The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBuilding Field Test & Inspection Report 2007-11-26 ~ ,. .' ~( , J (fB1t!~q &oqc1:/\ // p.1 FAX COVER . LUCASGENERALCONTRACTORSLLC 541-746-1175 fax 541-746-5158 ccb #173014 :Vovember 26, 2007 To: City of Springfield Building Dept, Fax#: 541-726-3676 Attn: Robert Castile Re: Soil Engineering 6093 Graystone Lp., Lot 32 Pbas,: 4 Mountaingate Permit # COM2007-01498 '" ~ o;r--~ . Thanks, Larry Lucas . p.2 HILL& DALE ENGINEERING. LLC 1850 OAK STREET SUITE C' EUGENE, OREGON 97401 541-868-0667 FAX: 541-868-0888 . 10/05101 Lucas General Contractors P.O. Box 72026 Eugene, OR 91401 6or;J ~ Gravs!rme Lnn J .ot 32 Phase IV- Levell Site Soil Compaction Inspection - Job #580-07 As you requested, a site soils inspection was performed at the above address. Site visit was performed on October 3 1,2007 to supervise the proof roll of the site for the proposed construction. This site has had in-situ fill soil placed to provide a level building pad in preparation for construction. The fill placed is approximately 6' or more in height at the native downslope side of the lot. The in-situ fill placement was supervised by PSI and appears to be consistent with their report dated Feb, 16, 2007. Site preparation for construction of the proposed residence fvv;I":''' included limited removal of the top of the level portion of the placed ill-situ fill. The footprint of the proposed construction is tc be located entirely on the level area of the in-situ fill..with a minimum of 8' offset Jrom the edge of the fill slope. No alteration oftbe site beyond the footprint of the proposed constructi'on was performed: No offset limitation fr,?m the edge of the fill slope was specified by PSI. A compaction inspection proof roll on the in-situ fill was performed using a fully loaded 10 yard dump truck, with gross weight of 50,000#. No rutting or pumping was obserVed. The compacted surface of the in-situ fill is adequate for the proposed foundation and bas a minimum bearing capacity of 1500 psf. This report is limited to the compaction inspection related to the proofrcill of the surface of the in-situ soil placement at the above location. The in-situ fill placement was performed by others and supervised by PSI. This office does not assume any responsibility for the placement and performance of the in-situ fill placed in preparatiOn for proposed residential construction. Refer to the PSI report dated Feb. ] 6, 2007 for information in regard to the ill-situ fill placemellt. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have questions regarding this report, contact me at 868-0667. Sincerely, Pamela S. Hillstrom, P .E., G.E. p.3 Community Services Div, Building Safety CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 225 Sb Stn:el, Springfield, OR 97477 Ph. 726.3759 . ~ Si::~:~:;~:;~:;:;::~;"~~'""~'~"'W~~- SuOdivision Lot # ,-12-- AFFIDA VIT For Site Investigation Questionnaire Foundation Sub-Grade App,uval for Residential Building Site.in Mountaingate Subdivision Tbe undersigned hereby affirms that the excavation, s1ructural fill and moisture stabilization methods for the bUilding site at the address shown above were observed by me or an authorized employee of my firri1 and that the following is true: I. The geotechnical information for the subdivision, specific to this site, was utilized as part of the detennination for foundation preparation and drainage requirements. 2, The foundation sub-grade is capable of supporting a minimum of 1500 psI; and is adequate to support the building proposeej for this site. 3. . -The moisture content of the excavation was adequately maintained during the site . . preparation process and the site is adequately graded and drained for discharge to . an approved location in order to maintain stable moisture content throughout the . Construction process and thereafter. Signature 0LQ~~, ~. 4, Date I VD5)17 ---- ~ EXi'iIWIlJN DATE: flf;JOJ M , Communi1y Services Div, Building Safety CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 225 5~Slreet;Springfield, OR 97477 Ph. 726-3759 Subdivision Lot # ,~1 , :...,' " ,',:: .:~:." '";......' ." /.';:~'. .:"t.: ) ::~;;\:: '.:"~':"' " Mountaingate Subdivision I Site Investigation Questionnaire for Consulting Design Professionals J . '~92 . SITEADDRESS -9f,,,,.~ Crm W:tou LlJ. CITY JOB # Foundation requirements -. n~ strncto~es on residential lots This form may be used as a verification to allow construction. to continne on the job site until the stamped ' AFFIDAVIT For Site Investigation Questionnaire' is submitted to the City. This form must be completed by a licensed design professional (engIneer or architect) or his/her authorized representative, aud submitted to the building inspector prior to requesting City inspections .or placiug foundation concrete, It is important that all questions be answered completely for the foundation site to be approved for construction. Owner andlor Contractor _I LlI'1). <: (''''e.LI..e.r7L { LD^ 1-1Y.L (' i-rv-s A. Date(s) of the design p. ~r~.;l)nal's site evaluation? Ir\ /~, /(1 '/ , f R Has the design professional reviewed a "l>py of the geotechnical information that was prepared.ror the subdivision relating to this site? Yes.--'No_ if not, please contact this office for a ropy of the 7i#port. The design professional must be familiar with the geotechnical information beforecompleting.this form. C. In which Geotechnical Investigation area is this site located? Level I --- ,.. LevelD Note: Level n reauires a sife..SIleCific "eotechnicaJ investicrntion & renort Were site conditions identified that would change the category? YES _ NO:::::- (For criteria determining catego!)'. ,ee thelll:COmCO!l1'icg doeument titled: !f"yeS", explain (use the teve~ side of this sbeet or an added sheet ifnecessary) 105 pA Community Services Div, BuiIdiDg Safety CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 225 5~ SneJ, Springfield, OR 97477 Ph. 126-:i759 Subdivision Lot # f) 2- Was a geotechnical engineer involved at the site to verify that conditions are suitable for construction of the prop~ building(s)? _ Yes _--1iio_ Name of geotechnical engineer A" ta ~ ..Ji.J.I" t-rn.M D. What was the nature of the exeavation and/orfiD? _,::,"[( UIQ.S ()(ac.~.J. , -1". P.'; -1:: -"~F_ T"~81..-Uc.~Q..{- J .."'<; 'l-k." l~'" ^,[J., cA.../'no1-...,.l cru.!'.!.,.. A me.1:. wo.." QJfI ('p,j . I - I ". Was existing non-s1ructural fill or Clqlansive soil encountered on the lot? . Yes_No-::::"If"yes", what types, depths and locations, and how does it affect the building foundation? . . What measures were taken to remedy the soil condition (include type of engineered fill used to stabilize the soil)? Is the site as prepared adequate Winadequate 0 to maintain constant moisture content in the sub grade? Note: Verification of moistw'e stabilization in the sub grade is a requirementfor stt.e preparation. and must be affrrmed before construction can-continlJl!, If inadequate. what measures are to.be taken to provide constant moisture content in the sub grade? . Is the site, as ....-.._wd, adequatel3"'fnadequateD to support the proposed . structure? An qffi77native answer is requisite to proceeding with construction. . II inadequate, wbat additional work is needed to provide adeqOll.te foundation support? E. Did the design professional witness placement and compaction of the engineered fill, or is there a special inspection report forthcoming from 8 qualified agency'll witnessed Placement 0 Speciallnsp/compaction report [3-- 205 p.5 '>If It:, !ll :,'41' \1 ('~i , . .'4 I,!, Community sern- Div. Building Safety . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON. 22S s" Strect,SprIngfield, OR 97417 Ph. 726-3759 subdivision Lot # ..3 L- The individual doing the observations and providing direction/or the exCavation and site pre,.,~ u.;vn work on the property must sign thejollowing statement. The undersigne4 duign prof~ional (or amhorked employee) atte9tS that hUsh~ observed required moisture stobllily procedurt!JI on this sUe, and Iluli such prot:edures were accomplished before ~ cltangt!JI occurred In the _isture content o/the mb- grade under Qnd around the building (where expansive soils were encountered). The undersignedfurtho attests that the sub-grade, as prepared, is adequate'to support the building proposed/or this site. Additional comments: (Note): A copy of thiS report shall be kept on site with the approved plans at aD times. . This report shall be foDowed by an affidavit, signed and stamped by the design professional under whose auspices this report was completed, affirming the infonnation herein. The signed/stamped affidavit together with a copy of this report shall be submitted to this office prior to requesting framing inspection for the building, Signatnr Q 1. . (~ Name .. "^' Title f..l~ G E. Company ~!lot P\.. I 0 ~I/\.'i-.t f1e~ r-,' f\ r. Phone 1?1 01(>-(\ \. "C^' <;J . 0 Licensee . Q ,^"",.I a"', f-l,' I (~t-,..~ ~ License # .<; <J't 1.7_ . expires tD/:?o/"q _ The geotechnical report for the Mountaingate Suodivision Phases I & IT makes recommendations for placement of building construction on each site. The report also recommends that site preparation during wet weather conditions be avoided unless special measures are taken to mitigate soft soil conditions and moisture coUecting in or around the foundation areas during and after the construction process. Positive site drainage must be provided. . 405 p.6 <.: ,. j.r :.:~ "~jr_ . :r~L~~~~", , ~,;t~< . '.. 'l;~iif, I ' ll'll""~. ".,' '10."'-" . . ~ ; ~i<l:rl' r ',-j 1:iflt~i , t~lil '('1'.) . , .,,1.' . . .~~ }.ij~. ~~<"~,,, ~H.:. ." '. J,'t11fi- -"..'" ; . . 1'\"'" . . '.". ~ 'fli; l."l~\'}'