The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit Building 2005-9-26 , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ~ Status Issued Building/Combination Permit PERMIT NO: COM2005-00720 ISSUED: 09/26/2005 APPLIED: 06/13/2005 EXPIRES: 03/26/2006 VALUE: $ 257,214.00 ;) 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR , 541-726-3753 Phone ' 541-726-3676 Fax 541-726-3769 Inspection Line SITE ADDRESS: 777 S 47th PI ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 1802051103300 Springfield TYPE OF WORK: Single Family Residence TYPE OF USE: New \' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Single family residence-Rocky Road.~,~bd lot 30,.. " Residential Owner: Address: i Contractor Type ., General Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Contractor BUTTE CONSTRUCTION CO BOB FISHER ELECTRIC INC CRYSTAL CLEAN AIR INC RS PLUMBING CONTRACTING NOTICE- Phone Number: 541-607-0965 HIS PERM\T SHAll EXPIRE IF THE WORK , ~ UTHep'7~n IINQfR THIS PERMIT IS NOT , ~~~BANDUNtUrUn I CONTRACT(t):R' I\I~ . License Expiration Date 140681 02107/2006 96275 01125/2006 96878 02/17/2007 103816 01104/2006 Phone 541-607-0965 541-689-7973 541-484.2286 541-461-4714 BUTTE CONSTRUCTION CO PO BOX 41033 EUGENE OR 97404 , " I BUILDING INFORMATION I # of Units: , Primary Occupancy Group: Secondary Occupancy Group: Primary Construction Type Secondary Construction Type: # of Bedrooms: 3 # of Stories: 2 Lot Size: Height of Structure 24.00 Sq Ft Ist Floor: Type of Heat: A TlfQ:IJ\ie.<f0lir: ~~go~fl1I}~N~ ibu to Water Type: follow rules a~~ted ~9 Nf~mJ52Utilih! Range Type: 1\1. otificationJ!{!,~t'fffi'. Thl.f _'G~~~acil~~~wgHh Energy Path: in OAR 952-cf~tJb~1 0 t 'F (j{ ~R' S . kI dB 'ld' 0/ Iilln QJ:\2-001- prm e UI 10gb You ma ~bt' cc an oalf:' vVv . am cop' S 0 e rules bv I DEVELOPMENT INFQiMA,.io~. :",.nter. (Note:. ~he telephone . Oregon Ut"ltY~fuU~imlPARKING Center is 1.-800-332-2344). Overlay Dist: Total: 2 # Street Trees Rqd: 2 Handicapped: Paved Drive Rqd: Yes Compact: % of Lot Coverage: 29.10 7,280 1,196 1,148 1 R-3 U VN 782 192 Frontyard Setback: Side 1 Setback: Side 2 Setback: Rearyard Setback: Solar Setbacks: 20.00 5.00 5.00 39.00 10.00 Subdivision Not Accepted Street Improvements: Storm Sewer Available: Special Instruction: I PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS I Fully Improved Yes Sidewalk Type: Downspouts/Drains: Curbside 5' Curb and Gutter Notes: No hook-up to City Infrastructure until Public Improvements accepted by the City; Storm drainage iped to curb face 6/17/2005 CAS Pae:e 1 of 4 Status Issued CITY OF SPRINGFIELD Building/Combination Permit PERMIT NO: COM2005-00720 ISSUED: 09/26/2005 APPLIED: 06/13/2005 EXPIRES: 03/26/2006 VALUE: $ 257,214.00 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 541-726-3753 Phone 541-726-3676 Fax 541-726-3769 Inspection Line I Valuation Description I A.C. - Residen Deck/Balconv Dwelline:s Garae:e AC - Residential Deck V Wood Frame Garae:e $ Per Sq Ft or multiplier $4.00 $17.00 $96.00 $25.00 Square Footage or Bid Amount 2,344.00 192.00 2,344.00 782.00 Value Date Calculated Description Tvpe of Construction Total Value of Project $9,376.00 $3,264.00 $225,024.00 $19,550.00 $257,214.00 08/12/2005 08/1212005 08/12/2005 08/12/2005 ~ Fee Description Amount Paid Date Paid Receipt Number Plan Review Residential $648.64 6/13/05 1200500000000000826 -Mechanical Issuance Fee- $10.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 + 10% Administrative Fee $173.42 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 + 7% State Surcharge $121.39 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 3 Baths One & Two Family $306.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Addressing Assignment $31.00 9126/05 2200500000000001332 Appliance Not Listed $27.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Building Permit $1,079.15 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Curbcut Permit $80.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Dryer Vent $6.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Exhaust Hoods $9.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Furnace - up to 100,000 btu $12.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Gas Fireplace $15.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Gas Outlets 1-4 $4.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Gas Outlets 4+ $1.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Plan Review Major - Planning $103.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Plan Review Residential $52.81 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 PW Disc - 2nd Permit (Street) $-30.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Residence Wiring 1000 Sq Ft $106.00 9126/05 2200500000000001332 Residence Wiring Ea Addtl 500 $95.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Sanitary Sewer - Improvement $420.44 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Sanitary Sewer - Reimbursement $552.92 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 SDC MWMC Administration $10.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 SDC MWMC Improvement $865.31 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 SDC MWMC Reimbursement $82.03 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 SDC Sanitary/Storm Admin $144.56 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 SDC Transpo Admin $61.70 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 SDC Transpo Improvement $772.49 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 SDC Transpo Reimbursement $175.13 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Sidewalk Permit $80.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Storm Drainage Impervious Area $1,246.82 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Storm Sewer Each Addtll00' $56.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Vent Fan $18.00 9/26/05 2200500000000001332 Pae:e 2 of 4 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD' Building/Combination Permit- PERMIT NO: COM2005-00720 ISSUED: 09/26/2005 APPLIED: 06/1312005 EXPIRES: 03/26/2006 VALUE: $ 257,214.00 Status Issued 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 541-726-3753 Phone 541-726-3676 Fax 541-726-3769 Inspection Line Willamalane Single Family 9/26/05 $1,000.00 Total Amount Paid $8,335.81 I Plan Reviews' Initial Review Plannin~ Review 06/15/2005 06/15/2005 SKG TAJ 06/15/2005 06/22/2005 APP APP Public Works Review 06/15/2005 06/17/2005 APP CAS Structural Review 08/01/2005 JB 08/04/2005 WE Structural Review 08/09/2005 08/12/2005 APP JB 2200500000000001332 1. Needs a survey because of minimum side setbacks. 2. Choose street trees from the list on Exhibit B for trees outside the Hillside District attached to the street tree handout. No hook-up to City Infrastructure until Public Improvements accepted by the City; storm drainage piped to curb face 6/17/2005 CAS Plans actually sent to Jason on 6/16/2006 and put on hold 6/20/2005. Hold entry was not made in computer so I entered the correct amount of working days in August to compensate for the time they wen being reviewed. Discussed issues with Owen Grover. Stressed importance of all issues. Approved as noted on plans To Request an inspection call the 24 hour recording at 726-3769. All inspection requested before 7:00 a.m. will be made the same working day, inspections requested after 7:00 a.m. will be made the following work day. lJeouire~nsnections I Erosion/Grading Inspection: Prior to ground disturbance and after erosion measures are installed. Sidewalk - Curbside: After forms are erected but prior to placement of concrete. Curbcut - Standard: After forms are erected but prior to placement of concrete. Ufer Electrical Ground: Install ground rod at footing and call for inspection in conjunction with footing and/or foundation inspection. Footing: After trenches are excavated. Foundation: After forms are erected but prior to concrete placement. Post and Beam: Prior to floor insulation or decking. Floor Insulation: Prior to decking. Shear Wall Nailing: Before covering sheathing with finish materials. Pae:e 3 of 4 ._~~!!~,,~Jl)!~~J' 'Ji ~~. 'CITY OF S.l'K11~GFIELD ' Building/Combination Permit Status Issued' PERMIT NO: COM2005-00720 ISSUED: ' 09/26/2005 APPLIED: 06/13/2005 EXPIRES: 03/26/2006 VALUE: $ 257,214.00 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 541-726-3753 Phone 541-726-3676 Fax 541-726-3769 Inspection Line Framing Inspection: Prior to cover and after all rough in inspections have been approved. .! Wall Insulation: Prior to cover. Ceiling Insulation: p'riorto cover. Drywall: Prior to taping. 'Special: See Plan Reviewer or Inspectors Notes for specific requirements. Final Building: After all required inspections have been requested and approved and the building is complete. Underfloor Plumbing: Prior to insulation or decking. Rough Plumbing: Prior to cover and including required testing. Water Line: Prior to filling trench and including required testing. Sanitary Sewer Line: Prior to mling trench and including required testing. Storm Sewer Line: Prior to filling trench. Final Plumbing: When all plumbing work is complete. Underfloor Mechanical. Prior to insulation or decking and including required testing. Underfloor Gas: After line is installed and required testing and capped if not attached to an appliance. Rough Gas: After line is installed and required testing and capped if not attached to an appliance. Gas Service: After line is installed and line has been connected to a minimum of one appliance including required testing. Presure test done at this point. Rough Mechanical: Prior to Cover Final Gas: When all 'gas work is complete. Final Mechanical: When all mechanical work is complete. Rough Electric: Prior to Cover Electric Service: Approval required prior to utility company energizing service. o ' Final Electric: Whe~ all electrical work is complete. By signature, I state and agree, that I have carefully examined the completed application and do hereby certify that all information hereon is true and correct, and I further certify that any and all work performed shall be done in accordance with :' the Ordinances of the City of Springfield and the Laws of the State of Oregon pertaining to the work described herein, and that NO OCCUP ANCYwill be made of any structure without permission of the Community Services Division, Building Safety. I further certify that only contractors and employees who are in compliance with ORS 701.005 will be used on this project. I further agree to ensure that all required inspections are requested at the proper time, that each address is readable from the ,I street, that the permit card is located at the front of the property, and the approved set of plans will remain on the site at all t;m~dUri~n:t~U:tiOAj~/ q/z~/(}\~ Owner or ':ontractors Signature 'OJ Date Pae:e 4 of 4 -;,~",'?'c' 3~S~~o' has the following , '., . ecific land use J.-'),,~;::' ~ ',ot nJ~ 225 FIFTH STREET. SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . PH:(541)726-3753 . FAX: (541)726~3689 ELECbTIDbCAL P~IT~PNCATION (A 1'1/ {I /'OS City Jo Num er l '.I ~.... 1'LA. ) Date .',IJ...J -11'1 LE(r~DOS-lO~N\ \ 03 wO~\Z{(J A'servicelncluded JO~ESQUPTIO~ ~~ 1000 sq. ft. or less '. (1, I . ~ M. 7'{:ach additional 500 sq. ft. or ~ ~ V'\ \ \Jt , ,\~ortion thereof Permits are n kn-transfer~ble and expi ~ifwork i~ Each Manufact'd Home or not started within 180 days of issuance or if work is Modular Qwelling Service or Suspended for 180 days. Fee.~OtICE: B. New Alteration or ExtensionPef!~nJjJthe Oregon Utility One Circuit : f10se rult$....<:04alOOset forth . ~mD\11di. Each Additional Circuit or with t'~I(),U,~JI.l OAR 952, -001- ~' n /J() Service or Feeder Permit 'Yon..::::> ~f fl~O~ rul 'b Owners Nawe \ )L) " I t:~ Y Address ~ [) 0'/. \033 E.o ,,' , C;ty fi ~ut9-" Phon' \.Q01. ml.c6 1. 2. Electrical Contractor .toh 177 hbj/ J::iRcteit/ J!j.~/ Address 1'liJ KiIV1S ~UY7 City &x/ ~L-- Phone 6>s 1..7L7} Supervisor License Number 3 9 7C;- 5 Expiration Date I {J-- /~-o7 Constr. Contr. Number d'f)...~ S~ -c Expiration Date 7--1 -Ob Signature of Supervising Electrician ~41IY:;-k1L OWNER INSTALLATION The installation is being made on property I own which is not intended for sale, lease or rent. Owners Signature: Inspection Request: 726-3769 3. \ \()lo.~ q~ $106.00 ~ $ 19.00 $50.00 200 (i~MMJ:1~ED OR IS ABANDONED fg~oo 201 ANt~s 1~.libEV~'k~ERIOD. $ 75.00 401 Amps to 600 Amps $125.00 601 Amps to 1000 Amps $163.00 Over 1000 AmpsNolts $375.00 Reconnect Only $ 50.00 c. Installation, Alteration or Relocation 200 Amps or less 201 Amps to 400 Amps 40 I Amps to 600 Amps Over 600 Am s or 1000 Volts see "B" above. D. $ 50.00 $ 69.00 $100.00 0' Pump or irrigation Sign/Outline Lighting Limited Energy/Residential Limited Energy/Commercial . :~cC:-2~'~~!OO $ 50.00 $ 25.00 $ 45.00 Minimum Electric Permit Inspection Fee is $45.00 + Surcharges 4. 7% State Surcharge 10% Administrative Fee )LCO 4.{YJ '40\Q ?~~7)- .\f ) TOTAL Shared Drive(T:)/Building Forms/Electrical Permit Application I-030doc o' erN OF S'''GFIELD SYSTEMS DEVELOPMEN~c~lPRKSHEET JOURNAL OR JOB NUMBER: COM2005-00720 NAME OR COMPANY: , Butte Construction LOCATION: 777S 47th PI TAX LOT NUMBER: 1802051103300 DEVELOPMENT TYPE: SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE NEW DWELLING UNITS 1 BUILDING SIZE (SF: 3072 LOT SIZE (SF): 1. STORM DRAINAGE DIRECT RUNOFF TO CITY STORM SYSTEM IMPERVIOUS S,F. x I COST PER S.F. I CHARGE. 4022.00 I $0.310 '= . $1,246.82 RUNOFF ROUTED TO DRYWELLDESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CITY STANDARDS I IMPERVIOUS S.F. I x COST PER S.F. x: I DISCOUNT RATE I I 0.00 I $0.310 I 50% = I ITEM 1 TOTAL - STORM DRAINAGE SDC '$1,246.82 7306 rn' ~ ~ o u ~ ~ f-< rn ,..... o ga DISCOUNT $0.00 $1,246.82 1070 2. SANITARY SEWER - CITY A. REIMBURSEMENT COST: NUMBER OF DFU's . x 23 COST PER DFU , $24.04 $552.92 I 1091 B. IMPROVEMENT COST: I NUMBER OF DFU's x , I 23 $18.28 ITEM 2 TOTAL - CITY SANITARY SEWER SDC $420.44 ,1092 ~I = , $973.36 3. TRANSPORTATION A. REIMBURSEMENT COST: ADT TRIP RATE x 9.57 B. IMPROVEMENT COST: ' I ADT TRIP RATE I 9.57 NUMBER OF UNITS x I COST PER TRIP 1 I $18.30 x INEW TRIP FACTOR' I 1.00 $175.13 1093 .x I NUMBEROF UNITS I x I I 1 I I = , COST PER TRIP x INEW TRIP FACTOR $80.72 I 1.00 $947.62 10 $772.49 1094 ITEM 3 TOTAL - TRANSPORTATION SDC 4. SANITARY SEWER - MWMC A. REIMBURSEMENT COST: INUMBER OF FEU's x COST PER FEU ! 1 $82.03 = $82.03 1054 B. IMPROVEMENT COST: NUMBER OF FEU's I x COST PER FEU II $865.31 , MWMC CREDIT IF APPLICABLE (SEE REVERSE) MWMC ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ITEM 4 TOTAL - MWMC SANITARY SEWER SDC = , SUBTOTAL (ADD ITEMS 1,2,3, & 4) = , 5. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE: I SUBTOTAL x I ADM. FEE RATE I $4,125.14 I 5% TOTAL SANITARY ADMINISTRATION FEE: TOTAL TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION FEE: = $865.31 11055 $0.00 1054 $10.00 1056 r ,I 144.56 11079 $61.70 ]I 078 =/ $4,331.40 ,0 . -~, $957.34 $4,125.14 CHARGE $206.26 Cheryl Slaymaker PREPARED BY 6/17/2005 TOTAL SDC CHARGES DATE DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNIT (DFU) CALCULATION TABLE NUMBER OF NEW FIXTURES x UNIT EQUIV ALENT ~ DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS (NOTE: FOR REMODELS, CALCULATE ONLY THE NET ADDITIONAL FIXTURES) NO. OF FIXTURES DRAINAGE UNIT FIXTURE FIXTURE TYPE NEW OLD EQUIVALENT UNITS I BATHTUB 1 0 3 = 3 IDRlNKING FOUNTAIN 0 0 1 = 0 I FLOOR DRAIN 0 0 3 = 0 IINTERCEPTORS FOR GREASE / OIL / SOLIDS / ETC. 0 0 3 = 0 IINTERCEPTORS FOR SAND / AUTO WASH / ETC. 0 0 6 = 0 ILAUNDRY TUB 0 0 2 = 0 ICLOTHESWASHER/MOP SINK 1 0 3 = 3 ICLOTHESW ASHER - 3 OR MORE (EA) 0 0 6 = 0 IMOBILE HOME PARK TRAP (l PER TRAILER) 0 0 12 = 0 I RECEPTOR FOR REFRIG / WATER STATION / ETC. 0 0 1 = 0 I RECEPTOR FOR COM. SINK / DISHWASHER / ETC. 0 0 3 = 0 ISHOWER., SINGLE STALL 1 0 2 = 2 I SHOWER, GANG (NUMBER OF HEADS) 0 0 2 = 0 I SINK: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL KITCHEN 1 0 3 = 3 I SINK: COMMERCIAL BAR 0 0 2 = 0 ISINK: WASH BASIN/DOUBLE LAVATORY 0 0 2 = 0 I SINK: SINGLE LAVATORY/RESIDENTIAL BAR 3 0 1 = 3 IURINAL, STALL! WALL 0 0 5 = 0 ITOILET, PUBLIC INSTALLATION 0 0 6 = 0 ITOILET, PRIVATE INSTALLATION 3 0 3 = 9 MISCELLANEOUS DFU TYPE NUMBER OF EDU'S 20 = 0 TOTAL DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS 23 *EDU (Equivalent Dwelling Unit) is a discharge equivalent to a single family dwelling uni!PO DFD's) s~t at 167 gallons per day MWMC CREDIT CALCULATION TABLE: BASED ON COUNTY ASSESSED VALUE YEAR ANNEXED BEFORE 1979 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 CREDIT RATE/$I,OOO ASSESSED VALUE $5.29 $5.29 $5.19 , $5.12 $4.98 $4.80 $4.63 $4.40 $4.07 $3.67 $3.22 $2.73 $2.25 $1.80 $1.59 $1.45 $1.25 $1.09 $0.92 $0.72 $0.48 $0.28 $0.09 $0.05 IS LAND ELGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION CREDIT? (Enter 1 for Yes, 2 for No) IS IMPROVEMENT ELGIBLE FOR ANNEX. CREDIT? (Enter 1 for Yes, 2 for No) BASE YEAR 2 2 1979 CREDIT FOR LAND (IF APPLICABLE) VALUE 11000 CREDIT RATE $0.00 x $5.29 $0.00 I, I = I CREDIT FOR IMPROVEMENT (IF AFTER ANNEXATION) VALUE /1000 CREDIT RATE $0.00 x $5.29 o = $0.00 TOTAL MWMC CREDIT 225 Fifth Street ~PJiligiield, Oregon 97477 5'41-726-3759 Phone ii:~ City of Springfield Official Receipt lelopment Services Department Public Works Department RECEIPT #: 2200500000000001332 Date: 09/26/2005 11 :25:46AM -'I Description Amount Due Job/Journal Number COM2005-00nO Willamalane Single Family 1,000.00 C{)M2005-00nO Residence Wiring 1000 Sq Ft 106.00 CpM2005-00nO Residence Wiring Ea Addtl 500 95.00 COM2005-00nO Sidewalk Permit 80.00 COM2005-00nO Curbcut Permit 80.00 COM2005-00nO PW Disc - 2nd Permit (Street) (30.00) COM2005-00nO SDC MWMC Administration 10.00 COM2005-00nO Plan Review Major - Planning 103.00 COM2005-00nO SDC Sanitary/Storm Admin 144.56 COM2005-00nO SDC MWMC Improvement 865.31 COM2005-00nO SDC MWMC Reimbursement 82.03 CbM2005-00nO Sanitary Sewer - Improvement 420.44 COM2005-00nO Sanitary Sewer - Reimbursement 552.92 COM2005-00nO Storm Drainage Impervious Area 1,246.82. COM2005-00nO SDC Transpo Admin 61.70 OOM2005-00nO SDC Transpo Improvement 7n.49 0) dbM2005-00nO ' SDC Transpo Reimbursement 175.13 CbM2005-00nO Plan Review Residential 52.81 CbM2005-00nO Building Permit 1,079.15 CbM2005-00nO 3 Baths One & Two Family 306.00 ~ ; COM2005-00nO Storm Sewer Each Addtl 100' 56.00 COM2005-00nO Furnace - up to 100,000 btu 12.00 COM2005-00nO Vent Fan 18.00 COM2005-00nO Exhaust Hoods 9.00 COM2005-00nO Dryer Vent 6.00 COM2005-00nO Gas Outlets 1-4 4.00 COM2005-00nO Gas Outlets 4+ 1.00 COM2005-00nO Gas Fireplace 15.00 C,bM2005-00nO Appliance Not Listed 27.00 COM2005-00nO -Mechanical Issuance Fee- 10.00 COM2005-00nO + 7% State Surcharge 121.39 . COM2005-00nO + 10% Administrative Fee 173.42 COM2005-00nO Addressing Assignment 31.00 J' ,I Item Total: $7,687.17 ~r Payments: Check Number Authorization i:tpe of Payment Paid By Received By Batch Number Number How Received Amount Paid Check BUTTE CONSTRUCTION ddk 2283 In Person $7,687.17 Payment Total: $7,687.17 ~} .' ~! 1 ~ I J: 9/26/2005 Page I of 1 CommunityServicesOi~ision . SUI. :lSafety/BuildingCodes SPRINGFIE=' I.~~;l.iillle]~~"""_. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT , , ~ otice to Permit Applicant Soils stabilization required for subdivision sites Name of Owner ~\rItv~_tt\sWrro'(\ Permit: ~ro..rn\f}J) Address of Project: ~Q/ ~~m-f'f0 toLdt\ 411t\PL Tax Map: \\NlI)~\ Tax Lot: D~3(f) Subdivision ~ Wrl . . ~ The building site at the above address is located on property that has soils prone to shrink-swell or other potential movement. Excavations, placement of fill materials and drainage for this site must be done under the direct supervision of a properly licensed Professional Engineer or Architect to verify the stability of the resulting building pad and the site. The owner, or the owner's qualified agent, is responsible to obtain the services of the appropriate professional engineer or architect (design professional). The design professional shall provide direction for the stabilization methods to be used for the building pad (and surrounding site, when site stabilization is also necessary). The geotechnical report, which was prepared for this subdivision, may be utilized to provide appropriate guidance for the methods of stabilization and required compaction for the specific site. The engineer or architect shall prepare a report to be submitted to the City stating how the soil stabilization is being accomplished, including requireinents not yet completed (if any). A signed and stamped report from the engineer or architect must be received and aDDroved bv this office before footinf! or (f!undation insvection aDvroval will be f!ranted hv theO Citv Buildinf! Insvector. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The undersigned acknowledges the forgoing requirements for soil stabilization, including excavation, fill, soil compaction and drainage, as provided in the geotechnical report for the subdivision. The stabilization will be accomplished under the direction of a licensed professional engineer or architect as noted above. Signature _ ~- ~ _ f-.-.v lv o -LJ.lA;JU.i - a Name " , Date q /2&;1 0 ~ Affiliation to owner R:odkvROAIJ SUBD. o ' , " - .' . . . . 0' . 3.27', Lots 1,2, 3~ 4;'7,18 & 19StOr1n:~at~r Drainage. At the ~e of the buildirig permit application for the above lots, plans shall also be submitted to constiuct peiimeter interceptor drains.. ' " '.' , , , .3.27.1 Lots 18 & 19. .owners of Lots 18 and 19 shall provide a perimeter interceptor drain pipe along the south' side of their lots intercepting off-site drainage from the . , south. Outfalls shall be directed to the curb weep holes in S. 48th Street. . , ',0, 0' 3.27.2 Lots j & 4. Owp.ers of Lots 3 and 4 shall provide a,perimeter interpeptor drain pip~ along the south side of their lots intercepting off-site drainage from the south. The drainage pipe shall be connected to the pzivate storm sewer pipe that 11lIlS tbroughLot 3 north , from Rocky Road. ' , ' ' 0 3.27.3 Lots 1, 2, & 7.' .owners of Lots 1, 2 and 7 shall'provlde a perimeter interceptor drain pipe along the perimeter of their lots intercepting off-site drainage. Outfalls shall be directed to the curb weep holes in S. 47111 Street and Rocky Road. . , . . . .' 3~8 Tree Conservation Zones on Lots :t. through 8 and 12 & 13. There are Tree Conservation Zones located on Lots 1 through 8 and 12 & 13 of Rocky Road SubdivisioIl The 0 .owners of these lots are restricted from removing any trees larger than 5" DBH Without written authorization of the Architectural Control Committee and the City of Springfield. Any tree' .removal will require a tree-felling permit from the city. Existing understory vegetation in the conservation zones consists of the following native plants: Nootka Rose,oSnowberry, Western '0 Sword Fern, other ferns and Oregon Grape and will be preserved. Removal of the' preserved understory vegetation can not be completed Without the written authorization of the Architectural Control Committee and the City of Springfield. There is also some nuisance understory consisting of blackberry and Poison Oak. This nuisance vegetation can be removed by the owner. 3.29 Building Envelope and Tree RemovaL All residential construction shall take place within the building envelopes shown on Lots 3, 5~ 6, 7 and 8. The building envelope Includes all impervious areas inCluding the residence, accessory structures and paved areas. See Exhibit Do for Building Envelope locations. Tree remoVal from within the building envelopes shall be ' completed only after receiving written authorization from the City of Springfield and the Architectural Control Committee. The city requires a tree-felling permit to be obtained by the lot owner prior to any tree removal and/or building permits. 3.30, , Fire Sprinklers. Lots 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are subject to firesprinkler installation if . the residences are not located and constructed.in accordance with SDC 26.090(1)(2)(3). 0 3.31 Class A & B Roofing. All structures on Lots that abut a Tree Conservation Zone shall have Class A or B roofing in accordance, with the Oregon State, Structmal Specialty Code. Note: This statement also appears in 5.7.1. ' ROCKY R.oAD - Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions 9 "RocX<- 1 \KCL<~.. . SJp 3.32 ' 'Ge~'tecmucal 0 Assessment. 0 ',Lot '. oWners, are required' to cpmply' with:the Geotechnical Assessment dated August 6, 2003 and .the follow-up report dated:Februaxy 19, 2004 unless an acceptable alternative is oapproved by the city. The Geotechnical Assesiment and , follow-up report are ~luded in Exhibit C. . 0 ARTICLE 4. ARCw 1 E\,; 1 URAL CO~ u~OL COMlVIU lE.E 4.1,. Membership._The Architectural Control Committee members shall initrally be' appointed by the Declarant. Substitutions and replacements shall be appointed by the Declarant until all Lots have been sold, or Declarant has turned over control of the committee to the homeowners. ' 0 When all the Lots in the Development have been sold, the Declarant sh8.11 turn over control of the Committee to the Homeowners. After the Declarant has tmned over the control of the Committee to the Homeowners, substitutions and replacements shall be voted on by the Homeowners, substitutionS and replacements shall be voted on by the Homeowners, with one vote for each Lot 4.2 Duties. The ArchitecturalCollL.vl Committee (herein" Committee'') shall be' established' to review and approve or deny plans, specifications, design, construction, and alterations of all Improvements built within the Property, pursuant to design specifications set out in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. o The Committee shall consist of tb!ee 0 members. It is recommended that at least one of the Commi~ee members be 0 an architect, (!ngineer, or contractor or shall have such other similar q1ialifications. The Committee shall. " consider the recommendations; ifany, of the Declarant and Homeowners for design control and site approval for proposed Improvements, but it shall exercise its own judgment regarding the proposed Improvements. In approving or denying proposed k.p...ovements, the Committee shall o consider whether the, Improvement complies with this Declaration, the design guidelines contained herein; and the overall aesthetic quality and feeling of continuity of the Development.. " ' 4.3 Approval No improvement shall be Undertaken until the construction plans have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee. Architectural plans will be reviewed by the Architectural Control Committee for a fee of $200 which is payable by the individual property owner to the Committee at time of submittal If any plans should require more than two hours of review, an hourly rate, of $1 00 per hour shall be charged. ", 0 0 Landscape plans will be reviewed by the Architectural Control Committee, for a fee of $100 which is payable by the individual property owner to the Committee at time of submittal. If any plans shoUld require more than one hour of review, an hourly rate of $100 per hour shall be charged. 4.4 Application for Approval. Each Owner desiring to make site or structural improvements on his or her Lot shall, prior to requesting a building permit from the City of Springfield, submit to the Architectural Control Committee for approva~ the folloWing: ROCKY ROAD -Covenants, Conditions, & Restri~tions 10 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ROCKY ROAD SUBDIVISION S. 47th Street, Springfield 0'0 August 6, 2003 Prepared for: David Nichols, PE Pacific West Engineering 3610 Goodpasture Loop Eugene OR 97401 P.O. Box 2238. Euaene. OR 97402 0 (541) 607-5700 FAX: 607-5701 CCB # 127073 . :..; " ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ., , " Page EXECUTIVE- SUMMARY ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . -. . . . ~ . . ': . . . .' . . . . . .' . .. ii ' INTRODUCTION .. . . . : . . . . . . . . . : .' . . . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . '_' , . . . . . . . : .-. . . . . . 10 o GEOLOGY AND SOILS (published Lit~raturey.. .... . .. . . .. . ... ... . . ... ... .:.. ......1 FJFT n INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. o. . . . . . ~ . . . 1 Methods ............ i . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . : . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . 1 . ') .. Results ..~...........:.,.:..'......................................... '. . . . . 2" Soil Units ...'.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rock Units .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . , . '. . '. 3 ' , - o DISCUSSION .:...............,...................... ',: . . . .. . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 , , CONCLUSIONS . '. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . : . . . . 5 RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Design Area 1 . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .. . . . . . . ; . . '.' . . . . . . , q Design Area 2. . . . " . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ':" . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . 7 Design Area 3 . . .'. . . '.' . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . : . : . . . _' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 8 LIWTATIONS .................... -. . . . . : . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : . .'. . . . : . . . 9 LIST OF FIGURES Follows Page Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Location.Map . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 1 Site Map and Test Pit Locations ...................................... 2 Design Areas' . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . -' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "~ . . . . . . .,.0. . . . . 4 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Pacific West Engineering Test Pit Photos Appendix B: Test Pit and Hand Auger Logs Appendix C: Site Photos ~ ~., EXECUTIVE SuMMARY 0 The area proposed ~or construction of the Rocky Roa~ subdivision can be divided into thtee design' areas: . . , Design Area OA-1 includes all of Let 1 and portions of Lots 2 and 3, 'in the northwest portion of the site. '1bis area is ,underlain by expansive soil and Rock Unit RU-302, which consists of over- consolidated high';liquid-limit clay. As a result, the foundation of the structure to be built onLot 1, should be designed for highly expansive material. On Lots 2 and 3, structures can be placed within Design Area 3. ' ' DA-2 includes the lower-sloping northern and eastern portions of the site, and is underlain by RU- 101, a fine-grained dark gray igneous rock ("basalt"), which is decomposed to depths varying _ between 5 and 10 feet. . . DA-3 includes the western and central portions of the site and is underlain by RU-1 0 1. In this design area, partly decomposed to nearly fresh state fractured in-place rock is located at shallow depth, o potentially requiring larger equipment or hydraulic hariuners for deeper excavations. No evidence of slope movement was noted on the site, and there is no indication that the proposed development will result in slope stability issues, as long as grading recommendations in this report . are followed. ' .J. Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 11 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical assessment to determine soil and ;ock coriditlons at a proposed subdivision located northeast and east of the current north end of S 47th Street off Jasper Road (Figure 1). The assessment was conducted forMr. David Nichols~ FE, of Pacific West Engineering. A total of five test pits had been excavated in. August of 2002 under direction of Mr. 0 Nichols, and copies of color photos of these test pets were available for review. The site was re- 0 visited with Mr. Nichols on June 18, 2003 ,and the older test pit sites were re-examined for evidence of the materials encountered at that time. Based on these observations, the site appeared to be underlain by two rock units with significantly different characteristics. The distribution of the tWo units appeared to be well-defmed by the site topography, with the higher and steeper p'ortions 0 underlain by competent fme-grained igneous rock ("basalt") and the low-lying portion in. the northwest comer underlain by completely decomposed state pyroclastic or contact metamorphic rock. However,oadditional explorationwas required to delineate the boundary between the two rock units in the west-northwest part of the site. / GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Published Information) The geologic map included in Ground Water in ihe Eugene-Springfield Area, Southern Willamette Vally, Oregon (USGS Water Supply Paper 2018, 1973) indicates that the entire site is underlain by the TertiaryLittle Butte Volcanics, which are also known as the Post-Eugene V o1canics in this area. According to the Water Resources Paper, the Little Butte Volcanics consist of a sequence of , predominantly dacitic and andesitic flows and tuffs and olivine basalt flows with some scoriaceaous 0 , material. The Soil Survey of Lane County Area, Oregon (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1987) indicates that the northern portions of the site are underlain by Hazelair silty clay loam, whereas the southern two thirds of the area are underlain by Nelda silty clay loam. The Hazelair soil is classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System as a CL soil (upper 15 inches) over a CH soil to 3 feet, with weathered rock below 36 inches. The Nelda soil is classified as an ML soil in the. upper 10 inches over a CL or GC soil; 0 with weathered rock reported at a depth of 3 5 inches. .1f1JtLD nwESTIGATION Methods The site was originally visited with Mr. Nichols on June 18, 2003. At that time, the material backfilled into the previous test pit locationswas obserVed. The site was re-visited on July 31,2003 and two test pits were excavated using a rubber-tired 4-wheel drive Case 580 backhqe with a 2-foot toothed bucket. Soils encountered in the test pits (and backfilled test pits) were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System using ASTM Method D-2488 (Visual-Manual Procedure). Distances from known landmarks to the test pits were determined using a Wheel-a- Tape device. Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield . Geotechnical!Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 1 ....-.-. 17' E Name: SPRINGFIELD Date: arr,l2chOO3quals 2000 feet Scale: 1 In e ......... I"c. Copyright (C) 1997. Mal',....... "'''''",. . ~~:-1~ ~. ~- ~-f: - .! " 'r ~.~:~.~~;; ;~ --. '.. 48..' . . ~.,:;.;~ ~~4 2002 Test Pit~, 2003 Hand Auger Borings .. .' ~ The test pits excavated on August 21~ 2002, under supervision of Mr. Nichols were designed, primarily to deterniine excavation conditions at the site. Copies of photos of the test pits' are included in 'Appendix A. Assessment of the soil/rock materials in these pits was conducted by GeoScience primarily based on the materials still exposed in the backfilled test pits and also based ' on color photos provided by Mr. Nichols. In addition, on August 4,2003 hand auger holes were advanced in the area immediately surrounding TH-l, between TR-l and TH-2, and at TH-2. .Hand auger logs are included in Appendix B. 2003 Test Pits On July 31, 2003, two additional test pits were excavated along the existing driveway. The main . , focus of this exploration was to more closely define the location of the'contact between the two major rock units at this site. Test pit logs are included in Appendix B and photos in Appendix C. Results Soil Units Three soil units were identified at the site, which were designated SU-B, SU-C, and SU-D for purposes of this report. SU-B is present approximately in the area outlined as Nelda soil on the Soil:' , ,Survey and SU-Cis present in the area outlined as Haze1air soil. SU~D is present beneath SU-B/C in the northwest portion of the site. SU-B consists of dark brown to brown clayey or silty sand with angular stained-state (STS) to Visually Fresh State (VFS) igneous rock fragments (see RU-IOl, below). Rock fragment content varies from 70 to 80 % by volume, the fragments are angular, and range in size from a few inches , to four feet in diameter. The finer~grained matrix is estimated to consist of 75 %. fme- to mediurn- grained sand and 25 % fmes.The matrix has low dry strength, m~diurn toughness, and ,slow dilatancy., As a result, the matrix is classified as a silty SAND (SM) according to the USCS and the fines are probably either MH or CL.The soil appears to be partly matrix-supported and partly clast- supported and ranged in thickness from 2 to 4 feet. At the time oftes~ pit excavation, SU-A was dry and below the plastic limit (BPL). The unit is interpreted as a top-soil/colluvial deposit derived from weathering ofRU-lOl on steeper slopes. SU-C consists of dark brown silty sand (70 S, 30 F) with igneous rock fragments. The rock fragment content is lower than in SU-B, ranging from 5 to 20 %. Iri addition, rock fragments are smaller, ranging in size from 2 to 8 inches. SU-C has low dry strength, low toughness, and rapid dilatancy. As a result, SU-C is classified as a silty SAND (SM) according to the USCS. SU-C was approximately 1.5 to 225 feet thick in the hand auger holes, and was dry and BPL at the time of the site visit. The unit is interpreted as a top-soil/colluvial deposit derived from weathering ofRU~lOl on lower slopes. Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield . Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 2 -.--...--- -.- ,.,~,- ...; . -. . - . SU-D consist$ of gray to light gray sandy clay. Th~ estimated gradation is 30 ~ medium-grained sand and 70 % fmes. The unit has very high dry strength, high toughness and no dilata,ncy. As a orestilt it is classified as a sandy fat CLAY (CH). SU-D was 0.5 feet thick in HAH-ID, aild was not encountered in HAH-3. The unit is interpreted as a' colluvial deposit derived nom weathering of ~~ . Rock Units Two rock units were identified. Rock unit RU-IOl is present beneath the eastern, central, and southwestern portion of the site. RU-302 is present beneath the low-sloping area in the northwest comer of the site. . In visually fresh state (VFS), RU-IOl consists of a dark gray very fme-grained igneous rock ("basalt"). It was not determined if the unit is intrusive or extrusive. RU~lOl is the source6fthe igneous rock fragments in SU-B and -C. The depth of weathering of the unit is dependent on location. At most locations, the unit is either completely decomposed or partly decomposed to depths of five feet or more. Completely decomposed state (CDS) RU-IO 1 i~ light brown to tan and , remolds with finger pJessure to a sandy silt, which is APL when moist. The resulting "soil" has low to mediUm dry strength, lowt9ughness, and rapid dilatancy. Partly decomposed state (PDS) RU-l 01 is tan to light gray with rust-brown spots and contains more than 50 % material which cannot be ' remolded with finger pressure. The depth to partly decomposed RU-l 01, appears to be variable from 'approximately 2 to 5 feet. The minimum depths to PDS RU-101 appear to be present along the steeper slope in the southwestern portion of the site. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of CDS RU-l 0 l' was measured in TP-2, using apocket penetrometer. The UCS of the material exceeded the range of the instrument (9,000 pst). Rock Unit RU-302 underlies the northwestern part of the site. The unit is present only in completely decomposed state (CDS). In "unweathered" state, the unit consists of a maroon to brick-red to , whitish-tan over-consolidated clay, which decrepitates rapidly upon exposure to moisture. In the presence of moisture, the unit can be completely remolded to fines which have very high dry strength, high toughness and no dilatancy. Where re-weathered, the unit is rust brown, but retains its other characteristics. The unit is interpreted as either a contcict-mefamorphic zone at the base of the RU-1 01, or a pyro-clastic rock unit which was deeply weathered shortly after deposition, and then consolidated by burial under several thousand feet of rock- which has subsequently been removed by erosion. Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 3 DISCUSSION Based on the observations and subsurface exploration;,the site can be divided into three design areas, , , which are based on soll/rock unit distribution and slope. These areas are shown on Figure 3. ,Design area DA-l is located in the northwest portion of the site, including Lot 1 and parts of Lots 2 and 3. _ This area is characterized by the presence ofSU-B/C over SU-D and RU-302. Of these units, SU-D and RU-302 are probably highly expansive. Based on experience with similar or identical rock units , in the Eugene/Springfield metro area, only the near-surface portions of RU-302 are subject to - seasonal moisture changes because swelled portions isolate the deeper portions' from water 'infiltration. The unit is hard when dry and in-place but decrepitates rapidly upon exposure to moisture and loses significant strength. The swell pressures developed during this hydration process exceed typical residential bearing pre~sures, and result in distress to stru~tures due to differential up-, 0 lift. This issue has been successfully mitigated by deep foundation designs consisting of drilled piers and above-grade concrete bearns. It may also be possible to mitigate the condition by flooding of the building pad to expand the foundation material and construction of post-tensioned slabs. ' In the Rocky Road Subdivision, only the northwestern comer of the site is affected and only one lot (Lot 1) is situated such that the residence will need to be cop.structed within DA-1. Seasonal shallow · perched groundwater is expected in DA-l within SU-B/C.' Therefore, it is recommended to install up-slope and side-slope cut-off drains into SU-D around the residence on Lot 1. For road , construction in this area, it is recommended to place geo-fabric on the native subgrade to prevent mixing of the overlying road base with softened SU-Dor RU-IO'l during the wet season. ' DA-2 is located in the eastern and northeastern portion of the site, and includes all or part of Lots 9 through 29. DA- 2 is characterized by the presence ofSU-C over RU-IOl which is in CDS to PDS. to depths up to 10 feet. This material does not have characteristics with expal)sive soil (very high dry strength~ high toughness, arid no dilatancy). CDS RU-I01 may lose strength if subjected to moisture;but this can be mitigated by placement of a few inches of rock to provide confmirig , pressure. Foundations should be placed on in-place PDS RU-l 0 1, where possible. 0 If foundations : are to be placed on CDS RU-l 0 1, it is recommended to verify bearing capacity after excavation of - the pad, ,and prior to placement of rock or forms. Roads construction does not require special measures inDA-2, although exposed CDS/PDS RU.IOl should not ~e subjected to traffic during wet weather. Shallow groundwater may be present s-easonally, perched on PDS RU-IOL Therefore, it is "recommended to install foundation drains on the up- and side-slope sides of residence in DA.,.2. Such drains should extend into native material at least 6 inches below the base of the adjacent footing, should be lined with filter fabric and backfilled with open drain rock after placement of a . , perforated rigid pipe with glued joints. o DA-3 includes all or parts of Lots 2 through 8. DA-3 is characterized by the presence ofSU-B over 0 RU-l 0 1. Deep excavations for foundations and/or underground utilities in this area may require use of a large trackhoe, and, in some cases, a hydraulic hammer. ,Excavations are likely to produce large fragments ofVFS RU-IOl (from both SU-B and in-place PD'S-YFsoRU-I01). Roc)..")' Road Subdivision, Springfield GeotechnicallSoils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 4 - -------. /.'-~;;;;::f:~~~~'" ...0. ~ :>> .{~ .... ,"'~< ''--, ~..";""";"o ;..~' "'/' '. "~" 'ii(c,--, .o.,......::,::~:;...'o "'-..... -<; <" ^'. '.f,.,>, ------- " . '-" . .'. "'->,.-::::' / /~ "~;'\"'"'' ...... / / / J """'" "".." !"n" ..."' .,../ . ";;'\'~~~:~'l." '0:"/" - / / 'j':"\'.!:r'\1I1" .' ....-.. ..;/ , . ..//. 0'. .1::~\., 0" ~ 0' . '.. "'. ~ ~ ~-==.=~ ~~ i;::~:;.:".,::,,,::j{:~:'ii:!"'i;;;, ~..-----:::.- ... ,.~~~-, -- - .. . '. . .'., . ~ ~ 'f\ \ C>-'~~~::;~;;;;~j=~';:::,~:?~:":~~. '>';.' .....j, h: '.' U . . " ," ~",",__,_ '0/7 . ..,' ... ""n \ . ~ .'~ ::c;..~~~ ---f'--,..__... .. . V.\ ~ i ) ~ ~- - - --- (~- ~ f_ll1T1:~:, ~-=s:,1. ' E:=:::: -:.:-;;" :.. .--:, .:::. .:: 'I . 11 ~: ; >'- -,,"=. ~,! '-----:~...,.. 1 --............. .~_"". . . .,( ~@!;.;::~!":.?~-=-~~~~) . IQ"""-CS-i: : - --.. ., :'-::':: -=::-~, --..... ". .: I : J I ~ . ~"'r-"-'~""'''_~f, / ~..t. _. ~ ,_. ". . .' " ' ~ >Ji'tt~ ~~/. ~~ --=",- . "''''-v ,~'- ~ -, 'f', .... ....... I I ; I ' v "!!Ij ~~''''=c=-co= ':;:SV "'^" _', ',. ....... " '. , ~ . ""/Y/.W--:c__=_. --=--- ....""J....." ""_0. < ....,._. 'II I I I r ? );~V/.//~ /;:.'~/fi~~'~ '~~:c-="'-= ~'1:'..-'.~<c :~, , "':>" _" ~"_ '" ,_......., '1 I I, : I ~ fA"!'/.;.; 1J.~~~~-,_.~.__ -'-,,~. _.. ...., -"_,. ,. II kf ~~,~ '~p-,,~--=~~ ,,,,V,,:>, "~'<~"'''',.'' '__ . 'il ,i. I \1' , ~"'" ~"".y.- -:....,' ~~. ~'Z<""-.\/\-C . '-. ,'. .~. " . . I' 1 " I " , ljI.&t0~~';.7. :/>>~-...-:,::.~: :::;:.....-." .:?--::..:::....-...:<:..-~..::~\....2: ':~"""\. i:-, ,,:--- _...' "" . '., '. I ,i. I!. , . ~ WJf!.%"i ~ . -; ..' ~ "~"- -......... ":\. """-'-. . '. " ". .... i,' . , . .. i Y,@ w @) "'4'%"-"""_':-'::" :::-C:::~<~_::~% '~'''''''' ,t<..< '~... ". . . . '.. . '" I : I 1 f .: .' ~'~J* ?B~ f??;;-",-:,::,::c <:.:.::s::::::::::::.:::<~., ~: t::::<;-,,>;.:. ,_~~,c,_. <, : I ! i. . II. ".J,., ", f~ ~'lftll' ff$~l'0::':>:,:~~,,~ r~-...:: ~,........... .... .... .. '.1 f iil; ~~7 !:. ~~IW.~i.ff!f% ~~~::::"=:~'~"~'~~~~~:f~~~~'~~~~:::~::~~~-::~.I Ii!', I /' : ;Itl}".),! H 1(fr// / .,' :'___________ "'-."'-"0, _ :1.. ~\'. \~ '0~....>,>< _'_ .. I. I: ' / I II ij~,: Ii ./ i 'll:' / / / ,.,,~ ~ '=, ., ~ ' :\\\ ~-....::: """." . _ . .' I! 'i " j 1'1'/ ,J I (\ \ I( C!M~ / I~ ii', ... '-.. '- ,....".... "'. I" 'I . I \ ~~ I , '~' ", 0;.... '. . , '__ V'-1,1 \\,:~ I r \ ..' I il K~I \, . ":'... '\ .. .......,><, .. , . t Springfield W~I ,)~ \ \ ~ '\ I i"~ ~h \ ~ "l \'\' '.. -.., <::; _', :: S 47th Stree . I r \ ) .j( .'\ \\\ II' Ji\ \ I:.iff ...., ,. k' Road Snhdlvlslo~. n Areas .I I ~ J!! ~ ~;\ i" \ Ij, \\i\?(l~ 1;->c'lI\ , - - Proposed Roe Y FI gnre 3: D eSlg I I II )''';0,,-\,\ II " I as Shown 1 " . Sea e ....- .-,.-.... -, SION ROCKY ROAD SUBDIVI Design Area 1 ! Design Area 2 N 1 Area 3 ,. = 100' Design ", ", '- , ' St" ~"<rt ,~J.?.t o. ' I ~ !~ ~ ~ ~ "- I~ I . ., ;~ '-.....:: '- '~ . "- '- ~ '- ". . ," ~. " -, -..- . ..-= " , .t' . 0 . ' .., . None of the desi~'areas show evidence ofpreviou~ slope movement. The steeper portions ofthe , subdivision are underlain by competent in-place RD-l 0 1. Slopes in the area undedaiIi-at shallow depths by RU-302 ,are sufficiently gentle to preciude deep-seated slope movement. " , 0 Due to the content of expansive clay minerals it is not recommended to use excavated'SU-D or RU- 302 as structural fill. SU-B, -C, and CDS RU-I0l can be used as structural fill after removal of oversize material, which may not be cost-effective.' Permanent cut banks in SU-B and SU-C should be sloped at no steeper than 2H : IV. In CDS to PDS RU-I0l such cut banks can be sloped at 1.75 : 1. Stained-state (STS) to VFS RU-I0l can be sloped near-vertical, although rock falls clueto freeze-thaw may be expected after the bank has been in place for several years: CONCLUSIONS Surficial observations and subsurface exploration of the proposed Rocky Road subdivision in Springfield indicates that the site is underlain by two rock units with widely differing characteristics. The northwest portion of the site is underlain in the shallow subsurface by RU-302,which originated either as a contact metamorphic at the lower margin of RU-l 01, or is the product of weathering and subsequent over-consolidation of a pyroclastic deposit. RU-302 is maroon to bnck~red to whitish tan and consists ~ntirely of high-liquid-limit clay which, in-place, is oyer-consolidated. When , weathered, the color is rust-brown. In-place material decrepitates rapidly in the presence of water, , softening to a material which can be remolded to APL with finger pressure. Once completely hydrated and remolded, the material has very high dry strength, high toughness, and no dilatancy. As a result, it is likely that RU,.302 is expansive. ' . , 0 o RU-lOl consists (in fresh state) of a dark gray very fine-grained i~e~us rock. In CDS, the unit is tan and can be completely remolded (when moist) to a sandy (very fine-:-grained) silt with low dry strength, low toughness, and rapid dilatancy. Thes,e characteristics are not consistent with exparisive soil. ' ' Three soil units were identified at the site: The steeper slopes in the ~estem portion are underlain by SU-B, which consists of angular fragments ofRU-10l up to 4 feet or more in diameter, in a dark brown to brown matrix of silty sand (SM), with low dry strength, low toughness and slow dilatancy. Rock fragments constitute from 70 to 80 % (by volume) of SU-B. Rock fragment frequency decreases With distance from the steeper slope, and much fewer rock fragments are present in the lower-sloping northeastern and eastern portion of the site. The soil in that vicinity contains between 10 to 20 % rock fragments in a dark brown silty sand matrix equi~alent to that of SU-B. This soil was desi~ated SU-C. In the northwest portion of the site, SU-D is found tinder SU-B/C, overlying RU-302. SU-D consists of a gray to light gray fat clay (CH), which appears to have been derived from weathering ofRU-302. No evidence of previous slope movement was noted at the site. 0 . Roch.')' Road Subdivision, Springfield GeotechnicallSoils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 5 ., RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed sub~ivision can be divided into o three design areas, based on ge'6tedmical considerations. The pertinent recommendations for each design area are summ~zed below: DA-l Foundations , 0 It is recommended to design foundations for structures in DA-] to nlitigate the effects of the presence of highly expansive RU-302 and SU-D. This c~ be achieved by construction of deep foundations (e.g. drilled piers) and above-grade concrete beams. Piers should be installed to at least , five feet below the top of in-place RU-302, and, in that case, may be designed for allowable bearing , pressures of 9,000 psf. If slabs are to be constructed for garages, it is recomniended to either construct a slab~on-joist system or to avoid tying slabs to the perimeter foundation. Alternatively, foundation may be constructed by inundation of the building pad and placement of a post-tensioned slab foundation. In the latter case, it is possible that the slabs may be somewhat out of level after " differential shrinking or swelling. For road constructIon it is recommended to place Geo,.fabric (woven, e.g. Amoco 2002) on the native sub grade to prevent mixing of softened SU-DorRU-302 with the road base material. Wet weather construction in DA-l may present significant challenges due to loss of strength of the native subgrade when exposed to moisture. Excavation and Grading , , All materials within DA-l can be excavated by conventional means. Pennanent cut slopes in SU-D through RU-302 should be retained. Fill slopes in this area should not exceed four feet in depth , without further engineering design and should be sloped at no more than 3H :"1 V. " Slope Stability No slope stability issues are anticipated if recommen9ations regarding grading are followed. . Use of Materials It is not recommended to use any materials excavated from DA-l as structural fill. Whereas SU-B/C may be suited for use as 0 structural fill, the thickness of these. units and close association with underlying expansive SU-D and RU-302 makes it ~ifficult to completely separate the units. ,0 Drainage Areas around structures should be sloped to drain away from the buildings. It is recommended to install a shallow cut-off drain around the up-slope and side-slope perimeter of structures in this area in order to intercept groundwater which is probably seasonally perched on SU-D and/or RU-302. Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience. Inc. 8-6-03 6 DA-2 Foundations FoUndations in DA-2 c'an be constructed as conventional spread-footings on CDS to PDS.or less weathered RU-I01. If foundations are to be constructed on cbs RU-I01, the bearing capacity , should be verifiedo by a qualified professional prior to placement of rock or concrete forms. Excavation and Grading Excavation is anticipated to' be possible with conventional methods to depths up t005 feet or deeper. Cut b~ in CDS/PDS RU-l 01 \-"ill be temporarily stable at near-vertical angles unless construction is conducted duiing wet weather. Permanent cut banks in CDS/PDS RU-I0l should be sloped at no steeper than 2 : 1 and the tops 'should be rounded to preclude sloughing of SU-B/C. Fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2 : 1. . , Slope Stability There is no evidence of slope stability issues in this area. Use of Materials SU-Cand CDS-PDS RU~101 may be utilized as structural fill provided over-size material is, removed prior to compaction. Verification of compaction may be difficult unless proof-rolli,ng is used, or if sufficient Proctor testing is conducted to provide for mixing-curves of the materials. Drainage Because shallow groundwater is pxpected to be perched on -PDS RU-I0l seasonally, it is I recommended to install foundation drainage atstructures within DA-2. These drains should ~onsist of a trench excavated into native CDS/PDS RU-l 0 1 on the up,;, and side-slopesides of structures to a depth of at least 6 inches below adjacent base of footing grade. The trenches should obe sloped to drain, lined with filter fabric, and backfilled with drain rock after placement of a perforated rigid pipe with glued joints. Drain rock should be extended to within 12 inches of the surface, and covered with filter fabric prior to placement of other material (top soil, crushed rock, etc.). Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 7 ' .. DA-3 Foundations .' Foundations in DA-3 can be placed on CDS to VFS RU-I Oland can consist of conventional spread footings. Due to potential differential settlement, foundations should not be placed partly on SU- B 0' and partly on in-place RU-I 0 1. For foundations placed on CDS RU-I 0 1 bearing capacity should be verified by a qualified professional prior to placement of a leveling course or concrete forms. Excavation and Grading Excavation within DA-3 may require use of a large excavator or a hydraulic hammer. However, with the information presently available it is not possible to identify areas or depths where such measures, may become necessary. ' ' Permanent cut banks ,in CDS/PDS RU-IOI should be sloped at no steeper than 1.75H : IV. Cut banks in VFS RU-I 0 1 may be sloped near-vertical but, in that case, may be subject torock falls due to freeze-thaw after several years. Fill slopes in this area should not exceed 2 : 1. Slope Stability There is no evidence of previous slope movement in this area. The area is underlain at shallow depth by competent RU-IOI and no deep-seated failures are anticipated. Drainage Seeps may occur from fracturesinPDS to.VFS RU-lOI during the wet season. Therefore, it is recommended to install foundation drainage at structures with daylight basements in DA-3. ,. Rod,")' Road Subdivision, Springfield GeotechnicaVSoils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 8 LIMITATIONS - This report was prepared for the use of Pacific West Engineering, and their'authorized'agents for planning and design purposes. Our professional services were perfonned, and ollIrecommendations . provided in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist and assume that the limited number of points investigated are generally representative of subsurface conditions., The report is not a warranty of subsurface conditions. If, in the future, conditions are found which' o 4iffer significantly from those presented here, GeoScience must be advised at once so that these conditions and our recommendations can be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Should a substantial lapse of time occur between this investigation and future site activity, or if conditions have changed due to nearby construction or natural causes, the data contained in this report should be reviewed to determine its continued applicability.' This report is not intended to provide a seismic risk evaluation of the subject property. The report should be made available to potentialcoIitractors who will o perfonn the construction work. GeoScience cannot be responsible for any deviation from the recommended construction methods or means discussed in this report, likewise, our firm cannot be responsible for construction activity on other sites which neighbor or abut the subject property referenced in this report. If you have any questions about this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at (541) 607-5700. Respectfully submitted, GeoScience, Inc. Cf!c~diitk ~ / ,// Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D" CEG '" Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield GeotechnicaVSoils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8.6-03 9 ..., i -'1 " " I I r _.J i o I "-.. Rock')' Road Subdivision, Springfield . Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03' 1 I I ~"'-"".,'J.? ".~..: .~:: . ~ .... ~ '; " :;;:: ,~i~:;'~~~' .... ~~,. ". :~~~~i"o'\"~,:,~, . ':.0' i ~;.t.. ""';". . ;.','- t:i":1'o,o ~" f;":<~~:: '~T;o.~ .- I~"~'; '/ . ~.ij,t.."o" ' l ~:.~.}."~: ~ . ~~.... ~~ '': _'J, \\~:..~~~. . -'~ "... ., ..~ . t ... ~..., .';:~ ;''' .'tI:Jr,P" . ,'" ::~,,~~; ":. f " T; i?~~' ",..... :~ ~~':j~:i~'" ..- -. " ':'f- .... ~. .. -'.:,,:. , ~:~ :W\ . """" -. 0,. , . ~ '. . "'~t. '~-. ~"'.'- ~ ,. ., -< ~'. . ~ ;..:', .,;:{" Ii · 1. I "~..:.< I ,..):t~~\ "'-"~.... ...._-:-._~ .~t" " -t . ~. ...~ .~... ....... ,,:., ,-ffi:=~J ,.~. ..~: :-;';~f 0' --4 " ;..'. ~o ''', ' ..'?' "';~<~~r~tl~~JI ., ~ .~, . .. "Ii. . ....."'" ~ " ~":~i:'~:- ...~. ~:4~.. ",:, :,:.)..3': :,'~-h ~~ f; :1-: .~,.. . . !!,' . ~.:.;' . 4~ ..., ':;'::.i;~" .. '.;4b '''';.': ,rt"' 0 .~ ~-:. - ..'.:. .,~::, : . " ,~ ,~~i~:.:~'~<~:~~;' .' ::~.;.; '~". ..:::.,.:'~' " ... . ; ~. ': ~~ ,". T r ,- f~ it ", ~~ r- f'... 'II.'.. " :v ~~;~:i~<~~ ~," Z- ~~~~"':~~'::'} - ,~ ~ .. : ....::t J . - ..- -. ~ ., ~\\~- '.." , ~.P':"r'''~:~': .;,~~' :. .?).;.::. 4;~ ; ,. . . -.~. ~.~ ( $! 1" I Ji n. J;' .~ ,~ : II ,~ JJr I Q l.,....',-~;.. 'J "~'1P . ~ '1, iI, 0 .;1 . - ~.;' ~~'~ 'f ~ &: h- "'1 Rock)' Road Subdivision, Springfield Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 ( HAH-Ia ! Elevation: 514' AMSL Depth .. . Date: 8/4/2003 Loc: See Map Unit Symbol . ~~~"54~r~L:r.~ :..~-p=..:. ". '':''::~'':'~':''::.:.!...:::.'::.:.~ .... =-:-~". :::". :::::::::::::::::::::.........: -- ------------ 1- ~ ~~.:.:=:;:~::;.:.:=:;:;#~~ -------- . ~ _:.::. . ......:..;;: 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7..;.. 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- su-c I Depth: 1.5 ft. I Depth to Rock: NA 2-1/4" OD Auger IOperator: GS Eet. GJ,"ad. USCS G 'S Mle Cons. Lo~er: GS ' o Equipment: , Description o - 1.5' Brown dayey SAND with 20 -30 % (y volume) igneous rock fragments. Low dry strength, low toughness,slow dilatancy. uses class. applies to matrix only. Hand auger refusal on Igneous rock fragment at 1.5'. ' '~~t.~~~'~~5t~<ii):;l':.:';/''''''' ..' ..1 ~,wlvl,M~""..l"l~.:. " '.' , . . ~ lt ,ii~li~?i;\-~"'; .~.,,:. .::;. ..:':' . . ~ , , , -h\~.f!';';'.V"";' . :: ,~:'fb!d~~l~;::' .. . e - Depth to Water: NA Weather: Sunny ~ 80s UCS psf sc 70 30 Hard Moist Plast. Dry EPL Proposed Rocky Road' Subdivision, Springfield . HAU-la Drawn by: GS Date 8-6-03 , , UUS psf' ,/ ~ Date: 8/4/2003 Loc: See Map HAH-lb Elevation: 514'AMSL ' Depth Symbol ' Unit , !~1[~.-.::.~r~~~y~ 1 _ E~2: .......:.::_~:~~2-;isu.c 2- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 L02.2er: GS I-Depth:o 1.5 ft. I Equipment: 2-1/4" OD Auger Depth to Rock: NA o -I Operator: GS 0 E,lilt. Grad. USCS ,<; S M/e Cons. I Depth to Water: NA l W~ather: Sunny - 80s ues Moist Plast. psf SC 30 Hard DIy 8PL Description o - l' Brown dayey SAND with 20 -30 % (y volume) Igneous rock fragments. Low dry strength, low toughness,slow dilatancy. ~USCS class. applies to matrix only;/ Hand auger refusal on Igneous rock fragment at 1'. 70 ';:t'll$~i;i~,I).'!~~:~':/<::' :,:,~';:~.:: ' ," - ~~i'\I"H,.,!.;o":"'" .' '. :.' . -;- , '. f('~i~t~;1:"~\:t ,::~:\\'/,~~.;: ." ,- . , ~""l~ "~' . , , :-ll~'~~~'~L~~, .~' '. .' I ,Proposed Rocky Road Subdivision,Springfleld HAH-lb Drawn by:GS , Date 8-6-03 ~ UUS psf ./ '" , Lo~er: GS I Depth: 1.5 ft. I Equipment: 2-1/4" OD Auger HAH-lc Elevation: 514' AMSL Depth to Rock: NA I Operator: GS K<<.:t. Grad. USCS G S M1C Cons. Depth (0 Water: NA Weather: Sunny - 80s UCS psf Date: 8/4/2003 Loc: See Map Unit UUS psf Depth Symbol ~~r~, '. -: ,~+r:,f?-r=:-?: " " ,'7: .' " .' L."~' ..7..~ 1-~~i;$~j=i;~ ------ ------.. ----- . ............ ............. --- ---- -- . Description o - 1.5' Brown dayey, SAND with 20 -30 % (y volume) igneous rock fragments. Low dry strength, low toughness,slow dilatancy. uses class. applies to matrix only. Hand auger refusal on Igneous rock fragment at 1.5'. Moist Plast. BPL sc 70 Hard DIy 30 su-c 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- Proposed Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield HAU-le Drawn by; GS Date 6-6-03 ,/ '" fI Logger: GS I Depth: 4.75 ft. I Equipment: 2-1/4" OD A~er Depth to Water: NA Weather: Sunny - 80s UCS psf Depth to Rock: 2.25' I Operator: GS E~t. G...ad. uses G S Mle Cons. ) HAH-ld Elevation: 514' AMSL , Date: 8/4/2003 Loc:' See Ma ) UUS psf Depth Symbol ~=':tr.~fJ~<~r:r~u~ :...~V~S::X:":=I:.:::":'~::':':':"::~~~ - ._~~~-:...::-..~~~~~~~ 1 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - ---------- ----------. ." ................................. ~_..:._~~~~~-~-~~~~~~~~~~~~3 Unit Description - 0- 1.759rown dayey SAND with 20 -30 % (y volume) igneous rock fragments. Low dry strength, low toughness;slow'dilatancy. uses class. applies to matrix only. Moist Plast. DIy EPL Haid sc 70 30 sue suo 1.75 - Ughtgray CLAY. Very highdry strength, 2.25' high toughness, no dilatanCy. Rust-brown CDS Pyro-clastic rock unit. RU~2~~: Decomposed to clay, over-consolidated. . Decrepitates In presence of water and remolds to APL, with very high dry strength high tou'ghness, and no dilatancy. , -----. ------------------------------------- .-----. --- ._-- ._-- .----- ._----- .---------------------- 4~- ." 0 ' 4 7ft' Maroon tobrlck red pyroclastic rock. CDS. Hard ,Sl ..,"Ist SPL CH 20 80 . ' ----------------- 4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S -._0_.-.-.-..-.,-..-.-.-.-.-.._.._0 __. .----- ---- - -.-.-.-.-'-.-.-._._.-0_._.-.-.-.- '-""-""-' -....- -,-,-,~,-..'-~ ----- ..__o_o_'_.~ .---------------- _._._o_._._._._w_w_._o_o_w_o_._o_ ----~,--'-..'-~,-----,--,- -__0_'_' ,______.~ ---------------- 5'- ;;,-.-.-.-.-.-.=-.-.==-.-.-.-. Hole tennlnated at 4.75'.0 No Vl.Qter encountered. 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11,- 12- , Proposed Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield HAH-id 'Drawn bY: GS Date 8-6-03 . I .~~;.< I ;.J~.,<(."'.\j~t~:..:.~t'., r' " , :'r' . ' . f,1 liE. Ifilo]fl.,,~.,'i':','t'l" ,':'1" .:; 11LJ~ 'f . ~ ' ,~ ~r \ I': _tf\:!:: :,I~( /;:Ii/'i; .,:': (' ~~ ""r ":: . , . ~ ''''''v'' 0 o~" = ...Jt,,,,,~i).. , . \~~j.lo:',.;I".ij..I,:. . ,/ o i f" HAH-2 0 Elevation: 524' AMSL Depth ~ xGeo Date: 8/4/2003 Loc: See Map Symbol Unit ~~:'(~~:.:kt"J"";:.J:-r~t-7: . ~~-V:..:.:S::""E:::I:.::.:.K::-.:.::~"'::~~ ~;r- - ......:.::.:.;;....:.::_.:.::_.:.;;...~~~ su-c 1 :: . ......:.::.:.::~ - 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- Lo~er: GS I Depth: 1 ft. Equipment: 2-1/4" OD Auger Description o - l' Brown clayey SAND with 20 -30 % (y' volume) igneous rock fragments. Low dry strength, low toughness,slow dilatancy. ~USCS class. applies to matrix only/ Hand auger refusal on Igneous rock fragment at 1'. ~~i~\~':f!!y:~ii1:L ., ,,;' , ' Depth to Rock: NA I Operator: GS E.,t. Grad. USCS G S Mle Cons. Depth to Water: NA Weather: Sunny - 80s UCS psf sc 30 Hard Moist Plast. EPL 70 DIy o Proposed Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield HAH-2 Drawn by: ~s n'ltA A-6-o.1 UUS psf '\ i. / Logger:GS " I: Depth: 2.5 ft~ I Depth to Rock: 2.25 Equipment: 2-1/4" OD Auger I Operator: GS .&-t. GJ."ad. uSCS G S Mle Cons. , HAH-30 ~Ievation: 531' AMSL Depth Date: 8/4/2003 Loc: See Ma ) Symbol ~~*t,""'m-..t:{:~:.rqY~ ~~~:s:.:p::"':..:.:....:.._.:..::_~_~.:..,;:, l-~_~~~ 2 -1~~~1~;~~;~;~~~~ UJiit Description o - 2.25' Brown clayey SAND with 5 - 10 % (by volume) igneous rock fragments. Low dry strength, low toughness,slow dilatancy. SlJ..C ,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~' F\LJ-101 2.~- ....-'" ~2.5' 3 ,. - ' 4- CDS: Tan weathered Igneous rock. Remolds to sandy silt wI low dry strength/ low toughness and rapid dilatancy. / Hole tennlnated at 2.5'. No Vlater encountered. 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- ,~f/.\ n~' ~;;'}(;'}"~:w~..:' J:'~~."";~'" :.1' . ~ '\lt~'" tiW~ni'~"M.", ': ' 0 ~'tili)tP. 'l~~r"~~;.~:f:\::,':' ',<, ".~. . ~ . . . _';t\i'("ir'''''' ." -. . . - ,~,~lt I.:~:-!' .' '. 0 0 0 A;i~klf:tl"..J""'II.",..., .' , Proposed Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield ,HAH-3 Drawn by: GS Date 6-6-03 Depth to Water: NA Weather: Sunny - 80s UCS psf sc 10 65 ,25 HaJd Moist Plast. DIy I3PL I ' o~ .UUS psf I ' ) t# TP-l Elevation: 506' AMSL Date: 7/29/2003 Loc: DW Entr. DepOI Unit SU-B 4 5 (; 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lo~er: GS I Depth: 4.5 ft. I Equipment: Case 580 0-2' Description Dark broWl clayey SAND w 70 to 80 ok (by volume) VFS Igneous rock fragm...,.~ to 24". Low dry strength, low toughness, slow dilatancy. uses applies to matrix only. ove-consolldated clay. Probably altered pyro-clastlc rock lD11t. Hard Vvtlen dry or sllghtlmolst. Decrepitates rapidly In presence of moisture. Remolds to APL VlAth vey high dry strength, high toughness and no dilatancy. Bottom of pit at 4.5 feet. No Water encountered. . Gee>> ~, '~.i{l~k~~:~?:~o;?:i\~::":~..',o, :~::o':';" .' '''~:i<ldY.:''':'''' . ;1~~~;~;~.~ '. ~ . Proposed Rocky Road Subdivision, SprinJPield TP-l DraWl bv: GS Date 8-6-03 Depth to Rock: 2 n. 0 I Operator: Lance &t. GJ;'8d. USCS G S Mle Cons. 70 30 HaItI Depth to Water:,N/A Weather: Swmy - 80s UCS Moist Plast. psf sc , Dry 8PL > 9,000 , UUS psf -- ) TP-2 ~levation: 506' AMSL Depth Date: 7/29/2003 Loc: DW Entr. Unit SU-B 7- 8- 9- 10- 11'- 12- 0-4' Logger: GS I Depth: 6 ft. Depth to Rock: 4 ft. Depth to Water: Nt A ~uiJ.>ment: Case 580 I O~ 'ator: Lance Weather: Swmy - 80s' F~ to Grad. UCS Description USCS G S Mle Cons. Moist Plast. psf Dark brooo dayey SAND w/70 to 80 % SC 70 30 Hard Diy 0 BPL (by Volume) VFS 191160us rock fragments to 48". ,Low dry strength, low toughness, slow dilatancy. uses classification - . applies t~ matrix only. 4 - 5.5' CDS: Tan ~athered Igneous rock. Remolds to sandy slit w/low dry strength, SI.Molst > 9,000 . Bottom of pit at 6 feet. No water encountered. .. ' I ' '1' '..~ ',R l'y,' n.~'f~i~';:':~::~;:."'(\~~'~,"~:-: :. " . i1:~~ .~ I~fi '~"i(~lr'r'o "',;",':'- "i; .' .;. .", , , l ~ \'~"'otlrft:\',':7'" (:::~:':: ~,~.~.f~', ~ ~ -'. '. '.~ . ...."li.~... ..'"... 0 . IJlk~':'C, '.-: ,0. ~';fLj,J.I.:.t1......."I..: . Proposed Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield TP-2 t 'q it eo - Drall\l1 by: GS Date 6-6-<>3 '" UUS psf , ' ' ::. " ./ , ' 1 -, j 01 ., I .j i i I J Rod.)' Road Subdivision, Springfield Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 Photo 1: . Photo 2: Photo 3: Photo 4: Photo 5: Photo 6: Photo 7: Photo 8: Photo 9: Photo 10: Photo 5: ",~. . PHOTO LOG Backhoe backfilling TP-I. View SSW.TP-I was located just up-slope fi:omthe'begiilning of the existing driveway. ' . , TP- 1. View ESE. The test pit was located in the cut bank for the existing"driveway. Total height of cut 4.5 feet. Bottom portion ofTP-I: The maroon material with lighter-colored spots is RU-302. TP-2, located 116 feet along driveway from TP~I. View E. Note size ofrock fragments excavated with SU-B. Most ofSU-B consists of rock fragments ofRU-1 01. Photos 7 through 10 are additional pictures of TP-2. (Upside-doWn). Upper portion ofTP-I, with SU-B. Note size and angularity ofrock fragments in . this unit. (Upside-down - tape measure case is at bottom of photo). Lower portion of TP-I. 0 The contact between SU-B and underlying RU-302 is located at approximately the 3-foot mark on the tape measure. TP-2. View SE. Most of the back wall of the test pit consists ofSU-B. Closer view ofSU-B in TP-2. View E. Note visually fresh-state rock fragments where the fragments " have been broken by the backhoe. , TP~2. Contact between SU-B (upper half of back wall in this picture) and light-colored CDS/PDS RU-lOl in lower half. . TP-2. CDS/PDS RU-l Olin lower portion of the test pitHMost of this material can be remolded with fmger pressure. However, at bottom of pit, material could not be remolded. . /.:, Rock)' Road Subdivision, Springfield . Geotechnical/Soils Assessment, GeoScience, Inc. 8-6-03 -. ~ ;.J) ~ 1 "I H /, ') ~ . Photo 3 Photo 4 I'~\;;"''''''U'' .:',r.:',n~.tlJ:'1Jiili' ,,~~;;a~~ (541) 607-5700 Proposed Rocky Road Subdivision, Springfield - 1I1 ~ - -- =" Q ....:l I 1I1 ....:l Q Q 1 Photo 5 Photo 6 , i I I f -= .., 0 'C 0 tIJ ~ Co '=' 0 " ~ ~ '=' I 0 = I Co ~ I c: =- Co -. < -. tIJ -. 0 = .. {IJ "Cl .. -. = (JQ :l ~ - Co .. -- Ul ~ .... ...... =- = "'-l . Ul "'-l = = -= ., o "C o C"Il <'= c:l. :::0 o t') ~ '< :::0 o = c:l. CI:I c: C'" c:l. .. < .. C"Il S' = .. 00 'C ., = aQ ::'l <'= - c:l. t ~t '. February 19,2004 Mr. David Nichols, PE Pacific West Engineering 3610 Goodpasture Loop 0 , Eugene OR 97401 RE: GEOTECHNICAL MEETING ITEMS-RELATING TO ROCKY ROAD SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. Nichols: I am writing this letter per the discussion on February 17, 2004 at the meeting regarding the proposed, Rocky Road subdivision. Comments had been received from City of Springfield staff regarding the subdivision application documents, and the meeting had been called to clarify these comments and '0 determine the responses required to satisfy the requirements. Specifically, Citystaffnoted that the original GeoScience geotechnical report (dated August 6, 2003) , 0 did not contain recommendations regarding construction of public improvements (e.g. streets and public utilities) for Design Areas 2 and 3. These areas are underlain by RU-1 01 (as descnbed in the , original report) at depths VaI)ing from a few inches to 2 feet RU-I01 is present in completely decomposed state (CDS) to partly decomposed state (PDS) to depths of 1 0 feet or greater. The rock unit is overlain by SU-C a bro\\-n clayey sand (SC) with low dry strength, low toughness and slow dilatancy. Neither SU-C, nor CDSRU-101 have charc:icteristics consistent with the presence of expansive clay. Therefore, no special measures are required for road construction in this area. The uppennost, organic-rich portion ofSU-C should be removed priorto placement offill. During wet weather construction, SU-C and the upper portions of CDS RU-IOl should be protected from' softening under traffic loads by placement of at least six inches of inches of base rock. ' , Excavation for underground utilities will not present aproblem in Design Area 2, because all units can be excavated to the required depths using conventional means. In Design Area 3, road base rock can be placed on CpS to ~isually fresh state (VFS) RU-IOl. Grading in SU-B may result in ripping up oflarger rock fragments, and the resulting holes will need to be filled. However, no other special measures'are required for road construction in this area. , . Public utility trenches (e.g. sanitary and storm sewers) in DA-3 may encounter areas where a la.rge , trackhoe or hydraulic hammer is required for excavation. Limiting trench depths to the minimum required will minimize this possibility. ~,... D_~"''''~O ~..~___ ^Dn"7"n~o fJ::A1\ c::n7_J::7nn I:A y. ~n7:'~7n1 CCB # 127073, Mr. David Nichols o February 19,2004 Page 2 . The other issue discuSsed at the meeting related to the position of the buildirig envelope relative to the design areas. Specifically, the three lots at the northwest corner of the subdivision (Lots 7, 1, and 2) are bisected by the boundary between DA-1 and DA-3. Of these, the corner lot (Lot 1) is located mostly withinDA-1, and will require a foundation designed to mitigate for the presence of expansive soil and RU-302. On Lots 2 and 7; it is possible to place the building envelope within either DA-1 or'DA-3,or over the boundary. It is recommended to leave the determination of where to place the house up to the future owner or builder. If the residence is proposed to be placed entirely or partly within DA-l it is recommended to require a foundation which mitigates the expansive material in the subsurface (e.g. drilled pier foundation with above-grade beams). If the residence is proposed. to be constructed entirely within DA-3, it is recommended to require inspection of the foundation excavation by a qualified geotechnical professional prior to placement of a leveling course or foundation forms. In this manner, it is possible to verify the presence of RU-l 01 as the foundation subgrade. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 607-5700. Sincerely, GeoScience, Inc. fY~tY'J~ ,.lG~ar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG I