1622 E MARINE VIEW DR WHOLE SITE 2022-02-01

Riverview Apartments July 18, 2019 Response to Public Works Permit Comments age�4� CPH No. 0024-17-037; City File No. PW 1906-074 Plate 2 does not include any utilities and is more of an existing site map. Plate 3 shows the schematic location of utilities, however the locations do not match the civil remediation plans and show the excavation area out into the sidewalk and street. Please clarify and update exhibits as necessary. Response: Plate 3 within the updated RAP has been revised to reflect the latest survey information shown in the civil plans. Alternatives developed during preparation of the RAP are none -the -less conceptual and were used for feasibility evaluation and selection of the preferred Alternative 3 and 3A remedial actions. The civil remediation plans have been surveyed and reflect the actual remediation work to be performed. %I Plates 8 and 9 show the soil contamination and soldier pile walls in locations different from that specified in the civil remediation plans. Please clarify and update exhibits or plan sheets as necessary Response: Plate 12 has been added to the updated RAP to better reflect the selected alternative (Alt 3A-Mod) and latest shoring design shown in the civil plans. Plates 8 and 9 illustrate other alternatives that are not being implemented, but that were part of the overall RAP analysis. e. Response Letter to City Review Comments (by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated May 31, 2019) What is this a response to? This is the first review since permit application, so I am unaware of when the City has provided previous comments. Perhaps these comments were generated verbally from a sit-down meeting with the City? Please clarify where this is coming from. Response: The letter response from Earth Solutions Northwest (ESNW) was in reference to comments provided by Mr. Voigt in his April 15, 2019 email to Paul McKee in regards to the draft plan provided prior to final design and submittal of the formal Public Works Permit package. A copy of that email is enclosed for reference. �. There is important design information that the contractor needs to be aware of and is only addressed in this comment response letter. Incorporate any design decisions or guidelines into notes on the drawing pages for the contractor's use. (Particularly ENSW Response to Comment 4, but others may be applicable as well). Response: The General Construction Notes have been updated (appended note 3 and added notes 10 and 11) to incorporate key elements of the geotechnical response letter. The plans also include dimensional information consistent with the separate geotechnical and structural calculation documents. 3. Structural Comments a. Please provide schedule of Special Inspections for items involving Steel and Concrete construction as it appears the temporary shoring requires welding, bolting, and use of epoxy anchorage into concrete footings. IBC 1704.3, 1704.3.1. Response: A schedule of special inspections for the steel and concrete elements has ben added to the shoring plans in the enclosed PWP set. b. It appears that there is missing information between the structural engineering calculation package and drawings from the Geotechnical Engineer. Please see below. Provide deadman footing sizes. On Detail 1, SH-2, the footing callout refers to "Footing sizes per plan". However, Sheet SH-1 (assumed plan sheet) does not appear to address the footing size. Please clarify. IBC 107.2.1. Response: The concrete footing for the shoring brace are specified on the soldier pile and schedule on sheet SH-1. Additional references have been added to both sheets SH-1 and SH-2 to clarify. The width of each footing is constant, and a typical section has been added to sheet SH-2 to confirm concrete volume.