20161010085421.pdfr C�llil►ri.
PLAN REVIEW VI COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
rst. (425) 771-0220
DATE: September 27, 2016
TO: Ron Johnson, Architect
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-1602
Project Address: 16404 75 b Place W
OCT7 2016
fARDINOR DEPARM047
f,:,,n'Y OF E&MOND§
Project: Abbott SFR detached garage
Scope: Construct detached garage for single-family residence — U occupancy group —
V-B construction - sprinkler system not required— mechanical and plumbing not
included
Please be advised that the building plans for the above referenced project have been disapproved
for the purposes of obtaining a building permit. During a review of the plans by the Building
Division for compliance with the applicable building codes, it was found that the following
information, clarifications, or changes are needed. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning,
Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional comments that require attention beyond the scope of
this letter. Items that recur on this list appear in italics.
A complete review cannot be performed until the revised plans/documents, includin a
written res once in itemized letter format indicating where the 'clouded, or otherwise
highlighted changes can be found on the revised plans, have been submitted to a Permit
Coordinator.
Resubmittals must be made at the Development Services Department on the 2nd Floor of City Hall.
Permit Center hours are M, T, Th, & F from 8am-4:30pm and from 8:30am-12pm on Wednesdays.
On sheet A6:
Detached Garage Plan - Indicate on the plans the minimum required construction of the
foundation to support the loads along erg the south side and west side, of the detached
garage. A response to the earlier plan review comment beyond a `check -mark' could not be
found. No changes appear to have been made to the resubmitted plans at the above
locations. A reference to the construction indicated in detail `1/S5' would appear to provide
that anticipated for the represented conditions.
W /11�, '11� 0 W gt (k& / -� �44M
The following is intended to consolidate the notes/comments from the Landau Associates peer review
technical memorandum dated February 3, 2016 and the resubmittals received by the City and forwarded
to Landau Associates to address the concerns of the peer review. The applicant is encouraged to review
the list of forwarded items and to provide any additional information/documents needed to address all of
the concerns noted in the peer review. Any additional information/documents should be submitted to the
Permit Center.
Notes/comments from the Landau Associates peer review technical memorandum dated February
3, 2016:
Noted deficiencies in the submitted documents per ECDC l 9.10:
1. Storm drainage calculations are not included. (a�1
2. Structural calculations are not included. �`
3. Bonds, cover'at1 , .,d contractor public liability insut,-ance are not included.
See �Ih
1(0 ARE 41 - * �ir. Co Comments regarding the submittea documents, 10 -7
We recommend that a final geotechnical report be prepared and submitted incorporating
conclusions and recommendations from both of the preliminary geotechnical report
(dated 3-27-15) and of the updated geotechnical recommendations (dated 5-6-15).
5. An addition to the civil plans should include fill/stockpile limitation provisions and slope
protection plans. In addition, the civil plans should be revised to reflect such provisions,
including specific location(s) for stockpiling, height restrictions on stockpiles, and
guidelines for protection and maintenance of stockpiled fill/soil.
6. We recommend that the civil plans include notes that explain the ECDC limitations on
site access and special inspection requirements for TESC between October 1 and April
30.
7. The certification statement on the cover sheet of the architectural plans needs to be signed
and dated.
8. The topographic map and survey does not include the tax account parcel numbers.
Bottom elevations of grade beams or foundation elements are not shown on the
foundation plan sheet.
The Structural Engineer Declaration, prepared by Wendell Reed, P.E., CBO, is dated
` March 31, 2010 and predates the submittals. We recommend that this declaration be
reviewed and resubmitted with a current date.
Itemized information forwarded by the City in response to peer review:
1. Response letter and revised information from D.R. Strong.
2. Structural calculations prepared by Wendell Reed, P.E., CBO.
fth1ft --3. No response or additional/revised information provided.
t No response or additional/revised information provided beyond the remark in the
`Minimum Risk Statement' — page 3 of the geotechnical plan review letter prepared by
Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. dated December 7, 2015. - 0,W4?INb 'CU CM i5
5. Response letter and revised civil plans from D.R. Strong.
em
6. Response letter and revised civil plans from D.R. Strong and a `Dry Season Extension
Letter' ftom Nelson Geotechnical Associates.
7. The certification statement has been removed from the cover sheet of the architectural
plans. A separate statement has already been provided by the architect.
8. Response letter and a copy of survey from D.R. Strong.
,e No response or additional/revised information provided on foundation plan sheet.
No response or revised letter provided.
fvstv (,w