2002 MADISON ST EVERSPACE 2022-02-22

CELEBRATING Drew Martin, P.E., S.E. 125 Associate Engineer —Commercial Plans Examiner I Permit Services Y E A R S 425.257.8813 13200 Cedar Street, 2nd Floor, Everett, WA 98201 A story worth telling everettwa.gov/permits I Facebook I Twitter Note: Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Everett are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. From: Drew Martin Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 11:55 AM To: 'Joe Duzan' <ioe@gantnychay.com> Cc: Laroy Gant <laroy@hantnychay.com> Subject: RE: 2002 Madison I Plan Check #131809-002 Joe, Thank you for the follow-up. I've reviewed that section and it appears applicable to your design. I am reviewing it and some other items with the energy calculation with my colleague; I hope to finalize this comment without further questions. I may be able to redline the architectural drawings, and plan to call this morning to discuss. I have a couple of questions for the structural engineer. Please forward these: 10a. The original comment stated that the specify connection should be specified in the drawings. The drawings indicate a generic model type. The type and size should be indicated. Note that the headers and posts sizes are not consistent, or multiple sizes may be required. 13. This comment has not been completely addressed: The seismic base shear used to design the walls and holdowns is low. It is based on an areas load of 11 psf. The calculations specify a roof load of 12 psf. In addition, the 12 psf value does not include additional weight for the exterior wall and interior partition weight tributary to the roof. The lateral analysis should be revised and the lateral design verified or revised as needed. See ASCE 7-10 Section 12.7.2 Item 2. b. The design values for the HDU2 holdowns, primarily controlled by the shear walls on Grid E, are low. They do not appear sufficient for the uplift force based on the seismic lateral forces (see previous comment) at LRFD force levels and with the overstrength increase per ACI Section 17.2.3.4.3. The design should be revised. c. Note 2 in Details J/52.2, K/S2.2, and L/52.2 appears intended to limit the span of the existing footings over excavations. However, the note phrasing does not limit the span. The note should be reviewed and revised as needed. d. The design has been revised to excavation under the existing load -bearing perimeter foundations to construct the new footings. Sheet S1.3 shall require geotechnical observations to be performed for this project. A list of the required geotechnical observations should be provided. See IBC Sections 107.1 and 107.2.1. The following is a summary: i. Installation of temporary shoring system at excavations (IBC Section 1803.5.10). ii. Movement monitoring of adjacent structures (IBC Sections 1803.5.7 and 1804.1). iii. Placement and compaction of structural backfill (IBC Section 1804.3). e. The design has been revised to drill hold-down anchors through the depth of the foundation walls. Sheet 51.3 shall include a note to perform structural observations in addition to special inspections for post -installed anchors. The structural observations shall verify that the structural integrity of the walls is not compromised. See IBC Section 1704.6.1 Item 5.