Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2001-00016 Beach Stairs Hearing - SHR Reports - 7/15/2010 STATE 0� o� 4. s �$ 1889 aQ1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775• Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300 July 27, 2010 Richard Funk PO Box 130 Grapeview, WA 98546 Subject: Mason County Permit# SHR2001-00016 -Approved Richard Funk- Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit# 232 Dear Mr. Funk: Purpose: Notification of Receipt of Approved Substantial Development Permit(SDP) On July 22, 2010,the Department of Ecology received notice that Mason County approved your application for an SDP. Your permit is for beach stairs down a steep bank, located above OHWM and an existing rock bulkhead. The replacement is in a new location and configuration within shoreline jurisdiction of Case Inlet, South Puget Sound. By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with the following: • The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria(Chapter 173-27-150 WAC) • The Mason County Local Shoreline Master Program Local governments, after reviewing the SDP for compliance, are required to submit the SDPs to Ecology for filing. Your approved SDP has been received and filed by Ecology. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit,the law requires you wait at least 21 days from the"date of receipt"—the date you receive this letter. Date of receipt is defined in RCW 43.21 B.001 as: (1) "Business days" means Monday through Friday exclusive of any state or federal holiday. (2) "Date of receipt" means: (a) Five business days after the date of mailing; or (b) The date of actual receipt,when the actual receipt date can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The recipient's sworn affidavit or declaration indicating the date of receipt,which is unchallenged by the agency, shall constitute sufficient evidence of actual receipt. The date of actual receipt, however, may not exceed forty-five days from the date of mailing. This waiting period allows anyone (including you)who disagrees with any aspect of this permit, to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend, however, you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. They can be reached at(360)459-6327 or http://www.eho.wa.gov/Boards/SHB.asp. If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: h=://ai)ps.leiz.wa.gov/wac. Other federal, state and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Rick Mraz at(360) 407-6221. Sincerely, 40 Rick Mraz ShorelinesP ecialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program By Certified Mail 7009 1410 0002 4420 2598 cc: Grace Miller, Mason County PEON Co MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 July 15, 2010 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION Case Number: SHR2001-00016 - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for beach stairs. Applicant: Richard Funk. Notice is hereby given that Richard Funk, applicant for the above referenced Shoreline Permit, has been granted conditional approval for the project. The Decision was dated 7/8/10 and conditionally approves the permit by the Hearing Examiner. The conditions are listed within the staff report. The request for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was approved pursuant to the Mason County Development Regulations specifically for the installation of beach stairs. If you have any questions or require clarification on this issue please contact Grace Miller, Planner with the Mason County Department of Community Development at(360) 427-9670, x 360. This is a final decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeals may be made to the appropriate state administrative agency or superior court pursuant to RCW 36.70C. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division P O Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 lrf,, (360)427-9670 SHORELINE PERMIT Case No.: SHR2001-00016 STATUS: ISSUED Received: 8/6/2001 Issued: 7/15/2010 Expires: 7/15/2012 Tvne of Permit: Sub. Dev. Applicant: RICHARD FUNK PO BOX 130 GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546 Location of Project: On Stretch Island. Take Stretch Island Road South. Site is on west side of island just past top of hill (460 E Stretch Island Rd S). Within CASE INLET and/or its associated wetlands. The projectwill not be within shorelines of statewide significance. Shoreline Designation: Urban Parcel Number: 121084200050 Address: 460 E STRETCH ISLAND RD SOUTH GRAPEVIEW Legal Description: TR 5 OF GOUT LOT 6 PCL 3 OF BLA #01-36 S 26/229 Project Description: Construct stairs for beach access, to include six landings. All work above bulkhead and OHWM. CONDITIONS: This permit has been granted by Mason County persuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act. (Chapter 90.58 RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(7) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the terms and conditions hereof. SHR2001-00016 Paae 1 of 1 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 3 RE: Richard Funk 4 REVISED FINDINGS OF FACT, Shoreline Substantial CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL 5 Development Permit DECISION (SHR2001-00016) 6 INTRODUCTION 7 8 The applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit to construct beach stairs. The Hearing Examiner approves the permit application with conditions. 9 TESTIMONY 10 11 Grace Miller—Mason County Staff 12 Ms. Miller clarified that only a substantial development permit is required for this proposal because the stair landing is landward of the mean higher high water and it is 13 less than ten feet waterward from the toe of the bank. The stair landing is landward of a bulkhead. Ms. Miller acknowledged that portions of the stair will be more than 14 30 inches above grade but that this will be only along the bank and will not create any view impacts. Ms. Miller believes that the 30-inch requirement is intended to protect 15 views and that in this regard it only applies to those portions of structures on level 16 surfaces, such as stair landings and decks. Ms. Miller also testified that the value of the stairs exceeds$5,000. 17 EXHIBITS 18 The exhibits identified in the exhibit list of the staff report were admitted at the 19 hearing. 20 FINDINGS OF FACT 21 Procedural: 22 1. Applicant. The applicant is Richard Funk. 23 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject 24 application on June 22, 2010 at 1:00.p.m. in the Mason County Commissioners Meeting Room. 25 SSDP P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0802313.DOC;1\13009.900000\} I Substantive: 2 3. Project/Site Description. The proposal is to construct beach stairs for 3 access to a beach from a single-family residence. The stair structure includes six landings, down a steep marine bluff. The landing of the stairs will be landward of a 4 bulkhead and within ten feet of the toe of the bluff. The applicant owns two adjoining waterfront parcels along Case Inlet and the stairs will be located near the 5 common boundary line. Both waterfront parcels are protected by bulkheads that are 5 6 to 6 feet high and comprised of 3 feet or more sized boulders. Both parcels extend from Stretch Island Drive to the east to Case Inlet-to the west. 7 4. Characteristics of the Area. The applicant's parcels are bordered by two 8 vacant parcels to the north and a residence to the south. 9 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. No letters in opposition were 10 presented. The only adverse impacts discernable from the record are those resulting from the unstable soil characteristics of the bluff. The geotechnical report provides a 11 thorough analysis of slope issues and comprehensive and adequate mitigation to address them. The project will be conditioned to comply with the recommendations 12 in the geotechnical report. 13 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 14 Procedural: 15 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) authorizes the 16 Examiner to review and issue a final decision regarding shoreline substantial 17 development permit requests. 18 Substantive: 19 2. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for this project because it exceeds $5,000 in value as outlined in MCC 15.09.055(A). As discussed 20 during the hearing, a shoreline conditional use permit is not required for the staircase 21 under MCC 17.50.060, Piers and Docks, No. 21, because the stairway landing is located landward of mean higher high water and is located within ten feet of the toe 22 of the bluff. Under MCC 15.09.055(0(2)(c),the Examiner must base a decision on a 23 24 25 SSDP p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0802313.DOC;1\13009.900000\} shoreline substantial development permit application upon the policies and 1 procedures of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") as well as 2 Chapter 90.58 RCW. The generic .review criteria for all Mason County permits reviewed by the Hearing Examiner, MCC 15.09.055(C) also apply. All applicable 3 policies and regulations are quoted below and applied with corresponding conclusions of law. 4 MMC 17.50.060 Piers & Docks Regulation No. 22: Stairways shall be located 5 landward of bulkheads except where proven infeasible. 6 3. The stairs shall be located landward of the existing bulkhead. 7 Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IX Piers & Docks Policy No. 5: 8 Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over piers and docks. 9 5. Although mooring buoys and floats are preferred, policy 5 does not 10 prohibit PRFs. 11 Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IX Piers & Docks Policy No. 5: Joint use Stairways are preferred over individual stairways. 12 6. The stairs will be used for the two adjoining parcels owned by the 13 applicant. The conditions of approval will require the recording of an instrument 14 requiring joint use in case of sale. 15 MMC 17.50.060 Bulkhead Regulation No. 10: Stairways shall be located landward of bulkheads except where proven infeasible. 16 17 7. The stairs shall be located landward of the bulkhead. . 18 MMC 17.50.060 Residential Regulation No. 9: ...Uncovered porches, decks, or steps may project into the required setback area, provided such structures are no 19 higher than 30 inches above average grade excluding railings required for reasons of public safety.. 20 21 8. The top of the stairs and the landings comply with the 30-inch requirement but portions of the stairs along the bluff do not. The Examiner will grant deference to 22 the staff interpretation on this issue, which is that the 30-inch requirement will not apply to reasonably necessary stair structural elements along a bluff to the extent they 23 do not affect views. As conditioned (requirement compliance with the 30-inch requirement on the landing), the Examiner finds compliance with Residential Use 24 Regulation No. 9. 25 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development according to the following criteria: SSDP p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0802313.DOC;1\13009.900000\} 1 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 2 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 3 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. 4 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 5 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 6 Comprehensive Plan. 7 9. As noted in the Staff Report and the above analysis, the project does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Title 16 does not apply to the project. SEPA 8 review has already been completed for the project, and determination of nonsignificance has been issued. The conditions of approval adequately mitigate 9 against any adverse impacts to public health safety and welfare by requiring 10 compliance with geotechnical recommendations to protect slope integrity and by imposing several measures to ensure that the construction of the stairs does not 11 adversely affect water quality. Since the stairs enhance access to the shoreline without minimal adverse impacts, they are in the public interest. The addition of 12 stairs will have no impacts on "level of service standards. The Examiner finds compliance with the criterion quoted above. 13 14 DECISION 15 The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is approved, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff in the June 10, 2010 Staff Report (Exhibit No. 1) 16 and the recommendations of the geotechnical report(Exhibit No.6). 17 Dated this 21 st day of July, 2010. 18 19 20 U A. Olbrechts Mason County Hearing Examiner 21 Change in Valuation 22 23 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 24 Right of Appeal .25 This decision may be appealed to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board as governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW. SSDP p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision (PA0802313.DOC;1\13009.900000\} June 10,2010 EXHIBIT 1 TO:Phil Olbrechts,Mason County Hearings Examiner FROM: Grace Miller, Senior Planner,(360)427-9670,ext 360.E-mail:gbm@co.mason.wa.us RE:Shoreline Substantial Development #SHR2001-00016 request by Richard Funk. STAFF REPORT I. INTRODUCTION.This report evaluates an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for beach stairs. I am recommending conditional approval of the proposal. II APPLICANT.The applicant is Richard Funk. III. PROPERTY LOCATION. The property is located on the southwest side of Stretch Island, overlooking Case Inlet,Puget Sound.The address is 460 E Stretch Island Drive,Grapeview. IV. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Tract 5 of Govt Lot 6,Parcel 3 of BLA#01-36. Sec 8,Twn 21 N,RI West. Parcel Number: 12108-42-00050 V. EVALUATION. PROPOSAL:The project is the construction of stairs for access to the beach from a single family residence.The stair structure includes six landings,down a steep marine bluff to access the beach. A Geotechnical Report was prepared for this proposal by E3RA,Inc.. A. Characteristics of the site and area:The applicant owns two adjacent waterfront parcels,each 2.5 acres in size.The applicant's residence is located on the south parcel and the stairs are located primarily on the property line with the applicant's parcel to the north.The parcels are accessed from the east via Stretch Island Drive.The property extends from Stretch Island Drive to the shoreline of Case Inlet.The applicant's parcels are bordered to the north by two vacant parcels and on the next lot there is a residence.To the south it is bordered by an adjacent residence.Both of the applicant's parcels have been modified with an existing rock bulkhead,near the toe of the approximately 60'tall marine bluff.The bulkhead is 5-6 feet high and is comprised of 3' or more sized boulders. B. Shoreline environment.The shoreline environment is Urban Residential. C. Comprehensive Plan.The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. D. Zoning:The property is zoned as Rural Residential 5. E. SEPA Compliance:A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on May 6,2010 by Mason County under WAC197-11-340.Comments were received from the Department of Ecology and are attached.Staff has recommended conditions consistent with those comments. F. Other Permits:A Mason County Building Permit is also required. 1 \\CLUSTER HOME SERVER\HOME\GBM\sdpstairstaff.doc VI. ANALYSIS. Description of proposed action:The applicant is proposing to replace an existing stairway located on the northwest corner of the site with a new stairway constructed on the west-central part of the site.The existing stairway,which was originally based on shallow foundations,was damaged by surficial land sliding and erosion that occurred during the torrential rainfall of early December 2007.After the existing stairway was damaged,it was repaired,but then it was decided that a new stairway,located away from the existing stairway in an area where slopes can be negotiated and surface water is not likely to flow down the bluff face,should be built.It was also decided that the new stairway should be based on deeper foundations so that if damage occurs to above-grade elements of the new stairway from surficial landsliding/sloughing, it is possible that all or substantial portions of the pin pile foundation would survive and so that damaged above-grade stairway elements could more easily be re-built. The new stairway will consist of an upland landing,based on the top of the steep bluff,and 11 platforms, each of which will be supported by pin piles,that stair-step down the bluff toward the top of an existing shoreline rockery.Flights of stairs will connect the upland landing and the platforms.Pin piles will extend down to firm and non-yielding soils,and concrete,likely formed with sonotubes,will cap the pile tops. Platforms will then be connected to the concrete capped piles. A. COMPRHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW: Type III Review for permit applications require that the hearing examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code,adopted plans and regulations.The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following criteria: 1)The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code,especially Title 6,8 and 16. 2)The development does not impact the public health,safety and welfare and is in the public interest. 3)The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development appears to meet the applicable criteria and does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.It meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code. B. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW: Per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,this proposal requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the cost exceeding$5718.00 per Section 15.09.055(A)of Title 15— Development Code. The applicable Piers and Docks Use Regulations are(Title 17.50 Zoning-Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations): #21.Stairways less than$5000 in value located landward of mean higher high water and less than ten feet waterward of the toe of the bank do not require a Substantial Development Permit. Stairways exceeding$5000 in value located landward of mean hip-her high water and less than ten feet waterward of the toe of the bank require a Substantial Development Permit. Stairways located waterward of the mean higher high water,exceeding$5,0000 in value shall require a Conditional Use Permit. Stairways shall not be located more than ten feet waterward of the toe of the bank. Stairways located waterward of mean higher high water but less than$2500 in value shall require a Conditional Use Permit. 2 \\CLUSTER HOME SERVER\HOME\GBM\sdpstairstaffdoc The proposed stairway is landward of the toe of the bank. The mean higher high tide elevation is 14.4 on Case Inlet which is located on the waterward side of the bulkhead. The one applicable Policy from the Piers and Docks section of the Shoreline regulations(from Chapter IX Shoreline Management Program of the MC Comprehensive Plan): #6—Joint use stairways are preferred over individual stairways. Although the applicant owns both parcels at this time, the stairs are intended for joint use by both parcels. The project was located and designed by geotechnical and civil engineers to withstand changes to the bluff as natural erosion occurs.The components of this project were selected to best blend into the shoreline environment without polluting or having negative impacts. The applicable Residential Development Chapter Regulation(Chapter 17.50)that applies and was referenced within the recommended conditions is#9 which states—"Each shoreline environment has a setback requirement for structures from the OHWM.Uncovered porches,decks or steps may project into the required setback area provided such structures are no higher than 30 inches above average grade excluding railings required for reasons of public safety." Adjacent properties consist of privately owned single family residential lots of similar size to the applicant's property. No access to the beach is available without a stair tower. The location selected will not affect the views of neighboring properties from the upland.As conditioned,the stair should not significantly impact views from users of the shoreline,from the water or from across the inlet. V.CONCLUSION. The proposed staircase is the only option for accessing the shoreline from the property given the topography constraints of the parcel.A Geotechnical Report was prepared for the proposal by E3RA,Inc.,dated 12/23/09.The Geotechnical Report meets Mason County requirements for development on potential landslide hazard areas. Based upon the Comprehensive Plan guidelines and Mason County regulations,the project conforms to the policies and land use regulations of the County's Shoreline Master Program for issuance of a Substantial Development Permit.No public comment letters were received regarding this proposal.The project appears to be consistent with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. Staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions: i. Stair landing that is located at the base of stairs,above bulkhead,shall be limited in size to the dimensions given on this proposed site plan.No expansions or additions will be permitted by Mason County Planning.(per MC Res Dev Use Reg#9). 2. The base landing cannot exceed 30"in height above average grade.(per Res Dev Use Reg#9). 3. The stairs shall be retained for joint-use between the two parcels.The applicant must record a joint use agreement with the deeds for both properties,granting use of the stair tower to owners of both parcels. In addition,the statement to be recorded is to address the recommendations made by the geologist in their report for potential future owners. 3 \\CLUSTER HOME—SERVER\HOME\GBM\sdpstairstaffdoc 4.C1 earing will be limited to the alignment of the stairway which will amount to the removal of brush and saplings along 5 or 6 foot wide pathway.No clearing is planned outside of the stairway alignment.(per Geotechnical Report project description). 5. For slope protection,a hardy(native)vegetative groundcover should be established as soon as feasible, to further protect the gently-sloped from the potential from runoff water erosion.Alternatively, permanent slopes could be armored with quarry spalls or a geosynthetic erosion mat,as recommended within Geotechnical Report. 6. All Recommendations made within the E3RA Geotechnical Report,dated 12/23/09,on pages 6 through 10,for erosion control,pin piles,buffers and setbacks,clearing and grading,drainage,etc.are to be implemented by the applicant as recommended by the geologist. 7. Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter Case Inlet or cause water quality degradation of state waters. 8. During construction,all releases of oils,hydraulic fluids,fuels,other petroleum products,paints, solvents and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state.The cleanup of spills should take precedence over other work on the site. 9. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing,grading,or construction.These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand,silt,clay particles,and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants. 10. Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48,Water Pollution Control,and WAC 173-201A,Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington and is subject to enforcement action. VII. Choice of Action. 1. Approve Shoreline SDP request with conditions. 2. Approve without conditions. 3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). 4. Deny with prejudice(reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year). 5. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with section 15.09.090 of Title 15. 4 \\CLUSTER HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\sdpstairstaff.doc EXHIBITS Permit #SHR2001-00016 Applicant:Richard Funk 1) Staff Report. 2) Shoreline Permit Applications 3) Site Plan,Drawings and Vicinity Maps 4) Public Notice 5) SEPA Determination&comments 6) Geotechnical Report&Engineering. \\CLUSTER HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\sdpstairstaffdoc r -mil P� 1 ^O I MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' Building III-426 west Cedar Street P.O.Box 186, Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670-Ext. 352 SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION \, PERMIT NO. 5o1_oop SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Ic Q r SHORELINE VARIANCE DATE RECEIVED Cy1�i � �I SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE 0,,d rl 3 j 1 d SHORELINE EXEMPTION The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5,718.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals, polices, and performance standards established in the Master Program. Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed development. Incomplete applications will be returned. APPLICANT: � �/`C� ADDRESS: _L)1 tJ A (stree n ' (city), (state) �- f (zip) TELEPHONE: -12.5 s&(— USckk (home) (business) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: �-JarAA-1 C',",5 ut, ADDRESS: (street) (city) (state) (zip) TELEPHONE: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the shoreline): + C, i-r� h—a'cu A_ 'e w, Legal description (include section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude location)-include all parcel numbers: �rJu n a- V� �D �'a.���I�'Vo• iaro�-ya-0005o a.�d APR 2 9 2010 426 W. CEDAR ST. OWNERSHIP: Contract Applicant Owner Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other Owner: J Luh 0 wok i �O GY-o,-D,P—o' ecx-) �M (city) (state) (zip) DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON Development(identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information): 6, , �', n c c -Gi- Q.L - x'{"14-i rcd 1-e T-rek-6 rY1c i cam, w I .11 1 buL-Ak.V-N.a CkrL . Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements: Reason for requesting development: ACKOWLEDGEMENT I hereby declare,to the best of my knowledge and belief, the forgoing information and all attached information is true and correct. (applicant or authorized representative) (date) I:\PLANNINGICHARELL&RENEE/SHORELINEPERMIT.APP REVISED: 01-05-2005 NOTE: NO SETBACK FROM VEGETATED BUFFER AREA OR LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA RECOMMENDED FOR PROPOSED I STAIRWAY. t o, %o rn Q �5 ti N c,Q A / )ti AO W E rn LANDSLIDE HAZARD VEGETATED BUFFEF ROJECT: 462 E Stretch Island Dr S Stretch Island, Washington NOTE: HEET TITLE: Site and Exploration Plan BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE MAPPING PROVIDED TO E3RA AND ESIGNER: CRL JOB NO.TO9108 IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION RAWN BY: CRL SCALE: 1"=60' CONSTITUTE A FIELD SURVEY BY HE KED BY: JEB FIGURE:2 TE: 12/9/09 FILE: T09108.dwg Upper Lip of Bank Lower Lip of Bank A 8'-6" 1� \2'-1" 12'-1 4 15'- ' —14'-6"—> 4' 3 � `� 24'-7" 4' 5'-'OF=0'-5' 1-6-5 T 4'-7" 5-y 7 y8 5'-6" 23' 14'-5 86-5" T 58'-6" View Fr om t he North DECKS by JRW Project: Scale: Funk Plan #: 1 1 S" 5„ Side 4 4 Top to 2x5 View DBL View 17-1 4 5' f—4' 8'-6" OB 4X8 Beam eam X4 Post Tlplcal:Landings 0.1 E•1 F-1 fr-B" o A+d' 5' DBL 17-1" 5' to m to m 4 4' d' 0 8" 4' O �4` DBL Pin Footings In Red Pressure Treated DBL /-4'— All Joists and all posts All other footings 4X4. All Framing materials to 5'-8' 14"X14"X12"deep be HEM-FIR N2 or better. m 2" 8 Min. - DR DBL X 1600 PSF Assumed Soil m Bearing x co 11'-8" -1 m tr�" 2 D-1 Spans Engineered To 50 LB 3DBLco 3 3 Live Load,10 LB Dead Load. All Work to be done In Conformance wRh Current IBC Standards DBL 2 2 aaaaaaassJjFastener note:I.R.C.3199. 4, y Fasteners for Pressure Treated Wood Shall be of Hot Dipped Galvanized Stae1,Stainless Steel,Silicon Bronze or Copper. C,X-3 TOPO! map printed on 12/17/09 from "Untitled.tpo" 1221151,000' W 122050,000' W WGS84 122049.000' W Z j Z o I o r. `t o 0 f 0 o f/fr _ o o ,•+ N d' I t� STMTCt1 POW + •>> t ; nATE PARK l' 4 RIF r + �0 huh + `s i f C 4 o � O � 1 F t}( + / O 0 h 4 -;x 122051.000' W 122050.000' W WGS84 122049.000' W TN MN 0 S 1 MILE 11�4 �000 FEET 0 500 1000 METERS Map created with TOPO!0 @2003 National Geographic(www.nationalgeographic.condtopo) E3RA, Inc. FUNK GEOTECH REPORT PO Box 44840 TOPOGRAPHIC AND LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 Tacoma, WA 98448 T09108 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Page 1 of 1 a-3 d iM ,. i■i�_ 0 http://mapmason.co.mason.wa.us/output/mason_ARCIMS471656005379.jpg 5/13/2010 Page I of 1 3 . f s vcc3 ya,ao17b y2-cc)C� ya,000 9b http://mapmason.co.mason.wa.us/output/mason_ARCIMS471656005365.j pg 5/13/2010 ON SrgTF MASON COUNTY 0 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 ° s" N Planning Division Y ) P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 °° °y (360)427-9670 1864 SHR2001-00016 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that RICHARD FUNK, who is the owner of the described property, has filed an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development of: Sub. Dev. Construct stairs for beach access, to include six landings. All work above bulkhead and OHWM. Site Address: 460 E STRETCH ISLAND RD SOUTH GRAPEVIEW Parcel Number: 121084200050 Location of Project: On Stretch Island. Take Stretch Island Road South. Site is on west side of island just past top of hill (460 E Stretch Island Rd S). Within: SE (quarter section) of Section: 8 Township: 21 N Range: 1 W, W.M. in , Mason County Washington. Said development is proposed within CASE INLET and/or its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P O BOX 279 SHELTON, WA 98584 in writing of their interest. The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-14-020. The final date of publication, posting, or mailing of notice is 5/13/2010. Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the hearing. A public hearing will be held on this permit request. Contact this office at (360)427-9670, ext. 360 for date and time of hearing. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on 5/6/2010 under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments regarding this determination must be received by 5/20/2010. SHR2001-00016 �r7 Raco 1-GGG/(� �LI�IE- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) do hereby certify that I posted 3 copies of the attached on /3---day of Al 20!o in public places as follows: 64 one at . - one at one at ry► 02ooif of % A!t ,. In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day of_ "aA4 20 /a By: Ned Address: Zox�-7:j STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) Subscribed and sworn to me this "7Aay of r . 2016 �\u\1�Ilgltliy�l�i :�40 �0 ON CqA�� 1 a — Notary Publ' r the State of Washington c. Residing at skj-6n �'�►•. o Commission Expires Cam 'C/ Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON I SS. COUNTY OF MASON PUBLIC NOTICE SHR2001-00016 Nlareot Brand ,being first duly sworn NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that RICHARD FUNK,who is the on oath deposes and says that she is the CLERK owner of the described property, has filed an application of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six of: months nor to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in Sub.Dev. P P ,Construct stairs for beach access,to include six landings. the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason All work above bulkhead and OHWM. County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an Site address: 460 E STRETCH ISLAND RD SOUTH office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That GRAPEVIEW Parcel Number:121084200050 the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of Location of Project:On Stretch Island.Take Stretch Island August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said Road South.Site is on west side of island just past top of Mason County. hill(460 E Stretch Island Rd S). Within:SE((quarter section)of Section:8 Township:21 N Range:1 W,W.M.in Mason County Washington That the annexed is a true copy of a PUBLIC NOTICE Said development is proposed within CASE INLET and/or its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express SHR-2001-00016 STAIRS FOR BEACH ACCESS/RICHARD FUNK their view or to be notified of the action taken on the ap- plication should notify: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT 3189 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said P.O.BOX 279 SHELTON,WA 98584 In writing of their interest.The comment period is at least newspaper once each week for a period of TWO 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant consecutive weeks,commencing on the to WAC 173-14-020.The final date of publication,posting, or mailing of notice is 5/13/2010. TH Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the 6 day of MAY 20 10 ,and ending on the hearing. A public hearing will be held on this permit request.Con- 13TH day of MAY ,2010 ,both dates inclusive, tact this office at (360)427 9670, ext. 360 for date and and that such newspaper was re regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of time of hearing. g Y g A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the 5/6/2010 under WAC 197-11-340.Written comments re- garding this determination must be received by 5/20/2010. 3189 5/6,5/13 2t foregoing publication is the sum of$$ 2,25.00 �;,.••-•=:~ 1°��pi�s Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 201�� r Notary ublic in and for the State of Washington ��q. Residing at Shelton,Washington + 4 26 My commission expires ,20 . �x Y Sr-r►�ac c l—c oot�, LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. 4, (Y�-Iisso CACl- �=-- 12— 08—`---001`7 0 1Col � S�Y_e_, �>r � yew 66 23 P�i d D v nlLJ 5 �O i)d Jt _7, GGl1tt.Y� �ww� 2013ok (30 u)A k&I� oN.STArF MASON COUNTY BPS c �f. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT O A U �N > s U = Planning Division ° Y n P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-340) SEP2001-00073 Description of Proposal BUILD STAIRS TO BEACH INCLUDING LANDINGS (6) ALL WORK WILL BE BEHIND THE BULKHEAD. This SEPA was originally issued in 2001. Proponent: RICHARD FUNK Location of Proposal: 460 E STRETCH ISLAND RD SOUTH GRA Parcel Number: 121084200050 Legal Description: TR 5 OF GOVT LOT 6 PCL 3 OF BLA #01-36 S 26/229 Directions to Site: 460 E Stretch Island DR Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. Please contact Grace Miller at ext. 360 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 5/20/2010. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. 41 Authorized Local Government Official bate GcSAc�� MASON CO. ENVIROMENTAL CHECKLIST 5�> A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: j i�id�s i o Aixfiv 2. Name of applicant:_ /?( cH19IZD `vA/G 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 0, t3o x l JD J 6--dmg viccv wX ��s�tG-a�3a *,Z-- 740�_-7'779' 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: '0,4 so.0 Cov vr'Y 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): coa7c� ?�o� 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal: If yes, explain. A/O 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. NIII 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proD APR 2 9 2010 426 W. CEDAR ST, 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Cc.usi'`/tacTro'/ ate' y �> To P of 12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. S�ci � %aa�.Yr�i� � � �?iF.rrQ•�' 1 Ccivsl-flvcyiaw �.ac�)-/oai � s �r/.r��/' sovr�rw��-�,- co�N��2 orr ��a�rY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, the b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? S'r C��aT�ti/L'•sL /1�'o�d�'% C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 2 e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Na,VA f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally describe. /wss1'3tC .4r_ _S;X/1�2 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? dl/ou� h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: /z�2,G3�'/©a� d!}F�R ia1��1 D u/ti,v�- c�c.rrsry2 v c-1-id.% s�rrt�i9cc� Mi�ri rNG �S 2. AIR: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 3 �x s C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any- 3 WATER: a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and providenames.gIf appropriatt�e, state nwhat ?stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 4 �xs 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. YES. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. / ///O b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example; domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals..., agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. C. Water runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters? If so, describe. s'�o/Trr w r�/t ," No c��i�ti�� a eve�r2�z�vT G,v ��v�'�sdRdri�t 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: If so, generally describe. /V/� Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 5 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: SU�l=/�C�� /`T��`T��t/� �'•�i� �/70 s�a�,�?.4�/T/��d?S o U 2/tic c�ivsievcrl� 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? oVoy,� C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 6 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, I on b ir's, other Mammals: dee , bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: ass,E2!�on, trout, herring, �Ilfis , other /J-4- w o 1"Zv b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. /4 C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. Iva C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 7 Qc5 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. w 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any- b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A�7,fi S 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. tv,gf4 cf RIII60/A/G si79/iPf 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Ally Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 8 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. llt'l0 C. Describe any structures on the site. l vy o.t/ ft DJ`�k ciYi!/f' �?RO�Gg�c i�1 e A'V ' O.0 d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? �G e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RR� f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? fl vG7�4 L g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? 02�34,fl h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. /Vd i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? ev/d j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NG/t 4 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/� Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 9 I—X. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 1��rT/NC- USA C- C� 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NO,lar b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. /CJv�C' C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 111114 10. AESTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 14)C-I G-&,r UI; Th G�.4i�ig b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? /U .7,t'� C. Proposed / measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: ✓v//� Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 10 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: IVIX 12. RECREATION: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? _sw,�N�tiG� r3or4ri2�G b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: ////' Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 11 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. / O b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. 114 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. TRANSPORTATION: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. /v C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N,g 4/cf d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Iva Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 12 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. A)J f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project: If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. tiNI111 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. PUBLIC SERVICES: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: 11112 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: A1114 Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 13 16. UTILITIES: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: dV/lam/ b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. /J`X Signature: The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: /> Date submitted: Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 14 ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST Applicant Information Project Information Name I c/y t' Al* Name Phone 7�s" 7.z 7' Location�W f srka eN Zk� wo fro S Description This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs further analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon, trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, "ESA Listed Salmonids" is defined as fish species listed as endangered, threatened or being considered for listing. If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the water shed where your project will be located, your project has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help determine if the ESA listings will impact your project. The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can provide information for the following two questions. 1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located? YES NO Please describe. 2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? YES NO -�- Uncertain Please describe. If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the remainder of this checklist. April 2003 Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 15 PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity. C�x S 1. Name of watershed: C��tIr_ _�rv�<<% /�4�'?T// 4�QY 2. Name of nearest waterbody: J ,#f g 3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: /Qyc�r . Often a buffer between the proiect and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish. 4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland,etc.)? SA,gJ' /�_S ?1240U/Gvs us/4cc-�', 5. Is the project above a: * natural permanent barrier(waterfall) YES NO * natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES NO * man-made barrier(culvert, dam) YES _V NO * other(explain): 6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage? YES NO Don't know 7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement&roof area)? G /O Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 16 FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration. 1. Does the project require the withdrawal of: a. Surface water? YES NO Amount Name of surface water body b. Ground water? YES NO Amount From where Depth of well 2. Will any water be rerouted: YES NO 'C If yes, will this require a channel change? 3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? YES NO If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface water body? If to a surface water discharge, please give the name of the waterbody. 4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES NO Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat. 5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES NO K 6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES NO If yes, describe the changes. 7. Will the project involve any redu of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage c ion of flows? YES NO If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project? Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 17 WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could Adversely impact water quality. Such impacts can cause problems for listed species. Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces,altering water temperature,discharging contaminants,etc. 1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed? YES NO If yes, describe. 2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody? YES NO Removal.of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in shade. 3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants (fertilizers, other waste discharges, or runoff)to the waterbody? YES NO }C 4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of the project? YES NO k In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity. 5. Will your project require long term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for vegetation management,clearing of parking lots? YES NO X If yes,please describe. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 18 VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation, thereby, adversely impacting salmon. 1. Will the project involve th5 removal of any vegetation from the stream banks: YES NO If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed. 2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant? YES NO I <' If yes, what types of plants will you use? Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 19 O j S N, f ITA �y '41 so STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 •Olympia; Washington 98504-7775 •(360)407-6300 711 for Washington Relay Service •Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 May 20, 2010 Grace Miller Mason County Community Development Planning Division PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98485 Dear Ms. Miller: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the Funk—Stairs/Landings to Beach Construction project (SEP2001-00073) located at 460 East Stretch Island Road South in Grapeview as proposed by Richard Funk. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s): WATER QUALITY: Roberta Woods (360) 407-6269 Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, and is subject to enforcement action. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants. Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter waters of the state and buffers or cause water quality degradation of state waters. During construction, all releases of oils, hydraulic fluids, fuels, other petroleum products, paints, solvents, and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state. The cleanup of spills should take precedence over other work on the site. c7X May 20, 2010 Page 2 Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such, they may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate reviewing staff listed above. Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office (SM: 10-2420) cc: Roberta Woods, WQ Richard Funk (Proponent) �ibly GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PARCEL #S 12108-42-00140 AND 12108-42-00052 462 EAST STRETCH ISLAND DR S MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Submitted to: Dick and Patty Funk 9015 172nd Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 Submitted by: _ s r E3RA, Inc. PO Box 44840 Tacoma, WA 98448 l rf5 December 23, 2009 T09-108 r Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Applicant/Owner: Richard Funk Parcel# 12108-42-00140 and 12108-42-00052 Site Address: 462 East Stretch Island Drive South, Grapeview, WA (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s)4, 5, 6 A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s)5, 6 (b) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) 5, 6 (c) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s)4 (d) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s)4 (e) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s)5 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Fig. 2 (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Fig. 2 (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. Located on Map(s) Fig. 2 (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Located on Map(s) Fig. 3 (6) 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 (not applicable), the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1. (Not applicable) and the quasi-static analysis coefficients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) 5, 6, Appendix A (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features Located on page(s) Not applicable (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields Located on page(s) Not Applicable (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) not applicable Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) 7, Figure 2 (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) 7, Figure 2 (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) 7, 8, 9 (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) 7, 8, 9 (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 7, 8 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) 7 (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s)8, 9 (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s) Fig. 2 I, r"ol /%-' hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Report, dated I b3 D and entitled �� dkc4y= Qy��' It s 1114- 41'p0W 4,w /2/4-yl-vOb 5__. meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property an i health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) 0 a sh// 0 �. Engiraer!q;�otopist y 711 ~ Sf?d Geo\o Fred Ernest Rl;nnebaurxl Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................1 2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS................................................................................................2 2.1 Hand Boring Procedures ..........................................................................................3 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................3 3.1 Surface Conditions...................................................................................................3 3.2 Soil Conditions..........................................................................................................4 3.3 Groundwater Conditions...........................................................................................5 3.4 Seismic Conditions...................................................................................................5 3.5 Liquefaction Potential ..............................................................................................5 3.6 Slope Stability Analysis ............................................................................................5 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................6 4.1 Site Preparation........................................................................................................8 4.2 Pin Piles ..................................................................................................................9 5.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES .....................................................................10 6.0 CLOSURE..........................................................................................................................11 List of Tables Table 1. Approximate Locations and Depths of Explorations......................................................................2 Table 2. Estimated Properties of Onsite Soils for Stability Analysis............................................................6 List of Figures Figure 1. Topographic and Location Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Geologic Cross Section A-A' APPENDIX A Soils Classification Chart and Key to Test Data .......................................................................................A-1 Logs of Hand Borings HB-1 and HB-2.............................................................................................A-2...A-3 APPENDIX B Slope Stability Analysis i PO Box 44840 Tacoma WA 98448 253-537-9400 253-537-9401fax E3RA December 23,2009 T09108 Dick and Patty Funk 9015 172nd Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 (425)466-9885 Subject: Geotechnical Report Parcel#'s 12108-42-00140 and 12108-42-00052 462 East Stretch Island Drive South Mason County,Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs.Funk: E3RA is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Report for your two-parcel residential site. The purpose of our Report is to address Title 17 of Mason County Critical Areas Ordinances as they relate to landslide and erosion hazards on the site. Plans call for building a new stairway down a bluff to the shoreline of Case Inlet. Our scope of services is limited to surface observations, subsurface hand borings, geologic research, and letter preparation. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Dick and Patty Funk, and their consultants, for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practice. 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a roughly trapezoidal tract comprised of two adjacent tax parcels that together encompass about 5 acres. The site measures slightly less than 700 feet east to west and slightly more than 300 feet north to south. It is located on east side of Stretch Island on the west shore of the North Bay part of Case Inlet, as shown on our Topographic and Location Map (Figure 1). The site is in an area of residential parcels and open land. Plans call for the construction of new stairway down a steep, approximately 60 foot high bluff that slopes down to the shoreline of Case Inlet. The stairway will be built on the west-central part of the site. It will replace an existing stairway located on the northwest corner of the site. The existing stairway,which was originally based on shallow foundations, was damaged by surficial land sliding and erosion that occurred during the torrential rainfall of early December 2007. After the existing stairway was damaged, it was repaired, but then it was decided that a new stairway, located away from the existing stairway in an area where slopes are can be negotiated and surface water is not likely to flow down the bluff face, should be built. It was also decided that the new stairway should be based on deeper foundations so that if damage occurs to above-grade elements of the new stairway from surFcial land December 23.. 2009 E3RA, Inc. T09108 / Funk Geotechnical Report i sliding/sloughing, it is possible that all or substantial portions of the pin pile foundation would survive, so i that damaged above-grade stairway elements could more easily be rebuilt. The new stairway will consist of an upland landing, based on the top of the steep bluff, and 11 or so platforms,each of which will be supported by pin piles,that stair-step down the bluff toward the top of an I' existing shoreline rockery. Flights of stairs will connect the upland landing and the platforms. Pin piles will extend down to firm and non-yielding soils, and concrete, likely formed with sonotubes, will cap the pile tops. Platforms will then be connected to the concrete-capped piles. The alignment of the stairway will be directed side-hill to the southwest from the upland landing to the uppermost platforms. The alignment will then turn so that it trends directly down slope at a location where the face of the bluff is somewhat less steep than adjacent areas. It is recognized by the owner and by E3RA that the bluff is prone to surface sloughing and shallow landslides and that there can be no guarantee that future instability will not occur after the stairway is constructed and cause damage to the planned structure. Clearing will be limited to the alignment of the stairway, which will amount to the removal brush and saplings along a 5 or 6 foot wide pathway. No clearing is planned outside of the stairway alignment. 2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We observed site conditions on May 21, 2009 and December 7, 2009. Our evaluation program for the project comprised the following elements: • A surface reconnaissance of the site and nearby areas; • Two hand boring explorations;and • A review of published geologic and seismologic maps and literature. Table 1 summarizes the approximate functional locations and termination depths of our probes and Figure 2 depicts their approximate relative locations. TABLE 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF EXPLORATIONS Exploration Functional Location Termination Depth (feet) HB-1 On hillside,within alignment of planned stairway, 15 to 20 feet above shoreline 6 HB-2 On hillside,within alignment of planned stairway, 30 to 40 feet above shoreline 6 It should be realized that the explorations performed and utilized for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time,we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. - 2 December 23, 2009 E3RA, Inc. T09108/ Funk Geotechnica( Report 2.1 Hand Boring Procedures Our exploratory hand boring was advanced with a shovel and 3-inch hand auger by an E3RA geologist. After our hand boring was completed,we backfilled it with excavated soils and tamped the surface. The enclosed Hand Boring Log describes the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in our hand boring, based on our field classification. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our log indicates the average contact depth. Our log also indicates the approximate depth of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the boring. Soils were classified visually in general accordance with the system described in Figure A-1,which includes a key to the exploration logs. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding, surface, soil;groundwater,seismic, liquefaction,and slope conditions. 3.1 Surface Conditions The site can be divided into two topographic areas. The first is gently rolling upland that comprises all but the westernmost part of the site. The second is a steep, approximately 60-foot high bluff that slopes down to the west to the shoreline of Case Inlet. Grades along the bluff vary somewhat. The uppermost part of the bluff is nearly vertical and ranges from 5 to 20 feet in relief. Grades lower along the bluff vary and range from more than 120 percent to about 75 percent. Much of the less steep part of the bluff is covered by loose colluvium. Colluvium is a collection of unconsolidated materials deposited on a bluff face or at the base of a bluff by small landslides,raveling,sloughing,and erosion. Slopes within 300 feet of the site along the bluff to the northeast and southwest are similar to those on site and generally slope down to the Case Inlet at very steep grades. Slopes on the upland within 300 feet of the site are gentle average less than 15 percent. Areas adjacent to the upland have a rolling topography and are gently to moderately sloped with upslope geomorphologic features typical of a rolling glacial till plain. Grades along the bluff in the vicinity of the planned stairway alignment descend nearly vertically from the upland about 5 feet; descend another 15 feet or so at about 100 percent; descend 30 feet or so more at about 75 percent, then descend an additional 10 feet, to the top of the shoreline rockery, at about 100 percent. The shoreline rockery is 5 to 6 feet high and is comprised of boulders that measure three feet or more in size. No shoreline erosion was observed behind the rockery. A residence occupies the southwest part of the site, 50 feet or so from the top of the bluff. An existing stairway is located on the northwest part of the site. As mentioned, this stairway was damaged during early December 2007, when torrential rains plagued the area and caused a small surficial slough/landslide above the stairway and erosion from surface flow over the top of the bluff partially undermined the lower part of the stairway. 3 Flo December 23,2009 E3RA, Inc. T09108/Funk Geotechnical Report The uppermost, nearly vertical parts of the bluff of are bare of vegetation. The areas immediately below vertical areas of the bluff are vegetated with small hardwood saplings, sparse grass, and brush. The lowermost half of the bluff is vegetated with alders and maples that range in size from saplings to almost 2 feet in diameter,with an under story of ferns and other brush. The upland part of the site is vegetated by lawn and pasture grass, scattered firs and madronas, smaller hardwoods, and,near the existing residence,scattered landscape plants. A very small pond or large puddle was observed near the central part of the north boundary area. No other features indicating surface hydrology were observed except near the existing stairway, where surface flow generated during the torrential rains of early December 2007 flowed over the top of slope and eroded a channel just north of the stairway. No seeps, springs, or other surface expressions of groundwater flow were observed. No upland water bodies were observed near the site,outside of the small pond/puddle described above. The Coastal Zone Atlas maps the steep bluff both on and nearby off site as U,Unstable. According to the Atlas, Unstable slopes are considered unstable because of geology, groundwater, slope and/or erosional factors. They include areas of landslides and talus too small or obscure to be individually mapped. The upland portion of the site and nearby areas is mapped by the same source as S, Stable. We observed several areas where small surficial landslides and sloughs have occurred on the bluff face, both on site and on adjacent parcels to the north and south, in the last few decades. The largest of these on site, southwest of the planned stairway alignment, appears to measure tens of yards in volume, while others appear to be less than 10 yards in volume. No global,deep-seated landslides were observed on site or nearby off site. 3_2 Soil Conditions Soils exposed on the upper vertical part of the bluff in the vicinity of the planned stairway consist of medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand with some gravel. Soils exposed in the upper bluff face elsewhere on site consist of medium dense to dense, silty fine sand with interbeds of stiff to hard fine sandy silt. Our two hand borings were conducted within the alignment of the planned stairway in the area where slopes measure about 75 percent. The lower of the two borings,BB-1,augered at a location about 15 feet above the elevation of the top of the shoreline rockery, encountered loose colluvium, comprised of silty fine sand,to the termination depth of the exploration at a depth of 6 feet. The higher of the two borings, HB-2, augered about 35 feet above the elevation of the top of the shoreline rockery, encountered colluvium, comprised of loose, silty fine sand, to a depth of 2 feet underlain by loose to medium dense colluvium, comprised of fine to medium sand with small inter-beds of fine sandy silt, to the termination depth of the exploration at a depth of 6 feet. It is to be expected that the colluvium that mantles the bluff is thinner toward the bluff top and thicker toward the bluff toe. 4 December 23. 2009 E3RA, Inc. T09108/ Funk Geotechnical Report The Coastal Zone Atlas maps the upland part of the site as Qvt, Vashon glacial till, deposited as lodgement till by the last glacier to cover the site. The Coastal Zone Atlas generally maps soils in the steep bluff as Qu, undifferentiated Pleistocene Deposits. These deposits are subdivided into Qva,Vashon advance outwash sand, which comprise the upper 15 feet of the bluff. The lower part of the bluff is mapped as Qps, stratified and non-stratified non-glacial deposits that are similar to Esperence Sand. Esperence Sand is a subcategory of Qva,Vashon Advance Outwash. Our observations of in situ soils exposed in the bluff correspond closely to the mapped stratigraphy in that the soils are generally sandy, with smaller inter-beds of sandy silt and all have been consolidated by over-riding glacial ice (the non glacial deposits underlie the advance outwash, so predate the advance outwash,and,although not glacially deposited,have been glacially over-ridden). Soils within the tidelands,observed during our May reconnaissance,consist of a thin mantle of gravel and sand overlying dense to very dense silty,gravelly sand and hard gravelly sandy silt. Our logs of our recent subsurface explorations are presented in Appendix A and our interpretation of soil stratigraphy is depicted in Geologic Profile A'A'. 33 Groundwater Conditions We did not observe groundwater in our two hand borings nor did we observe seeps or springs along the bluff. Soils within our borings were damp to moist in moisture content. It is possible that perched groundwater forms above silty interbeds within the bluff face, but, as mentioned, no seeps or springs were observed. It is also possible that perched groundwater forms at the base of the bluff near sea level, where it is presumed that the very dense silty sand and hard sandy silt extends inland under sandy bluff soils. 3.4 Seismic Conditions Based on our classification of onsite soils and our review of published geologic maps, we interpret the soil conditions in the vicinity of the planned stairway correspond with class D, as defined by Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). 3.5 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a sudden increase in pore water pressure and a sudden loss of soil shear strength caused by shear strains, as could result from an earthquake. Research has shown that saturated, loose sands with fines (silt and clay) content less than about 20 percent are most susceptible to liquefaction. The loose colluvial soils that mantle the site do not appear to become saturated during the rainy season, and the in situ soils within the bluff are too well consolidated to liquefy. 3_6 Slone Stability Analysis We analyzed the slope stability under selected conditions. The following sections describe our method of analysis and present our results. Besides the actual geometry of the slope, slope stability analyses typically involve five basic slope parameters: (1) location and shape of the potential failure surface, (2) internal friction angle of the various soils, (3) cohesion of the various soils, (4) density of the various soils, and (5) location of the piezometric groundwater surface. Once all five parameters have been estimated, the critical slip surface 5 December23, 2009 ORA, Inc. T09108/Funk Geotechnical Report and associated safety factor of a given slope can be calculated. A critical slip surface is defined as the most likely surface along which a soil mass will slide,and a safety factor is defined as the ratio of the sum of all moments resisting slope movement versus the sum of all moments tending to cause slope movement. Consequently, a slope that possesses a safety factor of 1 is on the verge of sliding, whereas a slope with a safety factor greater than 1 has some resistance to sliding. According to standard geotechnical engineering practice, a static safety factor of 1.5 and a seismic safety factor of 1.1 are considered the desirable minimum values for most slopes, but 1.25 and 1.01, respectively, are often regarded as acceptable values. Slope stability conditions for the project site were analyzed by means of Bishop Circular Analysis. All calculations were performed utilizing the computer program WINSTABLE and are attached in Appendix B. Our site observations indicate that the bluff is comprised of well consolidated sandy soil and, surficial, loose colluvium. Soils in the beach are very dense/hard. In order to model site slopes under the least stable soil condition that our geologic research and field measurements indicate, our measurement of the surface of the slope, measured in the field using a hand-held clinometer,tended to overstate the steepness of the slope face; our estimation of the thickness of the loose colluvial layer, which we could not determine by hand-augering was somewhat thicker than our experience would indicate; and the estimated values of internal friction angle,cohesion,and density are fairly conservative. Because the stairway will be built on pin piles,which their transfer loads to the pile tips,we did not apply a load for the structure. We also did not assign any additional resistance to sliding that piling reinforcement would supply to soils underlying the stairway alignment. Based on the conservative parameters used in our computer model, our analysis yielded a Seismic Factor of Safety Of 0.8 and a Static Factor of Safety of 1.03. Our analysis indicates that the site is globally stable under non-seismic conditions, but could become unstable during a strong earthquake. The slide that could develop during a strong earthquake begins within in situ bluff soils at the top of the bluff and transitions into loose colluvium on the middle and lower parts of the slope. TABLE 2 ESTIMATED PROPERTIES OF ONSITE SOILS FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS Soil Type Density Cohesion Internal Friction Angle (Pcfl (Pso (degrees) Colluvium 110 100 30 In situ bluff soils 120 125 34 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plans call for the construction of a pin-pile supported stairway down to the shoreline. • Landslide Hazards: Based on our conservative slope analysis,which was modeled using a thick layer of loose colluvium,the site is a landslide hazard during a strong earthquake, with the critical slip surface of an earthquake-induced landslide passing largely through loose colluvium. Based on our reconnaissance, geologic mapping, and recent history,the site is prone to surfical land sliding during the rainy season. 6 December 23, 2009 ORA, Inc. T09108/Funk Geotechnical Report Our recommendations for pin piles, presented below, include the driving of pin piles to refusal. It has been our experience that pin piles will not meet refusal within loose colluvial soils like those on site, but will meet refusal within the denser in situ soils that underlie the loose colluvium. Based on this, it is our opinion that the construction of a stairway down the bluff face, based on pin piles driven to refusal, will help to pin a potential landslide block to underlying soils, and would somewhat reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for seismic global instability along the stairway alignment, provided our recommendations are followed. Additionally,numerous pin piles driven along the stairway alignment would likely reduce the potential for sloughing and surficial land sliding, provided our recommendations are followed, because of lateral strength that the piles would supply to the soil. • Erosion Hazards: Surficial soils in the alignment of the planned stairway present an erosion hazard. We recommend that a silt fence be placed just down slope of earthwork activities and remain in place until bare soils created during the planned construction can be re-vegetated. We also recommend that the stairway be built during the dry season, which generally begins in May. An early start during the dry season is preferable, so that vegetation can be planted and established before the rainy season begins. If bare soils due to construction activities persist into the rainy season, we recommend that bare soils be covered temporarily with straw. Specific recommendations for silt fences are provided in the Section 4.1. • Pin Piles: Pin piles should be driven to refusal, which should be at relatively shallow depths on the upslope part of the site, where colluvial soils are likely thinner. Refusal will likely be achieved at deeper depths on down slope part of the stairway alignment, where colluvial soils are likely thicker. The upland landing on the rim of the bluff should also be supported by pin piles that are driven to refusal. Recommendations for pin piles are provided in Section 4. • Buffers and Setbacks: After the stairway is complete, the entire bluff face should be considered a vegetative buffer, and a persistent attempt should be made to keep the bluff face vegetated. We recommend that two publications by the Washington State Department of Ecology, Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation, Publication 93-30, and Vegetation Management.A Guide to Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners, Publication 93-31, be used as guidelines for maintaining the vegetative buffer. Both publications are available online at the Washington State Department of Ecology website. • Bearing Soils: We anticipate that firm bearing soils, in which refusal to pile driving will be met, will be encountered at shallower depths on the upslope part of the bluff, where colluvium is thinner and shallower and deeper near the bluff toe, where colluvium is thicker. Our subsurface explorations indicate that firm soils are deeper than 6 feet in the mid slope and slope toe areas. • Onite and Offsite Impact of Planned Development: Because dozens of pin piles, driven into well consolidated glacially-over ridden soils, will be used to support the stairway, slope stability should improve somewhat along the planned stairway alignment, provided our recommendations are followed. Short term erosion should be controlled in 7 December 23, 2009 ORA, Inc. C T09108/Funk Geotechnical Report accordance with the recommendations provided in the Erosion Hazard paragraph above and in Section 4.1. Long term erosion is best dealt with using the guidelines presented in the two DOE publications cited above. • Clearing and Grading Plan: Based on our observation of the stairway alignment flagged by the owner, no trees will be removed and only minor brush and limb removal will be necessary. Grading will be limited to the small hand excavations necessary to accommodate the concrete pile caps and,possibly,very small hand excavations necessary to provide level platform construction. Site preparation recommendations are provided in Section 4.1. • Feasibility: We recommend that the planned stairway be built, with the understanding that it be viewed as a temporary structure that will likely be damaged at some time by surficial sloughing or by a seismically-induced landslide event,and will likely have to be repaired periodically. Although the foundation of the structure will not eliminate the potential for surficial and seismically induced landslides, it should reduce that potential somewhat. Transfer of Ownership: In the event that ownership of the site is transferred or sold, new owners should be informed that the stairway is a temporary structure that will likely be damaged at some time by surficial sloughing or by a seismically-induced landslide event, and will likely have to be repaired periodically. The following sections present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation and pin piles. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications and Standard Plans cited herein refer to WSDOT publications M41-10, 1996 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, and M21-01, Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction,respectively. 4.1 Site Preparation Preparation of the project site should involve erosion control,temporary drainage,and slope protection. Erosion Control: Before new construction begins, an appropriate erosion control system should be installed. This system should collect and filter all surface water runoff through silt fencing. We anticipate a system of berms and drainage ditches around construction areas will provide an adequate collection system. Silt fencing fabric should meet the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33.2 Table 3. In addition, silt fencing should embed a minimum of 6 inches below existing grade. An erosion control system requires occasional observation and maintenance. Specifically, holes in the filter and areas where the filter has shifted above ground surface should be replaced or repaired as soon as they are identified. All areas of bare soils should be re-vegetated as soon as possible. If bare soils persist into the rainy season,they should be covered with straw until vegetation can be established. Temporary Drainage: We recommend intercepting and diverting any potential sources of surface or near-surface water that might flow over the top of the bluff into the construction zone. Based on our current understanding of the construction plans, surface and subsurface conditions, it appears that surface water generated on the upland will not flow over the top of the bluff. If it is found that upland surface 8 December23, 2009 ORA, Inc. T09108/Funk Geotechnical Report water does flow over the bluff down to the construction area,we anticipate that curbs, berms, or ditches placed on the upland will adequately intercept surface water runoff. Slope Protection: A hardy vegetative groundcover should be established as soon as feasible, to further protect the gently-sloped from the potential from runoff water erosion. Alternatively, permanent slopes could be armored with quarry spalls or a geosynthetic erosion mat. 4.2 Pin Piles Pin piles are planned to support the stairway. The following recommendations and comments are offered for pin pile design and installation purposes. Materials: For relatively low loads, pin piles typically consist of 2-inch-diameter Schedule-80 (2.375-inch O.D.)steel pipe. Individual pipe segments typically range from about 3 to 5 feet long and are successively joined with external threaded couplings, internal slip couplings, or butt welds as pile driving progresses. Corrosion Considerations: Although we did not perform corrosivity tests on the site soils, our experience with similar soils indicates a low probability that the site soils are corrosive to steel. Consequently, we infer that conventional Schedule-80 pipe can be used for pin piles. We recommend the use of galvanized pipe due to the proximity of salt water at this location. Driving Procedures: We tentatively anticipate that the pin piles will first encounter bearing soils, comprised of in situ bluff soils,at fairly shallow depths just below the top of the bluff,but at much greater depths on the down slope part of the stairway alignment,where the overlying loose colluvium is thought to be relatively thick. Piles should be driven to refusal, which is defined as 1 inch or less penetration in 1 minute. However, because refusal depths are difficult to predict and because soil conditions could vary significantly across the site, the contractor should be prepared for variable pile lengths. Also, it may be necessary to modify pile layouts if rocks or other obstructions are encountered during pile-driving. Pile Butt Treatment: When refusal has been achieved, the pile butts can be cut off to a predetermined height or elevation. To provide a good bond between the piles and the concrete pile caps,reinforcing bars with 90-degree bends can be welded to the top of the pile or, alternatively, the top of the pile can be splayed apart. Axial Load Capacities: In our opinion, a properly installed 2-inch-diameter pin pile driven to refusal will provide the following allowable axial capacities. These capacities assume a minimum pile spacing (center to center) of six diameters. Furthermore, the stated uplift capacities would be applicable only to pin piles that are installed with tension-resisting couplings. Design Parameter Allowable Value Static Compressive Capacity 4,000 pounds Transient Compressive Capacity 5,300 pounds Transient Uplift Capacity 2,600 pounds 9 �0(p December 23, 2009 ORA, Inc. T09108/Funk Geotechnical Report i Load Testing: It is possible that Mason County may require load testing in order to verify static compressive pile capacities. Specifically, the county may require load testing of at least 3 percent of all piles installed at the site, with a minimum of one test and a maximum of five tests. If required, all tests must conform to the Quick Load Test Method per ASTM D-1143. Additionally, the county may require that driving of at least one pile be observed and documented to confirm that pile refusal can be met. 5.0 RECONINIENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES Because the future performance and integrity of the structural elements will depend largely on proper site preparation, drainage, fill placement,and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Consequently, we recommend that E3RA be retained to provide the following post-report services: • Review all construction plans and specifications to verify that our design criteria i. . presented in this report have been properly integrated into the design; • Prepare a letter summarizing all review comments(if required by Mason County);and ■ Observe the installation of and provide documentation of some of the pin pile installation; • Prepare a post-construction letter summarizing all field observations, inspections,and test results(if required by Mason County). 10 December 23, 2009 E3RA, Inc. T09108/ Funk Geotechnical Report 6.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we observed for this study; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Also, because the future performance and integrity of the project elements depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. E3RA is available to provide geotechnical monitoring throughout construction. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, e °{ W a shl� E3RA,Inc. �a� 90� ti5 E. B�rC E �y 20540 c�7 711 oQ� '�p.O Sed Geo� L Fred Ernest Rennebaum Fred E. Rennebaum, L.E.G. James E. Brigham, P.E. Senior Geologist Principal Engineer FER:JEB:jb TACO\\Tacoma-server\c\JOB FILES\2009 JOB F1LES\T09108 FUNK GEOTECH\T09108 Funk Mason Report.doc Four copies submitted 11 TOPO! map printed on 12/17/09 from "Untit!ed,tpo" 122051.000' W 122050,000' W WGS84 1221149,000' W r z 0 r / � 0 O j a 00 0 `, 0 ' c SMETCH POINT M= PARK j r o s � • � . '� /� � fit;'' � a o z, •t ,� � '�' �� t 0 R .. M2 Q. ;.;__ tom.• 122051,000, W 122050.000' W WGS84 122049.000' W TN MN 0 S 1 MILE 17' 10 FEET 0 500 1"METERS Map created with TOPO!@ 02003 National Geographic(wwwmationa%po$zaphic.comltopo) MA, Inc. FUNK GEOTECH REPORT PO Box 44840 TOPOGRAPHIC AND LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 Tacoma, WA 98448 T09108 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON APPENDIX A SOILS CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST DATA LOGS OF TEST PITS MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES CLEAN GRAVELS GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES GP -( ° POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES MORE THAN HALF COARSE FRACTION o SILTY GRAVELS,POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-SILT o .N IS LARGER THAN GRAVELS WITH GM MIXTURES 0 a NO.4 SIEVE OVER 15%FINES 04 CLAYEY GRAVELS,POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY Z AA GC MIXTURES x w `m CLEAN SANDS SW WELL GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS S SANDS WITH LITTLE O OR NO FINES SP POORLY GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS MORE THAN HALF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS,POOORLY GRADED SAND-SILT MIXTURES N0.4 SIEVE OVER 15%FINES SC CLAYEY SANDS,POORLY GRADED SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR, ML SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS,OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SILTS AND CLAYS SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, • J !A LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 CL RAVELLY LEAN CLAYS LAYS,SANDY CLAYS,SILTY CLAYS, p a (n a N ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW w v OL = PLASTICITY z w m x INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACIOUS FINE O t MH SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,ELASTIC SILTS z " z SILTS AND CLAYS CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 OH I ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS 8 Modified California RV R-Value ® Split Spoon SA Sieve Analysis Pushed Shelby Tube SW Swell Test m Auger Cuttings TC Cyclic Triaxial ® Grab Sample TX Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Sample Attempt with No Recovery TV Torvane Shear CA Chemical Analysis UC Unconfined Compression CN Consolidation (1.2) (Shear Strength,ksf) CP Compaction WA Wash Analysis DS Direct Shear (20) (with%Passing No.200 Sieve) o PM Permeability Water Level at Time of Drilling Q PP Pocket Penetrometer 1 Water Level after Drilling(with date measured) 'a c� m g SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST DATA z E3RA z Figure A-1 Z z 0 J E3RA, Inc.P.O. Box 44840 BORING NUMBER HB-1 E3RAi��. Tacoma,Washington 98448 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 253-537-9400 Figure A-2 Fax: 253-537-9401 CLIENT Dick and Patty Funk PROJECT NAME Funk Geotech Report PROJECT NUMBER T09108 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County,Washington DATE STARTED 12/7/09 COMPLETED 12/7/09 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY FER CHECKED BY JEB AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES Lower stair alignment; 15 feet above top of rockery breakwall AFTER DRILLING — W }_ X U HW N 2 o CoO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a Qz 0.0 (SM)Light brown silty fine to medium sand(loose,damp to moist)(Colluvium) a t7 zz 0- co O Z Q co pO F 2 U W H O w C7 Y 2 U W 0 2.5 w _J $ SM co J LL m R LLI K W W N 0 O U 77 N O 0 5.0 r N O U' ai Z U' j 6.0 Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet. a H m J Uj W Z W U' Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09108 Stairway 210 200 190- 180 170- 6 7 160 5 150 140 4 130 120 3 g 110 c, Ask 1 100 90 80 70- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09108 Stairway Static - FS Min = 1 .093 210 200- 190 180 170 6 7 160 5 150 bx 140 4 130- 120 3 110 100 1 90 80 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS �C �v E3RA, Inc.P.O. Box 44840 BORING NUMBER HB-2 E3RAI,,, Tacoma,Washington 98448 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 253-537-9400 Figure A-3 Fax: 253-537-9401 CLIENT Dick and Patty Funk PROJECT NAME Funk Geotech Report PROJECT NUMBER T09108 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County Washington DATE STARTED 1217/09 COMPLETED 12/7/09 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY FER CHECKED BY JEB AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES Middle stair alignment 35 feet above top of rockery breakwall AFTER DRILLING — W H ~ m _(� W - O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a� Qz 0.0 (SM) Light brown silty fine to medium sand;somewhat better consolidated below 2 feet(loose,damp to moist) (Colluvium) a O Z O m O Z Q S m O O S U W H O w Y Z 7 LL 0 2.5 0 y J LL o SM m 0 0 m w J LL m U m W y Q 0 O U H fV 0 5.0 N F L7 VJ M F Z_ C7 6.0 Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet. a x m J W 2 W (J Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09108 Stairway Static - FS Min = 1 .093 210- 200 190 180 170- 6 7 160- 5 rt 150- 140- 4 ,.. 130- 120- 3!._ 110._ Aft 100 1 90- 80- 70x;. 0 20 40 60 80 160 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) } Factor of Safety Distribution Histogram a 14n c� c) 12a 10- U 8 6 0 a� 4 2 a� a 0 1 2 3 4 Factor of Safety Values kX(�, result.out PCSTABL6 =� by Purdue University 1 --Slope Stability Analysis-- simplified 7anbu, simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION T09108 Stairway Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 10 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 100.00 50.00 100.00 1 2 50.00 100.00 50.10 106.00 2 3 50.10 106.00 60.00 116.00 2 4 60.00 116.00 100.00 146.00 2 5 100.00 146.00 115.00 161.00 2 6 115.00 161.00 118.00 166.00 1 7 118.00 166.00 200.00 166.00 1 8 50.00 100.00 65.00 100.00 1 9 65.00 100.00 90.00 120.00 1 10 90.00 120.00 115.00 161.00 1 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 110.0 115.0 100.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 Page 1 result.out 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 104.00 2 200.00 104.00 1 A Critical Failure surface Searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 20 surfaces Initiate From Each of 20 Points Equally spaced Along The Ground surface Between x = 0.00 ft. and x = 80.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between x = 85.00 ft. and x = 200.00 ft. unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure surface specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 55.16 108.32 3 59.75 110.31 Page 2 o00000000000000000000000000 rn��000000000000000000000000000 ry Or t Jv U L u1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln _L vro O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a� v-0 N rd 4J 7 V cr L. L O _00000000000000000000000000 . =3 L L to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w 0-0 u c�O CS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O v LL ~v U r � M 4J ^0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L E�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00,6 66 0 0 0 0 0 00,m _� II n 7001DN0OM(�Olr-Ir-I0r�NL1r\lomr�mw0 N L.LZu Q1 Ln M�/'�00 r1 tO r-i N u1 M N r-4 rV M Ln 00 rV LD rl r-,o rd v . . . ... CL LN�t.0M �t.0MNLnM c} r"C)It �q�t1.p lO L �OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0000000o0o00 rl H H ri N N fV fV M M m�• 'fir•Ln Ln LnlQ lO �• r4r-ir4`'-4r-4rq'4'-ice'-Ir1'-Ir-I -Ir1r"Ir•I`-ir•Irl t GJ V+-+�000000000000000000000000000 00 is i-J i-J L O r- M is rb O 00 I is O 3 LL O II m L. a) r10 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 010rnlONM000pNrIMO1O1N0pr�OLnMIO M NooNk.00MLr1r,M00a1cot��rloomooM x O 0O�000000000000000000000000000 •OOMr�NlDO'chOOrnr�64OONLO0)mLOr� 4-J 3 LL �DlO1�f�W 00 M 0)M00r-IrIr-iNNNMMM Q r1 r- -1 r•i r•i r1 r-1 r-I r1 H rl H r-I L :3 N _0 i••I nN—00 M,�N M Ln lO 00 00�'N M'-i L•1'cr r-{rV O rV N M 00 rN rl r-i r t rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . O > M-0a)L1'to re)rnrIMNOa1Ntllr,lO tMrIrPfIOrjr-iL10mr�"N it •r •rror"rnm000u1NNtnOONtnIOION0rg0H00loP�a)L1O0 U i� OJur-or-IOICON000ML1r�',t'tL1LnlOr-IulNcr1.0LnO)mr�N 3 rV rVMI tLr)u-)LnLrlNM kDr,r, lOrlr,L'1ChNrl dun lO r-00 O)0 rI N Mzt Ln lO r-,0o 010 rI N m r ~ -ir-Ir•Ir"IHrlrlrlrir-irgrgr,4rV V L t/'1lDCOMM Le)111zj-VMMNI�'CYrIOOOOIrlor,0Or,lDIDL)H {r J}.I V 0��1'cY0'ch��hd' •a'�c}'rlrVrlMI•d•'MOMOMMMMr1'1r1 3 N U •r Or-INM't-' Or-MM0rjNM-,�-Lt.0r-WM0rINM•zl-L1lOr, r- Z rlrlr- rHHr-IHr- r-{r-INNNNNNNN N result.out Failure Surface specified By 19 coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 58.95 114.94 2 63.52 116.97 3 68.03 119.12 4 72.48 121.40 5 76.87 123.79 6 81.20 126.30 7 85.45 128.93 8 89.63 131.67 9 93.74 134.52 10 97.77 137.48 11 101.71 140.55 12 105.58 143.73 13 109.35 147.01 14 113.04 150.39 15 116.63 153.86 16 120.13 157.44 17 123. 53 161.10 18 126.83 164.86 19 127.78 166.00 circle center At X = -14.1 ; Y = 285.3 and Radius, 185.4 1.129 1 Failure surface specified By 22 coordinate Points Point X-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 54.74 110.68 2 59.62 111.75 3 64.46 113.00 4 69.25 114.44 5 73.98 116.06 6 78.65 117.86 7 83.24 119.83 8 87.76 121.98 9 92.19 124.29 10 96.53 126.78 11 100.77 129.43 12 104.91 132.23 13 108.93 135.20 14 112.85 138.31 15 116.64 141.57 16 120.30 144.97 17 123.83 148.51 18 127.22 152.19 19 130.47 155.99 20 133.58 159.91 21 136.53 163.94 Page 4 result.out 22 137.92 166.00 Circle Center At x = 29.2 ; Y = 239.3 and Radius, 131.1 1.130 Failure surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.26 100.00 2 30.20 99.17 3 35.18 98.75 4 40.18 98.74 5 45.16 99.12 6 50.10 99.92 7 54.95 101.11 8 59.70 102.69 9 64.30 104.65 10 68.72 106.98 11 72.94 109.66 12 76.93 112.67 13 80.66 116.00 14 84.11 119.62 15 87.26 123.51 16 90.08 127.64 17 92. 55 131.99 18 94.66 136.52 19 96.40 141.21 20 97.14 143.86 Circle Center At X = 37.9 ; Y = 160.1 and Radius, 61.4 -�� 1.150 1 Failure Surface Specified By 30 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.05 100.00 2 26.02 99.40 3 31.00 99.04 4 36.00 98.91 5 41.00 99.02 6 45.99 99.37 7 50.96 99.95 8 55.89 100.77 9 60.78 101.81 10 65.61 103.09 11 70.38 104.60 Page 5 result.out 12 75.07 106.32 13 79.68 108.27 14 84.18 110.44 15 88. 58 112.81 16 92.87 115.39 17 97.02 118.17 18 101.04 121.14 19 104.92 124.30 20 108.64 127.64 21 112.20 131.15 22 115.59 134.83 23 118.80 138.66 24 121.83 142.64 25 124.66 146.76 26 127.30 151.01 27 129.73 155.38 28 131.96 159.85 29 133.97 164.43 30 134.57 166.00 circle center At x = 36.2 ; Y = 204.6 and Radius, 105.7 1.161 Failure Surface specified By 26 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.05 100.00 2 25.99 99.23 3 30.97 98.76 4 35.97 98.62 5 40.97 98.78 6 45.94 99.26 7 50.88 100.06 8 55.76 101.16 9 60.55 102.57 10 65.25 104.27 11 69.84 106.27 12 74.29 108.55 13 78.58 111.11 14 82.71 113.93 15 86.65 117.01 16 90.39 120.33 17 93.91 123.88 18 97.21 127.64 19 100.26 131.60 20 103.05 135.75 21 105.58 140.06 22 107.83 144.53 23 109.80 149.12 24 111.47 153.84 25 112.84 158.64 26 112.90 158.90 circle center At x = 35.8 ; Y = 178.0 and Radius, 79.4 Page 6 result.out 1.166 1 Failure surface Specified By 16 coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50. 53 106.43 2 55. 51 106.84 3 60.44 107.69 4 65.26 108.99 5 69.95 110.72 6 74.47 112.88 7 78.77 115.43 8 82.81 118.37 9 86. 58 121.66 10 90.03 125.27 11 93.14 129.19 12 95.87 133.38 13 98.22 137.79 14 100.16 142.40 15 101.66 147.17 16 101.80 147.80 circle center At X = 48.6 ; Y = 161.3 and Radius, 54.9 1.174 Failure surface specified By 15 coordinate Points Point X-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 71.58 124.68 2 76.49 125.64 3 81.29 127.02 4 85.96 128.80 5 90.47 130.98 6 94.77 133. 53 7 98.83 136.44 8 102.64 139.69 9 106.15 143.25 10 109.34 147.09 11 112.19 151.20 12 114.69 155. 53 13 116.80 160.07 14 118. 52 164.76 15 118.85 166.00 circle center At X = 62.8 ; Y = 182.5 and Radius, 58.4 Page 7 result.out 1.175 1 Failure surface specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point X-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.90 100.00 2 42.82 99.14 3 47.81 98.89 4 52.80 99.26 5 57.70 100.24 6 62.45 101.81 7 66.97 103.96 8 71.19 106.64 9 75.05 109.82 10 78.48 113.45 11 81.45 117.47 12 83.90 121.83 13 85.79 126.46 14 87.11 131.28 15 87.82 136.23 16 87.83 136.87 Circle Center At X = 47.3 ; Y = 139.5 and Radius, 40.6 1.189 -** Failure surface specified By 17 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 71. 58 124.68 2 76. 54 125.31 3 81.45 126.24 4 86.30 127.47 5 91.06 129.01 6 95.71 130.84 7 100.24 132.96 8 104.62 135.36 9 108.85 138.03 10 112.90 140.96 11 116.76 144.14 12 120.41 147.56 13 123.85 151.19 14 127.04 155.03 15 130.00 159.07 16 132.69 163.28 17 134.19 166.00 Circle Center At X = 64.2 ; Y = 204.1 and Radius, 79.8 Page 8 result.out 1.198 1 Y A X I s F T 0.00 36.52 73.04 109. 56 146.08 182.60 X 0.00 +---------+---------+------*w-+---------+---------+ 5 4 4 36.52 + . . . . . . .4 4 - . . . . . . . .9471 . . . . . . . . . .4712* . . . . . . . . .*5471.2 A 73.04 + . . . . . . . . . . .547128. - . . . . . . . . . . . .543122. - . . . . . . . . . . . .56631299 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55*3122. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. .11424* - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55331227. X 109.56 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55311266. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5331226** - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5511.228 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 I 146.08 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 182.60 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - w . . . . . 219.12 + F 255.64 + T 292.16 + Page 9 Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09108 Stairway Seismic - FS Min a 0.829 210- 200 190- 180- 170- 7 6 ..0...,,M. ,. r . 160- 5 F cry 150 � 140- 4 130 120 _ .. 3 110- R. 100A `�v1 90 80- 70 . 0 20 40 60 80 160 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09108 Stairway Seismic - FS Min = 0.829 210_ 200 190_. 180 170 7 160 5 a � 150- 'I 140- 130 �r 120 ' 3 � 110 ^ w 1 90- 80- 70- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) Factor of Safety Distribution Histogram 4 a� 12 0 10- o � a. 81 c� 6- 0 a� 4a c � 2- ^L, W o- I 1 2 Factor of Safety Values kx6 result.out PCSTABL6 by Purdue University 1 --Slope Stability Analysis-- simplified 7anbu, simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION T09108 stairway seismic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 10 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 100.00 50.00 100.00 1 2 50.00 100.00 50.10 106.00 2 3 50.10 106.00 60.00 116.00 2 4 60.00 116.00 100.00 146.00 2 5 100.00 146.00 115.00 161.00 2 6 115.00 161.00 118.00 166.00 1 7 118.00 166.00 200.00 166.00 1 8 50.00 100.00 65.00 100.00 1 9 65.00 100.00 90.00 120.00 1 10 90.00 120.00 115.00 161.00 1 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 110.0 115.0 100.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 Page 1 result.out 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 104.00 2 200.00 104.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 (psf) 1 A Critical Failure surface searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been specified. 400 Trial surfaces Have Been Generated. 20 surfaces Initiate From Each of 20 Points Equally spaced Along The Ground surface Between x = 0.00 ft. and X = 80.00 ft. Each surface Terminates Between x = 85.00 ft. and x = 200.00 ft. unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most critical Of The Trial Failure surfaces Examined. They Are ordered - Most Critical First. * safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Page 2 result.out Failure surface specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 55.16 108.32 3 59.75 110.31 4 64.29 112.38 5 68.80 114.56 6 73.25 116.82 7 77.66 119.18 8 82.02 121.63 9 86.33 124.17 10 90. 58 126.79 11 94.78 129.51 12 98.92 132.31 13 103.01 135.20 14 107.03 138.17 15 110.99 141.22 16 114.89 144.35 17 118.72 147.57 18 122.48 150.86 19 126.17 154.23 20 129.80 157.67 21 133.35 161.19 22 136.83 164.78 23 137.96 166.00 Circle Center At X = -38.4 ; Y = 331.0 and Radius, 241.5 0.829 Individual data on the 27 slices water water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force surcharge slice width weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.6 709.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.4 0.0 0.0 2 4.6 2075.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 311.4 0.0 0.0 3 0.3 154.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 4 4.3 2930.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 439.6 0.0 0.0 5 4.5 3683.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 552.6 0.0 0.0 6 4.5 4205.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 630.8 0.0 0.0 7 4.4 4651.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 697.7 0.0 0.0 8 4.4 5023.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 753.5 0.0 0.0 9 4.3 5322.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 798.4 0.0 0.0 10 4.3 5550.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 832.6 0.0 0.0 11 4.2 5709.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 856.4 0.0 0.0 12 1.7 2402.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 360.4 0.0 0.0 13 2.4 3425.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 513.9 0.0 0.0 14 1.1 1557.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 233.6 0.0 0.0 15 3.0 4566.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 685.0 0.0 0.0 16 4.0 6664.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 999.7 0.0 0.0 17 4.0 7128.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1069.2 0.0 0.0 Page 3 result.out 18 3.9 7501.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1125.2 0.0 0.0 19 0.1 225.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 0.0 0.0 20 3.0 6406.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 960.9 0.0 0.0 21 0.7 1612.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 241.8 0.0 0.0 22 3.8 7581.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1137.2 0.0 0.0 23 3.7 5965.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 894.9 0.0 0.0 24 3.6 4370.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 655. 5 0.0 0.0 25 3.6 2799.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 419.9 0.0 0.0 26 3.5 1257.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 188.6 0.0 0.0 27 1.1 82.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 Failure surface specified By 22 coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 54. 74 110.68 2 59.62 111.75 3 64.46 113.00 4 69.25 114.44 5 73.98 116.06 6 78.65 117.86 7 83.24 119.83 8 87.76 121.98 9 92.19 124.29 10 96. 53 126.78 11 100.77 129.43 12 104.91 132.23 13 108.93 135.20 14 112.85 138.31 15 116.64 141.57 16 120.30 144.97 17 123.83 148.51 18 127.22 152.19 19 130.47 155.99 20 133.58 159.91 21 136. 53 163.94 22 137.92 166.00 circle center At x = 29.2 ; Y = 239.3 and Radius, 131.1 0.863 1 Failure surface specified By 19 coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 58.95 114.94 2 63.52 116.97 3 68.03 119.12 4 72.48 121.40 5 76.87 123.79 6 81.20 126.30 7 85.45 128.93 8 89.63 131.67 Page 4 result.out 9 93.74 134.52 10 97.77 137.48 11 101.71 140. 55 12 105. 58 143.73 13 109.35 147.01 14 113.04 150.39 15 116.63 153.86 16 120.13 157.44 17 123.53 161.10 18 126.83 164.86 19 127.78 166.00 circle center At x = -14.1 ; Y = 285.3 and Radius, 185.4 0.874 Failure surface specified By 30 coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.05 100.00 2 26.02 99.40 3 31.00 99.04 4 36.00 98.91 5 41.00 99.02 6 45.99 99.37 7 50.96 99.95 8 55.89 100.77 9 60.78 101.81 10 65.61 103.09 11 70.38 104.60 12 75.07 106.32 13 79.68 108.27 14 84.18 110.44 15 88.58 112.81 16 92.87 115.39 17 97.02 118.17 18 101.04 121.14 19 104.92 124.30 20 108.64 127.64 21 112.20 131.15 22 115.59 134.83 23 118.80 138.66 24 121.83 142.64 25 124.66 146.76 26 127.30 151.01 27 129.73 155.38 28 131.96 159.85 29 133.97 164.43 30 134.57 166.00 circle center At x = 36.2 ; Y = 204.6 and Radius, 105.7 0.902 Page 5 result.out 1 Failure surface specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.26 100.00 2 30.20 99.17 3 35.18 98.75 4 40.18 98.74 5 45.16 99.12 6 50.10 99.92 7 54.95 101.11 8 59.70 102.69 9 64.30 104.65 10 68.72 106.98 11 72.94 109.66 12 76.93 112.67 13 80.66 116.00 14 84.11 119.62 15 87.2-6 123.51 16 90.08 127.64 17 92. 55 131.99 18 94.66 136.52 19 96.40 141.21 20 97.14 143.86 Circle Center At x = 37.9 ; Y = 160.1 and Radius, 61.4 0.903 Failure surface specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.05 100.00 2 25.99 99.23 3 30.97 98.76 4 35.97 98.62 5 40.97 98.78 6 45.94 99.26 7 50.88 100.06 8 55.76 101.16 9 60.55 102. 57 10 65.25 104.27 11 69.84 106.27 12 74.29 108. 55 13 78.58 111.11 14 82.71 113.93 15 86.65 117.01 16 90.39 120.33 17 93.91 123.88 18 97.21 127.64 19 100.26 131.60 Page 6 result.out 20 103.05 135.7S 21 105. 58 140.06 22 107.83 144.53 23 109.80 149.12 24 111.47 153.84 25 112.84 158.64 26 112.90 158.90 Circle Center At x = 35.8 ; Y = 178.0 and Radius, 79.4 0.908 1 Failure surface specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 54.74 110.68 2 59.07 113.17 3 63.39 115.70 4 67.69 118.25 5 71.96 120.85 6 76.21 123.48 7 80.44 126.14 8 84.65 128.84 9 88.84 131.58 10 93.00 134.34 11 97.15 137.15 12 101.26 139.98 13 105.36 142.85 14 109.43 145.75 15 113.47 148.69 16 117.50 151.66 17 121.49 154.66 18 125.47 157.70 19 129.42 160.77 20 133.34 163.87 21 135.99 166.00 Circle Center At x = -245.6 ; Y = 639.2 and Radius, 607.8 0.915 Failure surface specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 55. 51 106.84 3 60.44 107.69 4 65.26 108.99 Page 7 result.out 5 69.95 110.72 6 74.47 112.88 7 78.77 115.43 8 82.81 118.37 9 86.58 121.66 10 90.03 125.27 11 93.14 129.19 12 95.87 133.38 13 98.22 137.79 14 100.16 142.40 15 101.66 147.17 16 101.80 147.80 circle center At x = 48.6 ; Y = 161.3 and Radius, 54.9 0.919 1 Failure Surface Specified By 24 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 54.83 108.98 3 59.12 111.54 4 63.41 114.12 5 67.69 116.71 6 71.95 119.31 7 76.21 121.93 8 80.47 124.56 9 84.71 127.20 10 88.94 129.86 11 93.17 132.54 12 97.38 135.22 13 101.59 137.93 14 105.79 140.64 15 109.98 143.37 16 114.16 146.11 17 118.33 148.87 18 122.50 151.64 19 126.65 154.42 20 130.79 157.22 21 134.93 160.03 22 139.06 162.85 23 143.17 165.69 24 143.62 166.00 circle center At x = -723.8 ; Y = 1419.1 and Radius, 1524.0 0.920 �� Failure Surface Specified By 15 coordinate Points Page 8 Ex(0 result.out Point x-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 71.58 124.68 2 76.49 125.64 3 81.29 127.02 4 85.96 128.80 5 90.47 130.98 6 94.77 133.53 7 98.83 136.44 8 102.64 139.69 9 106.15 143.25 10 109.34 147.09 11 112.19 151.20 12 114.69 155.53 13 116.80 160.07 14 118. 52 164.76 15 118.85 166.00 circle center At X = 62.8 ; Y = 182.5 and Radius, 58.4 0.924 1 Y A X I 5 F T 0.00 36.52 73.04 109. 56 146.08 182.60 x 0.00 +---------+---------+------*w-+---------+---------+ . . . .4 . . . .4 . . . . . .4 36.52 + . . . . . . .4 - . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . .481 - . . . . . . . . . .4812* . . . . . . . . .*458173 A 73.04 + . . . . . . . . . . .458130. - . . . . . . . . . . . .452133. - . . . . . . . . . . . .466213. - . . . . . . . . . . . . .44*2133. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. .11535* - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44221338. X 109.56 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44211366. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4221336* - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44117330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41173 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 I 146.08 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 result.out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s 182.60 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - w 219.12 + F 255.64 + T 292.16 + Page 10 70 ! ! A' (WEST) 70 60 I �I ! I 60 ESTIMATED IJIN PILE 50 II LOCATI❑NS 4TYP,) HB-2 1 50 \ I 40 MEDIUM I DE T I II 40 �SE ❑ DEN E - ---_ I i II ! 30 FINE TO MEDIUM SILTY I S_ �I FINE SAND ER SILT I 120 PCF C=25 34° � \ � � � � 30 20 I � I CO L VIUM I I C=10 3001 11 20 10 E TIMATED C NTACT LIN 10 p 20 40 I v 0 60 80 100 120 E3RAPROJECT: 462 E Stretch Island I n C. Stretch Dr S 10 0 Island, Washington 10 20 201 - 160th St. S SHEET TITLE: Geologic Profile Suite 401 SCALE IN FEET Tacoma, WA 98444 DESIGNER: CRL 253-537-9400 JOB NO.T09108 253-537-9401 fax DRAWN BY: CRL SCALE: IIf=10, CHECKED BY: JEB FIGURE:3 www.e3ra.com DATE: 12�9i09 FILE: T09108.dwg H O W E ENGINEERING CONSULTING ENGINEERS 145 Wapato Way, Unit 4 - P. O, Box 441 - Manson, WA 98831 (509) 687-3350 - Fax: (509) 687-3353 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND DETAILS FOR FUNK STAIR MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1010 0F WAS rc 'r REg S'i R� O�S�ONAL�� FEBRUARY 25, 2010 I SUBJECT HOWE ENGINEERING - JOB Na /U/D CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 a5 WAPATO WAY,UNIT 4 • P.O, BOX 44 JOB Ntl/1lt -r.�i�� MAN90N, WA9NINOTON 90631 B y -SUEET NO. or _i I •. .i G / .y J � . ..i 1 i.: . J cI�..J: ...�f f,I ir1' 1 •C �/fr N�I.�.I7t .. ._c .. ' _ _. . .1. ... .. , ' .. I , ..._. Imo]; ;,; .•.y r ... .. :•.: - _' 1 .r ( r• 4-4 i '•• ' .�-• i 1. L/1 -�•; •�- .r_.. _ .�-.;, •{j.-.1�Le:f .r...r.../.. � � ... _.y.... :}.:.,.xf�..�••-'�•. ter...:_ _� '. ....e...:.!». '.1 ;..... .; .'... .:. �-;.:_I_-�._;-_ .. ••1 .i. , 1.- 1. .1...;._...i-._....1.. ..1.._� _. ._r., 1 -�•••r.l..-' .I.._I._•....1 .J. _. 1 i ' 1 1 _'• HOWE ENGINEERING SUBJECT JOB NO,�O ✓ Q DA74 CONSULTING ENGINEERS ����/� I R 5 WAPATL7 WAY, UNIT 4 • p JOB NAME_/-- 0. BOX 44 i MAN60N, WAS HI N OTON 919 e3 i BY� SNEb V0. OF - , • 1 :,.. I ' I.• - ._ •;a `-Tr , I L : I 1 1 1' �.0 I . ..i•. .:� .—r•• •.•, - .. ... _. _'- ..ram, .. , :.r., .•. •.�;• • :..:.;.. I ; .hl,'C`•1'p.4t1,11:�•�!'•� .•Y� UMW i,. . .. - . .!. ' .; •.•� •.--•• ••ram':-..- .. .i.M_� ,�..'_ .. _ i._�:• . .��. . .:.�'- 1 5-- - .. ,i�. .': .,. •�_•. ; 1 •:. .. .•....: - •.n.....:_: .Jt..:. � - .. v a —, �. I I I I- •I L• .I.