The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP 2021-0029; IONIS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE; UPDATE TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS LOTS 21 AND 22; 2023-04-03Project No. 06442-32-31A April 3, 2023 Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2855 Gazelle Court Carlsbad, California 92010 Attention: Mr. Wayne Sanders Subject: UPDATE TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS LOTS 21 AND 22 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: 1. Update Geotechnical Report, Ionis Lots 21 and 22 (Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park), Carlsbad, California, dated October 19, 2021, prepared by Geocon Incorporated (Project No. 06442-32-31A). 2. Bridge Plans for: Ionis Pharmaceuticals Lots 21 & 22, Carlsbad, California, prepared by DGA Planning/Architecture/Interiors, undated. Dear Mr. Sanders: In accordance with the request of Mr. Jacob Wittler with PLSA Engineering, we have prepared this update to the above referenced report. The City of Carlsbad requires this update to bring the report current to meet the 2022 California Building Code (CBC). We are also providing supplemental recommendations for the planned pedestrian bridge. To prepare the supplemental recommendations for the bridge, we also reviewed the report titled Final Report of Testing and Observation Services Performed During Grading, Ionis Conference Center, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 13, 2020 (Project No. 06442-32-30A). We opine that the conclusions and recommendations contained in the referenced geotechnical report (dated October 19, 2021) remain applicable for the planned additional improvements at the subject project. The recommendations of this report take precedence over the referenced geotechnical report wherever there is a conflict. GEOCON INCORPORATED G E OT E CHN I CAL ■E NV I RONMENTA L ■ MA T ER I A L S 6960 Flanders Drive ■ Son Diego, California 92121-297 4 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159 Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 2 - April 3, 2023 1.0 GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS – BRIDGE ABUTMENTS 1.1 The bridge abutments will be located on fill slopes that are landscaped with shrubs and trees with an active irrigation system. Site preparation should begin with removal of all deleterious material, vegetation and, abandoned utilities/improvements located in areas of planned improvements. Disturbed soils resulting from grubbing operations not removed by bridge abutment foundation excavations should be removed and compacted to project requirements. Wet soils, if encountered, will need to be dried or mixed with dryer soil to facilitate proper compaction. Near-surface soils may need to be processed to greater depths depending on the amount of drying or wetting that has occurred within the soils since the initial grading. The actual extent of remedial grading should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. 1.2 After site preparation and removal of unsuitable soils, as described above is performed, the areas should be brought to final subgrade elevation with compacted fill. In general, on-site soils are suitable for re-use as fill provided they are free of vegetation, debris and other deleterious matter. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557, at or slightly above optimum moisture content. The project geotechnical engineer may consider fill materials below the recommended minimum moisture content unacceptable and may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. 1.3 Based on ultimate grading, a portion of the north abutment may extend through the fill and bear on granitic rock. If encountered, the bedrock portion of the cut-fill transition should be over-excavated (undercut) a minimum of 2 feet below the footing and replaced with compacted very low to low expansive (Expansion Index [EI] <50) soil fill consisting of 6- inch-minus rock. 2.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA – 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2.1 Table 2.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2022 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2021 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) to calculate the seismic design parameters. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2022 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented herein are for the risk- targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). Based on soil conditions and as-graded conditions, the planned improvements (where applicable) should be designed using a Site Class C. Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 3 - April 3, 2023 TABLE 2.1 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2022 CBC Reference Site Class C Section 1613.2.2 MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 0.928g Figure 1613.2.1(1) MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.341g Figure 1613.2.1(3) Site Coefficient, FA 1.2 Table 1613.2.3(1) Site Coefficient, FV 1.5 Table 1613.2.3(2) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.114g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-20) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 0.512g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-21) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.742g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-22) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.341g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-23) 2.2 The project structural engineer and architect should evaluate the appropriate Risk Category and Seismic Design Category for the planned structures. The values presented herein assume a Risk Category of II and resulting in a Seismic Design Category D. 2.3 Table 2.2 presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16. TABLE 2.2 ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.403g Figure 22-9 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.484g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) 2.4 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 4 - April 3, 2023 3.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Retaining walls should be designed using the values presented in Table 3.1. Soil with an expansion index (EI) greater than 50 should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters if backfill material possess an EI greater than 50 or as required by the structural engineer. TABLE 3.1 RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, Level Backfill) 35 pcf Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, 2:1 Sloping Backfill) 50 psf Seismic Pressure, S 17H psf At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (0 to 8 Feet High) 7H psf At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (8+ Feet High) 13H psf H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall. 3.2 The project retaining walls should be designed as shown in the Retaining Wall Loading Diagram. Retaining Wall Loading Diagram 3.3 Where walls are restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure should be applied to the wall in accordance with retaining wall loading diagram. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to IF PRESENT RETAINING WALL SLAB H (Feet) FOOTING ACTIVE PRESSURE SEISMIC {IF REQUIRED) AT-REST/ RESTRAINED (IF REQUIRED) 7H H>8' IE-----1 13H psJ Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 5 - April 3, 2023 two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added (soil total unit weight 130 pcf). 3.4 The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in accordance with Section 1613.2.5 of the 2022 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-16. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf). We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM, of 0.484g calculated from ASCE 7-16 Section 11.8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.33 to calculate the seismic load. 3.5 It is not necessary to consider active pressure acting on foundation keyways. 3.6 Drainage openings through the base of the wall should not be used where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect planned and existing improvements adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (EI of 50 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. The retaining wall should be properly drained as shown in the Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail H PROPOSED GRADE 2/3H MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC (OR EQUIVALENT) OPEN GRADED 1' MAX. AGGREGATE 4' DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET OR PROPOSED GRADE 213H CONCRETE GROUND SURFACE BROWDIT~l ,....1.-m!~~r- WATER PROOF G PERAR~ITECT DRAIKAGE PANEL (MIRAORAIN 6000 OR EOUIVALENn 314" CRUSHED ROCK 12' 1 (1 CU.FT JFT.) OR WRAP DRAINAGE PANEL AROUND PIPE {g:_ V LTERFABRIC • :•' ENVELOPE ., " • '.•·'' MIRAFI 140N OR ·~~1~1 L__-'":'--.,"'}"!;J EQUIVALENT 4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PE RF ORA TEO PVC PIPE OR TOT AL DRAIN EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 6 - April 3, 2023 3.7 Wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Table 3.2. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Width 12 inches Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Depth 18 Inches Minimum Reinforcing Steel Per Structural Engineer Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf Bearing Capacity Increase 500 psf per additional foot of footing depth 300 psf per additional foot of footing width Maximum Bearing Capacity 4,000 psf Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet 3.8 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls. In the event that other types of walls (such as mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or soldier pile walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 3.9 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. 3.10 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will be used. Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 7 - April 3, 2023 4.0 LATERAL LOADING 4.1 Table 4 should be used for the design of the proposed structure and improvements to resist lateral loads imposed on footings or shear keys. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of soil in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF LATERAL LOAD DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Passive Pressure Equivalent Fluid Density 300 pcf Passive Pressure Fluid Density Adjacent to and/or on Descending Slopes 150 pcf Coefficient of Friction (Concrete and Soil) 0.40 Coefficient of Friction (Along Vapor Barrier) 0.2 to 0.25* *Per manufacturer’s recommendations. 4.2 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design. The lateral passive pressure may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Emilio Alvarado RCE 66915 EA:am (e-mail) Addressee Project No. 06442-32-31A September 25, 2023 Oxford Properties Group 101 2nd Street San Francisco, California 94105 Attention: Mr. Ash Puri Subject: RESPONSE TO CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW COMMENTS IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS LOTS 21 AND 22 – PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK) CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: 1. City of Carlsbad Review Comments, Ionis Lots 21 & 22 (Bridge) (2nd review), Project ID: SDP2021-0029, Grading Permit No.: GR2023-0016, Memorandum dated August 22, 2023. 2. Limited Update Geotechnical Report, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Lots 21 and 22 - Pedestrian Bridge (Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park), Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 22, 2023 (Project No. 06442-32- 31A). Dear Mr. Puri: In accordance with the request of Mr. Wyatt Tookey with DGA, we have prepared this letter to respond to City of Carlsbad Review comments (Reference 1) for the project. The City review comment pertaining to geotechnical issues followed by our response is provided below. Issue No. 1:Please provide a copy of the “Final Report of Testing and Observation Services during Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North…”by Geocon, Inc., dated December 11, 2007, that reports the previous mass grading activities that established the subject lots and area of the proposed pedestrian bridge and has reportedly been used as the basis for the conclusions/recommendations provided in the recently submitted “Limited Geotechnical Report…”. Response:We will provide electronic copies of reports to DGA for submittal. Issue No. 2:Please describe the heights of the bridge abutments and associated retaining wall backfill necessary for the proposed pedestrian bridge. Response:Please see pedestrian bridge plans for requested information. GEO CON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121 -297 4 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159 Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 2 - September 25, 2023 Issue No. 3:Please provide subsurface exploration at the locations of the proposed bridge abutments as necessary to determine and assess the current subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, depths of existing fill/depths to granitic rock at the locations of the bridge abutments and confirm the geotechnical conclusions/recommendations and laboratory testing that is presented in the “Limited Geotechnical Report…”. Response:The existing “subsurface” information presented in Reference No. 2 is comprehensive and adequate to provide recommendations for the planned improvements. Section 4 and Figure No. 1 of the update geotechnical report discuss and illustrate the subsurface geologic conditions, respectively. Issue No. 4:With respect to the laboratory testing that was reportedly previously performed as part of the mass grading of the site in 2007 and is presented in Appendix A of the “Limited Geotechnical Report…”, please indicate the locations/lots of the development that the samples for the direct shear, expansion index, and soluble sulfate tests were obtained with respect to the locations of the proposed pedestrian bridge. Response:Please see response to Issue No. 3. In addition, and as discussed in Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 of Reference No. 2, we will perform additional expansion potential and water-soluble sulfate testing after completion of grading operations to evaluate the soils present within the upper approximately 3 feet of ultimate design finish elevation. As is standard for development of a property, we will collect soil samples and perform necessary laboratory testing during grading to check our geotechnical design parameters presented in Reference No. 2. If necessary, we will provide revised recommendations based on information collected during grading. Issue No. 5:Please describe the approximate range of fill thickness that will exist beneath each of the bridge abutment foundations after any over-excavation/re-compaction to prepare the site for the foundations. Response:Please see attached Figure 1 for requested information. As presented on the bridge plans, the bottom of abutment foundations are located at elevation of 406.5 feet MSL, fill thickness with range between 2 and 7 feet. Issue No. 6:Please clarify if the recommended minimum 2’ of fill beneath the abutment foundations is measured from the bottom of the key of the foundations. Response:Per Section 7.3.10 of Reference No. 2, the undercut is measured from bottom of the foundation. We will check that grading results in at least 1 foot of fill beneath the keyway, if needed. Issue No. 7:Please provide updated Geologic Cross-Sections A-A’ and B-B’ showing a) the foundations of the abutments for the proposed bridge, b) the recommended slope setback for the abutment foundations, c) the limits/depths of the recommended over- excavation/recompaction of the granitic rock necessary to eliminate cut/fill transitions for the abutment foundations, and d) the temporary slopes per the guidelines of OSHA soil type B (1:1) that is provided in the report. Response:For a and c: please see attached Figure 1 for approximate location of abutment foundations and limits/depths of bedrock undercut. For part b, the bottom of the abutment foundations are located below adjacent parkway ground surface and do Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 3 - September 25, 2023 not require slope setback. For part d, in accordance with OSHA it is the responsibility of the contractor and their competent person to determine the soil type during construction to ensure all excavations, temporary slopes and trenches are properly constructed and maintained in accordance with OSHA guidelines to maintain safety and the stability of the excavations. Issue No. 8:Please provide a discussion addressing the potential impacts to adjacent City improvements/ROW in the event that blasting and/or heavy ripping is necessary to excavate for the bridge abutment foundations. Response:Per Section 7.1.2 of Refence No. 2, we opine that potential impact of the subject project grading to adjacent properties is low provided geotechnical recommendations presented in the report are followed. If blasting is required, the grading/blasting contractor is required to follow City of Carlsbad Engineering Department Blasting Policy (No. 15) and address any impacts to adjacent improvements. Also, it is the contractor's responsibility to ensure that construction activities (heavy ripping, if needed) do not impact existing adjacent improvements. Issue No. 9:Please provide the basis for the values of total and differential settlement for the proposed bridge abutment foundations that are provided in the report. Response:Please see Response to Issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Issue No. 10:Please revisit Table 7.7 (“Summary of Foundation Recommendations”) and confirm the information is applicable for this project, as the Table includes a column titled “Value-Parking Garage Footings Bearing in Very Old Paralic Deposits.” Please revise the design values if necessary to address the pedestrian bridge project. Response:Please see revised table: TABLE 7.7 SUMMARY OF FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value – Pedestrian Bridge Footings Bearing on Compacted Fill Minimum Isolated Foundation Width 24 inches Minimum Foundation Depth (2:1 fill slope) 42 Inches (3.5 feet) Below Lowest Adjacent Grade Minimum Steel Reinforcement Per Bridge Engineer Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf Bearing Capacity Increase 500 psf per Foot of Depth 300 psf per Foot of Width Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity 4,000 psf Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet Design Expansion Index 50 or less Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31A - 4 - September 25, 2023 Issue No. 11:Please provide a complete summery list of the geotechnical observations/testing services that should be performed as part of the construction of the proposed bridge project. Response:As indicated Reference No. 2., we will provide testing and observation services on a full-time basis during grading. We will check bridge abutment foundation excavations prior to placement of rebar and concrete. We will provide our services on a requested basis during trench backfill, wall backfill and construction of surface improvements. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Emilio Alvarado RCE 66915 David B. Evans CEG 1860 EA:DBE:am Attached: Figure 1 (e-mail) Addressee VAN PROP O S E D 3 - L E V E L PARK I N G S T R U C T U R E UNDE R S E P A R A T E P E R M I T PROPOSED 3-LEVELLAB / OFFICE BUILDING EXISTINGCONFERENCECENTER G A Z E L L E C O U R T WHIPTAIL LOOP LOT 24 LOT 20 PARCEL 1MAP 21705 LOT 21 LOT 22 PROPOSED BRIDGESEE ENLARGEMENT 0 2010 30 40390 400 410 420 430A A' E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) 390 400 410 420 430 D I S T A N C E SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.)GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' 0 2010 30 40390 400 410 420 430B B' E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) 390 400 410 420 430 D I S T A N C E SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.)GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' LP LP EXISTINGWHIPTAIL LOOP(PKWY/STREET) EXISTINGWHIPTAIL LOOP(PKWY/STREET)Qcf QucKgr Kgr Kgr Kgr Quc Qcf EXISTING SD LINETO BE REMOVED APPROX. LOCATION OFPROPOSED PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ABUTMENTFOUNDATION APPROX. LOCATION OFPROPOSED PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ABUTMENTFOUNDATION CENTERLINE OF BRIDGE WHIPTA I L L O O P EXISTINGCONFERENCECENTER PROPERTY PARCEL 1 MAP 21705 LOT 21 & 22PROPERTY EXTENT OF ABUTMENT BELOW EXTENT OF ABUTMENT BELOW EXISTING UTILITIES PER CIVILIMPROVEMENT PLANS 540-7 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING UTILITY TO BERELOCATED. SEE CIVIL GRADINGPLANS540-7B 415 420 410 405 410 415 420 425 G A Z E L L E C T 395 386 402 410 407 404 Qcf Qcf Qcf Qcf Kgr 388 398 400 406 398 405 404 408 416 414 412 407 388 A A ' B B ' 396 Quc Quc 402 0 2010 30 40 390 400 410 420 430 A A' E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) 390 400 410 420 430 D I S T A N C E SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' 0 2010 30 40 390 400 410 420 430 B B' E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) 390 400 410 420 430 D I S T A N C E SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' LP LP EXISTINGWHIPTAIL LOOP(PKWY/STREET) EXISTINGWHIPTAIL LOOP(PKWY/STREET)Qcf QucKgr Kgr Kgr Kgr Quc Qcf EXISTING SD LINETO BE REMOVED APPROX. LOCATION OF PROPOSED PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ABUTMENT FOUNDATION APPROX. LOCATION OFPROPOSED PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ABUTMENTFOUNDATION 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF PROJECT NO. SCALE DATE 06-22-2023 FIGURE Plotted:09/25/2023 1:02PM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\06442-32-31A Ionis Lots 21 and 22\SHEETS\06442-32-31A GeologicMap.40.dwg GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS VARIES GEOLOGIC 1APGEOLOGIC CROSS SEC8IONS IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS LOTS 21 AND 22 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CARLSBAD OAKS BUSINESS PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 06442 - 32 - 31A 1 1 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 80' ENLARGE BRIDGE SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10' ........COMPACTEDE FILL ........COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA ........GRANITIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT ........APPROX. BOTTOM ELEVATION OF FILL (In Feet, MSL) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION ........APPROX. LIMITS OF UNDERCUT GEOCON LEGEND 386 Qcf Kgr B B' Quc REVISED DATE 09-25-2023 i -----6,e_,,-_1------:-,1 - //~ ,,/ / /~/ / _.,/-/ ~/· / / \ \ \ \ 1/, CJ r--..J CJ A ,• ><~:\ , \.--· ' '\.~ .. \(,, '··\;-- '~::::-::::::~:l.:\ \ , \. \ --t ,\/ \ 'j;; / \ / -;f / -:::/ / '··::.---.-:: --~--/ )~< ss ✓/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I \ \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \;::-... r,..., -c ...... \ \ I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \; .-- CJ '·>.,_< ---, -----------, ■ ■ \ \ \ I I I \ Project No. 06442-32-31B December 20, 2023 Oxford Properties Group 101 2nd Street San Francisco, California 94105 Attention: Mr. Ash Puri Subject: RESPONSE TO CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW COMMENTS IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS LOTS 21 AND 22 – PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK) CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: 1. City of Carlsbad Review Comments, Ionis Lots 21 & 22 (Bridge) (3nd review), Project ID: SDP2021-0029, Grading Permit No.: GR2023-0016, Memorandum dated November 18, 2023. 2. Limited Update Geotechnical Report, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Lots 21 and 22 - Pedestrian Bridge (Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park), Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 22, 2023 (Project No. 06442-32- 31A). Dear Mr. Puri: In accordance with the request of Mr. Wyatt Tookey with DGA, we have prepared this letter to respond to City of Carlsbad Review comments (Reference 1) for the project. The City review comment pertaining to geotechnical issues followed by our response is provided below. Issue No. 1:Please provide subsurface exploration at the locations of the proposed bridge abutments as necessary to determine and assess the current subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, depths of existing fill/depths to granitic rock at the locations of the bridge abutments and confirm the geotechnical conclusions/recommendations and laboratory testing that is presented in the “Limited Geotechnical Report…”. Response:As previously stated, the existing “subsurface” information presented in Reference No. 2 is comprehensive and adequate to provide recommendations for the planned improvements. Section 4 and Figure No. 1 (see attached) of the update geotechnical report discuss and illustrate the subsurface geologic conditions, respectively. The ultimate development of Lots 21 and 22 is ongoing. As the geotechnical engineer of record, we are providing testing and observation services during the ongoing grading and improvement construction operations. Excavations made throughout the project, excluding the upper approximately 1 foot, have exposed medium dense to dense, moist, GEO CON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121 -297 4 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159 Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31B - 2 - December 20, 2023 silty, fine to medium sand with few (approximately up to 10%) rock up to 6-inch diameter. Random boulders (floaters) up to 3 feet in diameter were encountered in excavations extending deeper than 10 feet in the existing compacted fill. Granitic rock underlies the fill. As part of the grading operations, an existing storm drain line located adjacent to the planned bridge abutment was removed. We logged the storm drain trench excavation (see attached trench log, T-1). We also collected soil samples during the ongoing grading operations and performed selected laboratory testing. Tables I through IV and Figure Nos. 2 and 3 present laboratory test results which confirm information presented in our report dated June 22, 2023. Issue No. 2:Please provide updated Geologic Cross-Sections A-A’ and B-B’ showing the temporary slopes per the guidelines of OSHA soil type B (1:1) that is provided in the report. Response:Please see attached Figure No.1 for requested information. As stated in our report, in accordance with OSHA it is the responsibility of the contractor and their competent person to determine the soil type during construction to ensure all excavations, temporary slopes and trenches are properly constructed and maintained in accordance with OSHA guidelines to maintain safety and the stability of the excavations. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Emilio Alvarado RCE 66915 David B. Evans CEG 1860 EA:DBE:am Attached: Figure No.1. (e-mail) Addressee Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31B December 20, 2023 TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 Sample No.* (Unit) Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (% dry wt.) 1 Grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace gravel 133.3 7.4 2 Brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with trace clay 129.7 9.3 3 Dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace gravel 132.8 8.8 4 Dark brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel 132.2 8.4 5 Yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with little gravel and trace clay 132.4 8.3 6 Reddish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with few gravel and trace clay 126.4 10.7 7 Dark brown to brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with few to little gravel and trace clay 128.9 9.4 8 Yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with few to little gravel and trace clay 127.8 9.8 *Samples 1 through 4 obtained from Geocon report dated June 22, 2023. Samples 5 through 8 collected during ongoing Lots 21/22 grading operations. TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Sample No. (Lot No.) Moisture Content Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index ASTM D 4829 Classification Before Test (%) After Test (%) EI-1 (Building Lower Pad, El=417.33) 7.9 12.9 113.5 1 Very Low Proctor No. 5 6.7 12.7 123.6 2 Very Low Proctor No. 6 7.7 14.8 119.4 0 Very Low TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No.* Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure Class** Exposure Rating (Severity)** EI-1 0.004 S0 Negligible * See Table II for representative location. ** Reference: Table 4.2.1, ACI 318 report. Geocon Project No. 06442-32-31B December 20, 2023 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY SAND EQUIVALENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2419 Sample No. Sand Equivalent EI-1 49 Proctor No. 5 27 Proctor No. 6 64 VAN PROP O S E D 3 - L E V E L PARK I N G S T R U C T U R E UNDE R S E P A R A T E P E R M I T PROPOSED 3-LEVELLAB / OFFICE BUILDING EXISTINGCONFERENCECENTER G A Z E L L E C O U R T WHIPTAIL LOOP LOT 24 LOT 20 PARCEL 1MAP 21705 LOT 21 LOT 22 PROPOSED BRIDGESEE ENLARGEMENT 0 2010 30 40390 400 410 420 430A A' E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) 390 400 410 420 430 D I S T A N C E SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.)GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' 0 2010 30 40390 400 410 420 430B B' E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) 390 400 410 420 430 D I S T A N C E SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.)GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' LP LP EXISTINGWHIPTAIL LOOP(PKWY/STREET) EXISTINGWHIPTAIL LOOP(PKWY/STREET)Qcf QucKgr Kgr Kgr Kgr Quc Qcf EXISTING SD LINETO BE REMOVED APPROX. LOCATION OFPROPOSED PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ABUTMENTFOUNDATION APPROX. LOCATION OFPROPOSED PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ABUTMENTFOUNDATION CENTERLINE OF BRIDGE WHIPTA I L L O O P EXISTINGCONFERENCECENTER PROPERTY PARCEL 1 MAP 21705 LOT 21 & 22PROPERTY EXTENT OF ABUTMENT BELOW EXTENT OF ABUTMENT BELOW EXISTING UTILITIES PER CIVILIMPROVEMENT PLANS 540-7 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING UTILITY TO BERELOCATED. SEE CIVIL GRADINGPLANS540-7B 415 420 410 405 410 415 420 425 G A Z E L L E C T 395 386 402 410 407 404 Qcf Qcf Qcf Qcf Kgr 388 398 400 406 398 405 404 408 416 414 412 407 388 A A ' B B ' 396 Quc Quc 402 T-1 EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINEABANDONED AND REMOVED AS PART OF ONGOING LOTS 21/22 ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS 0 2010 30 40 390 400 410 420 430 A A' E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) 390 400 410 420 430 D I S T A N C E SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' 0 2010 30 40 390 400 410 420 430 B B' E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) E L E V A T I O N ( M S L ) 390 400 410 420 430 D I S T A N C E SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' LP LP EXISTINGWHIPTAIL LOOP(PKWY/STREET) EXISTINGWHIPTAIL LOOP(PKWY/STREET)Qcf QucKgr Kgr Kgr Kgr Quc Qcf EXISTING SD LINETO BE REMOVED APPROX. LOCATION OFPROPOSED PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ABUTMENTFOUNDATION APPROX. LOCATION OFPROPOSED PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ABUTMENTFOUNDATION *1:1 MAX; TEMPORARYEXCAVATIONS *1:1 MAX; TEMPORARYEXCAVATIONS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF PROJECT NO. SCALE FIGURE Plotted:12/20/2023 3:03PM | By:JONATHAN WILKINS | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\06442-32-31B Ionis Pharm. lots 21-22\SHEETS\06442-32-31B GeologicMap.40.dwg GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS VARIES GEOLOGIC 1APGEOLOGIC CROSS SEC8IONS IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS LOTS 21 AND 22 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CARLSBAD OAKS BUSINESS PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 12 - 20 - 2023 06442 - 32 - 31A 1 1 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 80' ENLARGE BRIDGE SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10' ........COMPACTEDE FILL ........COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA ........GRANITIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT ........APPROX. BOTTOM ELEVATION OF FILL (In Feet, MSL) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION ........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH (Existing Storm Drain Line Abandoned and Removed) ........APPROX. LIMITS OF UNDERCUT GEOCON LEGEND 386 Qcf Kgr B B' Quc DATE *In accordance with OSHA, it is the responsibility of the contractor and their competent person to determine the soil type during construction to ensure all excavations, temporary slopes and trenches are properly constructed and maintained in accordance with OSHA guidelines to maintain safety and the stability of the excavation. T-1 --~---, / I ' / I [ • f -:,'--' ~--' \' ---, __ _, /1, , ,I ---..._, ...,.(~--__ ·, ·t_J I -__ (~,-..--:. •) r', ~I~ .L ::;;;._ - -( / "---\ --__ "').~ .. ~\\\(! -h--, I ~ • --• ' ..I /\ "'"'J(• " • ' --~-' ' ---\. '""' ·-· / --.;.___ ' • --=----I -----' '~!it I I ---,·?-,--\. _. \J --'rn· I I I /-l--f+' ---y •-. ;1',1"\t. '1 / ., •,• • --~---i i -1,ci/_ ------>~\'~' I / __ ( ---: -., I I [•_c·A ---,-;_ ¾,;1['), · L /4,//i'd---I • µ,~ • . --i'.'JVC ·'1": #"'' ----r_;~------• n· -.1.---. -111, -__ !,~\,/ f'.> "/ _ __--7-< -L -u ,-__ n --\ · • -U! / ,,_ -i; !,U ,1 ;~l~~fu':1cJ1 -- 7 \. --1 11 :,-l,, .. • --. •J -. 1'11 . ! // '-l<~'; • A -• \_, 1\pr-) ' -• .,. --~~ ~c ~.l ~ --I \ ( ·-,_ \ , -' •\· i • --·;, -,--· ', / -' --->~:--~, ' ,• 7 . ---• ,_ ' -• ,. -n ,, 'r ' -u,• • ,;_ ,, • • -'j ' , " / •, ;-,cl\:__y if \ ;, ••cc ' ' \ ' ' / I , I lj . , • ~r"-. ~ • ~----->_>C-~, -•" -' ;,_c,,y /'-( -• •• ' ---/ . . ~. ' ' "--< -T :,...:,· I \ \ J • ' ., • "•"/ 'S • • ' -°'\ '• ' -' . : Ci"ccYc>~\ ,--1, !/ V//'. ,:,, ¾ ,., -() ,, 'A f c,, -\ _Y=~:::_----~---~~~~~ -k , <• '•••O x <, .-,•-~-. --- \ • , // ,, -,;'.,'<//Ct"'n \ ),\ 1· ·-~--, ', -c;;c,,=a __ _ • -.,, ··• ; '"'· < < , ••-•, _,?,2/. r --,;_'::= -----_ / ) ~/,, • ,1 fl'"'" £1, • _ _e_-_cc-c:ac---, ' --~- ---i:::-._,'11 / ''1'U \. \_,,I -·,-._ -",.-, - < ' •""cS4;/1/1)'--1/,-~""· -_;--::: ,---.:::y /"~,\ . '1 --""~~~~~-=---- ., 4 ¥Wf,.,<~ .. ,~'°t•-_ _ ________ _ , .. • ---~,. ,_ •• ' """" < ----------• --• " ' ' ,, < • •• , ' -V .. • "" '. < -~---•-----_ ----,-""-,~,+.-"'' ', \' ', --• • /, /,c •'c/ "·"<• / F,. ••• -, . <. K, ,'•, ' ','' • V -\-11-.-:-,\, ,-:;,, /'I' -• ,.£,., -:;,-/;> ---// <':"-~..::----.;, • h • . . ·' ! _ --,,... .. .. Ci --, ~ -cc--,c,; >i-"' _,.,._ , , it/0,-,-°'---.-.;,c,, )'-!,l: ~1//1/.-:-;:;::;::-.,::;_-_ .. ~~"~'m~ -1~~~ \~->-J -==--====----=e:·-cc=----A--,,_-~i~;"~'1~Jc;:: 'L ----~'» -',.., / ._ .,,,, ,, / 0 I ~. .,_ ----• , .. _. ----' .. ~---... -I ,//11 1 11 1 _ I J 1/ " •·• _,_ .. .. • _, _ ----• ___ _ __ I \I e , '~-0 , , .. ,,,, " 'owe---'.I .]""=-.\' I '.?-:,p ----• --ccoc-""<------->, ', .... \ I "'/1 1 /,, ·l/ ~ ~/x/f ;y>;:-;;.,, / , .. / ., ",Jiii/I'j __ J -<, -_ , ,v-, , , ')Szi.v-~ u 1• , , , -· ,_ •, ,, __ · ., --•·.-·'-~ ... ,_ ·, -, "-""' .. _, --... _ .... ::,r "'" .... --✓--; -r .<ce:::::-,,,, _ ((Fc;,-:;;-~~ 1 ~ ' --1----'-,/.((// C"i,}, • '\ \\ :;; I Kl I l :-'"" \ ~~ .--,.,-• ". • •• ---" ' ~-±=-• ,, • .., '\', ' ., '~ ,, -,,_,. "'•' • ½'. '( '. .. ---' • -.\-~. -/ ~~ ... ' V -• " ' ~ , J > ' \ \c, \ \ ~ ;,,-.,)1 I -,--1 , ~ "• • ' " ' <, '' « ,, -"" • / I ~¾i,' ' ' < ' % ' ;. ""' V <~L::':~--~t":\:~:t CJ • ___./_ n7 ' ' "Tu.-,;•·, .,, ' , ~ --• < '"'' -' -, \ "17 .. ~. -,• • ' • r C ¥7:z~i\-... _'"-x ,0 ·-0< -✓ ,-4.fc. ,\~0;/~j L y_,~~;,,l=;r =\~=~t=i:: ~~ .. -------1,Y "'.) -' , 'I ,;;,t,".\;;r 'y: -: I \!°', ', Hi, • "~ .. , " -• -,--., • -, ,Ail!', f y ;:--' ,.. "" \H•X 1 \ , ____ • -... -,,_ 0~.' .... ~ " .~:-,, ~;;J:",=- '\ __ '""'~~ Ni;,~~ '~-'·C-, ~' 1, • / #' ,c// \ ' \~~==;I~~--=~ ' •• -• """-' -1/' -'• \ "'· - /_ . v--, • '. " . ½, ",~ < \,_j ,\ -• • I ,'C, •• . : , ,,,.. \ \ / / I / • / > / ->> -~ ' -{/ ' • ' ,· : ' '!;, .. ,:, .... ,,, ' • ' • " " "" ' '£'~ il\11\1\111 \ ' •, " / < : .. • <\ ......--_I-= --J i'll'\I \1\1'1 'w",,, __ ,/ f ---, ' : •· "'~· ', .... ,, .. , ' v ', •'. ',\ ., • C;, ' : ' •cc·a•'•'"1i111 \ \ \_' / // // ~-----.__ ,, . s_..,.....--c::::::::,=----,-,-J: 1 .,,,--..:-::~r~' 1 1i1 111 1, , -~ -:f 1// • / , " .. ......__ ", __./~'-;:~-s_1_ .. '".:--1~--\,~ -~1,')/iii1 11 \ 11 ./1/ /,, "-;-• ' C " -" ' """ "\ I ;// // __ v ,-• , •,_, · "" --•, 111 ' ' " "" " . " " ,. ----: ., --' ' -" • ; " ... _ --,~. ....... -~ •• ----, __ ,1.,),1,/1 1\\111111..-1''1 -/(;-' /? II;/ .,~ -, , • '"w·,.0,.1.o/• ";,, a • • •" • ' ' ... ,,-,,.. . ' --' :\~' / / d C ' .. ' --·--, \, -:;<<..->--' • ' ·, ·, . .., .. • ; ... ',-:---~, ---~,,~ \\~!', • I •• ·,.. I 'N I • I !,, '•<:::-:;, ) i";.;:/:: 1 ,\ • -.,.. r/_, -z/ '~.;,,<>,,.,.f \ / ,: ~--=,,.._~, -. / -,..._ ' I \i) I I --J ---- ·-. \ '- '•,• ·,--__.. ' . <;::--, \ , '::,x:.,,,,,.> '""·"--_. J,\:,,."\":\ / / ".--/~/-✓ ,,/' / // / / \ \ \ \ '\ \' -'\~~} J_':::-::0":~~~:-~~-~~~-~-i--~; . ~,i ~; -----=-=-=~~~:::C-~-cc::;,.;:-_~ _ .. / / ·-----✓ ,,,-:; / ----~ / / / / / / 1/, CJ ,,......_J CJ \ I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' . \ •, ?{ \' ,y•' ,: / ";,_ \ \-, \'""' / " ._,/•\\ --,.-_... /\\ _ ...... -... '\/ .. , >-J " ..,_, "_- \'~t..... \, ,:r /; ,I,--;::;;;:--- !~\ ........ --> -<~ -;:, / '•\,~}, .. ------'-------- CJ \ \ ' I ' GEOf:9,ti I N CO R P ■ ■ COMPACTED FILL Loose to medium dense, moist, mottled light olive, yellowish brown and brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with few rock up to 4 inch diameter and few roots up to 1/4 inch diameter -Becomes medium dense to dense with trace rock up to 8 inch diameter at 1.5 feet -Becomes brown at 6 feet BOTTOM OF TRENCH AT 12 FEET No groundwater Trench backfilled with trench spoils as part of ongoing grading operations SM ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure A-1, Log of Trench T 1, Page 1 of 1 DR Y D E N S I T Y (P . C . F . ) ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) LINK BELT 350 PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T . ) TRENCH T 1 ... CHUNK SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R E. ALVARADO CO N T E N T ( % ) SAMPLE NO.12-13-2023 SAMPLE SYMBOLS MO I S T U R E BY:EQUIPMENT ELEV. (MSL.)410' 06442-32-31B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 06442-32-31B f-- f-- f-- f-- f-- I] liiiiJ - - - - - SAMPLE NO.:GEOLOGIC UNIT: SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):NATURAL/REMOLDED: 1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE 890 2030 4300 -- 10.1 10.3 10.2 10.2 114.3 114.5 114.5 114.4 1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE 13.8 13.8 14.0 13.9 1307 2347 3872 -- 1050 1773 3248 -- 730 37 470 33 Figure No. 3 Qcf N/A NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD WATER CONTENT (%): PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF): ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF): INITIAL CONDITIONS R FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES) NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF): WATER CONTENT (%): ULTIMATE RESULTS PEAK 06442-32-31B IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS LOTS 21/22 COHESION, C (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES) DIRECT SHEAR - AASHTO T-236 PROJECT NO.: COHESION, C (PSF) DRY DENSITY (PCF): AFTER TEST CONDITIONS #6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 SH E A R S T R E S S ( P S F ) HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN) 1 K 2 K 4 K 1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK 1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE 4 K 2 K 1 K 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 SH E A R S T R E S S ( P S F ) NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Qcf D10 (mm)D30 (mm)D60 (mm) 0.100 0.358 1.017 IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS LOTS 21/22 PROJECT NO.: U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 06442-32-31B SAMPLE NO.:#6 GEOLOGIC UNIT: SAMPLE DEPTH (FT.):N/A Figure No. 4 Cc 1.3 TEST DATA SOIL DESCRIPTION SW-SM - Well-graded SAND with silt10.2 Cu SIEVE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 6913 6"5"4"3"2" 1- 1 / 2 " 1"3/ 4 " 1/ 2 " 3/ 8 " #4 #8 #1 0 #1 6 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #5 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #2 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.010.11101001000 PE R C E N T P A S S I N G PARTICLE SIZE (mm) SAND SILT OR CLAYCOARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMFINE GRAVEL ...... .......... .... I ...... .. ... .., ~ I I 1 , I I "-. I I " I I II II I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I II II I I I I II II I I I I I I I I ----- GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159 I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I \ I I I I ' I I I I I I I I ' I I ◄ ~ I I \I I I I \ I I 1 \ I I I I I I ' I I I I