HomeMy WebLinkAbout17615 79TH AVE NE_056389_2026 C I T'f aF ARL I MC3_rUIV
CQME3_r"UCT I Oh! PE RM I T
PE RM I T IVC) _ IDS—b :38C3
Owner: LAKHONI, JOHN 8115 BROADWAY EVERETT 98203
Value of Work: $15, 000. 00 Tax ID: 310523-004-004-00 Phone: 425. 438. 1811
Describe Work: CONSTRUCT BULKHEAD/RETAINING WALL
Proposed Use: RETAINING WALL
Legal Description: MAGNOLIA MEADOWS
Job Address: 17615 79TH AVE NE
Contractor's Name Type Address License*
UTILITY SYSTEMS INC. GEN P. O. BOX 1772 UTILISIO33P4
TOTALS Fee
Permit Fee $282. 75
Plan Fee $183. 79
State fee $4. 50 `
SIGNATURE:
TOTAL FEE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $471. 04 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ
AND
PAYMENTS. . . . -
$0. 00 PRO
NETHEISAMEED TTOSBEP TRUE AAND NCOR-
ALL PROVISI `NS OF LAWS AND
TOTAL DUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $471. 04 NAN 'S li VER ING THIS TYPE OF
WI GUM LIED WITH WHETHER
DATE y Z D S RECEIPT # IF k?f OR
NG FFI A
i
�i f� I I �}, I l jf f� I 11 1 •, I i _
r I _ I I 'i1 •l JAI '�11 ► .Jll•�1
i` .• � _ I I �IU I I (ICJ I:AM•�IJ 1•I lj,l J.�
.i
►►:
' t41� kok
r
MICE
I7 ;
Y °� LLANEOUS BUX
PERMIT APPLICATION
ING o'� Department of Community Development
City of Arlington• 238 N Olympic Ave. •Arlington,WA 98223 - Phone (360)403 3431 • FAX (360)403 3447
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY FOUR(4 SETS OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, SIX(6)
ACCURATE,FULLY DIMENSIONED PLOT PLANS AND TWO(2) SETS OF ENERGY CODE APPLICATIONS(IF
APPLICABLE). 31 os-3-ooLl- ooy-00
Type of Permit:(check ono) Residential ( )Commercial 31 p5a13-0Oq -003-oU3t05a3-001A- 00z3-00
17 15- ~lq�h A e. NE F1rII �fl R8aa3 3\05a3-004-col 00
-
Project Address: Parcel ID#:
Lot#: W R — Subdivision: m I n
Building Area(Sq Ft) N I H — No.of floors: Number of Buildings: rl
Owner: Phone Number: (14915 y3=-1 II
Address: g115 "� SU��e ao� city: Eyere State: \�J(� Zip Code:
Scope of Work:
A detailed site planlvicinity map,and construction drawings may be required depending on the scope of work. Please verify this with a
Community Development Permit Technician prior to submitting application for review.
Contractor: Se Phone Number: NDo� 5(a3 - 9 a14 9
la\�; t� Tce S}\ -&- �nhn uW-A Ggaq o
Address: - — City: State: Zlp Code:
Contractor's License Number: Expiration:
I hereby certify that the above information is correct and that the construction on,and the occupancy and the use of the above-
described property will be in accordance with the laws,rules and regulations of the State of Washington.
3 3 05
Applicants Signature Dale
cs 0, �Re-S�V-
Print Applicants Name
Forms/MISC-1
- _ ' i:�1i
1
•� n �'1
1 1 �' 1 1 1
I
3 � It I I
1 � . 1
11 1
, . 1 s
1 1 1 ;
n
r.
is `_
1 � � �
��
1 1 II 1 1 � 1 1
1 1
1 I
I� I
f
1
5
3
HIGA• BURKHOLDER
LAND USE PLANNING / CIVIL ENGINEERING UFFICE GOP",
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Mr.Kerry Wentz DATE: March 24.2005
City of Arlington FROM: Pamela C.Mercil
238 North Olympic Avenue RE: Magnolia Meadows
Arlington,Washington 98223 Division I
WE ARE SENDING YOU ATTACHED X� DELIVER
UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 2 Copies Detention Pond No.3 Plan(Sheet 16 of 21)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED:
FOR APPROVAL
0 FOR YOUR USE
R AS REQUESTED
FOR REVIEW&COMMENT
FOR REVIEW, SIGNING&RETURNING
RECEIVE
MESSAGE:
MAR 2 4 2005
COA BUILDING DEPA'
EVERETT■ 1 721 Hewitt Avenue■ Suite 401 ■ Everett,Washington 98201 ■ (425)252-2826 ■ fax: (425)252-9551
SPRINGFIELD■ 150 North 7th Street 0 Springfield, Oregon 97477 ■ (541)988-1 862 0 fax: (541)9BB-1 B63
Sent By: User; 4252529551 ; Mar-23 05 2:47PM; Page 2/2
' L L '4, 5-- 0-a r 15 5 I
y �A MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING
PERMIT APPLICATION
+p�txG�o Department of Community Detrolop»t0nt
City of Arlington• 238 N Olympic Ave.•Arlington,WA 98223 • Phone (360)403 3431 -FtAX(300)403 3447
THIS APPLICATION MUST 9E ACCOPAPAN160 BY FOUR(4 SETS Of CONSTRUC77ON DRAWINGS, SIX(6)
ACCURATE,FULLY DIMENSIONED PLAT PLANS AND TM Q)SET9 of ENERGY CODE APPLICATIONS(IF
APPLICABLE). '310 A3.004- OCA-00
3105�3�COS-043-QO
Type of permit;(check ona) (v}Residential ( )Commercial 3tp5�13,o0y- ma-OQ
Project Address: 1�- rlq+h 2 N� �� Y1 I:ufl 98Parcel IQ5 10 tf: 3V08ab-OCA-col-
00
Lot 9: kiP A �1I subdlvidon: - ls?US�U�� ---
I`1l Numberof BuiIcU s:
Building Area(Sq Fty -- No.of floors: n9
own* ,� F l.o. __._.Phone Number: --
Address: Wb j a City:, UPl .4 __state:.. 9 Ziip Code: $
Scope of Work:
A detailed sit"pianNicinity map,and construction dravrings maybe required depending on the scope of work. Please vertk this with a
Community Development Rarmit technician p►lor to stibmitting application lot review.
Contractor:
tom}U e��t ! 1 Phone Number; AO
� �$�
Address: 1 a�—`3�- cIty: 1d4�nrY11. �state:— zip�.odc;
Contractors License Number: - PKpiration:
I hereby certify that the above information is correct and that the Construction on,and the occupancy and the use of the above-
described property will big in eoeordence with the isws,rules and regul2tions oll the State of Washington.
6" 4�� - S/�-3�c)s
Applicants Signature Date
,- Print.Applicants Name
f C�A
6) 6a iq
RECEIVED
MAR 2 3 2005
Forms/MISC.' COA BUILDING DEPT
m�s @"
41 City of Arlington
Building Department
REQUEST FOR REVIEW FORM
NAME: ,a l BP M. 05- (O�J 2
e
DATE: f/
.S RETURN THIS FORM BY: /D IWA
PROJECT SUMMARY: �d /U
RESPONDING DEPARTMENTS:
❑ TOM C., FIRE
❑ KAREN L., UTILITIES
❑ DERYL T., UTILITIES
❑ BILL B., NATURAL RESOURCE
❑ YVONNE P., PLANNING
,a,GREGG E., ENGINEERING
❑ JIM T., CONSULTANT
❑ CHUCK W., CONSULTANT
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION IS ATTACHED. Please review the information and return this form and your
comments, either on the drawings or in memo form, to the Building Department. If you have no comments,
please return the form with the "No Comments" box checked.
PLEASE MARK ONE BOX, SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN THIS FORM TO LINDA.
❑ COMMENTS FOR THIS REVIEW ARE IN ATTACHED MEMO
❑ NO COMMENTS FOR THIS REVIEW, OKAY TO ISSUE PERMIT
Ll COMMENTS
REVIEWED BY �Q DATE
Message ��) Page 1 of 1
Kerry Wentz
From: Kurt Watanabe [katanabe@higa2b.com]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 1:47 PM
To: kwentz@ci.arlington.wa.us
Cc: Bryant Mercil
Subject: Magnolia Meadows, Div. I -Cost Estimate (Weir& Culvert Wing Walls)
Hello Kerry,
Bryant Mercil told me that you were needing a cost estimate for the weir and culvert wing walls for
the Magnolia Meadows, Div. I, project. The total cost of the weir and wing walls is $15,000.
Please call or email me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
-Kurt-
Kurt T. Watanabe, EIT
Higa Burkholder Associates, LLC
1721 Hewitt, Ave STE 401
Everett, WA 98201
(425)252-2826 p
(425)252-9551 f
4/l/2005
a
s
I
t�
HIGA• BURKHOLDER
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Mr. Gregg Eaton DATE: March 14,2005
City of Arlington FROM: Bryant 0. Mercil, P.E.
238 North Olympic Avenue RE: Magnolia Meadows
Arlington, Washington 98223 Division I
WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 ATTACHED 0 DELIVER
UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 3 Copies Structural Plans-Detention Pond No. 3 (2 Sheets)
3 Copies Structural Calculations
3 Copies Wetland and Buffer Planting Plan(1 Sheet)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED:
FOR APPROVAL
FOR YOUR USE RECEIVED
AS REQUESTED
FOR REVIEW&COMMENT MAR 2 3 2005
FOR REVIEW, SIGNING&RETURNING COA BUILDING DEPT
MESSAGE: RECEIVED
Gregg,
These plans finish up the construction plan set. Please call if you have any questions. r ��
feG,�
COSt
EVERETT ■ 1721 Hewitt Avenue ■ Suite 401 ■ Everett,Washington 9B201 ■ (425)252-2826 ■ fax:(425)252-9551
SPRINGFIELD 0 150 North 7th Street■ Springfield,Oregon 97477 0 (541)9BB-1862 0 fax: (541)9BB-1 B63
ite
tructures OFFIct
A Division of Kosnik Engineering PC ,,
MAGNOLIA MEADOWS
DIVISION I
CMPA Bulkhead
and
Concrete Bulkhead for
Existing Wood Weir 655-Lo�85
RECEIVE[)
MAR 2 3 2005'
Arlington, WA `0A BUILDING DEPT
Structural Calculations ��`��'L K��
���, �"�Asyt�rc
Permit Submittal
RECE FF)
'�Sr jC1VAI.�%��Cs
Project No. S-05-008 EXPIRES
March 3, 2005
16300 Mill Creek Blvd., Suite G-2, Mill Creek,WA 98012 ♦ (425) 743-7004(phone) ♦ (425) 743-1848 (fax)
4►,
-�
Magnolia Meadows
Division I
Project No. 5-05-008
STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS INDEX
Sheet
Design Criteria 01
Retaining Wall Review 02—09
Appendix A•
Retaining Wall Input Description Al
Excerpts From Geotechnical Report A2_A8
1
Magnolia Meadows
Division I
DESIGN CRITERIA
Code: 2003 IBC
Permitting Agency: City of Arlington
Foundation Design:
Foundation design is based on the following values presented in the
geotechnical report by Associated Earth Sciences dated May 7, 2004.
Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2500 psf
Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Walls:
Active Condition: 35 pcf EFW (Drained Level Backfill)
At Rest Condition: 50 pcf EFW (Drained Level Backfill)
Passive Soil Resistance: 300 pcf EFW (Includes FS=1.5)
Coefficient of Base Friction: 0.35 (Includes FS=1.5)
Saturated Soil Density: 125 pcf
Material Requirements:
Rebar: Grade 60
Concrete: f c= 3000 psi
SHEET:
IIIKOSNIK
DATE:
d�lV ENGINEERING / / /�
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PROJECT: //I�' (7� PROJECT NO: �w
z
1100 V
\ i
KOSNIK SHEET:
DATE:
ENGINEERING 1V(IGI , A •SD
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PROJECT: r '/ PROJECT NO:
_. �+ az g:
r�
A
VJ WA
ti.
Project J+ sheet
date
prj. no.
RETAINING WALL REINFORCING
H from top Ms Mu As
wall thick 8 1 41 69 0.003
Depth to rebar center 6.19 2 187 317 0.012
3 473 803 0.031
Concrete cover 1.5 4 933 1587 0.062
Rebar size 5 5 1604 2727 0.107
6 2520 4284 0.167
7 3716 6317 0.247
8 5227 8885 0.347
9 7088 12049 0.471
10 9333 15867 0.620
11 11999 20399 0.797
12 15120 25704 1.004
13 18731 31842 1.244
14 22867 38873 1.519
EFWa(pcf) 35 15 27563 46856 1.831
Surcharge(psf) 250 H from top Ms Mu As
Soil Density(pcf) 125 0 0 0 0.000
LF surcharge 1.7 0 0 0 0.000
Lf active 1.7 0 0 0 0.000
Proj ect 4AG W n�-I h ME A Tn w-1 sheet
date -3 .0�—'
pr . no. oS-o3'c�v
RETAINING WALL REINFORCING
H from top Ms Mu As
wall thick 8 1 58 70 0.003
Depth to rebar center 6.19 2 267 320 0.013
3 675 810 0.032
Concrete cover 1.5 4 1333 1600 0.063
Rebar size 5 5 2292 2750 0.107
6 3600 4320 0.169
7 5308 6370 0.249 �!�
8 7467 8960 0.350
9 10125 12150 0.475
10 13333 16000 0.625
11 17142 20570 0.804
12 21600 25920 1.013
13 26758 32110 1.255
14 32667 39200 1.532
EFWa(pcf) 50 15 39375 47250 1.846
Surcharge(psf) 250 H from top Ms Mu As
Soil Density(pcf) ^125 0 0 0 0.000
LF surcharge 1.2 0 0 0 0.000
Lf active 1.2 0 0 0 0.000
r
Project M AG-gn I A sheet (Q
date j
prj no. -05. 6g
RETAINING WALL DESIGN ! !� I - ✓ a
Ha(ft)= 9.12 EFWa(pcf)= 35 Tw(in)= 8 Tftg(in)= 14.00
Hp(FT)= 2 EFWp(pcf)= 300 Hw(ft)= 8 Wftg(ft)=4.00
FSpassive= 1.50 D(wall)pcf= 1-50 Lheel(ft)= 2.00
CoeFrict= 0.45 Dsoil(pcf)= 125.00 Ltoe(ft)= 1.33
Surchg(psf)= 0.00 D(ftg)pcf= 150 ;....r
W(surchg)= 0
W1(heel)= 1988 Xcw(ft)= 1.58
W2(wall)= 800
W3(toe)= 139 LF oveturn= 1.5
W4(ftg)= 700 Ms-ot(ft-lb)= 4025
Wtotal= 3627 Mu-ot(ft-lb)= 6037
Fsrchg(lbs)= 0
Fa(lbs)= 1455.552 Ecc-s(ft)= 1.11 Xresult-s(ft)= 2.69 Tr-s(ft)= 1.31
Fp(lbs)= 900 - Ecc-u(ft)= 1.66 Xresult-u(ft)= 3.24 Tr-u(ft)= 0.76
Ffrict(lbs)= 1632
3rd point-- 1.33
FS sliding= 1.74 D key(ft)= 0.00
Net Sliding= -1077
CASE= service RESULTANT WITHIN MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= na
Q1(psf)= #VALUE!
Q2(psf)= #VALUE!
CASE= ultimate RESULTANT WITHIN MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)-- na
Q1(psfl= #VALUE!
Q2(psf)= #VALUE!
CASE= service RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= 1.31
Lbrg(ft)= 3.93
Q1(psf)= 1846
CASE=ultimate RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= 0.76
Lbrg(ft)= 2.28
Q1(psf)= 3182 �/
Project �1 , x�Jci' 1�� ����;L sheet
date r '
prj no.
i
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
Ha(ft)= 8.12 EFWa(pco= 35 Tw(in)= 8 Tftg(in)= 14.00
Hp(FT)= 2 EFWp(pc fl= 300 Hw(ft)= 7 Wftg(ft)=4.00
FSpassive= 1.50 D(wall)pcf-- 150 Lheel(ft)= 2.00
CoeFrict= 0.45 Dsoil(pcf)= 125.00 Ltoe(ft)= 1.33
Surchg(ps fl= 0.00 D(ftg)pcf-- 150
W(surchg)= 0
Wl(heel)= 1738 Xcw(ft)= 1.60
W2(wall)= 700
W3(toe)= 139 LF oveturn= 1.5
W4(ftg)= 700 Ms-ot(ft-lb)= 2723
Wtotal= 3277 Mu-ot(ft-lb)= 4085
Fsrchg(lbs)= 0
Fa(lbs)= 1153.852 Ecc-s(ft)= 0.83 Xresult-s(ft)= 2.43 Tr-s(ft)= 1.57
Fp(lbs)= 900 Ecc-u(ft)= 1.25 Xresult-u(ft)=2.84 Tr-u(ft)= 1.16
Ffrict(lbs)= 1475
3rd point-- 1.33
FS sliding= 2.06 D key(ft)= 0.00
Net Sliding= -1221
CASE= service RESULTANT WITHIN MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= 1.56
Q 1(ps fl= 1360
Q2(psi)= 279
CASE=ultimate RESULTANT WITHIN MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= na
Q1(psf)= #VALUE!
Q2(pst7= #VALUE!
CASE= service RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= na
Lbrg(ft)= #VALUE!
Q1(psfl= #VALUE!
CASE—ultimate RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= 1.16
Lbrg(ft)= 3.48
Q1(psf)= 1883 �/ie
Project sheet y
date .3 -3.0 5
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
Ha(ft)= 8.12 EFWa(pe fl= 35 Tw(in)= S Tftg(in)= 14.00
Hp(FT)= 2 EFWp(pc fl= 300 Hw(ft)= 7 Wftg(ft)= 4.00
FSpassive= 1.50 D(wall)pcf-- 150 Lheel(ft)= 2.00
CoeFrict= 0.45 Dsoil(pcf)= 125.00 Ltoe(ft)= 1.33
Surchg(ps fl= 250.00 — D(ftg)pci= ISO
W(surchg)= 500
W 1(heel)= 1738 Xcw(ft)= 1.52
W2(wall)= 700 �u`?
W3(toe)= 139 LF oveturn= 1.5
W4(ftg)= 700 Ms-ot(ft-lb)= 5031
Wtotal=3777 Mu-ot(ft-lb)= 7546
Fsrchg(lbs)= 568
Fa(lbs)= 1153.852 Ecc-s(ft)= 1.33 Xresult-s(ft)= 2.85 Tr-s(ft)= 1.15
Fp(lbs)= 900 Ecc-u(ft)= 2.00 Xresult-u(ft)= 3.52 Tr-u(ft)= 0.48
Ffrict(lbs)= 1700
3rd point-- 1.33
FS sliding= 1.51 • D key(ft)= 0.00
Net Sliding= -877
CASE= service RESULTANT WITHIN MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= na
Q1(psfl= #VALUE!
Q2(psD= #VALUEI
CASE=ultimate RESULTANT WITHIN MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= na
Q1(psfl= #VALUE!
Q2(psf)= #VALUE!
CASE= service RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= 1.1
Lbrg(ft)= 3.45 I
Q 1(ps fl= 2190 c
CASE=ultimate RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE 3rd Tr(ft)= 0.48
Lbrg(ft)= 1.44
Q1(psf)= 5246
0
Project [fi kr U F s sheet
date -3-0,5
prj no. 5-U 5-nng
HEEL REINFORCING DESIGN
Lheel(ft)_ 2.00 W(surchg)= 500 lbs YV� �j�Q
Tftg(in)= 14.00 W(soil)= 1738 lbs
W(footing)= 350 lbs
Surchg(psf)= 250.00
W total LBS= 2588 lbs
T bar cover(in)= 2 Load Factor-- 1.
T bar size= t Wu= 3883 lbs
d-a/2(in)= 11.1 Mu= 3883 ft-lbs @ face of wall I
Rebar grade= 60 As reqd= 0.08 sq.inches per ft
As min= 0.47 sq.inches per ft
1.33xAs regd= 0.10 sq.inches per ft
TOE REINFORCING DESIGN
RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE 3rd
Ltoe(ft)= 1.33 Ql(psf)= 5246
Tftg(in)= 14.00 Lbrg(ft)= 1.44
q(psf/ft)= 3643
B bar cover(in)= 3' Q2(psf)= 389
.T
Q avg(psi)= 2817
B bar size=5'
d-a/2(in)= 10.1 Load Factor-- ']..S'
Rebar grade
Mu= 3756 ft-lbs @ face of wal
As reqd= 0.08 sq. inches per ft /)
As min= 0.43 sq. inches per ft
1.33xAs regd= 0.11 sq. inches per ft
APPENDIX A
SHEET:
UKOSNIKJ
ENGINEERING DATE:�r CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PROJECT. /— �UD /� /!/(lYc�/'/ PROJECT NO: ✓ ds�yo�Cf��
- Tvi
� , I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
Magnolia Meadows and Geotechnical Engi7leering Report
Arlington, Washington Project and Site Conditions
I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard assessment, and
geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Magnolia Meadows development in Arlington,
Washington (Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The site plan and the approximate locations of the
subsurface explorations referenced in this study are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan
(Figure 2). In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or layout of the project are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and
modified, or verified, as necessary.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface soil and ground water data to be utilized
in the design and development of the proposed residential plat. Our study included a review of
available geologic literature, excavation of exploration pits, and performing a geologic study to
assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and
shallow ground water conditions. A geologic hazard assessment and geotechnical engineering
study were also completed to determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the
type of suitable foundations, allowable foundation soil bearing pressures, anticipated
foundation settlements, erosion considerations, and drainage considerations. This report
summarizes our current fieldwork and offers geologic hazard mitigation and development
recommendations based on our present understanding of the project.
1.2 Authorization
Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. John Lakhani of Quilceda
Land Group. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter
-� dated April 7, 2004. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Quilceda Land
w Group and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope,
schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our
report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on discussions with Mr.
John Lakhani of Quilceda Land Group, construction plans by Higa-Burkholder, dated February
May 7, 2004 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JDCIsn-J:E0421652-Projcc.,s12004216VCEIWP-K^K Page 1
�1
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, J
Magnolia Meadows and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Arlington, Washington Project and Site Conditions
27, 2004, and familiarity with our geotechnical work performed in the site area. Present plans
call for the construction of 114 lots, new streets, detention ponds, and associated development
improvements. Access to the new development will be from the Magnolia Estates
development to the south and the Glen Eagle Heights development to the east.
The site was primarily forested or grass covered, undeveloped land with one abandoned house
and the remains of several outbuildings near the south central portion of the site along with a
wetland, pond, and associated small unnamed creek flowing to the north through the middle of
the site. A large area of wood waste was observed spread across the surface near the west
central portion of the site. The site was level to slightly rolling with an overall elevation drop
of approximately 35 feet based on the supplied construction plans.
s
3.0 SITE EXPLORATION
Our field study included advancing 13 exploration pits on April 12, 2004 and performing a
geologic reconnaissance to gain information about the site. The various types of sediments, as
well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the
exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions
t changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types. Our explorations were
approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features shown on the
attached Site and Exploration Plan, and their locations and elevations should be considered
approximate.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the exploration pits
completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed
within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below
ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It
should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the
random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling.
-.� The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully
s� evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-
evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes.
3.1 Exploration Pits
The exploration pits were excavated with a trackhoe made under contract to Quilceda Land
Group. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials
encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by an engineering
geologist from our firm. All exploration pits were backfilled immediately after examination
and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual
May 7, 2004 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
jDC/sn-KE04216A2-Projecu120042161KE1 V'P-V2K Page 2
S
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
Magnolia Meadows and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Arlington, Washington Project and Site Conditions
classification and testing, as necessary. One modified Proctor test and three moisture content
tests were performed on selected samples from across the site. The test results are included in
the attached Appendix.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished
for this study and visual reconnaissance of the site. As shown on the field logs, the exploration
3
pits generally encountered lodgement till throughout the site. Minor amounts of fill were
encountered in exploration pit EP-1 located south of the abandoned house and in exploration
f pit EP-9, excavated near an area of wood waste, wood chips, and sawdust. Review of the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) publication Distribution and Description of the
Geologic Units in the Arlington East Quadrangle, Washington by Minard (1980) indicates that
the area of the subject site is underlain by Vashon lodgement till. Our interpretations of the
sediments encountered during our study are in agreement with this regional geologic map. The
following section presents more detailed subsurface information organized from the shallowest
(youngest) to the deepest (oldest) sediment types.
4.1 Stratigraphy
Sod/Forest Duff/Topsoil
A layer of organic-rich soil classified as sod, forest duff, and/or topsoil was encountered at the
surface in all of the exploration pits except EP-9 where wood waste was present at the surface.
The organic-rich soil was generally 1 foot thick across those areas of the site that were
- explored. It is expected that there is a greater thickness of organic-rich soils along the stream
channel and in the wetlands adjacent to the stream, though no exploration was accomplished in
these areas. This soil is not considered suitable for building or pavement support due to its
compressive nature.
r
Fill
Approximately 2 feet of fill consisting of loose, moist to wet sand containing few amounts of
gravel and trace amounts of plastic pipe fragments was encountered below the sod and topsoil
in exploration pit EP-1. There was a slight petrofeum odor associated with this fill. No
environmental screening, analysis, or testing was accomplished in these soils as this was
J outside of the present scope of work. Approximately 3 feet of wood waste fill (chips, sawdust,
and small wood chunks) was encountered in exploration pit EP-9. The fill is not considered
i suitable for building foundation or pavement support.
s May 7, 2004 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, IA'C.
!DClsn-1.E04216A2-Projects120042161Y.E1 141P-WTK Page 3
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
Magnolia Meadows and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Arlington, Washington Project and Site Conditions
Weathered Vashon Lodgernent Till
Weathered Vashon lodgement till, consisting generally of dense, silty fine to coarse sand,
containing few amounts of gravel, was encountered below the fill, the sod, the forest duff,
and/or the topsoil in all of the exploration pits excavated for the site. The lodgement till was
deposited at the base of the Vashon age glacial ice sheet and was subsequently overridden by
several thousand feet of ice. Consequently, these materials are generally dense to very dense,
possess high shear strength, low compressibility characteristics, and have relatively low
j permeability. The upper portions of the till are generally weathered and less dense, oxidized
_s brown, and siltier than the lower unweathered portions of the deposit. The weathered till is
suitable for direct foundation support and support of pavement sections. These sediments are
considered moisture-sensitive and are anticipated to have a relatively low permeability rate.
Vashon Lodgernent Till
Unweathered till was encountered below the weathered till in all of the exploration pits
excavated for the site. The unweathered till consisted of dense to very dense, fine to coarse
silty sand containing few fine to coarse gravel and trace amounts of cobbles. Though not
encountered in any of the exploration pits, boulders are commonly present scattered in both the
weathered and unweathered till. The unweathered till is also suitable for structural support, is
considered moisture-sensitive, and is anticipated to have a very low relative permeability rate.
4.2 Hydrology
Ground water seepage was only encountered in exploration pit EP-1 excavated near the south
central portion of the site. This ground water_is interpreted to be perched ground water.
- Perched ground water occurs when surface water infiltrates down through relatively permeable
soils such as the fill or the weathered portions of the till and becomes trapped or "perched"
atop a comparatively impermeable barrier such as the unweathered portions of the till. This
infiltration can occur at great distances from the area where the ground water is encountered.
It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time
j of the year, stream flow, and variations in the amount of precipitation. The quantity and
duration of flow from excavations made into the perched zone will vary depending on season,
I topography, and soil grain size. Generally there will be more abundant perched ground water
in the winter, spring, and early summer and in the proximity of the wetlands and stream in the
central portion of the site. The site soils nearest the wetlands and stream exhibited elevated
( moisture contents. It is anticipated that ground water will be encountered during construction
! of streets, structures, and underground utilities that cross or come close to the existing
wetlands and stream.
1
May 7, 2004 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JDClsn-KE042164.2-Projects120042.16'JCE11VP-IV2K Page 4
I
4
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
Magnolia Meadows and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Arlington, Washington Project and Site Conditions
4.3 Laboratory Results
Moisture contents were determined at several locations around the project on both the
weathered and unweathered till units. The results of the moisture determinations revealed the
underlying soils to contain approximately 15 percent water by weight. A Proctor sample was
also obtained from EP-2 to determine maximum density and optimum moisture content of the
soil. Depending on the gravel content the maximum density was between 135 and 137 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf) with optimum moisture between 7.5 and 8.0 percent. The Proctor and
moisture content results are presented in the-Appendix.
_J
1
f
i
1
i
i
1
f
f
3
1
f
May 7, 2004 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JDC/sn-r.E04216A2-Projects120042161KEMP-W2Y. Page 5
6.4 Ground Motion j A
The project site is located within a Zone 3 rating for seismic activity on a scale of 1 (lowest) to
4 (highest) based on the Seismic Zone Map of the United States, Figure No. 16-2 in the 1997
edition of the UBC. This is based on past earthquake activity in the Puget Sound region. As
such, structural design for the project should accommodate the possible effect of seismic
activity in areas with a Zone 3 rating, corresponding to a peak ground acceleration of 0.3g (a
Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring directly beneath the site), in accordance with UBC
guidelines, using soil type Sc. No additional mitigation efforts beyond the UBC guidelines are
recommended.
Alternatively, guidelines presented in the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) Section 1615
may be used. Information presented in Figure 1615(1) of the IBC indicates a mapped spectral
acceleration for short periods of S., = 1.12. Information presented in Figure 1615(2) of the
IBC indicates a mapped spectral acceleration for a 1 second period of Si = 0.35. Based on the
results of subsurface exploration and on an estimation of soil properties at depth utilizing
available geologic data, Site Class "C" in conformance with Table 1615.1.1 of the IBC may be
used. These values correspond to site coefficients Fa = 1.0 and F„ = 1.5 in conformance with
IBC Tables 1615.1.2(1) and 1615.1.2(2), respectively.
14.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES
All backfill behind walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our
recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally
backfilled walls, which are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height, may be
designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pcf. Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled
rigid walls, which cannot yield, should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 50 pcf. If
parking areas are adjacent to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to
the wall height in determining lateral design forces.
The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill
consisting of on-site glacial soils compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D-1557. A higher degree
of compaction is not recommended, as this will increase the pressure acting on the wall. A
lower compaction may result in settlement. Thus, the compaction level is critical and must be
tested by our firm during placement. Surcharges from adjacent footings, heavy construction
equipment, or sloping ground must be added to the above values. Footing and wall drains
should be provided for all retaining walls as discussed under the section on Drainage
Considerations.
14.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and native till or supporting
structural fill soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the
foundations. We recommend the following design parameters:
• Passive equivalent fluid = 300 pcf
• Coefficient of friction = 0.35
The above values include a safety factor of 1.5.
11.0 FOUNDATIONS h\
Spread footings may be used for building support when founded on the medium dense to dense
weathered lodgement till, lower unweathered lodgement till, or on structural fill placed as
previously discussed. We recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per
square foot (psf) (including both dead and live loads) be utilized for the houses and other near-
surface foundation design purposes if placed on weathered lodgement till or structural fill
placed on the weathered lodgement till.
An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. Perimeter
footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection. All
footings must penetrate to the prescribed bearing stratum and no footing should be founded in
or above loose, organic, or existing uncontrolled fill soils. All footings should have a
minimum width of 14 inches for one-story structures, 16 inches for two-story structures, and
18 inches for three-story structures.
It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at 1H:1V from any
footing must not intersect another footing or intersect a filled area that has not been compacted
to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D-1557. In addition, a 1.5H:1V line extending down from any
footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing.
Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearing soils.
Anticipated settlement of footings founded on the medium dense to dense weathered lodgement
till, lower unweathered lodgement till, or approved structural fill placed over these soils should
be on the order of 3/4 inch. However, disturbed soil not removed from footing excavations
prior to footing placement could result in increased settlements. All footing areas should be
inspected by AESI prior to placing concrete to verify that the design bearing capacity of the
soils has been attained and that construction conforms to the recommendations contained in this
report. The City of Arlington may require such inspections. Perimeter footing drains should
be provided as discussed under Section 13.0, Drainage Considerations.
The depth to bearing soils (medium dense to dense weathered till) was approximately 1 foot
below existing grades in the locations of most of our exploration pits across the site. The depth
to bearing soils vas approximately 3 feet in the location of exploration EP-1, located near the
south end of the site. Based on the surrounding topography, it appeared that approximately 5
feet of wood waste fill and pre-existing topsoil is located in a large area near the west central
portion of the site. The depth to bearing soils in the area of the wood waste is anticipated to be
approximately 5 feet below the existing surface. The depth to bearing soils in the wetlands and
near the stream was not explored.
3NCN:�3tJX
o co �—
\ Z N (V
o CC t0
\W\ '.'->c`-> ►/f13'' rat _•! s
L
' V/
— I a Q z
ZO W z -
y W.
yy Ua 5
O z
�Od z a Q
W 0.
n ^X O
/
.� - - - - - - - '- - - -�_l- -X - - X - - - - - A O z
u Z W
Z H
V Q
as \ I I 1 A
51
F" I
9.1 i I L-----v --------
\ \
00
woo \'\
d `'fit F \ m :3\
\
\
Z
1 --_--__----
d a a d N N
\ oq°� \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ maa
0)w
o \ \\\ \ \ \ Q _ W W
s s
a z
w
Z
w
pL-------
\
co
OU
r
I
a �' / 1 �V m W)
��� p
1
R
z° r 1 1 Z o p 0
y8 & y ;V1 '� -------- 00 N
LU
pPp N °� � O
p des _ ti M <¢ ydo �vv i C a o ` A� {L CO
3 `� m J p O
o o a s Q
IL
W i e, k' ,� •- \ I��o. \� 1\L`I\ ' KZ,wy
�� I 'I 1 W ND
LL \ \\�\ Va \ \ \
K
b P. A v\ W 0 .1 \ a s 1 v
O `\ b `\ _ \ \ 1 N' \ 11 1 \ W
.00
aoaa
`I N J \ \ .
e — ilesssol— _ _ I `a S m 0
, w
I
Z o a F,
rn �I �F9 Gb Z o �_J U
F m
to N 'I - W 11 Q3 6 Q fv
Qw
\ LLa
K o` z z mw c�
W n 3c
�Oz / n
--use,. I \\ ``I \ `S / \ //�Qe \\ \\ •o\\ `.// °I m a¢
\ I � \ e \•°� / �\-/ \ \ \ :yq by
1 1
ose
A.se
\ \'\a' ;•� yam\ �V —�� _/ 5�h /ra /�/ I � �. 98r. //�y//\
•�'
I
~ x
;as s_ z ?S w m.
r
- ------- �
ese \\m ) or r 3 \
'PIP J
/ 0�i' A\ 1111 Yh\ •�' / / 1� I ��a n = °$ cV
qp
•a + � w e
I n s
a
SDSt-SK-WO -W.A WU-SW-(R4) :Hd
�iwy~ NOJNIHSVM NOJNI1tlV�0 A10 w
3LO96 NOI0NIHSVM'N33H011W
ZO3L(S"OAB)3HJ-niw OOE9l U. co
°d®uIj�U,6U3XIU� 10 UWSlNaa � 1 LU
o
E ON
dNOd N011N3130
SeAn�an.l� >� Nd'IdA3)1 IIdM JNINVi3a v ( y
NOIltl011ddtl 1IW83d'1SNo9 80d 03 SNOISIAfISSl 4031va S M O d d 3 W d I I O N J d W (n
3tl 91Y0 em ba
lu
v
`----------I ,.. O�, W
ry A
(7
LLJ
3 w a
_o
a. w
a
Ny �Yf� F—
lu
J
a t
\
cc
cM
Q
co -
Z \
N
I ,
Z i
O '
V ------------ Q
ui
U. Z
O
et uj
� � N
r
H
N
a
lu
O
co O m
w
0o W� W
W N N U' L
W W >
H >d N
U W N W J
¢J
NO
^¢y W Om OIL
p N N IL IL
W O 0 3 ¢ U N y W N O
�zow 3oW
fC O a 1' W I-W .W I-
W
W 3~ W zZwIK OZ¢
W p O J¢N UJm
¢Z `atea¢
LU
U aa?O~ O W (�W2NO OCCO
p�aR'O U d' �"'N W V ONN
W UOZ.. F WpW, W
V/ C9N¢6 C s UHa.a+ IU JJ
W E
Y Y
W
~K o ZW~ ?Nw z¢U-O o O>-N� ¢ IS�L
¢ jr I WO a O x0IL p1L O
IL 3 LU ~�WKo
N¢N ¢
N ?t rc w z Jo ¢ e
Hro AO
U- oLL
>,m¢
CD W^o ¢ ZoS a L WN W Z Z" 2 N J 1L
U WQ0¢W NWw
WZUr ¢ IJ3aOL
ZO ('- J 3 L IL U
Z JO cO O
QWd WZ O
N
1WJ7NA'"
awh
_zu- x00 �O
{O- W W OKON F=-W H ^
W
N N W Dw..�". SI-- NOW I-F W W �~ Z ¢p~ pO-00 W IOL W K OpF 3 Ua ER: NZ�Vx- Q O J O
W W
p_. ¢3 ~x O I~ x o � a Z5:1O38
O P-O
0 IL w ¢ NVz IL z IL
'-
Z¢WNWNW IKmWNOZULO V ZJ Z
0OW
Odi m O K O(N_ L Op� Wo O
H zF� WU O W W >NW ~UOUU O U WN CO
.wo z Z¢
o2 F-V= p ¢ r N IL
W wJ UwO WW O X OO V OwZ Og 0 Z�NU ¢ W pW U-
wNO.JNW'-
..
I-� W U O W W00W O~U Xl U V w39 W FO
O 0 00� Z WU jU WjNrc Y W(J UmNS uj
»0 WIL UWI-UF- ¢NN wWO
0 JOS 00 00 ¢ ¢OS O O
U U 00 �¢ UU0 Q OHCO ¢= � ] `
1¢-
2 U N
=I ` L"_` b H NOIJNIHSVM`
Z NOMN1110 d0 A113 N
1086 NOl�JNIHSdM'Ntl� llW 33l �y` p;,
m aunS"OA19 N33HO 7 1H OML
Od 15WI eUl6u3 MIUSON;o UO!SIAld y �'. a,`1,;, F•- U-
ap
v a z E 'ON aNOd NOIIN313a SIIV1301SNOU33S11VM W
soin:,ona}
t. I�
eou �iaa vv ima�a�isrroo aol aanssi so-eaeo '`���"�S S M 0 a d3 W d i l0 NJ d W
IS MSIAN x�.va 041
4
[ i
J
U
!
wO
I
— i
i
1
all
JJIN9A 11 Lz
n0-iS I 119 x9-�6 n0-d
xS A Q w LU
I
�
----- - ^------ - w <�
-----1- ----�\ .J
P
ao
\\\ Q o z
fy
H
O Q
3 N \\ 19LU w
LLI
yJ N
a `vv Qw - � --
LV ` N ;.„. o LJ a o Q a Q
LC) CO
LU
Z q9 `n
Qn0-iZ 49-i9 � 'r
n9-i8 ja -'
Z V
r
M
� n8 n8 nL-i0l
cm
to \ \ z
w w
o �z
i O0 liCD
�LU o N In z
Ji
,
XtlW x9-,8 nZ-d LU
r ,
LU
,
I
� F-
,
I /
- I I
I I
I I
I 1
I
Q I 1
U I ao I I w
,r z r v
�. �_... a< �►H w I III
I ¢ I IIIIIIIII III �'
I11�111'I g I! II ��
Q O
i
I \ ------------
LU
� N
Q LU
z \\\\ \\\ 5R n9-18 nZ d ?] <
CIS
\ ` Q
w
wz> \\ `moo
cV \\\\\ \\\\\ J.
Q W \ \ Q lu
a \ \ LLJ_ a
\ , O
t