Loading...
Response to BLDG comment 2.pdfSCRIArchitects 1916 Pike Place, Suite 12-367 Seattle, WA. 98101 206.458.7517 www.scr-arch.com February 5, 2018 Eric Carter Plans Examiner City of Edmonds 425.771.0220 Re: BLD2017-0717 — 18109 84th Ave W Dear Mr. Carter This is a reply to the Plan Review Comments, January 10, 2018 See attached responses from Lucia Engineering & Robert M Pride, LLC. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Chris Reinhart Principal SCR Architects RESUB FEB 0 7 2018 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF F_.DMONDS BLD2017-0717 — 18109 84th Ave W LUCIA ENGINEERING INC. SCR Architects 41916 Pike Place, Suite 12-367 Seattle, WA 981o1 Attention: Chris Reinhart Reference: Plan Check: BLD2017-0717 Chris 7307 12th Avenue NE Seattle, Washington 98115 Phone: 2o6.790.8039 January 30, 2017 Project Address: 18109 84th AVE W Plan Disapproval notice dated January 10, 2017 RESUB F FB 0 7 2018 BUILDING DEPhRT N1- Ci1Y OF F The comments included on the attached correction notice by Eric Carter dated January 12, 2017 have previously been responded to in our letter dated November 16, 2017. Below are the replies supplied in our previous response letter along with an update for the new items added in the January loth notice. Comment: S 1.0: 1. It does not appear that the Geotechnical Engineer has reviewed the soldier pile wall design as required by the section 16.0 of the geotechnical report, dated July 30th 2008 and as indicated in the notes of page S 1.0 Please have the Geotechnical Engineer review the soldier pile wall design for compliance. Proof of review will required, which can be noted on the plans or provide a letter of confirmation. Reply: There is no soldier pile wall being used at these two sites. This portion of the old Geot-report recommended the use of soldier pile walls, it did not require them. The final design does not incorporate the use of soldier pile walls. Therefore, this comment no -longer applies. Comment: 2. It appears that "tie -back anchors" are required for the wall design. Note refers to tiebacks being spaced 6'0". Anchor design and details were not included with the submitted design. Please add the tieback design to the plans. Reply: There are no tie -back anchors being used at these two sites. This portion of the old Geot-report did not require tieback anchors, or the use of soldier pile walls with tieback anchors. The final design does not incorporate the use of soldier pile walls or tieback anchors. Therefore, this comment no -longer applies. Page 1 of 4 Comment: 3. As noted on page 4 of the geotechnical report dated April 20, 2017 a monitoring report is required as part of the final shoring design. Please submit a monitoring program as detailed in April 20th 2017 report. Reply: Again, there are no soldier pile walls being used here, therefore there is no need for monitoring. Comment: S 3.0 4. It does not appear that the Geotechnical engineer has reviewed the retaining wall design. This has been required per note 1 on page S-3.0. Please have the Geotechnical Engineer review and approve the retaining wall design for compliance. Proof of review will be required, which can be noted on the plans or provide a letter of confirmation. Reply: Bob Pride has reviewed the retaining wall designs and has addressed this in his letter dated November 23, 2017. Attached again here. Peer Review: Comment: Excavation and Shoring Plan: 5. As indicated in the peer review report dated December 29th 2017, prepared by HWA Geosciences Inc. The proposed Excavation and Shoring plan dated 11-02-17, prepared by Lucia Engineering Inc. does not comply with the recommendations of the 2008 Geotechnical report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences. Please revise the excavation and shoring plan to comply with the fore mentioned report and the comments provided by HWA. Reply: We are in disagreement with the findings of the peer review and the statement above contained in the City review notice for the following reasons: The Peer review by HWA Geosciences states: According to the AESI report submitted in 2oo8, the site stratigraphy consists of approximately 1 foot of organic -rich sod and topsoil underlain by a medium dense to very dense, fine to coarse sand, generally containing trace to few amounts of gravel, interpreted to be advance outwash, to the full depth of the three exploration borings, all of which were terminated at a depth of approximately 31.5 feet. We have no issue with this statement and are in agreement. The Peer review goes on the state: The report indicates that a static ground water table, represented by saturated soil and free flowing water, was not encountered in the three exploration borings advanced at the site in July 2oo8. (Emphasis added) Page 2 of 4 We have no issue with this statement and are in agreement. The Peer review goes on the state: However, scattered zones of wet soils were observed throughout the borings and indicate there are zones of perched ground water within the advance outwash. We disagree with this statement: The Geo-report does not make this statement. In fact the presence of water was noted only in boring EB-1 at a depth of 10.5 feet. And in this boring it is stated "Soils were wet with trace amounts of free ground water between approximately 10.5 and 25 feet." (Emphasis added). No ground water was reported in borings EB-2 or EB-3. Nowhere in the geo-report is it stated that "scattered zones of wet soils were observed throughout the borings". What it says is "scattered zones of wet soils were observed throughout the deposit. Primarily observed in exploration boring EB-l." (Emphasis added) These statements apply to boring EB-1 only. No ground water was reported in borings EB-2 or EB-3. Further, the excavation required near the area of boring EB-1 does not extend to a depth of 10 feet. This is the area of the least excavation depth. The Peer review goes on to state: Although moist, dense to very dense advance outwash soils are capable of standing nearly vertical, the borings encountered wet soils and scattered zones of seepage. The presence of seepage significantly reduces the temporary slopes outwash soils can support. (Emphasis added) We agree with the first part of this statement: "dense to very dense advance outwash soils are capable of standing nearly vertical," We disagree with this part of the statement ", the borings encountered wet soils and scattered zones of seepage." As stated above ONLY boring EB-1 indicated "trace amounts of free ground water". Boring EB-2 specifically states "no free groundwater". And Boring EB-3 makes no statement about encountering water or groundwater. It is our position that the excavation plan provides for construction that is consistent with the properties of the soils present at this site and shown in the soil borings. Should the City remain in disagreement with the reply to the Peer review and City comments listed above we request a meeting to resolve this issue. Other Drawing Comments Geotechnical Plan Set Comment: 23) Please provide a north arrow and scale on all plans. Page 3 of 4 Reply: This arrow has been added to the plans. Comment: 24) Please revisit the directional arrows for section A -A. They appear to face the incorrect direction. Reply: This correction has been made to the plans. Comment: 27) Please show the existing storm system within the profile views. Reply: The existing storm system is shown on the plans sections, see sheet Lot 2 SH-3.0 Comment: 28) Please label the existing rockery alongside the access road. Reply: This note has been added to the plans. Comment: 29) The plan notes that stormwater will be channeled away from excavated slopes. Show the stormwater channel on the plan. Reply: This has been added to the plans. Please call me if you have any questions. Joseph M. Lucia, PE Page 4 of 4