Loading...
20080616155006.pdfor Epi City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS 4 BUILDING DIVISION Esr 8go (425) 771-0220 DATE: June 17, 2008 TO: Valerie Sargent FAX: 206-749-5005 FROM: Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official RE: Plan Check #2007-0685, 2007-0331 Project: Point Edwards Building 10 Shoring and Grading Project Address: 50 Pine Street During re -review of the above noted project, it was found that the following items still need to be addressed. PIease respond in writing to each item and include the location(s) of the changes to the plans/documents, and cloud the changes made. Please resubmit plans/documents and written comments to Marie Harrison, Senior Permit Coordinator. i. Previous item 3: As clarified in my 4114/08 comments, the safe dispersal area must be a minimum of 50 feet from any portion of the building, including decks. Please revise and show 50 foot dimension. IBC 1023.6 exception (a thru e). 2. Previous item 4: Provide structural details and calculations for the site retaining walls, and cross reference the details on the site/civil plans. Since this is a separate application from the main building permit, referenced details from the structural plans must be included with this set of plans. Please provide 3 copies. 3. Previous item 5: Special inspections are required for the Shoring and Grading as follows: a. By the Geotechnical Engineer of Record i. Excavation, grading and site preparation ii. Shoring installation and monitoring, including placement of concrete Ili. Soil bearing verification iv. Placement of fill and compaction v. Retaining wall construction, including drainage vi. General site monitoring vii. Final special inspection letter Complete the enclosed Special Inspection and Testing Agreements, have the owner, general contractor and special inspector sign the forms and return for Building Official approval prior to permit issuance. 4. Provide letters from Civil and Shoring Engineers of Record for responses to consultant comments for items 5a, 5b, & 6b (attached for your convenience). Ann Builis, City of Edmonds Shoring for Building 109 Pian Review Number 1118-307 July.21, 2007 Page 2 of 2 5. The general design for the Shoring: a. Although the Soils Engineer determined that seismic earth pressure on the shoring should be 17H psf with surcharge such as shown on Sheet SH -2 for Piles Al, A2, A22, and A23 plus all of the B -B Cut bine Piles, it is not apparent that the Ground Support engineer used it in his design_ This should be addressed. b. It is not clear what is being done at the Terra Associates' C -C Cut Line area to mitigate the need for shoring at that the Terra Associates brought up. This should be addressed and justification should be provided. 6. The Shoring and Rockery walls a. Since the rockeries exceed 4' in height and may have vehicle surcharge, they have to be designed for a combination of active pressure, surcharge loading, and seismic loading. Section 1521.1.2. it is possible that the Figure 2/Triad Associates' Sheet 8 is showing this, but I would need to verify it by a design and justification of that design. b. The 30" wide concrete portions around the steel piles need to resist the lateral bearing stresses with an ultimate strength of 2000 psi outlined in Section 1805.7.3, Item # 1 or Item # 2, "controlled low -strength material'. Note 21SH1.0 specifies it is to be "Controlled - Density -Fill", which 1 am assuming is supposed to be the specified material_ PCA's Engineering Bulletin on the "Design and Control of Concrete Materials" seems to address what the plans refer to, but it normally reaches anywhere between 100 to 1200 psi strength, so some technical parameters have to be placed on the material so that it reaches the 2,500 psi specified and those should be on the plans. 7. There is a note about the pressure treatment of the wood lagging, but I don't find any thing about its grade and specie of the wood in order to verify its span, nor materials used for its resistance to ground contact. Sections 106.1.1, 2301.1 and 2311.3. CLOSING As stated in the beginning of this letter, the designers should revise the plans and specifications and resubmit them with a letter explaining what they did including any rebuttal to the issues and should indicate on which sheet or detail the correction may be found. If the engineer or architect disputes call me and discuss those issues they may do so to the number on the letterhead. Thank you for the opportunity to be once more of service. An invoice for this review and subsequent recheck(s) and relevant calculation booklets will follow under separate cover. Sincerely, .terry J. Barbera, P.E. and M. ASCE Construction Codes Consultant