5900 36TH AVE W 2025-01-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Bridge Point Everett 500, LLC ES-4011.08 June 27, 2022 Page 2 ESNW Response—The lock and load (MSE) and rockery wall plans have been revised to specify the requested IBC inspections (Table 1705.6). Comment 3 - The consideration of seismic surcharges in the soil nail wall design was issued as a comment in April 2017; the response indicated that it was not applicable. It is noted that IBC Section 1803.5.12(1) requires seismic lateral earth pressures to be considered concurrent with other soil pressures on retaining walls; this section does not limit the types of retaining walls required to comply with this loading. The seismic loading should be considered for the design of all walls, or commentary should be provided substantiating that the loading is not required. ESNW Response — We understand the soil nail designer will address this comment. With respect to the lock and load and rockery designs, seismic loading has been appropriately incorporated into the designs. Comment 4 - Sheet W1 shows typical wall sections with an alternate sloping toe condition and increased embedment depth of 24 inches. The minimum distance(s) and maximum slope(s) of the toe cover should be specified. See also the TESC construction drawings indicating steep toe slopes at multiple locations. ESNW Response — The wall sections and corresponding note referring to toe cover have been revised to better clarify the requirement. In essence, a 24-inch bury is recommended where a sloping condition is present in front of the wall. The geotechnical engineer (or his representative) may modify this requirement during the wall keyway excavation based on the actual conditions encountered. As such, ESNW may require greater than a 24-inch bury if conditions dictate. Comment 5 - TESC Sheet D-1.3 shows Vault #3/#5 in close proximity behind the walls and appears to prevent installation of the geogrid reinforcement. The design in this area should be reviewed and revised as needed. ESNW Response — The lock and load "closure" along the exterior wall of Vault #3 will utilize a double counterfort with 20XT geogrid. Backfill will consist entirely of 5/8ths minus crushed rock. A detail illustrating the "double counterfort" design with supporting calculation has been included as part of the revised plan set attached to this document. Comment 6 - Sheet W2 shows rockery sections for both cut and fill conditions. It does not appear that the latter is used in this project and should be removed. ESNW Response — Although a fill rockery condition is not currently proposed, we request that the detail and related construction requirements remain on the plans in the event that such a condition becomes necessary. Comment 7 - The cut section indicates a maximum height of 16 feet, which seems excessive except for heavily consolidated undisturbed soils with high levels of internal cohesion (i.e., self- supporting soils). The drawings should specify soil types that should be present at the site to allow the construction of this wall. The soils should be present over the entire height of the wall. The drawing should include a note requiring verification of the soil through special inspections by the geotechnical engineer-of-record. Earth Solutions NW, LLC