20080103164922.pdfLANDAU
.:AS56C1AT1_S
TO. J:caniiine Graf,l3uilding Official
City of'-Edmonds:Develaopment Services Department, Building..Division
FROM: Denriis::R, Stealer, FE..t�:�9.
DA`rE Jartuary3, 2008:""
REV CommFTENFss REviEw'roR.EARTH.S'UBSIDENCE-ANO LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
15UBM1ITTAL PACKAGE — PLAN RL, viFw No:. PRE20070029
HILLIARD: SFR—1551575T" PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
This. technical memorandum provides our assessment of the completeness of'the geotechnical
p6rh6us of the permit package submitted to the City of Edmonds for the proposed_ referenced
development within the Earth Subsidence and: Landslide Hazard Area (ESL:HA) :of North Edmonds. This
completeness review was :accomplished ix accordance with TaskOrder No. 07 07 of Landau Associates'
On Call:Geotechnical Engineering:Strvices Agreement with the Ci1.ty1. of Edmonds;.
The completeness review is not intended to .be a thorough review of the :submittal package,
Instead, it is. intended..`to be =a, cursory review to assess whether the :submittal: appears to contain the
necessary information :in order to complete a. geotechnical peer review in accordance with Edmonds
Community Development Code Chapter ECDC 19,1.0.
an the basis of our cursory :review, it -appears that the, submittal package contains a reasonably
comprehensive geotechnical report and : supporting documents appropriate to assess the planned
construction wititia the ESLHA. However, the City of Edmonds enacted 'updated .kequirements for
development within the North Edmonds ESLHA .in Enid -2007; as contained in, ECDC: 19.10. Any permit
submittals after the. effective. date ;of the updated E.CDC 19.10 'ii ust .filly addressthe specific
requirements contained within that code. The geotcehnical report was prepared :in January 2007 and the
geotecli Tical declaration and risk .statement was 'prepared in ;December 2007. Based- on our :cursory
review; it' appears that: the geotechnical :.documents.;rmy not :fully address the speeif c:re.quirements of the
updated . ECDC 1.9.10. For exairiple; neither the applicant's :January' 2007 geotecbri cal report or the
December 2007 geotechnical letter'.:specifically references the. North Edmonds. Earth: Subsidence :and
Landslide Hazard Area Summary Report prepared' by ;'Landau Associates; or specifically addresses the
requirement for a. letter addressing the prow sions:of ECDC 23::8.0 (see ECDC 19.10,030 for ,Miii inusri
required application submittals and ECDC 19. 10.030 H. for specific geatechnicat requirements): The
existirig documents appear to partiallyaddress these specific requirements. However, they maynot fully
address. the sp:ecitic requirements si>lce it. :is not clear from our :cursory review that :the geotechnical
13,0 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WAS 98020;; • (425) 778-0907 . fax.(425) 778-54;09 • wwrw:landaU rjc.cpal
consultant followed the requirements of the updated ECDC 19.10 in the preparation of their documents.
Without conducting a more comprehensive geotechnical peer review of the geotechnical documents, it is
not possible to identify all of the geotechnical submittal requirements of the updated ECDC 19.10 that
may require further clarification or additional information beyond what has been submitted (the more
comprehensive geotechnical peer review is beyond the scope of this initial completeness review).
We suggest that the geotechnical consultant review the requirements of the updated ECDC 19.10
and either prepare and submit an updated geotechnical report or a supplemental letter. The revised or
updated geotechnical documents should either identify how the existing documents address the updated
ECDC 19.10 requirements or supplement the existing documents as appropriate with the necessary
information. We expect that this additional submittal by the geotechnical consultant should facilitate the
review and approval process.
We note in our cursory review that the location of the property marked on the vicinity map of the
North Edmonds ESLHA appears to be incorrect. The property marked is not adjacent to the 1504 Street
SW right-of-way.
Our cursory review did not identify other missing items that are required under ECDC 19.10. Of
course, once the more detailed geotechnical peer review is underway, there may be specific items within
the submitted documents that need to be clarified or addressed in order to complete the geotechnical peer
review and recommend approval.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this completeness review and when you are
ready for us to commence our geotechnical peer review,
DRS/rgm
113108 k4Edmdata5pmjacts10745144TIleRm5R5ComplatenessRevisw tm.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
2