The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.3 Public Hearing 88-1SUBJECT: EXHIBITS ATTACHED: City Council Meeting Date: January 25, 1988 Public Hearing: San Ramon Road Soundwall and ~ador Valley Boulevard Fence Replacement (Masonry Walls) and East Side of San Ramon Road (Wood (1) (2) (3) Letter from Mr. Mohondro requesting gate on his property on Amador Valley Blvd. Details of proposed wooden soundwalls. The following exhibits will be available at the City Council meeting: (a) Plans and specifications for masonry walls. (b) Sample of wood soundwall. (c) Strip maps and slides of the proposed soundwalls. RECOMMENDATION: (1) 3) 4) (5) (6) (7) Open Public Hearing Receive Staff presentation and public testimony Question Staff and the public Close Public Hearing and deliberate Authorize Staff to advertise Contract 88-1 for bids (masonry soundwall for east side of San R~d and for backyard fence replacement on Amador Valley Blvd. between Village Parkway and Stagecoach Road). Deny Mr. Mohondro's request for gate in wall on Amador Valley Blvd. Authorize Staff to solicit permission, through construction easements, from the property owners abutting the west side of San Ramon Road, to replace their fences with wooden soundwalls. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Budgeted and estimated costs for construction are as follows: East side San Ramon Road (masonry) Budgeted Engineer's 1987-88 CIP Estimate $ 191,000 $ 215,100 West side San Ramon Road (wood) $ 95,500 $ 87,400 Amador Valley Blvd. $ 95~500 $ 95,500 $ 382,000 $ 398,000 DESCRIPTION: In the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program, the soundwalls were combined into one project because of the similarity of the proposed masonry walls along San Ramon Road and along Amador Valley Bivd. Because of the two types of materials, Staff has divided the project into two contracts, one for masonry walls and one for wooden walls. A few months ago, the City Council chose the split face block wall with a double band of darker blocks along the top as the design of the masonry walls. Staff has solicited and obtained easements for the construction of masonry walls along the rear yards on Amador Valley Blvd. between Village Parkway and Stagecoach Road. Staff recommends that this presentation be divided into three parts and that public comment be permitted after each part, as follows: ITEM NO.~__ COPIES TO: Mr. Mohondro (1) San Ramon Road Masonry Soundwall along the east side of the street· It is proposed that this soundwall range in height from 6' 0" to 9' 4", with the bulk of the wall being 8 feet high. Wh~_r~ tb~r_ade of the houses is much lower tb~ _t.~e_~~e wall ceases to-~e e~'~tiv~[ ~e traffi~ noise ~B~i~-~ass over the wall ~-~I~ '~he houses. At these locations, the walt being constructed by Contract 88-1 would be discontinued and a three-foot barrier placed along the edge of the roadway section to serve as both a sound barrier and safety barrier to prevent cars from going over the top of the slope. The three-foot wall would be installed with the road widening project. (2) Amador Valley Boulevard Masonry Soundwall. This wall is proposed to be of the same design as the San Ramon Road wall and to be eight feet high. Some of the back yards are above the grade of Amador Valley Blvd.; so the wall height from the property owners' side would be between six and eight feet depending upon location. in the wall to allow access to Amador Valley Blvd. (see Exhibit attached). One property owner, Mr. Mohondro, has requested that a gate be installed ?.d Thisbe~ gate was apparently installed by the property owner and is not required ~access or part of the Tract improvements. Such a gate would impair the ~ ' ~effectiveness and continuity of the soundwall and would set a precedent for ~ others along both San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Blvd. Therefore, Staff ~ ~:~ e recommends against installing the gate. ~ ~; ' ,~ ~, . (3) San Ramon Road Wooden Soundwall This wall will replace the I ~ existing rear yard fences with a heavy solid wooden fence. ~ The design is ~ ' proposed to include 4" x 6" pressure-treated posts set in concrete 6 feet in 'Jt~7~ the ground and on 8-foot centers. The height will be 6' 6" except for locations where the existing fences a eft--taller because they are located on a slope somewhat below the level of the dwelling. The facing material will be 1" x 8" redwood which will show from the property owners' side. The "1 x 8's" will be covered with a rough-sawn 5/8" plywood, grooved at 8" and stained on the street side. The wood walls would be placed on private property amd would belong to the property owner. As the wood wall is on private property, the City will need a construction easement, with agreement by the property owner to maintain the fence in the location in which it was constructed by the City. Staff proposes to send easement agreements prepared by the City Attorney, giving the owners a reasonable time to respond. Staff would then bring the plans and specifications to the City Council and request authorization to solicit bids for construction of the wood walls on those properties for which easement agreements have been received. CITY OF DUBLI~.J P.O. BOX 2540 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 ATTENTION: LEE S. THOMPSON - CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD WALL PROJECT LOT 12, BLOCK 4 MAP OF TRACT 2555 BOOK 52 PAGES 25-50 DEAR SIR, THE "TEMPORAY EASEMEHT AND PERMANENT EASEMENT" REGUESTED FOR THE AMADOR VALLEY PROJECT IS GRANTED WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS, NAMELY: 1. TEMPORARY EASEMENT A SWIMMING POOL~ 20. ° IN DIAMETER, ABOVE GROUND, IS LOCATED AT THE WESTERN END OF THE PROPERTY LINE, AND IS APPROXIMATELY 4' FROM THE EXISTING FENCE. THEREFORE, I DO NOT GRANT THE FULL 5 FEET TEMPORARY EASEMENT IN THIS AREA, AND THE WORKERS WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE EXISTING SPACE AVAILABLE. I DO NOT PLAN TO REMOVE THE SWIMMING POOL, OR THE ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT ATTACHED. 2. PERMANENT EASEMENT AT A POINT APPROXIMATELY 50' FROM THE WESTERN END OF THE PROPERTY~ AND 5' FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, EXISTS A 20 YEAR OLD NON-FLOWERING MULBERRY TREE. THE PERMANENT EASEMENT WILL BE GRANTED, PROVIDING THE WALL CONSTRUCTION, FOUNDATION, OR INSTALLATION, DOES NOT DISTURB, DESTROY OR HINDER THE ROOT SYSTEM, OR THE WELL BEING DF THE EXISTING TREE. 5. PERSONAL REQUEST. FOR ThE PAST EIGHTEEN YEARS, WE hAVE HAD A GATE THAT EXITS ON TO AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD. THIS GATE IS USED ON A DAILY BASIS, BY NOT ONLY US, BUT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. THIS GATE IS VITAL, AND I WOULD HATE TO HAVE TO LOSE THE POSSIBILITY Of ITS USE. THEREFORE~ I AM REQUESTING THAT AN AREA OR OPENING~ WIDE BE LEFT OPEN AT AN AREA 60' TO 80' FROM THE WESTERN END Of THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS GRANTED OEENING WILL HAVE A COMMERCIALLY INSTALLED WROUGHT IRON GATE, THAT WILL BLEND IN WITH THE MOTIF OF THE NEW WALL. WE WILL NOT HOLD THE CITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OR ANY EXPENSE INCURRED, FOR THE REQUESTED GATE. WE ALSO GRANT THE OITY FULL EXCLUSION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THE USE OF THE "PERMANENT EASEMENT"~ AREA Of 1.~' FROM THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. I WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, W. R. MOHONDRO C. E. MBHONDRO 7107 ALLEGHENY DRIVE DUB IN,~CALI~ORNIA ~415~ 8~8 7508 ~ ~ _ _ ~ r---rg x lC) RO. . , ~iNTERMEOiAT~' ~ ('TIGHT FITTED) -- -%~__ m i ~ POST DETAIL ~ V[~T.~ ~S"o.c. - ~ / f RD~D '"'~. ~ ~/~1 KIcK ~,LA~ ,· sD. BOARD RO. ROUGH RDWD a~DWOOD ~ :~T.'~CTIO~ P.T. ~ESSURE TREATED ~.F. ~ou~[~ ~ CITY OF DUBLIN Approved: City En i~e~ R.C.E. 19348 WOO~ ~,:~e'~_:: ~'-o" ~OUN:W~L Drawm V .~. Date: JAN.I~.I~88 C~cked: Fi~ No: ~ O [~' rlNTERMEOIATE / ' ~ ~ /4XG POe3T / // / / ,~×4 RO. SF~WN RDVIDTI~It~ · °z. ~ " 8'-0" 8'-O" / / / / p eX~ PRESSURE TREATED KICI~ ,~ / / / / / ~t_~r,, ~. , i.~ ~ c~ / / / / / '- 5 z/ ////' ~ -- , T-III PLYI~IOOD ' L" I- -I --IxsRDHD BOF:~RD O0 I111 I!1('3) ' r' ECEVATION - WOOD SOUNOWALL