22914 EDMONDS WAY.PDF11111111111111
13939
22914 EDMONDS WAY
ADDRESS: 0�4
TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL NUMBER:
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUC TURF):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS: .
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER): '
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DAT
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE S:
SHORT PLAT FILE:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S).#:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PE
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER: �Y-4�A
/I
DETERMINATION: [] Conditional Waiver F1 Study Required 0 Waiver
LID #:
LOT: BLOCK:
LATEMMS'PsTorms\Street File Checklist-doc
E;z
FW3
16 q
I C) - k k��
� 2,,,, -7 /,5 4 - G'�- 1`4 6 -
"n-1
LIA
LA
PLANNNG DATA
New Commercial / MuftiFamilv Pro�ects
SITE ADDRESS: 2- 2- -1 ZONING: (;'-M- 5'
Yij.
USE(S) PROPOSED: Z b (4�-i ALLOWED?:
(Y/N)
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETf-RMINATIbN ISSUED ------
CUP File: To Allow What Uses?:
ADB FILE #: 0� -
PARKING:
Use: - No. Spaces Required: X-,
. x (floor area, # employees, etc.) /-'5-
Use: - , Z- - No. Spaces Required:
. X :z (floor area,# employees, etc.)=
Use: - 3 he-A,�, ,�, No. Spaces Required:
X 2- (floor area, # employees, etc.) =
Use: No. Spaces Required:
X (floor area, # employees, etc.) =
Total Required: I g, 4 Actual Provided: 2-
SETBACKS:
Required Setbacks:
Front: iT Left Side: lo Right Side: iff Rear: 15-
Actual Setbacks:
Front: iS' LeftSide: fol RightSide: to, Rear: w, "t.L-
Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes/No)
MAXIMUM FLOOR:AREA-
Maximum Allowed: -15-.71 Actual: 5-6 L
1--
'
BUILDING HEIGHT:
kf'
.10M,
Maximum Allowed: Actual Height:
Modulation Allowed?: Modulation Height:
Datum Point: I-.. a t-A
__LL.Datum Elevation: 357/. 32
�11^1#
P- 1411- Elevator Penthouse"> 3 feet over height limit? If so,VAR#
z
8
ow r
ZrA
<,,���SCAPING:
Matches ADB approved: �jn. j Z'l 3 -0 -014, W., eil".
0
Bid Provided? rin Amount (1 00�% bid):
,,Bond
CRITICAL AREAS #: 64- Zf'4 -12- A4,
SEPA DETERMINATION: ('-I oy� A�j 2M
Ar 5 *90'),
`�HORELINE REQUIRED?:
Continued ...
1Ahbrary\^P1andatNewComm.doc
0
1�
0
DATE: PLAN CHK#- 75
NAME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICANT:. P, "WV44"�f- -
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: '.;(t24 " cl&"J�-� 2, b.-Ii L-IJ-1 A br-4
- /, 10 '-f . c-'f 4
ADB FILE #: c,4 - 5-- OR DATE WAIVED:
PLANS MATCH APPROVED PLAN:
t3,�4,-Aot4A A, ^-4'vr- /' k r'F'('4"VA b A",'- -;141 6�Ax� I- S e—iL)-;m tef-�
SUBDIVISION:
LOT AGGREGATION REQUIRED?: g..
REDUCED SITE PLAN (8.5X11) PROVIDED FOR STREET FILE? Y�
OTHER:
Ac a
Plan Review By:
b r'ffiA P11,, 4--�,tr "16- (-1 ",ALA (A he .,y
'5 —) 7 41-Af
'�'Y 4,4 f " A -A CAP*, 4�� � -0 10
A �,uj lvfa t-aj OIL,
�k,r -S 4 - a 4 - 42 ' ;Vp r--*t .- .
k%�r /I. f6e. pJr_1
Ann tt-�U 5- 6.,
blpro� W/ G. fVoi- 4."-!!) -�
1Afibrary\AP1andatNcwComm.doc
Golder Associates Inc.
18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200
Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333
Telephone (425) 883-0777
Fox (425) 882-5498
www.goider.com
REPORT ON
HILLSIDE TERRACE
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Submitted to..
Hanz Lammersdorf
Valhalla, LLC
P.O. Box 251
Edmonds, Washington
Submitted by
Golder Associates Inc.
18300 NE Union Hill Road
Suite 200
Redmond, Washington 98052
Distribution:
I Copies - Valhalla, LLC
I Copies - A.D. Shapiro Associates
3 Copies - Golder Associates Inc.
April 6, 2004
A W
RECEIVED
OCT 12 2004
PERMIT COUNTER
�j7REET FILE
V�
043-1117.100
m1rom
040604�ill
OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA
April 6, 2004 -j- 043-1117.100
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................
2
3.0
FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................
3
4.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................
4
5.0
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................
6
5.1 General ..........................................................................................................................
6
.5.2 Foundations ...................................................................................................................
6
5.3 Retaining Wall Options and Design Criteria ................................................................
6
5.4 Seismic Criteria .............................................................................................................
7
5.5 Building Slabs ...............................................................................................................
7
5.6 Drainage Provisions ......................................................................................................
8
6.0
STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION ...........................................................................................
9
7.0
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................
11
7.1 General ........................................................................................................................
11
7.2 Soil Nall Shoring Installation ........................................................................................
11
7.3 Temporary Cut slopes .................................................................................................
11
7.4 Subgrade and Footing Preparation ..............................................................................
12
7.5 Earthworks ..................................................................................................................
12
7.5.1 General ...........................................................................................................
12
7.5.2 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction ....................................................
12
7.5.3 Use of Excavated Soils ..................................................................................
12
7.5.4 Imported Fill Materials ..................................................................................
13
7.6 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring .......................................................................
13
8.0 CLOSING ......................................................................................................................... 14
9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 15
040604.-J]
Golder Associates
April 6, 2004
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site and Investigation Plan
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Test Pit Logs
Appendix B Slope Stability Analysis
043-1117.100
040604rnll
Golder Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
April 6, 2 004 043-1117.100
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to present this report on our geotechnical investigation for
the proposed redevelopment of your property at 22910 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington
currently known as flillside Terrace Apartments (Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation was to
evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions, and the presence of fill at your property for your
proposed construction apartments on our site.
The scope of services for a geotechnical investigation, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a
HazMat Survey for this site and another site were presented in a proposal to Valhalla, LLC dated
February 27, 2004. Authorization to proceed with only the geotechnical scope of services at the
Hillside Terrace Apartments was received from you on March 8, 2004.
The scope of work included the following primary tasks:
0 Excavate seven test pits on the property, the excavator was provided by you;
0 Coordinate utility locate requests and schedule with the excavator operator;
0 Perform an engineering analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for the design and
construction of the apartment buildings and retaining structures; and
0 Preparation of this report.
The scope of services was expanded and the budget increased on Thursday, April I to include Steep
Slopes Exemption analysis and evaluation, which is being required by the City of Edmonds. The
results of our study are summarized in the following sections of this report. Section 2 summarizes the
project and site conditions, Section 3 summarizes Golder's geotechnical field investigation, Section 4
summarizes the geologic setting and the findings of our investigation, Section 5 presents our design
recommendations, Section 6 presents our evaluation of the steeps slopes exemption, and finally
Section 7 includes our discussion on construction considerations. Closing remarks are presented in
Section 8, and references cited are listed in Section 9.
0 040604mil Golder Associates
I
I
I
�1
11
11
I
I
I
11
I
I
i
I
I
I
April 6, 2 004 -2- 043-1117.100
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITIONS
The Hillside Terrace project site is located at 22910 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington. The
project site currently has a single family house and a car port, scattered shrubs and small trees and
grass lawns around the house. The house is currently occupied by rental tenants. The site topography
increases from approximately elevation 352 feet at the street side of the property to 386 feet at the
back of the property. The front half of the site is relatively level. A slope with two narrow terraces is
located along the back of the lot. The lower terrace is about 10 feet wide front to back and is at about
elevati on 360. The upper terrace I's triangular in sharp and Is located a little more than midway up the
slope at the back of the parcel. The longest side of the upper terrace is approximately 30 feet along
the west property line and tapers toward the east until it meets the slope about 15 feet from the east
property line. The height from the base of the slope on the north to the top of the slope on the south is
approximately 30 feet, elevation 356 feet to 386 feet. We understand that the property is included
under the steeps slope ordinance and that a steep slopes exemption for development of this site is
required. It is our understanding that the existing structures will be demolished for construction.
The conceptual architectural plans for the Hill Side Terrace project, dated 01/06/04, show two three-
story, wood -frame, multi -unit buildings with first level parking, which is at grade at the front - north
side - of the lot and below grade at the back of the lot. The maximum depth of excavation needed for
the proposed development is on the order of 20 feet on the back of the property and decreases toward
the north.
I040604rall Golder Associates
I
April 6, 2004 -3-
a3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
043-1117.100
A one -day field investigation was conducted on March 17, 2004. The investigation consisted of
excavating seven geotechnical test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-7) at selected locations primarily
on the slope at the back of the property. Ile depth of the test pits ranged from 3 feet below existing
ground surface (bgs) at the front of the lot to 12.5 feet bgs at the top of the slope at the back of the lot.
A site plan showing the existing topography and site features, and the proposed new buildings
locations was provided by A.D. Shapiro Architects of Edmonds.
The test pits were excavated by Northend Excavating of Edmonds using a Takeuchi TB-145, a small
tracked excavator (trackhoe) under agreement with you. After the test pits were completed they were
backfilled using the excavated soil and tamping with the excavator bucket. Some settlement of the
backfilled soil can be expected over time. The general test pit locations were determined prior to the
geotechnical investigation based on topography, proposed building locations and potential
geotechnical issues. The actual locations were chosen in the field by Golder during the field
investigation. The test locations were plotted on the site topographic survey by measuring distances
'from existing site features. Utility locating services for the site were coordinated by Golder prior to
the field investigation. The test pit locations are shown the Figure 2.
Logging and sampling of soils were perfon-ned in accordance with Golder Associates Technical
Procedure TP-1.2-6, "Field Identification of Soil", based on the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). The soil conditions were examined and logged by the Golder Geologist. Pertinent
information was recorded on field test pit logs, including soil classification, depths and locations,
stratigraphy, soil moisture conditions, and other information. Samples of each soil unit encountered
were collected from each test pit. The soils were classified in accordance with Golder Technical
Procedure TP-1.2-6 and are summarized on the Soil Description Index in Appendix A. All samples
were placed in labeled one -gallon plastic zip -lock bags and taken to our laboratory for further
classification.
Summary test pit logg are presented in Appendix A. The soil contacts indicated on the logs represent
the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil conditions were those recorded for the
0 locations and dates excavated, and may not represent those of other times and locations
III
11
I
I
I
I
0 04W4mil Golder Associates
I
16,2004 4-
0 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
I
043-1117.100
Edmonds, Washington is located in the central Puget Lowlands and native soils are predominately
glacial in origin although more recent alluvial, marsh, lake, landslide and mad -made fill deposits are
present over much smaller areas. ne Edmonds area is generally underlain by a glacial sequence of
soils including till, advance outwash and transitional beds (Minard, 1983). According to the geologic
map by Minard (1984), the near surface geology in the vicinity of the parcel consists of till overlying
advance outwash of the Vashon glaciation.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered duning our site investigation, the soil underlying the
property from upslope to down slope consists of minor amounts of fill, weathered till, till and advance
outwash. Generalized descriptions of the soil units encountered are provided below, in their
descending order of occurrence:
Topsoil: A thin layer of topsoil, containing leaves, roots and decayed organic material was
present in all test pits and can be expected across the site. This material is relatively thin ranging
from 0.3 to 0.5 foot thick.
Fill: Localized areas of fill were observed at the west side of the upper slope and ter -race in test
pits TP-1 and TP-2 and across the lower terrace in test pits TP4 an TP-5. The fill was thinner on
the upper terrace and slope and ranged from 1.2 to 2.7 feet thick. The fill on the lower terrace
was 2.7 feet thick in both test pits. The fill appeared to, be denived from local soils and consisted
of loose to compact, nonstratified, fine to medium sand, little to some silt, little coarse sand,
gravel and cobbles and none to some wood and charcoal. The fill has a SM or SM-SP soil
classification. Based on site topography and the surrounding proper -ties, the fill was probably a
result of development of adjacent properties and for leveling of the ground surface on the site.
Weathered Till: Weathered till was observed in test pits TP-1, TP-2 and TP-3 on the upper
terrace and slope and varied in thickness from 3.5 to 6.0 feet. The weathered zone of the till was
characterized by orange -brown or yellow -brown color. Weathered till consisted of loose to
compact, orange -brown or yellow -brown, nonstratified fine to medium sand, some silt, little to
some coarse sand, gravel and little cobbles, none to little wood, damp. The USCS soil
classification for weathered till was SM, SP or SM/SP.
Till: Unweathered till was located below the weathered zone in test pits TP-1, TP-2 and TP-3,
was gray in color and was denser than the overlying weathered zone generafly being dense to
very dense. The soil consisted of essentially the same gradation as the weathered zone above.
The USCS so]] classification of the till was also SM, SP or SM/SP. The till was observed to
overlay advance outwash and varied in thickness from 1.2 to 4.0 feet thick.
Advance Outwash: Advance outwash was observed as the lowest soil unit in test pits TP-1
through TP-5 and was the only unit observed in test pits TP-6 and TP-7. The advance outwash
was overlain by fill in test pits TP-4 and TP-5. The advance outwash was generally gray,
compact to very dense, nonstratified, fine to medium or fine to coarse sand with some gravel and
cobbles, none to trace silt, no organics, and damp to moist. An upper weathered zone was
observed in test pits TP4 through TP-7, which was loose to compact with an orange -brown or
yellow brown color. 'Me weathered zone of the advance outwash was about one foot thick in test
pits TP-5 through TP-7 but was about 4.0 feet thick in test pit TP4, which was located at the base
of the slope at the middle of the east side of the site.
0 040W41W1 Golder Associates
April 6, 2004
-5-
043-1117.100
No groundwater was observed in the test pits. The site slopes appeared to be stable with no indication
of recent or ancient landsliding and no landslide deposits were observed. None of the following
conditions were observed during our investigations:
• No impenneable soils were interbedded with granular soils;
• No springs or groundwater seepage;
• No landslide deposits; and
• No evidence of slope instability.
040604rall
Golder Associates
16,2004 -6- 043-1117.100
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
The main geotecbmcal issues at the site are cuts at the back of the slope and designation of the slope
as a sensitive slope and specifically included the following:
• Relatively large cuts at the back of the property to reach building foundation and slab
elevations requiring temporary ground support;
• Presence of small, uncontrolled fill deposits in areas of the site to be developed; and
• Selection and design of a retaining wall system up to 20 feet high, which will need to
accommodate surcharge loading associated with development of the adjacent sites.
5.2 Foundations
Ile undisturbed, native compact to dense Outwash units or bard Till units are suitable for supporting
lightly to moderately loaded foundations. Footings can also be supported on compacted structural fill
provided any topsoil, underlying loose so]] zones, and/or existing fills are stripped to firm competent
ground prior to placing the fill.
Foundation design criteria include:
• ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE: 3,000 psf, this value can be increased by 1/3
for seismic design.
• ALLOWABLE BASE FRICTION COEFFICIENT: 0.4 for outwash sand, 0.4 for Till
• MINIMUM SIZE: 18-inch width for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated
footings.
• MINIMUM DEPTH: 18-Inches below exterior grade for exterior footings; 6-ifiches
below grade for interior footings.
• ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT: Less than I -inch total and 1/2 differential settlement
• EARTH PRESSURES: For walls free to rotate at the top, the earth pressure can be based
on a fluid with a density of 30 pcf while 50 pcf should be used if the wall is restrained.
These values assume a level backslope behind the wall. Backslopes up frorn the wall will
require increased pressures.
• PASSIVE RESISTANCE ON SIDES OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS: For design
purposes, we recommend that the allowable passive pressure be based on a fluid with a
density of 300 pcf on the sides of buried footings above the water table. This value can
be increased by 1/3 for seismic or wind loads.
5.3 Retaining Wall Options and Design Criteria
The soil conditions at the retaining wall location are considered suitable for a standard soil nail wall
and this ' is considered the most feasible type of retaining wall. However, other options for
construction of a retaining wall exist and include the following:
0 Composite soil nail wall;
040604m]l
Golder Associates
I
I
I
April 6, 2004 -7- 043-1117.100
0 Soldier pile tie back wall;
0 Soldier pile wall with facing; or
0 Cast -in -place cantilever wall -
These options have drawbacks not inherent in conventional soil nail walls including requiring more
space, potentially higher costs and more difficult construction. However, these options exist and
alternatives to conventional soi] nail walls can be evaluated as the design proceeds, if needed.
5.4 Seismic Criteria
The current building standard in Washington State is the Unif6rm Building Code* (UBC, 1997).
However, as of July 1, 2004 Washington will adopt the International Building Code'� (ICC, 2003) as
the state standard for construction. The seismic design criteria for the site are presented below for
both the UBC and the IBC because of the approaching adoption date.
The current UBC seismic criteria at the project site is Seismic Zone 3 (UBC, 1997). Within this zone,
a seismic zone factor (Z) equal to 0.30 is reconunended for calculation of shear and lateral load
imparted on structures during an earthquake. Based on the information obtained from the field
investigation, Soil Profile Type S, (UBC, 1997) should be assumed for design of structures. The site
is underlain by a so]] profile consisting of dense and hard soil conditions with the depth to bedrock
estimated to be greater than 100 feet. In resisting the lateral loads, both the base friction and passive
pressures can be assumed to act together as presented above.
If the buildings will be designed using the International Building Code (ICC, 2003), then the
structures should use the following criteria based on the design procedure presented in the ]CC.
Design accelerations are obtained from figures in the code that show contours of maximum
considered ground motion. Two figures are provided; one for 0.2 second spectral response and one
for 1.0 second spectral response, illustrated on IBC Figure 1615. 1.1 and Figure 1615.1.2 respectively.
Both of the figures give ground motion parameters for a Site Class C so]] profile (IBC Figure
1615.1.1), which must be adjusted if the soil profile is different. For this site, we recommended the
use of a Site Class C so]] profile, which is defined by a stiff soil profile for the average properties in
the upper 100 feet.
The soils considered most susceptible to liquefaction generally consist of very loose to loose saturated
granular deposits. In general, the site is underlain by compact to dense soils with some localized
shallow zones of loose soils. Where encountered in the explorations the loose soils were relatively
shallow and with no observed groundwater. We conclude that the potential for liquefaction at this
site is negligible.
5.5 Building Slabs
Conventional slab -on -grade floors can be supported on the compact to dense or bard native soils or on
compacted structural fill. It is not recommended that floor slabs be supported on organic -rich soils,
topsoil, uncontrolled fill, loose, disturbed soils or wet soils. Should subgrade conditions be
comprised of any of these soils, we recommend that they be removed and replaced with structural fill
or that a structural slab be constructed. In places, loose, granular soils may be remediated by in -place
co ' m i paction to provide adequate bearing. Fill placed beneath floor slabs shall be compacted to a
minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. All slabs should be
underlain by a capillary break which consists of at least four inches of clean, free draining coarse sand
or gravel meeting the gradations presented below.
0 040604iMl Golder Associates
April 6, 2004 -8-
Capillary Break Gradation
Sieve Size Percent
diameter (inches) Passing
I Inch 100% Passing
No. 4 0% to 70%
No.10 0% to 10%
No. 200 0% to 3%
043-1117.100
A vapor bamier consisting of heavy plastic sheeting should be placed over the capillary break. Two
inches of clean drainage sand can be placed over the plastic sheeting at the owner's discretion to help
cure the concrete.
1 5.6 Drainage Provisions
The drainage system should consist of footing drains for all structures.
IThe drainage system should consist of-
• FOOTING DRAINS: A perimeter footing drain should be placed consisting of a 4-Mch-
diameter, heavy -walled, perforated PVC pipe or equivalent. The pipe should be
surrounded by at least 6 inches of drainage gravel material as described above. Clean
outs should be provided.
0 Wall Drains: Mi-ror drains or drain rock curtain.
• DISCHARGE: The drainage system should drain by gravity if feasible to positive
discharge such as the stonn drain or infiltration system.
If leak free walls are desired, a waterproof barrier, such as bentonite panels, should be placed on the
outside of the concrete walls prior to backfilling. Any backfill below the groundwater table should
consist of clean, free draining material, such as drain rock, pea gravel or coarse sand.
A filter fabric will be required over the perforated pipe to prevent migration of the subgrade materials
into the drainage system.
040604,.Ul
Golder Associates
April 6, 2004 -9- 043-1117.100
6.0 STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION
The City of Edmonds is requining a Steep slope Exemption evaluation for development of the site and
Valhalla LLC, the developer, is requesting that a Steep slope Exemption be granted for the site slope.
In order for a property to qualify for a steep slope exemption two sets of cnteria need to be met.
These criten'a are, 1) Site Standards, and 2) Development Characteristics and are presented in the
Steep Slopes Exemption document provided by the City, dated 02/27/02. A summary of the criteria
include:
0 Site Standards — the physical features of the site and adjacent sites.
- The site will be stable after the permitted development is complete.
- The development has to be located in an area that is either mapped as till, advance
outwash, and or Olympia gravels on the "Geological Map of Edmonds East and part of
Edmonds West Quadrangles", by J.P. Minard, or comprised of engineered fill placed,
compacted observed and tested to confirm that the his is uniformly compacted on slopes
of the same mater-ials.
- Any fill be legal
must placed under a grading permit, grading and fill were designed by
an licensed professional engineer, underlying soils were prepared in accordance with
engineering design and compaction testing confirms unifor-in compaction to the
minimum specified density.
- The thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or loose soils on or
adjacent to the step slope may not three feet.
exceed
In addition to the above, none of the following conditions can exist on the steep slope area:
Impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils,
Springs or groundwater seepage, or significant visible of groundwater seepage, or,
Previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits
0 Development Charactenistics - criteria that the development has to put into place to qualify.
- All excavations on steep slopes will not exceed 35-degrees down from the property lines,
unless retained by structural shoning designed by a registered professional engineer.
- All retaining structures shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building
Code. No rockeries greater than four feet in height are permitted.
- A buffer of 15 feet shall be maintained
- The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property.
Requires an engineening analysis by a geologist or geotechnical engineer licensed In Washington
State, and include a descniption of the specific requested steep slope exemption and explain how
the proposed exemption meets all of the critenia.
a040604rWI Golder Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
Apnil 6, 2004 -10- 043-1117.100
Slope Stability Analysis
As ' a part of the steeps slope exemption, a slope stability analysis was performed on the native slope
as it now stands using computer program SLIDE, version 5.0 by Rocscience, Inc. The results of the
slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix B. The stability analysis was calculated for the
entire slope, along the critical sections of the slope, and for seismic design cniteria. The factor of
safety for the entire slope — under static conditions was calculated at 2.8 and under seismic loading of
1.8. The section of slope with the lowest factor of safety of 1.4 was a very shallow surface section
(less than 0.5 feet) of the fill between elevation 355 and 366 feet presented by test pit TP4. A global
Factor of Safety of 1.5 is considered by the industry standard of care to be stable. 'Ibis condition was
achieved with the calculated factor of safety of 2.8. The shallow slump slip surface in the fill
indicates a factor of safety of 1.4. However, these matenials are planned for excavation and removal
during the proposed development.
The stability of the slope was verified during our field investigation. All sections of the slope view
appeared to be stable. The proposed exemption meets the requirements for the Steep Slopes
Exemption and include the following:
- Retaining walls are recommended for cuts into the slope at the south half of the site
including the south and west slopes. We recommend that a narrow section of slope at the
south end of the east property line be removed. The retaining walls will produce stability
equal to that of the current slope conditions.
- The slope was mapped on the "Geological Map of Edmonds East and part of Edmonds West
Guardangles", by J.P. Minard, as Till at the upper portion of the slope, and Advance
Outwash at the lower portion of the slope Test pit soil conditions confirmed the mapped
units. Test pit logs are presented in Appendix A.
- Grading and fills on the site will be engineered and designed by an licensed professional
engineer and compaction testing will be perfon-ned duning construction to veriffy that the fills
are compacted to the design criteria.
- Organic soils, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or loose soils will be removed or
restrained by retaining walls during construction.
- Excavations on the slopes will be retained by structural shoning or retaining wall designed by
a licensed engineer or will not exceed 35-degrees.
0 040604"1 Golder Associates
April 6, 2004 -H- 043-1117.100
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 General
General geotechnical related site construction should consist of demolition of the existing house, site
clean*ng, site grading, subgrade preparation, construction of retaining walls, casting of building walls,
footings and slabs, placement and compaction of fills, and installation of the drainage systems. This
section discusses selected elements of these construction issues.
7.2 Soil Nail Shoring Installation
The basic concept of sofl nailing is to reinforce and strengthen the existing ground by installing
closely spaced steel bar inclusions commonly referred to as "nails" into a slope or excavation as
construction proceeds from the top downward. This produces a reinforced zone that is itself stable
and helps to support the unreinforced ground behind it. The nails are passive in that they are
untensioned at the time of installation; over time, they become tensioned as they resist the
deformation of the adjacent soil. The nail reinforcement improves stability by two ways. First, soil
nails reduce the driving force along potential failure surfaces. Second, in frictional soils, nails
increasing the normal force and hence the soil shear resistance along potential slip surfaces.
Construction of a so]] nail wall involves the following major steps:
1. Excavate soil, typically a 6 foot lift, leaving small berm in place.
2. Drill hole for the soil nail.
3. Install and grout nail.
4. Excavate out a berm to form vertical cut face.
5. Place drainage system.
6. Place water proofing (if specified).
7. Place reinforcements bearing plates, and studs.
8. Apply shotcrete wall.
9. Repeat process down to final excavation grade.
7.3 Temporary Cut slopes
Based on the conceptual design, the maximum depth of the construction excavation will be about 20
feet. Safe temporary construction cuts are the responsibility of the contractor and depend on the
details of the overall site and construction conditions at the time. We have observed stable
unsupported slopes at this site on the order of I H: IV up to about 12 feet high. Within the dense till or
advance outwash, cuts on the order I H: IV, up to 20 feet bi gh appear to be feasible.
The temporary cut slopes should be protected from precipitation and drying out. Direct rainfall or
surface water can destabilize the facc of the excavation, however, if the face becomes too dry,
raveling will occur. We recommend that the temporary slopes be protected with visqueen plastic
sheeting secured in placed with stakes and sandbags. Alternatively, a flash coat of shotcrete (2-inches
thick) will also protect the slope face from erosion and drying. If shotcrete facing is used to protect
the slope, weep holes on 5-foot spacing are recommended to provide drainage of water that may build
up behind the wall.
0 040604H 1 Golder Associates
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
III
I
I
I
I
I
April 6, 2004 -12- 043-1117.100
7.4 Subgrade and Footing Preparation
Based on the test pits, the foundation subgrade will likely consist of dense outwash sands and gravels,
or gravelly sand, depending on the depth and elevation of the footing. The foundations below
elevation 360 feet will be in the dense advance sands and gravels. The subgrade soils could become
loosened and disturbed under the influence of surface water, groundwater, and construction
equipment. The contractor will have to implement suitable procedures to protect the subgrade such as
excavating with a back -hoe without tracking on the native soils, use of a crushed rock or gravel -
working mat, soil admixing the subgrade, geotextiles and other suitable procedures during wet
weather. Native competent subgrade that becomes loosened by the contractors operation, and wet
and unsuitable soils should be over -excavated and replaced with a suitable fill material, or admix the
soil with a moisture reducing agent or cement treated base (CTB), at the contractor's expense. The
footing excavations should be free of any loose, soft disturbed material or water prior to placement of
reinforcing bar and concrete.
7.5 Earthworks
7.5.1 General
Although the site work will be mainly excavations, some structural fill may be required for backfill
against walls, around foundations, and to establish final site grades. To the extent possible, the major
earthwork should be completed during the dry time of year.
Although feasible, earthwork construction during wet weather
associated with off -site disposal of unsuitable excavated soils,
increased problems with subgrade disturbance and need for soil
working mats.
7.5.2 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction
will significantly increase costs
increased control of water, and
admixtures, gectextiles, or rock
Structural fill should be used below footings, slabs, and pavements. Structural fill should be a well -
graded sand and gravel that when placed and compacted will meet the required compaction
specification. Below all footings and within three feet of grade in pavement areas any fill should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum ASTM D 1557 dry density. Beneath floor slabs and other
structural components such as utility service trenches, not underlying pavements of footings, a
minimum dry density of 90 percent ASTM D 1557 is required. If density tests indicate that
compaction is not being achieved due to moisture content, the fill should be scarified, moisture -
conditioned to near optimum moisture content, recompacted, and re -tested, or removed and replaced.
7.5.3 Use of Excavated Soils
In general, organic material, silty soils, and the silts and clays should not be used for structural fill.
ne outwash sands and gravels are considered the best materials for use as structural fill provided that
oversize material is removed and they are placed and compacted near the optimum moisture content
and in accordance with the compaction requirements presented in Section 7.4.2., above. If density
tests indicate that compaction is not being achieved due to moisture content, the fill should be
scarified, and moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, recompacted, and re -tested, or
removed and replaced.
0 0406(MrWi Golder Associates
16,2004 -13- 043-1117.100
7.5.4 ImDorted Fill Materials
If off -site structural fill is used during wet weather, it should be well -graded sand and gravel with less
than 5 percent silt.
Fills used for drainage should consist of washed gravels with less than 3 percent passing the No, 200
sieve or equivalent.
7.6 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring
We reconunend that a qualified geotechnical-engineering firm is on -site full time during critical
aspects of the project. This would include installation of any shoring walls, footing and slab subgrade
preparation, and placement of structural fills. Typically, geotechrucal special inspection is required
during the shoring and foundation phases of the project.
040604" 1
Golder Associates
I
16,2004
0 8.0 CLOSING
I
I
I
I
-14-
043-1117.100
This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of Vahalla LLC and their consultants and
contractors for specific application for the Hillside Terrace project. We encourage review of this
report by bidders and/or contractors as it relates to factual data only (logs of borings, conclusions,
etc.). The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations
and obse i rvations completed for this study and conversations regarding the proposed site develop and
are not intended, nor should they be construed to represent, a warranty regarding the proposed
development, but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process.
Considerable judgment has been applied in interpreting and presenting the results. Variations in
subsurface conditions over small distances are common in glacial environments such as those
encountered in Edmonds, and actual conditions encountered during construction may be different
from those observed in the test pits. When the site project plans are finalized, we recommend that we
be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications to verify that they are in accordance
with the conditions described in this repor-t.
The test pits were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering
practice, subject to the time limits and financial and physical constraints applicable to the services for
this project, to provide infori-nation for the areas explored. There are possible vaniations in the
subsurface conditions between the test borings and variations over time.
It has been a pleasure to provide this consulting service to you on the Hillside Terrace project. If you
have any questions, please call us at (425) 883-0777.
Sincerely,
GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
4c ael Lumpki G.
Project Engineering Geologist
qDavid M. Cotton, P.E.
Principal
JSS/CCK/se
Z( ((0 (Cf
D040W4rH] Golder Associates
April 6, 2004 -15- 043-1117.100
9.0 REFERENCES
Minard, J.P. (1984). Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles,
Washington, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1541, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior, Reston, Virginia.
ICBO(1997). Uniform Building Code, International Code Council. Whittier, California
ICC(2003). International Building Code. International Code Council, Country Club Hills, Illinois.
040604rTd I
Golder Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURES
I
Golder Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
?
10
A�
it,
-7T
"'.j; V
(jM1
J �1 13 M .3
Ik
Es4eral e
Me Eli
V
A
-La-W,
Ob - 6,
.7
SH
� V�v
..-Nl- LU
W
0 2000 4000
FEET
N
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, FIGURE
Edmonds East Quadrangle (1984) SITE VICINITY MAP
VALHALLAMILLSIDE TERRACE APT/WA
0 DRAWINGNO. 043111710DOOlfg0l.fhll DATE 04/05104 DRAWNBY EL
Golder Asso6ates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
TEST PIT LOGS
I
Golder Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
rim
I
I
I
RP4A . 0 Golder LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1
'k`ssociates
Temp 45 OF Weather Lt. rain Engineer M. Stiehler Operator T. Zuanich
Equipment Trackhoe Contractor Northend Excavating Date 3/17/04
Elevation 380.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1117.100.001
Location Southwest corner R site
S I I I I I I I � I I I I I —F—T---]
2 16
12
—16
A
:91
Bottom of Test Pit at 12.5 ft
0.0 - 0.1 ft:
Surface
A 0.1 - 0.3 ft:
Dark brown, loose, silty fine to medium SAND, some gravel,
organics and roots, damp to moist (SM). (TOPSOIL)
B 0.3 - 3.0 ft:
Gray, loose to compact, nonstratified, fine to medium
SAND, some silt, little coarse sand, gravel and cobbles, damp
(SM). (FILL)
C 3.0 - 3.5 ft:
Orange brown, loose to compact, nonstratified, silty fine to
medium SAND, little coarse sand, gravel, cobbles, and roots,
damp (SM). (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL)
D 3.5 - 9.0 ft:
Gray, loose to compact, nonstratified, fine to medium
SAND, some silt, little coarse sand, gravel, and cobbles, damp
(SM/SP). (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL)
5.0 ft: Becomes compact to dense, with some very dense lenses.
(GLACIAL TILL)
E 9.0 - 12.5 ft:
Gray, dense, nonstratified, fine to coarse SAND, some
gravel and cobbles, trace silt, damp (SP). (ADVANCE
OUTWASH)
SAMPLES
NO.
DEPTH
(ft)
MOISTURE
M
1
2.0
2
3.5
3
6.5
4
9.0
5
12.5
TIME
DEPTH OF
HOLE
(ft)
DEPTH TO
WIL
(ft)
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
(ft)
i
SPECIAL NOTES:
Damp to the maximum depth excavated.
.1
I
I
I
I
I
@GoIde LOG OF TEST PIT TP-2
ASSOCIZes
Temp 45 T Weather Lt. rain Engineer M. Stiehler Operator T. Zuanich
Equipment Trackhoe Contractor Northend Excavating Date 3/17/04
Elevation 371.' Oft Datum MSL Job 043-1117.100.001
Location Near west prop. bound., mid- ay down slope
N 1 1 2 1 1 6 S
—8
—12
16
I
I
I
A 0.0 - 0.3 ft: Dark brown, loose, silty fine to medium SAND, some gravel,
organics, wood chips and roots, damp (SM). (TOPSOIL)
B 0.3 - 1.5 ft: Gray, compact, nonstratified, sifty fine to medium SAND,
some gravel and cobbles, damp (SM). (FILL)
1.5 - 1.6 ft: Orange brown, loose to compact, nonstratified, silty fine to
medium SAND, some gravel and roots, damp; discontinous
layer (SM). (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL)
C 1.6 - 5.0 ft: Gray, compact to dense, nonstratified, fine to medium
SAND, some sift, coarse sand, gravel, and cobbles, damp
(SM). (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL)
3.0 ft: At 3'- Becomes dense to very dense. (GLACIAL TILL)
D 5.0 - 6.5 ft: Gray, dense to very dense, nonstratified, fine to coarse
SAND, some gravel and cobbles, trace silt, damp (SP).
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
LU
L'
0 'L
0
SAMPLES
NO.
DEPTH
(ft)
MOISTURE
M
1
1.0
2
2.5
3
5.0
4
6.5
-
I -
TIME
DEPTH OF
HOLE
(ft)
DEPTH TO
WIL
(ft)
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
(ft)
SPECIAL NOTES:
Damp to the maximum depth excavated.
0
0 L
@Golder LOG OF TEST PIT TP-3
Assoc,ates
Temp 45 OF Weather Lt. rain Engineer M. Stiehler Operator T. Zuanich
Equipment Trackhoe Contractor- Northend Excavating Date 3/17/04
Elevation 377.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1117.100.001
Location Near South -center prop. bound.
S I I I 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 N
2
6
0.0 - 0.1 ft: Surface
A 0. 1 - 0.5 ft:
Dark brown, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND, some
gravel, organics, and roots, damp (SM). (TOPSOIL)
B 0.5 - 2.0 ft:
Orange brown, loose, nonstratified, silty, fine to medium
SAND, some coarse sand, gravel, cobbles, and roots, damp
(SM). (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL)
C 2.0 - 5.0 ft:
Yellow brown, compact, nonstratified, fine to medium SAND,
some sift, coarse sand, gravel and cobbles, damp (SM).
(WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL)
D 5.0 - 6.5 ft:
Gray, dense, nonstratified, fine to medium SAND, some silt,
little coarse sand, gravel and cobbles, some lenses very
dense (SWSP). (GLACIAL TILL)
E 6.5 - 7.5 ft:
Gray, dense to very dense, nonstratified, fine to coarse
SAND, some gravel and cobbles, trace silt, damp (SP).
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
7)
'U
SAMPLES
NO.
DEPTH
(ft)
MOISTURE
M
1
1.5
2
3.0
3
5.0
4
7.5
TIME
DEPTH OF
HOLE
(ft)
DEPTH TO
W/L
(ft)
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
(ft)
SPECIAL NOTES:
Damp to the maximum depth excavated.
0
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-4
,�Goldelr
�Ociates
Temp 45 OF Weather — Lt. rain Engineer M. Stiehler Operator T. Zuanich
Equipment Trackhoe Contractor Northend Excavatinq Date 3/17/04
Elevation 364.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1117.100.001
Location Near east prop. bound., near base of slope
N 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 S
8
—12
0 1-1 L16
n
M
. 0
0
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES
0.0 - 0.1 ft: Surface
A 0.1 - 0.3 ft: Dark brown, loose, silty fine to medium SAND, some gravel,
organics, roots, damp (SM). (TOPSOIL)
B 0.3 - 3.0 ft: Gray, loose to compact, silty SAND to SAND some silt,
gravel and cobbles, some roots, woody debris and charcoal,
esp. at 3 feet, damp (SM). (FILL)
C 3.0 - 7.0 ft: Orange brown to yellow brown, loose to compact,
nonstratified, silty SAND some gravel, cobbles, roots, damp
(SM). (WEATHERED ADVANCE OUTWASH)
D 7.0 - 8.0 ft: Gray, dense, some lenses very dense, nonstratified, SAND
some gravel and cobbles, trace silt, damp (SP). (ADVANCE
OUTWASH)
LU
F-
0
SAMPLES
NO.
DEPTH
(ft)
MOISTURE
M
1
2.0
2
3.5
3
7.5
4
8.0
TIME
DEPTH OF
HOLE
(ft)
DEPTH TO
W/L
(ft)
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
(ft)
SPECIAL NOTES:
Damp to the maximum depth excavated.
0
OL
I
I
I
I
*Gol,d, LOG OF TEST PIT TP-5
sso er
ates
Temp 45 T Weather — Lt. rain Engineer M. Stiehler Operator T. Zuanich
Equipment Trackhoe Contractor Northend Excavating Date 3/17/04
Elevation 361.0 ft Datum M§—L Job 043-1117.100.001
Location Near west prop. bound., nea base of slope
E - I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 2 1 1 1 -- I W
A
—12
16
I
I
0
Uj
01
0
0
F-'V1
D
Bottom of Test Pit at 6.5 ft
A 0.0 - 0.3 ft: Dark brown, loose, silty fine to medium SAND, some gravel,
organics, roots, damp (SM). (TOPSOIL)
B 0.3 - 3.0 ft: Gray, loose to compact, fine to medium SAND, some silt,
little coarse sand, gravel and cobbles, damp, little debris
(piece of plastic sprinkler line, frisbee, soda bottle) (SM-SP).
(FILL)
C 3.0 - 4.0 ft: Orange brown, loose to compact, nonstratified, silty fine to
medium SAND some coarse sand, gravel, cobbles, roots,
damp (SM). (WEATHERED ADVANCE OUTWASH)
D 4.0 - 6.5 ft: Gray, dense, nonstratified, SAND some gravel and cobbles,
trace silt to no silt, damp (SP). (ADVANCE OUTWASH)
6.0 ft: Decrease in sand size to fine to medium and trace silt, with some
very dense lenses.
SAMPLES
NO.
DEPTH
(ft)
MOISTURE
M
1
2.0
2
4.5
3
6.5
--F
TIME
DEPTH OF
HOLE
(ft)
DEPTH TO
W/L
(ft)
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
(ft)
SPECIAL NOTES:
Damp to the maximum depth excavated.
0 0, L
I
I
I
I
0
&Golder LOG OF TEST PIT TP-6
ciates
Temp 45 T Weather—Lt. rain Engineer M. Stiehler Operator T. Zuanich
Equipment Trackhoe Contractor- Northend Excavating Date 3/17/04
Elevation 353.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1117.100.001
Location Rear yard, north of concrete ret. wall
E I I 1 11 2 1 1 1 11 6 W
B
Bottom of Test Pit at 3.0 ft
—8
—12
16
A 0.0 - 0.3 ft: Dark brown, loose, silty fine to medium SAND, some gravel,
organics, roots, damp (SM). (TOPSOIL)
B 0.3-1.5ft: Orange brown, loose to compact, nonstratified, fine to
medium SAND, little sift, coarse sand, gravel, cobbles, roots,
damp (SP/SM). (WEATHERED ADVANCE OUTWASH)
C 1.5 - 3.0 ft: Gray, compact to dense, nonstratified, SAND some gravel
and cobbles, trace silt, damp to moist (SP). (ADVANCE
OUTWASH)
M
(D
9
0
V)
Uj
0
C)
0�
SAMPLES
NO.
DEPTH
(Ift)
MOISTURE
N
1
1.0
2
3.0
TIME
DEPTH OF
HOLE
(Ift)
DEPTH TO
W/L
(ft)
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
(ft)
SPECIAL NOTES:
Damp from 0 to 3 ft. below ground surface.
Moist at 3 ft. below ground surface.
I
@Golder LOG OF TEST PIT TP-7
A s
sociates
Temp 45 T Weather Lt. rain Engineer M. Stiehler Operator T. Zuanich
Equipment Trackhoe Contractor Northend Excavatinq Date 3/17/04
Elevation 353.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1117.100.001
Location Near east -center prop. bound.
N - I I I I I I I I 1 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 S
Bo'
2
6-
-1 J 1:1 B L111
tom of Test Pit at 2.0 ft
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES
A 0.0 - 0.3 ft: Dark brown, loose, silty fine to medium SAND, some gravel,
organics, roots, damp (SM). (TOPSOIL)
B 0.3 - 1.0 ft: Orange brown, loose to compact, nonstratified, fine to
medium SAND some sift, coarse sand, gravel, cobbles, roots,
damp (SM). (WEATHERED ADVANCE OUTWASH)
C 1.0 - 2.0 ft: Gray, compact to dense, nonstratified, fine to medium
SAND some gravel and cobbles, trace silt, damp (SP).
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
NO. DEPTH I MOISTURE
I (ft M
TIME
DEPTHOF
HOLE
(ft)
DEPTHTO
W/L
(ft)
DEPTHTO
SEEPAGE
(ft)
SPECIAL NOTES:
Damp to the maximum depth excavated.
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
I
Golder Associates
I
Slide Analysis Information
Document Name
File Name: static.sli
Project Settings
Project Title: SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Pore Fluid Unit Weight: 62.4 Ib/ft3
Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces
Data Output: Standard
Calculate Excess Pore Pressure: Off
Allow Ru with Water Surfaces or Grids: Off
Random Numbers: Pseudo -random Seed
Random Number Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Analysis Methods
Analysis Methods used:
G LE/Morgen stern- Price with interslice force function: Half Sine
Number of slices: 25
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 50
ISurface Option
Surface Type: Circular
Radius increment: 10
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Reverse Curvature: Create Tension Crack
Loading
1 Distributed Load present:
Distributed Load Constant Distribution, Orientation: Vertical, Magnitude: 1500 lb/ft
Material Properties
Material: Fill
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 125 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 0 psf
Friction Angle: 32 degrees
I
I
7
Wale, Surface: None
Material: Outwash
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 135 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 0 psf
Friction Angle: 38 degrees
Water Surface: None
Material: Weathered Till
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf
Friction Angle: 34 degrees
Water Surface: None
Material: Till
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 135 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 400 psf
Friction Angle: 38 degrees
Water Surface: None
Global Minimums
Method: gle/morgenstern-price
FS: 2.815230
Center: 167.960, 505.950
Radius: 152.519
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 156.615, 353.854
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 256.833, 382.000
Resisting Moment= 1. 13321 e+007 lb-ft
Driving Moment=4.02527e+006 lb-ft
Resisting Horizontal Force=70105.1 lb
Driving Horizontal Force=24902.1 lb
Valid / Invalid Surfaces
Method: ale/moroenstern-Drice
Number of Valid Surfaces: 4962
Number of Invalid Surfaces: 38
Error Codes:
Error Code - 10 1 reported for 1 surface
Error Code - 105 reported for I surface
Error Code -113 reported for 36 surfaces
Error Codes
The following errors were encountered during the computation:
-101 = Only one (or zero)
I
Isurface / slope intersections.
105 = More than two surface / slope
-intersections with no valid slip surface.
1 -113 = Surface intersects outside slope limits.
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
I
I
I
I
I
I
Slide Analysis Information
Document Name
File Name: seismic.sli
Proiect Settinas
Project Title: SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Pore Fluid Unit Weight: 62.4 Ib/ft3
Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces
Data Output: Standard
Calculate Excess Pore Pressure: Off
Allow Ru with Water Surfaces or Grids: Off
Random Numbers: Pseudo -random Seed
Random Number Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Analvsis Methods
Analysis Methods used:
GLE/Morgenstern-Price with interslice force function: Half Sine
Number of slices: 25
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 50
ISurface Option
Surface Type: Circular
Radius increment: 10
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Reverse Curvature: Create Tension Crack
Loading
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0. 155
1 Distributed Load present:
Distributed Load Constant Distribution, Orientation: Vertical, Magnitude: 1500 lb/ft
Material Propertie
Material: Fill
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 125 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 0 psf
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Friction Angle: 32 degrees
Water Surface: None
Material: Outwash
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 135 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 0 psf
Friction Angle: 38 degrees
Water Surface: None
Material: Weathered Till
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf
Friction Angle: 34 degrees
Water Surface: None
Material: Till
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 135 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 400 psf
Friction Angle: 38 degrees
Water Surface: None
Global Minimums
Method: cile/morgenstern-price
FS: 1.810400
Center: 168.925, 498.824
Radius: 145.337
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 157.985, 353.899
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 255.382, 382.000
Resisting Moment=9.90594e+006 lb-ft
Driving Moment=5.47167e+006 lb-ft
Resisting Horizontal Force=64556.4 lb
Driving Horizontal Force=35658.5 lb
I
I
I
I
I
I
Valid / Invalid Surfaces
Method: ale/moraenstern-Drice
Number of Valid Surfaces: 4894
Number of Invalid Surfaces: 106
Error Codes:
Error Code -101 reported for 1 surface
Error Code -105 reported for 1 surface
Error Code - 108 reported for 4 surfaces
Error Code -111 reported for 64 surfaces
Error Code -113 reported for 36 surfaces
Error Codes
[I
F
I
The following errors were encountered during the computation:
-10 1 =Only one (or zero)
surface / slope intersections.
-105 = More than two surface / slope
intersections with no valid slip surface.
-108 = Total driving moment
or total driving force < 0.1. This is to
limit the calculation of extremely high safety
factors if the driving force is very small
(0.1 is an arbitrary number).
-111 = safety factor equation did not converge
-113 = Surface intersects outside slope limits.
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Safety Factor
0.000 0.155
*lap 0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
U.)
1.750
1.81
2.000
2.250
2,500
2.7.50
3 .000
3.250
3.500
3.750
U'>-
4.000
4 .250
4 .500
4 .750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
0 6.000+
1500.00 lb/ft
0
U-) 4
0
50 ft 100 1�0 200 250 300 350
I
Slide Analysis Information
Document Name
File Name: fill.sli
Project Settings
Project Title: SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Pore Fluid Unit Weight: 62.4 Ib/ft3
Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces
Data Output: Standard
Calculate Excess Pore Pressure: Off
Allow Ru with Water Surfaces or Grids: Off
Random Numbers: Pseudo -random Seed
Random Number Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Analysis Methods
Analysis Methods used:
GLE/Morgenstern-Price with interslice force function: Half Sine
Number of slices: 25
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 50
ISurface Option
Surface Type: Circular
Radius increment: 10
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Reverse Curvature: Create Tension Crack
Loading
1 Distributed Load present:
Distributed Load Constant Distribution, Orientation: Vertical, Magnitude: 1500 lb/ft
Material Properties
Material: Fill
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 125 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 0 psf
Friction Angle: 32 degrees
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water Surface: None
Material: Outwash
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 135 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 0 psf
Friction Angle: 38 degrees
Water Surface: None
Material: Weathered Till
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf
Friction Angle: 34 degrees
Water Surface: None
Material: Till
Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb
Unit Weight: 135 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 400 psf
Friction Angle: 38 degrees
Water Surface: None
Global Minimums
Method: gle/morgenstern-price
FS: 1.401660
Center: 157.415, 405.520
Radius: 51.172
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 172.740, 356-696
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 182.124, 360.708
Resisting Moment=7371.2 lb-ft
Driving Moment=5258.9 lb-ft
Resisting Horizontal Force=131.579 lb
Driving Horizontal Force=93.8735 lb
Valid / Invalid Surfaces
Method: ale/moraenstern-r)rice
Number of Valid Surfaces: 4938
Number of Invalid Surfaces: 62
Error Codes:
Error Code -109 reported for 1 surface
Error Code -111 reported for 18 surfaces
Error Code -113 reported for 43 surfaces
Error Codes
The following errors were encountered during the computation:
-109 = Soiltype for slice base not
I
I
I
I
I
located. This error should occur very rarely,
if at all. It may occur if a very low number of
slices is combined with certain soil geometries,
such that the midpoint of a slice base is
actually outside the soil region,even though
the slip surface is wholly within the soil region.
-111 = safety factor equation did not converge
n-113 = Surface intersects outside slope limits.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
CA
4'
CS"
5 70
A / /' I- - 572 ---- "
// 574-
7 x
r7a
�'ggql 1 .109,90.61\ N 7e- 4
7-
p_;
tzl
TP-
Z
T -'n
vo --:I� ,
UNIT
CO-
- - - - - - - - - - - - —
-9 (all(] 09'�qz
.09-6CZ 3 ,09,20.6 L N
Q)
LEGEND
E9 TP-7 TEST PIT LOCATIONS
(APPROXIMATE) BASE MAP PROVIDED BY A.D. SHAPIRO
ARCHITECTS, DATED 01/06/04.
Z\CADUI,6.tr.\-,O—Ukn&liii7WInnVinlInA'Alli7innnnl;:ni A— tuirm"m ii-" i
2,962,q 7-7�Y,17V7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-7--1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I — 7-1
\ d.
8,
0 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
TP- PA �--g
__ggf--
"dr QQ1
ZZ
FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN AND TEST PIT LOCATIONS
Valhalla/Hillside Ter race ApL/WA
Golder Associates
FND. CONC. MON. 25 20. 17
W/ BRASS DISK jj� 1775.94'
W/*X* IN CASE 36
9-25-90
113. 4,'S
FND. 2 1/2" 1 RON P I PE---""`�
W/RAMSET IN CONC. PLUG
IN CASE 8-1-90
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
NE 1/4, NE 1/4 sSECO 36 TWP. 27N RGE. 3E qW.M.
N 88'F2-7—,34';-W-- 436.08, 228TH ST. SW
852.61,
N 00'34*51* E FND. 5* DIA. CONC. N 88022*55" W 2628.5.5-
133.55' MON. W/BRASS DISK su
W/PUNCH IN CASE
8-1-90
&x 61 * 29 * 42 20.03*-,/
R=410.23'
L=440.30'
WSDOT
R=410.23'
L=440.39' FND 2* DIA ALUM. CAP
W/PUNCH IN PIPE DN. 0.9'
IN CASE. 11-14-03
QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST$
W.M. IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 101
BEG14NING At THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION
56, DISTANCE SOUTH 88*14'33" WEST 409.01 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HALF; THENCE RUNNING ALONG
SOUTH LINE SOUTH 88*14'33" WEST 84.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH . . . . . . . .
1:5*43*18" EAST 253.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF COUNTY
R�
ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 38*01'10" EAST ALONG SAID MARGIN 100
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15*43*18" WEST 169.06 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNINO; EXCEPT STATE HIGHWAY.
LEGAL PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
INC. DATED APRIL 9. 1999 AT 8:00 A.M.
tO
F
4
APPROI rl&A; F 00A) 70) V Or #A' 7FR C
Z INZ' PZR AS-6Z11Z 7 RXIANS ARO& NZ7 . . . . . . . . . . . E
lWe 011-r Or 40A10N,0S PZ19Z10
WORIrs
X\
REVISED SLOPE LEGEND
9 011R6
Color Range Beg. Range End Percent Area NW CORNER 4! WOOD FENCE
REA
& WOOD FENCE 19
6 .2'SW
X 8XSE OF NE PROPERTY
70
40.00 9186.00 17.5 2792.81 CORNER
-M
E, 8 rNpIr.? 48"
C=�, W7 67 6 1 pep 52 r
Dt
*R1PZ'-V2F PlOfECA42m
Nor aqr%1A4A,&c mwr
Z.
VRR
QPK4Z,)
-w-
s-, P. -vu!
g
AA
(6,937)
V—'I'k W,
1WON7A- VO PARA`
59*3111" IM
.10111,
46411L.01NO
(14 00N,00
VO
�-020
4/1, 1
5�v bo 't 61495'Mffei� A
6' WOOD FENCE CROSSES*PROP. OAf
LINE 97.6SW OF NW PROP. COR.
X,
5�6 1,
N JJT59— — —
IN%. N.
2 END 6' WOOD FENCE
49.$,7 r9E WOO
- A 113.7SW X 1.4SE OF
R, 41L RO, 4, 0 Z
NW PROPERTY CORNER
NW END ROCKEM
N 110.1-NE A 1.4.zr-
g" OF SW PROPERTY el 156V
CORNER
WOOD RAILROAD TIE WALL
CROSSES PROPERTY UNE.
96.0'NE OF SW PROPERTY
CORNER
9111ZA91NO
N. END HEDGE 860NE
X 2.8SE OF SW PROP.
CORNER
GRAVEL CROSSES PROP.--`
LINE 57.9'NE OF SW
PROPERTY CORNER
EDGE OF LAWN CROSSES----.
PROPERTY UNE 20.3'NE 51vw
OF SW PROPERTY COR.
N. END 6' CHAINUNK FENCE
17.3!NE X 6.'WNW OF SW
PROPERTY CORNER
1 V
Ax
b I N
6' 01-1,41NZINIr IZN6Y-
SW CORNER 6' CHAINLIN
FENCE 0.5'W X 1.4% OF
SW PROPERTY CORNER
vwrl
510. %1
sm),
X
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oil
.69
ORA
VIP
z Nw
9'56* w 51
'16y
6- WOOD FI�NCE CROSS�S PROP.
LINE 17.1 *W OF - SE PROP� COR.
% x $6
NE CORNER 6"WOOD FENCE-
2XIE X 0.3'Nl�- OF SE. PROP.
CORNER
P. A9
ri
44
.
11. "1w V 91w%wvv1F%u- I
71.3'NE X .6.2!SE OF SE
PROPERTY CORNER 1--r SSA(/-/
70P=J5J26
11'=J4552 07R do
Y1-C4FAV2i92F 01,4NNIL e-11V S4
1 -.1 1, 1— m f
156
i A-
S. END 5' HOGWIRE FENCE
24.9NE X 10SE OF SE
PROPERTY CORNER
A\ -j.
6- WOOD FENCE CROSSES PROP,
5 LINE 1.8'W OF SE PROP. COR.
X�, 151
04-Ir Nfll)
/-0/9
30 FND. 5" DIA. CONC.
MON. W/BRASS DISK
W/PUNCH IN CASE
31 8-1-90
FND. 5" DIA. CONC.
MON. W/BRASS DISK
W/PUNCH IN CASE
8-1-90
co
co
w
w
4m 0
z ? 9
C4 0
M
0 M
0 0
z z
A
-98-*IQL55" A�tftoil
S. UNE N. 1/2, NE 1/4, NE 1/4,
SEC. 36. TWP. 27N, RGE 3E, W.M. .36 31
FND. CONC. MON.
W/INVERTED NAIL
IN CASE 9-25-90
SID. 3/16* ROD IN CONC.
u D 110- Mnm 01001nm
0-7* IN CASE 11-14-03
VICINITY MAP
220THiST SW
w
(LI 224TH ST" SW
0
228TH-ST SW
10 SITE
w
232ND >
232ND ST SW
99
NTS
1 99 =20'
CONTOUR INTERVAL - 2'
21Y 200 40'
ROS VOL. 34'-0FSU0EYS PG.98 AF NO.
9102215002 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AF
9905170971
DATUM NAVD 88
BENCHMARK SURVEY CONTROL PT# 23
TOP OF MON. IN CASE AT INT. 92ND AVE
W. & 228TH ST SW
ELEVA110N=367.97'
LE43END
M WATER kTER
FIRE H�DRANT
04 WATER VALVE
-0- UTILITY POLE
E- UTILITY ANCHOR
-OHP-OVERHEAD POWER
-SD- STORM 4INE
-SS- SEWER LINE
-W- WATER LINE
-G- GAS LINE
GRASS
SITE BENCHMARK —
It
19
(L
2 (L
0H0 0
zn a
:) Z V)
0 >-:)
co ir
cr a W
w z -JZ
%:) < ce
ozo
(Lmmu
t3
0.
L %
co
op
to
Cq
g
to
Q0 J!
Ml
z
0
>-4
z
SURVEY LEI�END
+ 00-2 SUBDIV. CO'RNER/FOUND
S FOUND CONC. MON. IN CASE
0 SET CAPPED REBAR LS 30450
P4
0': SET LINE STAKE
a4
0-mr,"y copy
0
0
RECEIVED
OCT 12 2004
ul
Z
PERMIT COUNTER
0
.0
THIS MAP IS A REPRESENTATION OF
THE CONDITION'S AT THE TIME THE
FIELD SURVEY WA.S:PERFORMED.
FEB 2 4 200
SHT. 1. Of I
JOB
NO: 03-4043
"I T Y C" 0 P Y