Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GRD201500015Hearing Findings - GRD Permit / Conditions - 12/29/2008
STAFF REPORT December 9, 2008 TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner FROM: Mason County Department of Community Development STAFF: Michael MacSems, Subdivision Reviewer SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval of Lake Land Village 14 subdivision INTRODUCTION This report presents an evaluation of a subdivision proposal to create 25 single family residential lots on an 5.8-acre site. This report also includes recommended conditions to be met prior to final plat approval. APPLICANT Anderson& Sons P.O. Box 108 Allyn, WA 98524 PROPERTY LOCATION SE '/4, SE '/4, Section 18, Township 22 North, Range 1 West, WM Located in the Allyn Urban Growth Area off of Soderberg Road. AREA DISCRIPTION This project is located in an undeveloped site with a portion of the Allyn UGA. The site has a mixed zoning of R-1P (Residential—Platted District and R-1R(Residential Recreational). The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with both zoning designations. The R-1P portion of the site are located on Lots 34 and 34A of LLV 12, phase II. These two lots were reserved for future development when LLV 1211 was approved. The site is bordered by the Lake Land Village Golf Course to the north and east, a driving range to the west and low-density single family development to the south. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This proposal is to convert 5.8 acres of undeveloped land into a 25 single family lot residential development within Lake Land Village 12,Phase II and the Allyn Urban Growth Area. Density for the overall tract is 4.3 units per acre; zoning is R-IP which allows a maximum of 6 units per gross acre and RAR which allows a maximum of 5 units per 1 gross acre. The proposed lots range in size from 9,417 square feet to 15,256 square feet, exceeding the minimum 7,000/6,000 minimum lots size requirements of their respective zoning. This proposal will not be phased. All lots will be served by the Lakeland Water System and sewer is being provided for by the Mason County run Allyn sewer system. When fully built out this proposal will add about 75 new residents to Allyn. EVALUATION Public Facilities Schools-- The North Mason School District has the right to seek impact fees from the developer. A signed agreement between the developer and the North Mason School District will be a condition of final approval. Parks & Open Space There no applicable parks and open space standards in the Allyn UGA. Traffic-' Internal Circulation The LLV 14 plat is essentially a double cul-de-sac development, stemming off of the existing LLV road network. The existing road network directs traffic to SR 3 via Homestead Drive. However traffic can also meander through Lake Land Village and- enter SR 3 at Lakeland Drive when desirable. A Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA)was provided by the applicant and distributed to Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT) and Mason County Public Works(MCPW). WSDOT has declined to seek impact mitigation and MCPW has indicated that the TIA is satisfactory. The Lake Land Village road network is dedicated to the public. Internally,both cul-de-sac streets(currently unnamed)meet the 60' right-of-way requirements of both a Secondary and Primary Collector. However the only portion of these new streets that need to meet a Collector standard are the first 500' of the street that intersects with Soderberg Road and a 180' stub leading to the west,which leads to the site of the future LLV 15. Section 16.16.060.b of the Mason County Subdivision Ordinance requires that subdivisions be designed so that children can walk safely to and from school.As there is no residential sidewalk requirement for the Allyn UGA,this proposal is not serviced by a sidewalk network. It is assumed that the low volume of traffic associated with cul-de-sacs will adequately protect children walking to and from the school bus stop,which would 2 presumably be located at the intersection of Soderberg Road. Currently the North Mason School District provides bus service to Soderberg Road. Fred Perryman of MCPW has confirmed the proposed streets meet all County engineering requirements. Traffic—Off Site Impacts As stated above, this proposal will be connected to the rest of the world via Homestead Drive and Lakeland Drive. The developer has provided Mason County with Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)written by Pat McCullough, ESA Inc (Exhibit O). Water This proposal shall be provided with water(potable and otherwise) by the Lakeland Water System. Please see Exhibit J for proof of water adequacy. The Washington State Department of Health has jurisdiction for approval of the water distribution system for this project. WSDOH approval is a condition of Final Plat Approval. Sewage: LLV 14 will be connected to the Allyn sewer system, which is operated by the Mason County Department of Waste &Utilities (MCWU). Tom Moore of MCWU has confirmed that their system has the capacity to accommodate this development. All lines shall be installed to County specifications as a condition of Final Plat Approval. Police The Mason County Sheriff's office provides 24-hour service. Fire Protection Fire District No 5 provides fire protection for this area. Utilities and Services Public power, mail, trash collection and telephone services are available. Comprehensive Plan (Allyn Zoning Code) The land that this proposal is located on is inside of the Allyn Urban Growth Area and zoned R-1P and R-1R. With a density of 4.3 units per acre, this proposal falls below the maxim density of 5 or 6 dwelling units per acre. This proposal also exceeds the current minimum density of 4 lots per acre,but is not subject to a minimum density requirement 3 as it is vested to an earlier standard and is consistent with the regulations in effect at the time of application(10/12/07). See Exhibit E. Environmental Review Critical area concerns for this site consisted of on and off-site slopes and an off-site wetland. Steep slopes in the vicinity include the edge of the fill on the south property line,a more gentle naturalized slope in the SW corner(Lot 10& 11) and the steep fill placed in the Navy Railroad r/w which lies within 300' of the subdivision. These slopes were studied by Shawn Williams (geologist) and Sean Caraway P.E. of EnviroSound Consulting (ESC)who wrote a geotechnical report for the project(Exhibit K). The report was reviewed by Michael MacSems of the Planning Department who approved using the Mason County Review Checklist process(Exhibit L). The applicant hired The Wetland Corps (TWC)to prepare a Wetland Delineation Report for the LLV 14 site and adjacent land.No wetlands or other critical areas exist on site, but a Class II wetland from which exits a southerly flowing Class Ns stream is located about 170' SW of the proposed subdivision,the buffer for the Class II wetland is 150' plus a 15' building setback. See Exhibit M. An Environmental Checklist was completed and a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance(MDNS)was issued on September 25,2008. The checklist and mitigating conditions are attached as Exhibit N. No comments for SEPA 2007-00113 were received. On November 3, 2008 Fred Perryman of Mason County Public Works approved a Stormwater and Drainage Control Plan by the project's engineer Pat McCullough of Engineering Services Associates(ESA). See Exhibits P &Q. COMMENTS FROM MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Environmental Health This public water and sewer dependent development was approved by Amanda Reynolds of Mason County Environmental Health on September 6, 2007. Water System—The proposed subdivision is to be served by the Lakeland Water System. A condition of final approval is that Mason County shall receive notification from The Washington State Department of Health(which has jurisdiction over this system)that the system is adequate for the entire proposal. 4 Fire Marshal On August 24, 2007 the Mason County Fire Marshal's Office approved this plat on condition that the fire flow requirements of fire flow per MCC Chapter 14.18 and the Hydrant Placement per Fire Code Appendix B, C. Writing for the Fire Marshal,Dennis Skinner found that the roads and access are designed to meet and/or exceed the Fire Apparatus Access Road requirements of MCC 14.17. Public Works On November 3 and 14, 2008,Fred Perryman of MCPW confirmed that MCPW had approved a stormwater and erosion control plan as well as all road plans and profiles (Exhibit F). On November 17,2008, Hans Cregg of MCPW confirmed,by telephone,that the Traffic Impact Analysis had been found acceptable. Waste & Utilities On April 4,2008, Tom Moore of MCWU confirmed that their system has the capacity to accommodate this development and that all lines shall be installed to County specifications prior to Final Plat Approval (Exhibit G). Planning Department Michael MacSems of the Planning Department required the applicant to submit a geotechnical report and a wetland report/delineation for the site and surrounding area. The reports were accepted by Mason County and were found to be in compliance with the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance. Planning Department Staff also reviewed the proposal for consistency with the Mason County Development Regulations, The Allyn Zoning Code and chapter 16.16 of the Mason County Subdivision Ordinance. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of November 20,2008 this proposal has received only one comment letter. On May 1, 2008 Staff received a letter from attorney Larry Paulson who represents an adjacent property owner to the south. Mr. Paulson requested that the County condition LLV 14 approval so that legal access could be provided to his client's property(the Estate of Everett Spring),which is otherwise legally landlocked. Because Mason County is interested in promoting interconnectivity throughout the Allyn UGA, Staff forwarded the request to proponent Rick Anderson,but did not receive a reply. Staff followed up with inquiries to management and the Prosecuting Attorney's 5 Office and a determination was made that the County could not compel the developer to provide such access. (Exhibits H&I) FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR HEARINGS EXAMINER'S APPROVAL Per Title 16.16.060,the Hearings Examiner shall make a positive Finding of Fact that the following is true: (a)that the preliminary plat makes appropriate provisions for public health, safety, and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, light and air, ingress and egress,transit stops, sanitary waste,parks and recreation areas, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking for students who only walk to and from school; (b)the public uses and interest will be served by the platting of such land. If the Hearings Examiner finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication makes appropriate provisions and the public uses and interest will be served,then the Hearings Examiner shall approve the preliminary plat.Approval of a preliminary plat shall not guarantee final approval. CONCLUSIONS The Department of Community Development has reviewed the materials made available. to us and finds that conceptually the proposal is in keeping with the goals of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department-believes that the applicant has generally satisfied the criteria necessary, to reach a positive Finding of Fact and recommends preliminary approval with the understanding that such approval is conditioned as specified below. CONDITIONS TO BE MEET PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL The following conditions are recommended by the Mason County Department of Community Development: 1. The applicant and the school district shall enter into a mitigation agreement,which shall provide an as yet unspecified amount of,money per lot to the North Mason School District. A signed agreement shall be presented to Mason County prior to Final Plat approval. 2. Per MCC 14.18 fire flow is required at 1,000 GPM minimum at 30-PSI residential f` pressure and fire hydrants are capable of delivering 1,000 GPM for 2 hours are required. Maximum spacing between hydrants shall be 500'.Hydrants to be in place and serviceable prior to final plat approval. 3. Prior to final approval, an Operation and Maintenance Covenant for stormwater facilities shall be completed,notarized,and recorded with the County Auditor's Office. A copy of the recorded Operation and Maintenance Covenants shall be delivered to Public Works for their files. 6 4. The applicant shall provide dust control throughout construction of the necessary improvements for this proposal.Dust control measures shall include limiting disturbance to needed improvements including phasing of development, and watering of disturbed areas if dust levels become excessive. Long term control of particulate emissions will include permanent restoration of disturbed areas including seeding and landscaping of roadside swales and storm water retention facilities. 5. Water Quality and Temporary Stormwater and Erosion Control: 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. 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 the natural stormwater drainage system 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 site. Coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities is required for construction sites which disturb an area of one acre or more and which have or will have a discharge of stormwater to surface water or a storm sewer. An application can be downloaded from the Department of Ecology's website at hgp://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/#Application. Soil in stockpiles should be stabilized or protected with sediment-trapping measures to prevent soil loss.All exposed areas of final grade or areas that are not scheduled for work,whether at final grade or otherwise, shall not remain exposed and un-worked for more than two days,between October 1 and April 30. Between May 1 and September 30, no soils shall remain exposed and un-worked for more than 7 days. A permanent vegetative cover should be established on denuded areas at final grade if they are not otherwise permanently stabilized. 7 Properties adjacent to the site of a land disturbance should be protected from sediment deposition through the use of buffers or other perimeter controls, such as filter fences or sediment basins. Cut and/or fill slopes should be designed to minimize erosion. Methods such as slope roughening,terraces, or pipe slope drains,may be used. Provisions should be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved public roads. If sediment is deposited,it should be cleaned every day by shoveling or sweeping. Water cleaning should only be done after the area has be shoveled or swept. Source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as plastic covering,mulch, temporary seeding, and phased clearing(for example) should be used to control erosion during construction.More examples of effective source control BMPs can be found in the Department of Ecology's two stormwater management manuals,Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound(1992) and Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001). 6. Copies of Home Owner's Association documents that specify responsibility for the maintenance of open tracts and Association controlled facilities shall be approved by, and recorded with,Mason County. _—� 7. Street name shall be approved by the Mason County Addresser,prior to final approval. 8. A final stormwater site plan shall be approved by the Mason County Engineer prior to final plat approval. 9. All utilities,including sewer lines, shall be installed underground prior to final plat approval. 10. Sewer lines meeting the specification of Mason County Waste and Utilities shall be installed and approved by MCWU. 11. Maintenance and repair of all community fences and amenities shall be the responsibility of the Lake Land Village Home Owners Association. This shall be reflected in final covenants. 12. Maintenance, operation and repair of any& all streetlights shall be the responsibility of the Lake Land Village Home Owners Association. This shall be reflected in the final covenants. 13. Resulting building lots shall be physically connected to the Lakeland Water System prior to final plat approval. s 14. Final approval shall not be granted until the Washington State Department of Health has approved the water distribution system. 15. Final plat approval must be completed within five years of preliminary approval. However request for one-year extensions are allowed as provided for in Mason County Title 16.16.060.c. 1 UID 6 � Michael MacSems; Subdivision Reviewer Date EXHIBITS A: LLV 14 Preliminary Plat Sheets dated 7/10/07 B: Letter size map C: Notice of Application dated 8/24/07 D: Notice of Hearing E: Sections 17.11.700 and 17.11.200 of the Allyn Zoning Code. F: e-mail from Fred Perryman of Mason County Public Works DC datedl 1/14/08. G: e-mail from Tom Moore of MCWU dated 1/25/08 H: Correspondence from Larry Poulson 1: Reply to Larry Poulson J: Proof of Water Adequacy provided by Washington State Department of Ecology, Dated 12/12/05 K: Geotechnical Report by EnviroSound Consulting dated 5/2/08 plus addendums and correspondence dated 7/14/08 and 8/28/08. L: Mason County Review Checklist for Geotechnical Report dated 9/22/08. 9 M: Wetland Delineation and Report by The Wetland Corps dated November 2007 N: SEPA Checklist with mitigation conditions O: LLV 14 Residential Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 2008 P: Wastewater Planning Report for Divisions 14 through 19 for Lakeland Village by ESA dated February 6, 2008 Q: Lakeland Village Stormwater Report Addendum by ESA dated June 13, 2008 R: Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the Plat of Lakeland Village No. 14 10 DEC 2 9 2001 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner 3 4 RE: Lake Land Village 14/ 5 Anderson & Sons FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION 6 MCC 16.16.060 -Preliminary Plat 7 8 INTRODUCTION 9 Applicant seeks approval of a 25 lot residential subdivision on a 5.8-acre site. The 10 application is approved subject to conditions. I 1 ORAL TESTIMONY 12 See Recording of Public Hearing. 13 EXHIBITS 14 See Exhibit List on page 9 of the December 09, 2008 staff report. 15 FINDINGS OF FACT 16 Procedural: 17 1. Applicant. The applicant is Anderson & Sons. 18 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 19 on December 9, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Courthouse Building I. 20 Substantive: 21 3. Site/Proposal Description. This proposal is to convert 5.8 acres of 22 undeveloped land into a 25-single-family-lot residential development within the Lake Land Village 12 subdivision, Phase II and the Allyn Urban Growth Area. Density for 23 the overall subdivision is 4.3 units per acre; zoning. The proposed subdivision is 24 subject to two zoning designations: R-1P which allows a maximum of 6 units per gross acre and R-1R which allows a maximum of 5 units per gross acre. The R-1P 25 portion of the site is located on Lots 34 and 34A of Lake Land Village 12, phase II The proposed lots range in size from 9,417 square feet to 15,256 square feet, exceeding the minimum 7,000/6,000-minimum-lot size requirements of their respective zoning. This proposal will not be phased. All lots will be served by the Lake Land/Anderson & Sons P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {BFP713173.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Lakeland Water System and sewer is being provided for by the Mason County run 1 Allyn sewer system. When fully built out this proposal will add about 75 new residents to Allyn. 3 4. Characteristics of the Area. This project is located in an undeveloped site in the Allyn UGA. These two lots were reserved for future development when Lake 4 Land Village 12 II was approved. The site is bordered by the Lake Land Village Golf Course to the north and east, a driving range to the west, and low-density single- s family development to the south. 6 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. Critical area concerns for this site 7 consist of on- and off-site steep slopes and an off-site wetland. Steep slopes in the vicinity include the edge of the fill on the south property line, a more gentle 8 naturalized slope in the SW corner (Lot 10 & 11), and the steep fill placed in the Navy Railroad right-of-way which lies within 300 feet of the subdivision. These 9 slopes were studied by Shawn Williams (geologist) and Sean Caraway, P.E., of 10 EnviroSound Consulting (ESC) who wrote a geotechnical report for the project (Exhibit K). The report was reviewed by Michael MacSems of the Planning 11 Department who approved using the Mason County Review Checklist process (Exhibit Q. The applicant hired The Wetland Corps (TWC) to prepare a Wetland 12 Delineation Report for the Lake Land Village 14 site and adjacent land. No wetlands or other critical areas exist on-site,but a Class II wetland from which exits a southerly 13 flowing Class Ns stream is located about 170 feet SW of the proposed subdivision. 14 The buffer for the Class II wetland is 150 feet plus a 15-foot building setback. See Exhibit M. An Environmental Checklist was completed and a Mitigated 15 Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS) was issued on September 25, 2008. The checklist and mitigating conditions are attached as Exhibit N. No comments for 16 SEPA 2007-00113 were received. On November 3, 2008, Fred Perryman of Mason County Public Works approved a Stormwater and Drainage Control Plan by the 17 project's engineer, Pat McCullough of Engineering Services Associates (ESA). See 18 Exhibits P&O. Overall,the County has extensively reviewed environmental impacts to wetland, stormwater control and slope stability and has approved the geotechnical, 19 delineation and drainage reports and mitigations for the project. The Examiner finds that all environmental impacts have been fully mitigated, as evidenced by the 20 extensive analysis of these reports. 21 22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 23 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(F) and MCC 16.16.060 24 (B) provide that the Examiner shall review and act on applications for preliminary 25 plat. Substantive: Lake Land/Anderson &Sons p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {BF7713173.DOC;1/13009.900000/} 2. Comp Plan and Zoning Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive 1 Plan designation for the site is Allyn UGA and the zoning is a mixture of R-1P and R- 2 1R. 3 3. Review Criteria and Application. MCC 16.16.06003) sets forth the criteria for review and approval of preliminary plats. Approval of a preliminary plat 4 does not guarantee final approval of the plat, but serves as authorization to proceed with preparations for the final plat along the lines indicated in the approval of the 5 preliminary plat. The criteria for review and approval are set forth and addressed 6 below with corresponding conclusions. 7 MCC 16.16.060(B)(1): the preliminary plat makes appropriate provisions for public health, safety, and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or 8 roads, light and air, ingress and egress, transit stops, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation areas, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and all other relevant 9 facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking for 10 students who only walk to and from school. 11 4. As discussed in more detail below, the proposed subdivision mitigates all demand created for infrastructure. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, all environmental 12 impacts are fully mitigated as well. Police service will be provided by the Mason County Sheriff's Office. Fire protection will be provided by Fire District #5. 13 Approval is conditioned upon compliance with meeting standards for fire hydrants as 14 noted in the Staff Report. Given these factors, the proposal makes appropriate provision for public health,safety and general welfare. The adjoining golf course and 15 relatively large lots provides ample space for the passage of light and air. 16 Schools and schoolgrounds. Impacts upon schools are fully mitigated by a condition 17 requiring a mitigation agreement between the developer and the North Mason School District. A signed agreement in compliance with RCW 82.02.020 between the 18 developer and the School District will be a condition of final approval. 19 Sidewalks and safe walking to and from school. As there is no residential sidewalk requirement for the Allyn UGA, this proposal is not serviced by a sidewalk network. 20 It is assumed that the low volume of traffic associated with cul-de-sacs will 21 adequately protect children walking to and from the school bus stop, which would presumably be located at the intersection of Soderberg Road. Currently the North 22 Mason School District provides bus service to Soderberg Road. Fred Perryman of MCPW has confirmed the proposed streets meet all County engineering 23 requirements. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the preliminary plat makes appropriate provisions for sidewalks and assures safe walking/transportation to and 24 from school. 25 parks and recreation. There are no applicable parks and open space standards in the Allyn UGA. However, the adjoining golf course provides a significant amount of Lake Land/Anderson & Sons p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {BFP713173.DOC;1/13009.900000/} open space for the future residents, much more than would be typically associated 1 with a 25 lot subdivision. Sanitary waste. Lake Land Village 14 will be connected to the Allyn sewer system, 3 which is operated by the Mason County Department of Waste & Utilities (MCWU). Tom Moore of MCWU has confirmed that their system has the capacity to 4 accommodate this development. All lines will be installed to County specifications as a condition of Final Plat Approval. For the reasons stated above, the Examiner 5 concludes that the preliminary plat makes appropriate provisions for sanitary waste. 6 Traffic circulation. Lake Land Village 14 plat is essentially a double cul-de-sac 7 development, stemming off of the existing Lake Land Village road network. The existing road network directs traffic to SR 3 via Homestead Drive. However, traffic 8 can also meander through Lake Land Village and enter SR 3 at Lakeland Drive when desirable. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was provided by the applicant and 9 distributed to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Mason 10 County Public Works (MCPW). WSDOT has declined to seek impact mitigation and MCPW has indicated that the TIA is satisfactory. The Lake Land Village road 11 network is dedicated to the public. Internally, both cul-de-sac streets (currently unnamed) meet the 60-foot right-of-way requirements of both a Secondary and 12 Primary Collector. However, the only portion of these new streets that needs to meet a Collector standard are the first 500 feet of the street that intersects with Soderberg 13 Road and a 1800-foot stub leading to the west, which leads to the site of the future 14 Lake Land Village 15. Fred Perryman of MCPW has confirmed the proposed streets meet all County engineering requirements. The Examiner concludes that the 15 preliminary plat makes appropriate provisions for streets, roads, ingress and egress. Transit stops do not directly apply to this project since there is apparently no transit 16 service in the vicinity. 17 Stormwater. As noted above, Mason County Public Works approved the Stormwater 18 and Drainage Control Plan by the project's engineer,Pat McCullough, of Engineering Services Associates (ESA). See Exhibits P & Q. Therefore, the Examiner concludes 19 that the preliminary plat makes appropriate provisions for drainage ways. 20 Utilities. Water (potable and otherwise) will be provided by the Lakeland Water 21 System. See Exhibit J for proof of water adequacy. The Washington State Department of Health has jurisdiction for approval of the water distribution system 22 for this project. WSDOH approval will be a condition of Final Plat Approval. In addition, public power, mail, trash collection, and telephone services are available in 23 the area. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the preliminary plat makes appropriate provisions for other relevant facts associated with preliminary plats for a 24 residential development of this proportion. 25 MCC 16.16.060(B)(2): the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such land. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication makes appropriate provisions and the public use and interest will be served, then the hearing examiner Lake Land/Anderson &Sons p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {BFP713173.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 i may approve the preliminary plat outright or conditionally. The public interest shall 1 not include the regulatory taking of any contractual rights, options, or any other third party interest in land, which if the preliminary plat were approved, may render such interests valueless. In such case, the hearing examiner may deny the preliminary 3 plat until such interest is removed from the property which is the subject of the preliminary plat, 4 5. The subject property is undeveloped, and the proposal would create new 5 homes for potentially 25 new families in the Allyn UGA. Under the GMA, 6 development is encouraged in urban growth areas. There is no evidence that approval of the preliminary plat will render valueless any third party interest in the subject 7 property. According to staff, the County received a letter from attorney Larry Paulson who represents an adjacent property owner to the south. Mr. Paulson b requested that the County condition approval so that legal access could he provided to his client's property (the Estate of Everett Spring), which is otherwise legally 9 landlocked. In the interest of promoting interconnectivity throughout the Allyn UGA, to Staff forwarded the request to applicant, but did not receive a reply. The prosecuting attorney, however, has made a determination that the County can not compel the 1 developer to provide such access. See Exhibits H&I. The Examiner is in agreement with the conclusions of the prosecutor. For these and the reasons noted in 12 Conclusions of Law #4, the Examiner concludes that the public use and interest will 13 be served by approving the instant preliminary plat. 14 MISCELLANEOUS CRITERIA FOR ALL HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW 15 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development according to the following criteria: 16 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 1 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 18 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 19 in the public interest. 20 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 21 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 22 6. As indicated in the staff report, the project is consistent with the Mason 23 County comprehensive plan. The addition of 25 new residences in an area already designated for urban growth under the GMA does not usually lower the level of 24 service for transportation or park facilities to unacceptable levels. In addition to 25 requirements already addressed in the above Conclusions of Law, the project appears to be consistent with other applicable requirements of the Mason County Code. Proper resources are in place to address public safety, health and welfare, and Lake Land/Anderson &Sons p. 5 Findings,Conclusions and Decision f BPP713173.DOC;1/13009.900000/} approval should have no discernable impact on the same. Given that the project 1 promotes housing in urban growth areas, it is in the public interest. 2 DECISION 3 Based on the testimony at the public hearing, documents and exhibits submitted into 4 the record, the Hearing Examiner approves the preliminary plat as recommended and conditioned in the Staff Report date December 9, 2008. Conditions 1 through 15 set 5 forth on pages 6 through 19 of the Staff Report must be met prior to final plat 6 approval. Condition 1 is modified to require that the mitigation agreement comply with RCW 82.02.020. 7 Dated this 23rd day of December, 2008. 8 9 i 10 Phil Olbrechts 11 Mason County Hearing Examiner 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lake Land/Anderson & Sons p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {B FP713173.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Engineering services Associates, Inc. Wednesday, February 06, 2008 WASTEWATER PLANNING REPORT FOR DIVISIONS 14 THROUGH 19 FOR LAKELAND VILLAGE INTRODUCTION: In 2000 the plat of Lakeland Village was provided centralized waste water disposal by Mason County. The preliminary layout of the waste water collection system in Lakeland Village is shown in Exhibit 2. The preliminary calculations of wastewater flows for wastewater from Divisions 1 through 12 (existing development) and Divisions 14 through 19 (proposed development) are shown in Table 1. The developer of LakeLand Village desires to develop an additional 124 acres of land that is located to the west of the existing development. The additional development will occur over the next 6 years. Division 14 is planned for 2008. Division 15 is planned for development from 2009 to 2011. Divisions 16 through 19 will be developed starting around 2011 and will be completed in 2014. The number of residential units in Division 14 is 26. The number of residential units in Division 15 will be approximately 160 units. The number of residential units in Divisions 16 through 19 will be 318. Exhibit 1 illustrates the preliminary design of the proposed development and the proposed sewer system layout. The density of the development may increase or decrease as the planning and design of the project evolves over the next 6 years. The purpose of this report is to develop a plan for the wastewater collection and pumping systems that will serve the future development of LakeLand Village. DESIGN CRITERIA: Average Daily Flow (ADF) for each Equivalent Residential Unit = 218 Gallons Per Day (GPD). The ADF includes infiltration. (Note that the current ADF in LakeLand Village is between 140 GPD and 160 GPD so 218 GPD is conservative). Peaking Factors: Sewer Laterals = 4, Sewer Sub-mains = 4, Sewer Mains and Pump Stations = 2.5 Minimum Pipe Slopes: 8"= 0.4%, 10"=0.28%, 12"=0.22% Manning's n Value for all pipes = 0.013 Engineering Services Associates Inc. 210 N.E.Cherokee Beach, Belfair,Washington-98528 (360)275-7384 j FAX(360)277-3187 Engineering Services Associates, Inc. Flow Capacity of 8", 10", 12" PVC sewer lines at 0.5% slope = 393 GPM, 694 GPM, 1,120 GPM. 8" at 0.83% slope = 533 GPM. Pump Station Design Criteria: Use Variable Speed Pumps, Wet Well Size = 10 X ADF, Provide Emergency Power. Pump Station No. 4 Wet Well Size = 10 x 394/2.5= 1,576 Gallons. Use an 8' dia. Wet Well. Provide 4.5 feet of active storage. 4.5' x 373 gallons per foot = 1,678 Gallons. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN The proposed layout of the wastewater collection system for the remainder of the Lakeland Village Development (124 acres) and 40 acres of off-site future development is shown in Figure 1. The proposed wastewater collection system is planned to serve 784 residential lots. Approximately 28 of these lots would be served by individual lot pressure sewer systems that will pump uphill to a gravity sewer. The proposed addition to the North Bay Wastewater Collection System will add approximately 300' of 6" gravity sewer, 12,544' of 8" gravity sewer, 376' of 10" gravity sewer, and 1,685' of 12" gravity sewer to the existing wastewater collection system. The new wastewater collection system will also add approximately 76 manholes, 5 cleanouts, and three new variable speed sewage pump stations. The existing pump station 3 on Sterling Drive will be abandoned when gravity sewer becomes available. The proposed development includes large unplanned condominium complexes. The sewers in these areas will be planned when the individual site plans for each area are prepared. All the areas can be served by gravity sewers. The proposed Pump Station Number 4 shown in Figure 1 will have variable speed pumps capable of pumping 394 GPM at a TDH of 80 feet (62 feet static head). Variable speed pumps are required to reduce the peak flow to the downstream gravity sewer system. The gravity flow capacity of the wastewater collection system downstream of the discharge manhole in Soderberg Road is limited by a section of 8" sewer line with a grade of 0.83% located just south of the Glenn Allyn Condominiums — Phase 1 on the G1 sewer line (See Figure 1). This section of sewer line has a gravity flow capacity of 533 GPM. The flow at full development in this section of sewer, assuming a 250% peaking factor, will be 478 GPM. Based on this calculation we concluded that the existing wastewater collection system has the adequate capacity to transport the wastewater from Divisions 14 through 19 to the existing Pump Station No. 2 and thence to the transmission line to the wastewater treatment plant. We met with Mason County Utilities Department (MCUD) representatives and representatives from their consulting firm on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 to discuss the alternatives for Engineering Services Associates Inc. 210 N.E.Cherokee Beach, Belfair,Washington -98528 (360)275-7384 2 FAX(360)277-3187 Engineering services Associates, Inc. sewering the new development. Their primary concern was the capacity of Pump Station No. 2 that pumps the wasterwater from Lake Land Village into a 12" transmission line to the wastewater treatment plant. Pump Station No. 2 is a sequencing pump station that cycles on and off depending on when the pump station located down in Allyn (at the bottom of the hill) is pumping. The two pump stations can pump into the force main at the same time during high flows. MCUD staff indicated that they currently have a major infiltration problem in the existing Lakeland Village wastewater collection system. They have indentified the source of the problem to be storm water inflow into manholes in the golf course. We investigated pumping the G9 and G10 wasterwater collection systems, located in the southwest corner of the proposed development, directly into the transmission line. This alternative offers certain advantages over the proposed preliminary design. Unfortunately, it is not possible, at this time, to obtain an easement from Tacoma Power and Light to cross their property to connect to the existing 12" wastewater transmission line. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that Lakeland Village proceed with the final design and implementation of the wastewater collection system for the proposed new development as shown in Figure 1 and discussed in this report. The existing downstream wastewater collection system is adequate to accommodate the proposed design. 2. It is recommended that the existing Pump Station No. 3 located at the end of Sterling Drive be replaced by a new gravity sewer that flows to the west to the proposed Pump Station No. 4. 3. It is recommended that all the new pump stations in Lakeland Village have variable speed sewage pumps so as to help mitigate potential peak flow impacts that might result from the system expansion. 4. It is recommended that Mason County conduct a leak survey to prevent storm water infiltration into the wastewater collection system. Engineering Services Associates Inc. 210 N.E.Cherokee Beach, Belfair,Washington-98528 (360)275-7384 3 FAX(360)277-3187 TABLE 1: LAKELAND VILLAGE ...................... SEWAGE FLOW ANALYSIS ....................... AT .......................................... ....................... FULL DEVELOPMENT ............................................... ....................... ............................................ ... -,- - - Lakeland Village Sewage Flow Analysis Sewage Flow Estimates for Division 14 and 15(ONLY)at the Proposed Pump Station No.4 ..........•.•....... 1-18-08 .......................................... ; Swwr Uns No. No of Gravity No.of Punlp�d............;Gravity Flow ;Number of ;Flow From ;COMMENTS 3................ .......s................. :Connections :Connections ;and Infiltration ipump Units Pump Btetlaa.. .............................................. ..........................................�.......................... ............................;QPN..... ......................On Line G7 :16 :0.00 :6.88 :0 :0 ;Division 16 Road B lob only. :Does not Include the 56 units 071 198 73 g6 :going to pump station P3 or :Division 12B pump station listed :under the 07 line below. -------------------------------------- ........................j----..........---....-•--_--:17.41 ............................... ................ ARoad.0 ................................ ...........Ge ..................................................... r 011 :! :............................:3:03..................................F.. Road A ...................................................................... ................--•<-----....................:------------••-- G711 :12 : 4.64 ; :Road B Court G112 ;S 2.27 :Road A 6ou ............................................�......................1.............................:106:97................................y....................Q....................---i............................................... ...........................................:...........................:....... .. ..........................................f...................{...................................................................... ;Oailorls Par }Gtuble Feet per ; ; :Minute isecond :This flow will require a new 4 Estimated Peak In the G7 :dla.Force Main and direct Interceptor Sewer In GPM 106 °gam ;pumping Into the Existing 12" -•-'-°DIa.Force theplant....--- _.......-................................................................................................................................ ................... ------------------ Main-to Flow to Pump Station No.4 from Divisions 14 and 15.Usej106 Varlble Speed Pumps and a 2.5 x ADF Peaking Factor. ........................................... LakeLand Village Piping Hydraulic Analysis ... ..........-----•------..t---------------------------- - ........ Waste Water Flow Estimates at Key Piping Junctions .................................... DMSIONS 14 THROUGH 19 .... ....._................................................................. ..........................................? (Full Development-plus 280 units off site.) ...............................;............................._..._............. ........................................ 1-22-08 ................_......... ............................................... ......................................._...i...........................;-.......................................--................................................y............................................._.._....................... Sewer Line No. No of Gravi ;No.of Pumped Gravity Flow ;Number of :Flow From COMMENTS ty .........................:.........--•---------.......................... Connections Connections and IMlitretlon Pump Units p Sbtions ............................................... ........... t ......... y.......................__..................... :GPM :On Una :GPM G7 :25.............................••.......... ....----...:i.3:�.....-----..........:9:�.............. >4 i .....................fAs sume the 56 units flowing into :Existing Pump Station No.3 now G71 193 :0.00 :73.05 :flows into the new sewer line. :Abandon Exisiing Pump Station _... .................................y..... ....................._.........................f... .... ...........; .......N....---------------------....-•-•--•----- o.3 I . G72 ;19 :4.00 :7.19 .................................i3..................33 -- ...........................................F..........................}............................y'41.. ti73 ...........................:Q.�..................._..?18:77.................................t............................................:............--•------... .. ----•--- :Included 200 uints from 40 acres G721 :219 :3.00 :82.89 :3 :33 :outside the UGA and partially :owned by Anderson G8 .......................: : ...................... 1741..... F�.............._ ... ------ ;Entire G9 system has to be 0 :pumped.Assume that the pump (,g :71 :0.00 :28.87 :station has variable speed sewage ..........................................i.........................................................:.........................................F...................{................... ......P.�.......... mps. G91 :14 :0.00 :5.30 0..................:........................ ........ ...........................................y..........................4............................i-........................................... G92 :100 :9.00 ,37.85 -- -------------�---_---------------`f --- - - ------....._.._.••--_.....••-------------r....•-••---•--- ---•----- ---------._ .-..... .--- - -- -----------• nClude 40 4site units for furture :development outside the AUGA. G10 :48 :0.00 :18.17 :0 :Assume the system uses a :variable speed sewage pump to ........................................................................................................................................•----..t.............__....1........................match-incpmin9.�...... G11......................................8............__...........50: ......................3: ............. .................... .......................................... ........------.........�................. G711 :12 :0.00 ......................:...................:........................' ..........................................t..........................t............................t..........._...... fi........................................ ...... G112 :8 :0.00 :2.27 :0 ..............-.............,BOB.....................i.............................308.18----...-•---------------••------}----- ....--43-----•--------------: .......................... y..........................5...._........----------••--- ........................................;......._._....... .......i.............................................. :Gallons Per Minute:Cubic Feet per Second Estimated Peak in This flow will require a the G7 interceptor new 6"dia. Force Main Sewer in GPM at 394 0.88 that will pump into the proposed Pump Existing 8" Dia.Gravity Station No.4 Sewer. ...........................................I...........................:.......................................................................;----------•---_...•< ...........................................i...........................y............................j..----......_.. ....................................................................T-----------------------------.--------------- ............ ........' ; }.............................................. ...........'................................................................................................................�...__......._...----•---'. F...................i...................... 1 THE FLOW ANALYSIS BELOW IS FOR THE EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM LOCATED ....... ......................y.............................................. DOWNSTREAM FROM THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.THE PURPOSE OF THIS FLOW ANALYSIS 15 TO SEE IF THE EXISTING SYSTEM HAS ENOUGH BUILT INCAPACITY TO COLLECT THE WASTEWATER FROM THE NEW ' DEVELOPMENT AND TO ESTIMATE THE PEAK FLOW TO THE EXISTING PUMP STATION.PUMP STATION •-••'"""'•;•....................................................................... NO.2 PUMPS THE MAJORITY OF LAKELAND VILLAGE INTO THE 12"TRANSMISSION MAIN LOCATED IN ...................................... ............................................. THE TACOMA PUD EASEMENT. ............:........................:.............................................. .. __ ___... .. _. ___ ... _........_._. .... .......... , ........................---------------------------------- ...a-----.. .. {...- •................................----------------- ---------------......---........................................_...__. Sealer Utts No No of Gravity :No.of Pum ed :Grav Flow :Number of 'Flow From :Connections :Connections :and Infiltration FPump Unita :Pump Stations i ...................................................................................................:GPM.............. On Une (iPM .....;....._.._......._.............................. G1-SEWER LINE Divisions 14 thru 19 Pump 394 :Add all the new development plus Station No.4 :the 40 acres outside the UGA. - -----------}------------------- r ._.........__....... .................... .. - --------------------- ......-- ---------------------------.................. Sion 12 8•pllrlp sfagon_-__._.i.•_ f0.......................This Pump Station goes ewaX....... ...--••........................................................................................... GI3 :50 :...00 •--..e18:93................................ ' G12....................................4'�.......................Y12.00 1...38 ' a... .................................:...................:........................t................................... P14.................................... 0............................4:00 ...69..................................:3 i33 .............................. ..................;........................i............................................... 61 :38 0.00 :13.63 Totals .......................--5129---------------------i16,00 .......----------i51.60................................`8 -..................................................... r-......... EstimatedPak ........................ ..............:........................A.............................................. Peak Flow of 01 at :Gallons per Min. :Cubic FeetlSecond :Note;The capacity of Gt :upstream of Manhole G3-10 :Is 533 GPM Min.The 01 Junction with G3 at Manhole newer line is large enough G3-6 478•97 NA? :to serve all the new :development if variable speed sewer pumps are :used in the collection :system. i ...........................................y..........................}............................ ....... -••-•---•---.....................................:........................ .............................................. ...........................................:...........................i..-------------........-----^----...-,'-.........................._.y._---------------<.......-..... Saw�r Line No. No Of Onvrr�,� yNo_of Pu :Orav�r Flow Number of :Flow From ...............................y......._._..'..... _....�.......,'.'...."1.-----•.. -..........."--•'-'----""--"---'-----a.................__..............---•-•-------• ;Connections :Connections :and lnfihration______________•-----;Pump.yq" ?Pump Stations a..........................a......................_.....t... t..... ...................................... :GPM On Une :GPM ............ ....................... ...................... +--------.................;............................................... ....... t... G2 SEWER LINE..............i...._..................... :PF=400% ................ ..I.......................... ............................t.. --.................................................... .........................Y.............................................. G27......................................... :2.00..................... >...................{.........................;............................................... ............ P28 :0 :19.00 :3.30 G24 :18 :4.00 :7.51 ........................ G2 :38 :10.00 :18.12 21 G2121 :22 :0.00 :8.33 F.............. ........................................................................ .................................................................................. G2122 :1 .0.00 :0.38 G21 :21 :33.00 :13.87 -........5. .............:............ A......_....---•-----------_------------------- ---- -----------•---......----_...__...y.............. t.............__.............t------------------ G211110 :B.00.......................i5:1�y..... -------------------------------- di -•-------------............................................... i23....................... :�.......-•---...........9: ..........................._...... .................--'---..................................................................... 00 G28....................................y13.......................5�: ......................4 92...................................;..............._... ........................Y............................................... G251 :27 :8.00 :11.81 P252i0 :5.00 :0:87----------•......................_................... ............-•----......--.............................-----_._...... ...................... G25 :21 M.00 i9.86 TotalTotals :213 :102.00 98.32 ..............................ie............................�..........' s a.............................................. ...........................................}............_._...........4.....,......................p........................................1............................................}.............................................. Peak Flaw of G2 at :Gallons per Min,_..__:Cutxc FeetJSecond '.......................................•- .............................................. .................................. ......___..'............._...; y...................{.'..__.................--1' Junction with G3 i188.32 :0.42 ...........................................}...........................t............................T............................................................I....__.._...............q............................................... ...........................................1...........................Y.............__.............:......................................... ............................................................... Sewer Une No. :No of Gravity :No.of Pumped :Gnv Flow :Number of :Flow From :Connections :ContiettiorIs :and IrMltratton....................Pump Units :Pump Stations.._ -----------------------------_._........y.... _ ......................_.....{...... ...... r..... a......_... :GPM :On Una :GPM G3 SEWER LINE P38.....................................0........................27. ....................tA.gl3...--•--.............._.............................................---...........y......-•--•.............................................. P381.................................... .........................?�: .........................1_.................----...............---F......................._....................i............................................... P3511 0........................ 14:tX1........ .............:2,43--•-----.......----•-..............;............................................................................................ P351....................................}............................ ......................;8:�?------.................._...... .................... .�..r..................................... 5......................... 5 00...................... �............................................................................... .............................................. Tly P341.................................... ................................................... .....8................................----}................---<-•--...................._j............................................... G34....... 8 4`�� ................ ..._.................-' __...... P311y0..........................:13.00... .............�2: ._.................................................... ---•----.................�................................._............ P31...................... 0 28.00 4.86 G33.....................................i11........................B:OQ......................:5:r...5....................................F...................i........................................................................ :24 20.00 '12.55 TOTALS 48:174.00 :47.80 AD -N10..... -..a.......- . -•...............................a........-- ........ r............................t.......---------- .................... ..... :..........................._:..........._........................ ............ ...... Estimated Peak :GalionsP .........Cubk FNt Per.......I........................................ ...................T............................-......................... ....._............. ....................................................... ...... Flow at Punlp.......................s Minute................:8eeand ............................................ a............................a..................................................................................... .. Stationfrom G3 : 168:0 38 ..... .................. ........................¢.............................................. .....................................................................I....................... r...................................._.._,. ....e..... ..................._._I_...•......--............................ - ;-...• .... _....._...................... Setter Une No. :No of Gtav 4Nu:M..................fti..YR Flow---.............-•----.Number of :Flow From .................................4...............it :Connections :Connections :and Infiltration ;Pump Unita--:Pump Stations •-••-_-_•-_--•_--••-•_•_••••••-..•-••••-_-••, ..........................................t..........................I............................I................... ...... GPM :On Une :GPM '.............................................. G4 SEWER LINE : : : : .............................................. ..........................................a..........................4............................................................................................................. ..........................................• ' : : ................................................ fi..........................t.........................---,.........................................;.............. 18 19.00 10.11 -------•-------------•.......-----••------- G41 :27 :0.00 :1622 G42.....................................} ........._.............y0: ............._.._.....i833................ ....... i... d.................._..._........_....... G43 :13 0.00 :4.92 2 ` 3 FIGURE 1 LAKELAND VILLAGE SCALE: DIVISIONS 14 THRU 19 1"=300' ,,SEWER,PLAN, PUMA NO.3 TO CJE AFiANI)CNQD_ y 1 n a � 4 � c0E a acH a ` AVD;OR CONDO SITES ffi h lrE1-32 ACHES — Ts �'•�\ .1 II 'v, 32 UNITS • !(�t i I 1t r 1 \ (VFEL�ti NAf l aLaT � .— r kk t s err- -A �.Ir � �_ � i� -•I' ��,\ 4 ,.�'�t. � EX WMH ©.. 'r. pflEunni r 7 � s;^nrs 1 .g� ac 1 ; is erTu j r v 16 e NOTE ALL CCHAt ITY SEINER LINES ARE FUTURE 11 �'.. •,r�% P Cpt"_ 8`UNLESS OTHER'aWSE NOTED. j OEVELOnMENT� r a .Y ro oa N a s sfS •�t✓E Yll t 4 y 1 �4'3yb pF CEP 2.oDrP -ooii '� LAKELAND VILLAGE DIVISION 14 RECEIVE MASON CO. ENVIROMENTAL CHECKLIST OCT 0 12015 NOTE: THIS A COPY OF THE CHECKLIST SUBMITTED WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN 2008. THE r PROJECT HAS BEEN AWARDED A MITfGATED DNS IN 2008. DUE TO THE COLLAPSED REAL ESTATE MARKET WE HAVE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED AN EXTENTION. WE HAVE UPDATED THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. A. BACKGROUND NG 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lakeland Village Divi 14YAwki; sion 14 2. Name of applicant: Anderson & Sons, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Rick Anderson, P.O. Box 108 Allyn, WA. 98524, Phone 360-275-2474 4. Date checklist prepared: 7-21-07 5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason Co. DCD 6. 7. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Phase One — Start Construction in the spring of 2016. 8. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal: If yes, explain. No 9. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Stormwater Management Plan for Lakeland Village prepared by Pat McCullough, PE and dated 4-10-2007. 10. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 11. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Preliminary and Final Plat Approvals, Grading Permits. 12. 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.) Proposal to subdivide 5.8 Acres of R-1 R zoned property in to 25 single family residential lots. 13. 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. Project is located in a portion of the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 18, Township 22 North, Range 1 West, W.M. - See Preliminary Plat Map B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Rolling b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 15% 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. Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam and Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 50,990 cu. Yds of cut and 14507 cu yds of fill for roads. Gravel fill for roads from local gravel pit. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally describe. Yes, in the areas cleared and grubbed for roads and building sites. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 45%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Typical temporary erosion control measures including but not limited to silt fences to protect the down hill areas adjacent to the construction area. 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, Jefferson County Environmental Checklist , Pa'_'e generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. None — other than the exhaust from the construction equipment and normal residential sources after construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 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 provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. See A.8 above 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. See A.8 above. 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. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 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. No. 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. No. 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. On Public Sewer system. C. Water runoff (including storm water): Jefferson County Environmental Checklist 3 Pa(,e 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. There will be storm water runoff from the site that will be collected and discharged into the existing Lakeland Village Storm drainage system. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm drainage system to be installed during construction. 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass x pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other x other types of vegetation —Scotch Bloom b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site will be cleared as necessary for construction of the roads and residences. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Normal residential lawns and landscaping. 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, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Jefferson County Environmental Checklist 4 Pa�e C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 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. Normal residential use by 25 lots for lighting, heating, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. No 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: NA 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. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise. Jefferson County Environmental Checklist 5 Page 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Residential subdivision traffic. 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. Construction Equipment used to grade the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Unimproved residential property. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. b. Describe any structures on the site. None C. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. d. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Urban R-1 R e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Urban. f. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? NA g. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No h. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 60. i. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None j. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA Jefferson County Environmental Checklist 6 Page k. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: See proposed C C & R's. 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 25 single family residential lots. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 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? Consistant with County height restrictions. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Normal residential night time use. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: Normal residential night time use. Jefferson County Environmental Checklist 7 Paf:e d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NA 12. RECREATION: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Lakeland Village has a 27 hole Public Golf Course and a private lake for the use of the owners club. 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: Project will be a portion of a trail system to be developed in future development. 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. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 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. SR 3, Homestead Drive, Old Ranch Drive, Sterling Drive and Soderberg Drive. Jefferson County Environmental Checklist S Paue 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. Dial a Ride. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 50 with none eliminated 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). Interior Public streets. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project: If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 200 ADT, 20 PH g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 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: Slight increase for fire protection, police protection, health care and schools. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None 16. UTILITIES: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: 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. Normal residential utilities including power, telephone, cable TV, sanitary sewers, water and natural gas. 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. Jefferson County Environmental Checklist 9 Pa�e cG! Signature: Date submitted: �D d Jefferson County Environmental Checklist 10 Page RECEIVED OCT 01 2015 EXHIBIT A 426 W. CEDAR ST. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A' PLANNING LOT 34 OF THE PLAT OF LAKELAND VILLAGE DIVISION 12,PHASE TWO,AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS AT PAGES 246 THROUGH 251 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 1755279, RECORDS OF THE MASON COUNTY AUDITOR; TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST,W.M.,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 34 OF THE PLAT OF LAKELAND VILLAGE DIVISION 12,PHASE TWO,AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS AT PAGES 246 THROUGH 251 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 1755279,RECORDS OF THE MASON COUNTY AUDITOR; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 34,NORTH 00018'09"WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 712.32 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89°57'28"WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.39 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 00025'51"EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 321.19 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 88'59'11"WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 50.06 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 00°30'49"EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 388.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER;THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER,SOUTH 88°59'44"EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: A PORTION OF LOT 77 OF THE PLAT OF LAKELAND VILLAGE DIVISION 12,PHASE ONE,AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS AT PAGES 156 THROUGH 162 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.646381,RECORDS OF THE MASON COUNTY AUDITOR,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 77 AT A POINT COMMON WITH LOTS 34 AND 34-A OF THE PLAT OF LAKELAND VILLAGE DIVISION 12,PHASE TWO, AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS AT PAGES 246 THROUGH 251 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 1755279,RECORDS OF THE MASON COUNTY AUDITOR;THENCE ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID LOTS 77 AND 34,NORTH 54-25'11"WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 198.98 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION;THENCE NORTH 00°30'49" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.82 FEET;THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 270.00 FEET THROUGH A DELTA ANGLE OF 38042'12"FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 182.38 FEET;THENCE NORTH 38'11'23"EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.57 FEET;THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET THROUGH A DELTA ANGLE OF 106051'50"FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 46.63 FEET;THENCE NORTH 34°56'4T' WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 3.86 FEET;THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET THROUGH A DELTA ANGLE OF 106051'34"FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 46.63 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 38'11'39"WEST FORA DISTANCE OF 189.49 FEET;THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 310.00 FEET THROUGH A DELTA ANGLE OF 100 13'28"FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 55.32 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 54°25'11"EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIPTION; SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS,CONDITIONS AND/OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF MASON. STATE OF WASHINGTON. A PARCEL'B' LOT 34-A OF THE PLAT OF LAKELAND VILLAGE DIVISION 12,PHASE TWO,AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS AT PAGES 246 THROUGH 251 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 1755279, RECORDS OF THE MASON COUNTY AUDITOR; MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WORKS 100 W PUBLIC WORKS DRIVE SHELTON, WASHINGTON 98584 MEMORANDUM TO: Tricia Woolett, Building Inspector/Permit Specialist Department of Community Development FROM: Loretta Swanson,Technical Services Manager Cc: Pat McCullough, PE, ESA, Inc. Rick Anderson DATE: April 20, 2016 SUBJECT: GRD2015-00015 This memo summarizes Public Works comments and conditions for a grading permit to install water and sewer utilities, a stormwater system, and construction of a new road to serve 25 new residential lots for the approved preliminary plat of Lakeland Village Division 14. Following are Public Works comments for all aspects of work and those specific to grading and road construction, wastewater, and stormwater. General comments and conditions for all aspects of work 1. A pre-construction conference shall be held prior to beginning any work on site. The project engineer, contractor(s), utility representatives,and Mason County will be in attendance. Please contact Terry Conley,Mason County Utility Specialist,to schedule the pre-construction conference. Terry will coordinate and ensure that the appropriate County representatives are attending. His contact information is: Email:TerrvC@co.mason.wa.us Phone: (360)427-9670 ext.614 Cell: (360)463-7887 2. Prior to working within existing county right-of-way(E Soderberg Road),the contractor shall obtain a Road Use and/or Utility Permit from Mason County. 3. The project engineer,or engineer's representative,shall maintain adequate records during construction to prepare as-built documents. Prior to final plat approval,certified road,wastewater and stormwater as- built documents shall be submitted in electronic and paper formats. \ 4. Mason County Public Works will inspect certain phases of the project and/or require testing results prior v to the contractor moving to the next phase of work(i.e. covering utility trenches, paving,etc.). Inspections are to be coordinated through Terry Conley. Page 1 of 2 Grading and Road Construction 1. Prior to initiating grading,temporary erosion and sediment control measures are to be in place as specified on plan sheet 13/13 dated 5-1-15 prepared by Engineering Services Associates. It is the owner and contractor's responsibility to ensure that the measures are maintained,and adequate for the site. \ Additional temporary measures may be necessary should conditions warrant it. 2. Dust control is required per preliminary plat approval conditions. 3. Prior to final plat approval,Road A, Road A Court, and Road B Court shall be constructed or bonded for per sheet 6/13 dated 5-1-15 prepared by Engineering Services Associates. If a portion of the road construction is to be bonded for,please coordinate with Fred Perryman at(360)427-9670,ext.625 or Fred P @co.mason.wa.us. 4. We anticipate that a portion of Road B(—11+00 to intersection of Road A)will also be constructed under this permit to install a portion of the gravity sewer collection system,force main and pump station#4. Please coordinate with Fred Perryman to determine the length of Road B to be constructed and what surfacing will be required for this phase of work to maintain the system prior to Division 15 construction. S. Please call Public Works for the following road inspections: a. Prior to covering utility trenches(compaction testing to be provided); b. When compacted fill is required (compaction testing to be provided); c. Prior to the gravel base; d. Prior to the crushed surfacing;and e. Prior to paving. Wastewater 1. Prior to final plat approval,the wastewater components shall be installed per plan sheets 9—11/13 dated 4-18-15 and 5-1-15 prepared by Engineering Services Associates. \ 2. Please call Public Works for the following wastewater inspections: a. Prior to covering utility trenches(compaction testing to be provided); b. Joint sealing and hydrostatic testing; c. 72 hours prior to connecting to the existing collection system. Please note that a Road Utility Permit is required for work within E Soderberg Road (comment#2 on page 1.). Stormwater \ 1. Prior to final plat approval,the stormwater components shall be installed per plan sheets 3,4 and 8/13 dated 6-5-06,6-5-15 and 4-18-15 prepared by Engineering Services Associates. \ 2. Stormwater inspections will occur during road inspection. Thanks for the opportunity to review and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Page 2 of 2 RECEIVED f OCT p 12015 `J 42r% i r EnviroSound Consulting Geotechnical Consulting Wetlands ® Natural Resource Management May 2, 2008 Project: ESC07-G001.2 Anderson&Sons,Ina PLANNING Mr.Rick Anderson P.O.Box 108 Allyn, Washington 98524 Geotechnical Engineering Report Lakeland Subdivision 14 South Detention Pond Subdivision 15 Allyn,Washington Dear Mr.Anderson, Submitted herewith is a report for EnviroSound Consulting's geotechnical engineering investigation for the subject project. This investigation was conducted in accordance with a site meeting with yourself and Mr. Michael MacSems of Mason County Community Development on April 22, 2008. The report presents findings from our geotechnical engineering investigation and provides recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspects of project design. This report follows our initial assessment reports and the information in this report addresses comments from Mason County pertaining to our original assessment reports. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If we can be of further assistance, or if you have any questions regarding this project,please contact our office. Sincerely yours, Shawn E.Williams -*ean . Caraway,P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Senior Geotechnical Engineer Enclosures g� O�WAS �t 0 38046 5I �a;ISTEK� �i�,��'SIQNAL EXPIRES 41211/0 EnviroSound Consulting •9339 Bayshore Drive•Silverdale,WA 98383 Office(360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 f Project:ESC07-G001.2 May 2,2008 Page No.i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Site Location 1 1.2 Proposed Construction 1 1.3 Purpose 1 2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 1 2.1 Site Description 1 2.2 Geologic Setting 2 2.3 Subsurface Exploration 2 2.3.1 Soil 2 2.3.2 Groundwater 2 2.4 Seismic Information 3 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 3.1 Slope Stability 3 3.2 Erosion Control 5 3.3 Drainage 5 3.4 Foundations 5 3.5 Earthwork Considerations 6 3.5.1 Site Preparation 6 3.5.2 Groundwater Concerns 6 3.5.3 Excavations&Constructed Slopes 6 3.5.4 Structural Fill 7 3.5.5 Utility Trench Fill 7 4.0 LBUTATIONS S FIGURES APPENDIX A—Test Pit Logs EnviroSound Consulting •9339 Bayshore Drive - Silverdale,WA 98383 Office(360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project: ESC07-G001.2 May 2,2008 Page No, ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title I Site Vicinity Map I 2 Subdivision 14 Site Map 3 Subdivision 15 Site Map 4 Slope Stability Graphical Results—Static 5 Slope Stability Graphical Results- Seismic i EnviroSound Consulting•9339 Bayshore Drive•Silverdale,WA 98383 Office(360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project No.ESC07-G001.2 May 2,2008 Page No. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION EnviroSound Consulting (ESC) was retained by Anderson & Sons, Inc. to conduct a geotechnical engineering investigation for the Lakeland Subdivision 14 project near Allyn, Washington. We previously completed a Preliminary Geologic Assessment Report(Revised), dated March 10, 2008. This earlier revised report was completed as part of the initial assessment of the site for the proposed development and was submitted in response to comments from Mason County, following the original report. This geotechnical report has been prepared to address the final and most recent comments from the county. 1.1 Site Location This site covers approximately 8.55 acres near Allyn,Washington. The subject property is located west of State Route 3. Subdivision 14 is located west of the existing Lakeland Village Division 12, Phase 1 Golf Course. According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), the property is located in Mason County in Section 18, Township 22 North, Range 1 West and at Longitude 122.85 degrees W and Latitude 47.39 degrees N. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Site Vicinity Map,Figure 1. 1.2 Proposed Construction Based on our review of the current site plan by ESA and our discussions regarding this project, we understand that the proposed Subdivision 14 will include the development of 2/"Asingle family residential lots with access roads from Soderberg Road. The current plan does not show the proposed locations houses, within the lots. We expect that the homes will be typical of single family residential construction. We anticipate that the houses will be one to three story wood framed structures with shallow foundations. Due to the impact of the proposed construction on Subdivision 14 on the south detention pond on Subdivision 15 the report addresses slope stability concerns associated with the pond. 1.3 Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the relatively shallow subsurface conditions,particularly at the south end of the site,to assess the condition of in place fill material and to discuss drainage from Subdivision 14,as it pertains to the proposed pond enlargement in Subdivision 15. These issues are to be addressed,per Mason County. The fill material has been evaluated with regard to general suitability and foundation support and approximate global slope stability. 2.0 SITE E"TSTIGATION 2.1 Site Description The subject property for the Subdivision 14 is bordered by the existing Lakeland Village Division 12, Phase 1 Golf Course to the east, residential development to the north, the proposed Subdivision 15 to the west and undeveloped forested area and existing residential area to the south. The property within the proposed Subdivision 14 is currently undeveloped and covered with scattered trees. A section of fill is present in the south portion of the development. The area of previously placed fill is covered with Scotch Broom,at the time of the site visits for this phase of services. The site generally slopes downward from east to west with an elevation change of approximately 55 feet across the site. The majority of the site slopes are less than 40 percent. The slope that appears to have been created during the placement of the fill at the south end is near 40 percent in magnitude and is near 10 feet in height. These are the two primary criteria for determining if slope stability needs to be analyzed. This slope appears to be a borderline case for determining if slope stability analysis is required. We have included an approximate analysis as part of this evaluation. At the time of the on site subsurface exploration services, ESC reviewed the site surface conditions to look for signs of slope movement. Such signs can include hummocky terrain, head scarps, curved tree trunks,tension cracks, seepage of water and strata of course grained soils over fine grained materials. During our site visit we did not observe any obvious signs of significant slope movement. EnviroSound Consulting • 9339 Bayshore Drive • Silverdale,WA 98383 Office (360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project No.ESC07-G001.2 May 2,2008 Page No.2 2.2 Geologic Setting The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resource(WDGER), Geologic Map of Washington- indicates that the site is underlain by glacial till(Qgt). The glacial till typically consists of an unsorted, non-stratified mixture of sand, silt, gravel and cobbles. The till is typically very dense or hard, as a result of compaction under the weight of the glacial ice. The soils encountered at this site are typical of advance outwash and glacial till. The advance outwash is typically present below the glacial till, since this material was deposited in advance of the glacier and then was overridden by the glacial ice. The advance outwash is typically comprised of relatively stratified sand and gravel with occasional silt and clay interbeds. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Mason County Area, Washington, information indicates the following soil type exists on the project site: • Ab-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,5 to 15 percent slopes. The soil survey descriptions of these soil types are summarized in the following table. USDA Soil Survey Ab-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,5 to 15 Name ercent slo es Typical Profile 0-10 inches,Gravelly sandy loam 10-28 inches,Very gravelly sandy loam 28-60 inches Gravelly sandy loam Origination Glacial Till Drainage 1 Moderately well drained 2.3 Subsurface Exploration Five exploratory test pits were excavated at the site on April 24, 2008 and four test pits were excavated adjacent to the storm pond on Subdivision 15with representative samples of the subsurface soils were obtained to aid in the determination of engineering properties. The test pits were located on the Subdivision 14 site (Figure 2) and the Subdivision 15 site (Figure 3). The test pits reached depth of 4.5 to 8.0 feet below the existing grades. The test pits were excavated by a client provided trackhoe. Logs of the test pits can be found in Appendix A. 2.3.1 Soil The soil encountered on Subdivision 14 in the test pits included fill material which appears to have originated as native on site soil. The fill generally consists of medium dense to dense sand with gravel and a trace of silt. The fill ranged in depth between 2.0 and 7.0 feet,within the test pits. The fill was generally underlain by native,gray sand with gravel and a trace of silt. The native soil was generally medium dense.No organic material was observed in the excavated test pits. The soils encountered on Subdivision 15 in the test pits adjacent to the south detention pond included medium dense to dense native soils consistent with consolidation glacial outwash deposits. 2.3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during the excavation of the test pits. No piezometers were installed for long term groundwater monitoring, as part of this investigation. Water table elevations can fluctuate with time. Groundwater levels are typically influenced by seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Groundwater level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. EnviroSound Consulting • 9339 Bayshore Drive •Silverdale,WA 98383 Office (360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project No.ESC07-G001.2 May 2,2008 Page No.3 2.4 Seismic Information ESC has reviewed table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). Site specific data is not available to a depth of 100 feet. No Standard Penetration Test (SPT)N-values were obtained during the field exploration work. The explorations at this site reached a maximum depth of 8.0 feet below existing grades. The majority of the soils encountered in the test pits have estimated N-values between 15 and 50. Therefore, for seismic consideration of the design of any structures,the site should be considered class D,"stiff soil profile",as defined in the IBC. Ground motion accelerations for the site were obtained from the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program website and are presented in the following table. The latitude/longitude method was used to obtain the ground motions with a latitude of 47.39 degrees and a longitude of 122.85 degrees using the 2002 data tables. Probability of Exceedance 2%in 50 years Peak Ground Acceleration GA 0.573 0.2 second period S,, 1.265 1 second period St) 0.468 In addition to the sprectral acceleration values noted in the table above,we have provided the seismic design parameters F8 and F,in accordance with the 2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions. Fe 1.00 From Table 1613.5.2(1)of the 2006 IBC F" 1.53 From Table 1613.5.2(2)of the 2006 IBC 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the fmdings of this investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed residential development is feasible. The fill material encountered in the test pits is considered suitable for support of typical residential,shallow foundations,provided foundation excavations are observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to verify soil conditions. It is also our opinion, based on approximate global slope stability analyses, that the slope created by the fill placement, near the south end of the development,has adequate factors of safety against global slope failure,provided proper site drainage is maintained. It is our opinion that the proposed pond enlargement at the south end of Subdivision 15 should not be adversely affected by drainage of stormwater runoff from the Subdivision 14 lots, as the enlarged pond has been designed by an experienced civil engineer to have adequate size to handle the runoff from design storm events and the stormwater runoff from the Subdivision 14 lots is properly transported to the pond through a designed stormwater system. The stormwater runoff from Subdivision 14 should not be allowed to flow freely over slopes toward the pond, but should be drained to proper catch basins and carried by the stormwater system to the pond. These methods should reduce the possibility of any adverse affects, related to geotechnical issues. In addition the expanded pond should have a minimum impact on the medium dense to dense outwash soils encountered in the existing slope to the west of the slope. The slope had no visible indicators of significant erosion or sloughing at the time of the site visit. EnviroSound Consulting •9339 Bayshore Drive •Silverdale,WA 98383 Office (360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project No.ESC07-G001.2 May 2,2008 Page No.4 3.1 Slope Stability ESC performed approximate slope stability analyses on a representative cross section through the relatively shallow fill slope near the south end of the site. The cross section used in the analyses was obtained from available topographic information presented on a plan from ESA and available Mason County mapping. We have not performed any site specific surveying. The slope cross section and elevations are estimated from the available information. The analyses were performed using the commercially available computer program GSTABL7 with STEDwin from Gregory Geotechnical Software. Soil strength parameters used in the analyses were estimated values based on visual observations and our experience with similar soils and geologic conditions. No laboratory testing was performed as part of this evaluation. Slope stability analyses were performed for static and seismic conditions. The pseudostatic method was used for the slope stability analysis to estimate the factor of safety under seismic conditions. The seismic coefficient used in a pseudostatic analysis is typically taken to be about % of the peak ground acceleration (PGA)that the site is estimated to experience during the design earthquake. For this project site the seismic coefficient was taken as 0.17g,based on the information from the USGS for the event with a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The results of slope stability analyses are expressed as factors of safety against displacement failure. The factor of safety is the ratio of resisting forces to driving forces. A factor of safety of 1.0 is equilibrium; a factor of safety of less than 1.0 indicates failure. Typically, a factor of safety of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 for seismic (pseudostatic)conditions is considered adequate in standard local practice. Factors of safety between 1.0 and 1.5 (or 1.1 under seismic conditions)are not adequate due to the uncertainties in the modeling process. A lower safety factor for seismic conditions is adequate as the probability of occurrence of the seismic conditions analyzed is relatively low. The estimated soil strength parameters used in the slope stability analyses are presented in the following table. Soil Strength Parameters used in Analyses Soil Description Density(pcf) Cohesion(psf) Angle of Internal Friction (degrees) Fill—Sand with gravel 115 10 31 and a trace silt Native—Sand with gravel 110 25 32 and a trace silt The results of the slope stability analyses are presented in the following tables. A graphical presentation of the results of the static and seismic slope stability analyses are presented in the attached Figures 4 and 5,respectively. Global Stability Results for Existing Slope Configuration(Static) Factor of Safety Observed Factor of Safety Required Global Stability 2.27 1.50 Global Stability Results for Existing Slope Configuration(Seismic) Factor of Safety Observed Factor of Safety Required Global Stability 1.39 1.10 EnviroSound Consulting • 9339 Bayshore Drive • Silverdale,WA 98383 Office(360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project No.ESC07-G001.2 May 2,2008 Page No. 5 The results of the analyses indicate that the standard minimum required factors of safety are met for the static and seismic conditions. It is our opinion that the fill slope near the south end of the development should remain stable, provided proper drainage and erosion control measures are implemented,as discussed in this report. 3.2 Erosion Control The soils on the site slopes may erode in the disturbed state or under conditions of channelized water flow. Therefore, best management practices for erosion control including silt fences, hay bales, etc. should be used to prevent sediment from leaving the site and entering storm water sewer systems or surface waters. Water should not be allowed to flow over the slopes in a concentrated manner. Stripping of vegetation on slopes should be limited to the greatest extent possible for the proposed construction. We further recommend that vegetation be replanted on the slopes as soon as practical following completion of any grading. Stripped slope areas should be protected from weather with a plastic visqueen cover when construction will not be occurring on them for more than one to two days. The Washington State Department of Ecology(DOE)has three publications, which may be helpful in developing long- term slope vegetation maintenance/protection and landscape plans: • "Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation: A Manual of Practice for Coastal Property Owners", May 1993,Publication 93-30. • "Vegetation Management:A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners",May 1993,Publication 93-31. • "Surface Water and Ground Water on Coastal Bluffs: A Guide for Puget Sound Property Owners", June 1995, Publication 95-107. 3.3 Drainage Runoff from any residential buildings and impervious surfaces should be directed into an appropriately designed stormwater disposal system. Ground surfaces should be sloped a minimum of 3 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet away from structures in accordance with Section 1803.3 in the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system, which may include the pond at the south end of Subdivision 15. The enlargement of the pond at the south end of Subdivision 15 should have no adverse geotechnical impact on either Subdivision 14 or 15,provided the stormwater system is properly designed for both sections. The stormwater runoff from Subdivision 14,which will originate up slope of the Subdivision 15 pond should not have adverse geotechnical impacts on Subdivision 15, provided the runoff is properly captured and transported to the pond through a designed stormwater system. Design of stormwater disposal systems is primarily the responsibility of a civil engineer. Proper drainage of surface water runoff, in accordance with these recommendations, will be an important factor in maintaining long term stability of the site slopes. Surface water should not be allowed to flow freely over slopes and we recommend that no slope areas be left open and exposed to wet weather,following the completion of construction. 3.4 Foundations The proposed single family residences may be founded on shallow foundation systems bearing on the medium dense to dense in place fill or the medium dense, native soil. Continuous or isolated footings that bear on the medium dense to dense in place fill or medium dense native soil may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot(psf). Any additional structural fill placed in building areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557. An increase of 1/3 may be applied to the allowable bearing pressure value for short duration loads, such as those associated with wind and seismic conditions. Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to verify that the foundations will bear on suitable material. EnviroSound Consulting •9339 Bayshore Drive -Silverdale,WA 98383 Office (360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project No.ESC07-GOO1.2 May 2,2008 Page No.6 Footings should have adequate embedment for local frost penetration requirements. In the area of this project, the minimum depths are typically 18 inches for exterior footings and 12 inches for interior footings. We recommend that the footings be a minimum of 12 inches wide,regardless of the design foundation pressures. Total foundation settlements should be less than 1 inch for footings that are constructed as recommended. Differential settlement across a distance of 20 feet should be less than '/a inch. The majority of the settlement is expected to occur at the time of construction. Greater than expected post-construction settlement can occur if foundation subgrade soils become saturated. 3.5 Earthwork Considerations We expect that any additional on site grading will be limited. During wet weather conditions,which are typically present from October through April, subgrade stability problems and grading difficulties may develop due to high moisture content in the soil, disturbance of sensitive soils and/or the presence of perched groundwater. Therefore, we recommend that any proposed earthwork activity be performed during the dry season. 3.5.1 Site Preparation Any additional clearing in required areas should include removal of vegetation,trees and associated root systems,wood, pavement,retaining walls,rubble,and rubbish. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of 6 inches, or until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume or other unsuitable soils are removed. These materials will not be suitable for use as fill for roadway or building areas. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non- structural areas. Any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. Excavations, depressions,or soft and pliant areas extending below planned finish subgrade level should be cleaned to firm,undisturbed soil and backfilled with structural fill to the planned finish subgrade elevation. 3.5.2 Groundwater Concerns Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits. We do not expect that significant groundwater will be encountered during construction. Perched groundwater in the near surface soils, particularly at the interface with less permeable underlying soils, if present, could develop during the wetter portions of the year. If groundwater is encountered, we should be contacted for further recommendations. Significant groundwater flow, if encountered during construction, would require modifications in the completion of excavation work. 3.5.3 Excavations&Constructed Slopes We expect that the planned construction will involve limited excavation depths. It is our opinion that the soils encountered in the test pits are a Type C material as defined by the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act's (WISHA) regulations on excavation,trenching and shoring. The Type C classification in the medium dense to dense fill material is given, primarily due to the fact that these soils are in place as a constructed fill section. Temporary slopes excavated in Type C material should be inclined no steeper than 1.5H:1V(horizontal: vertical). A representative of our firm should evaluate temporary and permanent slopes to verify that they are appropriate for the soils encountered during the construction. In areas where it is not possible to maintain the recommended slopes due to space constraints,temporary shoring may be required. Such shoring would need to be properly designed by an engineer. The Contractor should be familiar with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current WISHA regulations on excavation, trenching and shoring. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the Contractor,who shall also be solely responsible for the means,methods,and sequencing of construction operations. ESC is providing this information solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided EnviroSound Consulting •9339 Bayshore Drive- Silverdale,WA 98383 Office(360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project No.ESC07-GOO1.2 May 2,2008 Page No. 7 above be interpreted to mean that ESC is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. The soils to be penetrated by the proposed excavations may vary significantly across the site. ESC's preliminary soil classification is based solely on the materials encountered in the test pits. The Contractor should continually classify the soils that are encountered as excavation progresses with respect to the WISHA system. 3.5.4 Structural Fill We expect that any additional fill placement will be limited in depth and aerial coverage. The majority of the on site soils will likely be suitable for use as structural fill,however the fines content does indicate moderate moisture sensitivity. We recommend that any additional earthwork be performed during the normally dry period of the year. If earthwork takes place during wet weather periods, the on site soils may not be suitable to achieve compaction and moisture content requirements. If the earthwork is to take place during the normally wet period of the year, provisions should be in place for the possible export of wet, moisture sensitive soil and import of granular structural fill material. Imported structural fill should consist of well-graded gravel and/or sand with a maximum grain size of 1'h inches and less than 5 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No.200 Sieve). All material proposed for use as structural fill should be approved by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts no more than 12 inches thick, moisture conditioned as necessary (moisture content of soil should be within 2 percent of optimum moisture)and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. Note that, although in place density testing of fill is frequently used as the primary criterion for acceptance of fill, it should not be the only criterion. If, in the judgment of the geotechnical engineer or his representative,placed fill is not suitable it should be rejected regardless of in place density test results. As an example,fill that is compacted wet of the optimum moisture content may exhibit"pumping"behavior even if in place density test results indicate greater than 95 percent compaction has been achieved. In such a situation,the fill should be removed and replaced with drier material. 3.5.5 Utility Trench Fill Excavations for utilities should be completed and maintained during utility installation and backfilling,in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. The utility contractor should be responsible for maintaining safety within open trenches. Care should be taken to reduce surcharge loads and vibrations adjacent to utility excavations. Although no groundwater seepage was encountered in the test pits, groundwater flow into trenches could occur,particularly during or following periods of heavy precipitation. The subsurface soils at this site generally include medium dense to dense sand with gravel and a trace of silt (fill) and medium dense, native sand with gravel and a trace of silt. The majority of the soils have low cohesive strength. The utility contractor should exercise caution and be prepared to slope excavation sidewalls at gentler angles or install temporary shoring, if conditions indicate that caving may occur. The factors that may influence the potential for caving could include the depth and length of trench that is opened at any one time, along with the length of time the trench is to remain open and surface and groundwater conditions. The utility contractor should be aware of these factors and observe the excavation for signs of possible caving, such as heavy seepage and tension cracks within and above the excavation side walls. Backfill for utility trenches should consist of suitable material, as described in the Structural Fill section of this report. Utility trench backfill placed beneath building and pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D-1557. The utility trench backfill placed beneath pavement areas, at depths greater than 2 feet below the final grade may be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as defined by ASTM Test Method D-1557. The bedding material for utility pipes should be in accordance with EnviroSound Consulting • 9339 Bayshore Drive •Silverdale,WA 98383 Office (360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 Project No.ESC07-G001.2 May 2,2008 Page No. 8 the manufacturer's specifications. The utility contractor should use equipment and backfill placement methods, which will reduce the possibility of damage to utilities or structures during placement and compaction. 4.0 WMATIONS This report has been prepared for Anderson & Sons, Inc, regarding the subject project. Information presented in this report has been collected and interpreted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions; and in accordance with sound and generally accepted principles consistent with normal consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, including (but not limited to)any warranty or merchantability or fitness for a particular use has been made. Anderson & Sons, Inc. and ESC discussed the risks and rewards associated with this project, as well as ESC's fee for services. Anderson& Sons, Inc. and ESC agreed to allocate certain of the risks so that,to the fullest extent permitted by law,ESC's total aggregate liability to Anderson&Sons,Inc. is limited to$50,000 or the fee,whichever is greater,for any and all injuries, claims (including any claims for costs of defense or other incurred costs), losses, expenses, or damages whatsoever arising out of or in any way related to ESC's services for this project, from any cause or causes whatsoever, including but not limited to,negligence,errors,omissions,strict liability,breach of contract,breach of warranty,negligent misrepresentation,or other acts giving rise to liability based upon contract tort,or statute. In the event that change in the nature,design,or location of the proposed construction is made,or any physical changes to the site occur, recommendations are not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by ESC and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing. The subsurface exploration logs and related information depicts conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. The passage of time may result in a change of subsurface conditions at these exploration locations. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the exploration locations. The nature and extent of variations of subsurface conditions between explorations are not known. If variations appear during additional explorations or construction,reevaluation of recommendations in this report may be necessary. Stratification lines designating the interface between soil types in subsurface exploration logs represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. Analyses and recommendations provided in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the subsurface explorations. The scope of ESC services did not include an environmental assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials, in the soil, groundwater, surface water, or atmosphere. Any statements or absence of statements in this report on any subsurface exploration log regarding staining or odor of soil, groundwater, or surface water, unusual or suspicious items,or conditions observed are strictly descriptive information for Anderson&Sons,Inc. EnviroSound Consulting •9339 Bayshore Drive- Silverdale,WA 98383 Office (360)698-5950 Fax(360)698-5929 TEST PIT TP- 1 Project Name: Lakeland Subdivision 14 Test Pit Elevation: 233' Client: Anderson and Sons, Inc. Test Pit Location: See plot plan Project Number: ESC07-12-G001 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered W E-� o z N LABORATORY x VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION a a a TESTING a v W RESULTS FOR SAMPLE QU con CA v� Q 0 SP Brown SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium dense to dense)(moist)(FILL) S-1 Grab 2 Sp Gray SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium dense)(moist) (TILL) 5 BOE 4.5' 10 15 Excavation Contractor: Zepher Excavating Excavation Date: 04/24/08 Equipment: Mini Track-hoe ESC Representative: JGE Operator: Craig Page 1 of 1 TEST PIT TP-2 Project Name: Lakeland Subdivision 14 Test Pit Elevation: 232' Client: Anderson and Sons,Inc. Test Pit Location: See plot plan Project Number: ESC07-12-GO01 Depth to Groundwater: Not Encountered W F Z LABORATORY VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION W W W TESTING RESULTS aUw FOR SAMPLE Q UU � Q 0 SP Brown SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium dense to dense)(moist)(PILL) S-1 Grab 4 5 SP Gray SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium \dense)(moist) (TILL) S-2 Grab 7.5 BOE 8.0' 10 15 Excavation Contractor: Zepher Excavating Excavation Date: 04/24/08 Equipment: Mini Track-hoe ESC Representative: JGE Operator: Craig Page 1 of 1 TEST PIT TP-3 Project Name: Lakeland Subdivision 14 Test Pit Elevation: 225' Client:Anderson and Sons,Inc. Test Pit Location: See plot plan Project Number: ESC07-12-GO01 Depth to Groundwater:Not Encountered W 0 Z H LABORATORY VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION a a a TESTING RESULTS w rrn w FOR SAMPLE A A U vi vs vs A 0 SP Gray SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium dens)(moist)(FML) Brown SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium 5 SP dense to dense)(moist)(FILL) S-1 Grab 3 I I SP Gray SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium \dense)(moist) (TILL) BOE 8.0' 10 15 Excavation Contractor:Zepher Excavating Excavation Date: 04/24/08 Equipment: Mini Track-hoe ESC Representative: JGE Operator: Craig Page 1 of 1 TEST PIT TP-4 Project Name: Lakeland Subdivision 14 Test Pit Elevation: 229' Client: Anderson and Sons, Inc. Test Pit Location: See plot plan Project Number: ESC07-12-GO01 Depth to Groundwater:Not Encountered W w o Z H LABORATORY x VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION W a a x TESTING RESULTS FOR SAMPLE rn rn v� Q 0 SP Brown SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium dense to dense)(moist)(FILL) S-1 Grab 2 i i I SP Gray SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium 5 dense)(moist) (TILL) BOE 5.5' 10 15 Excavation Contractor:Zepher Excavating Excavation Date: 04/24/09 Equipment: Mini Track-hoe ESC Representative: JGE Operator: Craig Page 1 of 1 TEST PIT TP-5 Project Name: Lakeland Subdivision 14 Test Pit Elevation: 235' Client: Anderson and Sons, Inc. Test Pit Location: See plot plan Project Number: ESC07-12-GO01 Depth to Groundwater:Not Encountered W 0 Z H LABORATORY VISUAL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION w w w '4 TESTING H cc a a a RESULTS A W FOR SAMPLE SP Brown SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium dense to dense)(moist)(FILL) SP Gray SAND with gravel and a trace of silt(medium S-1 Grab 3 dense)(moist)(TILL) 5 BOE 5.5' 10 15 Excavation Contractor:Zepher Excavating Excavation Date: 04/24/08 Equipment: Mini Track-hoe ESC Representative: JGE Operator: Craig Page 1 of 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAKELAND VILLAGE DIVISION 15 IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M. MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ry �w J n ` 1 M I � N M M t1] to I h; hLr) I // N ©00 0 a s E e N 'd u M v` TP-G TP-5 P i P-7 �TP -4� II .{�1ili�'�iil';i'�f';l:i•.':�i��'iSii t2 N 1 e � w�{v1 w V>O pp0• m 1 f rya il:'•ii:i'"•.;ril!€e'.:'•'�• 1R 04 - - ' e iJ t� aLB Fiuure 3. SITE MAP EnviroSound Consulting,Inc. Map provided by Client Project Name:Lakeland Village 15 Location:Allyn,Washington 9339 Bayshore Drive NW Not to scale Project: EC07-G001 Silverdale,WA.98383 Client: Anderson&Sons,Inc. Date: 4/2008 i'� ^" r 'f 7 i� j1 �Y li gl' I f •,� �}L��' 3�`.i} l' '.�. .: � �` ° ; (y cuk li& HWY 3 'axir r �✓ Navy F I f k Railway' J � 1 I i z Ir 3z ._$ 1 t` >'f' 1 �;r' 1a � � !" n / t i r !`� �'"'V .:a f �.)- r a I• � 4 '{_�t ',u�11�� i �k"� (wt t x 1 r � .�I �� Lf•�6 ��1 f... ...�� I, � �(p`f,fd '= t.!.� I �7�• .�A�� l� �. ISti L `'` ,lf l � i t - �•4 1 1 I '` i I r�H^""I";y}. J� � � _ c{ - •� � �- / t �� )) }yi- _: , �t. �1� f II � � I r�. :� 9 11 �. � �� �� P,JfSi' �' �r r ,. �'•'�._____ r ddd I KIP A' al 43, j __/ 1 •f 1 ff ^:"t pJjr/,+! f t 4Tyt .a I,ly r� /, rr-/•..J� � r� "'���� t _ 2a6�i�1 r`J7 �'.r I �.. � k A '� ar� f 1.r gi- ��ilt t L`' "MET, f } { �_ — ✓t`I j� � f� -"'.s .'/JS!L"`• � :°'r t tl J _ -i 1 .'.f:�� '•l�'r:�'i i i'�L7 r Ar't�,l�� �: af•,^afi (>5 Note: Map adapted from TOM © 1997 Wildflower Productions. FIGURE 1—SITE VICINITY MAP ENVIROSOUND CONSULTING,INC. Job name: Lakeland Subdivision 14 N 9339 Bayshore Drive NW Location:Allyn,Washington Silverdale,WA 98383 Job No. : ESC07-12-G001 360-698-5950 Client: Anderson&Sons Inc. Date: 12/2007 Subidivison 14 - Static c:\program fileMg72swlsubdiv 14 static trial 1.p12 Run By:Sean Caraway-EnviroSound 5/2/2008 11:17AM 280 # FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore, Pressure Piez. a 2.270 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface b 2.418 No. (rWf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. c 2.423 Snd gv 1 11 PjO i 115.0 25.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 d 2.479 Fill 2 1f W 120.0 10.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0 240 a 2.499 q f .561 3 2 g .59 1 h 7. 200 160 -- - -- - - - - ----- -- - - _ . -- - - 120 80 40 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=2.270 GSTABL Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method ' � Subidivison 14 - Seismic c:lprogram files\g72sw\subdiv 14 seismic trial 1.p12 Run By:Sean Caraway-EnviroSound 5/2/2008 11:21AM 280 # FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Load Value a 1.387 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Peak(A) 0.340(g) b 1.424 No. (WO (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (I No. kh Coef. 0.170(g)< c 1.424 Snd gv 1 ill 115.0 25.0 32.0 0.00. 0.0 0 d 1.489 Fill 2 1f 120.0 10.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0 240 a 1.494 4 f 1.499 2 g .557 lh 1 1. 200 160 - 120 80 40 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.387 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method GSTABL7