Desk Itemt +N o MEETING DATE: 02/16/16
ITEM NO: 7
I Vrlr
DESK ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13-31— ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
411-811-0003
A. APPROVE THE AWARD OF THE LOW BID FROM REDGWICK
CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT FOR ASPHALT RECONSTRUCTION OF BROADWAY AND
BACHMAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,275,429, INCLUDING A
CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF 15%; OR
APPROVE THE AWARD OF THE LOW BID FROM VANGUARD
CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT FOR CONCRETE RECONSTRUCTION OF BROADWAY
AND BACHMAN AVENUES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,716,077,
INCLUDING A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF 15%;
B. REJECT ALL BIDS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE PROJECT (ASPHALT OR
CONCRETE) NOT AWARDED.
REMARKS:
After the staff report was released on February 12, 2016, staff was asked to answer the following
questions:
Regarding line item 9 "Remove Existing Pavement, Sidewalk, and Curb & Gutter" in the project
bid, the unit price has escalated more than 3'/: times ($1.00/sq. ft. to $3.60/ sq. ft. for ten streets),
adding $2.5 million. Similarly, line item 4 "Traffic Control" unit price escalated more than 8
times ($20,250 to $173,500). For ten streets this adds $1.1 million. Did the specification change
from last August, resulting in this large increase?
The specification did not change. The August numbers were the Engineer's estimates and are meant to
get the final overall project cost "in the ball park" of the final contractor's overall bid. Specific line
items within the estimate may be higher or lower than the final contractor bid based on the
PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY
Director of Parks and Public Works
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13-31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
411-811-0003
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
subcontractors used, methods of doing the work and breakout of the overall cost between bid items.
This is the contractor's discretion and not subject to negotiation.
Regarding the last line item "2 inch PVC Conduit," this line item was not in the previous schedule
of quantities. For ten streets this adds $0.9 million. What is the purpose of the PVC conduit as
part of the paving project? Why was this left out previously?
The residents have continually requested conduit for future fiber optic cabling. The Town has
repeatedly committed to looking for cost effective ways to include this in the project. Originally this
conduit was slated for installation under the sidewalk. With the final design, the sidewalk location no
longer worked and the conduit would now be located in the street at the face of gutter. Because this
was an item that the residents felt important and the institution of a no -cut rule would preclude future
installation of this conduit, it has been included in the scope.
I am trying to understand the totality of funding for Almond Grove streets. Agenda items 7 and 8
reference an "available budget" of $3,684,552. The Council, last year, set aside $12M+ for
Almond Grove paving. How does that amount relate to the $3.6M+ above? Please list all sources
of funding currently available for this project.
The budget of $3.6M mentioned in the staff report is the official appropriation for the project that was
authorized in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 15/16. This is the project budget for the
first phase of Almond Grove. Staff identified approximately $12.2 million of available funds last
October and Council set those aside in an Almond Grove reserve [Resolution 2015-061, adopted
November 3, 2015 (see Attachment 7)j. The funds were set up in a reserve pending determination of
pavement materials and estimated total project costs. The detailed information is available as
Attachment 1 to this report. The $3.6 million is part of that $12.2 million in total funding available for
Almond Grove. The remaining dollars (approximately $8.6 million) is available for other Almond
Grove streets and will be appropriated in the FY 2016/17-2020/21 proposed CIP which will be presented
to Council in May for its consideration. In addition, the Council identified $2.1 million in FY 2015/16
CIP projects to be placed on hold pending Almond Grove financing and pavement selection. The
Council released one of the on hold projects for the Little League Backstop in the amount of
25,000. The remaining projects remain on hold pending Council authority to release the projects or
allocation to Almond Grove. The table below outlines the existing appropriated project funds, reserve
funds to be allocated in the future CIP budget, and the existing CEP projects that are on hold.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13-31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
411-811-0003
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
Almond Grove Rehabilitation Funding Amount
FY 15/16 Capital Improvement Project Budget for
Almond Grove Phase I (Council Approved
6/16/15) 3,696,000
Almond Grove Reserve (Established 11/3/1
Excess ERAF 330,000
General Fund Reserve for Capital 940,000
FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess 2,000,000
General Fund Reserve (Excess Above 25%) 2,020,178
GFAR Fund Balance 438,792
Post -Retirement Medical Reserve 400,000
Reserve for Productivity & Special Studies 253,000
Compensated Absences 589,316
Equipment Replacement 1,488,687
Total Existing Project Funding 12,155,973
FY 2015/16 Capital Projects On -Hold Amount
Street Repair - 2014/15 (half ofproject) 900,000
Downtown Parking Sign Enhancements 50,000
Parking Lot #4 400,000
Montebello Way Island Removal 19,550
Oak Meadow Park 330,000
Worchester Park Improvements 28,150
Los Gatos Creek Trail Improvements at Charter
Oaks 30,000
Building Replacement at Corp Yard* 200,000
Civic Center Improvements 150,000
Total Funding of Projects On -Hold 2,107,700
General Fund Appropriated Reserve (GFAR) portion only
Please remind me how many streets are in Los Gatos (total number for which Town is responsible
for maintenance).
Streets are quantified in center line miles. The Town has 106 center line miles of which the Almond
Grove makes up about 3%.
What can be done - however you'd like to quantify and/or assess - toward Town -wide street
maintenance with a $440,000 budget, e.g., repair x street(s), reinforce x retaining wall(s),
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13-31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
411-811-0003
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
reconstruct/widen/repair x sidewalk(s)? Same question not specific to street repair - if $440,000
goes to PPW budget - what would it get used for? Tree replacement, park improvements, etc.?
There are more capital needs than resources to complete them throughout the Town, making it necessary
to prioritize the type and scope of projects. A few projects that have been discussed by the Council
include:
a. Maintenance of additional Town streets. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of Town
streets continues to trend down about a point a year over the last couple of years and is
currently at a 67, with 70 as an ongoing target. Adding WOk would have a one point
impact on the PCI. Because the Town investment in streets is not keeping pace with the
maintenance needs, this amount of investment would result in the Town's PCI holding
firm at its current level for one year.
b. Approximately $2.1 million in current capital projects have been placed on hold to allow
for funding of the Almond Grove. $440k would allow for funding some of those
identified needs. That project list is contained in Attachment 8.
c. A number of projects have been identified through transportation related efforts and are a
part of the Valley Transportation Plan 2040 (VTP 2040) as previously discussed with the
Council. That list is contained in Attachment 9.
d. We do not have an assessment that provides the amount of sidewalk maintenance
needed. The Town invests about $250k annually in sidewalk maintenance that addresses
a part of the overall need. $440k would allow for addressing additional need in the most
high risk areas.
e. Green bike lanes were well received as a safety project. The Town was able to address
three intersections in that project. $440k would allow for the ability to address another
12 intersections similar in scope to those completed.
Your answer states that LG's current PCI is 67. Carl Guardino keeps presenting charts at
various meetings which show LG at a PCI of 70. I bring it up because the magic number at which
jurisdictions may spend road funds generated if the proposed ballot measure passes for something
other than road repair is 70. If we are not at 70, we have no discretionary dollars. Is it 67 or
70? And if it's 67, is there any way LG could bring it to 70 at the time the ballot measure
hypothetically) passes in order to make discretionary funds available? If so, what's your cost
estimate to get there?
The Town is at a PCI of 67 and have been dropping a point every year based on the current
investment. Carl Guardino is working with older data. Also note that the Valley Transportation
Authority Technical Advisory Committee is working to take out that discretionary language and to
broaden the definition of street maintenance. Either way, the Town wouldn't need to be at a PCI of 70
by November, but rather at the point the funds are allocated. That is likely to take a year or more to get
the program in place, revenues collected, etc.
The Town needs to invest about $2M a year in our streets to keep the level steady in this range. Current
investment is $1.3M a year (not including the Almond Grove project). Note that last year's street
project was missed because bids were rejected, so there is a bigger project this time around. To increase
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13-31 – ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
411-811-0003
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
the PCI by a point, the investment would need to be about $440k more than the $2M base maintenance
need.
In addition to these questions, the attached public comment was received (Attachment 6).
Attachment 1-5 (Previously received with Staff Report on February 11, 2016):
1. Almond Grove Funding Plan and Funding Schedule
2. Bid Results for asphalt reconstruction of Broadway and Bachman Avenues.
3. Bid Results for concrete reconstruction of Broadway and Bachman Avenues.
4. Discussion of Pavement Life Maintenance Costs.
5. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Thursday, February 11, 2016.
Attachment(s) (Received with this Desk Item
6. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, February 16, 2016.
7. Resolution 2015-061 Establishing the Almond Grove Reserve
8. 2015/16 Capital Improvement Program
9. VTP List of Projects
Matt Morley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Perfect. Thanks.
Enjoy your weekend.
Sent from my iPhone
Tom Boyce <tomaboyce@aol.com>
Friday, February 12, 2016 5:59 PM
Matt Morley
Re: Today's meeting
Follow up
Flagged
On Feb 12, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Matt Morley <MMorlev(a losgatosca.Rov> wrote:
There was 5717 sf left in place.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S& 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
Original message --------
From: Tom Boyce <tomabovice(a;aol.com>
Date: 2/12/2016 4:30 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Matt Morley <MMorlev &losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: Today's meeting
What I was looking for is how many square feet of sidewalk were left in place (saved).
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Matt Morley <MMorlev(alosgatosca.gov> wrote:
Sorry, I hit send early! I finished my earlier email below....
From: Matt Morley
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 3:46 PM
To: 'tomaboyce(alaol com'
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: RE: Today's meeting
Attachment 6
I thank you for the constructive meeting today as well Tom.
Specific to demolition, it is a lump sum number as is typical. We did, however, capture
quantities on replacement sidewalk. I have pasted those quantities here:
Install Sidewalk S. F. 8,803
Install Villa Hermosa Sidewalk S. F. 2,888
Install Curb Ramp Ea. 19
Sidewalk is one to one remove and replace, so that is also the amount removed.
We remain committed to providing the residents with information on the project via the
website and will continue to do so, including ongoing revisions to engineers estimates
and quantities.
From: tomaboyce(o)aol.com fmailto:tomaboviceColaol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 3:41 PM
To: Matt Morley
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Council
Subject: Today's meeting
Dear Matt,
Thank you for meting with me today.
I am delighted that the staff estimates for all ten streets are essentially identical with my
estimates. Thus, the Council can have confidence that the total budget to be discussed
Feb 16 reflects accurately the total project cost.
With regard to escalating costs: hopefully the large expenditure for traffic control will be
reduced through discussions with the winning bidder; the PVC conduit represents
feature creep."
You promised to provide the quantity of sidewalk that will be saved on
Broadway/Bachman. (Note: I assumed none saved in my estimates.) I look forward to
reviewing the numbers.
You also promised that, as the detailed design for eight streets proceeds, the consultant
will provide posted quantity estimates line item by line item, street by street for ongoing
review by residents.
All in all we had a very productive meeting.
Thank you,
Tom Boyce
Attachment 6
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 2:10 PM
To: BSpector, Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Council; Laurel
Prevetti; jpeterson@community-newspapers.com; Robert Schultz
Subject: Fwd: 62% Chance of a Major Earthquake//Liquefaction LG & Surrounding Areas
Post exec summary on Town website?
When major quake hits, how will concrete or asphalt for AG perform?
Quoting from hqp://pubs.uses.eov/of/2003/ofD3-214/
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Drawing on new data and new methodologies, we have
concluded that there is a 0.62 probability (that is, a 62%
probability) of a major, damaging earthquake striking the
greater San Francisco Bay Region (SFBR) over the next 30
years (2002-2031). Such earthquakes are most likely to occur
on seven main fault systems identified in this study, but may
also occur on faults that were not characterized as part of the
study (that is, in the "background") (Figure ES.1). Our results
come from a comprehensive analysis lead by the USGS and
involving input from a broad group of geologists,
seismologists, and other earth scientists representing
government, academia and the private sector. The results of
this study are appropriate for use in estimating seismic hazard
in the SFBR, and estimating the intensity of ground shaking
expected for specified "scenario' earthquakes. In addition,
they provide a basis for calculating earthquake insurance
premiums, planning and prioritizing expenditures for seismic
upgrades of structures, and developing building codes.
Liquefaction risk SCC. Why not assigned risk for LG?
hgR:Hpubs.usas.eov/of/2008/1270/of2008-1270 San Andreas scenario.pdf
is
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 2:49 PM
To: Lisa Petersen; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen;
Laurel Prevetti; Council; Matt Morley
Subject: AG, Concrete & Major Quake
How will concrete streets hold in a 7.0. plus EQ? Assume 62 percent chance in 30 years, how perform is key. If concrete
suffers deep spider cracks, may have to redo or live with cracked roads again.
Will asphalt react better? More flex?
JS (bear in mind on climate issue, prefer concrete)
Sent from my iPhone
Matt Morley
From: Maria Ristow <ristows@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 11:10 PM
To: Matt Morley, Lisa Petersen
Subject: Fwd: Re: BROADWAY STREET RECONSTRUCTION
Please read the letters below. Thank you both for all the time and attention and work you have put into the
Almond Grove and Broadway paving issue.
Maria Ristow
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Forwarded Message-------
Subject:Re: BROADWAY STREET RECONSTRUCTION
Date:Sun, 14 Feb 2016 08:51:36 -0800
From:MIke's Mail <mwasserman(a-)aol.com>
To:Lynn Brandhorst <Idbrandhorst(&email.com>
CC:undisclosed
Dear Lynn (and please feel free to forward to Matt and Lisa),
First of all, let me say, myself included, we all owe you a debt of gratitude for your continual involvement in
this once in a century street project. You have represented us very well and have been persistent, professional
and appropriate communicating with us, staff and Council. In all my years as an elected official (14 and
counting), I have never seen an individual do as good a job as you.
I have seen plenty of yellers and screamers (and people who threw things!). I have seen those that are there at
the beginning, and then fade away, when the project got bogged down in bureaucracy. I have seen individuals
who refused to understand financial limitations. And I have seen way too many people who were only willing to
champion what they wanted -- and not listen to others at all. If you'll excuse the street based pun, they were
effectively saying, "My way or the highway." :)
The letter you have written us is as usual, exceptionally complete, reasonable and well thought out -- as are the
responses from Matt and Lisa, and for that I am very thankful. I think all three of you deserve our thanks, and I
also think it's time to make the decision and move on, so I'll share my thoughts (and please feel free to forward
on to the Town Council):
Kim and I have lived in our current home in the middle of Broadway for the last 32 years. Our children were
born here and went to school here. I was happy to be part of the historic Bell Ringer project, and the Hillside
Design Guidelines, building the soccer field, the police station and the library -- and repaving Santa Cruz Ave
from one end to the other in 4 days and nights. We, along with many of our neighbors, experienced the fire, the
Attachment 6
earthquake and several recessions. But during all this, I've seen Los Gatos do all that it could to remain
historically accurate whenever possible and practical -- especially in the historic districts.
That's my long winded way of saying I'm in favor of replacing our 100 year old (and therefore historic by the
Town's own Bell Ringer type standards) with a concrete street, with the benefit of all the modem (not historical)
engineering, design and infrastructure proposals possible to address water flow, children's safety, future
technology, speeding and aesthetics -- especially since the costs over the long term of using concrete have now
been proven to be less expensive!
In closing I want to thank Lynn again, but of equal importance is Town staff, specifically Matt and Lisa. If not
for their willingness to listen, investigate, research, get creative, etc. -- and believe me, from what I read below,
they have gone above and beyond trying to consider all issues and make this happen -- we would not be at this
decision making "cross roads" (sorry couldn't resist using that term somewhere!).
Make no mistake, the tear out and replacement process will be yucky (loud, dirty, dusty, inconvenient) to say
the least, but I have faith in Town staff to insure the project begins and finishes as quickly as possible. And
when it's done, I look forward to a street that is as beautiful as the rest of our neighborhood and we can leave the
next decision up to whomever is around 50-75 years from now.
All the best ..... Mike and Kim Wasserman (68 and 72 Broadway)
Sent from my Wad
On Feb 13, 2016, at 11:21 PM, Lynn Brandhorst <Idbrandhorstt7a,amail.com> wrote:
Dear Broadway Neighbors,
It's been quite a while since you've heard from me. So Happy New Year, etc., on up to Happy Valentine's Day
tomorrow! I'll try to put the important stuff first and briefly:
At the October 20 Town Council meeting, the Council barely (3-2 vote) finally passed a long and laboriously
debated motion to send the Broadway/Bachman reconstruction specifications out for bids. Progress, though the
Council made changes, including no narrowing of the street, directing the staff to rework the specifications and get
bids for both asphalt and concrete, and do a life cycle cost analysis.
Those bids are now in, have been reviewed by Town Staff, and the material is all in the agenda postings for the
February 16 meeting, next Tuesday, Agenda Item 7:
http://losgatos.eranicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewert)hy'?view id=5&event id=419
Here are the most important numbers, if I've interpreted them correctly:
Asphalt Broadway d Bachman Total Almond Grove
Initial Construction Costs 1,978,633 1 $14,127,805
Net Present Value of Future Maintemnee 1,060,0001 5,950,000
Total 50 Year Life Cycle 3,038,633 20,077,805
Attachment 6
concrete
Initial Construction Costs $ 2,361,806 16,741,707
Net Present Value of Future Maintenance $ 360,000 2,000,000
Total 50 Year Ufe Cycle 2,721,806 18,741,707
So, although the initial cost is more for concrete, over the 50 -year cycle, concrete is less expensive by this analysis,
including the declining time -value of future maintenance in today's dollars. The present value analysis assumed a
3% inflation rate, and an effective earnings interest rate of I% that the Town receives today. I have not yet digested
all the details in the material, so rm not completely sure what seems reasonable or not.
Town Staff did not make a recommendation for Asphalt vs. Concrete, leaving both alternatives or total rejection for
the Town Council to probably argue over, once again. There have already been submissions submitted to the
Council, and I expect additional — probably contentious -- comments from speakers at the meeting on Tuesday. I
will plan on making brief remarks, mainly thanking everyone for their work and reaffirming the previous Broadway
Neighbors' strong desire for concrete. I am assuming that the Broadway Neighbors as a group ARE still strongly in
favor of concrete and would like to move ahead to get this all over with by fall. If any of you have questions, or
reservations, I would like to hear them. While I don'tthink making a big show of force at the Town Council meeting
is important, anyone is stili welcome to get their three minutes in front of the Council.
Thus concludes the most important update. I have had discussions and exchanges with the Town Engineer and the
Project Manager. rll add my initial email to the Town Engineer and various responses below. This was mainly based
on the items Pd listed in my last message to you previously. Of particular interest to some of you is the issue of
underground utilities. It is the last item below.
Regards, —Lynn
Edited for brevity, here is my correspondence to Matt Morley, Parks & Public Works Director, with the responses
from Lisa Peterson, Town Engineer, and additional comments:
ME: Now that the Town Council has taken some action moving forward with the Almond Grove and Broadway
street reconstruction project, there are still some topics that Broadway residents and residential owners would like to
address.
ME: Current inadequate stone drainage at some driveways on the North side (even numbers) of the street.
During previous wet years some residents have experienced continual flooding up over the driveway
entrances and sidewalks onto their property, requiring sandbags to be piled up. How will the new design
assure this will not happen in future storms?
TOWN: The engineering designer has provided calculations verifying design is
capable of handling the stormdrain flow. I will have Tom call you to re -review your
areas of concern. [The project engineer called me and assured me that the curb and
driveway entrance designs would handle the runoff water from all the Broadway
properties, including that from Broadway Extension and down Clifton. In addition
the new storm drains at the Santa Cruz Avenue will have double the current
capacity to prevent flooding of that intersection as has happened in the past.]
Attachment 6
ME: Specifics of tree removal/retention under the policy added to the Council action to move forward with
bids on Broadway. A few residents are concerned about specific trees in front of their property. I think this
only needs clarification, as I'm sure you have a much better understanding of the Town Council's enacted
directives than I do.
TOWN: Tom can meet with you on site to go over tree specifics. [I have not
followed upon this. Assuming a bid islet, and construction will start this spring, I
will be happy to coordinate as necessary with those who have tree concerns, or
refer you to the project manager. I'm also not sure if more trees will be removed
because planting strips will not be wider than present.]
ME: Replacement of existing hardscapes (concrete, stone) that continue houses' entry sidewalks through
the planting strips to the curb. The Town Engineer has previously said that hardscapes are discouraged,
with mulch in all the planting strips, and that in order to replace existing hardscapes that the owners would
have to get a building permit (and presumably pay fees and construction costs) to replace what we already
have. Those of us who have the hardscapes do not find this to be an appropriate solution.
TOWN: State Water Board is encouraging removal of hardscape from right of way
areas to allow for better water infiltration and minimize flow to the stormdrains and
therefore the bay. Town staff is passing down this recommendation. If homeowners
desire to replace their headscape, this can be done through a Town encroachment
permit. Any work in the Town right of way requires this permit. For purposes of this
project, the town will issue "no fee" permits for this work, however we would like to
encourage residents to minimize or eliminate hardscapes in the planter strips when
possible.
ME: Some Council Members, as well as I, were still not clear on the implications of the new curbs being
higher than the existing ones. The concern voiced by residents is about whether the tops of the new curbs
will be in a plane that extends across the planting strip and sidewalk surfaces. This applies mainly to those
who have -- or would plan to have -- hardscapes or other walkways across the planting strips.
TOWN: The top of the curb will stay at the existing elevation. The gutter line will
be raised slightly.
ME: Retention or replacement of existing drip or sprinkler lines from front yards to planter strips under
existing existing sidewalks during construction.
TOWN: This is included as part of the contractor's work scope.
ME: What is the feasibility and ultimate cost to homeowners of relocating all overhead utilities (i.e., power,
telephone, cable services) to underground during this project, as well as feasibility of an underground
conduit for future optic data and voice communications service. We are willing to contact PG&E directly if
you would prefer we do so.
TOWN: The cost for undergrounding is about $550 to $850 dollars per lineal foot.
PG&E requires undergrounding projects to scheduled; these schedules are several
years out. The current Broodway/Bachman Project will include undergrounding empty
conduit for future fiber optic use. [While I would love to have the overhead utilities
Attachment 6
underground, I think it is tilting at windmills at this point. It means $27,500 to
42,500 for a fifty -foot lot front, and I doubt this includes all on -property costs to
go underground all the way to each service entrance (which may need to be
relocated as well). The Town is not going to pay for this, nor does PG&E other than
sometimes working out a payment plan. If we attempt to convince the Town to pay
for part of it, we will be branded as greedy after the money that is going to be
spent on street reconstruction, and it would presumably delay the street
reconstruction for several years. That said, I would not discourage someone, or a
group, to do the additional research to champion this issue if they are motivated
enough. I'm happy to talk about it more and help.]
Attachment 6
Matt Morley
From: Marico Sayoc
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 7:40 PM
To: Robert Cowan
Cc: Lisa Petersen; Matt Morley, Laurel Prevetti; Jennifer Callaway
Subject: Re: Feb 16th agenda: Almond Grove street project
M%IZ
Thanks for your submittal. I am cc:ing PPW to include into the record for Agenda Item 7.
Thanks.
Marico Sayoc
Vice Mayor,Town of Los Gatos
On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Robert Cowan <rscowan(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Please excuse the last minute submittal of information re the Almond Grove street project. The
staff report for the agenda item was not available until Saturday and Town Hall was not open on
Monday to submit a desk item.
I want to submit 4 comments.
1. The diffenence in the low bid for asphalt vs concrete is not overwhelming. The initial cost for
asphalt is about $383,000 lower. However, when the long term cost of maintenance is included,
concrete is less expensive.
2. The bottom paragraph of page 3 of the Agenda Item 7 report did not mention the need to bulb
out sections of curb and sidewalk to preserve major trees. If I recall correctly, the Town Council
agreed that curb bulb outs could be used to preserve major trees.
3. The staffs plan to place strategic concrete score lines in the street to facilitate future trench
work for utility laterals for residences will significantly reduce unsightly asphalt patches in the
street.
4. The advantage/disadvantage matrix on page 5 of the Agenda Item 7 report mentions the
advantage of concrete in terms of historic perspective. The downtown residential neighborhood
enhances the historic character of the Town's retail esperience. As mentioned by Ms Doemer's
Attachment 6
previous testimony, town events spill over into the Almond Grove and enhance the visitors
experience. Lets retain the Town's unique character.
Attachment 6
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 7:35 PM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Janette Judd
Subject: Desk Item - 021616 Council Agenda Item 7
Attachments: 021616 Life Cycle Costs.pdf
Please include the attached as a Desk Item to Agenda Item 7 - Almond Grove Street
Reconstruction project.
Thank you!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
Angelia M. Doerner
SaveO u rH ood @va hoo. com
Feb 16, 2016 Council Meeting —Agenda Item 7
It is heartening to see that Staff has finally foregone the previous grossly overstated asphalt maintenance
costs of $24 Million (provided by Nichols Consulting!!!!!). As the differential has been significantly reduced,
I will not attempt to recreate the numbers. However, I would like to point out that they are still overstated
as follows:
In the "Industry Standard" assumptions — applying a Slurry Seal in year 49 would extend the
acceptable life out past Year 56. This analysis is supposed to be for a 50 -year cycle. Therefore, the
Year -49 Slurry Seal should not have been included in the computation.
Similarly, application of a Year -50 Slurry Seal in the "Town Practice" assumptions should not have
been included in the computation as that would extend the life past Year 60 — and probably longer
as it would be applied on top of an immediately preceding Overlay. Also, as discussed at length in
each of the last two Council meetings concerning the Annual Street Maintenance Program, the
assumptions used in this analysis (10 -Year Slurry Seal cycles) are much more conservative than the
12-15 Year cycles that was explained by Staff to be 'Town Standard".
As to maintenance costs of Concrete streets, they are understated as follows:
In addition to the assumption used of "3% slab replacement every 14 years", a critical maintenance
process of applying new joint sealant every 7 years to control water intrusion should have been
considered. This was the maintenance suggested in the Nichols report and was quantified in that
report as $SMiI. I found a similar discussion of such in an independent pavement manual which
stated every 7-10 years.
Therefore, considering reductions of the asphalt maintenance amounts as noted in the first two bullets,
above, the concrete maintenance amounts are greater than for asphalt. At a minimum, they should be
considered to be equal if you opted to apply joint sealant less often than the 7 years suggested by Nichols.
What is more critical in this analysis is the consideration of "Reconstruction Costs" at Year 50. Simply put, at
year 50 —
The Staff analysis is correct in that the concrete streets will need to be replaced in total — therefore
shelling out the same estimated amount as what we are looking at now.
Asphalt is another story! Please go back and reread the 091515 Staff Report (Page 5) regarding
Overlay. In that report (and discussed at length by PPW from March '15 through Sept'15), applying
an Overlay would have extended the life for 18 - 20 years before any other rehabilitation would be
required —and THAT was by putting an Overlay on top of our crumbled streets! Staff's maintenance
assumptions include an Overlay at Year 40. Therefore, no other rehabilitation would be required
until Year 58 or 60! Even then, according to PPW in past meetings, it would not require full
reconstruction for several more years if routine maintenance were consistently followed.
In addition, the table on Page 5 of the Staff Report should be corrected as follows: Under "Asphalt
Disadvantages" — "Shorter life of 25 years without maintenance" — else it would not be consistent with the
analysis set forth in Attachment 4.
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Council; BSpector, Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Janette Judd
Subject: Desk Item - 021616 Agenda Item 7 - Almond Grove
Attachment 1 - Source and Use of funds is for the old numbers - would sure be helpful
it was updated for the lower amounts shown in the Staff Report.
Thank You!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:48 AM
To: Council
Subject: DESK ITEM FOR 021616 AGENDA ITEM n7 - ALMOND GROVE
Just so you know - putting the curbs back where they currently reside removed
166,455 of costs to do all planter areas - offset by a diminimis increase in
pavement area costs.
Staff also added placement of conduit (for future fiber optic) at a cost of
105,000 - $120,000. Residents have been asking for this type of conduit from Day 1
Sept '13), repeatedly asking at every Outreach meeting since - and have always been
told "NO!!!". Residents appreciate this inclusion - wish Staff had been amenable
at the onset to avoid waste of energy and frustration on the part of Residents.
Are we sure a 2" PVC Conduit is adequate for future possibilities??? Seems awfully small
when considering possible fiber, Comcast, electrical, etc..... What are implications of
going a little bigger - just the cost of the PVC, correct?? Where is placement?
There is only 2,400 LF in the bids - one half for Broadway, one half for Bachman
right? So, will it be down the middle of the street???????
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
RESOLUTION 2015-061
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ESTABLISHING A RESREVE OF $12.2 MILLION FOR THE ALMOND GROVE
STREET REHABILIATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Town Council has identified funding sources for the Almond Grove
Street Rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, funds totaling approximately $12.2 million have been identified in the
Almond Grove Funding Plan and Funding Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to establish a designated reserve for the Almond
Grove Street Rehabilitation project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council hereby authorizes
establishment of a designated Reserve for the Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation Project in the
initial amount of approximately $12.2 million.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos, California, held on the third day of November, 2015 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steve Leonardis, Rob Rennie, Marion Sayoc, Barbara Spector
NAYS: Mayor Marcia Jensen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED ( \ G
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT
2015-2016 Capital Project Program
Projects Moving Forward 15/16 Reason
900,000
Budget
19,550
Former Library Roof Improvements 90,000 Roof condition requires replacement.
28,150
Blossom Hill Park Little League Backstop
Failure to replace a roof can lead to
Oak Meadow Park 3302000
increased infrastructure damage due to
350,000 • $50k from 14/15
Downtown Parking Sign Enhancements
leaks.
Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Repair 250,000 This project addresses hazards that create
Maintenance
TOTAL
a liability for the Town.
Retaining Wall Repairs 100,000 Retaining walls, especially in hillside
areas, require replacement to ensure
roadways remain functional.
Crosswalk Lighting Upgrade 50,000 Create safe crossing areas for pedestrians.
Crosswalk Improvements at Santa 60,000 Add sidewalk to north side of intersection
Cruz & Blossom Hill for pedestrian safety.
Shannon/ LGB. Chevy Blossom 110,000 Sidewalk infill for pedestrian safety.
Sidewalk Improvements
Stonybrook and Kennedy Sidewalk 260,000 Sidewalk replacement along creek where
Improvements sidewalk is falling off roadway.
Pagaent Way Parking Lot 175,550 This parking lot serves the civic center and
Reconstruction has deteriorated significantly. The lot
needs to be rebuilt to retain stormwater
flow and avoid tripping hazards.
LED Streetlights 400,000 This project has a positive return on
investment of at least $50,000 per year.
Silicon Valley Interoperability Project 152,876 This project is necessary to pay for
Service Fee infrastructure costs for public safety radio
reliability.
Bachman Park 325,000 Council set aside for park improvements
Fuel System Enhancement 75,000 Necessary to ensure fueling reliability
Projects on Hold Budget
Street Repair — 2014-15(half ofproject) 900,000
Montebello Way Island Removal 19,550
Los Gatos Creek Trail improvements at Charter Oaks 30,000
Worcester Park Improvements 28,150
Blossom Hill Park Little League Backstop 25,000 GFARrtion
Oak Meadow Park 3302000
Parking Lot #4 350,000 • $50k from 14/15
Downtown Parking Sign Enhancements 50,000
Civic Center improvements 150000
Building Replacement at Corp Yard 200,000 (GFARportion)
TOTAL 2,132,700
ATTACHMENT 8
Plan Bay Area and VTP 2040Project List
Source Description
General Bike Lane Improvements- various throughout Town.
Plan Guided by Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
General Blossom Hill Road - Blossom Hill Park to Union Avenue:
Plan Widening only to provide for left turn storage lanes, bicycles and pedestrians and safety improvements.
Blossom Hill Road Bridge Widening at Highway 17:
General Reconstruct and widen bridge over Highway 17 to provide sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides, and evaluate the need for additional street
Plan lighting and traffic lanes based on safety considerations for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Blossom Hill Road- North Side- Union Avenue to Westhill Drive:
General Widening only as additional land becomes available through right-of-way dedications associated with development approvals, or as additional
Plan funding sources become available to the Town for the purpose of acquiring additional land for right-of-way and infrastructure improvements.
General Blossom HIM Road. South Side- Union Avenue to Regent Drive:
Plan Widen to conform with the roadway width east of Regent Drive.
General Hwy 17
Plan Bus Service Improvements
General Hwy 9- SR 17 to Los Gatos Boulevard
Plan Complete Street Improvements
General Hwy9
Plan Construct Los Gatos Creek Trail Connector
General Hwy 9 at N. Santa Cruz
Plan Construct Gateway entrance to downtown
General Knowles Ave - Knowles from Pollard to Winchester
Plan Complete Street Improvements
Lark Ave - Highway 17 to Los Gatos Boulevard:
General Widen the road to four to six lanes with a median and bike lanes, and provide two westbound right -turn storage lanes for the metered
Plan northbound Highway 17 on-ramp.
General Lark Ave- Winchester Boulevard to Highway 17:
Plan Widen the road to four to six lanes with a median and bike lanes.
General LGB- Camino del Sol to Blossom Hill Road:
Plan Provide bike lanes.
General Los Gatos — Saratoga Road (Highway 9) and North Santa Cruz Avennc
Plan Intersection Improvements
General Los Gatos Almaden Road lmprovmenents-
Plan Sidewalk, bike lane, complete streets
General Los Gatos Blvd - Lark Ave. to Samaritan Or
Plan Widen Roadway
General Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue:
Plan Intersection Improvements
General Los Gatos Boulevard and Samaritan Drive:
Plan Intersection Improvements
General Pollard Road- Knowles Drive from Pollard Avenue to Winchester Boulevard:
Plan Widen the road to four lanes plus bike lanes.
General Pollard Road- San Tomas Aquino Creek to Burrows Road/San Tomas Aquino Road:
Plan Widen the road to four lanes plus a median and bike lanes.
General Pollard Road - West Parr Avenue to Knowles Drive:
Plan Widen the road to four lanes with no parking, plus bike lanes.
Genera
Plan Town Traffic Signal System Upgrade
General Union Ave- Blossom Hill Road to Los Gatos—Almaden Road:
Plan Widen the road to four lanes plus sidewalks, parking, and bike lanes.
General Vasom
Plan Light Rail Station
General Wedgewood Ave.
Plan Traffic and Ped Safety - Phase 11
General Winchester- Blossom Hill to Lark
Plan Complete Street Improvements
Other Trafix Busing Model
Other Pedestrian Bridge from Creek Trail to Sports Park or other similar Creek Trail Connection - added by Cound
Other Transportation Study to identify long term solutions for West Valley - added by Counct
ATTACHMENT 9
Plan Bay Area and VTP 2040 Project List
Projects Affecting Los Gatos and Added by Other Agencies)
Source Description
Other SR 17/SR 9 Interchange Improvements
Other SR 17 Widening (Lark Ave to South of SR 9)
Other SR 85 Noise Abatement Pilot Projects
Other SR 85 Noise Abatement Project (from SR 87 to 1-280)
Other SR 85/ Winchester Blvd Interchange Study
Other Santa Cruz Toll Corridor Tunneled Highway with Light Rail
VTA Extend Light Rail Transit from Winchester Station to Route 85 (Vasona Junction)
SC County Los Gatos Creek Trail: Lark Ave to Blossom Hill