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