HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.4 Variance Heritage Commons Phase I CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT 450 , 0
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 13, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for Variance to Section 2903 (c ) of the Building
Code
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 . January 18, 1984 letter from Heritage Auxiliary
Builders .
2 . September 28, 1982 letter from Harding Lawson
Associates to Heritage Auxiliary Builders .
3 . January 18, 1984 letter from Harding Lawson
Associates to Heritage Auxiliary Builders .
4 . Section 2903 (c ) of the Building Code .
5 . Draft Resolution Granting Variance .
RECOMMENDATION: The Variance be granted subject to the condition that
a hold harmless, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, be executed and recorded which would hold
the City, its officers and contractors harmless from
any damages that may occur as the result of the granting
of this Variance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There would be no additional revenues or expenses.
DESCRIPTION: Section 2903 (c) of the Alameda County Building Code as
adopted by the City of Dublin, and the Dublin Building Code adopted by
Ordinance 02-84 requires that when fill is to be used to support a
building, the fill shall be continuously inspected.
This project is the Heritage Commons Development
located at Stagecoach Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. According to the
soil engineers report, fill was placed between July 28, 1982 and August
26, 1982, and the inspection of the placement of the fill was on an
intermittent basis .
The grading in the project is essentially completed.
--Most of the western portion of the site is in cut, or has very shallow
fill . The maximum depth of fill is about 10 on the eastern= portion of
the site. Applications for building permits are now pending. The
alternatives are to remove the fill and recompact, or to extend the
foundation piers through the fill and extend them into the natural ground
a sufficient depth to support the loads . This approach virtually ignores
the capability of the fill to support loads .
The requirement of continuous inspection is to assure
that:
1 . The materials used for the fill are suitable.
2 . The fill is properly compacted. '
'3 . The site was properly prepared,! prior to placement of the fill.
4 . Conditions encountered are as anticipated in the soil invest-
igation report, and when unanticipated conditions occur, proper _
steps are taken to address these problems . _
5 . Subdrains are properly installed in natural drainage swales, and
when excessive moisture conditions are encountered.
6 . That buttress fills are properly keyed into the natural ground.
7 . That fills are keyed in the slopes on hillside developments .
The following apply to this specific site:
1 . The materials used in the fill were the natural, on site, soils.
There was no imported materials.
2 . Compaction of fill can be reasonably verified through tests
taken at random locations and depths .
3 . The soil engineers indicate that the site was properly prepared
by stripping the upper 2 to 3 inches of topsoil, scarifing the
soil to a depth of six inches and compacted to 90 percent
relative compaction.
Items 4 , 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to this site because
the site is relatively flat with no drainage swales running through the
graded area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Heritage Auxiliary
Builders
Harding Lawson Assoc.
The soil engineer, Harding Lawson Associates, has
provided the following statement :
"On the basis of our observations and tests, we conclude that
the grading has been completed satisfactorily and in accordance
with the project plans and specifications . Our tests indicate
that the fills have been compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction. In our opinion, the fill will provide
adequate support for the planned structures . "
In order to grant a Variance, the City Council must
find that the Variance is consistant with the intent of the Code and
that granting the Variance will not lessen the protection to the people
of the City of Dublin and to the property situated therein.
In view of the specific conditions applicable to this
site, it is the opinion of the Building Official the granting of this
Variance will be consistent with the purpose of the code, and will not
lessen the protection to people or property.
r'
!a
s
a• .
a,
HERITAGE
AUXILIARY January 18, 1984
BUILDERS
Mr. Victor Taugher
City of Dublin.
6500 Dublin Blvd. ,
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Regarding: Heritage Commons, Phase I
Amador Valley Blvd. , and Stagecoach Road
Dear Mr. Taugher:
Enclosed please find a copy of original grading
permit with County of Alameda, final geological
report on grading dated September 28, 1982 along
with cover letter to County of Alameda in regards
to finalizing grading. Also, enclosed is supple-
mental report dated January 18, 1984 we requested
from Harding Lawson Associates.
Hope this will ease your concern and if you feel
you cannot make this decision without reservations,
please make arrangements for this to be an item on
agenda for January 23, 1984 before the City Council.
Very truly yours,
HERITAGE AUXILIARY BUILDERS
Allen Steen
President
AS/bb
encl:
%its
M n
egg .
o PNIg
222 SEVENTH STREET
SAN FRANCISCO pF�
CALIFORNIA 94103 .0�r\SQ� \ON
415/431-1074 �v`�p\No
COI Y OF ALAMEDA
PU�_.IC WORKS AGENCY
0
ALAMEDA CO1'N'Pl' FLOOD C0N7`IZOI. ,
AND
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
W
B
399 Elmhurst Street • Heyward, CA 94544-1395 • (415) 881-6470
GRADING PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. 67006
Permittee's Name H.A.B. Inc. Date August 3, 1932
Address 222 - 7th St. , San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone 431-1074_
Location of proposed work Amador Valley Boulevard @ Stagecoach Road Dublin. CA
Type of grading authorized: Fees:
Regular ELI Engineered Permit (29110002) $ 10.00
Investigation b 19,600.00
Quantity 24' �c90 Cu. Yds. Inspection (9600) $ XllO�QaQUQCX
The term of this permit shall not exceed Surety:
Cash (9580) $
120 days from date of issuance
Bond $ 19,610.00
QConcurrent with Tract Contract Total $ xvmam
❑ Other
Misc. Fees $
Record of payment:
$ /9, 6/U• °-D Received `��Z
�
Receipt No. � `Iu2 By
This permit is issued SUBJECT TO the terms and conditions of the Grading Ordinance (Ala-
meda County Ordinance Code, Title 7, Chapter 9 Ordinance No. 82-17) and to the applicat-
ion and the approved plans and specifications made a part hereof by reference.
The Grading Ordinance and the approved plans and specifications are by this reference in-
corporated in this permit as if set forth at length. No change of any nature in the app-
lication, the plans and specifications, or in the work to be performed thereunder, shall
be made unless such change shall have first been approved in writing by the Director of
Public Works and an amendment to this permit executed.
Agreed and Accepted:
`9ppl ic:ant
And it is further provided that this permit is issued subjpct to the Cite of nunlin's
adoption of the Alameda County Grading Ordinance No. 82-17
Final Geotechnical Q YES NO Approved for Issuance
Report required X Directo of P ,lir:Works
Tract or Parcel Map No. 4950 By
Date
Applicants Copy
1
i
Harding Lawson Associates
September 28 , 1982
8424 ,002 .03
Heritage Auxilary Builders
2460 Vista Del Monte
Concord, California 94520
Attention: Mr. James Crumpler
Gentlemen:
Progress Report
Soil Engineering Services
Heritage Commons , Phase I
Dublin, California
This report summarizes the soil engineering services we
provided during site grading for Heritage Commons , Phase I ,
Dublin, California. The grading was performed during the
period July 28 and August 26 , 1982 . Recommendations con-
tained in a report by Bay Soils , Incorporated dated
January 13 , 1981 and the project plans and specifications
.:by Kinney Engineering , Incorporated were the guidelines
for the work.
Areas to be graded were stripped of surface vegetation and
the upper 2 to 3 inches of topsoil. The exposed soil was
scarified .to a depth of 6 inches , moisture conditioned, and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction* . Fill
materials were placed in layers 6 to 8 inches in loose thick-
ness , moisture conditioned and similarly compacted.
Representative samples of the fill material were compacted
in our laboratory in accordance with the ASTM D1557-78
compaction test procedure to determine optimum moisture
content and maximum dry density . Supplemental compaction
tests were also performed in the field to verify the maximum
dry density and check for material variation.
* Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of
soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density
of the same material, determined by the ASTM D1557-78
laboratory test procedure .
Engineers 2430 Stanwell Dr. Telephone Alaska Hawaii Texas
Geologists& Suite 110 415/687-9660 California Illinois Washington
Geophysicists Concord,CA 94520 Colorado Nevada Saudi Arabia
Harding Lawson Associates
September 28 , 1982
8424 ,002 . 03
Mr. James Crumpler
Heritage Auxilary Builders
Page 2
Our technician was on the site intermittently during site
grading to observe the earthwork construction methods and
perform field density tests in compacted fill to evaluate
relative compaction. When the required degree of compac-
tion was not achieved, the contractor was notified and the
area of low compaction was rerolled and retested until
satisfactory results were attained prior to placement of
additional fill . A summary of the field density tests
performed to date is presented on Plates 1 and 2 .
On the basis of our observations and tests , we conclude that
the grading has been completed satisfactorily and in accor-
dance with the project plans and specifications . Our tests
indicate that the fills have been compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction. In our opinion, the fill will
provide adequate support for the planned structures .
We trust this provides the information required at this
time. If you have questions , please call.
Yours very truly,
HAARDI'NG' �LAWSSOON ASSOCIATES
CSC 'J
Cecil B. Wood
Civil Engineer - 18671
CBW/md
3 copies submitted
Attachments - Plate 1 and 2
aD
u-
�= o
O C
u
Q-
r
C
C V a O
O '%A
Location �, C `� a� U Remarks
a E z' ' o
`+ O a d O
w :2 V
~ (1) SOUTH EAST (2) (3) 4
1 40 345 352. 817 . 2 109 119 92
2 55 450 352. 517 . 7 110 119 92
3 90 350 353.0 17 . 3 110 119 92
4 105 450 353.0 17 .6 109 119 92
5 185 300 355 . 214 . 5 114 119 96
6 190 420 355 . 116 . 9 110 119 92
7 120 295 356 . 518 .0 109 118 92
8 130 380 357 .016 .9 110 118 93
9 155 475 356 .0 16 . 2 110 119 92
10 230 483 357. 1 15 .5 110 119 92
11 40 295 359 .0 18 . 4 109 118 92
12 45 360 359 . 013. 7 109 118 95
13 50 430 359 .0 16 . 4 112 119 94
14 63 490 359 .0 15 .5 112 119 94
15 130 500 357 .5 15 . 8 111 119 93
16 245 510 357 .5 6 . 5 111 119 93
17 135 420 358. 8 13 .4 109 118 92
18 255 440 352 . 3 15.. 0 107 118 91
19 180 365 359 ..5 L41.6 110 118 93
20S 350 280 352 .0 12. 7 106 119 89 Recompacted
Harding Lawson Assoclatss SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST DATA PLATE
Engineers,Geologists HERITAGE AUXILARY BUILDERS
&Geophysicists HERITAGE COMMONS, PHASE I
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN JOB NUMBER APZED DATE REVISED DATE
and 8424 ,002 . 03 9/28/82
00
LL
0-
0
v
C
a a) u
4 C o_
v [
C 11 i u a
n_
Location ° c a Remarks
E J� > o
a-
v v •° a a[ ta
i xi o
~ (1) SOUTH EAST (2) w (3) (4) V
.21S 390 320 353. 3 12 . 4 109 119 92
22S 395 380 354 . 510 . 7 99 118 84 Retested - See
Test No. 25S
23S 370 470 356 .014 . 8 96 118 81 Retested - See
Test No. 26S
245 275 475 356 . 511.0 111 118 94
25S 395 380 354 .5 9 . 1 104 118 88 Recompacted
26S 370 470 356 .0 10 . 7 117 118 99
(1) Suffix: S - Denotes Subgrade tests
(2) Origin of Coordinates : Northwest property corner
. ( 3) Elevation Datum: As shown on Mass Grading Plan by
Kinney Engineering, Inc. , undated
(4) Maximum Dry Density established in our laboratory in accordance'
with the ASTM D1557-78 compaction test method.
Harding Lawson Associates SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST DATA PLATE
Engineers,Geologists HERITAGE AUXILARY BUILDERS
&Geophysicists HERITAGE COMMONS, PHASE I 2
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN JOB NUMBER APPR VED DATE REVISED DATE
and 8424 ,002 03 9/28/82
Harding Lawson Associates
January 18, 1984
8424, 002.03
Heritage Auxilary Builders
2460 Vista Del Monte
Concord, California 94520
Attention : Mr. Al Steen
Gentlemen:
Supplemental Report
Soil Engineering Services
Heritage Commons , Phase I
Dublin, California
At your request, we are providing supplemental comments
regarding our soil engineering services during site
grading for Heritage Commons, Phase I, Dublin, California.
The grading was performed during the period between
July 28 and August 26, 1982. Recommendations contained in
a report by Bay Soils, Incorporated dated January 13, 1981
and the project plans and specifications by Kinney
Engineering, Incorporated were the guidelines for the
work. Our progress report, dated September 28, 1982,
presented a summary of our observations during Phase I
grading as well as results of field density testing.
In December of 1983 , we were informed that building permits
would not be issued for the project because of grading
permit requirements for full-time inspection. As stated
in our confirming proposal to you dated July 27, 1982, our
field services were to be performed on an intermittent
basis, which is normal for most grading projects of this
magnitude. We do provide full-time inspection when
requested or when project conditions dictate. Conditions
requiring full-time inspection include most hillside
developments or those sites where subdrains, buttress
fills, or keyways are specified . None of the conditions
were present at the Heritage Commons site which required
full-time inspection. The site is generally level with
one swale running through the east portion of the site.
We were present at the site, as much as we thought
necessary, to observe and test the grading operations and
our report of September 28, 1982 stated that -
Engineers 2430 Stanwell Dr, Telephone Alaska Hawaii Texas
Geologists& Suite 110 415/687-9660 California Nevada Washington
Geophysicists Concord,CA 94520
January 18, 1984
8424, 002 .03 Harding Lawson Associates
Mr . Al Steen
Heritage Auxilary Builders
Page 2
On the basis of our observations and tests, we
conclude that the grading has been completed
satisfactorily and in accordance with the project
plans and specifications . Our tests indicate that
the fills have been compacted to at least
90 percent relative compaction. In our opinion,
the fill will provide adequate support for the
planned structures . "
It is still our opinion that the grading has been
completed satisfactorily and in accordance with the project
plans and specifications .
We trust this provides the information required at this
time . If you have questions , please call.
Yours very truly,
HARDING LAWSONN ASSOCIATES
Cecil B. Wood
Civil Engineer - 18671
RDP/CBW/ss
3 copies submitted
For Group R, Division 1 Occupancies with a Group B, Division 1 parking garage in the basement or first
floor, see Section 702(a).
For attic space partitions and draft stops, see Section 2516(f).
Section 22.9 Section 1204, Chapter 12, Part ill: Exit Facilities on page 90 is amended by adding a new
paragraph at the end of the Section to read:
to 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.
f
EXCEPTION: Fills supporting slabs where expansive soils are present may be compacted as recommended
in the soil and geologic investigation reports.
Fills or other surcharge loads shall not be placed adjacent to any building or structure unless such
building or structure is capable of withstanding the additional loads caused by such fill or surcharge.
(d) Existing Fill. Any fill which exceeds 5 feet in depth on slopes which exceed ten (10) percent and all
fills which will be used to support the foundation of any building or structure which existed on August 1,
1974, and which was placed in conformance with the Alameda County Ordinance 950 N.S. effective October 1,
1965, need not have continuous inspection. All other fills which exceed 5 feet in depth on slopes which
exceed ten (10) percent and all fills which will be used to support the foundation of any building or
structure, which existed on August 1, 1974, shall be altered or completely removed and replaced so as to
conform to Section 2903(c).
Any fill placed after August 1, 1974 which exceeds 5 feet in depth on slopes which exceed ten (10) percent
or which will be used to support the foundation of any building or structure without continuous inspection
by a special inspector, shall be altered or completely removed and replaced so as to conform to Section
2903(c).
(e) Erosion Control. The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against
erosion. This control may consist of effective planting. The protection of the slopes shall be installed
as soon as practicable and prior to calling for final inspection and approval. Approval of occupancy may
be withheld by the Building Official until such protection has been installed. Where cut slopes are not
subject to erosion due to the erosion resistant character of the materials, such protection may be
omitted.
(f) Setback. Unless otherwise recommended in a soil and geologic investigation report set forth in
Section 2903, Table 70-C on page 736 shall be used for establishing setbacks for buildings and structures
other than fences and retaining walls from the top or toe of permanent cut or fill slopes.
(g) Protection of Adjoining Property. The rights of coterminous owners shall be as set forth in Section
832 of the Civil Code of the State of California.
Section 22.13 Section 2905, Chapter 29, Part Vi: Foundation Investigation. Section 2905 on pages 514 and
515 is amended to read:
Section 2905 Soil and Geologic Investigation.
(a) When Required. A soil and/or geologic investigation shall be required in the following circumstances.
1. For all A-1, A-2, A-2.1 and H-1 Occupancies. A soil investigation shall not be required for additions
to existing dwellings unless conditions cited in Items 2 through 11 exists.
EXCEPTION: A soil investigation shall not be required for M Occupancies.
2. When the allowable soil pressure used in the design of the foundation exceeds 2,000 psf.
3. When the building is proposed to be supported in fill.
4. When the slope of the natural ground within 30 feet of any building or structure exceeds twenty (20)
percent and the slope is more than 10 feet in height.
5. When a cut or a fill exceeding 5 feet in depth at any point either exists or is proposed and the slope
of the natural ground within 30 feet of the building or the cut or fill exceeds ten (10) percent and
the slope is more than 10 feet in height.
6. Where highly expansive or erodible soils are present unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the Building Official that the structure will not bear on such soils, or that the recommendations
of a soil engineer are suitable.
7. When required under Section 7100(c), Vehicular Access.
8. In any subdivision into five or more parcels as defined in Section 8-1.3 of the Alameda County
Ordinance Code as adopted by the City of Dublin which has been recorded after September 17, 1965.
Where highly expansive soils or other soil conditions are present within a subdivision, which if not
corrected would lead to structural defects, a soil and/or geologic investigation report shall be
required for each lot in the subdivision.
9. On a building site traversed or suspected to be traversed by a potentially active fault.
-22- . ' .'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-------------------------------------
GRANT VARIANCE REGARDING HERITAGE COMMONS PHASE I
WHEREAS, Heritage Auxiliary Builders, 222 Seventh Street, San
Francisco, California, 94103, has requested a Variance to Section 2903 (c )
of the Building Code, so as to waive the requirements for full time,
continuous inspection of the placement of the fill in the Heritage Commons
Development (TRACT 4950 ) ; and
WHEREAS, the placement of the fill was provided intermittent
inspection by Harding Lawson Associates ; and
WHEREAS, Harding Lawson and Associates states :
"On the basis of our observations and tests , we conclude
that the grading has been completed satisfactorily and
in accordance with the project plans and specifications .
Our tests indicate that the fills have been compacted to
at least 90 percent relative compaction . In our opinion,
the fill will provide adequate support for the planned
structures . "
WHEREAS, this specific site is relatively flat and the maximum
depth of the fill is approximately ten feet; and
WHEREAS, this City Council finds that granting the Variance is
consistant with the intent of the code, and it will not lessen the protection
to the people of the City of Dublin and the property situated therein;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Heritage Auxiliary Builders
are hereby granted a Variance to Section 2903 (c ) of the Building Code
subject to the condition that owners of said property execute and record
a hold harmless agreement, holding the City of Dublin, its officers,
employees and contractors harmless from any damages that may result from
the granting of this Variance . The form as said hold harmless agreement
shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
.'t
City Clerk