The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19600 63rd Ave NE_PWD425_2026 !" #$%&'$()&*+,,-./001/.-020)& 34!5" ,)$'$267'$()&*8(9/6-:$%;7 34!53<<== >$-;0?0//0%@0)(0A,B 34!5CDCECF G@0%0&&A:HI D5!=5 .%%*J%0K0% L5 M>IIM> II N4 /.%%*O9%0K0%P-$O7)$'$267'OK.O(7 E!QRS ,)$$8%$T0-&UIB V4W5 B BIOB ! IB X D< GY X==W< H NZ= > B EW= 8G+G 3==[5< .().J/.-; 8.%-0/U \\%0770]./Y07-%61&6$)K)0%#.20 K)0%8'$)0 ^$)6)] B > H>YG#G,#_,_ I ,$/6\:.7&0 88`+ Y671$7./ D5!= $)&%.-&$%8%62.%*$)&.-&8'$)0\\%077$)&%.-&$%+*106-0)70 6-0)70 U 6;0:0%/0-' 6;0:0%/0-'MH>BM IB,: &' $)7&%(-&6$)$)&%.-&$% $)7&%(-&6$)A)- ,&%00& B B B B B B B B 45abc= Y.&0 0@60K+*10Y07-%61&6$)776])0\+$+.%]0&Y.&0 JdY#` B #$-$220)&7Ae8:MY#M`, B ! Construction Permit Application Department of Community & Economic Development City of Arlington â€¢ 18204 59th Ave NE â€¢ Arlington, WA 98223 Phone (360) 403-3551 PERMIT TYPE CIVIL (TYPE I) TYPE I & II ONLY REDEVELOPMENT Project Name: North County RTS Scale Replacement Project Snohomish County Tax Parcel I.D. #: 00746300001500 Project Address/Location: 19600 63rd Ave NE Owner Name: Snohomish County, Department of Public Works Address: 3000 Rockefeller Ave M/S 607 City: Everett State: WA Zip: 98201 Email: larry.brewer@co. snohomish.wa.u s Phone: 4253883488 Applicant Name: Larry Brewer Address: 3000 Rockefeller Ave M/S 607 City: Everett State: WA Zip: 98201 Email: larry.brewer@co. snohomish.wa.us Phone: 4253883488 Engineer Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Email: Phone: License #: Expiration Date: Contractor Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Email: Phone: License #: Expiration Date: I, hereby certify that I have read and examined this application, City of Arlington Municipal Code, Standard Plan & Specification. Performance of the proposed work shall follow all applicable laws and regulations. The owner/ applicant shall assume full and complete responsibility for said work and shall be responsible for the acquisition and compliance of all applicable permits and/or authorizations which may include, but not limited to, Right of Way Permit, WSDW Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), WSDOE Notice of Intent (NOI), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Army Corp. of Engineers Permits, the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, and the Forest Practices Application (FPA). Signature: Print Name: Larry Brewer Date: 06/10/15 Complete package constitutes all applicable items. Only complete submittals will be accepted. All submittals must be accompanied by PDF files. Civil - Submittal Requirements, Type I: Complete Application Construction Plans including cut / fill quantities Plan Requirements: - 3 full size sets of construction plans 22" x 34" + PDF - 1 full size set of landscape plans 22" x 34" + PDF Grading cut / fill quantities Cut Qty. 161 Fill Qty. 188 Marysville Utility Plans (if applicable) Drainage Analysis including calculations and downstream analysis Geotechnical Report SEPA is required if 500 or more cubic yards of cut / fill is proposed. (not required if there is an exiting land use submittal) Drafts of easement(s), dedication(s) and/or CAPE(s) for review Construction Calculation Worksheet NPDES Permit (if required); See Storm Water Drainage Report, New or Redevelopment Flowcharts Assurance Device will be required prior to Permit Issuance (Bond or Assignment of Funds) Engineer's Estimated Cost of Construction * $10,474.73 Grading / Paving / Drainage Submittal Requirements, Type II: Complete Application Construction Plans including cut / fill quantities Plan Requirements: - 3 full size sets of construction plans 22" x 34" + PDF - 1 full size set of landscape plans 22" x 34" + PDF Grading cut / fill quantities Cut Qty. Fill Qty. Drainage Analysis including calculations and downstream analysis Geotechnical Report SEPA is required if 500 or more cubic yards of cut / fill is proposed. (not required if there is an exiting land use submittal) Construction Calculation Worksheet NPDES Permit (if required); See Storm Water Drainage Report, New or Redevelopment Flowcharts Assurance Device will be required prior to Permit Issuance (Bond or Assignment of Funds) Engineer's Estimated Cost of Construction * $0.00 Right of Way Submittal Requirements, Type III: Complete Application Construction Plans Traffic Control Plan Road Closure Request Temporary Erosion & Sediment Control (TESC) Plan Certificate of Insurance with the City of Arlington named as Additional Insured. Assurance Device will be required prior to Permit Issuance (Bond or Assignment of Funds) Engineers Estimated Cost of Right of Way Construction $0 Permit fee due at time of permit issuance Please Attach Site Plan and Supporting Documents (PDF Only) DRAFT NCRTS Storwater Impacts Memorandum 030915.pdf; Geo Tech Report Final.pdf; NCRTS Const Calc Worksheet.pdf; NCRTS-Civil Permit Set-Full.pdf By submission of this form, I hereby certify that the above information is correct and that the construction, installation for the above mentioned property will be in accordance with the applicable laws of the City of Arlington and the State of Washington. Memorandum 701 Pike Street, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101 T: 206.624.0100 F: 206.749.2200 Subject: DRAFT North County Recycling and Transfer Station: Scale Replacement Stormwater Impacts Date: March 9, 2015 To: Charlie Conway, KPG From: Ian Sutton Snohomish County Solid Waste Division is replacing the scale facility at the North County Recycling and Transfer Station (NCRTS). The scale facility footprint will remain unchanged; however there will be some associated site work that will provide additional paved exit queuing and a paved access drive to better facilitate recycling bin maneuvering. All work will be within the site. Stormwater ImpactsStormwater Impacts Stormwater Impacts The NCRTS was originally a sand and gravel quarry site. As part of the NCRTS construction project in 1985 â€“ 1986, the stormwater management system was designed to collect and convey runoff to localized, onsite infiltration systems. The current site is approximately 9.1 acres, consisting of approximately 158,000 square feet of impervious surface. Using the Rational Method (Q=CIA), the site is expected to generate 46,500 cubic feet of runoff during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The scale replacement project will install approximately 4,000 square feet of additional impervious surface that is expected to generate and addition- al 800 cubic feet of runoff during the same storm event. This is a site runoff increase of approximately 1.7 percent. Drainage patterns on the site will not be modified as part of the scale replacement project. ConclusionConclusion Conclusion Based on the impervious areas, the scale replacement project will increase runoff by approximately 800 cubic feet, or 1.7 percent, during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Considering the successful performance history of the existing, large onsite infiltration system, this small increase to infiltration volume is not ex- pected to have appreciable impact on the system that would warrant system modifications at this time. If during the operation of the facility, stormwater management becomes a cause for concern, Snohomish County Solid Waste Division will evaluate the system and provide improvements as needed. DRAFT NCRTS Storwater Impacts Memorandum 030915.docx GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT GEOTECHNICAL REPORTNorth County Recycling & Elliott Bridge No. 3166 ReplacementTransfer Station Improvements HWA Job No. 1Arlington, Washington996-143-21 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 Prepared for ABKJ, INC.Prepared for KPG, Inc. April 4, 2003 May 8, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 1.1 GENERAL .....................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..........................................................................1 2. FIELD EXPLORATIONS ............................................................................................2 2.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ........................................................................2 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................2 3. SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................3 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................3 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ...............................................................3 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...........................................................................3 3.4 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................4 4. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................4 4.1 GENERAL .....................................................................................................4 4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................5 4.3 FOUNDATIONS OF NEW SCALE FACILITIES ...................................................5 4.4 SLIDING RESISTANCE FOR BUILDING ...........................................................6 4.5 SLABS-ON-GRADE FOR BUILDING ................................................................7 4.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE FOR RETAINING WALLS ...................................7 4.6.1 Sliding Resistance ..........................................................................7 4.6.2 Drainage ........................................................................................7 5. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................8 5.1 STRUCTURAL FILL, PLACEMENT, AND COMPACTION ...................................8 5.2 RE-USE OF ON-SITE MARYSVILLE SAND MATERIAL ....................................8 5.3 BYPASS LANE FILL CONSTRUCTION ............................................................9 5.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ........................................................................9 6. CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS .........................................................................9 7. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................11 May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATIONS Figure A-1 Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Figures A-2 â€“ A-5 Logs of Borings BH-1 through BH-4 APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TESTING Figures B-1 â€“ B-2 Grain Size Distribution Test Results 2014-068-100 Final 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT NORTH COUNTY RECYCLING & TRANSFER STATION IMPROVEMENTS ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study performed by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) in support of design of improvements to the North County Recycling and Transfer Station in Arlington, Washington. The project location is shown on the Vicinity Map presented on Figure 1, and the Site and Exploration Plan presented on Figure 2. The purpose of this study was to evaluate soil and ground water conditions in the vicinity of a portion of the proposed improvements and to provide recommendations for design and construction. Our work scope for the initial investigation for the project included drilling four exploratory borings within the vicinity of the existing truck scales, performing geotechnical laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the borings, performing geotechnical engineering analyses related to geotechnical aspects of the design, and writing a geotechnical engineering report. This scope of work was performed under an on-call contract with Snohomish County and a subcontract with KPG executed November 13, 2014. 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Solid Waste Administration of Snohomish County Public Works is planning upgrades to the transfer station, located at 19600 63rd Avenue NE in Arlington, Washington (see Figure 1 â€“ Vicinity Map). The improvements will consist of replacing the existing truck scales (one inbound and one outbound) with above-grade scales; replacing the scalehouse; expanding the outbound bypass lane; and upgrading electrical utilities. Our scope of work does not pertain to the latter project element. We understand the new truck scales will be in approximately the same locations as the existing scales. However, the new scales will be 70 feet long and consist of â€œabove gradeâ€ support elements, whereas the existing scales are 35 feet long supported in traditional scale pits. The new scalehouse will consist of a prefabricated concrete building measuring approximately 10 by 25 feet. The outbound bypass lane will be widened, which will require placement of fill beyond the existing pavement edge and new paving over the new fill. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 2. FIELD EXPLORATIONS 2.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions around the existing scales and scalehouse were explored by drilling four borings on January 6, 2015. The borings, designated BH-1 through BH-4, were each advanced to a depth of 21.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The boreholes were drilled by Geologic Drill Explorations, Inc. of Bellevue, under subcontract to HWA, using their Bobcat mini track auger drill rig. The borings were drilled using hollow-stem auger techniques and employing Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling methods. The SPT sampling was performed using a 2-inch outside diameter sampler, which was advanced using either a 140-pound automatic-trip hammer, or a 140-pound hammer raised with a rope and cathead. During the test, a sample was obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with the hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of sampler penetration was recorded. The N-value (or resistance in terms of blows per foot) is defined as the number of blows recorded to drive the sampler the final 12 inches. This resistance provides an indication of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. If a total of 50 blows was recorded within a single 6-inch interval, the test was terminated, and the blow count was recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of penetration achieved. All subsurface explorations were supervised and logged by an HWA engineering geologist. Soil samples obtained from the explorations were classified in the field and representative portions were placed in plastic bags to prevent moisture loss and taken to our laboratory in Bothell, Washington, for further examination and testing. A Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs is presented on Figure A-1, Appendix A. Summary soil exploration logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-5. It should be noted that the stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual exploration logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. Moreover, the soil and ground water conditions depicted are only for the specific date and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant engineering properties of the on-site materials. The laboratory testing program was performed in general accordance with appropriate ASTM Standards as outlined below. 2014-068-100 Final 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 Moisture Content of Soil: The moisture content of selected soil samples (percent by dry mass) was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are shown at the sampled intervals on the appropriate exploration logs in Appendix A. Particle Size Analysis of Soils: Selected samples were tested to determine the particle size distribution of material in accordance with ASTM D422 (wet sieve or wet/hydrometer method). The results are summarized on the attached Grain Size Distribution Reports, Figures B-1 and B- 2, which also provide information regarding the classification of the samples and the moisture content at the time of testing. 3. SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located to the northeast of the Arlington Airport, at 19600 63rd Avenue NE in Arlington, Washington. The site is on a gentle slope below the northern edge of a plateau which is cut by the Stillaguamish River valley to the north. The overall topography slopes downward to the north, with topographic relief of approximately 35 to 40 feet across the entire site. Significant grading was accomplished for original construction of the transfer station, to construct the receiving pit and level access drives. 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The geologic maps for the project area (Minard, 1985) indicate the project site is underlain by deposits of the Marysville Sand member of Vashon glacial recessional outwash. According to Minard the Marysville Sand was deposited by meltwater streams from the receding ice of the Vashon Stade glacial ice lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, approximately 12,000 years ago at the end of the most recent continental glaciation. The Marysville Sand outwash materials typically consist of clean sand with some fine gravel. Some areas have silt and clay as well. Geomorphically the Marysville Sand forms a flat valley bottom between glacial till highlands to the west and east, which was cut at the north end by the Stillaquamish River. Dense glacial till or other glacially consolidated deposits are typically encountered beneath the Marysville Sand in deep wells. The thickness of the Marysville Sand is at least 20 meters and may be up to 40 meters, according to Minard. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on results of our field explorations, review of available geologic and geotechnical data, and our general experience in similar geologic settings including projects at Arlington Airport. In general, soil conditions throughout the project 2014-068-100 Final 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 site consist of the Marysville Sand recessional outwash, with fill in some areas from original site grading. Each major soil unit is described below, with materials interpreted as being youngest in origin and nearest to the surface described first. â€¢ Fill â€“ Fill materials were observed in boreholes BH-1 and BH-4, on the west and north sides of the scales, respectively. In BH-1, the fill extended to a depth of 8.5 feet and consisted of dense, silty to slightly silty sand with variable gravel content. In BH-4, the fill extended to a depth of approximately 7 feet and consisted of loose grading to medium dense, slightly silty, gravelly sand. Immediately beneath the fill, the borings did not encounter buried topsoil and low standard penetration test results, N=5 at BH-1 and N=8 at BH-4, were encountered. We anticipate that fill is present throughout the northwestern portion of the scales area. â€¢ Recessional Outwash (Marysville Sand Member) â€“ Medium dense to dense sand was encountered to the full depths explored (21.5 feet) in all of the borings, beneath the fill in BH-1 and BH-4 and below the pavement in BH-2 and BH-3. This material typically consisted of olive gray to yellow brown, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium sand. Gravel content varied from no gravel to gravelly. In BH-1 and BH-4 the upper 2 to 3 feet consisted of loose, weathered, reddish brown to strong brown â€œB-horizonâ€ soil formed in the outwash, as would normally be encountered beneath topsoil. This material consisted of fine gravelly, silty sand with scattered charcoal. 3.4 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS Ground water was not encountered in any of the borings at time of drilling. However, it is possible that perched ground water conditions can develop above silty portions of the Marysville Sand, particularly the upper weathered soils encountered beneath the fill in boreholes BH-1 and BH-4. Regional ground water is anticipated to be several tens of feet below the ground surface at the site, based on site topography and typical thickness of the Marysville Sand. Ground water conditions can be expected to vary at this site depending on seasonal weather variations. 4. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL Based on the information provided to us and our understanding of the site conditions, we have developed the following conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed improvements. These recommendations are summarized in this section and more detailed discussions are provided in the following sections. 2014-068-100 Final 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS We understand Snohomish County is following the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) (ICC, 2012) for design of the facilities at North County Recycling and Transfer Station, which requires the new scalehouse and scale structure be designed for the inertial forces induced by a â€œMaximum Considered Earthquakeâ€ (MCE), which corresponds to an earthquake with a 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years (approximately 2,475 year return period). The relevant probabilistic spectral response parameters were developed using the U.S. Geological Surveyâ€™s website. The IBC accounts for the effects of site-specific subsurface ground conditions on the response of structures in terms of site classes. Site classes are defined by the average density and stiffness of the soil profile underlying the site. The Site Class can be correlated to the average standard penetration resistance (NSPT) in the upper 100 feet of the soil profile. Based on our characterization of the subsurface conditions, the subject site classifies as IBC Site Class C. Table 1 presents the design spectral seismic coefficients obtained for this site. The design peak ground acceleration was computed to be 0.34 g. Table 1. Design Seismic Coefficients for IBC 2012 Code Based Evaluation Spectral Spectral Design Spectral Design Spectral Site Site Acceleration Acceleration at Acceleration at Acceleration at Coefficients Class at 0.2 sec. 1.0 sec 0.2sec. 1.0sec. SS, g S1, g SDS, g SD1, g Fa Fv C 1.263 0.482 0.842 0.424 1.0 1.32 In our opinion, the site conditions are unlikely to result in any significant permanent ground displacements resulting from either ground surface rupture or landsliding. Therefore, none of these potential seismically induced phenomena represent a design consideration for the proposed structures. Also, soil liquefaction is not anticipated during a seismic event, as the soils encountered in the boreholes were primarily medium dense to dense with no ground water observed. 4.3 FOUNDATIONS OF NEW SCALE FACILITIES Foundations for the scale facilities will likely be established near or below the existing site grades, and are likely to be supported by either compacted fill (see BH-1 and BH-4) or the native undisturbed Marysville Sand deposits (BH-2 and BH-3). 2014-068-100 Final 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 The existing fill material encountered in boreholes BH-1 and BH-4 is not adequately compacted to support the proposed structures. â€¢ The existing fill materials shall be dug out, and replaced and compacted to 95% of the laboratory maximum dry density (MDD) using imported Gravel Borrow (WSDOT 9- 03.14(4)). Any loose or organic-rich soils that may be encountered beneath the fill that are exposed during excavation shall also be removed. â€¢ Once the existing fill material is replaced as mentioned above it will provide adequate bearing capacity for shallow foundations such as spread footings, slabs-on-grade, or mat foundations. â€¢ For design of footings on these materials (the Gravel Borrow Fill and the native medium dense to dense Marysville Sand), we recommend using an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Total settlement of shallow foundations constructed on the materials encountered and new fill is expected to be 1 inch or less, with less than Â½ inch differential settlement. â€¢ For design of slab foundations, a modulus of subgrade reaction may be taken as 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci). 4.4 SLIDING RESISTANCE FOR BUILDING Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the foundations and retaining walls to lateral forces which will be resisted by a combination of sliding (base) resistance and passive pressure against the buried portions of the structure foundations. The frictional force between glacially consolidated soils and mass concrete can be estimated as 40 percent of the normal force (a frictional coefficient of 0.40). To resist overturning in the event of an earthquake or strong wind, lateral resistance can be derived from passive earth pressure along the height of the buried portion of the foundation, and from sliding resistance along the base of the foundation. For structural fill placed against the foundations, the allowable passive pressure may be estimated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This value assumes drained conditions which prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure in the compacted backfill. We also assume that the ground surface adjacent to the structure is level in the direction of movement for a distance equal to or greater than twice the embedment depth (i.e. the depth over which the passive resistance is computed). 2014-068-100 Final 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 4.5 SLABS-ON-GRADE FOR BUILDING We recommend that the slabs-on-grade be underlain by a layer of 6-inch thick Crushed Surfacing Top Course (WSDOT 9-03.9(3)) to provide suitable uniform unyielding support for all slab structures and be compacted to 95% of the maximum laboratory dry density. A 10-mil (minimum thickness) polyethylene vapor barrier should be placed over this capillary break layer. 4.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE FOR RETAINING WALLS We understand there will be shallow retaining walls for the proposed scale facilities. The lateral earth pressures were computed based on the ground surface behind the walls being flat. Based on our evaluation that temporary excavations will be sloped, the walls of the structure are assumed to be backfilled with freely-draining granular backfill, such as Gravel Borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2014). Properties for the retained materials were assigned a moist unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and an internal friction angle (Ï†) of 30 degrees. Where the scale box walls are constrained against rotation the earth pressures should be computed using at-rest earth pressures. Structural walls that are internally braced by floor level would be considered to be constrained against rotation. For the static case at-rest condition, the walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 65 pcf, including earthquake loading conditions. For the seismic case, an active-plus-seismic equivalent fluid pressure of 65 pcf should be employed for computation of the lateral soil pressure. This seismic earth pressure was computed using the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method and one-half of the peak ground acceleration (PGA/2). It should be noted that this seismic lateral pressure is essentially the same as the at-rest static case of 65 pcf, which is commonly considered to be suitable for seismic design purposes as well. 4.6.1 Sliding Resistance An allowable friction factor of 0.4 times the effective stress at the base of the footings can be used. For transient loading the allowable friction factor can be increased to 0.5 times the effective stress. 4.6.2 Drainage Drainage should be provided behind all walls by filling with Gravel Borrow (Section 9-03.14(1)) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2014). The concrete walls shall be emulsified or waterproofed. The top of the gravel borrow fill shall be sloped away from all walls and shall be capped with clay or asphalt or concrete to prevent free water from entering. 2014-068-100 Final 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 5. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 STRUCTURAL FILL, PLACEMENT, AND COMPACTION Structural fill materials will vary depending on the application. A 6-inch thick layer of fill is required under all foundations as a levelling course, consisting of Crushed Surfacing Top Course (CSTC) meeting the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specifications Section 9-03.9(3) (WSDOT, 2014). Gravel Borrow, as specified in Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2014), shall be used to raise site grades, or replace the existing fill directly under any structures. The on-site native outwash (Marysville Sand) can be used for structural fill, but shall be evaluated as structural fill by case by case basis, except the areas directly under the scale box. Structural fill should be placed in loose, horizontal, lifts of not more than 8 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). At the time of placement, the moisture content of structural fill should be within 3% of optimum. The procedure required to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size and type of compaction equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being compacted, and the soil moisture-density properties. When the first fill is placed in a given area, and/or anytime the fill material changes, the area should be considered a test section. The test section should be used to establish fill placement and compaction procedures required to achieve proper compaction. The geotechnical consultant should observe placement and compaction of the test section to assist in establishing an appropriate compaction procedure. Once a placement and compaction procedure is established, the contractorâ€™s procedure should be monitored and periodic density tests performed to verify that proper compaction is being achieved. Generally, loosely compacted soils are a result of poor construction technique or improper moisture content. Soils with a high percentage of silt or clay are particularly susceptible to becoming too wet and coarse-grained materials easily become too dry, for proper compaction. Silty or clayey soils with a moisture content too high for adequate compaction should be dried as necessary, or moisture conditioned by mixing with drier materials, or other methods. For coarse- grained structural fill soils, moisture conditioning by sprinkling before and during compaction is sometimes required to achieve the required relative compaction. 5.2 RE-USE OF ON-SITE MARYSVILLE SAND MATERIAL We believe the use of on-site Marysville Sand material as fill may result in reductions in cost to the project. In order for the native sand material to be re-used, it should meet the same requirements for compaction and backfill for its intended use. The materials shall be evaluated 2014-068-100 Final 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 and approved by a geotechnical engineer. However, no circumstance this material shall replace the Gravel Borrow under the scale boxes. 5.3 BYPASS LANE FILL CONSTRUCTION Excavations on the existing slope should be terraced by creating horizontal benches to provide a surface that will permit adequate compaction of new fill as well as provide long-term stability of the slope. All fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back during construction to provide an adequately compacted fill slope. Track-walking is not an effective means of slope surface compaction and should not be allowed. 5.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. In accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155, latest revisions, all temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height must be either sloped or shored prior to entry by personnel. The existing fill and native Marysville Sand are generally classified as Type C soil, per WAC 296-155. Where shoring is not used, temporary cuts in Type C should be sloped no steeper than 1Â½H:1V (horizontal:vertical). 6. CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this geotechnical engineering report for KPGâ€™s design team and Snohomish County for use in design and construction of the proposed scale facility improvements. Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. We recommend that HWA be retained to review the plans and specifications and to monitor the geotechnical aspects of construction, particularly construction dewatering, excavation, subgrade preparation, bedding and backfill placement and compaction. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA attempted to execute these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology in the area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or ground water at this site. 2014-068-100 Final 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 8, 2015 HWA Project No. 2014-068-21 Task 100 7. REFERENCES Minard, James P., 1985, â€œGeologic Map of the Arlington West 7.5â€™ Quadrangle, Snohomish County, Washingtonâ€: U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1740. International Code Counsel (ICC), 2012, International Building Code (IBC), Country Club Hill, Illinois. WSDOT, 2014, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014-068-100 Final 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Approximate Project Site Location BASE MAP FROM GOOGLE MAPS Â© 2015 GOOGLE NORTH NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP FIGURE NO. 1 NORTH COUNTY RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION SITE PROJECT NO. ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON 2014-068 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE TEST SYMBOLS COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS %F Percent Fines Approximate AL Atterberg Limits: PL = Plastic Limit Approximate LL = Liquid Limit Density N (blows/ft) Consistency N (blows/ft) Undrained Shear Relative Density(%) Strength (psf) CBR California Bearing Ratio Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 CN Consolidation Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 DD Dry Density (pcf) Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 - 1000 DS Direct Shear Dense 30 to 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 GS Grain Size Distribution Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 K Permeability Hard over 30 >4000 MD Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MR Resilient Modulus PID Photoionization Device Reading PP Pocket Penetrometer MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) SG Specific Gravity Gravel and GW Well-graded GRAVEL Coarse Clean Gravel TC Triaxial Compression Gravelly Soils Grained (little or no fines) GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL TV Torvane Soils Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) More than 50% of Coarse Gravel with GM Silty GRAVEL UC Unconfined Compression Fines (appreciable Fraction Retained amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL on No. 4 Sieve SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS Sand and SW Well-graded SAND 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) Clean Sand Sandy Soils (140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop) (little or no fines) More than SP Poorly-graded SAND Shelby Tube 50% Retained 50% or More on No. Sand with SM Silty SAND of Coarse 3-1/4" OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings 200 Sieve Fines (appreciable Fraction Passing Size amount of fines) SC Clayey SAND No. 4 Sieve Small Bag Sample ML SILT Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Fine Silt Liquid Limit Grained and CL Lean CLAY Less than 50% Core Run Soils Clay OL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0" OD split spoon) MH Elastic SILT Silt 50% or More Liquid Limit Passing and CH Fat CLAY GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS 50% or More Clay No. 200 Sieve Groundwater Level (measured at OH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Size time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well or Highly Organic Soils PT PEAT open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS Boulders Larger than 12 in < 5% Clean Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) 5 - 12% Slightly (Clayey, Silty, Sandy) Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm) 12 - 30% Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly Sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) 30 - 50% Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities. NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order: MOISTURE CONTENT Density/consistency, color, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisture DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, content. Proportion, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments. dry to the touch. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) MOIST Damp but no visible water. WET Visible free water, usually Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more soil is below water table. complete description of subsurface conditions. LEGEND OF TERMS AND North County RTS SYMBOLS USED ON Arlington, Washington EXPLORATION LOGS PROJECT NO.: 2014-068-1100 FIGURE: A-1 LEGEND 2014-068-1100.GPJ 3/19/15 DRILLING COMPANY: Geologic Drill, Inc. LOCATION: See Figure 2 DRILLING METHOD: HSA, Mini-Track DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ cathead DATE COMPLETED: 1/6/2015 SURFACE ELEVATION: 136.00 feet LOGGED BY: B. Thurber Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot DEPTH(feet)SYMBOLUSCS SOIL CLASS DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERPEN. RESISTANCE(blows/6 inches)OTHER TESTSGROUNDWATER DEPTH(feet) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 3.5 inches A.C.P. SM Dense, olive brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. S-1 15-11-19 GS (FILL) SM Dense, reddish-brown, silty, slightly gravelly, fine to SP medium SAND, moist. SM 5 Dense, light yellow brown, clean to slightly silty, fine to 5 SP S-2 12-18-17 medium SAND, moist. SM Dense, olive brown grading to light olive brown, slightly gravelly, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. SP SM Loose, olive gray, slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to S-3 7-2-3 coarse SAND, moist. SM Loose, reddish brown, slightly gravelly, silty, fine to coarse S-3b GS SAND, moist. Scattered charcoal. (FORMER B-HORIZON) 10 10 From 10 to 11.5 feet grades to dark yellow brown. S-4 4-5-5 SP SM Medium dense, dark yellow brown, slightly silty, fine S-5 8-10-10 gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH - MARYSVILLE SAND) 15 15 Medium dense, olive brown with rust banding, clean to S-6 9-10-12 slightly silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, damp to moist. SP Medium dense, yellow brown with several rust bands (1/8 SM to 1/4-inch thick), clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. 20 20 Dense, light olive brown with faint rust banding, clean to S-7 10-16-22 slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Borehole terminated at 21.5 feet. No ground water seepage observed during exploration. 25 25 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this 0 20 40 60 80 100 exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the Water Content (%) geotechnical report. Plastic Limit Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING: North County RTS BH-1 Arlington, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2014-068-1100 FIGURE: A-2 BORING 2014-068-1100.GPJ 3/19/15 DRILLING COMPANY: Geologic Drill, Inc. LOCATION: See Figure 2 DRILLING METHOD: HSA, Mini-Track DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ cathead DATE COMPLETED: 1/6/2015 SURFACE ELEVATION: 136.00 feet LOGGED BY: B. Thurber Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot DEPTH(feet)SYMBOLUSCS SOIL CLASS DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERPEN. RESISTANCE(blows/6 inches)OTHER TESTSGROUNDWATER DEPTH(feet) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 4 inches A.C.P. SP SM Gravely drill action to approx. 4.5 feet. Medium dense, olive gray, slightly silty, fine to coarse S-1 11-13-13 GS gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH - MARYSVILLE SAND) SP 5 5 Medium dense, light olive gray, clean, fine to medium S-2 8-12-16 SAND, damp. Faintly bedded. SP SM Dense, light olive gray, slightly silty, fine gravelly, fine to S-3 12-16-16 coarse SAND, damp. SP Medium dense, light olive gray to light olive brown, clean to 10 10 SM slightly silty, fine gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, damp to S-4a 16-13-15 moist. SP S-4b Medium dense, light olive brown, clean, fine to medium SM SAND, moist. 15 15 Dense, light olive gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to coarse S-5 11-16-22 SAND with scattered gravel, damp to moist. 20 20 Medium dense, light olive gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to S-6 7-9-12 medium SAND, damp. With 1.5 inch lens of olive brown, fine sandy SILT. Borehole terminated at 21.5 feet. No ground water seepage observed during exploration. 25 25 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this 0 20 40 60 80 100 exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the Water Content (%) geotechnical report. Plastic Limit Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING: North County RTS BH-2 Arlington, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2014-068-1100 FIGURE: A-3 BORING 2014-068-1100.GPJ 3/19/15 DRILLING COMPANY: Geologic Drill, Inc. LOCATION: See Figure 2 DRILLING METHOD: HSA, Mini-Track DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ cathead DATE COMPLETED: 1/6/2015 SURFACE ELEVATION: 137.00 feet LOGGED BY: B. Thurber Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot DEPTH(feet)SYMBOLUSCS SOIL CLASS DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERPEN. RESISTANCE(blows/6 inches)OTHER TESTSGROUNDWATER DEPTH(feet) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 4 inches A.C.P. SP SM Gravelly drill action to approx. 4.5 feet. Medium dense, olive brown and yellow brown, slightly silty, S-1 13-11-11 GS gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, damp to moist. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH - MARYSVILLE SAND) SP 5 5 SM Medium dense, light olive brown, clean to slightly silty, fine S-2 8-11-13 to medium SAND, moist. Scattered fine gravel and coarse sand. SP Medium dense, olive gray, clean, fine gravelly, fine to S-3 8-9-12 coarse SAND, moist. SP 10 10 Medium dense, olive gray, clean, fine to coarse SAND, S-4 10-10-13 damp to moist. Sand mostly medium. No bedding. 15 15 Medium dense, olive gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, S-5 9-13-14 moist. Trace fine gravel. 20 20 Medium dense, light olive gray, clean, fine to medium S-6 8-9-12 SAND, damp. Trace fine gravel. No bedding. Borehole terminated at 21.5 feet. No ground water seepage observed during exploration. 25 25 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this 0 20 40 60 80 100 exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the Water Content (%) geotechnical report. Plastic Limit Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING: North County RTS BH-3 Arlington, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2014-068-1100 FIGURE: A-4 BORING 2014-068-1100.GPJ 3/19/15 DRILLING COMPANY: Geologic Drill, Inc. LOCATION: See Figure 2 DRILLING METHOD: HSA, Mini-Track DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ cathead DATE COMPLETED: 1/6/2015 SURFACE ELEVATION: 136.00 feet LOGGED BY: B. Thurber Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot DEPTH(feet)SYMBOLUSCS SOIL CLASS DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERPEN. RESISTANCE(blows/6 inches)OTHER TESTSGROUNDWATER DEPTH(feet) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 3 inches A.C.P. SP SM Cuttings to 2.5 feet: Olive brown, slightly silty to silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist. Loose, olive brown, slightly silty, gravelly, fine to coarse S-1 7-4-4 GS SAND, moist grading to wet. (FILL) 5 5 Medium dense, olive brown, slightly silty, gravelly, fine to S-2 6-7-7 coarse SAND, moist to wet. SM Loose, strong brown and dark yellow brown, fine gravelly, S-3 5-5-3 GS silty, fine to coarse SAND, moist. Scattered charcoal. (FORMER B-HORIZON) SM 10 10 Medium dense, yellow brown, silty, slightly gravelly, fine to S-4 3-8-7 coarse SAND, moist. Grades to olive brown, slightly silty. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH - MARYSVILLE SAND) SP Medium dense, olive gray, clean, fine to coarse SAND, S-5 4-7-11 damp. Scattered fine gravel. Faint rust banding. 15 15 SP S-6 13-13-14 SP Medium dense, olive gray and yellow brown, clean to slightly silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist. S-7 11-11-12 Medium dense, olive gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, moist. With rust banding. 20 20 Dense, light olive gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium S-8 10-18-20 SAND, moist. Trace gravel. Borehole terminated at 21.5 feet. No ground water seepage observed during exploration. 25 25 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this 0 20 40 60 80 100 exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the Water Content (%) geotechnical report. Plastic Limit Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING: North County RTS BH-4 Arlington, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2014-068-1100 FIGURE: A-5 BORING 2014-068-1100.GPJ 3/19/15 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Gravel Sand Fines SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI % % % BH-1 S-1 2.5 - 4.0 (SM) Olive brown, Silty SAND with gravel 6 26.3 59.3 14.4 BH-1 S-3b 8.5 - 9.0 (SM) Dark yellowish brown, Silty SAND with gravel 14 34.0 50.3 15.6 BH-2 S-1 2.5 - 4.0 (SP-SM) Olive brown, Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel 3 32.0 62.3 5.7 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS North County RTS OF SOILS Arlington, Washington METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2014-068-1100 FIGURE: B-1 HWAGRSZ 2014-068-1100.GPJ 3/19/15 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Gravel Sand Fines SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI % % % BH-3 S-1 2.5 - 4.0 (SP-SM) Olive brown, Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel 4 31.0 62.5 6.5 BH-4 S-1 2.5 - 4.0 (SP-SM) Olive brown, Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel 9 22.0 67.6 10.4 BH-4 S-3 7.5 - 9.0 (SM) Dark yellowish brown, Silty SAND with gravel 19 23.5 57.3 19.2 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS North County RTS OF SOILS Arlington, Washington METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2014-068-1100 FIGURE: B-2 HWAGRSZ 2014-068-1100.GPJ 3/19/15 CONTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEE WORKSHEET Community & Economic Development Department City of Arlington 18204 59th Avenue NE Arlington WA 98223 (360) 403-3551 This form is to be completed and submitted with Type I , Type II Type III Construction Permit Application. 1) Based on permit type requested (Type I, Type II or Type III), complete the form as follows: Type I permits complete all sections. Type II permits complete as follows: - Grading Only - Complete Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC). - Stormwater Drainage Only - Complete the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Drainage Section for Public or Private Type III permits complete the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC). 2) The developer shall enter the quantities shown on the construction drawings into the Construction Calculation Worksheet. This document is used to determine the amount of plan reivew and inspection fees due to the city. 3) Excel will auto-calculate the relevant fields and subtotals throughout the document. Only the 'Quantity' columns should be completed. 4) The summary page calculates the fees due at intake for Civil and Stormwater Drainage construction permits only. This does not include fees for Grading or those required by other departments or agencies. Grading fees are based on Cubic Yard Quantity and shall be calculated at time of permit submittal. Grading fees shall be paid at permit submittal. 5) If an item that is part of your project does not exist in the spreadsheet complete the Write-In-Items section with the item, quantity and associated unit cost. There are a few unit prices that are blank, please complete them accordingly. 6) Inspection fees shall be calculated for Private Development during the review process and shall be paid upon permit issuance. PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEES PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEE (6% of Project Value) $ 10,474.73 GRADING FEE (4) (Cubic Yard ) $ - Review fees due at time of submittal Total Review Fees Due $ 10,474.73 An Assurance Device such as a Performance Bond or Assignment of Funds needs to be on file with the City of Arlington prior to permit issuance. The Assurance Device shall be 150% of the Construction Calculation Worksheet which are as follows: Road and Alley (Public) Stormwater Drainage and Grading (Public) Utilities (Public) Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (Public and Private) ASSURANCE DEVICE Base Calculation of Performance Device $ 174,578.75 PERFORMANCE DEVICE 150% Amount Due $ 261,868.13 Base Calculation of Maintenance Device $ 171,203.13 MAINTENANCE DEVICE 20% Amount Due $ 34,240.63 1 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET TEMPORARY EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL Include Public Improvements & Private Development Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Reference # Backfill & compaction-embankment $ 6.50 CY $ - Check dams $ 78.00 EACH 4 $ 312.00 BMP C207 Catch Basin Protection $ 35.50 EACH 3 $ 106.50 Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minus $ 18.00 TON $ - WSDOT 9-03.9(3) Ditching $ 8.00 CY $ - Excavation-bulk $ 3.00 CY $ - Fence, silt $ 2.00 LF 490 $ 980.00 BMP C233 Fence, Temporary (NGPA) $ 2.00 LF $ - Geotextile Fabric $ 2.50 SY $ - Hay Bale Silt Trap $ 0.50 EACH $ - Hydroseeding $ 4,200.00 ACRE 0.11 $ 462.00 BMP C120 Interceptor Swale / Dike $ 1.00 LF $ - Jute Mesh $ 2.00 SY $ - BMP C122 Level Spreader $ 1.75 LF $ - Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" deep $ 3.00 SY $ - BMP C121 Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deep $ 1.00 SY $ - BMP C121 Piping, temporary, CPP, 6" $ 12.50 LF $ - Piping, temporary, CPP, 8" $ 19.00 LF $ - Piping, temporary, CPP, 12" $ 24.00 LF $ - Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbagged $ 3.00 SY $ - BMP C123 Rip Rap, machine placed; slopes $ 50.00 CY $ - WSDOT 9-13.1(2) Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'x1' $ 1,800.00 EACH $ - BMP C105 Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1' $ 3,600.00 EACH $ - BMP C105 Sediment pond riser assembly $ 3,050.00 EACH $ - BMP C241 Sediment trap, 5' high berm $ 21.00 LF $ - BMP C240 Sed. trap, 5' high, riprapped spillway berm section $ 79.00 LF $ - BMP C240 Seeding, by hand $ 1.00 SY $ - BMP C120 Sodding, 1" deep, level ground $ 8.00 SY $ - BMP C120 Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground $ 9.50 SY $ - BMP C120 TESC Supervisor $ 84.00 HR 10 $ 840.00 Water truck, dust control $ 130.00 HR $ - BMP C140 WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - SUBTOTAL (TESC Only): $ 2,700.50 MOBILIZATION 10%: $ 270.05 CONTINGENCY 15%: $ 405.08 TOTAL: $ 3,375.63 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Public Private STORMWATER DRAINAGE Public Improvements Private Development Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Access Road, Retention / Detention $ 26.00 SY $ - $ - * (CBs include frame and lid) Beehive $ 90.00 EACH $ - $ - CB Type I $ 1,650.00 EACH $ - $ - CB Type IL $ 1,850.00 EACH $ - $ - CB Type II, 48" Dia $ 2,550.00 EACH $ - $ - for additional depth over 4' $ 650.00 FT $ - $ - CB Type II, 54" Dia $ 2,700.00 EACH $ - $ - for additional depth over 4' $ 600.00 FT $ - $ - CB Type II, 60" Dia $ 2,900.00 EACH $ - $ - for additional depth over 4' $ 750.00 FT $ - $ - CB Type II, 72" Dia $ 4,000.00 EACH $ - $ - for additional depth over 4' $ 900.00 FT $ - $ - Through-curb Inlet Framework (Add) $ 550.00 EACH $ - $ - Cleanout, PVC, 4" $ 200.00 EACH $ - $ - Cleanout, PVC, 6" $ 250.00 EACH $ - $ - Cleanout, PVC, 8" $ 300.00 EACH $ - $ - Culvert, Box __ ft x __ ft $ - LS $ - $ - Culvert, PVC, 4" $ 12.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, PVC, 6" $ 17.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, PVC, 8" $ 19.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, PVC, 12" $ 30.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 8" $ 23.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 12" $ 35.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 15" $ 42.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 18" $ 47.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 24" $ 69.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 30" $ 100.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 36" $ 150.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 48" $ 194.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 60" $ 310.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CMP, 72" $ 400.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 8" $ 36.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 12" $ 43.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 15" $ 52.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 18" $ 55.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 24" $ 85.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 30" $ 136.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 36" $ 165.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 42" $ 196.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, Concrete, 48" $ 210.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 6" $ 16.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 8" $ 22.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 12" $ 28.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 15" $ 34.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 18" $ 39.00 LF $ - $ - CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Culvert, CPP, 24" $ 49.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 30" $ 62.00 LF $ - $ - Culvert, CPP, 36" $ 69.00 LF $ - $ - Ditching $ 12.00 CY $ - $ - Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+) $ 40.00 LF $ - $ - French Drain (3' depth) $ 39.00 LF $ - $ - Geotextile, laid in trench, polypropylene $ 5.00 SY $ - $ - Infiltration pond testing $ 125.00 HR $ - $ - Mid-tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 6' deep $ 2,025.00 EACH $ - $ - Pipe, High Density Water Pipe (HDWP) $ 160.00 LF $ - $ - Pipe, C900 $ 90.00 LF $ - $ - Pond Overflow Spillway $ 18.00 SY $ - $ - Restrictor/Oil Separator, 12" $ 1,500.00 EACH $ - $ - Restrictor/Oil Separator, 15" $ 1,550.00 EACH $ - $ - Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18" $ 1,680.00 EACH $ - $ - Riprap, placed $ 52.00 CY $ - $ - Tank End Reducer (36" Dia) $ 1,280.00 EACH $ - $ - Thru-Inlet at CB $ 150.00 EACH $ - $ - Trash Rack, 12" $ 320.00 EACH $ - $ - Trash Rack, 15" $ 325.00 EACH $ - $ - Trash Rack, 18" $ 350.00 EACH $ - $ - Trash Rack, 21" $ 375.00 EACH $ - $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - SUBTOTAL: $ - $ - MOBILIZATION 10%: $ - CONTINGENCY 15%: $ - TOTAL: $ - $ - CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET GENERAL ITEMS Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Backfill & Compaction- embankment $ 8.00 CY $ - Backfill & Compaction- trench $ 11.00 CY 265 $ 2,915.00 Clear/Remove Brush, by hand (acre) $ 2,363.00 ACRE $ - Bollards - fixed $ 325.00 EACH 10 $ 3,250.00 Bollards - removable $ 600.00 EACH $ - Clearing/Grubbing/Tree Removal $ 6,000.00 ACRE 0.2 $ 1,200.00 Excavation - bulk $ 2.50 CY 1329 $ 3,322.50 Excavation - Trench $ 5.00 CY 265 $ 1,325.00 Fencing, cedar, 6' high $ 25.00 LF $ - Fencing, chain link, 4' $ 19.50 LF $ - Fencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' high $ 18.00 LF $ - Fencing, chain link, gate, vinyl coated, 20' $ 1,563.00 EACH $ - Fencing, split rail, 3' high $ 14.00 LF $ - Fill & compact - common barrow $ 27.00 CY 56 $ 1,512.00 Fill & compact - gravel base $ 30.00 CY $ - Fill & compact - screened topsoil $ 45.00 CY $ - Gabion, 12" deep, stone filled mesh $ 62.00 SY $ - Gabion, 18" deep, stone filled mesh $ 86.00 SY $ - Gabion, 36" deep, stone filled mesh $ 152.00 SY $ - Grading, fine, by hand $ 2.00 SY $ - Grading, fine, with grader $ 1.25 SY 342 $ 427.50 Guard Post $ 90.00 EACH $ - Monuments $ 104.00 EACH $ - Sensitive Areas Sign $ 20.00 EACH $ - Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground $ 10.00 SY $ - Topsoil Type A (imported) $ 30.00 CY 87 $ 2,610.00 Traffic control crew ( 2 flaggers ) $ 98.00 HR $ - Trail, 4" chipped wood $ 9.00 SY $ - Trail, 4" crushed cinder $ 10.00 SY $ - Trail, 4" top course $ 9.50 SY $ - Wall, retaining, concrete $ 66.00 SF $ - Wall, rockery $ 13.00 SF $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 16,562.00 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET STREET IMPROVEMENT Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost AC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 1000sy $ 35.00 SY $ - AC Grinding, 4' wide machine 1000-2000sy $ 8.50 SY $ - AC Grinding, 4' wide machine > 2000sy $ 2.50 SY $ - AC Removal/Disposal/Repair $ 60.00 SY 704 $ 42,240.00 Barricade, Type I $ 36.00 LF $ - Barricade Type II $ 25.00 LF $ - Barricade, Type III ( Permanent ) $ 55.00 LF $ - Conduit, 2" $ 5.00 LF 1235 $ 6,175.00 Curb & Gutter, rolled $ 20.00 LF $ - Curb & Gutter, vertical $ 15.00 LF 255 $ 3,825.00 Curb and Gutter, demolition and disposal $ 20.00 LF $ - Curb, extruded asphalt $ 5.00 LF $ - Curb, extruded concrete $ 4.50 LF $ - Guard Rail $ 30.00 LF 70 $ 2,100.00 Sawcut, asphalt, 3" depth $ 3.50 LF 540 $ 1,890.00 Sawcut, concrete, per 1" depth $ 3.00 LF $ - Sealant, asphalt $ 2.00 LF $ - Shoulder, gravel, 4" thick $ 11.00 SY $ - Sidewalk, 4" thick $ 40.00 SY 130 $ 5,200.00 Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and disposal $ 36.00 SY $ - Sidewalk, 6" thick $ 45.00 SY $ - Sidewalk, 6" thick, demolition and disposal $ 45.00 SY $ - Signs $ 636.00 LS 1 $ 636.00 Sign, Handicap $ 100.00 EACH $ - Striping, per stall $ 7.50 EACH $ - Street Light System $ 9,197.00 LS 1 $ 9,197.00 Traffic Signal $ 1,725.00 LS 1 $ 1,725.00 Traffic Signal Modification $ - LS $ - Striping, thermoplastic, ( for crosswalk ) $ 3.50 SF 575 $ 2,012.50 Striping, 4" reflectorized line $ 0.40 LF 660 $ 264.00 AC Patching/Trenching Restoration $ 100.00 TON $ - Controlled Density Fill (CDF) $ 90.00 CY $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 75,264.50 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET STREET SURFACING/PAVEMENT Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Asphalt Overlay, 1.5" AC $ 12.00 SY $ - Asphalt Overlay, 2" AC $ 15.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 2", First 2500 SY $ 10.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 2", Qty. over 2500SY $ 9.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 3", First 2500 SY $ 15.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 3", Qty. over 2500 SY $ 13.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 5", First 2500 SY $ 22.00 SY 1148 $ 25,256.00 Asphalt Road 5", Qty. Over 2500 SY $ 22.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 6", First 2500 SY $ 25.00 SY $ - Asphalt Road 6", Qty. Over 2500 SY $ 24.00 SY $ - Asphalt Treated Base, 4" thick $ 14.00 SY $ - Gravel Base Course 2" $ 7.50 SY $ - Gravel Base Course 4" $ 15.00 SY 1148 $ 17,220.00 Gravel Base Course 6" $ 22.50 SY $ - Gravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SY $ 15.00 SY $ - Gravel Road, 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY $ 11.00 SY $ - Concrete Road, 5", no base, over 2500 SY $ 22.00 SY $ - Concrete Road, 6", no base, over 2500 SY $ 32.00 SY $ - Thickened Edge $ 11.00 LF $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 42,476.00 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET WATER SYSTEM Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Blowoff $ 1,800.00 EACH $ - Connection to Existing Water Main $ 2,000.00 EACH $ - Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 6 Inch Dia $ 65.00 LF $ - Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 8 Inch Dia $ 85.00 LF $ - Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 10 Inch Dia $ 103.00 LF $ - Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 12 Inch Dia. $ 125.00 LF $ - Gate Valve, 6 inch Dia $ 250.00 EACH $ - Gate Valve, 8 Inch Dia $ 380.00 EACH $ - Gate Valve, 10 Inch Dia $ 425.00 EACH $ - Gate Valve, 12 Inch Dia $ 500.00 EACH $ - Fire Hydrant Assembly, with Guard Posts $ 3,000.00 EACH $ - Fire Hydrant Assembly, without Guard Posts $ 2,500.00 EACH $ - Air-Vac, 8 Inch Dia $ 6,000.00 EACH $ - Air-Vac,10 Inch Dia $ 7,500.00 EACH $ - Air-Vac, 12 Inch Dia $ 12,000.00 EACH $ - Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly, 8 In. Dia $ 3,800.00 EACH $ - Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly, 10 In. Dia $ 4,200.00 EACH $ - Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly, 12 In. Dia $ 5,000.00 EACH $ - Valve Marker Post $ 350.00 EACH $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET SANITARY SEWER Public Improvements Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Connection to Existing Sewer Main $ - EACH $ - Clean Outs $ 500.00 EACH 1 $ 500.00 Grease Interceptor, 500 gallon $ 6,000.00 EACH $ - Grease Interceptor, 1000 gallon $ 10,000.00 EACH $ - Grease Interceptor, 1500 gallon $ 15,000.00 EACH $ - Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 4 Inch Dia $ 8.00 LF $ - Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 6 Inch Dia $ 12.00 LF 180 $ 2,160.00 Sewer Pipe, PVC, 8 inch Dia $ 33.00 LF $ - Sewer Pipe, PVC, 12 Inch Dia $ 41.00 LF $ - Sewer Pipe, PVC, ____ Inch Dia $ - LF $ - Lift Station (Entire System) $ - LS $ - Manhole, 48 Inch Dia $ 3,000.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 532.00 FEET $ - Manhole, 54 Inch Dia $ 3,500.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 532.00 FEET $ - Manhole, 60 Inch Dia $ 3,700.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 532.00 FEET $ - Manhole, 72 Inch Dia $ 4,000.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 625.00 FEET $ - Manhole, 96 Inch Dia $ 5,000.00 EACH $ - for additional depth over 4 feet/per foot $ 625.00 FEET $ - Outside Drop $ - LS $ - Inside Drop $ - LS $ - Pipe, C-900 $ 90.00 LF $ - Pipe, High Density Water Pipe (HDWP) $ 160.00 LF $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 2,660.00 CONSTRUCTION CALCULATION WORKSHEET LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION Include Public Improvements & Private Development Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost Street Trees $ 500.00 EACH $ - Root Barrier EACH $ - Median Landscaping $ - LS $ - Right-of-Way Landscaping $ - LS $ - Wetland Landscaping $ - LS $ - Private Landscaping $ - LS $ - WRITE-IN-ITEMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - SUBTOTAL OF ALL PAGES $ 136,962.50 MOBILIZATION 10%: $ 13,696.25 CONTINGENCY 15%: $ 20,544.38 GRANDTOTAL: $ 171,203.13 NORTH COUNTY RTS SCALE REPLACEMENT LIMITS PROJECT # RR8744 ARLINGTON CEMETERY SR9 ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TO SR531 R Know what's R Know what's R Know what's R Know what's R Know what's