HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: 02•G-1
Initial: ✓
Dept. Head:
DATE: May 19, 1982 City A
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mg -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Pavement Maintenance
Issue Summa
In an effort to reduce pavement maintenance costs, we are proposing a demonstration project
to perform "dig -out" repairs on some of our streets utilizing labor and equipment through
a local contractor at an hourly rate. We plan to handle the material purchase and ancillary
subcontracting ourselves.
Through this project we will not only have 40 to 50 thousand square feet of repair work
performed, we will also gain further insight as to the actual cost of making this type of
repair. Because this type of repair work is normally either performed with City crews or
under normal contract, no reliable cost comparisons are available.
Discussion was held with various contractors about performing this work and Cushman was selected
because he could meet our needs and was willing to accept a job of this scope. Estimates
were obtained from the two major suppliers of asphalt and Granite Rock was the lowest.
Negotiations are still open with Diamond Core Drilling and final cost will depend upon time
necessary to accomplish this assigned work.
This demonstration project is being proposed in this manner in order to obtain repair of
streets as quickly as possible and to reduce cost of staff time. A formal bid process would
require a minimum of six weeks and would expend $1,000 to $1,500 of staff time, advertising
and printing costs.
Recommendation
Approve the project for immediate implementation and adopt a resolution
appropriating revenue sharing monies in the amount of $51,000.
Fiscal Impact
The project has been formulated to spend approximately $51,000 during the two week period
of demonstration. These funds can be spent from either Gas Tax or Revenue Sharing Funds.
Exhibits /Attachments
Memo to City Manager 4/16/82
Rate Schedule from Cushman Construction Company
Memo to City Manager 4/27/82
Memo to City Manager 5/14/82
Resolution appropriating funds from Revenue Sharing
Council Action
5/19: Mallory /Clevenger moved to approve project and appropriate funds from Revenue
Sharing. Passed 4 -0 (Jensen abstaining).
tiOVIRI0KANDt1 JI
TO: CITY MANAGER
uguw of
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
FROM: ASST. DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES
SUBJECT: PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
DATE: APRIL 16, 1982
Together with Mike Martindale, and Louie Lemos I have formulated 'a.
demonstration project to.perform some "dig -out" repairs on some of our
streets, utilizing a private contractor.
As you know, several of our streets are showing signs of distress. Much
of the pavement is cracked in both random and alligator pattern. The
proposed demonstration project is intended to determine the most economical
method of repairing "alligatored" areas. The proposed method of fix is to
hire a "Pavement Saw" with operator to cut the perimeter of the failures..
as marked by Louie. We propose that the saw and operator be retained for
approximately one week at a cost of about $2,000. The next step is to
remove the broken pavement within the saw cut area to a depth of 4" to 6"
depending on base conditions and traffic volumes. Following the recompaction
of the base, the bottom and sides of the "dig -out" will be coated with an
appropriate "tack coat ". Utilizing a "spreader box ", new .hot A.C. will
be placed and rolled to the proper compaction and grade.
The attached "Equipment and Labor Rates" sheet has been provided by Cushman
Construction Company. Utilizing the schedule we have determined that the
necessary crew and equipment to perform the above work will cost approximately
$5,000 per week.
Cushman Construction Company is well known to Mike and myself to be an
extremely diligent and honest contractor. The City of Monte Sereno uses them
to do all of their routine street maintenance work and Dom Wimberly is
ve ry satisfied with their work and cost.
We estimate that approximately 360 tons of A.C. will be used per week at a
cost of $10,000. This should repair about 14,500 square feet of failed
area 4" thick. If our assumptions are correct, the cost per square foot will
be slightly over$1.10 . Thicker sections will be proportionately higher.
April 16, 1982
Pavement Maintenance
Page Two
By this memo I am requesting your authorization to begin the demonstration
project as soon as possible to last three weeks and to cost approximately
$50,000 broken down"as follows:
1. Saw Cutting Pavement
2. Materials (A.C. & Oils)
3. Labor (Cushman Contrs.)
2 wks.�:at $2,000
1100 tons at $28
3 wks at $5,000
_ $ 4,000
30,800
= 15,000
$ 49 ,800
During and immediately after the Project, we will evaluate the results.to
determine if this procedure should be extended..
Dan. Trinidad, Jr.
Assistant Director of Maintenance Services
11
C e eampa"
Kenneth F. Cushman Jr.
2200 BLOSSOM CREST WAY
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
95124
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
95070
EQUIPMENT AND LABOR RAZES
EQUIPMENT
Loader and Operator
6 yard bobtail dump truck and driver
Rollers
Asphalt box
Patch truck and driver
1,800 gal. water truck and driver
Pickups
Cat 12 blade and operator
D -6 cat and operator
9 yard self loading scraper and operator
Blowers
Power broom
Whackers
Chain saw
LABOR RATES
eontxactot Ziozniz coo. 257750
EXCAVATING - GRADING - PAVING
PHONE (408) 356 -3443
March 11, 1982
HOURLY RAZE DAILY RATE
$37.50
$37.50
$100 -$150
$100-$150
$23.50
$45.00
$25.00
$55.00 ( 8 hr -: minimum charge plus! +-move )
$55.00 If it
$55.00 if
$25.00
$50.00
$50.00
$25.00
Foreman, operators: Mark Verni, Karl Decker $21.00
Truck drivers: Joe Verni, Mike Colosky
John Hogue $17.00
Raker: Don Jenkins $14.25
Laborers: Kevin Downs, Mike Pratt $13.20
Work to be done on a cost plus 20% overhead, and 5% profit.
�lE?�In����Dtl1I
TO: CITY MANAGER
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
FROM: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES
SUBJECT: PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
DATE: APRIL 27, 1982
In my April 16, 1982 memo to you, I described a proposed demonstration project
to perform some "dig -out" repairs on some of our streets.
Since our City does not have the ability to finance all of our pavement
maintenance needs, it is my recommendation that first consideration be given
to arterials, collectors and residential streets having the highest volume
of traffic. Based`on this recommendation, .I have reviewed some of our streets
within those classifications and have developed the following priority listing
of streets on which to perform the demonstration "dig -out" project:
1. Paseo Presada (Cox Avenue to Dundee Avenue)
2. Bucknall Road (Saratoga Avenue to Quito Road)
3. Cox Avenue (Paseo Presada to Quito Road)
4. McCoy Avenue (Paseo Presada to Quito Road)
5. Saratoga Avenue (Kosich Drive to Westview Drive)
6. Kosich Drive (Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga Creek Drive)
7. Saratoga Creek Drive (Cox Avenue to Kosich Drive)
8, Seagull Way (Hwy 85 to Lido Way)
9. Cumberland Drive (Cox Avenue to Winter Lane)
10. Beaumont Avenue (Glasgow Drive to Thelma Avenue)
The streets were selected by need and by proximity to one another since efficiency
is lost if many long moves are made.
Although we have not field measured the amount of actual distressed pavement
on these streets, I am sure it far exceeds the 40 to 50 thousand square feet we
hope to repair in the demonstration project.
The project will end unless extended when approximately $50,000 have been
expended regardless of where they have gotten on the priority list.
Dan Trinidad, Jr, m
Asst. Director of Maintenance Services
�IE�1UR.�NDt�t1
TO: CITY MANAGER
uguw @:T §&M&UQ)9Z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
FROM: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES
SUBJECT: PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
DATE: MAY 14, 1982
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In finalizing the cost estimate for the "dig -out" repair demonstration
project we have made the following adjustments:
1) Saw Cutting Pavement - 60 hrs. @ $50 = $ 3,000
2) Materials - 1000 tons A.C. @ $24.23 = 25,000
3) Labor & Equipment - 110 days @ $2,300 = 23,000
$ 51,000
As can be seen, there has been a shift of dollars within
materials to labor and equipment. This was brought abou
A.C. cost by my taking a closer look at the labor needed
desired work. My first estimate was based on the City's
hauling of A.C. from the plant to the job site. We have
be better to hire that service and utilize our equipment
of our crews.
the project from
t by a reduction in
to perform the
truck doing the
now determined it would
to support the work
Although this adjustment has increased the total project cost by $1,000,
we sti l l believe we cKrepa-i*� 40,000 square feet at a cost of about
$1.25 while keepj- n %,&j`'rp'6Vs at full force and effect.
Dan Trinidad, Jr.'
Assistant Director
Maintenance Services
RESOLUTION NO. /Oool
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROPRIATING
$51,000 FROM THE REVENUE SHARING FUND
FOR A PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
e
MAYO
AGENDA BILL NO. g2 ?Z
DATE: May 19, 1982
DEPARPN=: Community Development
CITY OF SAIUMDGN
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
SUBJECT: Petition re: School Bus Routing
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
Campbell Union School District has changed one of its school bus routes
such that 3 trips per day travel westerly on Ravenwood Drive and southerly
on Marilyn Drive.
Residents of these streets petitioned against this change. If necessary
they request the City to improve the corner of Marshall Lane and Quito so
that the buses can all return to using Marshall Lane rather than Ravenwood
and Marilyn.
Recornnendation
Leave the matter of school bus routing to the School District.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Staff Report
2. 3/2/82 letter from School District
3. Petition
4. Two School District complaint reports.
Council Action
5/19: Consensus to refer to staff.
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5 -12 -82
COUNCIL MEETING: 5-19-82
SUBJECT Petition re: School Bus Route
In late February the City received a petition from residents'of
Ravenwood Drive and Marilyn Drive concerning recent rerouting of
buses onto these streets. Campbell Union School District has
been bussing students to Marshall Lane School for years using
Marshall Lane as access.
I have talked with the Business Manager of the Campbell Union
School District on several occasions concerning this matter and
learned the following:
1. Buses did use Marshall Lane for many years.
2. Bus drivers suggested that they could not make right
turn from Quito onto Marshall Lane without crossing
centerline of Marshall Lane or Quito Road. This was
deemed a hazard and bus route was changed to Ravenwood/
Marilyn.
3. Highway Patrol verified bus drivers' contention that
the turn onto Marshall Lane was unsafe and alternate
routing was appropriate.
4. Access from Sobey Road to rear of school has been
reviewed and is costly as to constructing access and
logistics.
S. School board will not route buses back onto Marshall
Lane unless improvements are made to the northwest
corner of Quito Road and Marshall Lane (increase turn-
ing radius).
Report to Mayor
re: School Bus Route
May 12, 1982
Page 2
6. There are 3 buses serving the school; 2 use Marshall
Lane totally. 1 goes in on Ravenwood once in the morning
and twice in the afternoon and it exits the area via
Marshall Lane.
7. School staff will be reviewing alternative routing to
determine if even these 3 trips /per day on Ravenwood
can be eliminated.
I have determined that the City has substantially more right of
way on Quito Road at Marshall Lane than is currently being used
for roadway purposes. Therefore, improvements could be made
without having to acquire rights of way.
I have reviewed this situation and do not agree or recommend that
the City should become involved in the routing of school buses,
particularly if such involvement includes cost to the City. These
3 trips per day do not seem to overburden the street, and even
they may be eliminated by the school by next year.
I
Ro e S. Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
ELL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
d Street
Campbell. California 95008 (408) 378 -3405
AtRkjLwAjWj5tunity Employer
MAR 0 9 1982
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT March 5, 1982
Mr. Robert Shook
Director of Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Bob:
I would like to thank you for taking the time to review with me
the routing problem of one of our buses to Marshall Lane School
and a hazardous street condition at the corner of Quito Road and
Marshall Lane. As I indicated, our bus driver on that route
recently alerted us to the unsafe condition created when making
a right turn from Quito Road onto Marshall Lane.
The hazardous situation is caused by the fact that the bus must
cross over a double yellow line into oncoming traffic to complete
the turn from Quito Road onto Marshall Lane. If the turn is
attempted without crossing over the double yellow line on Quito
the bus then crosses over into oncoming traffic on Marshall Lane.
We have rerouted the bus down Ravenswood to avoid this situation.
As you are aware, this has caused a great deal of concern on the
part of residents on Ravenswood because of the noise and dust
created by the bus.
I would like to ask that the City of Saratoga consider making im-
provements to the corner of Quito Road and Marshall Lane so that
our bus can safely make the turn and we could again resume using
Marshall Lane as the route to the school.
Your help in this matter would be
more than happy to work with you
the needed improvements made.
he �! C
,A IC
much appreciated. I will be
and the City of Saratoga to get
Sincerely,
Mich el L. Beever
Busi ess Manager
GOVERNING 80A 0
'`k eorge Baker, President Dwayne Reed, Vice President Jack Wade, Clerk Virginia Vaughn Gordon Abbott
,.t _ .
Toi Saratoga City Council
E D
FEB 2 6 1982
t0c; 3-n
February 26, 1982
From. Residents of the Ravenwood Dr./iiarilyn Ln. streets consisting of
36 homes.
Subject: School bus re- routing ( deviation from a 20 year established route
now pronounced "unsafe" by the Campbell School District.)
After using the turn for 20 years, the Campbell School Transportation Depart-
ment has now pronounced the, north corner of Quito Road and Marshall Lane as
unsafe for south bound buses. As a result, their southbound buses have been
using Ravenwood Dr./Marilyn Ln. streets as their route.
Referring to the attached petition - NOTE that 50 people affected are not at
all happy about the school's solution to the problem.. The school's solution
to their problem is creating another problem which is not acceptable to the
residents.
An ideal solution would be to use Sobey Road to get to Marshall Lane School.
When the school was built, an area in back of the school off Sobey Road was
provided for a bus turn around. This Sobey Road entrance has been suggested
to the school district in the past, but they have been unreceptive. The Sobey
Road entrance would also solve the problems of traffic congestion which will
increase in the future at Quito/Pollard Rds.
Both the present routes, Narshall Lane and Ravenwood Dr./iviarilyn Ln. have
WALKING SCHOOL CHILDR J unlike Sobey Road which has very low density and few,
if any, walkers.
The Campbell School Transportation Department says that the change in route
was made for the safety of the children. Then (in our opinion ) the Trans-
portation Department should have started using the Sobey Road entrance, loading
and unloading in the back of the school, long ago.
The person in charge of the drivers said that "the children are all over the
place" on both Ravenwood Dr./iiarilyn Ln. and I'•iarshall Lane. There are no side-
walks along these streets and all the walking children use these streets as
well as the buses and other traffic.
If the school District puts the safety of the children above all else, then the
Sobey entrance would be the best solution. This is what we, as taxpayers and
parents, recommend.
Another solution, but not as safe and desirable as the above mentioned, would
be to widen the alleged unsafe corner of Quito Road and Marshall Lane. If the
Campbell School District can not agree to the first most practical solution,
then the Saratoga City Council could instruct the Public [forks Department to
evaluate the affected corner of QuitoRoad/ila.rshall Lane and to make the necess-
ary changes to accomodate the buses as soon as possible.
Enclosures: 1) Current Assessors �iap of the area
2) Petition with signatures of 50 residents included.
v renJr lv,41;?
OF /ICC Or COUNTY A55[SSOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CAL+rORNIA
uJ 90R`•`j; ..z 4LLE,V l
389 . 397
as 21 DaLE 7'. qOS { TRACT No 1689
rr,• ; °��a AVENUE
B ' . c•73 L.. ✓ .. TAC_ 'Jo )'e
/09 49 3 2 + +++ " I'll
a
2.39.757AC t.T2At. t 60 ` F tP F6r 6 ra76
65 \
o"88 • '12 6/ $ 6 I �/ ..1 tS 1.0440. Y�11i i��vM /fl/1 '.( N x 107 C'ss �� NET 7! 4,1I� f1r Icur tale/ 3 //'c /rr e¢ 7(p�.
H V /bli / 1 '6 15 14 13 r 12 II 10 9 6 C, 7 . �. y, 4 1
a I D 9/l /�10 °� 'S 23 12 `s 71 r 20 n 19 '! /8 /7 C; 16 ii /5 /4 /.? /2
¢ : i 1 •, .,,, . o
' r- __r)J. `)� w• w I• b• a r. �.,. a,. „o. e' . r.isc te7o
-•,,-
>♦,Cl. RAVENWOO.7– 7F.ACT N" n45 M -53,54 ^ AVE �- r• ^a�. o
ALLF NOALE MANOR P. M.45T" ,:rn rr) "005
W 105 d
15 .6 - 77 w 4/ TI �2 i 4�i 44 45 i – 46 41 4H.,, v_� , tiO.� /16,x; /17�,:, 527a
»,
2J Q I 22 23 24 75 26 21 26 19 `; 31+ PCL A\ j PCL .B o (
I
L) S y,p■ .l N OS J r.r , .l. ��... L_L..p2��✓, �lo e7 oS , p }, I t S v .>
I j 17 i 74) f3 I1J 270 1 ` [ �......
1 - :.y Ac PCL. B I PCL. A 0 w1
^ ` : 147 1 6 .;K •; .. 40 a a. 1.24 AC.GR. I* 1.281 AC. NET a `•
5 N, /�� 10 1.09l AC. NET
97 01 obCi :w ? ---r.-- - -- --i //S L se0 Il <)71_ ttte';"'
1 �• — n• T �8 /50.011.614.)71 'Ta--- lom +Tn .T.'. -t!�• 3 .
i S c IOSI AC I I /tld— •11 :8," ?:1
t2 Ii KL A a', PCL 6 S xlf
95 5 - --_ ---- ----- 39 " 1.m7AC 961AC F � p1,�. . r
1 ° i i 37 a ++ a s a, r
• b 98 q 1061 AC ,
r e i 1 r q•0 69 �3� 'e)'S '� , e1 ,5 I Soa 36• KLA fclb y a
LtD-� 6 p MARSHALL > e„ r 70 69 t // /�J% F��re�
~j rem ..o A. IN. I�/ L �n.L o I , ' Ves p
,e.:. ON4v4 r9 q $�1 e ICC U
! X LnA o4 4 - - -- - - 2 o3oAC , 4CRfS 35 LAVE —'' �} ��/ !�
1o,1AC t to �C r % ye—At
9 gg at t? F 3/ 7: 37 r; 053•c It O /
5 s° a X32 lio
r
a
'0/� %�t = 93 0_ 7u;• _ _ 1or". _ ; "' .I. ..._:'. °'..:r 8�
3n 1 at
�
9", lrn IOOCAc MET 9.35 AC.N ET
10 /00
µ0
97 g: 112
<`; ^ -
' �0' al- - " CAM POE LL UNION SCHOOL DIST. / \
WS.0 d
BK
-114 •o _ r 407 be
v1� 107
�... 7c� 13 'r ,� . '0^ .uo.� „1: N'1, Ire SO loo is +afi 113a, Je0 S7 17l 61 C n%
ROAD
"R w516; / r--� � -- 2- -SoBEY -- '__—. —_ ._.-- --- c --"— —• - -- --- -- Y
ro 'iiHO N iT i'iAY CoN CERiv
We, the undersigned, wish to protest the ' Change of noute for some buses in the
Campbell School District from Viarshall Lane to Raven wood i,arilyn i ane .
We demand this change of route be stopped immediately.. It poses an adverse
environmental impact on a residential neighborhood.
The former route (i,iarshall Lane) is shorter and less densely populated -- therefore
it is less disturbing to fewer peAple. This route has been used since the school
started using buses.
If change (alleged) is needed- -Sobey Road should be considered or the Campbell School
District should contact .the City of Saratoga to find a solution tothe problem - -if
indeed, there is a problem ( any greater than in the past in this area)
c
19¢70 ra fc
yi1 L» S'i r� IC,-
1 I
w 'ov c,r, ',
S�42AT�
�GD li `jJC�ti�is u� °_ yct�
# � `
TO WHOM IT MAY WNCZM t
We• the undersigned• with to protest the Change of Route for some buses in the
Campbell School District from 114arshall bane to Ravenxoo marilvn Lane.
We demand this change of route be stopped immediatelye. It poses an adverse
environmental impact on a residential neighborhood.
The former route (M&rshall Lane) is shorter and less densely populated -- therefore
it is less disturbing to fever pgoplee This route has been used aince the school
started using buses.
If change (alleged) is needed - -Sober Road should be considered or the Campbell School
District should contact the Cites togs to find a solution tothe problea - -if
indeed# there is a problea ( any greater than in the past in this area)
sziv-&t y9
eu
/S/
��
i e rc 1 fare C.
.`j 1 /� CCU
0
TO 4HOM IT AAY LION QM a
i(e, the undersigned, with to protest the Cliange of Route for some buses in the
Campbell school District front :'ia.rshall Lane to Ravenxood iiarilvn mane.
We damanct this change of route be stopped lamediatelye. It poses an adverse
environmental Impact on a residential neighborhood.
The former route OUrahall Lane) is shorter and leas densely populated -- therefore
It is leas disturbing to fewer pgople. This route has been used since the school
started using buses.
If change (alleged) is needed - -Sober Road should be considered or the Campbell Sochool
District should contact the City of SR a►tog to find a solution tothe problem --if
Indeed, there is a problem ( any greater than in the past in this area)
Z) Man-
1�C.1,l.L(..( �✓ '�f 1 (�'' —vi � ��� �7� V��i�'��CLticir)/ �'7�— �
• ' C.C. 1 O � � S / RSA -C�.�Z L �t..IZ`C ��/Y %
G,
ALL
L�b,����
C
C37Y -3Y ��
C -7
Ie
RECEIVED
APR 2 71982
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Union School District
155 North Third Street
CarzUbell, California
DATE: 6 4y
Regulation 2220.1
COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY:— DATE:
February 26, 1982
Tot. Saratoga City Council
- .From i Residents of the Ravenwood Dr.fiiarilyn Ln. streets consisting of
.36 homes.
Subject: School bus re- routing ( deviation from -_a 20 year established route
°now pronounced "unsafe" by- the-Campbell School District.)
:After using the turn .for 20 years, :the Campbell School Transportation Depart-..
:.;went has now pronounced theJ north _corner. . of Road and _ Marshall Lane as
unsafe for south bound buses. As .a- zesult, their southbound .. buses have - been'.
.,.using Ravenwood Dr./Marilyn Ln. streets as "their:route.
Referring to the attached petition - -NOTE that 50 people affected are not at.
all happy about the school's solution ::.to- :':the problem. The school's solution
=to their problem is creating another::problem which is not acceptable to the
residents.
..An ideal solution would be to use Sobey Road to get to.ilarshall.Lane School.
When the school was built, an area =in back of the school off Sobey Road was
provided for a bus turn around. ,This.Sobey.Road entrance has been suggested
to the school district in the past,. 'but they have been unreceptive. The Sobey
Road entrance would also solve the problems-of traffic congestion which will
increase in the future at Quito/Pollard Rds.
Both the present routes, Marshall Lar.e.2nd Ravenwood Dr. /Marilyn.Ln. have
+tALKLNG SCiiCOL CiiILDR N unlike Sobey Road -which has =very low density, and few,
if any, walkers.
The Campbell School Transportation Department says that the change in route
...was made for the safety of the children. '-Then (in our..opinion )..the Trans-
portation Department should have started using the Sobey Roa.d'entrance,.loading
.and unloading in the back of the school,...long ago.
The grrson in charge of the drivers said that "the children are all over the
place" on both Ravenwood Dr./iiarilyn Ln. and i•?arshall Lane. There are no side-
�-wa_Eks along these streets and all the walkin^ children use these streets as
well as the buses and other traffic.
If the school District puts the .safety. of-the children above all else, then the
Sobey entrance would. be the best solution.,.:This is what we, as taxpayers and
:- ..:parents, recommend. _ ..
- .Another solution, but not as safe and desirable as the above mentioned, would
be to widen the alleged unsafe corner of -Quito Road and Marshall.Lare. if the
Campbell School District can not agree to the first most practical solution,
then the Saratoga City Council could instruct the Public Works Department to
.evaluate the affected corner of QuitoRoad/zarshall Lane and to make the necess-
ary changes to accomodate the buses as soon as possible.
Enclosures: 1) Current Assessors Nap of the area
2) Petition with signatures of 50 residents included.
;;O'_— 1 'then we first complained to the School District Transportation Dept.,
they led us to believe that many hours of study were spent with the
highway patrol to determine that the corner of harshall mane was unsafe.
When we later, spoke with the hi 6hway patrol. officer, `latrol�adrnever
he said "no such study had been made and the highway p
been at the site ". In the meantime, the Campbell District'fransp. Dept.
did contact and set up a meeting with the hihway patrol at the site to
support their earlier story.
F, Union School District
155 North Third Street
Campbell, California
DATE:
Regulation 2220.1
REPORT OF COMPLAINT
COMPLAINANT'S NAME
ADDRESS:
o I
TELEPHONE: 2
Names of Student(s), Employees and/or Parents Involved:
RECEIVED
MAR ?, t. 1982
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I. NATURE OF COMPLAINT: (Complaints must be received in writing)
4
7-: t- I-4AXt
f
J,
L I L
L
II. WHAT ARE YOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR CORRECTIONS OF THI4)PROBLEM?
v
�&,LI"rOAI
qj
4
4p-� W
V- L L r..
III. HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THE PROBLEM WITH A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT?
NAME: POSITION:
HOW WAS YOUR COMPLAINT HANDLED BY THIS PERSON?
COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY: DATE:
POSITION:
8-14-80
CITY OF SAIUUOGA
MEN= BILL NO. o,L Cc 6
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: 5/19/82 C. Att .
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: 13485 Old Oak Way, Appeal of Denial of Building Permit
Issue Summary Based on the City Geolgist's recommendation, the Building
Official has denied the issuance of a Building Permit for
the conversion of underfloor area into habitable space.
Mr. Peretti, the applicant, is appealing that decision to
the City Council in its capacity as Uniform Building Code
- Board of Appeals.
Recommendation
Deny the appeal
Fiscal Impacts
None known
Exhibits /Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Council Action
Report to City Council dated 5/14/82
Letter of Appeal dated 5/12/82
Letter of Denial dated 5/12/82
City Geologist's report dated 5/4/82
City Geologist's report dated 6/2/82
5/19: Referred to study session 5/25.
6/16: Watson /Jensen moved to grant appeal on the condition that the homeovAmers exeaitve
a written k*aiver of any fixture claim as provided in City Attorney's letter of 6/11/82.
Passed 3 -2 (Callon, Mallory opposed)-
101, u).
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5/14/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/19/82
SUBJECT: 13485 Old Oak Way - Appeal of Building Permit Denial
On April 8, 1982, Mr. Peretti applied for a Building Permit to
add 1431 square feet of habitable space in an existing under-
floor area. Since the project is in a Pd zone as shown on the
Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed Ground Movement Potential Maps,
the plans were sent to the City Geologist for review.
The City Geologist recommends that the Building Permit not be
issued. The City Geologist also recommended in May of 1977
that no permit be issued for the original house due to the
marginal stability of the lot.
A building Permit was in fact issued on August 12, 1977, although
the record is unclear as to the resolutuion of the stability
issue. Evidently the Building Official at that time was satisfied
that the project met the requirement of the Uniform Building
Code.
The applicant has not provided any information which demonstrates
the stability of the lot and, therefore, as the Building Official,
I have denied Mr. Peretti's current application for a Building
Permit. The City Council in its role as Board of Appeals, per
Section 204 of the Uniform Building Code, should consider Mr.
Peretti's appeal and render a decision. The appellant argues
that the structure is not currently in distress and that the
proposed project would not affect the stability of the lot.
Staff takes no exception to these arguements.
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development.
RSS /rhh /bc
D
MAY 13 1982:
12 May 1982 _. ______—
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL ON APPEAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
FOR RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT
(Possibly a) Non- Agenda Item - Notes for City Council Meetin
19 May 1982.
Name: William H. Peretti. I have resided in Saratoga since 1969 -
nearly 14 years.
Two years ago, in 1980, my wife and I purchased a home from the prior
owner /residents at 13485 Old Oak Way (off Pierce Road). The house was
two years old at purchase, and was structurally designed for a partial
lower floor (even the floor is double - joisted where stairs are intend-
ed). It is the final reason we bought the house.
Request
We now wish to make the originally intended improvements to the exist-
ing, approved structure four years old.
Although constructed to the city's building code, the floors bounce
enough to rattle dishes and lamps, as well as visibly shake furniture
when walking through a room. It also appears beneficial to add to the
overall structural integrity by adding the walls of a partial lower
floor to act as shear walls - providing calculable brace and support
value to the house. The principal portion of the deck should have
added support, rather than the 2x4 "X" braces currently in place.
Believing there would be no concerns about the improvements to a new
property within Saratoga, relying on geologists' reports and engineer-
ing reports obtained upon purchase of the house (dated before and
after the original construction), we went ahead with architect's work
and the engineering studies and calculations as necessary to obtain
permit approvals.
All of the work will take place within the current perimeter of the
house, principally within the enclosed area under the house. Nothing
will be higher than the floor of the current living area. The only
feature visible from the exterior will be the windows (and they would
be obscured by fully grown trees) .
The open area below the floors is dry and enclosed by walls, with a
minor concrete pad to be installed over approximately 1 /18th of the
floor space - an engineer's requirement to strengthen the grade beam.
Continued . . .
Page two
Current Status
The request for a building permit was denied on the basis of the City
Geologist's report (1977) which recommended denial of the original
building permit. Records show the house subsequently received the
City of Saratoga's approval, presumably after changes in design and
engineering were accomplished. Borings to dense material in the earth
were made (marked on the attached map) . Piers were constructed with
heavy reinforcing and poured to these dense layers as much as 20 - 22
feet below the surface. The site, the construction, and the complet-
ion was approved by the City of Saratoga.
The original recommendation was based upon a slope and drainage con-
cern, though there is now a street and driveway parallel to the house,
both with fully enclosed drainage. It is the same slope as the house
next door, and the partial floor we wish to add is approximately the
same as theirs. The home next door has not had a problem during the
twelve years of its existence, nor have we had a problem during resid-
ence through the past two severe rainy seasons. The eleven major
landmark oak trees immediately around the house show no instability or
creep, though they are all over one hundred years old. The improve-
ment will not impact on the trees or the slope.
No Hazards Created
This project will not create a hazard beyond any current existing con-
ditions. Putting in the partial floor and structural improvements
will not affect stability of the site. There should be greater stab-
ility of the house in the light of the improved structural integrity
achieved by added floor support and shear wall construction. No pub-
lic roadways, utilities or natural drainages above or below the resid-
ence will be affected. Neighborhood property values would be enhanced
since this home is presently the smallest in floor or living space of
those in the immediate area.
Reason for Non - Agenda Item
We would wait until the regularly scheduled and prepared meeting of
the City Council, however I have a contractual obligation to be out of
the country during the entire week which includes your meeting of June
2nd.
Therefore we request, in fact, plead for such Approval as necessary to
move ahead with the planned improvement of this residence.
ld� 14 MAKan i I I V 11 VX
William H. Peretti Ka hleen M. Peretti
76'7- 6-72-3
,a�7nY
A X00&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
May 12, 1982
William Peretti
13485 Old Oak Way
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Mr. Peretti,
Based on the City Geologist's review (copy attached),
your application for Building Permit at 13485 Old Oak Way is
denied.
This decision may be appealed to the City Council. The
appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within five days of
receipt of this notice and be accompanied by a $30 appeal fee.
You should include in your appeal a brief descriptioon of the
project, the address of the project and the reasons for the
appeal.
Please contact Rich Harison should you need assistance.
Very Truly Yours,
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS /riih /bc
_1k William Cotton
and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
FRECEIVED
May 4, 1982 MAY 10 1982
TO: Rich Harison, Senior Inspector COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Saratoga
SUBJECT: Peretti Addition
We have completed a geologic review of the subject applica-
tion using the Remodel and 'Addition plans prepared by Bear Designs
and dated December 21, 1981, and the structural calculations pre-
pared by Civil and Construction Consultants, Inc. and dated
December 12, 1981. In addition, we have reviewed a number of doc-
uments in our files which were submitted under previous applica-
tions for the subject property (i.e. Ferreira, SDR- 1281).
DISCUSSION
In our last written correspondence with the City (May 2,
1977) regarding the subject property, we recommended that a build-
ing permit be denied for this site unless the stability for this
site can be substantially improved. This recommendation was based
on our review of the following documents:
- Soil and Foundation Investigation (report) prepared by
Civil and Construction Consultants dated August 2, 1976;
- Landslide Evaluation and Geologic Summary (report) prepared
by Allied Geophysics and dated February 20, 1977;
- Geologic /Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Terratech
Inc. and dated April 26, 1977.
The Terratech Investigation was conducted in order to evalu-
ate the slope stability of the subject property which was not ade-
quately addressed in previously submitted reports listed above.
Terratech concluded that the hillside is marginally stable under
present conditions and that a moderate earthquake would probably
initiate a major slope failure that would jeopardize any on -site
structure.
With this in mind, we recommended that a building permit be
denied. In addition, we recommended that the City reject the:.
argument that the applicant is willing to accept the risk and.
notify future owners of the risk. The argument was based on the
t
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY * ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES * FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
concept of "private risk" which, in reality, does not exist in an
urban environment like Saratoga. Landslides in urban areas fre-
quently affect adjacent properties, natural drainage, public road-
ways and utilities, property values, etc. Landslides in urban
areas commonly require costly public assistance, and therefore,
such phenomena should be judged as "public risk."
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Since our last review in 1977, a residence has been con-
structed at the subject property. It should be clearly understood
that the stability of the site was never demonstrated to our
satisfaction. To date, this has not been done. Consequently, our
position is unchanged and we continue to recommend that building
permits be denied and that any argument based on "private risk"
not be entertained because private risk, in reality, does not
exist.
Respectfully submitted,
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
1
William Cotton and Associates
Tilliarn Cotton
and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
RECEIVED
JUN 2 0 1982
June 2, 1982
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO: Rich Harison, Senior Inspector
City of Saratoga
SUBJECT: Peretti Addition
We have completed a geologic review of the subject
application using the Remodel and Addition plans prepared
by Bear Designs dated December 12, 1981. As stated in
our review dated May 4, 1982, the stability of the site
has not been demonstrated to our satisfaction.
However, it is our judgment that the addition as
proposed will not significantly decrease the stability
of the slope.
Respectfully submitted,
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES e FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
0 }
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5/14/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/19/82
SUBJECT= 13485 Old Oak Way - Appeal of Building Permit Denial
On April 8, 1982, Mr. Peretti applied for a Building Permit to
add 1431 square feet of habitable space in an existing under-
floor area. Since the project is in a Pd zone as shown on the
Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed Ground Movement Potential Maps,
the plans were sent to the City Geologist for review.
The City Geologist recommends that the Building Permit not be
issued. The City Geologist also recommended in May of 1977
that no permit be issued for the original house due to the
marginal stability of the lot.
A building Permit was in fact issued on August 12, 1977, although
the record is unclear as to the resolutuion of the stability
issue. Evidently the Building Official at that time was satisfied
that the project met the requirement of the Uniform Building
Code.
The applicant has not provided any information which demonstrates
the stability of the lot and, therefore, as the Building Official,
I have denied Mr. Peretti's current application for a Building
Permit. The City Council in its role as Board of Appeals, per
Section 204 of the Uniform Building Code, should consider Mr.
Peretti's appeal and render a decision. The appellant argues
that the structure is not currently in distress and that the
proposed project would not affect the. stability of the. lot.
Staff takes no exception to these arguements.
Robert S. Shook '
Director of Community Development.
RSS /rhh /bc
Matteoni & Saxe / Lawyers
1625 The Alameda • Suite 400
San Jose, California 95126
4081286 -4800
Mr. Paul B. Smith
City Attorney of Saratoga
P.O. Box 279
Mountain View, CA 94041
Dear Mr. Smith:
,P�tcmvzry
MAY 2 8 1982 Norman E. Matteoni
Allan Robert Saxe
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Lynn C. Belanger
May 26, 1982
Re: Appeal of Building Permit Denial By
Building Official of Saratoga for
Improvement of a Dwelling at
13485 Old Oak Way; City Council
Agenda of 5/19/82 and 6/2/82
Last evening, the Council, at its Committee of the
Whole meeting, conducted a hearing concerning the appeal of my
clients, William Perretti and Kathleen Perretti, regarding the
denial of a building permit to add 1,431 square feet of
habitable space in an existing area of their dwelling. The
Council heard evidence from Rich Harison, the City's Building
Inspector, and appellants, but did not take action on this
matter, although it intends to do so at the June 2 meeting.
The Council also indicated that it wanted guidance
from its City Attorney in this matter.
For this reason, on behalf of the appellants, I would
like to frame the issue as I see it. The original structure
was placed on this lot in 1977 pursuant to a valid building
permit. Nonetheless, at the time, the City geologist, on the
basis of information available to him, recommended that the
building permit be denied for the property. Understand that
this is one of 25 lots in a hillside subdivision that was
created in the mid- 19601s. All other lots within the
development are improved with residential structures. In any
event, the current Building Inspector informed the Council that
it was the decision of the then - Building Inspector, Don Harris,
to issue the building permit. Harris considered the opinion of
the City Geologist, but was evidently "satisfied that the
project met the requirement of the Uniform Building Code."
Thus, there is no question that the structure was validly built
upon this lot.
You should also know, since the time of original
construction, the house -has sold twice and my client is the
current owner. The house was- originally designed in such a
manner that would allow for the current improvement. That
Mr. Paul B. Smith May 26, 1982
Page Two
improvement will take place in an enclosed space under the
existing structure and will require less than 2 cubic yards of
earth movement. The new improvement will not extend over other
portions of the lot. The new improvement will also add to the
structural integrity of the existing structure by creating
sheer walls and giving added floor support.to the main floor.
The Council seemed to be concerned that it was
increasing its possibility of liability by issuing the building
permit for this improvement.
I think the matter can be resolved from a practical
standpoint without fear of legal implications. First, if there
is any liability that might be traced to the City in the event
of ground failure, it would relate back to the issuance of the
original building permit, not this improvement. The testimony
at the hearing indicated that the improvement itself will not
add to the instability of the slope. Nor, has the City
geologist stated that it would; the City geologist's position
is that he did not recommend approval in 1977 and he is not
recommending approval regarding the stability of the lot at
this time.
'Further, Richard Harison seemed to accept that the
improvement would add to the structural integrity of the
existing dwelling. He indicated that the City would allow
remedial work to the structure in the form of additional floor
supports and sheer walls, but he was not in a position to grant
the permit for habitable space. Nonetheless, as Councilwoman
Cheriel Jensen pointed out, the structure will be used for the
same purpose with the improvement as it was before.
Some of the Councilmembers seemed to recognize that
there would be no increase in liability, but there may be some
increase in damage exposure if liability could ever be proved.
Obviously', the addition will add some value to the house. But,
as I pointed out to the Council, even if there were no addition
and they decided to furnish their home in valuable antiques,
there could be the same incremental value as the addition that
would be lost in the event of some geologic hazard on the site.
My client is willing to sign a waiver of any geologic
liability to the City for the issuance of this permit.
Mr. Paul B. Smith
May 26, 1982
Page Three
In summary, the City accepts the fact that the
building was originally legally built. There seems to be no
valid reason to deny an improvement to the structure which will
not increase the risk of ground failure on the site. As the
City Building Inspector states in the enclosed memorandum of
5/14/82 to the Council, there is no argument that the current
structure is in distress or that the proposed project would
affect the stability of the lot.
I know that you respond directly to the Council on
any legal questions. But, I wanted you to have my clients'
position as you review this matter. If you have any questions,
I would be happy to discuss the matter with you further.
Ver - t y yours 3,, �
NORMAN E. MATTEONI
NEM:md
cc: William Perretti
Richard Harison
A- A,
0 '1
60
RD
5 45
4
ve dw'
N-
in
2 J i 1 \ \ \\ \ \\ 07 Y In
I
00
4. 0 ly
<� E �j� �32,�.1// 107 .19
0 C TRACI NI! 5943
y� S. 229 � I I � �� 1\ 1'"111 \1
� � 11 �� i � � � �;111� 11 � 11� \;1 G
4 �� , ! 3;
r
If 40
No oOALP-
r96"v4-4;ev fr;,z e: /V P e: 0 e, a LZ UPI
0 VLA�T- I
914� a4l6a
(9
8
1.
146