The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBLD2005-00675 Geotechnical Report • • GeoResources, LLC Ph.253-896-1011 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Suite 20 Fx.253-896-2633 Fife, Washington 98424-2649 September 11, 2006 Olympic Ridge 15940 Lindsay Lane Poulsbo, WA 98370 Attn: Mr. Joe Klinker Geotechnical Consultation Mattoni Single-Family Residence 94 Red Cedar Lane Jefferson County, Washington Job No.OlympicRidge.RedCedarLn.LG This report summarizes our site observations and provides our opinions regarding foundation support and setback from slopes, fill placement on slopes and within the residential foundation/floor slab areas. Our services are provided at your request and based on our review of the available soils data for the site area, our site reconnaissance and our construction data review. At the time of our September 7, 2006 site visit/meeting, the residence was weathered in and landscaping partially completed. The site is located in an area of established and newer residential construction within the Woodridge residential development. The site is situated near the top of a generally north facing slope. A local topographic depression occurs on the west side of the lot. The residence and detached garage are located at the top of the slope. The residence includes a full below grade basement. We further understand, and based on our review of the photographs provided, that the west and portions of the north basement foundation wall extends an additional 13 to 14 feet below the basement level. Copies of the photographs are included as Figures 1 and 2. Based on our experience in the area and our review of the photos provided, the subgrade soils at the site consist of very dense glacial till where undisturbed. The undisturbed glacial till soils in this area have high strength values and are capable of providing a bearing pressure in excess of 5,000 lbs/ft2. Foundation elements for the Mattoni residence were founded in the undisturbed glacial till material based on our photo review and discussions with you. Relative to the setback of the foundation/footings from slopes at the site, the deepened footings resulted in a structural setback for the structure of 20 feet or more. In addition, the west slope area terminates in a local depression and therefore has a limited height, approximately 15 feet. Fill material placed at the site appears adequately compacted. We understand that the fill was benched into the slope areas and placed in lifts of 12 inch or less in thickness. The fill was compacted using walk-behind compaction equipment until it was in a firm and unyielding condition. Similar compaction practices were followed within the foundation/floor slab area. Footing drains were placed adjacent to all exterior footings. Large landscape rocks were placed on the west fill area as an Alpine Rockery, and landscape plantings will be used for erosion control between the rocks. Stormwater runoff from the residence and driveway is collected and directed to an engineered on-site infiltration system located southwest of the residence. Based on the above, it is our opinion that the foundation elements of the Mattoni residence bear on dense native soils and are adequately setback from slopes at the site. It is further our opinion that the backfill material placed within the foundation area and on the north and west slope areas was placed and compacted in accordance with the standards of practice in the Puget Sound. • •Olympic Ridge-Mattoni Residence September 11,2006 Page 2 We hope this satisfies your current needs. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need additional information please call me. Yours Very Truly, GeoResources, LLC Bradley P. Biggerstaff, LEG Kurt Groesch, PE Principal Principal � O WaS6/ X ,(';''.;,:, ?fah ,, „. i -,,. p.., .., , ,,„ ,,.,...,141 eerin. -I log, i ' I., +i -. - ,. r,"" ::', e: 2228 r f. ; Sid ' P2. ' c9j 6? c, S,gjO �T, BRADLEY P.BIGGERSTAFF 1 4 IV EXPIRFS: 06 / 151 /b BPB:KG:bpb DocID.OlympicRidge.RedCedarLn.LR OlympicR.03 • • From: "Jac Osborn/Cabinets by Design"<cabinetdesign@gwest.neb Subject: Fw:Mattoni Site Investigation Port Ludlow(1) Date: October 2,2006 12:57:50 PM PDT To: will@langemack.com 9 Attachments,3.6 MB Save • Sideshow Original Message From: Jac Osbom/Cabinets by Design To: deancmattoniinsurance.conl Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:24 AM Subject: Fw: Mattoni Site Investigation Port Ludlow (1) Original Message From:,lac Osbom/Cabinets by Design To: june rnattoniinsurance.t on1 Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:49 AM Subject: Mattoni Site Investigation Port Ludlow (1) GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 94 RED CEDAR LANE PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR DEAN MATTONI BY GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON • Geotechnical Testing Laboratory ' Al B I C D E 1 F G I H I. Form No. INLF VI\ I File#: Project: 94 Red Ceder Lane Date: Inspector: JM Client: Contractor Permit: Weather: On site to_perform structural inspection of residence at 94 Red Ceder Lane in Port Luddow WA. Footing drains, footing reinforcing_footing conctrete strength verify please have engineer. Review and make recommendations. Subfloor sheating wrong size (thickness) please have engineer review for des in values. Roof sheating wrong size (thickness) Have engineer review. Roof diagrams cannot verify if installed correctly have engineer review and make recommendations. Shear walls not built to plans or codes. Inspectors request meeting between contractor, county building official, & engineer for fixes and direction, and that the nature of missing com_ponets in shear walls are to great to list. By: John Massett To the best of my knowledge, the above km were to approved plans and specifications. By: Hal Parks Was this a re-inspection? If No, does the item need re-inspection? 10011 Blomberg StreetW, Olympia, WA 98512 Phnno 7CLEAR1'7 gay VW-11 7ctL4R4A • I RE: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT& SITE INSPECTION 94 RED CEDAR LANE PORT LUDLOW,WASHINGTON 98365 PARCEL 9997000012 N47°54.467' W122°40.602' Gentlemen: As per your request. we have conducted a soils exploration, foundation evaluation, and slope stability analysis for the above-mentioned parcel. The results of this investigation, together with our recommendations, are to be found in the following report. We have provided three copies for your review and distribution. During our exploration, one test boring was advanced and soil samples from the project site were submitted for laboratory testing. The data has been carefully analyzed to determine soils bearing capacities and footing embedment depths. The results of the exploration and analysis indicate that conventional spread and continuous wall footings appear to be the most suitable type of foundation for the support of the proposed structure. Some variability was encountered in comparing the soil profiles of the site. Net allowable soil pressures, embedment depth, and total expected settlements have been presented for the site later in the report. Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise concerning soil conditions. We would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical consultants during the project implementation. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and we look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions concerning the above items, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance, please call us at the phone number listed below. Respectfully Submitted, GEOTECHNICAL TESTING LABORATORY Harold Parks. L.G., L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTACT INFORMATION SCOPE OF UNDERSTANDING TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions Site Geology Site Soils Subsurface Explorations Subsurface Conditions Slope Stability IONC1,SISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Genera( LANDSLIDE — EROSION HAZARD AREA Classification • • Slope Stability Building Setback Seismic —Liquefaction Hazard Erosion Control EARTHWORK Site Preparation Structural Fill ,Suitability of Onsite Soils as all Cut and Fill Slopes Foundation Sam= Floor Slab Support Retaining Walls Slone Incli ation: Equivalent Fluid Press ur Retaining Wall Alternatives Site Drainage Septic Impact j,IMITATIONS FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of our geotechnical consulting services for the proposed single-family residence to be located along the north-facing hillside overlooking the Hood Canal, approximately 1.5 mile southeast of Union, Washington. The location of the site is shown relative to the surrounding area on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with you and our explorations and review of the site. We understand that the parcel is to be developed as a single-family residence. The site will be accessed by a driveway from East Dalby Road. In general, grading will consist of the excavation of the foundation, footings, and foundation. The approximate layout of the site is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2 The site slopes toward the north from the proposed building location. The steepest slope measured onsite was in excess of 70 percent. Therefore, Mason County requires that a geotechnical report be prepared in accordance with the Critical Areas Ordinance. The purpose of our services is to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the project and to satisfy the requirements of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory is therefore providing geologic and hydrogeologic services for the project. Specifically, our scope of services for this project will include the following: 1. Review the available geologic, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical data for the site area. • S 2. Conduct a geologic reconnaissance of the site area and surrounding vicinity. 3. Investigate shallow subsurface conditions at the site by observing the exposed soil and reviewing published well logs. 4. Evaluate the landslide and erosion hazards at the site per the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance regulations. 5. Provide geotechnical recommendations for site grading including site preparation, subgrade preparation, fill placement criteria (including hillside grading), temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control measures. SITE CONDITIONS STTE VISIT AND INSPECTION At site visit was conducted at the subject property on September 12, 2006. The purpose of the site visit was to inspect the property and the construction that has occurred on the property. Elements of the project we inspected included the building and the subsoil around the building. We are not prepared to make comments on the landscaping elements such as the rockery and attached structures such as porches on the residence. SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed building site is located in an area of moderate residential development in the Puget Sound glacial upland overlooking the Great Bend of the Hood Canal. The site has a southern exposure. We conducted a reconnaissance of the site area on July 11, 2005. Site elevations range from approximately 404 to 428 feet. The building area of the site has vegetation common to the Northwest. The vegetation includes fir, alder, pine, hemlock, and madrone trees as well as clover, huckleberry, salal, blackberry, and grasses. At the time of the site visit, we observed no evidence of active surface erosion. No evidence of deep-seated slope instability was observed. Sloughing and sliding were not observed onsite. Surface water flow was not observed onsite at the time of our reconnaissance. The general topography of the site area indicates that drainage flows toward the north from the proposed building location. SITE GEOLOGY The site is generally situated within the Puget Sound glacial upland. The existing topography, as well as the surficial and shallow subsurface soils in the area, are the result of the most recent Vashon stade(stage) of the Fraser glaciation that occurred between about 8,000 and 12,000 years ago, and weathering and erosion that have occurred since. A description of the surficial soils is included in the "Site Soils" section of this report. In general, the soils are composed of Vashon glacial till material. Sni SoiLs The Soil Survey of Jefferson County, USDA Soil Conservation Service (1975)has mapped the site soils as an Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes(CfD)and Sinclair gravelly sandy loam,0 to 15 percent slopes(SnC), at the site. The report reads: Cassolary Series is described as follows: The Cassolary series consists of well-drained soils on upland terraces. Slopes range from 0 to 50 percent. Elevation ranges from 50 to 500 feet. These soils formed in reworked glacial and marine sediments. Native vegetation is mainly Douglasfir, western redcedar, western hemlock, red alder, bigleaf maple, rhododendron, salal, huckleberry, and swordfern. s S Annual precipitation ranges from 17 to 25 inches. The average annual air temperature is 50°F. The above 32°F growing season ranges from about 160 to 260 days, and the above 28°F growing season ranges from about 220 to 320 days. In a representative profile in a wooded area, a thin layer of organic litter covers the surface. The upper 23 inches of the soil is sandy loam. To a depth of 3 inches it is dark gray, between depths of 3 and 15 inches it is dark brown, and between depths of 15 and 23 inches it is dark grayish brown. Below this is grayish-brown silt loam that extends to a depth of 27 inches. Beneath this, and extending to a depth of 33 inches, is grayish-brown silty clay loam. The next layer is light olive-brown fine sandy-loam that extends to a depth of 49 inches. It is underlain to a depth of 60 inches by very dark grayish-brown medium sand. Most of the acreage of Cassolary soils is wooded. The soils are used mainly for production of trees and for small ranches and rural homesites. Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes is described as follows: This hilly soil is on terraces along the breaks of ravines or marine bluffs. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. This soil is used mainly for production of trees and for recreation areas and wildlife habitat. Small acreages are used for rural homesites and for growing pasture, hay, and diversified garden crops. Capability unit Ilse-3; woodland group 3d2. Sinclair Series is described as follows: The Sinclair series consists of moderately well drained soils that have a very slowly permeable cemented layer at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. These soils formed in glacial till on glacial terraces. Slopes range from 0 to 30 percent. Elevation ranges from 100 to 800 feet. Vegetation is mainly Douglasfir, western redcedar, red alder, willow, rhododendron, and salal. Annual precipitation ranges from 25 to 45 inches. The average annual air temperature is 49° F. The above 32°F growing season ranges from 180 to 210 days, and the above 28°F growing season ranges from 210 to 240 days. In a representative profile in a wooded area, the upper 2 inches of the soil is grayish-brown fine sandy loam. Below this, to a depth of 8 inches, is dark-brown gravelly sandy loam. Beneath this, and extending to a depth of 25 inches, is dark-brown and dark yellowish-brown gravelly sandy loam. Below a depth of 25 inches is a dark grayish-brown cemented layer. Glacial cobbles and stones are present throughout the profile. Most of the acreage of this soil is used for production of trees, and most areas are wooded. Less than 20 percent of the acreage has been cleared and is used for small ranches and rural homesites. Some pasture, hay, berries, and vegetables are grown in cleared areas for personal use. Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes is described as follows: This nearly level to rolling soil is on glacial terraces. Most slopes range from 5 to 10 percent. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Olete and Kitsap soils. This soil is moderately well drained Permeability is moderately rapid above the cemented layer. Roots penetrate to the cemented layer. This soil holds about 2 to 4 inches of water available for • • plants. Runoff is slow to medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate. A perched water table is on top of the cemented layer during the rainy season. This soil is used mainly for production of trees and for wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and rural homesites. Less than 15 percent of the acreage is used for growing pasture, hay, and home garden crops. Capability unit IVe-1; woodland group 4d2. The Geologic Map of Washington—Northwest Quadrant(2002) has mapped the site geology as glacial till deposits (Qgt) of continental glacial origin. The report reads: Till — Unsorted, unstratified, highly compacted mixture of clay, silt, .sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glacial ice; may contain interbedded stratified sand, silt, and gravel. Includes part of the Vashon Dri t undivided • SUBSURFACE p i EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by observing the exposed building site soil and reviewing available well logs. Groundwater is presumed deep and beyond the scope of this report. Depth to competent soil is approximately 10 inches throughout the proposed building location. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS One soil boring was completed to a depth of 16 feet below ground surface. The boring was completed on the west side of the residence. Soil encountered in the boring included 16 feet of sand with some gravel, and the native soil that was wet silty sand. This boring was completed to determine the depth to native soil. The sand was wet to moist from a depth of 8-inches below ground surface to the completion depth of the boring. The intent of this boring was to encounter native soil, and the footing beneath the stemwall on the exterior of the building. The foot was not encountered in our excavation. Blow counts were taken during the exploration do determine the relative density of the soil. At a depth of 4.5-feet, the blow count was 14 indicating a dense configuration on the backfill material. The native material had a blow count of 22, indicating a dense configuration. A drainage feature was encountered at a depth of 18-inches on the west side of the building. It is our opinion that this "footing" drain should be removed. Our justification is that the location of this line is contributing water to the area and because it is a perforated pipe water drains from it along this side of the building. In general, undisturbed dense Everett gravelly sandy loam was observed in the undisturbed portions of the site. Glacial till was observed below the Everett material. Groundwater was not observed or encountered. Groundwater seepage was not observed onsite. Based on the site topography and the nature of the near-surface soil, seasonally perched groundwater conditions may not be expected during periods of extended wet weather. ! • SLOPE STABILITY There are slopes to the west and north of the building. The slope to the west, where the rockery wall has been constructed has an average slope of 53%. The slope to the north is approximately 34 percent. Of note on the slope to the north of the residence, there are no large trees. The lack of large trees could be an indication of past slope instability, or the parcel could have been logged several years ago. Slopes in excess of 70 percent were observed onsite. Since slopes of 40 percent or greater with 10 feet or more of vertical relief occur on portions of the site. Mason County requires that a geologic hazards report be completed according to the Critical Areas Ordinance. The near-surface soils are in a dense to very dense condition except at the ground surface. The surficial soils are generally in a medium dense condition. In general, the undisturbed native soils of the site consist of a mixture of variable amounts of sand, silt, and gravel. These soil materials are in a dense condition except where they have been disturbed by weathering activity. These soils are generally stable relative to deep-seated failure. No evidence of deep-seated landslide activity or significant erosion was observed onsite at the time of our investigation. Weathering, erosion, and the resultant sloughing and shallow landsliding are natural processes that can affect steep slope areas. Instability of this nature is typically confined to the upper weathered or disturbed zone, which has been disturbed and has a lower strength. Raveling, sloughing, and sliding were not observed on slopes throughout the site. Significant weathering typically occurs in the upper 2 to 3 feet and is the result of oxidation, root penetration, wet/thy cycles, and freeze/thaw cycles. Erosion in steep slope areas such as this can be reduced by encouraging vegetation and discouraging runoff from the steep slopes. Erosion control recommendations for the sloping areas are provided in the "Erosion Control" section of this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the results of our site reconnaissance, subsurface observations, and our experience in the area, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed project. The slope is stable relative to deep-seated instability and will not be affected by the proposed structure. The proposed structure will not undermine adjacent slopes. Proper drainage control measures will reduce or eliminate the potential for erosion in this area and improve slope stability. The hazards of the landslide area can be overcome in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public • • health and safety, and the project will cause no significant environmental impact. In general, the Everett soils observed at the site may be suitable for use as structural fill material. Saturated soil conditions are not associated with these soils during or following extended periods of rainfall. However, to reduce grading time and construction costs, we recommend that earthwork be undertaken during favorable weather conditions. Conventional construction equipment may be utilized for work at the site. Conventional spread footings may be utilized at the site for support of the structure. We do recommend that roof and footing drains be installed for the structure with conventional spread footings. A vapor barrier is recommended for all slabs-on-grade. Pertinent conclusions and geotechnical recommendations regarding the design and construction of the proposed single-family residence are presented below. LANDSLIDE - EROSION HAZARD AREA CLASSIFICATION Article VI-G. Geologically Hazardous Areas 18.15.270 Classification/designation. (1) Classification. Geologically hazardous areas shall be classified based upon a combination of erosion, landslide and seismic hazard. (2) Designation. The following erosion, landslide and seismic, and channel migration zone (CMZ) hazard areas shall be subject to the standards of this Article VI-G: (a)Erosion Hazard Areas. Areas containing soils or soil complexes described and mapped within the United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Jefferson County as having a severe or very severe erosion hazard potential. (b) Landslide Hazard Areas. Areas potentially subject to mass movement due to a combination of geologic, topographic and hydrologic factors including: (i)Areas of historic failures or potentially unstable slopes, such as: (A)Areas described and mapped as having severe or very severe building limitations for dwellings without basements within the United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Jefferson County; (B)Areas described and mapped as recent or old landslides or slopes of unstable materials within the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas of Jefferson County; and EXHIBIT B MLA06-242 MLA06-242 Exh. B: 5/17/06 Page 4 (C)Areas described and mapped as areas of poor natural stability, former landslides and recent landslides by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources; (ii) Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, or undercutting by wave action; and (iii) Areas with any indications of earth movement, such as: (A)Rockslides; (B)Earthflows; (C) Mudflows; and (D)Landslides. (c) Seismic Hazard Areas. Areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These areas are identified by the presence of: poorly drained soils with greater than 50 percent silt and very little coarse material; loose sand or gravel, peat, artificial fill and landslide materials; or soil units with high organic content (3) Sources Used for Identification. Sources used to identify geologically hazardous areas include, but are not limited to: (a)United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey for Jefferson County. • . (b) Washington State Department of Ecology, Coastal Zone Atlas. (c)Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Slope Stability and Geologic Maps of Eastern Jefferson County. (d)Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geographic Information System: Soil Survey. (e)Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Maps of Eastern Jefferson County, Compressibility of Earth Materials in Eastern Jefferson County. (f)United States Department of the Interior, USGS Quad Maps. (g) US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. Denver, CO. (h) Perkins Geoscience. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. Seattle, WA. (4) Geologic Hazard Area Maps. The maps prepared by the county using the identification sources listed in this section have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this code. [Ord. 11-00 § 3.6.7(a)] 18.15.275 Protection standards. (1) General. Application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated geologically hazardous area or its buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth below. (2) Drainage and Erosion Control. (a)An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control plan, as specified in this chapter, when the project application involves either of the following: (i)The alteration of a geologically hazardous area or its buffer; or (ii) The creation of a new parcel within a known geologically hazardous area. (b) Drainage and erosion control plans required under this chapter shall discuss, evaluate and recommend methods to minimize sedimentation of adjacent properties during and after construction. (c) Surface drainage shall not be directed across the face of a marine bluff, landslide hazard or ravine. The applicant must demonstrate that the stormwater discharge cannot be accommodated on-site or upland by evidence of a geotechnical report, unless waived by the administrator. If drainage must be discharged from a bluff to adjacent waters, it shall be collected above the face of the bluff and directed to the water by tight line drain and provided with an energy dissipating device at the shoreline, above OHWM. (d) In addition to any erosion control methods specified in the drainage and erosion control plan, the administrator may require hydroseeding of exposed or disturbed areas. (3) Clearing and Grading. (a)In addition to the general clearing and grading provisions in Chapter 18.30 JCC, the following provisions shall also apply: (i)Clearing within geologically hazardous areas shall be allowed only from April 1st to November 1st, unless the applicant demonstrates that such activities would not result in impacts contrary to the protection requirements herein; (ii) Only that clearing necessary to install temporary sedimentation and erosion control measures shall occur prior to clearing for roadways or utilities; (iii) Clearing limits for roads, septic, water and stormwater utilities, and temporary erosion control facilities shall be marked in the field and approved by the administrator prior to any alteration of existing native vegetation; (iv)Clearing for roads and utilities shall remain within construction limits which must be marked in the field prior to commencement of site work; and (v) The authorized clearing for roads and utilities shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish project specific engineering designs and shall remain within approved rights-of-way. (b) The following provisions regarding grading shall apply: (i)An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a grading plan, as specified in this chapter,when the application involves either of the following: (A)The alteration of a geologically hazardous area or its buffer; or (B)The creation of a new parcel within a known geologically hazardous area. (ii) Excavation, grading and earthwork construction regulated under this section shall only be allowed from April • lst to November 1st, unless the applicant demonstrates that such activities would not result in impacts contrary to the protection requirements herein. (4) Vegetation Retention. The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall apply: (a) During clearing for roadways and utilities, all trees and understory lying outside of approved construction limits shall be retained; provided, that understory damaged during approved clearing operations may be pruned. (b) Damage to vegetation retained during initial clearing activities shall be minimized by directional felling of trees to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and vegetation to be retained. (c) Retained trees, understory and stumps may subsequently be cleared only if such clearing is necessary to complete the proposal involved in the triggering application. (5)Buffer Marking. The location of the outer extent of landslide hazard area buffers shall be marked in the field as follows: (a) A permanent physical separation along the boundary of the landslide hazard area shall be installed and permanently maintained. Such separation may consist of logs, a tree or hedge row, fencing, or other prominent physical marking approved by the administrator. (b) Buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one per parcel or every 100 feet, whichever is less. Signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction activities. The signs shall contain the following statement: "Landslide Hazard Area & Buffer—Do Not Remove or Alter Existing Native Vegetation." (c) In the case of short plat, long plat, binding site plan or site plan approvals under this code, the applicant shall include on the face of any such instrument the boundary of the landslide hazard area and its buffer. (6) Buffers— Standard Requirements. The following landslide hazard area buffer provisions shall apply: (a)Buffer areas shall be required to provide sufficient separation between the landslide hazard area and the adjacent proposed project. (b) The appropriate width of the landslide hazard area buffer shall be determined by either: application of the standard buffer width set forth below;or, by acceptance of a geotechnical report meeting the criteria of this section. (c)Buffers shall remain naturally vegetated. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction,replanting with native vegetation shall be required. (d) Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition; however, minor pruning of vegetation to enhance views may be permitted by the administrator on a case-by-case basis. (e)All buffers shall be measured perpendicularly from the top,toe or edge of the landslide hazard area boundary. (f)A standard buffer of 30 feet shall be established from the top, toe and all edges of landslide hazard areas. (g)A building setback line is required to be five (5) feet from the edge of any buffer area for a landslide hazard area OR to outside the full extent of the high risk channel migration zone (CMZ), whichever is greater. For development proposed within moderate risk CMZs, the administrator shall determine the appropriate building setback based on circumstances that are specific to the proposed development site. In most circumstances, buffers associated with CMZs will be established through application of the protection standards for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas(FWHCAs)through that article of the code, as those buffers will generally be greater than buffers for geologically hazardous areas as determined through this article of the code. (7) Reducing Buffer Widths. The administrator may reduce the standard landslide ha7 d area buffer width only when the project applicant demonstrates,to the satisfaction of the administrator, that the project cannot meet the require SLOPE STABILITY Based on our field observations, explorations, and our experience with the soil types encountered on the property, we conclude that although portions of the slopes on the lot exceed 100 percent, they are generally stable relative to deep-seated failure in their present configuration. Excavation and backfilling will occur based on appropriate engineering and earthwork recommendations found in the following "Earthwork" section. Grading in the building portion of the site should be conducted in accordance with geotechnical recommendations provided herein. • • As previously discussed, weathering, erosion, and the resultant surficial sloughing and landsliding are natural processes that affect slope areas. Significant weathering typically occurs in the upper 2 to 3 feet and is the result of oxidation, root penetration, wet/diy cycles, and freeze/thaw cycles. Over-excavation may be necessary to ensure the removal of deleterious material. These processes can be managed and the risk reduced through proper construction of the residence. Erosion control recommendations in the slope and buffer areas are provided in the "Building Setback" and "Erosion Control" sections of this report. BUILDING SETBACK A building setback from landslide hazard areas is required unless evaluated and reduced by an engineering geologist or a licensed professional engineer. Based on our geotechnical evaluation of the site and our experience in the area, a building setback will be needed for this lot. The building setback may be measured from the bottom of the footing to the face of the steep slope in accordance with the International Building Code(1805.3.1). The following figure represents a shear angle for the gravelly sandy loam. Shear angle and cohesion are variables used to model the site. Peak Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress 411 shea s y • a ....Ix) H L L. R •iT , :iupc stability w oaeted us a ut,O-SLU1'J prolD4 verslo u) i}I both btic and extreme dynamic ondit ons (ca C.3). Factorsssafely were de rinined using Bisho , Janbu, and the Morgenstern,Price -methe'is. site was modeled using a monolithic layer of glacial till. The glacial till was deter rn,3 t, have a unit wei of 130 pcf, cohesion of 2300 psf, and a shear angle (f) of 41°. Under static condit ons, the slopes remait, stable to deep-seated and shallow failure. Under dynamic loading, the 3,328 computations demonstrated that the slope is not susceptible to surtictal raveling and large deep-seated tairure. 1 he following figures illustrate the moment factors of safety for slope "A" under the existing conditions. The figures are the solution of greatest concern and exhibits the need for a building setback of 10 feet from the crest of the northern slope and a building • • setback of 5 feet from the toe of the southern slope. All foundation elements shall be constructed on native material or engineered fill material. Slope model As previously discussed, weathering, erosion and the resultant surficial sloughing and shallow landsliding are natural processes that affect slope areas. Surficial raveling or sloughing was not observed onsite. To manage and reduce the potential for these natural processes, we recommend the following: No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto the sloped areas. r' No filling within the setback zone unless retained by retaining walls or constructed as an engineered fill. Trees may be removed on sloped areas as long as the stumps remain. SEISMIC—LIQUEFACTION HAZARD According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), the project site is located where the maximum spectral response acceleration is 45 percent of gravity (g). The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Jefferson County, Washington by Palmer, Magsino, Poelstra, Bilderback, Folger, and Niggemann(September 2004)maps the site area as having a very low liquefaction potential. The Site Class Map of Jefferson County, Washington by Palmer, Magsino, Bilderback, Poelstra, Folger, and Niggemann (September 2004) maps the site area as site class C to D. Site class C is a very stiff soil or soft rock and site class D is a stiff soil. Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the site, we interpret the site conditions to correspond to a seismic Soil Profile Type D, for Stiff Soil, as defined by Table 1615.1.1 (IBC). This is based on the range of SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts and/or probing with a %-inch diameter steel probe rod. The shallow soil conditions were assumed to be representative for the site conditions beyond the depths explored. Based on our review of the subsurface conditions, we conclude that the site soils are only mildly susceptible to liquefaction. The near-surface soils are generally in a dense condition and the static water table is located well below the surface. Shaking of the already dense soil is not apt to produce a denser configuration and subsequently excess pore water pressures are not likely to be produced. EROSION CONTROL • • It is our opinion that the potential erosion hazard of the site is not a limiting factor for the proposed development. Removal of natural vegetation should be minimized and limited to the active construction areas. Yard landscaping around the home is permissible, but understory growth on the slopes should be encouraged as much as possible as a deterrent to erosion. Hazard trees located on steep slopes may be removed only if the stumps remain to deter erosion. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures should be implemented and maintained during construction and/or as soon as practical thereafter to limit the additional influx of water to exposed areas and protect potential receiving waters. Erosion control measures should include, but not be limited to, silt fences, berms, and swales with ground cover/protection in exposed areas. A typical silt fence detail is included on Figure 2. Any re-contouring of the site will create a need for erosion control measures as listed above. EARTHWORK SITE PREPARATION All areas to be excavated should be cleared of deleterious matter including any existing structures, debris, duff, and vegetation. Based on our observations, we estimate that stripping on the order of 2 to 6 inches will be necessary to remove the root zone and surficial soils containing organics. Areas with deeper, unsuitable organics should be expected in the vicinity of depressions or heavy vegetation. Stripping depths of up to 1 foot may occur in these areas. These materials may be stockpiled and later used for erosion control and landscaping. Materials that cannot be used for landscaping or erosion control should be removed from the project site. Where placement of fill material is required, the exposed subgrade areas should be proof-rolled to a firm and unyielding surface prior to placement of any fill. We recommend that trees be removed with the roots, unless located on a slope. Excavations for tree stump removal in any building area should be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to the density requirements described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. If structural fill is needed, we recommend that a member of our staff evaluate the exposed subgrade conditions after vegetation removal and topsoil stripping are completed. Any soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during foundation preparation or probing should be compacted, if practical, or over-excavated and replaced with structural fill, based on the recommendations of our report. STRUCTURAL FILL All fill material should be placed as structural fill. The structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness to allow adequate and uniform compaction of each lift. Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of MDD (maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557) to within 2 feet of subgrade and 95 percent MDD in the upper 2 feet. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and compaction equipment used. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field representative during construction. • • The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather, we recommend the use of well-graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent (by weight) passing the No. 200 sieve based on that fraction passing the 3/i-inch sieve. If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork and foundation installation phase of construction, a somewhat higher (up to 10 percent)fines content will be acceptable. Material placed for structural fill should be free of debris, organic matter, trash, and cobbles greater than 6 inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be adjusted as necessary for proper compaction. SUITABILITY OF ONSITE Sous AS FILL Onsite soils may be considered for use as structural fill. In general, the native soils (sand, loam, and gravel) encountered on the site must have less than 10 percent fines (material passing the US No. 200 Sieve) to be suitable for use as structural fill. CUT AND FILL SLOPES All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor providing services and/or work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations As a general guide, temporary slopes of 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical)or flatter may be used for temporary cuts in the upper 3 to 4 feet of the glacially consolidated soils that are weathered to a loose/medium-dense condition. Temporary slopes of I to I or flatter may be used in the unweathered dense to very dense sands and gravel. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one-half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs. Surface drainage should be directed away from all slope faces. All slopes should be seeded as soon as practical to facilitate the development of a protective vegetative cover, or otherwise protected. FOUNDATION SUPPORT Where foundation elements are located near slopes between 5 and 30 percent, the footings should be located a minimum of 2 times the footing width from the slope face (horizontally), and founded in medium dense or denser native soils or properly prepared structural fill. We recommend a minimum width for isolated and continuous wall footings to meet IBC 2003. Footings founded as described above can be designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf(pounds per square foot) for combined dead and long-term live loads in areas of medium dense to dense soils. The weight of the footing and any overlying backfill may be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the bases of footings and floor slabs and as passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.40 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Active pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 150 pcf(pounds per cubic foot). We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of''A inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However, disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. • • FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT Slabs-on-grade should be supported on medium dense or dense native soils or on structural fill prepared as described in the "Structural Fill' section of this report. We recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by a minimum 6-inch thickness of coarse sand and/or gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (by weight). The drainage material should be placed and compacted to an unyielding condition. A synthetic vapor barrier may be used for the control of moisture migration through the slab, particularly where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab. A thin layer of sand may be placed over the vapor barrier and immediately below the slab to protect the liner during steel and/or concrete placement. The lack of a vapor barrier could result in wet spots on the slab, particularly in storage areas. RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls may be utilized on the sloping portion of the site to retain fill material. The lateral pressures acting on the subgrade and retaining walls will depend upon the nature and density of the soil behind the wall. It is also dependent upon the presence or absence of hydrostatic pressure. If the adjacent exterior wall space is backfilled with clean, granular, well-drained soil (washed rock). the design active pressure may be determined using an active pressure coefficient equal to 0.25 (Ka = 0.25). This design value assumes a level backslope and drained conditions as described below. Retaining walls located on or near the toe of a slope that extends up behind the wall should be designed for a lateral pressure, which includes the surcharge effects of the steep slope in proximity to the wall. Although not expected at this site, the following data is provided for planning purposes. For an irregular or composite slope, the equivalent slope angle may be determined by extending a line upward from the toe of the wall at an angle of 1 to 1 (Horizontal to Vertical) to a point where the line intersects the ground surface. The surcharge effects may be modeled by increasing the equivalent fluid pressure for flat ground by the percentage given in the following table: SLOPE INCLINATION: EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE Slope Angle Percent Increase Equivalent Fluid Pressure Horizontal 0% 35 pcf 3H:l V 25% 44 pcf 2H:1V 50% 53 pcf 1H:1V 75% 61 pcf If the walls are greater than 4 feet in height, exclusive of the footing, additional design considerations should be applied. Positive drainage, which controls the development of hydrostatic pressure, can be accomplished by placing a zone of coarse sand and gravel behind the walls. The granular drainage material should contain less than 5 percent fines. The drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. The drainage zone should also extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the top of the wall. The drainage zone should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the MDD. Over-compaction should be avoided as this can lead to excessive lateral pressures. A perforated PVC pipe with a minimum diameter of 4 inches should be placed in the drainage zone along the base of the wall to direct accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend that a non-woven geotextile filter fabric be placed between the drainage material and the remaining wall backfill to reduce silt migration into the drainage zone. The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone, with time, can reduce the permeability of the granular material. The filter fabric should be placed in such a way that it fully separates the drainage material and the backfill, and • • should be extended over the top of the drainage zone. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the bases of footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings and the buried portions of the wall. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.40 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined by using a passive pressure coefficient equal to 4 (Kp = 4). RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVES Typically, block wall systems are more cost effective for long-term walls than the other options. Specific design criteria for these options can be provided at your request by the block manufacturers. SrrE DRAINAGE The drainfield constructed on thepropertywas not verifiable. e able. The construction ctlo of the drainfield should be verified by a member of our staff. This will likely require excavation of the drainfield to verify that the required elements were property constructed. All ground surfaces, pavements, and sidewalks should be sloped away from the residence and associated structures. Surface water runoff should be controlled by a system of curbs, berms, drainage swales, and/or catch basins and tight-lined into the existing drainage facilities. We recommend that conventional roof drains be installed. Footing drains shall be installed for the single-family residence. The roof drain should not be connected to the footing drain. For footing drains, the drain invert should be below the bottom of the footing. We recommend that the collected stormwater runoff be directed into the existing drainage facilities by tight-line. Drainage control measures are included on Figure 3. Onsite irrigation to lawn areas should be closely monitored. We do not expect any adverse affects on the recharge condition of the groundwater system. SEPTIC IMPACT • . The location of the existing septic drainfield was inspected in regards to slope stability. Since the location is offsite and beyond the toe of the northern slope, the slope stability will not be compromised. Geotechnical General Notes SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS N: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split-spoon. Qu: Unconfined compressive strength,tons/ft2 Qp: Penetrometer value,unconfined compressive strength, lbs/ft2 V: Vane value,ultimate shearing strength,lbs/ft2 M: Water content,% LL: Liquid limit,% PI: Plasticity index,% D: Natural dry density,lbs/ft3 WT: Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion. DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS SS: Split-Spoon- 1 3/8"I.D., 2"O.D.,except where noted. ST: Shelby Tube-3"O.D.,except where noted. AU: Auger Sample. GB: Grab Sample. DB: Diamond Bit. CB: Carbide Bit. WS: Washed Sample. RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION Terms (Non-Cohesive Soils) Standard Penetration Resistance Very Loose 0-2 Loose 2-4 Slightly Compact 4-8 Medium Dense 8- 16 Dense 16-26 Very Dense Over 26 Terms(Cohesive Soils) Qu-(tons/ft2) Very Soft 0-0.25 Soft 0.25-0.50 Firm(Medium) 0.50- 1.00 Stiff 1.00-2.00 Very Stiff 2.00-4.00 Hard 4.00+ PARTICLE SIZE Boulders 8 in.+ Coarse Sand 5 mm-0.6 mm Silts 0.074 nun-0.005 mm Cobbles 8 in. -3 in. Medium Sand 0.6 mm-0.2 mm Clays 0.005 mm&Smaller Gravel 3 in. -5 mm Fine Sand 0.2 mm-0.074 mm • • LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for Dean Mattoni and members of his design team to use in the design of a portion of this project. The data used in preparing this report, and this report, should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes only. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations are based on data from others and our site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. This report is quantified as a micro-study and not a macro-study. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory and its personnel cannot be responsible for unforeseen and widespread geologic events (such as earthquakes, large-scale faulting, and mass wasting) beyond the scope of this project. Variations in subsurface conditions are possible and may occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient consultation should be made with our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the recommendations, for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans. If our analysis and recommendations are followed, we do not anticipate any on site or off site impact from the construction. It is our conclusion that potential landslide hazards from the landslide area can be overcome so as not to cause harm to property, public health and safety, or the environment. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental remediation and construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. If there are any changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations, or types of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as appropriate. FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP \\::z.-- f �` t 7, ti� 1 Mkkt F {� Y v 1 A i 4/ f ii lyQ� R v Y ram 'i i r $,4► .. •?;t:. t# 1 -may.! 1' 9'( ant.. e - 4 -f-r 'x- f �r. it -4. N 4:- , . ��— � , a f�t �� '+ ! i ' `~`- — �' ,jet !f{f 11. i �� / • • '.' ' • . e' 0 4 . ( - �.� - r , r ct�_ 15 I% s:Lv ;. _� ' �.IR, 4f4 { }The ;. .+. y ti i j ! ! • _ s t Tr ! �' /I j( fi, : 1/4k rr� + - - �. ,t',/Ili (� i i 4 �- lam=•. f�/Cj s ��,1 .. ,- J iX' -` ,j,. �(:t�ltttllt`Krs1{1ttict i -\ • , t' l 1 • 1, f � r l ' 't al�� f . • • .5 `\` . _ lJ// .. \.`. !. t� V �) ,r 4 \ L wh.. •' \ ,' —\\ i x " x • • Peak Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress 3°)3 - I ist° 1 2500 • — ---- - C^ • c• C. .... 200D u) co 4) L. th Ism 4 , tis tu •c to 03 *V n. ,-4.-co .....—1/4 ion 44 1/2 1on •A lion 0 500 1(X1: ISC.I; 2000 2500 3000 Normal Stress (psi') I , /_ Setback Setb4r1( aki 7 . \,,...0..„„,.7:744/-4 „.,fi Ali : / ,ii.,•.,,I,..... . ) 0 i, • . k• .'' . r.v.• ,\ I,s... 1.,f 0 ! (.:1 , It 1••, ... 7*%rit 1. :r* c. -14'4.1 •.'::.. .1 \ i • , i 411-. ' , 4 .,,,\,...._._. . . ?-4.41..• ,i 41,', ....,. .... .,,,,.( • , 3 r l'4 . ,A 4..0' ' i 4,,;.. .-:„..0 • ".., . , , . ,.. ..i.: '. 7..4' .. . • '-, 1.1 f —FT ' 1k - 101.4”141.• . ,--a4 44...:- V- ..... ,. ,: _......._. ::: '4 '-jf ;... ( 1 •Ii • ‘...:\ ,400044. ' • v : •'' ..:,7; 56 ' ; 1 i i I :,;, , )11 \ • • " ,z. .r ♦ 0 r J t. The J 1R,� f . ' • • 1, • 4...1 '. •) • 1 j • • \." \I_% t .fll•Ilt.141tfl('CI r •' ` ' ')4 kcd('ril:ir l,.lnr �a • • • ~1- • 1 •�B, eV by ~ c6 �'• fir '.' a� 1 >� `• Apt, a . .`l �,,A' .T'�1.'� it 00 4 .ter.- - -:'1000','n y .,.r - , f;tk. *, « . fir ;- 'fit "r yC, 44,14 •s.-,; •'i _ ''`t a -- -ram-'• _ ' �• - w ,y'. • • ,. ,.,. :: ..... . - • ,..• ' '''V''''-,,.\-', •-• -'''' 'Ai:- , s ..• - ...t - . 4 '1.• / . . • • . . 0.. • • . 4'. '':'''Y.1r4:.1:''j' i :'''. ,''.: '• ' , * . .- . '''4 ....t'.,' i.,' , . .• e +,,,...:.,,:•-":,.---,-'...,'•'..z.i ,,4.' , ., 4'. *i---:;i,'," :',,",..'.-.. - --,,, 4',:. . . -'•' ' --...•.. -=•-.:::."...ie.."-...4,', ' - "',-"..-...---":-.--..,..:....,,:..43..,. :•)- .. 3Vi,;-'.'4?•c''6:r--..*::Z-.'•7•F•••••:'_,,--: -.1.•.,'.-! '...:. - -'.• , r'St.„.:"'' . •--' •,- ;.i • • , '1(-,-;...7''. ...S..;'t!”...-• ' iz.• ,. . -,::.t 1. • 4 .:'-Oz., .,. • • . . , ..".":,:4- ',:-.,-- . ; .,, . „. • . if,... ' - .— '. •410.'t. .°:,:s.- . .. •- .. -7-, A.7' - . -.fr.- .. - . '• .,... :".-- 7:Ir:7;-`,...'. ••'.""-*''' '' t..•-,••••.-•- - ' ...4,--...-- - .. ..,. `,I,l'• ' - . . .. ,4-c*---.. . , 1.,. .. . , .. •,-.- -,--.-.,r4, - - . -',.i .: - . If-- .. , ,.. 4,- "•*4 --.'-•'•''•''','•.7,;"--•;:t••:-.-•;.'':.e!'-.'i: ,. , . _., - .... ..,. . ,... . •,... ,r, 14,-,•..., ...- 154.1.i-'1 ,. ." . ..,. - . . -.... '•••'4.. -k,. ,44fre,-...____,f 414-ivii.....,; '''. •oi w. , , 4 , ,-, - • - Y.0 "-44.4t. ..... !f - 4 • — 'A--- ..." ..'`''''-`- • ' ., . ,... _ '‘i,. 3ii.' . - ' -.., . .' . . -le k - ,........• .. , 4 , .." .,-"ik, ;.... . "11--,• i it --..4. . ' 4'3, eo. .• - i.... ....,-- •..', . 4 • ,-!!'..i.•'; -'.7 - 4 ' Neoi ....-#0 .. — • •'- .' sf* 5.-.7---r',•'.-- ' -.. ..E. .••,..w.,*••••14,. .., ill . . . ' ' r•-:-...'k ;1-',4....2-.4.`1•17:*r.w : -7 .44 4 .• - -. - . , . . • ' . , .. - •'4.,, - • • .-•-: . . . • • • , ... , ,,."-' '.4..:.-,""..1. 1- • • . '..- ''• *. . ,.... . ...- ..-Wii..%),;Z....".':.,.. .. - . .. .. . • 6 ' .• . " . a . t . . .. .. . -. . •,;,.-: ;,.trige.,.,:•"--..:,...::-.,,.,:.. L...',..'.:....",... • ..• • , ..;... ,•''.• . . :,•••..,.• .• '. •-n .t- .,, :,, ,,,,, , ..0. .:•• . tita'":—.1F," _. ,. -i-'''. _, •, -:, r !•-,-;1,-,..-.:-. ;'';''.41-..'4'''';%! •z•- ' 7 -• -: •• '---. ---.•'-.-'--' '.` :-•-•- "t.- -•.-. .• --' ''''' 7-' 7... ;-. ' .'''•',--` - ,• ,. .• -, ' • ,'4-. . ''.'''' '''' .'-1-"-- •':•••:' - . -*-'-;--:.;•-:' -.•• '-,--:.' ‘•,<--'4 ''t:-, ;.•':-4.; `'.. ,•••;',.-"1' - ' •' ' •P'i. :I-•' --••••'!: , -''-' - --.-...: .‘,.-`-'Pl.`1% •-4,.. '.-- ,..• ...... ...„-} " .. "........."'' ' • • r;,,,c ..,t• "-S.",.7,'"--.'7•- - ' •-• '•••,. . 4 . • '... •*'.. '••••• .".. ... • 11' ' ' *41010.41110' . '.. 1001 i orntrer- St. S.W. . .. ------- . ,---.,,. ,ii,...,.., . 4.- .. et- ' ''.' ::' .'•: .'..'*.'...C.;.."' ' -4 . . ''.."1111,411Mi ,'''''..Z.1":•:.,. .. .,, :• „.INN.7.1„.r' ,..; ..,,,. :::-,...'..•:::,....0 .,..'0 . e •'i•s :: ' '..14 ,•. • --Work .40. t''' - . • . .4 ... -- . .... . . . . - . . ---, ,,. ... . • • ..... „matt. '; . '. - - -- •: ' ',.-. '' .,m- . . ,. _ • - fik. •- .. . . . . .-, '.'.. ,-"••- ,,.,•'...-, ..,..4 -'5:€,-,. . • , • • Peak Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress 3000 - 4 1 o 2500 -- Yz rn a 2000 N N 4.w , 1500 , a tu a) Ac 1000 0 a 500 —♦--1/4 ton --;--1/2ton 0 - --*--1 ton 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Stress (psf) - \i'i Nt k../i___iii ) A•-1' i i 1 7 i/7 '4 t i 11 l,•.- * ...-....- \ +, yr 1 bZ % $ r t -, 1 i \ / o.'zl 1. 1(7 IT, 1 i-N .1,:::::: .- V . ."' ''§V/ ' 1 l'*•. (\\N\,..-\:‘-‘'I ' I if/7-:I.' f 1 q%•4)1-ji!1.' I:' .1.4....k?\k\* I • 1 : r, /� ff _ i r r r I. ........j.;•-•:::. t.(1 it.'; ' ( i ; 1 J .. r ' ...... 1 I{)1 si I, 7 tt .1 I I 1 ) \ �r� '.,,'y [� r 1. L j , ``� t J )t1 1 J �s ))1. ( 1 booao ��1 Y i +1 a. b.piies - 9 n n c J\ `^tip{. f t1 Nab - --..- -- t. '-J', --1 j`.`; 1 ' { E 1 1 ,�; , -.• 1 • t 1 i 911 • _ ,t + ! J i': :x::. .-,J \\' C ram/`- ' i i•i ` rr/r 41.. it 1 eve-:✓JZ-1 l 1 �C 4r• A. .� B• „-..,9--"~..J -.:a`!(/i;:J .,; ,"�- ''•1' 1 .sYi21S7 ' j i�fi+ r rl�i� • • tee'L l ,_,,r t j� 1 n . — �..� - - --. 1 . ----.%* , ; ‘ ----- / ii ij it /I,: � Y �y ��1 ��f _—ti\ f�/ elf �t r J a t 4 % \ \ i�` i +�j t Ifi ' ife,, `� ' -i, ' ,, to if % -��\V f 1•k 11 )/r``i. ! --s \ * , fi j I i I�t.Ir. II \ ,� '\ r _ onto :�R•e veJ at v r `. ' .h. . \.,_ ,-.--�,, ! 't ); •> of f L !,, t.--', ., T r , '94,'W�'( v t ti ,;line f ✓ j r(' '' j` ``-\'-;,'', (f a.1 1 ' '�1;` � C�ecfii�r• f / _ "11 1� `�1/4 , . O l J (' f '6 i +�`4/1 tf -1\\\t� f 1 I 1 i,` �ti. ��. Irt A . --,} '4, '4 r. ' •."- . : • ‘./ ..-, 1.I' i i 1 .Ic 1 I r',.'1 ..1%fir nA,—, \N.1 si.; ' ) ) (----'1 11‘'I) r \\.,: ; (ii1;.' 1 i t-' ; I 1 -\\l',411i 4 \\ If 1 , •IN.,,,.---, ) ., ; t‘)4 ) : :\ ‹t ( '^'‘. '�'''.•. (fill : i r 1\'�p� `. 4 1 i 'R ul,...„.._'4,, \ V, C , ' ‘, ) `,.) tJ a- kn ' , 1 °11. ;/, >1JC,1q • 4 -,� �, �. t t r.� \ _: . fir, f 1 -�.' r ��" �,�L ' �'-, r j 1 1 f i t 11 �` \ D. i i1 t � .- 1 f 1 i :\t, i'l/; '?%=7 ._ /-J 1- —r- 'i``ito.3$ t,. - r ((` „'\_) r \\ 1D T .(*1s C'Rn .fi Ills Delano*Tatoarl D[F UM Some Data.USC;S F-1 W 8 S,ak I no.Deal U-S Dana wG..31 header.htm(15.0 KB) • • Will Langemack Ltd. Wing1115Point Way Field Observation Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Joe Klinker 1-6-2006 Olympic Ridge, Inc. 15940 Lindsey Lane Poulsbo WA 98370 Re: Mattoni Residence Job. No.2005-141 Jefferson County Enclosure Comments Due to site conditions and to establish controlled foundation bearing, the footings(20"wide), foundation walls (10" t) and reinforcing sizes (#5 @ 12"oc) were increased to allow progressive back fill to basement slab. Cold joints permitted below top slab as bending stress neutralized by fill both sides. Footing grid and wall undulation acting as stabilizing counterforts. Work performs conforms to design intent. Action For your use and records Please contact my office if you have any questions; thank you. 4966 Will Langemack, Architect REGISTERED From: ARCHITECT Pres./ Will Langemack Ltd 4r1, •, , 06.780.4145 WILLIAM K LAM. ;ACK /- c"--_ STATE OF WASHINGTON 2.06 -78o-l(5/G -C CERTFED DOCUMENTS Or . MUST BE SIGNED N R®