Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.3 DublinMeadowsRpt (2) . . CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 27, 1992 SUBJECT: Dublin Meadows Status Report Report by: Victor Taugher, Building Official EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Photos of site taken January 24, 1992 1) Hear Staff Presentation on Status of Project & Direct Building Official to Monitor Progress of Construction RECOMMENDATION~~ FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No additional costs as long as construction continues. DESCRIPTION: At the city Council meeting on December 9, 1991, the City council heard complaints from the Heritage Commons Homeowners Association regarding the conditions at the Dublin Meadows project. The Building Official reported on the status of the project and the options available to the City to abate the conditions at the site. The city Council set a public hearing to consider abatement on January 27, 1992. On December 30, 1991, Far West Savings with the approval of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) recorded a loan to provide additional funds to complete the project. On January 6, 1992, Far West Savings verbally confirmed that the loan has been recorded and there are sufficient funds to complete the project. Co~struction has recommenced. The broken windows, and doors have been replaced and carpets are being installed in building #16, #17, #18 & #19 (closest to Heritage Commons). The areas around these buildings have been cleared and are being rough graded in preparation for landscaping. The lumber on the site is being regraded, the usable lumber is being restacked and the unusable lumber is being loaded into dumpsters. The roof trusses have been inspected by an engineer from the truss supplier and they are either being repaired or discarded into the dumpsters. Framing the first story walls has begun on the four buildings in the central area between the two bridges. In view of the activity, the buildings can no longer be considered abandoned and therefore may not be abated as dangerous buildings. Similarly, it is permissible to have lumber and construction debris on a construction site. Therefore, the site can no longer be considered a hazardous premises under the Housing Code. Thus, there are no violations and there is no reason to conduct the abatement hearing which was scheduled for today (January 27, 1992). However, the Building Official should monitor the progress of the construction and if construction ceases the Building Official should take any action necessary to prevent a repeat of the conditions that resulted in the City Council Hearing of December 9, 1991. ---------~~---------------------------------------------~--------- ITEM NO.'~ COPIES TO: JL Constr~ction Heritage Commons Homeowners Assn CITY CLERK FILE tj. 1/.0 ~Ilf () '3 ,,-< r-t CA-\ l'1W ~ HENRY JUSTINIANO & ASSOCIATES SOILS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING project No. J-IOI-03 February 7, 1992 project Managers JL Construction Company Dublin Meadows Subdivision Dublin, California P r.: ,,", "" -'YEO' FES 7 1992 r:!"r\,..... ... ')1 !'11JJ\f Gentlemen: Our letter dated January 24, 1992, addressed to the Public Works Department of the City of Dublin, of which we provided a copy to your firm, generated a response letter from your legal department. Your legal department apparently is not accurately informed of all the facts, and threatens to take legal action against this firm. We view this reaction as unnecessary, since our goal is to defend our image and the responsibilities attached to acting as engineer of record. To better inform your legal department of what the issues and consequences really are, we have prepared this document that is supported by photographic illustrations, with the hope that they will review the facts and come to realize that nobody could have relied upon our reports to render the project pavement complete, since they do not exist, and the project is not completely paved. Their reference to the project's progress as "orderly construction" is, in our opinion, drastically inaccurate. This firm takes pride in the professional service that it offers. We resent your suggestion that we are trying to extort money from you. We recommended that our firm be retained to assist your new Boils engineers in becoming fully acquainted with the project, with the intent of maintaining the quality level for which we have all worked so hard. In addition, this could save them a 1 122X-/\ QUARRY LANE. PLEASANTON. CA 945hh (4151 4ri2-5h20. FAX (41.';) 462-92H9 significant amount of research and thus save you money. We have no problem if you do not wish to use our services for this purpose. The "Railroad and Island" phases of your project were not completed as of the date of issue of our last report. In reference to paving of these two phases, some areas were informally identified as ready for paving, even though the entire final grade was not. Our field representative provided informal daily reports describing the construction activity. In the final days of subgrade preparations, these daily reports describe the "Railroad Phase" as having ~ areas with properly compacted aggregate baserock, but with deficiencies due to uncompacted trench excavation, in the same areas. Furthermore, our records document approximately 25% of the proposed pavement areas as having either failed field compaction standards, or not tested at all. For these obvious reasons, there was never any documentation released by this office, describing the "Railroad Phase" as ready to receive the asphaltic pavement improvements. The "Island Phase" received only an informal approval for pavement. In addition, subsequent to the paving, construction activity that adversely affected the quality of the pavement, Le. trenching for utility adjustments, pier hole excavations, etc., continued. The period of abandonment of the improvements, including two winters and a summer, may have adversely affected even the completed improvements, which, in our opinion, were left vulnerable to degradation, particularly the paved areas.. . certainly not worthy of certification as completed. This office did not, and has not, inspected the repair of these areas. It must be emphasized that significant portions of the street areas were not ready for pavement during our inspection period and remained so over a year later. Therefore, this office h~s not and cannot at this time, certify that the entire subgrade was suitable for pavement. Your "Geologist", who now provides you with "Soil Engineering Services" should not be able to certify work which was not performed under his direct 2 HENRY JUSTINIANO & ASSOCIATES ....OJ! <.., \'\Jf) I (ll 'f\,'[),\llil:\ ['Mi!!\.I.l:J.:INCi Project No. J-IOI-03 February 7, 1992 supervision. Hence, if you proceed with additional paving and landscaping operations, to complete the project, you will undoubtedly seek final certificate of occupancy from the City. If, at that time, the City officials require the proper certification from your "Soil Engineer of Record" prior to issuance of the certificate, a problem may arise, since it would be difficult for Bay Soils to submit a complete report, and thus certify the project, since he only observed a slight portion of the work, and the majority remains buried. Based upon this assumption, it is conceivable that your company will need our support, and you can be sure that many items would have to be removed or dismantled to allow for our detailed evaluation. This will no doubt cause a chaotic situation, and unnecessary loss. In all, there is too much at stake; therefore we must take a responsible position, and inform all parties concerned. As this letter and its' contents will support, we have no alternative but to make it absolutely clear to everyone, that we will not assume any responsibility for future problems, regardless of whether we have been paid for our services or not, unless, of course, we are allowed to investigate and evaluate certain areas of concern, and properly inform the new soils engineer. As mentioned in our previous letter, we believe that there is debris, undocumented/untested fill and utility trench backfill, under paved areas. There are several large areas that have not been paved as of this date, and there was a great number of unprotected potholes, manhole covers, and pier excavations extending to depths of 5 feet, with some exhibiting collected water near the paved surface. In addition, no regard has been given to the drainage provisions recommended by this office and designated by the plans, over two winter periods. Foundations were left undermined by vertical cuts, water ponding adjacent to them, particularly where utility trenches entered underneath the slab 3 IIENRY JUSTINIANO & ASSOCIATES <..,c 1I1.'-, .\"'1) H )l'~I):\ll(}"-II.:'\j(d\JI-I.I~IN(, foundations. While the accompanying illustrations will certainly support the aforementioned deJiciencies, they are only intended to represent the conditions during the period of abandonment of the project, so that the reader will have a sense for the severity of the problem and our reason for concern. They are not accurate, however, in describing the extent of deficiencies, since these are too numerous and many are buried, making it impossible to show. As responsible engineers, we only wish to assist you in accomplishing a properly completed project, to save money, and to obtain a true final certificate from the city. We suggest that we begin immediately, to avoid drastic problems. Unfortunately, while it may cause confusion as to our goals, we would appreciate payment of our invoices in full, but this issue clearly remains secondary, since the amount owed is insignificant, relative to the value of potential damages. .-'---<::::", ~ --'~ Justiniano, P.E. cc: City of Dublin V. Taugher, Bldg. Official (1) L. Thompson, Public Works Dir. (1) 4 HENRY JUSTINIANO & ASSOCIATES '/HI.'-,:\ \1> H )1'~I).\n()~ rl\ill....T.F..RIV, ~ J ~ ....'''~ -- ~ HllTJlllIllJlJ . ....~....:.:. ~'II.::, ~ }., .). ~ '. ~. ....~. ..~ .,. Large unpaved street section (as of January 1992) . ~ii;;i.~~L :*'o.i.;",..", .......~......:. .-''''.'.,::i','';t. ~!;:;j:~i-~%F\ '-:"::'-", :i;.i:{; .. " )\::\~. ..:.;:" ~'~:,:~';:..',,:: ~:. ,,' -~ "\:"::.:" .. -.".:..: .:.:.~-:.:.:. ::::::/?f~;; ....,~. '" ManhleOalve.lnCgover~'C#C'~6:f::l'~II.I.I.~.! :";:,"::::;',' "~ additional ?' ~ ~:: ~:-:-::::,:~: ......',., '''4f - ""':11 ~:->~': ?\~. ......::f}~ Retaining wall with no struc- tural value adjacent to undermined foundation. In violation of project speci- fications.' Large utility boxes in depression. The lack of ponded wa- ter suggests infiltration into uitility trenches. Pier holes for lightpost and car- port sup- port. Typically these were ap- . proxI- mately 5 feet deep --,;$'" .~.; & Pothole from util- :;,;, ::::::' ity trench ~:::i: fu II of debris ::~~~ ~~: ~~.l~i "::'):::::":/.,,';':: .'/-:.:;:.;...:. "~':ii: '. . *1lh rv ...." r" ~""-,,><,HN Pothole showing ~~~:~:ks~:e ~";'::;....;'~{~~~~1~~0!;~: Ponded water ad- jacentto founda- tions Undermined foun- dations '*: '.. " '.' '...,><....u:" ::~:\~:;:.~:~:~:~ :":."~ ~-,?'1"/ \ ,,,-.,,_..,-,. . ," ~,-, , . t)l~}~l . M-...:..;':;..:~--:~",:......_.:;_~.;;,~: ,: ,.: ~"..:,.. ,.:t .~ 1A.;I~ Erosion gullies resulting from downspout discharge in uncon- trolled manner :i' ! "~ Erosion gullies have undermined foundations. This is critical in corner areas that project outward. .. }~ ..:::..::::;}::;:.;; "'::::;';'.' :':'..:: \',',','.' .-:"':'. ': ,.;:' ,:' :':"~'::. L~:';:.<. ....:......~. ......' ...... III!. "', .,'."......:..,*..:,.: .' ." .::::~~: '. Open trenches adjacent to sidewalks have col- lected surface water over two winters .,~ ?>:\.,>~~ ...... ._,... ....... ..." ':.~~,~~;~:::~'" . ./" ~... ..xW~...\.;\;;: , '.",. '!::;i\; . .:", .~;t.~;, '* ,.":~..,:~ it::~~~~~. ." ..~,. ;.:.. :\.