Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2016-00014 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 2/14/2017 3 2234 February 14, 2017 Notice of Decision Case: VAR2016-00014 Applicant: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins Notice is hereby given that Steve and Ladonna Hawkins,who are the applicants for the above-referenced Resource Ordinance Variance Request,has been granted the Variance. The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance, specifically for the construction of 624 square foot garage within a Type Np (perennial non-fish bearing) stream. This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal may be made to Superior Court as outlined in the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70.0 RCW. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Kell McAboy,Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x365. L I BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner 3 _ RE: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins 4 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS 5 MCC 17.01.150(E)Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION 6 VAR 2016-00014 7 INTRODUCTION 8 The Applicants have applied for a Resource Ordinance variance to construct a 624- 9 square foot garage within the buffer of a Type Np (perennial non-fish-bearing) stream at 12781 North Shore Road, Belfair, WA. The variance is approved subject to I p conditions. I I ORAL TESTIMONY 12 Kell McAboy,Mason County senior planner, summarized the staff report. In response 13 to examiner questions, Ms. McAboy noted that the entire property is encumbered with steep slopes and/or stream buffer. She also clarified that the residence is on an 14 adjoining parcel. 15 EXHIBITS 16 All nine exhibits identified in "Case Index" attached to the January 11, 2017 Staff 17 Report, are admitted into the record. 18 FINDINGS OF FACT 19 Procedural: 20 l. Applicants. The Applicants are Steve and Ladonna Hawkins. 21 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 22 on January 25, 2017 at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners 23 meeting room. 24 Substantive: 25 3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicants have applied for a Resource Ordinance variance to construct a 624-square foot garage within the buffer of a Type Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Np (perennial non-fish-bearing) stream at 12781 North Shore Road, Belfair, WA. I The subject lot is completely encumbered with the stream and its buffers and/or steep 2 slopes and its buffers. The garage will be located 15 feet at its closest point to the stream. The subject property is located on the north side of North Shore Road. 3 Property dimensions are approximately 40 feet wide and approximately 215 feet deep. The property is encumbered by a Type Np stream present on the western 4 property boundary. The stream enters the property from a natural forested channel from the north and then flows into a culvert under North Shore Road where it then flows into Hood Canal. The southern portion of the property is cleared of vegetation 6 and is the only flat area of the parcel. The larger northern portion is heavily wooded and is also encumbered with steep slopes exceeding 40 percent. See Habitat 7 Management Plan and Geotechnical Report for more details(Exhibits 5 and 6). 8 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is the north shore of Hood Canal. Low density residential development is scattered along North Shore Road, 9 with most of the residences located on the south (waterward) side of the road. I Property is undeveloped to the west and east of the parcel with residential construction to the south. The parcel is located on the landward side of North Shore I I Road. Slopes exceed 40 percent in this area. 12 5. Adverse Impacts. No significant adverse impacts are associated with the proposal. The Applicant submitted a habitat management plan, Ex. 5, and a 13 geotechnical report, Ex. 6, that thoroughly assesses the environmental impacts of the 14 project. The studies were prepared by qualified professionals. The habitat management plan concludes that with recommended mitigation the proposal will not I; adversely affect overall vegetation abundance and diversity within the lot and that the proposal is not expected to jeopardize the continuance of any listed species. Best 16 management practices are recommended in the report to minimize adverse effects associated with sediment and turbidity during construction. The report also concludes I that the vegetative buffer preserved and enhanced by the recommended mitigation 18 will prevent any adverse impacts to the stream or wildlife by light and glare from the project. The geotechnical report concludes that if all recommendations are followed, 19 the proposal will not significantly impact the project site or adjoining properties. The recommendation of the two reports are imposed as conditions by this decision. The 20 proposal, limited to a garage with no other development, is modest for an 8,000- 21 square foot lot and should not present any compatibility problems with adjoining residential uses, especially given the amount of vegetation that will serve as 22 screening. 23 24 25 Resource Ordinance Variance p.2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I 2 Procedural: 3 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I)provides the Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 4 5 Substantive: 6 2. Zoning Designation.ate. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 ("RR-5"). 7 3. Review Criteria and Application. MCC 17.01.110 Table 3 imposes a 100- foot buffer along with a 15-foot building setback to Type Np streams. The applicant 8 proposes to construct a garage within 15 feet of an Np stream and therefore needs a 9 variance. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 apply to variance requests to stream buffers. The variance criteria are quoted in italics 1 p below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. A detailed legal analysis of how to apply the variance code criteria is included in the Examiner's"RJB I I Telecommunications" decision, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 12 13 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property 14 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. I� 4. As noted in prior decisions, a reasonable use of residentially zoned 16 property is generally a single-family home along with a garage for lots large enough to accommodate such uses. In this case, all the Applicants seek is permission to 17 construct a garage, since their home is located on an adjoining lot and there is no other development on the subject lot. The property is of sufficient size to 18 accommodate a garage and it is surrounded by single-family homes. For these 19 reasons,a reasonable use of the property is a residential garage. 20 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of 21 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or 22 the applicant's own action. 23 5. The hardship is caused by the fact that the buffers imposed by the 24 Resource Ordinance completely encumber the property and there's no place to build because of the buffers. These are factors related to the property that are due to the 25 unique natural features of the property, i.e.the stream and steep slopes. Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other 1 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment. 6. The property is surrounded by single-family homes and is fully compatible with residential construction. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal 4 will not create any significant adverse impacts to adjacent uses or the environment. MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special 6 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. 7 7. The parcel is zoned RR-5, which allows single-family homes. This 8 development right has been exercised by surrounding property owners. The applicant 9 only proposes that which many other lots in the vicinity already enjoy—a garage. 10 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 1 1 8. As previously noted, the proposed home will not adversely affect the environment or adjoining uses while allowing for a reasonable use of the subject 12 property.The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 13 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a 14 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other 15 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. 16 9. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the minimum footprint for minimum 17 reasonable use for a residence on a residentially zoned property is the lesser of 40% 18 of the area of the lot or 2,550 square feet. The Applicants proposed a footprint of 2,220 square feet, which is well within the definition of minimum reasonable use. In 19 this case the Resource Ordinance buffers permit no development of the site. Given that the proposed garage is smaller than the construction authorized by MCC 20 17.01.150(E) and that the garage is built as far from the stream as site conditions 21 permit, the applicant will be denied reasonable use of his property if the proposal is denied. The garage is an allowed use in the R5 district. Conformance to all applicable 22 development standards will be assured during building permit review. 23 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development according to the following criteria: 24 25 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. Resource Ordinance Variance p.4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 1 in the public interest. 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 4 10. The project complies with all County regulations specified in the criteria 5 above. No subdivision of land is proposed, presumably no septic standards apply to 6 an uninhabited garage, and the proposal is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act. As a residential use in an area designated for residential use in the 7 comprehensive plan, it is determined that the proposal does not conflict with the comprehensive plan. Since the proposal has no adverse impacts as mitigated, it does 8 not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. Since the proposal will only serve an existing and adjoining residence, it will not have any 9 impact on level of service for parks or transportation. DECISION 11 The variance application is approved subject to the following conditions: 12 i. Erosion control and best management practices must be incorporated during all 13 development for the residence. 14 2 Applicant shall implement all mitigation measures and native plantings proposed 15 by the HMP prepared by The Wetland Corps dated October 2016 (Exhibit 5). 16 3. The applicant shall have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office. The Notification should indicate 17 that development of the property is encumbered by conditions placed on it by 18 Mason County Department of Community Development under this Variance #VAR2016-00014 and that the HMP prepared by The Wetland Corps dated 19 October 2016 contains required mitigation measures for future development. 20 4. The building permit shall be conditioned to implement all recommendations made 21 in the Geotechnical Report dated October 18,2016. 22 Dated this 8th day of February, 2017. 23 24 < � tl�i FA.olb.ecAa 25 Hearing Examiner Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings,Conclusions and Decision 2 APPEAL The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final and may be appealed to superior court as outlined by the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. 4 CHANGE IN VALUATION 6 Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.7013.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 7 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 8 9 10 11 12 1> 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2; 24 25 Resource Ordinance Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision VAR2016-00014 CASE INDEX Hawkins VAR2016-00014 Exhibit# Date Description 1 January 11, 2017 Staff Report 2 October 21, 2016 Resource Ordinance Variance Application 3 September 8, 2016 Site plans 4 September 13, 1016 Mason Environmental Permit 5 October 2016 Habitat Management Plan 6 October 18, 2016 Geotechnical Report 7 November 29, 2016 Notice of Application and Public Hearing for Variance 8 December 27, 2106 Affidavit of Posting Notice 9 September 13, 2016 Administrative Variance Mason County Department of Planning Building 8 * 615 W. Alder Street Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670 January 11, 2017 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff—Kell McAboy, 360.427.9670 ext. 365, kmcabov@co.mason.wa.us RE: Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2016-00014). STAFF REPORT I. Introduction.This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO).Specifically MCRO chapter 17.01.110 Table 3.The request is to construct a 624 square foot garage within the buffer of a Type Np (perennial non fish-bearing) stream. The garage will be located 15 feet at its closest point to the stream. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal with conditions. II. Applicant: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins III. Date of Complete Application:October 21, 2016. IV. Site address and Project Location: 12781 North Shore Road, Belfair, WA. Parcel#32234-50- 00038. VAR2016-00014 -2 - V. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the area.The general area is the north shore of Hood Canal. Low density residential development is scattered along North Shore Road, with the majority of residences located on the south (waterward) side of the road. Property is undeveloped to the west and east of the parcel with residential construction to the south.The parcel is located on the landward side of North Shore Road. Slopes exceed 40 percent in this area. B. Characteristic of the site.The subject property is located on the north side of North Shore Road. Property dimensions are approximately 40 feet wide and approximately 215 feet deep. Property is encumbered by a Type Np stream present on the western property boundary.The stream enters the property from a natural forested channel from the north and then flows into a culvert under North Shore Road where it then flows into Hood Canal. The southern portion of the property is cleared of vegetation and is the only flat area of the parcel.The larger northern portion is heavily wooded and is also encumbered with steep slopes exceeding 40 percent. See HMP and GEO for more details(Exhibits 5 and 6). C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR-5). VI. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal is exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). Notice of Public Hearing(Exhibit 7)for the Application for a Variance was posted in the Mason-Shelton Journal on 12/15/2016 and 12/22/2016, at Building 1 of the Mason County Campus on 11/29/2016 and on-site on 11/29/2016. In addition,the Notice of Application was mailed to all property owners within 300'of the proposal on 12/27/2016. A full application packet was sent to the Washington State Department of Fish &Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe on 12/23/2016. A 28-day comment period followed. No comments have been received as of the date of this report.A Mason Environmental Permit and associated Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (Exhibit 4 and 5) accompanies this Variance request along with a Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 6). VII. Other Permits. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit, if the Variance is approved. Vlll. Analysis. A Comprehensive Plan Review:Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted plans and regulations.The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following criteria: 1) The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8 and 16. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets all the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, with the exception of Title 17, the Resource Ordinance. VAR2016-00014 -3 - 2) The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. The development proposal will not impact the public health, safety or welfare. 3) The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The development proposal will not lower the LOS for transportation or neighborhood park facilities. A Type Np stream buffer and building setback is established per the Mason County Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.110 Table 3. Section 17.01.150 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance addresses Variances From Standards, the purpose of which is set forth in Section 17.01.150 A. Applicability in Section 17.01.150 B. 2. Review Standards Per Title 15, the Mason County Development Code(15.09.057)Variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Development Regulations may be allowed as follows.The County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. Findings. (Please see Exhibit 2 for applicant's response to Variance criteria). 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; It has been established through previous Mason County variance approvals that reasonable use of property in Rural Residential zones includes a single-family residence and a two-car garage up to 2,550 square feet. The proposed location of the garage is the only portion of property that can reasonably accommodate the structure. The strict application of the dimensional standard of a 100'buffer plus a 15'setback to a Type Np stream precludes the reasonable use of the applicant's property. The 624 square foot garage structure is the only proposal for the entire parcel. The applicant's have a single-family structure on an adjacent parcel located waterward of North Shore Road. 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The hardship is directly related to the presence of the stream in addition to the steep slopes on the property. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; The design of the project will be compatible with the other single-family residences and appurtenant structures, including garages in the area, and will not cause adverse effects to either adjacent properties or the environment. The HMP addresses mitigation, which will be a condition of the variance. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; An approved variance will grant the some privilege as enjoyed by other properties along the north shore of Hood Canal and is the minimum necessary to afford relief as proposed. VAR2016-00014 -4- 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; The public interest is in the health of the stream. The HMP includes mitigation in order for the proposal to cause no substantial detrimental effect. 6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. Given the steep slopes and the stream, without the granting of a variance, no reasonably sized structure could be built. The proposed footprint of the garage is 624 square feet, which is allowed under current regulations(MCRO 17.01.150 EJ This is reasonable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.Approval of a variance for the garage will vest the footprint for two years, therefore eliminating the need for another variance proposal, should the Mason County Regulations change within the next two years. The proposal is consistent with all other Mason County Ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act. IX. Conclusion. Based upon the Variance criteria set forth above staff recommends approval of the Variance with the following conditions: 1. Erosion control and best management practices must be incorporated during all development for the residence. 2. Applicant shall implement all mitigation measures and native plantings proposed by the HMP prepared by The Wetland Corps dated October 2016. 3. The applicant shall have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office.The Notification should indicate that development of the property is encumbered by conditions placed on it by Mason County Department of Community Development under this Variance#VAR2016-00014 and that the HMP prepared by The Wetland Corps dated October 2016 contains required mitigation measures for future development. 4. The building permit shall be conditioned to implement all recommendations made in the Geotechnical Report dated October 18, 2016. X. Choices of Action. 1. Approve. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year). 4. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15. G- r- c I�;�- 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION RECEIVED OCT 2 12016 MASON COUNTY 615 W. Alder Street DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5t" Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 Variance from Standards As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057. VARIANCE CRITERIA, variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria is met. Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special "exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific variance criteria listed below. Applicant name: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins Telephone No. 253-255-1231 Mailing address:_ 12781 NE North Shore Road, Belfair Wa 98528 Site address: 12780 NE North Shore Road Owner Name: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins Owner Address: 12781 NE North Shore Road, Belfair Wa 98528 Tax Parcel # 32234-50-00038 Legal Description: MADRONA MORNINGSIDE BCH TRACTS TR 38 Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance X Mason County Development Regulations Subdivisions and Plats 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. Construction of 624 square foot garage within a regulated Type Np Stream buffer. 624 square feet of building will be constructed within the buffer, 15-feet from the stream at the nearest point. Mason County PP Variance Application 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. The regulated stream buffer encompasses the entire ownership. The limited size of the property combined with the intended use and associated access needs require the proposed building to be positioned within this buffer. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; Due to the presence of critical areas within the property, the strict application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County Resource Ordinance would not allow any use of this property. b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The hardship is specifically related to the parcel due to the presence of natural features. The regulated buffer associated with the stream leaves no space for the proposed building and associated access needs. c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to the environment. The applicant is seeking compliance with county regulations, specifically, FWHCA standards. Similar protects have been approved in Mason County allowing garages to be placed within regulated critical area buffers. No view corridors will be obstructed or modified. The findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to occur. All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will preserve and enhance the riparian area within the property and minimize potential for long term environmental impacts. d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate storage associated with residential and recreational use. There are properties in the vicinity of the proiect area with similar improvements and use. e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially effect nearby residences. The application of standards listed in the Habitat Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the proiect Mason County Variance Application site are preserved and/or enhanced. There will be no detrimental effect to the public interest resulting from the proposed proiect. f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. The site is within an area zoned for residential use. The lot is of sufficient size to accommodate this proposal. The currently allowed use of this portion of the property is less than reasonable given the critical area restrictions. The proposal is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. The project has been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with development near the stream. ;ppfcZt,,S,, ure 1U-o v*U Date 13cl11.T" Owner Signature Date FEES: Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,520.00 Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00 Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Review Fee: $445.00 NOTE: Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs (See attached). Mason County Variance Application MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES 615 W.Alder Street, Shelton,WA 98584 360.427.9670 Ext.352 Mason County Permit Center Use: 4.14 Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,520 VAR 2.D I (p - 000 1 Habitat Management Plan: $445 Date Rcvd• RECEIVED Public Hearing: $2,005 Applicant will also be billed for advertising costs. SEP 3 2016 615 W. Alder Street Resource Ordinance Variance Application The purpose of this application is to allow the County to consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards of the Resource Ordinance where the strict application would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. The minimum reasonable use for a residence, decks, and accessory structures in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of 40 percent of the area of the lot or 2,550 square feet. A public hearing accompanies Variances and application for a Variance does not guarantee approval. Applicant Name Property Owners ?`r�E L�1�NNfl �f f��,uC�lNS pp __...... _..._...........- - . Mailing Address 2�Z7 PE /U0/1-41 516f245 0,01 F9 EL ti d?-4 A 99529 Phone 1 ) (� � Phone 2S^ Email 5r-6uE Site Address -f�'7 . .... NE N�7-H 5��� RZ1._...._._.._.. .... _ .......................................................................... ................................................................................................ Tax Parcel# 3 2-Z-3q.......-:::....:0,-, Legal Description IWAD ZOpA /n0/�u/��IDE eek/ 7/2�jS 72 3� Project Description ......._(.D5'� T L S�/ G� r6 �DvS![3L LZ/ I l� _ .... ........ ........ ........ -_. / ......... .................................... ..... ............ lJpdated b"17/2016 Page 1 of 3 Please provide a site plan that includes the following: 1. Indicate Scale and North Arrow. 2. Property line dimensions,easements,and right-of-ways. 3. The location of all existing and proposed structures.Include square footage of existing and proposed structures. 4. Setback distance, in feet from all property lines and structures. 5. Existing and proposed road access to and from the site. 6. Parking spaces. 7. Location of on-site sewage tanks and drainfields. 8. Location of drinking water supply.Include location on the proposed site and surrounding parcels. 9. Steep bluffs,wetlands,streams,and bodies of water. 10. Surface and storm water run-off routes. r On a separate piece of paper(#of pages attached: 1 ), please explain the reason for the Variance request and respond to the following: 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area,and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. Provide a list(preferably printed on mailing labels or legal sized envelopes) of all property owners' mailing addresses within 300 feet of your parcel boundaries. Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Bldg. 1. Applicant(s) Signature Date 5 l3 16 Updated 2i 17/2016 Page 2 of 3 Mason County Community Services Resource Ordinance Variance Application Owners: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins Site Address: 12780 NE North Shore Rd., Belfair, WA 98528 Mailing Address: 12781 NE North Shore Rd., Belfair, WA 98528 1. Front setback requirement of 25 feet 2. Parcel topography slopes up (northerly)significantly approximately 30 feet from road/property line. 3. a. parcel is only 40 feet wide, so options for developing a structure wider vice deeper is not an option. b. As noted, parcel is only 40 feet wide, but several hundred feet deep. Existing land is fairly flat along road/property line into the lot(northerly) approximately 30 feet. From this point on into lot(northerly), steep conditions exist. c. Lots on both sides of this parcel are undeveloped. New proposed structure (garage) on this lot will support existing single family home across the street (North Shore Rd.) by same owner. d. There are many other similar existing garages along North Shore Rd.with similar conditions on parcels on north side of road. e. As noted, parcels on both sides of lot are undeveloped. f. Lot is very narrow and deep, and with steeper slope, limits types of structures that could be built. A small garage/storage building with approved variance of front setback will support good use of this project with minimal impact on existing conditions of parcel. Submitted by: Morgan-Built Homes Greg Morgan, Owner, 360-801-4140 Rick Mitchusson, Project Manager, 360-779-9418 Met with Kelly McAboy in August during scheduled Pre-Building Inspection, SP12016-00070 to discuss options for building on this site. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 615 W.Alder Street,Shelton,WA 98584 360.427.9670 Ext.352 Publication Cost Agreement Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I / WE understand that I / WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in er or i t considered as complete. Or IS Signature of Pro erty Owner Date Print Name OR Signature of Applicant Date Print Name Updated 2/17/2016 Page 3 of 3 i 61 0 m � � Z 730 I I rn cn Z7 O 11 X o� rno I � L Z rn CIO N � oD W 70 O O 0 O O M W II m rn < < m rn p n r r ) I` D 0 o z o� z N H AVVKI N S PARCEL 12760 NE NORTH 5HORE RD LEGAL D BCH TRA BELFAI R, WA 96526 322274400000 322263000000 -F 322345000038 7 322345000044F3223445000042 322345000048 322345000045 I I I 322355000001 322355000007 322345000043 322345000039 322355000003 32235500000, I '322355000009 322345000041 3223 04 322355000002 322355000006 322355000008 T2NRWI -LL 322340060000 NE NORTH SHORE RD 322350060000 322345000001 322345000010 322345000009 322345000004 322345000002 322355000002 322355000007 322345000005 322345000003 322355000003 322355000005 322355000006 322355000009 322345000011 322345000006 322345000008 322355000001 322355000008 ZL .32234 2 2222 322352222222 322342222222 322352222222 322263000000 322345000038 322345000044 322345000042 322355000001 322355000007 322345000048 322345000045 322345000043 322345000039 322355000003 322355000005 322355000009 322345000041 322345000040 322355000002 322355000006 322355000008 2340060000 NE NORTH SHORE RD 32 322350060000 322345000 322345000010 322345000009 322345000004 322345000002 322355000002 322355000007 322345000005 322345000003 322355000003 322355000005,322355000006 32235500'009 322345000011 322345000006 ��.i� i 322345000008 322355000001 322355000008 oo of 322342222222 322352222222 o/urce: Esn, DigitalGlobe, Qq-ye,EarthstarGeograph'ic PCs ES/ ir b.usO D�S/// 322342222222 USDA', �S26�� AeroGRID„I�N,and th'e GIS User Community/////� 6- " MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT($630 or$380 w/other permit) Mason County Permit Center Use: ❑ CONDITIONAL USE($1520) MEP Zp l (p - QPQ35 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW($445) Date Rcvd 9 13- ZOl(o RECEIVED MASON COUNTY SEP 13 2016 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 615 W. Alder Street Mason County Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC) ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32, 36.70A,39.34, 58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW. PLEASE PRINT 1. PROPERTY OWNER Name: vvc-N t t,4©e-kQA 14,4 KIP5 Mailing Address: �2aL"j t �/� Ak4TIV SEfD26 �,� 86LFX1A ev,4 9 � Work Phone: Email Address: Home/ e 1 Phon (253) Z•SS /23 Fax#: If an agent is acting for the property owner during the permit process, complete#2. 2. AUTHORIZED AGENT ! Name: 621�6 / 01264A-) /YlOf /f"/V — 13[J rLT P0446--5 Mailing Address: 1OZ33 V,+-r6j LfhV15- A-L-- a/�yJ�7Di�! W� 9 , (y r Work Phone: C?(�) go/ — oq0 Email Address: 6R6,"= /r 0&,,jb-eak-f Home/Cell Phone: 5f{mt Fax# 3. PROJECT SITE p n Site Address: d-7SD pr IL�NU2-7N S�� A/ 4J 6- ,9-lk Parcel #: 3��✓ - J - �pQ3S Legal Description: ,o�lf}DfZvN S! E ��5 Tp Directions to Site: M EL i2 7AK� taw y 300� / `✓' cum I- Attach a site plan showing the following: Lot Dimensions,Flood Zones,Existing Structures,Fences, Water Lines,Driveways,Drainage Plans,Shorelines,Septic System,Topography,Proposed Improvements,Easements,North Arrow,and Scale. Also draw a separate topography diagram. 4. State which section requires permit: ❑ Long Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Landslide Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Area,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑ Erosion Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.104Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter ❑ In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 17.01.110 ❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 5. Identify current use of the property with existing improvements: 6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used,construction methods, principle dimensions,and other pertinent information(attach additional sheets,if needed): rewLI 4z.,A� Sur;3 / S�ZF 3c�!.✓t�b x Z�f Zgj`�EEt� �I��11t1 1Wt�5 N o WA&Lr52 7-Nr4AU 3��" 4o T !S 'Vd ' L4110E, 7. Describe why the action requiring this permit cannot be avoided. tJ NPAA46V Z UA)M n s7 V� A.�5:i5 7 of-P2&PEIZVi /U01V -r,saf 8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area(circle one)? Yes No 9. Identify any surface water on or adjacent to property(circle one): Saltwater Lake Stream Pond Wetland rain�Ditc 10. Identify existing septic/sewer connection(circle one): If septic is located on / t site, include records. Connected to Septic Connected to Community Septic N 11. Identify existing water supply(circle one): Public Water Supply Well 11. Type of Job(circle one): ew Add Alteration Repair Demolition Other: Print Name Signature Date �'6/ � cf 1 Gamic L 1Com i I)e�c x �• i 1 a�e e1 2 a,�d.tune 2t)10 e)6k'�64-S RECEIVED OCT 2 12016 6 THE WETLAND CORPS - 15 W. Alder Street Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration - Mitigation - Biological Evaluation PARCEL 32234-50-00038 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 12780 NE North Shore Road Mason County, Washington Prepared for: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins 12781 NE North Shore Road Belfair, Wa 98528 c/o Morgan-Built Homes 10233 Yates Lane Northwest Bremerton, Wa 98312 Prepared by: Lee Boad October,2016 PO Box 2854,Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetiandcorps@hotmaii.com AV THE WETLAND CORPSr Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation PARCEL 22217-23-00040 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................1 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................1 3.0 STREAM ANNALYSIS.................................................................................2 4.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS..................................................................................................2 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES.................................................................3 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS ....................................................................................................4 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES.................................................................................................5 8.0 MONITORING.......................................................................................................................7 9.0 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................8 Fijzures Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 4. Mason County Soil Survey Map Figure 5. Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetlandcorps@hotmail.com THE WETLAND CORPS Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation - Biological Evaluation October 2016 Page 1 PARCEL 32234-50-00038 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 12780 NE North Shore Road Belfair,Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The details of a Habitat Management Plan for a site associated with the above referenced property (Parcel No. 32234-50-00038) are discussed in full in this report. The site is found in Section 34 Township 22 North, Range 3 West(See Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map). The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan(HMP)is to address potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction of a 624 square foot garage within an area encompassed by the regulated buffer of a Type Np stream. Type Np streams in Mason County require an undisturbed buffer of 100 feet with an additional 15-foot building setback. The entire buildable portion of the parcel is encompassed by the stream buffer. The proposed garage will be located approximately 15 feet from the stream at the nearest point within an area at the base of a slope. This is the furthest distance from the stream that the garage can be placed given the landscape topography and size and configuration of the parcel. The objectives of this HMP are as follows: ■ To evaluate the potential adverse effects to critical area functions as well as fish and wildlife habitat resulting from the establishment the garage within the Type Np stream buffer. Emphasis is placed on the possible loss of habitat for any listed species found to be residing in the vicinity of the parcel. ■ To identify possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset the adverse effects resulting from the establishment of the garage within the Type Np stream buffer. 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The parcel is accessed via NE North Shore Road which represents the southern property boundary. The parcel contains no buildings or structures with a steep hillside occupied by native trees and shrubs such as big leaf maple, red alder, western red cedar, swordfern, salmonberry, and salal. A Type Np stream, drains southerly along the parcel to the west into a culvert under NE North Shore Road,to Hood Canal. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetiandcorps@hotmaii.com Parcel 32234-50-00038 HIP October 2016 Page 2 .J• t , may• � . .� r + C � } t' •� r r �'k r ,,� "! f �! I 1 J 1 Photo 1. Project area circled in red 3.0 STREAM ANALYSIS Methodology The onsite stream was classified using the Department of Natural Resources Water Typing System, WAC 222-16-030. Factors that influence stream typing such as channel width, possibility of intermittent dry periods, and obstructions downstream that would effect fish migration were analyzed to accurately classify the stream. Stream Classification According to the WAC 222-16-030 water typing system, the onsite stream has been classified as a Type Np stream. Type Np streams do not contain fishbearing habitat due to the width of the channel, gradient, and downstream obstructions. Type Np streams in Mason County require 100 feet of undisturbed buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetiandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP October 2016 Page 3 4.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS The project site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County. The applicable setback for this project is as follows: Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback from Buffer Type Np Stream 100, 15' 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES 5.1 Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchas tshawytsha)-Threatened Listed as threatened since March 24, 1999, adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. Although the stream may be accessible to Puget Sound Chinook, suitable habitat is not present due to the limited size and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. This project is not likely to have adverse impacts on Puget Sound Chinook due to the lack of suitable habitat and proposed mitigation. This stream is not listed as final designations in the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington - August 2005. No impacts to water quality are predicted with proposed mitigation. 5.2 Bull Trout(Salvelinus malma)-Threatened Bull trout typically inhabit very cold, clear headwater streams at high elevations that are supported by snowmelt. For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clear gravel, relatively free of fine sediments. Bull trout are not documented within this stream, nor does it contain suitable habitat. Given no bull trout are present;the project is not likely to have any adverse impacts on bull trout. 5.3 Puget Sound Steelhead Listed as Threatened since May 2007, Puget Sound Steelhead spawn in several streams throughout Puget Sound. Spawning usually occurs in moderate to steep gradient sections of streams, usually in heads of riffles or the tails of pools where hydraulic conditions are conducive to intragravel flow. Side channels and the anterior portions of islands are also used. Spawn timing for summer steelhead runs typically ranges from mid May through October while winter run steelhead are present from December through May. Adequate cover from predation, water temperature, and spawning gravel are important factors for instream habitat, while little is currently known about specific marine habitat requirements. This stream does not support suitable fish habitat, therefor no impacts to spawning habitat will occur. No aspect of this project will influence instream conditions. The overall work described in this report is not expected to impact water quality or aquatic habitat important to steelhead. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 32234-50-00038 HUT October 2016 Page 4 5.4 Hood Canal Summer Chum (Oncorhynchus keta)-Threatened Hood Canal Summer Chum spawning areas in proximity to the site include the Union River and the Tahuya River. Recovery efforts are in place to restore naturally spawning summer chum populations to the Tahuya system while the Union stock remains healthy. The Type Np stream does not support Hood Canal Summer Chum due to the size of the stream and limited flow during the spawning period. Therefore, no impacts to Hood Canal Summer Chum or associated habitat are predicted with the proposed project. No impacts to aquatic habitat or water quality are expected to occur. 5.5 Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)-Threatened Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth forests. Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest,however the average distance is roughly 5-miles from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall mossy trees in coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest 20-40 meters above the forest floor. Murreletts have been documented laying eggs on rocky ground habitats only when a sufficient forest is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding the project site. No potential nesting trees containing platform features are within the project area. This project will likely have no adverse impact on Marbled Murrelet given there are no documented nesting sites or potential nesting trees within the project area. 5.6 Northern Spotted Owl(Stria occidentalis caurina)-Threatened Spotted owls require a large amount of land for their nesting and hunting grounds; pairs may occupy up to 58 sq. km. They are territorial and do not migrate, but they may shift their ranges slightly in response to seasonal changes. Suitable spotted owl habitat includes trees relatively large in diameter, multi-layered forest canopy with a moderate to high canopy closure in overstory, midstory, and understory, large, tall, live trees with cavities, broken tops, mistletoe, or platforms of branches capable of holding accumulated organic matter suitable for use as a nest. Dead standing trees and fallen decayed trees supporting abundant populations of prey species are critical to spotted owl populations. Currently there are no spotted owl nesting sites documented in proximity to the project site. The planting outlined in Section 6.3 should improve the potential for use of the site by Northern Spotted Owl in the future by enhancing the structural diversity of the stream buffer. With the proposed mitigation,this project will have no adverse impacts on Northern Spotted Owl. 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS KF The project lies within the regulated buffer of a Type stream. Project scale in the protected area is as follows: / PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetiandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP October 2016 Page 5 Development Type Habitat Type Project scale Proposed garage Type Np Stream Buffer 624 sq. ft. 6.1 Vegetation Disturbance The building footprint is located in a flat area cut into the base of the hillside. Vegetation to be removed consists of grasses and 3 to 5 small cedars. They will be placed along the riparian corridor as nurse logs. Other vegetation removal is limited to shrub vegetation along the fringe of the building site. With recommended planting of native vegetation described in Section 7.3, the project will not likely adversely affect overall vegetation abundance and diversity within the lot. 6.2 Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids is not within the project area. Therefore, none of the proposed actions are likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Actions described in this plan are not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. 6.3 Noise Pollution An increase in noise from construction activities will occur during daylight construction hours. No nesting sites are located within the radii of concern that would be impacted by noise associated with the establishment of the garage. Wildlife species residing in proximity to the project area have likely become adapted to noise associated with residential land use and traffic associated with NE North Shore Road. As this building is intended for storage,the noise associated with long term use will not be of a magnitude that will affect the existing wildlife use of the riparian corridor. 6.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity during Construction The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediment within the project area. Best Management Practices have been outlined in Section 7.2 to minimize the adverse effects associated sediment and turbidity during construction. 6.5 Light and Glare The proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare commonly associated with residential construction and land use. The vegetative buffer to be preserved and enhanced between the proposed project area and the stream is expected to shield the majority of the stream from increased light and glare. No impacts to the use of the site by wildlife species are likely to result from light and glare associated with this project. 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1 Preservation of Critically Important Plants The remainder of the Type Np stream buffer, outside of the proposed garage, will be preserved, remain in tact, and enhanced with native vegetation. The proposed garage is located approximately 15 feet from the stream at the nearest point; this is the furthest distance from the stream feasible given the building access needs, size of the lot, location of the stream,and landscape topography. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP October 2016 Page 6 7.2 Best Management Practices Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows: • Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather. • Install silt fencing between the work area and the stream to prevent erosion and siltation of waters. • Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible. • Once earthwork is complete, cover exposed erodible soils with hydroseed or woodchip mulch. • Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur off site. Do not store any fuel, lubricants,chemicals,or hazardous substances outside overnight within the project area. • Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain. • Comply with all permits and requirements of governing authority. 7.3 Enhancement Recommendations To mitigate for the partial displacement of stream buffer necessary for this project, it is recommended that non-native vegetation be removed from the portion of the stream buffer between the proposed garage and the stream and the area be planted with native vegetation. The enhancement zone is located throughout the entire portion of the stream buffer between the project area and the stream within the property. The total area within the buffer that is recommended for native plant enhancement occupies approximately 650 square feet. The enhancement zone contains an overstory dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra) and is void of shrub and midstory vegetation. Several migratory species, including Bald Eagles,are more likely to utilize forests with a diverse, unevenly aged overstory,and an intact shrub layer. To improve the structural diversity and increase the potential for wildlife utilization within the stream buffer, it is recommended that the enhancement zone be planted using following guidelines: The following species and pot sizes are recommended: Trees: western red cedar(Thuja plicata)- 2 gallon Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)-2 gallon Big leaf maple(Acer macrophyllum)-2 gallon Shrubs: Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa)- 1 gallon salal (Gaultheria shallon)— 1 gallon evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum)-gallon nootka rose(Rosa nutkana)— 1 gallon salmonberry(Rubus spectabilis)— 1 gallon PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetiandcorps@hotmaii.com II� Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMT October 2016 Page 7 Pacific Willow(Salix lusida)— I gallon Hooker willow(Salix hookeriana)— 1 gallon Scouler willow(Salix scouleriana)— 1 gallon Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis)— I gallon beaked hazelnut(Corylus cornuta)— I gallon Indian plum(Oemleria cerasiformis)— 1 gallon oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor)— 1 gallon Pacific ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus)— 1 gallon California black currant(Ribes bracteosum)— 1 gallon western thimbleberry(Rubus parviorus)— 1 gallon red elderberry(Sambucus racemosa)— 1 gallon Ferns: sword fern(Polystichum munitum)— 1 gallon A minimum of one tree species and three shrub species types from the list should be used. Native Planting Guidelines It is recommended that plantings be installed within the identified mitigation zone to achieve the following densities. trees- 10' on center shrubs/ferns-5' on center These densities will provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the enhancement zone. To fulfill the recommended density, the enhancement zone will be planted with 6 trees and 20 shrubs. Any existing native plants within the prescribed restoration area can be counted towards these target numbers. Typically,planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is during February and March; however, the need to complete the project in a timely manner may call for planting to occur outside optimum time periods. No machinery earthwork will be necessary to implement this mitigation plan; planting holes for specified vegetation installation will be hand dug. No additional clearing or grading should be required for site enhancement. All installed vegetation shall be marked with colored flagging to facilitate monitoring inspections. The monitoring program is outlined to insure project effectiveness. Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry are present within portions of the mitigation zone. These species are stubborn competitors for light and nutrients and limit success of native plants. Invasive species should be removed from the mitigation zone. Herbicides should not be used to achieve this due to the proximity to the stream. Persistent cutting during the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they become a problem. 8.0 MONITORING PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP October 2016 Page 8 Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following planting and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) condition of reintroduced plant species; 2) the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by the project and its effect on the protected zone and associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence of exotic species within the mitigation zone; 5) any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of Community Development. 9.0 SUMMARY This report addresses a proposed garage to be constructed within the buffer of a Type Np stream. Type Np streams require a buffer of 100 feet with an additional 15 foot building setback in Mason County. This buffer encompasses the entire parcel. Best Management Practices are recommended to insure no negative impacts to the stream. Mitigation recommendations entail native vegetation plantings throughout an area of 650 square feet within the stream buffer. No impacts to water quality or stream habitat are predicted. Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices, have been identified to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts associated with proposed construction. We trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing The Wetland Corps as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call. Respectfully submitted, Lee Boad Senior Ecologist PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetlandcorps@hotmail.com REFERENCES Audobon WatchList. http;//audobon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies. Knutson, K.L., and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp. Native Plants for Kitsap County. ftp://kcwppub3.co.kitsap.wa.us/pw/sw/Native Policy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Tribes Concerning Wild Salmonids. Adopted by Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission,1997. Washington State Department of Ecology; William Symington Lake Habitat Analysis. 1998. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:36o-62o-o618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:wetiandcorps@hotmail.com i Y s Tah uV a NP Or , za, O #vt y f N P .p /11.0 627�ft Approximate *" 5, Site Location 633 ft - fi . ,�y ,a E Manz-,xnita 9! �Mao� Y_ FIGURE 1. SITE VICINITY MAP Project: Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP THE WETLAND CORPS Project Number: TWC 16 0088 Client: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins Location: Belfair,Wa Date: 10/2016 A 01 Mitigation Area Circled in Red Z 26'-0" Proposed �3 Garage r - -- - --- -- - - - - � — — ------ — — I i I I 24'-0" I I I I ! I I I L - - - - - - - - -- - -- -1 - 5,_0„ 10'-0" PROPERTY LINE N.E. NORTH SHORE RD FIGURE 2. SITE MAP Project: Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP Project Number: TWC 16 0088 Client: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins THE WETLAND CORPS Location: Belfair,Wa Date: 10/2016 It "W *T will w _ .. . . .- - Approximate Parcel Location E 111BL d �1d Figure adapted from the Figure 3. NWI Map NWI Mapping Website Section 34 Township 22 North Range 3 West FIGURE 3. NWI WETLANDS MAP Project: Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP �r Project Number: TWC 16 0088 THE WETLAND CORPS Client: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins Location: Belfair,Wa Date: 10/2016 Mason County,Washington(WA645) Map Map Unit Name Acres Percent Unit in of AOI Symbol AOI Ed Everett gravelly loamy sand, 0.1 0.3% 0 to 5 percent slopes Ek Everett very gravelly sandy 15.1 75.8% loam,15 to 30 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 19.9 100.0% k t� N FIGURE 4. MASON COUNTY SOIL SURVEY Project: Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP o4r Project Number: TWC 16 0088 ' I Client: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins THE WETLAND CORPS Location: Belfair,Wa Date: 10/2016 27 i Approximate Parcel Location --- o h , o F,d S Puget Sound Water Bodies FlatslGravel Bars Ice . Man Made Features Open Water ;d Wet Area Streams Streains — Type S — Type F — Type N, Np. Ns j — U, unknown X, non-typed per WAC 222-16 FIGURE 5 DNR WATER TYPE MAP Project: Parcel 32234-50-00038 HMP _ Project Number: TWC 16 0088 Client: Steve and Ladonna Hawkins THE WETLAND CORPS Location: Belfair,Wa Date: 10/2016 Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Steve and Ladonna Hawkins,who are the aqPnlicants for the following proposal, have filed an application for a Variance. The request for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance is for the construction of a detached garage with a building footprint of 624 square feet to be placed within the buffer area of a Type Ns (non fish-bearing, seasonal) stream. Property location is 12781 North Shore Road, Tahuya, Washington in Mason County. Parcel No. 32234-50-00038 Date of complete application: October 21, 2016. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest by 1:00 p.m. January 25, 2017: KELL MCABOY C/O MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 615 W. Alder Street SHELTON,WA 98584 A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Wednesday,January 25,2017 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5�h Street, Shelton, WA. Please contact Kell McAboy of the Mason County Department of Community Services at (360)427-9670,ext. 365, with any questions or comments on this development and variance. A decision of this application for a variance will be made within 120 days of the date of the complete application. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) do herebycertify that I o fy posted copies of s the attached on day of Yv 0 VC*VL r e 20j(,,�7 in 2 public places as follows: one at one at �� t O^ one at In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day of .✓ , 201�p_. By: Address: S (,1�. �t1 �- [11,� tAlf4- I STATE OF WASHIN TON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) -L Subscribed and sworn to me this 1�24 day of -710j ,,,,gyp►11111►N/q// .- A `,�•�°aPtig BNSq ,4,' Notary Pub c S to of Washington �:b q Residin t NOTARY �p fission Expi es -/- PUBLIC ' a �,y9�0 01,7Jo•G�(�+�ao� MASON COUNTY Mason County Permit Center Use: COMMUNITY SERVICES DDR 615 W.Alder Street,Shelton WA 98584 360.427.9670 ext.352 Date Rcvd -I - Request for Administrative Variance for Reduction in the Required Setbacks($115.00) For administrative review,the minimum variance on a setback request is 5 feet from the side yard lot lines and 10 feet for front and rear lot lines or any access easement. Request for further reduction requires a standard variance. Setbacks are measured from the furthest projection of the structure, including roof eaves and gutters. RECEIVED Applicant/Owners: 5TEUe £ 1ADo1VUyq WAIVg(A6CCP 3 2016 Mailing Address: IZ?O( A5 A)d/zT� $ 60')26 iZ-P 615 W. Alder Street City: State: W?9 Zip: /495- 2� Telephone: Email: `Cl5"� Gu�S/7e1v �" QDI•�°p/I') If this reduction is tied to a building permit,please give permit case number. BLD - /6 f6 Ct, ' ParcelNumber(s): 3ZZ3 V� 3� Zoning 'wR ',5 Site Address: /'�'78d NC— Requested setback variance: ft. Front ❑ Rear ❑ Side ft ❑ Front ❑ Rear ❑ Side ft. ❑ Front ❑ Rear ❑ Side ft ❑ Front ❑ Rear ❑ Side Front Setbacks—From access easements and road right of ways. Minimum 10 feet. Rear Setbacks—From the rear property line. Minimum 10 feet. Side Setbacks—From the side property line. Minimum 5 feet except for certain shoreline designations. An illustrated site plan is required. Your site plan must show the following: north arrow,abutting street or easements, set backs to all property lines and existing buildings, slopes, surface water,wetlands, critical areas, septic,well and driveway. Show all proposed new development. Edited on 2/18/2016 FRONT AND OR REAR YARD REDUCTION REQUESTS: For existing lots of record as of March 5, 2002; You must meet one of the following: l) O e of the following exists on the lot(check all that apply): a) steep slopes, wetlands, or streams present; ❑ b) soils that restrict building or septic development; ❑ c) lot width at the front yard line of no more than 50 feet; ❑ d) lot size of no more than one-fourth acre; ❑ e) existing improvements of buildings, septic systems, and well areas. SIDE YARD REDUCTION REQUESTS: For existing lots of record as of March 5, 2002; You must meet one of the following: 2) One of the following exists on the lot (check all that apply): ❑ a) steep slopes, wetlands, or streams present; ❑ b) soils that restrict building or septic development; ❑ c) lot width at the front yard line of no more than 50 feet; ❑ d) lot size of no more than one-half acre; ❑ e) existing improvements of buildings, septic systems, and well areas. Explain how these circumstances preclude a reasonable development proposal from meeting the setback standard for Rural Residential 2.5, 5, 10, or 20 zones. b4ts�1N6 4WCKi'�0905-W PA;246521- 45 rL-/-r F401K 'PI Pr4t)pa" L_jtj6 j_)-/7 Z) 1,LV7- ATP46)e 30' Tklaul 6LOPE5 vPtvAPW(P0(&_Pf SIVOIRCAP-rLy, 0_6�vu_cx 06 Z'5 ' 56,tp-e1L Raw 2g�4 E!JU I -(0 CUB U_DU_LV 126IUr6 aE&ucaEZ:;) c el� Ta 3t✓o P� , Owner/Agent (please indicate) ignature Date Official Use Only n Approved by: Date Gad '.Wb Denied by: Date Reason for denial: Edited on 2/18/2016 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A VARI 3/-Thursday, Dec. 15,2016 ANCE FROM THE MASON COUNTY RE- PUBLIC NOTICES SOURCE ORDINANCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that Steve and La- PUBLIC NOTICE donna Hawkins, who are the applicants for the NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A VARI- following proposal, have filed an application for ANCE FROM THE MASON COUNTY RE- a Variance. The request for a Variance from the SOURCE ORDINANCE Mason County Resource Ordinance is for the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING construction of a detached garage with a build- Notice is hereby given that Steve and La- ing footprint of 624 square feet to be placed donna Hawkins, who are the applicants for the within the buffer area of a Type Ns (non fish- following proposal, have filed an application for bearing, seasonal) stream. Property location is a Variance. The request for a Variance from the 12781 North Shore Road, Tahuya, Washington Mason County Resource Ordinance is for the in Mason County. Parcel No. 32234-50-00038 construction of a detached garage with a build- Date of complete application:October 21, 2016. ing footprint of 624 square feet to be placed The proposed development is reviewed as a within the buffer area of a Type Ns (non fish- Variance under the Mason County Resource bearing, seasonal) stream. Property location is Ordinance, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish 12781 North Shore Road, Tahuya, Washington and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which in Mason County. Parcel No. 32234-50-00038 details stream buffer requirements and Section Date of complete application:October 21,2016. 17.01.150,Variances from Standards,which es- The proposed development is reviewed as a tablishes Variance procedures and criteria.The Variance under the Mason County Resource proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan Ordinance, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Hearing Examiner approval. Any person de- and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150,Variances from Standards,which es- tablishes Variance procedures and criteria. The _ proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan siring to express their view or to be notified of the and Hearing Examiner approval. Any person de- action taken on the application should notify in siring to express their view or to be notified of the writing of their interest by 1:00 p.m.January 25, action taken on the application should notify in 2017: KELL MCABOY C/O MASON COUNTY writing of their interest by 1:00 p.m.January 25, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 2017: KELL MCABOY C/O MASON COUNTY 615 W. Alder Street SHELTON, WA 98584 A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason 615 W. Alder Street SHELTON, WA 98584 A County Hearing Examiner on the proposed proj- PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason ect on Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:00 County Hearing Examiner on the proposed proj- p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, ect on Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:00 Bldg. 1,411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. Please p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, contact Kell McAboy of the Mason County De- Bldg. I,411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. Please partment of Community Services at (360) 427- contact Kell McAboy of the Mason County De- 9670,ext.365,with any questions or comments partment of Community Services at (360) 427- on this development and variance.A decision of 9670, ext. 365,with any questions or comments this application for a variance will be made within on this development and variance.A decision of 120 days of the date of the complete application. this application for a variance will be made within 9149 December 15,22 2t 120 days of the date of the complete application. — ---- 9149 December 15,22 2t Page 1 of 1 Kelly McAboy - Re: Public Notice: Hawkins From: Shelton-Mason County Journal<jlegals@masoncounty.com> To: Kelly McAboy <KMCAboy@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 12/9/2016 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Public Notice: Hawkins The cost is $352 and the legal number is 9149. On Dec 8, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Kelly McAboy <KMCAboykco.mason.wa.us> wrote: Please run the attached Public Notice on December 15, 2016 and December 22, 2016. The publication cost shall be sent to the applicant named on the attached pdf. THANKS! Sincerely, Kell McAboy Senior Planner 360.427.9670 ext. 365 <Notice of Public Hearing.docx><Hawkins-Publication Cost.pdf> file:///C:/Users/kmcaboy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/5 84A7687Masonmai110013 56... 12/9/2016 VARIANCE REQUEST Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I / WE understand that I / WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. OWNER: %/yam APPLICANT: DATE: /0 f �� �� To 14 ^-W V i vl 5 l ° 2 3 3 Yates La�N � Mason County Variance Application (1/17/2017) Kelly McAboy- Re: Hawkins Garage 32234-50-00038 Page 1 From: <envirotech@geotechnicalinfo.com> To: "Kelly McAboy" <KMCAboy@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 1/16/2017 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Hawkins Garage 32234-50-00038 Good Morning, The upland water body is Wheeler Lake,just over 2000 ft from the edge of property. I do not see any indication of this water body affecting the property, including the septic system, in any way. Please call or email if you have any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Michael Staten Envirotech Engineering 360-275-9374 > Hi Michael, > RE: the Hawkins garage at 12780 NE North Shore Road Geotech report. You > indicate on page 3, section 2.3.1 that there appears to be an upland >waterbody/wetland. What is the distance of that water body? Is it located > on or near the subject parcel? Does it have any impact on the existing > upland septic system? > There is a public hearing scheduled for Hawkins' Resource Ordinance >Variance on January 25, 2017. If you can get back to me before then, that > would be great. The question may or may not come up in the hearing. > Sincerely, > Kell McAboy > Senior Planner > 360.427.9670 ext. 365 GE040IIo- 0004.4 Mason County Review Checklist C� for a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Report should explain the basis for the conclusion. The Report is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director. Applicant's Name: s-Vr_VFt4 1+kwy—lm Permit#: Parcel#: ?LZZ3� -5D- Ddo38 Date(s) of the Docu ent(s) reviewed: o 1. (a) A discuss' n of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK? Comment: (b) A discussion of specific soil types OK?V_Comment: (c) A discussion of ground water conditions OK? _Comment: (d) A diSCUccinn of the upslope geomorphology n OK? ✓ Comment: M M, P_ \ (e) A discussion of the location of upla95�waterbodies and wetlands OK? ✓ Comment:�Ni21y k, !Zt DoL4 L O i S �()C A.T �7 UnlnwldOrX/fi1G1/J (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records OK? _Comment: 2. A site plan that identifies the important development and geologic features. OK? V Comment: 3. Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. OK? ✓ Comment: 4. The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site. OK?V 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: G Y iN�-,r -1 tj%. -s. 4 f(`4) 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? ✓ Comment: 0( W ccrpkf )l �e.Fo r�, �o<J!��h 1e h�ovE 011 Or"fi'Ca � �l c1P --- nod of prvlccf 7. (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features OK? ✓ Comment: (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields OK? \,/ —Comment: (c) Appropriate restrictions on plac ent of compacted fills and footings. OK?_��Comment: Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. \ OK? y"' —Comment: \ tNg 'S 0vr�. �a%�' �toRtpUrl J (e) Recomme ded setbacks from h'e landslide azard areas,si&,,in b ffu and the tops of other slopes. OK? n Comment: -ZtPcO LoY%i'1Uc,i'yt',k;a c, %A c-f CM-&MEMT 8. Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies U vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. 5 .•/c 7 OK? ✓ Comment: r-P ; �';Es Alb"FTb2katrove. V ' FPC) �l ve-Ti el%� 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: 10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. OK? ✓ Comment: 11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. OK? ✓ Comment: 12. Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. OK?- / Comment: i 13. A site map drawn to scales owing 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? de, License#: $30- dS License type:REC-+►ST FIRST REVIEW �iApproved ❑ Need more info. If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by 1�()are s� Vl� on -*) -7 Time spent in review: Z hr 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 EO ZO ► 0006� F92_ c 2-6 1 -7 - 00� �-� PLANNING RECEIVED Mason County Department of Community Development JUN 12 2017 Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report 615 W. Alder Street Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Applicant/Owner Steven Hawkins Parcel# 32234-50-00038 Site Address 12781 NE North Shore Road (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 5 (b) A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) 6 (c) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) 7 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) 3 (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s) 3 (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s) 8 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Site Plan (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Site Plan/Soil Logs (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) Site Plan (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Located on Map(s) Soil Profile (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. Located on page(s) 10 (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features Located on page(s) 16 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields Located on page(s) 18 (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) 13, 15 Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) 17 (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) 16 (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) 18 (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) 10 (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 12 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) 16-18 (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) 18 (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s) Site Plan i, Michael C Staten hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Report, dated October 18, 2016, and entitled Hawkins Garage meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) CLYDr d' r 43045 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. V V� J Le Geotechnical Report for Hawkins Garage 12780 NE North Shore Road, Belfair Parcel No. 32234-50-00038 Mason County, Washington October 18, 2016 Project#16151 Prepared For: Steven Hawkins 12781 NE North Shore Road CLYDF sT Belfair, Washington 98528 �` �����-AS�iqT2 Prepared By: Envirotech Engineering, PLLC A�a FGIS°FR ����� PO Box 984 S�ONAL�` 10/18/16 Belfair, Washington 98528 Phone: 360-275-9374 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................I 1.1 PRO.IECT INFORMATION........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION AND SCOPE OF WORK.............................................................................................1 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................................»...................................................................3 2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.....................................................................................................................................3 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology..............................................................................................................................3 2.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE..............................................................................................................................................3 2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies..................................................................................................................................3 2.4 SLOPE AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................................................4 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................................................4 3.1 FIELD METHODS,SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING................................................................................................5 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................5 3.3 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................6 3.3.1 Groundwater.................................................................................................................................................7 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................8 4.1 SLOPE STABILITY..................................................................................................................................................8 41.1 Slope Stability Analysis................................................................................................................................9 4.2 EROSION..............................................................................................................................................................10 4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION.................................................................................................10 4 3.1 Liquefaction................................................................................................................................................11 4.4 LANDSLIDE,EROSION AND SEISMIC HAZARDS CONCLUSIONS............................................................................11 4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES..............................................................................................................................11 4.6 ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPACTS........................................................................................................................12 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................13 5.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................13 5.LI Bearing Capacity........................................................................................................................................13 5.1.2 Settlement...................................................................................................................................................14 5.L3 ConcreteSlabs-on-Grade...........................................................................................................................14 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................14 5.2.1 Excavation..................................................................................................................................................14 5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered FiU.............................................................15 5.2.3 Retaining Wag BackjIll..............................................................................................................................16 5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations......................................................................................................................16 5.3 BUILDING AND FOOTING SETBACKS....................................................................................................................16 5.4 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE...............................................................................................................16 5.5 VEGETATION BUFFER AND CONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................................................16 5.6 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL...........................................................................................17 5.7 SEPTIC DRAINFIELDS...........................................................................................................................................17 5.8 STRUCTURAL MITIGATION..................................................................................................................................17 6.0 CLOSURE...............................................................................................................................................................is Appendix A-Site Plan Appendix B-Soil Information Appendix C-Slope Stability Appendix D-Erosion Control 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a planned garage located at 12780 NE North Shore Road, identified as parcel number 32234-50-00038, Mason County,Washington. See the vicinity map on the following page for a general depiction of the site location. An initial geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted by Envirotech on September 28, 2016. It was determined that slopes in excess of 40%with a vertical relief of at least 10 feet were present within 300 feet of the planned development.Based on this site characteristic,the proposed development will require a geotechnical report pursuant to Landslide Hazard Areas of Mason County Resource Ordinance(MCRO) 17.01.100. During the site visit by Envirotech, surface and subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable Project research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report which, at a minimum, conforms to the applicable MCRO. As presented herein,this report includes information pertaining to the Project in this Introduction Section; observations of the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section; field methods and soil descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section; supporting documentation with relation to slope stability, erosion, seismic considerations, and lateral earth pressures in the Engineering Analyses and Conclusions Section; and, recommendations for foundation, settlement, earthwork construction, retaining walls, erosion control, drainage, and vegetation in the Engineering Recommendations Section. 1.1 Project Information Information pertaining to the planned development of the Project was provided by the proponent of the property. The planned development consists of a 1- or 2-story garage, new on-site septic system, and other ancillary features typical of this type of development. Approximate building footprint and other proposed features with relation to existing site conditions are illustrated on the Site Map provided in Appendix A of this report. 1.2 Purpose of Investigation and Scope of Work The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to assess geological hazards, and evaluate the Project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations that should be implemented during development.The investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and subsurface conditions,and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site activities. In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation,the geotechnical program completed for the proposed improvements of the Project include: • Review project information provided by the Project owner and/or owner's representative; • Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements of the Project; • Define general subsurface conditions of the site by observing subsoils within test pits and/ or cut banks, review geological maps for the general area, research published references concerning slope stability, and review water well reports from existing wells near the Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 1 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 J � Project; • Collect bulk samples,as applicable,at various depths and locations; • Perform soils testing to determine selected index and/or engineering properties of the site soils; • Complete an engineering analysis supported by the planned site alterations,and the surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation, soil testing, and applicable project research;and, • Establish conclusions based on findings, and make recommendations for foundations, drainage, slope stability, erosion control, earthwork construction requirements, and other considerations. gad �-- Project / r` H aA a i- ewron°°w Vicinity Map from Mason County Website Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 2 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on September 28, 2016 by a representative with Envirotech. During the site visit, the type of geotechnical investigation was assessed,site features were documented that may influence construction,and site features were examined that may be influenced by construction. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general observations, vegetation, topography, drainage and observed slope/erosion conditions for the Project and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. 2.1 General Observations Currently, the property is vacant with an existing driveway. Vegetation on and near the Project consists primarily of secondary growth firs, cedars, madronas, and other trees and shrubbery common to this area of the Pacific Northwest.An aerial photo of the Project and immediate vicinity is provided on the following page. 2.2 Topography The topographic information provided in this section was extrapolated from a public lidar source, and incorporated observations and field measurements. Where necessary, slope verification included measuring slope lengths and inclinations with a cloth tape and inclinometer. See the Site Plan in Appendix A in this report for an illustration of general topography with respect to the planned development. fCritical ascending slopes,with grades exceeding 40% appear to be within 300 feet of the planned development. The maximum critical slope is approximately 46%with a vertical relief of about 18 feet. fDescending grades are generally located to the south of the planned development. These slopes are relatively minor within 300 feet of the Project,with no apparent slope grades of at least 15%with a vertical relief of at least 10 feet. 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology The upland area of the property and beyond is generally situated on a hillside and crest of glacial origin. 2.3 Surface Drainage Runoff originating upslope of the development is mostly diverted away from the property by accommodating topography. Excessive scour, erosion or other indications of past drainage problems were not observed within the immediate vicinity of the planned development. 2.3.1 Upslope Water Bodies There is an apparent water body or wetland located upslope from the planned development. It does not appear that it would significantly influence the Project. `\ Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore oad PO Box 984 page 3 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations The slope gradients near the Project signal a potential landslide or erosion hazard area. Some indicators that may suggest past slope movements include: • Outwash of sediments near the bottom of the slope, • Fissures,tension cracks, hummocky ground or stepped land masses on the face or top of the slope,and parallel to the slope, • Fine, saturated subsurface soils, • Old landslide debris, • Significant bowing or leaning trees,or, • Slope sloughing or calving. These slope instability indicators or other significant mass wasting on the property or within the general vicinity of the Project were not observed or discovered during research.Indications of past landslides,current unstable slopes,deep-seated slope problems,or surficial slope failures were not observed during the site visit. 2016 K •• Aerial Photo from Google Website 3.0 SUBSURFACE NVESTIGATION Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 4 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was primarily gathered on September 28,2016 by a representative with Envirotech.Applicable information on field methods, sampling, field testing, general geologic conditions, specific subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing are presented in this section of the report. Appendix B of this report includes pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the Project,such as subsoil cross-section(s),test pit log(s),and applicable water well report(s). Water well reports were utilized to estimate ground water levels, and if sufficient,were used in identifying subsoil types.Applicable test pit locations are depicted on the Site Plan provided in the appendix of this report. 3.1 Field Methods,Sampling and Field Testing Information on subsurface conditions for the Project was accomplished by examining soils within test pits and/or nearby banks extending to depths of up to 8 feet below the natural ground surface. Information on subsurface conditions also included reviewing geological maps representing the general vicinity of the project,and water well reports originating from nearby properties. Soil samples were not obtained from this project. Envirotech measured the relative density of the near-surface in-situ soils by gauging the resistance of hand tools. Within testing locations, field testing results generally indicated loose to medium dense soils in the upper 60 inches, and very dense soils from 60 inches to the depth of terminous. 3.2 General Geologic Conditions In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic conditions as presented in the"Geologic Map of Washington,"compiled by J.Eric Schuster,2002 indicates Quaternary sediments, Qg. Quaternary sediments are generally unconsolidated deposits, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is located within the Puget Lowland.Typically,"lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation."as revealed in the Geologic Map.Initial sedimentary rocks were formed from shales,sandstones and coal deposits from rivers.During the Quaternary period,the Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets,with the most recent being the Fraser glacier with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits. The"Geologic Map of the Skokomish Valley and Union 7.5-minute Quadrangles,Mason County, Washington' by Michael Polenz, Jessica L. Czajkowski, Gabriel Legorreta Paulin, Trevor A. Conteras, Brendon A. Miller, Maria E. Martin, Timothy J. Walsh, Robert L. Logan, Robert J. Carson, Chris N. Johnson, Rian H. Skov, Shannon A. Mahan, and Cody R. Cohan, June 2010, provides the following caption(s)for the project area: V ashon advance outwash—Pebbles.cobbles.and sand;gray to tan:generally compact.but commonly cohesionless:clasts well rounded.well sorted.clean:very thinly to thickly bedded. Pre-Fraser northern-source drift.undivided—Till and outwash consisting of cobble to pebbl gravel with occasional boulders and a sandy to clayey matrix. Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 5 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 qgic .� F � 4 Project J[ PO in r S � 7 1 hh # C` Geological Map Department of Natural Resources Washington State 3.3 Specific Subsurface Conditions The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the Project subgrade utilizing information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and investigated locations. Soils for this project were primarily described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)and the Soil Conservation Service(SCS)descriptions. The Project is currently composed of native soils without indications of borrowed fill. Within test pit locations, soils within the upper 6 feet of natural ground were generally observed to be moist, brown silty sand with gravel (SM). Soils below the upper 6 feet layer were observed to be mostly grey,low moisture,silty sand with gravel(SM),locally known as hardpan.The hardpan may extend to depths greater than 50 feet.This is based on nearby well reports,site geology,and/or knowledge of the general area. The relative densities of the soil within selected test pits are provided above in Section 3.1. Expanded and specific subsurface descriptions, other than what is provided in this section, are provided in the soil logs located in Appendix B of this report. According to the"Soil Survey of Mason County,"by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,the site soils are described as Everett Very Gravelly Sandy Loam, Ek, with 15% - 30% slopes. The soil designations are depicted in the aerial photograph below, and descriptions are provided in Appendix B of this report. Envirotech Engineering, PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 6 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 Soil Survey From USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 3.3.1 Groundwater From the water well report(s)and knowledge of the general area, permanent groundwater is at least 50 feet directly below the property at the building pad location. Surface seepage or perched groundwater at shallow depths was not observed on-site, nor indicated on the well reports. However, some groundwater is expected to flow directly above the hardpan on occasion. Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 7 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS The following section includes slope stability,erosion,seismic considerations,and impacts to both on-site and off-site properties. 4.1 Slope Stability Landslides are natural geologic processes, and structures near slopes possess an inherent risk of adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes. Geotechnical engineering cannot eliminate these risks for any site with sloping grades because gravity is constantly inducing strain on the sloping soil mass. Excessive wet weather and/ or earthquakes will exacerbate these strains. Geotechnical engineering considers excessive wet weather and `design' earthquakes in order to provide an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping terrain with relation to current engineering protocol. These factors of safeties are based on engineering standards such as defining engineering properties of the soil, topography, water conditions, seismic acceleration and surcharges. Surface sloughing or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the deep-seated structural capability of the slope. However, repeated surficial slope movements, if not repaired, may represent a threat to the structural integrity of the slope. If any slope movement arises, the slope should be inspected by an engineer. Subsequently, maintenance may be required in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated slope movements that may be damaging to life and property. According to the Coastal Zone Atlas of Mason County, Washington,the Project is within and near terrain labeled `Stable' and `Unstable' regarding potential landslide activity. Descriptions of these mapping units may be found in the aforesaid Atlas. A Stability Map from the Coastal Zone Atlas for the general area of this Project is provided below: VV � it e 5 i Sculr 1_S,IMNI '''^ I I Project Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 8 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 Map from Washington State Department of Ecology Website According to the Resource Map from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR),the Project is within terrain labeled`highly unstable'relating to soils.DNR labeled portions of this project as medium and high slope instability with relation to slopes. A Resource Map from the DNR Forest Practices Application Review System is provided below: NJ Project Resource Map from Washington State Department of Natural Resources Website SOILS—On Resource Mlao only Hydric Sods Highly Unstable Highly Erodible Highly Unstable& Highly Erodible No Data or Gravel Pits SLOPE—on Resource Mlao oala Medium Slope Instability _High Slope Instability 4.1.1 Slope StabilityAnalysis Y The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing STABLE software, was used to analyze the static stability of the site slopes. Seismic conditions were estimated utilizing worst case scenario values from the static analysis, a quasi-static analysis coefficient of at least 0.15, and applying the applicable values to STABLE software.Various radii's and center points of the circle were automatically selected,and produced factor of safeties in a graphical and tabular format. Worst case scenario values were used in the slope stability analysis in regards to topography, surcharges,water content, internal friction and cohesion of the site soils. STABLE software has been repeatedly checked with manual calculations, and consistently proved to be a very conservative program. The following soil properties were Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 9 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 used in the analysis, and are based on observed conditions, known geology, and/or published parameters: Upper 6 feet soil depth Soil unit weight: 130 pcf Angle of internal friction: 32 degrees Cohesion: 0 psf Soils below 6 feet in depth Soil unit weight: 140 pcf Angle of internal friction: 40 degrees Cohesion: 400 psf Based on the slope stability analysis, unacceptable factors of safety could be present on and near the critical slope,but do not reflect conditions where development is expected to occur. For this Project, at the location of the proposed development, minimum factor of safeties for static and dynamic conditions were estimated to be 1.6 and 1.1, respectively. See the slope stability information in Appendix C for a depiction of input parameters and example of outputs. 4.2 Erosion Based on the USCS description of the Project soils, the surface soils are considered moderately erodible.According to the Resource Map from the Washington State DNR,as provided above,the Project is not within terrain labeled `highly erodible.' This Project is not within an erosion hazard area as defined by the MCRO. Erosion hazard areas are those with USDA SCS designations of River Wash (Ra), Coastal Beaches (Cg), Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15% or greater(Ac and Ad),Cloquallum Silt Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Cd),Harstine Gravelly Sandy Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Hb),and Kitsap Silt Loam on slopes 15%or greater(Kc). It is our opinion that minor erosion control recommendations provided in this report is sufficient for the development of this Project, and additional engineered erosion control plans are not required. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures are required for site development. Extents of temporary erosion control will mostly depend on the timeliness of construction,moisture content of the soil,and amount of rainfall during construction. Soil erosion typical to the existing site conditions and planned disturbance of the Project include wind-borne silts during dry weather, and sediment transport during prolonged wet weather. Sediment transport could be from stormwater runoff or tracking off-site with construction equipment. The Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Section (Section 5.6) of this report consist of specific erosion controls to be implemented. Additional erosion control information and specifications may be found in the latest addition of the "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington,"prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 4.3 Seismic Considerations and Liquefaction Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 10 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 i There are no known faults beneath this Project. The nearest Class `A' or Class `B' fault to this property is the Hood Canal Fault Zone Fault Zone, in which is approximately 4.5 miles to the west of this Project.This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. Potential landslides due to seismic hazards have been considered, and are addressed in the Slope Stability Analysis Section provided earlier in this report. Soils immediately below the expected foundation depth for this Project are generally Type D, corresponding to the International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. According to the IBC, the regional seismic zone is 3 for this Project. The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges from 0.50g to 0.60g.This estimation is based on the United States Geological Survey(USGS)National Seismic Hazard Project in which there is an estimated 2%probability of exceedance within the next 50 years. 4.3.1 Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction is believed to be low to moderate for this Project. This is based, in part, on the subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of a permanent shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems caused from liquefaction include submerged, confined, poorly-graded granular soils (i.e. gravel, sand, silt). Although gravel- and silt-sized soil particles could be problematic, fine and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No significant saturated sand stratifications are anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of the subsoil for this Project. 4.4 Landslide,Erosion and Seismic Hazards Conclusions DNR did indicate historic landslide activity near the Project. Mapped slope conditions, as delineated by the Departments of Ecology and/or Natural Resources,were considered in our slope stability assessment. Based on the proximity and severity of mapped delineations with respect to the proposed development, results of the aforesaid slope stability analysis, observed surface conditions, and other pertinent information, it is our opinion that the proposed development may occur in accordance with the recommendations in this geotechnical report. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures Retaining walls may be utilized for this Project. The lateral earth pressures exerted through the backfill of a retaining wall are dependent upon several factors including height of retained soil behind the wall, type of soil that is retained, degree of backfill compaction, slope of backfill, surcharges,hydrostatic pressures,earthquake pressures,and the direction and distance that the top of the wall moves. An equivalent fluid unit weight used for structural design may be estimated as the product of the backfill soil unit weight and the earth pressure coefficient for at-rest pressures. Retaining walls should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of the Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 11 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 f following: At-Rest Active Native Soils 55 pcf 35 pcf Engineered Fill Soils 45 pcf 28 pcf See the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section for details concerning the use of native soils, engineered fill and placement of backfill. In addition to the aforementioned lateral earth pressures, retaining walls designed as catchment walls for resisting impacts due to shallow landslides shall also consider the dynamic force of potential debris flow.Catchment walls should be designed to resist the additional dynamic force of 250 pcf.This, in part, is based on a flow depth of 3 feet,velocity of 5 fps,debris density of 3.1 pcf, and a slope gradient of 28 degrees. 4.6 On-Site and Off-Site Impacts From a geotechnical position, it is Envirotech's opinion that the subject property and adjacent properties to the proposed development should not be significantly impacted if all recommendations in this report are followed. This opinion is based on the expected site development, existing topography, existing nearby development, land cover, and adhering to the recommendations presented in this report. Future development or land disturbing activities on neighboring properties or properties beyond adjacent parcels that are upslope and/or downslope from the subject property could cause problems to the subject property. For this reason, future development or land disturbance near the subject property should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. Envirotech Engineering, PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 12 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements of the Project.These recommendations have been made available based on the planned improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report; general observations including drainage and topography as recapitulated in the Surface Conditions Section; soil/geologic conditions that were identified from the geotechnical investigation that is summarized in the Subsurface Investigation Section;and,Project research,analyses and conclusions as determined in the Engineering Analysis and Conclusions Section. Recommendations for the Project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for building foundations, earthwork construction, building and/ or footing setbacks,drainage,vegetation considerations,and erosion control. 5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a typical one- or two-story, single family residential structure.The recommended allowable bearing capacities and settlements as presented below, consider the probable type of construction as well as the field investigation results by implementing practical engineering judgment within published engineering standards. Evaluations include classifying site soils based on observed field conditions and soil testing for this Project. After deriving conservative relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils,the Terzhagi ultimate bearing capacity equation was utilized for determining foundation width and depth. Foundation parameters provided herein account for typical structural pressures due to the planned type of development.A structural analysis is beyond the scope of a geotechnical report, and a structural engineer may be required to design specific foundations and other structural elements based on the soil investigation. Stepped foundations are acceptable, if warranted for this Project. Continuous, isolated,or stepped foundations shall be horizontally level between the bottom of the foundation and the top of the bearing strata. The frost penetration depth is not expected to extend beyond 12 inches below the ground surface for this Project under normal circumstances and anticipated design features. 5.1.1 Bearing Capacity Existing in-situ soils for this Project indicates that the structure can be established on shallow, continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on relatively undisturbed native soil that is competent and unyielding. Alternatively, foundations may be constructed on selective re-compacted native soil or compacted engineered fill as described in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report. For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 1500 psf, a minimum continuous footing width of 12 inches(15 inches for 2-story structures)shall be placed at a minimum of 18 inches below the existing ground surface atop unyielding soils. For a columnar load of no more than 3 tons,a circular or square isolated foundation diameter or width shall be at least 24 inches.Foundation recommendations are made available based on adherence to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report. Alterations to the aforementioned foundation recommendations may be completed upon a site inspection by a geotechnical engineer after the foundation excavation is completed. Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 13 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 5.1.2 Settlement Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on the subsurface conditions, type of structure, amount and duration of pressure exerted by the structure, reduction of pore water pressure, and in some instances, the infiltration of free moisture. Based on the expected native soil conditions, anticipated development, and construction abides by the recommendations in this report,the assumed foundation system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement, and a maximum differential settlement of 0.75 inch. 5.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Interior slabs, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 4 inches of compacted coarse, granular material (Retained on U.S. Sieve #10 or greater) that is placed over undisturbed, competent native subgrade or engineered fill per the Earthwork Recommendations Section below. The recommendations for interior concrete slabs-on-grade as presented herein are only relevant for the geotechnical application of this Project.Although beyond the scope of this report, concrete slabs should also be designed for structural integrity and environmental reliability. This includes vapor barriers or moisture control for mitigating excessive moisture in the building. 5.2 Earthwork Construction Recommendations Founding material for building foundations shall consist of undisturbed native soils to the specified foundation depths. Compacted engineered fill,or selective re-compacted native soils may be used to the extents provided in this Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section. The following recommendations include excavations, subgrade preparation,type of fill,and placement of fill for building foundations. 5.2.1 Excavation Excavation is recommended to remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious material, if present, beneath foundations and to achieve appropriate foundation depth. Additional sub-excavation will be required for this Project if the soils below the required foundation depth are loose, saturated, not as described in this report, or otherwise incompetent due to inappropriate land disturbing, or excessive water trapped within foundation excavations prior to foundation construction.All soils below the bottom of the excavation shall be competent, and relatively undisturbed or properly compacted fill. If these soils are disturbed or deemed incompetent, re-compaction of these soils below the anticipated footing depth is necessary. Excavations shall be completely dewatered, compacted, and suitable before placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or structural concrete. Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 14 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 5.2.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill For engineered fill or disturbed native soils that will be utilized as fill material directly beneath foundations, observation and/ or geotechnical testing is required prior to foundation construction. The following placement and compaction requirements are necessary. For disturbed native soils or engineered fill beneath foundations, limits of compacted or re-compacted fill shall extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of one horizontal foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill depth beneath the foundation. See the illustration below. F❑❑TING COMPACTED NATIVE SOILS OR ENGINEERED I FILL 1 11 I I UNDISTURBED SUBGRAI EI ' Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots and other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter. Because of moisture sensitivity, importing and compacting engineered fill may be more economical than compacting disturbed native soils. Engineered fill shall include having the soils retained on the No. 4 sieve crushed (angular), and should consist of the following gradation: U.S. Standard Sieve %Finer(by weight) 6" 100 3" 60— 100 No. 4 20—60 No. 200 0- 8 Table 1 Partical Size Distribution of Engineered Fill Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 6 inches for both native soils and engineered fill, respectively. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and within 3% of optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding. Temporary earth cuts and temporary fill slopes exceeding 4 feet in height should be limited to a slope of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Utility trenches or other confined excavations exceeding 4 feet should conform to OSHA safety regulations.Permanent cut and fill slopes shall be limited to a slope of 2:1,unless otherwise approved by an engineer. Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 15 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County,Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 5.2.3 Retaining Wall Backfill As previously mentioned, significant retaining structures are anticipated for this Project. Native soils may be used as retaining wall Backfill for this Project.Backfill may also consist of engineered fill or borrow materials approved by a geotechnical engineer. Placement, compaction and extents of retaining wall backfll should also be specified by a geotechnical engineer or qualified professional. 5.2.4 Wet Weather Considerations Due to the types of subsurface soils, additional provisions may be required during prolonged wet weather. Every precaution should be made in order to prevent free moisture from saturating the soils within excavations. If the bottom of excavations used for footing placement changes from a moist and dense/hard characteristic as presented in this report to muck or soft, saturated conditions, then these soils become unsuitable for foundation bearing material. If this situation occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be notified, and these soils should be completely removed and replaced with compacted engineered fill or suitable native material as presented in this section. 5.3 Building and Footing Setbacks Due to potential debris flow, the building location should have a minimum setback from the local ascending slope toe equal to '/2 the slope height. The toe of the ascending slope is delineated as a grade break in which the ascending slope is in excess of 40%. Envirotech recommends the garage setback to be zero with mitigation provided in this report. 5.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned residential buildings. Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface,driveways and sidewalks away from the Project structures. All constructed surface and subsurface drains should be adequately maintained during the life of the structure. If drainage problems occur during or after construction, additional engineered water mitigation will be required immediately. This may include a combination of swales, berms, drain pipes, infiltration facilities, or outlet protection in order to divert water away from the structures to an appropriate protected discharge area. Leakage of water pipes, both drainage and supply lines, shall be prevented at all times. If impervious thresholds are exceeded per Mason County code, then engineered stormwater management plans are required for this project. The drainage engineer must coordinate with a geotechnical engineer for input with relation to slope stability prior to submitting drainage plans. If stormwater management plans are not required for this project, then the following recommendations should be followed. For this project,we recommend that roof runoff have ordinary roof downspouts with splashblocks. 5.5 Vegetation Buffer and Considerations Envirotech Engineering, PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 16 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 For this project,we believe that a detailed clearing and grading plan is not warranted unless Mason County thresholds are exceeded,and basic vegetation management practices should be adhered to. Vegetation Buffer—Vegetation shall not be removed from the face of the critical slope (grades over 40%). However, any tree deemed hazardous to life or property shall be removed. If tree removal is necessary,then stumps and roots shall remain in place,and the underbrush and soil shall remain undisturbed as much as possible. Any disturbed soil shall be graded and re-compacted in order to restore the terrain similar to preexisting conditions and drainage patterns. 5.6 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation to the least extent possible.Erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling cleared vegetation, silt fencing, intercepting swales, berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls. Although other controls may be used, if adequate, silt fencing is presented in this report as the first choice for temporary erosion control.Any erosion control should be located down-slope and beyond the limits of construction and clearing of vegetation where surface water is expected to flow. If the loss of sediments appears to be greater than expected,or erosion control measures are not functioning as needed,additional measures must be implemented immediately. See Appendix D for sketches and general notes regarding selected erosion control measures. The Site Map in Appendix A depicts the recommended locations for erosion control facilities to be installed as necessary. Permanent erosion control may also be necessary if substantial vegetation has not been established within disturbed areas upon completion of the Project. Temporary erosion control should remain in place until permanent erosion control has been established. Permanent erosion control may include promoting the growth of vegetation within the exposed areas by mulching, seeding or an equivalent measure. Selected recommendations for permanent erosion control are provided in Appendix D. Additional erosion control measures that should be performed include routine maintenance and replacement,when necessary,of permanent erosion control,vegetation,drainage structures and/or features. 5.7 Septic Drainfields The approximate location of the septic drainfield is presented on the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report. Based on the septic drainfield location with relation to the existing and proposed topography,the drainfields are not expected to adversely influence critical slopes.This is also based on compliance with all recommendations in this report. 5.8 Structural Mitigation With respect to landslide alleviation or slope improvements, structural mitigation is necessary for this project. A catchment wall should be incorporated into the upslope side of the new building foundation. The wall should extend at least 3 feet above the backfill grade. We suggest the wall extends 2 to 3 feet beyond the garage footprint. Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 17 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair,Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 l 6.0 CLOSURE Based on the project information provided by the owner, the proposed development, and site conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's opinion that additional geotechnical studies are not required to further evaluate this Project. Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the geotechnical subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions encountered during construction are different than those described in this report.It is not recommended that a qualified engineer performs a site inspection during earthwork construction unless fill soils will influence the impending foundation. However, if native,undisturbed subsurface conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report,then a geotechnical engineer should be consulted. This report presents geotechnical design guidelines,and is intended only for the owner,or owners' representative, and location of project described herein. This report should not be used to dictate construction procedures or relieve the contractor of his responsibility. Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid in conjunction with the compliance of all recommendations provided in this report. Semantics throughout this report such as `shall,' `should' and `recommended' imply that the correlating design and/or specifications must be adhered to in order to potentially protect life and/ or property. Semantics such as `suggested' or `optional' refer that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed, but is provided for optimal performance. The recommendations provided in this report are valid for the proposed development at the issuance date of this report.Changes to the site other than the expected development, changes to neighboring properties, changes to ordinances or regulatory codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the long-term conclusions and recommendations of this report. The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of Michael Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech. Michael Staten has appropriate education and experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess landslide hazards, earthquake hazards, and general soil mechanics. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering Robert McNearny,E.I.T. Michael Staten, P.E. Staff Engineer Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering,PLLC 12780 NE North Shore Road PO Box 984 page 18 Parcel 32234-50-00038 Belfair, Washington 98528 Mason County, Washington Ph. 360-275-9374 October 18,2016 20162016 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN 40± PROPOSED SEPTIC SCALE; 1"=40' DRA NF AREA I IELD 0 10 20 40 PROPERTY LINE 80 +1 +1 TOP OF SLOPE In In (u N A 6' CUT BANK PROPOSED CACHMENT WALL SILT FENCE 40- PROPOSED DRIVEWAY-----__-- PROPOSED STRUCTURE 3' DITCH SILT FENCE A PROPOSED CULVERT NOTES: NORTH SHORE ROAD PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION: 1. EROSION CONTROL MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE. GENERAL LOCATIONS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ARE DEPICTED, AND ALTERNATIVES MAY BE UTILIZED AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 2. CONTOURS WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. HAWKINS CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND 12780 NORTH SHORE ROAD INCORPORATED FIELD MEASUREMENTS AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND PARCEL 32234-50-00038 REPORT. MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON 3. BOUNDARIES WERE NOT PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR, LOCATIONS TEMPORARY ENGINEER, OF SITE FEATURES THAT ARE SHOWN HERE, SUCH AS TOP OF SLOPES, TOE EROSION CONTROL ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING OF SLOPES, WATER FEATURES, ETC.., WITH RELATION TO THE PROPERTY PO BOX 984 BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 LINES MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE OWNER. RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE SLDPE INDICATOR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROVIDE SETBACKS, BUFFERS, DEPTHS, ETC.. WITH BELFAI5-9374 RELATION TO GEOLOGIC FEATURES, NOT PROPERTY LINES. THESE GEOLOGIC EXISTING CONTOUR FEATURES MAY BE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR NEIGHBORING TP TEST PIT SITE P L A N PROPERTIES, APPENDIX B SOIL INFORMATION TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PROJECT: Hawkins Geotechnical Report DATE OF LOG: 9/28/2016 PROJECT NO: 16151 LOGGED BY: RJM CLIENT: Steven Hawkins EXCAVATOR: N/A LOCATION: Parcel 32234-50-00038 DRILL RIG: None Mason County, Washington ELEVATION: N/A INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A SOIL STRATA, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS USCS DESCRIPTION LL PI CURVE AND TEST DATA DEPTH N 10 30 50 0 . .. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . i SM Brown, moist, loose to medium dense SILTY SAND with GRAVEL. Gravel is primarily well-graded and subangular. Sand is mostly medium. Low plasticity. .I 2 3 4 •.a 5 Light brown, dense 6 Excavation terminated at approximately 6.0 feet 7 8 9 - 10 No Groundwater Encountered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING This information pertains only to this boring and should not be Geotechnical Engineering interpreted as being indicitive of the entire site. SCALE: 1"=20' 0 5 10 20 EXISTING GRADE 20;., SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM) EXISTING GRADE CATCHMENT WALL, �V SEE REPORT PROPOSED STRUCTURE �\ 4a EXISTING VERY DENSE GRADE GLACIAL TILL SECTION A-A PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIONt SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT HAWKINS 12780 NORTH SHORE ROAD PARCEL 32234-50-00038 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON NOTES, ENGINEERS 1) MINOR GRADE CHANGES REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING POSITIVE DRAINAGE PO BOX 984 2) THE SOIL PROFILE IS ACCURATE FOR THE DEPTH OF BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 THE OBSERVED TEST PITS AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATIONS, 360-275-9374 LOWER DEPTHS ARE BASED ON SITE GEOLOGY, WELL LOG<S), AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN THE GENERAL AREA. SOIL PROFILE Map Unit Description:Everett very gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes--Mason County, Washington Mason County, Washington Ek—Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t62c Elevation: 30 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 91 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 240 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Everett and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Everett Setting Landform: Moraines, eskers, kames Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Sandy and gravelly glacial outwash Typical profile Oi- 0 to 1 inches: slightly decomposed plant material A - 1 to 3 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bw-3 to 24 inches: very gravelly sandy loam C1 -24 to 35 inches: very gravelly loamy sand C2-35 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layerto transmit water(Ksat): High(1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low(about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils(G002XS401 WA), Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/18/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description:Everett very gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes—Mason County, Washington Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Alderwood Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position(two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position(three-dimensional): Side slope, nose slope, talf Down-slope shape: Linear, convex Across-slope shape: Convex Hydric soil rating: No Indianola Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Eskers, kames, terraces Landform position(two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position(three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 15, 2015 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/18/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 sun c.a Ne._ W 38681 -- Wi'" WATER WELL REPORT t, E1�E�llD.• ABV-moo--- soom d Copy—owner's CoPY STATE OF WASHINGTON Water Flight Panne No. i Thkd COPY—Drttlar•s Copy Off. (1) tJW1ER: N. Don Corliss __ _Arfdeas N. Shore Rd. Belfair, WA. 98528 a Mason T.22N N.,R 3W WM. (2) LOCATION OF WELL: county (fa) STREET ADDRESS OF VVELLtw meanest ware...I N. Shore Rd. Belfair WA 98528 (3) PROPOSED USE: IR Domestic Industrial ❑ Muniepol ❑ (10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION H n Inrigetlon Fomnatlm:DeacAbe by color,chinmr,size of material and stNclurs,and show thickness d sa+sera D DeWaler Test Wes D other D and to Wnd and nature or the me"KW in each"urn Penetrated.with at toast one entry for each thanpe of iribmurtion. (4) TYPE OF WORK: (ohW-r"s nun-more than y°f'"0u MATERIAL FROM To t3ored❑ Q Abandoned❑ Now ] frterttod:Due I mono t•Y? 20 Ll Cable Qi• Ddvsnt] Reconditioned D Rotary 0 Jetted D Q t+ Inch". and & gr4vel 20 35 (5) DIMENSIONS: Diameter of wen �_�� — L. D�11ad— 94 —t'a` °ep"r°'�n'P w� 94 s and & ravel w/ some water 35 42 ,0 (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS: e Coaling Installed: _ Diam.from_Q__n.to-39 ft c a diet 4 welded & t i ;nsu Diam.from ,n.to_ tied a dan hen an some water 71 7 7IThere ❑ O " �Yes 89 NO p _— cl & gray-el Type eftaw used SIZE of perforations -- in.try _� —in. _ " ose sand & gravel w water 89 9 RI perforations from n-io perforations from R.to ft. perforations frorm-� h,to ft"*"@: Yes L9 No LJ S Manutaetursrs Name —S 9k - r< Type—SlainlPSG wi rP wrap c��—Q � �--Model No. �S�1�1 �/� hom—H —fl-to--4 to-3-4—ft. .i.�r Diam. -J -Slot size �t�t__— _ ,� C Diam. slat aRe _hom^ fl to L Yes❑ No® size of gruel Caraval pecked: i I i c (?ravel placed from To what depth? n' - p Surface steal: tees® �N�o,,❑�,,,, - O Material used in saw _ +1+�r+stut — — Z Did any,strata contain unusable water? Yes❑ No® — (A Type of water? _ — Depth of strata 4) Method of seating strata oft _-- - - Q dlf as � (7) PUMP: Man ufacprrer'sName Grun Type' suo � ��qq pp��pp Q Work Started_. 2LL9/ 94--•19. completed (9) WATER LEVELS: Lend'a'"�eavauon —h. 0 above mean sea level_ _ a.oeaw WP a wee a.» — V t>'raticlenral—_�Lt� — WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION: W Artesian Prasswe ---tos'Per ecotone indi Date compliance for construction of this well. and its writer is w controlled d 1 Constructed and/or YVashington axept responsibility — —gyp� � Mormabon reported above are m+ue to my best knowtadpe and beNef. Q end _ (0) WELL TESTS: Drawdown tea amount Warr level a lowered below stout level W Was a pump test made?Yes❑ No JR1 If Yes.by whom? NAME _ .I2�v15_DArT Veld: gal./min.with —ft.drowdown alter lrs. L .. ., Address_ CL .. /� License No. (Signed) QFlecomv date(lane taken as zero When Pump turned or)(Warr level measured from well top to water level) water Level Time Water Level Time Water Level Time — Contractor's RHl000s"OVISDI1100A Data Dec. 1994 te� . (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) Dent of test — _ I Flaner test_ _go./min.with—�—tL drtwdown after--�--hrs Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer.For spa- Ainest gal./min.with stem set at h•10f hm trial accommodation needs,contaCl the Water Resources Program at(206) Artesian Now g.p'm. Der 407-6600.The TDO number is(206)407-6006. Temperature of water Was a chemical analysis mode? Yes❑ W ECY 050•1-201a+a31 L APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY O- O 1 _ 3 1 _ 2 O 1 30 1 _ 40 1 _ so 1 60 1 . 70 1 _ 80 1 . 90 1 2 _ 00 I� l I 1 l / i� 0 _!935 Project Hawkins D a t a f i 1 e _ D y n a m i c Analysis z Bishop S TAB L0. 2002 M Z A a a o c i a t c a Lt d STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System New User Project Hawkins Datatile: Dynamic Bishop STABLE Version 9.03.00u Bishop x xxxxx++xxxxxxxxxxxxx++xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TITLE Dynamic x+xxxxxxxx+x+xxxx++xx+++++xxxxx+xxxxxxxxxxx++x+xxxxxxxx++x UNITS (Metric/Imperial) I x xxx+xxx+xxx++++xxxxxx+x+xxxxxx+xx++xxxxxxxx++xxxx+xxx+xxx GEOMETRY DEFINITION POINTS NO. X Y 1 0.000 0.000 2 50.000 -10.000 3 90.000 -28.000 4 135.000 -46.000 5 135.000 -52.000 6 0.000 -6.000 7 50.000 -16.000 8 90.000 -34.000 9 18.500 -3.700 10 135.000 -54.000 11 185.000 -54.000 12 26.290 -5.260 13 34.080 -6.820 14 41.870 -8.370 15 49.660 -9.930 16 57.450 -13.350 17 65.240 -16.860 18 73.030 -20.360 19 80.820 -23.870 20 88.610 -27.370 21 96.390 -30.560 22 104.180 -33.670 23 111.970 -36.790 24 119.760 -39.910 25 127.550 -43.020 26 135.340 -54.000 27 143.130 -54.000 28 150.920 -54.000 29 158.710 -54.000 30 166.500 -54.000 LINES Lo X Hi X SOIL 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 5 1 6 7 2 7 8 2 8 5 2 5 10 2 10 11 2 STABLEBI W2 MZAssociates Ltd Printed on: 18/10/16 @ 11:15:46 Page: I STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System New User Project Hawkins Datafile: Dynamic Bishop ##*#x#kk#xx*kxxxx#xxx#x#x#x#*x*k***#**#*##+###xx###xx#k#xx SOILS SOIL NAME LINETYPE-PEN COHESION FRICTION UNIT WT. 1 SM CONTINUOUS-BLACK 0.00 32.0 130.000 2 HP CONTINUOUS-BLUE 400.00 40.0 140.000 #####x#xx##*#xxkxkx*#####*#####++xr#*#*+#xt######*#xxxkxxk PORE PRESSURE SPECIFICATION SOIL PIEZO RU EXCESS Y/N/P Value Value 1 N 0.000 0.000 2 N 0.000 0.000 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE POINT POINT PORE PRESSURES POINT PRESSURE SLIP DIRECTION (+/- X) = + xkxxxxk*k*k#k*###*##xxx*kxxxk##x*tax*xx##x+##k*#kx****#*## SLIP-CIRCLES AUTOMATIC Circle Centre Grid Extremities 148.000 #x#kk*##***#*k* x * 18.500 * * 166.500 k + xx#x##x*x*##### 0.000 X spacing -- no. of cols (max 10)= 10 Y spacing -- no. of rows (max 20)= 20 Grid 1 Circles through point 9 Grid 2 Circles through point 12 Grid 3 Circles through point 13 Grid 4 Circles through point 14 Grid 5 Circles through point 15 Grid 6 Circles through point 16 Grid 7 Circles through point 17 Grid 8 Circles through point 18 Grid 9 Circles through point 19 STABLE62002 MZ Associates Ltd Printed on: 18/10/16 CAP 11:15:46 page: 2 P'�'i oa�a Toossy ZW ZOO Z-'3'iHYSS ClO TA is Tg _ S T S!Z-rL LI%r C> T -42-4S _ aTT32 2Q su-rxM-L-H C)aCo.za ZT !E:" T \� _ i i � 1 I ` i I i I 00 Z 0 6 T 02 T :> O L T 0 9 T O S T 0Ti T 0 £ T O Z T Q T T O0 STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System New User Project Hawkins Datafile: Static Bishop STABLE Version 9.03.00u Bishop TITLE Static ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ UNITS (Metric/Imperial) I GEOMETRY DEFINITION POINTS NO. X Y 1 0.000 0.000 2 50.000 -10.000 3 90.000 -28.000 4 135.000 -46.000 5 135.000 -52.000 6 0.000 -6.000 7 50.000 -16.000 8 90.000 -34.000 9 18.500 -3.700 10 135.000 -54.000 11 185.000 -54.000 12 26.290 -5.260 13 34.080 -6.820 14 41.870 -8.370 15 49.660 -9.930 16 57.450 -13.350 17 65.240 -16.860 18 73.030 -20.360 19 80.820 -23.870 20 88.610 -27.370 21 96.390 -30.560 22 104.180 -33.670 23 111.970 -36.790 24 119.760 -39.910 25 127.550 -43.020 26 135.340 -54.000 27 143.130 -54.000 28 150.920 -54.000 29 158.710 -54.000 30 166.500 -54.000 LINES Lo X Hi X SOIL 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 5 1 6 7 2 7 8 2 8 5 2 5 10 2 10 11 2 STABLE02002 MZ Associates Ltd Printed on: 18/10/16 @ 11:13:07 Page: 1 STABLE Slope Stability Analysis System New User Project Hawkins Datafile: Static Bishop x**+++x#*x**+**+xxxxxx#+xxxxxx*x*xx+***++*+**#+x+**x#xxx** SOILS SOIL NAME LINETYPE-PEN COHESION FRICTION UNIT WT. 1 SM CONTINUOUS-BLACK 0.00 32.0 130.000 2 HP CONTINUOUS-BLUE 400.00 40.0 140.000 PORE PRESSURE SPECIFICATION SOIL PIEZO RU EXCESS Y/N/P Value Value 1 N 0.000 0.000 2 N 0.000 0.000 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE POINT POINT PORE PRESSURES POINT PRESSURE ##xx+xxx**x**+xxx**+**++#*##x*#x#+x#x++x+#+xx***+*++*+*++* SLIP DIRECTION (+/- X) = + x+#x*********+**+*++xxx*x**xxx*xx+xxx#+x+xx+*++x*x+x+x*x+* SLIP-CIRCLES AUTOMATIC Circle Centre Grid Extremities 148.000 # # 18.500 * * 166.500 x # 0.000 X spacing -- no. of cols (max 10)= 10 Y spacing -- no. of rows (max 20)= 20 Grid 1 Circles through point 9 Grid 2 Circles through point 12 Grid 3 Circles through point 13 Grid 4 Circles through point 14 Grid 5 Circles through point 15 Grid 6 Circles through point 16 Grid 7 Circles through point 17 Grid 8 Circles through point 18 Grid 9 Circles through point 19 STABLE02002 MZAssociates Ltd Printed on: 18/10/16 @ 11:13:07 Page: 2 r APPENDIX D EROSION CONTROL r GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 2'x2' WOOD POST CTYP) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAP AROUND TRENCH TO AT LEAST ENTIRE OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER AND WIRE MESH BOTTOM OF TRENCH 0.5 FT 2 6 FT MAX. O.C. BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL 2'x2'x5' WOOD POST OR 6 FT -+I 12' DEEP, 8' WIDE TRENCH EQUIVALENT ❑R BETTER EXISTING FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 1/2' GROUND SURFACE WASHED GRAVEL or VEG1/.2. N 2 T DIRECTION OF 2.5 FT 12' DEEP, 8' WIDE WATER FLOW GROUND SURFACE TRENCH FILLED WITH 1 T 12' 3/4' TO 1 1/2' 2.5 FT 2.51 FT WASHED GRAVEL OR VEGETATION t g BOTTOM EXTENTS OF 1 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SILT FENCE - DETAIL SILT FENCE - CROSS SECTION N.T.S. N.T.S. HAY OR STRAW MATTING ENERAL NOTES, 1. STRAW SHALL BE AIR DRIED, AND FREE FROM WEED SEEDS AND COARSE MATERIAL. SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON 2. APPLY AT APPROXIMATELY 75 TO 100 POUNDS PER 1000 SQUARE HESE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR FEET OF GROUND. HALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. 3. MINIMUM THICKNESS SHALL BE 2 INCHES. 2. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE 4. HAY OR STRAW IS SUBJECT TO BLOWING. KEEP MOIST OR TIED NSPECTED DAILY AND IMMEDIATELY MAINTAINED, IF NECESSARY, DOWN. 3. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE LEFT IN LACE UNTIL THE UPSLOPE AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES, EMPORARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES, OR ALL AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION OR EXPERIENCED LAND SEEDING FOR RAW SLOPES ISTURBING ACTIVITIES, AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A 1. BEFORE SEEDING, INSTALL NEEDED SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL ERIOD EXCEEDING THE LISTED CRITERIA BELOW, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE MEASURES SUCH AS GRADIENT TERRACES, INTERCEPTOR DIKES, MMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED SWALES, LEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS. ROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR. GRASS SEEDING 2. THE SEED BED SHALL BE FIRM WITH FAIRLY FINE SURFACE, LONE WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH FOLLOWING SURFACE ROUGHENING. PERFORM ALL OPERATIONS ACCROSS EPTEMBER. HOWEVER, SEEDING MAY PROCEED WHENEVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. HE OWNER/CONTRACTOR, BUT MUST ALSO BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING 3. SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS, AS SHOWN BELOW, AND SHOULD BE R OTHER APPROVED TREATMENT. APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 120 POUNDS PER ACRE. RY SEASON (MAY 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 30) -- THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE 4. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN MAY I AND OCTOBER 31 WILL REQUIRE IRRIGATION AND OTHER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO EMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION OR OTHER GROUND COVER, MUST BE LIMITED TO NLY AS MUCH LAND AS CAN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE FOSTER AND PROTECT THE STRUCTURE. THERWISE STABILIZED, AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED , 5. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN N 1 AND APRIL 30, ARMORING OF THE SEED BED WILL BE NE BE NE ER Y NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30 OF A GIVEN YEAR. UNLESS IMMEDIATE GEOTENECESSARY, (e.g., TABILIZATION IS SPECIFIED IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, ALL 6. FER FERTILIZERS JUTE MAT, CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING). REAS CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED MUST BE APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED 6. FERTILIZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING IZ SUPPLIERS' HROUGH THE USE OF MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, RECOMMENDATIONS. AMOUNTS SHOULD T MINIMIZED, ESPECIALLY REE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., BY SEPTEMBER 30 OR SOONER PER THE APPROVED ADJACENT T❑ WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS. LAN OF ACTION. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, SEEDING, USE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURE FOR EROSION ERTILIZING AND MULCHING OF CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE CONTROL, OR A COUNTY APPROVED ALTERNATE SEED MIXTURE. ERFORMED DURING THE FOLLOWING PERIODS- MARCH 1 TO MAY 15, AND AUGUST 15 TO CTOBER 1. SEEDING AFTER OCTOBER 1 WILL BE DONE WHEN PHYSICAL COMPLETION PROPORTIONS PURITY GERMINATION F THE PROJECT IS IMMINENT AND THE ENVIROMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE NAME BY WEIGHT(%) (%) (7) ❑ SATISFACTORY GROWTH, IN THE EVENT THAT PERANENT STABILIZATION IS NOT ❑SSIBLE, AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF GROUND COVER, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, REDTOP (AGROSTIS ALBA) 10 92 90 LASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, ETC., MUST BE INSTALLED BY NO LATER THAN ANNUAL RYE (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) 40 98 90 EPTEMBER 30, CHEWING FESUE 40 97 80 (FESTUCAN THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT (JAMESTO RUBRA COM, S ADO CTIVITIES ARE DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THE WHITE BANNER, SHADOW, KOKET) WNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION OF ALL EROSION WHITE DUTCH CLOVER 10 96 90 ND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER STORM EVENTS, AND AT <TRIFOLIUM REPENS) EAST ONCE EVERY WEEK. THE OWNER/ CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MULCHING HE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. ET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THRU APRIL 30) -- ON SITES WHERE UNINTERUPTED 1. MATERIALS USED FOR MULCHING ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE WOOD FIBER CELLULOSE, AND SHOULD BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1000 ONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS, THE CLEARING OF LAND, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND OTHER GROUND COVER, SHALL BE LIMITED POUNDS PER ACRE. O AS MUCH LAND AREA AS CAN BE COVERED OR STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS IN 2. MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED SLOPES HE EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/ OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT GREATER THAN 24 (HORIZONTALNERTICAL). TRANSPORT OFF-SITE IS OBSERVED. A MULCHING SHOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING OR IN AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEDED BECAUSE OF THE SEASON. ALL LL CLEARED OR DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE AREAS REQUIRING MULCH SHALL BE COVERED BY NOVEMBER 1. OVER OR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC HEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, FREE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER AVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED IF NOT BEING ACTIVELY WORKED. ILT FENCING, SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, ETC., WILL NOT BE VIEWED AS DEQUATE COVER IN AND OF THEMSELVES. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NOT EING ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY TABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON HE SITE, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTIVITY, SHALL MMEDIATELY CEASE UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS AFOREMENTIONED LAND AREA HAS BEEN PPROPRIATELY PROTECTED OR STABILIZED. SILT FENCE PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, 1. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE SHALL BE PER SPECIFIED IN THE 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN,' OR APPLICABLE COUNTY STANDARDS 2. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT ACH BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS, IF JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED HAWKINS TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT 12780 NORTH SHORE ROAD BOTH ENDS TO THE POST. PARCEL 32234-50-00038 3. STANDARD FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE FASTENED USING i' STAPLES OR TIE WIRES (HOG RINGS) 2 4 IN MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON SPACING. 4. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED AND PLACED AT DEPTHS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET, AND ENGINEER- DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND. ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 5. WIRE MESH SHALL BE 2'X2'XI4 GAUGE OR EQUIVALENT. THE WIRE MESH MAY BE ELIMINATED IF PO BOX 984 EXTRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC (MONOFILAMENT), AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED. BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 6. A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET ALONG THE LINE OF THE 360-275-9374 POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE SILT FENCE. 7. SILT FENCES SHALL BE LOCATED DOWNSLOPE FROM THE CLEARING LIMITS OF THE PROJECT, EROSION CONTROL