3838_001.pdfC �M�
1ENGINCBERING
July 18, 2018
civil & structural
engineering & planning
Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
City of Edmonds Development Services, Development Services Department
1215 1 Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Application #:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Dear Mr. Miller,
BLD20171841
Graphite Art Studios
202 Main Street
Itemized below is our response to the review comments in the June 18, 2018 letter for the above
referenced project. Our response appears in bold.
10. Sheet 11 — Allowable Capacities per Geotech — Skin Friction — Clarify the noted value in tons per
square foot (tsf). it does not appear to correspond with that indicated on sheet W (a copy of the
'Lateral Earth Pressures Temporary Soldier Pile Wall' detail referenced in the 'Soldier Pile Shoring
and Lagging Design Parameters' section (page 17) of the provided 'Geotechnical Engineering Report'
— Project No. 1798.01 — prepared by ZipperGeo). The response to the earlier plan review comment
states: "This was an error. The soil friction value has been updated, and the calculated capacity is
still greater than the design load. Please see the attached revised calculations with the updated
sheet 11.". The only calculations provided in response to the earlier plan review comments are
those regarding the site retaining walls. The resubmitted cover sheet and page 19 of the
'Geotechnical Engineering Report' — Project No. 1798.01 — prepared by ZipperGeo do not appear to
be different than that submitted earlier, beyond the date and being designated as a 'draft'.
Please refer to page 11 of the attached Structural Calculations for the shoring wall dated
08/08/2018 which address the comment above.
Additionally, revisions were made to the north and west soldier pile walls to allow for deeper
excavation due to potential soil contamination. The plan and wall profiles have been updated
based on the original calculations to allow for a potential excavation of 12ft below the existing
grade.
11. General plan review comment — Sheet 2 - Clarify the difference in the naming convention used to
identify the various elements of the retaining walls and of that used on sheet 'C3.2' — Grading and
Drainage Details — Detail 4 and Detail 5. While technically correct, the uses of lower- and upper-case
letters should be consistent throughout the submitted proposals. SEP 2 0 2018
BURL-DINU DEPARTMEN1
TY OF EDMONDS
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 1 f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
Graphite Art Studio 16259.22
Comment Response —Building Comments #2
August 8, 2018
Page 2 of 3
Most of the retaining walls support building columns. The details have been removed from the
civil drawing and moved to the structural plans under permit BLD20180970. Please refer to the
structural plans for retaining wall details and calculations.
12. Sheet 2 — Site Retaining Walls
a. Retaining Wall — Typ. Condition (refer to det. 4/C3.2) — Clarify the difference in the noted
width of the 'heel' (identified as V) of the 5 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet 'C3.2' —
Grading and Drainage Details — Detail 4 — Retaining Wall Section at NW Corner — Retaining Wall
Sched u le. — Wa I I Type 2.
b. Retaining Wall — Reversed Retaining Dir. (refer to clet. 5/C3.2) — Clarify the difference in the
noted width of the 'toe' (identified as V) of the 3 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet
'C3.2' — Grading and Drainage Details — Detail 5 — Retaining Wall Section at NE Corner —
Retaining Wall Schedule —Wall Type 1.
See comment 11.
13. Sheet Sheet/page 4 — 4' site wall — case 1 calculation - Clarify the difference in the noted width of
the 'heel' of the 4 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet 'C3.2' — Grading and Drainage Details
— Detail 4 — Retaining Wall Section at NW Corner — Retaining Wall Schedule — Wall Type 1 — and in
the provided structural calculations on 'Sheet 2' —Site Retaining Walls - Retaining Wall — Typ.
Condition (refer to clet. 4/C3.2).
See comment 11.
14. Sheet/page 5 — 4' site wall — case 2 calculation - Clarify the difference in the noted width of the
'heel' of the 4 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet 'C3.2' — Grading and Drainage Details —
Detail 4 — Retaining Wall Section at NW Corner — Retaining Wall Schedule — Wall Type 1 — and in the
provided structural calculations on 'Sheet 2' — Site Retaining Walls - Retaining Wall — Typ. Condition
(refer to clet. 4/C3.2).
See comment 11.
15. Sheet/page 6 — 5' site wall — case I calculation - Clarify the difference in the noted width of the
'heel' of the 5 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet 'C3.2' — Grading and Drainage Details —
Detail 4 — Retaining Wall Section at NW Corner — Retaining Wall Schedule — Wall Type 2 — and in the
provided structural calculations on 'Sheet 2' — Site Retaining Walls - Retaining Wall — Typ. Condition
(refer to clet. 4/C3.2).
See comment 11.
16. Sheet/page 7 — 5' site wall — case 2 calculation - Clarify the difference in the noted width of the
'heel' of the 5 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet 'C3.2' — Grading and Drainage Details —
Detail 4 — Retaining Wall Section at NW Corner — Retaining Wall Schedule — Wall Type 2 — and in the
provided structural calculations on 'Sheet 2' — Site Retaining Walls - Retaining Wall — Typ. Condition
(refer to clet. 4/C3.2).
See comment 11.
17. Sheet/page 8 — 3' reversed grade — case 1 calculation - Clarify the difference in the noted width of
the 'heel' of the 3 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet 'C3.2' — Grading and Drainage Details
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
4MOII Edmonds, WA 98020
0- ph. 42S.778.8500 I f. 425.778.5536
(ENGINEERING www.cgengineering.com
Graphite Art Studio 16259.22
Comment Response —Building Comments #2
August 8, 2018
Page 3 of 3
— Detail 5 — Retaining Wall Section at NE Corner — Retaining Wall Schedule — Wall Type I — and in the
provided structural calculations on 'Sheet 2' — Site Retaining Walls - Retaining Wall — Reversed
Retaining Dir. (refer to clet. 5/C3.2).
See comment 11.
18. Sheet/page 9 — 3' reversed grade — case 2 calculation - Clarify the difference in the noted width of
the 'heel' of the 3 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet 'C3.2' — Grading and Drainage Details
— Detail 5 — Retaining Wall Section at NE Corner — Retaining Wall Schedule — Wall Type 1 — and in the
provided structural calculations on 'Sheet 2' — Site Retaining Walls - Retaining Wall — Reversed
Retaining Dir. (refer to clet. 5/C3.2).
See comment 11.
19. Sheet/page 11 — 4' reversed grade — case 1 calculation - Clarify the difference in the noted width of
the 'heel' of the 4 foot high wall and of that specified on sheet 'C3.2' — Grading and Drainage Details
— Detail 5 — Retaining Wall Section at NE Corner — Retaining Wall Schedule — Wall Type 2 — and in the
provided structural calculations on 'Sheet 2' —Site Retaining Walls - Retaining Wall — Reversed
Retaining Dir. (refer to clet. 5/C3.2).
See comment 11.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the responses to this review, please do not hesitate to
call.
Sincerely,
CG Engineering
Dennis Titus, PE, SE
Project Manager
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 1 f. 425.778.5536
CENGINE-rERING www.cgengineering.com