HomeMy WebLinkAboutMLA16-00027 Geotechnical Site Review651 Bachelor Road, Sequim, Washington
Jefferson County Parcel # 002352019
Geotechnical Site Review
Prepared For
Terry Parks and Christine Clark
July 2015
NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES, INC.
(io
T1T SOUTH PEABODY STREET. PORT ANGELES, WA 98362
Engineers 0 Land Surveyors 0 Geologists
Constnx,bon 0 Inspection 0 Matenals Testing
(360) 452-8491
Emall: In(o(dnti4u.com
NTI
e' NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES, INC.
717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET, PORT ANGELES, WA 96363
i
Engineers Land Surveyors L GeOIOgIStS
ConSM on Inspection ,. Matenals Tes6rg
Port Angeles (360( 462-6491
E -Mail: inloMnti4u.com
NT/
July 15, 2015
Mr. Terry Parks and Christine Clark
651 Bachelor Road
Sequim, WA 98382
Subject: Geotechnical Site Review For Jefferson County Parcel iJ 002352019 Related To
A Proposed Bedroom Addition To A Single Family Residence
Dear Terry and Christine, and Others Concerned,
1.0 Introduction and Background
In October of 2014 and in lune of 2015, Northwestern Territories, Inc. (NTI) reviewed the
geotechnical conditions at Jefferson County Parcel if 002352019 belonging to Terry Parks. In
October of 2014, NTI Engineering studied the general situation at the 651 Bachelor Road house
after it was revealed that a small landslide had occurred there prior to the purchase of the
property by Mr. Parks. The house is on the waterfront in Gardiner, Washington. A follow-up
visit and site study was completed in June of 2015. By lune of 2015, the owners had a plan to
build a new bedroom addition over an old carport that was hastily converted to a bedroom by
the former owner, apparently without a building permit. Roughly five or six years ago, before
the current owners occupied the house, a small landslide of the fill materials occurred in the
area south of the house. Thereafter, a buttress revetment of large basalt rocks was built to
arrest further sliding and the fill soil was replaced. The June 2015 review was aimed at
assessing the slide buttress and the proposed new bedroom addition from the geotechnical and
geologic hazard point of view.
Our review, summarized herein, indicates that the remedial works constructed after the slide
were built reasonably well and that they remain in good condition. In our opinion, the
proposed bedroom addition is a prudent action with little or no residual geologic hazard if the
related recommendations outlined below are followed during the construction.
2.0 Site Conditions and Relevant Site History
At one time the site of the existing house was separated from Bachelor Road by a ravine whose
average depth was perhaps 8 feet and width about 30 feet. Probably at the time of the original
Geotechnical Site Review 12015
house construction, the ravine was filled with earth and a driveway was built over the ravine to
allow an approach to the carport which was originally south of the house. Very little water now
flows through the ravine in modern times and our observations suggest that the ravine is an
"ancestral" drainage way that was carved out at the close of the Pleistocene (Ice Age) when
there was an abundance of glacial meltwater in the area.
The former carport south of the house was hastily re -constructed into a bedroom without
deeper footings ora prescriptive stem -wall foundation. Instead, the bedroom was built over
the carport's original concrete slab -on -grade.
Site evidence and testimony of neighbors indicates that about six years ago there was a slope -
failure within the filled ravine that affected the southerly portions of the house. It was
reported by a neighbor -observer that the slide undermined the southeasterly corner of the
carport conversion leaving two or three feet of the concrete floor slab cantilevered over the I
slide scarp. Cracks in the concrete floor of the carport and a slight west to east fall of that floor
probably arose from adjustments of the soil that occurred during or shortly after the landslide.
A shallow concrete underpinning was constructed to reduce the motion of the carport floor
sometime after the slide. The current owner, Mr. Parks, now intends to replace the
inadequate bedroom with a fully -compliant Building Code structure within the same
footprint. It is also our understanding that Mr. Parks is considering the possibility of
expanding the footprint of the addition to the west.
After the slide occurred, a heavy rock revetment/retaining structure was built below the slide
area and a culvert was installed through an earth fill that was placed in the slide scarp. The
photograph below shows the position of the carport on the south side of the house that was
enclosed to form a hasty bedroom. The culvert beneath the driveway and approach to the
house lies about eighteen (18) feet from the southerly limit of the proposed addition at a depth
of about 8 feet below the surface. The approximate position of the culvert is shown in the
attached site plan prepared by Creative Design Solutions. The bedroom lies about 21 feet from
the rim of the retaining wall on the east. (To the right in the photograph below.)
Geotechnical Site Review 12015
Photograph 1— View of Subject House and Carport/Bedroom Conversion Looking North
3.0 Geotechnical Observations At The Site Related To The Proposed Bedroom Addition
As Photograph 1 above helps to illustrate, the principal geologic hazard at this site is the
possible resumption of sliding of the soil placed in the slide zone. The southeastern corner of
the proposed bedroom addition is just over 20 feet from the top of the retaining wall, as seen
in the photograph above.
Probes of the fill soil were strongly resisted by all of the soil in the zone south of the house
suggesting that the soil is in a moderately dense state probably due to having been compacted
in place.
The three -tiered retaining wall was examined closely to assess its stability after heavy rains or
during seismic events. Rocks were found to be thoughtfully placed and fairly -well interlocked.
Photographs 2 and 3, below, shows Trent Adams, Geotechnical Engineer in Training, examining
the rock revetment.
The rock revetment has an arcuate shape when viewed from above so that the convex side of
the rock revetment faces the retained earth. (See the arc -shaped top of wall to right of the
southerly addition in Photograph 1.) This circular -arc shape enables the wall to operate like an
arch in resisting the lateral forces created by the fill soil and water. The three -tiers of the rock
revetment have an overall downward slope of about 55 degrees from the horizontal. A lesser
Geotechnical Site Review 12015
slope would have been desirable, but the wall, as -constructed, is not excessively steep for this
type of rock revetment.
Photograph 2—The Retaining Wall/Revetment Has Favorable Rock -To -Rock Interlock
Drainage from the access road reportedly flows over the retained soil at times so that there is
an ongoing possibility of saturation of the soil behind the retaining structure. The rock
structure is, by its nature, well drained.
In general, it appeared from field surface observations that the retaining structure was
thoughtfully built under the direction of someone who understood the principles involved and
the mode of construction.
Geotechnical Site Review 12015
Photograph 3 —Tiers Of The Rock Revetment Are Well -Constructed and Not Overly Steep
4.0 Conclusions Concerning Geologic Hazard
In our opinion, the retaining wall/revetment is sufficiently strong and stable to permanently
protect the house provided that the recommendations below are followed during the
construction. If the site drainage work and foundation construction recommendations are
carried out as described, the on-going geologic hazard related to the proposed bedroom
addition action will be minimal in our opinion.
5.0 Recommendations To Be Followed
1. A total structure setback of fifteen (15) feet from the rim of the retaining wall to the
building line of permanent structures is recommended for this site. This is equivalent to
the current setback to the bedroom addition and in our opinion, such a setback will
provide a prudent margin of safety against geologic hazard.
Geotechnical Site Review 12015
2. A geologic hazard buffer often (10) feet in width is recommended for this site. Plant
native trees in the zone between the retaining wall and the bedroom addition and
encourage the growth of a native plant understory to enhance the stability of the slope
and the rock revetment.
3. Embed the southerly footing and stem wall of the addition to a total depth of 4 feet
from the surface of the ground to the bottom of the footing. This will ensure that the
footing is wholly founded on undisturbed earth. If in doubt at the time of excavation
and construction, notify the undersigned Engineers for field assistance. A design
bearing of 2500 pounds per square foot may be used for the footings placed at that
depth.
4. Lower the inlet at the catch basin approximately 8 inches and construct a gentle Swale
so that water coming down the driveway readily flows to the drainage inlet south of the
former slide area. We recommend that stormwater runoff from the proposed bedroom
addition be tightlined to the existing catch basin for stormwater management. Call on
the undersigned Engineers for field assistance at the time of construction for driveway
and Swale grading instructions.
6.0 The Limitations of This Study and Report
The observations and conclusions of this report apply only to the subject property and they are
not transferable to nearby or adjoining property. This report is the property of Mr. Terry Parks
and may be used by others only with his permission.
The observations of this report were made during a limited reconnaissance study in which
inferences were made from surface conditions. No borings, detailed measurements, soil testing
or observations over time were made. Unknown subsurface conditions that were unseen could
affect the outcomes of the study. Users who need a high level of reliance on the observations
and conclusions of the study may wish to obtain further investigations. NTI Engineering and
Land Surveying warrant that this study and the related report were conscientiously completed
in accordance with the practice of professional engineering and according to the principles of
geotechnical and geologic sciences. No other warranty, neither express, nor implied, is provided
herewith. Please call on the undersigned Engineers if you have questions about the contents or
the meaning of this report.
Geotechnical Site Review 12015
Please call on the undersigned Engineers if you have questions or need clarifications during
construction or permitting. We appreciated the opportunity to perform this work for you.
NTI Engineering and Land Surveying
Sincerely yours,
Steve S. Luxton MSc, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Trent T. Adams BSCE, EIT
Geotechnical Project Manager
APPENDIX
' APN.002352019
i
HER=
a" ao-mare
� a