Addendumlowx f
M1
1ps.SA`OS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REMARKS:
MEETING DATE: 09/15/15
ITEM NO: 7
ADDENDUM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION
PROJECT
A. DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AN ENGINEERED ASPHALT
OVERLAY SOLUTION WITH THE RECOMMENDED CURB LINE
DESIGN OF FOUR FOOT TREE PLANTER AREAS AND REPLACING
UNSUITABLE STREET TREES AS IDENTIFED.
B. APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE NICHOLS CONSULTING
ENGINEERS (NCE) AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE $35,000 FOR DESIGN
CHANGES.
C. APPROVE THE PROJECT SCHEDULE DELIVERING THE PROJECT
WTHIN FOUR TO FIVE YEARS.
D. APPROVE ESTIMATED FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN
TABLE A OF ATTACHMENT 4.
After the initial staff report was distributed on September 11, 2015, staff received inquiries from
Council which are addressed below.
Question: How much as the Town paid for street repairs in the past 10 years?
Answer: As illustrated in Table 1 below, from Fiscal Year (FY) 2004/05 through FY 2013/14
street infrastructure expenses have totaled $20.4 million, or an average of $2.0 million per year.
These figures are based on audited year -end numbers and include all street related repairs,
maintenance and infrastructure work.
PREPARED BY:
MATT MORLEY/
Director of Parks and
Director
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager wn Attorney Finance
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION
PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
Table 1: Annual Street Infrastructure Ex enditures
Fiscal Year
Street
Infrastructure
Expenditures
FY 2004/05
$
212,614
FY 2005/06
$
1,710,249
FY 2006/07
$
2,111,963
FY 2007/08
$
1,726,657
FY 2008/09
$
837,516
FY 2009/10
$
994,891
FY2010 /11
$
1,922,930
FY 2011/12
$
1,506,062
FY 2012/13
$
3,596,066
FY 2013/14
$
2,029,231
10 -Year Total
$
16,648,179
Average Annual S
$
1,664,818
*Based on Actual Year -End Audited Data
Audited data for FY 2014/15 is not available at this time but based on current estimates street
infrastructure expenses total approximately $13,000, reflective of the Town's shifting priorities
to fund the Almond Grove rehabilitation project.
Question: Which FY 2015/16 CIP projects are going forward (not "reallocated) and what is the
cost for each?
Answer: During the Capital Budget Hearing, the Council gave direction to delay progress on a
number of projects pending resolution of the Almond Grove project. A list of projects moving
forward, a list of projects on hold, and the respective budget amount for each is included in
Attachment 7.
Public Communication
Also provided in Attachment 8 is public comment, which was received after the staff report was
distributed.
Much of the public communication has to do with street width. Staff believes this may be due to
the early design which included significant street narrowing with Complete Streets elements. To
demonstrate the current street width design, staff thought it might be valuable for the Council to
see examples of the proposed curb line location as currently designed. In some areas, such as on
Tait Avenue between Main Street and Bean Avenue, the curb line does not move. A sample of
proposed curb line locations where the current design calls for the curb line to move have been
marked and pictures are provided in Attachment 9. The locations can be found at the following
addresses:
50 & 57 Broadway Avenue 328 Bachman
150 & 155 Tait Avenue 240 Massol Avenue
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION
PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
Attachments 1 -6 (Previously received with Staff Report on September 11. 2015
I. Fee Estimate for Additive Alternatives.
2. Pavement Costs per Street for Almond Grove Streets.
3. Almond Grove Votes.
4. Detailed Funding Option for Each Pavement Alternative.
5. Bachman Avenue and Broadway Tree Plan.
6. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Friday, September 11, 2015.
Attachment received with this Addendum:
7. 2015 -2016 Capital Project Funding
8. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, September 11, 2015 through 11:00
a.m. Monday, September 14, 2015.
9. Images of Proposed Curb Line
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
$330,000
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. Cherry 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 im rovements
Fuel S stem Enhancement
$75,000
Necessary to ensure fuelin reliabili
Projects on Hold
Bud et
Street Repair — 2014 -15 (half of project)
$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 (GFAR portion)
Oak Meadow Park
$330,000
Parking Lot #4
$350,000 * $50k from 14/15
Downtown Parking Sign Enhancements
$50,000
Civic Center Improvements
$150,000
Building Replacement at Corp Yard
$200,000 GFAR ort ion)
TOTAL
$2,132 700
ATTACHMENT']
From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhood(&vahoo com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:33 AM
To: Laurel Prevetti; Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Cc: Attorney
Subject: For Inclusion in Friday 091115 Materials for Council 091515 Meeting
I am curious - as no Staff Reports have yet been provided for Item 6 - Long-
term Funding and Item 7 - Almond Grove Funding and Costs, obviously
public comments cannot be made concerning such information in time for
inclusion in the Council Friday packets - nor posted on the website on Friday
for public -at -large perusal. Under the traditional procedures, no other public
comments will be posted until the afternoon of the day of the Meeting - as
Desk Items. In this case, might there be an additional "cut -off ", e.g.,
11:00am Monday whereby materials from the public will be posted to the
website so that they are available to the public -at -large at least 24 hours
prior to the meeting?
Please advise - and Thank You.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
ATTACHMENT8
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:34 AM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Subject: For Full Inclusion in Friday (091115) Council Materials - Item 7 Almond Grove
Attachments: 091015 Debunk Maint Costs.pdf
Attached, please find an "analysis" of estimated maintenance costs for AG asphalt
option.
Staff has repeatedly reported to Council and Residents that over 50 years, the
maintenance cost for concrete on the Almond Grove streets would be $5Mil and for
asphalt would be $24Mil. These estimates were originally presented in the 2011 Nichols
Report. Once Staff includes such amounts in their own reports to Council, they are
implicitly taking ownership of those estimates. In the 2011 Nichols Report, page 31, the
following life cycle cost assumptions were made:
If Concrete - Costs include replacement of the joint sealant every seven (7) years
If Asphalt - Costs are based on seven (7) year cycles... each cycle including
generally two to three surface seals followed by one Asphalt Overlay!
Please keep this in mind when reviewing the attached comparison between such
estimates and what the Town's routine maintenance is for all other (non -AG) residential
streets. Also, note that the Pavement Area used herein is from the 2011 Nichols Report
which I have explained (in a separate communication reg Estimated Project Costs) to be
apparently "somewhat overstated ".
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
Q
O
LL
C
a
V
0
:i
c
R
W
yr
,Q
V
Q
L
O
O
a
la
cn
Y
i
O
V
O
0
t
m
O
0
x
a
3
O
M
un
d
C
d
O
m
Oq
C
a
>
d
r
_
c
z�Ec
C
M m
L d C
E Az
EO
2
M
O d C d
=:yr
« C• d
t d�
FQ uy
N N
b 3 > II
r2 0 3 cZ H<
°
N «�
�N0d
3 �m
c 3F°-vi 13 N
mN yGCi °.-N.. ?a
p//�
mr�
WF-
cdoa
fmn 30£ ..
a i'
£ca > �?c c
O C
m'i
C
« NOJ
d
wC`• _
C`• C P•
'a° -+-0 M7
m N
O.._ c rncm CO)
0. A c R G
to c N •� O
{0 a 7 d
t/d
L N m
Lu N
£� d 7
0: 7 Q 61W
'Or LN C C Cam' 07a
°oE
NEaTi
}�>,y
co L)
�� �
ya �°U�E x d
r N�j0�, `aV mE �
��j
AyY
WxF O•E'wm�>
�o oN,p x 0
�>.EV w¢• >o
>
>
X0,0
Oz£
>dp
yt d
or=s MO
«+ �o rnc�0
2 �
O
° I
��w'rn
«>
d`-' M
a�
wm5 m >a=
o70>U
>
R
E
V II N
�(9wo
w Z~
:5 N
R R C C
2? @a�ui
V d d M
> `°ova
d U) N 7C C >� •� c 0
N
L «
O �
cG ¢� 3
d a O r,
VM- -U>
C n' O d 'O E M C
LaE =
d •e p 'm. Y C d �' p
mY 0_>
d 0
tanU�L
(j) :5
0p,m
UN �c0
d,t C>, M V}
cdtn
.� p,R a E Z ro0005
m
a "z
w}
a o
ad5¢U2
Qtn O am Mm co
96&QW umi
O
d
E2
_
O
C d 0 V J d m
O N 0 L d
d
m
m
� 3
n - vi
�
c°mU:Q E
�cy
d
E
>�
dC
mc �do
O
O�
°�
Y c R «
O -O 07
d C c 002 U
N W D
'0
t
c
c N
c
.p d d 4) c d m Q? 0
-
�II
cc
tu
��0 >.1O�
N0- £
N
rG N
c O d O- m A d N N R
d> ac `o a m 0> 3
U
c
U
a c
X d m d d m d L O
w 3n.. ac
IL
fn U2
fn C)2
N-
C7�a MN 0 L Q U 0 N
U V
d
d O
C d
m
}
m m
c
d g
« y
CN
•gym
N d
w}
U
'mE
NCd
C
N
d
U E m
C Q T
�. c
O m d
« d
r
�m00
>`
IIEn
L N
E d
41 R m
=
d 0
d« N
wCd'
ea>M
c
cuL >a
0a :
5y
EQ.om
N
3m =m
C O
O€
C
Q
c c c a
c �;
0
O
`°
E w
4*
d
F G
N
:w c4 O
L m m
F£ w m
0
0
c
0 a
c
0 d 0
d
«
O
'3
O
n
n
n N y
n N W
_ m
p
C O 7
d O
rC
N
N L
,,,,
. C CL 0
`� d O
C.)
0
�y anti
c
g�UN
0
0
0
��0
�`
Za
low
n E
N
a N
-
w N
--•
a N
-
•
0
0
c
r
-)
c
•
•
P •
n •
•
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:34 AM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Subject: For Full Inclusion in Friday (091115) Council Materials - Item 7 Almond Grove
Attachments: 091015 Asphalt Overlay.pdf
Attached please find my comments concerning Asphalt Overlay as a viable option (or
NOT) for the necessary work to be performed on the Almond Grove streets.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
Asphalt Overlay- "Say, WHAT ? ?!"
I believe the best analogy I have heard regarding this issue was made by a
neighbor of mine, Bob Cowan of Tait Ave. At the June 2 '15 Council meeting he shared
the following (paraphrashing):
"In his early years of work experience, he worked for a developer. The first primary
thing that they did was to check that the foundation was sound — it was critical that
it be good — as to location, height, materials —just about everything.... Which is
why he is so leery about this overlay option...... .
Everyone I know is very "leery" — who better to know how many slabs on their parts of
the block are obviously shattered even to the naked eye — requiring replacement? Yes!
Lets:
• Remove a vast number of concrete slabs,
• May have to wait to deal with "who knows what" under there (like on Royce St),
• Pour new concrete,
• Grind /patch or do other remedial work on the remaining old slabs,
• Then, pour asphalt all over the patched -up mess.
And let's ask our Council to choose this alternative even though we will need to pay more
$$ to Nichols for:
• Figuring out how to accomplish this option and quantify the estimated magnitude
of the effort outlined above, and
• Redesign all the specs with all the new grades, elevations, etc., as well as
• Redesign of curbs, gutters, etc., because the resulting pavement surface will
almost be at the height of the existing curb, and
• Uh oh — never thought about this until now - will I actually trip and fall by simply
"exiting" my front gate (having to step UP # "s onto the sidewalk)? What about
drainage along my property line?
Also, at the Apr 22'15 Planning Committee meeting reg the CIP, Town Staff
mentioned (for the first time) "....it worked quite well on the part of N. Santa Cruz when it
was done several years ago... ". Town Staff repeated this sentiment at their Sep 3 '15
meeting with me. I asked if they knew anything about the state of the NSC concrete at that
time. Neither did - but stated that the Town inspectors knew. I then informed them that in
late July /early Aug I saw that the street was open for work in front of "Tommy's ".
Naturally, I pulled off the road, grabbed my ever - present tape measure, and went out into
the middle of the street to measure the depth of the concrete. I informed Town Staff that
the concrete was a solid 10" on one side and over 11" on the other. I also informed them
that Santa Cruz Ave used to be THE highway used to traverse "the Hill" (ergo, the "17
on /off ramps" at the South end) - therefore, it was built using appropriate CalTrans
highway specifications to withstand THAT level of traffic. I also stated that I have no
memory of seeing shattered, or even cracked, slabs before that work was done. I am
hopeful they add this information to their thought process in recommending viable options
for you to consider.
Also, may I refresh your memory about what the Consultants had to say about this option
in the 2011 Nichols report?
The following is an excerpt from the "2011 Nichols Report" regarding their
recommendation for use (rather, non -use) of an Overlay process on our
Concrete streets (which have only gotten worse in the last 4 years).
"This ... involves adding a conventional hot mix asphalt
concrete or AC layer to an existing ... (concrete) pavement. It
is used to correct or improve the structural capacity or
functional requirements such as skid resistance and ride
quality. The use of an AC overlay is usually more economic
when the existing pavement is still in good to fair condition.
...... The thickness of the new surface will be dependent on
the type, severity and extent of the pavement surface
distresses, the ride quality and the required structural
improvement necessary to accommodate the design traffic.
The advantages are many — see Staff Report. However, the
disadvantages are that it will potentially increase the
pavement grade, and reflection cracking is expected.
Therefore, this alternative is applicable for AC pavements but
not PCC (Concrete)."
In 2011, it appears our Consultants were offering some level of expertise. In
addition, they did NOT provide ANY cost estimates, either by street, or in
totality.
SO, if they need to be paid more $$ to determine all the matters listed above — which
information is critical to providing a Cost Estimate — how were the Cost Estimates for
Overlay, presented in the 060215 Staff Report to Item 8, derived? Or the amounts
presented to you at the Mar 3 '15 meeting? If you go back and look at footnotes ( *) and
( * *) on those 030315 cost comparisons — you will find that none of these costs were
included! How much credibility do you place on the Overlay Cost Estimates and
related cost comparisons to Reconstruct w Concrete or Reconstruct w Asphalt?
Surely not enough on which to make decisions! ?!
I believe the best statement I have heard regarding this issue was made by our PPW
Director at the 042215 Planning Committee meeting:
"....All of the concrete streets are in significant need of reconstruction — not
just repair — but full reconstruction....... Although other solutions have been done
in other parts of the Town, the streets in AG are in need of reconstruction..."
As I said earlier, everyone I know is very "leery" about this option!
On behalf of the entire Town, I hope that each of you is very "leery" too!
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Subject: For Full Inclusion in Friday (091115) Council Materials - Item 7 Almond Grove
Attachments: 091115 Project Costs.pdf
Attached please find an overall analysis and related comments concerning Estimated AG
Project Costs. This is in no way intended to represent a comprehensive analysis - only
what can be derived from the limited data that has been presented to date. All amounts
provided to Council by Staff have been derived, directly or indirectly, using the Nichols
2011 Report or by the Nichols Consultants. Unfortunately, there are apparent mistakes
in that 2011 Report - which would /should have been identified and brought to the
forefront before now - and NOT by me. But, such is my lot in life! For example:
In the Street Detail on Page 20 of the Report, Bachman is stated as being from
Santa Cruz to Glen Ridge - with an indicated length of 2,443LF - but that must be
the length from Santa Cruz to the end (from Glen Ridge to the end is already
asphalt). Est overstatement of pavement area is 1,143LF x 39'Width (according to
Report) is 44,577SF.
The Summary of Pavement Types on Page 5 is a tabulation of the individual
streets' Pavement Areas from Page 20 - thereby apparently double- counting
the intersections!! It appears this double- counting affects the Cost Estimates in
Table 4.1 and, obviously, the street -by- street cost estimates presented in Table
4.3. I sincerely hope I am mistaken!
I was unable (unwilling after a few attempts) to "reconcile ", with any level of
certainty, the street -by- street 2011 Estimates to the Cost Estimates provided to
Council by Staff for Bachman, Broadway - primarily as the data is incomplete for
such review. Yet - they utilized the 2011 Street -by- Street Costs as a base
for revised Total Project Costs presented to Council.
The attached is an attempt to highlight critical information and raise questions that I
feel are important to any decision - making process concerning a project of this nature
and MAGNITUDE! For the sake of Our 'Hood - and Our Townes
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. My time from now until
Tuesday is yours for the asking - you know how to reach me -
SaveOurHoodCcbYahoo.com
Thank you for caring....
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
N
CL
O
.N
N
3
u
N
N
C
i+
N
d
3
Cf
C
N
N
•N
m
C
Q
(A
O
v
v
m
m
E
W
LU
a
Z
Z
SO
f�
J
a
O
V 1
W
H
ftlz
c,
3
-
0
1 0
N O
C C
v `°
O >
o @)
m o
0
m ?
C
Q O
to
i+
C
O
n.
c
O
.N
3
u
_N
N
c
O
VI
CY
C
A
H
.N
_i
C
a
N
O
v
CP
m
m
E
'a+
N
W
v O
w 3
a �
A
F 0
i C
Y
O
L y
z 'o
N F
N
E w
LL m
N �
C �
3 C
o E
E
Q O
6 V
c v
M m
N
C a
O
AL
•� c
u—
N W
c
y
d N
I
AA
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
w
m
O
O
O
CT
N
0
of
tO
l0
1�
w
O
a
a
w
m
ti
m
O
O
w
Y
N
V&
O
OLr�
tO
M
V1
L
u
'
nl
N
w
O
N
O
O
N
Y
rt
t
N
1p
rl
O
IA
m
m
0I
o
00
O
c
'-i
o
r-i
w
m
ri
n
m
a
3
Z>
V
C
Y
c-i
*n
.ti
a
M
V
VI
0
y
m
v
0
ui
0
C
LL
d
LL
N ut
V?
v
VT
N
VT
V?
V?
N
N
V}
O
L
W
E
v
n
v
"O
u
y
000
000
U
c
m
. -I
N
u
c
Q
Y
m
m
m
ai
m
m
w
m
m
o
.ti
m
eo
1n
M
v
-oa
c
ti
0
ci
C �
v
M
m
O
O
O
O
of
N
tD
V
N
a
O
O
u
O
O
O
O
v
3
v
3
VT VT
VT VT VT N
N
I
AA
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
LO
w
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
tO
l0
1�
w
u1
I�
Y
N
V
O
M
iO
O
O
w
Ol
I�
ri
O
i0
tO
L
u
'
a
C
vi
c
W
m
rt
V1
N
M
N
O
M
w
a
0I
o
00
O
m
m
m
w
rn
w
m
o
n
m
a
3
Z>
V
C
Y
c-i
.ti
M
V
VI
0
m
v
0
ui
0
lD'
Z
LL
N ut
V?
v
VT
N
VT
V?
V?
N
N
V}
aA
L
E
v
v
v
u
0
O)
U
c
L
N
V? VT Vf Vf
VT Vf
VT �A VT VT
N
I
A
O
v
v
c
A 0
O A
0 v u
v y
C C C n 00
U C a O N s v
u m U L O O
v c a
O C o 2 C h A
U O U 0 N vi in O W
> V
v£ v.
O u O K
c O 0 N d t7 C a 7 C C
'c .0 E w v -o > Y E v c
O
t0 O w d C >
0
n O O
F a 0 0 0 in V v� ON
0
H
0
u
C
O
V
A
n v
v v
V C Y
E
do c
0
c
A � E
v Q
C C
v o 0
W U V
c
m
� N VYI
01 C C
O O
U U
O o 0
U
w
.o
a`
Y
F-
O
e
d
N
O
O
O
0
0
o
o
O
o
0
�
�N
A
�
=
C
o
w
O
a
C
L
u
'
a
C
vi
c
W
m
n
v
oo
ai
.ti
m
o \°
a
0I
o
00
O
m
m
m
w
rn
w
m
o
n
m
a
3
Z>
V
w
Q
m
v
0
ui
0
lD'
Y
d
N ut
V?
v
VT
N
VT
V?
V?
N
N
V}
aA
L
E
v
v
v
u
0
O)
U
c
L
LL
'v
3
0
v
C
v
-oa
3
E
H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
tD
V
N
a
O
O
Z
O
O
O
O
v
3
v
3
O
E
u
O
'z
m`
Ou
3
vt
V
N
tD
00
Lr
r,
N
N
N
l0
N
a
u
m
v
m
m
G
V
V
V1
A
O
v
v
c
A 0
O A
0 v u
v y
C C C n 00
U C a O N s v
u m U L O O
v c a
O C o 2 C h A
U O U 0 N vi in O W
> V
v£ v.
O u O K
c O 0 N d t7 C a 7 C C
'c .0 E w v -o > Y E v c
O
t0 O w d C >
0
n O O
F a 0 0 0 in V v� ON
0
H
0
u
C
O
V
A
n v
v v
V C Y
E
do c
0
c
A � E
v Q
C C
v o 0
W U V
c
m
� N VYI
01 C C
O O
U U
O o 0
U
w
.o
a`
Y
F-
O
e
d
N
Op
a
m
c
3
0
0
0
O
O
Cf
T
c
a
O
.j
`v
Y
N
A
LD
v
aL+
A
a
v
v
O
Z
OJ
0l
w
0
N
M
� O
Ul O
C L
O N
O Y
D �
m 0
0
0
ovn =
a 0
Ol
>
vf0i
v
ti
�
�N
A
�
�
�c
v
C
L
u
'
a
v
o
c
W
0I
i0
O
N
a
3
Z>
°
0
3
0
v
E
v
v
v
u
0
O)
U
c
L
LL
'v
3
0
v
C
v
-oa
3
E
>
u
o
N
C
O
m
='
Z
O
a
M
V
Z
s
c
v
3
v
3
O
E
u
O
'z
m`
Ou
3
a
Op
a
m
c
3
0
0
0
O
O
Cf
T
c
a
O
.j
`v
Y
N
A
LD
v
aL+
A
a
v
v
O
Z
OJ
0l
w
0
N
M
� O
Ul O
C L
O N
O Y
D �
m 0
0
0
ovn =
a 0
Ol
>
vf0i
VI
_C
.O
a
v
w
to
m
C
O
m
C
Y
w
d
v
N
C
O
_z
w
Y
m
n
w
w
H
C1 A
O ¢V
N
T
m
3
L
m
r.
O
N Z
m d
m m
m w
¢ a
L
Y
O C
y C
m
O �
a+ C
� m
L
N W
v o
w m
u m
a
N
w H
O m
z u
s a
ai
N w
' m
Co
Q m
N �
w 00
O w
O
a+
L Y
o. m
N L
¢ n
in Q
N �
m
U ,
CC
0
Y
O L
Y Y
a N
Y
U m
N
w �
0 Y
N N
v m
w o_
c
o
H j
c �
A
00
V
z
Z
O
z
Z
0
C
2
H
Q
a
x
H
a
0 O
V
F-
Z
O
D
a
x
K
O
N
7
J
a
x
a
Q
K
N
D
z
z
Z
V
z
W
a
z
Z
Z
a
F-
7A
Z
x
X
W
z
O
0:
W
a
d
A
N
V
a
c
m
A
N
v
x
O
m
H N M
V V V
F-
W
H
Q
z
In
GC
J
a
x
d
a
Z
cc
O
O
K
a
z
z
F-
0
d
0
Z
0
N
x
N
W
W
O<
Q
z
W
0
N
oc
n•
F
Z
a
O
z
cg
L
0
z
w
V
W
Z
Z
¢
x
z
W
l7
S
a
Z
O
V
z
N
Z
O
H
O
u
W
r
K
¢
d
w
C
u
a
V
a
in
N
N
N
Y
m
C
w
O
Z
Y
J
V
c
V
a
u
a
N
w
Y
m
C
c
0
d
U
w
v
w
a
F�
c
A
V
V
z
Z
O
Q
z
Z
0
O
V
x
H
Q
Q_
W
Q
F-
0
F
z
W
H
N
Q
A A
N N
V V
w
w
C
C
O
0
m
L
d
L
Y
L
v°-
w
v
w
L
0
c
0
O
C
C
w
fZ
C
O
ii
c
c
U
d
w
w
m
m
C
O
CL
0
Ywl
w
L
O
L
O
m
A
O
V
w
Y
m
C C
w �
S
3
N
N
m w
C_
L
N E
m o
w v
Y
Em
E Y
0
O u
u L
u
w N
L c
m w
L
_> 3
w '"
L j
Y
° m
C C
m f0
u
Y C
a m
u L
C >
O
u Y c
bo w
C
N
w
J
o > w
M m a
W E
J m
W
X
L J w
o w
c > a
m v E
y Y _
J C N
o J a
to 0
C N Y
N
t'a C V
m
Y E m
O O m
u u >
N
0
L
u c
Z a
,y c
y J .
p O A
ry U C
L L U
" J w
O `
Y N Y
C
M O
v o.
w
O K
w O
C
u 00
m
vl NIN
m
I� ti
M
¢ a N
0
O
w
w C
O m 'n
w c E
X m O
it > u
w
0
M
C
O
C
C
0
O
N
w
w
°'
�
w
y
c
v
w
J
S
J
O
m
S
Y
m
O
E
m
w
UO
Y
°
m
w
Q
N
J
O
>
O
y
N
bo
o
w
a
v
a
w
o
v
m
v
c
E
E
o
N
M
w
0
J
m
w
L`
w
�'
U
C
w
h
M
C
O
Y
m
m
J
C
M
y
O
p0
L
O
C
H
S
`
?
U`
C>
CL
O
°
°
O
+
>O
C
O
O
u
V
mvE
u
O
"'
'D &0
w
0
c
Q
E
w
°'
m
X
a
�C m
c
w
O
N
J
W
w
C
O.
V 4)0�>-`
to
J CL
U
m
w
�W
Y
w
n•
U
m
-C
w
3
Y
•O
C
1pm
J
°
.J.
�c
m
'�
m
Iwo
0
C
C
C
0
N
\w=O
N
J\
C
m
L
,ulioc6'o'2
i0
m
C
O.
N
w
v
a
>
w
o
CL
L
Y
T
N
'o w
w
Y
O.
V
O
m
S
w
W mM
w
1n
c
N
y
w
ayi
N
3
w
v
w
>
U y
u E
J
O.
�
u
Y
°
a+
Z
L
m°
E
C7
w
a
v
o w
3
'v
of
-O
E
c
Y
0
bo
C
.w
m
u>
'O
M
N
W
o
m
m
awe
S
w
-o
C
m
m>
C
N
N
c
O.
Y
>0
w
E
w
t0
O
L
N
w L
w
w
L
w
m
c>
w
L O
CL
o
w
O.
L
o
L
0
-p
w E
Y
o
-0
Y
w
r
m
E
N
m
a
y
w
Y
L
a°
.�.
m
?
+
c
ywj
n
n
v
u
o
Y
a°
o
a+
m
m
y
Y
m
c,
0
W
+
.n
Y
o
w
E
°A
c C
m
y
0
Y
=
N
fi
O
N
O
7
m
V
n
L
w
w
U
C
y
b
y
a'
y
>>
my
c
u°
N
V
o
o
E
u
c
'�
O
r c
(U
c°
0
_
o.
w
'O
Y
p
w
0
Y
S
w
Z
Y
.O
-O
C. L
Y
C
M
°
3
m A
W V
O Y
m
J
0.
N Y
c
0
N
O
eti
00
L
o
c
'.t
m
2'
w
m
w w
0 00
0
E
N
C
>`
m Y
C
°
m J
°
C
E
°
O.
C
wp
L
o
L
C
O
m
O
N O
C)
w
O
Nd
m
L
O
C
O
N
L
E
¢
u
u
A
A
A
W
W
V
V
v V
to
_C
O
a
C
O
.N
N
7
tJ
_N
D
C
O
V
C
N
T
�o
c
Q
O
V
01
C�
G
W
H
OJ
3
Y
cu
01
LL
N
0)
Ln
C
O
Z
O
N
.T
Q
N
i
a
v
V7
m
C
m
n
cu
Y
01
C
00 0 00
m 00
Ln CT
Ln m
00 rr C
ll'lrsl`� L
X N N N N
v v v v v
c
A 9 m N
v
y
a m vi y c a y
Z M« y H Ol d
',� e E o N E N
N d A v d
O c m E c m c
m L m Y O d V
N
O C C> In C C
N w CmC -� O 11 W O p
9 N q O
v
v o t w m E o O
'^ v �' Y y O Y C m
O O N d y m
c y a a
d N
d W 6 T X
N v m a m
W J N 9 M C d •O Y
a v a E c o m o
a Q ` •O m « c
r a l' d a c u a+
•O o .L., a w c m d
0 C ]• N O. H 6
O N 3 N m Q N C
O "o
d O r 2 m E E
Y y u t a - 5 �a
« c
o a •: n v
Z a
m w 0
n
z
Y m 'C
l7
cc a a c
v T �c E c
M
N 3 m C °
0
v o i7, u' N
Y
cE O OJ
OC Q Y d m Y
i 0 0~ C C~
N LL U U C �&iy p C
U m l,7 N N M l7
Y Y O
O1 C C In to Vl to
ko Y
N M 0 w 0 0
a
t
Y i
O n
w �
Y
}' E
m n
t
Y
C C
0 i
m
O i
CL
c �
m .
H L
o
Y
v a
E
O. w
0 3
vi 3
� 3
v
s ri
Y �
E s
0
w
0
c
o c
O O
U U N
C N
h
E -CO o
E m N
p N�
Y � V
Q z m
m
N .00 U
m Q c
c -ay m
w Y
N p' C
> C
Y
N 'C O
v
� L O
N N N
v a °
O E
C O N
LA Y
c a!
_ C
A A
X -
G
Ol U U .0 U
° O O.
W —
Q
0 o v o
n
M `O O Cx
N U
OJ N U W
0 V O pt
Z a= Q, O
O G p —
ao .°iG a
3 0
3 " p «
Q O N p
W O U a a
n N GO y
O O
y G n n
r Z W
w w ° a
a n w
° L E
n a.. O G C �
rn c a c
n n
3
U Jr
Q N N O
O N a �
G C 7 y
O o n p
ts
O w ti 7
n
y O
O N c
V
p G
° u a Q 3
n W h O
O G w G G
N ~ 01
W
ON >
N n N O
a N v w E
W O N N
3EZ3
N ate.. U
v p
w
O
a
M
L
0 }
O
o �
o
O
m=
c �
Q O
m
J.
O!
m
a
C
O
N
j
m
C
Q
d
J
Y
W
lU
01
C
O
Z
v
L
w
v
N
A
N
v
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
tD
00
M
1,
00
N
00
M
D
O
O
a
0
0
lD
tD
n
co
to
n
lD
a
M
o0
O
M
to
m
0
00
m
n
.r
0
tD
to
a
co
m
`
`
In
O
e 4
lT
00
tp
N
N
1p
N
N
N
M
N
Y1
O
l(1
N
M
N
O
M
0D
N
n
M
O
n
m
lD
M
m
l j l
Y
m
tli
N
N
m
n
n
a
N
N
N
00
of
N
N
a
N
lO
N
00
Z
LL
VT IA 'lA VA N
V?
VF
VA VN V? N
N^ VN
N VN
V?
n
z
Y m 'C
l7
cc a a c
v T �c E c
M
N 3 m C °
0
v o i7, u' N
Y
cE O OJ
OC Q Y d m Y
i 0 0~ C C~
N LL U U C �&iy p C
U m l,7 N N M l7
Y Y O
O1 C C In to Vl to
ko Y
N M 0 w 0 0
a
t
Y i
O n
w �
Y
}' E
m n
t
Y
C C
0 i
m
O i
CL
c �
m .
H L
o
Y
v a
E
O. w
0 3
vi 3
� 3
v
s ri
Y �
E s
0
w
0
c
o c
O O
U U N
C N
h
E -CO o
E m N
p N�
Y � V
Q z m
m
N .00 U
m Q c
c -ay m
w Y
N p' C
> C
Y
N 'C O
v
� L O
N N N
v a °
O E
C O N
LA Y
c a!
_ C
A A
X -
G
Ol U U .0 U
° O O.
W —
Q
0 o v o
n
M `O O Cx
N U
OJ N U W
0 V O pt
Z a= Q, O
O G p —
ao .°iG a
3 0
3 " p «
Q O N p
W O U a a
n N GO y
O O
y G n n
r Z W
w w ° a
a n w
° L E
n a.. O G C �
rn c a c
n n
3
U Jr
Q N N O
O N a �
G C 7 y
O o n p
ts
O w ti 7
n
y O
O N c
V
p G
° u a Q 3
n W h O
O G w G G
N ~ 01
W
ON >
N n N O
a N v w E
W O N N
3EZ3
N ate.. U
v p
w
O
a
M
L
0 }
O
o �
o
O
m=
c �
Q O
m
J.
O!
m
a
C
O
N
j
m
C
Q
d
J
Y
W
lU
01
C
O
Z
v
L
w
v
N
A
N
v
N
C
0
M
C
O
.N
N
3
U
N
N
C
O
'a+
N
d
3
cr
C
ca
N
�N
R
C
Q
N
N
O
U
d
Y
E
i+
N
W
M S S S
M, m
m
•n N N
� S m
n N N N
■ 9
O
O
O
r
N
n O
O
0
IJ
Y
U Z 6
0
0
«
y
N
o
m
'Io
rn
o
c'
■ 9
L
�
b _
] 0
n O
Q 4
0
IJ
Y
U Z 6
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«
y
N
o
m
'Io
rn
o
c'
v
v
vi
o
'-i
m
a
y
o
Z
C
N
a
�
m
O
(7
a>
N
Y
a
E
O
w_
o
2
Z
Z
LL
Lri
g
H
H U
N
a
n
U
O
lA
VT
V?
V}
N
V}
w
S }
—
c
s
N J
Q a
�
m
N Q
v
0 0
O
o
Z
C
N
a
�
m
O
(7
a>
N
Y
a
E
O
w_
o
2
Z
E
Lri
g
H
H U
N
a
n
U
O
w
0
0
v o
c s
v �
o }
o�
a
0
v o
m =
m
N
—
c
s
C
N
V
t
U
N
N
W
w_
o
2
E
E
Lri
g
H
C
tl0
N
a
a
O
O
0
C
C
m
v
m
a
v
a
a
O
=
>
,C
O
N
U
d
O
N
N
a
S
O
U
O
L
O
O
W
=
N
3
p
0
a
C
v
a
r
a
O.
C
O
o
s
Ou
p
E
a
a
a
Q
uu
°
M
w
0
0
v o
c s
v �
o }
o�
a
0
v o
m =
m
N
From: Shirley Stanger [ mailto:srstanaerCalcomcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 3:48 PM
To: Town PPW
Subject: Re: Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation Project and Project Funding
I've lived in the middle block of Glenridge for over 50 years and STRONGLY OPPOSE the idea
of asphalt overlay, at least on Glenridge which is considered the most desirous,and
prestigious, landmark street in the Town.
Cost should not replace aesthetic value in such decisions and your post card survey confirmed
the homeowners desire for concrete according the Lisa Petersen in a phone conversation
recently.
Is there opportunity for discussion at this meeting or will the Town just proceed without regard
to resident wishes?
Very truly,
Shirley Stanger
101 Glenridge Ave.
408 - 354 -5898
On Sep 11, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Town PPW <ppw(Zy',losgatosca.gov> wrote:
From: Mark Weisler rmailto •mark(Oweisler- saratoga -ca us]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:22 AM
To: Town Manager
Cc: Angelia On Wilder
Subject: Including Documents for Town Council Meeting of 15 September 2015
Ms. Prevetti,
I am curious as to why my document was not included in the staff report prepared for the Town
Council meeting of 15 September 2015 in the matter of agenda item 7, "PPW Job No. 13 -31 -
Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation Project ".
I sent my document in the form of an e-mail addressed to your office on September 10, 2015 8:38:43 PM
PDT.
In reviewing the staff report for this agenda item I see that Ms. Angelia Doemer submitted
documents as late as Friday, September 11, 2015 10:34 AM, this one titled "For Full Inclusion in
Friday (091115) Council Materials - Item 7 Almond Grove ". Why are her documents, submitted
later than mine, included in the staff report and mine is not?
The end of the staff report says, " 6.Public Comments received
through] 1:00a.m.Friday,Septemberl 1,2015 " suggests that I IAM Friday was the cut -off time for
including documents in the staff report.
I was hoping my document would be included, as I asked for it to be, because it shows in a
photograph just how narrow the street already is without the narrowing you recommend.
Could you please explain. Thank you.
P.S. This e -mail is digitally signed for various purposes
From: Mark Weisler [ mailto :mark(dweisler- saratooa -ca us]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 8:39 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Street Narrowing
To: Ms. Laurel Prevetti, Los Gatos Town Manager
Ms. Prevetti:
Please immediately forward this message to the members of
* the Town's Historical Preservation Committee
* the Town Planning Commission
* the Town Council
... so they have it for consideration at the 15 September 2015 Council meeting for item 7, "Almond Grove Design
and Funding Alternatives ".
Town Staff repeatedly includes the narrowing of our streets as part of the Almond Grove street resurfacing project.
Below is a photo of a typical scene in the 200 block of Tait Avenue.
It shows cars parked on both sides of the street (one with a door being opened), two cars driving in opposite
directions down the street, and a bicyclist.
As the photo shows, there is precious little maneuvering room for any of the vehicles, especially if a door of a
parked car is opened.
Would it be prudent to narrow the streets further than they are?
How would you feel about bicycling down this street if it were narrowed by four feet from the current width as
proposed in PPW's current plan for this section of the street?
Or having your children bicycle this street if it were four feet narrower?
Please don't incur the liability of narrowing our streets.
Mark Weisler
208 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos
From: JOHN RUTH M [mailto:irransoml@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Council
Subject: Almond Grove Street Improvements
Hello,
My husband and I have lived on Wilder Avenue almost 30 years. We have heard about
the pending improvement of ours streets almost as long. The promise of next year is
something very familiar.
We are adamantly against the latest proposal to use an asphalt overlay.
Keeping the existing width of the streets is extremely important to us also.
Please listen to people that live here and love our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Ruth and John Ransom
219 Wilder Ave
From: Dennis Grist [ mailto :oristconstruction(cbgmail.comj
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 9:02 PM
To: Council; Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Subject: Almond Grove and Broadway street rehabilitation projects
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend Tuesday evening's Council meeting regarding the street
rehabilitation program, but I have voiced my opinions and concerns at past meetings:
Briefly:
1) The Almond Grove area is a historical zone that needs to have its streets "preserved" as is
recommended by the Town Historical Committee which recommends concrete for street surfaces.
2) Concrete has been proven to last much longer than asphalt and is therefore much more cost effective
with zero to minimal maintenance, while asphalt needs periodic resurfacing and often has sink holes
that need repair, particularly after water has seeped into the sub - surface ground.
3)The streets are in such disrepair and have been neglected for so long that a full removal of the existing
concrete is the only viable method to guarantee that the streets will last to their maximum age. Let's do
this right the first time. No band aids that will require further costs and inconveniences down the line.
4)Town Staff (Morley and Petersen) seem determined to narrow the streets to what Ms. Petersen calls
the town standard of 30 feet across. I believe that the standard they refer to is for new streets and not
for existing streets to be narrowed. That is certainly the way the statute reads to me and some others
who I have discussed this matter with. I think this issue needs to be addressed.
5)Many neighborhoods have individual characteristics that certainly do not pertain to other
neighborhoods. In the Almond Grove and Broadway neighborhoods there are not typical driveways and
garages for people to park their cars as you might find elsewhere. Some of the homes and properties
(apartments) have been divided into multi -unit dwellings thus causing a population density greater than
many single family home neighborhoods. The homes are closer together than in the suburbs which
allows each residential property less lineal feet to park cars on the street than many ranch -style homes
in the suburbs. Some homes have no off - street parking, no alley access, and no garages, which only
allows for parking on the streets. All of these conditions create much more on- street parking than you
might typically find in other neighborhoods. In effect, with parked cars lining the streets day and night it
renders the streets already narrower than the "town standard ". I have been living here since 1978 and
this has always been the condition of the neighborhood. It will remain that way long into the future.
When you add two way traffic to this scenario it creates only a few feet of clearance between traffic
passing each other and passing the parked vehicles. ANY narrowing of the streets will only create less
space and much more hazardous conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people entering and exiting
their cars. I urge you to not allow ANY street narrowing for the safety of the citizens living and visiting
the area. Let's utilize the existing planting strips with appropriate trees that will not damage the
sidewalks and curbs. It can be done with what we have. There are already nice examples in the Almond
Grove of trees that do not damage the sidewalks with their root systems. The Town Arborist should be
called to task to help out with the issue of appropriate trees. Let's not sacrifice safety by narrowing of
the streets so that potentially slightly larger trees can be planted. The safety of the citizens should be
the main objective, the trees secondary. Please do not allow any narrowing of the Almond Grove
streets.
Thank you for considering these issues.
Sincerely,
Dennis Grist
Susi Graf
215 Tait Avenue
From: Tom Albanese [mailto:tom@campodibocce.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 9:35 PM
To: Council
Subject: Almond Grove
To the Council- it is totally absurd to think that total asphalt replacement /overlay is being considered for
the concrete streets in the Almond Grove district for 2 major reasons plus many more. We the folks that
reside in the Almond Grove district had to abide by strict rules and obey the Councils wishes to uphold
the character and general conditions that are part of this very historical part of Town. We all spent
monies over and above normal to comply with the ordinance set forth in order to remodel or to rebuild
our homes in this district regardless of cost. We did this with not much objection because we
knew we were preserving the character our our Almond Grove district no matter how much it hurt. We
did our part financially to preserve the character but now you, the Town Council, are asked to do the
same thing. But no, you are saying that you are not willing to preserve our unique area which is in direct
contradiction to you asking us to preserve our area. This is total irresponsibility especially since we all
bought and highly paid to be part of Almond Grove, concrete streets and all, and now you the Town
wants to wimp out and not preserve Almond Grove because of insufficient funds R We know that there
is a way that our District could have concrete streets as per our General Ordinance thus preserving our
District if the Council would listen to practicality - and especially listen to constructive ideas that have
been brought forward by some neighbors. I am dead against changing the character of our District and
would hope the Council would see that it would be totally impractical and irresponsible to change the
appearance and violate the true intent of our forefathers and to keep the concrete streets as part of the
heritage of Almond Grove.
Thank you -Tom Albanese- 215 Wilder Ave. and part of Los Gatos since 1953.
From: Kit Tack fmailto:kit(olkittack.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:22 AM
To: Council
Subject: Almond Grove streert proposal
Good Morning:
If the council is considering the proposal to repair these streets by the process of pouring new asphalt
on top of the old concert and or new poured concrete I'm shock that this is your plan. If you're going to
tear up some concrete, tear it all up and just replace it with new asphalt. There needs to be a stable
street foundation for any repairs made.
329 Bachman Ave
Christopher "Kit" Tack
TNT Properties / Broker
408.353.5153 office
408.398.1951 mobile
408.353.2841 fax
P.O. Box 1165
Los Gatos, Ca. 95031
BRE:00493497
kit(a)kittack.com
www.kittack.com
From: Teresa J Gleason [ mailto :tessgleason64Ca)gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:44 AM
To: Council
Subject: Almond Grove paving
The most recent information on the AG paving is disturbing to me. If there is money to do "overlay" for
the entire area and narrow the streets, why can't we simply repave with asphalt leaving the width of the
streets as they are. I believe, the width of the streets is more "historic" than the concrete that they are
paved in now. If the funds are available, please consider simply repaving the streets with asphalt,
removing the cracked, disintegrating concrete and leave the width of the streets as they are. As
someone who has to get in and out of my car on the street, I can't imagine being able to do so safely
with the streets more narrow. The issue of parking is also affected by the proposed "bulb outs ". Parking
in the neighborhood is restricted enough without taking away some of the space on each block. If the
idea behind this is to calm /slow traffic, this could be accomplished with police patrols. Please do not
completely redo the neighborhood, just fix the paving.
Teresa Gleason
212 Tait Ave
Proposed New Curb Line
50 Broadway Avenue
328 Bachman Avenue
150 Tait Avenue
ATTACHMENT 9