Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2010-00044 for COM2010-00077 - COM Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 8/19/2010 (3) Mason County Review Checklist For a Geological Assessment Instructions: This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geological Assessment. The Assessment 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 Assessment 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: -'ay-r &Za 0/0 Permit#: e/V,2O/0-d407/ Parcel#'s: 3 Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: 4A 1. A discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed development, with geologic unit designation based on referenced maps. OK? y Comment: 2. (a) A discussion of the ground water conditions at the site, OK? 4'�- Comment: (b) A discussion of the estimated depth to water OK? Comment: (c) A discussion of the quantity of surface seepage OK? (/- Comment: (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology OK? L/ Comment: (e) A discussion of location of upland waterbodies and wetlands. OK? [/ Comment: 3. The approximate depth to hard or dense competent soil, e.g. glacial till or outwash sand. OK? L/ Comment: 4. A discussion of any geomorphic expression of past slope instability(presence of hummocky ground or ground cracks, terraced topography indicative of landslide block movement, bowed or arched trees indicating downslope movement, etc.). OK? I-- Comment: 5. A discussion of the history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records. OK? Comment: 6. An opinion on whether the proposed development is within the landslide hazard area or its associated buffer or setback ano the potential for landslide activity at the site in light of the proposed development. OK?�_Comment: A/l /� �� 7. A recommendation by the preparer whether a Geotechnical Report should be required to further evaluate site conditions and the proposed development of the subject property. OK? Comment: Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 8. If the presence of a hazard is determined within 300 feet of the proposed development, then the following are delineated on a.geologic map/site map.- (a) the area of the proposed development, OK? Comment: (b) the boundaries of the landslide hazard area (top, both sides, and toe), I" OK? Comment: (c) the associated buffers (top, both sides, and toe) OK? Comment: (d) building or other setbacks (top, both sides, and toe). OK? Comment: 9. A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. OK? Comment: Are the Documents si ned and stamped? ✓ By whom? License#: License&VI- FIRST REVIEW If not approved,yvhat is the next action/recommendation for further action? 1b 7y- Reviewed by C on /U Time spent in review: „n/'7 ------ --._......... -- - -- -.._.__..._..._...__..._._...._.. -- .............--— .......------.._.......-- ._._.._..- -........---.........................._........_..---- -._._ _._...— SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE Reviewed by on . Time spent in second review: .._............_.-- ----....---- - - ......... _ _..._..........._........._..._....._........__........ .......--.-.- ��_�.._..__...__.....--- THIRD REVIEW/UPDATE Reviewed by on . Time spent in third review: Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geolr�cal Assessment Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geo!ogical Assessment and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geological Assessment 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 g�vc Parcel # tv �� /� o°•-�° /�*"`�,��� Site Address S 20_ S /7_, /'0 (1) A discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed development, with geologic unit designation based on referenced maps Located on page(s) e. (1) (a) A discussion of the grow d water conditions at the site, Located on page(s) _ 2 ate_._-- (b) A discussion of the estimated depth to water Located on page(s)��?a P- 3_ - (c) A discussion of the qua n ty of surface seepage Located on page(s) g Z dP -e (d) A discussion of the upslo�'e,gJeornorpholo y Located on page(s)'-�" -2 (e) A discussion of location of upland w�terb�odies and wetlands. Located on pages) 1--�� (3) The approximate depth to hard or dense�competent soil, e.g. glacial till or outwash sand. Located on page(s) (4) A discussion of any geomorphic expression of past slope instability (presence of hummocky ground or ground cracks, terraced topography indicative of landslide block movement, bowed or arc d trees indipatiria downslope movement, etc.). Located on page(s) i 7 oi= S (5) A discussion of the history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and recor /` Located on page(s) _ ,a __ .4� (6) An opinion on whether the proposed deveiopment is within the landslide hazard area or its associated buffer or setback and the potential for landslide activity at the site in light of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 1In/' j-e- -2r _ (7) A recommendation by the preparer whether a Geotechnical Report should be required to further evaluate site conditions and the proposed development of the subject property. Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Located on page(s) { 3r 3 (8) If the presence of a hazard is determined within 300 feet of the proposed development, then the following are delineated on a geologic map/site map: (a) the area of the proposed developr ent, Located on Map(s)-J ,, (b) the boundaries of the landslide haz rd area (top, both sides, and toe), Located on Map(s)_ 3-7�3 (c) the associated buffers (lop, both ides, and toe) Located on Map(s)_ pi, a 3, P �3 (d) building or other setbacks (top, bot sides, and toe). Located on Map(s) < 3, .'s -,` - (9) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existxig and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s) I, �� J'/- _hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil rngineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnicai/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 Geological Assessment, dated / �._, and entitled",/1-4 ", 5-4, r meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard ection, is ccmplete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnicai 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) y :•t.; r:.. -fk.. Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc. PO Box 12267, Olympia WA 98508-2267 Phone 360-357-7883 • FAX 360-867-9307 19 August 2010 Mr.Tomas Morris, AIA Tomas Morris Architects, Inc., P.S. 8 Boston Street, Suite 6 Seattle,Washington 98109 Subject: Geotechnical Assessment for the reconstruction of the Community Building at the Blue Heron Resort& Condominium Property located at East 6520 State Highway 106 in Union,Washington. Dear Mr. Morris: Bradley-Noble had prepared a report addressing geotechnical considerations for the reconstruction of the Community Building at this site. This report was not prepared as a Geotechnical Assessment for the Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist Format. The project is located in a developed residential community with existing condominium buildings, roadways, walkways, parking areas and recreation areas. This development was constructed in the mid 1970's, prior to any Critical Areas Ordinances. We expect that the construction was in conformance with building codes and Mason County development codes in force at the time of construction. We understood that the new Community Building would be reconstructed in the same building footprint as the former structure. We would not expect then that a Geological Assessment would be required by Mason County for a replacement structure in a developed community where it was being reconstructed in the same building footprint as the former structure. We have prepared this report to allow for Mason County Community Development to fulfill their check list requirement. (1) Geologic Map of the Shelton l:I00,000 Quadrangle, Washington by Robert L. Logan, 2003, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2003-15 maps the development as being Qapo,Alpine outwash, pre to late Wisconsinan. This is also typically described in other geologic mapping as Qs, Skokomish Gravel. At this site, we find the Skokomish Gravels as being mantled by Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva or Qga depending on which geologic map you use) a glaciofluvial sand and gravel soil. 10040102 Page I of 3 10040102 0 Page 2 of 3 (2) (a) At the time of our field work, we found the near surface soils in the building footprint to be saturated. This is due to surface drainage being directed to the site combined with damage to the existing drain system by the demolition work. This surface drainage will be corrected and improved as part of the new construction. (b) Estimated depth to the year around water table is in excess of 100 feet below the site. (c) This is a developed property with constructed surface control of storm water. No seeps were observed which is consistent with the site geology and constructed drainage systems of the development. (d) Extensive site grading for the development has modified the upslope geomorphology. Upslope of the building site, we find roadways, landscape areas, residences, and parking areas. Extending further upslope and off the property, we find other single-family residences with associated roadways, driveways. These are areas of low relief with moderate slopes. (e) There are no water bodies or wetlands upslope of the building site. (3) The Skokomish gravels are a highly overconsolidated and cemented soil unit. The Skokomish gravels crop out in road cuts of State Highway 106 to the west of this site as you go towards Union. We did not observe outcrops of this formation on the site. We expect that the mantle of the advance outwash soils varies from ten to perhaps as great as 40 feet before the dense Skokomish gravels would be encountered. (4) The project site has been extensively graded as part of the site development work. This work would have destroyed the surface features which may have indicated past soil movement. (5) The project area is not in a mapped landslide hazard area. Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington by Mackey Smith and R. J. Carson, 1977, Map 1-853-F and published by the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources places the site into site Class 2, areas believed to be stable under normal conditions. We agree with this classification. (6) The project site is not in a landslide hazard area. There is no risk of future land sliding or mass wasting events in this project that would pose a risk to the reconstructed Community Building reconstructed in former footprint. There are no mapped landslides in the project area. Slope angles are less than 22 degrees (40% slope) in the project and immediate surrounding areas. No indication of past or recent mass wasting events were observed within 300 feet of the site, and no indications were observed in the development. Improvements to site surface drainage will be included in the development work which will reduce any possible risk that the development work would have any adverse future affect on erosion of site (7) A geotechnical report is not warranted for the reconstruction of the Community Building in its former footprint. Based on site topography and development history, we question the need for us to even prepare a geotechnical assessment for this project. (8) Items a through d do not apply to this property and project. (9) The project architect will submit with this report a site plan showing property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location of existing and proposed development on the site as part of the permit process for reconstruction of the Community Building for the Blue Heron Resort& Condominium project. BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES d-¢ David C. Strong, L.E.G. Enclosure: Submittal Checklist for a Geotechnical Assessment o, 1129ay cc: Mr. Bob Macht, Bradley Scott, Inc. �,`�4" �`- -- Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc. PO Box 12267, Olympia WA 98508-2267 RECEIVED Phone 360-357-7883 • FAX 360-867-9307 gg4� q l 3 ,3 I 120110 426 W. CEDAR ST. 6 April 2010 PLANNING Bradley Scott, Inc. Attention: Bob Macht 400 Warren Avenue, Suite 450 Bremerton, Washington 98377-1408 Subject: Geotechnical considerations for the reconstruction of the Community Building at the Blue Heron Resort& Condominium Property located at East 6520 State Highway 106 in Union, Washington. Dear Mr. Macht: I met with you, your structural engineer, Mr.James Ashley-Cole, and your Site Manager, Mr. David Brandt on 30 March 2010 to observe site soil conditions exposed after the demolition of the of the former Community Building. The purpose of our site visit was to observe site soil conditions exposed after demolition in the footprint of the former building. From our field discussion, two major geotechnical concerns need to be addressed in the reconstruction. One is providing foundation soil support as the exposed soils are saturated and loose. The other is collection and control of surface and subsurface flows of ground water. We understand that flooding of the former structure had occurred in the past. We understand that the new Community Building will be constructed in the same building footprint of the former structure. At the time of our site visit, we found the upper 1.5 to 2.0 feet of the soils to be very loose and saturated when we probed. Below the loose soils, the probe was stopped by gravels. We also understand from your site manager that the excavator that was used for the demolition became mired in the soft soils when it moved off the slab during its demolition work. We have provided extensive geotechnical work in the Union and Alderbrook areas of Mason County. The site soil profile is not typical of this area. The usual soil profile in undisturbed areas is a thin, poorly developed topsoil over colluvium. The colluvium varies from a few feet to as much as twenty to thirty feet at the toe of slope adjacent to Hood Canal. The colluvium is a mixture of downslope transported material of silty 10040101 Page I of 4 4 10040101 Page 2 of 4 sands, gravelly sands, and silty sandy gravels. The density of these soils, based on N- values varies from the mid-range of firm to dense. The colluvium is deposited onto either Vashon advance outwash soils of dense to very dense sands and gravels or onto the very dense and highly overconsolidated Skokomish Gravels which crop out in vertical cut faces of the highway west of this property. The loose soils that were exposed in the demolition work as gravelly silty to very silty fine sands and blue-gray silts with gravels. Our interpretation of the history of these soils is that they either represent natural deposition of fine grained soils in shallow depression or they may be fill placed during the development of the project to level the site. We expect that at relatively shallow depth suitable firm bearing soils will be exposed. We also expect that these bearing soils are of low permeability and porosity which cause the saturation to the surface observed. The site soils exposed are unsuitable for use in support of the new Community Building. These soils are loose fine grained and compressible with actual bearing capacity and settlement potential varying point to point across the site. These soils are moisture sensitive and prone to rapid saturation during rain events. To control site development costs, we recommend that site excavation and construction of a structural fill section be delayed to the dry season, typically mid-June through September when weather conditions will allow for the control of moisture contents of the soils. The on-site soils could be reworked and conditioned to moisture contents that would allow for reuse in construction of structural fill sections, but we expect that this cost would exceed the cost of removal and replacement with imported structural fill soils. Site work should consist of the excavation and removal of the existing soils until firm granular soils are exposed. The surface of the exposed firm soils is to be proof-rolled to develop a firm and non-yielding surface. Placement and compaction of a structural fill section that will provide support for footings and slabs on grade is to be constructed in conformance to the enclosed Recommended Grading Specification. The thickness of the structural fill will be controlled by the depth to suitable bearing soils and plan finish grades. To ensure lateral support for foundations, the fill section must extend outside of building lines equal to the depth of the structural fill section. The structural fill section will provide support for standard spread footing with crawl space type of construction or support of standard footings with a concrete slab on grade for the floor system. For preliminary design of the foundation and supported by a structural fill section constructed in conformance with the Recommended Grading Specification, we 10040101 Page 3 of 4 recommend a bearing value of 2000 p.s.f. This value may be increased after review of the material used to constructed the structural fill section and compaction records. A one-third increase in this value will be permissible for short-term wind or seismic loading. Based on our understanding of the geologic section under this area, use of a Site Class C as defined in Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) is permissible. Figure 1613.5(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion of 1.0 Second Spectral Response Acceleration (5% of Critical Damping), Site Class B of 0.5G. The site coefficient and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are adjusted for the site class effects using Equation 16-37 and 16-38 in the 2006 IBC. Control of surface and ground water flowing to the structural fill pad and building must be addressed in the project's civil engineering. At a minimum, we recommend the construction of a french drain upslope of project perpendicular to the axis of the slope. The location of the french drain will be determined by the project's civil engineer. The depth of the excavation for the french drain will need to be field determined to ensure that it extends to soils of low permeability. A footing drain placed at the base of the foundation is also recommended to be included in the design. We recommend that the footing drain be constructed using rigid plastic pipe. Rigid pipe is more resistant to crushing and deflection than the flexible ADS type of pipe. We also recommend cleanouts be included in the design to allow for future maintenance of the drains if required. Collection of storm water from impervious surfaces must also be addressed in the design. We recommend that all roof rain leaders, yard drains, and catch basins be collected into a tightline collection system. We recommend the use of rigid plastic pipe with glued watertight joints. This storm water collection system must be isolated from the footing drain system. We understand that the project does have a storm water collection system and the storm water collected from this project may be connected to the existing system. Connection of the footing drain into the project system must be at an elevation such that back-up into the footing zone cannot occur. Placement of foundation backfill and site grading to ensure positive flow away from the foundation must conform to the requirements of the IBC Section 1803.2 Placement of Backfill and Section 1803.3 Site Grading. If a crawl space is incorporated in the design, we do recommend that a minimum vertical separation from top of landscape surface to bottom of crawl space of at least three inches. This will prevent the crawl space vents from becoming a conduit for water entry into the crawl space. Good compaction control of the backfill under sidewalks is required to prevent future settlement and deflection. 10040101 Page 4 of 4 If you have any additional geotechnical questions on this report, or if we may be of additional service to you and your design team on this project, please contact us at our Olympia office. Cordially, BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES �e°t Waay'n David C. ong, L.E.G. Enclosure: Recommended Grading Specifications 11299 S9d Goy IAA C STRONG Dave Greene 425-746-7566 p.1 Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc. PO Box 12267, Olympia WA 98508-2267 Phone 360-357-7883 • FAX 360-867-9307 Cbm2Dio _-axrj 25 April 2013 Bradley Scott, Inc. Attention Bob Macht 400 Warren Avenue, Suite 450 Bremerton, Washington 98377-1408 Subject: Geotechnical acceptance of the structural fill section constructed to support the Community Building at the Blue Heron Resort& _ Condominium Property located at East 6520 State Highway 106 in Union, Washington. Dear Mr. Macht: Your project manager for reconstruction of the Community Building at this project has verbally forwarded a request from Mr. Larry Waters of the Mason County Building Department that Bradley-Noble provide a final report of earthwork completed and that this work did meet our requirements. Certification of the installation of the drainage system is outside of our area of expertise. The project civil engineer should be able to provide this certification if required by the county. We were not retained to provide geotechnical observation of the work in the construction of the structural fill section or supervision of the testing agency of record. You had retained the services of Pacific Testing & Inspection LLC, a WABO approved testing laboratory, to provide testing and inspection services during the construction of the structural fill section. The testing laboratory of record was charged with ensuring that the construction of the structural fill section to support the reconstructed Community Building did in fact conform to the approved project plans and specifications for earthwork. We were on-site to observe progress of work on the 18`" of October 2010. We issued a field report dated 22 October 2010 presenting our observations of the work in progress. From oreeur records, this is the only site visit we have Gd7e4�f� �ur initial sitep 2 e visit from which we prepared our 6 April 2010 geotechnical report for the project. This site visit was made with the project structural engineer on 30 March 2010. 10040106 1NO106 2 Page 2 of 2 _f r- Dave Greene 425-746-7566 p.1 10040106 Page 2 of 2 Pacific Testing & Inspection LLC has provided us with copies of their compaction records for the project. We have also discussed their work with Mr. Tim Barney, WABO Laboratory Manager on 24 April 2013. From our discussion, we understand that the structural fill as constructed and tested conforms to the project plans and specifications. We also understand that they have not submitted a final report for the certification that the structural fill section does in fact conform to the project plans and specifications based on their compaction,testing and field observations. Based on our review of the compaction records and our field observations during construction of the structural fill section on 22 October 2010, it is our opinion that the structural fill section as constructed and verified by compaction testing by the testing laboratory of record does conform to the recommendations presented in our 6 April 2010 report. This letter should eliminate the issue of the structural fill section geotechnical certification from the"punch list" of Mason County for the close out of this project. If you have any additional geotechnical questions on our work or reports,,please contact us at our Olympia office. Cordially, BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES David C. Strong L.E.G. cc: Mr. Larry Waters, Mason County Building Department �'� Mr. David Green, Project Manager 10/22/10 09:03 FAX 1 360 867 9307 Bradley Group µJul Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc. PO Box 12267, Olympia WA 98509-2267 Phone 360-357-78,33 - FAX 360-867-9307 22 October 2010 Bradley Scott, Inc. Attention: Bob Macht 400 Warren Avenue, Suite 450 Bremerton,Washington 98377-1408 Subject Field observations of soil conditions exposed at the Corn pity Building at the Blue Heron Resort 8t Condominium Property located at East 6520 State Highway 106 in Union, Washington. Dear Mr. Macht: I visited the above site on Monday 18 October 2010. At that time, the si z earthwork contractor, Kamin Construction had completed most the excavation of tl ie site to expose bearing soils. There was some additional material to be excavate and be removed from the western edge of the building pad. This work should b completed at the end of the work day. 1 introduced myself to the project superintend nt. Mr. Howard Stewart of McBride Construction Resources, Inc. A sample of t ie proposed imported structural fill material was at t.h'!job site trailer. We understar d that Kamin Construction will import this material from a source on Johns Prairie Rod in Shelton. The following observations and recommendations are presented: Site excavation exposed a lens of plastic silts with a Uniform Soil Classification of ML These soils are of fluvialllacustrine depositional history and represent the deposition of "rock flour" from the retreating Vashon glacier into a shallow depressior on the outwash plain. These soils are compressible and for all practical purpose impermeable- We expect that the construction of the former Community Center's foundation on these soils was the cause of both the settlement, as well as water flow into the structure during rain events. The site work contractor reported that on ne they had breached the granular material over the silts, a flow of perched water a Bred the excavation. The water that entered the excavation has flowed out with onty minor ponding observed at the time of our site visit. 10040103 Page I of 3 I i 10040103 Page 2 of 3 The new perimeter drainage system that will be installed for the new Community Center will intercept the downslope flour of water towards the building and direct this flow around the structure and convey this water to infiltration structures. With the foundations co strutted on a structural fill section of coarse sandy gravels and the design drainage system, we do not expect that storm water or flow of water on the silts will have any adverse affect on the new building. The excavation has extended through the silts and dense sands and gravels are exposed at the bottom f the excavation. These soils are suitable for support of the structural fill section. Th site work contractor will proof-roll the exposed surface prior to placement of s ctural fill. With the structural fill being supported by dense sands and gravels, we wil not require the placement of a geotextile support fabric between the native soils and the structural fill section. The proposed itructural import material is a coarse sandy gravel with few fines. This is a suitable"all eather" fill material and is not considered to be moisture sensitive. Our examination of the sample on site sugge,-ts that this material contains more than 30% by weight of material retained above the '/4-inch screen. In the Recommended Grading Specifications that we supplied you, we had specified the use of ASTM D 1557 for control of compaction. This is the same! test specified for use in Appendix J of the International ilding Code (iBC). This test method is for soil mixtures with less than 30% by weight retained above the 3/.-inc:h screen. This test method then is not applicable to coarse granular fill materials, such as proposed for this site. This limitation on the use of STM D 1557 is discussed in the text of the test method procedures. With coarse sandy gravels, the development of a firm and non-yielding surface may be used by the tzmng agency to evaluate compactive effort Each lift is to be uniformly compacted usi g a heavy vibratory roller until the drum does not penetrate the surface of the lift more than a half inch. This field observation may be further verified by the use of a "T-pr be" to ensure a uniformly dense surface. Based on our eld observations, the unsuitable silt has been removed from under the building footpr int and suitable dense native granular material exposed. The proposed imported structural fill is suitable for compactive effort and the construction of the structural fill s ction that will support the new Community Center. The testing agency of record will need to observe the compactive effort to ensure that a uniformly dense structural fill s ction has been constructed meeting the geotechnical recommendations presented. Unless an unforeseen soil ti:)ndition is exposed, we do not expect that we will be needed to provide additional site inspection. �pl dno.tg Sejpe,tg LOte LOS OOC t YVA CO 4o Ot,19/01 I 10040103 Page 3 of 3 If you or your eneral contractor have any additional questions on ihis report and its recommendati ns or if we may be of further geotechnical assistance to you on this project, please rantact us at our Olympia office. Cordially, of Wash, BRADLEY-NO 5LE GEOTECHNICAL SI=RVICES 4 e h e 10 +� i ]fail David C. Stron L.E.G. cc: James hley-Cole P.E. Howarc Stewart, Superintendent - - McBrid Construction Resources Incorporated (by FAX) Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc. PO Box 12267, Olympia WA 98508-2267 Phone 360-357-7883 9 FAX 360-867-9307 25 April 2013 Bradley Scott, Inc. Attention Bob Macht 400 Warren Avenue, Suite 450 Bremerton, Washington 98377-1408 Subject: Geotechnical acceptance of the structural fill section constructed to support the Community Building at the Blue Heron Resort & Condominium Property located at East 6520 State Highway 106 in Union, Washington. Dear Mr. Macht: Your project manager for reconstruction of the Community Building at this project has verbally forwarded a request from Mr. Larry Waters of the Mason County Building Department that Bradley-Noble provide a final report of earthwork completed and that this work did meet our requirements. Certification of the installation of the drainage system is outside of our area of expertise. The project civil engineer should be able to provide this certification if required by the county. We were not retained to provide geotechnical observation of the work in the construction of the structural fill section or supervision of the testing agency of record. You had retained the services of Pacific Testing & Inspection LLC, a WABO approved testing laboratory, to provide testing and inspection services during the construction of the structural fill section. The testing laboratory of record was charged with ensuring that the construction of the st-uctura! fl!! section to support the reco^structed Community Building did in fact conform to the approved project plans and specifications for earthwork. We were on-site to observe progress of work on the 181h of October 2010. We issued a field report dated 22 October 2010 presenting our observations of the work in progress. From our records, this is the only site visit we have made after our initial site visit from which we prepared our 6 April 2010 geotechnical report for the project. This site visit was made with the project structural engineer on 30 March 2010. 10040106 Page I of 2 10040106 Page 2 of 2 Pacific Testing & Inspection LLC has provided us with copies of their compaction records for the project. We have also discussed their work with Mr. Tim Barney, WABO Laboratory Manager on 24 April 2013. From our discussion, we understand that the structural fill as constructed and tested conforms to the project plans and specifications. We also understand that they have not submitted a final report for the certification that the structural fill section does in fact conform to the project plans and specifications based on their compaction testing and field observations. Based on our review of the compaction records and our field observations during construction of the structural fill section on 22 October 2010, it is our opinion that the structural fill section as constructed and verified by compaction testing by the testing laboratory of record does conform to the recommendations presented in our 6 April 2010 report. This letter should eliminate the issue of the structural fill section geotechnical certification from the "punch list" of Mason County for the close out of this project. If you have any additional geotechnical questions on our work or reports, please contact us at our Olympia office. Cordially, BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Jin's David C. Strong, L.E.G. �� 1 . , cc: Mr. Larry Waters, Mason County Building Department ��, o R 1-11, Mr. David Green, Project Manager n++ T, 4 ..YkIN+•_::...a:.:.di;:`.i!3:....1!Yf:!:!�rlid:y�Zil.'rt.