HomeMy WebLinkAboutGRD2008-00002 - GRD Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 6/4/2008 122.52'50"W 122"52'30"W 122'52'10"W 122'51'50'W 122°51'30"W 12r5l'10"W 122°50'50"W 122°50'30"W 122'50'10"W 122'49'50"W 122.49'30'W 12!'49'10"W 122°48'50`W 122°48'30"W 122°48'10'W 122°47'50'W 122°4T30"W 122°4T10"W
'0 47.31'30"N �_,_. <'
47°31'30' a C � Z 9�� y Z F N � <"
J' S •
0 � �!a aT 1i • ,
pi0 1 m ��9 3+2 M-04 rn 3J v°o r ? ,. 5
24�N O l W A Panrherl�l-e �9 V �-LAKE qo NHS °i 47°31'20"N
47°31'20' O
O act° I 9 4 �•
tjp pQ �. Z 47°31'10"N '( ••,24
? o o '1 23 2. 036
27 ,g` 2 0 S 032
47°31'0"N
47'31'0"N
o e. 3
39 -. 0 1, 43 -44- _
6ry 47°30'50"N !
47"30'50' n) c �Ir, �` h �� (1± 4 4T U,414
t
49
47°30'40"N 5 5?' 3 303'` ,�••..
47°30'40" ..
56
47°30'30"N e- I�,•,. CRF F er'- F! m 61
64 65 6 ti
47'30'20` �.1,.- a O°
47°30'10"N
47*30'10'
h.
/; .r� ,^,� ♦
7*30'0`N Gate
47.30'0'N )( Tanktrap
Fire Station
O 7'29'S0"N
47°29'S0" +Y,_ a - Myi
Communication Tower
Other Road
° 47°29'40"N
47°29'40 -
Highway
M Major Public Road
47°29'30"N
47.29'30" �i._•. Mainline
RR
7.29.20"N Seconds
47°29'20"N GJ C �/
Spur
47'29'1o"N y r Hood Canal Tree Farm
's ;• Olympic Property Group
47°29'0"N
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
Feet
47"28'50"N
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
• �' Nov.28,2005-Color Ortho Image flown in July 2005
7°28'40"N
47°2840"N4
ORM Road Atlas
47 ' I t) �,i I a + �r1 ._' i�? •<O'A 47°28'30"N �) •
°28'30" �y -- 9� Map Sheet 62
122'53'0'W 122'52'40"W 122°52'20"W 122°52'0"W 122°5'.'40"W 122"51'20"W 122'51'0"W 122*50'40"W 122*50'20"W 122°50'0"W 122*49'40"W 122*49'201W 122°49'0'W 122'48'40'W 122'48'20"W 122°48'0"W 22°4T40"W 122°4T20"W
RECE '
KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES MCC® - PLANNING
CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS
3314 Gibraltar Ct. S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968
Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 of was
e-mail: kengnea!@aolcom
June 4,2008 '` �07
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mason County Department of Community Development
ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager Engineering eol
�i 100
FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist
SUBJECT: Review Comments—GRD 2008-00002 RKENNETH G.NE, ,�
"Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report with Slope Stability Analyses,
Proposed Parking and Camping Areas, Parcel No.'s 123172000000 &
12308000000, 770 Holy Glen Shire Lane, Belfair, Washington," prepared for
Mr. Ron Cleveland by Krazan & Associates, Inc., dated April 21, 2008,
updated and revised May 20,2008
The original report by the consultant was updated following my telephone call to Phil Haberman,
Engineering Geologist of Krazan & Associates, on May 13. Our brief review of the original report
identified elements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO) geotechnical report requirements
that were missing, so the telephone call was intended to provide Krazan & Associates an opportunity to
meet the standards without our completing a formal review.
There are several required items still missing from this report,and other issues:
1. The site map (or maps) must show important development and geologic features, property
boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed
development on the site. While the site plan presented in the report does show the topography
(which is not required), the top and bottom of the slope, test pit and cross section locations, and
a general area designated "Cleared Area—Proposed Grass Field,"the locations of these features
are not shown in reference to property boundaries or other known locations. The site plan
included with the original report showed the area in relation to the existing unimproved access
road, but still no reference to property boundaries or corners.
2. The following statement on Page 6 is troubling: "Our previous analyses were modeled with a
much steeper slope configuration. We have revised the topographic cross section based on the
most recent topographic map (provided by stormwater engineer)." This indicates that the
consultant did not measure slope inclinations at the site, and may have not walked the slope
being evaluated and analyzed. Representative cross-sections used for slope stability analyses
should be measured, not based on unknown or unverified topographic data, and should show
real surficial and interpreted subsurface characteristics. The cross-section presented in the
report does not match characteristics shown on the analysis cross-section, and, although the
report states it is based on the topographic map, it does not match the topography shown for the
cross-section location.
3. There is no indication of areas proposed or recommended for stormwater management. "We
understand that another consultant is providing recommendations for stormwater management."
as stated on Page 9 does not relieve the consultant of responsibility for recommending buffers
Mason County Department of Community Development
GRD 2008-00002
June 4,2008
Page 2
and setbacks from slopes to limit the potential for creating an unstable condition by infiltrating
water into near-surface soils.
4. There is also no indication of whether a septic system will be designed or constructed for this site,
or how waste water from recreational vehicles or other sources will be managed. These
sources,each individually or in combination,could potentially affect slope processes.
Following our completion of this list of concerns, I discussed this project with Jim Scholz, the Mason
County Planner assigned to this project. We understand from this discussion, that he has reviewed the
available planning documents and environmental checklist, and that the only activities planned for the
area shown on the site plan as "Cleared Area — Proposed Grass Field" are camping, and recreational
activities such as jousting. There will be no water system, restrooms other than porta-potties, or any other
facilities requiring drain fields or infiltration of water. We understand no recreational vehicle or other
types of mechanized camping will be allowed; vehicles will reportedly be parked in an area on the
opposite side of the primitive access road from the steep slope. None of this information was described in
the geotechnical report, which should, as a document, be self-sufficient, without the need for referencing
other documents in order to understand the scope of the project.
From a practical standpoint, there appears to be no risk to the stability of the steep slope adjacent to the
proposed grass field, as long as soil and timber removed during grading of the site is not pushed over the
slope or piled along the top of the slope. The only likely effect of this action, if carried out correctly,
would be loss of root cohesion (which would be insignificant on a near-level slope), and an increase in
delivery of rain water to the ground during spring and summer months. This would not be likely to affect
slope stability or erosion, if water is not directed towards or over, or allowed to pond along the top of the
slope. For these reasons, in our judgment, even though the geotechnical report has serious defects and
does not meet the standards outlined in the MCRO,the risk of initiating slope movement from the actions
described above is so low that the additional costs of report preparation and a second review do not seem
warranted.
If you have any questions,please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180.
2 copies submitted
KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGim 3314 Gibraltar Ct.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)352-5125
lk co8
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT WITH
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
PROPOSED PARKING AND CAMPING AREAS
PARCEL No.'s 123172000000& 12308000000
770 HOLY GLEN SHIRE LANE
BELFAIR,WASHINGTON
PROJECT No.092-08034
APRIL 21,2008
UPDATED AND REVISED MAY 20,2008
Prepared for:
MR.RON CLEVELAND
13914- 142ND AVENUE KPN
GIG HARBOR,WASHINGTON 98329
Prepared by:
KRAZAN&ASSOCIATES,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
11715 N.CREEK PARKWAY S.,C-106
BOTHELL,WASHINGTON 98011
(425)485-5519
RECEIVED
MAY 2 2
MASON COUNTY PUELiC WOfZK,,-, .
�® Krazan & ASSOCIATES, INC.
i SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
� . R �.
LJUN (19 20CS
2 111
MCCD - PLANNING
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT WITH
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
PROPOSED PARKING AND CAMPING AREAS
PARCEL No.'s 123172000000&12308000000
770 HOLY GLEN SHIRE LANE
BELFAIR,WASHINGTON
PROJECT No.092-08034
APRIL 21,2008
Prepared for:
MR.RON CLEVELAND
13914- 142ND AVENUE KPN
GIG HARBOR,WASHINGTON 98329
Prepared by:
KRAZAN&ASSOCIATES,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
11715 N.CREEK PARKWAY S.,C-106
BOTHELL,WASHINGTON 98011
(425)485-5519
e
CEMKrazan & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
April 21, 2008 KA Project No. 092-08034
Updated and Revised May 20,2008
Mr. Ron Cleveland
13914 142nd Avenue KPN
Gig Harbor,Washington 98329
RE: Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report with Slope Stability Analyses
Proposed Parking and Camping Areas
Parcel No.'s 12372000000& 12308000000
770 Holy Glen Shire Lane
Belfair, Washington
Dear Mr. Cleveland,
In accordance with your request, we have completed an updated and revised Limited Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation with Slope Stability Analyses for the referenced site. The results of our
investigation are presented in the attached report.
If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN&ASSOCIATES, INC.
q�4 L--
Phil A. Haberman,P.G.,P.E.G.
Senior Engineering Geologist
PH/gs
With Offices Serving The Western United States
11715 N.Creek Parkway S.,C-106•Bothell,Washington 98011 • (425)485-5519•Fax: (425)485-6837
� 1
1'(Xa.Zan & A S S 0 C I A T E S, I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1
PURPOSEAND SCOPE...................................................................................................................................1
PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION......................................................................................................................2
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................2
GEOLOGICSETTING....................................................................................................................................2
FIELDINVESTIGATION................................................................................................................................2
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................3
GROUNDWATER.............................................................................................................................................3
GEOLOGICHAZARDS...................................................................................................................................3
LandslideHazard..............................................................................................................................................3
ErosionConcern/Hazard...................................................................................................................................4
SeismicHazard.................................................................................................................................................5
SLOPESTABILITY ANALYSES...................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................7
General.............................................................................................................................................................8
SitePreparation................................................................................................................................................8
Erosionand Sediment Control.........................................................................................................................8
Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction........................................................................................8
Drainageand Landscaping...............................................................................................................................9
Testingand Inspection.....................................................................................................................................9
LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................................9
VICINITYMAP...................................................................................................................................Figure 1
SITEPLAN...........................................................................................................................................Figure 2
FIELDINVESTIGATION............................................................................................................ Appendix A
With Offices Serving The Western United States
11715 N.Creek Parkway S.,C-106•Bothell,Washington 98011 •(425)485-5519•Fax: (425)485-6837
-�K,Y'aZan & ASS0C. IATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
April 21, 2008 KA Project No. 092-08034
Updated and Revised May 20, 2008
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT WITH
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
PROPOSED PARKING AND CAMPING AREAS
PARCEL NO.'s 123172000000 & 12308000000
770 HOLY GLEN SHIRE LANE
BELFAIR,WASHINGTON
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed grass
parking and camping areas located at 770 Holy Glen Shire Lane in Belfair, Washington. Discussions
regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations
pertaining to site preparation, slope stability, drainage and landscaping, and erosion control.
A site plan showing the approximate exploratory test pit locations is presented following the text of this
report in Figure 2. A description of the field investigation and the exploratory test pit logs are presented
in Appendix A.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This investigation was conducted to evaluate the shallow soil and groundwater conditions at the site, to
develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for use during construction, and provide
information regarding the slope stability of the site slopes relative to the proposed construction.
Our scope of services was performed in general accordance with our proposal for this project along with
modifications through email confirmation. The proposal was dated March 21, 2007 (KA Proposal No.
G08-042WAB)and included the following:
• A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at
the project site.
• A field investigation consisting of excavating and sampling five exploratory test pits that
provided general coverage of the property to be developed. The exploratory test pits ranged in
depth from 4 to 5 feet below the existing site grades (refusal on very dense glacial till).
Offices Serving The Western United States
11715 N.Creek Parkway S.,C-106 9 Bothell,Washington 98011 •(425)485-5519•Fax:(425)485-6837
KA No. 092-08034
April 21, 2008
Updated and Revised May 20, 2008
Page No. 2 of 11
• Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and completion of engineering analyses
to develop recommendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction
specifications.
• Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, the results of our analyses and our
conclusions and recommendations for this investigation.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand that the proposed construction includes removing trees and stumps from a portion of the
referenced parcels in order to create field areas for camping and parking. We understand that mass
grading is not proposed and the areas will be vegetated with grass upon completion of the clearing.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 770 Holy Glen Shire Lane in Belfair,Washington. The proposed field area
is gently undulating and has been mostly cleared of vegetation. A steep slope area extends downward
along the eastern edge of the proposed field area into a ravine/stream area. This slope is up to
approximately 150 percent in magnitude within the uppermost portions and up to approximately 90 feet
in height. The slope extends downward into a ravine with a stream.
The property is vegetated with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and typical forest
undergrowth. The steep slope is vegetated with evergreen and deciduous trees and some undergrowth.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site lies within the central Puget Lowland. The lowland is part of a regional north-south trending
trough that extends from southwestern British Columbia to near Eugene, Oregon. North of Olympia,
Washington, this lowland is glacially carved, with a depositional and erosional history including at least
four separate glacial advances/retreats. The Puget Lowland is bounded to the west by the Olympic
Mountains, and to the east by the Cascade Range. The lowland is filled with glacial and nonglacial
sediments consisting of interbedded gravel, sand, silt,till, and peat lenses.
A review of the available geologic maps for the area of the site, indicate that the property is underlain
by Vashon Glacial Till. Glacial till is typically characterized by an unsorted, nonstratified mixture of
clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders in variable quantities. These materials are typically dense
and relatively impermeable. The poor sorting reflects the mixing of the materials as these sediments
were overridden and incorporated by the glacial ice. Vashon till is typically underlain by Vashon
Advance Outwash. These materials are also typically dense to very dense and consist of a mixture of
sand with minor amounts of gravel and silt deposited in front of the advancing glaciers.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
A field investigation consisting of excavating and sampling five exploratory test pits that provided
general coverage of the area to be cleared and re-vegetated was completed to evaluate the subsurface
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21, 2008
Updated and Revised May 20, 2008
Page No. 3 of 11
soil and groundwater conditions. The exploratory test pits ranged in depth from 4 to 5 feet below the
existing site grades. The excavation work was completed on April 15, 2008 with a client provided
backhoe.
Representative samples of the subsurface soils encountered in the test pits were collected and sealed in
plastic bags. These samples were transported to our laboratory for further examination and verification
of the field classifications. The soils encountered in the exploratory test pits were continuously
examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System(USCS).
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The soils encountered in the exploratory test pits were generally typical of those found in the described
geologic unit.
All of the test pits encountered approximately 2 to 2.5 feet of medium dense, silty-fine to medium
grained sand with variable amounts of gravel (weathered Glacial Till) underlain by dense to very dense,
silty-fine to medium grained sand with variable amounts of gravel (Glacial Till). This material extended
to the termination depths of the test pits (refusal on till).
Additional information about the soils encountered may be found in the logs of the exploratory test pits
in Appendix A.
GROUNDWATER
The exploratory test pits were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately
following the excavation operations. Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at the date and
time of our field investigation.
It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time. The groundwater level will
be dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other
factors. Therefore, water levels at the time of the field investigation may be different from those
encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the
scope of this report.
Groundwater flow may become heavier during construction, which takes place during the wet weather
season. This may cause difficulties with the grading and excavation work. Certain remedial and/or de-
watering measures may be required.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Landslide/Steen Slope Hazard
The soils within the area of the proposed re-vegetation consist of glacial till. Glacial till is typically
dense to very dense and typically suitable for construction in sloped areas.
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21,2008
Updated and Revised May 20,2008
Page No.4 of 11
We observed no head scarps, hummocky terrain, back rotated benches, sloughing soils, groundwater
seepage emanating from slope faces and/or discontinuous vegetation patterns. We observed no tension
cracks near the tops of the site slopes. In addition, we observed no bedding planes or joint systems
within exposed slope areas.
It is our opinion that the field areas may be located as proposed, provided adequate measures are taken
to minimize erosion near/on the site slopes. The possibility for activating potential slide planes and/or
accelerating general slope retreat does exist,if drainage and erosion are not properly managed.
The removal of native vegetation should be limited, to the greatest extent possible (outside areas
designated for landscaping) and landscaping and other permanent erosion control features should be in
place to reduce adverse impacts to neighboring and down slope properties resulting from erosion.
Vegetation should not be removed from steeper slope areas.
It should be understood, due to natural geologic processes such as weathering and erosion due to rain,
drying, wind, and rarely freeze/thaw cycles, the relatively steep site slopes slowly erode and retreat
towards the west. This is a natural weathering and erosion process that affects this type of slope
environment, and it is a continual, long-term process. Although it appears that the slopes are retreating
at a relatively low rate at this time,it should be understood that the rate of slope retreat can increase due
to natural weathering and erosion processes (severe weather and/or removal of slope vegetation) and
this may impact future structures on the property. It should be noted that this type of erosion is common
to these types of slopes and can be minimized.
Erosion Hazard
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) maps of Mason County indicate that the site is
underlain by Alderwood gravelly sand loam (5 to 15 percent slopes) with "Slight" to "Moderate"
erosion potential is a disturbed state; Everett gravelly loamy sand (15 to 30 percent slopes), with
"Moderate"to"Severe"erosion potential in a disturbed state; and Rough Broken Land with"Severe"to
"Very Severe"erosion potential in a disturbed state.
It has been our experience that soil erosion can be minimized through landscaping and surface water
runoff control. The main soil work will consist of removing vegetation from the upper level area and re-
vegetating with grass. Typically, erosion of exposed soils will be most noticeable during periods of
rainfall and may be controlled by the use of normal temporary erosion control measures, i.e., silt fences,
hay bales, mulching, control ditches or diversion trenching, and contour furrowing. Erosion control
measures should be in place before the onset of wet weather.
Erosion of slopes can be minimized using proper drainage and erosion control features. Erosion and
retreat of slopes is typically maintained at a relatively low rate within this type of slope environment, if
the natural vegetation is left in place, to the greatest extent possible (outside areas designated for
landscaping and structural development) and landscaping and other permanent erosion control features
are in place. It should be noted that the rate of slope retreat may accelerate if shallow slides and slope
movement take place without proper mitigation.
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21,2008
Updated and Revised May 20, 2008
Page No. 5 of 11
Seismic Hazard
It is our opinion, based on our subsurface explorations,that the Soil Profile in accordance with the 2006
International Building Code (IBC) is Soil Class D. We referenced the 2002 map from the U.S.
Geological Survey(USGS)website to obtain values for Ss and S,. The USGS website includes the most
updated published data on seismic conditions. The site specific seismic design parameters, peak ground
accelerations (PGA), and adjusted maximum spectral response acceleration parameters are as follows:
PGA 60.93% (2 percent of exceedance in 50 years)
33.63% (10 percent of exceedance in 50 years)
Ss 135.70%of g
S1 49.80%of g
FA 1.0
Fv 1.5
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motions by
soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high groundwater table.
The relatively dense soils interpreted to underlie the site are considered to have a low potential for
liquefaction and amplification of ground motion.
Slone Stability Analyses
We have re-analyzed the slope stability of the current slope configuration using a generalized cross-section
across the central portion of the property. The slope stability analyses are based on the subsurface data
obtained during our exploration work and on the topography from available topographic maps, our site
observations with a handheld clinometer, as well as a topographic map provided by the
stormwater/drainage engineer Mr. James Bottem. We performed slope stability analyses using both
conservative and realistic soil parameters to indicate the potential range of factors of safety.
The commercially available slope stability computer program Slope/W was used to evaluate the stability of
the existing site slopes. The slope stability was analyzed under static and seismic conditions. The program
calculates factors of safety for potential slope failures and generates the potential rotational failure planes
(relatively homogeneous soil typically has rotational slope failure planes). This software calculates the
slope stability under seismic conditions using pseudo-static methods. The stability of the described
configuration was analyzed by comparing observed factors of safety to minimum values as set by Mason
County. A factor of safety of 1.00 is considered equilibrium and less than 1.00 is considered failure. The
recommended minimum factor of safety for global stability is approximately 1.50 for static conditions and
1.10 for seismic conditions(per Mason County).
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21, 2008
Updated and Revised May 20, 2008
Page No. 6 of 11
We analyzed the slope stability under seismic loading conditions using the typical design event per Mason
County(0.15 g). Our previous analyses were modeled with a much steeper slope configuration. We have
revised the topographic cross section based on the most recent topographic map (provided by stormwater
engineer). Also, we have added a traffic load surcharge of 250 pounds per square foot from the top of the
slope for approximately 160 feet.
The following are the estimated soil parameters used in our analysis and summary of results of the subject
slope:
First Analysis:
Soil Parameters used in First Analysis
Soil Description Density Cohesion Angle of Internal Friction
cfj s (degrees)
Medium Dense Till 120 250 34
Dense to Very Dense 120 600 40
Till
Stability Results for Existing Slope Configuration(Static)
Factor—of—Safety Factor-of-Safety Required
Observed
Overall Global Stability 2.46 1.50
Stability Results for Existing Slope Configuration(Seismic Coefficient 0.15g)
Factor—of—Safety Factor-of-Safety Required
Observed
Overall Global Stability 1.88 1.10
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21, 2008
Updated and Revised May 20,2008
Page No. 7 of 11
Second Analysis:
Soil Parameters used in Second Analysis
Soil Description Density Cohesion Angle of Internal Friction
c s (degrees)
Medium Dense Till 120 0 30
Dense to Very Dense 120 250 36
Till
Stability Results for Existing Slope Configuration(Static)
Factor—of—Safety Factor-of-Safety Required
Observed
Overall Global Stability 1.71 1.50
Stability Results for Existing Slope Configuration(Seismic Coefficient 0.15g)
Factor—of—Safety Factor-of-Safety Required
Observed
Overall Global Stability 1.31 1.10
Our analyses indicate adequate factors of safety exist for static and seismic conditions for the existing
slope configuration with the potential traffic surcharge load and using the two different sets of soil
parameters including the most conservative set of parameters.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the removal of vegetation from the level area above the steep slope will not
increase the landslide hazard at the site if stormwater is managed and proper erosion control methods
are in place during construction. We recommend that a minimum 10 feet wide buffer be maintained
from the top of the steep slope area. In buffer areas where vegetation has been removed, we recommend
that the area be sloped away from the slope. Loose stumps and other vegetation can be placed in that
area.
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21, 2008
Updated and Revised May 20, 2008
Page No. 8 of 11
Landslide activity, such as shallow sloughs, should be expected on the steep slope area, and may occur
at any time. However, if stormwater is managed and is not allowed to flow over the slope area, the
proposed vegetation removal and re-vegetation will not increase the potential for landslide activity.
Site Preparation
General site clearing will include removal of most of the existing vegetation and root systems within the
proposed camping/parking areas. This will be followed by rough leveling of the existing soils and
planting with grass. If any specific recommendations are needed, we can provide them during
construction.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sediment to wetlands,
streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment control measures
should be taken and these measures should be in general accordance with local regulations. As a
minimum, the following basic recommendations should be incorporated into the design of the erosion
and sediment control features of the site:
1) Phase the soil, foundation, utility, and other work,requiring excavation or the disturbance of the
site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September). However,
provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMP's), grading activities
can be undertaken during the wet season(generally October through April),but it should also be
known that this may increase the overall cost of the project.
2) All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible.
3) Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the
possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt
fences with a higher Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration
systems.
4) Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a
sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited other filtration methods will need to
be incorporated.
Groundwater Influence on Construction
Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory test pits at the date and time of our investigation.
If groundwater is encountered during construction, it would most likely be perched. Perched
groundwater develops where vertical infiltration of surface precipitation is impeded by a relatively
impermeable soil layer, resulting in horizontal migration of the groundwater within overlying more
permeable soils.
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21, 2008
Updated and Revised May 20,2008
Page No. 9 of 11
If earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become
saturated. These soils may "pump," and the materials may not respond to densification techniques.
Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil
with drier materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material. A qualified
geotechnical engineering firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe
the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations.
Drainage and Landscaping
We understand that another consultant is providing recommendations for stormwater management. We
recommend that stormwater not be allowed to pond near the steep slope area or extend over the slope
area at any time.
Testing and Inspection
A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork
activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork.
This activity is an integral part of our services as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent
upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent
of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan &
Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime
Contractor. Furthermore, Krazan & Associates is not responsible for the contractor's procedures,
methods, scheduling or management of the work site.
LIMITATIONS
Geotechnical engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil
Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences improves.
Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate current techniques and methods,
undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to
improvements in the field of geotechnical engineering, physical changes in the site either due to
excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations or possible changes in the proposed structure after
the time of completion of the soils report may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In
light of this, the owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report
without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that
two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report.
Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and
groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is
derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited
sampling of the earth. Our report, design conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a
warranty of the subsurface conditions. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes
significantly, from those indicated in this report.
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21,2008
Updated and Revised May 20,2008
Page No. 10 of 11
The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary
significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The findings and conclusions of this
report can be affected by the passage of time, such as seasonal weather conditions,manmade influences,
such as construction on or adjacent to the site, natural events such as earthquakes, slope instability,
flooding, or groundwater fluctuations. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered
during construction,the geotechnical engineer should be notified so that supplemental recommendations
can be made.
The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed
construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may
not be valid. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of any changes so that the recommendations
can be reviewed and reevaluated.
Misinterpretations of this report by other design team members can result in project delays and cost
overruns. These risks can be reduced by having Krazan & Associates, Inc. involved with the design
teams meetings and discussions after submitting the report. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should also be
retained for reviewing pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret this report. To reduce this,risk Krazan&Associates. Inc. should participate in pre-bid
and preconstruction meetings,and provide construction observations during the site work.
This report is a geotechnical engineering investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions
in terms of foundation design. The scope of our services did not include any environmental site
assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or
atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on
any test pit log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed are strictly for
descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous
and/or toxic assessments.
The geotechnical information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing
standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not
warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical
developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined above, and should not
be used for any other site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our client. No other party
may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing.
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No. 092-08034
April 21, 2008
Updated and Revised May 20, 2008
Page No. 11 of 11
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at(425)485-5519.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN &ASSOCIATES,INC.
o{ W ash;
� A �G
CO
Engmeenng Geologist
c 2513 �`' 32�5 '
t�
Sed Ge° ���0�� `�j�NAL - S��ldB
PHILLIP HABERMAN
EXPiF',";GG1221 dB
Phil Haberman, P.G., P.E.G. Gopal A. Singam, P.E.
Senior Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Division Manager
PH/gs
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
With Offices Serving The Westem United States
N Vicinity Map
{ ° 0 N e
}
f
1 t + f iJ e' ,ter
SITE
'P ii •
- -
• 4
or
ol
` ' " r} � { f Ate•• .• � ,,�
r
• � ` • Y
f
. ��
J<r;2LZ; �& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Proposed Washington Renaissance Fantasy Faire
Date: April 18, 2008 1 Vicinity Map Based on Maptech, 1999
Drawn By: BBC Figure 1 TProject Number: 092-08034
Site Plan
II � /
I / /,0, "Oo / T W 1 /
/ P-
TP-5 / c7
�
/ / . A,
/
Cleared Area-Proposed TP-3/
Grass Field / / / / •,
/ /
Approximate Graphic Scale
/ TP-4 / / / / • I I 100 0 100 200
/ / 1 inch F200 feet
LEGEND
Test Pit Location ��
i� Z& A S S 0 C I A T E S, I N C.
TP-1 Proposed Washington Renaissance Fantasy Faire
AN Cross Section (See Fig. 3)
Date: April 17, 2008 Site plan based on data provided by drainage engineer
A' Drawn By: BBC Figure 2 Project Number: 092-08034
Site [ ! ! ! I !
N S!t . , ► , , ,
! !! i
I !ji
• liri r � , I Ir. i
Undeveloped iiii i ' ' i r i it
;
Land
� O i ii i t i ! ' �• i
r
• r r r.
Undeveloped Land
i.' .'SI•opb Haziro i i g
►r rr Afedl
rj
•r I I , i � , i I I r.
!iiri r i ; rli�
TP-11 ±iii ! i
Proposed i
Grass/Field i i i
Improvements
liq iii
TP-4 iii
TP-4
r
/ iriii
rr ,
TP-2 / !iiii
/ �� it
i a
� C-4 it rl. i
/ f' i9 it
i
i it i r ! ili
Lo� // 11/ . ,i Vteep
i
�SIope Hazgrd '
Areal
r ,
Undeveloped Land Not To Scale
Test Pit Location 4"
I�rc�Zar�& A S S O C I A T E S,I N C.
rP-1 Proposed Washington Renaissance Fantasy Faire
ate:April 17, 2008 1 Site Plan based on visual reconaissance
Drawn By: BBC Figure 2 Project Number: 092-08034
Cross Section A - A
A Approximate Top
450 of Slope
400 Approximate 2' Weathered Till Zone (not shown) i
/��350 Very Dense Glacial Till A'
300 Stream
250
Vashon Advance Outwash? (inferred)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Oor
Approximate Graphic Scale — r'a][71& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
50 0 50 100 ---------------- Estimated Topography Proposed Washington Renaissance Fantasy Faire
1 inch Feet feet Date: May 14, 2008 Project Number: 092-08034
Drawn By: PH Figure: 3 Ref: Eng. Provided Topo Map
Slope Stability Results - First Analysis
200
190 •
'80 250 psf Traffic Surcharge
170�
10[i
14!
I'l;
120 -;110 Static
CA 100 Pis
I 15
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
13
0 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10D 110 120 130 140 150 180 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 280 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
200
190 {'
180
17 17 250 psf Traffic Surcharge
1aG - —_—
,So 1
140 1
130
Seismic-0.15 g
g ,00 A_
15
SO
70
60
50
40
30
20
11
0
93
0 510 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 180 170 180 190 200 210 22D 23D 240 250 200 270 200 290 300 310 320 330 340 360 300 370 380 390 400
Length
Medium Dense Weathered Glacial Till
34 Degree Friction Angle, 120 PCF,250 PSF Cohesion
Dense to Very Dense Glacial Till
40 Degree Friction Angle, 120 PCF,600 PSF Cohesion i & ASSOCIATES' INC.
Note:Weathered till is approximately 2 feet thick along
the level areas and is thicker along the slope face. Proposed Washington Renaissance Fantasy Faire
Date: May 15, 2008 1 Topo based on provided map and site obs
Drawn By: PH I Figure 4 1Project Number: 092-08034
Slope Stability Results - Second Analysis
200
190 _
180
17 250 psf Traffic Surcharge
160
150
140
130
12:
F 11; Static
S15
90
80 _ .
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 ".
14
0
0 510 20 30 40 50 W 70 90 90 1001101201301M 160 100 170 1e0 160 200 210 220 230 240 250 200 270 280 M 300 310 3W 330 W 350 360 370 M 3W 400
Length
I 200 ]�
,90 •
1�
17 250 psf Traffic Surcharge
Seismic-0.15 g
12
_ _ Ems __ 13
,)10 10 3, 40 5G 60 70 80 90 10!1 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 2W 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 280 3W 310 320 330 340 350 3W 370 380 390 400
Length
Medium Dense Weathered Glacial Till
30 Degree Friction Angle, 120 PCF,0 PSF Cohesion
Dense to Very Dense Glacial Till
36 Degree Friction Angle, 120 PCF,250 PSF Cohesion Kraz;ar
1& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Note:Weathered till is approximately 2 feet thick along
the level areas and is thicker along the slope face. Proposed Washington Renaissance Fantasy Faire
Date: May 15, 2008 1 Topo based on provided map and site obs
Drawn By: PH Figure 5 Project Number: 092-08034
Appendix A
Page A.1
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Field Investigation
The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration program for the
proposed development. Five exploratory test pits were excavated and sampled for subsurface
exploration at this site. The exploratory test pit depths ranged between approximately 4 and 5 feet
below the existing grades. The approximate exploratory test pit locations are shown on the site plan in
Figure 2. The depths shown on the attached test pit logs are from the existing ground surface at the time
the test pits were excavated.
The soils encountered were logged in the field during the exploration and, with supplementary
laboratory test data,are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System(USCS).
All samples were returned to our Bothell laboratory for evaluation. The logs of the exploratory test pits
are presented in this appendix.
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States
092-07107doc
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-1
11715 North Creek Parkway South Suite C-106 PROJECT:WARFF
Bothell, Washington 98011 PROJECT NO.: 09208034 DATE:4/15/08
PAGE: 1 of 1
CONTRACTOR: Client SURFACE ELEVATION:Approx.410'
SAMPLE METHOD:Grab LOCATION: Belfair,WA
Natural Moisture Content
and
J -j w Atterberg Limits
w a
m
J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0
2 J J Plastic Moisture Liquid
a U Lu
L a. Limit Content Limit
o � N N 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Medium dense,fine to medium grained sand, dark brown to dark
reddish brown, moist.
(Weathered Glacial Till)
S-1
2 - ------------------------------------------
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Dense to very dense,fine to medium grained sand, grayish brown,
moist.
(Glacial Till) S-2
3
4
i
S-3
5
End of Exploratory Test Pit
6
7
8
Water Level Initial:0 Final: 1
Water Observations: None Encountered
Notes: None
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-2
11715 North Creek Parkway South PROJECT:WARFF
Suite C-106
Bothell, Washington 98011 PROJECT NO.: 09208034 DATE:4/15/08
PAGE: 1 of 1
CONTRACTOR: Client SURFACE ELEVATION:Approx.420'
SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Belfair,WA
Natural Moisture Content
and
w Atterberg Limits
O >
m J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z
W LU Plastic Moisture Liquid
_ w a a Limit Content Limit
uj coQ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Medium dense,fine to medium grained sand, dark brown to dark
reddish brown, moist.
(Weathered Glacial Till)
S-1
2
---------------------------------------------------------
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Dense to very dense,fine to medium grained sand, grayish brown,
3 moist.
(Glacial Till)
I
4
End of Exploratory Test Pit
5
6
7
i
8
Water Level Initial: Final:
Water Observations: None Enccountered
Notes: None
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-3
11715 North Creek Parkway South
Suite C-106 PROJECT:WARFF
Bothell, Washington 98011 PROJECT NO.: 09208034 DATE:4/15108
PAGE: 1 of 1
CONTRACTOR:Client SURFACE ELEVATION:Approx.410'
SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Belfair,WA
Natural Moisture Content
and
w Atterberg Limits
-1 w a
m w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0
Plastic Moisture Liquid
= Cn w a ii Limit Content Limit
oj < < 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Medium dense,fine to medium grained sand, dark brown to dark
reddish brown, moist.
(Weathered Glacial Till)
i
1 -
2 S-1
�Gj
----- ----------
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Dense to very dense,fine to medium grained sand, grayish brown,
3 moist.
(Glacial Till)
i
i
4
End of Exploratory Test Pit
5
6
7
8
Water Level Initial:0 Final:
Water Observations: None Encountered
Notes: None
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-4
11715 North Creek Parkway South PROJECT:WARFF
Suite C-106
Bothell, Washington 98011 PROJECT NO.: 09208034 DATE:4/15/08
PAGE: 1 of 1
CONTRACTOR: Client SURFACE ELEVATION:Approx.409'
SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Belfair,WA
Natural Moisture Content
and
w Atterberg Limits
Lu
m w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 F
J
Plastic Moisture Liquid
_ w a a Limit Content Limit
Lu vi a a a 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 Di
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Medium dense,fine to medium grained sand, dark brown to dark
reddish brown, moist.
(Weathered Glacial Till)
1
2 ---------------------------------------------------------
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Dense to very dense,fine to medium grained sand, grayish brown,
moist.
(Glacial Till)
3
4
End of Exploratory Test Pit
I
5
6
7
8
Water Level Initial: Final: Z
Water Observations: None Encountered
Notes: None
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP-5
11715 North Creek Parkway South Suite C-106 PROJECT:WARFF
Bothell, Washington 98011 PROJECT NO.: 09208034 DATE:4/15/08
PAGE: 1 of 1
CONTRACTOR: Client SURFACE ELEVATION:Approx.425'
SAMPLE METHOD: Grab LOCATION: Belfair,WA
Natural Moisture Content
and
J w W Atterberg Limits
m w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 6
J
w w Plastic Moisture Liquid
_ w a a Limit Content Limit
W (n a a a 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Medium dense,fine to medium grained sand, dark brown to dark
reddish brown, moist.
(Weathered Glacial Till)
1 '
2 ---------------------------------------------------------
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM)
Dense to very dense,fine to medium grained sand, grayish brown,
moist.
I
(Glacial Till)
i
3
i
I
I
4=M
End of Exploratory Test Pit
i
I
i
5
i
i
6
I
7
i
I
i
8
Water Level Initial:0 Final: 1
Water Observations: None Encountered
Notes: None
General Earthwork �
Specifications .
Appendix B
Page B.1
APPENDIX B
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the
recommendations in the report have precedence.
SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork
associated with the site rough grading, including but not limited to the furnishing of all labor, tools, and
equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for
receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the
lines and grades shown on the project grading plans, and disposal of excess materials.
PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all
earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and
tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Geotechnical
Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades when achieved shall be certified to by
the project Civil Engineer. Both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer are the Owner's
representatives. If the contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in
this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until all work is
deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer. No deviation
from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Geotechnical Engineer,
Civil Engineer or project Architect.
No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical
Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the
commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.
The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions
during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this
requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the
Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all
liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability
arising from the sole negligence of the Owner of the Engineers.
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be compacted to a density not less
than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 as specified in
the technical portion of the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The results of these tests and compliance
with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged
by the Geotechnical Engineer.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and
to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the
soil report.
Krazan and Associates,Inc.
Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States
Appendix B
Page B.2
The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in said report, and the Contractor
shall not be relieved of liability under the contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance
between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered
during the progress of the work.
DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any
dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation
either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor
leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including Court costs of codefendants, for all
claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work.
SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grabbing and preparations of foundation materials for
receiving fill.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and
shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project, earthwork all structures, both surface
and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter, and all other matter determined by the
Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor
and shall be removed from the site.
Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 1 foot and to
such an extent which would permit removal of all roots larger than 1 inch. Backfill or tree root
excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Geotechnical
Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas,
which are to receive fill materials, shall not be permitted.
SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Structural fill shall be prepared as outlined above,
excavated/scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to 95
percent compaction.
Loose and/or areas of disturbed soils shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent
compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading
prior to placement of any fill material. All areas scheduled to receive fill materials shall be approved by
the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material.
EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil
Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over excavation below the grades specified shall be
backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable
technical requirements.
FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the
presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for
construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Geotechnical Engineer. All materials
utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetable or other deleterious matter as determined
by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Krazan and Associates,Inc.
Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States
Appendix B
Page B.3
PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill
materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the
responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting
shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Geotechnical Engineer.
Both cut and fill shall be surface compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
final acceptance.
SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing
or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill
operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and
density of previously placed fill are as specified.
Krazan and Associates,Inc.
Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States
Kraz I L 1
& ASSOCIATES , INC .
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
April 1,2008 KA Project No.092-08034
i
I
Mr.Ron Cleveland
13914— 142"`'Avenue KPN
Gig Harbor,Washington
RE: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Grass Field—Parking and Camping Areas
Parcel No.'s 123172000000 and 12308000000
770 Holy Glen Shire Lane
Belfair,Washington
Dear Mr.Cleveland:
At your request, we have prepared this letter to address proposed vegetation removal adjacent to a steep
slope area. A Krazan & Associates senior engineering geologist visited the site on March 26, 2008 to
observe the current site conditions. In preparation of this letter,we have reviewed the provided site Plans
and available geologic mapping for the area of the site.
Our scope of work includes visual observation of the current slope conditions and comments pertaining
to the proposed vegetation removal and construction only. Detailed geologic hazard analyses are not
included in our scope of work.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand that the proposed construction includes removing trees and stumps from a portion of the
referenced parcels in order to create field areas for camping and parking. We understand that mass
grading is not proposed and the areas will be vegetated with grass upon completion of the clearing.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 770 Holy Glen Shire Lane in Belfair,Washington. The area of the proposed
residence is gently sloping to the southeast and is currently partially cleared. A steep slope area extends
downward along the eastern edge of the proposed field area into a ravine/stream area. This slope is up to
approximately 150 percent in magnitude and up to approximately 90 feet in height. The property is
vegetated with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and typical forest undergrowth. The steep
slope is vegetated with evergreen and deciduous trees and some undergrowth.
Offices Serving The Western United States
11715 N.Creek Parkway S.,#C-106.Bothell,Washington 98011 •(425)485-5519•Fax:(425)485-6837
'0 0 wok M IL
Parking area 1" = 250'
saw
V At
M .
,a
40
� s
6...
{ . .
a sirs
tom ' 0 ATVW oil
i
James E. Baitem, P.E. WRFF 3/3112008
:
Ar
KA No.092-08034
April 1,2008
Page 2 of 3
STEEP SLOPE HAZARD
A review of the available geologic map for the area of the site indicates that it is underlain by glacial till.
Glacial till is typically dense to very dense and typically suitable for construction in sloped areas.
We observed no head scarps, hummocky terrain, back rotated benches, sloughing soils, groundwater
seepage emanating from slope faces and/or discontinuous vegetation patterns. We observed no tension
cracks near the tops of the site slopes. In addition, we observed no bedding planes or joint systems
within exposed slope areas.
It is our opinion,based on the proposed development,that detailed slope stability analyses and additional
geotechnical analyses for the site slope conditions are not warranted. It is our opinion that the field areas
may be located as proposed, provided adequate measures are taken to minimize erosion near/on the site
slopes. The possibility for activating potential slide planes and/or accelerating general slope retreat does
exist, if drainage and erosion are not properly managed.
The removal of native vegetation should be limited, to the greatest extent possible (outside areas
designated for landscaping) and landscaping and other permanent erosion control features should be in
place to reduce adverse impacts to neighboring and down slope properties resulting from erosion.
Vegetation should not be removed from steeper slope areas.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the proposed vegetation removal and grass field construction for use as parking and
camping is suitable at this site and will not decrease the stability of the slope area or adjacent areas if
proper erosion control measures are in place during vegetation removal. We recommend that erosion
control measures are in place during construction and until landscaping is in place. Under no
circumstances should stormwater runoff be allowed to channel and/or flow over the steep slope area.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sediment to wetlands,
streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment control measures should
be taken and these measures should be in general accordance with local regulations. As a minimum, the
following basic recommendations should be incorporated into the design of the erosion and sediment
control features of the site:
1) Phase the soil, foundation,utility, and other work, requiring excavation or the disturbance of the
site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September). However,
provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices(BMP's), grading activities can
be undertaken during the wet season(generally October through April). It should be understood
that this typically increases the overall cost of the project.
2) All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible.
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
KA No.092-08034
April 1,2008
Page 3 of 3
3) Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the
possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt
fences with a higher Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration
systems.
4) Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a
sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited other filtration methods will need to
be incorporated.
LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical slope evaluation letter is based on limited observations of the current site conditions,
and does not include a sub-surface evaluation of the site geological features or potential hazards. Any
additional information required by Kitsap County with regard to the overall impact of the project is
beyond the scope of this letter.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at(425)485-5519.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN&ASSOCIATES,INC.
GOP
2.
513 �o w�
/C) ZONAL
Pha A.i fttrman
D�IRES�l2'1Jo
Phil Haberman,P.G.,P.E.G. Gopal A. Singam,P.E.
Senior Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Division Manager
PH/gs
Krazan&Associates,Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
122'52'SM 122.52'30'W 122.52'10"W 122'51'50"W 122.51'30"W 122.51'10"W 122.50'50'W 122.50'30'W 122.5010'W 122.49150"W 122.49'30"W 122°49'10'W 122°48'50"W 122.48.30"W 122.48'10'W 122°47'50'W 122*4r30"W 122'47'10"W
47°31'30"N4T31'30"N i
O'o a°' S
47'31'20" ♦°p 3G Q D - �1�I ^�F` M O �``` r OAO �V 06 •7 ,' Z _._'--r
'O •
47'31'10"N o I We •
23
p.31 24-2 U O ° 47°31.0''N =7 ,°%� 2 0-1 0 S ••32
47.31'0'N i 3
2 M.or s Z 39 4D 1v 43
y I� p dry s 47°30'50"N r� i
47'30'50• Q I i I(i _ ♦ ti-t 4 47 11,4
49
,A' v: )> •.
47.30'40"N47°30'40"N 5 j .{••••
56
', o
7 58,fL9k 3
4_ r '�• ♦ ti _7, 47°30'30"N ■1
47.30'30" +r CRF F e►•'- f' m '�J� f 6 t 8 _. J
5 64 65 6 i
47.30'20"N
�• D 04 N /
NM
47°30'10•N
�✓ �a
47°30'0"N Gate
47`30'0"N -
O9 i I I X Tanktrap
N M. •°' Fire Station
_° 47'29'S0"N
47.29'50" r
♦ �o Communication Tower
"'. Other Road
�30 7'29'40"N
47°29'40" r Highway
r; „t ° Major Public Road
47°29'30"N �• _ Mainline
A
`v l
—a—+ RR
47°29'20"N ype� o f , rz9zo•N Secondary
- Spur
47°29'10" 7°29'10"N F � - ''; � ,l F-1 Hood Canal Tree Farm
=.J Olympic Property Group
' IS
• I ti 47°29'0'N I I I _J
47°29'0"N I; '' '• 'k/ Miles
rt 0 0.25 0.5 1
R `< l a7.2e So'N I I I J Feet
47.28'50" , 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Nov.28,2005'-Color Ortho Image flown in July 2005
7.28'40"N
47.28'40"N -
9'F
r� ORM Road Atlas
47°28'30"N :�� I `� 47.28'30'N • • Map Sheet 62
Not Rrr•;rrcr:Ce.>jao•
122°53'0"W 122.52'40"W 122.52'20'W 122°52'0"W 122.51'40"W 122.51'20'W 122.51'0'W 122'50'40'W 122`50'20"W 122`50'0"W 122°49'40"W 122`49'20"W 122°49'0"W 122`48'40"W 122°48'20"W 122°48'0"W 122"4T40"W 122`47'20"W