'i'-I i-~ !TH I " "'i-i'!'. -l' ~ . ~~ I ,,..... I ,,.. ~ I ~. I l' .... ,l'I', 'r-'[~ I f ~~ .... I', .... • ~ -'r-,. i' I' . ~ u 1 I " r--"'"'r-. 1 ~~ [ P,,. j ' "' I ~ 6.0 "2. I ~ I I r~ I " I'-I" r~ fj' I 1 5.5 ~ 1 1 1 1 11 r--"'"' 1• I" ~ r 1 1 5.o g· I _ I I I I I I I I 1 1 I ~ ~ J ,.... r--" ~"" 4.s ·s· ---lllllllllr,.;_ll ll lllllllllUi ,....1' l'l'r-,.. ~ I I I ;-~ f· --· ............................. : ........ i ...... ---!11111".'_11111111~ u'rrftfflffitj 3:0 ~ -----------+tttttttffil-i+H+11ffittttttti'H+i'lii,ij--t--H--+-t+'l"'t::H-H-tttt~tftt;:ttt-5 0.3 -- LIT L, I ill [II I Li I ll ll"H4 I i l 1 I -!.I.! ·u l - l l I IIW I JIIIIIIII II I ~ ~irections for Application: (1) Frcim precipitatfon maps determine6 hrand_24 hr-amounts forthe.selected:lrequency. These f'Daps are included in.the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50, and 100 yr maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). .(2) Adjust'6 hr precipitation.(if necessary) so that it is within the range· of-45% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (n·ot applicaple to Desert). (3) Plot 6 hr precipitation on the right side of the chart. (4) Draw a line through the point pa'rallel to the plotted lines. (5) This line is the intensity-duration ·curve for the location being_ analyzed. Application Fonn: (a) _Selected frequency~ year (ti) Pe-= ~irr . .-P24= ~-:;4 = ~ %c2> (c) Adjusted Pll = ~in. (d) ~ = '::> min.- (e) I= &. 0 in.lhr; Note: This chart replaces.the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used·sirice 1965. PG __ 1 _ 1 ! 1.5 I 2 . 2.5 3 · 3.5 -·r ·•-4. 5 5.5 6 Duration I I ' I I I ; I 1 I ·. I I I I I I I __ 5 ,,!.,_63...@:9515-~l.!...6,.5-.!!17.,_~.j,9.,_22 1_0.,54 -11 1~,19 15_:!l.! ______ 7, ~U3fil.4.-:?5..i..~~-OJ.§,!6,7.42 I!-... _ 11.66 _ _1:2_.,_~ ___ 10 1.68 12.531,3.37.J±..21 15.0S'Ts.oo 6.7 9.27 10.11 ,11 1.5 15 1.30 11.9512.59 ;3.24 3.89i4.54 _5.:!__ .78 20 1.08 !1.62 2.15 12.69 13.23 3.77 4.31 .46 ----~ ·o.93·;·.4or1_;siT~i? ... 2:.ssi _a J:3 Jo= __ 30 _o,83_ 1,2~ 1,?_s1 2.ou 2,59 2 --~ . ◄.9_8_ 1_0 t= ◄Q _o.,_~9 1,pa+-1-=3s.µ.~2+2. -,76.J. 9 _4_-_!3_ so o.so o.oo, 1.19, 1.49. 1 39T 8 3.58 -60_ )~ o~aou,os~ 1'.331_1. :i2 _ ·2-:-:i~u( ---~ -°-'-4.:1......QJ;JJ..Q,~ ....;...1--.9.2 : 1 1-:~ -~-2.45_ 120 o.34 • o.s1 1 a.SB a.as : , --~~ 1 2.04 --,·so ·o°29 OA4Ta:5 f 1 2 1.1s 180 0.26 0.39 \ 0,5 1.04 1 .57 1---· ----' 240 0.22 0.33, 0.4 0.87 0.98 1 .08 I 1, 19 1.30 '6 ---. 300 0.19 0.28! 0.3 6i 0.75 0.85 0.94 , 1.03 1.13 --360 -0.17 0.2510_._33_0~42-. _B_l 0.67 0.75 0.84 · 0.92 1.00 0:2 0.1 i: )-----i--------.----r _ s. 6 1 s.s·10 ·15 20 30 Minutes 40 so· Duration I 1111 I I lllllllllru I 2 3 4. .s Hours I GU RE intensity-Duration :Design Chart-Tempiate. 3-1 / \i' 1- 10:ci 9.0 8.0 7.0 s._o 5.0 .4.0 3.0 2:0 3 ~ en _Cl) .c g.1. = .-~o . :go •. ~-. .50 • o; . o •. . o. 0 0 0 ' I', ,..._ .... !,._ N."'r-;. '1' ),.. .... ' ~ .i-.. I',.· ";-.. r-... ~ r. i-,.i' ... "i-,. I'. N-.. t,;..r ,._ "':-.. ... "' ,."~ ~~,.. .... , J.,. lo. :,.. ... ~ ~ I "'" • r-... ' ~ ... i--S ~ ... ~J ' ~ ~ ..... , i,...,,, ""• ~• I ....... . '~,... ~l 1' I',. • r-.... 1 .... , ~1 .... i"i,.. ~ ~r.;. ' ~~ "", ~ I :... :,.. r-,~ ... I .... .... I',. '~~ ~ .... I "' ... I'-. ~ i"io1,. ,.., ~ ':,.. ~~, r .... r-... I r-~ N--~ "i-~~ II i,.., r "i-"' I ' ~lo. . ~J. I I I I I I I I 5.. 6 7 g_9·10 ·1s 20 30 ·Minutes I j I l I ~ I ~ J • ~, ~, J ~. ~ ' I.; ~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ J ~ ~ l ~. I ~. i I ~ I 11 l ~~ I I I I 40 so· 1 Duration I EQUATION I = _7A4 Ps 0~0-645 I = _·Intensity (ih/hr) Ps = 6-Hour Precipjtation On)_ D = Duration (min) I J ~ I I ' I , l'-.r,... I r-, .... " "~ I ' ~ "" """' 1' ,.,,.., I' l•i,. ! I ..., 'r-.. I'-. ' ~ ~~ I r-., ', i...1o,. ~~~~ I 1,r-,,. i...-' ~~ ~~ ' ~ ', "' ~~ i...i,. ' ~ ~ I I I I'-. r-. 1'~ "1' I , I ..... "-..... ~ I I I' I I ' 1 .... ~"' ~ I I "t:... I I 1, ~ 1' I , II ", 'i-- 2 "~ I~~ I I I" '"~ I ~~~ I I r,~~ ''1o... ~~ t, ~~ ~~ I I , ' I I 3 4 .. 5 ~ Hours ·a, ±. 0 C ... ? 0 6.0 '§: s.s§I 5.0 _g 4.5·'§' 40 g.. • Cl) 3.5.!!!. 3.0 . 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 interisity-Duration :Design Chart-Tempiate. ~irections for Application: (1) Frcim precipitation maps determine-6 hrand_24 hramounts forthe.selected:frequency. These maps are included in.the County Hydrology Manual_ (10, 50, and 100 yr maps included rn the Design and Procedure Manual). (2).Adjusf6 hr precipitation.(if necessary) so tl:tat it is within the range· of45% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (not applicaple to Desert). (3) Plot 6 hr precipitation on the right side of the chart .. (4) Draw a line through:the point parallel to the plotted lines. (S} This fine is the intensity-duration -curve for the location being_ analyzed. Application· Form: (a) _Selected frequency 50 year (b·, P6 = 2.s in. -p24 = L( S" !§. = 5~ %<2> --. ' ·. --'P24 -- (c) Adjusted Pl>= ~in. (d) ~ = _£min. (e} I= &.) in./hr~ Note: This chart replaces.the ·intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since 1965. I P6 , i 1.5 I 2 2.5 1 3 ·3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 oura11oii· I r ··1 i I I I i I . I I I I I I 5 ,-~63 j3.9S i ~.221..6,_5!1_7..,_!19..j.9.!.22 1_0.,54 p1.8§l1~:.!I,...).~,1_9 15.81 ---; 2.12 ,~.2415.30 /6.36,7.42 8,48 . 9.54 10.60 11.66 12.72 --1-0 11.68'"2.53 3.37 l 4.21 I 5.0STs.90 r-6.74 '7.588.42 ~ 9.27 . r-10-:-,·, i---,-5 1.30i1.9Sl2.59 ;3.24i3,89 j4.54 5.19 , 5.84 6.49 7.13 7.78 20 -.i-:-· 6.46 _1.os_1~_.62J 2..J.5J..2,_i;e 1a.2313.77 4.31 , 4.85 5.39 s,93 ·-··25 0.93 l1.40hl!?J..~~I2=.,3~7 _3}:_3j_'.1_.20_~6.: __ 5._13 5.6() 30 _0,83 1.,2~ 1_.p6J.2,0t[.2_,j9 2_0!!() ~-.L.3.1_3 __ 4,1_5 4.~ ~•.sf --40 _ o!e_U2:.J.B_.aai.1_.I2J. 2.01. 2c4_1.')=-1~ +a_,_,o __ a.4s .'""Jic1l 4.13 --50 0.60 10.so11.19 ;1.49 !1.79t2.09 2.39 2.69 2.98 3.28 -:i:&i ~ :::_o~J o:ao1..1_,06~ 1_3:(f.fss _fss -:-2.12 ri39.'):Si('::2er ~:f.,if _o..,_~1J..Cl.~¼..1.,0.2+!.-,~ J~ _J,.6~_,-1,Bi _2..,_~,-~~-·2.45· ~20 _ 0~3:4 o_.s_,.~ o,sa+o.a_s_p_.02T.!.:!.9~_.3_6 ~~ _1-!7-0_~1_.B7 _ .-21i,r --,so 0.29 0.44!0.59 0.73 ,0,88 1.03 1.18 1.3.~,...1-47 1.62 1.76 180 0.26 !0.3910.52 0.65 :0.78 0.91 1.04 1.18 1.31 1.44 1.57 ~o Cf22 I 0.33 ( 0.43 o:s:i : 0.65 0.76 0.8? __ 0.98 1.08 : 1.19 1.30 300 0.19 10.20 ;0.38 o.47 :o.ss o.66, o.75 o.85 0.94 . l.03 1.13 --360 0.17 10.25 _i 0.33 0.42 i 0.50 0.58: 0.67 0.75 0.84 0.92 1.00 F L_G__IL__R. E 3-1 ~( .rf., 11to 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.9 5.0 AO 3.0 ' :to -.:-5 ~ .-Cl) g.1. ';:o.s ~O' C: •' ' I .l!! ' .50. O; .o., .o. ; 0.3 0:2 0 ' 1', "i-,. ..... "-N.""r-. ... "' "":--. ..... ' ~ . " ,..._. 'l'-,. r-. ':<,. r,, r-,;i" "'r-.,. ~ ... . 1o...1' "' " . :-.."' ""' ... , ,f' :,.., ... ""-. ' .. ~i... ' :"' { 'r{ i,,.~ r-.... r..... " l r-.. r-...1 ... ~l ,...,,. :.... r-..· ~ .... ..... ~"' ... i...... r-... r-...;..... I"' t I ..... "' r-...1 I "' "'""-I"'!-. I "'i... ' I I I I I I ' I I ' s. 6 7 8 9·10 ·15 I 1 I l ~i.:t~~ I i..lJ'-~ iJ.. ~ I ' . ct ~ ,1 ~ .. ~-I , I ~ ..;. ~ ~ 11~ .. J ~ ~ ~ -~ ,-~ I -~~ i'I. ' ~ ~ I t-,.. ~~ "'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I•~ ~ ~~ '~ I l ·--~ ~ ', 1'~ I I I '~' I ' l I 11 I ~, ~~ I I I ' 20 30 40 so· 1 ·Minutes Duration I ~ J 11 I l , I I I l EQUATION I = 7 .44 p 6 [j~0_.645 I = _Intensity (ih/hr) P5 = 6-Hour Precipjtation Qn)_ D = Duration (min) I I ' I I , ~I'-. i' I r-.. , ... "' ""' ~ ~~ ""' I r... I 'I'.. ' I i-.., 'I'.. I'-. 1-... .... I 11 r... I I ... ~ r-,.1 I "'r... I 1, I ""' I , 'I',, I',. 2 i-.,,_ I• t-,;,,.l I ' I I .... ~I-, [~~~~ ""~ l ~ ~~~ ...... """' ~~ ,. ~ ~ l'~ "' 7 I ... , ~ ~ r I I 1 ... ""' ~ l "'t-I I I lo,," "' I ~~ I l•i,,,. r~~ I I "' I I ~~~ I - 1 I 3 4 .. 5 ~ Hours ·a, t ... ~ ·c, 6.0 '§'. 5.5 §I 5.0 _g 4.5'.§' C, 4.0 1· 3.5~ .3.0. 2.5 . 2.0 1.5 1.0 interisity-Duration :Design Chart• Tempiate. ~irections for Application: (1) From precipitation ma·ps determine-6 hrand_24 hr-amounts for the .. selected:frequency. These maps are included in .the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50, and 100 yr maps included in· the Design and Procedure Manual). .(2) Adjust'6 hr precipitation.(lf necessary) so ttlat it is within the range· of'45% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (n·ot applicaple to Desert). (3) Plot 6 hr precip1tation on the right side of the chart .. (4) Draw a line thrciugh'.the point pa'rallel to the plotted lines. (5) This fine is the intensity-duration ·curve for the location being_ analyzed. Application· Form: (a) _Selected frequency Jm...... year . . --P6 l A1 (b) P5-= ·:?.o in.,P24 __ = ~'P24 = J£:r_ %(2) (c) Adjusted p6'2) = 2.'1 3 in. (d) 1x = ~min. (e) I= 1. f; inJhr; Note: This chart replaces-the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since 1965. ' i 1.5 i 2 . 2.5 : 3 • 3.5 I 4 4,£t:=5 I 5i5 I P6 _ ! .. 1. 6 Duration I I ,rr.-,-r I I . I I : I I I 5 -~.:.~ 13.9515.27 ~ 6:.5.ll'?.-..~-i,9~ 1_0-,54 j11.8~.[_1_?_.~-IJ5.~9 15.81 --7 2.12 13.18~.24;5.30.J§.36,7.42 8.48 . 9.54 10.BOJt-66 12..72 10 1.68 12.s3·1 :i.i1T4.21 1 s.osls.oo-S:.1.cTI:Ss'sJ2 9.zi· fo~"f1 ·--fs 1.30 11.95!2.59:3.24\3.8914.54 5.19 • 5.84 6.49 7.13 7.78 20 1.08 !1.6212.15 !2.69 132313.TT 4.311◄-."85-5.39 5.93 6,46 ·--·25 ·0_93-ff4or1J-7Tt~l2=.1J~7-. 3.:.7_3J_'!_.2o_H:6: __ s._1a 5.6if --30 _0.83_p 2m, .. 6-6J_2.07J.2,59 2!90 ,..3:3-.2_L3_:Z.3_4,_1~.__1,~6_ -,emf --.. () _0069 __j_!,_03j...1_,38i_1_,!2..!.. 2.07 , 2,:41 _2,!~+_301_0 __ 3.45 _3:7_9 -4.13---50 _0.:.60 _J_ D.:.~9; 1.49 ..0.:.7'.!!.• 2.:.0_9,.. 2,~~~~ 2~~--3..,2_8_ .JJB~ --60 _0_@.~0.BOJ..1,06~ 1033J_1.59 _1_.861_2.12 _2.39 ___ 2.65 __ 2.92_ 3.18 --90 __0.!'.ft16).l.9.,.1!2 ..j_t,~fu~~,-.,~~-..1.:~ ,-2:..~ ... ~~ {~~ --,:io _ 0.:34 _ _!l_.5_1+ o,~ -fi°"!IS ___ 1_.02 .)0~_9 _:1_,36 .1.:..5:! ~~7-.o_,_1:87_ --150 0.29 0.44 0.59 0.73 l0.88 1.03 1.18 1.32 1.47 1.62 ·,.is 180 0.2s 10.3910.52..J..!l.ss 0.1a o.91 1.04 ,.fs-'1.31 u4 1.57 ~o 0.2210.33! 0.431 0.54 0.65 0.761 0.87 0.98 1.08 : U9 1.30 300 0.19 10.28; 0.38 I 0.47 0.56 0.661 0:iS-,--0.85 0.94 . 1.03 U3 --360 0.17 I 0.25 i 0.33 I 0.42 0.50 0.58 : 0.67 0.75 0.84 0.92 1.00 F_I -G U RE 3-1 Appendix F: Storm Water Standards Questionnaire C (city of Carlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the City requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMP's) Into the project design per the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). To view the SUSMP, refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 4, Chapter 2). Initially this questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the outcome, your project will either be subject to 'Standard Stormwater Requirements' or be subject to additional criteria called 'Priority Development Project Requirements'. Many aspects of project site design are dependent upon the storm water standards applied to a project. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the City. If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff. A separate completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted for each new development application submission. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. In addition to this questionnaire, you must also complete, sign and submit a Project Threat Assessment Form with construction permits for the project. Please start by completing Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with your application to the city. To determine if your project Is a priority development project, please answer the following questions: 1. Is your project LIMITED TO constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: (1) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non-erodible permeable areas; OR (2) designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; OR (3) designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets uidance? 2. Is your project LIMITED TO retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Streets guidance? YES NO X X If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, then your project is NOT a priority development project and therefore is NOT subject to the storm water criteria required for priority development projects. Go to step 4, mark the last box stating "my project does not meet PDP requirements" and complete applicant Information. E-34 Page 1 of 3 Effective 6/27/13 (City of c/4Mlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov To determine if your project is a priority development project, please answer the following questions: 1. Is your project a new development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces collectively over the entire project site? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public develo ment ro ·ects on ublic or rivate land. 2. Is your project creating or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and ublic develo ment ro ·ects on ublic or rivate land. 3. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a restaurant? A restaurant is a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consum tion. 4. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a hillside development project? A hillside development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. 5. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a parking lot. A parking lot is a land area or facility for the tern ora arkin or stora e of motor vehicles used ersonall for business or for commerce. 6. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a street, road, highway freeway or driveway? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorc c/es, and other vehicles. 7. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates or replaces 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire site, and discharges directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)? "Discharging Directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the ro ·eel to the ESA i.e. not commin Jes with flows from ad"acent lands . * 8. Is your project a new development that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair shop is a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. 9. Is your project a new development that supports a retail gasoline outlet (RGO)? This category includes RGO's that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles er da . 1 O. ls your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? YES X X X X NO X X X X X X 11. ls your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more of X impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? If you answered "yes• to one or more of the above questions, you ARE a priority development project and are therefore subject to implementing structural Best Management Practices (BMP's) in addition to implementing Standard Storm Water Requirements such as source control and low impact development BMP's. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) must be submitted with your application(s) for development. Go to step 3 for redevelopment projects. For new projects, go to step 4 at the end of this questionnaire, check the "my project meets PDP requirements" box and complete applicant Information. If you answered "no• to all of the above questions, you ARE NOT a priority development project and are therefore subject to implementing only Standard Storm Water Requirements such as source control and low impact development BMP's required for all development projects. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is not required with your application(s) for development. Go to step ·· 4 at the end of this questionnaire, check the "my project does not meet PDP requirements" box and complete applicant , Information. E-34 Page 2 of 3 Effective 6/27/13 ( City of Carlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the reviousl existin develo ment? If you answered "yes," the structural BMP's required for Priority Development Projects apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 4, check the "my project meets PDP requirements" box and complete applicant information. X If you answered "no," the structural BM P's required for Priority Development Projects apply to the entire development. Go to step 4, check the "m ro ect meets PDP re uirements" box and com lete a llcant Information. My project meets PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) requirements and must comply with additional stormwater criteria per the SUSMP and I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Management Plan for submittal at time of application. I understand flow control (hydromodification) requirements may apply to my project. Refer to SUSMP for details. □ My project does not meet PDP requirements and must only comply with STANDARD STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS per c· Applicantt~:f:~:~: ::dp;i:::t:r:s:~:quirements, I will incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Address: 1. 1 .J . ...-e".:)o \1?1V1G1 Applicant Name: l3 ,bL Applicant Signature: Accessor's Parcel Number(s): 1 '2, \ \ -00-O"'\ Applicant Title: Date: \ '2--lo-\5 This Box for City Use Only City Concurrence: I YES I NO I I By: Date: Project ID: * Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their quivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Copermittees. E-34 Page 3 of 3 Effective 6/27/13 ( Appendix G: Geotechnical Report ( ( ECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT PROPOSED CASTLE HOTEL EXPANSION LEGOLAND THEME PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: MERLIN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP/ US HOLDING, INC. One Lego Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Project No. 10075.011 November 23, 2015 ----Leighton and Associates, Inc. ___ .. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY ( ( Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY November 23, 2015 To: Project No. 10075.011 Merlin Entertainment Group/US Holding, Inc. c/o LEGOLAND California, LLC One Lego Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Keith Carr Subject: Geotechnical Update Report, Proposed Castle Hotel Expansion, 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 Castle Hotel Expansion that is planned for the LEGOLAND Theme Park in Carlsbad, California (see Figure 1 ). This report presents the results of our review of pertinent geotechnical documents, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical analyses, and provides our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed development. Based on the result of our current geotechnical study, the proposed 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. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. /t/dl.:.-D~---- wimam D. Olson, RCE 45289 Associate Engineer Distribution: (4) Addressee 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.leightongeo.com 10075.011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..............................................•..............•............................... 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 1 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 2 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .......................... 3 2.1 SITE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................ 3 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................ 3 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .................................................... 4 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................................................ 4 3.2 SITE SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 4 3.2.1 Artificial Fill Undocumented (Not Mapped) .................................................... 4 3.2.2 Artificial Fill Documented (Map Symbol -Afd) .............................................. 5 3.2.3 Quaternary-Aged Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol -Qop) ........................ 5 3.2.4 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol -Tsa) ...................................................... 5 ( 3.4 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ON-SITE SOIL ................................................... 6 3.4.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential .................................................. 6 3.4.2 Expansive Soils ............................................................................................. 6 3.4.3 Soil Corrosivity .............................................................................................. 7 3.4.4 Excavation Characteristics ............................................................................ 7 3.4.5 Infiltration Characteristics .............................................................................. 7 4.0 FAUL TING AND SEISMICITY ................................................................................. 8 4.1 FAULTING ............................................................................................................... 8 4.2 LOCAL FAULTING ···································································································· 8 4.3 SEISMICITY ............................................................................................................. 8 4.4 SEISMIC HAZARDS .........•...............................•........................................................ 8 4.4.1 Shallow Ground Rupture ............................................................................... 9 4.4.2 Mapped Fault Zones ..................................................................................... 9 4.4.3 Site Class ...................................................................................................... 9 4.4.4 Building Code Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters ............................ 9 4.5 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS ...........•..........•..............................................•....... 10 4.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ......................................................... 10 4.5.2 Lateral Spread ............................................................................................. 11 4.5.3 Tsunamis and Seiches ................................................................................ 11 -i -Leiohton ..,, 10075.011 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section 4.6 LANDSLIDES ......................................................................................................... 11 4.7 SLOPES ................................................................................................................ 12 4.8 FLOOD HAZARD .................................................................................................... 12 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 13 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 15 6.1 EARTHWORK ·········· .............................................................................................. 15 6.1.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................... 15 6.1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material ............................................................. 15 6.1.3 Removal of Compressible Soils ................................................................... 16 6.1.4 Pad Overexcavation .................................................................................... 16 6.1.5 Engineered Fill ............................................................................................ 17 6.1.6 Earthwork Shrinkage/Bulking ...................................................................... 17 6.1. 7 Trench Backfill ............................................................................................. 17 6.1.8 Expansive Soils and Selective Grading ....................................................... 18 6.1.9 Import Soils ................................................................................................. 18 6.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS .......................................................................•............ 18 \ 6.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 19 6.3.1 Conventional Foundations ........................................................................... 19 6.3.2 Preliminary Slab Design .............................................................................. 20 6.3.3 Foundation Setback .................................................................................... 20 6.3.4 Settlement ................................................................................................... 21 6.3.5 Moisture Conditioning .................................................................................. 22 6.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND RETAINING WALL DESIGN .................................... 23 6.5 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 25 6.6 CONCRETE FLATWORK .......................................................................................... 25 6. 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION ........................................................................ 26 6.8 PLAN REVIEW .....•................................................................................................. 26 6.9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION .............................................................................. 26 7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 27 -ii -Leighton ( TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES TABLE 1 -2013 MAPPED SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS PARAMETERS -PAGE 10 TABLE 2-MAXIMUM SLOPE RATIOS-PAGE 19 TABLE 3-MINIMUM FOUNDATION SETBACK FROM SLOPE FACES-PAGE 21 10075.011 TABLE 4 -PRESOAKING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON FINISH GRADE SOIL EXPANSION POTENTIAL-PAGE 23 TABLE 5-STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT-PAGE 23 TABLE 6 -RETAINING WALL SOIL PARAMETERS -PAGE 25 FIGURES FIGURE 1 -SITE LOCATION MAP -REAR OF TEXT FIGURE 2 -GEOTECHNICAL MAP -REAR OF TEXT FIGURE 3 -GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION A-A' -REAR OF TEXT FIGURE 4 -GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION B-B' -REAR OF TEXT ( APPENDICES " APPENDIX A -REFERENCES APPENDIX B -BORING LOGS APPENDIX C -LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS APPENDIX D -GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING APPENDIX E -GBC INSERT -iii -Leighton ( 10075.011 1.0 INTRODUCTION We recommend that all individuals utilizing this report read the preceding information sheet prepared by GBC (the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Council) and the Limitations, Section 7.0, located at the end of this report. 1.1 Purpose and Scope 1.2 This report presents the results of our updated geotechnical study for the proposed Castle Hotel Expansion Project located at the LEGOLAND Theme Park in Carlsbad, California (see 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. Site Location and Description The LEGOLAND Theme Park is located north of Palomar Airport Road and west of College Boulevard in Carlsbad, California (see Figure 1). The proposed Castle Hotel Expansion will be located just south of the existing Sea Life Aquarium and directly west of the existing Castle Hotel within the LEGOLAND Theme Park (see Figure 2). Currently, the site is occupied by an asphaltic surfaced parking lot which has direct access from LEGOLAND Drive. In addition, vegetation at the site consists of typical lawns, shrubs and trees. Topographically, the site is nearly level with elevations gently sloping from the north to the south, ranging from approximately 150 to 146 feet above mean sea level (msl). As background, Leighton performed the initial geotechnical investigation for the LEGOLAND Theme Park in 1995. Subsequently, the site was mass graded between 1996 and 1998 under the direct observation and testing of Leighton. As a result of the mass grading operations for the development of the LEGOLAND Theme Park, a cut to fill transition was created at the site, which perpendicularly transects the center of the site in a north to south orientation (see Figure 2). Site Latitude and Longitude 33.1254° N -117.3123° w -1- Leighton 10075.011 1.3 Proposed Development It is our understanding that the proposed Castle Hotel Expansion Project will consist of a new two to three story hotel building and pool. Additionally, improvements at the site will consist of associated driveways, utilities, landscape and hardscape. We anticipate the site earthwork will consist of an overexcavation of cut areas, remedial grading to account for weathered fill and general grading (i.e., cut to fill mitigation) to reach the proposed site finish grades. In addition, we anticipate the foundation system for the proposed building and site structures will be constructed using conventional foundations. Preliminary grading and foundation plans or structural loads were not available prior to the preparation of this report. -2- Leighton C ( C 10075.011 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Site Investigation 2.2 Our exploration consisted of excavating five (5) 8-inch small diameter geotechnical borings (8-1 through 8-5) to approximately 16 to 26.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). All borings were drilled using a heavy duty truck mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig. During the exploration operations, a geologist from our firm prepared geologic logs and collected bulk and relatively undisturbed samples for laboratory testing and evaluation. After logging, the borings were backfilled per County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) requirements. The boring logs are provided in Appendix 8. Geotechnical boring locations are depicted on the Geotechnical Map (see Figure 2). Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing performed on soil samples representative of on-site soils obtained during the recent subsurface exploration included, moisture content, density determination, shear strength, consolidation, expansion index, and a screening geochemical analysis for corrosion. A discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. -3- Leighton ( 10075.011 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Geologic Setting 3.2 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. Site Specific Geology Based on our 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 Old Paralic Deposits, and the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Brief descriptions of the geologic units present at the site are presented in the following sections. The approximate areal distribution of the geologic units is depicted on the Geotechnical Map (see Figure 2) and the geotechnical boring logs with detailed soils descriptions are presented in Appendix B. 3.2.1 Artificial Fill Undocumented (Not Mapped) 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. -4- Leighton ( \ 10075.011 3.2.2 Artificial Fill Documented (Map Symbol -Afd} The site is generally overlain by documented artificial fill that was placed and compacted during previous grading operations (Leighton, 1998). The depth of the fill soils at the site is expected to vary between 3 and 22 feet bgs. The fill soils consists of moist, reddish brown medium dense to very dense, silty sand and moist reddish brown, stiff to very stiff, sandy lean clay. In addition, the fill soils were compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 (Leighton, 1998). The upper 2 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. 3.2.3 Quaternary-Aged Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol -Qop} Quaternary-aged Old Paralic Deposits are present beneath the site. To the east of the cut to fill transition, a thin veneer of documented artificial fill overlies the Old Paralic Deposits. These Old Paralic Deposits consist of yellowish brown to reddish brown, moist, medium dense to very dense, silty sand. Sand lenses within the Old Paralic Deposits are known to contain layers that transmit water seepage. In addition, we anticipate that portions of the Old Paralic Deposits may need to be excavated and/or undercut and replaced as compacted fill during the mitigation of the differential fill thickness caused by cut to fill transition at the site. 3.2.4 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol -Tsa} The Santiago Formation underlies the entire the site at depth. The Santiago Formation consists of a very pale brown, moist, very dense, silty fine to medium grained sandstone. We anticipate that portions of the Santiago Formation in the southeast corner of the site may need to be excavated and/or undercut and replaced as compacted fill during the mitigation of the differential fill thickness cut to fill transition at the site. -5- Leiatlton 1/ 10075.011 3.3 Surface Water and Ground Water No indication of surface water or evidence of surface ponding was encountered during our geotechnical investigation at the site. However, surface water may drain as sheet flow across the site during rainy periods. 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 Old Paralic 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 Old Paralic Deposits. Therefore, based on the above information, we do not anticipate ground water will be a constraint to the construction of the project. 3.4 Engineering Characteristics of On-Site Soil Based on our subsurface exploration, geologic mapping during previous grading operations (Leighton, 1998), review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, i, and our professional experience on adjacent sites with similar soils, the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils are discussed below. 3.4.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential Based on the dense nature of the on-site documented fill, Old Paralic Deposits and the Santiago Formation, it is our opinion that the potential for settlement and collapse at the site is low. However, the upper 2 feet of previously placed documented fill that is weathered or disturbed by existing improvements are expected to be removed by planned grading and/or remedial grading. 3.4.2 Expansive Soils The majority of the onsite material is expected to have a low to medium expansion potential. In addition, soils generated from excavations in the Old Paralic Deposits and the Santiago Formation 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 -6- Leighton ( ' 10075.011 building pad is recommended to determine actual expansion potential of finish grade soil at the site. 3.4.3 Soil Corrosivity During our investigation, a preliminary screening of one representative on- site soil sample was performed to evaluate its potential corrosive effect on concrete and ferrous metals. In summary, laboratory testing on the representative soil sample obtained during our subsurface exploration evaluated pH, minimum electrical resistivity, and chloride and soluble sulfate content. The sample tested had a measured Ph of 7.52 and a measured minimum electrical resistivity of 1,080 ohm-cm. The test result also indicated that the sample had a chloride content of 307 parts per million (ppm) and a soluble sulfate content range of less than 130 ppm. 3.4.4 Excavation Characteristics It is anticipated the on-site soils can be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. Localized cemented zones located within the Old Paralic Deposits and the Santiago Formation, if encountered, may require heavy ripping or breaking. In addition, localized loose soil zones and friable sands, if encountered, may require special excavation techniques to prevent collapsing of the excavation. 3.4.5 Infiltration Characteristics Based on our experience, we anticipate that the underlying documented 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) 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. -7- Leigr1ton 10075.011 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4.1 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 Alquist-Priolo Act. 4.2 Local Faulting \ Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) and geologic mapping during previous grading 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 4.7 miles west of the site (USGS, 2008). 4.3 Seismicity The site is considered to lie within a seismically active region, as is all of Southern California. As previously mentioned above, the Rose Canyon fault zone located approximately 4. 7 miles west of the site is considered the 'active' fault having the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. 4.4 Seismic Hazards Severe ground shaking is most likely to occur during an earthquake on one of the regional active faults in Southern California. The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the California Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. -8- Leigrlton C ( 10075.011 4.4.1 Shallow Ground Rupture As previously discussed, no active faults are mapped transecting or projecting toward the site. Therefore, surface rupture hazard due to faulting is considered very low. Ground cracking due to shaking from a seismic event is not considered a significant hazard either, since the site is not located near slopes. 4.4.2 Mapped Fault Zones The site is not located within a State mapped Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ). As previously discussed, the subject site is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults. 4.4.3 Site Class Utilizing 2013 California Building Code (CBC) procedures, we have characterized the site soil profile to be Site Class D based on our experience with similar sites in the project area and the results of our subsurface evaluation. 4.4.4 Building Code Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters 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 Table 1 are the spectral acceleration parameters for the project determined in accordance with the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) and the USGS Worldwide Seismic Design Values tool (Version 3.1.0). -9- LeigMon 10075.011 Table 1 2013 CBC Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters Site Class D Fa = 1.048 Site Coefficients Fv = 1.566 Ss = 1.129g Mapped MCE Spectral Accelerations S1 = 0.434g SMs = 1.184g Site Modified MCE Spectral Accelerations SM1 = 0.680g Sos = 0.789g Design Spectral Accelerations So1 = 0.453g 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 0.448g for the site. For a Site Class D, the FPGA is 1.052 and the mapped peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects (PGAM) ( is 0.471g for the site. 4.5 Secondary Seismic Hazards In general, secondary seismic hazards can include soil liquefaction, seismically- induced settlement, lateral displacement, surface manifestations of liquefaction, landsliding, seiches, and tsunamis. The potential for secondary seismic hazards at the subject site is discussed below. 4.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction is typified 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 by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface. ~ -10- Leighton C I \ 4.6 10075.011 Based on our evaluation, the on-site soils are not considered liquefiable due to their dense condition and absence of a shallow ground water condition. Considering planned grading and foundation design measures, dynamic settlement potential is also considered negligible. 4.5.2 Lateral Spread Empirical relationships have been derived (Youd et al., 1999) to estimate the magnitude of lateral spread due to liquefaction. These relationships include parameters such as earthquake magnitude, distance of the earthquake from the site, slope height and angle, the thickness of liquefiable soil, and gradation characteristics of the soil. Based on the low susceptibility to liquefaction and the formational material unit underlying the site, the possibility of earthquake-induced lateral spread is considered to be low for the site. 4.5.3 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the site elevation and the distances of the site from the Pacific coastline, there is no potential for flood damage to occur at the site from a tsunami or seiche. 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 geologic -11- Leighton C 10075.011 review and previous 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 previous site grading, or our review of available geologic literature, topographic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs. Furthermore, our field exploration 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. 4.7 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. 4.8 Flood Hazard According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map (FEMA, 2012); the site is not located within a floodplain. In addition, the site is not located downstream of a dam or within a dam inundation area based on our review of topographic maps. Therefore, the potential for flooding of the site is considered very low. -12- Leighton C ( 10075.011 5.0 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. • As the site is located in the seismically active southern California area, all structures should be designed to tolerate the dynamic loading resulting from seismic ground motions; • The site is not transected by Potentially Active or Active faults; • The location of the proposed Castle Hotel Expansion Project is within an area underlain by existing documented fill placed as part of the original rough grading of the LEGOLAND Theme Park, Quaternary-aged Old Paralic Deposits, and the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation; • Areas of undocumented fill and disturbed soils, ranging from 1 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 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; • As a result of the mass grading operations for the development of the LEGOLAND Theme Park, a cut to fill transition was created which perpendicularly transects the center of the site in a north to south orientation. Over-excavation and/or undercutting should be performed to mitigate the cut to fill transition to prevent the potential for differential settlement under the proposed structure; • 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; -13- Leighton 10075.011 • We anticipate that the soils present on the site will be generally rippable with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment; • 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. • Based on laboratory testing, the soils on the site generally possess a low to medium expansion potential. Nevertheless, there may be localized areas across the site and between our exploration locations having a higher expansion potential; • Ground water was not encountered during the site investigation or pervious grading operations. 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 Old Paralic Deposits and along the fill and Old Paralic Deposits contact during periods of precipitation or increased landscape irrigation; • Although foundation plans have not been finalized and building loads were not provided at the time this report was drafted, we anticipate that a conventional foundation system, consisting of continuous and spread footings with slab-on- grade flooring supported by competent documented fill materials, will be utilized for the proposed building and site structures; • Although Leighton does not practice corrosion engineering, laboratory test results indicate the soils present on the site have a negligible potential for sulfate attack on normal concrete. In addition, the onsite soils are considered to be corrosive to buried uncoated ferrous metals. We recommend that a corrosion engineer be retained to design corrosion protection systems and to evaluate the appropriate concrete properties for the project; and • Low Impact Development (LID) measures may impact down gradient improvements and the use of unlined LID measures may not be appropriate for this project. -14- Leighton C 6.1 ( 10075.011 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, building pad overexcavation of cut areas and remedial grading. 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 D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations supersede those in Appendix D. 6.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures, and pavements should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris and undocumented fill, old slabs, loose, compressible, or unsuitable soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off-site. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, brought to optimum or above-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557. 6.1.2 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. Due to the high-density characteristics of the Old Paralic Deposits and the Santiago Formation, temporary shallow excavations less than 5 feet in depth with vertical sides should remain stable for the period required to construct utilities, provided the trenches are free of adverse geologic conditions. Overlying artificial fill soils and beds of friable sands within the Old Paralic Deposits present at the site may cave during trenching operations. In accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations deeper -15- Leighton ( 10075.011 than 5 feet should be shored or be laid back in accordance with Section 6.2 if workers are to enter such excavations. 6.1.3 Removal of Compressible Soils The upper 2 feet of the previously placed documented fill at the site is weathered and is therefore considered to be potentially compressible and may settle as a result of wetting or settle under the surcharge of engineered fill and/or structural loads supported on shallow foundations. The upper two feet of fill materials at the site should be removed and reprocessed prior to the placement of additional fills or construction of new improvements. In addition, the lateral limits of the removal excavations should extend at least 5 feet beyond the foundation limits of the site sensitive improvements. The bottom of all removals should be evaluated by a Certified Engineering Geologist to confirm conditions are as anticipated. In general, the soil that is removed may be reused and placed as engineered fill provided the material is free of oversized rock, organic materials, and deleterious debris, and moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content. Soil with an expansion index greater than 50 should not be used within 5 feet of finish grade in the building pad. The actual depth and extent of the required removals should be confirmed during grading operations by the geotechnical consultant. 6.1.4 Pad Overexcavation In order to minimize the potential for differential settlement, we recommend that the proposed building and settlement sensitive structures be entirely underlain by a layer of properly compacted fill. Therefore, the cut portion areas located east of the cut to fill transition at the site that is planned for structures should be over-excavated to a depth of 12 feet bgs or 10 feet below lowest footing bottom elevation, whichever is less, and replaced with properly compacted fill. The over-excavated areas should be graded with a 1 percent gradient sloping toward the deeper fill areas, if possible. The approximate limit of overexcavation is depicted on the geotechnical map (Figure 2). -16- Leighton C 10075.011 6.1.5 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 3 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 D. 6.1.6 Earthwork Shrinkage/Bulking The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction as fill is expected to vary with material and location. Typically, the fill soils and formational materials vary significantly in natural and compacted density, and therefore, accurate earthwork shrinkage/bulking estimates cannot be determined. However, based on the results of our geotechnical analysis and our experience, a 5 percent shrinkage factor is considered appropriate for the artificial fill and a 3 to 5 percent bulking factor is considered appropriate for the Old Paralic Deposits and the Santiago Formation. 6.1.7 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 -17- Leighton { \ 10075.011 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. 6.1.8 Expansive Soils and Selective Grading Based on our laboratory testing and observations, we anticipate the onsite soil materials possess a low to medium expansion potential (Appendix C). Although not anticipated, should an abundance of highly expansive materials be encountered, selective grading may need to be performed. In addition, to accommodate conventional foundation design, the upper 5 feet of materials within the building pad and 5 feet outside the limits of the building foundation should have a very low to low expansion potential (El<S0). 6.1.9 Import Soils If import soils are necessary to bring the site up to the proposed grades, these soils should be granular in nature, and have an expansion index less than 50 (per ASTM Test Method D4829) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements. Beneath pavements, subgrade materials should possess an R-value of 30, or greater. Import soils and/or the borrow site location should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to import. 6.2 Temporary Excavations Sloping excavations may be utilized when adequate space allows in accordance with OSHA requirements. Based on the results of our update evaluation, we provide the following recommendations for sloped excavations in fill soils or competent Old Paralic Deposits and the Santiago Formation without seepage conditions. -18- Leighton 10075.011 Table 2 Maximum Slope Ratios Maximum Slope Ratio Excavation Depth Maximum Slope Ratio In Old Paralic Deposits (feet) In Fill Soils and/or Santiago Formation 0 to 5 1 :1 (Horizontal to Vertical) Vertical 5 to 15 1: 1 (Horizontal to Vertical) 1 :1 (Horizontal to Vertical) The above values are based on the assumption that no surcharge loading or equipment will be placed within 10 feet of the top of slope. Care should be taken during excavation adjacent to the existing structures so that undermining does not occur. A "competent person" should observe the slope on a daily basis for signs of instability. 6.3 Foundation Design Considerations At the time of drafting this report, building loads were not known. However, based ( on our understanding of the project, the proposed structure and settlement sensitive improvements may be constructed with conventional foundations. Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have a low potential for expansion (El<50). If more expansive materials are encountered and selective grading cannot be accomplished, revised foundation recommendations may be necessary. The foundation recommendations below assume that the all building foundations will be underlain by properly compacted fill. C 6.3.1 Conventional Foundations The proposed structure and settlement sensitive improvements may be supported by conventional, continuous or isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent soil grade. At these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in dense compacted fill soils. The allowable bearing pressures may also be increased by one-third when considering loads of -19- Leigt1ton ( 10075.011 short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings. 6.3.2 Preliminary Slab Design Slabs on grade should be reinforced with reinforcing bars placed at slab mid-height. Slabs should have crack joints at spacings designed by the structural engineer. Columns, if any, should be structurally isolated from slabs. Slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 re bars at 18 inches on center on center ( each way). The slab should be underlain by 2-inch layer of clean sand (S.E. greater than 30). A moisture barrier (10-mil non-recycled plastic sheeting) should be placed below the sand layer if reduction of moisture vapor up through the concrete slab is desired (such as below equipment, living/office areas, etc.), which is in turn underlain by an additional 2-inches of clean sand. If applicable, slabs should also be designed for the anticipated traffic loading using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 140 pounds per cubic inch. All waterproofing measures should be designed by the project architect. The slab subgrade soils underlying the foundation systems should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 3 prior to placement of the moisture barrier and slab concrete. The subgrade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of Leighton prior to slab construction. 6.3.3 Foundation Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural foundations, footings, and other settlement- sensitive structures as indicated on the Table 3 below. This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face, and is based on the slope height. However, the foundation setback distance may be revised by the geotechnical consultant on a case- by-case basis if the geotechnical conditions are different than anticipated. -20- Leighton C ( 10075.011 Table 3 Minimum Foundation Setback from Slope Faces Slope Height Setback less than 5 feet 5feet 5 to 15 feet ?feet 15 to 30 feet 10 feet Please note that the soils 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 subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a grade beam foundation system to support the improvement. In addition, open or backfilled utility trenches that parallel or nearly parallel structure footings should not encroach within an imaginary 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) downward sloping line starting 9 inches above the bottom edge of the footing and should also not be located closer than 18 inches from the face of the footing. Deepened footings should meet the setbacks as described above. Also, over-excavation should be accomplished such that deepening of footings to accomplish the setback will not introduce a cut/fill transition bearing condition. Where pipes may cross under footings, the footings should be specially designed. Pipe sleeves should be provided where pipes cross through footings or footing walls and sleeve clearances should provide for possible footing settlement, but not less than 1 inch around the pipe. 6.3.4 Settlement Fill depths between 12 and 22 feet are anticipated beneath the proposed building foundations following final grading. For conventional footings, the recommended allowable-bearing capacity is based on a maximum total and differential static settlement of 3/4 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. Since settlements are a function of footing size and contact bearing -21- Leighton / l 10075.011 pressures, some differential settlement can be expected where a large differential loading condition exists. However for most cases, differential settlements are considered unlikely to exceed 1/2 inch. 6.3.5 Moisture Conditioning The slab subgrade soils underlying the foundation systems should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 4 prior to placement of the moisture barrier and slab concrete. The subgrade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of Leighton prior to slab construction. Presoaking or moisture conditioning may be achieved in a number of ways. But based on our professional experience, we have found that minimizing the moisture loss on pads that have been completed (by periodic wetting to keep the upper portion of the pad from drying out) and/or berming the lot and flooding for a short period of time (days to a few weeks) are some of the more efficient ways to meet the presoaking recommendations. If flooding is performed, a couple of days to let the upper portion of the pad dry out and form a crust so equipment can be utilized should be anticipated. Table4 Presoaking Recommendations Based on Finish Grade Soil Expansion Potential Expansion Potential Presoaking Recommendations Very Low Near-optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 6 inches Low 120 percent of the optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches below slab suborade Medium 130 percent of the optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches below slab suborade High 130 percent of the optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 24 inches below slab subgrade -22- Leighton 10075.011 r· ·· 6.4 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design \ ( Should retaining walls be added to the project, Table 5 presents the lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping backfill for walls backfilled with and bearing against fully drained soils of very low to low expansion potential (less than 50 per ASTM D4829). Table 5 Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 65 Passive 350 150 (Maximum of 3 ksO (slopinQ down) Walls up to 10 feet in height should be designed for the applicable equivalent fluid unit weight values provided above. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid unit weight values should be provided on an individual case-by-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed 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 pressure equal to 0.35q should be applied to the wall. The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with free draining materials and water is not allowed to accumulate behind walls. A typical drainage design is contained in Appendix D. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). If foundations are planned over the backfill, the backfill should be compacted to 95 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend a minimum horizontal distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight as outlined in Section 6.3.3. Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of -23- Leighton 10075.011 short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. 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 1803.5.12 and/or ASCE 7-10 Section 15.6.1 should also be analyzed for seismic loading. For that analysis, an additional uniform lateral seismic force of 8H should be considered for the design of the retaining walls with level backfill, where H is the height of the wall. This value should be increased by 150% for restrained walls. Based on the geotechnical conditions of the site, the recommended soil parameters presented on Table 6 should be utilized in the design of the proposed MSE retaining walls, if any. Temporary sloping should be performed in accordance with current OSHA requirements. Table 6 Retaining Wall Soil Parameters Soil Parameter Reinforced Retained Zone Foundation Zone Zone Internal Friction Angle 30 28 30 (degrees) Cohesion (psf) 0 0 0 Total Unit Weight (pcf) 128 125 128 Additional details relevant to the design of the MSE wall are presented on Detail G -Segmental Retaining Walls in Appendix D -General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. In addition, we recommend that water should be prevented from infiltrating into the reinforced soil zone. All drains and swales should outlet to suitable locations as determined by the project civil engineer. In general, the project civil engineer should verify that the subdrain is connected to the proper drainage facility. Note that we also recommend a 7 foot minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all retaining wall footings. This distance is measured from -24- Leighton \ 6.5 10075.011 the outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face and is based on the slope height and type of soil. Appropriate surcharge pressures should also be applied for walls influenced within the retained or reinforced zones by improvements or vehicular traffic. The wall design engineer should also select grid design strength based on deflections tolerable to the proposed improvements. Settlement sensitive structures should not be located within the reinforced zone or active backfill prism. Geochemical Considerations Concrete in direct contact with soil or water that contains a high concentration of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as "sulfate attack." Soluble sulfate results (Appendix C) indicated a negligible soluble sulfate content. We recommend that concrete in contact with earth materials be designed in accordance with Section 4 of ACI 318-11 (ACI, 2011 ). Based on the results of preliminary screening laboratory testing, the site soils have a generally high corrosion potential to buried uncoated metal conduits. We recommend measures to mitigate corrosion be implemented during design and construction. 6.6 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. If medium to highly expansive material are present at subgrade, these areas should be moisture conditioned in accordance with Section 6.3.5. 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 -25- Leighton l \ l ' 6.7 10075.011 wire mesh slip dowels should be provided across control joints along ADA walkways, curbs, and at doorways. 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. 6.8 Plan Review Final project grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by Leighton as part of the design development process to ensure that recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans. 6.9 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. -26- Leighton f 10075.011 7.0 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon field exploration 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. -27- Leiahton .., r·· \.. Figures Project: 10075.011 Eng/Geel: WDO/RNB Scale: 1 • = 2,000' Date: November 2015 Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2015 Themalic lnfonnation: Leighton Author: (mmurphy) SITE LOCATION MAP LEGOLAND Castle Hotel Carlsbad, California Map Saved as V:\Orefting\10075\011\Map■\10075-011_F01_SLM_2015-11-16.mxd on 11/17/201511:50:SSA.M Leighton 'I \ I \ \1 I_ I I \' \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ B-5 I.Afdtl0-22' .T..i.22' Afd @ ~ c_J_4 -' Afd00-22' Tsa0 22' Afd Afd @ Afd 8 :::/ l 1 / :j I ; :::/ ::/ -«I-ti ::/ :( '--4-::/ CASTLE HOTEL B-3 Qop [If] Afd00-3' 0opO3'-15' Q TsdO15' Op [If] .J_ 8-1 0 At--$' I \ a..-s·-13' T_.1S' [If] 8-2 ------r--- J i I I ~ N I 50 /TT 8 ' m ··-1 ._1 ~l~llll1 100 -......... / :L(I I Jjj 1111111111 H-111111 Feet Project: 10075.011 I Eng/Geol: WDOIMOJ Scale: 1"=50' Date: Novembe< 2015 ..,_ ----1c.io_,...,.,_Cll!Ultl .. 11,M.o,,ro1,-•,,~.._.____. GEOTECHNICAL MAP LEGOLAND New CasUe Hotel LEGOLAND, California / I ~/ LEGEND B-5 -' <=-,,.- ...JL_JJ_ A. A.' -- [IT'.] Afd Qop Tsa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r 'y- 'y- 'r t Approximate Boring Lototion Approximate Geologic Contact (dotted where buried) Approximate limits al cut & fill Geologic Cross-Section Approximate horlzontol limits of onticipoted overexcovation Approximate anticipated remedial grading depth below the existing ground surface (bgs) Artificial fill Oocumonlod (groater than 5 IHI) Ouortemory-oged Old Porolic Deposits (circled where buried) T ertlory-oged Santiago r ormotlon (clrclod where burlod) Leighton ... ... ~ z 0 ;:: "' > ... _, ... West East A' A I I I I I I I I I I 200 150 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sectior I I I I Propo?ed 8-4 I 8-8' 8-2 Pool (ProJ1 1 0S'N) I I I I I I I (ProJ. 75'N) ~ ----1+ -8.-5 -J t----&, ' ----j_ ----J -----~ ----j_ ----J ------~ ---~ if e9R2a<L I {ProJ. 60'5) I f rs ,ng I I 8 3 1 I I 18 1 Castle Hotel To ography --, I j I i I I {Proj. 105'N) I I (Pioj. so's) I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I Afd I 11 I I I I I I ____ I\ I I I 1-----+---1---+ Afd1 1 1~d---r"::_=-....1~-=-1~ ==4 ~· --1-• -: -. -+---::.-1~ --, r.o.=1sls· IQop I 1 r.o.=26.s r.o,.=26.s I Qop 1 1 1 1 T I I I I l I I I sa I I 100 ,----rs·at ------i-----, ----T ----1 -----1 ----T ------i-----1 ----T ----- I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 Tso 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 200 150 100 50 I I 50 50 100 .... Project; 10075.011 Eng/Geol: WDOIMDJ Scale: 1"':50' Date: November 2015 ..,_ --~"""'1N;Hll.l.0,._.1--"'"--Gfr!IJltl~11-....o,iQj\t4).f111~-.,.--- LEGEND 8-3 1 T.D.=19.5' Approximate Boring Location showing total depth Afd Qop Artificial fill Documented ----Approximate Geologic Contact ----Approximate limits of anticipated overexcovation Ouorternory-oged Old Paralic Deposits Ts a T ertlory-oged Santiago rormollon GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' LEGOLAND New CasUe Hotel LEGOLAND, Califomia -;:-... ~ z 0 ;:: ~ _, ... Leighton 50_ Feet Project 10075.011 Eng/Geal: WDOIM0J Seate: 1"=50' Date: Nov-2015 -,..,,.,,....,. 100 ~'"111CADI--I.J"M_Gti(,)111,11-M.~IIW..-IJIIAt»Mi ,_..., ....... .::-... ~ z 0 i;; > :l ... North Section A-A' South 8' 200 150 100 8 11 I i------Propose~ Castle Hote/------ 1 II I I I I ----~-----~----+----~-----~-I Existing aL3 I I I I! I I II I Topogrpphy I I I Afd : ~ ~-----~fd _-=-.i~p_ I I T.D.f19.5' I I I I I --+-- I I I I ,-----~-----1 ____ I ____ I _ I I 1 , 7 ----r----,-- Tsa 1 1 Tso 1 1 Tsa 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 200 150 100 ~ ~ LEGEND B-3 l T.D.=19.5' Approximate Boring Location showing totol depth Artificial F'ill Documented B t;. z 0 ;:: -< > :l ... Afd Qop Quarternary-aged Old ParaUc Deposits ----Approximate Ceologic Contact ----Approximate limits of anticipated ov1r1xcovation Tsa Tortlory-oged Santiago rormatlon GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' LEGOLAND New Castte Hotel LEGOLAND, California Leighton ( \ \. APPENDIX A References 10075.011 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary. Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- 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 Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013, California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2. 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. Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M. P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) 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. A-1 ( ( 10075.011 APPENDIX A (Continued) United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 2008, US Seismic Design Map Tool/Calculator, Version 3.1.0. A-2 APPENDIX B Boring Logs GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY Project No. Project KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Date Drilled Logged By "rilling Co. .:>rilling Method Location C: CJ 0 &.-:C:01 ·---GJ -GJ RI GJ C.a, a.o ~LL ~LL f..J (!) w N s 0 r A·•,,_,. ~ •.11• -C• 41• ~-""'-·~.-~· ~ // ) ) ) 5 §§ ~{1/, -1/.~ • "'Ill ' .~-. IO'--'U• 0 (\o_o JO PJJi' 0 0 ~ .,) ". . " " 15 ~ ~ '.lZ. - - 20- - - - - 25- - - - - SAMPLWTYPES: B BULKSAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE II) GJ "0 ::i -= <( •r G GRABSAMPLE S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE () II) ~ z GJ II)&. II) GJ :r: CJ c:- Q. o-= GJ CJ ca. E jj:i<O ~ RI ... U) GJ C 0. B-1 C-1 G-1 It'! R-1 SH-I S-1 PUSH TYPE OF TESTS: -200 % FINES PASSING AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION co COLLAPSE CR CORROSION cu UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL GJ~ ... -::i--c: 1/) GJ ··-... oc: :i:0 0 OS El H en--:--1/lU) RI • -o o. -"' ·o::; u,- CL CH OL ML MH ML-CL GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC Hole Diameter Ground Elevation Sampled By SOIL DESCRIPTION This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. Asphaltic concrete Portland cement concrete Inorfanic clay oflow to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy c av: siltv clav: lean clav Inorganic clay; high plasticity, fat clays Organic clay; medium to plasticity, organic silts Inorganic silt; clayey silt with low plasticity Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt Clayey silt to silty clay Well-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixtures Clayey sand; sand-clay mixtures Bedrock Ground water encountered at time of drilling Bulle Sample Core Sample Grab Sample Modified California Sampler (3" O.D., 2.5 I.D.) Shelby Tube Sampler (3" O.D.) Standard Penetration Test SPT (Sampler (2" O.D., I .4" I.D.) Sampler Penetrates without Hammer Blow DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT HYDROMETER TR THERMAL RESISTIVITY MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH pp POCKET PENETROMETER RV RVALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * II) -II) GJ I--0 GJ a. >, I- ~ Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-1 Project No. 10075-001 Date Drilled 11-3-15 Project Legoland Castle Hotel Logged By RNB 'rilling Co. Baja Excavation Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-140Ib -Autohammer -30" Oro~ Ground Elevation 149' Location C: 0 CJ ·--.s:..,. :Cc, .... OJ .... OJ ca OJ Cl.a, a.o ~LL ~LL f!...J (!) jjj 0 145 140 10 135 15 130 20 125 25 120 See Figure 2 Cl) OJ "Cl :::, .... .. .... <( 0 z OJ Q, E ca en B-1 1'-5' R-1 B--2 5'-10' S-1 R-2 S-2 Cl) OJ 111.S: ~CJ o.E a5co ... OJ 0.. 10 28 31 16 20 26 50/6" 15 36 SAMPLi'lrvPES: TYPE OF TESTS: ~ OJ~ 'iii ... -c:-:::, .... .... C: OJ CJ Cl)GJ C Cl. ·--oc: ~ ~0 C 0 119 12 en--:-111en ca • -o O· _en 'cb en- CL SM Sampled By RNB SOIL DESCRIPTION This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 8" AGGREGATE BASE ----------------------------tiRTIFICIAL FILL DQCUMENTED (Afd) @ 1': Sandy lean CLAY, soft, dark yellowish brown (10 yr4/6) with gray (5 yr 5/1) inclusions, moist, low plasticity OLD PARALIC DEPQSITS (Qop) @ 5': Silty SAND, medium dense, yellowish brown (10 yr 5/8), moist, fine-grained SM SANTIAGQ FQRMATIQN (Tsa) @ 13': Silty SANDSTONE, very dense, very pale brown (10 yr 7/4), moist, fine-grained Total Depth= 19.5 Feet Below Ground Surface (BGS) No groundwater or seepage encountered during exploration Backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonlte chips on 11/3/15 B BULK SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * J1 Cl) OJ I--0 OJ Cl. >, I- MD,DS Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Project No. 10075-001 Date Drilled 11-3-15 Project Legoland Castle Hotel Logged By RNB rilling Co. Baja Excavation Hole Diameter 8" rilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-140lb -Autohammer -30" Dro~ Ground Elevation 146' Location See Fiqure 2 C: CJ II) 0 .c:_ :c CJ) Cl) ·--"C -Cl) -Cl) cu Cl) C.a, c.o ::s iu.. ~LI.. ~..J -.. jjj (!) -~ 0 II) ~ Cl)~ Cl) z u,.C: II) ... - Cl) 31: CJ c:-::s-_c: 0. o-= Cl) CJ II) Cl) [iico cc. ·--E ~ oc: cu ... :i:0 en Cl) C (.) 0. ~ s 0 145 ~-~~.i ----■ B-1 1'-5' -- - 5-·. 140 -. -+--+---<---+"-' ------ - - 10-· 135 - - - - 15-. 130 - - - 20- 125 - - - - 25- 120 - - - SAMPL~PES: B BULK SAMPLE ( C CORE SAMPLE G GRAB SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE S-2 S-3 20 50/6" 20 "-I'l/f'." TYPE OF TESTS: -200 % FINES PASSING OS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El CN CONSOLIDATION H CO COLLAPSE MD CR CORROSION PP CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV Sampled By RNB en-:--SOIL DESCRIPTION UICI) cu . This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the -(.) (.) . _en time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations ·o:; and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the en-actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 8" AGGREGATE BASE --~----------------------------CL ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED (Afd} SM SM @ 1': Sandy lean CLAY, soft, dark yellowish brown (10 yr 4/6), moist, low plasticity OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop} @ 3': Silty SAND, medium dense, reddish brown (5 yr 5/4), moist, fine-grained @ 5': Becomes very dense SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa} @ 7': Silty SANDSTONE, very dense, very pale brown (10 yr 7/4), moist, fine-to medium-grained Total Depth= 16 Feet Below Ground Surface (SGS) No groundwater or seepage encountered during exploration Backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonlte chips on 11/3/15 DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKETPENETROMETER RVALUE UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * J!! II) Cl) .... -0 Cl) C. >, .... Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Project No. 10075-001 Date Drilled 11-3-15 Project Legoland Castle Hotel Logged By RNB 'rilling Co. Baja Excavation Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-140lb -Autohammer -30" Oro~ Ground Elevation 148' Location C: 0 .c:., ·--.. G) .. G) cu G) O.a, ~u. ~u. w ... 0 CJ :EC) o.o e!..J C) s See Fioure 2 Ill G) "C :::s .. ~ .. ct () z G) ii E cu Cl) B-1 1'-5' Ill ~ G)~ G) 111.C: Ill ... -3': CJ c:-:::s-.. C: o-= G) CJ 1/) G) 00. ·--ii5co oc: ~ ... ::i:0 G) 0 0 0.. Sampled By RNB ,.,;~ SOIL DESCRIPTION I/IC/) cu . This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the -o O· _Cl) time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations ·s=> and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the en-actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 8" AGGREGATE BASE -SM -ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED /Afd\ @ 1': Silty SAND, loose to medium dense, reddish brown (5 yr 5/4), moist, fine-grained 145 _,_-+-,____.__, ___ ~---~ --~ -----~ SM -OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS /Qop\ 5-·. 140 10-. 135 -· 15--,f-+-+-+---J--- -. 130 - - 20- - - 125 - - 25- - - 120 SAMPLi'livPES: B BULK SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE r G GRAB SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE R-1 S-1 B-2 10'-15' 32 119 50/4" 14 21 39 10 ---------R-2 S-2 50/6" 119 18 36 en,,• TYPE OF TESTS: 11 -200 % FINES PASSING DS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El CN CONSOLIDATION H CO COLLAPSE MD CR CORROSION PP CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV SM @ 3': Silty SAND, medium dense, reddish brown (5 yr 5/4) with gray (5 yr 5/1) inclusions, moist, fine-grained @ 5': Becomes very dense @ 10': Becomes dark reddish brown (5 yr 3/4) SANTIAGO FORMATION /Tsa) @ 15': Silty SANDSTONE, very dense, very pale brown (10 yr 7/4 ), moist, fine-to medium-grained Total Depth= 19.5 Feet Below Ground Surface (BGS) No groundwater or seepage encountered during exploration Backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonlte chips on 11/3/15 DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKETPENETROMETER RVALUE UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * J1 Ill G) I--0 G) Q. >, I- Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-4 Project No. 10075-001 Date Drilled 11-3-15 Project Legoland Castle Hotel Logged By RNB ~rilling Co. Baja Excavation Hole Diameter 8" llrilling Method Hollow Stem Auger -140Ib -Autohammer -30" Oro~ Ground Elevation 146' Location C: CJ 0 .c:_ :C en ·---Cl) -Cl) cu Cl) o.CI) o.o ~LL ~LL E-' iii C) II.I s 0 145 ~-~ 1:.:.1 : - - - 5- 140 - - - - 10-· 135 -· - - -. 15-. 130 - - - - 20-· 125 - See Fiaure 2 II) Cl) 'C ::s -~ () z Cl) Q. E cu "' ----B-1 1'-5' R-1 S-1 R-2 S-2 II) Cl) u,.C: :r: CJ o-= aiCD ... Cl) 0.. 12 24 40 8 8 14 119 18 123 50/5' 18 20 29 12 10 cn--:-u,cn cu • -u (.) . -"' ·c,::; en- SM Sampled By RNB SOIL DESCRIPTION This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 8" AGGREGATE BASE -----------------------------ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED /Afd) @ 1': Silty SAND, loose, reddish brown (5 yr 5/4), moist, fine-grained @ 3': Becomes medium dense @5': Silty SAND, dense, dark reddish brown (5 yr 3/4), moist, fine-grained @ 10': Becomes medium dense and reddish brown (5 yr 5/4) @ 15': Becomes very dense, gray (2.5 yr 6/1) and fine-to medium-grained @ 18': Becomes dense, dark reddish brown (5 yr 3/4) and fine-grained --+-+---+----+----<---1----~ -----'-----SM -SANTIAGO FORMATION /Tsa) - 25- 120 - - SAMPL~PES: ? B BULK SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE G GRAB SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE S-3 27 50/5' TYPE OF TESTS: -200 % FINES PASSING OS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El CN CONSOLIDATION H CO COLLAPSE MD CR CORROSION PP CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV @ 22': Silty SANDSTONE, very dense, very pale brown (10 yr 7/4 ), moist, fine-to medium-grained Total Depth= 26.5 Feet Below Ground Surface (BGS) No groundwater or seepage encountered during exploration Backfilled with soll cuttings and bentonlte chips on 11/3/15 DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER RVALUE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * CN Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Project No. 10075-001 Date Drilled 11-3-15 Project Legoland Castle Hotel Logged By RNB rilling Co. Baja Excavation Hole Diameter 8" Orilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-140Ib -Autohammer -30" Oro~ Ground Elevation 150' Location See Figure 2 C 0 CJ ·--.c_ :Cc, -o, -o, 111 0, a.a, a.o ~LL ~LL E..J C> w 150 0 145 5 125 25 1li.PLiP-ivPES: B BULK SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE G GRAB SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE II) 0, "C :s -.. -,c( S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE () z 0, 0. E 111 Cl) B-1 1'-5' R-1 S-1 R-2 S-2 II) 0, 11).C ,:: CJ o-= io<O ... 0, ll. 20 27 32 7 10 10 ~ II) c-0, CJ oa. ~ a 123 20 125 36 50/4' 7 9 11 TYPE OF TESTS: o,~ ... -:s-_c II) 0, ·--oc :::i:O (.) 9 12 -200 % FINES PASSING DS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El CN CONSOLIDATION H CO COLLAPSE MD CR CORROSION PP CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV en~ Ult/) 111 • -(.) (.) . _Cl) ·o::; Cl)- CL SM CL SM CL SM Sampled By RNB SOIL DESCRIPTION This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 8" AGGREGATE BASE ----------------------------ARTIFIQIAL FILL DQQ!.!MENTED (Afd) @ 1': Sandy lean CLAY, soft, dark reddish brown (5 yr 3/4), moist, low plasticity @ 3': Becomes soft to firm ----------------------------@ 5': Silty SAND, dense, dark reddish brown (5 yr 3/4), moist, fine-grained @ 10': Sandy lean CLAY, very stiff, very dark grayish brown (10 yr 3/2), low plasticity @ 15': Silty SAND, very dense, dark reddish brown (5 yr 3/4 ), moist, fine-grained @ 20': Sandy lean CLAY, very stiff, dark reddish brown (5 yr 3/4), moist, low plasticity SANTIAGO FQRMATIQN (Tsa) @ 22': Silty SANDSTONE, very dense, very pale brown (10 yr 7/4), moist, fine-to medium-grained Total Depth= 25.5 Feet Below Ground Surface(BGS) No groundwater or seepage encountered dur exploration Backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips on 11/3/15 DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER RVALUE UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * II) -II) 0, I--0 0, a. >, I- CR,EI CN Page 1 of 1 ( APPENDIXC Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results ( ( 10075.011 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples in accordance with Modified ASTM Test Method D2435. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original 1-inch height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented on the attached figures. Direct Shear Test: A remolded direct shear test was performed on a selected bulk sample which was soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box and reloading of the sample, the pore pressures set up in the sample (due to the transfer) were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The sample was tested under various normal loads utilizing a motor- driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less 0.05 inches per minute. The test result is presented on the attached figure. Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected material was evaluated by the Expansion Index Text, ASTM Test Method 4829. The specimen was molded under a given compactive energy to approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimen was loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and was inundated with water until volumetric equilibrium was reached. The result of this test is presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Expansion Expansion Index Potential B-5 @ 1 -5 feet Sandy Lean CLAY 46 Low C-1 10075.011 APPENDIX C (Continued) Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM Test Method D2937) and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented in the geotechnical boring logs (Appendix B). Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate content of a selected sample was determined by standard geochemical methods (Caltrans Test Method CT417). The test result is presented in the table below: Sample Location Sulfate Potential Degree of Sulfate Content(%) Attack* B-5 @ 1 -5 feet 0.013 Negligible * Based on the 2008 edition of American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318R, Table No. 4.2.1. Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with DOT Test Method No. 422. The results are presented below: Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm B-5 @ 1 -5 feet 307 Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Method 643. The results are presented in the table below: Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) B-5 @ 1 -5 feet 7.52 1080 C-2 No Time Readings 0 5920 0.5500 0 5420 0.5000 C: 04500 = C) 04000 C 04920 :a <O 0 3500 Cl) a:: iv 04420 0.3000 i:5 0 2500 C 0 ~ 0 3920 02000 e 0.1500 ,E ~ 0 3420 0.1000 0.0500 0 2920 00000 01 1.0 00 100 Log of Time (min.) Square Root of Time (min 112) 0.00 4~ --4 .. i-. r--.. 1~ ~ '-1 t 0.50 11 "-J \ 1.00 r Inundate with I Tap water \ • -\ ~ 1.50 0 -I\ C: 0 .:; \ (0 E ... 2.00 ~ 0 2.50 4 ' ....... \ ~ ._ -.... 3.00 3.50 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Pressure, p (ksf) Boring Sample Depth Moisture Dry Density (pcf) Vold Ratio Degree of No. No. (ft.) Content(%} Saturation (%) Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final B-4 R-1 5.0 12.1 I 13,9 118.6 120.2 0.421 0.386 78 94 Soll Identification: Pale olive dayey sand (SC) ~ Project No.: 10075.011 ~ Leighton ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES of SOILS LEGOLAND/Castle Hotel Expansion ASTM D 2435 11-15 No Time Readings 0.5920 0,5500 05420 0.5000 C: 0 4500 C Cl ,!: 0,4920 0 4000 "O 8l 0.3500 a:: ni 0.4420 03000 l5 C: 0,2500 .2 co 03920 02000 E 0,1500 .S! ~ 03420 0.1000 0.0500 0 2920 0 0000 01 1.0 0.0 10 0 Log of Time (min.} Square Root of Time (min.1'2} 0.00 I ~ i--..... 0.20 ........ ....... ........ ... I-, 0.40 4 i .__ J ~ r Inundate with \. -060 Tap water ' ~ 0 I\. -C: 0 0.80 ' ~ ' co § I\ .E 1.00 ' , __ Q) Cl 1.20 1.40 k._ \ -~,.. ~ 1.60 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Pressure, p (ksf) Boring Sample Depth Moisture Dry Density (pcf) Vold Ratio Degree of No. No. (ft.) Content(%) Saturation (%) Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final B-5 R-1 5.0 8.8 13.6 123.4 122.1 0.366 0.347 65 96 Soll Identific.ation: Brown silty sand (SM) ~ Project No.: 10075.011 ,. Leighton ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES of SOILS LEGOLAND/castle Hotel Expansion ASTM D 2435 11-15 2.50 2.00 c-(II ~ 1.50 ::I !! ci5 ... 1.00 IU ., .&:: Cl) 0.50 0.00 0 ,;:-g j c6 i Boring No. B-1 Sample No. 8-1 Depth (ft) 1-5 Sarn121e Il£12e; 90% Remold Soll ldeoti!IS&t!Qn: Light olive brown clayey sand (SC) -· .. - C (psf) lb (o) Peak 391 .5 37.6 Ultimate 338.5 32.1 ~ 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.0 ............... .......-i-.-....... ...-.-................ -,....,... ........ .,...,. ........ .......-i 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Normal Stress (ksf) Normal Stress (kip/ft2) 0.500 Peak Shear Stress (klp/ft2) • 0.802 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0 0.670 Deformation Rate (in./mln.) 0.0025 Initial Sample Height (In.) 1.000 Diameter (in.) 2.415 Initial Moisture Content(%) 9.80 Dry Density (pcf) 112.0 Saturation (%) 52.4 Soll Height Before Shearing (In.) 1.0080 Final Moisture Content(%) 18.2 Project No.: 0.3 1.000 I 2.000 ■ 1.122 A 1.943 D 0.940 A 1.603 0.0025 0.0025 1.000 1.000 2.415 2.415 9.80 9.80 111.9 112.0 52.3 52.4 0.9989 0.9910 16.9 15.2 10075.011 ffJ Leighton DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolldated Drained -ASTM D 3080 LEGOLAND/castle Hotel Expansion 11-15 ( APPENDIX D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading 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 Clearing and Grubbing 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 ,.r-competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical \ -3- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications r· 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/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, 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 t · 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 Import 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 D1557). 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 D1557). 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 Compaction of Fill Slopes 4.5 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. 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 4.7 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. 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 6.0 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. 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 7.3 7.4 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. 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. Observation and Testing The densification of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. -7- RLLSLOPE PROJECTED PLANE 1: 1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND FILL-OVER-cur SLOPE ~-1.E;_Q::=::-:-·-- EXISTING GROUND SURF ACE ___ -BENCH HEIGHT ,. _,. _ _,.-. ( 4 FEET TYPICAL} .. ---~ --·--·~ ;c-MfN-:-__ ---.,.... . , 5 FEET Ml ·, -.,· LOWEST -2 FEET BENCH (KEY) -mm:""'F MIN. KEY DEPTH CUT FACE REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO / ,,,, FILL PLACEMENT TO ALLOW VIEWING // OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS / , / EXISTING---- CUT-<>VER-FI..L SLOPE GROUND SURF ACE __ :: T FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT OVERBUILD AND---~ TRIM B~CK ---..== REMOVE PROJECTED PLANE ESIGN SLOPE---,,,:~ UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND -I I 15 FEET MIN. 2 FEET MIN. • LOWEST 1 KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) KEYING AND BENCHING 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 ANO MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL A • OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION. • EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED rill DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE ROCK. • BACKF'ILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO rill ALL THE VOIDS. • 00 NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET Of" FINISH GRADE. • WINDROW Of" BURIED ROCK SHALL BE PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE. FINISH GRADE GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE DENSIFIEO IN PLACE BY FLOODING OR JETTING. DETAIL ~TTED OR FLOODED GRANULAR MA TERI AL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL B 6" MIN. OVERLAP SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE DETAIL BELOW FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)• CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE z ;::::-VER OR #2 ROCK (9FT"J/FT) WRAP :: •. IN FILTER FABRIC • : . . . ... . . · ..... :. -! :.:_ ..:.: IN . BEDDING DESIGN FINISH GRADE --------- SUBDRAIN DETAIL t COLLECTOR 1-'IPE SHALL BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS ---•• ::::::::::: lO' MIN. (F!,L,RTEARFI F1A4BORNICOR APPROVED ---• --• ----• -----BACKFILL m • -·· •••••••••••• -: : : :-.-.----EQUIVALENT) -_ -------~-~~~~~ACT~D t'Ll:-----------·---:-. :::::::::::::::::··--•• ' ._ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -----CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE ----.------·---· • • • • ·• • • • • •· • ' • •. • • '•• OR #2 ROCK (9FT"3/FT) WRAPPED 11-• ' ' • • . • ' . . • IN FILTER f'ABRIC 20· MIN. 5' MIN. I PERFORATED . · • • · 6" 0 MIN. PIPE NONPERFORATED 6" 0 MIN. DETAIL OE CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL C OUTLET PIPES 4" 0 NONPERFORATEO PIPE. 100' ~AX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY. 30' MAX O.C. VERTICALLY ..... -.... --.. ...................... ----·------· ..................... .-:=:/iIII .-:ta<PA-ctrni .-.-::::::::::::::-:-2~ MIN.-:::::::::::---............................. -----------------------··-----.. -'--.mmr..-.rtr.:-:· .. : ... : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. :.: .. 2,: · MiN:-: .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. i-(::·:::::·-~Y c~~~;::···:~::····· , LKEY DEPTH (15' MIN.) 1 r MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RIN:; TIED EVERY (2' MIN.) 6 FEET CAL TRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR 12 ROCK (.3 Fr3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC PROVIDE POSITIVE SEAL AT THE JONT 15' MIN. LOWEST SUBORAIN SHOULD BE SITUA TEO AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET T-CONNECTION FOR COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE 4" 0 PERFORATED PIPE ~--4" 1.11N. flL TE'R FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 1 "10 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) BEDDING SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL SUBORAIN INSTALLATION -svbdroin collector pipe sholl be instolled with perforation down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultont. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdroin pipe sholl hove ot leost 8 perforotions uniformly spaced per foot. Perforotion sholl be 1/1," to 1/2" if drill holes ore used. All subdroin pipes sholl hove a gradient of at least 2,t towords the outlet. SUBD~AIN PIPE -Subdroin pipe shall be ASTi.. 02751, SOR 23.5 or ASTIA 01527. Schedule 40, or ASTM 030.34, SOR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic {PVC} p_ipe. All outlet pipe sholl be placed in a trench no wider thon twice the svbdroin pipe. BUTTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL D CUT-FI LL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION TRANSITION LOT FILLS REMOVE UNSUITABLE 3ROUND \_ ---- ---- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL E --- 5' MIN. 0{ RETAINING WALL WALL WATERPROOFING ~ PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS FINISH GRADE ·-----------------------------------·=:=:=:=:=:=:=-s-:=:=:=:=:=-S:.Qt!if' AQ !EP. ~!t.t,::::::::::::::: WALL FOOTING--- SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557 ::::::::::-:::::-:-:-::::::1~ ;: . ;~:::::::::::.-: .... I ,-==:il1 ::::::::::~-s" Mlt/ • :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:~. I' OVERLAP I=:=:=:=:=:=:=·· FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 0 • o • :::::::•:··· (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED I . 0 .0 0 • 01 ;;}f EQUIVALENT) .. u O -·------~ . I-:,,; :IN ... 1~3/4" TO 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL I· . ~-=-=-=· 0 • • • •• ::::::: . .....--4• (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED t O ,-:-~ PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR • o0 • ::::::::: EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS 0 -:-:-:-:-ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED I I:=:=:=:=: MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT ~ ::::::::: TO SUITABLE OUTLET L -• ·:·:·:·=· 3" MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT, COMPOSITE DJ.lAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRAORAIN OR J-ORAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL F FILTER FABRIC ACTIVE ZONE / I I I ,,___ .... ff{( : : : : REINFORCED : . : : i:::.::: RETAINED ,· 'i :\:1: : . : • ZONE . : . : . : : . : . ZONE .,.._ _ __,,.,._~·:J·~ ... '. ... ' -.... ' ' . ~ ' < ' • ~ : • : ' : •• , : ~ : ' : / I / I I I / / BACKDRAIN TO70%OF WALL HEIGHT -.i:7~?~'.: FILTER FABRIC : . . . . . . . . . . . / .. ,.,,,.,,,. lt:.: • T~ ?"':° c( t ~ 7:-'(M:a, GRAVEL DRAINAGE FILL MIN 6" BELOW WALL MIN 12" BEHIND UNITS WALL SUBDRAIN I FOUNDATION SOILS! NOTES: 1) MATERIAL GRADATION AND PLASTICITY REINFORCED ZONE· SIEVE SIZE % PASSING 1 INCH 100 NO.4 20-100 NO. 40 0-60 NO. 200 0-35 FOR WALL HEIGHT< 10 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX< 20 FOR WALL HEIGHT 10 TO 20 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX< 10 FOR TIERED WALLS, USE COMBINED WALL HEIGHTS REAR SUBDRAIN: 4" (MIN} DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (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 SUIT ABLE PROTECTED OUTLET GRAVEL DRAINAGE FILL· SIEVE SIZE % PASSING 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 75-100 NO.4 0-60 NO.40 0-50 NO.200 0-5 WALL DESIGNER TO REQUEST SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR WALL HEIGHT> 20 FEET 2) CONTRACTOR TO USE SOILS WITHIN THE RETAINED AND REINFORCED ZONES THAT MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF WALL DESIGN. 3) GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT TO BE DESIGNED BY WALL DESIGNER CONSIDERING INTERNAL, EXTERNAL, AND COMPOUND STABILITY. 3) GEOGRID TO BE PRETENSIONED DURING INSTALLATION. 4) IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ACTIVE ZONE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO POST-CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT. ANGLE a=45+cl>/2, WHERE cl> IS THE FRICTION ANGLE OF THE MATERIAL IN THE RETAINED ZONE. 5) 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 RETAINING WALLS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL G APPENDIX E GBC Insert Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineerinu Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes . • While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor -a construction contractor -or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -not even you -should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was: • not prepared for you; • not prepared for your project; • not prepared for the specific site explored; or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light- industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ -sometimes significantly -from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation- dependent recommendations are not finat because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations' applicability. A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design-team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a dearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. 1his lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations; many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical- engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold-prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical-engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information. Sat~ GEOTECHNICAL '6 BUSINESS COUNCIL --oflMG,aprt/{asion,IB""-Aaocldon 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication. reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents. in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever. is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpting. quoting. or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA. and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. C C Appendix H: Covenant and Agreement Regarding O&M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification i \ RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use Only COVENANT AND AGREEMENT REGARDING O & M PLAN TO FUND AND MAINTAIN WATER QUALITY BMPS, CONSENT TO INSPECT, AND INDEMNIFICATION This Agreement Regarding O&M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification and Covenant Running With the Land ("Agreement") is made on this _ day of ____ , 20_, by and between The City of Carlsbad, a California municipal corporation ("Covenantee" or "City") and the undersigned property owner(s) ("Covenantor''). RECITALS A. Covenantor is the owner of the following real property ("Property'') [Provide Address, Legal Description and APN Number]): 1 Legoland Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Legal Description APN No. 211-100-09 B. The City is the owner of interests in that certain real property within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, containing storm drains, pipelines, and related appurtenances constituting the City's municipal separate storm sewer system (the City's "Storm Drain System"). C. Covenantor intends to develop, improve, and/or use the Property in such a way that approval of the City for such development, improvement, and/or use is required pursuant to the applicable laws. D. As a condition for said approval by the City, City required Covenator, and Covenantor desires to, restrict the use of Property according to the conditions, covenants, equitable servitudes, and restrictions contained herein for the express benefit of the City's Storm Drain System. ( \ NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing Recitals and in consideration thereof, in consideration of the covenants and conditions contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and expressly for the benefit of, and to bind, their successors in interest, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. AGREEMENT Operation and Maintenance ("O&M") Plan for Best Management Practices ("BMPs") Covenantor, and each successive owner of an interest in all or any part of the Property ("Owner(s)") shall, throughout the period of their respective ownership, implement, and fund implementation of, the O&M Plan for the Property, which was approved by the City as part of the Storm Water Management Plan ("SWMP") required for development of the Property, and shall operate, inspect, maintain, repair, and replace the Best Management Practices ("BMPs") described in the O&M Plan for the Property, which includes: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Description of all post-construction BMPs (non-structural and structural}, Description of the Property owner's(s') responsibilities and required training of persons performing BMP implementation, operation, maintenance, and inspection, Implementation frequency and operating schedule, Inspection/maintenance frequency and schedule, Specific BMP implementation, maintenance, and inspection activities, Description of all permits required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of BMPs, Forms to be used in documenting implementation, operation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs, Recordkeeping requirements. A copy of the approved O&M Plan is described in the current SWMP for the project, as it may be amended from time to time according to its terms, which is on file with the City of Carlsbad Development Services Department, and is incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Compliance with Carlsbad Code and Consent to Inspect Owners shall use and maintain the Property in full compliance with the provisions of the O&M Plan et seq., as it may be amended from time to time. Owners hereby consent to inspection of the Property by an inspector authorized by the City Manager, or his or her designee, for the purpose for verifying compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Indemnification 1 · Owners agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its elected , officers, employees, agents, and contractors from and against any and all liability, expense, including costs and legal fees, and claims of damage of any nature whatsoever including, but not limited to, death, bodily injury, personal injury, or property damage arising from or connected with the City inspection of the Property except where such liability, expense, or claim for damage results from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City its elected officers, employees, agents, or contractors. 4. Rights and Obligations Run With the Land Unless terminated in accordance with Paragraph 5, below, or by law, the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall constitute covenants, benefits, burdens, conditions, equitable servitudes, and restrictions which run with the land in perpetuity and which shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, each Owner during its respective period of ownership of all or any part of the Property. No Owner shall be bound by, or entitled to the benefit of, said rights and obligations, upon transfer by the Owner of its entire interest in the Property, in fee, to a successor in interest to the Property. 5. Termination of Agreement Upon Termination of SWMP This Agreement and the conditions, covenants, equitable servitudes, and restrictions set forth herein shall terminate upon termination of the SWMP applicable to the Property in accordance with its terms. Upon termination of the SWMP applicable to the Property, the Owner may request that the City execute a recordable document approved by the City approving and acknowledging termination of this Agreement. A recorded document duly executed and acknowledged by the Director of Development Services of City, or his or her designee, approving termination of this Agreement shall be conclusive evidence of such termination. 7. Enforcement The City may, but shall not be obligated to, enforce this Agreement by a proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any condition, covenant, equitable servitude, or restriction provided for herein, either to restrain such violation or to recover damages. 8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties with respect of the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements and understandings with respect to the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written. 9. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is declared by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, such shall not affect the validity of 3 the rest of the Agreement. The other parts of this Agreement shall remain in effect as if , this Agreement had been executed without the invalid part. The parties declare that they intend and desire that the remaining parts of this Agreement continue to be effective without any part or parts that have been declared invalid. \ 10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which so executed shall, irrespective of the date of its execution and delivery, be deemed an original, and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 11. Attorneys' Fees. If any party files an action or brings any proceeding against the other arising from this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover as an element of its costs of suit, and not as damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to be fixed by the court. A party not entitled to recover its costs shall not recover attorneys' fees. No sum for attorneys' fees shall be included in calculating the amount of a judgment for purposes of deciding whether a party is entitled to its costs or attorneys' fees. 12. Amendment. No modification, amendment, addition to, or alteration of the terms of this Agreement whether written or verbal, shall be valid unless made in writing, formally approved and executed by the City and the current Owner(s) of the Property, and duly recorded. 13. Authority of Signatories to Agreement. Each person executing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the parties for which execution is made. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution of this Agreement and the performance of such party's obligations hereunder have been duly authorized and that the agreement is a valid and legal agreement binding on such party and enforceable in accordance with its terms. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE} 1 -· IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of \ the date set forth above. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney "CITY" / "COVENANTEE" CITY OF CARLSBAD Director of Community Development "COVENANTOR" Name of Covenantor Signature Title Signature Title [Signatures to be Notarized] ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of ____ _ On _____ [date], before me, ________ [name and title of officer taking acknowledgemen~. personally appeared ________ [name(s) of person(s) signing instrumen~. who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ________ _ [Sea~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of ____ _ On _____ [date], before me, ________ [name and title of officer taking acknowledgemen~, personally appeared ________ [name(s) of person(s) signing instrumen~. who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ________ _ [Sea~