20150601124304643.pdfSteve & Danielle Kidd
4908 South Oregon Street
Seattle, WA 98118
Subject: Geotechnical Review and Comments
Proposed New Home
932 Olympic Avenue
Edmonds, Washington
Job Number -2 11
May 25, 2015
Reference: 1) Geotechnical Engineering Report #22074 by Dodds Geosciences
Inc., dated 8/15/2002
2) Set of Architectural Plans — O. 1/ 1,1, 2.11 2.2, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1,
7.1, 7.2, & 8.3 by CDA —Pirscher Architects, dated 3/1.6/2015
3) Structural Plans S-1 — S-4 by Residential Group LLC, dated
2/13/2015.
4) City of Edmonds Letter by Sean Conrad dated 4/10/2015
5) City of Edmonds Plan Review Letter by Andrew Gahan dated
4/15/2015
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kidd:
We have reviewed the above referenced items. The purpose of our work is to
ensure compliance with the geotechnical aspects of our report and the site. The
following are our comments:
1) Our original report dated 8/15/2002 was completed for a similar home to be
built in almost the exact same location, Where there are discrepancies
PO. Box 453 m Kirkland, VVIR 98033 in Tel: 206.8 16.4232
MARK DODDS, P.E.
May 25, 2015
Job Number 21401
Page 2
between this first report and our later work, the original report generally
overrides and takes precedence.
2) The letter by Sean Conrad (Reference 4, above) states that a portion of the
proposed construction area (specifically the small northern rockery) is in a
landslide area and cannot be constructed without a waiver. We're not
certain how the City of Edmonds determined that this portion of the proposal
is in a critical zone, but it is certainly our professional opinion that
constructing the rockery as shown on the plans (less than 3 feet in height) is
feasible.
3) The Letter by Andrew Gahan (Reference 5, above) asks for clarification on
the use of isolated spread footings on this project. The reason for the
restriction listed in our later reports was due to the poor soils that underlay a
portion of the home that was proposed, at that time, for the upper portion of
the lot. Now that the home has been moved down to the original location,
that requirement (no isolated footings) no longer applies.
4) We have reviewed the above plans (Reference 2 and 3, above) for
compliance with our geotechnical work. In general, the geotechnical aspects
of the plans comply with our work and recommendations.
Sincerely,
Mark K. Dodds, P.E.