April 5, 2022
1 Item #9 — 22-109
~ ,P~,~P
c~ARq.~\'~g ~,~~ . q~io~ ~ ~ ~ .,
~ ~ri~ °o1 ti
M~ssioN ~%
City Council
Meeting
Item #9 — 22-109
Action on Written Petition
Regarding Responsibility of a
Sound Wall Adjacent to
Pruneridge Avenue in the
Laurel Park East
Neighborhood
April 5, 2022
Background
Latcrel Park East Neighborhood
• In the late 197o's, the City
approved a 131 single-family
residential development '~
• Corner of Pruneridge Avenue )~
and San Tomas Expressway T
• Approximately 2~ acres
• Property Development
Agreement ~ w
~- - ~,~„
~, ,~~ ~:_
i
Z_
I~O~~' Ii~I~~~r1~V~i nn~► r ~r~r~~
1 Communication &Written Petition
• Resident sent letters to the City on October 25 and November 8, 2021.
• City provided a response on November 15, 2021
—wall is on private property
—maintenance outlined in DA and is the responsibility of the property owners)
• Written petition received on November 15, 2021 and discussed at the December ~, 2o2i City Council meeting
• Council approved a motion to place an item on a future agenda 3 0
=~_ _ _
2 Current Photos
Development Agreement
• Developer responsible to construct the wall
• Wall constructed on the private ownership side of the property line
• Maintenance of the wall is responsibility of the property owner
• Property owner shall bear all costs and expense for the maintenance, repair and/or replacement of the wall on their property
5 Recommendation
Close the petition and take no further action which upholds the terms of the Property Development Agreement for
Tract 566 requiring the property owners to bear all costs and expense for the maintenance, repair and/or
replacement of the portion of the sound wall that is located on private property.
City Council
•~,~P CLgRq~ Meeting
c9 ~ Item #9 — 22-109
° ~~ ~~i ~ ~'~ Action on Written Petition
'_ ~ ~ ~ ? Regarding Responsibility of av ,,.~• '~ '~ a ~ _ _ ~ Sound Wall Adjacent to
,. - - y .~' Pruneridge Avenue in the~~yFM►ssioN ~ Laurel Park East ~' ~~ - _ _ __ - Neighborhood
~ ` April 5, 2022
- 4 '~
• • t
ants ara itou nci eeti n
Pru neri e Aven ue Sou n Wa
Time Slots Allocated for
Presentation (12 Mins):
-Jared Peters
- Cyndy Wieland
-Mini Khroad
- Steve N g
- Charlie Chen
April 5th, 2022
Jared Peters
-Susan Peters
Pru nerid e Aven ue Sound Wa I I -Back round ~ ~
• March 1976 —Santa Clara Director of Public Works mandates via Special Provision that the Developer construct a masonry noise abatement wall along Pruneridge Ave and San Tomas Expressway.
• Note -Adjacent San Tomas Woods development has wood fence along Pruneridge • Director of Public Works requires that the maintenance of said sound wall to be the responsibility of property owner and disclosed to the buyer via Declaration of Restrictions for Laurel Park East Development • Per the City mandate, an industrial style concrete sound wall was built on Lots 1, 47, 48 & 50 through 70.
• Of these lots, 12 lots border SC City Property and 12 lots border SC County Property
Santa Clara Count - On oin Maintenancey ~ ~
• On two separate occasions Santa Clara County has repaired/replaced damaged or collapsed sound wall sections on Pruneridge Ave without accessing financial responsibility to the property owner. • In 2018, five wall sections on Lots 58 & 59 were replaced by SCC. • The concrete wall sections that were replaced are located on "private property" Lots 58 & 59 (not on the County ROW).
• Lots 58 & 59 are included in the Santa Clara City mandated Declaration of Restrictions for Laurel Park East Development.
• Conversation with Santa Clara County Roadway Engineering Department • "Concrete sound walls are not something a home owner can maintain or replace, collapsed and dangerous walls are prioritized within our system"
Santa Clara County -Replaced Sound Wall Sections
Prunerid eAvenue— Li uid Amber Trees: ~ q
• March 1976—Santa Clara Director of Public Works requires the planting of Liquid Amber Trees (Quantity 24 Trees, 50 feet on Center) in the dedicated ROW, 3-feet from masonry noise abatement wall.
• Approximately 6-8 years ago, City of Santa Clara turns off the s rinkler irri anon s stem in the landsca ed dedicated ROW due to California drouht conditions. p g
• Multiple hedges, trees and bushes die off. Liquid Amber tree roots seeking water are found ruining multiple backyard lawns &patios of the abutting properties.
• In multiple locations the root systems of the established Liquid Amber trees are lifting and separating the concrete sound wall from the support pillars.
• In the specific case of 2623 Gamblin Drive where the sound wall has collapsed, the Homeowners Insurance Company refuses to cover the claim due to "the predominant cause of loss is tree roots"
Staf~Farrn~
Siaie Karm General Insurance Company
March 3, 2a22
2623 GAMBLIN DR
SANTPa CLAf~A, GA J5051
State Farm Insurance Companies
Fire Claims
PO BOX 106169
/~lar~a, GA 30346f169
Fax 8~W 236 3646
near
This leiie~r is inn fallow u~ io your claian fog dannac~~ to your home which accurred around March ~, 2021.
Mate Farm completed our investigation and evalu~aiion of your loss which included taBking with you and taking video and vwe deterrrnined your claim is nol covered ~y your policy. You slated Thai free on tf~e city side had ronis that had raised the concrete wall and caused a portion of it to fall. Durirng the video call we saw large roots coming from the grour~d near the fence and other e~nce aff center and raised due to they rools~, The predominant cause of loss is ~ tree roots.
Your policy provides coverage for accidental direct physical losses subject to losses not insured. Damage resu9ting from the presence of tree roots is not insured by your policy.
_~ ~ 1 ~ —
i
,,,~ ~~
_ _ ~~
'
Y
_ !e, , .~.
- _ = f~fi
-=- ~'-~-1 •,tea--='~ =..~ - -:. Y tU~
~ ,~ ~-
.~~ ~
J t v f.. ~,
~Y
S ri_ ." ~ ~ F '7 .~6~~
J ', -,i\ 4 . f =.~ c
~~r ~ _-
'-t- '~ ~ i
~ ~ { ~'~L
~ ` ~~'. - ~ '^~ ~v. ~~ ~ ~c.tm iii t:.t ::~. -
y _ ~y,~ ~- ~ -c
a~ ;~~,' ~:;.:' ~`'~~r :'y
~c~`~ ice - _,S ~ `
4' ~ ~_
t
I
1 _. ~ ~ l
~-~,~ _
... ~~ _.
~ _. -:-
\` _, `
~ ,
Prunerid e Avenue Sound Wall - Summar ~ y
• Municipal sound wall vs. residential maintained fence • This structure by its design is a part of the Pruneridge Avenue roadway infrastructure. It should be maintained by the City Street Department just as the County of Santa Clara does for its roadways.
• Original 1976 special provision mandated by the SC Director of Public Works was an "anomaly and not common practice".
• Similar developments built around the same time did not require concrete sound walls bordering residential properties on streets &avenues (i.e. San Tomas Woods, other side of the road, circa 1972)?
• Effects of the invasive Liquid Amber root system on the wall structure • Above all else, this is a DANGEROUS situation and needs a timely resolution.
~~ ~ i i `'
G . • " I '"~l' ✓ I ~~ 'Y ~ 1 ~ •~.
~~,- r
~~~~-,~
T_~,"~~yir"' r~'""' _. '~ .ii' w -. _ _._ ,._ - -' w _ Ri o-"..~ .`._._. ~ -_.. M^ -.c Ar►. ~5.`1'4fr, . j ~. 1
e ' ~ ~'
, ., . ~" ~
•- :,.~ ~ -
~ * ~ _ --
~~: -
:~;,-''~;
Pro osal:p
• Override Staff recommendation and pursue alternatives to fix the problem.
Option #1—The City of Santa Clara selectively replaces fallen/dangerous sections of the wall. Commits to annual maintenance of the invasive tree roots (or remove trees entirely).
• Option #2 —The City of SC removes wall entirely, cost shares (good neighbor) in the replacement of a wood fence that would be privately contracted by the 12 property owners.
• Internal Street Department resources to remove/dispose existing panels (lane closure) • 8-foot wood fence (RW/PT), no lattice, 4x6 posts, poured concrete footings • Approximately 857 Feet, estimated $55.00 to $60.00 per foot replacement cost