desk itemN
MEETING DATE: 06/07/16
< .. ITEM NO: 10
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DESK ITEM
DATE: JUNE 7, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FISCAL
YEAR (FY) 2016/17 OPERATING BUDGET AND FY 2016/17 — FY 2020/21
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), NEW APPROPRIATIONS, OTHER
APPROVED ADJUSTMENTS, MINOR CORRECTIONS, AND CARRY - FORWARD
APPROPRIATIONS
REMARKS:
After the Addendum was distributed on June 6, 2016, the attached public comments were received
(Attachment 3).
Attachments 1 -2 (Previously received with staff report on June 2, 2016):
1. Resolution of the Town Council Approving FY 2016 /17 Operating Budget and FY 2016/17 FY
2020/21 Capital Improvement Program (with Exhibit A)
2. Public Comments Received through Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:00 A.M.
Attachment 3 (Received with this Desk iten1h
3. Public Comments Received through Tuesday, June 7, 2016 11:00 A.M.
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
SACOUNCn, REPORTS\2016 \06 -07 -16 \10 Budget\De k Rem - Buget.dmx
Attachments: 060716 To Council On Ramps.pdf
From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhoodCdvahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 5:04 PM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Attorney
Subject: Curb Ramp Requirements
Attached please find my final version of "Curb Ramp Requirements" in connection with
the Street Resurfacing Project approved in Feb '16. This analysis shows that an
additional 52 curb ramps are required to be upgraded or constructed. There are two
fundamental questions affecting my conclusions set forth in the attached analysis. They
are:
Is Staff implementing the Street Resurfacing on the streets approved by the
Council in Feb '16?
o If "NO" - why not? When would this have been communicated to Council?
How do the changes in scope affect the attached analysis - More or less
required ramps?
• If "YES" - how could Staff claim "compliance" when, at a minimum, the required
Detectable Warning Surfaces are not present?
In the recent Council- approved "Curb Ramp Project ", ancillary costs to remedy adjoining
sidewalks, curbs and gutters represented 45% of the total bid amount - an 80% "mark-
up" of the base cost ($4,200) of the ramp itself. Assuming significantly less "ancillary"
work on affected sidewalks and curbs (say 20 %), and using the base cost of
$4,200 /each = $5,040 x 52 = $262,080 + 10% contingency = $288,288!
This is an obligation that, by law, is required to be satisfied in conjunction with the
street work (although bidding separately is fine) and should be considered in finalizing
the Town's capital improvement budget.
Thank you.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
ATTACHMENT 3
To: Town Council, Town Manager
From: Angelia M. Doerner
SaveOurHood @comcast. net
Reg: Curb Ramp Requirements w/ Annual Street Work
May 3, 2016 Staff Position Reg "Required Curb Ramp" Project
Excerpt from 050316 Staff Report:
"At the January 19, 2016 Town Council Meeting, Council approved the Annual Street Rehabilitation
project. Title// of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) obligates a jurisdiction to provide curb
ramps whenever streets are resurfaced from one intersection to another. The United States
Department of Justice has determined that surface treatments, such as those programmed in the
Town's Annual Street Rehabilitation project trigger the requirement forADA compliant curb ramps on
the affected streets. Curb ramps are typically bid as separate contracts from street resurfacing to
ensure competitive pricing."
Staff Comments:
"We are very confident that the only curb ramps that need to be done are the ones we have
addressed here. The way ADA reads is that you need to include curb ramps where there are sidewalks,
but not necessarily every location included in the street project like, up in the hills... where there are no
sidewalks or "active paths of travel ". We have looked over this project several times, we feel
comfortable that these are the ones we need to do. Certainly, with other projects that come up in the
future we may need to do more.
There may be some confusion on what is included in the current year street cape seal project."
Summary of Joint DOJ /FHWA Curb Ramp Requirements
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released a joint technical
assistance guidance (Technical Assistance, "TA ") in June 2013 clarifying ADA Title II requirements to provide
curb ramps when streets, roads, or highways are altered through certain types of resurfacing treatments.
This detailed, lengthy document was provided to me one year ago by PPW to address questions I had
regarding ADA - related scope items in the AG Project.
After a conversation with the author of that June '13 TA, he directed me to a Quality Assurance Bulletin issued
March 17, 2014 ( "DLA -OB 14 -02 —ADA Requirements for Curb Ramps ") that clarified misconceptions in the
field and clearly delineates procedures to be followed by Local Agencies. These clarifications, as well as
specifics detailed in the original TA, include:
• "For all resurfacing projects that will go out to bid for construction on or after July 1, 2014: Alteration
projects identified per the clarification .... must incorporate required curb ramps. Any existing
nonconforming curb ramps .... must be upgraded to comply with the current ADA Standards."
• "Indefinite Delivery / lndefinite Quantity ( "on- call ") contracts: Contracts must be immediately modified so
future task orders reflect this clarification."
• "Regardless of whether there is curb -to -curb resurfacing ....... resurfacing of a crosswalk (marked or
unmarked) also requires the provision of curb ramps at that crosswalk."
• "Existing nonstandard curb ramps will be required to be reconstructed to current standards; and where
missing, curb ramps are to be constructed where there are sidewalks or other pedestrian "path of travel ".
. The "Standard Plans" are used for commonly designed accessible features and are consistent with this
D/8. Curb ramps or pedestrian paths in the Standard Plans contain conservative slopes and widths (not the
same slopes and widths as in this D/B) and may be used where the designer has determined that due to
relatively flat terrain and ample space these conservative designs are realistically attainable.
• Detectable warnings on curb ramps shall consist of raised truncated domes with the 3 foot depth and full
width standard shown on Standard Plans A88A, A88B, A90A, and A90B.
DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES ARE A CRITICAL "STANDARD PLAN" REQUIREMENT AND COMPLIANCE IS
EASILY OBSERVED! Detectable warning surfaces consist of small truncated domes built in or applied to a
walking surface that are detectable underfoot. On pedestrian access routes, detectable warning surfaces
indicate the boundary between a pedestrian route and a vehicular route where there is a flush rather than a
curbed connection for pedestrians who are blind or have low vision. Following are excerpts from the "Standard
Plans" utilized by the Town.
tl�, l:Ur'b raslPs uholl hove a Qwrrgo.! warning surtocw that s+ttand,
the full width and V -0" depth of +he ratsp, Detectable Morning
Surfoees sf all conform to +he cliiii • on +his Pion ona *me
requirements in the Special Provisions.
The edge of the detectable warning surface nearer+ +M s +rye•
sho11 be between a" and 9- from +he gutter fltywlinw.
•.I or retrofit COrtEitione, removes onn •eplope"Af or cUro QO,
will be of the Contrmtpr's option, ,nlsu ornery Fse aho.n ..
Oroipet Diet{.
.A r
1 .6?" +0 2.35 r o 0 0
Center +o ,
center soOCing gc; C,;
•'° ��'
DETECTAQiF wARhllr'G SURFACE
See Note 10
I 5T1rE Or CAEfORMA
DEPARTWNI OF rRMRFORTATKIN
My Comments Reg Curb Ramp Requirements Relating to Jan '16 Approved Street Scone
Perhaps ( ?), some of the non - compliant curb ramps I have identified in the attached analysis can easily be
brought into compliance at a "lower than construction cost" with the application of detectable warning
surfaces like what I have seen in Willow Glen. Assuming the existing curb ramp meets slope, width, and other
critical "Plan Standard" requirements —this material is secured to the existing prepared surface with "epoxy"
and further secured with cement screws. If this approach is utilized, I believe compliance with other
measurable requirements should be thoroughly documented.
t c
c c
C
s t 1
Attachment 2 to the Staff Report forth e Jan 19'16 Council meeting showed the following "Street Scope'
(approved by Council on Feb 2 '16). 1 have provided "pictorials' for these areas indicating ramps that I feel are
Required (RED) and some that are "Maybes" (BLACK). My analysis identifies 52 required curb ramp upgrades
or construction in addition to those included in the Staff Project. I've also identified an additional 2 at
Mullen /University that MAY require upgrade. (* *)Pictorials are not provided for Shannon Rd or Kennedy Rd —
there is inadequate description in the Street Project Plans of where the resurfacing is being done. Therefore,
there may, or may not, be additional ramps required in addition to those already identified by me or Staff.
• HAS STAFF CHANGED THE SCOPE OF THE STREET WORK PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL ??
• WHERE ARE THE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES ON THE PICTURED CURB RAMPS?
Area
Streets
Ramps
Req'rd ( *)
Area 1
Mullen Ave
3+2
Area 2
Oka Road (Lark /New Section), Oka Lane,
11
Mozart Ave, Mozart Way, Mojonera Ct,
Paseo Laura
Area 3
Amanda Lane, Shannon Rd, Short Rd;
5
( * *)
2 Ramps are appropriately included in
Staff Project for Amanda @ Shannon
Area 4
Towne Terrace, Avery Lane, Rushmore
2
Lane, Milbrae Lane
Area 5
Alberto Way, Bella Vista
11 +4
Area 6
LG /Saratoga Hwy 9 (Alberto to LGB)
??
Area 7
Kennedy Rd, Kennedy Ct, Forrester Rd,
4
( * *)
Forrester Ct, Leotar Ct
Area 8
Cross Way, Foster Rd, Johnson Hollow,
12
( * *)
Sund Ave, Cypress Way, Eugenia Way,
Blackberry Hill
1) An analysis of this sort is a relatively easy task that could be accomplished at the same time Staff is
performing their "look /see" on the street as to condition
2) Identification and quantification of both elements (streets and ramps) in parallel should be utilized in
prioritizing current work initiatives and can provide an effective budgetary mechanism when developing
the 5 -year CIP. Compliance will be achieved if they are bid at the same time. Separate bids can still be
used to achieve competitive pricing — the timing of the bid process is the critical factor. "We'll do them
later..." is not acceptable.
3) Documentation of compliance and, therefore, effective risk management could be achieved if ever
"audited" under a DOJ /DOT initiative. Given the litigious environment regarding ADA compliance, I
believe this TA (and subsequent "clarifying" Bulletin) provides the ideal "tool" for the DOJ /DOTto target
investigations of Local Agencies' compliance. Not much effort required on their part —yet great exposure
on the Town's part.
AREA 1- MULLEN
University
1
1
Ramps from Edelen— "crossing "to
ramp ( below) forAccess to
Sidewalk/Shopping; crosswalk
resurfaced, so New Ramps Req'd
Crosswalk Resurfaced
when Univ was done;
if done in'14 then
new ramps required
Shown as "Maybes ".
1
1
1
Ramp Off Sidewalk Allowing
Egress to Parking lot and
ingress from Edelen to
Sidewalk/Shopping
AREA 2 - OKA ROAD AND BEYOND
71)��"
T4*,W:A
MW
Staff Plans include 2 Ramps on
Oka Road — but not at Lark and
Oka. Resurfacing on Oka would
extend thru crosswalk to
"meet" newer surface on Lark.
.E,
1
� �1r}
AREA 3 - AMANDA AND SHORT
j.
SHORT
AMANDA
Staff Plans include 2
Ramps at Amanda
which was included
in the Street Scope —
no addt'I ramps
required on Amanda.
Great sidewalk "appears" on
west before Angel with no ramp
access. Also add ramp on east
side path for cross -over access.
1
ki
Start Here Near Shannon
N�,
1
1
No Ramps exist
at Angel
intersection.
Peds using sidewalk on West
side use last drivewayto cross
at Shadyto path /walkway; path
continues to Angel and beyond.
No existing ramps.
SHORT Road is "choppy' as to pedestrian travel. Staff has only included one revised ramp at the
intersection with Old Blossom Hill Rd. What is noted here is only my ideas of how to most
efficiently "bridge" the current access gaps along Short Rd itself.
AREA 4 - TOWNE TERRACE
,�
1
i7s�xli�,
I Towne Terrace
These were actually approved in
"ast year's Project, BUT they were
not done! Now included in this
Project. PLEASE consider marked
crosswalks —cars routinely park
all around the corners - this is a
-)igh- density pedestrian area.
,,�� 1
AREA 5 - ALBERTO WAY
In /Out at Commons �, 1
— much needed
4 Dead End; No Egress
or Safe Turnaround
"Le Questa de
q la.... "; Driveway-
Like, But actually a
street; Ramp -Like
but needs Traffic
"Warning Bubbles"
Insert at a
Minimum
1 1
"No Name" Street
Nothing hereon relates to the area to be
impacted by the potential development at the
"end near Hwy 9" as Staff represented that
they would not do that part of Alberto Way.
AREA 5 - BELLA VISTA
5
'L
1
I.
J 1
Intersection at
Caldwell; One
corner clearly on
BV, the other is
"cockeyed "(on
Caldwell) dueto
storm drain
v%> 11 vrSs
Y' .4 Lt
0�-
AREA 6 - HWY 9 ? ? ? ??
z
10
9
AREA 7 - FORRESTER....
t.1.� (A)
(B)
Kenned
1
�a
ac
a�
i°
Dead End; No Egress or
Safe Turnaround
1 Paved walkway branches
from this corner on West
side of Forrester Rd; addt'I
ingress /egress at (A) and
(B) above
AREA 8 - JOHNSON;LOMA ALTA AREA
CROSS
FOSTE
JOHNSON HOLLOW
AREA 8 cont. — CYPRESS WAY /SUND
CYPRESS WAY
Cypress at Loma Alta
SUND
Odd Intersection at
Cypress /Johnson and
Spring. No ramps at
Johnson "corner ";
Driveway can be used at
Spring "stop sign" but
needs "alert bubbles ".
At least" 1"
Sund at Tourney Loop I
� .fit,,. }� 'tl�►i.� `J
Sund at Foster — Walkway
dead ends with no safe
egress
From: Angelia Doerner [mailto•saveourhoodCoyahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Item 10 - Capital Budgets
I believe it is critical to get an update on the Almond Grove Reconstruction
Project. Following are some specific questions that I sincerely hope one, or more, of you
will ask of Staff during discussion of the Capital Budget.
Work on Bachman and Broadway was to commence as soon as possible after the
Cats Hill Race. That Race was on May 14th and no activity is visible on the streets
in connection with this construction. I believe Residents were told that the first
steps were to remove the trees that were tagged for removal - all trees remain
standing. Why the delay? There is now at least another one -month risk that this
work will go into the rainy /holiday /community event months of the year. The
contract is very specific about when work was to commence - are we going to be
receiving compensation for the delay, or at least not additional costs that may be
incurred by venturing further into those "troublesome" months ??
The Design Consultant for the other eight streets was hired on April 19th. One of
the contracts was to specifically include an analysis by Twining (the geotechnical
subcontractor) to determine the viability of full -depth concrete versus the design
promoted by Staff /Nichols. The savings, project -wide, exceeded $1 million. What
was the decision rendered by Twining? I believe no funds should be released until
construction on all streets is complete. However, I believe it is important, at this
juncture, to know about this conclusion and the potential for "reallocations" down
the road (no pun intended) - or "possible concerns" concerning current funding
adequacy.
By the way, the Design Firm has been actively collecting data and other
information necessary in the design process of the other eight streets. So, Kudos
to "Wilsey" in that regard.
Thank you.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
I