Landau Comments (with Bldg Comments 2).pdf
GR
EOTECHNICAL EPORT
Landau Associates’ review comment:We recommend that, in accordance with ECDC Chapter
23.40.120, the applicant submit a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape
architect that documents the hazard, and addresses whether or not the tree has been compromised and
needs to be removed, with recommendations for mitigation, if necessary.
A letter from Dave Timbrook, ISA, responded to this issue and indicated that the fir tree, near the
existing pool location, is healthy and that no further action is required. He recommended, however, that a
cedar tree near the future pool location be removed. This response satisfactorily addresses the review
comment.
Landau Associates’ review comment:We recommend that slope stability analysis be performed
by the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the factor of safety for the slopes in the area of the proposed
pool re-location and provide approaches to reduce risk or improve the factor of safety as appropriate, in
accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.80.
The revised architectural plan set notes a revised geotechnical report, however, this was not
received and as such the review comment remains unresolved.
:We recommend that the geotechnical engineer address
Landau Associates’ review comment
that he is recommending a buffer reduction or alteration for both the pool, tool shed, and retaining wall
from the development minimum buffer standard of 50 feet (ECDC 23.80.070) as well as a reduction of the
15-foot critical areas building setback (if applicable). The report must provide the minimum distances
that each of these structures must be from the top of the steep slope and demonstrate compliance with
ECDC 23.80.070(A), particularly ECDC 23.80.070(A)(2) and (3).
The revised architectural plan set notes a revised geotechnical report, however, this was not
received and as such the review comment remains unresolved.
Landau Associates’ review comment: The geotechnical report recommends that “the ditch along
the top of the northern slope that extends from the northeastern corner of the pool be filled in and not
remain open.” This recommendation should be detailed on both the Site Plan and Architectural Plans.
The revised architectural and site plan includes a comment re site restoration (revision mark #G-
1). This response adequately addresses the review comment.
Landau Associates’ review comment:We recommend that this bare slope area be restored in
accordance with ECDC 18.45.075 which requires an approved landscaping plan with an adequate
rooting period. In addition, ECDC 23.40.130 requires a planting plan with measures to protect and
maintain plants until established. The project plans should contain an approved landscaping plan.
The revised architectural and site plans include a comment (revision mark #G-3) re removal of
fill and notes “restore per report (geotechnical report) and city approved landscape plan”. The submitted
LA
ANDAUSSOCIATES
10/5/09 \\\\Edmdata\\projects\\074\\154\\020\\FileRm\\R\\GeotPeerReviewResubmittal_tm.doc
2
landscaping plan adequately addresses the review comment re a planting plan but lacks measures to
maintain plants until established.
:We recommend that further clarification be given as to the
Landau Associates’ review comment
source of the flows since the pool’s subsurface drainage and main drain is proposed to be connected to
the existing storm drain system and domestic sewer in front of the house and away from the slope.
The revised architectural and site plans adequately address the review comment.
SPAP
ITE LAN AND RCHITECTURAL LANS
Landau Associates’ review comment:The site and architectural plans prepared by Waite
Architects dated May 9, 2008 do not reference the structural report or the geotechnical report. In
addition, the plans do not detail fill cast removal, address slope landscaping (discussed above), and
detail subsurface drain system as noted in the geotechnical report. We recommend that the site and
architectural plans be revised to address these items.
The revised architectural and site plans adequately address the review comment.
* * * * * *
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Edmonds in evaluating the
adequacy of permit submittal documents related to the proposed re-location of the El-Sharaway Pool at
9231 Olympic View Drive. The focus of this review was the geotechnical aspects of the application. The
purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City
requirements contained in ECDC 18.45, 23.40, and 23.80 and conformance with conventionally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices. This geotechnical peer review by Landau Associates does not lessen
the requirements for the applicant’s geotechnical consultant and other design professionals to prepare an
appropriate design for the site conditions.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any
questions, or if we may be of further service.
CBT/DRS/rgm
LA
ANDAUSSOCIATES
10/5/09 \\\\Edmdata\\projects\\074\\154\\020\\FileRm\\R\\GeotPeerReviewResubmittal_tm.doc
3