HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2021-00023 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports GEO 62-1 - 000Z3
Mason County Review Checklist
for a Geotechnical Report L0031L4 a001 ( oL
Instructions:
This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed
for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Report should
explain the basis for the conclusion. The Report is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings,
discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally
consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If
resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director.
Applicant's Name: L L
Permit#: Parcel #: 3 2�-3 1 L—OO Z
Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed:
1. (a) A discus ion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
OK? Comment:
(b) A discussi n of specific soil types
OK? Comment:
(c) A discussiqi of ground water conditions
OK? % Comment:
(d) A discussio of the upslope geomorphology
OK? Comment:
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands
OK? N Comment: �I
(f) A discuss of history of landslide activit�in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records
io
OK? Comment:
2. A site plarythat identifies the important development and geologic features.
OK? J Comment: 1=1zi".pf Z
3. Locations nd logs of exploratory holes or probes.
OK? Comment:
4. The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall
be define/ed (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site.
OK? Comment:
5. A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which
incorporates the details of proposed grade changes.
OK? Comment: I
6. A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.
Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of
Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1 and the quasi-static
analysis/coeffients should be a value of 0.15.
OK? r Comment: 10 e 1
7. (a) Appropnat restrictions on placement of drainage features
OK? Comment: 2
(b) Appropriate estrictions on placement of septic drain fields
OK? �V Comment: R-'6v-f 0 60 AA)y AY l 4
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placem nt of compacted fills and footings. 5f� �,q iA KI6�b NeVt-
OK? Comment: V S�oP�
f Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
(d) Recomme ed buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? Comment: %-)
(e) Recomme ed setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? Comment: U
8. Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies
vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation
removal.
OK? Comment: Aj6k(,,-Ll
� wlA�dcj
9. Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific
mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and
harmful construction methods.
OK? Comment: �y-C`f Io
10. An anal y s of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
OK? Comment: +
11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and
buffer widths. — P INI C 15
OK? Comment: S�Cf(�� nkg jkfie o o'tUf-epov c 'To "Oio e7"5to u
12. Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
OK? Comment: �� 5 i'r- 00j5C ti5 CLa�n, -ro 5e.aP15'
13. A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of
existing and proposed development on the site.
OK? Comment:
Are the Documents signed and stamped?� By whom? C J R-'(1 C�5 44 tq-
License#: License type: 0�1 15 r
FIRST REVIEW ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action?
Reviewed by , on . Time spent in review:
SECOND REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
Reviewed by , on . Time spent in second review:
THIRD REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
Reviewed by , on . Time spent in third review:
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
i