Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2021-00843 GEO Checklist - BLD Application - 7/16/2021 GE02-62) Mason County Review Checklist for a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Report should explain the basis for the conclusion. The Report is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director. Applicant's Name: Permit#: J 2621— 8W Parcel#: Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: 1. (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK? Comment: (b) A discussio of specific soil types OK? Comment: (c) A discussi I of ground water conditions OK? Comment: (d) A discuss�n of the upslope geomorphology OK? Comment: (e) A discuss' n of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands OK? Comment: (f) A discus ion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records OK? Comment: 2. A site plan that identifies the important development and geologic features. OK? Comment: 3. Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. OK? Comment: 4. The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be deli7ted (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site. OK? Comment: 5. A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorpora)es the details of proposed grade changes. OK? T Comment: 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, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1 and the quasi-static analysis effients should be a value of 0.15. OK? Comment: 7. (a) Appropr' to restrictions on placement of drainage features OK? v Comment: (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields OK? Comment: (c) Appropriate 6strictions on placement of compacted fills and footings. OK? Comment: Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 (d) Recomme ed buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. OK? V Comment: 1 U -4-- 3-15 V'A 1)Vv P J (e) Recommgnded setbacks from the landslide hazar ,areas s�o reline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. OK? J Comment: �!F it 20 4 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.( 00 V Comment: 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 truction methods. OK? Comment: 10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. OK? Comment: 11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer wid hs. OK? Comment: 12. Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. OK? J Comment: /�6 k 1 13. A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing�nd proposed development on the site. OK? Comment: Are the DocuLments signed and stamped? � By whom? M I(H4C L STET License#: �l 36 y� License type: FIRST REVIEW Approved ❑ Need more info. If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by on / Zj Time spent in review: SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by , on . Time spent in second review: THIRD REVIEW/UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by , on . Time spent in third review: Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 TH15 51TE PLAN 15 DRAWN BASED ON DATA 5UPPLIED BY CLIENT AND WITHOUT BENEFIT OF SURVEY OR TOPOGRAPHY PLANNING JUN 0 3 221 3 1�6.36' 6":5 W. Alder Shee: F LA lU IV I N G 275" - R � /001� `t ALL SETBACKS ARE MEASURED � 29.46' FROM HE FURTHEST PROJECTION OF THE BUILDING A / +RBA \ / SEPTIC TANKS \ 6 ` \ S ©Q49 / III' .000, 84.38' ci �g-p0023 ` � ` 3q` PROP05ED N 714 64 m CO APPROVED 51 TE PLAN W00% COUMTY r-%rp PLANNNG 1" = 40'-0" 8rrE Pu CHIA C EE ON SITE � '�� aqRC L jr- _ ....�., TOM HER5TAD 144.63' BUILDING DE516N INC . 2c1b Tremont 5T. Port Orchard WA c18566 (560) 876-6515 - fax: 816-14111 - off lce®tomherstadzom