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

� August 18, 1981 Mr. Ken Cal].ahan, Building Official Everett Building Department City Hall Everett, WA 98201 REFERENCE: SEAPROP CORPORATION WARFil0U5E @ 7720 HARDESON ROAD Dear Ken: I have reviewed the correspondence, reports, drawings a:id revised details for the referenced project, and have come to the following cunclusions: 1) The project required special inspections for the concrete work and concrete rebar. The building did not get special inspections or even normal foundation incpections. 2) The Building Code requires special inspections and was the owner's or the con- tractor's responsibility to provide such inspections. 3) Where Cascade's inspector did report nan-compliance tiuith the drawings, the contractor ignored him and overrode every such notification. 4) The Building Code requires a maximwn thiclmess to parn�l height ratio of one to 36. Hrnaever, I.C.B.O. will alloia a maxvmun ratio of one to 50 when the design engineer takes full responsibility. The failure to provide panel to slab dowels as detailed, changed the panel height ratio along with the change to 5� inch thick panels to a ratio of 61.18 to one along coordinate 1, and 62.27 to one alcn� coordirate 13. 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-N9 bars on one side and 2-N8 bars on Lhe other side, then the reversal of thc bars means the building is structurally inadequate. How- ever, the exact location of the deficiency should be checked to determine if the inspector is correct. 6) The footing A1 required 5-N6 bars and unY.il soils reports verify the soil condi- tions, the footings are inadequate. 7) Revibration or poimding of the fresh concrete destroys the bond of the concrete to the rebars and destroys the ultimate strength of the concrete. 8) The desi�t engineer's letter throt,�s the complete responsibility upon the Buiiding Department, however, Uecause of the failure of the oti+mer/contractor to comply with the requirements oi the IIuilding Code, such responsibility should not bc accepted by the Building Department. I recoimnend that the building not be approved or accepted by the Building Department. Sincerely, J01L'� H. FARRF'vS, JR. JFIP/ j cb J N� " ! _,