7720 HARDESON RD BASE FILE 2016-01-01 MF Import

August 18, 1981 htr. Ken Callahan, Building Official Gverett Build.ing Department City Hall Evcrett, WA 98201 REFERENCE: SEAPROP CORPORATION WARFliUUSE @ 7720 IIARDESON ROAD Dear Ken: I have reviewed the correspondence, reports, drawings and rnvised drtails for the referenced project, and have come to tl�e folloiviiig conclusions: 1) The project required special inspections for the concrete work and concrete rebar. 'f7ie building did not get special inspections or e��en notmal foundation inspections. 2) The Ruilding Code requires special inspections and was the o��mer's or the con- tractor's responsibility to provide such inspections. 3) A'here Cascade's inspector did report non-compliance with the drawings, the contractor ignored him and overrode every such notification. 4) The Building Code requires a maximwn thicl.ness to panel height ratio of one to 56. However, L C.B.O. will alloi�� a maxvnwn ratio of one to 50 when the design engiaeer takes full responsibility. The failure to provide panel to siab dowels as detailed, d�inged the panel height r..tio along with the change to 5� inch thick panels to a ratio of 61.18 to one nlong coordinate 1, and 62.27 to one along coordinate i3. 5) Cascade's inspector also noted a failure to comply with the steel placement requirements of detail 11/S2, which the engineer did not recognize. If the design required the 4-H9 bars on one side and 2-IIS bars on the other side, then the reversal of the bars means the building is structiu•ally inadequate. How- ever, the ezact location of the deficiency should be checked to determine if the inspector is correct. G) The footing A1 required 5-HG bars and urtil soils reports verify the soil condi- tions, the footings arc inadequate. 7) ReviUration or pounding of the fresh concrete destroys the Uond of the concrete to the rebars and destroys the ultimate strength of the concrete. 8) The desigu engincer's letter throws thc comi:letc responsibility upon thc '3uilding Department, however, Uccause of the fai.lure of the owner/contractor to con�ply iaitli the requirements of thc 13uilding Cocie, suclt i•esponsibility should not be accepted Uy tlie Building Department. I recoimnend that the builcling not Ue approved or accepted by the Building Department. �7 f ��1.Gz� �, ii. r �s, Ju. V .n�r•/�� I��d�� F�UG 'i 3 1y81�' C.r�Y �OF EVERE.�C'. � fir,�::*.frr�itY� I�epk. � J