HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.05 Patio Drive Req for Variance 0
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE : September 14, 1987
SUBJECT : Public Hearing : Request for Variance to Section 22 . 12(c)
Ordinance 02-84 . Rafanelli & Nahas , 20211 Patio
Drive, Suite 216, Castro Valley, CA 94546
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : 1 . Section 22 . 12 (c) Ordinance 02-84
2 . Letter from Rafanelli/Nahas , dated 9/3/87
3 . Letter from J . H . Kleinfelder, dated 7/9/87
4. Memo to Ron Nahas , dated 7/16/87
5 . Letter from J . H. Kleinfelder, dated 8/25/87
6 . Letter from J . H . Kleinfelder, dated 9/2/87
7 . Draft Resolution Granting Variance
RECOMMENDATION :
0#14-
Open Public Hearing .
2) Receive Staff presentation.
3 ) Receive Public Testimony.
4) Close Public Hearing.
5 ) Deliberate .
6 ) Adopt Resolution Granting the Variance. -
FINANCIAL STATEMENT : No cost to City.
DESCRIPTION : Section 22 . 12( c ) of Ordinance 02-84 prescribes
requirements for placing fill . Specifically, continuous inspection by a
special inspector ( soil engineer) is required during the preparation of a
site and during the placement of any fill which will be used to support
any structure .
The Alamo Creek , Village II project was graded in 1986 , and the necessary
final grading inspection report dated February 12, 1987, was provided.
In June of 1987 , some regrading of Village II occurred. The permits for
the buildings in Village II were issued on July 21 , 1987 . One of the
conditions of approval of the building permits was to provide inspection
reports for the grading prior to foundation inspection (Exhibit 4 ) . When
the permits were issued the developer verbally indicated that the grading
work was inspected and submitted a July 9, 1987 letter from J . H .
Kleinfelder and Associates ( Exhibit 3 ) . This letter only indicated that
density tests were made on the completed pads . On August 25 , 1987 , J . H .
Kleinfelder provided a clarifying letter which indicated that inspection
was provided on June 2 , 1987 , but not on June 4 through June 6 , 1987
( Exhibit 5 ) .
It was then determined that fills were placed on pads 4, 6 , 8, 12 , and
22 . The depth of the fills were 1 . 5 ' , .8 ' , . 5 ' , 1 .2 ' , and 1 .0 '
respectively. The purpose of continuous inspection is to assure , ( 1 )
that the proper type soil is used ; ( 2 ) that there are no rocks over 6" in
diameter ; ( 3 ) that there is no organic material or debris in the fill ;
(4 ) that the soil is at optimum moisture content; (5 ) that the fill is
placed in 6" lifts , and each lift is compacted before a new lift is
added .
The material used was excavated from previously inspected fill so it is
the proper type soil without larger rocks , organic matter or debris . The
moisture content and method of placement can be checked by density tests .
The soil engineer has rendered a professional opinion that the fill is
properly compacted, based on density tests taken at the surface and below
the surface where the fill was 1 foot or deeper (Exhibit 6) .
It is the opinion of the Building Official that the City Council can find
that granting the variance is consistant with the purpose of the
ordinance, and it will not lessen the protection to the people of the
City of Dublin or the property situated therein.
ITEM NO. 65'' COPIES TO: Rafanelli/Nahas
' �`lip I.
1 For Croup R, Division 1 Occupancies with a Croup B, Division 1 parking garage in the basement or first
' '`'.
: floor, see Section 702(a).
ee For attic space partitions and draft stops, see Section 2516(f).
At
Section 22.9 Section 1204, Chapter 12, Part III: Exit Facilities on page 90 is amended by adding a new
paragraph at the end of the Section to read: ,
in single family dwellings not exceeding two stories in height egress windows from sleeping rooms may be
omitted when an additional doorway or an approved exit escape hatch and route to safety is provided for
egress from such rooms. The doorways provided shall open directly to the exterior of the building or shall
open onto corridors or passageways or areas which lead to individual exterior exits. The separate exiting
paths to the individual exterior doorways provided shall not cross nor shall they follow the same route in
whole or in part to the building exterior. Approved exit escape hatches shall be installed in accordance
with the terms of their approval.
Section 22.10 Table 23-A, Chapter 23, Part VI: Uniform and Concentrated Loads. Table 23-A on pages 140 and
141 are amended by adding a new Footnote 9 to read:
9. Bridges for vehicular traffic shall be designed for H2O loading as designated by the American Association
of State Highway Officials.
Section 22.11 Section 2901, Chapter 29, Part VI: Scope. Section 2901 on page 513 is amended to read:
Section 29.10 Scope. This chapter sets forth requirements governing grading drainage, mitigation of geo-
logic hazards, excavations and fills for any building or structure, and for foundations and retaining struc-
tures.
Section 22.12 Section 2903, Chapter 29, Part VI: Excavations and Fills. Section 2903 on pages 513 and 514
are
amended to read: _ `
(a) General. Excavations or fills for any building or structure and excavations or fills accessory
thereto shall be so constructed or protected so that they do not endanger life or property.
(b) Excavations. Except when permitted under a valid Grading Permit as set forth in Section 115.1 of
Chapter 9 of Title 7 of the Alameda County Grading Ordinance as adopted by the City of Dublin, the slope
of cut surfaces of permanent excavations shall not be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The slope
of cut surfaces shall not be steeper than the bedding planes or principal joint sets in any formation
where the cut slope will lie on the dip side of strike line unless the soils and geologic investigations
contain recommendations for steeper slopes.
Existing footings or foundations which may be affected by any excavation shall be underpinned or otherwise
protected against settlement and shall be protected against lateral movement.
(c) Fills. The slopes of permanent fills shall not be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, fills not placed in
accordance with this Ordinance, topsoil and other unsuitable material and where slopes are 5 horizontal to
1 vertical or steeper by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material.
Earth materials which have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and have no rock or similar
irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches shall be used.
Continuous inspection by a special inspector as defined in Section 12.16 shall be required in the
following situation.
1. During the preparation of a site for, and the placement of fills which exceed 5 feet in depth on
slopes with exceed 10 percent and during the placing of such fills.
2. During the preparation of a site for, and the placement of any fill which will be used to support any
building or structure and during the placing of such fills.
3. During the installation of subsurface drainage facilities.
All such fills shall be compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density as determined by
UBC Standard 70-1. Field density shall be determined in accordance with UBC Standard 70-2 or equivalent
method as approved by the Building Official.
-21-
alillE/11111 I(
Rafanelli and Nahas J'f0\4
Real Estate Development `� c <ti'
-f
•,
,' '1 1,
September 3, 1987 ?
f
Vic Taugher
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94596
RE: Variance Request, Cotton Wood
Lot 149, Tract 5511
Pads # 4, 6, 8, 12 and 22
Dear Vic:
Pursuant to our discussions, we hereby request that we be granted a
variance fran the City ordinance requirement of continuous on-site
inspection during the placement of fill for the above building pads.
The enclosed letter from Kleinfelder certifies that we have met all of
the design criteria for compaction. It is my understanding that we can
be scheduled for the September 14 City Council agenda.
If there are any changes or you need additional information, please let
me know.
Very truly yours,
a
Ronald C. Nahas
Enclosure
RCN/ds
20211 PATIO DRIVE,SUITE 215,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
FIXHIBIT
L4.C'2 `� .:.�.:._.... x' 7.. .' -' - ., .. _. .. ,.7727,7'"`:.f?;=��.a N,;_l:.9K�fi.'';SS
lN'
a a
J. H. KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS•MATERIALS TESTING
4750 NORRIS CANYON RD.
SAN RAMON,CA 94583
(415)866-8378
July 9, 1987
File: 11-1548-05
Rafanelli and Nahas
20211 Patio Drive, Suite 215
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Subject: DENSITY TEST RESULTS
VILLAGE 2 - VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Nahas:
At your request, personnel of our firm performed density tests at
the subject site on June 17, 1987. The purpose of our visit was
to perform density tests on building pads 1, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 22.
Previous density tests were taken in Village 2 from June 20, 1986
to July 23, 1986, and were reported in our letter dated February
12, 1987, a copy of which is enclosed.
A total of 12 tests were taken by the nuclear probe test method.
Samples of the material tested were returned to our laboratory
for determination of the maximum density-optimum moisture content
by test method ASTM D-1557. Results of the field and laboratory
tests are enclosed. The test results were given verbally to Mr.
Stan Friberg, your project superintendent on the day of testing.
Tests were taken at random locations selected by our technician
on the building pad fill. The depth of fill varied from
approximately 0.5 to 1.5 feet.
Project specifications require relative compaction of 90 percent.
Based on results of the above referenced tests, it is our
professional opinion that the work tested was performed in
general compliance with the project plans and specifications and
our April 11, 1985 Geotechnical Investigation Report for this
project.
We have employed accepted engineering and testing procedures.
However, we do not undertake the guarantee of construction, nor
do we relieve the contractor of his primary responsibility to
produce a completed project conforming to the project plans and
specifications.
EXHIBIT :3
J. H. KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Ron Nahas
July 9, 1987
File: 11-1548-05
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning this report, please call at
your convenience. It has been a pleasure to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
J. K. KLEINFELDER
�� �
& ASSOCIATES
6407/446(..Lawrence P. Goldfarb
Staff Engineer
,(Attalt o QaoF ESSIpiv��
�(NGEK. �9��z
Terence K. Wang P.E. �� �c A
Senior Engineer * No. 041362
C. E. No. 41362
LPG/TKW ' cIv►� e
Encl: Moisture Density Relationships OF GAL,f!�‘k
Density Test Results
Previous Letter & Density Tests dated 2/12/87
LPG-1548-05
KID
•5.:�eJ.dax..,, .".il'�e..v:�;:✓:�:i.��«.:.cu:ii..y ..r'�.;..±w wA.....;:.:. i..:_�.......�+. '„ _ ,. . :.w_-uwrx�+•� .^.+waai+m.+ian"f e..,.a nrfsva^ac b`..*.sm,+kR2�fr'YnR.°aaC m':,�TCMaaK,'+f:+tYp:6dNA'�`FdN9TJX+.!MeJ�B.T:M.r,^; ^;if6�'.Y"i:.a!naM....•.
• • '1
V �
,•47J
J. H. KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES
File: 11-1548-05
Page 3
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS
(ASTM 1557)
OPTIMUM MAXIMUM
CURVE NUMBER AND SOIL DESCRIPTION MOISTURE (%) DENSITY (pcf)
1. Brown Gravelly Sandy 12.0 124.5
Clay (CL)
2 . Brown Gravelly Clay (CL) 13.5 120.0
....''...:'''::,r ..1.r... .._,:,.._. .... a.:. ..... .v ,,:,?:.-,.i ,7,:: ... ... .. ,.r. .. a..,.,a .... c .x..„.,w,,-._..::-'.u.w.sw`....zc...uwucfi.�ea.:_:.� ,---at g31G�. w, .i...n a..s
'4
. , E
I. H. KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
File: 1548-05
Page 4 Depth from Dry Laboratory Specified
lost Finished Moisture Density Compaction Relative Relative
N—o. Date Test Location Subgrade % Dry Wt. P.C.F. Curve No. Compaction Compaction
BLDG. PADS
1 6/17/87 BLDG. #1 0 9 116 1 97 90
2 ff BLDG. #1 0 8 107 1 89 90
3 II BLDG. #6 0 13 , 108 1 90 90
4 ff BLDG. #6 0 11 109 1 91 90
5 'f BLDG. #6 0 15 107 1 89 90
6 II BLDG. #4 0 10 113 2 91 90
7 f• BLDG. #4 0 9 116 2 94 90
8 fl BLDG. #8 0 8 115 2 93 90
9 II BLDG. #8 0 8 114 2 92 90
10 ff BLDG. #12 0 9 114 2 92 90
11 " BLDG. #12 0 11 114 2 92 90
12 ff BLDG. #22 0 10 116 2 94 90
13 II BLDG. #22 0 9 116 2 94 90
Accepted engineering and fasting procedures were used for these fasts. The above data is presented for in-
formation purposes only. in the absence of continuous ob bons of our personnel at the site, we can not
express an opinion as to the adequacy of sits preparation or overall fill compaction. We do not undertake the
guarantee of construction,nor do we relieve the contractor of his primary responsibility to produce a cons-
f.,_-..,; ,„„4„.(f.„;,•,,t tw«i•�i"4Y R ".,. .,,,„ .0,'5"..,„ i' r�;�� ' l7 ,•,,, ,r l q wS:"rq' `' �s .s.14,4,y yy"s. I,,,7,4Lf f 1'; r
r ...... , ..,. 1'1r•ty r'( � t,r+�P ♦ a r', �t4+t tr wrl f�.• I� '1 '�x,
4��� 4ra � `���yty��,t j° i7ry •!.y r -..� X f� •,., �7�� :; �' r. .: ,.- ..�, (
4. 1' { ,�. ' !144 �*'d'f' '!, ''3'D'iaq-,4 Y'YH1 �� �` Y y .17 i 4fit �'Y �R711,111 r: r .',
��r �1,`.,4„ ' ,„....%.,' ' ,r MT ,' M p.r:'1'�Y'm '�: .r ay '`A" liorx*X4.v... r ",*,jy�( h_;}�gK.yy ',�y.. ;fi? -$,,, 3
�j �n -I +! {f i>M 4 , / ,, F y,r. S ''A.. C r. 0*.. �+tw,... . ,.. X i
( ,. a ,�,},, ,r . �i +t, N.,. ,N,,x0.4.4!, •.t ,c,w. 1, f 1., AI,prr(;.J.,;,p, µ`$r; ,., 4. r .,f S. f�? x'j;s,°"wM'i„ /li Y, Yn �. 1"6 wY �' 1' , + • j i .r. >� :aMGr nr+, a" .-••N ' -- A.'Ft,. 5 y SL '1-" n� ,f� i a':t' G K .L -1,4 . .1,1,,,1- >. .1, tI" I` ". Sp Sk'x �!a SiL rty"�wor �[,2�a 'G l�! t a `1 ,s r., ,, r 1. ,i. (r•r i- r- +
°7%...41 X43-., •xly.: ,,� iySw .,.;,(y+ pVk~ ,,. c, r•wl;. q �'y AL�'� y �r j ,rr , "' d " ,. s-a> 1,,y "u'�r re e 1TA�f'�,,,V. ** -. .±...3 „y>'`_ 4. .; �, r ,(p ..,r* "k fy r� t{�,r1,
•• 'r Y `wFA
•'4 r Af..'V�.t�1 i '�-''.;.4.7,-0,14,.' t ,i fit N :+: IL( t •0. t s R o n,$N a h a s,' . t . x *, „, t':- 4tz: ,',•
�4y•lfl° .,",\ ,, _ x'.L iC4tajrB'fr1 •` .�,,,;., o . r lding`xOfficial �7-.....4 '. " ,, ' -
-` .t sin +rJM .. y+,,, �;ywr% If1.''llj ♦ i ��' ! ?�I''.IJ-T�- _ r-.f,. �.h�• ,'i•;' : SUBJECT;:--VILL"AGE �II, � Willow'Creek - � "� ,°� �}� n
�,;- , tor�:.S a. "�.• ..tt[ r"�IS r '�,,;d� ;'-`'-. .. ? t s*^ . M: ` 1� , C�..:.'r� ?.M1 .�st ~ . ; r1 � !'ki'.rN, ^d
--,,'1.fr•ga cY,0 .:'x ��a�s�',:t*. ( •fi * t.. ••h,l .... F �,,r. - .- k!-... .-.r•{t >> j'i'> g 'p �i r d � ' li S . ° x ,7Vr . ' %ie'�>! ;.-�' ; �"+� i7 i u M r -4 4,-r,.�t;, y ATE: 9 G,=July 16;..-.w, r +�,w } .; - �� �-� ,, t ". � .ja„
1 r ry k p $ ; iM 4� i, r �".;w• �?'e ^permits for;r:the .referenced :pro ject4are4,be`ing issued �, • .
r `.4 subject to atheLf611owing' condit ions: ,; - y ' -:, ; , w� ,F}
'Y`' . fir: 6'+c 'E'i �..�..�7 x0 , .:t_ ,,. vs+�i ,aG ,. �,T^' 4.A.,,, ,,,,,-0.,yC,i .t F i t .j• -`» ,-
,gy •��¢y ye ,{}4 ii# GI R�/��4r,. y� T ' x:'+ fy9�.�•�
..•` r (p. i', 1F 1.4 tf! v.., 4,,,.f,; .?,r-- '.ti �._4�, tr .tY, ^' ts, � 1
I ,,� tl . ; A condo plan s-h'a;l l: be recorded prior toy occupancy , 6� ,•
�.;6......;‘,..,>., �„ ,; 2. � Roof�tr,uss plansshal l besubmittedfora �
s �Roof- r : -.:.. pprov.al prior °tor L
4.. a3 r ' ` , foundat'ion. -inspection. " `i ,1"11 .�..".44,_"-_,.:.rii ' ` ' .,,,..,..,.4.1.;.„,,,::;.,*' .,
f X' a�i_Y.7,; :.�'l } •'� �r�>Tr! JI C '� ... °� i+1•: i -1re spr nk1erzp an s_ for Ajunits 'sha1_1 .be- submitte1 for -��. �z , ,..
;44 a royal r,ior Ito ` nsta,ll In sunder round `aterpi"'�i for -- -
�` ;. � thenfiresprink�ler system, " t; � ;P P X9 {6 , -a,�:�•r , % ': .'q, :S`eparate permitsAbesecuredifor-the -m_aintenance storage-- '"" �r
- �: *. building and carp D is 45: � t. - y ° r '
��;♦ ,-•�^ �5. .Separate Termits are .requ,ired4or the-site :electrica1'" {•''x.k r /the, 'w`aterdistribution =_system from the meters#to'the kt`'-'"-- "`"
;:::,:,N.--•-...` .. sr. _ ...r t.'ti-. ♦-ma � �s. �Y•
.� << F w buildin` and the` retainin �� �~
9: z,.. tg walls andysound wwalls shown v
won ;the r mprovement plans• —The suing' oftthe,water a � ,-
� ;tl distribut1on`silt em ,.piping on' the improvement :plans,ris -.,,,-.,,,,:„::,,:::.,-. .-:-...,7=.�
r "f T ' not approved .and. the plans .for,retaining,wa11s -have not =
r mot- vs � '
-�� been +checked;11: �'ti E,f ..,,, K .,, .., �. -.
'�, a,-,.•.- -_ -- .a... .f. _c,.' x _-'-•- ,+`-c!'�, -:".♦ :�,'. ' -', 3.:4,,,7',. ..,:.,.!---..... •, j: ". ,-,', . .¢ _-
6. 'Pr=ior. to-.foundation 'inspections ?- rovide a declaration in y x°
r `tthe ,attached format yre lit ing to :the yinspection' of;tthe z a u
F ; ± •e •1 :' l,.r{.%,4.,4 , �-•: - E :t4-y.':..- . t.: y` -4 ,&•s.. ra h _
grading 4.. . ;: L, -.;;;� .1,1K.., ," " . �';-� r- t -
7. ° Special ,Inspection is required for the post t ne sion �= - r,
-'..'1`..-S labs --r ' `�
i ,"" • .a,..T.........,..,,,,,-...:::::::-.4_,,-.:F ., -.�E� ♦ y i � 4 � ��4� . .
}; � '•..46 . :.: :"4--".'2::, -, , 4
7'The following are my 'comments =regarding the landscape plans.
ll-
1 . "_ In "detail 4/1.-22; design.the :retaining':wal i and indicate ,.
" .the :reinforcing steel . _ -.z
2. 77.•':Indicate that all .: wood fence. posts, -_l fight standards,
-that are embeded `in . the ground or in concrete are
pressure ated.:. Dipping in creosote • is -not acceptable:
•
: Indicate . that Wood used for.;retaining walls -is '-pressure _,
• . °treated.. ..
-. 3. ''•.Revise . bridge guard :rails to :conform-to Section .1711. __-i'
.4. •. •.The 4x8 ,girders• .for. the bridge 'are •not-adequate. -Provide
-design :calculations;.for:.bridge deck kand :"abutments:
. ,;.Minimum required--steel :_:in -.abutment Yis 44-, 10".;aeach =way.
5. Provide -;design details for retaining wall 7at2=storage -
.:building. '--_ .Y *� � ;
' 6. Provide .structural details of. the- sound .wall. � A _
a a '.. ` t l 'fe y;i ' 46,X,it r, c-,.l s , 1 9-.*-- 01%� 'ir w t1, 7;,rt,5 a ad Qrt er , s !r, r r4t > tir t ,�. ,
� '.:1‘-`4''''`;:f tY •, .,'%‘...'',,,,.1.177?-.:5:0,e y �-s tr S •,.y�� �h YS•! $�` � ti �'�a •
rte -al - t Y6 s*.,,, ,;,_,. ,;,-,.1 ..A'ir'f{•\y'Y•t_•v-r N L *4 y4 ^y :4-1; .4-- R,k{ , a,
, , la t...1x.6 ^+' .. '•tY. t4 •�v..i.....M/. .1 Ju1�} T .14: Y'y•
few
V4
J. H. KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS•MATERIALS TESTING
4750 NORRIS CANYON RD.
SAN RAMON,CA 94583
(415)866-8378
August 25, 1987
File: 11-1548-05
Mr. Vic Taugher
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBJECT: VILLAGE TWO GRADING
WILLOW CREEK
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Dear Vic:
After our conversation this morning, I checked our technician log
and Rafanelli and Nahas' record of work performed at Village Two
of Willow Creek. According to the owner, the pads were stripped
on June 2, 1987 and filling began on the same day. It continued
from June 4 through 6, when the pads were completed. According
to Mr. Roy Gillette with Rafanelli and Nahas, the amount of
filling varied from about 6 to 18 inches.
Our records show that we had a technician at the site on June 2
to observe stripping operation and the filling that occurred that
day. We did not observe filling from June 4 through 6, 1987.
However, our density test results on June 17, 1987, indicate that
the filling was completed satisfactorily. In our opinion, the
work completed are in accordance with the intent of our
recommendations.
As I had indicated to you in our conversation, our major concern
at this site is actually to reestablish pad moistures. We have
been working very closely with the contractor and the owner in
the past few weeks to water the pads and to test for water
penetration. Several of these pads are now ready to be placed,
and it has been recommended to the contractor that the pads not
be allowed to dry out prior to concrete placement. For this
reason, we ask that this project be given your favorable review
now to lessen the time that the pads are exposed to drying. We
apologize for any inconvenience that our not being on site
between June 4 and 6 may have caused you in this review process.
I hope that this letter clarifies for you the status on Village
Two. Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
J. H. KLEINFELDER & ASSO,•� sroMq�
tUel.G{ '
Terence K. Wang, P.E. No. 041362 . .
Senior Engine(
TKW3.8/jo
cc: Mr. Roy Gillette, Rafanelli & Nahas
EXHIBIT
_ _
4 i ,
t-
KLEINFELDER
September 2, 1987
File: 11-1548-05
Mr. Vic Taugher
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: VILLAGE TWO GRADING
LOT NUMBERS 1, 4, 6, 12 & 22
WILLOW CREEK SUBDIVISION
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this correspondence is to address the adequacy of
the engineered fill placed during regrading of Lot Numbers 1, 4,
6, 12 and 22 of the above-referenced project.
These lots were initially graded and tested during mass-grading
for the entire project. Subsequently it was decided to alter the
pad elevations by cuts up to 2 feet and fills up to 1.5 feet.
The initial phase of regrading included stripping the site of
vegetative growth and scarifying, moisture conditioning and
recompacting the existing subgrade soils on those lots which
received additional fill. Pads that had the elevation lowered
were stripped and cut to final elevation (ie. , no new fill was
placed on these lots) .
Kleinfelder technicians and engineers observed this process of
stripping and scarifying the surface of the existing engineered
fill. Subsequently additional engineered fill was placed on Lot
Numbers 4 (1.2 feet) , 12 (1.5 feet) and 22 (1.0 feet) . Our
technicians were not at the site during the placement of this
fill. However, density testing after completion of the regrading
has indicated the fill was placed in conformance with the plans
and specifications and intent of the recommendations for fill
placement in our Geotechnical Investigation report.
Density testing accomplished after fill placement only tested
approximately the upper 12 inches of the new fill (by virtue of
the limited length of the nuclear density probe) . Therefore, in
EXHIBIT ;
, , rT
•
Mr. Vic Taugher
September 2, 1987
File: 11-1548-01
Page 2
•
reality there was between 0.2 and 0.5 feet of untested fill on
Lot Numbers 4, 12 and 22. Furthermore, there were 2 density
tests, one each on Lot Numbers 1 and 6, which were 89 percent
(project specifications call for 90 percent compaction) .
After discussions at the site on August 26, 1987, between the
owner, the city, the contractor and ourselves, it was decided to
retest the 5 lot numbers listed above. Lot numbers 1 and 6 would
have the surface retested due to the subspec test values. Lot
numbers 4, 12 and 22 would be retested in a manner to allow
testing of the bottom untested layer of the new engineered fill.
This would be accomplished by removing between 0.5 and 0.7 feet
of soil at the intended test locations on these lots.
The test results are presented in the attached Table. All tests
were accomplished with a nuclear moisture/density gauge. The
test results indicate that all fill materials tested meet the
requirements of the project plans and specification and the soil
report.
It should also be noted that the subcontractor responsible for
placing this fill has consistently provided excellent service and
final product. Indications from field personnel are that this
subcontractor has cooperated and performed the various tasks in
the regrading process as well as could be expected of any
earthwork contractor. This is consistent with the passing test
results achieved on all pads even though a technician was not •
"looking over his shoulder" at all times.
It is our professional opinion that the fill materials placed
during regrading of these lots was placed and compacted in
conformance with the plans and specifications and will perform as
intended in the project design. We would unreservedly ask that
the contractor be allowed to proceed with construction in these
locations.
Typically in this area thin fills are not a concern due to lack
of compaction of the soil. The problems which arise are usually
related to shrink-swell cycles of the expansive soils present.
This is being addressed at this time by sprinkling of the lots
and testing for moisture content of the soils prior to placement
of the concrete.
Basically, as the Geotechnical Engineers of record, we are wholly
unconcerned about the 0.5 to 1.5 feet of additional fill placed
Mr. Vic Taugher
September 2, 1987
File: 11-1548-01
Page 3
on these lots. It will perform its intended purpose and lack of
observation during placement will not create problems for these
structures.
If you require additional information or have any questions,
please call at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
RLEINFELDER
William F. Galli
Engineering Manager
WFG/moms9-9
cc: Mr. Roy Gillette; Rafanelli & Nahas
Mr. Ron Nahas; Rafanelli & Nahas
Attachments
7......-,_ ---
r
t e
•
1. H. KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS t
Depth from Dry Laboratory Specified
Test Finished Moisture Donsity Compaction Relative
No. Dote Tact Location Subrlrode D,y Wt. P.C.F. Curve No. C mpac
Compaction Companion
ADDITIONAL DENSITY
TESTING FOR DUBLIN
1 8/26/87 PAD #6, EAST 0 10 112 1 90 90
SIDE
2 II # 90 90
PAD 6, 0 9 � 113 1
SOUTH SIDE
3 " PAD #1, WEST 0 10 115 1 92 90
SIDE .
4 II PAD #1, 0 8 117 1 93 90
CENTER
5 " PAD #4, 0 11 114 2 94 90
SOUTH SIDE
6 " PAD #4, WEST 0 11 110 2
SIDE 92 90
7 " #
PAD 22, 0 11 113 2 94 90
SOUTH END
r
8 II PAD 90
PAD #22, 0 10 111 2
WEST END
II 9 PAD #12, 0 15 108 2 90 90
NORTH END
10 II PAD #12, 0 9 110 2 91
EAST SIDE 90
Accepted engineering and tesfin ,
q preeeduns wen used for these huts. TM above data is presented for in•
formation purposes only. In the abs I continuous observations of our
slipress an opinion as to the ad• uac of site Personnel at the site, de can not
4 Y preparation or overall till compaction. We do nor undertake Me
guarantee of construction, nor do we relieve the contractor of his primary responsibility s., ..r..w..._ -
s a Via..i'.. .. '.' E:.,r'?i+.pc:A^>k,., a:..:'.y a.xF w r3-N aa tsT fi-:x§.1P. F rm.,in< i.. .._.v.x ..✓...n. .... .r,.s a...e..x wrw=-_a.c. r.x„x snzn..+,m..�._w—.aov...< ..r.a_y -......,...—...... ...._..
•
RESOLUTION NO. -87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 22.12(c) OF ORDINANCE 02-84
WHEREAS, Section 22.12(c) of Ordinance 02-84 requires that when
fill is used to support a structure the placement of the fill shall be
continuously inspected by a special inspector; and
WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas, 20211 Patio Drive, Suite 216,
Castro Valley, CA 94546, has applied for a variance to Section 22.12(c) in
connection with the fills placed on building pad numbers 4, 6, 8, 12, & 22 in
the Alamo Creek Village II project; and
WHEREAS, J. H. Kleinfelder, the soil engineer for the project,
has provided a professional engineering opinion that the fill was properly
placed and compacted and will perform as intended in the project design; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that granting the variance would
not lessen the protection to the people of the City of Dublin and property
situated therein, and that the granting of the variance is consistent with the
purpose of Ordinance 02-84.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
grant said variance.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST: E 6\16,4 -7
City Clerk