Response to BLDG Comments 3.pdfLUCIA ENGINEERING INC.
7307 121h Avenue NE
Seattle, Washington 98115
Phone: 2o6.790.8039
SCR Architects
41916 Pike Place, Suite 12-367 Seattle,
WA 981o1
Attention: Chris Reinhart
Reference: Plan Check: BLD2017-0718
Project Address: 18111 84th AVE W
Plan Disapproval notice dated January 9, 2017
Chris
January 30, 2017
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 3.0 10. 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.
Comment:
S 1.0: 11. 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.
Page 1 of 4
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:
S 1.0: 12. It appears that "tie -back anchors" are required for the wall design. Note refers to tiebacks
beingspaced 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.
Comment:
S 1.0: 14. 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.
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 2oo8 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.
Page 2 of 4
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 2008. (Emphasis added)
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." (Emphasi s 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-ij
(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 to
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.
Page 3 of 4
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.
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.
7/
1-4�-
Joseph M. Lucia, PE
Page 4 of 4