Desk ItemOw N F
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 10/20/15
ITEM NO: 9
DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION
PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL PROCEED
WITH THE ALMOND GROVE PROJECT BY:
a. COMPLYING WITH ADA WITH RESPECT TO SIDEWALKS
b. PHASING THE PROJECT WITH BROADWAY AND BACHMAN FIRST
c. APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND BIDDING
BROADWAY AND BACHMAN FOR ASPHALT AND CONCRETE
RECONSTRUCTION WITH THE CURB LINE IN THE EXISTING
LOCATION AND NO ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OF DESIGN FEES
d. ISSUING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR DESIGNING THE
REMAINING EIGHT PROJECT STREETS
(Continued from 9115115)
REMARKS:
After the initial staff report was distributed on October 15, 2015, Addendum on October 16,
2015, and Addendum on October 19, 2015, staff received the attached public comments.
Attachments 1 -4 (Previously received with Staff Report on October 15 2015):
1. Q &A.
2. Project Cost Breakdown.
3. Funding Plan.
4. Public Comments received through 1:00 p.m. Thursday, October 15, 2015.
Attachments 5 -6 (Previously received with Addendum on October 16 2015
5. Adopted FY 2015/16 — 2019/20 Capital Improvement Program Budget,
6. Public Comment received from 1:01 p.m. Thursday, October 15, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Friday October 16, 2015.
PREPARED BY: LAUREL PREVETTI
Town Manager
Reviewed by: Q/Assistant Town Manager w ,b Town Attorney W 1A Finance
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION
PROJECT
OCTOBER 20, 2015
Attachments 7 -8 (Previously received with Addendum B on October 19, 2015):
7. 2015 -2016 Capital Project Program
8. Public Comments received through 11:00 a.m. Monday, October 19, 2015.
Attachment 9 received with this Desk Item:
9. Public Comments received from 11:01 a.m. Monday October 19, 2015 through 11:03 a.m.
Tuesday October 20, 2015.
From: Council
Subject: FW: Comments for Consideration at TC Meeting 10/20/15
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw @me.com]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 11:06 AM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Council; Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Comments for Consideration at TC Meeting 10/20/15
1. Replacement vehicles
With high performance maintenance, can the useful life of the
existing vehicles be extended, particularly since LG vehicles
probably have less demand upon them then the average
police vehicle in the state? It appears to me many of the police miles
are incurred in non emergent patrol.
What does the Sheriff s Office use? Their overall response times in Cupertino are better than
LG's by a considerable margin.
Cut and past from http: / /www.seattletimes.com /seattle- news / crime /spd -fleet- shifts -from- crown- vics -to-
crossover- vehicles/
SPD fleet shifts from Crown Vics to
crossover vehicles
Originally published August 10, 2015 at 3:33 pm updated August 13, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Corrected
ATTACHMENT 9
New uniforms, new patches and now the third installment of Seattle
police's latest image change is hitting the streets. The department
showed off its new Ford Police Interceptor Utility vehicle Monday.
New uniforms, new patches and now the third element of the Seattle police
makeover is hitting the streets — a new ride.seottie Times skifT rej)orter
Police are joining leagues of suburban soccer moms and
outdoor enthusiasts who have traded in sedans for
crossover -style vehicles
On Monday, the department debuted its new Ford Police
Interceptor Utility vehicle, a cross between a Taurus sedan
and an Explorer SUV. While the patrol division has been
using the Police Interceptor for months, the department said
the vehicle debuted Monday features the new logo.
Sam Houghtaling, fleet operations manager for the city of
Seattle, said about go of the all- wheel- drive vehicles have
been added to the patrol division. An additional 3o are
getting outfitted with radios and other communications
equipment and are expected to hit the streets soon, he
added.
Houghtaling said the V -6- equipped vehicles shouldn't be
confused with an SUV.Each vehicle costs the city $47,500, a
figure that includes all of the specialty equipment and
electronics, Houghtaling said.
"Essentially it's a crossover; it's on the same identical chassis
as the sedan," he said.
For 20 years, Ford's venerable Crown Victoria has been the
mainstay of the patrol division. While a handful of Toyota
Priuses and SUVs are used by specialty divisions, the familiar
Crown Vic was the SPD's car of choice.
But in 2011, when Ford announced it was retiring the sedan,
Seattle's Department of Finance and Administrative
Services, which manages the city's fleet, began searching for
an alternative. Factors like cost, comfort, accommodations
for communications equipment, storage, gas mileage and
safety were evaluated, according to the Police Department
While Houghtaling has heard some grumblings from officers
about the size of the new patrol vehicle — it's shorter than
the Crown Vies — Seattle Police Officers' Guild President
Ron Smith said he hasn't heard any complaints.
3
Smith said the Police Interceptor has more room for in -car
computers and other electronics.
Houghtaling said the driver's seat offers better back support
and has a cutout in the back cushion to accommodate gun
belts. The back -seat doors swing open widely, offering better
access for prisoners.
The department considered replacing the fleet by test -
drivingChevrolet Tahoes and various Ford and Chevrolet
sedans. A study was conducted by the City of Seattle
evaluating potential Crown Vic replacements.
Officers test - driving the vehicles also filled out a 14 -page
questionnaire before Mayor Ed Murray ordered 120
Interceptors in February 2014.
As the 135 Crown Victoria sedans still in use wear out, the
city will replace them with the Police Interceptors,
Houghtaling said.
The new vehicle offers better mileage than the Crown
Victoria, though both are hardly stingy with gas because of
constant idling. The new Ford Interceptors averaged 8.4
miles per gallon during one test period, compared with 6.7
mpg for the Crown Vies.
Maintenance costs per mile were also cheaper, 23 cents
compared with 40 cents for the Crown Vies.
Switching the patrol fleet to electric vehicles is not a
possibility because officers need horsepower, Houghtaling
added.
"We're always looking for the newest technologies, but
there's no electric vehicle that's pursuit- rated," he said.
Houghtaling said the go Ford Interceptors already on the
streets are an array of 2014 and 2015 models.
4
Late last year, Seattle police announced they were ditching
their two -tone blue uniforms and replacing them with solid
navy -blue slacks and shirts. The uniforms feature a new
shoulder patch, which includes the freshly designed logo
depicting Chief Sealth and the words "service," "pride" and
"dedication. "'
The Ford Police Interceptor Utility has gained popularity
across the nation, said Tracy Warren, assistant fleet manager
for the Washington State Patrol.
Warren said he attended a meeting with officials from Ford
last week who claimed their Interceptor is beating
competitors by Dodge and Chevrolet.
Also forced to replace their line Crown Vic sedans, the State
Patrol decided on the Ford Interceptor. Since 2013, the State
Patrol has added 316 of the vehicles to their fleet, Warren
said.
"So far the benefit is it's a little less expensive to operate. The
tires and brake pads last longer," said Warren. "We expect it will
be better in adverse conditions to allow troopers to not spend
time chaining up in the snow or get to places they (otherwise)
couldn't."
2. Solar Ordinance
Thumbs up!
3. Library
Programs for pre- school and early years yield big personal and community returns in later years.
I'm curious to know what the costs and benefits would be if we outsourced the library to the county system?
Wasn't former Council Member McNutt a proponent of outsourcing? What does it cost Saratoga to run their
library?
Is there a partnership arrangement that could be reached with the county that would create a revenue source for
the town? I do recognize the great work of the
supporters of the library. Saratoga, Campbell and Cupertino have libraries that are part of the county system.
4. Almond Grove & Broadway
9
Legal liability is a continuing risk. Suggest warning signs and repairs as soon as possible.
Contract for the entire Almond Grove and Broadway. Repair all streets ASPP with priority to the
Almond Grove streets since they were first in the development project. Priority within the Almond Grove
should be to those streets in
most disrepair and used most. Keeping streets wide makes sense. If the funding can be achieved now,
I personally prefer concrete (better for reducing global warming and heat island). If necessary to effectuate
immediate repairs, I would sacrifice the concrete to
get repairs with asphalt.
5. Roads in General
Cut and paste from http:// saratoga. ca. us/ civicax /ftlebank/blobdload.aspx ?BlobID =9152
1. Improve Local Roads
One of the survival strategies many cities, including Saratoga, used during the recession was to defer maintenance of
infrastructure, such as paving of local roads. The pavement condition of roads is measured by a Pavement Condition Index
(PCI). The average PCI of Saratoga roads dropped below the 70 (Fair) rating for the first time in many years.
The following graph shows the deterioration of a typical road. Deterioration occurs at a moderate rate for the majority of a
road's lifespan. There is a significant drop in pavement condition after the road hits 75% of its expected lifespan. The cost for
resurfacing or restoration of a road increases by four to five times once it passes that point. During the recession expenditures
for traffic light repairs, striping, signage, along with curb and gutter repairs reduced budgeted funding for street
resurfacing /restoration. The reduced budget for these activities resulted in the drop in PCI during the recession.
Pavement Condition Deterioration Curve
For FY 2015/16, dedicated funding for street resurfacing /restoration will increase by $375,000 for a total budget of $1.3 million. The
goal of the budget increase is to stabilize the overall condition of the City's roads and to steadily increase the overall PCI above 70.
This will help ensure the integrity of the roads for a longer period of time, thereby saving the City on costly upgrades in the future.
6. Unfunded Pension Liabilities
Quoting from htti):Hsaratoga.ca.us/ civicax /filebank/blobdload.aspx ?BlobID =9152
Address Financial Liabilities
Slami'm PCI
ninny Dale
76%W
IM
Lifespan
SS
$1 for
70
h!t
H habilitation
55
Significant Drop
Q
In Condition Will Coat
$4 to $5
M
Here
Small % of
10
pavement Life
D
Lifeapan
Pavement Condition Deterioration Curve
For FY 2015/16, dedicated funding for street resurfacing /restoration will increase by $375,000 for a total budget of $1.3 million. The
goal of the budget increase is to stabilize the overall condition of the City's roads and to steadily increase the overall PCI above 70.
This will help ensure the integrity of the roads for a longer period of time, thereby saving the City on costly upgrades in the future.
6. Unfunded Pension Liabilities
Quoting from htti):Hsaratoga.ca.us/ civicax /filebank/blobdload.aspx ?BlobID =9152
Address Financial Liabilities
The vast majority of cities in California provide retirement benefits for their employees through the California Public Employee's
Retirement System (CalPERS), which administers benefits for its 1.6 million members. The CalPERS retirement plan is structured as
a defined benefit plan, which means the plan provides benefits that are calculated using a formula, rather than accounting for
individual member's contributions and earnings in a savings plan, such as occurs with a 401k. During the recession, CalPERS
investment assets decreased substantially and actuarial methods and economic and demographic assumptions were adjusted,
significantly decreasing asset valuations. Together, the investment decline and actuarial changes created a gap between pension assets
and liabilities. This gap is known as an "Unfunded Accrued Liability" (UAL).
In 2014, CalPERS separated the UAL from the normal annual service cost in the annual valuation report. Saratoga's UAL was
expected to grow to $7.7 million by the end of FY 2014/15. While substantial for Saratoga, other cities that provide enhanced pensions
are facing a UAL many times this amount. Consistent with the commitment to limiting the cost of services, Saratoga chose not to
incur the long -term liability of larger pension payouts or providing post- retirement benefits.
The City Council again demonstrated unprecedented fiscal stewardship in FY 2014/15 by directing staff to pay down the UAL by $3.3
million. This decision saved the City $3.6 million in future interest payments. Also with Council direction, the City plans on paying
$500,000 a year for the next 15 years toward the remaining $4.3 million UAL instead of following CalPERS suggested 30 -year
payment plan. This accelerated payment plan will save another $3 to $4 million in interest payments.
The City has maintained a relatively small staff, averaging 56 full -time employees over the past 10 years, which works diligently to
provide services to Saratoga's residents. Even with a lean work force, employees' salaries and benefits make up the largest portion of
the FY 2015/16 General Fund expense at approximately $7 million, or 38% of the Proposed General Fund Budget. Employee costs
have increased by almost $1 million in just five years, part of which can be attributed to rising medical benefit costs.
The Memoranda of Understanding for the three employee organizations expires on June 30, 2015. The agreements that have been
mutually approved include provisions whereby the City and employees have agreed to share the cost for the growing cost of medical
benefits. This change is a big step in addressing a long term liability and will help the City continue delivering a high quality of
service to residents into the future.
7. Police Services
Cut and paste from http:// saratoga. ca. us/ civicax /filebankiblobdload.aspx ?BlobID =9152
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Another impact on the FY 2015/16 Proposed Budget is the City's contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office. Saratoga has
contracted with the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office for law enforcement services since Saratoga's incorporation in 1956. This
partnership has been rewarding for the City due to the Sheriff s Office flexibility in staffing, responsiveness to community needs, and
quality of services. As a result, Saratoga was named the "Safest City in California" in 2013 and the 12th "Safest City in the United
States" in 2014.
At $4.98 million, the Sheriff s contract is 27% of the FY 2015/16 Proposed General Fund Budget, which is the City's second largest
General Fund expenditure. The cost of law enforcement services increased by $498,000 last fiscal year due to both added hours
requested by the City, and retroactive wage increases approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Service costs are expected to
increase another $250,000 in FY 2015/16 as the wage increases continue to be phased in. Public safety continues to be vitally
important to residents, City Council Members, and the Sheriff's Office. We will continue working closely with the Sheriff s Office to
identify options to limit the cost without impacting service levels. Despite these increases, the overall cost per Saratoga resident is still
lower than neighboring cities in -house law enforcement service costs.
Public safety continues to be a top priority for City Council members, residents, and the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff. The
City has contracted with the Sheriffs Office for public safety services since Saratoga was incorporated in 1956. This partnership has
been rewarding for the City in multiple ways.
The City saves millions of dollars a year by contracting with the Sheriff's
Office instead of employing an in -house police department. Even with an 8.I% cost
increase from the prior year — due to retroactive and current year wage increases under a new MOU, the Sheriff Contract accounts for
just 26.7% of the City's General Fund budget. This compares favorably to other Santa Clara
County municipalities that dedicated upwards of 40% or more of their
General Fund budgets on police services. (emphasis added)
While the Sheriff's Office contract cost is comparatively small, the City has received an immense return In
services. The Sheriff s Office provides all the services that an internal police department would — patrol, traffic enforcement,
and investigations but with the added benefit of crime analysts, technology services, and other valuable law enforcement services on
an incremental, as- needed basis. In FY 2015/16, the Sheriff s Office contract will provide 20,060 general law enforcement service
hours, 4,195 traffic enforcement hours, 2,400 investigative hours, 340 reserve activity hours, and a full-time School Resources
Officer.
Not only does the City see considerable cost savings through its agreement with the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff, but
crime rates also remain low compared with surrounding municipalities.
This is due to being part of a broader law enforcement organization.
Deputies are aware of criminal activity occurring throughout the county,
not just Saratoga. This broader communication alerts deputies and crime
analysts to targeted areas, criminal patterns, and crime activity
connections and suspects. In fact, our city was recognized for its low crime rate in November 2013 when
SafeWise.com named Saratoga "The Safest City in California ". (emphasis added)
This honor was followed just a few months later with news that Saratoga had been named the 12th Safest City in the United States by
NeighborhoodScout.com. The company released the results in February 2014. The company based its findings on the research of cities
with 25,000 residents or more and the total number of property and violent crimes per 1,000 residents. Crimes included burglary, theft,
motor vehicle theft, murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault.
Cammuniq FnrdA<setx
Grxnta lC E�vAts.'i,\ lv[arwl5en iaro
t: Tnnining
a.±?o
Sfirrttr.GnY ;� '`:',Sxluoaly C.irefilx
i
nnvndtmnt� 21%
l °mntrest5enices
is o% Foes -4 2% rga- )snppl ,
.3.3`.F Sntr
t5., `ti
John Shepardson, Esq.
(408) 395 -3701
13
From:
Drotarl <drotarl @aol.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 19, 2015 12:53 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
backstop
To whom it may concern -
I want to express my support for a new and long overdue backstop for the Los Gatos Baggerly field little league field. It is
outdated and inferior to the other little league fields in the area. You should incorprate a scoring booth into the plan. I
have been affiliated with the league for the past 35 years.
Sincerely,
Dave Drotar
From: Richard Lennox <mr.ricklennox @gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 3:04 PM
To: Council
Cc: Richard Lennox
Subject: Baggerly Field Backstop Upgrade
LG City Council -
Hello, I am a LG resident and long time semi - native, having grown up in Saratoga and having spent virtually all of my 49
years in either one of the two towns. I also donate a lot of time, money, and energy to a fairly broad range of
community youth sports of various. For the past 3 years I've been coaching little league teams in both the fall and spring
and would like to call your attention to the Backstop Upgrade that is proposed on Baggerly Field at Blossom Hill Park.
As you are probably aware, that backstop has been in place for probably 30+ years and it's design is out -dated and
posses a modest safety risk to our kids. The backstop has a clam -shell design which invites kids to climb, play on it, and
hang from it when there are no games or practices. During games and practices, it actually posses a slight injury risk to
contestants because foul balls can go straight up and ricochet straight down. To add, batters, catchers, and umps often
look up to locate the foul ball. A batters face is unprotected and a catcher generally removes his mask quickly before
looking upward. So, if you can get the visual here, we have is a situation where by kids are looking for the ball in the air
and it may ricochet right back into their unprotected face. Because of this potential safety hazard and because the clam-
shell design limits foul ball play, many baseball organizations have eliminated Baggerly field from tournament
consideration.
I request you approve the motion to upgrade the Baggerly backstop to a new design that provides more safety. I would
be happy to provide an additional $100 donation towards this effort, if only, I was assured that the funds would be used
for a new backstop. I am not sure how the mechanics of such a specific donation would work, but if instructed on the
process, would be happy to assist.
Thank you for your consideration in this manner.
Rick Lennox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Town Manager Laurel Prevetti
Mayor Marcia Jensen
Members of the Town Council
Nick Burg <nickburg @gmail.com>
Monday, October 19, 2015 3:41 PM
Council
Proposed Baseball Backstop at Baggerly Field in Blossom Hill Park
I am writing with regard to the proposed baseball backstop at Baggerly Field in Blossom Hill Park.
I am assuming that this note will not be read, but will just be added to the stack of people voicing their opinion
that the backstop is an important investment, so I will be brief. I only ask that the town act like we all hope a
small town would act, and take some pride in our facilities. Please release the funds and smooth the process so
we can get the backstop built. There is no reason for the town to hold put this off... please just get it done.
As a lifelong resident of this town, Baggerly Field was the location where many of my lifelong relationships
were forged.. For a town with our baseball history, it only makes sense that we have facilities that are, at the
very least, safe for our kids.
Nick Burg
Former LGLL participant and current LGLL parent
From: Maria Ristow <ristows @comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 10:40 PM
To: Council
Subject: TC meeting 10120, Almond Grove paving
Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector and Town Council members Sayoc, Rennie and Leonardis,
Reading the staff report on the Almond Grove paving project, it appears the Broadway and Bachman
design plans can be completed and sent out for bid at no additional cost to the Town. This sounds
great on the surface, but it involves creating NEW design drawings to retain the present curb location
(as the existing design calls for moving the curb for Broadway inward about 6" on each side.) The $$
to redesign would come from $$ that should go to completing the design of Tait. This does not seem
like the best option.
On behalf of the residents of Broadway and Clifton, I request that Broadway NOT be redesigned. We
are almost unanimously in favor of simply moving forward with bids for the street as presently
designed, with the slight narrowing. We are unanimously opposed to spending more time and Town
money on a redesign.
Following the last TC meeting where this was discussed, Lynn Brandhorst emailed the Broadway and
Clifton residents, requesting their opinions. There was little opposition to the narrowed curb line, and
although a few first choices were for current width, even more were for the slightly larger planting
areas we could enjoy with the slight narrowing.
You will never make everyone 100% happy. But Broadway is quite unified on this issue. Please
move forward with the bids (at least for Broadway) using the current design of slightly narrowed street
width.
Thank you,
Maria Ristow
85 Broadway
Maria Ristow
Los Gatos Community Alliance
From:
Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 20, 2015 6:19 AM
To:
Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Cc:
Laurel Prevetti
Subject:
102015 Desk Item - Item 9 - Tree Recommendation
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
In the Background section of the Staff Report, it says that Council voted to remove and
replace street trees in accordance with the Town's Tree ordinance and the staff
analysis on trees provided in the September 15, 2015 Staff Report. I do not
believe that is the case - in fact, if you listen to the public record there is no mention of
"accepting the tree analysis in the Staff Report ". Also, the analysis was only provided
the day of the meeting, and my understanding is that there were many trees that were
considered "unsuitable" because they "may create some issue in the future...." - not
any damage NOW and WITHOUT consideration for the possibility of tree root barriers,
etc., mitigating such "possibly... maybes... mights..." Discussion is in the public record
that measures would be taken to preserve as many trees as possible since literally NO
(or minimal) measures have been taken EVER to maintain them. There was inadequate
information in the tree "analysis" provided to the public or Council.
I firmly believe that this matter needs to be vetted more thoroughly.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
From: tmcneil @apple.com on behalf of Tom McNeil <tmcneil @apple.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 930 AM
To: Council
Subject: Backstop
Council Members,
I am a long timr Los Gatos citizen. I played Little League at Blossom Hill and fondly remember the clam backstop that is
still up to this day. I also fondly remember sitting unbuckled in my parents station wagon and diving off of their diving
board. Fortunately, for the safety of my kids the diving board has been replaced and I and my parents have regulation
seatbelts in the cars. Similar to those safety hazards, we should replace the ancient back stop at Blossom Hill and bring
it inline with the fields of today from both a safety and aesthetic perspective.
We have the money and the Little League is making an aggressive payment so I urge the approval of the motion to
update the backstop.
Thank you for your time on the council and your consideration of this issue.
Sincerely,
Tom McNeil
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:31 AM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Attorney
Subject: 102015 Desk Item - Item 9: ADA and Sidewalks
Attachments: 102015 Desk Item - ADA and Sidewalks.pdf, 102015 ADA Attachment C.pdf
Please accept the attached two documents as one Desk Item for 102015 Agenda Item 9.
Also, it would be appreciated if the file titled "...Attachment C' was loaded on -line
and /or printed directly behind the other document. Thank you.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
Angelia Doerner
To: Honorable Council Members
Cc: Robert Schulz
SaveOurHood@yahoo.com
The following is an excerpt from Staff Report Addendum B in relation to Item 9 on the 102015 Agenda:
"Additionally, the Town Attorney received a question from a member of the public asking the
authoritative reference for the sidewalks to be ADA compliant. This information is being provided
to the Council and the public in this Addendum."
I am the "member of the public ". I am copying below the email I sent to the Town Attorney on Oct 18
(phone number redacted):
"Rob - I would greatly appreciate it if you would give me a call on MON 19th reg above. I have
researched this as well as spoken with reps at DOT and DOJ - would like to know your
authoritative reference to this requirement as i must be missing it. Should not be a long
discussion as i pretty much know it by heart. Thanks."
Rob called me on Mon Oct 19 requesting clarification for my request. I told him that I was surprised, once
again, to see the statement made in the AG Staff Report that "Staff explored the applicability of ADA
for sidewalks as they relate to this project and determined that compliance is a requirement." I
elaborated that I had provided Council a wealth of research on the matter in response to this claim made
in prior Staff Reports. I reminded him of the following:
• The references provided by Staff in the immediately preceding (091515) AG Staff Report were
addressed in my analysis provided to Council as a Desk Item. Staffs references had nothing to
do with substantiating this claim. I summarized: 1) the first of the two Staff Report references
linked to the requirement of curb ramps only — no reference to sidewalks at all, and 2) the
second of the two Staff Report references linked to a short paragraph saying that guidance was
being developed — had started in 2011 but nothing actually approved /published. That desk Item
is reproduced as Attachment B to this memo.
• 1 had provided a complete analysis of DOT /DOJ authoritative guidance to Council over a month
prior to that which made it clear there was no sidewalk - replacement ADA requirement
triggered by a project to "redo" a street. In fact, that guidance made it clear that the requirements
for reconstructing a street were no different than for doing cape seal on a street — only curb
ramps needed to be replaced to comply with current ADA standards (which I whole - heartedly
endorse). That "analysis' (ADA Transition Plan) is reproduced as Attachment C to this memo.
I told him I was requesting a reference (or link) to whatever guidance I must have missed in my
research. I also said that - if such requirement existed - the Town had even bigger funding issues than
anyone realized because if such a requirement pertained to the Almond Grove — then it had to pertain to
every street in Town!
I am insulted by our Attorney's response to my inquiry in Addendum B! Repairing AG sidewalks is an
imperative — repair being the operative word! The $$$ that can be saved by separating ALL sidewalk
work into a separate project can be utilized throughout our Town:
• The Civic Center needs sidewalk repairs —go look at the walk along Main St!
• Are all the sidewalks /ramps at the LGS Rec Senior Center ADA compliant? If not, they should be!
• Children have spoken at Council meetings asking for sidewalks along Winchester and other
roads to make their walks to /from school safer!
I suggest the Town Attorney and the Town Staff review Attachment C and rethink THEIR priorities. If I've
missed something — SHARE IT!!! Every AG resident I know simply wants REPAIRS — we can't
understand why STAFF (or Consultants — see separate Desk Item) is so adamant to spend these kinds
of funds on residential streets versus all the other higher - priority safety and ADA - compliant issues the
Town needs to address!
Town Council — look at the $$$$ savings on Attachment A. Please instruct Staff to revise the
plans for this street project and to devise the plans /specs for a separate project for sidewalk
repairs —to be addressed the same way as the Annual Sidewalk Repair Project.
Page 1 of 3
Angelia Doerner
ATTACHM ENT A
SaveOurHood@yahoo.com
Angelia Doerner- SaveOurHood @yahoo.com
PER STAFF REPORTS:
Cont
Cont
Design
Design
M &A
Savings: No Cost Escalation: $
Cost Est 05/
Cost Est
20%
Subtotal
10•0A
89/
Total
Sidewalks:
1,445,680
289,136
1,734,816
173,482
138,785
2,047,083
Driveways:
2,080,176
416,035
2,496,211
249,621
199,697
2,945,529
Curb Ramps:
354,526
70,905
425,431
42,543
34,034
502,009
3,972,487
3,880,382
776,076
4,656,458
465,646
372,517
5,494,621
PER CLOSER TO REALITY:
Cont
$
Design
M &A
1,445,680
Savings: No Cost Escalation: $
Cost Est 05/
Subtotal
3%
(A)
Total
Sidewalks:
1,445,680 -
1,445,680
-
-
1,445,680 ('C)
Driveways:
2,080,176 -
2,080,176
62,405
29,700
2,172,281
Curb Ramps:
354,526 -
354,526
-
-
354,526 (B)
3,880,382 -
3,880,382
62,405
29,700
3,972,487
(A) - Total of 198 Driveways;
Al low 1 Hour Per Driveway =198
Project Manager @ $150 /hr = $29,700
(B) - 54 Curb Ramps @ $3,500= 189,000
Compared to Staff Report: 354,526
Savings; No Doubling 165,526
('C) - Total SF Per 2010 Detail: 99,605
Cost per SF (Brdwy/Bach): $
12.50
$
1,245,063
Compared to Staff Report:
1,445,680
Savings: No Cost Escalation: $
200,618
(D) - Total SF Per 2010 Detail: 99,605
More Realistic (Boyce): 76,044
Double Counting: 23,561
Cost per SF (Brdwy/Bach): $ 12.50
Savings; No Double Countin $ 294,513
Savings at 100% /Realistic "Mark- Ups ":
$
1,522,134
Ramps: No Doubling /No Esc Cost:
$
165,526 (B)
Sidewalk No Esc Cost Savings:
$
200,618 ('C;
Sidewalk No Double Counting:
$
294,513 (D)
Savings at 100% replacement:
$1,888,277
NOW CONSIDER SAVINGS FROM REPAIR V5100% REPLACE[ I I I I
SEE SEPARATE COMMUNICATION REG THE FOLLOWING:
Total 8 %M &A Per Staff Report: $ 1,129,815
Adjusted Above: (372,517)
Remaining to Be "Reduced ": $ 757,298
3�1s
Page 2 of 3
Angelia Doerner
ATTACHMENT B — 102015 Desk Item for Item 9
(Reproduction of 091515 Desk Item — 1 Page)
SaveOurHood@yahoo.com
In the Cost Analysis I provided to you on Friday, only 57% of total estimated costs relates to the
streets — the remainder relating to "non- street features ", e.g., sidewalks, curbs, etc. Applying this
breakdown:
<`> - Several pages behind these numbers in the Staff Report it is disclosed that the engineering
costs will, in part, develop "a new plan set with a concrete slab survey to determine slab
sections requiring replacement ". This number is meaningless without quantification of such slabs
and other remedial work!!!!
Intuitively, "Features" should be the same regardless of pavement material — it is impossible to
determine what the actual amount is without access to the "model' utilized by the Nichols
consultants. All I know for sure is that these amounts are grossly overstated!!!!)
Also — as to the Staff Report verbage concerning ADA - the Project has not yet even been
defined! In my opinion, there are TWO projects here:
1) REPLACE the streets and curb ramps and
2) REPAIR curb /gutter (if failed before or during street construction) and
sidewalks — similar to the scope of work performed every year in the
annual budget for such repairs.
As to the links included in the Staff Report, the first is for literature concerning ONLY curb ramps
(with which I concur is necessary); the second is for guidance being developed (started being
developed in 2011 — nothing yet published nor adopted by the DOJ). The website states: "Once
these guidelines are adopted by the Department of Justice, they will become
enforceable standards under title II of the ADA. "
In connection with Strategic Goals, I provided you with a complete analysis of developing an
ADA Transition Plan. I repeat the one major O/A from the DOJ /DOT:
19. When does the scope of an alteration project trigger accessibility improvements for
people with disabilities? The scope of an alteration project is determined by the extent the
alteration project directly changes or affects the public right -of -way within the project limits.
The public agency must improve the accessibility of only that portion of the public right -of-
way changed or affected by the alteration. If a project resurfaces the street, for
accessibility purposes the curbs and pavement at the pedestrian crosswalk are in the
scope of the project, but the sidewalks are not. Any of the features disturbed by the
construction must be replaced so that they are accessible. All remaining access
improvements within the public right -of -way shall occur within the schedule provided
in the public agency's planning process.
Page 3 of 3
Total
57%
43%
Streets
Features
Concrete
$18,953,100
$10,803,267
$8,149,833
Asphalt
$16,135,100
$9,197,007
$6,938,093
Overlay <*>
$11,785,900
$6,717,963
$5,067,937
<`> - Several pages behind these numbers in the Staff Report it is disclosed that the engineering
costs will, in part, develop "a new plan set with a concrete slab survey to determine slab
sections requiring replacement ". This number is meaningless without quantification of such slabs
and other remedial work!!!!
Intuitively, "Features" should be the same regardless of pavement material — it is impossible to
determine what the actual amount is without access to the "model' utilized by the Nichols
consultants. All I know for sure is that these amounts are grossly overstated!!!!)
Also — as to the Staff Report verbage concerning ADA - the Project has not yet even been
defined! In my opinion, there are TWO projects here:
1) REPLACE the streets and curb ramps and
2) REPAIR curb /gutter (if failed before or during street construction) and
sidewalks — similar to the scope of work performed every year in the
annual budget for such repairs.
As to the links included in the Staff Report, the first is for literature concerning ONLY curb ramps
(with which I concur is necessary); the second is for guidance being developed (started being
developed in 2011 — nothing yet published nor adopted by the DOJ). The website states: "Once
these guidelines are adopted by the Department of Justice, they will become
enforceable standards under title II of the ADA. "
In connection with Strategic Goals, I provided you with a complete analysis of developing an
ADA Transition Plan. I repeat the one major O/A from the DOJ /DOT:
19. When does the scope of an alteration project trigger accessibility improvements for
people with disabilities? The scope of an alteration project is determined by the extent the
alteration project directly changes or affects the public right -of -way within the project limits.
The public agency must improve the accessibility of only that portion of the public right -of-
way changed or affected by the alteration. If a project resurfaces the street, for
accessibility purposes the curbs and pavement at the pedestrian crosswalk are in the
scope of the project, but the sidewalks are not. Any of the features disturbed by the
construction must be replaced so that they are accessible. All remaining access
improvements within the public right -of -way shall occur within the schedule provided
in the public agency's planning process.
Page 3 of 3
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
The following relates to certain ADA- related risks and liability exposure facing our Town. It is not
intended to be a comprehensive analysis — rather a compilation of my findings and interpretations
concerning certain exposures. More importantly, it is intended to offer suggestions to assist you,
our Elected Officials, in defining possible courses of action to mitigate these exposures in the most
timely and cost - effective manner.
I. Overview
II. Best Defense is a Good Offense
III. Curb Ramps
IV. Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters
Overview
As a portion of population, California's disabled count is about 2% under the national average.
However, when you look at disability lawsuits per 100,000 disabled residents, California outpaces
any other state. In fact, an expose by NBC News revealed that the number of ADA - related lawsuits
per 100k Disabled in our state was greater than the next four largest states, combined. Using
district court documents, NBC counted federal disability lawsuits from 2005 to 2013. They excluded
lawsuits against employers, focusing only on cases filed under the designation "446 Amer
w /Disabilities - Other." These are the lawsuits that generally have to do with building and
infrastructure.
Lawsuits per 100k Disabled
Califomia
Florida
New YoAz
Texas
'etutsylrwli
What's more alarming is the magnitude of judgments levied against State, County and City
governments.
Angelia M. Doerner — SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Page 1
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
Obviously, you are aware of the more recent public settlements in our locale:
• CalTrans - $1.16 levied in Spring 2010 - to improve access to pedestrian facilities such as
curbs and sidewalks
Los Angeles - $1.36 levied in April 2015 —to repair /replace sidewalks and curbs
And a couple examples that were "only' in the millions:
o San Francisco - $2.3M to a 72- year -old woman who suffered a severe injury by a trip -
and -fall on an uneven public sidewalk — even though she had walked on this sidewalk
almost daily for more than 25years.
o CalTrans - $1.8M for sidewalk trip- and -fall in City of Cupertino — a case volleying
responsibility between government agencies
How equipped is our Town in identifying, quantifying and remedying similar risks? How equipped is
our Town in challenging lawsuits related to damaged, faulty, or failed infrastructure as well as
frivolous lawsuits? My understanding is that, in determining who is liable in a premises liability
action, the crucial elements are ownership, possession, and control of the premises. The
person /entity who owns, possesses, or controls the premises is the one responsible for any injuries
arising from a condition of the premises. Without the crucial element of control over the subject
premises, no duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury on the property can be found.
Do we have an "inventory" or "Self- evaluation" of Town responsibilities (and related risks, if any)
between: (1) other government entities, (2) school or other districts out of Town control, and (3)
Town vs Stakeholders? More importantly, do we have a Transition Plan as required by 28 C.F.R.
§§ 35.105, 35.150(d)?
You may find it surprising that in the first two judgments referred to above, the first step was for
the responsible party to develop a transition plan - and then carry it out.
• CalTrans-$1.113 ....... Over 30 years
• Los Angeles - $1.313 ....... Over 35 years
What is even more surprising is that ALL public entities that employ 50 or more persons were
required to develop, within six months of January 26, 1992, a transition plan setting forth the steps
necessary to comply with Title II and that such plan was to be made available to the public, including
periodic updates of "performance" in obtaining compliance, and updated "next steps ".
Best Defense is a Good Offense
The fact that CalTrans and Los Angeles, among other large municipalities and government agencies,
had not complied with developing a Transition Plan — is no defense for our Town — or any other
public entity that employs 50 or more persons. In fact, there have been cases where, rather than
premising liability solely on violations of the ADA itself, they have also included a more adventitious
claim: that the city had failed to formulate an adequate self - evaluation and Transition Plan required
by Title II's implementing regulations.
Angelia M. Doerner— SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Page 2
�11�
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
With the added publicity of the before- mentioned cases and that of certain necessary dire
infrastructure repairs in our Town, I feel it is imperative to escalate the importance of completing
a Comprehensive ADA Transition Plan. I believe it should be included in the 2015 -2017 Strategic
Goals, under one, if not all, of our Core Values.
• Community Character — Repairs and modifications will Enhance Appearance
• Good Governance — Demonstrates Responsible and Accountable Government
• Fiscal Stability — Includes quantification in dollars and sets a multi -year schedule for
implementation allowing for budgetary, funding and prioritization decisions based on valid
and well- defined objectives; provides a monitoring tool which demonstrates commitment to
comply with ADA and other liability mitigation measures
• Quality Public Infrastructure — Defines a Plan to replace, repair and maintain condition of our
public right -of -ways as to curb ramps, sidewalks, curbs and gutters
• Civic Enrichment — Fosters opportunities for involvement of all citizens —those with ADA
limitations as well as our growing population of seniors
• Public Safety — Ensure public safety from trip -and falls, or as one of you refers to certain
capital improvement projects - "Health and Safety'
There are many facets to Title II requirements —some more "easily identifiable" and
accommodated. They can include:
• Program accessibility — I have personally seen exemplary accommodation of portable ramps
in Town Council chambers. I also witnessed exemplary utilization of Oak Meadow parking
lot for handicapped individuals at this year's July 4th Celebration (great improvement over
the prior year). But what about private foundations using Town premises, e.g., Music in the
Park, Jazz in the Plazz, the Labor Day Dance? Do we have /need established policies for such
accommodations in the use of public property?
• Public Access. Facilities — We recently added ADA compliant bathroom facilities and
elevators at NUMU. Do we have a checklist for all public facilities owned and /or controlled
by the Town? Public right -of -ways — are they safe to travel?
• Effective Communications — Again, documentation of compliance?
911 Systems and Law Enforcement policies, practices and procedures — Again,
documentation of compliance?
I have looked at a lot of websites — I think the Department of Justice ( "DOJ ") link
http: / /www.ada.gov /comprob.htm provides a useful synopsis of the most common problems faced
by City (excuse me, I meant "Town ") Governments. The remainder of my comments relate to Public
Right -of -Ways, focusing on two critical areas requiring Comprehensive Transition Plans — not
because of complexity (other than how to pay for it) — but because of the prevalence of necessary
remedial action throughout the Town. Those areas are 1) Curb Ramps and 2) Sidewalks, Curbs and
Gutters.
Angelia M. Doerner — SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Page 3
eYI1.�
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
I will offer my comments on these areas in the following two sections, but first, here is a recap of
what constitutes a "Transition Plan ".
Components of A Transition Plan
(1) If structural changes to facilities will be undertaken to achieve program accessibility,
the Transition Plan shall set forth the steps necessary to complete such changes.
Opportunity must be given to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities
or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the
development of the Transition Plan by submitting comments. A copy of the Transition
Plan shall be made available for public inspection.
(2) Regarding streets, roads, or walkways, a Transition Plan shall include a schedule for
providing curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrian walkways cross curbs,
giving priority to walkways serving entities including State and local government offices
and facilities, transportation, places of public accommodation, and employers, followed
by walkways serving other areas, e.g., residential.
(3) The Plan shall, at a minimum-
0 (i) Identify physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit the
accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities;
o (ii) Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities
accessible;
• (iii) Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve compliance
and identify steps that will be taken during each year of the transition period;
and
• (iv) Indicate the official responsible for implementation of the Plan.
In addition, I have reviewed the current Transition Plans for San Francisco and San
Jose (as well as several other cities scattered across the Country) and have found all
to include 1) a well- defined criteria for prioritization (dovetails with (3)(iii) above) and
2) a cost estimate for each corrective action.
Sample Plans and Web Materials
Obviously, our Town is shadowed by the size and nature of San Francisco and San Jose.
However, I found both Plans to be very informative and believe that incorporation of some
of the approaches from each of them would provide a huge jumpstart to development of
our Town's Transition Plan. In that regard, I offer the following two links for your future
perusal. http:// www.sfgov2.org /ftp /uploadedfiles /mod /RampSidewaIkO8.pdf and
https:// www .sanooseca.gov /DocumentCenter /View /244
Also, the following link provides a comprehensive Q &A About "ADA and Section 504" from
the U.S. Department of Transportation that I found to be very useful as to content and
clarity. http: / /www.fhwa. dot .gov /civiIrights /programs /ada sect504aa.cfm
Angelia M. Doerner — SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Page 4
' jH
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
In the following two sections, I refer to certain Q &A Items affecting Curb Ramps and
Sidewalks /Curbs. Also, I trust that Town Staff is already familiar with various funding
opportunities, but Q &A #30 highlights what sources of federal funding is available for
pedestrian projects and programs and may provide a handy checklist.
Of particular interest in my research was the following two examples:
(1) From the SF Transition Plan — a "first step" was identifying right -of -ways and their
categorization as to relevant priorities. Streets could obviously be defined in relevant
"sections" where different criteria are met, e.g., level of pedestrian traffic within the
overall category. For example, Items in "9" have higher priority than Items in "10"
because, although the level of pedestrian traffic is low, the street section meets both
a "commercial district' and "Near School, Hospital..." where Items in "10" are only in
a commercial district but with a higher level of pedestrian traffic. Also note that "22
thru 24" are residential only — therefore prioritized primarily based on level of
pedestrian traffic. As an example, Johnson Ave. (with its street closure for Halloween)
would have a much higher priority than, say, Central Ave.
Priority
Commercial
districts
muni
Near a
School,
Hospital,
Senior Ctr
Public
Fac.
Pop.
High
Pop.
Mid
Pop.
Low
Count
1
x
x
x
x
x
22
55
2
x
x
x
x
231
3
x
x
x
24
x
649
4
x
x
Other
x
0
5
x
x
x
3
6
x
x
x
31
7
x
x
x
9
8
x
x
x
71
9
x
x
x
395
10
x
x
0
20
x
x
21
x
x
22
x
23
x
24
x
Other
31
870
0
10
453
726
Angelia M. Doerner— SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com L LI Page 5
l
Town of Los Gko — ADA/L abliExposure and Mitigation Suggestions
(2) From one of the Transition Plan templates ava able on the web -the following w_,
mmRwm that may be included m the Plan with relevant dam . s
a«&mD_m«— s_oum_d#vnoom Mme
(! \j
�
!
[z -: \
E!
w
-
/
`
C.
-��\
\
'
2
>-
_
})=
!,
-..
•
»
lit-
22
!.
\i{
a«&mD_m«— s_oum_d#vnoom Mme
(! \j
�
!
w
-
/
-��\
\
'
2
,z!
!,
-..
•
»
lit-
22
!.
;b
�
■
�
rpm
a«&mD_m«— s_oum_d#vnoom Mme
(! \j
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
III. Curb Ramps
Obviously, there have been ADA requirements for Curb Ramps for a long time. However, there have
been relatively recent changes in such requirements (if you can call 2 years ago "recent ").
Therefore, I will focus on such changes. In response to my inquiries regarding statements made by
Town Staff in connection with a particular capital improvement project, Mr. Morley kindly provided
the following link to information on ADA and roadway design.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/dib82-05.pd
This link is to Design Information Bulletin ( "DIB ") #82 -05 issued on and effective as of October 1,
2013 by the State of California Department of Transportation ( "DOT "). For my purposes in this
communication to you, the relevant Sections are 4.1 and 4.2. For simplicity sake, let's just say that
my interpretation of these Sections differed somewhat from that presented to you by Staff.
Consequently, I contacted the author of the Bulletin and discussed these relevant sections. After
some discussion, from which I determined that my interpretation was "on target ", he referred me
to Division of Local Assistance — Office Bulletin #DLA -OB 14 -02 —ADA Requirements for Curb Ramps
issued on March 17, 2014. 1 have attached a copy of this 2 -page Office Bulletin to my email
transmittal of this communication. #DLA -OB 14 -02 is a clarification of the joint "technical assistance
guidance" issued by the DOJ and Federal Highway Administration ( "FHWA ") in June 2013.
Basically, in my words, it's a clarification of the clarification of the original jointly- issued guidance
concerning requirements of installing or upgrading of curb ramps in connection with various levels
of road work. Of primary importance is that the Rubber Cape Seal process that our Town has
typically been using since at least 2012 is considered an "alteration" vs "maintenance" thereby
triggering the requirement of replacement of curb ramps to current ADA standards. In my opinion,
the "multiple clarification process" simply deferred application of the original DOJ /FHWA Technical
Guidance. An excerpt from #DLA -OB 14 -02 states:
"For all resurfacing projects that will go out to bid for construction on or after July 1, 2014:
Alteration projects identified per the clarification provided in the Technical Assistance
guidance must incorporate required curb ramps. Any existing nonconforming curb ramps
within the project limits must be upgraded to comply with the current ADA Standards."
So, let's briefly revisit the plans and specifications approved and authorized to be bid in 061615
Council Meeting Agenda Item 13, Project 13 -7. As a refresher, these bids were opened on July 17,
2015, and were rejected pursuant to Item 8 on the Consent Calendar at the 080415 Council
meeting. The approved and authorized Project was a revised scope from the originally- presented
scope at an earlier Council meeting. The schedule of streets approved to be submitted for bids is
copied on the following page.
Angelia M. Doerner — SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Page 7
1L�)'�
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
Option 1 - Revised M4-t5 Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing and pavement
Rehabilitatlon-Crack Saal Street List
Street
From
To
Tieatment
z rt Ave
EW
avm Limes
RC
7M
Moran Wa
onera Cl
kA+ran Ave
l✓,emri Ave -_.
Eno
. -,Erg
RC
RC
Gk Lam:
MPZDn Ave
End
RC
Oka Road
Lark
x n
RC
Paggo wra .__�.- _
tuorart Ave
_
End
RC
A MWYWv
N 9
End
Rc
Los Gab6San3 a Rd
Albano
Los Galos Blvd
RC
Sh�fton Rd
Los Galos Blvd
tech$ Rd
RC
Shan Road
Stiannon
101d RIMMmn Hill Rd
RE
Forlaaw Cl
Fonaaler Rd
End
RC
Foneefor Rd
Kent RV
End
Re
Manneft Ct
Karned Rtl
End
RC
Kern Rd
$loo rack Rd
o ottne Hip
RC
Laolar GI
Forresw Rd
End
RC
I provide the following Q &As from the document referred to on Page 4 (w /o authoritative
references):
19. Does a project altering a public right -of -way require simultaneous accessibility
improvements? Yes. An alteration project must be planned, designed, and constructed so
that the accessibility improvements within the scope of the project occur at the same time
as the alteration. The ADA does not stipulate how to perform simultaneous accessibility
improvements. For example, a public agency may select specialty contractors to perform
different specialized tasks prior to completion of the alteration project or concurrently with
an ongoing project.
20. When does the scope of an alteration project trigger accessibility improvements for people
with disabilities? The scope of an alteration project is determined by the extent the
alteration project directly changes or affects the public right -of -way within the project limits.
The public agency must improve the accessibility of only that portion of the public right -of-
way changed or affected by the alteration. If a project resurfaces the street, for accessibility
purposes the curbs and pavement at the pedestrian crosswalk are in the scope of the
project, but the sidewalks are not. Any of the features disturbed by the construction must be
replaced so that they are accessible. All remaining access improvements within the public
right -of -way shall occur within the schedule provided in the public agency's planning
process.
I am in a quandary as to why only 6 new Curb Ramps were included in the bid package.
Angelia M. Doerner — SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Page 8
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
The "multiple- clarification process' may have provided our Town (and, assuredly, many
other municipalities) a reprieve from past sins relating to street projects performed during
the intervening period from June 2013 to July 1, 2014. However, I feel our Town would be
best served if the Transition Plan for Curb Ramps started with a self - evaluation of all streets
repaired in any fashion since June 2013 with determination as to "alteration" or
"maintenance" and what, if any, curb ramps should be considered for replacement.
Another observation is that, based on bids received for past Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter
projects and the bid most recently authorized (yet rejected), application of the clause above
in Q &A #19 — .... a public agency may select specialty contractors to perform different
specialized tasks prior to completion of the alteration project or concurrently with an ongoing
project..." may yield favorable budgetary results for our Town. Bids received from "Street
Companies" ranged as high as 40% more than bids received from "Sidewalk Companies" for
Curb Ramps of similar specifications.
Last note as to Curb Ramps — in the plans for the Annual Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Project
approved by Council on 031715, curb ramps were to be constructed at certain corners on
Town Terrace. I had expected that such would have been prioritized at the "top of the list ".
Why? Because none currently exist — in an area of high density (apartment complexes),
where on my random drive- throughs, I see young children (many in strollers) and /or seniors
walking on the sidewalks. Yet — as of one week ago, they have still not been done. Instead,
existing curb ramps have been replaced in the San Benito and adjoining neighborhoods
which were not even included in the 031715 approved plans. In fact, those streets were also
not on the approved list for current resurfacing copied herein on Page 8.
IV. Sidewalks and Curbs
Given the materials shared thus far, I believe everyone can conceptualize what should be
incorporated into the Transition Plan for Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters. Not unlike those of many
other municipalities who have not undergone development of a Transition Plan, remedial efforts in
this area have primarily been dictated by recorded complaints. In other words, "The squeaky wheel
gets oiled first.... ". However, even that philosophy is not handled consistently. I can refer to a
recent situation where someone called for the first time on a Monday and had the repairs (for a
relatively minor lift of a sidewalk seam) completed on the Thursday of the same week. But there are
many more cases where people have simply "thrown in the towel" on ever getting such risks
remedied by our Town.
The need for a well- thought -out Transition Plan is clear. I offer the following brief comments to
hopefully assist you in providing guidance in this regard.
A Transition Plan must be fluid as new circumstances arise. However, a "Control Point" must
be established to ensure cohesiveness between Council direction and Staff - driven products.
Angelia M. Doerner— SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Page 9
Town of Los Gatos — ADA/Liability Exposure and Mitigation Suggestions
• Stakeholder complaints or requests for repairs must still be given credence — but within an
established hierarchy of prioritization including disability issues of complainant, location,
level of pedestrian traffic and severity of "disrepair ".
• Costs from the last several bid cycles of such repairs have been relatively stable; estimates in
the Transition Plan should have a high level of validity — not a 15 or 20% change order
authority on top of a 15 or 20% "contingency ".
• Policies of requiring stakeholders to repair /reconstruct sidewalks, etc., before final sign -off
of significant remodels must be uniformly enforced. Trust me —they have not been in the
past.
• Parkway strips containing tree stumps pose significant risks — remedies including their
grinding and /or removal should be incorporated into the Transition Plan.
• Legal enforceability of provisions set forth in the newly- adopted "Tree Ordinances" should
be internally challenged to determine viability. If stakeholders abutting public right -of -ways
have no control over maintenance of trees on such publicly -owned property, and trees cause
uplifted or cracked sidewalks, broken curbs and gutters, etc., how can liability be transferred
to the stakeholder?
As volunteers in your positions, I know you are committed to "doing right" for individual Residents
and the Town as a whole. As a Resident, I feel it is my duty to offer input to assist you in those
endeavors. Thank you for your time in considering my thoughts and comments.
Angelia M. Doerner — SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Page 10
)9 Icy
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:21 AM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: 102015 Desk Item for Item 9 - Annual Sidewalk Project
Attachments: 102015 Annual Sidewalk Bids.pdf; 041015 Annual Sidewalks.pdf
Please upload and /or print the file titled "041015......." after the first file - as it is an
Attachment to my memo. Thank you.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1 IN
Angelia Doerner SaveOurHood @yahoo.com
ANNUAL SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER BID
DESK ITEM FOR 102015 ITEM 9
October 20, 2015
Please let me elaborate on the disclosure made in the Staff Report concerning the ranges of bids compared to
Engineer Estimates. The following are the totals for the recent Annual Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter contract:
TOTAL $296,920.001 TOTAL $474,913.001 TOTAL
Let's look at what caused these variances:
$513,197.50
Traffic Control
1 L.S.
i
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
324,400.00
$24,400.00r
$40,460.50
$40.480.5(
Clearing and Grubbing
L.S.
1
$1.000.00
$1,OD0.0
$30,000.00
$30,000.001
$5,000.001
$5.000.0c
Excluding "Traffic Control" and "Clearing and Grubbing', the bids would have been:
$292,920
$420,513
$467,737
'Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter
L.F.
410
$52.00
$21,320.00
$70.001
$28,70MC
$108.50
$44,485.0
Remove and Replace Rolled Curb
L.F.
65
$50.00
$3,250.00
$90.00
$5,850.00
$140.50
$9,132.51
Remove and Replace Valley Gutter
L.F.
55
$52.00
$2,860.00
$65.00
$3,575.00
$290.00
$15,950.01
Install New Vertical Curb
L.F.
160
$34.00
$5.440.00
$30.00
$4,800.00
$85.50
$13,680.01
The largest bid variances relating to any "concrete work" are primarily in the curb and gutters —ergo my concern that
we do whatever possible to save the curb /gutters if possible. Excluding these variances, the bids would have been:
$260,030 $377,588 $384,490
New ADA Ramp I Ea. 1 20
The other last single item contributing to the variances is in the ADA ramps, ergo my concern that we have a separate
contract for this work so that it be performed by a company whose primary specialty is this type of work. Let the
"street and big- construction" companies bid for the streets — let the smaller, yet fully qualified, companies bid for th
sidewalk, curb, gutter and ramp work. Excluding these variances, the bids would have been:
$205,030
$249,588
$260,490
Quite a different picture — don't you think? If we continue to "lump" it all into one large project — with one "winner"
— we significantly curtail our ability to fully realize cost reductions from the competitive bidding process. In addition,
this facilitates project management as the work "can be done concurrently" to comply with ADA— simply performed
by two separate companies. When the "street dudes" finish one block of the street —the "sidewalk dudes" complete
the work for that block.
By the way — in the last four years' of these project bids — there are NO AMOUNTS FOR DESIGN (Staff's 10 %),
PROJECT MANAGEMENT OR PROJECT ADMIN (Staff's 8 %)!!!!!!1
1 have provided a copy of the bid results for this recent project in a separate file on this Desk Item,
Page 1 of 1
i
j
w
C
Y
a
Q
'J
C
CI
yam.
O
N
O
7
a
0
A
S
4
V
C
r
ti
N
H
V
V
u
F
C
v �
� d
� U
m
r A
U
�x
Q �
C
z °o
G'
O
d �
H
a N
U
$: Q
Q z
N
N �
ti 0
� FQ
y� O
N �
a
F
St
r CO
r..
d
fy U
3 � q
`o
d
a
Z
0
0
o
p 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of
?
O
m
m
m
m
m
o
m
M
m
m
mw
m
W
P
w
r
N
N
V
°iw
m
V3
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
2
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
H
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
m
p
N
S
b
N
vOj
Z U
O
m
w
�
Nw
w
N
w
w
i0
w
w
w
H
w
w
O
Z
a
O
O
S
O
O
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
O
O
O
S
O
S
p
o
0
0
0
0
o
vi
o
c
o
0
o
v
c
6
6
v�
cc
Z
a
o
r
n
w
JC
�w
C
W
O
S
O
S
S
O
O
O
O
°o
S
Si
m
°m
°o
O
^
O
m
O
o
O
Oi
N
e+1
Ni
of
W
•^-
7i
j
w
a
M
w
m
a
Z
00
0
o
o
0
O
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
❑
m
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
O
1°
O
m
N
O
m
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Z
q
M
N
W
V
O
O
W
O
O
Ow
pw
yw
w
j
W
v3
w
f
M
N
`
r
Nw
M
w
N
w
N
w
LL'I
mw
(p
tM
w
N
w
(°
w
w
N
w
w
w
U
d
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
v
0
Ln
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
O
o
0
C
O
°o
O
m
m
p
N
O
N
V
O
d)
0
N
0
O
0
cp
0
O
0
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
v
W
U
o
w
iA
in
nw
w
n
w
w
°O
w
w
w
m
z
N
U
w
w
N
Z
J
(A
LL
6
LL
LL.
LL
LL
LL
ry
LL
LL
ry
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
J
m'
fq
(q
J
J
J
J
W
y
j
W
j
j
J
.J
j
j
o
y
>
m
n
3
c
Z
Q
(7
p
c
q
0
U
JE
:d
E
E
E
E
E
A
E
A
>
v
N
d
d
d
d
d
N
d L
N
y d
O
d d
m N
y d
N
O d
w p
F Z
N
M
Q
N
m
1:
ro
Oi
r
r
r
r
16
'
m
D7
3 � q
`o
d
a
A
O
t3
z
y
V
U
a
'C
G
U
� U
w
U
x ,s
t
CZ
�1+
w CS
•Q 0
� o
0
w i r
� h
N
G U"
N
� � 1
N p,
� H
y �
N �
O w d
U
7
V
N
d C
L W
p C
T �
O y
u
ma
N L
cU
r
m
m 0
N
N V
a
o:.
= E
�a
a
a 9
v-
v$
O �
a
C N
N
O
N N
m 5
°w
3 N
V V
nq
m t
� 3
N Q
C �
N �
V �
1- L
L,� 19
m
a
Z
°
°o
O
a
N
O
�
O
Z
W
o
NN
n
f9
N
2
N
M
C
O
°
°
O
O
8
o
Z
0
g
p
N
o
O1
-
Z
w
`o
NN
ui
N
w
0
�
a
o
g
m
o
0
Q
>
> d
w
pH
o
~
m
o
°
a
p
o
o
c
2
N
W
WM
b
N
O
�
W
w
U
v
O
O
O
U°
O
F W
5
Q
U
�
a
F
0
Z
O
a
U
�
W
O
�
W
F
O
�
T
-
a
m
�
o
q>
t
K
3
�
C
O
o
N
d C
L W
p C
T �
O y
u
ma
N L
cU
r
m
m 0
N
N V
a
o:.
= E
�a
a
a 9
v-
v$
O �
a
C N
N
O
N N
m 5
°w
3 N
V V
nq
m t
� 3
N Q
C �
N �
V �
1- L
L,� 19
m
a
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:44 AM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Nichols Consulting RFP
Attachments: Almond Grove design RFP.pdf
Attached, please find the RFP used for the $300,000 Design work on Broadway,
Bachman and Tait. The following if the last line of that RFP:
The above scope of work does not include construction support services_ The Tow
amend the contract of the selected consultant at the end of the design phase to inel
construction support services.
First off - the Town Manager had NO AUTHORITY to make this kind of "contract" -
essentially 8% of $3,700,000 = a $296,000 "contract amendment ". Didn't this violate
the California Public Contract Code ? ? ?? Therefore, it cannot be binding on the Town -
however, our Town Attorney can respond to that.
Secondly - what an incentive to increase the costs resulting from the design
work!!!!! ? ? ? ?? For every dollar in project costs, the designer gets an additional 8 %!!!!!!
As shown in the Staff Report - total estimated Project Management and Admin (8 %) _
$1,129,815!!!!!!! I have already discussed that the PM &A is not necessary on the
Sidewalk, Driveway, Curb Ramp...... the amount of $372,517 that is absolutely not
necessary. That leaves $757,298 left to be analyzed as necessity ( ?) ..... or hiring a
Project Manager in- house( ?). Of this $757,298, if the contract for curb and gutter work
was handled the same as the Annual Project for such work, this would save another
$57,116 - leaving essentially $700,000 for in -house management!!!!!
I think there should be an independent review of all other RFPs issued in the last few
years to ensure there are no other "suspect" representations and potential breaches of
Igal requirements under the CPCC.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
Request For Proposal
for
Preparation of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate
for
Almond Grove District Street Reconstruction
Town Project # 13 -31
Town of Los Gatos
Parks & Public Works Department
41 Miles Avenue
Los Gatos. CA 95030
October 4, 2013
Dear Consultant:
The Town of Los Gatos is soliciting proposals from professional civil engineering
consulting firms for Design Services for the Almond Grove District Street Reconstruction
project. This proposal is for preparation of bid documents for reconstruction of:
Broadway Avenue, Tait Avenue, and Bachman Avenue.
All interested consultants are invited to attend a pre - proposal meeting on October 16,
2013 at 10 AM held at Parks & Public Works office located at 41 Miles Avenue, Los
Gatos. Town Engineering Team will be present to answer any questions and provide
clarifications prior to the preparation of proposals by the consultants.
The proposal should be based on each firm's professional expertise and staff availability.
The project overview, schedule, proposal format, and selection process are outlined in the
attached document.
Should you have questions about this project, please call (408)- 399 -5773.
Kevin Rohani, P.E.
Town Engineer
Overview
The Town of Los Gatos as part of the improvements to the downtown area and its
neighborhoods will undertake the reconstruction of the concrete streets (10 total as shown
in attached exhibit) in the Almond Grove historical district.
The streets in Almond Grove district were built with concrete and designated by Town
Ordinance for reconstruction with concrete. There are 10 concrete streets in the Almond
Grove District and the aging process and deferred maintenance over the decades has
deteriorated these streets to a point beyond repairs and this project will reconstruct these
streets in a multi -year phase. The improvements as part of this project will include
complete reconstruction of street, curb, gutter, and sidewalk with landscaped planters.
The above work will be part of an anticipated multi -year design and construction
schedule to take place from winter 2013 to summer 2015. The selected consulting firm
will design the street improvements each year in order for the construction to take place
in spring and summer months to minimize the construction impacts in the downtown area
during the holiday season and winter months.
The Town has performed a conceptual design study and determined cost estimate for the
reconstruction of the concrete streets in the Almond Grove District which will cost over
$12M. At this time, about $4,000,000 has been approved by the Town Council for this
project (design and construction), which is estimated to provide enough funding to
reconstruct Tait Avenue, Broadway Avenue, and Bachman Avenue. These 3 streets are
the most heavily used streets in the Almond Grove district, are in worse condition than
the rest of streets in the neighborhood, and constitute the access "backbone" for the
neighborhood.
Proposal Format
Proposals must include:
A. Provide the name, address and telephone number of the proposing firm.
B. Provide a description of the proposing firm, including services offered by
the firm, firm history, and total number of professional and non-
professional personnel. If the firm has more than one office, provide the
location of the office where work for the Town will be performed.
C. Provide a detailed approach and understanding of the project and how the
project design will be managed. Outline your firm's approach to designing
similar projects. The draft Scope of Services can be used as a guideline.
D. Provide an Organization Chart and the resumes of the key personnel to be
assigned to project for the Town. The team members must be available to
work on this project throughout the construction time.
ki
E. Provide the names, titles, addresses and telephone numbers of a minimum
of 3 references for the proposing firm's suitability and experience in
performing the proposed work.
F. Provide a list and description of similar projects or contracts completed by
the firm for other municipalities.
G. Provide a preliminary fee /cost proposal in a separate sealed envelope. The
cost proposal should be detailed with task breakdown for various
components of the project.
Three (3) copies of the proposal shall be submitted to the Town by 4 pm,
Monday November 4, 2013 addressed as follows:
Kevin Rohani, P.E.
Town Engineer
Parks and Public Works Department
41 Miles Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria will be used by the Town in evaluating proposals.
1. Experience and competence of the identified key personnel (including sub -
consultants) in the areas of work identified in the proposal.
2. Firm's understanding and approach towards park design projects.
3. Firm's previous experience on successful design of similar projects
4. Reference recommendations
5. Firm's in -house resources
6. Overall cost of the design proposal
The Town reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, wholly or in part, received by
reason of this request. All costs incurred by the consultant in developing their proposal
shall be borne by the consultant.
Project Schedule
The following is the proposed project schedule:
Town releases RFP October 4, 2013
Pre - Proposal meeting October 16, 2013
Proposals due November 4, 2013
Town review the proposals November 5 -22, 2013
Town Council awards consultant design contract December 2, 2013
10
Draft Scone of Services
A. Project Start -up & Site Investigation:
1. Attend a project kick -off meeting with the Town. Discuss anticipated
improvements and project intent, scope, budget, and timetable.
2. Review all data pertinent to the project as provided by the Town,
including as -built drawings.
3. Project start -up administrative tasks will include the following:
a) Establish files and administrative procedures.
b) Finalize, prepare and adopt sub - consultant contracts as necessary.
c) Prepare Master Schedule and submit to the Town for approval.
4. Obtain all as -built utility plans from various utility companies.
5. Perform detailed field topographic survey to create base maps for the
project with all existing features
6. Visit the project site to complete a visual inventory of the existing
conditions and adjacent off -site impacts.
7. Prepare geotechnical reports and recommendations for the new street
pavement section.
8. Based on survey and topography data, input into computer and develop
existing conditions base for Analysis and Design.
B. Analysis and Concept Design:
1. Develop preliminary conceptual design concepts,
2. Attend one meeting with Town Staff to present & discuss preliminary
design concepts. Receive feedback from the Town on the concepts.
3. Finalize Conceptual Design Plan.
4. Develop Order of Magnitude Budget for project improvements.
5. Develop phased implementation plan as needed in order to prioritize
improvements based on the Town criteria.
6. Based on input provided by the Town, proceed with the comments into the
Design Development phase.
C. Design Development
1. Prepare a refined CADD base plan.
2. Develop a 35% level Design Development Package which will include the
following:
a.
Cover Sheet
b.
Existing Conditions Plan
C.
Demolition Plan
d.
Drainage / Utility Plan
e.
Grading Plan
f.
Layout Plan
g.
Draft Construction Details
h.
Draft project specifications
i.
Statement of Probable Construction Costs.
3. Submit 35% Package (three sets will be provided) to the Town for review
and approval to proceed to Construction Documentation.
4. One meeting with the team to present the Design Development Package and
review its contents.
D. Construction Documentation
1. Upon receiving comments from the Town, incorporate comments into the
documents.
2. 65 % Submittal Package
a) Develop drawings and details completed to a 65% construction
document level.
The following drawings will be provided:
1) Cover /Signature Sheet;
2) Existing Conditions /Survey Plan;
3) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;
4) Demolition Plan;
5) Grading Plan;
6) Drainage / Utility Plan;
7) Layout Plan;
8) Construction Details for the above items.
b) Specifications
c) Statement of Probable Construction Costs
d) Review and Quality Control (QC).
3. 90 % / Plan Check Submittal Package
a) Review comments and incorporate into the PS &E package,
b) Develop drawings and details completed to a 90% construction
document level.
c) Submittal Preparation and coordination (three sets will be provided).
4. 100% / Final Submittal Package
a) Attend a meeting to review the package with the Town and receive
comments.
b) Review 90% submittal comments.
c) Make revisions to drawings, specifications, and cost estimate to
incorporate comments.
d) Final Review Quality Control (QC).
e) Submittal Preparation and coordination. One stamped and signed
set of plans and specifications will be provided for bidding and
construction purposes.
The above scope of work does not include construction support services. The Town will
amend the contract of the selected consultant at the end of the design phase to include
construction support services.
Attachment:
Project Location Map
RFP distribution list
Distribution List
BKF Engineers Inc.
1650 Technology Drive, Suite 650
San Jose, CA 94063
Attn: Natalina Bernardi, Vice President
Harris & Associates Inc.
178 Second Street, Suite c
Gilroy, CA 95020
Attn: Brian Danley, V.P.
Nichols Consulting Engineers Inc.
501 Canal Boulevard, Suite 1
Richmond, CA 94804
Attn: Ryan Shafer, Division Manager
TYLIN International Inc.
2290 North First Street, Suite 102
San Jose4, CA 95131
Attn: Hatem Ahmed, V.P.
Kimley -Horn & Associates Inc.
6130 Stoneridge Mall . Road, Suite 370
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Attn: Michael Mowery, Associate
URS Inc.
100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95113
Attn: Ramsey Hissen, V.P.
CH2MHILL Inc.
1737 North First Street
Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95112 -4524
F3
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:57 AM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: 102015 cIESK ITEM - iTEM 9; Fw: For 091515 Fw: Desk Item - 051915 Agenda Item #5 -
Almond Grove
Still waiting for ANY information!!!!!!
As usual, our Town Engineer was nonresponsive to questions about utilities. I actually
first requested this information on October 1, 2014 - my first face -to -face with the Town
Engineer. Even at the last Council meeting, answers were vague and did not even begin
to respond to the questions highlighted below!
Have we discussed these questions AT ALL ? ? ? ? ? ?? SIMPLY ANSWER: YES OR NO!!!
Have we discussed ANYTHING WITH THE UTILITIES REGARDING ALL CONCRETE
STREETS - OR HAVE WE ONLY DISCUSSED THE "FIRST THREE STREETS " ? ? ? ?? SIMPLY
ANSWER: YES OR NO!!!
"THEY'RE OKAY WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING....." IS NOT SUFFICIENT!!!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood(d)g yahoo.com>
To: Town Council <council(a7Dlosgatosca.gov >; Marcia Jensen <miensen(a)losgatosca.gov >; Barbara Spector
<bspector (d)losgatosca.gov >; Steven Leonardis <sleonardis(a)losgatosca.gov >; Marico Sayoc
<msayoc(a)losgatosca.gov >; Rob Rennie <rrennie(d)Iospatosca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:07 AM
Subject: For 091515 Item 7 Desk Item - Fw: Desk Item - 051915 Agenda Item #5 - Almond Grove
Still waiting for ANY information!!!!!!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood(a)yahoo.com>
To: Lisa Petersen <Ipetersen(a)losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Town Council <council(a)Iosgatosca.gov >; Laurel Prevetti < Irevetti @Iosgatosca.gov >; Matt Morley
<m m orleVC(Vosgatosca. gov>
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 8:52 PM
Subject: Desk Item - 051915 Agenda Item #5 - Almond Grove
Could you please provide a recap of the following for each of the main
utilities (PGE, Water, Sewer) for Broadway and Bachman:
What was last date /year that the utility /pipes /etc., was significantly
updated? I recall Tait's water main was done a few years ago (the
long, discolored, depressed trench from Hwy 9 to Main)
• What work, if any, is going to be performed once the streets are
excavated?
• When is /are the next updates /actions expected to be done?
• What, if anything, was accomplished reg establishing "pay fees of x
if you "dig up" in Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 "9
• Do we have documentary evidence of any of these above - mentioned
items?
Thank you.
2
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:59 AM
To: Council
Subject: Fw: For Inclusion as Desk Item - Item 7 Almond Grove
Attachments: 091515 Suggested Street Priority.pdf
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood(a)yahoo.com>
To: Town Council <council(@Iosgatosca.gov >; Marcia Jensen <miensen(Wlosgatosca.gov >; Barbara Spector
<bspector (o)Iosgatosca.gov >; Steven Leonardis <sleonardis(a)Iosgatosca.gov >; Marico Sayoc
<msavoc(a)losgatosca.gov >; Rob Rennie <rrennie(@Iosgatosca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:28 AM
Subject: For Inclusion as Desk Item - Item 7 Almond Grove
Attached please find my comments concerning the street priorities and schedule of
compleion.
In summary:
The order /priority of streets to undergo reconstruction should be
based on greatest benefit to be derived — not just to the residents
on individual streets, but to the Town as a whole — based on
traffic flow, traffic volume, community events and day -to -day
pedestrian traffic.
The attached would provide all streets supporting community events to
be completed by the end of 2018 Summer.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
Suggested Street Priority
Failed is Failed!!!!
There is no such thing as an F- or F -- !
The order /priority of streets to undergo
reconstruction should be based on greatest
benefit to be derived — not just to the
residents on individual streets, but to the
Town as a whole — based on traffic flow, traffic
volume, community events and day -to -day
pedestrian traffic.
Angelia Doerner SaveOurHood @yahoo.com 091515 Council
060215 –All Concrete Streets were Reported
M:
As "By Far the Worst in Town"
LES
.
..e�
091515 Staff Report – PCIs of Concrete Streets"
_
Inter estmgthatNicholsonandWilderare
considered the "best" of all the concrete
`..:...a.
- _
streets – essentially atthe'"top`o €the
supposedly long–lown list of PCIK50 "II
Ntassol 48 Bean 37
=
Nicholson 47 Almendra 27
u
Wilder 44 Glen Ridge 27
Aichment4
BaWiew 34 Bachman xK
Tait 37 B roadway
Seriously ?? PCIs Should Male
Sense!
tothe0602155taff
C—Kcgof�Att
listing all streets Belowa
Pavement
Indexof 50: the list includestheten
(10f concrete streets
Failed is Failed!!!!
There is no such thing as an F- or F -- !
The order /priority of streets to undergo
reconstruction should be based on greatest
benefit to be derived — not just to the
residents on individual streets, but to the
Town as a whole — based on traffic flow, traffic
volume, community events and day -to -day
pedestrian traffic.
Angelia Doerner SaveOurHood @yahoo.com 091515 Council
Highest use for Community Events —
Angelia Doerner
• Christmas Carriage Rides— Main from SC to
Tait; Tait from Main to Bachman; Bachman
from Tait to Wilder; Wilder (from Bachman to
Nicholson); Nicholson (Wilder to SC)
091515 Council
Proposed Schedule of Reconstruction From 091515 Staff Report:
2016
<A>
2017
2018
2019
2020
Broadway
<B>
Tait
<C>
Glen Ridge
<D>
Wilder
<E>
Massol
< *>
Bachman
Bayview
<C>
Almendra
<E>
Bean
<E>
Nicholson
<E>
Bean
Broadway
<A> Is it wise to attempt two streets in the first summer of construction - necessitating division
of management efforts between two separate locations - one of which has a slope to be dealt
with. Complete attention should be devoted to Bachman to 1) ensure prompt and appropriate
actions to deal with inevitable uncertainties, and 2) document issues /resolutions, to allow for
incorporation of such information into design of future construction.
<B> As so clearly pointed out by the two Broadway residents at the 061615 Council meeting,
there are "42" households that rely on Broadway (includes Broadway Ext and Clifton).
Broadway experiences some beach cut -thru traffic — but the only way cars can get to Broadway
to "cut -thru" is via the Almond Grove. Even though plans are "ready ", Broadway should be
deferred until the streets yielding the highest benefit to the Town are completed. Also,
this will provide an "incentive" to 1) stay on schedule, and 2) be more cost conscious to ensure
there are enough funds "at the end of the day" to make Broadway "perfect ".
<C> The only two access routes to Main are Tait and Bayview (via Massol or Pennsylvania).
These two streets should absolutely not be done at the same time as it would force the 1000+
households West of Santa Cruz to use Santa Cruz (or 9 to University) to go North —
significantly increasing already congested downtown collectors.
<D> Glen Ridge is a critical access route to all of the homes West of the Almond Grove. The
perpetual traffic on "Massol to Bachman, to Glen Ridge, to Hernandez) dictates that Glen Ridge
should be "next in line ". No matter when Glen Ridge is constructed, it will be a challenge for
"West of AG" residents. So, I would suggest Glen Ridge being done at same time as Tait.
<E> Wilder next, coupled with Nicholson and Bean. As to Nicholson and Bean, they would be
relatively minor construction — shares Wilder intersection and Tait intersection would already
be completed — only go from SC to Massol — shared Massol intersections will be done with
Massol (and Cat's Hill does not require any work).
The following schedules would provide all streets supporting community events to be
completed by the end of 2018 Summer.
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Bachman
Tait
Wilder
Almendra
Massol
< *>
Glen Ridge
Nicholson
Bayview
Bean
Broadway
< *>Efforts to obtain a grant for the Massol /Hwy9 intersection should be pursued. Massol really is the
collector for all the homes West of the Almond Grove "Massol to Bachman to Glen Ridge" and
"Massol to Bayview to Pennsylvania).
Angelia Doerner SaveOurHood @yahoo.com 091515 Council
Lynda Seastrom
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:01 AM
To: Council
Subject: Fw: For Inclusion as Desk Item - Item 7 Almond Grove
Attachments: 091515 Suggested Street Priority.pdf
ALSO NEEDS TO CONDIER UTILITIES!!!!!!!!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood Wyahoo.com>
To: Town Council <council(a)losgatosca.gov >; Marcia Jensen <miensen(o)losgatosca.goy >; Barbara Spector
<bspector nlosgatosca.gov >; Steven Leonardis <sleonardis(o).loscatosca.gov >; Marico Sayoc
<msavocLd)losgatosca.gov >; Rob Rennie <rrennie(a)losgatosca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:28 AM
Subject: For Inclusion as Desk Item - Item 7 Almond Grove
Attached please find my comments concerning the street priorities and schedule of
compleion.
In summary:
The order /priority of streets to undergo reconstruction should be
based on greatest benefit to be derived — not just to the residents
on individual streets, but to the Town as a whole — based on
traffic flow, traffic volume, community events and day -to -day
pedestrian traffic.
The attached would provide all streets supporting community events to
be completed by the end of 2018 Summer.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
From: Michael Hobson <michael @hobsonandhobson.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Council
Subject: Upcoming Budget Vote
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
I understand that you are voting to approve a budget tonight. You must have numerous important issues at hand. One
of the budget items that is important to me and my family is the backstop at Baggerly Field. I implore you to vote to
approve funding for the new backstop. It will be a huge safety improvement for the kids who play in Los Gatos Little
League.
Los Gatos Little League has tremendous participation at all levels. There are 600 kids who play every year, which is
unusually high participation compared to other little leagues in our District 12.
The old backstop has more that served it's time. The new backstop would really enhance the playing experience and the
safety for the kids who play.
Best regards,
Michael Hobson, Kristina Hobson, Nicholas Hobson (4th grader at Daves), and Alexa Hobson (2nd grader at Daves)
123 La Rinconada Drive
Los Gatos, 95030
Sent from my Whone