4325 30TH DR SE 2017-09-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

�� K�RT --DESIGN'- Project ��K�� `~ ��U»�� GeoDesign #: Polygon-1 27-03 Date: 01/10/2017 Reports with Unresolved Nonconformance Issues: Permit: PW1 505-005 Nick Abdelnour(Polygon) Randy Allen(City of Everett) 1 weather: Cloudy, 30's Eddy Stevens Arrival/Departure:1515/1630 Ron Bowen(Polygon) Polygon) Doug Ross(Polygon) Kirk Keck(City of Everett) Paul McKee(City of Everett) Dave Foster(City of Everett) �Prepared By Ben Weinberg Sig Site Plan(s) Density Test Summary Signature: 4,;_ ;4,�, Attachments: Installation Records Other By- PURPOSE of VISIT. GeoDesign representative, Ben Weinberg,was on-site part time at the request of John Feltner with Polygon toobserve the foundation aubgnadefor Lots 15A. 101. and 109. SUMMARY ofOBSERVATIONS: Lot 159: Previously, GeoDesign noted that the exposed foundation subgrade was covered in approximately 2 inches of surficially loose and saturated material. Today, GeoOeoignnoted that that the aubgnadehad generally been cleared. GouDeoigndid note areas inthe southwest and northeast corners which were covered in cleared ofloose material with aconcrete rake while on-site. GeoDesign also noted pooled water across the footing subgrade area which is at risk of freezing at low temperatures. It is the opinion of GeoDesign that the exposed footing subgrade is currently suitable for support of the intended structure. Lot 161: Upon arrival, GeoDesign noted that the foundation excavation subcontractor had completed excavation of the footing and crawl space area for Lot 101. GooO*nignnoted that the exposed foundation subgnodegenerally consisted ofabrown to dark brown silty SAND (f-m)with gravel (f-c)whioh could be probed generally less than 3 inches using a 1/2 inch diameter soil probe. Relative compaction of the exposed footing subgrade material was tested using a TroxIer Moisture-Density gauge; in-place density tests indicated that the exposed footing subgrade had been compacted to greater than 95% of its maximum dry density andetermined byaModified Proctor analysis. |tinthe opinion ofGooDeoignthat the exposed footing subgradeiscurrently suitable for support ofthe intended structure. Lot 169: Previously, 6euOoaignnoted loose aubgmergedmaterial inthe southeast corner ofLot 180that werecommended removing prior hothe placement ofconcrete. Today, GeoDesign observed the foundation excavation subcontractor use an excavator to remove ice,water, and loose soil from the southeast and northeast corners of Lot 169. GaoDenignalso noted that a shovel and concrete rake was used to remove scattered loose and saturated material from footing subgrade areas. GeoDesign also noted pooled water across the footing subgrade area which is at risk of freezing at low temperatures. It is the opinion of GeoDesign that the exposed footing subgrade is currently suitable for support of the intended structure. For all of the lots, GeoDesign recommends that loose or saturated material that may build up under the footing area be removed prior tothe placement ofconcrete. A summary of our observations can be found in the attached Figure 1. John Feltner with Polygon was notified of our observations prior toour departure from the site. This eport presents opinions formu "ltm=,observation*actwties relating wgeotechnical engineering°""w"=m."tal,"m"",�vm°*""*°"=�o=°""=*,�mm"*=,=u specifications* � � � � m mm* o" °�ka="w*u.u"supervision direction mthe contractor,the contractor's employees or agents. Our firm unot responsible for site safety.This field report u^DRAFT representation wour field observations,testing,and preliminary recommendations. The report can only becon"o"re" final upon review mthe c°m=w project manager,=indicated byinitials mthe"Reviewed m'section. lo7o0Meridian Avenue North,Suite^ou | Seattle,wmyols3 | 206.838.9900 zsno]effe,`onxxeou: | Tacuma.wmeu*oz 1 253203.0095