23204 EDMONDS WAY.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii
11018
23204 EDMONDS
WAY
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMB
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): 1%2j
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: 0 Conditional Waiver E] Study Required E] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE
SHORT PLAT FILE:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
LID #:
LOT: BLOCK:
LATEMP�DM\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc
3000 RoCkefeller Ave.. MS 604
Everett. WA 98201
1.800-56?-4367
(206) 388-3311
0
7
Snohom ounty Planning and Development ices
Cp . In, 41,
Tenant Imp Permit - Commercial
: , 96,109156 TI
Assessor Property Tax #: 5553-001-010-0006 r-erM i
Site Address: 23204 Edmonds Way Edmonds 98026 Expires: November 13, 1998
WoodhdVCn Veterinary Clinic Issued: November 13, 1996
By: scdjan
Type: Other Work Proposed: Remodel
Permit Description: Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Applicant: Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic (Dr An Brudvik)
23204 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020
Owner: Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic (Dr An Brudvik)
23204 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020
Architect: Zimmerman Architecture (Priscilla Zimmerman)
3091 Pt. White Drive NE Bainbridge Is WA U.S.A 08110
Sec Twn Rng: 31 -j7-04 1 6th: Lot: 1 Subdiv.:SP 49 (79)
Valuation 20000.00
LDC bw
Heat Source -Pick Oil
(206) 842-5010 Work
Zoning: N8
R CC E IV E D
JUN 1 5 1998
ENGINEERING
PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE 1:013 DETERMINING ALL PROPERTY LI�E LOCATIONS AND RELATED EASEMENTS.
I r-ertify that I am exempt from the requirements of state contractor's registration under Sec. 3, Chap. 126, Laws of 1967.
/j_1L
I I certify that the information furnished by me is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and all work will conform to
;)pplicab e Snohomish County Code.
Signature- Date:,
File
ki
0 0
0
0 bo
0 0
F .
. . 0 1
0
0
Q
0
o
'0
'i, o
o
J
o ' 0
I o c
0
o
Commercial Applic(a>
Snohomish County Planning and Development Ser4ices
MIS 604, 5th Floor, CAa Administration Building
3000 Ropt=U"Mier, Everett, WA 98201
(206) 388-3311
1. Property Information
L)sv Ink only - Onnt iogibly li, Otll%' - C1711 f�06;
Assebsor's Parc,.,l ID No. --" f,- 5 �' / - &/0 - C-c '�' (-
Buildmg Site Adoress 3 210 'i �-A/C6� lV�-J Y Building or Suite
City 1� O/W �. W05' Id"') — Zip Code
�.ol area in square feet ?9 2 7/ ;6 Subdivision Name or Short Plat File # Lot
Method of Sewage Disposal septic sewer — District name P1 11A,)Ple' y/ v.1,4 jr�r
2, Projisol Intartritillon
Type of project New Construction Addition )�Tenant Improvement Other
Use of building or tenant space e--z
Narne of Project (e.g. Twin Firs Apartments) W--00 HelVeN Y e 7'Fe / N-Ae- y 4 Z
3. People and Fl 9 Involved In Project
2 —
Property Owner Y,10X,'lAVfA1 Y&76 *J,4,fY 141A1141AVA1 PhoneLZ-'&)_���
v AA
Mailing Address 232e5)-4 Eomo&iof, WlqY City 6-01k.46A1C>,S W1J ZiP '�Feozo.
Applicant and/or Tenant Name._ AM C PhoneC
Mailing Address City Zip
Contractor
city_ Zip
Licence Exp� Dole Phome"
Architect Phone(LE) e4t- 5e) 10
Firm Name 71mmt-,eM,4N A(?i�H17-Ee7-4jeE
Mailing Address R 7- �Vl-1 / 7-r 0 If / /1� X/ city )SZ. Zip 5;"9//0
�5,74y ,r46,�-r - D
Engineer 4t,,1z Phone(Z.Etj-
')5r 4�-4-CY— city :5--4 Zip ��ZQZ.
Mailing Address 1925- RL
14. Building Information
Valuation of proposed new building or addition using Building Valuation Data sheet (attached) or. for tenant improvements. project cost
$ .I " , . (I �'-
Related Building Permit No. t
ZA#
List square footage of area to be constructed (not required on Tenant Improvements)
Basement
Main Floor
Mezzanine 1. Provide a separate application for each
building.
Second Fir 2. Complete the Applicant Information in
Third Floor Section I for the first application only.
Other
Total 1,:2,
Proposed number of dwelling units in building:
Will structure be heated? S Yes E] No Source of heat (electric, gas, oil. etc.)
Has construction started? Yes 2 Nn r,,�k Tag issued? Ye�� No Pink Tag No.
Property owner assumes responsibility that required setbacks and special site characteristics shall conform to
approved site p,an conditions.
I
Applicant/Authorized Agent signaturam-yrtl Date
Office Use Only
Sec _ Twp Range_ 1116_ Zoning
APPROVALS/Date
Building Drainage
Fire Site/SEPA
Traffic Sanitation
Biologi4l Environ. Health
Plan Check Fee
$—
Supplemental Fee
s
Investigative Fee
$
Permit Fee
Base Fee
State Surcharge
I rpllp"
CZS P 'D U_.,
0
0 �N�i . o
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
o
0
o �o o'm 0
0
o. o
o
0
01
00
00 0
'0�
0
COMMERCIAL
CONTACT PERSON FORM
CONTACT PERSON: / Z L4 -Z Xf A4 F-;L- k lq Al
FIRM:
ADDRESS
CiTy: 5411��8121o&6 I-SL - STATE W14 ZIP CODE:
PHONE NUMBER: 20�-- E4Z- 5-0/0
'20 �, - F,4 �, -- 73 0 c-,
SIGNED: DATE:
oc, , s ,996
�L,�t4NMa & DEVELOPMENT
j�RA _�
koWNLO-1f, - jAgN
0
00 b
0
0
0
0
0
6 cp
0 oi�
0
1p
0
0
0
0 0
'o L?%
0 0
0
0�
90
0
.�p
cp
0
00
0 0�
0
MINIMUM SUBM17TAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
TENANTIMPROVEMENTS
(completed by County Staff and Applicant)
6pphQ&aLV1 rify Counter
YES N/A YCLIN
FORM51FEES
Completed Commercial Application (completed by applicant and counter
staff)
Contact Person Form
Plan Check Fee
PLANS
2 sets arch itectu ra I/strictu ral plans detailing the proposed work (3 sets
required if lot has septic system or if project is school or food service
related) which include:
L
Floor Plan
Indication of Type of Construction
Scale = 114 or 1/8 inch
2 site plans (3 sets required if lot has septic system or if project is school
or food service related) which include the following:
Dipicton of the tenant space in the building and the location of
the building on the project site.
COUNTER USE ONLY
Zoning Map
Plan Review Routing Form
CP
0
0
0.
0
o
o o
o
0
---- " . 0
0
R I AA&
04 1 O�
C4, 1 01 1 02
0
BEL T* ADD 0. 6
9
229th. ST S.W
/0 6 7
(391
o I
o o 4
4
o o.
PRD ( 4MR
5
0
Q 6
0 li R 156 —67
. l\\ tv
cp
q.
os
c*
03 ol 02
2-0,32 olp
0
2-027 1 ;' ? *
o
o.
ol
0"
FAMN'
2-0-57 )'or
��
dEANNINE
6 F7
7!67 o
4 8,15
2-03.51 1
8 ,
291h. PL. S Vi
I
BEL T AD, NO
I , "I . Rou!
0A) 4 o/
1 02
1 2 3
1 4
1
229th. PL. S.W.
.0o *0
LA I A
-
I 5
2
R111-
1 ol 6
02
11 8 7 6
230th.ST W. 'I 1—
4869)
11
7 6
PA A/0
5 0 1 0
LS171-82 02.
N 7in—/IA178( I
S�A 0-oll
A I . 2
0 u 23 (60) 254(7
RIO -74 % o
00 % 231
0 . M R % Lk 2/1078
0,3 02
4 18 JAN 6 SID M2-Z
9
ZA FILE 44 ;/231st. PL. S.W.
LD --7 212 /0
N %CON 0
0 /0 0
R,43(/1/0-75
O�- I
0$ 232n TC=6 02
0 Ab
0
2 N 1, OD 16 15P
0
a 1 /0
2. 6 4. i I
2 32nd. P S.W.
MR N B 9
02 1
01 ZA8 9 1 7Jq4G3 04- 05 /8 17 16 15
c ND % -IL 163
RID RA CE
01 4 1
m'R
LLI ZA89( 0
0 02
L- 5 233,d. PL. S.W. 16 /5
OND
C� 7 7 8. 9 MAP
Ld sp (5 7)
tf (7�
14
LS 181 - 76 6 00 "�61 ol 16 15
LS160 76
"05
000", FRD MR 04
1 4 1 5 00
5/ 7 ZA BG05143
MA
1 02
Lr) o" 4
ol
3 IS 14
Q LLI
>
0 4
o/
3 2 r'o 1 0
0 LDMR R 2 o'-' ol 0
0 31( 111 Ap R-��
5) 2-
ZA 0
0 0
9 p 81
4 q5 SP149( 1 :2.065 0
N
0 0.1 5/76
S P 16 6 (1 0
4 1 00
0
'o
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0.
6D
roo
0 Q
0
/r
PLAN UVIL."I
0
0
o
0
0
0
VOUTING 1:0KNI
0
0
17
�,5
0
�Oulwd tu: B I d Firc Site
Tra f f i c Drainage
Bi(Aogist Sanitation
Div. I-Icalth
0
0
.0
0
4 1
0
Other
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
Plan Check
L,
Property Owner Name
Site.Address
1 0
I I�p
0 6p
254(7
231-
Type of ProJect
p 0
0
Contact
I c
ContacL Phone #1
/0
REVIEWER COMMENTS
15;
0
0
15
1-5
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (To
be typed. on permLt�
0
0
14
%
MAP
0�)
14
b
0
0
0 0
MA
09
0
0
0
DISAPPROVED:
APPROVED:
DATE:
DATE
Go
D
0
31
6
d
0 � :
NO V 13 1996
LANNING & DEVELOPMENT
SPIE, R V. - 0 S
PM I �VOPFRATION S
W A
date Prot no
desilln
20 1 '1 .1 :1 1 N.
0
A.4M, :, -, 1. <1 ", .
0
e,,4 f -�
KNIVA 0
(it 1 1 �vq
V, % � to
uengn
WA T�101 r2od, 14=2:2 Fax f2n&l 443.
C-
I I .
Aj 0 -;o f- c I j C.A�--v c )10,j Ae- I v IAJ
t-c I I's
P'.
+ 78
6 L
v
DrojeCt e— prol. .10.
design sneel
192", P—r All.... !;.ql(ll - Phone f2l`)'�) 4-1:1.621'2 Fax
ol
0
%
November 5, 1996
ms. Priscilla Zimmerman
Zimmerrnan Architecture
3091 Dt White Drive North East
BainLridge Island, Washington 98110
RE: COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS
Tax Account Number: 8040-000-001-0202
File Number: 96 1091 S6
Property Owner: Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
9
C,
Snohomish County
Planning and Development Services
Robed J. Dtewel
County Executive
M/S #,604
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, Wo 98201-4046
(206)388-3311
FAX(206)388-3872
Dear M5, Zimmerman:
Attached are marked up drawings and Technical Review comments for the subject project. The next
step in the approval process is to address the items contained in the "package" enclosed and schedule a
resubmittal appointment with me.
BUILDING REVIEW COMMENTS
Building Review has disapproved your plans. Please see the attached letter from Craig Kackman.
Project Reviewer: Craig Kackman (206) 388-3 311, extension 219 1.
NOTE: IF REVISED PLANS ARE REQUIRED SUBMIT 2 SETS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
vll�en you have addressed all the review comments a resubmittal appointment with me is REQUIRED.
T�is appointment is not optional and must be made prior to resubmitting revised plans Do not submit
review materials directly to the technical staff listed above. I will review your revised plans and
resubmittal materials at the meeting and assure all comments have been addressed. If any comments
have not been addressed the plans will not he accepted. All information requested must be submitted at
the same t ime. Once the information has been accepted, your project will be scheduled for Final
Review.
When YOU are ready to resubmit your materials please call my secretary at (206) 388-33 11, extension
2570 to schedule an appointment.
8:961011156
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Technical Review Letter
Page I
0
..P
0 06.
0
0
Monica McLaughlin
Commercial Land Development Coordinator
POM:rr
Attached: job Copy of Architectural/Structural Plans (must be returned at resubmittal)
Letter from Craig Kackman
8:96109156
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Technical Review Letter
Page 2
"I -. :- . I I
11
0 0, 0
October 22, 1996
Ms. Priscilla Zimmerman
Zimmerman Architecture
3091 Dt. White Drive
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
RE: NEW ADDITION TO VETERINARY CLINIC FOR:
W(�ODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC AT:
21-104 EDMONDS WAY, EDMONDS
Dear Ms. Zimmerman:
Snohomish Coun
ity
Planning and Development Services
Rot>ert J. Drewel
County Executive
M/S 0604
3000 Pockefeller Avenue
Everett,'Na Q8201-4046
(206)388-33111
FAX(2D6)388-3872
The plans for the ,bove described building have been reviewed for compliance with the
1994 Uniform Building Code and have been disapproved for purposes of issuing a
building permit. The following correctioos and/or additions shall be incorporated into a
7 , f worVng drawings, and two such sets shall be resubmitted for approval:
Please provide structural calculations from a Washington State licensed architect or
engineer and stamp plans.
Show compliance with the Washington State F. ergy Code. Show U value and
I �_ I
glazing area. Show window sizes. T') 1,1- 011)
y
FLUSH AND SURFACE BOLTS:
-mounted flush bolts and surface bolts
A. Manually operated edge or surface
are prohibited. When automatic flush bolts are used, the door leaf having
e- ed
the automatic flush bolt shall not have a door knob or surfac mount
hardware. The unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one
operation. — Section 1004.3
LOCKS AND LATCHES:
A. All means of egress doors shall be readily openable from the side from
which egress Is to be made without the use of a key or special knowledge
or effort. — Section 1004.3
LANDINGS AT DOORS:
A. A floor or landing shall be provided on each side of doors. When access
for persons with disabilities is required the floor oi landing shall not be
nn�-re than 1/2 inch lower than the threshold. When access is not required,
the maximum is 1 inch. - Section 1004.9
[W I (, 109 1 � 6
Woodhaven Velerinaiy Clinic
November 4, 1996
Page I
0 0
. 0
Q
0
00 0
0. D 0
I —o
Landings shall have a width not less than the width of the stairway or width
of the doorway, whichever is the greater. The minimum length in the
direction of exit travel is 44 inches. — Section 1004.10
/4. Screening is required under tempered glass door panels used as a roof on new
entry trellis. - Section 2409.3 Uniform Building Code.
if I may be of any further assistance to you regarding the above items, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
4
C�Craig Ka man
Commercial Building inspector
CK:rr
cc: Fire Prevention BureaLl
Commercial Building Inspector
6:9610915(,
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
November 4, 1996
Page 2
0
RE�Mrvgj-
NO V 1 3 !996
p �NN.ING & C) - VELOP
SE V C
, ADMim/n-%--. MENT
21439 F,
)NALEt,
EXPIRES 3/21/
proiect ave prol no.
aesign sneel
192-7, P-1 All--v S�alrl,. WA 99101 Ph,)n� (2n,;) 443-6212 Fax 121) n
4-o
1.0-0 A.
j-n) 9.t� I,
I �. 1.0 �6 ' \-\ "� T
a
t
A. I'L - I-M
A b
2. Pg
+1
A Structural
Engineering
Corporation
project prol. no.
aesign
p,; t ;\ 11 p "'A 99101 - Phnn� '2()r,) 414:1.6212 Fax (2f)r,) 44:1.4.97n
10
So & ... \�-- 1;.-LA, Z
PIS tot�
.-r 7/c
"JO spfcfj C*.A�-,V413,j AO-1011�
c '0 . � s ; T tA I I , I
7Q,e—* � 9,J :- 4 .. v '� -Z 0 (.. tAJ 1-7. )1.
7, 1-
OA I
4).5
-70
4-
4 10
C:,
oroject date prol. no.
deSign sneet
192�, P—r All,-; S,-,ittl,-. WA f�qlr)l - Phnnf, 1206) 44:1-6212 Fax (.206) 44.1.4.,;-,n
0
2—
0'0 - . �
0
1 01
November 13, 1996
Ms. Priscilla Zimmern .,)
Zimmerman Architecture
3091 Dt. white Drive
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
Snohomish Countv
Planning and Deveiopment Services
Robert J. Drewel
County Executive
RE: NEW ADDITION TO VETERINAFZY CLINIC FOR:
WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC AT:
23204 EDMONDS WAY, EDMONDS
-B' OCCUPANCY '%--JROU P, TYPE VN CONSTRUCTION
ADDITIONAL OCCUPANT LOAD - 2
M/S 0604
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, Wo 98201-4046
(206)388-3311
FAX(206)388-3872
Dear Ms. Zimmerman:
The revised plans for the above described building have been reviewed for compliance with the
Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition and approved for the purpose of issuing a building permit
with the following corrections and/or additions:
I For purposes of information, the plans comply with the 1994 Washington State
Nonresidential Energy Code. (New window U.90)
2. For purposes of information:
A. FLUSH AND SURFACE BOLTS: Manually operated edge or surface -mounted flush
boits and surface bolts are prolillc�ted. When automatic flush bolts are used, the
door leaf having the automatic flush bolt shall not have a door knob or surface -
mounted hardware. 7 he unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one
operation. — Section 1004.3
B. LOCKS AND LATCHES: All means of egress doors shall be readily openable from
the side from which egress is to be made without the use of a key or special
knowledge or effort. — Section 1004.3
C. LANDINGS AT DOORS: A floor or landing shall be provided on each side o
doors. Vviien a, -oss for persons with disabilities is required the floor or landing
shall not be more thar. 1/2 inch lower than the threshold. When access is not
required, the maximum is I inch. — Section 1004.9
3. All construction is subject to field inspections, corrections and final field approval together
with the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the building being occupied.
3:96109156
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
November 13, 1996
Page I
o
.1 Nk) SlUll L)C I)OUrOd V011101,11 inspections. Notify Planning and
SOIVICL',�, ifispection & Coniphince Section, at least twenty-four (24) hours
in .1dv"'lice.
An approved set of plans shall be kept at the job site at all times during construction.
6. A I separate permit shall be required for mechanical heating and venting systems as well as
for any plumbing work to be done.
7. Please be advised to consult the Snohomish County Public Utility District #1 regarding
electrical service to the building. To obtain electrical permits and inspections, contact the
State Department of Labor & industries, Electrical Division, at (206) 339-1932.
if I may be of any further assistance to you regarding the above items, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Tim Nordtvedt
Commercial Building Plans Examiner
TiN:rr
cc: Fire Prevention Bureau
Commercial Building Inspector
3:96109156
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
November 13, 1996
Page 2
so
0
�m
�- 0
FL9
7V
COMMERCHAL MATERHALS
RELEASE FORM
COMMERCIAL FILE NUMBER: 96 109156
PROPERTY OWNER WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC
PERSON CONTACTED: PRISCILLA ZIMMERMAN
PHONE NUMBER: (206) 842-5,010
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1996
MARKED UP DRAWINGS AND/OR MATERIALS FOR THE ABOVE
REFERENCED PROJECT WERE RELEASED TO:
(111�z�:�. (:::41-�v DATE:
(SIgnature)
z- 4 41 FIVC7
(Print Name)
PRELIMINARY REVIEW TECHNICAL REVIEW. /,-�FINAL REVIEW
MATERIALS RELEASED:
Attached: job Copy of Arch Itectura I/Structura I Plans (n-,ust be returned at resubmittal)
Letter from Monica Mclaughlin
Letter from Craig Kackman
It
FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT
(Drainage and Grading CalculatJons)
I -OR
WOODHAVEN, VETERINARY CLINIC
23204 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared by:
Robert L. Long
L= RECEIVED
Lovell-Sauerland & Associates APR - 8 2011
1921736 lh Avenue W. Suite 106 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
LSA No. 5280
STREET FILE
FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT
(Drainage and Grading Calculations)
FOR
WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC
23204 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington
March 2011
38508 --,�
1,61V / it
Prepared by:
Robert L. Long
LM 0 N
Lovell-Sauerland & Associates
1921736 1h Avenue W. Suite 106
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
LSA No. 5280
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
Introduction
This report provides site design information for the proposed redevelopment of the Woodhaven
Veterinary Clinic. It includes storm drainage and grading analysis to support permit review
approval and demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment is in compliance with the City of
Edmonds Municipal Code. The property is located at on the west side on Edmonds Way south of
232 d Street SW in the northwest 1/4 of Section 3 1, T 27 N, R 4 E, W.M.
,5ife Address: Tax Parcel Number: 005553-001-010-00
23204 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGES
A. Project Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4
B. Parcel (Vicinity) Map ....................................................................................................................... I
C. Site Development Plan ...................................................................................................................... 4
D. Aerial Photo ...................................................................................................................................... I
E. Stormwater Control System Summary and Calculations .................................................................. 8
F. Drainage Basin Description and Maps ............................................................................................. 3
G. Grading and Erosion Control Summary and Grading Calculations ................................................... 4
H. Operation and Maintenance Guidelines ............................................................................................ 10
1. Geotechnical Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 29
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 cr..;3 March 2011
PROJECT SUMMARY:
This report provides engineering design information for the proposed redevelopment construction of the
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic. The project is located on the west side of Edmonds Way (SR- 104) about the
southwest corner of 232 "d Street SW in the City of Edmonds. The applicant proposes to re -develop tile
existing veterinary clinic with a new 4,956 sf clinic on the 21,400 sf site. The entire site will be
redeveloped with a new building, parking area and landscaping.
Existing Conditions. The site consists of about 21,400 sf (0.49 acres) and is currently occupied by the
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic (one structure). The site is bordered by a commercial building to tile west;
single family lot to the south; 232 nd Street SW to the north; and Edmonds Way (SR 104) to the cast. Access
to the site is from 232 "d Street SW via wide open driveway access. The site generally slopes from west to
east. Stormwater run-off from the site sheet flows in a westerly and northerly direction towards Edrnoilds
Way or 232 nd Street SW with no signs of a defined channel. The existing gutter of Edmonds Way flows in
a northerly direction and merges with easterly gutter flow along 232 nd Street SW along the site's frontage.
No stream or wetlands were discovered oil or immediately adjacent to the site. Additional discussion of tile
local drainage basin and downstream path is discussed in section F of this report.
Developed Conditions. The redevelopment of the site will replace the existing veterinary clinic with a new
4,956 sf clinic in approximately the sarne location as the existing building. Nearly all existing
improvements (existing building and paving) and vegetation will be removed during grading activities in
the development area of the site; two large existing trees near the site's southeasterly comer will be retained
and will need to be protected during site development. Landscaping and grass lawn around tile flew
building will stabilize the site upon building construction
Infrastructure improvements include access improvements at 232 "d Street SW (extending new concrete
sidewalks along the north boundary of the site; onsite driveway and parking west of the proposed building;
storrnwater conveyance and infiltration system; water; sewer; power; and communications. Due to the
relatively porous soils onsite, infiltration (a low impact development technique) will be utilized to control
the sites stormwater runoff. An infiltration trench system will be installed west of the proposed veterinary
clinic under the proposed new driveway and parking lot area. All roof top drains and runoff flows from the
driveway area shall be routed to the proposed infiltration trench system. See section E for additional
evaluation of the storm drainage control system. .
Summary of Minimum Requirements for Small Site Projects:
5.1 Small Site Minimum Requirement #1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan. The proposed site
development consists of disturbing about 0.5 acres of land and creating about 14,500 sf of impervious
surface. Thus, the project is classified as a Category 2 Small Site Project per the City's classification
system. A site development plan has been prepared and a reduced copy of the plan is included in section B
of this report.
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 CRE RE March 2011
0
5.2 Small Site Minimum Requirement 42 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. A summary
of the site's grading and erosion control measures along with grading estimations are included in section G.
Grading and E-rosion Control Summary and Grading Calculations. The preliminary grading quantities are
estimated to be 600 CY of cut and 200 CY of fill. The total site disturbance area of the project is less than
one acre, thus a formal Notice of Intent application for NPDES coverage will not be made to tile
Department of Ecology.
5.3 Small Site Minimum Requirement #3 — Source Control of Pollution. No extraordinary measures are
required for the proposed development (veterinary clinic) of the site. Basic water quality measures will be
provide and are summarized in section E Stortnivater Control System Summary and Calculations.
5.4 Small Site Minimum Requirement #4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Ou�falls. The
current discharge point of the site is to the adjacent storm water pipe along Edmonds Way and 232 "d Street
SW. The proposed project utilized infiltration to disperse the collected runoff with and overflow system to
the pipe system along Edmonds Way.
5.5 Small Site Minimum Requirement #5 — Onsite Stormwater Management. Due to the favorable soils
onsite the site's stormwater control system will utilize infiltration LID measures for onsite stormwater
management. LID measures include an onsite infiltration trench and compost amended soils replacement
(BMPT5.13) for all disturbed pervious surface areas (landscape/lawn areas of the site). Through a
collection of pipes, catchbasins and downspout connections the site's impervious surfaces will be collected
and routed to the onsite infiltration trench. The site is located within the Edmonds Way watershed which is
a direct discharge basin (as designated by the City) and thus no additional special basin measures are
required. See section E for a full summary for stonriwater flow control.
5.5 Small Site Minimum Requirement #6 — Runoff Treatment. The project proposes to create/replace
more than 5,000 sf of pollution -generation impervious surface with the installation of the driveway and
parking lot area (7,150 sf), thus basic water quality treatment is required for these areas. As discussed
above, the onsite soils allow for the use of an onsite infiltration trench to control the site's runoff.
Additional soil tests (attached in section 1) demonstrate that native underlying soils of the site contain
adequate cation exchange capacity and organic content for the purposes of the basic water quality treatment
of stormwater runoff. In addition to water quality treatment provided by the soils, oil/water separator tees
will be provided on the intake ends of the pipes directed to the infiltration system to provide oil containment
in the collection catchbasins prior to discharging flows to the infiltration trench system. See section E for a
full summary for stormwater quality treatment and flow control.
5.7 Small Site Minimum Requirement #7 — Flow Control. An onsite infiltration trench will provide flow
control of the site's stormwater runoff. The infiltration trench system has been design to meet the flow
control standards of a Category 2- Small Site project (less than an acre of disturbance with more than 5,000
sf of impervious surface and located in a direct discharge basin). Sizing calculations are provided in
section E. of this report.
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 March 2011
5.8 Small Site Minimum Requirement #8 — Welland Protection. No wetlands are known to exist on or
adjacent to the site.
5.9 Small Site Minimum Requirement #9 — Operation and Maintenance. An operation and maintenance
summary is provided in section H.
5. 10 Small Site Minimum Requirement #10 — Offsite Analysis and Mitigation. See section F. Drainage
Basin Description and Maps for a qualitative analysis. Due to the fact onsite infiltration and water quality
is proposed, no quantitative analysis of the downstream system has been provided.
5.11 Small Site Minimum Requirement #11 — Financial Liability. Cost estimates and bonds will be
provided by the applicant during final construction pen -nit approval.
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 R,=W-u March 2011
� 9-0 A-3
City of Edmonds
Site Classification Worksheet
The project's Classification serves to identify the specific Stormwater Management requirements applicable
to your site. Complete the worksheet below to determine whether your project falls into the classification of
a Large Sit , Small Site (Category I or Category 2), or a Minor Site.
Step 1: Determine the Exempt Impervious Surface Area for your project and enter it on line I of the
table (yellow box).
Step 2: Determine the Replaced Impervious Surface Area for your project and enter it on line 2 of the table
below dividing the total between Exempt and Non -Exempt (orange and blue boxes); either or both may be zero.
Step 3: Determine the New Impervious Surface Area for your project. If a portion of the new impervious surface
area is also Non -Exempt Replaced Impervious Surface Area subtract this from the total of the new impervious
surface area. Enter the final value on line I ollhe table below (blue box).
tep 4: Add the values in the Non-exempt column for lines 2 and 3 and enter it into line 4 (green box).
Where does the existing site
runoff discharge?
(Check all that apply)
See Watershed Map
Figure-13, Handout pg 4
Supplement
Chapter 2.3
X Direct Discharge
X Edmonds Way Basin
F1 Creek or Lake Basin
Line
Type
Area (square Feet)
Impervious surface:
How much and what type9
(fill in colored boxes)
Supplement
Chapter 2.2
1.
Exempt
Exempt Non -Exempt
See Definitions, Handout pg 9
Figure-C, Handout pg 7
Figure-C
2.
Replaced
11,500
Examples, Handout pg 10
3.
New
1
1
Total Replaced +New (Non -Exempt) 1q, 5^00
(add numbers in blue boxes)
1
4.
1
nd-disturbing activity area
See Definitions, Handout pg 9
Supplement
Chapter 8
q 00
sf
Grading, Fill or Excavation
Area
k , q00
s]
Will proje t convert % acre or
more of native vegetation to
YES
X NO
I
lawn or landscaped area?
Proceed to the Pro*ect Classification Chart (Figure D, pg 8) and use the data collected above to follow
the flow chart and determine the classification of your project.
El Large Site (Handout E72a) XSmall Site (Handout E72b) F-1 Minor Site (Handout E72c)
Revised on 719110 E72 - Slormwaler Management Erosion Control-FINAL2 Page 5 of I/
A-Y
QUARTER I-
-0- 2-'-,
2
36
7
,6
ui
i.-L !
JIM Scl
2
SECTION
31
SHIP NWELL.
27
,E E.W.M.
4
SW-30-27-4
.01, 01 02
02 iO �-Ofq
.-;2FM lZr—w— 4—:
"3-031
�3-02
3-03 3-02�
10
6
2 1
2-081
6
2 1
��2-073
2-0824,.N� Go 2-028 7
3 0 2 R
2M9 2- 0 12 2 R
4 2
2-031 2-013 SP
26
2-014
2-002..
cc 6 2
2-011 7 2-005
z 21
2-019 2017 LLI
1 2-006
2 9 2-007
L
FYI' 47
-P
"01
'01
00
-1 M21
0 Parcel (Vicinity) Map
Love I I -Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5280 C=� C?=u
March 2011 13-1
1-80D-42 -5555
t
_________2__�32nd. ST. S.W.,
1
A;4-L
------
>
<
CONSTRUCTION SEOUENCE
NW 1/4 OF SECTION 31. T.
'zz"
=%
WOODHAVEN
CUNIC
VETERINARY
A .
7
t.
11 In. m -7.
GRADINC QUANTITIES: NOTES.
Lovell -Sauerla nd
�j
HAUL ROUTE
VICINITY MAP S, TE
SURVEY NOTES
- 7
Oe z
0
z
< z
I, z
El. Qt:
U) 1:
Ln
<
LOT AREA Z
��I "CT � — � - —I
o'
cr L z
0 �_j ,
Z
C)
z
< L 0 0
Ln u
0 r,
Q-11 ENGINEER <
z L
CD
Of
c—c' 0
SHEET INDEX 3: z
z un
*7
C. —El .1 T::"�
APPROVED FOR CONSTRucnON
CITY OF EDMONDS
1"- 20'
5280 .,4
R!
TESC LEGEND SW 1/4, NW 1/4 OF SECTION 31, T.27N.. R.4E., W.M.
232nd.ST. S.W.
i e2!- 1 ILI—
ID
96
>
<
rn
e
0 4".
WOWHAVEN
VETERINARY
�-c ...
--------------
=Z=1
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
J& �- i� �,-ft
1-800-424-5555
ERaXH AO SM&WIT 00HIRM (M) NOTES
L H Ra
Uvell-Saueriand
& A .... mt-, 1—
Ll— A
m
z
NOTE& n d z
cl. 0
z
z
z
o <
z
z
Z
6 L
0 —,
z
v)
0
u
v)
z 0 3 v)
GRADING QUANTITIES: u o
z T
E) 0
z
t�� =s z
<
iv)
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
QDd3tAL N010
7W-1
T.27N., R.4E., W.M.
A
r zz z� Z� Z ------
A —J
_j
WILIRATON WENCH OCTAL _W �.0)
won -
AV
,Ig2l, — —
1-800-424-5-555
APPROVED ' OR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
Lovell - Snuerland
A .... i�te,. I.,
- 7
1
Dc z
- �2
if
5n:
<
Z
0
z
0 C) 1.— 0
z
:Lj
<
, 0
Lr) L,
0
z
�"j
z
z V)
V)
11-1. =1 � I,
ILI _ I
-1—as—lae. —1
oel-
CITY OF EDMONDS
T 7
K I—
K 1—.. .11
CITY OF EDMONDS
TAIDARD DETAIL
1/4, NW
CITY OF EDMOrJDS
TA101 D DETI'L
IT— — ...
11-1. K1
MIMI Wm_
.1 -,vm
_c
'I'lo. 1. —1. a
CITY OF EDMCrJDS
=_j ASPKALT WALMAY
2---F � r
T.27N.. R.4E., W.M.
-1 K 1.
C
CIT t' OF EDMO�JDS
oD__DET
IIITI.�
_C
C-1
I C
IC I— t CN .11 —El S.—M
C17-( OF EDMC;rjDS
TDD DE—L
--AL.
9.9n �
Lovell—Sauerland
& Associates. Inc
�w
I DF 10 D -S
m
Q: z
z 0
z
V)
;7) z i�t
0
2 >-:
z CD -
0 z
z L
< 0
U) V)
0 0 G �n
0
U)
CITT OF EDMG�JDS
—ID—D DET—
ST 11111RI IIINIVAl 0"I"ll
APPROVEC CONSTRUCIION
FOR
OF EDMONDS
AS SHO%N
1 5
—a— C4
:2
552810 .4
Aerial Photo
(Viewing South)
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates
lk� Final Engineering and Drainage Report
LSA No. 5280
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
March 2011
D-/
STORMWATER CONTROL SYSTEM SUMMARY AND CALCULATIONS:
The project proposes to create, replace and/or retain 14,500 sf of impervious surface onsite. The site is
21,400 sf (0.49 ac) in size and located in the Edmonds Way direct discharge basin. To mitigate tile
development of the site, an infiltration trench system will be installed to control the storm drainage runoff
(flow control). All of the on -site impervious surfaces shall be collected and routed to tile onsite infiltration
trench system. The 100 feet of I I ft wide and 3 feet deep imported rock filled trench has been designed to
infiltrate and mitigate the allowable release rates for the I 0-year and I 00-year design criteria for a Category
2 Small Site project. Per the geotechnical design evaluation the long term design infiltration rate of tile
native soils is 0.5 in/hr (see attached report section 1).
WWIJM3 continuous runoff modeling software by Washington State Department of Ecology was used to
model the infiltration system. Flow control sizing was conducted using tile "Puget East 36" precipitation
time series values in accordance with the Edmonds Municipal Code. The attached input/output data and
statistical analysis demonstrates that the designed infiltration trench will infiltrate a majority of the storms.
Infiltration Trench Design Sunimary Table:
Site Area Summary:
Total Site Area = 21,400 sf (0.4913 ac)
Proposed Impervious = 14,500 sf (0.3329 ac)
Building, Patio and Walk = 7,350 sf
Driveway / Parking = 7,150 sf
Proposed Pervious (Lawn and landscape) = 6,900 sf (0. 15 84 ac)
Infiltration Trench Design (100' x I I' x 3')
Provided Storage Volume (30% voids) 990 cf
Infiltration Rate (0.50 in/hr over 100' x I I bottom area) = 0.013 cfs
Overflow Release
2-yr Allowable = N/A (Not regulated in a Direct Discharge Basin)
2-yr Design = 0.00 cfs (completely retained and infiltrated)
10-yr Allowable = 0.083 cfs (0.25 cfs per impervious acre standard)
I 0-yr Design = 0.05 cfs (see attached statistical analysis)
100-yr Allowable = 0. 15 cfs (0.45 cfs per impervious acre standard)
I 00-yr Design = 0. 11 cfs (see attached statistical analysis)
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 March 2011
Stormwater Quality Cowrol:
Basic water quality treatment will be provided by the infiltration trench system onsite. Soil tests (attached
in section 1) demonstrate that native underlying soils of the site contain adequate cation exchange capacity
and organic content for the purposes of basic water quality treatment. The attached calculations and above
summary table of the infiltration trench systern indicate that the 2-year design storm is completely retained
and infiltrated, thus meeting the DOE minimum requirement of treatment of the 6-nionth design storm.
In addition to water quality treatment provided by the soils via infiltration, oil/water separator tees will be
provided on the intake ends of the pipes directed to the infiltration system to provide oil containment in the
collection catchbasins prior to discharging flows to tile infiltration trench system.
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 March 2011 E--2
Storm Drainage Calculations
WWHM3 Input/Output:
Western NVashinglon Hydrology Model
PROJECI'REPORI'
Project NaLme: 5280- Final Design
Site Address: 23204 Edmonds Way
City
Edmonds
Report Date
3/24/2011
MGS Regoin
Puget East
Data Start
1939/10/1
Data End
2097/08/31
DOT Data Number: 03
WWHM3 version:
PREDEVELOPED LAND USE
Name : Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
Acres
C, Lawn, Flat
.1584
Impervious Land Use
Acres
ROOF TOPS FLAT
0.1687
DRIVEWAYS FLAT
0.1642
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
Gravel Trench Bed 1, Gravel Trench Bed 1,
Name : Gravel Trench Bed 1
Bottom Length: looft.
Bottom Width : lift.
Trench bottom slope 1: 0.01 To 1
Trench Left side slope 0: 0 To 1
Trench right side slope 2: 0 To 1
Material thickness of first layer : I
Pour Space of material for first layer : 0.3
Material thickness of second layer : 0.5
Pour Space of material for second layer : 0.3
Material thickness of third layer : 0.5
Pour Space of material for third layer : 0.3
Infiltration On
Infiltration rate : 2
Infiltration saftey factor : 0.25
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 3 ft.
Riser Diam ter: 6 in.
Orxfxce 1 Diameter: 6 in. Elevation: 2.95 ft.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 March 2011
Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table
Stage(ft) Area(acr) Vol� (acr-ft) Dschrg(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
36-1.5
0.025
0.000
0.00C
0.000
367.5
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.013
367.6
0.02,
0.001
0.000
0.013
367.6
0.02,
0.001
0.000
0.013
367.6
0.025
0.001
0.000
0.013
367.7
0.025
0.001
0.000
0.013
367.7
0.025
0.002
0.000
0.013
36�.7
0.025
0.002
0.0100
O.Oi3
36-7.8
0.025
0.002
0.000
0.013
367.8
0.02-1)
0.002
O.OUO
U.U1j
367.8
0.025
0.003
0.000
0.013
301 . 9
(1. f I ;.�')
C1. OCI i
A . I-) r) ( I
(). (I I -,
367.9
0.025
u.003
U.000
O.u13
367. 9
0 � 0 Z '-�
r, - I-, C) -,
1) . (,,),j
''. (j 1 1
36P.0
n.02'�
n,O()4
o.Onn
H . C) 13
368.0
0.025
O.OU4
U.()UU
U.01-i
368.0
0.025
0.004
0. nnf�
f). f) I i
366.1
0.025
0.004
0.000
0.013
368.1
0.025
0.005
O.Onn
n.n13
368.1
0.02,
0.005
0.000
0.013
368.2
n.r),,
-
0.005
n.()On
n.nj-i
368.2
0.025
0.005
0.000
0.013
368.2
0.025
0.006
0.000
0.013
368.3
0.025
0.006
0.000
0.013
368.3
0.025
0.006
0.000
0.013
368.3
0.0115
0.006
0.000
0.013
368.4
0.025
0.007
0.000
0.013
368.4
0.025
0.007
0.000
0.013
368.4
0.025
0.007
0.000
0.013
368.5
0.025
0.007
0.000
0.013
368.5
0.025
0.008
C.000
0.013
368.5
0.025
0.008
0.000
0.013
368.6
0.025
0.008
0.000
0.013
368.6
0.025
0.008
0.000
0.013
368.6
0.025
0.009
0.000
0.013
368.7
0.025
0.009
0.000
0.013
368.7
0.02,
0.009
0.000
0.013
368.7
0.025
U.009
U.000
U.U1j
368.8
0.025
0.010
0.000
0.013
368.8
0.025
0.010
0.000
0.013
368.8
0.025
0.010
0.000
0.013
368.9
0.025
0.010
0.000
0.013
368.9
0.025
0.011
0.000
0.013
368.9
0.02,
0.0111
0.000
0.013
369.0
0.021,
0.011
0.000
0.013
369.0
0.025
0.011
0.000
0.013
Name: Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
C, Forest, Flat
Acres
.4913
0 Impervious Land Use Acres
Element Flows TO:
n Surface Interflow
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates
Final Engineering and Drainage Report
LSA No. 5280
Stage(ft) Area(acr) Vol� (acr-ft) Oschrg(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
30.0
0.025
0.012
0.000
0.013
369.1
0.025
0.012
0.000
0.013
369.1
0.025
0.012
0.000
0.013
369.1
0.025
0.012
0.000
0.013
369.2
0.025
0.013
0.000
0.013
369.2
0.025
0.013
0.000
0.013
369.2
0.025
0.013
0.000
0.013
369.3
0.025
0.013
0.000
0.013
369.3
0.025
0.014
0.000
0.013
jb9.3
O.U25
0.014
U.000
0.013
369.4
0.025
0.014
0.000
0.013
11�q. 4
C, . 0 2
(-) - 0 1 4
n-onn
0.013
369.4
0 . o
U.01�
(J.UUU
0.013
�6c'. 5
(.).o
') -'.) i ')
U. IJOO
0.01-i
JO.t)
O.U25
O.Ulb
O.U00
0.013
�69.5
o.uz")
U.01-1
O.UOU
0.013
-16C4.6
0.025
0.01'/
0.000
0.013
369.6
0.025
0.018
0.000
0.013
369.r
n,n2,�
O.nI()
0.000
0.013
-169.7
0.02b
0.020
0.000
0.013
�r'a. -7
n n�,)
n. . n2 1
0. ()nc)
n.()13
369.7
0.025
C.022
0.000
0.013
369.8
0.025
0.022
0.000
0.013
369.8
0.025
0.0-23
0.000
0.013
369.8
0.02c�
n.n24
n.()Oo
0.013
369.9
0.025
0.025
0.000
0.013
369.9
0.025
0.026
0.000
0.013
369.9
0.025
0.027
0.000
0.013
370.0
0.025
0.028
0.000
0.013
370.0
0.025
0.028
0.000
0.013
370.0
0.025
0.029
0.000
0.013
370.1
0.025
0.030
0.000
C).013
370.1
0.025
0.031
0.000
0.013
370.1
0.025
0.032
0.000
0.013
3�0.2
0.025
0.033
0.000
0.013
370.2
0.025
0.033
0.000
0.013
370.2
0.025
0.034
0.000
0.013
3-10.3
0.025
0.035
0.000
0.013
370.3
0.025
0.036
0.000
0.013
370.3
0.025
0.037
0.000
0.013
370.4
0.025
0.038
0.000
0.013
370.4
0.025
0.038
0.000
0.013
370.4
0.025
0.03q
0.000
0.013
370.',
0.021�
0.040
0.122
0.013
3'70.5
0.025
0.041
0,211
0.013
Groundwater
R= � CF=U
C�= �0
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
March 2011
MITIGATED LAND USE
Flow Frequency Return
Return Period
2 year
5 year
10 year
25 year
50 year
100 year
Flow Frequency
Return Period
2 year
5 year
10 year
25 year
50 year
100 year
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1
Flow(cfs)
0.00877
0.013169
0.014965
0.016337
0.01694
0.017323
Return Periods for
Flow(cfs)
0.080958
0.113337
0.121313
0.125014
0.125953
0.126328
Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped
Year
Predeveloped
Kitigated
1941
0.011
0.000
194'
'. no.1
(" () n
1943
C) nnA
(100
1944
0.004
0.000
1945
0.001
n.")no
1946
0.013
0.020
IQ47
() CIOR
n nno
1-48
f) no "
0 000
1949
0.014
0.000
1950
0.007
0.000
1951
0.029
0.011
1952
0.012
0 000
1953
0.003
0.000
1954
0.004
0.000
1955
0.007
0.000
1956
0.003
0.000
1957
0.008
0.000
1958
0.006
0.000
1959
0.008
0.000
1960
0.008
0.000
1961
0.009
0.017
1962
0.007
0.000
1963
0.004
0.000
1964
0.004
0.000
1965
0.001,
0.000
1966
0.009
0.000
1967
0.006
0.000
1968
0.014
0.000
1969
0.008
0.000
1970
0.008
0.000
1971
0.005
0.000
1972
0.006
0.000
1973
0.019
0.075
1974
0.006
0.000
1975
0.011
0.000
1976
0.009
0.006
1977
0.009
0.000
1978
0.000
0.000
1979
0.007
0.000
1980
0.007
0.000
1981
0.011
0.031
1982
0.003
0.000
1983
0.010
0.129
1984
0.008
0.000
1985
0.007
0.000
1986
0.005
0.000
1987
0.017
0.042
1988
0.014
0.076
1989
0.007
0.000
1990
0.009
0.000
1991
0.027
0.113
1992
0.021
0.110
1993
0.006
0.000
Mitigated. POC #1
and Mitigated. POC #1
Year
Predeveloped
M.t.gat.d
Year
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1994
0.005
0.000
200
0.008
0. o7-
14",
') . -j
.�,4 �
C, . , "1
0.000
jqq6
0 f)ng
0.()()()
2049
0.004
0.020
1997
0.023
0.061
2050
01 . 0 0 5
0.000
1,4Q9
0. - 14
0.022
2051
0.007
0.057
1999
0.005
0.000
2052
0.006
0.000
20nn
() 014
n 04(�
2053
0.004
0.000
2001
0 007
0-000
2054
0.015
0.000
2002
0.003
0. ()()Gl
20�,
0.002
0.000
2003
0.001,
0 . 000
2056
0.014
0.092
2004
0.017
O.C35
2057
9.025
0.096
2001
n . 00 3
n onn
21,5�
0 026
0.114
2006
0.006
0.000
2059
0.008
0.000
2007
0.009
0.000
2060
0.011
0.006
2008
0.006
0.000
2061
0.004
0.000
2009
0.009
0.000
2062
0.009
0.000
2010
0.018
0.039
2063
0.032
0.000
2011
0.011
0.000
2064
0.007
0.000
2012
0.013
0.076
2065
O.Oi3
n. 000
2013
0.008
0.000
2066
0.005
0.000
2014
0.019
0.054
2067
0.003
0.000
2015
0.008
0.000
2068
0.009
0.000
2016
0.005
0.000
2069
0.018
0.048
2G17
0.016
0.021
2070
0.005
0.000
2018
0.004
0.000
2071
0.004
0.000
2019
0.008
0.000
2072
n. f)n4
0.000
2020
0.008
0.000
2073
0.005
0.000
2021
0.005
0.000
20-14
0.020
0.089
2022
0.013
0.021
2075
0.010
0.000
2023
0.003
0.000
207E
0.002
0.000
202 4
0.008
0.000
2077
0.011
0.038
2025
0.006
0.000
2078
0.001
0.000
2026
0.013
0.072
20-79
0.004
0.000
2027
0.010
0.000
2080
0.006
0.000
2028
0.008
0.000
2081
0.021
0.082
2029
0.010
0.013
2082
0.009
0.000
2030
0.007
0.000
2083
0.013
0.027
2031
0.011
0.000
2084
0.008
0.000
2032
0.010
0.000
2085
0.009
0.000
2033
0.017
0.046
2086
0.006
0.000
2034
0.004
0.000
2087
0.008
0.000
2035
0.019
0.063
2088
0.008
0.000
2036
0.009
0.000
2089
0.005
0.000
2037
0.008
0.000
2090
0.008
0.018
2038
0.000
0.000
2091
0.005
0.000
2039
0.006
0.000
2092
0.008
0.000
2040
0.004
0.000
2093
0.013
0.000
2041
0.014
0.000
2094
0.003
0.000
'042
0.009
0.012
2095
0.003
0.000
2043
0.009
0.000
2096
0.005
0.000
2044
O.C11,
0.000
2097
0.006
0.000
204-1
0.006
0.000
2098
0.015
0.009
2046
0.006
0.000
Love I I-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
rL � C?==C3 March 2011
LSA No. 5280 F-5
CA
a
E
"0
> T
a CA
(1) m
> cq
cl
C� C� C�
1� 0 C. C� C. C� 0 0 1� C� 0 c c
oll Z E
2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
c � c c� c;c o o c c c— c o D o c 7 c� c� c� c � c; c; o' z c, c� c� c� c� c� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
>
a)z ... .. ... ...... .............. 0
Z. C� z C� C� Z: C , C C. 0 , C. C� C� 0 , C� C� C� C� C� C� � C� �: �: C� C� C� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� C� 1� 1� 1� C� C� 1� C! 1� 1� c� 1� 1! c� C� � C� 1� C�
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
21
4J
-H
0
t
0
>
�4
04 2 2
V)
u
. . . . . . . . . . . .
1� Cl. Z� C� Z� 1: C� 1: C� C� 1� . .
1� 1� C� 1� C� 1�
m
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
44
cz
>1 o
a
to
00
(a — — — — — — - — 0
a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C� C� 1� 1� C� C� C� C�
oj
C11
C� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C� C� C� C� C� C� C; C; C� C� C; C: C� C; C� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .. .
co
. . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . .
a
Z
>
POC # 1
The Facility PASSED
The Facility PASSED
Flow(CFS) Predev
Dev Percentage Pas./Fail
0.0 0 44
11936
449
3
Pas,
0.0045
11176
446
3
Pass
0.0046
10481
442
4
Pass
0.0046
9831
437
4
Pass
0.0049
9249
433
4
Pass
0.0050
8728
431
4
Pass
0.0051
8238
427
5
Pas.,
0.0053
7787
423
5
Pass
0.0054
7372
421
1
Pas,
0.0055
6940
41�
6
Pass
0.0057
6553
415
6
Pass
0.0058
6196
41-
11
F�'55
0.0059
5865
408
6
Pass
0.0060
5503
404
7
Pass
0.0062
5188
403
7
Pas-
0.0063
4900
399
a
Pass
0.0064
4651
399
8
Pa.'s
0.0065
4391
398
9
Pass
0.006�
4150
394
9
Pass
0.0068
3943
387
9
Pass
0.0069
3709
382
10
P'�ss
0.00�()
3511
382
10
Pass
0.0072
3338
379
ill
Pan's
0.0073
3155
378
11
Pass
0.0074
2998
378
12
Pass
0.0076
2843
376
13
Pass
0.0077
2712
373
13
Pass
0.0078
2589
371
14
Pa�s
0.0079
2470
369
14
Pass
0.0081
2356
367
15
Pass
0.008,
2232
361,
ir
P-s
0.0083
2142
360
16
Pass
0.0084
2047
357
17
Pass
0.0086
1955
353
18
Pass
0.0087
1872
348
18
Pass
0.0088
1797
346
19
Pass
0-0090
1-718
341
19
Pass
0.0091
1649
337
20
Pass
0.0092
1582
337
21
Pass
0.0093
15-16
33,
21
Pass
0.0095
1463
333
22
pass
0.0096
1411
331
23
Pass
0.0097
1366
328
24
Pass
0.0098
1299
322
24
Pass
0.0100
1258
319
25
Pass
0.0101
1201
319
26
Pass
0.0102
1161
315
27
Pass
0.0103
1110
311
28
Pass
0.0105
1068
308
28
Pass
0.0106
1039
307
29
Pass
Perind and Impind Changes
No changes have been made.
0.02 ,
0.011
> 0.01
0
j
L 0.01
0.00 1 11 9 1 1 . I 'eh.
1 OE -4 1 OE -3 10E-2 10E-1 1 10 100
Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail
0.0107 989 305 30 Pass
0.0109 969 305 31 Pass
0.0110 934 2�9 32 Pass
0.0111 905 298 32 Pass
1 1 2-4
-112 -73 33 Pass
0.0114 850 292 34 Pass
0.0115 835 291 34 Pass
0.0116 807 288 35 Pass
0.0117 788 287 36 Pass
0.0119 768 286 37 Pass
0.0120 745 281 37 Pass
0.0121 7'3 278 38 Pass
0.0122 700 277 39 Pass
0.0124 675 2�4 40 Pass
0.0125 655 269 41 Pass
0.0126 636 266 41 Pass
0.0128 609 264 43 Pass
0.0129 585 263 44 Pass
0.0130 564 262 4b Pass
0.0131 545 261 47 Pass
0.0133 525 257 48 Pass
0.0134 511 257 so Pass
0.0'3S 492 256 52 Pass
0.0136 478 255 53 Pass
0.0138 462 254 54 Pass
0.0139 446 251 56 Pass
0.0140 439 249 56 Pass
0.0142 423 24C 58 Pass
0.0143 407 245 60 Pass
0.0144 399 240 60 Pass
0.0145 382 240 62 Pass
0.0147 372 238 63 Pass
0.0148 359 236 65 Pass
0.0149 344 234 68 Pass
0.0150 335 234 69 Pass
0.0152 321 232 72 Pass
0.0153 312 231 '74 Pass
0.0154 303 228 75 Pass
0.01-1-1 291 224 76 Pass
0. 01-'7 282 221 -78 Pass
0.0158 273 219 80 Pass
0.0159 260 219 84 Pass
0.0161 249 219 87 Pass
0.0162 248 218 87 Pass
0.0163 234 213 91 Pass
0.0164 231 212 91 Pass
0.0166 217 209 96 Pass
0.0167 208 206 99 Pass
0.0168 201 203 100 Pass
0.0169 191 203 106 Pass
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 March 2011
C-
Mitigated-
outflow
Flow
Frequency
Analysis:
Flow(CFS)
llrobability=
100 (2n- I
n = rank of
each
event
2 Year
0.00
cfs
2y
y=total
number
of
events
10 Year
0.05
cfs
100
Year
0.11
cfs
Retum
Retum
RCILIM
Year
[leak
Rank
Probability
Period
Year
[leak
Rank
Probability
Period
Year
Peak
Rank
Probability
Period
1982
0.1287
1
31.6%
316.0
1957
0
54
3386]%
3.0
2030
0
107
6740.5%
1.5
1"57
0,1131
1
91*9%
101*3
1951
0
55
3419,4%
29
2111
0
108
6103, 8%
1-1
1990
0.113
3
158.2%
63.2
1959
0
56
3512.71/o
2.8
2033
0
109
6867.1%
1.5
1991
0.1097
4
221.5%
45.1
1961
0
57
3575.9%
2.8
2035
0
110
6930.4%
1.4
2056
0.0955
5
284.8%
35.1
1962
0
58
3639.2%
2.7
2036
0
111
6993.7%
1.4
2055
0.0921
6
348. 10%
28.7
1963
0
59
3702.50/.
2.7
2037
0
112
7057.0%
IA
2073
0.0894
7
411.4%
24.3
1964
0
60
3765�8%
2.7
2038
0
113
7120.3%
1.4
2080
0.0817
8
474.7%
21.1
1965
0
61
3829, 1 %
2.6
2039
0
114
7183.5%
1.4
1987
0.0761
9
538.0%
186
1966
0
62
3902 40'o
26
2040
0
1 15
7246 8%
1 4
1972
0.0755
10
601.3%
16.6
1967
0
63
3955.7%
2.5
2042
0
116
73 10. I'Vo
1.4
2011
0.0755
11
664.6%
15-0
1968
0
64
4019 0%
2.5
2043
0
117
7373.4-o
1.4
2025
0.0715
12
727.8%
13.7
1969
0
65
4082.3%
2.4
2044
0
118
7436.7/o
1.3
2034
0.0627
13
791.1%
12.6
1970
0
66
4145.6%
2.4
2045
0
119
7500.0%
1.3
1996
0.0614
14
854.4%
11.7
1971
0
67
4208.9%
2.4
2046
0
120
7563.3%
1.3
2010
0,0571
11
917,7%
10*9
1973
0
61
4272,2%
2,3
2047
0
121
1626*6%
1,3
2013
0.0545
16
981.0%
10.2
1974
0
69
4315.4%
2.3
2041)
0
122
76890%
1.3
2068
0.0483
17
1044.3%
9.6
1976
0
70
4398.7%
2.3
2051
0
123
7753.2%
1.3
1999
0.0464
18
1107-6%
9.0
1977
0
71
4462.0%
2.2
2052
0
124
7816.5%
1.3
2032
0.0456
19
1170-9%
8.5
1978
0
72
4525.3%
2.2
2053
0
125
7879.7%
1.3
1986
0.0419
20
1234-2%
8.1
1979
0
73
4588.6%
2.2
2054
0
126
79430%
1.3
2009
0.0387
21
129T5%
7.7
1981
0
74
4651.9%
2.1
2058
0
127
8006.3%
12
2076
0.0378
22
1360.81,/o
7.3
1983
0
75
4715.2%
2.1
2060
0
128
80696%
1.2
2003
0.0353
23
1424.1%
7.0
1984
0
76
4778.5%
2A
2061
0
129
8132.9%
1.2
1980
0.0307
24
1487.3%
6.7
1985
0
77
48418%
2 1
2062
0
130
81962%
1.2
2082
0.0269
25
1550.6%
6.4
1988
0
78
4905.1%
2.0
2063
0
131
8259.5%
1.2
1997
0.0222
26
1613.9%
6.2
1989
0
79
4968.4%
2.0
2064
0
132
8322.8%
1.2
2021
0.0214
27
1677.2%
6.0
1992
0
80
5031.6%
2.0
2065
0
133
8386.1%
12
2016
0.0205
28
1740.5%
5.7
1993
0
81
.5094.9%
2.0
2066
0
134
8449.4%
1.2
2048
0.0202
29
1803.8%
5.5
1994
0
82
5158.2%
1.9
2067
0
135
8512.7%
1.2
1945
0.0198
30
1867.1%
5.4
1995
0
83
522 1.5%
1.9
2069
0
136
8575.9%
1.2
2089
0.0178
31
1930.4%
5.2
1998
0
84
5284.80/'o
1.9
2070
0
137
8639.20'o
1.2
1960
0.0174
32
1993.7%
5-0
2000
0
85
5348.1%
1.9
2071
0
138
8702.5%
1.1
2028
0.0132
33
2057.0%
4.9
2001
0
86
5411.4%
1.8
2072
0
139
8765.8%
1.1
2041
0.012
34
2120.3%
4.7
2002
0
87
5474.7%
1.8
2074
0
140
8829.1%
1.1
1950
0011
35
2183 5%
4.6
2004
0
88
55380%
1 8
2075
0
141
8892.4%
1.1
2097
0.009
36
2246.8%
4.5
2005
0
89
5601.3%
1.8
2077
0
142
8955.7%
1.1
2059
0.0058
37
2310.1%
4.3
2006
0
90
5664.6%
1.8
2078
0
143
9019.0%
1.1
1975
0.0056
38
23734%
4 2
2007
0
91
5727 8%
1 7
2079
0
144
9082 3%
1 1
1940
0
39
2436.7%
4.1
2008
0
92
5791.1%
1.7
2081
0
145
9145.6%
1.1
1941
0
40
2500.0%
4.0
2010
0
93
5854.4%
1.7
2083
0
146
9208.9%
1.1
1942
0
41
2563.3%
3.9
2012
0
94
5917.7%
1.7
2084
0
147
9272.2%
1.1
1943
0
42
2626.6%
3.8
2014
0
95
5981.0%
1.7
2085
0
148
9335.4%
1.1
1944
0
43
2689.9%
3.7
2015
0
96
6044.3%
1.7
2086
0
149
9398.7%
1.1
1946
0
44
2753.2%
3.6
2017
0
97
6107.6%
1 6
2087
0
150
9462.0%
1.1
1947
0
45
2816.5%
3.6
2018
0
98
61709%
1 6
2088
0
151
9525.3%
1.0
1948
0
46
2879.7%
3.5
2019
0
99
6234�2%
1 6
2090
0
152
9588.6%
1.0
1949
0
47
2943.0%
3.4
2020
0
100
6297.5%
1.6
2091
0
153
9651.9%
1.0
1951
0
48
3006.3%
3.3
2022
0
101
6360.8%
1.6
2092
0
154
9715.2%
1.0
1952
0
49
3069.6%
3.3
2023
0
102
6424.1%
1.6
2093
0
155
9778.5%
1.0
1953
0
50
3132,9%
3,2
2024
0
113
6487,3%
1,5
2094
0
156
9841,8%
L0
1954
0
51
3196.2%
3.1
2026
0
104
6550.6%
1.5
2095
0
157
9905.1%
1.0
1955
0
52
3259.5%
3.1
2027
0
105
6613.9%
1.5
2096
0
158
9968.4%
1.0
1956
0
53
3322.8%
3.0
2029
0
106
6677.2%
1.5
DOWNSTRAM DRAINAGE DESCRIPTION:
Love I I-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
rL March 2011
LSA No. 5280
DOWNSTRAM DRAINAGE DESCRIPTION:
Tile site is located in the Edmonds Way watershed basin. Tile Edmonds Way basin is a large urban basin
that collects stormwater runoff frorn commercial and residential areas along Edmonds Way (SR- 104) in tile
south portion of the City (see attached watershed map).
Currently storm runoff from the site sheetflows in a east/northeasterly direction to Edmonds Way or 232nd
St SW. The gutter line along the east side of Edmonds Way or south side of 232 "d St SW directs tile run off
to the southeast corner of Edmonds Way and 232 nd St SW. At the corner of Edmonds Way and 232 nd St
SW gutter flow enters a catchbasin and 12" storm pipe conveyance system. The storm pipe system directs
the runoff north under 232 nd S, SW along the west side of Edmonds Way approximately 1,000 ft. About
1,000 ft north of the site the storm conveyance system along the west side of Edmonds Way crosses to the
east side of Edmonds Way to the main storm conveyance system along Edmonds Way. Tile main storm
conveyance system along the east side of Edmonds Way in the vicinity of the site is 36" to 42" in size. The
main storin system continues nort h/n orth westerly in 42" to 72" pipes along Edmonds Way about 1.9 miles;
near the intersection of Pine Street, the system diverges westerly out of the Edmonds Way right-of-way.
The system ultimately discharges to Puget Sound oil the south side of tile City Marina about 2.5 miles
downstream of the site.
Majority of the downstream system consists of a man-made pipe and catchbasin system. No apparent
flooding or system inadequacies within a 'A rmle downstrearn of the site were discovered during site visits
or research of the downstream system.
See attached watershed and downstream drainage map for the local downstream path.
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 F�g cr-a March 2011
F_ /
FIGURE B-1
CITY OF EDMONDS
WATERSHEDS
Deer Creek Perrinville
Edmonds Marsh Puget Sound
Edmonds Way
Puget Sound Piped
Frultdale
Shell Creek
Good Hope Pond
Shellabarger
Halls Creek
Southwest Edmonds A
Hindley Creek
Southwest Edmonds 8
Lake Ballinger
Stilthouse Creek
Lund's Gulch
Talbot Park A
MeadowdaleA
Talbot Park B
Meadowdale B
Terrace Creek
Northstream
Westgate Pond
Outfall Creek
Willow Creek
1 1.000 2,000
4.000 6.000 8.010
I
n 2,000 it
No —antV of am son. Wd,f; acm,—. fitness. o, merchantab,l.ty
.—pan, M., p,.d-t
Ma,M 30.2010
N
'k.
—tj
-Meadowdale
A,
M46idowdale B
-----------------
Clutfall CreekStilt
house Creek
Terrace Creek
Pe rrinville
Puget Sound
Talbot Park A�
Talbot Park B
Fruitdale
N . vi—
Northstrearn
Hindley
Good Hope Pond
Pbget Sound
0airsh 4 -
Words I
Shell,Creik
gelr�.
V&
Westgate Pond Halls Creek
N
----------- ----------
'Willow Creek
--7
jD6erCreekil"',
ITE
z
TA
I W
I ay
Edirn n s,
A
L
Lake:6allirvger',.
E
Edrn
64�
— - — - — - - - — - — - — - — -
::.12-77X"'
2Z
12-7 �12-
(777,
95 �2700 1 -440 COUN
2 1 12- 1082 2
�2-15
12-945 �Rl
9
1 1099-- VAT E- t2--
PRIVATE �10
12-1096 12-93
12-952 12-1081 R MM
-10 P R I �'AT E n1'j- 2,�.
2-942 12-781 1
gC Al2 - 7 $02 �O 1 2 3. 1
17- 1-CF9 7' -r- 1V58
.2-94- 12-93
5 11 T. 1
1 1094 -38 -1-a-66
J15 .67\-i'5-1-09 15-117
-5�88 p
'1-5 Mo4wV 15-118 ;7,
8- \10 2
13 -12-' 1
1�5-107 2 15-119
5t8
2 229,h St SK/
15-120
06
15-100
229th P1
15-101
\0 15-102
5 89\ 2
\9
-8 \
'15-97
LE
2 2 0 0 230th 5t 51,Y
15 15-
'4\n 5.
23-00-9
15-
5-94 'A
15
14U L'-2'31 tstsw
23, 2
231st P1 S141
16-6
5-558 -34
F_ 1 2 i-663-
56 .23 32nd
315- 5-7 16 713 16 -664
66
5
2
232nd P1 SW
23 2 14 \ it658
<r
16-668 9;
6
942"S 15-65
3 2 1 ------ 356
22
-65
c:1
C,
J-4,17 11
�16-657
7 60 1 I-L62-
5-6
15
-4 09 -j
5-6
15-349 0
65-5-1
5-350
'A �-- - .6-669
Downstream Map
Loveli-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 1L. 90 F-00 March 2011
GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL:
This project will require grading to construct the proposed building; driveway and parking area; and utilities
(including the storinwater infiltration trench system). Standard erosion control measures are proposed to be
used during construction. The primary erosion and sediment control BMP during construction will be
proper soil stabilization methods. Exposed soils shall be stabilized by application of effective BMPs that
protect the soil from the erosive forces of raindrops, flowing water, and wind. Applicable practices include,
but not limited to, ternporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control
fabrics, matting, soil application of polyacrylamide (pam) , the early application of gravel base on areas to
be paved, and dust control. The contractor shall select a soil stabilization method best suited for the
particular situation. Stock piles must be stabilized and protected with sediment trapping measures. In
addition, site containment of exposed soils shall be sustained by using silt fence barriers along the down -
slope boundaries of the site's disturbance areas. See the site development plan for details.
Estimated grading calculations: The attached calculations were performed using and average horizontal
areas (slice method). The quantities listed are for the permitting process only and should not be considered
precise arnounts for bidding purposes. The estimated grading quantities are:
Approximate Cut: 600 CY
Approximate Fill: 200 CY
Conclusion: The final site development construction plans will include specific grading and drainage
improvement notes and details. With proper installation, maintenance and inspections of the proposed
construction the project should have minimal impact to the surrounding environment.
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 March 2011
6-1
Map Unit Legend
T
Snohomish County Area, Washington
( WA661)
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in
Percent of
Symbol AOI
AOT
6 AlderwoGd-Urban 0.5
100.0%
land complex, 8 to
15 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 0.5
100.0%
FOIA I Accessibility Statement I Privacy Policy I Non- Discrimination Statement I Information Quality I USA.9ov I White House
Love] I-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280
March 2011
SOIL SURVEY OF
SNOHOMM COUNTY AREA9 WASMNGTON
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Alderwood - Urban Land Complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes (soil #6- Hydrologic Group "A")
This map unit is on till plains. Areas are irregular in shape and are 25 to 100 acres in size. The native vegetation is
mainly conifers and hardwoods. Elevation is 50 to 550 feet. The average annual precipitation is about 40 inches, the
average annual air temperature is about 50 degrees F, and the average frost -free season is 170 to 190 days.
This unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent Urban land. The components of
this unit are so intricately intermingled that it was not practical to map them separately at the scale used. Included in
this unit are small areas Everett and Indianola soils on terraces and outwash plains, Kitsap soils on terrace
escarpments, Ragnar soils on outwash plains. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage.
The Alderwood soil is moderately deep over a hardpan and is moderately well drained. It formed in glacial till.
Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part of
the subsoil is dark yellowish brown and dark brown very gravelly sandy loam about 23 inches thick. The lower part is
olive brown very gravelly sandyloam about 5 inches thick. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of about 35
inches. Depth to the hardpan ranges from 20 to 40 inches.
Permeability of the Alderwood soil is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Available water
capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight.
A seasonal perched water table is at a depth of 18 to 36 inches from January to March.
Urban land consists of areas that are covered by streets, buildings, parking lots, and other structures that obscure or
alter the soils so that identification is not possible. The Alderwood soil in this unit is used mainly for parks, building
sites, lawns, gardens, and woodland.
The main limitations of the Alderwood soil for homesites and septic tank absorption fields are the depth to the hardpan
and the seasonal perched water table. Onsite waste disposal systems often fail or do not function properly during
periods of high rainfall. Drainage is needed if buildings with basements and crawl spaces are constructed. Topsoil
need to be stockpiled during site preparation and subsequently used to cover the exposed material. Additions of
fertilizer and peat are desirable prior to seeding grass for lawns.
This map unit is in capability subclass lVe.
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates
Final Engineering and Drainage Report
LSA No.5280
[L � CF==o
,ME*
I r=o-
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
March 2011 G-3
Grading Quantity Estimation
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Site Grading
LSA No. 5280
March 2011
Cut Area
Fill Area
Volume of
Volume of
Volume of
Volume of
Elevation
at Elev.
at Elev.
Cut, CF
Fill, CF
Cut, CY
Fill, CY
371.5
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
372.0
630
0
158
0
5.8
0.0
373.0
1,200
0
915
0
33.9
0.0
373.0
6,200
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
374.0
5,500
0
5,850
0
216.7
0.0
375.0
0
0
2,750
0
101.9
0.0
9,672 0
Additional Cut for Infiltration Bed
Cut = 4,400 cf (100'x 1 Vx 4') = 163 C.Y.
Approximate Total Quantities:
CUT= 600 C.Y.
FILL= 200 C.Y.
Love] I-Sauerland and Associates
Final Engineering and Drainage Report
LSA No. 5280
358
in
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
March 2011 (3
0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES:
Op cration and Maintenance Requirements: These guidelines are intended to provide operation and
maintenance instructions for tile Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic (23204 Edmonds Way) storm drainage
control facilities. The owner is responsible for maintenance of storm drainage facilities within the property.
Tile owner is not responsible for maintenance within the public right-of-way.
This manual is not comprehensive. Although it explains the intended operation of the various components
of tile drainage system, and suggests a routine of inspection and maintenance, it cannot anticipate every
problem. Once a historical record of maintenance is established, it may be prudent to alter the routine. It is
recommended that maintenance records be kept, and that the records be reviewed periodically.
Concept of Operation: The drainage design is shown and described in the final site development
engineering plans and report. The approved site development plans and report should be retained by the
owner and used as a reference to identify drainage facilities outlined in this manual.
Stormwater Infiltration Trench System. Tile onsite infiltration trench system consists of an underground
rock filled trench with a 6" perforated dispersion pipe running through the center. The infiltration trench is
located under the proposed driveway and parking west of veterinary clinic building. The infiltration trench
system has been designed to completely infiltrate the 100-year 24-hour storm event. If an extraordinary
event was to occur or multiple back to back large storm events occurred the catch -basins at the ends of the
trench would overtop and overflow into 232 nd Street SW would occur. If regular overtopping of the
collection catchbasin is experienced the system shall be thoroughly cleaned and inspected. Over a period of
time siltation of the infiltration bed can occur (especially if the system is not inspected and cleaned
regularly) and replacement of the rock in the infiltration system may be required.
Recommended Inspections of Facilities. The following are inspection guidelines for the drainage system.
A minimum of two overall site drainage system inspections should occur annually. The inspections should
occur prior to the winter rain season (September/October), leaving sufficient time to correct any detected
maintenance problems, and at the end of the season (May/June) to determine the effect of the season's
runoff. A mid raining season (February) inspection is recommended. Once a historical basis is developed
the frequency of inspection may be modified as necessary.
For additional and updated maintenance information visit the Washington State Department of Ecology's
web -site at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wqhome.html
Love I I-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280 M om March 2011
�a 0 H-1
nGeneral Design, Maintenance, and Construction Criteria for Infiltration Facilities
Construction Criteria
Initial basin excavation should be conducted to within 1 -foot of the final elevation of the basin floor.
Excavate infiltration trenches and basins to final grade only after all disturbed areas in tile upgradient
project drainage area have been permanently stabilized. The final phase of excavation should remove all
accumulation of silt in the infiltration facility before putting it in service. After construction is completed,
prevent sediment from entering the infiltration facility by first conveying the runoff water through an
appropriate pretreatment system such as a pre -settling basin, wet pond, or sand filter.
Infiltration facilities should generally not be used as ternporary sediment traps during construction. If an
infiltration facility is to be used as a sediment trap, it must not be excavated to final grade until after the
Upgradient drainage area has been stabilized. Any accumulation of silt in the basin must be removed before
Putting it in service.
Traffic Control — Relatively light -tracked equipment Is recornmended for this operation to avoid
*compaction of the basin floor. The use of draglines and trackhoes should be considered for constructing
infiltration basins. The infiltration area should be flagged or marked to keep heavy equipment away.
- Trench Preparation -Excavated materials must be placed away from the trench sides to enhance trench
wall stability. Care should also be taken to keep this material away from slopes, neighboring property,
sidewalks and streets. It is recommended that this material be covered with plastic.
0 Stone Aggregate Placement and Compaction - The stone aggregate should be placed in lifts and
compacted using plate compactors. As a rule of thumb, a maximum loose lift thickness of 12 inches is
recommended. The compaction process ensures geotextile conformity to the excavation sides, thereby
reducing potential piping and geotextile clogging, and settlement problems.
Potential Contamination - Prevent natural or fill soils from intermixing with the stone aggregate. All
*contaminated stone aggregate must be removed and replaced with uncontaminated stone aggregate.
Overlapping and Covering-Fol lowing the stone aggregate placement, the geotextile must be folded over
tile stone aggregate to form a 12 inch minimum longitudinal overlap. When overlaps are required between
rolls, the upstream roll should overlap a minimum of 2 feet over the downstream roll in order to provide a
shingled effect.
- Voids behind Geotextile - Voids between the geotextile and excavation sides must be avoided. Removing
boulders or other obstacles from the trench walls is one source of such voids. Natural soils should be placed
in these voids at the most convenient time during construction to ensure geotextile conformity to the
excavation sides. Soil piping, geotextile clogging, and possible surface subsidence will be avoided by this
remedial process.
- Unstable Excavation Sites - Vertically excavated walls may be difficult to maintain in areas where the soil
moisture is high or where soft or collesionless soils predominate. Trapezoidal, rather than rectangular,
cross -sections may be needed.
0
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Final Engineering and Drainage Report 23204 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5280
0 March 2011 H-2
Infiltration Facilities Maintenance Criteria
Provision should be made for regular and perpetual maintenance of the infiltration basin/trench, including
replacernent and/or reconstruction of the any rnedia that are relied upon for treatment purposes.
Maintenance should be conducted when water remains in the basin or trench for more than 24 hours after
the end of a rainfall event, or when overflows occur more frequently than planned. For example, off-line
infiltration facilities should not have any overflows. Infiltration facilities designed to completely infiltrate
all flows to rneet flow control standards should not overflow. An Operation and Maintenance Plan,
approved by the local jurisdiction, should ensure maintaining the desired infiltration rate.
Adequate access for operation and maintenance must be included in the design of infiltration basins and
trenches.
Removal of accumulated debris/sediment in the basin/trench should be conducted every 6 months or as
needed to prevent clogging, or when water remains in the pond for greater than 24 hours after the end of a
rainfall event.
Volume III — Hyclrologic Analysis and Flow Conlrol BAIPs Februaiy 2005
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates
Final Engineering and Drainage Report
LSA No.5280
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
March 2011
4.6 Maintenance Standards for Drainage Facilities
The facility -specific maintenance standards contained in this section are
intended to be conditions for determining if maintenance actions are
required as identified through inspection. They are not intended to be
measures of the facility's required condition at all times between
inspections. In other words, exceedence of these conditions at any time
between inspections and/or maintenance does not automatically constitute
a violation of these standards. However, based upon inspection
observations, the inspection and maintenance schedules shall be adjusted
to minimize the length of time that a facility is in a condition that requires
a maintenance action.
Table 4.5 — Maintenance Standards
No. 1 — Detention Ponds
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance Is
Results Expected When
Component
Needed
Maintenance Is Performed
General
Trash & Debris
Any trash and debris which exceed 5
Trash and debris cleared from site.
cubic feet per 1,000 square feet (this
is about equal to the amount of trash
it would take to fill up one standard
size garbage can). In general, there
should be no visual evidence of
dumping.
If less than threshold all trash and
debris will be removed as part of next
scheduled maintenance.
Poisonous
Any poisonous or nuisance
No danger of poisonous vegetation
Vegetation and
vegetation which may constitute a
where maintenance personnel or the
noxious weeds
hazard to maintenance personnel or
public might normally be. (Coordinate
the public.
with local health department)
Any evidence of noxious weeds as
Complete eradication of noxious weeds
defined by State or local regulations.
may not be possible. Compliance with
State or local eradication policies
(Apply requirements of adopted IPM
required
policies for the use of herbicides).
Contaminants
Any evidence of oil, gasoline,
No
and Pollution
contaminants or other pollutants
eontam;ftanl
ef
(Coordinate removal/cleanup with
pollutant
present.
local water quality response agency).
Rodent Holes
Any evidence of rodent holes if
Rodents destroyed and dam or berm
facility is acting as a dam or berm, or
repaired. (Coordinate with local health
any evidence of water piping through
department; coordinate with Ecology
dam or berm via rodent holes.
Dam Safety Office if pond exceeds 10
I
I
I acre-feet.)
4-30
Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005
g-q
No. I — Detention Ponds
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance Is
Results Expected When
Component
Needed
Maintenance Is Performed
Beaver Dams
Dam results in change or function of
Facility is returned to design function.
the facility.
(Coordinate trapping of beavers and
removal of dams with appropriate
permitting agencies)
Insects
When insects such as wasps and
Insects destroyed or removed from site.
hornets interfere with maintenance
activities.
Apply insecticides in compliance with
adopted IPM policies
Tree Growth
Tree growth does not allow
Trees do not hinder maintenance
and Hazard
maintenance access or interferes
activities. Harvested trees should be
Trees
with maintenance activity (i.e., slope
recycled into mulch or other beneficial
mowing, silt removal, vactoring, or
uses (e.g., alders for firewood).
equipment movements). If trees are
not interfering with access or
Remove hazard Trees
maintenance, do not remove
If dead, diseased, or dying trees are
identified
(Use a certified Arborist to determine
health of tree or removal
requirements)
Side Slopes
Erosion
Eroded damage over 2 inches deep
Slopes should be stabilized using
of Pond
where cause of damage is still
appropriate erosion control measure(s);
present or where there is potential for
e.g., rock reinforcement, planting of
continued erosion.
grass, compaction.
Any erosion observed on a
If erosion is occurring on compacted
compacted berm embankment.
berms a licensed civil engineer should
be consulted to resolve source of
erosion.
Storage Area
Sediment
Accumulated sediment that exceeds
Sediment cleaned out to designed pond
10% of the designed pond depth
shape and depth; pond reseeded if
unless otherwise specified or affects
necessary to control erosion.
inletting or outletting condition of the
facility.
Liner (If
Liner is visible and has more than
Liner repaired or replaced. Liner is fully
Applicable)
three 1/4-inch holes in it.
covered.
February 2005 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-31
No. 1 — Detention Ponds
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance Is
Results Expected When
Component
Needed
Maintenance Is Performed
Pond Berms
Settlements
Any part of berm which has settled 4
Dike is built back to the design
(Dikes)
inches lower than the design
elevation.
elevation.
If settlement is apparent, measure
berm to determine amount of
settlement.
Settling can be an indication of more
severe problems with the berm or
outlet works. A licensed civil
engineer should be consulted to
determine the source of the
settlement.
Piping
Discernable water flow through pond
Piping eliminated. Erosion potential
berm. Ongoing erosion with potential
resolved.
for erosion to continue.
(Recommend a Goethechnical
engineer be called in to inspect and
evaluate condition and recommend
repair of condition.
Emergency
Tree Growth
Tree growth on emergency spillways
Trees should be removed. If root
Overflow/
creates blockage problems and may
system is small (base less than 4
Spillway and
cause failure of the berm due to
inches) the root system may be left in
Berms over 4
uncontrolled overtopping.
place. Otherwise the roots should be
feet in height.
removed and the berm restored. A
Tree growth on berms over 4 feet in
licensed civil engineer should be
height may lead to piping through the
consulted for proper berm/spillway
berm which could lead to failure of
restoration.
the berm.
Piping
Discernable water flow through pond
Piping eliminated. Erosion potential
berm. Ongoing erosion with potential
resolved.
for erosion to continue.
(Recommend a Goethechnical
engineer be called in to inspect and
evaluate condition and recommend
repair of condition.
Emergency
Emergency
Only one layer of rock exists above
Rocks and pad depth are restored to
Overflow/
Overflow/
native soil in area five square feet or
design standards.
Spillway
Spillway
larger, or any exposure of native soil
at the top of out flow path of spillway.
(Rip -rap on inside slopes need not be
replaced.)
Erosion
See "Side Slopes of Pond"
4-32
Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005
H- 6)
No. 2 — Infiltration
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance Is
Results Expected When
Component
Needed
Maintenance Is
Performed
General
Trash & Debris
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1).
Poisonous/Noxious
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Vegetation
(No. 1).
Contaminants and
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Pollution
(No. 1).
Rodent Holes
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1)
Storage Area
Sediment
Water ponding in infiltration pond after
Sediment is removed
rainfall ceases and appropriate time
and/or facility is cleaned
allowed for infiltration.
so that infiltration system
works according to
(A percolation test pit or test of facility
design.
indicates facility is only working at 90% of
its designed capabilities. If two inches or
more sediment is present, remove).
Filter Bags (if
Filled with
Sediment and debris fill bag more than 1/2
Filter bag is replaced or
applicable)
Sediment and
full.
system is redesigned.
Debris
Rock Filters
Sediment and
By visual inspection, little or no water flows
Gravel in rock filter is
Debris
through filter during heavy rain storms.
replaced.
Side Slopes of
Erosion
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Pond
(No. 1).
Emergency
Tree Growth
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Overflow Spillway
(No. 1).
and Berms over 4
feet in height.
Piping
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1 ).
Emergency
Rock Missing
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Overflow Spillway
(No. 1 ).
Erosion
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1).
Pre -settling
Facility or sump
6" or designed sediment trap depth of
Sediment is removed.
Ponds and Vaults
filled with Sediment
sediment.
and/or debris
0 February 2005 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-33
H-7
No. 5 — Catch Basins
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected When
Component
Maintenance is
performed
General
Trash &
Trash or debris which is located immediately
No Trash or debris located
Debris
in front of the catch basin opening or is
immediately in front of
blocking inletting capacity of the basin by
catch basin or on grate
more than 10%.
opening.
Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60
No trash or debris in the
percent of the sump depth as measured from
catch basin.
the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest
pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case
less than a minimum of six inches clearance
from the debris surface to the invert of the
lowest pipe.
Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe
Inlet and outlet pipes free
blocking more than 1/3 of its height.
of trash or debris.
Dead animals or vegetation that could
No dead animals or
generate odors that could cause complaints
vegetation present within
or dangerous gases (e.g., methane).
the catch basin.
Sediment
Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60
No sediment in the catch
percent of the sump depth as measured from
basin
the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest
pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case
less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance
from the sediment surface to the invert of the
lowest pipe.
Structure
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square
Top slab is free of holes
Damage to
inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch
and cracks.
Frame and/or
Top Slab
(Intent is to make sure no material is running
into basin).
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e.,
Frame is sitting flush on
separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame
the riser rings or top slab
from the top slab. Frame not securely
and firmly attached.
attached
Fractures or
Maintenance person judges that structure is
Basin replaced or repaired
Cracksin
unsound.
to design standards.
Basin Walls/
Bottom
Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider
Pipe is regrouted and
than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the
secure at basin wall.
joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of
soil particles entering catch basin through
cracks.
Settlement/
If failure of basin has created a safety,
Basin replaced or repaired
Misalignment
function, or design problem.
to design standards.
Vegetation
Vegetation growing across and blocking more
No vegetation blocking
than 10% of the basin opening.
opening to basin.
Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints
No vegetation or
that is more than six inches tall and less than
growth present.
f:1
six inches apart.
4-36
Volume V - Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005
rMIR
ALME "IF
No. 5 — Catch Basins
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected When
Component
Maintenance is
performed
Contamination
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
No pollution present.
and Pollution
Catch Basin
Cover Not in
Cover is missing or only partially in place.
Catch basin cover is
Cover
Place
Any open catch basin requires maintenance.
closed
Locking
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
Mechanism opens with
Mechanism
maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts
proper tools.
Not Working
into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread.
Cover Difficult
One maintenance person cannot remove lid
Cover can be removed by
to Remove
after applying normal lifting pressure.
one maintenance person.
(Intent is keep cover from sealing off access
to maintenance.)
Ladder
Ladder Rungs
Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not
Ladder meets design
Unsafe
securely attached to basin wall,
standards and allows
misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges.
maintenance person safe
access.
Metal Grates
Grate opening
Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch.
Grate opening meets
(If Applicable)
Unsafe
design standards.
Trash and
Trash and debris that is blocking more than
Grate free of trash and
Debris
20% of grate surface inletting capacity.
debris.
Damaged or
Grate missing or broken member(s) of the
Grate is in place and
Missing.
grate.
meets design standards.
No. 6 — Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks)
Maintenance
Defect
:,Condition When Maintenance Is
Results Expected -When
Components
�Weeded
Maintenance is Performed
General
Trash and
Trash or debris that is plugging more
Barrier cleared to design flow
Debris
than 20% of the openings in the barrier.
capacity.
Metal
Damaged/
Bars are bent out of shape more than 3
Bars in place with no bends more
Missing
inches.
than 3/4 inch.
Bars.
Bars are missing or entire barrier
Bars in place according to design.
missing.
Bars are loose and rust is causing 50%
Barrier replaced or repaired to
deterioration to any part of barrier.
design standards.
Inlet/Outlet
[De b Iris barrier missing or not attached to
Barrier firmly attached to pipe
Pipe
pipe
pip
February 2005 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-37
H-5
No. 16 - Baffle Oil/Water Separators (API Type)
Maintenance
Defect
Condition When Maintenance is
Results Expected When
Component
Needed
Maintenance is Performed
General
Monitoring
Inspection of discharge water for
Effluent discharge from vault should
obvious signs of poor water
be clear with out thick visible sheen.
quality.
Sediment
Sediment depth in bottom of vault
No sediment deposits on vault
Accumulation
exceeds 6-inches in depth.
bottom that would impede flow
through the vault and reduce
separation efficiency.
Trash and Debris
Trash and debris accumulation in
Trash and debris removed from
Accumulation
vault, or pipe inlet/outlet,
vault, and inlet/outlet piping.
floatables and non-floatables.
Oil Accumulation
Oil accumulations that exceed 1-
Extract oil from vault by vactoring.
inch, at the surface of the water.
Disposal in accordance with state
and local rules and regulations.
Damaged Pipes
Inlet or outlet piping damaged or
Pipe repaired or replaced.
broken and in need of repair.
Access Cover
Cover cannot be opened,
Cover repaired to proper working
Damaged/Not
corrosion/deformation of cover.
specifications or replaced.
Working
Vault Structure
Vault replaced or repairs made so
Damage - Includes
Cracks in Walls
See "Catch Basins" (No. 5)
that vault meets design
specifications and is structurally
Bottom, Damage to
sound.
Frame and/or Top
Slab
Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the
Vault repaired so that no cracks
joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or
exist wider than 1/4-inch at the joint
evidence of soil particles entering
of the inlet/outlet pipe.
through the cracks.
Baffles
Baffles corroding, cracking,
Baffles repaired or replaced to
warping and/or showing signs of
specifications.
failure as determined by
maintenance/inspection person.
Access Ladder
Ladder is corroded or
Ladder replaced or repaired and
Damaged
deteriorated, not functioning
meets specifications, and is safe to
properly, not securely attached to
use as determined by inspection
structure wall, missing rungs,
personnel.
cracks, and misaligned.
4-48
Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005
H-10
A Ism RVA."I" i . �� I
kif MM
Preparedfor:
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Prepared by:
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
9115' Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
425-827-7701
Fax: 425-827-5424
October 8, 2010
Project No. KE100292A
Geotechnical Engineering
V
Water Resources
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
eN el" A^ 5 6hy ailep � "'P- r alj�l V/1 �e
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC
Environmental Assessments and
Remediation
Sustainable Development Services
Geologic Assessments
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared for
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Project No. KE100292A
October 8, 2010
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
IN [i] U �;J 0
C466nq Over 25;Yeamo[,YenWx
October 8, 2010
Project No. KE100292A
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Attention: Dr. Ann Brudvik, DVM
Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Dr. Brudvik:
We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above -referenced report. This report
summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical
engineering studies, and offers recommendations for the preliminary design and development
of the proposed project. Our recommendations are preliminary in that definite building
locations and construction details have not been finalized at the time of this report.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations
presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should
have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
Kurfb. Merriman, P.E.
Principal Engineer
KDM/tb
KEIDD292A2
Projects\20100292\MW
Kirkland Cl Everett 13 Tacoma
425-827-7701 425-259-0522 253-722-2992
www.aesgeo.com X - 3
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Velerinaty Clinic Preliminmy Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Condifions
1. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and
geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. Our recommendations are preliminary
in that construction details have not been finalized at the time of this report. The location of
the subject site is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Figure 1. The locations of the proposed
building, as well as the approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study,
are presented on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. In the event that any changes in
the nature or design of the proposed lot layout are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as
necessary,
1. 1 Purpose and Scop
The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used in the preliminary design
and development of the subject project. Our study included a review of available geologic
literature, drilling two exploration borings, and performing geologic studies to assess the type,
thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground
water conditions. Geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to assess the type of
suitable foundation, allowable foundation soil bearing pressures, anticipated settlements,
basement/retaining wall lateral pressures, floor support recommendations, and drainage
considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers preliminary
development reconu-nendations based on our present understanding of the project.
1.2 Authorization
Authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Dr. Ann Brudvik of Woodhaven
Veterinary Clinic. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work
letter dated September 16, 2010. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic and its 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.
Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks
to the owner.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
.IPI-Itb - KE100292A2 - Projects1201002921KEMP Page I
X- &/
Subsittyke F_xploralion, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaveiz Veteriitaiy ClMic Prelinfinaq Geotedmical Etighteering Report
Edinolids, Washiligtoti Project wid Site Coiiditioiis
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is the existing Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic located at 23204 Edmonds Way
in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and
232' Street SW, and includes an existing single -story commercial building with a paved
parking area to the west. A gravel area is located to the south of the existing building. Site
topography is generally flat -lying, with a slight grade downward to the north and east.
The currently proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the
construction of a new single -story veterinary clinic building with a slab -on -grade floor. A
portion of the exiting structure includes a crawl space below the main floor, and we understand
that structural fill is currently planned to raise existing. crawl space areas to the subgrade
elevation for new slab -on -grade areas. We also understand that infiltration is currently under
consideration for the handling of storm water runoff from the proposed building, and we have
been asked to provide our preliminary opinion regarding the infiltration potential of the site
soils.
0 3.0 SITE EXPLORATION
The site exploration was conducted on September 24, 2010, and consisted of two exploration
borings and a geologic and geologic hazard reconnaissance to gain information about the site.
The various types of materials and sediments encountered in the explorations, as well as the
depths where characteristics of these materials changed, are indicated on the exploration boring
logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed
may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred
between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. The locations of the
exploration borings are shown on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. The conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report are based on the exploration borings completed
for this study. The number, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within
site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground,
interpolation 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 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 Borings
The borings were completed on the property using a hand -portable drill rig advancing a
3.75-inch inside -diameter, hollow -stem auger. During the drilling process, samples were
obtained at 2.5- or 5-foot intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLAb - r.9100292A2 - Projects1201002921KEMP Page 2
T-5
Substuface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
engineering geologist from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are
based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured.
Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch,
outs ide-diameter, split -barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound
hammer free -failing a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is
recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known
as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 blows are
recorded at or before the end of one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number
of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value,
provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of
cohesive soils. These values are plotted on the attached boring logs.
The samples obtained from the split -barrel sampler were classified in the field and
representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to
our laboratory for further visual classification and geotechnical laboratory testing, as
necessary.
The various types of soil and ground water elevations, as well as the depths where soil and
ground water characteristics changed, are indicated on the exploration boring logs presented in
the Appendix of this report. Our exploration and reconnaissance were approximately located
by measuring from known site features.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished
for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of applicable geologic literature.
As shown on the field logs, the exploration borings generally encountered fill overlying
granular glacial sediments. The following section presents more detailed subsurface
information organized from the youngest to the oldest sediment types.
4.1 Stratigraphy
Fill
Fill soils (soils not naturally placed) were encountered at the location of exploration
borings EB-1 and EB-2 to respective depths of approximately 2 and 4 feet below the ground
surface. This fill generally consisted of loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel.
Portions of the fill at EB-2 contained asphalt pieces. Fill thicknesses can vary over short
distances and may be deeper than observed in our exploration, particularly in the vicinity of the
October 8, 2010 A SSO CIA TED FAR TH SCIE NCES, INC
JPLJtb - KE100292A2 - Projects 1201002921KEI WP Page 3
I - (0
Subsinface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Velerinaty Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Con&tions
existing building foundations, buried utilities, and landscape areas. Due to their variable
density and content, the existing fill soils are not suitable for foundation support.
Vashon Advance Outwash
Sediments encountered below the fill generally consisted of medium dense to very dense sand,
with variable silt and gravel content. We interpret these sediments to be representative of
Vashon advance outwash (Qva). The silt content observed in the shallow samples suggests that
the soils encountered may be near the contact between Qva and Vashon lodgement till
sediments (Qvt). The Qva sediments were deposited by meltwater streams that emanated from
the advancing glacial ice during the Vashon Stade of Fraser Glaciation approximately 12,500
to 15,000 years ago. The high relative density of these sediments is due to their consolidation
by the massive weight of the glacial ice that overrode these materials subsequent to their
deposition. At the locations of exploration borings EB-1 and EB-2, the Qva sediments
extended beyond the respective depths explored of 16 and 16.5 feet below the ground surface.
4.2 Geologic Mapping
Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Map of the EdInonds East and part of the
Edinonds West Quadrangles, by J.P. Minard (1983) indicates that the area of the subject site is
underlain by Vashon advance outwash deposits (Qva), with Vashon lodgernent till (Qvt)
mapped nearby. Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in
general agreement with the regional geologic map.
4.3 Hydrology
Ground water seepage was not encountered at our exploration boring locations to the depths
explored. It should be noted that the depth or occurrence of ground water seepage may vary in
response to changes in season, precipitation, and site use. Exploration for this study was
conducted during the month of September when ground water levels are typically lower than
their seasonal high.
4.4 Laboratory Test Results
Grain -size analyses were completed on selected soil samples from our explorations.
Laboratory test results are included in the Appendix.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JP,Utb - KE100292A2 - Projects1201002921MW Page 4
X-7
Substoface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinmy Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
11. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and
shallow ground water conditions, as observed and discussed herein.
5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATION
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these
events are small, and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as
evidenced by the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event; the 2001, 6.8-magnitude event; and the 1965,
6.5-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this region
during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake
return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within
a given 20- to 40-year period.
Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic
events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and
4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed
project is discussed below.
5.1 Surficial Ground Ruptur
The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the South Whidbey Island Fault Zone
(SWIFZ). A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Sherrod, et al., 2005,
Holocene Fault Scarps and Shallow Magnetic Anomalies Along the Southern Whidbey Island
Fault Zone Near Woodinville, Washington, Open -File Report 2005-1136, March 2005)
indicates that "strong" evidence of prehistoric earthquake activity has been observed along
associated fault strands thought to be part of the SWIFZ. The study suggests as many as nine
earthquake events along the SWIFZ may have occurred within the last 16,400 years. The
recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the
studies still ongoing. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still
unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of 1,000 years. Due to the suspected
long recurrence interval, it is our opinion that the potential for damage to the proposed
structure by surficial. ground rupture is considered to be low. No mitigations other than
complying with 2009 International Building Code (IBC) seismic design recommendations are
recommended.
5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides
It is our opinion that the potential risk of damage to the proposed development by seismically
induced slope failures is low due to the lack of steep slopes in the project area.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC
JP&4b - KE100292A2 - Projects 1201002921KEI WT Page 5
Subsinfare Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinaty Clinic Preliminaty Geotechnical Engineeritig Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards aiY_��
5.3 Liquefaction
The encountered stratigraphy has a low potential for liquefaction due to its dense state and lack
of adverse ground water conditions. No mitigation of liquefaction hazards is warranted.
5.4 Ground Motion
It is our opinion that any earthquake damage to the proposed structures, when founded on
suitable bearing strata in accordance with the recommendations contained herein, will be
caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above -
discussed impacts. Structural design of the buildings should follow 2009 International
Building Code (IBC) standards using Site Class "C" as defined in Table 1613.5.2. The 2009
IBC seismic design parameters for short period (Ss) and I -second period (Si) spectral
acceleration values were determined from the latitude and longitude of the project site using the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website
(littp://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/ . These values are based on Site Class "B". Based on
2002 data, the USGS website interpolated ground motions at the project site to be 1. 198g and
0.579g for building periods of 0.2 and 1.0 seconds, respectively, with a 2 percent chance of
exceedance in 50 years. These values correspond to site coefficients F. = 1.00 and Fv =
1.381, and a peak ground acceleration of 0.319g. The Fa, R and peak horizontal acceleration
values have been corrected for Site Class "C" in accordance with the IBC.
6.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
As of October 1, 2008, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Construction
Storm Water General Permit (also known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System [NPDES] permit) requires weekly Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(TESC) inspections and turbidity monitoring of site runoff for all sites I or more acres in size
that discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. Although we anticipate that the
proposed project will require disturbance of less than 1 acre, we provide in the following
sections recommendations to address these inspection and reporting requirements, should they
be triggered. The following sections also include recommendations related to general erosion
control and mitigation.
The TESC inspections and turbidity monitoring of runoff must be completed by a Certified
Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the duration of the construction. The weekly
TESC reports do not need to be sent to Ecology, but should be logged into the project Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology requires a monthly summary report of the
turbidity monitoring results signed by the NPDES permit holder. If the monitored turbidity
equals or exceeds 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (Ecology benchmark standard), the
project best management practices (BMPs) should be modified to decrease the turbidity of
storm water leaving the site. Changes and upgrades to the BMPs should be documented in the
Li October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLO - KEI 00292A 2 - Projeas 1201002921 KE I WP Page 6
n
.r — 7
Subsutface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards an!���
weekly TESC reports and continued until the weekly turbidity reading is 25 NTU or lower. If
the monitored turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the results must be reported to Ecofy via phone
within 24 hours and corrective actions should be implemented as soon as possible. Daily
turbidity monitoring is continued until the corrective actions lowers the turbidity to below
25 NTU, or until the discharge stops. This description of the sampling benchmarks and
reporting requirements is a brief summary of the Construction Storm Water General Permit
conditions. The general permit is available on the internet'.
In order to meet the current Ecology requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and
maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Edmonds standards and best
management erosion control practices will be required for this project. Associated Earth
Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing site -specific
erosion control plans. Based on past experience, it will be necessary to make adjustments and
provide additional measures to the TESC plan in order to optimize its effectiveness.
Ultimately, the success of the TESC plan depends on a proactive approach to project planning
and contractor implementation and maintenance.
The most effective erosion control measure is the maintenance of adequate ground cover.
Maintaining cover measures atop disturbed ground provides the greatest reduction to the
potential generation of turbid runoff and sediment transport. During the local wet season
(October V through March 31"), exposed soil should not remain uncovered for more than
2 days unless it is actively being worked. Ground -cover measures can include erosion control
matting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled concrete, or mature
hydroseed.
Surface drainage control measures are also essential for collecting and controlling the site
runoff. Flow paths across slopes should be kept to less than 50 feet in order to reduce the
erosion and sediment transport potential of concentrated flow. Ditch/swale spacing will need
to be shortened with increasing slope gradient. Ditches and swales that exceed a gradient of
about 7 to 10 percent, depending on their flow length, should have properly constructed check
dams ' installed to reduce the flow velocity of the runoff and reduce the erosion potential within
the ditch. Flow paths that are required to be constructed on gradients between 10 to 15 percent
should be placed in a riprap-lined swale with the riprap properly sized for the anticipated flow
conditions. Flow paths constructed on slope gradients steeper than 15 percent should be placed
in a pipe slope drain. AESI is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing a
suitable erosion control plan with proper flow control.
With respect to water quality, having ground cover prior to rain events is one of the most
important and effective means to maintain water quality. Once very fine sediment is suspended
in water, the settling times of the smallest particles are on the order of weeks and months.
Therefore, the typical retention times of sediment traps or ponds will not reduce the turbidity
' http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/storniwater/construction/constructionfinalpern-�t.pd
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLIrb - KE100292A2 - Projects1201002921KBWP Page 7
I _/v
Subsitiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinmy Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineeling Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
of highly turbid site runoff to the benchmark turbidity of 25 NTU. Reduction of turbidity from
a construction site is almost entirely a function of cover measures and drainage control that
have been implemented prior to rain events. Temporary sediment traps and ponds are
necessary to control the release rate of the runoff and to provide a catchment for sand -sized
and larger soil particles, but are very ineffective at reducing the turbidity of the runoff.
Silt fencing should be utilized as buffer protection and not as a flow -control measure. Silt
fencing is meant to be placed parallel with topographic contours to prevent sediment -laden
runoff from leaving a work area or entering a sensitive area. Silt fences should not be placed
to cross contour lines without having separate flow control in front of the silt fence. A
swale/berm. combination should be constructed to provide flow control rather than let the
runoff build up behind the silt fence and utilize the silt fence as the flow -control measure.
Runoff flowing in front of a silt fence will cause additional erosion and usually will cause a
failure of the silt fence. Improperly installed silt fencing has the potential to cause a much
larger erosion hazard than if the silt fence was not installed at all. The use of silt fencing
should be limited to protect sensitive areas, and swales should be used to provide flow control.
6.1 Erosion Hazard Mitigatio
To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off -site sediment transport, we would
recommend the following:
1. Construction activity should be scheduled or phased as'much as possible to reduce the
amount of earthwork activity that is performed during the winter months.
2. The winter performance of a site is dependent on a well -conceived plan for control of
site erosion and storm water runoff. It is easier to keep the soi] on the ground than to
remove it from storm water. The owner and the design team should include adequate
ground -cover measures, access roads, and staging areas in the project bid to give the
selected contractor a workable site. The selected contractor needs to be prepared to
implement and maintain the required measures to reduce the amount of exposed
ground. A site maintenance plan should be in place in the event storm water turbidity
measurements are greater than the Ecology standards.
3. TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be installed
soon after ground clearing or timber harvesting, The recommended sequence of
construction within a given area after Qlearing/timber harvesting would be to
install sediment traps and/or ponds and establish perimeter flow control prior to starting
mass grading.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLAb - KE100292A2 - Projeasi201002921KMWP Page 8
.r_ tl
Subsutface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinaty Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards an�_��
4. During the wetter months of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during
the summer months, each work area should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the
work area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The
required measures for an area to be "buttoned -up" will depend on the time of year and
the duration the area will be left un-worked. During the winter months, areas that are
to be left un-worked for more than 2 days should be mulched or covered with plastic.
During the summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal -rolling the
subgrade. Such measures will aid in the contractor's ability to get back into a work
area after a storm event. The stabilization process also includes establishing temporary
storm water conveyance channels through work areas to route runoff to the approved
treatment facilities.
5. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. If it is outside of the
growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch, as recommended in
the erosion control plan. Straw mulch provides a cost-effective cover measure and can
be made wind -resistant with the application of a tackifier after it is placed.
6. Surface runoff and discharge should be controlled during and following development.
Uncontrolled discharge may prornote erosion and sediment transport. Under no
circumstances should concentrated discharges be allowed to flow over the top of
steep slopes.
7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to
reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not
limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the
use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During the period between October V and
March 3 1 ", these measures are required.
8. On -site erosion control inspections and turbidity monitoring (if required) should be
performed in accordance with Ecology requirements. Weekly and monthly reporting to
Ecology should be performed on a regularly scheduled basis. A discussion of
temporary erosion control and site runoff monitoring should be part of the weekly
construction team meetings. Temporary and permanent erosion control and drainage
measures should be adjusted and maintained, as necessary, for the duration of project
construction.
It is our opinion that with the proper implementation of the TESC plans and by field -adjusting
appropriate mitigation elements (BMPs) throughout construction, as recommended by the
erosion control inspector, the potential adverse impacts from erosion hazards on the project
may be mitigated.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
M-0 - KE100292A2 - Projects120100292iKEW Page 9
X-1 I
Subsitiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Velerinaty Clinic Prelilninary Geolechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
111. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0 INTRODUCTION
Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the
proposed improvements provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed.
Suitable foundation bearing soils were relatively shallow in our explorations, and conventional
spread footings can be used for support of the new structure. The infiltration of storm water
into the site soils may be feasible based on our preliminary explorations and laboratory testing.
8.0 SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation of the planned building and pavement areas should include removal of all
trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious materials. These unsuitable materials should be
properly disposed of. Additionally, any areas of organic topsoil should be removed and the
remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to grubbing operations
should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently
recommended for structural fill placement. Any existing septic systems, whether in service or
not, should be decommissioned in accordance with local Public Health requirements and
removed from beneath any areas where structures or paving are planned. If any water wells
will be removed, they should be decommissioned by a licensed well driller in accordance with
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 173-160. Any buried utilities should be
removed or relocated if they are under building areas. The resulting depressions should be
backfilled with structural fill, as discussed under the "Structural Fill" section of this report.
Existing fill should be removed from below the planned new building. The approximate
observed thickness of the existing fill at the exploration locations is shown on the attached
exploration logs. If allowed under the project plans and specifications, the existing fill is
expected to be suitable for reuse in structural fill applications during dry site and weather
conditions when the soils can be aerated and dried to a suitable moisture content that will allow
compaction to a firm and unyielding condition at the specified level for the application where it
is used. It should be noted that the depth, content, or condition of the materials in the fill zone
underlying the site may vary widely, and the fill may include significant organic material. In
order to reuse excavated, existing fill material, it will be necessary to remove and segregate
any deleterious materials that are encountered prior to reuse in structural fill applications.
After demolition and removal of deleterious material, we recommend that the soil exposed in
proposed new driveway or parking areas be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition.
The recompacted area should then be proof -rolled with a fully loaded, tandem -axle, dump
truck. Any soft or yielding areas identified during proof -rolling should be overexcavated and
backfilled with structural fill.
U October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUtb - YE100292A2 - ProjectsI201002921KEAWP Page 10
T- 13
Subsutface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminaty Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
In our opinion, stable, temporary construction slopes should be the responsibility of the
contractor and should be determined during construction. For planning purposes, we
anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the fill or weathered outwash sediments
can be made at a maximum slope of 1.5H: IV (Horizontal: Vertical). For temporary cut slopes
within the dense to very dense, unweathered advance outwash, up to a lH: IV inclination may
be planned. Flatter, temporary cut slopes are recommended in areas of ground water seepage.
As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur, and cut
slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHA/0SHA regulations should be
followed at all times. Permanent, unsupported cut or structural fill slopes should not exceed a
gradient of 2H: IV.
The fill and shallow native sediments contain a high percentage of fine-grained material that
makes them moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use
care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not
softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to
grade with structural fill.
Consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate
section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB). If crushed rock is considered for the
access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the
potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock during wet weather and
turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus
reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock
be placed over the fabric.
9.0 STRUCTURAL FILL
Structural fill may be necessary to establish desired grades or to backfill around foundations
and utilities. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill
type, placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of
compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section
should be used.
After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical
engineer/engineering geologist, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground should be recompacted
to a firm and unyielding condition. If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate
recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted.
In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry
spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the
exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an
engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free -draining
layer by silt migration from below.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLItb - KE100292A2 - Proyeas1201002921MW Page I I
Substuface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinaty Clinic Preffininmy Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
After stripping and subgrade preparation of the exposed ground is approved, or a ftee-draining
rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is
defined as non -organic soil, acceptable to the geoteclinical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch
loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum
density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard.
The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by Associated Earth
Sciences, Inc. (AESI) prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of
the material at least 3 business days in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field
compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the
No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve
size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soils in structural fills
should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. In addition, construction equipment
traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed
during wet weather, or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select on -site and/or import
material consisting of a clean, free -draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining
fill consists of non -organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by
weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction and at least 25 percent greater than
the No. 4 sieve.
A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during
placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in -
place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling
progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand
that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or
acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a
suitable monitoring and testing frequency.
10.0 FOUNDATIONS
Spread footings may be utilized for building support when founded either directly on the
medium dense to very dense, natural sediments, or on structural fill placed over these
materials. Prior to placement of foundations or structural fill, the natural sediments should be
compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Sediments suitable for foundation support were
encountered in our explorations at depths of approximately 4 feet. If structural fill is placed
below footing areas, we recommend that the fill extend horizontally outward from the footing
edges a distance equal to or greater than the thickness of the fill below the footings.
For footings bearing directly on the medium dense to very dense, natural sediments, or on
structural fill placed over these materials, as described above, we recommend that an allowable
foundation soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be utilized for design
purposes, including both dead and live loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short -
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLItb - KE100292A2 - Projects1201002921KEw Page 12
.T_ is
Substuface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinaiy Clinic Preliminaq Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminmy Design Recommendations
term wind or seismic loading. Perimeter foo tings for the proposed buildings should be buried
a minimum of 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection. No minimum burial
depth is required for interior footings; however, all footings must penetrate to the prescribed
stratum, and no footings should be founded in or above loose, organic, or existing fill soils.
It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at IH: IV 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: IV 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 as described above should be on the order of I 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 with the recommendations contained in this report. Such
inspections may be required by the governing municipality. Perimeter footing drains should be
provided as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of this report.
11.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES
All backfill behind retaining 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 retaining walls that are free to yield laterally at least 0. 1 percent of their height may
be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pco. Fully restrained,
horizontally backfilled, rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid
of 50 pcf. If roadways, parking areas, or other areas subject to vehicular traffic are adjacent to
retaining walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to the wall height in
determining lateral design forces. Retaining walls that retain sloping backfill at a maximum
angle of 2H: IV should be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for yielding
conditions or 75 pcf for fully restrained conditions.
In accordance with the 2009 IBC, retaining wall design should include seismic design
parameters. Based on the site soils and assumed wall backfill materials, we recornmend a
seismic surcharge pressure in addition to the equivalent fluid pressures presented above. A
rectangular pressure distribution of 4H and 811 psf (where H is the height of the wall in feet)
should be included in design for "active" and "at -rest" loading conditions, respectively. The
resultant of the rectangular seismic surcharge should be applied at the midpoint of the walls.
October 8, 2010 A SSO CIA TED EAR TH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUlb - KE100292A2 - Projects1201002921KEMP Page 13
r-14
Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Velerinaty Clinic Preliminmy Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform horizontal
backfill consisting of the on -site, natural, glacial sediments or imported sand and gravel
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.
Footing drains must be provided for all retaining walls, as discussed under the "Drainage
Considerations" section of this report. It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that
hydrostatic pressures do not develop against the walls. This would involve installation of a
minimum, 1-foot-wide, blanket drain to within I foot of the ground surface using imported,
washed gravel against the walls placed to be continuous with the footing drain.
11. 1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the competent, natural
sediments or supporting structural fill soils, and/or by passive earth pressure acting on the
buried portions of the foundations. The foundations must be backfilled with compacted
structural fill to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following
allowable design parameters:
• Passive equivalent fluid = 300 pcf
• Coefficient of friction = 0.35
12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT
Slab -on -grade floors may be constructed either directly on the medium dense to very dense,
natural sediments, or on structural fill placed over these materials. Areas of the slab subgrade
that are disturbed (loosened) during construction should be recompacted to an unyielding
condition prior to placing the pea gravel, as described below.
If moisture intrusion through slab -on -grade floors is to be limited, the floors should be
constructed atop a capillary break consisting of a minimum thickness of 4 inches of washed pea
gravel. The pea gravel should be overlain by a 10-mil (minimum thickness) plastic
vapor retarder.
13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
All retaining and perimeter foundation walls should be provided with a drain at the base of the
footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe
surrounded by washed pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set at or
slightly below the bottom of the footing grade beam, and the drains should be constructed with
sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the buildings. In addition, all
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLft - KE10029Z42 - Projects120100292tWW Page 14
Subsinface Exploralion, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geolechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Prelitninaty Design Recommendations
retaining walls should be lined with a minimum, 12-inch-thick, washed gravel blanket that
extends to within I foot of the surface and is continuous with the foundation drain. Roof and
surface runoff should not discharge into the foundation drain system, but should be handled by
a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be
sloped downward away from the structures to achieve surface drainage.
14.0 PRELIMINARY INFILTRATION EVALUATION
The majority of this site is underlain by significant amounts of advance outwash sand and
gravel deposits. These deposits are considered suitable as potential infiltrative soils. Two
sieve analyses were performed on soil samples from exploration borings EB-1 and EB-2. The
classification of the samples tested most closely fits the texture class "loamy sand" referenced
in Table C-I of the 2010 Edm6nds Storinwater Code Supplement (Edmonds Supplement),
which is taken from Table 3.7 in the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology Manual). For preliminary
planning purposes ordy, this material has an uncorrected short-term infiltration rate of 2 inches
per hour, with an Estimated Design (long-term) Infiltration Rate of 0.5 inches per hour. Also,
since the testing was conducted between May I" and October 31", Section 5.5.2 of the
Edmonds Supplement requires that an additional correction factor of 2 be applied, reducing the
long-term infiltration rate to 0.25 inches per hour.
Should a higher design infiltration rate be needed for site -specific design, we recommend that
AESI perform infiltration testing using a large -diameter infiltrometer, generally corresponding
to the procedure described as a pilot infiltration test (PIT) in the Ecology Manual, at the
proposed infiltration location(s) prior to final design in order to provide site -specific rates of
infiltration. The PIT test(s) should take place at the bottom elevation of the proposed
infiltration system and be conducted between November 1" and April 30'h to provide a design
infiltration rate without the City -mandated seasonal correction factor. AESI is also available to
conduct cation exchange capacity or organic content testing of site soils for in situ treatment of
storm water, if requested.
15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Our recommendations are preliminary in that definite building locations and construction
details have not been finalized at the time of this report. We are available to provide additional
geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon
which this report.is based. If significant changes in grading are made, we recommend that
AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way,
our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented
in the design.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPL1tb - KE100292,42 - Projects1201002921YEW Page 15
1_18
Subsutface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinaty Clinic
Preliminmy Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington
Preliminary Design Recommendations
We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering
and monitoring services during
construction. The integrity of the foundations depends on proper site preparation and
construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field
in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring
services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us
know, and we will prepare a proposal.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations
will aid in the successful completion of your project.
If you should have any questions or
require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Virkland, Washington
M
Of
3580
1
N L
Jeffrey P. Laub, L. G., E. G.
Kurt D. Merriman, P.E.
Project Engineering Geologist
Principal Engineer
Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan
Appendix: Exploration Logs
Laboratory Test Results
October 8, 2010
1PL1tb - KE100292A2 - Projectst20100292tKEMP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC
Page 16
4, i�
N
0 1000 2000
FEET
REFERENCE: USGS TOPO!
Associated Earth Sciences Inc.
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE I
RA Hl m U m
WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC
DATE 9110
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJ. NO. KE100292A
T-zo
232ND STREET SW
T.
77`�7
j
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF EXPLORATION BORING
TYP
0
L
EXISTING
PROP09-ItD -0'00'�
it EB-1 0
z
N
REFERENCE: CORNERSTONE ARCHITECTURE NO SCALE
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. SITE -AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 2
WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC DATE 9/10
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJ. NO. KE100292A
aj
Cj
0
Classifications of soils in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations. which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and
_j plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual -manual and/or laboratory classification
�: m
D ethods of ASTIVI D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System-
0
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
EXPLORATION LOG KEY FIGURE Al
0
:9
01
C:
.LD
�' 0 �' 0,
Well -graded gravel and
Terms Describing Regative Density and Consistency
L)
�;
�' Q� C
GW
gravel with sand, little to
(2)
Density SPT blows/foot
Q)
,J) (1)
.9;
U-
3 IZD
no fines
VeryLoose 0 to 4
Coarse- Loose 4 to 10
, -'.0'.
00000
GP
Poorly -graded gravel
co ,
0 (D
Fn
"!Z
*
Lo
A
Grained Soils Medium Dense 10 to 30 Test Symbols
C�
000'0�
0000
.000,
and gravel will sand,
little to no fines
Dense 30 to 50
Very Dense >50 G = Grain Size
C\1
Z
0 00
?0?0?
(2 M = Moisture Content
Silty gravel and silty
6
Z
C) C
to 0
Consistency SPT iblows/foo A = Atterberg Limits
C
0
C 'D
Z
10
10
GIVI
gravel with sand
Very Soft 0 to 2 C = Chemical
Fine-
'0
2
-
Soft 2 to 4 DD = Dry Density
Grained Soils Medium Stiff 4 to 8 K Permeability
ca
a)
2i 0�
iT
.�
stiff 8 to 15
W
Clayey gravel and
Very Stiff 15 to 30
AN
Gc
clayey gravel with sand
Hard >30
Component Definitions
C)
Lo
M
c:
Well -graded sand and
Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number
.0
0
sw
sand with gravel, little
Boulders Larger than 12"
0
to no fines
Cobbles 3" to 12"
WLL'.'.*.'.*.'
V)
;6
!Z
Gravel 3" to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
Poorly -graded sand
0
(0
L) E)
SP
and sand with gravel,
Coarse Gravel 3" to 3/4'
Fine Gravel 3/4" to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
'0
a)
— Ct)
0 r .
2 0
little to no fines
1
Sand No 4 (4 75 mm) to No 200 (0.075 mm)
o
2
Coarse Sand No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2 00 mm)
(n
Silly sand and
Medium Sand No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No 40 (0.425 mm)
U)
sm
silty sand with
Fine Sand No. 40 (0-425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
cc
0
0
M
C)
0
gravel
Sift and Clay Smaller than No 200 (0 075 mm)
sc
Claye sand and
LO
Z
(3
Estimated Percentage Moisture Content
c:
ca
clayey sand with gravel
Percentage by Dry - Absence of moisture,
Component dusty, dry to the touch
Weight
Trace <5 Slightly Moist - Perceptible
Silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt,
ML
silt with sand or gravel
Few 5 to 10 moisture
>
LO
Little 15 to 25 Moist - Damp but no visible
co
CU
With Non -primary coarse water
CD
0
>':5
U)
constituents. > 15% Very Moist - Water visible but
Clay of low to medium
04
6
U)
a)
_j
plasticity, silty, sandy, or
Fines content between not free draining
Z
W
C 4:�
E
CL
gravelly clay, lean clay
5% and 15% Wet - Visible free water, usually
Q)
from below water table
U)
a-
U) -0
Organic clay or silt of low
Symbols
2
Cr
OL
plasticity
Blows/6"or
0
Sampler portion of 6"
Cement grout
_P
Type
/
R
surface seal
Elastic silt, clayey silt, silt
zo
2.0'OD Sampler Type
.
8_1
M"I
with m caceous or
0
I Description (A)
Split -Spoon r
Bentonite
seal
C�
LO
0
diatomaceous fine sand or
Sampler 3.0"OD Split -Spoon Sampler
Filter pack with
0
>'
12 o
silt
(SPT) 3.25' OD Split -Spoon Ring Sampler (4)
I
blank casing
Clay of high plasticity,
U)
_0
a)
00
.0 to
C: :t�
CH
sandy or gravelly clay, fat
Bulk sample SZ
3.9'OD Thin -Wall Tube Sampler
section
Screened casing
E
D
clay with sand or gravel
(including Shelby tube)
or Hydrotip
with filter pack
65 :2
z
Grab Sample
End cap
Organic clay or silt of
0 Portion not recovered
iT
OH
medium to high
(1)'Percentage by dry weight (4) Depth of ground water
plasticity
(2) (SPI) Standard Penetration Test V ATD = At time of drilling
(ASTM D-1586) V Static water level (date)
(3) In General Accordance with
>'
Peat, muck and other
:E
Lh
-3
2)
J��
PT
highly organic soils
(5)
Standard Practice for Description Combined USCS symbols used for
U)
0
and Identification of Soils (ASTM D-2488) fines between 5% and 15%
C
t
c
CL
C
cc
�5
LLJ
Associated Farth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
r7�� r--1 [M FT___11 11W
Project Number
Exploration Number
Sheet
I
Liu LV Mfl. 11T_11
KE100292A
EB-1
I of 1
Project Name Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Ground Surface Elevation (ft)
Location Edmonds, WA Datum NIA
Driller/Equipment CN Drilling/Acker Date Start/Finish _9124]JO 91?411 Q
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 6
�P
E
.2
>
�b
Blows/Foot
'6.
E
2
9a
E
-
.2.9
�:
a)
0
T Um)
0 u)
DESCRIPTION
0
0
Co
1
1.0 20 3.0 4!D
0
Fill
Moist, rust -stained brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, with gravel.
10
12
A23
Weathered Vashon Advance Outwash
t S-2
Moist, reddish brown, silty fine to medium SAND, with gravel.
4
A4
2
---------------------------------
Vashon Advance Outwash
2
5
Moist, slightly rust -stained brownish gray, silty fine to medium SAND, with
15
S-3
1
gravel.
28
62
34
S-4
t
Moist, same.
21
35
73
Driller added water at 9 feet.
38
10
Moist, same.
24
S-5
t
26
57
31
Driller reports fewer gravel at 14 feet.
15
S-6
Moist, slightly rust -stained, brownish gray, fine to medium SAND, with silt
19
0/E1
50011
."and trace gravel.
Bottom of exploration boring at 16 feet
20
25
30
35
Sampler Type (ST):
01 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: JPL
M 3- OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) Ring Sample V Water Level() Approved by:
ES Grab Sample Z Shelby Tube Sample -7 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Loci
F"i-d-1 R1 NJ MEA-.1 �d
Project Number
Exploration Number
Sheet
KE100292A
EB-2
1 of 1
Project Name Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Ground Surface Elevation (ft)
Location Edmonds, WA Datum _NIA
Driller/Equipment CN Drillina/Acker Date Start/Finish 912411 n q/24/1 0
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# 30" Hole Diameter (in) _6_inrhp
E
.0
'a
>
Blows/Foot
a)
S E
2 >,
9 E
-
-�!
C,
T m
U)
(9 u)
DESCRIPTION
0
-2
M
0
10 20 30 40
S-1
1
Fill
Moist, rust -stained brown, silty SAND, with gravel and asphalt pieces.
0
110
120
10
S-2
Moist, brownish gray, fine to coarse SAND, with gravel.
8
A14
7
- - - - - - - - - - -
Vashon Advance Outwash
7
5
Driller added water at 5 feet.
S-3
Moist, slightly rust -stained brownish gray, silty fine to medium SAND, with
5
A33
gravel.
16
20
S-4
Moist, brownish gray, fine to medium SAND, with silt and gravel (very little
31
recovery).
Off
50/("
10
S-5
Driller reports fewer gravel at 10 feet.
14
A38
Moist, brownish gray, fine to medium SAND, with silt and gravel.
19
19
15
S-6
t
Moist, same.
27
33
50/("
O/E
Bottom of exploration boring at 16.5 feet
20
25
30
35
Sampler Type (ST):
2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Reco very M - Moisture Logged by: JPL
3- OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by:
Grab Sample Z Shelby Tube Sample Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
X- z T
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - MECHANICAJ
Date
Project
Project No.
Soil Description
10/4/2010
Woodhaven Vet Clinic
KE100292A
Sand few gravel little silt
Tested By
Location
EB/EP No
Depth
110,
SS
Onsite
EB-1
Wt. of moisture wet sample + T
Wt. of moisture dry Sample + Tare
Wt. of Tare
Wt. of moisture Dry Sample
Moisture %
358.8
Total Sample Tare
337.47
Total Sample wt + t,
101.22
Total Sample Wt
236.25
Total Sample Dry Wi
90,
395.01
I Q-ifi-fl-
Sieve No.
Diam. (mm)
Wt. Retained (q)
% Retained
% Passing
Minimum-
Maximum
3
76.1
0.0
100.0
2.5
64
0.0
100.0
2
50.8
0.0
100.0
1.5
38.1
0.0
100.0
1
25.4
0.0
100.0
3/4
19
18,43
3.8
96.2
3/8
9.51
�38.62
8.0
92.0
#4
4.76
--61.37
12.6
87.4
#8
2.38
M.03
18.1
81.9
#10
2
:95.71:
19.7
80.3
#20
0.85
148. 98
30.7
69.3
#40
0.42
��-M.22
61.2
38.8
#60
0.25
75.1
24.9
#100
0.149
82.5
17.5
#200
0.074
4111.69,
84.8
15.2
#270
0.053
15.29.
85.6
14.4
100
80
.S 60
LL
4)
0
4 - 40
(L
20--
0
100
US STANDARD SIEVE NOS.
3" 3/4" NOA NO.16 NO.40
10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size, rnm
ASSOCIATED EA RFITH SCIEMCES, IIVC.
911 5th Ave., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-827-7701 FAX 425-827-5424
�GRAIN &ZE ANALYS�S - MECHAMCA7
I
Date
Project
Project No.
Soil Description
10/4/2010
Woodhaven Vet Clinic
KE100292A
Sand few gravel few silt
Tested By
Location
EB/EP No
Depth
115'
SS
Onsite
EB-2
Wt. of moisture wet sample + Tan 346.55 Total Sample Tare 327.75
Wt. of moisturo dry Sample + Tare 328.11 Total Sample wt +tare 769.86
Wt. of Tare i01.16 Total Sample Wt 442.1
Wt. of moisture Dry Sample 226.95 Total Sample Dry Wt 49977
Moisture % 8%
S 0
nprifir.qtinn R;-nijirPmP-nt.,z
Sieve No.
Diam. (mm)
Wt. Retained (g)
% Retained
% Passing
Minimum
Maximum
3
76.1
0.0
100.0
2.5
64
0.0
100.0
2
50.8
0.0
100.0
1.5
38.1
0.0
100.0
1
25.4
0.0
100.0
3/4
19
0.0
100.0
3/8
9.51
16,M
4.1
95.9
#4
4.76
46.99-�
11.5
88.5
#8
2.38
7-1;8.7,-,---:,
17.6
82.4
#10
2
787-:':
19.2
80.8
#20
0.85
-12-3�Z3
30.1
69.9
#40
0.42
2-06.34
50.5
49.5
#60
0.25
--289.26
70.7
29.3
#100
0.149
----3-34.'52
81.8
18.2
#200
0.074
1 354.9
86.8
13.2
#270 1
0.053 1
359.96
88.0
12.0
100
80
.S 60
40
0.
20
0
100
US STANDARD SIEVE NOS.
31. 3/4" NO.4 NO.16 NO.40
10 1 0.1
Grain Size, mm
NO.270
ASSOC§A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
911 5th Ave.. Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-827-7701 FAX 425-827-5424
0.01
T- 7-7
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
K�
Ce le 6 1 -a th?y Gve r 25 Tjea rs of Se r vice
0 TechnicaR Memorandum
Date: December 6, 2010
To: Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Project Name:
Attn: Dr. Ann Brudvik, DVM
annbo wood havenvet. coin
cc: Mr. Rob Long, LSA Engineering Project No:
robl@lsaengineering.com
Mr. Rick Utt, Cornerstone Architectural
Group
rutt@coriierstoiiearch.com
Woodhaven Veterinary
Clinic
KE100292A
From: Jeffrey P. Laub, L.G G.
Kurt D. Merriman,
I M_'
Subject: Laboratory Test Results - Cation Exchange Capacity and Organic Content
This memorandum presents the results of laboratory tests performed on selected soil samples for the
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic project. These tests were completed to evaluate the cation exchange
capacity and organic content of site soils for the purposes of treatment of stormwater runoff from
paved surfaces. The attached "Analysis Report", prepared by Am Test, Inc. and dated
December 1, 2010, provides the test results.
We did not encounter standards for cation exchange capacity and organic content for the purposes
of on -site treatment during our review of the City of Edmonds stormwater manual. However, the
minimum cation exchange capacity for on -site treatment of stormwater runoff from paved surfaces
stipulated by both the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Manual (which is referenced
frequently in the City of Edmonds stormwater manual) and the 2009 King County Surface Water
Design Manual is 5 meq/100g. In addition, the minimum organic content for on -site treatment, as
stipulated by the King County manual, is 0. 5 %. As shown in the attached Am Test, Inc. report,
the test results meet or exceed the above -referenced standards for on -site treatment of stormwater
runoff from paved surfaces.
We trust that this memorandum will meet your current project needs. If you should have any
questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call.
1PLAb - KE100292A4 - Projectsk20100292WEMP
Kirkland Office - 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 - Kirkland, WA 98033 - P 1 (425) 827-7701 - F 1 (425) 827-5424
Everett Office - 2911 1/2 Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 - Everett, WA 98201 - P 1 (425) 259-0522 - F 1 (425) 252-3408
Tacoma Office - 805 Martin Luther King Jr. Way - Tacoma, WA 98405 - P 1 (253) 722-2992 - F 1 (253) 722-2993
www.aesgeo-com
X_Z8
Am Test Inc.
13600 NE 126TH PL EST
Suite C
Kirkland, WA 98034 AW-
(425) 885-1664 L A 0 0 R A T 0 R I E S
www.amtestlab.com
ANALYSIS REPORT
Associated Earth Sciences
911 - 5th Avenue
Kirkland, WA 98033
Attention: Jeff Laub
Project Name: Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Project #: KE 1 00292A
PO Number: KE100292A
All results reported on an as received basis.
AMTEST Identification Number 10-AO18517
Client Identification EB-1 5'
Sampling Date 09/24/10
Professional
Analytical
Services
Date Received: 11 /15/10
Date Reported: 12/ 1 /10
1PARAMETER
-F----�
JANLST
DATE
rq 7at i o7r
m e q /�,S�00 9� 11
10.5
SW-8,e
jOrganic Matter 11.1 .1% 1 1 JA6 I M U ZVt4 I NLN 11113ullu 1
AMTEST Identification Number
Client Identification
Sampling Date
10-AO18518
EB-2 5'
09/24/10
IPARAMETER
RESULT
UNITS
Q
D. L.
METHOD
ANLST DATE
Ication Exchange Capacity
16.
meq/100g
0.5
W-846 9081
1ASTM
HL 111/19/10
lorganic matter - ---
1.5
%
D 2974
NLN 111/30/10
-Aloal�
Kathy'Fui6iel
President
.T- 217
5"RECEIVr1i
2 y Rol
W U U 11
OV ED
APR 2,j 2(, 1
DEVELOPMENT SERVICEA
City of Edmonds COUNTER
Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet
Name of Proposed Project: WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC
Owner/Applicant Applicant Contact Person:
WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC Ann Brudvik, DIVIV
Name c/o Ann Brudvik, DIVIV
23204 Edmonds Way
Street/Mailing Address
Edmonds WA 98026
City
Name
same
Street/Mailing Address
State Zip City
Telephone: (206) 546-5164
Telephone:
State Zip
Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable):
LSA Engineering Robert L. Long, PE
Firm Name Contact Name
Telephone: (425) 775-1591 E-mail: RobL@LSAEngineering.com
THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
Project Traffic Levels
Sections to Complete
1. Less than 25 peak -hour trips generated
I and 7 only (Worksheet/Checklist)
11. More than 25 peak -hour trips generated
All sections
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. Location - Street address: 23204 Edmonds Way
(Attach a vicinity map and site plait.)
b. Specify existing land use: Veterinary Clinic- 3,310 sf
c. Specify proposed type and size of development: Veterinary Clinic- 4,807 sf (1,497 sf increase)
(# of residential units andlor square footage of building)
Revised on 6124110
E82 - Traffic Impat I Analysis Wurb-heel
Page I of 5
d. Date construction will begin and be completed: Summer 2011
e. Define proposed access locations: Location- 232nd St SW (no change)
Improve frontage with walk and driveway cut per City standards.
f. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations:
East- to Edmonds Way signalized intersection +/-50 ft / West- +/- 400 ft.
2. TRIP GENERATION
Source shall be the Eighth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
manual. For independent fee calculations, the current edition of the ITE manual may be used.
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
PM Peak -hour trips (AM, noon or school peak may also apply as directed by the City Engineer)
a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour Trips
IN
OUT
b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour
Trips
IN
OUT
c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour Trips
IN
OUT
d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips:
Revised on 61'24110 E821 - Traffic Impact Analysis WorWeet Page 2 of 5
3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. For
developments that generate over 75 peak -hour trips, the City Engineer reserves the right to require
trip distribution to be determined through use of the City traffic model.'
4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAYIDRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY
a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements?
b. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis:
Intersections to be evaluated shall be detennined by the City of Edinonds Traffic Engineer
Existing Conditions
LOS
Delays
Year of Opening
LOS
Delays
Five Years Beyond Change of
LOS
I
I I
Delays
I
Land Use
c. Describe channelization warrants:
(Attach striping plan.)
d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths):
50%
95%
Existing Conditions
Year of Opening
Five Years Beyond Change of
Land Use
e. If appropriate, state traffic control warrants (e.g. stop sign warrants, signal warrants):
f. Summarize local accident history 2 (only required for access to principal and minor arterials):
I Available upon request at City of Edmonds Development Services Department
2 Available upon request at City of Edmonds Police Department
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 3 of 5
5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Provide the following and other planned development traffic within the city.'
a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts (less than two years old), including turning
movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project.
b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the
project is fully open (with and without project traffic).
c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, five years
after the project has been fully open (with and without project traffic).
d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source:
6. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS
a. Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation.
Provide the following docurnentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by
ten or more peak -hour trips. Other City -planned developments' must also be factored into the
LOS calculations.
LOS
LOS
Existing Conditions
Existing
Delays
Year of Opening
With Project
Without Project
Five Years Beyond Change of
Land Use
With Project
I
Without Project
b. Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications:
' A list of planned developments are available at the City upon request for public records
Revised on 61-14110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 4 of 5
7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic
impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached)
and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations
in ECDC 18.82.130.
[I CHANGE IN USE
Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the
previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04),
the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used.
Units in
ITE Land Use Category Per Unit square feet,
Fee Rate # of dwelling,
vfp etc.
New Use $ X
Prior Use $ X
New Use Fee: $ Prior Use Fee: $ $
IX NEW DEVELOPMENT
Fee
Units in
ITE Land Use Category Per Unit square feet, Fee
Fee Rate # of dwelling,
vfp, etc.
FNew Use Veterinary Clinic* $ 3.81 $/sf X 1,497 sf $5,703.57
*Veterinary Clinic is similar in use as a Medical/Dental Office (LU #720)
0 OTHER
MITIGATION FEE RECOMMENDATION:
$ 5,703.57
INDEPENDENT FEE CALCULATION: $200.00 �+ consultant fee)
TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
$
(-- J--1111 �1--
City oWmonds, Engineering Division Approval
Date
1 No inipact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an inipact fee calculation resulting in a net negative.
Revised on 61'24110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Work-sheel Page 5 of 5
)0'
IS703. r-7
u U L--i
VIC I iN I TY MA P
N.IS.
Geotechnical Engineering
Water Resources
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
eaelA � am 6y ail, � r, �m', o - q1XA1 vice
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC
Environmental Assessments and
Remediation
Sustainable Development Services
Geologic Assessments
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared for
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
Project No. KE100292A
October 8, 2010
RgE(CERVED
APR - 8 2011
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR-
CITY OF EDMONDS
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Edmonds, Washington
Preparedfor:
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic
23204 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Prepared by:
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
9115' Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
425-827-7701
Fax: 425-827-5424
October 8, 2010
Project No. KE100292A
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Prelinzinaq Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
1. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and
geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. Our recommendations are preliminary
in that construction details have not been finalized at the time of this report. The location of
the subject site is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Figure 1. The locations of the proposed
building, as well as the approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study,
are presented on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. In the event that any changes in
the nature or design of the proposed lot layout are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as
necessary.
1. 1 Purpose and Scop
The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used in the preliminary design
and development of the subject project. Our study included a review of available geologic
literature, drilling two exploration borings, and performing geologic studies to assess the type,
thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground
water conditions. Geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to assess the type of
suitable foundation, allowable foundation soil bearing pressures, anticipated settlements,
basement/retaining wall lateral pressures, floor support recommendations, and drainage
considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers preliminary
development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project.
1.2 Authorization
Authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Dr. Ann Brudvik of Woodhaven
Veterinary Clinic. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work
letter dated September 16, 2010. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic and its 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.
Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks
to the owner.
October 8, 2010 A SSOCIA YED EARTH SCIENCES, INC
JPUlb - KE100292A2 - Projects 120100292"1 WT Page 1
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinaty Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Sitf Conditions
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is the existing Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic located at 23204 Edmonds Way
in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and
232' Street SW, and includes an existing single -story commercial building with a paved
parking area to the west. A gravel area is located to the south of the existing building. Site
topography is generally flat -lying, with a slight grade downward to the north and east.
The currently proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the
construction of a new single -story veterinary clinic building with a slab -on -grade floor. A
portion of the exiting structure includes a crawl space below the main floor, and we understand
that structural fill is currently planned to raise existing. crawl space areas to the subgrade
elevation for new slab -on -grade areas. We also understand that infiltration is currently under
consideration for the handling of storm water runoff from the proposed building, and we have
been asked to provide our preliminary opinion regarding the infiltration potential of the site
soils.
3.0 SITE EXPLORATION
The site exploration was conducted on September 24, 2010, and consisted of two exploration
borings and a geologic and geologic hazard reconnaissance to gain information about the site.
The various types of materials and sediments encountered in the explorations, as well as the
depths where characteristics of these materials changed, are indicated on the exploration boring
logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed
may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred
between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. The locations of the
exploration borings are shown on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. The conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report are based on the exploration borings completed
for this study. The number, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within
site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground,
interpolation 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 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 Borings
The borings were completed on the property using a hand -portable drill rig advancing a
3.75-inch inside -diameter, hollow -stem auger. During the drilling process, samples were
obtained at 2.5- or 5-foot intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLItb - KE100292A2 - ProjecIA20100292MEMP Page 2
Substuface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Prelinfinary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
engineering geologist from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are
based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured.
Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) procedure in accordance with Anierican Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch,
outside -diameter, split -barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound
hammer free -failing a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is
recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known
as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 blows are
recorded at or before the end of one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number
of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value,
provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of
cohesive soils. These values are plotted on the attached boring logs.
The samples obtained from the split -barrel sampler were classified in the field and
representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to
our laboratory for further visual classification and geotechnical laboratory testing, as
necessary.
The various types of soil and ground water elevations, as well as the depths where soil and
ground water characteristics changed, are indicated on the exploration boring logs presented in
the Appendix of this report. Our exploration and reconnaissance were approximately located
by measuring from known site features.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished
for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of applicable geologic literature.
As shown on the field logs, the exploration borings generally encountered fill overlying
granular glacial sediments. The following section presents more detailed subsurface
information organized from the youngest to the oldest sediment types.
4.1 Stratigraphy
Fill
Fill soils (soils not naturally placed) were encountered at the location of exploration
borings EB-1 and EB-2 to respective depths of approximately 2 and 4 feet below the ground
surface. This fill generally consisted of loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel.
Portions of the fill at EB-2 contained asphalt pieces. Fill thicknesses can vary over short
distances and may be deeper than observed in our exploration, particularly in the vicinity of the
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC
JPL/tb - KE100292A2 - Projects 120100292 �KE WT Page 3
Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinaty Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
existing building foundations, buried utilities, and landscape areas. Due to their variable
density and content, the existing fill soils are not suitable for foundation support.
Vashon Advance Outwash
Sediments encountered below the fill generally consisted of medium dense to very dense sand,
with variable silt and gravel content. We interpret these sediments to be representative of
Vashon advance outwash (Qva). The silt content observed in the shallow samples suggests that
the soils encountered may be near the contact between Qva and Vashon lodgement till
sediments (Qvt). The Qva sediments were deposited by meltwater streams that emanated from
the advancing glacial ice during the Vashon Stade of Fraser Glaciation approximately 12,500
to 15,000 years ago. The high relative density of these sediments is due to their consolidation
by the massive weight of the glacial ice that overrode these materials subsequent to their
deposition. At the locations of exploration borings EB-1 and EB-2, the Qva sediments
extended beyond the respective depths explored of 16 and 16.5 feet below the ground surface.
4.2 Geologic Mapping
Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the
Edmonds West Quadrangles, by J.P. Minard (1983) indicates that the area of the subject site is
underlain by Vashon advance outwash deposits (Qva), with Vashon lodgement till (Qvt)
mapped nearby. Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in
general agreement with the regional geologic map.
4.3 Hydrology
Ground water seepage was not encountered at our exploration boring locations to the depths
explored. It should be noted that the depth or occurrence of ground water seepage may vary in
response to changes in season, precipitation, and site use. Exploration for this study was
conducted during the month of September when ground water levels are typically lower than
their seasonal high.
4.4 Laboratory Test Results
Grain -size analyses were completed on selected soil samples from our explorations.
Laboratory test results are included in the Appendix.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIAYED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLItb - KE100292A2 - Projects 120100292 IKEI WP Page 4
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and ���
II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and
shallow ground water conditions, as observed and discussed herein.
5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATION
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these
events are small, and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as
evidenced by the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event; the 2001, 6.8-magnitude event; and the 1965,
6.5-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to"have been the largest in this region
during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake
return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within
a given 20- to 40-year period.
Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic
events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and
4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed
project is discussed below.
5.1 Surficial Ground Rupture
The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the South Whidbey Island Fault Zone
(SWIFZ). A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Sherrod, et al., 2005,
Holocene Fault Scarps and Shallow Magnetic Anomalies Along the Southern Whidbey Island
Fault Zone Near Woodinville, Washington, Open -File Report 2005-1136, March 2005)
indicates that "strong" evidence of prehistoric earthquake activity has been observed along
associated fault strands thought to be part of the SWIFZ. The study suggests as many as nine
earthquake events along the SWIFZ may have occurred within the last 16,400 years. The
recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the
studies still ongoing. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still
unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of 1,000 years. Due to the suspected
long recurrence interval, it is our opinion that the potential for damage to the proposed
structure by surficial ground rupture is considered to be low. No mitigations other than
complying with 2009 International Building Code (113C) seismic design recommendations are
recommended.
5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides
It is our opinion that the potential risk of damage to the proposed development by seismically
induced slope failures is low due to the lack of steep slopes in the project area.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLO - KE100292A2 - ProjecrsI201002921KEI WP Page 5
Subsurfate Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and ���
5.3 Liquefactio
The encountered stratigraphy has a low potential for liquefaction due to its dense state and lack
of adverse ground water conditions. No mitigation of liquefaction hazards is warranted.
5.4 Ground Motion
It is our opinion that any earthquake damage to the proposed structures, when founded on
suitable bearing strata in accordance with the recommendations contained herein, will be
caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above -
discussed impacts. Structural design of the buildings should follow 2009 International
Building Code (IBC) standards using Site Class "C" as defined in Table 1613.5.2. The 2009
IBC seismic design parameters for short period (Ss) and I -second period (Si) spectral
acceleration values were determined from the latitude and longitude of the project site using the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website
(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/). These values are based on Site Class "B". Based on
2002 data, the USGS website interpolated ground motions at the project site to be 1. 198g and
0.579g for building periods of 0.2 and 1.0 seconds, respe . ctively, with a 2 percent chance of
exceedance in 50 years. These values correspond to site coefficients Fa = 1.00 and F, =
1.381, and a peak ground acceleration of 0.319g. The Fa, Fv, and peak horizontal acceleration
values have been corrected for Site Class "C" in accordance with the IBC.
6.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
As of October 1, 2008, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Construction
Storm Water General Permit (also known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System [NPDES] permit) requires weekly Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(TESC) inspections and turbidity monitoring of site runoff for all sites I or more acres in size
that discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. Although we anticipate that the
proposed project will require disturbance of less than I acre, we provide in the following
sections reconimendations to address these inspection and reporting requirements, should they
be triggered. The following sections also include recommendations related to general erosion
control and mitigation.
The TESC inspections and turbidity monitoring of runoff must be completed by a Certified
Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the duration of the construction. The weekly
TESC reports do not need to be sent to Ecology, but should be logged into the project Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology requires a monthly summary report of the
turbidity monitoring results signed by the NPDES permit holder. If the monitored turbidity
equals or exceeds 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (Ecology benchmark standard), the
project best management practices (BMPs) should be modified to decrease the turbidity of
storm water leaving the site. Changes and upgrades to the BMPs should be documented in the
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPL11b - KE100292A2 - Projects 120100292 "1 WP Page 6
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
weekly TESC reports and continued until the weekly turbidity reading is 25 NTU or lower. If
the monitored turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the results must be reported to Ecofy via phone
within 24 hours and corrective actions should be implemented as soon as possible. Daily
turbidity monitoring is continued until the corrective actions lowers the turbidity to below
25 NTU, or until the discharge stops. This description of the sampling benchmarks and
reporting requirements is a brief summary of the Construction Storm Water General Permit
conditions. The general permit is available on the internet'.
In order to meet the current Ecology requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and
maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Edmonds standards and best
management erosion control practices will be required for this project. Associated Earth
Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing site -specific
erosion control plans. Based on past experience, it will be necessary to make adjustments and
provide additional measures to the TESC plan in order to optimize its effectiveness.
Ultimately, the success of the TESC plan depends on a proactive approach to project planning
and contractor implementation and maintenance.
The most effective erosion control measure is the maintenance of adequate ground cover.
Maintaining cover measures atop disturbed ground provides the greatest reduction to the
potential generation of turbid runoff and sediment transport. During the local wet season
(October I" through March 31'), exposed soil should not remain uncovered for more than
2 days unless it is actively being worked. Ground -cover measures can include erosion control
matting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled concrete, or mature
hydroseed.
Surface drainage control measures are also essential for collecting and controlling the site
runoff. Flow paths across slopes should be kept to less than 50 feet in order to reduce the
erosion and sediment transport potential of concentrated flow. Ditch/swale spacing will need
to be shortened with increasing slope gradient. Ditches and swales that exceed a gradient of
about 7 to 10 percent, depending on their flow length, should have properly constructed check
dams installed to reduce the flow velocity of the runoff and reduce the erosion potential within
the ditch. Flow paths that are required to be constructed on gradients between 10 to 15 percent
should be placed in a riprap-lined swale with the riprap properly sized for the anticipated flow
conditions. Flow paths constructed on slope gradients steeper than 15 percent should be placed
in a pipe slope drain. AESI is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing a
suitable erosion control plan with proper flow control.
With respect to water quality, having ground cover prior to rain events is one of the most
important and effective means to maintain water quality. Once very fine sediment is suspended
in water, the settling times of the smallest particles are on the order of weeks and months.
Therefore, the typical retention times of sediment traps or ponds will not reduce the turbidity
' http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stonnwater/construction/constructionfinalperniit.pdf
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLAb - KE100292A2 - Projects 1201002921W WT Page 7
Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinaq Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and
of highly turbid site runoff to the benchmark turbidity of 25 NTU. Reduction of turbidity from
a construction site is almost entirely a function of cover measures and drainage control that
have been implemented prior to rain events. Temporary sediment traps and ponds are
necessary to control the release rate of the runoff and to provide a catchment for sand -sized
and larger soil particles, but are very ineffective at reducing the turbidity of the runoff.
Silt fencing should be utilized as buffer protection and not as a flow -control measure. Silt
fencing is meant to be placed parallel with topographic contours to prevent sediment -laden
runoff from leaving a work area or entering a sensitive area. Silt fences should not be placed
to cross contour lines without having separate flow control in front of the silt fence. A
swale/berm. combination should be constructed to provide flow control rather than let the
runoff build up behind the silt fence and utilize the silt fence as the flow -control measure.
Runoff flowing in front of a silt fence will cause additional erosion and usually will cause a
failure of the silt fence. Improperly installed silt fencing has the potential to cause a much
larger erosion hazard than if the silt fence was not installed at all. The use of silt fencing
should be limited to protect sensitive areas, and swales should be used to provide flow control.
6. 1 Erosion Hazard Mitigation
To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off -site sediment transport, we would
recommend the following:
1. Construction activity should be scheduled or phased as' much as possible to reduce the
amount of earthwork activity that is performed during the winter months.
2. The winter performance of a site is dependent on a well -conceived plan for control of
site erosion and storm water runoff. It is easier to keep the soil on the ground than to
remove it from storm water. The owner and the design team should include adequate
ground -cover measures, access roads, and staging areas in the project bid to give the
selected contractor a workable site. The selected contractor needs to be prepared to
implement and maintain the required measures to reduce the amount of exposed
ground. A site maintenance plan should be in place in the event storm water turbidity
measurements are greater than the Ecology standards.
3. TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be installed
soon after ground clearing or timber harvesting. The recommended sequence of
construction within a given area after clearing/timber harvesting would be to
install sediment traps and/or ponds and establish perimeter flow control prior to starting
mass grading.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCL4YFD EARYH SCIENCES, INC
JPLItb - KE100292A2 - Projects1201002921aMP Page 8
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geo��Eic Hazards and Mitigations
4. During the wetter months of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during
the summer months, each work area should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the
work area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The
required measures for an area to be "buttoned -up" will depend on the time of year and
the duration the area will be left un-worked. During the winter months, areas that are
to be left un-worked for more than 2 days should be mulched or covered with plastic.
During the summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal -rolling the
subgrade. Such measures will aid in the contractor's ability to get back into a work
area after a storm event. The stabilization process also includes establishing temporary
storm water conveyance channels through work areas to route runoff to the approved
treatment facilities.
5. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. If it is outside of the
growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch, as recommended in
the erosion control plan. Straw mulch provides a cost-effective cover measure and can
be made wind -resistant with the application of a tackifier after it is placed.
6. Surface runoff and discharge should be controlled during and following development.
Uncontrolled discharge may promote erosion and sediment transport. Under no
circumstances should concentrated discharges be allowed to flow over the top of
steep slopes.
7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to
reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not
limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the
use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During the period between October I" and
March 31", these measures are required.
8. On -site erosion control inspections and turbidity monitoring (if required) should be
performed in accordance with Ecology requirements. Weekly and monthly reporting to
Ecology should be performed on a regularly scheduled basis. A discussion of
temporary erosion control and site runoff monitoring should be part of the weekly
construction team meetings. Temporary and permanent erosion control and drainage
measures should be adjusted and maintained, as necessary, for the duration of project
construction.
It is our opinion that with the proper implementation of the TESC plans and by field -adjusting
appropriate mitigation elements (BMPs) throughout construction, as recommended by the
erosion control inspector, the potential adverse impacts from erosion hazards on the project
may be mitigated.
October 8, 2010
ASSOCIAYED E,4RTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLIrb - KE100292A2 - Projects120100292"IWP Page 9
Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Reconnnendations
111. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0 INTRODUCTION
Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the
proposed improvements provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed.
Suitable foundation bearing soils were relatively shallow in our explorations, and conventional
spread footings can be used for support of the new structure. The infiltration of storm water
into the site soils may be feasible based on our preliminary explorations and laboratory testing.
8.0 SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation of the planned building and pavement areas should include removal of all
trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious materials. These unsuitable materials should be
properly disposed of. Additionally, any areas of organic topsoil should be removed and the
remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial. soils exist due to grubbing operations
should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently
recommended for structural fill placement. Any existing septic systems, whether in service or
not, should be decommissioned in accordance with local Public Health requirements and
removed from beneath any areas where structures or paving are planned. If any water wells
will be removed, they should be decommissioned by a licensed well driller in accordance with
Washington Administrative Code (WAQ Section 173-160. Any buried utilities should be
removed or relocated if they are under building areas. The resulting depressions should be
backfilled with structural fill, as discussed under the "Structural Fill" section of this report.
Existing fill should be removed from below the planned new building. The approximate
observed thickness of the existing fill at the exploration locations is shown on the attached
exploration logs. If allowed under the project plans and specifications, the existing fill is
expected to be suitable for reuse in structural fill applications during dry site and weather
conditions when the soils can be aerated and dried to a suitable moisture content that will allow
compaction to a firm and unyielding condition at the specified level for the application where it
is used. It should be noted that the depth, content, or condition of the materials in the fill zone
underlying the site may vary widely, and the fill may include significant organic material. In
order to reuse excavated, existing fill material, it will be necessary to remove and segregate
any deleterious materials that are encountered prior to reuse in structural fill applications.
After demolition and removal of deleterious material, we recommend that the soil exposed in
proposed new driveway or parking areas be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition.
The recompacted area should then be proof -rolled with a fully loaded, tandem -axle, dump
truck. Any soft or yielding areas identified during proof -rolling should be overexcavated and
backfilled with structural fill.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLIrb - rE]00292A2 - Projects1201002921KEW Page 10
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edinonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
In our opinion, stable, temporary construction slopes should be the responsibility of the
contractor and should be determined during construction. For planning purposes, we
anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the fill or weathered outwash sediments
can be made at a maximum slope of 1.511: IV (Horizontal: Vertical). For temporary cut slopes
within the dense to very dense, unweathered advance outwash, up to a 1H: IV inclination may
be planned. Flatter, temporary cut slopes are recommended in areas of ground water seepage.
As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur, and cut
slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be
followed at all times. Permanent, unsupported cut or structural fill slopes should not exceed a
gradient of 211: IV.
The fill and shallow native sediments contain a high percentage of fine-grained material that
makes them moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use
care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not
softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to
grade with structural fill.
Consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate
section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB). If crushed rock is considered for the
access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the
potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock during wet weather and
turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus
reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock
be placed over the fabric.
9.0 STRUCTURAL FILL
Structural fill may be necessary to establish desired grades or to backfill around foundations
and utilities. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill
type, placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of
compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section
should be used.
After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical
engineer/engineering geologist, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground should be recompacted
to a firm and unyielding condition. If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate
recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted.
In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry
spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the
exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an
engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free -draining
layer by silt migration from below.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUtb - KE100292A2 - Projecrs1201002921KERP Page 11
Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinmy Clinic Prelinfinmy Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Des!h Recommendalions
After stripping and subgrade preparation of the exposed ground is approved, or a free -draining
rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fin is
defined as non -organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch
loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximurn
density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard.
The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by Associated Earth
Sciences, Inc. (AESI) prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of
the material at least 3 business days in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field
compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the
No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve
size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soils in structural fills
should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. In addition, construction equipment
traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed
during wet weather, or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select on -site and/or import
material consisting of a clean, free -draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining
fill consists of non -organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by
weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction and at least 25 percent greater than
the No. 4 sieve.
A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during
placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in -
place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling
progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand
that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or
acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a
suitable monitoring and testing frequency.
10.0 FOUNDATIONS
Spread footings may be utilized for building support when founded either directly on the
medium dense to very dense, natural sediments, or on structural fill placed over these
materials. Prior to placement of foundations or structural fill, the natural sediments should be
compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Sediments suitable for foundation support were
encountered in our explorations at depths of approximately 4 feet. If structural fill is placed
below footing areas, we recommend that the fill extend horizontally outward from the footing
edges a distance equal to or greater than the thickness of the fill below the footings.
For footings bearing directly on the medium dense to very dense, natural sediments, or on
structural fill placed over these materials, as described above, we recommend that an allowable
foundation soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (pso be utilized for design
purposes, including both dead and live loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short -
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIAYED EARTH SCIENCES, INC
JPL11b - KE100292A2 - ProjectsI20100292imwp Page 12
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Prelindnai2 Design Recommendations
term wind or seismic loading. Perimeter footings for the proposed buildings should be buried
a minimum of 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection. No minimum burial
depth is required for interior footings; however, all footings must penetrate to the prescribed
stratum, and no footings should be founded in or above loose, organic, or existing fill soils.
It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at IH:lV 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:lV 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 as described above should be on the order of 1 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 with the recommendations contained in this report. Such
inspections may be required by the governing municipality. Perimeter footing drains should be
provided as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of this report.
11.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES
All backfill behind retaining 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 retaining walls that are free to yield laterally at least 0. 1 percent of their height may
be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained,
horizontally backfilled, rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid
of 50 pcf. If roadways, parking areas, or other areas subject to vehicular traffic are adjacent to
retaining walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to the wall height in
determining lateral design forces. Retaining walls that retain sloping backfill at a maximum
angle of 2H: IV should be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for yielding
conditions or 75 pcf for fully restrained conditions.
In accordance with the 2009 IBC, retaining wall design should include seismic design
parameters. Based on the site soils and assumed wall backfill materials, we recommend a
seismic surcharge pressure in addition to the equivalent fluid pressures presented above. A
rectangular pressure distribution of 4H and 8H psf (where H is the height of the wall in feet)
should be included in design for "active" and "at -rest" loading conditions, respectively. The
resultant of the rectangular seismic surcharge should be applied at the midpoint of the walls.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUlb - M00292A2 - ProjeaX'010029�IKEIWP Page 13
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Prelindnary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform horizontal
backfill consisting of the on -site, natural, glacial sediments or imported sand and gravel
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.
Footing drains must be provided for all retaining walls, as discussed under the "Drainage
Considerations" section of this report. It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that
hydrostatic pressures do not develop against the walls. This would involve installation of a
minimum, 1-foot-wide, blanket drain to within I foot of the ground surface using imported,
washed gravel against the walls placed to be continuous with the footing drain.
11. 1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the competent, natural
sediments or supporting structural fill soils, and/or by passive earth pressure acting on the
buried portions of the foundations. The foundations must be backfilled with compacted
structural fill to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following
allowable design parameters:
• Passive equivalent fluid = 300 pcf
• Coefficient of friction = 0.35
12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT
Slab -on -grade floors may be constructed either directly on the medium dense to very dense,
natural sediments, or on structural fill placed over these materials. Areas of the slab subgrade
that are disturbed (loosened) during construction should be recompacted to an unyielding
condition prior to placing the pea gravel, as described below.
If moisture intrusion through slab -on -grade floors is to be limited, the floors should be
constructed atop a capillary break consisting of a minimum thickness of 4 inches of washed pea
gravel. The pea gravel should be overlain by a 10-mil (minimum thickness) plastic
vapor retarder.
13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
All retaining and perimeter foundation walls should be provided with a drain at the base of the
footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe
surrounded by washed pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set at or
slightly below the bottom of the footing grade beam, and the drains should be constructed with
sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the buildings. In addition, all
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLltb - KE100292A2 - Projects120100292 WEI IMP Page 14
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazai-d, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington PreliminaLy Des�gn Recommendations
retaining walls should be lined with a minimum, 12-inch-thick, washed gravel blanket that
extends to within 1 foot of the surface and is continuous with the foundation drain. Roof and
surface runoff should not discharge into the foundation drain system, but should be handled by
a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be
sloped downward away from the structures to achieve surface drainage.
14. 0 PRELIMINARY INFILTRATION EVALUATION
The majority of this site is underlain by significant amounts of advance outwash sand and
gravel deposits. These deposits are considered suitable as potential infiltrative soils. Two
sieve analyses were performed on soil samples from exploration borings EB-1 and EB-2. The
classification of the samples tested most closely fits the texture class "loamy sand" referenced
in Table C-I of the 2010 Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement (Edmonds Supplement),
which is taken from Table 3.7 in the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology Manual). For preliminary
planning purposes only, this material has an uncorrected short-term infiltration rate of 2 inches
per hour, with an Estimated Design (long-term) Infiltration Rate of 0.5 inches per hour. Also,
since the testing was conducted between May I" and October 31", Section 5.5.2 of the
Edmonds Supplement requires that an additional correction factor of 2 be applied, reducing the
long-term infiltration rate to 0.25 inches per hour.
Should a higher design infiltration rate be needed for site -specific design, we recommend that
AESI perform infiltration testing using a large -diameter infiltrometer, generally corresponding
to the procedure described as a pilot infiltration test (PIT) in the Ecology Manual, at the
proposed infiltration location(s) prior to final design in order to provide site -specific rates of
infiltration. The PIT test(s) should take place at the bottom elevation of the proposed
infiltration system and be conducted between November ? and April 30" to provide a design
infiltration rate without the City -mandated seasonal correction factor. AESI is also available to
conduct cation exchange capacity or organic content testing of site soils for in situ treatment of
storm water, if requested.
15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Our recommendations are preliminary in that definite building locations and construction
details have not been finalized at the time of this report. We are available to provide additional
geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon
which this report is based. If significant changes in grading are made, we recommend that
AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way,
our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented
in the design.
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLItb - KE100292A2 - ProjectsI20100292�KEIWP Page 15
Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during
construction. The integrity of the foundations depends on proper site preparation and
construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field
in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring
services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us
know, and we will prepare a proposal.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations
will aid in the successful completion of your project, If you should have any questions or
require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
ICrkland, Washington
Jeffrey P. Laub, L.G., I-E.G.
Project Engineering Geologist
Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan
Appendix: Exploration Logs
Laboratory Test Results
of WA,3
44)
46?
�-'/ONAL i0�4
Kurt D. Merriman, P.E.
Principal Engineer
October 8, 2010 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, 1NC.
JPLAb - KE100292A2 - Projects1201002921YEMP Page 16
t
REFERENCE: USGS TOPOI FEET
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. VICINITY MAP FIGURE I
[W [-j�
v f WOODHAVEN VETERINARY CLINIC DATE 9/10
19W EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJ. NO- KEI 00292A