20000652.pdfPERMIT EXPIRES
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
UP,PERMIT
ZONE
�t9
RJ -=�'
����� -�D1
NUMBER 2�`��/`'�
DB j ��L.
ADDuess 1 14
OWNERNAMEINAME OF BUSINESS (
LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK
A/!._
I SUBDIVISION NO,
/•1�A
LID NO.
Zoo
MAILING ADDRESS ,yL,
I'i '2 �� L.4�, •\ (�(� •
vV
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL
LMIRA�a✓'N
EXISTING � REOUIPED DEDICATION
PROPOSED (10
STREET MAP
O
TEseP nppo°eay
sued u°e po�mn
Bacwrlh NaquuaePe 63'
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE �`�
yjj)l/.�cl WP'. a3 , [�
NAME'lL��
I — .. /A'—c,e {i1
MET q/SIZ
Ts,lI
LI/N{E /sIZE'I
%Lz
NO. OF FI%TURFS
%
PR�VJREQUIRED
YES0. NO
{�i� , �I �u�(�O,fS YWZS �OJC •
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
�b
yyS��TAT LICENSE NUMBER EXPIR IONDAl�t ChhH,FKEEDZBBYLY '
O LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY - INCLUDE ALL EASEMENTS
51 G A-rMC4+ 7
4 PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
J M<EW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBINGI ECH
ElADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ CHANGE FUSE
❑ REMODEL APARTMENT ❑ SIGN
FENCE
❑ REPAIR CYGE ❑ ( % FT)
❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER
z GARAGE ❑ gETAINING WALL ❑ RENEWAL
CARPORT q
F (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
w NUMB�E�(RL..L. NUMBER OF, CRITICAL t
DW
O STORIES T �J� UN TSLING 1 NUMBER ��r •��
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
�u.� Cs.. 2u"3 � •�eL�u:L i�6Y� •
FIRE MEMO DATED •REVIEWED BY
VARIANCE OR CU
V- 9-19
ADBI
NYC
SHORELINE a
All-
SEPAREVIEW
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
PROPOSED
COMPLETE EXEMPT
I
ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOWED
" 2S1
.P
lU
�1
LO COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS(F..1
PROPOSED SETBACKS (F..)
ALLOWED PROPOSED
3!l
�FROoNT SIDE AR
1`5^l0 Zr'i
FRONT URII/RIDE RJO
LOT AREA
PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE
Al 8/91llo
OCCUPANT
GROUP
108
VALUATION FEE
3
PLAN CHECK FEE
HEATSOURCE f7 G((LAZIN % /O •LOT! %
BUILDING
__•y-rj.a
- 1J •'•�( •�"�•
PLAN CHECK NO:
VESTED DATE
PLUMBING
MECHANICAL
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
Y SEDONEON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN IOURBS•SIDEWALKS, DRIVE WAYS, MAROUEES,ETC,) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
GRADINGIFILL
D
'
5/
TATE SURCHARGE
•�
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR • PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 1B0 DAYS
STORM DRAINAGE FEES
C.�q
'APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND EUCC EEO RS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
e EOMONDE. WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALLCLAIMSFOR OAMAGESOF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIREGTLYORINOIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
p No MEDTOMODIFY,WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REOUIREMENTOF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
END, INSPECTION FEE
OF .�VI
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT
AV
,�ei
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
U
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION. THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC'
TION. AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
APPLICATION APPROVAL
CALL Tluh appllcauan 11 Pol a permit unBl signetl by IBa
Bu'ltling 011lcial or Bislller Dopuly: antl Faes are paltl, antl
FOR INSPECTION rocoipl is ackn....... space pl l-d.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW I B.2T,
•SIGN TuIR (OWNER RAGENT) DATE SIGNED
A�Q.'
(425)
OFFII IALSS ATURE
`o
,"I" ° � L
a./
ATTENTION */ ptirl9�yy
%%i
• - -0220
RELEASE Y DATES
/dGT"J
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO u CL LDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL pp /
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- �(i • Q
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
ORIGINAL FILE YELLOW INSPECTOR
PINK. OWNER GOLD ASSESSOR
z
0
0
m
cm
mn
1 O
O G
mZ
10
Dz
r=
Q�
M m
OIn
N
c
cCA
z
x
O
m
m
ST,sjM8g,,LftffSjR, epetonnan..02101
GARY HAAKENSON
N
CITY OF EDMONDS -a= 0221 MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NOKTH -EDMONDS, WA9M - (425) 77' FAX (425) 771-
W.Wre: �c:i.edmonds.M-us
ST
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Inc 1 S0 Planning • Building • Engineering
December 3, 2001
Prime Pacific Bank
Attn: Barbara J. Eisele
POBox 2518
Lynnwood, WA 98036
-804/Frozen Fund Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area
RE: Account #170003909
The City of Edmonds hereby authorizes the release of the remaining balance of $50,000
from the above referenced account.
All interested City departments have approved this release.
Thank you,
�h
Lara Knaak
Permit Coordinator
City of Edmonds
Cc: Applicant
File
Chron File
• Incorporated August 11, 1890
Riafvr r.ifi, - Hv14 J
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL NORM
i TO:-
DATE: -
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
PLANNING DIVISION DATE iL/2')/ol
PROJECT
SITE ADDRESS A 1 1. N,
PERMIT ADB# � DATE INSPECTED Ll/$fbl
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
_GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
❑ Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
1.
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
❑ Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
1.
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Sign
ocaprv1.doc.1:temp:b1dg:f0tm510/01
I
FIN_.L PROJECT APPROVAL v3RM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
, ��ttC tE��9GN AA
PROJECTf� Y
SITE ADDRESS "r S� �l W f
PERMIT # 2� (SS Z ADB# DATE INSPECTED 1 ` i 1
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED �M, L
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with approved plans. Final approval denotes that
there are no objections from the above signed Department to the granting of:
Final approval of the described work
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
1.
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
1.
2
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
ocaprvl.doc.l:temp:bldg:fonns6/98
e*
i
1
"3
`
Iy
z
O;
l
c m
t
c o.
'mr n
Oc
i
p:
mm
..
��
o rn
0m
c rn
m r,
r a:
tLti
R.
Z`
1'.
r—
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
x .
121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EOMONDS, WA 9e020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
We65ite: vAvv.cl.edrronds.wa.ue
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
J
Planning • Building • Engineering
rfiC.189
September 27, 2001
t 1
Mr. Armando Chilelli
)
17813-B 44th W
Lynnwood, WA 98037
pl
=t
l
;
RE: 16414 75th P1 W, Building Pemit #2000-0652
-m
Earth Subsidence Landslide tl'dinance #2661, Rainy Season Construction Provisions65
Dear Mr. Chilelli,
m o
0
I Fx
The purpose of this letter is to reiterate that the referenced residential project is subject to Edmonds
0-1
m
I
Community Code Chapter 19.05 fo landslide hazard development. Rainy season regulations require
t ,
that excavation, drainage, grading ad groundwork be completed by September 30th. If groundwork of
p
z.
complete and wil overlap into the month of October, the City requires a letter
this nature is not comp
y
r
1-
stamped and signed from your geiechnical engineer of record that states a site inspection has,
confirmed that the site is stable ad work may continue past the ordinance deadline of September 30th.
T
A schedule of work shall be subrltted with the letter that establishes a final completion date of any
during the rain eason (September 30u' to May 1 s). If the City does not receive such
Y
m rn
additional work
notice it is understood that groudwork, as defined by ordinance, shall be stayed until May 1st, 2002.
0 in
uirrd which includes protection of exposed slopes with vis ueen or
Winterization measures are alsdeq P P P q
c Cl)
o,`
hydroseeding, installation and 1aintetance of temporary erosion control measures, completion of site
z
work (i.e., rockeris) and pnerally securing and safeguarding the site. Regardless of
stabilization
whether work commences or 11 stayed uitil May 1 , 2002, the geotechnical engineer of record shall
is a field report and a copy to the City. All report
make winterization recommendations provide
recommendations shall be imnediately implemented. Installation shall be approved by the
z
geotechnical engineer and a Feld report snbnitted to the City.
undvnrk nor to May 1, 2002 b providing a letter from
Please be advised, it is possible to start grop y Y P g
p'
9
geotechnucal engineer stating the weather an site conditions are stable and work may start. Also,
is
n
m
your of complete prior to this date you must renew for
permit is due to expire on 8/10/02; if work
your
one half the fees which total $delete this sentence.
4'.
f
If you have any questions please feel free to contact m-tt 425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
eannine L. Graf
Building Official
• Incorporated August 11, 1891
sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Owner Lial:iility & Landslide Acknowledgement
Chilelli Residence
We Armando & Maria Teresa "Sina" Chilelli (owners) understand that the
accuracy of all permit submittal information is warranted by the owners in a form
that relieves the City and its staff from any liability associated with reliance on
such permit applications submittals. While an application may reference the
reports of prior public consultants to the City, all conclusion shall be those of the
owners and their design professionals (ECDC 19.05.030): and the owners
understands and accept the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable
soils and that they will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or
any prospective lessees of structures on the site, of the slide potential of the area.
(ECDC 19.05.040C)
bate
Owner
AA�
Owner
STATE OF ti r i zoa% e - )
n )ss:
COUNTY OF
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that AJ-moNdo + ma'«
Signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act
for the purposes mentioned in this instrument.
1999
DATED this day of
MARK MEDELBO
Notary Public•Atlzono
Pima County
W commission EVI es
Feb. 13. 2001
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires: 2-13- 2wl
CITY C®.4 ry cis copy
a'
o
I ti
rn
80,
MM
O
CZ;
x
rn
y: -
P7,
-n
MM
oN
0
CR Rt';
Ci
% l
,i l
I
1
k.
>,I
i
s
z,
rn
i wt
rot'
I
1
I
I
I I
Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration
Chilelli Residence
We E72;o M 'Vu3o5 , ,11,NeH/7 have reviewed the
geotechnical reports, understand its recommendations, have explained or have had
explained to the owner the risk of loss due to potential slides on the site, and have
incorporated into the design the recommendations of the report and established
measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by
any earth movement predicted in the report. (ECDC 19.05.040B)
Date -9 Y—S
5554
IEER1I
RCHITECT
PETER
ExP /2-sg-�r9
CITY COPY
I
z
o '1
I �,
V x
m'
w
y
om
m0
-t n,
1
0
.
im
a
:I
Dz
E
Y
On.
O N
N
w ryy
. I
i.
mo
z,.;�.:
o;
m
�
1
1
„
u,
5;
/ 99
IING EN' GINEEF
Landau
Associates
Environmental and Geote.lmloal Services
July 26, 2000
Ms. Jeannine Graf
City of Edmonds
JUL j 7 21, 50
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED CHILELLI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
16414 - 75TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Graf:
In accordance with your request, Landau Associates has completed a geotechnical reviewof
recently submitted documents concerning the proposed Chilelli residence, to be located at 16414 75ib
Place West in Edmonds, Washington. Our review follows requirements outlined within City of Edmonds
(City) Ordinance No. 2661. Landau Associates has previously provided three other review letters to the
City, dated April 20, 2000, March 14, 2000, and April 27, 2000. A listing of the documents that were
provided for the current review are referenced in Attachment 1.
On June 8, 2000 a meeting was held at City Hall to discuss the proposed project. The meeting
was attended by the applicant, the applicant's design team (including the lead design professional, Donna
Breske,. P.E.), Mayor Haakenson and several members of the City staff, and two representatives of
Landau Associates. The following list covers the most significant unresolved geotechnical issues, based
on the meeting, our review of recently submitted documents, and/or past correspondence.
1. The risk statement by Hemphill Consulting Engineers (Hemphill) has been modified slightly from
previous submittals, but still does not meet ordinance requirements. For example, in an earlier
submittal the phrase "...., there is no probability of sliding" is used; in the current submittal the
terminology has been modified to ".... Hempill considers the potential for a damaging landslide to be
negligible". Words such a "negligible" are not defined in Ordinance 2661, and do not meet
Ordinance requirements in describing site stability.
WAPATO CREEK PLACE • 4 110 - 21093) 92G EET E. • SUITE P • TACOMA. WA-m 424-18 3
(253) 9262493 Portland •SpoA:mc
Edmonds
Up until the June 8" meeting there was disagreement regarding the location of the site relative to the
mapped and/or actual limits of the Meadowdale Landslide. At the June 8 ° meeting, the project lead
design professional located the site on a copy of the 1979 Roger Lowe map, and all parties concurred
that a majority of the subject site, including all of the planned house, falls within the limits of the
Meadowdale Landslide. Since the size of this landslide makes it impractical for individual
homeowners to construct adequate restraint against large-scale movement, the City requires the
geotechnical engineer of record to assess the risk of future movement based on probability and, on
site specific studies.
For single family residences proposed within the Meadowdale Landslide, or similar areas within the
City, the risk of movement must be stated as 30% or less within a 25-year period for the site to be
considered "stable". We recommend the City require a letter from Hemphill that states the engineer's
opinion regarding the probability of movement within a 25-year period. If such a letter is received
and the probability of movement is cited at 30% or less within a 25-year period, this issue should be
considered resolved. If the response is vague, references work performed by Roger Lowe or
GeoEngineers, or the probability of movement is cited at greater than 30% within a 25-year period,
the City should consider the site to be unstable.
2. During the June 8" meeting, a request was made for clarification regarding several site -specific
geotechnical issues, including, but not limited to, temporary excavation slopes, grading criteria, and
soil descriptions. Additional grading criterion have been added to the Civil Drawings, resolving that
issue. The soil description response in Hemphill's June 17" letter report attempts to describe
deficiencies in the original January 1999 geotechnical report, but fails to provide soil logs in
accordance with Hemphill's own standards or the general standard of practice for this area. However,
since the applicant and the applicants geotechnical engineer now acknowledge the site is within the
Meadowdale Landslide limits, this issue, while not unimportant, is not significant enough to hold up
the project.
The June 17" Hemphill response regarding temporary excavation slopes is, in our opinion, inadequate
to give the owner/contractor sufficient guidance on this issue. We suggest the City require Hemphill
provide specific recommendations for temporary slopes at the site, based on soil conditions expected
at excavations that will exceed 4 feet in depth, such as the east basement retaining wall. This
information can then be used by the owner to accurately estimate cut/fill quantities, and by the
contractor to make initial cuts in a safe manner.
p7Ml IVROJECnON 4a 110IIISFA mv.aa LAANDAU ASSOCIATES
2
m'
e
fi 3. The June 17"' Hemphill letter report is not properly sealed. We recommend the City obtain a,properly
sealed copy of the report.
4. It is unclear what purpose the June 27, 2000 Dennis M. Bruce P.E. letter serves. Mr. Bruce
Y references a June 7, 2000 geotechnical review letter that we do not have in our files. While the June
7t' letter may provide clarification regarding Mr. Bruces' June 27th letter, we do not consider the
Dennis Bruce input highly relevant, since he is not the geotechnical engineer of record for the project.
The City may want to obtain a copy of the June 7" letter to complete its file.
5. Revised Building Sheet 4 of 9 references a retaining wall design for the east basement wall,
performed by Reed & Associates. Editing on Sheet 4 appears to delete attached Sheet 9A of 9, which
contains a Hemphill design for the same wall. We contacted Mr. Wendell Reed, P.E. (structural
engineer) about this discrepancy; Mr. Reed provided the following:
• His design is based on "average" conditions, and was done without a thorough review. of
the building plans, visit to the site, or input from the geotechnical engineer.
• When Mr. Reed found out the site is within the limits of the Meadowdale Landslide, and
that a geotechnical report has been prepared for the project, he stated that his design is
inappropriate and should not be used.
• Mr. Reed also stated that Mr. Hemphill is not a structural engineer and should not be
designing reinforced concrete retaining walls.
We recommend the City advise the lead design professional of the current situation, and
require submittal of a retaining wall design, (by a licensed structural engineer), that is based
on parameters provided by the geotechnical engineer.
U7/2M 1:WRCJECPL74'A84�MI5SFR3,e mv.
3
LANDAU AssocIATEs
€
ATTACHMENT 1
• Addendum 3 to Geotechnical Report, by Hemphill Consulting Engineers, June 17, 2000:.
{'
d4
• Letter by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., June 27, 2000.
• Letter by Western Engineers, Inc., June 27, 2000.
j
• Revised Civil Drawings by WesternEngineers, Inc., Sheets I and 2; latest revisions dated
i m.
June 26, 2000.
_
• Retaining Wall Notes, Reed & Associates, sealed by Wendell Reed, Unknown Date. (but
rn=
I C
,f
1 assumed to be June 7, 2000).
m
m �.
Revised Building Plan Sheet 4 of 9, approved by Reed & Associates June 7, 2000.ME
New Building Plan Sheet 9A of 9. Plan is undated and unsigned, but appears to be from .
m Z
January 6, 1999 Hemphill Consulting Engineers Geotechnical Report for the Project. Note:
Z,
�
I Editing by Reed & Associates on above noted Sheet 4 of 9 deletes reference to Sheet 9A.
-n n
_10r
i oyi
C NI
�mm
..
I
1
.I
..
0
1
Fn
1,*
IIr
1:1PRQIEC=74`M"MIIiSFMb —w LawnAa ASSOCIATES
'
'
I
5
�11L-26-2000 WED 09:01 AM LANDAU ASSOCIATES
f. 1:16/ 20/ 2000 0L3: 0;.- 42577L'130'
FAX NO. 2539262531 P. 01102
Post -it- Fax Note 7171
From
Co.
Ph oM
Phone.
Dennis M.
M.9,cl.. M.B.A.
G 5 = Juno 27, 2000
Ju.. "Ivr
Z " :- D
JUN 2 a @90
Ms. Teres.,6wWiPwhit&,)'
A.C. Builders ).vECoIpTMY EOF SWROWS CTF.
17813E - 44th Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98037
Subject: Gootechnical Review
Hemphill Engineers Addendum No. 3
16414 - 75th Place Wool, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering loner presents the ' results 01 a geotechnical review of the
Hemphill Consulting Engineers Addendurn No.. 3, dated June 17, 2000, for the
proposed proposed now Chilsill residence at 16A14 : 75th Place West, Edmonds,
Washington.
REFERENCES!
Numerous goolochnical reports, reviews, letters, etc., regarding the Proposed
Chiloill residence (as detailed In this engineer's June 7. 2000 gootechnical
review letter)
Hemphill Engineer's Addendum No. 3, dated June 17, 2000
QEQTFQHNlQALJ1EY1f9i
As discussed during the June 8, 2000 meeting the project owners. design
consultant team, City of Edmonds reviaoiers and their consultants, and the Honorable
Mayor, some gootechnical cidriiIications were necessary to satisfy City of Edmonds
and their cortsultariCs (Landau AssociatCS) it)lei,pralatioy) of the MeadowdalC- Slide
Ordinance Code,
The rneating was fruitful in tn&l"qubtletles and nuances of the code issues were
clarified.
Hemphill Consulting Engineers h I as issued Addendum No. 3 dated June 17,
2000, that responds to the issues of concern,
This engineer has read, reviewed and understands Hemphill's Addendum No.
3 regarding risk statement, allowable slopes for trenches and excavations, and soil
descriptions.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE . DESIGNS PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline. washingion 98156 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
JUL-26-2000 WED 09:09 AM LANDAU ASSOCIATES FAX N0, 2539262531
t 06/20/Ltlr1l3 09: tib 4Y57709' mIP:HEL W11ST
Ms. Teresa Chilelli-White
Page two
P. 02/02
PAGE. C12 ! i'
This engineer concurs with Hemphill's Addendum No. 3, and strongly
belleves that this most recent addendum satisfies and resolves the outstanding
geotechnical issues regarding the proposed Chilelli residence at 16414 - 76th Place
West, Edmonds.
It Is sincerely hoped that no additional discrepancies or semantic differences
remain.
NAE CTI®N:
As previously stated by this engineer during the June R. 2000 meeting, as well
as the June 7, 2000 geotechnical review letter, on -site geotechnical inspection during
key aspects of the ProJect is esseritiel. No rep6o or lengthy treatise written before
construction can substitute for on -site expsrienoed engineering judgment during
construction. It is understood that the City of Edmonds concurs with this need for
geotechnlcai inspections.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call
■WY
ppt)
V
1740
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
4Y (3eotechnieal / Civil Engineer
DMB:vIb
_J
4 „;
z.
o,
o
1 r
C/) �.
m o:
O'
O C:.
i{{
rn.
m
t
t[-
c—
z
I . P _1,
,
I;
t
rn
OT
j
t
mm
a
R
c u,;
u'
m
z�
z
ai
z.
0
l-
i
1 `
J
_ ..,. ...
{ .. _.. 91/28/aQ, FRI 16 :.56 FAK.a25 791, 8768 ._..:..._
. .,
A.C. Builder�..Homes, Ilnc.
o'
M
i
1
Ms. Jeannine Graf
o
{Krtra
City of Edmonds
I 171 5a Ave N. 7/28700
rn o.
O
'.
Edmonds, WA_ 98020
0 o:
,
`
RE: Geotechnical review for proposed Chilelli Residence
rn
m�
O —1
l=.
' 16414 7St° Place West, Edmonds, WA_ 99020
I
a z:
'p
j J Dear Ms. Graf..
rn'
O•n
1,
I am in receipt of Landau &.Associates letter dated July.26 2000. { I will assume that you
I will trot include a copy of thear reviaw with this letter: I would
m m
m
i
have also received a copy therefore
letter with you to make that (.understand exactly what is left be
rn
i'
like to review this
`,
completed.
• Item # 1 Landau & Associates.is. still not satisfied vrith:Mr. Hemphill s risk
"no probability of sliding'.
C Ca
z o
1
statement. th Mr. Hemphdl's first risk statement cites
•. This would leave the probability of movement percentage at0%: The second
demonstrate that the
statement citesthe risk as' negligible". Both statements clearly
probability of movement. is less than 30% over a 25-yearperiod.: I'iinderstand this to
into a
Z
mean that Landau is asking for the word negligible to be transposed
It that this one word
N
�.
percentage whether that be .001%, 1% or whatever. seems
change will entail time and expenbe
se and I assume once again need et r
meeting it was detetmit4edahat
i
forwarded to Landau and Associates. At the June 8'
the risk statement neededclarification only with regardto the separation of site
that task. Therefore I am
O
m
,
stability and seismic activity. Mr.'Hemphill completed
the current statement as it dearly demonstrates the site is
t
-asking that you accept
stable. It is my understanding that it is in your power to.do so.,
1,
Item #.2 The first.pazao paragraph seems to accept the soils description. The second .
language. -BY
paragraph seems to be,a.personel opinion. It also uses contradictory
estimates cannot be:accurate: i am confident in the information that Mr.
in
j definition, my
Hemphill has provided for temorary excavation slopes. I am also confident
p
the excavations in a safe manner. We also plan as
contractor's ability to complete
Mr. Hemphill has suggested, having either Mr. Hemphill or Mr. Bruce on site to
further action that may need to be taken in order to complete these
recommend any
17813B 144th Avenue West • Lynnwood, WA 98037 • 7ai-08bR
I
07/28/00 FRI 16:86 FAX 425 741 6768
excavations in a safe manner. I therefore consider Item # 2 to be complete and no
further action need be taken.
• Item # 3 I do not understand what Landau & Associates means by "not
properly sealed". Mr. Hemphill's report was signed and stamped. I am not sure
what else is needed. I would appreciate your clarification on this point. I might add
that Landau & Associate's letter is not stamped.
• Item # 4 Mr. Bruce was hired by Ms Breske, the lead design professional, to
review Geotechnical' documents, as she is. not a Geotechnical engineer.' Mr. Bruce's
letter along with Ms. Breske's letter were submitted to show that Mr. Hemphill had
complied with the list of items needed to be completed, as determined in the June 8's,
2000 meeting. Inever received any contact from either the City or Landau and
Associates that the list was insufficient or incomplete. Copies of the list were
forwarded to all parties present at the meeting. It is my understanding that no action .
needs to be taken on Item # 4.
• Item #5 This item worries me a great deal. I Want to make sure I have the
appropriate retaining wall. I was with Mr. Reed when he stamped the plans. He
recommended that I leave page 9A attached even though he had deleted reference to
it. I have recently spoken with Mr. Hughes at Reed and Associates concerning the
basement retaining wall. I expressed my desire to have a retaining wall that would
hold up under the conditions. They are now reviewing the plans and will let me
know next week of the changes that will be involved. I will forward those plans to
you as soon as I receive them.
While Mr. Hemphill's personality may be abrasive, I do have faith in his report. He has
been to the site on three separate occasions. He has over 25 years of experience and provided me
with a long list of projects on which he was the Geotechnical engineer. I was present when all test
pits were dug. While I am not a Geotechnical Enginner, I do have building experience and my my
Father has over 45 years experience in residential, commercial and road building. We both concur
with Mr. Hemphill's findings as do Mr. Bruce and Ms. Breske who are Engineers. I am hoping to
move on with this project quickly so that we may complete the underground work by Novemeber
1'r, 2000.
I believe that Item # I and # 5 are the only two remaining items that need to be completed.
If you know of anything else that I may be missing, please advise me. I look forward to your
response.
Sincerely,
I.
Teresa Chilelli-White
i
I I l,.:HEL C'011ST PA(3E 01
os/ 21300 09:06 425771119006
IUL I 'I
Dennis* M. Bruce, P.E. LAN . DAUASSO
UaMm
M.S.C.E.. M.B.A. Geoiechrilcal f Civil Engineer
June 27, 2000
R E C,17'1 V E D
Y
Ms. Teresa Chilelli-White .r-ITY COPJUN 2 8 2000
A.C. Builders DEVELOPMEV SERVICES CTR-
17813B - 44th Avenue West CITY OF EMJONDS
Lynnwood, Washington 98037
Subject: Geotechnical Review
Hemphill Engineem Addendum No. 3
16414 - 75th place West, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering letter presents the ioesuits.of a gootechnical review of the
Hemphill Consulting Engineers Addendum No.. 3, dated.June 17, 2000, for the
proposed proposed now Chileill residence at 1641.4 w 75th place West, Edmonds,
Washington.
BEEIERENCES&
Numerous geatechnical reports, reviews, letters, ate., regarding the proposed
Chilelli residence (as detailed in this engineer's June 7, 2000 gootechnical
review letter)
Hemphill Engineer's Addendum No. 3, dated June 17, 2000
nE0TE!QHNlQAL-RfiYff,ML
As discussed during the June 8, 2000 meeting the project owners, design
consultant team, City of Edmonds reviewers and Weir consultants, and the Honorable
Mayor, some geotechnical clarifications were necessary to satiety City of Edmonds
and their consultant's (Landau Associ&10S) interpretation of the Meadowdale Slide
Ordinance Code.
The . meeting was fruitful in that subtleties and nuances of the code issues were
clarified.
Hemphill Consulting Engineers has issued Addendum No. 3 dated June 17.
2000, that responds to the issues of concern.
This engineer has read, reviewed and understands Hemphill's Addendum No.
3 regarding risk statementallowable slopes for trenches and excavations, and soil
descriptions.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT _INSPECTION . DRAINAGE . DESIGN A PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O.
0. Box 55502 Shoreline, washington 98155
(206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
06/10/2000 09:06. 4257709086.
Ms. Teresa Chilel6-White
Page two
This engineer concurs with Hemphill's Addendum No. 3, and etronaly
beltevee that this most recant addendum satisfies and resolves the outstanding
geotechnical issues regarding the proposed Chilelli residence at 16414 - 76th Place
West, Edmonds.
It is sincerely hoped that no additional discrepancies or semantic differences
remain.
INSPECTION:
As previously stated by this engineer during the June S. 2000 meeting. as well
as the June 7, 2000 geotechnical review letter, on -site geotechnical inspection during
key aspects of the project is essentjai. No report or lengthy treatise written before
construction can substitute for on -site experienced engineering judgment during
construction. It is understood that the City of Edmonds concurs with this need for
geotechnical inspections.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
X0pV
rOcwaEs 142Y mil" :
DMB:vib
Dennis M. Bruce. P.E.
Oeotechnical /Civil Engineer
�
� I
i
R
z "L
o
m
I N
T
iy
c rn
1?
mo
o c
m z;
CZ
r
5
—
N
SY
I td
n
m m
i r
I
+..
r cn
Fn
C
3N.
•s
ZO
I
1
� k
z'
Z
0
n:
m
I
I
I
ci
REGIE1VEb
o
ENGINEERS
CONSULTING
JUN28229
o a
a w
EVELOPMENT SEnVICES CTA
m
w >
�5.^
CITY OF EDMON09
Y Z �
W z C9
U Q
�
i &moo
z
o
w
° � w
y�y y 7
a m
ADDENDUM 3
u, 3
G K
d
j
FOR THE PROPOSE®
CHILLEL I RESIDENCE
o
j
1
3 W ?
Located at
Z W
ffi N
16414 751 Place West
z
z n z
z F �
a
w o
Z y Z
C9 O
+
W O z
Y r W
3
5 z Q
,a
w U 3
Z
Z n O
ww<
LL K
O
m
z K
w 5 W
Project Number 2131
oz a
17 June 2000
p
o �
f
�
J
4041 WEST LAKE SAMMAMISH PARKWAY SOUTHEAST • BELLEVUE • WASHINGTON • 98008
. . .
PHONE 426 644 1080 FAX 425-643-3429 dchemphill@msn.com
�I
l:
Oy.
-4
t'1
m
s
ca —$t
m
in
mz
-1 Eli
IO-+,
1
it I€
cy
� cly
Om
m
mm
f
O
ON�
m Pd:
-7,
m 0
i
z;
1
�
2
Y:
O
;1
�I
-J I'
Project Number 2131
21 June, 2000 page 1 of 5 pages
CLIENT
Armando Chilelli of A.C. Builders
17813E 4&hAvenue W.
Lynnwood, Washington 98037
ATTENTION
Teresa Chilelli-White
REFERENCE :
Proposed house located at 16414 751h PI. W., Meadowdale.
SUBJECT
Addendum to geotechnicai report.
INTRODUCTION
This report is an addendum to the
original geotechnical report titled
"Geotec;hnical Engineering for the
Proposed Chilelli Residence" dated
6 January 1999.
The purpose of this report is to I
t me specific wording
all geotechnical reports in the vicinity
of Meadowdale.
The addendum was authorized by
Teresa Chilelli-White in a letter
dated 9 June 2000 and addressed to
Dale C. Hemphill of HEMPHILL
presen so CONSULTING ENGINEERS.
required by the City of Edmonds for
RISK STATEMENT
The Following underlined
paragraphs is the risk statement
presented in the first amendment to
the geotechnical report:
The risk statement is included in the
original report on page 39 where it
states "......and with the approval of
the following inspections there
should be no risk of damage to the
r000sed Proiect or the adiacenk
properties."
The report did not include the
statistical probability of earth
movement within a 25 year period.
That value for the undeveloped
property is already included in the
Landslide Hazard Map presented
as Figure 1 of the GeoEngineers
1985 report.
Ur 3-PUR
t
m
cm
mO
�o
o�
c
m Z
c�
o -n.
0
mm
o
c� I.
9 N
Z r;
Z
z
0
o j
m
Project Number 2131
21 June 2000 page 2 of 5 pages
That value is an amendment to the
Roger Lowe report of 16 October
1979 Both reports were written by
Don Tubbs and John Kolosky. The
value presented in the 1985 report
is 4A30 amended from 4A90 in the
1979 reportThe key to the 4A30 is
"(4) hazards from ground failure in
previously failed material" by a
process of "(A) slumps" with a "(30)
30% probability of occurrence
during a 25 year period".
HEMPHILL states that there is no
probability of significant earth
movement that could damage the
proposed house after construction.
unless there is a seismic event that
exceeds the desion intensity (with
additional safety factor) of VII at the
site That intensity is basest ort
records that show a VII intensity
can occur once in over 40 years. as
explained on page 15 of the report,
and in the Reference Manual.
The site slopes down to the west at
15% to 16% except for a short
section at the southwest corner of
the site which slopes at 32%, which
is less than the natural angle of
repose of the soils in their
weathered condition. Because of
the gentle nature of the slopes, and
the strength of the undisturbed
soils there is no probability of
sliding.
The preceding risk statement was
intended to cover all risks and not
just landslide potential. Because of
the lack of steep slopes within the
influence of the house, and the
strength of the underlying soils,
HEMPHILL considers the potential
for a damaging landslide to be
negligible, as stated in the last
paragraph above.
The other consideration for potential
damage is seismic shaking. The
usual maximum design criteria in
the Puget Sound region is an
intensity of VII based on the
Modified Mercalli scale. The double
underlined paragraph above was
misinterpreted by Landau to
indicate there would be a landslide
due to seismic shaking. The only
intent by HEMPHILL was that the
proposed house should be
designed to at least resist lateral
shaking with an acceleration of 3
fps/s.
�rE-'1�NirF �rIr
i
z
o _
a
m
N=
m0
80
c
mz
,
ez
r=
0 -n
mm
0 I
om
m u'
z
Z '
1
x
z
0
0
m
4
¢G.
Project Number 2131 21 June 2000 page 3 of 5 pages
I
�'
r;
ALLOWABLE SLOPES for TRENCHES and EXCAVATIONS
f'
'
Page 21 of the geotechnical report
slopes for excavations. Following is
z
refers to the Reference Manual to
a copy of that section.
m
I
describe the typical excavated
1 'il
ALLOWABLE SLOPES for SIDES of EXCAVATIONS
c 0
m0
Allowable slopes for the sides of
1 horizontal to 1 vertical for
0 c.
excavations are established for the
medium dense granular soils.
m m
protection of workers who will be
1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical for
0 �
active in the trenches, or between
loose granular soils.
r ?
s;
forms and the sides of the
1 horizontal to 1 vertical
i}
excavations, where workers could
maximum, or any slope less
at which they will stand,
0 n
become trapped if the soils
steep,
for soft to stiff silts and clays
m m
' r
collapse.
which are less predictable.
o
f`.
v,
j
Trench excavations, and open
excavations adjacent to forms that
Safe slopes within the excavations
o m
m (a
are less than 4 feet high, can have
should be made the responsibility of
Z
the sides sloped as steeply as they
the contractor, and should be
can stand temporarily.
accomplished in compliance with
I
current focal, state, and federal,
' Where workers will be active
codes and practices. Such .codes
adjacent to the sides of excavations
would include the Occupational
z
that are deeper than 4 feet, the
Safety and Health Act of 1970
0
sides of the excavations from the
(OSHA) and the "Safety Standards
base should be sloped no steeper
for Construction Work" of the State:
than:
of Washington, Department of
1 horizontal to 2 vertical for hard
Labor and Industries, Division of
and very dense soils.
Safety.
`I
i'
rE�M, rp VEMI L
_-�
Project No. 2131
21 June 2000
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
The soil descriptions used by
HEMPHILL are based on the
Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM . D-2487), which in turn is
based on descriptions established
by Terzaghi and Peck, and
Casagrande. The basic descriptions
are clay, silt, sand, and gravel used
in various combinations, such as
silty clay, clayey silt, gravely sand.
Further descriptions which are not
based on ASTM include grain size
(fine, medium, coarse) relative
consistency (v. soft, soft, medium,
stiff, very stiff, hard), relative density
(v. loose, loose, medium, dense, v.
dense), moisture content (dry,
damp, wet, saturated), and
sometimes porosity, cohesion, and
friction angle. Most classifications
for small projects are visual
estimates, which along with field
testing (thumb pressures, probing,
penetration tests, vane shear tests)
are sufficient when the bearing soils
page 4 of 5 pages
need not exceed 2000 psf. If drilling
is conducted when bearing soils are
deep then Standard Penetration
Tests (ASTM D 1586) are often
conducted. Test pits conducted by
hand or backhoe are usually
adequate for most small jobs.
Near surface soils are sometimes
described based on the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Those
soil descriptions were originally
intended for agricultural purposes,
but were later used for engineering
purposes. Since those soils are
usually the upper weathered soils,
then those descriptions are usually
not appropriate for descriptions of
bearing soils. Those descriptions
are appropriate for rainfall runoff
studies, because the SCS
describes the runoff characteristics
for those soils. The SCS
descriptions are also used by some
government agencies to describe
seismic intensities.
Z
0
0.
m �
0m
mo
Mo
oc i
zm
mZ
A
DZ
0m
n
_M
m m
c umi
M�
mo
Z'
m'
0
d
M ..
■
Project No. 2131 21 Ju
The term "muck" is used by the
SCS to describe soils that are
saturated organic silt and clay.
Those descriptions used in the
HEMPHILL geotechnical report are
saturated black, organic, silt.
The term organics used by
HEMPHILL are various
combinations of vegetation, roots,
leaves, black silt, branches and do
not have a suitable soil description.
Dale C. Hemphill P.E.
Registered Engineer No. 14777
State of Washington
ie 2000 page 5 of 5 pages
As described on page 23 of the
geotechnical report, the gray silt
that has been tested for strength is
the allowable bearing soil. The soils
that do not have consistency or
density descriptions are not
considered to be suitable for
bearing, and strength values were
not considered suitable, and
possibly confusing to a reviewer
who might interpret a consistency or
density description as suitable for
bearing.
Landau
Associates
Env11—,"W and Gaoleohnlcal Servloea
March 14,2000
RECEIVED
Ms. Lara Knaak MAR 15 2000
,City of Edmonds DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR,
121 5th Avenue North CITY OF EDMONDS
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED CHILELLI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
16414 - 75TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
I
Dear Ms. Knaak:
ciates has completed a geotechnical review of
in accordance with your request, Landau Asso
submitted documents concerning the proposed Chilelli residence, to be located at 16414 75' Place. West.
in Edmonds, Washington. Our review follows requirements outlined within City of Edmonds (City)
Ordinance No. 2661. Landau Associates performed a very preliminary assessment of the initial submittal
which is summarized in an April 20, 1999 letter to the City. A list of the documents that were provided
i for the current review are referenced in Attachment 1.
ii The site is located within the mapped Meadowdale landslide area (Roger Lowe Associates 1979,
GeoEngineers 1985) in the 16400 hundred block of 75th Place West, between 75th Place West and the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSFR) right-of-way. This property is reported to have also
been involved in landslide movement in 1947 (Dames and Moore 1968).
Y.
GENERAL
>! Several items were not included in the submittal package we received that are required by City
Ordinance No. 2661. The following items were not included in the information provided to us:
• Structural Design Calculations
} Affidavit of "Notice of Application Posted at Site"
• Lead Design Professional Designation and Statement
• Covenant to Notify / Hold Harmless Agreement
i
WAPATO CREEK PLACE • 4210 - 20TH STREET E. • SOITE F • LACOMAfu`Aanda?dnc8cmn
(253)926.2493 Fax: (253)926-2531 Tacuma
Edmonds Portland •Spokmm
i
Though the above documents are not required to complete our review of the geotechnical. aspects
of the project, if not already submitted, the City should require submittal of these documents prior to.
issuing a building permit.
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT(S)
The following presents Landau Associates' comments. on the January 6, 1999 geotechnical report,
March 9, 1999 risk statement addendum, August 14, 1999 Landau Associates response letter, and
November 20, 1999 test pit addendum; all prepared by Hemphill Consulting Engineers (Hemphill).
LANDSLIDE RISK
Landau Associates completed.a preliminary 'review of the January 6, 1999 geotechnical report
and March 9, 1999 risk statement addendum prepared for the project by Hemphill. Our preliminary
review comments are summarised in an April 20, 1999 letter to the City. Briefly, it was noted that the
port had mislocated the site, which is actually within the mapped
January 6, 1999 geotechnical re
boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide, as defined in the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates and 1985
GeoEngineers reports. In addition, the site is also within an area mapped by Dames and Moore (1968) as
having undergone non -seismically, induced movement in 1947. [Note: We believe the Roger Lowe
landslide boundary mapping is accurate and have written this review letter based on that assumption).
Landau Associates recommended to the City that the geotechnical engineer review and revise the report
as necessary to reflect the actual site location and geology, and that site stability issues be reevaluated
n based on the updated information. Hemphill, responded to our comments in an August 14, 1999 letter.
f
Landau Associates comments were dismissed as inaccurate and based on assumptions with no basis.
In the August 14, 1999 letter, Hemphill appears to acknowledge that the site may have been
mislocated in the January 6, 1999 report, but appears to dismiss this issue as unimportant. Though the
August 14, 1999 letter and the January 6, 1999 report indicate that the old landslide may impose onto the
site, Hemphill has yet to admit the property is actually within the Meadowdale landslide area. As to the
site being within the mapped boundaries of the 1947 landslide (Dames & Moore, 1968), Hemphill
appears to acknowledge this fact and offers a probable cause of the 1947 earth movement,, though no
supporting data is presented. Hemphill concludes that the 1947 movement was not deep seated. Though
i
Landau Associates doesn't necessarily disagree with this conclusion, no supporting data or references are
provided.
Hemphill's August 1999 response to Landau's concern that site geology might be incorrect is to
state that the geology was accurately described in the January 6, 1999 report. However, nowhere in the
LANDAU ASSDCIATFS
03I14= I:W DJECM74=4Y ,1e11isFfi M--.d.
2
I
i
z
m
-tTn
0 m
mD 1 }
t n; -;
2 m t
m�
DC _
Z is
mm
� to
z r'.
1
rn'
z
O,
mm
I
I.
J
section describing soil conditions (Section 2.5c) in the January 6, 1999 report is it mentioned that near -
surface soil could be landslide debris. In the August 14, 1999 letter, Hemphill states that it has not yet
been determined if the upper silty soils are landslide debris, or that the deeper original soil was disturbed
by movement of the old landslide. Hemphill concludes that a precise definition is unimportant since near -
surface soil will not be supporting the house.
Several of the primary purposes of City Ordinance 2661 are to ensure that the applicants' design
team accurately locates the site and ' neighboring feats res/infrastructure, defines site
geology/hydrogeology through on -site explorations, describes various risk factors which could threaten
human lives and/or lead to damage/destruction of the structure, and, to the degree possible, minimizes
risk by performing engineering and construction that meets or exceeds the current standard of practice.
To accomplish this, we suggest the City require the following geotechnical input:
1) Acknowledgement that the site lies within the limits of the Meadowdale and 1947
landslides, or supporting data that demonstrates that it does not.
2) A description of site and nearby geology that explains past landsliding. Deep versus
shallow movement must be explained. If shallow movement is the most likely mode of
past landsliding on the parcel, Hemphill must describe encountered soil units
accordingly. If Hemphill believes no landslide debris is present onsite, he must explain
what happened to it (e.g., removed during past grading) The applicant may need to hire
the services of a professional geologist experienced in the Meadowdale area to assist in
this task.
3) An accurate description of surface and groundwater conditions. For example, the January
6, 1999 report attributes groundwater at test pits TP-1, TP-2 and TP-7 to a pipe,
(unknown water source), that enters the "southwest" comer of the parcel. It is not clear
how a pipe discharging water at the southwest comer could influence conditions along
the (uphill) east margins of the site. Even assuming an error with directions, the Western
Surveyors, Inc. topographic map does not show a discharge pipe anywhere along the east
margins of the property. This, plus Dames and Moore's description of wet conditions
west of 75" Place West, (and our experience in the area), suggests that much, if not all, of
the groundwater observed in Hemphill's test pits is of natural origin. This has
implications for site stability and development since test pit depths were limited by the
groundwater inflow. Hemphill must explain at what depth(s) groundwater occurs,
anticipated seasonal changes (if any), and.what limitations the presence of groundwater
might have for excavations, temporary dewatering and permanent drainage. The
relationship between surface water (ponding and overland flow) must also be explained.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
=14= ivRwEcT 74�&niSFR d ry d.
3
' y
n
c m <<.
O
m n
OC
m'
M Z
DZ
is
o
m rn i.
Ow
C N l
K ro
M r
A i
Z ;
Z
O,
n
m
I
4) A risk statement that meets City requirements (this topic is described'in more detail later
in this letter).
5) A detailed cross section through the site. The City's geotechnical report guidelines
require submittal of at least one cross section (General Provisions, No. 7). Submittal of
the required cross section(s) will likely clarify some of the questions regarding site
geology/hydrogeology.
SECTION 3.5 — SITE PREPARATION
The report cites the Reference Manual (January 6, 1999) for recommendations regarding site
preparation. The Reference Manual provides only general recommendations, but no . specific
recommendations on dealing with what will be encountered at the site. The Reference Manual relies on
the contractor, who may not be qualified, to interpret the actual site conditions and what is required for
site preparation. To avoid confusion and possible misinterpretation by the contractor during construction,
we recommend that the report provide specific recommendations for site preparation.
SECTION 3.6f — ALLOWABLE SLOPES FOR TRENCHES AND EXCAVATIONS
The report cites the Reference Manual for recommendations regarding allowable temporary
excavation slopes. The Reference Manual provides only general recommendations for excavations based
on soil type [Note: Our copy of Section 8 of the Reference Manual is incomplete]. The Reference
Manual relies on the contractor to interpret soil types and choose the appropriate excavation slope for the
conditions. To avoid confusion during construction, we recommend that the report provide specific
recommendations required for temporary excavation slopes. Hemphill's description that groundwater
inflow limited the depth of excavation of several test pits along the east edge of the site should be covered
in these recommendations.
RISK STATEMENT
The risk statement presented in the March 9, 1999 Addendum to the Geoeechnical Report is based
on characterization of the site, as summarized in the January 6, 1999 geotechnical report, in which the site
was incorrectly located. Currently the geotechnical engineer has assigned a zero probability of earth
movement under static conditions. A zero probability is impossible under the definition of probability. A
probability of an event happening may be remote or very small, but it can never be zero.
The risk statement implies that a seismic event with an intensity level of VII could result in earth
movement. The report states that this event can occur once in 40 years. The probability of this event
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
M14m I:TROJECM,w4�11,%SFWAd rvwdw
4
Z
1
°'
n:
M,
o
ma
p
= m'.
M
I:
D Z.
t'
s�
O m
m'
M
t
0
t
3 irn
•=.
M n'
i
1
m
m
�
I
occurring in a 25-year period needs to be provided in the risk statement. The 1947 movement (that was
not seismically induced) needs to be factored into Hemphill's assessment.
In addition, in the August 14, 1999 response letter, Hemphill states that the GeoEngineets method
of assessing site stability (probability based) was rejected by the Geotechnical Section of the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and that engineers do not need to conduct such an "erroneous"
evaluation. Landau Associates is unaware of any official opinions and/or directives issued by the
Geotechnical Section of the ASCE stating the above. The risk statement by the geotechnical engineer is a
requirement of the City of Edmonds' Ordinance 2661. Unless a variance is granted, or the City Council
overturns the ordinance, the geotechnical engineer is required to provide an independent risk statement
that meets ordinance requirements.
BASEMENT RETAINING WALL
Hemphill's January 6, 1999 geotechnical report provides recommendations for a cantilevered
retaining wall along the east side of the proposed home. Sheets 3, 4 and 6 of the Manusos drawings show
a conventional basement wall. Clarification from the lead design professional and/or
geotechnical/stmcturaI engineer is required.
EXCAVATION
The grading calculations indicate that over 950 yd' of soil will be excavated from outside of the
home's footprint. Hemphill notes that excavated soil can be used for landscaping, but does not limited
volume or where this soil may be placed. The Environmental Checklist is silent regarding reuse of
excavated soil.
There is an existing sanitary sewer pipeline immediately west of the planned house. The
condition of this pipetsystem are not described in the submitted documents; therefore, it is unknown to us
if stockpiling soil atop the sewer could cause a problem. If any soil will be placed above this line,
Hemphill must provide specific protective conclusions and recommendations.
With the site's history of past landsliding, we question the practice of adding landscaping fill to
certain portions of the property. We suggest the City require Hemphill address reuse of site soil from the
site stability perspective.
OW14= 1:1FFOJECM74�4Yhli iliSFa2nd_mv.do
5
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
O
CIVIL DRAWINGS - TOPOGRAPHY, GRADING, DRAINAGE, ROAD; & TECS .
The drawings prepared by Western Surveyors show that stormwater from the site, and collected
water from the interceptor drain along the south side of the site, will be disposed using a "spreader
trench," which is essentially an exfiltration system. The system will discharge water near the top of a
steep slope. Discharged water will be allowed to flow over and down the slope to the ditch along the
railroad tracks. The slope is within the BNSFR right-of-way. This method of stormwater disposal is
generally inconsistent with stormwater disposal on adjacent properties and is not generally considered as
a best management practice for stormwater. Disposing of stormwater in this manner could result in
increased surface erosion of the slope and possibly slope instability. It is our understanding that.
stormwater from other recently developed properties along 75th Place West is generally tightlined to the
base of the slope and discharged into the drainage ditch along the railroad tracks after the proper BNSFR
drainage easement has been obtained. We recommend that the City require the applicant to discharge .
stormwater by tightline to the base of the slope.
Foundation drain lines, cleanouts, and connection to the site storm drain system are not shown on
the drawing. Drains for rockeries and connection to the site storm drain system are also not shown. We
recommend that the civil engineer verify that the proper layout of drains is shown, and that the drawings
be revised, as needed. In our opinion the footing/foundation drains should be connected to the drainage
system to remove that water from the site as quickly and safely as possible.
The drawing indicates that rockeries of 2 ft to 6 ft in height are to be used to support the slope
along the driveway. Though the January 6, 1999 geotechnical report includes general recommendations
for rockeries, we recommend that a construction detail be provided for rockery construction to avoid
confusion over rockery requirements, drainage details, backfrll details, foundation requirements, batter,
etc. In addition, we understand that rockeries higher than 4 ft require a separate building permit from the
City.
Sheet I of the Grading, Drainage, Road & TBSC shows a perimeter drain along a portion of the
south property line. It is our understanding this drain is intended to intercept offsite stormwater from a
IT' storm drain line on the neighboring parcel. However, Section D-D' on Sheet I shows a drain detail
that incorporates a cap of at least 6 inches of native soil (mostly silt). The native soil cover will make this
drain ineffective in intercepting offsite overland stormwater flow. The drain will collect subsurface flow,
and because of this, consideration should be given to extending it to the east and north to collect
groundwater identified in test pits TP-1, TP-2 and TP-7. The stormwater from the neighboring property
should be intercepted as soon as it enters the property and be tightlined to the base of the slope along the
railroad tracks.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
03/14M IA\PAOIECIVINV844 iib111SFMM n v. 6
C)
i
i
Z. f
O
m
a m
m o;
0�
Oc P
=m }
mz�
A
DZ
on i
mm
0 (n
ca
m0
Z
z.
mm
Lastly, the topographic map does not show a residence on the lot to the north. The August 27,
1997 land clearing plan prepared by Ken Loney shows a home on that lot, within about 20 A of the
property line. This discrepancy must be explained, since City ordinance requirements state that the
topographic map must show such features when they are within 50 ft of the subject site.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Several inconsistencies were noted in the completed Environmental Checklist.
• Section B. Ld indicates that there is no history of landslides on the site. The site is within the
. mapped Meadowdale landslide and within an area that experienced movement in 1947.
• Section B.3.a.1 indicates that there is no surface water on the site. The January 6, 1999
geotechnical report indicates that surface water ponds on the property.
. Section B.3.a.2: The project will require work within 2o0 ft of the ponded water on the site.
•. Section B.b.2.c indicates that storm water will be routed off site via a natural drainage path.
The civil drawings show that collected surface water and subsurface' water, (from all
interceptor trench and footing drains), will be routed to a spreader trench and disposedof at
the top of the slope. This may result in a net increase in the surface water discharge.
• Section B.l.g: This section of the checklist indicates 6,920 ftZ of impervious area. The
February 22, 1999 drainage report for the project indicates 5,500 ft' of impervious area. This
discrepancy should he addressed by the civil engineer. Of more concern, however, is the plan
to collect offsite stormwater from the 12-inch storm drain pipe to the south, (via the
previously noted perimeter interceptor drain) and route that water through the onsite system.
Since the source(s) and volume of this offshe water are currently unknown, we see the
potential to overwhelm the onsite system. The civil engineer should address this issue.
We recommend that the environmental checklist be amended by the geotechnical engineer to
address these items.
In summary, it is our opinion that the landslide hazard and several other geotechnical items are
not currently adequately characterized/addressed. In addition, there are several issues that need to be
addressed by the civil and/or structural engineer, as noted above. We recommend that the documents be
returned to the applicant for further action, and that a lead design professional be designated. The lead
design professional should review the plans and other documents and make whatever appropriate changes
are necessary in order to be consistent with the requirements of Ordinance 2661.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
0.3/14 I:U'HOJECM74`U94Wftll14FR2 rvx C 7
Z
0
m
ATTACHMENT 1
• Engineering for the. Proposed Chilelli Residence, located at 164xx 75" Place
?:
,Geotechnical
West, Meadowdale, Edmonds, prepared for Armando Chilelli by Hemphill Consulting
Engineers, January 6, 1999.
• Reference Manual for the Proposed ChilelliResidence, located at 164xx 75`" Place West,
I z
Meadowdole, Edmonds, prepared for Armando Chilelli by Hemphill Consulting Engineers,
January 6, 1999.
p'
• Addendum to Geotechnical Report, Hemphill Consulting Engineers, March 9, 1999.
m
• Response to Landau Review of the Chilelli Geotechnical Report, Hemphill Consulting
I
n',
Engineers, August 14, 1999.
m 1 4
• Test Pit Addendum for the Proposed Chilelli Residence, 16414 75'"'Place West, Hemphill
Cm.
In �p j
Consulting Engineers, November 20, 1999.
O C
Environmental Checklist, undated, City of Edmonds date stamp, March 16, 1999.
m M
A .
• Storm Drain Report for Armando Chilelli, 16524 75i° Place West, Edmonds, Washington,
22, 1999.
CID
T-
prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc., February
• Grading Calculations for Armando Chilelli, 16524 75" Place West, Edmonds, Washington,
0 -n
prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc., February 22, 1999.
m
• Topography Map for Armando Chilelli prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc., July 16, 1997.
M. I
v N,
C �.
• Civil Drawings, Sheets 1 and 2, prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc., February 25, 1999.
3 �n
• Construction Drawings, Sheets 1 through 8, prepared by Peter Manusos, undated, City of
mo.
Edmonds date stamp March 16, 1999.
Chilelli.
• Owners Liability Statement, dated February 25, 1999 by Armando and Maria
• Architect and/or Structural Engineer declaration, dated February. 4, 1999 by Peter Manusos,
Architect.
Z' E
1 i
8 ,
M
I;
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
0.Y1N00 j MWECMI/jMB Nbi6FP2M_"w 9
'Yi
O
h
W
�
3
�3
Y
e
\
1
QI
U.map
`
tj
\
�9
-a.
UUi
I
i
\rn0
1
f
pe'
- N.
�m
I
0
\\
mm
a
o f n
_ o
m
s
\
rug
4: �
30 N3cIfS�7{
I,
u
\ \
\
W:
Z
I
•_ -d3S Oef02f ef.
R
O
N
\
\
\ \
I
Ni
i
`.
:l
Z :.
o-
vo
w
=•Q�u6F
�\ Qtie \
i
I
b�\ u��l
�:
01,
a \t
�\
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
? y
e.
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED'•'
G> Fri ri cvL
7—
SETBACKS
-d
FOUNDATION:
G17`l 'S'Frylt'y�7♦^
"�
i
f
Footing .............
..
to23 6a �"
Wall
PIerlPoroh .................
MS
fnCNJ U6*—
Retaining Wall ...........S
Slab Insulation ..........
m
O„� ��
,'
`
fir -
PLUMBING.
0
Cal
m
, .
Underground
n�
Rough -In ...................
- • f
•I'
Commercial Final ......
In
a
HEATING:
i
0
t
Gas Test ...................
Cn
$
l
5
3-16 c
mz.
Gas Piping .:...............
.i
j
Equipment .................
C
i D Z
y
e
Commercial Final
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
I�
NAILING ..........................
�S
mFRA
RLATION
INSULATION ...................
�
- -
Floor Insulation .........
�',
Wall Insulation ..........
Y
Ceiling Insulation ....,,.
SHEETROCK NAILING ..
-,
Z
SPECIAL INSPECTION ...
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
_
. FINAL APPROVAL FOR
fll
OCCUPANCY ..................
.
�
t;
i
ao�•od �
✓
.-d
;