Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotech BLD2006-00048 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 6/12/2007 t MA410N COUNT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER Shelton, Washington 98584 DATE: juag 12, 2006 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TO: w Rebecm.Hersha PARCEL# 12221-31-90141 FROM: John Sliva Programs Engineer-PW_ BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: BLD2006-00048 SUBJECT: Geo-Tech Report Review NAME: McFarland Greg & Larisa Rebecca, The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed new single-family residence located at 351 E. Victor Road near Belfair has been received and reviewed by Public Works. The report appears to satisfactorily address County requirements for Geotechnical Reporting. The author concludes the overall global stability of the ravine north of the proposed building area under the present site conditions and post construction appears good. Slope stability was modeled in both static and seismic conditions. As a result the building needs a set back of 50 feet from the top portion of the steep slope. Prior to construction NIA Olson & Associates recommends field verification of the building setback from the top portion of the slope. Drainage,erosion control,earthwork,and structural recommendations are addressed by the author and should be followed. Adequate erosion and sediment control features need to be implemented during land disturbing activities to protect neighboring properties and State waters from adverse stormwater runoff impacts. The migration or release of silty water or mud from the applicant's property will be considered a violation of County and State water quality protection regulations. Based on the contents of this report, I recommend accepting this report as satisfying the County's requirements for stability investigation and geotechnical reporting. Recommendations contained in the report should be incorporated into the site development plans and made conditions for permit issuance. Please feel free to contact me at 724 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you feel any features need further discussion or attention. S' :�Zrel , John Sliya Programs Engineer NSOLIDAT, DENG - CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - SOILS - PLANNING - March 12, 2006 GREG & LARISA MCFARLAND E. 351 Victor Rd. Belfair, WA 98528 site RE; Geo-technical Report of Investigation for thelof a Residence located at address. Dear Greg & Larisa; Lucas Anderson, Geo-technician and the undersigned Geo-technical Engineer conducted a field inspection of the subject site on March 11th. A review of our field photos and slope shots revealed an 80 downslope in the 60 ft. between the upper flat bench of the lot and the toe of the lower bra bench. The soil sample and site observations revealed the material that the fm footings will rest on is a glacial till consisting of sandy-loam with gravell JHm inclusions. This undisturbed material will support"8ixxmaa pax 2500 PSF of foundation support. Install a 4 in. ftg drain. '1S b�fa3� `M 9zv 900Z L T dVW A site plane of the structure as staked-outs vv is enclosed. The cut is 8 ft. deep for basement. Q 3 AI3 0 3 a There was no evidence of previous instability of tht slope as the surrounding trees were tall and straights Yours truly, S. BOr Rolla B. Boughan, E. Civil & 8 Geo-technical Engr. ENCLS AS LISTED � II w 'd t P.O. Box 2321 Bremerton, WA 98310 • (360) 479-5598 } �'D ENGITV :. CONSOLIDATE CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - SOILS - PLANNING - Rtcel APR 13 ED �06 April 6, 2006 BF�f,4IR QFFIC F Reference: Listing of Landslide hazard areas RE: LISTING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS A. CLASSIFICATION: l.a through f 1. None apply 2. a. Original slope greater than 15%. NOW THE "J-NG WALL REDUCES SLOPE TO LESS THAN 15% b. Qualifies as modified slope "M". B. NO HAZARD EXISTS DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL. C. DOES NOT APPLY. D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. Grading was performed to make a level z site. Sandy glacial- till soil was graded into a near %. level site. 2. Land clearing was performed before constr. of pad. 3. Drainage-- Gutters to be required on finished roof to discharge into a soaking pit down-slope from bldg. 4. , 5. & 6. DO NOT APPLY ROLLA B. BOUGHAN, P. K,7, Bulkhead and Bank protection. The retaining wall constructed kxx*n below the garage qualifies as GEO-TECHNICAL ENGINEE a bulkhead. 8. Residential Densities --- DOES NOT APPLY. E. GEO-TECHNICAL REPORT: See Geo-tech Reconnaissance, Feb. 27, '06 following. Category d. SEE ILLUSTRATIONS * APPLICABLE STDS FOLLOWED IN QUALIFICATIONS OF PREPARER: The most educated and THIS GEO-TECH INSP. & REPORT. experienced person serving as a Geo-technical Engineer in the state of wa. 5. CONTENT OF GEO-TECHNICAL REPORT: (1) See description of lot in cover page ltr. (2)-(5) See illustrations. (6) Downspouts (7) Grading is done. (8) Job is buildt now. (8) The job is built NOW. (9) No impacts noted. Seed a lawn around bldg. P.O. Box 2321 9 Bremerton, WA 98310 • (360) 479-5598 � N.L. 4LS�N & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND SURVEYING March 4, 2007 Project No. 6345-06 Attn: Larisa and Greg McFarland 361 E Victor Road Belfair,WA 98528 SUBJECT: SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 351 E VICTOR ROAD BELFAIR,WA REFERENCE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 351 E VICTOR ROAD BELFAIR,WA PROJECT NUMBER: 6345-06; DATED MAY 19, 2006 This report presents the follow up to our site visit on March 2, 2007 and provides recommendations for fill placement adjacent to the residence and methods of collecting surface runoff from footing and roof drains and conveying the water to the adjacent draw to the north. FILL PLACEMENT ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING It is our opinion that the proposed fill can be placed adjacent to the new residence, provided the fill is placed and compacted in a manner that is consistent with recommendations presented in the structural fill section of this report. In areas where fills are made on slopes steeper than 25% the subgrade shall be benched prior to fill placement. The procedure for placing fill along the slope should consist of excavating a series of slightly inclined benches in the area of the planned fill. The fill shall be placed on dense to very dense undisturbed soils. The fill slope shall be overbuilt, compacted and cut back to the desired slope configuration. The soil utilized for structural fill must meet the requirements presented below in this letter. Per our referenced geotechnical engineering investigation, we recommend that all site grading and site preparation should be undertaken and completed during dry weather. Note: Fill slopes shall not exceed a 21-1:1V (Horizon:Vertical) slope configuration. Anticipated fill depth should be less than 3.5 feet. SURFACE RUNOFF NEAR SLOPE AREAS The free flow of water toward or over steep slopes is to be avoided due to potential erosion and slope stability concerns. Additionally, all runoff from roofs, driveways, patios and hard surfaced areas should be intercepted, collected and disposed of away from structures and steep slopes, and discharged where the water will not effect down slope structures, walls, or properties. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES N.L.Olson&Assocaites,INC. 2453 Bethel Avenue, Port Orchard,Washington 98366 Phone(360)876-2284•Fax(360)8761487 Grading and Drainage Letter Project No. Project No.6345-06 March 4, 2007 Pane No. 2 of 2 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, tight lining of the collected runoff to the bottom of the draw would be a means of acceptable disposal. However, such disposal systems should comply with all applicable regulations and the pipes should discharge into a manifold-type structure or into an energy dissipater such as a pad of crushed rock to minimize erosion. If an energy dissipater pad is used it should be a minimum of three feet on a side and one foot thick, and comprised of two to four inch crushed rock inside a stacked from to prevent down slope migration of the rock. It is suggested that cleanouts be provided at convenient locations along the length of the storm drainage system for maintenance. Tight lines trending down to the base of the slope should be monitored annually or after significant precipitation events. If the tight lines are found faulty or inoperative they should be replaced immediately. Should you have any questions or concerns, which have not been addressed, or if we may be of additional assistance, please call our office. R.J Sincerely, an �0� n,j 39359 �Sr�O AL WeOey R. hnson, P.E. f5TiREs 5!1/ t11 Project Engineer Attachments Site Sketch N.L.Olson&Assocaites,INC. 2453 Bethel Avenue,Port Orchard,Washington 88366 Phone(360)876-2284•Fax(360)8761487 Prepared For. ti McFarland cif ♦ ayr���, lot- �. Victor Road �N 98528 At vp SINCE 19734(� � t r z; n Pa Ems! ti s-2284 i il: nols May "":.: t GEOTECII,'"ICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ' PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 351 EAST VICTOR ROAD BELFAIR, WA CLIENT: ' LARISA AND GREG MCFARLAND 351 E VICTOR ROAD BELFAIR,WA 98528 BY: N.L. OLSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2463 BETHEL AVE. SE PORT ORCHARD,WA 98366 (360) 876-2284 JOB NO. 6345-06 ' ( R.Jp 3 � � �• c O Ss��NAL FNv EXPIRES W1 MAY 2006 N.L. OLSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineering, Planning and Surveying May 19, 2006 Project Number: 6345-06 Attn: Larisa and Greg McFarland 361 E Victor Road Belfair,WA 98528 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation ' Proposed Single Family Development 351 E Victor Road Belfair, WA Dear Mrs. & Mr. McFarland; This report presents our findings and recommendations for placement of the proposed structure as well as other geotechnical engineering aspects to this site development. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please contact our office. Sincerely, Wesley R. Johnson, P.E. Project Engineer P.O. Box 637e 2453 Bethel Avenue a Port Orchard,Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800)755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 C AProjects\6345 McFarland%McFarlandWcFarland geo report.doc 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1 SITE LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS...................................................................................... 1 SITECONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................... 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING......................................................................2 SubsurfaceInvestigation.................................................................................................... 2 SiteSoil Conditions............................................................................................................ 2 Groundwater...................................................................................................................... 2 WATERWELL LOG INFORMATION.............................................................................................2 AVAILABLE GEOLOGIC AND SOILS INFORMATION........................................................................2 EROSIONCONCERNS...............................................................................................................3 SEISMICCONCERNS................................................................................................................3 SLOPE RECONNAISSANCE AND HISTORICAL LANDSLIDE RESEARCH............................................3 ' Slope Reconnaissance........................................................................... . 3 CoastalZone Atlas Information.......................................................................................... 3 SLOPESTABILITY ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................3 ' CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................4 SITEPREPARATION AND GRADING............................................................................................4 Structuralfill....................................................................................................................... 5 PermanentCut and Fill Slopes........................................................................................... 5 SURFACEAND GROUND WATER...............................................................................................5 FOUNDATIONSUPPORT ...........................................................................................................6 FootingDrainage................................................................................................................ 7 FLOOR SLABS. '7 CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING AND SUBSURFACE WALLS ..............................................................7 Staticand Vehicle Loading.......:......................................................................................... 8 Earthquake Loading......... Retaining Wall Subsurface Drainage.................................................................................. 8 RetainingWall Backtill........................................................................................................ 8 t CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................................9 SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS...........................................................9 SETBACKREQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................... 10 ' REPORT LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................10 VICINITYMAP............................................................................................................FIGURE 1 SITEPLAN.................................................................................................................FIGURE 2 ' SOIL SURVEY MAP...................................................................................................FIGURE 3 SLOPESTABILITY MAP ...........................................................................................FIGURE 4 CROSSSECTION (A-A).............................................................................................FIGURE 5 APPENDIX A—TEST PIT LOGS APPENDIX B—SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS 1 ' GEOTECHNI CAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 351 EAST VICTOR ROAD BELFAIR, WA 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering investigation for the referenced project. The geotechnical engineering investigation was done in general accordance to Mason County Resource Ordinance, Ordinance Number 77-93, dated February 28, 2006. In the following, we present our findings, conclusions and recommendations rfor the proposed development. SITE LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS ' The site is located at the address of 351 E Victor Road in Belfair, WA. The site is situated in the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 1 West, in Mason County, Washington. The Vicinity Map for the property has been illustrated on rFigure 1. SITE CONDITIONS rThe site is bordered to the east by East Victor Road, to the north by a steep downward trending ravine, to the south by a single family residence and by undeveloped land to the west. The property is rectangular in shape, roughly one acre in size and previously developed with a single-family residence. ' The area of proposed development consists of a slope, which ascends down from the east to the west with gradients of about 5 to 10 percent. Beyond the proposed building area to the west the slope increases downward in steepness with gradients of about 15 to 20 percent. Beyond the proposed building area to the north a ravine was observed along the north side of the property. The slope along the ravine increases in steepness as the slope descends down ' to bottom portion of a draw with gradients less than 40 to 50 percent. The ravine's vertical slope height was on the order of 40 to 50 feet. The developed portions of the site and areas west of the proposed building area have been cleared. In the undeveloped ravine area of the site, a secondary re-growth of cedar, Douglas fir, alder and large leaf maple was observed. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT As presently conceived, a portion of the site is proposed for development with a single family 1 residence. The building footprint will be roughly 1,900 square feet. The structure will be one to P.O. Box 637.2453 Bethel Avenue• Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800)755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 CAProjWs%345 McFarland0cFarlandUcFarland goo reporl.doc ' Project No.6345-06 May 19,2006 ' Page No.2 two-stories and of light wood frame construction, daylight basement, floor slab and attached garage. The building's footing loads are anticipated to be light to moderate. We have shown ' the approximate building layout on the Site Plan - Figure 2. We anticipate the cuts along the north, south and east side of the proposed structure will be in the range of 5 to 10 feet and daylight to the west. Minimal cuts are anticipated along the west side of the building. ' FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Subsurface Investigation ' The site's subsurface conditions were explored on May 2, 2006 by excavating three test pits. The test pits were excavated using a track-hoe provided by the client, and extended down 2 to 13 feet below current site grades. The approximate test pit locations are shown on shown on rthe Site Plan, Figure 2. Site Soil Conditions ' In general, our test pits revealed the site is underlain by silty sand, poorly graded sand and silt. Glacial till was encountered in TP-1 at roughly 5 to 8 feet below current site grades and near the surface in test pit TP-3. In test pit TP-1, the glacial till was underlain by dense to very dense silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and cobble. In test pit TP-2, loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel was encountered in the upper three feet of the soil horizon. The silty sand ' with gravel was underlain by medium dense to dense well graded gravel with silt. Glacial till was not encountered in the test pit TP-2. For a more detailed description of the subsurface ' conditions, please refer to our test pit logs presented in Appendix A. Groundwater During our subsurface exploration, perched groundwater conditions were not encountered. WATER WELL LOG INFORMATION ' Based on the water well log information for this area, we anticipate a static ground water level of about 200 feet below current site grades. At this time, NLO was unable to find water well log information for the well located along the south side of the property. ' AVAILABLE GEOLOGIC AND SOILS INFORMATION The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resource (WDGER), Geologic Map of ' Washington — Northwest Quadrant, dated 2002, has mapped the site as Quanternary sediments, dominantly glacial drift and includes alluvium. Glacial till consists of an unsorted, ' unstratified, highly compacted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders deposited by glacial ice. ' The Soil Survey, Mason County, Washington 1960 indicates the site is underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, Ab, 5-15% slopes and Everett Gravely sandy loam, Eh and Ek, 5% to 15% and 15% to 30% slopes, respectively. These soils are considered well drained above the ' hardpan. Soil mapping for the site has been illustrated on Figure 3. P.O. Box 637.2453 Bethel Avenue• Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 CAProjeds16345 McFarlandWcFarlarm)McFarland goo report.doc Project No.6345-06 May 19,2006 ' Page No.3 EROSION CONCERNS It is our opinion that the proposed residence should have a minor influence on the present potential for erosion and should not create a significant environmental impact during construction or post construction. The erosion risk can be mitigated through normal landscaping and the control of surface runoff. During construction and until fully surfaced and/or landscaped, the exposed site soils may be subject to minor erosion. Erosion of the exposed soils would be most noticeable during periods of intense rainfall and may be controlled by the use of normal erosion control measures, i.e., silt fences, hay bales, mulching, control ditches or diversion trenching, and contour furrowing. SEISMIC CONCERNS NLO has reviewed the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) for seismic design criteria for the 1 proposed construction. The UBC seismic design parameters for this site include a seismic zone soil profile type of (So), in the upper 100 feet of the profile. Based on the encountered subsurface soil conditions the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event appears low. ' The site's ground acceleration was determined from the 2002 USGS Earthquake Hazard Program. The interpolated probabilistic ground motion values (PGA), in %g, for the 10% ' probability of exceedance in 50 years was PGA=32.88%. The PGA was based on the following location 47.3816 Latitude and 122.8123 Longitude. The maximum horizontal ground acceleration (Kh= 0.16) was determined by dividing the PGA by 2. ' SLOPE RECONNAISSANCE AND HISTORICAL LANDSLIDE RESEARCH Slope Reconnaissance ' As part of our fieldwork, the slope areas were examined for indications of slope instability during our reconnaissance performed May 12, 2006. Indications of slope instability include head ' scarps, hummocky terrain, inconsistent patterns of vegetation, tension cracks, seepage zones and course grain material overlaying silt and clay soils. At the time of our reconnaissance, no slides or erosion scour was observed along the ravine and the ravine appeared stable. Coastal Zone Atlas Information ' A review of Department of Ecology, Slope Stability Maps—Coastal Zone Atlas, Volume 9, 1979 (Mason County)" indicates the area has been classified as stable, and intermediate stability. Slopes classified as intermediate stability (1) are generally steeper than 15 percent except ' where conditions such as weaker material and/or abundant groundwater exist. Identified areas include slopes of sand and gravel, till, or thin soils over bedrock, which have no known failures. Stable (S) is defined as having slopes of less than 15 percent. Slope stability mapping for the ' site has been illustrated on Figure 4. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Slope stability analysis was performed on cross section A-A, utilizing a 2 ft contour map developed from LIDAR. The analysis was preformed with (PCSTABL7-Version 2.0), a slope stability computer program using the Modified Bishop Method of Slices. This method of analysis P.O. Box 637.2453 Bethel Avenue• Port Orchard, Washington 98366 1 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 CAProjectst6345 McFarlandlMcFarlandWcFarland goo report.doc ' Project No.6345-06 May 19,2006 Page No.4 provides a number failure surfaces to determine the critical surface and associated factor-of- safety (FS). The FS is determined from the ratio of shear strength (the frictional resistance and soil cohesion resisting the down slope movement) to shear stress - (gravitational forces that initiate slope movement) or FS = Shear Strength/Shear Stress. A FS equal to 1.0 is considered equilibrium and a FS less than 1.0 indicates failure. Based on general slope stability guidelines ! a FS of 1.5 or greater for static and FS of 1.1 or greater for seismic is considered adequate. The building setback was determined by extending the critical failure surface from the toe of ' slope uphill toward the structure until an adequate factor of safety for static and seismic loading was achieved. The soil parameters utilized for our slope stability analysis and discussion of our ' slope stability analysis methodology can be found in Appendix B. The proposed slope configuration and soil conditions utilized in our analysis are shown in Cross Section A-A', Figure 5. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Following our review of Mason County Resource Ordinance, Ordinance Number 77-93, we conclude that large scale sliding or deep-seated rotational failures along the ravine that boundaries the north side of this property, resulting from the proposed construction appears ' negligible and the overall global stability of the ravine north of the proposed building area under the present site conditions and post construction appears good. We understand that the proposed residence will utilize the existing septic drainfield area, which previously has not ' exhibited signs of slope instability or erosion. We recommend vegetation removal only in areas proposed for grading, paved areas and building placement. NLO has provided the following recommendations for the project. SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING All pavement, fill and/or building areas should be stripped of all sod, organic soil, existing fill and ' debris. In most areas, a minimal stripping depth should be anticipated. However, deeper excavations will be required to remove large tree root-balls, existing fill, foundations, septic tanks and associated drainfields, or pockets of unsuitable soils. Stripped soils, contaminated ' with organics or debris, should be wasted off site or used in landscape areas. Following site stripping, and prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade should be proof rolled and compacted to a firm, unyielding condition using vibratory equipment of appropriate size and J type capable of developing a minimum dynamic compaction effort rating of at least 25,000 pounds with a static drum weight of 13,000 pounds. Compaction of the stripped subgrade ' should be continued until field density tests show that a minimum compaction of 95% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM method D-1557, has been achieved in all fill, building, roadway, and parking areas, or NLO indicates a firm unyielding subgrade has been obtained. Any soft or weaving areas disclosed during proof rolling should be excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. We recommend that all site grading and preparation be ✓ undertaken and completed during dry weather. If grading in building or pavement areas is necessary during wet weather, and time does not permit allowing the on-site soils to drain, we recommend that all excavated soil be removed from the site or set aside in covered stockpiles, P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue• Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800)755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 C:%Prgect"345 McFarlandUcFarland%McFarland goo repon.doc 1 Project No.6345-06 May 19,2006 ' Page No.5 and imported materials for structural fill. The structural fill must meet the requirements presented below. ' Structural fill Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings or pavement that consist of free draining gravelly sand having a maximum size of 1-1/2 inches and with not more than 5.0% fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. All imported fill material' should conform to the above recommendation regardless of present weather conditions. All structural fill should be placed on a firm, properly prepared subgrade. Fill materials should be placed in approximately 8 inch thick layers, moisture conditioned, and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density as rdetermined by ASTM D-1557. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes Permanent cut slopes and structural fill slopes shall not exceed a gradient of 2HAV (50%). Permanent fill slopes should be placed in accordance with Chapter 33 — Section 3301.1 in the ' 1997 edition of the UBC and the recommendations presented in this report. In areas where steeper slopes are required, retaining structures should be provided. ' SURFACE AND GROUND WATER Only minor storm water related problems are anticipated if grading operations and site preparation work are undertaken during the normally drier portions of the year, May 1 through ' Nov 1. However, if site work is undertaken during wet weather, typically Nov 1 through May 1, it should be anticipated that the near surface fine-grained soil will become over-saturated and unworkable. If the contractor should undertake the site work during wet weather, they should be fully prepared to deal with wet soil conditions and water problems associated with wet weather work, including the filtering of runoff, as needed to prevent the siltation of down slope areas. To aid in minimizing potential erosion concerns, it is recommended that the site should not be stripped and left without erosion protection for an extended period of time prior to the actual start of construction and/or landscaping. Silt fencing and other erosion control devices and ' measures may be required to control water runoff and sediment transport off the site. It should be anticipated that perched water flows or water flows developed during periods of wet ' weather may occur in excavations as shallow as one to two feet below current site grades or atop siltier zones at deeper depths. In that we are unable to predict where or when groundwater seepage might occur, we recommend that any development of seeps or flows be treated as a ' construction/maintenance problem. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, tight lining of the collected runoff to the bottom of the draw along the north side of the property would be a means of acceptable disposal. However, such disposal systems should comply with all applicable regulations and the pipes should discharge into a manifold-type structure or into an energy dissipater such as a pad of crushed rock to minimize erosion. If an energy dissipater pad is used it should be a minimum of three feet on a side and one foot thick, and comprised of two to four inch crushed rock inside a stacked from to prevent down slope migration of the rock. P.O. Box 637, 2453 Bethel Avenue• Port Orchard, Washington 98366 ' Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 CAProjectsl6345 McFarlarxhMcFarlandWlcFarland goo report.doc Project No.6345-06 May 19,2006 Page No.6 ' It is suggested that cleanouts be provided at convenient locations along the length of the storm drainage system for maintenance. Tight lines trending down to the base of the slope should be monitored annually or after significant precipitation events. If the tight lines are found faulty or inoperative they should be replaced immediately. Note: The free flow of water toward or over steep slopes is to be avoided due to potential erosion and slope stability concerns. Additionally, all runoff from roofs, driveways, patios and hard surfaced areas should be intercepted, collected and disposed of away from structures and ' steep slopes, and discharged where the water will not effect down slope structures, walls, or properties. ' FOUNDATION SUPPORT Support for the planned residences can be provided using daylight basements in conjunction 1 with conventional shallow foundation systems bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill used to modify site grades. ' For the residence's continuous and column footing system bearing on properly compacted structural fill or dense undisturbed native granular soils an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used. For frost protections, footings should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below adjacent grade. A base friction coefficient of 0.30 is considered appropriate for the expected dense site foundation support soils. An ultimate passive equivalent fluid earth pressure for retaining structures, considering a horizontal ground surface, of 250 pcf is available to develop additional resistance to lateral pressures. Passive pressures ,should be ignored or appropriately reduced in areas where the ground slopes downward on the resisting side of the wall within 4 times the footing embedment depth of the wall. The upper two feet of soil should be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. A 1/3 increase in the above value may be used for short duration, wind, and seismic loads. ' NLO recommends a footing subgrade inspection to verify if adequate foundation subgrade soils have been achieved. NLO may require additional overexcavation below the planned bottom level of footing if soft, loose, or organic laden soils are encountered. Prior to fill placement, all material intended for structural fill use will require verification and approval by a representative of our firm. Structural fill placement should be done in accordance to the structural fill section discussed in Site Preparation and Grading Section of this report. 1 P.O. Box 637.2453 Bethel Avenue• Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800)755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 CAProjeds1fi345 McFarlandVAcFarland0cFarland gooreport.doc ' Project No.6345-06 May 19,2006 ' Page No.7 Footing Drainage To preclude the possible build-up of ground water or storm runoff in the soils adjacent to the structure, it is recommended that a four-inch diameter, SDR 35 (ASTM 3034), perforated, rigid ' pipe placed perforations down, around the perimeter of the building foundation at the footing subgrade elevation. The entire foundation drainage system should be bedded in gravel, drain rock) and designed to carry any accumulated water away from the structure to an appropriate ' discharge area. Roof drainage should not be connected to the footing drains but may use the same outfall piping if connected well away from the building such that roof water will not backup into the footing drain system. FLOOR SLABS Floor slabs may be supported on properly placed and compacted structural fill or on the medium dense to very dense in-situ native soils following preparation as outlined above. A ' capillary break/drainage layer consisting of six inches of pea gravel, or clean crushed rock should be placed below the floor slab. The capillary break material should contain less than 1.0% material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve and less than 4.0% material passing a U.S. No. 10 ' sieve. A visqueen vapor barrier having a minimum thickness of 6-mils should be placed between the capillary break and the floor slab. We understand that a sand cushion between the vapor barrier and the base of the slab may improve the curing of the slab concrete. If a sand cushion is placed between the capillary break material or the vapor barrier and the slab, it should not contain free moisture when the slab is constructed. Excess moisture in the cushion ' could cause impervious floor coverings to bubble. CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING AND SUBSURFACE WALLS The following earth pressures and design values are provided for cast-in-place retaining and ' subsurface walls up to 15 feet in height. We recommend that all foundations be designed as outlined above and bear on the dense native soils or structural fill placed and compacted as ' previously described. Static and Vehicle Loading ' Retaining and subsurface walls should be designed for an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf, if the top of the wall is allowed to deflect, assuming a horizontal ground surface behind the ' wall. If the top of the wall is restrained an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf is recommended. Active or at rest pressures will need to be increased for sloping ground or surcharge loads (such as vehicle traffic) behind the wall. Resistance to sliding can be developed by a combination of passive pressure and base friction. A base friction coefficient of 0.30 is considered appropriate for the anticipated dense foundation ' subgrade-soils.For traffic surcharge loads near retaining structures an ultimate passive equivalent fluid earth pressure, considering a horizontal ground surface, of 300 pcf should be used. Passive pressures should be ignored or appropriately reduced in areas where the ground ' slopes downward on the resisting side of the wall within 4 times the wall footing embedment P.O. Box 637.2453 Bethel Avenue• Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 C:%ProjWs\6345 McFarlandWcFarlarKN&Farland goo report.doc Project No.6345-06 ' May 19,2006 Page No.8 depth. Appropriate safety factors should be applied to the recommended base friction and ultimate passive pressure values. Earthquake Loadinq 1 Earthquake loadings are also expected to increase the lateral pressures indicated above. The increases for most basement walls have historically been expected to be within limits that are generally compensated for with a reduced safety factor (Seed, H. B. & Whitman, R. V., Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads, 1970 Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, American Society of Civil ' Engineers, 1970). However, the increases in lateral loadings from earthquake forces are expected to provide a slightly increased component of the lateral pressures to be taken into consideration in the structural design of buried walls. Seed and Whitman discuss a procedure ' for determination of lateral loading following an approach suggested by Mononobe and Okabe. As input to the Mononobe-Okabe evaluation, a friction angle of 35 degrees for the backfill soils was used along with a horizontal and vertical earthquake acceleration of 0.16g (half of the peak ' ground acceleration for the 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, as suggested by the USGS). ' Based on this input and some assumptions on wall friction, an earthquake loading surcharge of 7H (equivalent active fluid pressure), and 5.5H, for at-rest. This loading is additive to the static "active" and "at-rest" pressures indicated above. The application of this loading depends on the ' wall type chosen. The earthquake surcharge loading should be applied as a rectangular loading condition with the resultant loading pressure within the rectangular loading. ' The above-recommended pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic pressure on the wall as they assume a drained condition exists. The maintenance of a dewatered/drained condition behind all retaining structures is required for the above values to be valid. The following drain system and backfill requirements are recommended. Retaining Wall Subsurface Drainage ' A longitudinal subdrain with a minimum diameter of 4 inches should be constructed at the base of the footing elevation behind the walls. This drain should be constructed of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe laid perforations down, bedded in an eighteen-inch envelope of free-draining sand and gravel. This system should be sloped to drain and the water disposed of in the storm drainage system. Clean-outs should be provided at bends and convenient intervals, so that the drainage system can be maintained in a well-functioning condition. Flexible plastic piping (such as corrugated ADS-type piping) should not be used behind the wall. ' Retaining Wall Backfill ' All wall backfill over the gravel envelope should consist of clean, free-draining, well-graded sand and gravel containing less than 2.0% fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). This material should extend out from the rear wall face a minimum of eighteen inches. The free- draining backfill should be placed to the surface in paved areas or to within eighteen inches of the surface in non-paved areas. Backfill should be compacted as recommended above for fills. ' P.O. Box 637e 2453 Bethel Avenue a Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 CAProjects%345 McFarland%McFarlandUcFarland goo report.doc i Project No.6345-06 May 19, 2006 ' Page No 9 In non-paved areas, the final eighteen inches of backfill should consist of topsoil or native materials firmly tamped into place. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ' As a preliminary guideline for temporary cuts less than 10 feet in height, we recommend temporary slopes be made no steeper than 1 H:1 V for the dense granular soils and no steeper than 2HA V in medium dense soils or structural fill placed and compacted as outlined above. ' For temporary cut slopes in existing fill, topsoil, or loose materials or over 10 feet in height we recommend temporary slopes no steeper than 1 1/2H:1V for the full height of the cut. Temporary slopes or excavations should be benched as required by safety regulations in effect ' at the time of construction. The provided temporary slope recommendations are for native soils and fill materials; flatter slopes may be required in wet weather or if soil conditions other than those previously described are encountered. The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulations; e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations. Such regulations are strictly enforced and, if not followed, the owner, the contractor, or the earthwork or utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor should be made responsible for the stability of all excavations and slopes during construction because they are continually on site and can observe the stability of the exposed soils. In addition, the contractor should be prepared to shore any unstable slope area and provide shoring as required by local, state, or federal laws or codes. The provision of shoring design recommendations is beyond the ' authorized scope of this report. ' In a disturbed condition the site soils may be eroded by channelized water or sheet flow storm runoff. Therefore, it is recommended that all site preparation and excavation work be completed during the normally drier portion of the year. During periods of heavy rainfall, ditching should be ' used to divert water away from stripped areas and visqueen should be used to cover the slopes and soil stockpiles to aid in preventing excessive surface erosion. This covering also aids in preventing infiltration of water into the unprotected soils. All disturbed soil areas and slopes should be replanted with fast-growing, deep-rooted grass, shrubs and other ground cover as soon after final grading as possible. If the vegetation is not fully established prior to the on set of wet weather, the slopes should be covered with visqueen to aid in preventing excessive erosion and water infiltration. It should be anticipated that there could be a number of additional site development or ' construction problems, particularly if the earthwork has not been completed and the site properly protected at the onset of wet weather. It is recommended that a qualified representative of the architect or engineer make periodic inspections of all excavations and ' slopes to provide early recognition and recommendations. SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS ' NLO should observe the site prior to project completion to determine if the present erosion control, and re vegetation plan is adequate. We anticipate that areas outside the proposed ' building area will consist of lawn and landscaping. As a minimum we recommend; ' P.O. Box 637e 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 CAProods16345 McFarlandlMcFarlandlMcFarland geo report.doc ■ Project No.6345-06 ' May 19, 2006 Page No. 10 • Exposed soil areas should be hydroseeded or covered with straw or mulch. • Footing drains and downspout tightlines, and graded areas will be observed after completion of the residence for potential surface runoff and erosion issues. • Vegetation in the building setback and the creek buffer/setbacks should not be disturbed. ' 0 Disturbed areas associated with this development should be seeded with grass and covered with 2 to 3 inch thick layer of straw. • Mulch can also be used in lieu of straw in non-seeded areas. ' • The sites permanent erosion control measures, lawn and landscaping should be completed prior to November 1. 1 • Verify footing subgrade area and building setbacks prior to placement of footing forms and rebar. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS At this time, we have utilized slope stability analysis to determine the building's setback distance of 50 feet from the top portion of the steep slope for the proposed residence. The setback distance shall be determined by measuring between the furthest projecting footing element to the top portion of slope identified on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Prior to construction, NLO recommends field verification of the building setback from the top portion of the slope. Per Mason 'County s comments (2/17106) case number, BLD2006-00048, NLO has provided as ' a LIDAR map illustrating buffer and setback requirements for the proposed building area near the intermittent stream. The stream buffer requirements are 75 feet with a 15 feet building buffer. The buffers and setbacks for the intermittent stream have been defined on the Site Plan ' Figure 2. REPORT LIMITATIONS ' This report has been prepared for the client regarding the subject project. Information presented in this report has been collected and interpreted in a manner consistent with the level ' of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions, and in accordance with sound and generally accepted principles consistent with normal consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, including (but not limited to) any warranty or merchantability or fitness for a particular use has been made. In the event that change in the nature, design, or location of the proposed construction is made, 1 or any physical changes to the site occur, recommendations are not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by NLO and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing. 1 NLO should be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to ' provide construction observation. ' P.O. Box 637e 2453 Bethel Avenue a Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 CAProjecta%345 McFarlandlMCFarlandOAcFarland georeport.doc Project No. 6345-06 ' May 19,2006 Pa a No. 11 Any site involving sloping terrain has inherent risk of earth movement. As a result, the CLIENT ' agrees to accept full responsibility for all risks associated with steep slopes. The CLIENT acknowledges that this risk cannot be completely eliminated and that engineering and geologic analysis is intended to reduce the inherent risk associated with slopes. No amount of ' geotechnical engineering and geologic analysis can provide a guarantee of stable slopes. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analysis are based heavily on subjective interpretation, professional judgment, and opinion regarding the physical conditions at a specific site. ' Subsurface conditions are only documented at those points where samples were taken and interpolation and extrapolation is necessary between and around sample locations. Conditions can vary between samples and can change over time due to natural processes and/or human ' activity. Analyses and recommendations provided in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the subsurface explorations. 1 P.O. Box 637.2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366 ' Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 C:%Projscts163/5 McFarland%McFarlanNMcFarland 900report.doc ■ ' Ck: ® U Q co z © 0 o AauelS Nd'Wd 00:9£4 900Z/Ll/9'llnoAej,j5mp•dew fylu'3In\pueNed3y4 SK9ksM(OJd43 i i A: The Soil Survey, Mason County, Washington 1960 indicates the site is underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, Ab, 5-15% slopes and Everett Gravely sandy loam, Eh and Ek, 5% to 15% and 15%to 30% slopes, respectively. These soils are considered well drained above the hardpan. Figure 3 A'-`JN.L.Olson&Associates,Inc. Soil Survey Mapping Engineering,Planning and Surveying McFarland 2453 BETHEL AVENUE P.O.BOX 637 351 E Victor Road PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfair, WA A review of Department of Ecolo * � _. to -� bility Maps - Coastal Zone , tlas, lume 9, 1979 (Mason County)" indicates the area has been classified as , i to leM and intermediate ate stability. classified as intermediate : stab) (1) are generally steeper than 15 ercent except where conditions such as eaker material and/or abundant ° groundwater exist. Identified areas- 4: q clude slopes of sand and gravel, till, or hin soils over bedrock which have'no known failures. Stable (S) is defini'd as aving slopes of less than 15 per86nt: Site g � 9 a di 4�t I.. Figure 4 k-#'A N.L.Olson&Associates,I nc. Slope Stability Mapping Engineering,Planning and Surveying McFarland 2453 BETHEL AVENUE P.O.BOX 637 351 E Victor Road PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfair, WA 0 0 i � I 0OcwAi,� Z I � x � ' O ~ = � �� tn v < � O m 3. CZ go w D m O G N o O rc' o• w O CD co w lJ G N O N O LTI G. W O o. f0 Nix - Er Ul o� way m cs O O n ti C•O o j U) CD m ai <. ID CD 0ki. ! „�� `D DO o o. 3p a � o i T C� CD Cal N O APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS The site soil conditions were explored on the site July 22, 2005 by excavating eight test pits throughout the site. The test pit excavation were excavated using a track-hoe provided by the client, and were extended to depths of 2 to 12 feet. The approximate test pits locations are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. the test pits soil logs are presented in this Appendix. Stratification lines designating the interface between soil types in subsurface exploration logs represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The test pit logs and related information depicts conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. The depths represented on our test pits logs were referenced to present site grades encountered during our subsurface exploration work. r A!-"A N.L.Olson&Associates,Inc. Test Pit Engineering,Planning and Surveying McFarland 2453 BETHEL AVENUE P.O.BOX 637 351 E Victor Road PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfair, WA Job Number. Logged By. Subsurface Exploration Ground1 Surface 54 Eleveno„ TP-3 page 6345 WRJ [Start Date:Mar 14.2006 End Date.Mar 14,2006 1 of 1 General Surface Notes Conditions: Grab samples 2 c Area Cleared Test Pit Below Rock Wall Area taken at fallowing f USCS 5 Moisture SYMBOL a content Depths (%) TOPSOIL upper 2 to 4 inches 1 Brown Silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, moist z e sM -Contains cobbles 2 - Glacial Till 3 4 5 Test Pit terminated at 2 feet. 6- 7- 8- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Contractor Operators Name sampling Method Drawn By. Date Hole���, grab WRJ Doc19,2005 ❑ Monitoring Wei Equipmentcheated By: Groundwater Elevation Date ❑ Flexometer Not Encountered ® Abanonded and bacMlAed Notes: Revision By: Dam ❑ Inclinometer A N.L.Olson&Associates,Inc. Test Pit Engineering,Planning and Surveying McFarland 2453 BETHEL AVENUE P.O.BOX 637 351 E Victor Road PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfair, WA Job Number -T Logged By. Subsurface Exploration Ground41ce Elevation pegs 6345 vuR t Start Date:Mar 14,2006 End Date: Mar,4,zoos TP-1 1 Of 1 General Surface Notes Conditions: Grob samples Y$ Drive Area cleared of Vegitation taken at following @ USCS Moisture SYMBOL 4 Content Depths 1 ft 1 Brown Silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist sM 2 -Contains cobbles 3 3 to 4 ft sP Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel and trace silt, 4 medium dense, moist 4 to 5 ft ML -Contains cobbles 5 Dark brown SILT very stiff to hard, moist 6 Dark Gray Silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense 7 - Contains cobbles 8 ft - Appears to be a layer of glacial till 5 to 8 ft below current sM 8 site grades between el 133 to el 136 - Becomes yellowish brown at roughly 8 feet and dense 9 - Cobbles not encountered below 8 feet 10 - Contains trace gravel - At roughly 12 to 13 feet becomes dense to very dense 11 - Observed silt content 15 to 20 percent 12ft 12 13ft 13 14 Test Pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 16 17 18 Contractor Operators Name Sampling Method Drawn By. Dale Hob Completion grab � Dec+g.zoos ❑ Monitoring Well Equipment Groundwater Elevation Checked By. Date Plezorneter Notes: Not Encountered ® Abanonded and beddllled Revision By. Date Inclinometer A!f-`AN.L.Olson&Associates,Inc. Test Pit Engineering,Planning and Surveying McFarland 2453 BETHEL AVENUE P.O.BOX 637 351 E Victor Road PORT ORCHARD,WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Belfair, WA Job Number. Logged By. Subsurface Exploration Ground Surface Elevation Page 6345 WRJ Start Date:Mar 14,2006 1 End Date:Mar 14,2006 112 TP-2 1-1 of 1 General Surface Notes Conditions: Grab samples Y 11 Area cleared along slope surface taken at following rS USCS Moisture SYMBOL Content DV�s tP3 rn (%) Brown Silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, 2 ft 1 moist sM 2 - Contains cobbles 3 4 Yellowish brown well graded gravel with sand and silt, medium dense to dense, moist 5 - Contains cobbles 6 7 7ft GW-GM 8 9 10 11 12 13ft 13 14 Test Pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 16 17 18 Contreew Operators Name Sampling Method Drawn By. Date Hole Compleiim grab "AU Doc1g'2005 ❑ Monitoring Wei Equlprrkxd Groundwater Elevation Checked By. Data ❑ Piezometer Not Encountered ® Abanonded and backiied Notes: Revision By. Date C1 Inclinometer APPENDIX B ' SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION & RESULTS For the purposes of our slope stability analysis, we have assumed a pore pressure ratio (ru) of ' .25 for the groundwater water build up within the slope, which may occur with a typical 100 year 24 hour storm event for this area. The cross section illustrating the slope is shown on (Cross Section A-A' in Figure 5. The soil strength parameters utilized in the analysis are presented below. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SOIL PARAMETERS i Silty Sand with Gravel&Silty Sand 135(m)/145(s) 0 35 Soil strength parameters were developed based on our experience with similar soil conditions - and published values. The site soils consist of medium dense to dense soils in the upper 6 to 8 feet of the soil horizon becoming dense at roughly 8 to 12 feet. Based on the encountered soil ' conditions, we have provided a conservative soil friction value of 35 degrees for our analysis of the entire slope profile detailed in Cross Section A-A. Note: The occurrence of the 100 year 24 hour storm event and the design seismic event occurring simultaneously can be considered low. Therefore, the soil conditions encountered at the time of our subsurface exploration were utilized for our seismic analysis. The site's ground acceleration was determined from the 2002 USGS Earthquake Hazard Program. The interpolated probabilistic ground motion values (PGA), in %g, for the 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years was PGA=32.88%. The PGA was based on the following location 47.3816 Latitude and 122.8123 Longitude. The maximum horizontal ground acceleration (Kh= 0.16)was determined by dividing the PGA by 2. ' The building setback was determined by extending the slope failure planes from the toe of slope uphill toward the structure until an adequate factor of safety for static and seismic loading was achieved. Based on a 50 feet setback distance, and the anticipated soil conditions, we have provided our slope stability results in the following table; Slope S bility Results of Existing Slope Condition Cross Section Slope Wet ru=.25 Slope Wet ru=0.0 Seismic FS Static FS Static FS Existing/Proposed 1.514 2.097 1.336 A-A' Required FS 1.5 oka 1.5 oka 1.1 (okay) Our Analysis indicates and adequate factor of safety for static and seismic loading parameters previously discussed in this report with a 50 feet building setback. Note: the pore pressure ratio (ru), governed the setback distance for the proposed project. Slope Stability Graphical results are presented in this appendix. �,,.., ..._,..r• SNORT PUT •Z.ZS�-Z ' APPROVED _1-lz-f 1 DIRECTIOW 00 COMMUNITY OEVELOPM � 1 yQ. WARNING: MASON COUNTY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO BUILD. IMPROVE. MAINTAIK OR OTHERWISE SERVICE THE PRIVATE ROADS CONTAINED WITHIN NORTH 1/4 OR PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY CORNER (AXLES DESCRIBED WITHIN THIS SHORT SUBDIVISION. 1 VKTOR 1 THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WELL AND VICMITY MAP THE 100 FOOT RADIUS ARE ADVISORY ONLY. _ L WELL SITE APPLICATIONS AND SEPTIC SITE INSPECTIONS MUST BE APPLIED FOR PRIOR TO A BUILDING PERMIT. SEC. 21. T22N. R1W jai �Im glH NORTHEkST CORNER OF 21 E(1-IRON 1/4 CORNER GOVERNMENT LOT 3 S 66z6'31' E \ 264Qf0 (JoSEPH FOSTER Ei ux) NI \\ _ �1 \ S 6636 Ji'E 24. 40Q.00 a 1 ITV yl_ � �_ LOT t W 1.601 ACRES In Ott O^I .`►1 S .SD-E 30 30 n g n \ l00 Z LOT 2 ��� �� IN 21 / .. 1.601 ACRES ■ I n t / BASIS OF BEARING. 1100 BOOK 17 OF SURVEYS 7 24.03 AT PAGE 123. 40R00 N WIS s6' w SCALE 1-150' (D NA/21P40�) 1 0 75 150 300 NORTH LINE OF LUKE ROWLEY g I k TRACT B D E 42RECORDED IN VOL SS - G S. i O FOSO�Y fS REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP SIAMPED: ' [ a HOLMAN 13633 SET PER SHORT PUT f 2140 s � i 0 SET f4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC SURVEY CAP STAMPED: HANSEN 27134. 27134 ® PROPOSED WELL CENTER-SOUTH �L LANO IN Son. LOG t 1 Oth CORNER a»a //—/6-93 i BOOK 17 OF SURVEYS. PACE 123 HANSEN/HOLMAN SHORT SUBDIVISION! A PORTION OF- LAND SURVEYORS FOR GOVERNMENT LOT 3 JIM FORSTER SEC. 21. T22N. RIW. W.M. t00 RUBY STREET. Sum Q E 3040 H*HWAY 302 TU(200) 7, - Og B��� WA 96626 PARCEL No. (20f) 73�-2l9f J� (206) 273-3731 12221-31-00140 92-42 i o � f LA O Z N V n co O CCD. 'a CD -, x —*' O p 0 -n $ � CDO O 3 com o C 6-1 z o- ^ 3 -- -co iO WO CD o 0 n p r� CD- co �. W ? %m 0 r- CD C) ? —t 1 o r- m CD CD CL CD CrCL CD r n m CD i qio s C n (NOD OD 00 OD oCL aim •.r CD Y :• L O o a mwa � CD SLOD N" LA d o g o CIOa _ .•� 0 w Q CD 0 1 0 1 7 d I'v {Q 1 [T�� O I V 0T z 0 C7 S = 0 o CA a . r-1. 00m r- 0CD 0 0) , 0 C/) 0 0 < > a) U) CD cr a) I I rn :3 CD z 8 -fit go :3 CL C/) :3 9M CL 4< o b U) U) cr 0 =3 a X 0) C) cn o 0 CD CD 0 0 U) CD CD =r z :3 CD FD' 0) cn CD 0 CL 2L 0 -0 =3 0 N ro. cn CL CD CD CD=r CL cn -n :3 C:0 w cr o cf) cn CD N Q3:3 CD 0 to Cn U CD w =3 f-1. 0 CL cr CD CD 0 3 CD =r F) P) CD -0 0 m cn CD 0 0 CD c cr cc CD G) rr o NCD 01 -N-1 09 1! ............... ...... p 5. -------------------------- ............ ............ ............. .................. X. IMMI \634!Mriand' LANIMre-All�PIan,IW6 31ftPM,P"nek M l= ® r _ 0 m n _ r m Z O I rrl cjZ � N Z -M G7 co 0 n D > ;I;z O 'AO D Z Z a moo �o J o`' 0 7:. , 80 , 9 ollo- 0 > lam-' h I ` �• ../ %` /r 3•r � � � � �, l ) �-0 V. it 7 \ l ! ✓J is 00 �alop 1130- 0 -1 ♦ :n 0 � to ./ -�-f..:. . :::,,:. .:.. � ♦ � ,\ <tfl �Y ITI Poo 00 �XCh ' x � A �