HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeo-Tech Compliance Report for BLD2007-00053 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 5/22/2008 All -)2 08 02:19p Kenneth W. Martig, Jr. NE 360 7050789 p.1
MARTIG ENGINEERING
- P.O. Box 11850
Olympia,WA 98508-1850
(360) 754-9687
Fax (360) 705-0789
May 22, 2008
Mason County
Department of Community Development
426 W. Cedar
P.O. Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
Attn: Building Inspector:
Re: Geotechnical Compliance Report for:
' Owner: Kevin E. & Juanita C. Lea (360) 275-4109
41 NE Jotly Roger Lane
Belfair, WA 98528
• Property Site Address: 41 NE Jolly Roger Ln
Bellfair, WA; 98528
• Tax Parcel No: 12331-54-00029;
• County Reference Numbers: SWG 2006 00690
• Section 31, T 23 N, R 01 W;
• New Geotechnical Report for New Garage'
with new Septic System for bathroom within garage;
• Addendum 1 to Original September 25, 2006 Report
• Addendum 2 to Original September 25,2006 Report;
• ADDENDUM 3 to Original September 25, 2006 Report (Deletes Temporary
Erosion Control Requirement).
Dear Inspector.
This Addendum 3, to the original above referenced 9/25/0.7,Geotechnical Report, is in
response to the suggestion that Temporary Erosion Control could be waived.
r
agree with this suggestion.
Due to the rapid infiltration inherent with the onsite surface soils and since construction
is occurring (and will be completed) during the dry period of 2008, no precipitation
runoff is likely.
1 '
A),'.2 2 08 02:19p K,.nneth VV. Nlartig, Jr. Nt JbU /Ut) Uluy p.t
Therefore, the requirement for placing staked straw bales or a silt fence (as specified in
Section #8, last paragraph, on Page 4 of the original 9126/06 Geotechnical Report, and
on its Attachment 2, Site Plan) is hereby deleted.
This completes this Addendum#3 to the parent Geotechnical Report for the above
referenced Site which deletes the requirement for Temporary Erosion Control.
I, Kenneth W. Martig, Jr., PE, of Martig Engineering have completed the required Geo-
Technical Report as documented within the Parent Report and the three Addendums. I
am familiar with this site, having frequently driven past it since 1956 and having visited
and inspected the site and its surrounds. As documented, potential landslide hazards
have been overcome and no significant environmental impacts to the public or property
will result if this proposal is permitted as discussed above.
Cettified by:
i
K neth A Oartig,
o
z
�rsreR
Ssforvau
rExPIlIES 1.9- �a j
2
y
f 1
f
Co MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360) 482-5269
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
1854
December 26, 2007
Kevin Lea
41 NE Jolly Roger Lane
Belfair, WA 98528
Dear Mr. Lear
Over the last several months there has been a considerable amount of discussion and
correspondence between you, your Engineer Ken Martig and Mason County regarding the
Geotechnical Report prepared by Mr. Martig for your construction project. This discussion
came to a standstill due to information that was requested by the County in order to
complete the review of your permit.
Both the review previously done by the Mason County Public Works Department and the
consultant retained by Mason County to review the Geotechnical Report for your project,
do not agree with either Mr. Martig's or your position that a cut slope with a 63% angle
has nothing to do with your proposal. Both reviewers are concerned that appropriate
slope stability analysis be done.
While there appears to be some difference of professional opinion on the value of
modeling the slope, the limitations of and assumptions used in such analysis is required to
be disclosed in the report so that reviewers can understand how much reliance to place in
it. Mr. Martig would address his own concerns regarding the value of such analysis by
doing the site investigation work necessary to provide the hard data he feels necessary to
make the analysis.
This position of Mason County was outlined several times and most recently in a letter to
you from Robert Fink, Planning Manager, dated November 14, 2007. There was also
some discussion in that letter regarding possible amendments to existing ordinance;
however, at this time we do not anticipate changes that would affect the adequacy of your
report and addenda.
At this point we are offering you an option to continuing reviews that have continued to
result In differences of professional opinion. This option consists of a"Landslide Hazard
Covenant"that is recorded with the deed on file with the Mason County Auditor, stating
you acknowiedge the property is in or adjacent to a landslide hazard area and that there
are risks associated with the development on said property. The covenant waives any
x
right to claim against the County for any future loss that may occur. I have enclosed the
covenant agreement for your review and consideration. If you wish to proceed with this
option, please complete the document and record it with the Mason County Auditor. A
copy will be forwarded to the Mason County Community Development Department for our
file. At that point we can release the permit based on the recorded document. If you do
not wish to pursue this option, you will need to provide the information necessary, as
previously requested, so that the permit can be approved.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me either by phone at 360-
427-9670, Ext. 603 or email at barbarr@co.mason.wa.us.
Sincerely,
Barbara Robinson
Community Development Director
Enc.
CC: pert Fink,Planning Manager
ammi Wright,Planner m
Tim Sheldon,County Commissioner
i
MASON COUNTY
Shelton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 ►v.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
Sf
November 14, 2007
Kevin Lea
41 NE Jolly Roger Lane
Belfair, WA 98528
Subject: Geological Review for BLD2007-00053
Dear Mr. Lea,
I am following up on my discussion with you on September 13, 2007 and your
presentation to the Board of Commissioners on October 23, 2007.
To be clear and as I discussed with you on September 13th,we had a third-party review of
your geotechnical report and addenda. The review found the information insufficient to
comply with the requirements of the ordinance. I sent you a copy of the review on that
same day. We are waiting on your response to continue the review of your permit. Your
building permit application continues to be pending the resolution of the geological
issues.,
It was your choice not to provide the information requested to complete your permit
review and instead wait for completion of the review of the Landslide Hazard Areas
section of the county Resource Ordinance. I specifically warned you that such reviews
took a long time. I can, however, tell you after the review so far that there seems little
justification for changes to the ordinance that would remove the need for slope stability
analysis. Therefore, it is doubtful that there will be changes that would affect the
adequacy of your report and addenda.
If you would like to discuss possible options,please feel free to call me.
With regard to your presentation to the Board and the chronology within it, I would like
to remind you of some key events you left out and explain to you the reason for what
occurred from the county's perspective.
You begin your chronology(presentation entry for September 2006)with the county not
accepting—presumably to review and approve—your special reports without the relevant
applications. The Department has the responsibility to review applications for
development according to county regulations. We do not accept requests for formal
Kevin Lea
November 14,2007
Page 2
review of geological reports prior to an application because: there is no code provision
for such a review, such special reports are time sensitive and any change in the proposal
or site conditions can trigger the requirement for a revision, and there is no binding site
plan process that would address other relevant considerations such a critical areas (other
than landslide hazard areas) in making any findings based only a special report and the
project discussed in it.
In addition,while you assume that your report would have been accepted prior to the
2006 amendment of the ordinance,that has not been shown.
Your presentation did not include the fact that I was contacted by both you and Ken
Martig(your consultant and author of the Geotechnical Report and addenda)on March
27,2007. The contact was regarding the Public Works' March 22"d review of the report
that you did not"receive"until April 4,20.07, according to your presentation. That
contact lead to setting up a meeting on April 5, 2007 to discuss the review.
Your presentation also did not include the meeting on April 5,2007 between Ken Martig,
Bob Thuring,John Sliva, and myself regarding your Geotechnical Report. Both Mr.
Thuring and Mr. Sliva are staff of the Public Works Department. Mr. Martig presented
his case,but was not able to convince the engineers to recommend that the Department of
Community Development waive the requirement for slope stability analysis. It was
explained to Mr. Martig that the requirement for Bishop's Curve slope stability analysis
could be waived,but that adequate alternate analysis was needed on slope stability. It was
never in doubt that slope stability analysis other than Bishop's Curve could be used in
accordance with the LHA provisions. The ordinance states that Bishop's Curve"should"
be used. This is discretionary language that allows for other techniques. The issue with
Mr. Martig's report and addenda is the adequacy of the analysis,not the specific model
used.
Because the meeting of April 5 and subsequent addenda prepared by Mr.Martig did not
convince the Public Works reviewers that adequate information was being provided, a
August 2, 2007 meeting of geologists, engineers, and county staff was held at Mr.
Martig's request. The meeting was informational and no minutes were made,but it was
recorded. A copy will be provided to you at cost, if you wish. At the end of the meeting, I
suggested and Mr. Martig agreed to have Ken Neal do another review of the Report and
addenda. Mr. Martig seemed enthusiastic about that review and gave Mr. Neal the
information to review.
Your presentation did not include my discussion with you on September 13,2007,when
I told you that Mr.Neal's review did not recommend approval of Mr. Martig's report. I
immediately sent you a copy. I told you that we would wait to see how you wanted to
proceed after you looked at the latest review.
The Public Works review and Mr. Neal's do not agree with Mr. Martig's and your
position that a cut slope with a 63% angel has "nothing to do"with your proposal (to
quote from the"April 5, 07—Present"entry in Mr. Lea October 23rd document). Both
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\RDF\WP\PROJECTS\2007pro\Lea-geo.doc
li
' Mr.Kevin Lea
November 14,2007
Page 3
reviewers are concerned that appropriate slope stability analysis be done. While there
may be a difference of professional opinion on the value of modeling the slope,the
limitations of and assumptions used in such analysis is required to be disclosed in the
report so that reviewers can understand how much reliance to place in it. Mr. Martig can
address his own concerns regarding the value of such analysis by doing the site
investigation work necessary to provide the hard data he feels necessary to make the
analysis useful.
With regard to the existing ordinance, an ordinance is not a scientific paper and can not
be"peer reviewed"in the tradition of scientific journals. The county relied on the best
available science that it had at the time of action in December 2006. This included the
information provided by Mr. Martig in 2006. With regard to the June 2Oth and 27th
entries in your presentation—as my letter to Mr. Martig indicated, GeoEngeneers was
sent all comments received prior to action and the final draft of the amendments,not just
Mr. Martig's comments. Verbally, GeoEngineers accepted the final draft language,but
specifically and in writing rejected Mr.Martig's proposal as not consistent with BAS.I
have provided Mr. Martig.with the documentation he requested and my own description
of the process. I am not sure what else I could do to convince him or yourself.
I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need clarification,
you may contact me at (360)427-9670 ext. 366.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Fink,AICP
Planning Manager
Cc: Tammi Wright
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\RDF\WP\PROJECTS\2007pro\Lea-geo.doc
I
4
MASON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
Shelton, Washington 98584
DATE: March 22, 2007
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Chuck McCoy PARCEL# 12331-54-00029
FROM: John Sliva, Programs Engineer-PW BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: BLD2007-00053
SUBJECT: Geo-Technical Review NAME: Lea Kevin Pages 2
Chuck,
The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed garage at 41 NE Jolly Roger Lane at Belfair
has been received and reviewed by Public Works.
A review of the geotechnical report indicates the garage will be built on a lot between Jolly Roger
Lane and Admiral Drive and north of the existing residence. The garage will be located partially in
cut slopes. These northerly and westerly cut slopes vary in height from 0'to 12'. The report notes
the slopes will be stabilized by using a combination of rock retaining walls and reinforced concrete
garage walls. The author notes that no adverse environmental impacts or landslide triggers will
result, either on-site or off-site.
A review of cross sections indicates JollyRogerapproximately Ro er Lane at a roximatel elevation 105 with a cut to
the garage to elevation 92 feet. Moving east from the garage there is a slope. The crest of the
slope is noted as elevation 91. The slope is noted as a 1.57:1 (63%) slope. The toe of slope on
Admiral Dr. is noted as approximately elevation 72 feet.
The 63 percent slope is not addressed in the eotechnical report. My interpretation of the report
P p 9
indicates a vertical relief of approximately 19 feet. A slope stability analysis was not submitted
which would include a recommended setback for the garage from this slope. Slopes over 40
percent with a vertical relief of greater than 10 feet require slope stability analyses.
The report does not satisfactorily address County requirements for Geotechnical Reporting. The
report was written September 25,2006 with the application made January 11,2007. The report will
v o meet the new eotechnical report requirements that were adopted December 27, 2006.
have t g p q p
The Geotechnical Report must address the thirteen points in Contents of a Geotechnical Report
required by today's Title 17 Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Areas, Chapter
17.01.100.E.5.
M
The report covered the majority of points required in Contents of a Geotechnical Report. Some
items that were not covered in the report are:
Point 4
The area of the proposed development,the boundaries of the hazard,and associated buffers
and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site.
Point 6
Provide a description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and
seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst-case failures. The analysis
should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is
1.5; the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1...
Point 7
Address set backs
Point 12
Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation. Already addressed for upper cut slope. Are there any for the 63 percent slope?
Public Works recommends the geotechnical report review be placed on hold until the requested
information is provided.
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.
Sincerely, 4�0—
Engineer
MARTIG ENGINEERING
P.O. Box 11850
Olympia, WA 98508-1850 RECEIVED
(360) 754-9687
Fax(360) 705-0789 JAN 1 1 IUUI
September 25, 2006 426 W. %-coAK S ,
Mason County
Department of Community Development r t
426 W. Cedar TO B c t-"
P.O. Box 578 .a R C
584 S y`1
Shelton WA 98 E:p
Attn: Land Use Planner 1� 3 30 ' �!�• QOD 7o�
Re: Geotechnical Compliance Report for:
* Owner: Kevin E. &Juanita C. Lea (360) 275-4109
41 NE Jolly Roger Lane
Belfair, WA 98528
• Property Site Address: 41 NE Jolly Roger Ln
Bellfair, WA; 98528
• Tax Parcel No: 1233G54-00029;
• County Reference Numbers: SWG 2006 00690
• Section 31, T 23 N, R 01 W;
• NEW GEOTECHNICAL REPORT for New Garage
with new Septic System for bathroom within garage.
Planning:
I, Kenneth W. Martig, Jr., PE, of Martig Engineering have completed rry own
engineering investigations regarding the Geotechnical Report requirements associated
with the above referenced property, as required by the County.
The proposed action at this site is to construct a new Garage(for the existing
Residence)with a new Septic System for the new bathroom within the garage.
As a result of our investigations, we can affirm that all potential Landslide Hazards can
be overcome in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health &
safety and that no significant Environmental Impacts will result if this project is
permitted as outlined within this Geotechnical Report and its attachments.
1
RECEIVED
MARTIG ENGINEERING
lo ki JAN 11 2007
P.O. Box 11850 )k L'S e 426
Olympia, WA 98508-1850 A T�
(360) 754-9687 (OWA.0r)
Fax(360) 705-0789 �'� Lq'<�
September 25, 2006
Mason County
Department of Community Development
426 W. Cedar
P.O. Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584 xS3`
Attn: Land Use Planner
Re: Geotechnical Compliance Report for:
* Owner: Kevin E. &Juanita C. Lea (360) 275-4109
41 NE Jolly Roger Lane
Belfair, WA 98528
• Property Site Address: 41 NE Jolly Roger Ln
Bellfair, WA, 98528
o Tax Parcel No: 12336-54-00029;
County Reference Numbers: SWG 2006 00690
• Section 31, T 23 N, R 01 W;
• NEW GEOTECHNICAL REPORT for New Garage
with new Septic System for bathroom within garage.
Planning:
I, Kenneth W. Martig, Jr., PE, of Martig Engineering have completed my own
engineering investigations r ardi the Geotechnical Re requirements associated
n9 n9 regarding P�
the above referenced r as required b the County.
with property, � Y rnY
The proposed action at this site is to construct a new Garage(for the existing
Residence)with a new Septic System for the new bathroom within the garage.
I
As a result of our investigations, we can affirm that all potential Landslide Hazards can
be overcome in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health &
safety and that no significant Environmental Impacts will result if this project is
1 permitted as outlined within this Geotechnical Report and its attachments.
i
3
3
1
}
REPORT SUMMARY
We have determined that all slopes upon the subject property are quite stable. None of
the normal causes that create slope instability are present at this site, and none will be
induced if the proposed new Garage,with new Septic System, are constructed in
accordance with County Standards and the provisions outlined within this Report.
The submitted Septic System Design for the new garage has been assigned the County
designation SWG 2006 00690.
The new Garage will serve the existing Residence on the property.
GEO-TECHNICAL REPORT
1. Geology, Soils, Groundwater, Landslides:
III This site was found to be stable. No landslides were found on or near this site.
The USGS Belfair Quadrangle Map confirms the slopes found by the topographic
survey prepared for the planning of the new garage. The Attachment 3 Elevation
View(Measured Section A A) shows the Topography and the nature of the slopes
e
within the Site. The six pages of 35-rrgn Photographs, Attachmen 4 t , show the Site,
its slopes, and the Septic soils test holes..
The Mason County Soils Survey shows the site soils to be Everett gravelly loamy
sand with slopes from 15 to 30%. These soils are excessively drained with the
upper 12"to 36" being loose before weak cementing becomes apparent. Gravel and
sand are being extracted from nearby cornmercial sites.
When undisturbed, the upper layer of unconsolidated granular soil infiltrates
precipitation readily, producing essentially no runoff. The proposed Septic System
Drainfield is located within this undisturbed upper soil, between the garage location
and slope break where no grading has occurred.
No signs of groundwater impact are apparent on this site, and no measurable offsite
surface water runoff is tributary to the property.
No visual signs associated with landslide activity were found.
2. Site Plan and Important Geologic Features:
The Attachment 2 Site Plan Map shows how the proposed new garage and Septic
Drainfield will be situated upon the property.
2
The Attachment 3 Elevation View, Section A A, shows the existing ground slopes.
The six pages of photographs, Attachment 4, show the important features of the
site.
3. Location of Soil Exploration Holes/Probes:
The partial excavation for placing the new garage shows a 12-foot cut-bank. The
two Septic Drainfield soils test holes show the upper 5-feet of soil. Further, the older
Driveway and Admiral Drive stable slopes demonstrate the nature of the soil slopes.
Given these exposed soils, no additional soils test borings or test pits were required
to confirm the conditions and type of soils at this property.
4. Cross Sections Showing Slope Disturbances:
The Attachment 3 Elevation View, Section A A, shows the measured ground slopes
that exist to the west and east of the proposed garage.
The partially completed excavation for the garage shows the nature of the soil at the
garage location. These westerly and northerly cut slopes vary in height from 0' to
12'. They will be stabilized by using a combination of rock retaining walls and
reinforced concrete garage walls. The architectural drawings will show the final
configuration of these.
In any case, the stabilization of these cut slopes is simple, since no saturation of the
soil is possible at this location. Further, unconfined soil cut slopes have a measured
stable angle of repose of 1:1, and the older existing 6-foot high rock wall, shown on
photo Page 1 of 6, remains stable at a near vertical slope.
5. Slope Stability Discussions:
All Site slopes are presently stable. The measured natural angle of repose for these
soils is 1:1, but we recommend that constructed open soil slopes be no steeper than
1.5-feet Horizontal to 1.0-foot Vertical (and protected against erosion).
The cut slopes necessary to construct the new Garage can be easily stabilized
using either rock retaining walls (see Attachment 3 Detail) or reinforced concrete
walls. No ground saturation is possible at this site.
Normally, either surface water runoff or the emergence of groundwater along
steeper slopes, are the primary cause(s) of slope instability. Given the site soils and
ground slopes, no runoff or saturation of surface soil problems are possible at this
site. No groundwater surfaces along the property slopes. Therefore, this site is very
stable against the primary causes of slope instability.
3
6. Drainage, Septic, Water, Placement:
Drainage at this site is not a problem, due to the ability of the soils to infiltrate
precipitation rapidly and the fact that no offsite runoff is tributary to the Site. Roof
drainage should disbursed into the ground south of the garage.
An existing Residence exists at the site with existing water and an onsite Septic
System.
The new garage will receive water from the existing house connection. A small new
Septic System will be constructed for the garage, SWG 2006 00690.
7. Clearing &Grading Plan:
Initial Clearing and Grading has been completed, as shown on the Attachment 2
Site Plan and on the Attachment 3 Elevation View.
Additional excavation &grading is required to construct the Garage, including:
excavating several feet more to the north; installing retaining walls; installation of
the garage footings; and the installation of the Septic System..
8. Erosion Control Plan:
Since no runoff currently exists and no offsite runoff is tributary to the site, no
special erosion control plan is necessary.
The driveway and parking pad will be covered with several inches of crushed rock..
All ground surfaces, where large portions of bare earth remain (outside the Garage
and driveway/parking areas), shall be covered with 3"to 4" of loose straw/hay or
coarse beauty-bark to prevent erosion.
The remaining Understory vegetation should remain undisturbed as much as
practical when installing the remaining improvements.
The roof drain downspouts should directed south of the garage.
A row of staked straw bales or a silt fence shall be placed as shown on the
Attachment 2 Site Plan to prevent erosion until all construction is completed and
Revegetation/Landscaping is accomplished.
9. On-Site &Off-Site Impacts:
In summary, no adverse environmental impacts or landslide triggers will result,
either on-site or off-site, if the Garage improvements are permitted as guided by the
other Mason County Permits and as presented within this Geotechnical Report and
its attachments.
4
.. IIIIfW��r
10. Final Development Conditions:
No special "Development Conditions" are necessary.
The normally required Mason County Permits, including the provisions outlined
within this Geotechnical Report, are sufficient for the safe implementation of the
requested Garage Improvements.
This completes our Geotechnical Report for the proposed Garage construction.
I, Kenneth W. Martig, Jr., PE, of Martig Engineering have completed the required
Geotechnical Report as documented within this letter Report and its attachments. I am
familiar with this site, having visited and inspected the site and its surrounds. As
documented, potential landslide hazards have been overcome and no significant
environmental impacts to the public or property will result if this proposal is permitted
as discussed above.
C
ertified
W. artig, Jr
,
1. Vicinity Map ?
2. Site Plan
3. Elevation View, Section A A �' R
4. Six Pages of 35-mm Photographs ssioN 1S7 �Ncj►
ExPMW 1-s-
5
MASON COUNTY
3WMPJV-RQ4aw.Ar 1T4AS-A77M4PG68N7Y
v r r N r t"! r r
t A lNnoJ All;
a IdS.LI)I i="
Zlii Ain i >t osvW
1 1 I I 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
I I 1 r
1 I 1 1
1
1 1 1 I
= cN06
1 I I 1 I 6
---------------- 1 1 1
+n I -- ---- - ----------- -- ----1--
------ -------
�lii ""' ' ; 9 a i
� �a - ► a;xi=
¢
• L` 1
� , 1
1 ,
1 ,
I 11� 1
w t s 8
Ap,l llx 1
---- ----------- �{ --------- - -_
•
3!�
j a
1 r ,
s d ' i
1 � I
1 I 1 I
1 1 1•n sn wn
-----------------; -- ---------i------ - r---------- M
1
I 7
MLWNola
All a
(� NWAI
1 1 ' a' � �• � '�rvn
414,
1 -
�'
' 1 \~ 1 J 1
� i � i i � i ��✓
ar
1
�, ' •1 1 1 1
1 ,
_ AIs , AIR , x,
alp
N - A IQ
8 dVW 33S
tit .>�tt�s ., .... ,.� pwr ...� � ..__ •___ `..► � ....
w
ATTACHMENT 2
Site Plan
(1' = 30')
I
Lok- 30
EA
-, Z_
3 {
4
in
-
Lo
Nn Ar : t
M ..
Z Q a!S
ya =
ono
i3 C N
Q W
N�SS
Q 04pNN �\
Mp S
oll
r � t
7 d
f
,s
cY
40
Ln
d QN p �►
n Ohl-
o
h
0
°o �a 0
i • •
Page 1 of 6: Looking north along the existing Driveway
into the site. These photos show the excavated slope
holding . • - slope. The lower photo shows
an • • rock retaining wall standing stable
slope of 1 -- to 1.0-foot Horizontal.
T �
7 � r
I
b•
x ^ct
r ��
Page 2 of 6: Looking north at the partially completed
excavation for the new garage. The slopes have unraveled
to a stable slope of 1:1. The upper photo shows the excavated
soil piled north of the excavation, causing the cut slope to
appear higher than the actual 7-foot cut at the north center
location of the proposed garage. The deepest cut is 12-feet
at the northwest corner of the excavation, lower photo.
Ti
R �
tea• -
rjam, r
�+f '`'�i►."�'�fa � -��'a ems. .. -_ . = - --
F
t
// _� L•.��, �- � 1.
5rf� ;Sa
Page 3 of 6: Looking west along the north
edge of the partial excavation. The upper
s
photo shows the stable Jolly Roger roadbed
with existing Fir trees. The lower photo
shows the pile of excavated soil north of the
excavation. Again, the unraveled slopes are
stable at 1:1. When permits are secured for
construction of the garage, the excavated area
,. 4 = will expand several feet more to the north.
The north and west edges of the excavation
will be stabilized using either concrete garage
walls or a rock retaining wall (or combinations
thereof).
- ti
74
yt
n;
i
9
y t
1 '�Ik�~i �1•a -1
ado
:
,•., .ear r
Page 4 of 6: Looking north at the Septic Drainfield location.
The soils test holes are 5-feet deep, with roots and usable
soils to 4-feet of depth.
A iAi
w L1
` ¢ IV L
V
v
1
O �
O -e O G
tS o e
N e (B 'X N
N O a)+�' a a O 1 ca CD
BYO O75- - �O D An
O N e O ca
to N � O - - , O
O N Q ,r N 4-
� Q Vf .` .r � s CL
0
,., _
O- � ® N 00 N
Q. E � '"- O � Zr can)cA O
-a
aQ .c � � � CL
N EMco < � . e
e
'e O 0 O O CL N L 0
~ �6 ,e a) fl- O 6 a)
COY C N a) � Q
N = a)
d
0 O
N 3 co
a: caLO
1�
6,
=d
r'
r
n: i
Page 6 of 6: The upper photo shows the west drainage ditch
along Admiral Drive, looking south. Note that there are no
visual signs of heavy runoff within the ditch. The lower photo
shows a close-up of the vegetated surface of the stable 1.0-1.57
slope. Note the draughty nature of the vegetation.
' Y•. '1+ .t l Y� 17
�11
v.
�L'• gyp\` _ 6��•^^ - � ^R ., 1�'
Tu,
l...
74 y
I x - Ty
r. `� -�`. � �1 Kee •.. :. - - ,:
tA
'� �+' 1 •CCU,