Agenda packet — Los Gatos City Council, April 18, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

Page 2 of 2 ends

ActiveWayz Engineering – First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town and Consultant have executed this Amendment.

Town of Los Gatos by: Consultant by:
_______________________________ ______________________________ Laurel Prevetti
Town Manager
______________________________
Print Name/Title
Recommended by:
__________________________________
Matt Morley
Director of Parks and Public Works
Approved as to Form:
__________________________________
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney
Attest:
__________________________________
Shelley Neis, MMC, CPMC, Town Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E Admas Zewdie, President
3/11/2022
3/23/2022
3/23/2022
3/23/2022

Page 153 ends

2170 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126
www.activewayz.engineering
February 18, 2022
Suyesh Shrestha, Assistant Engineer
Town of Los Gatos, Engineering Department
41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
(408) 395-1437
RE: Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project – Amendment Request Dear Suyesh:

The Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project has reached a significant milestone with the completion of the 65% Project Plans. These plans reflect the extensive community input received on the project during its development. As we get ready to complete the remaining project tasks, and accommodate some of the requests from the community, I would like to inform you that scope and budget amendment is needed to complete the project. Below, I have provided explanation of the additional scope of work for the project.

1. Sidewalk extension to E. La Chiquita Avenue – The project scope currently ends at the Shannon Road/Cherry Blossom Lane intersection. This task will extend the sidewalk improvements to E. La Chiquita Avenue on the south side of Shannon Road. PLS Surveys will perform field topographic survey and existing right of way determination. ActiveWayz Engineering will prepare design plans, estimate, and specifications for the added area. The scope excludes curb return modification and curb ramp design at the Shannon Road/E. La Chiquita Avenue intersection.

2. Additional Project Management Effort – The project experienced delays to solicit and accommodate additional community input. Several additional team coordination meetings were held to discuss and coordinate potential project changes and concerns raised by community members. Additional community meetings were held based on residents’ requests and Council’s direction.

3. Additional Alternative Analysis – Several iterations of the project alternatives were developed beyond the three alternatives included in the scope of work to evaluate requests from community members as well as Town staff.

4. Public Meetings – Visual renderings were prepared for the alternatives to assist with community engagement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 154 ends

5. Design Revisions – After the project concept was approved and design effort commenced, additional design modification requests were raised at community meetings and individual resident outreach meetings.

Project Budget Summary
Task
Original Contract
Amount
Amendment
Requested
Contract Amount after
Amendment

1.Project Management $10,692 $5,000 $15,692

2. Topographic Survey $18,500 $3,500 $22,000

3. Data Collection and Alternative Analysis $16,744 $10,840 $27,584

4. Community Outreach $7,552 $3,500 $11,052

5. Utility Coordination $6,144 - $6,144

6. Final Design $56,689 $27,000 $83,689

7. Bid Support $1,464 $1,464

8. Construction Administration $3,846 $3,846

9. Supplementary Services $5,000 -$5,000 $0
Total $126,631 $44,840 $171,471
As you can see from the above summary, the project has evolved significantly in character during the design effort. In addition, the extensive community engagement resulted in considerably more effort than originally anticipated. I hope you find the above information helpful as you review our amendment request. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me at (408) 219-5678 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
ActiveWayz Engineering, Inc.

Admas Zewdie, P.E.

President
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 155 ends

Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements (CIP No. 813-0218) Agreement for Consultant Services

Page 1 of 8 ends

AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on May 3, 2021 by and between TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a California municipal corporation, (“Town”) and ACTIVEWAYZ ENGINEERING, (“Consultant”), whose address is 2170 The Alameda, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95126. This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts.

I. RECITALS

1.1 Town desires to engage Consultant to provide Consultant Services for Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project (CIP No. 813-0218).

1.2 Consultant represents and affirms that it is willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement.

1.3 Consultant warrants it possesses the distinct professional skills, qualifications, experience, and resources necessary to timely perform the services described in this Agreement.

Consultant acknowledges Town has relied upon these warranties to retain Consultant.

II. AGREEMENTS

2.1 Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide services as described in Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

2.2 Term and Time of Performance. This contract will remain in effect from date of execution to December 31, 2023.

2.3 Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to Town that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a Town of Los Gatos business license pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the Town of Los Gatos.

2.4 Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.

2.5 Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the Town and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the Town’s property and shall be delivered to the Town upon the completion of Consultant's services or at the Town's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the Town to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of the these documents or information available to any DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 156 ends

Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements (CIP No. 813-0218) Agreement for Consultant Services

Page 2 of 8 ends

individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the Town without the written consent of the Town before such release. Town acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a defined project, and Town's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at Town's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. Town further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant.

2.6 Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed $126,631.00, inclusive of all costs as described in Exhibit A. Payment shall be based upon Town approval of each task.

2.7 Billing. Billing shall be monthly by invoice within thirty (30) days of the rendering of the service and shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent materials shall be submitted for Town review, even if only in partial or draft form.

Payment shall be net thirty (30) days. All invoices and statements to the Town shall be addressed as follows:

Invoices:

Town of Los Gatos
Attn: Accounts Payable
P.O. Box 655
Los Gatos, CA 95031-0655

2.8 Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the Town at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the Town.

2.9 Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the Town.

2.10 Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the Town. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to Town employee(s). With prior written consent, Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 157 ends

Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements (CIP No. 813-0218) Agreement for Consultant Services

Page 3 of 8 ends

testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or wrongdoing.

2.11 Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities are solely to the Town. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the Town of Los Gatos. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the Town or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the Town in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest, should it discover it has done so and shall, at the Town's sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify Town of this employment relationship, and shall, at the Town's sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship.

2.12 Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act.

III. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

3.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance:
i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 158 ends

Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements (CIP No. 813-0218) Agreement for Consultant Services

Page 4 of 8 ends

iii. Consultant shall provide to the Town all certificates of insurance, with original endorsements effecting coverage. Consultant agrees that all certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Town before work commences.
iv. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than $1,000,000 which is sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement.

General Liability:
i. Town, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions.
ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance in respect to the Town, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the Town, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the Town, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

3.2 All Coverages. Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to Town. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the Town Clerk.

3.3 Workers’ Compensation. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law and shall provide evidence of such policy to the Town before beginning services under this Agreement. Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 159 ends

Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements (CIP No. 813-0218) Agreement for Consultant Services

Page 5 of 8 ends

3.4 Indemnification. Consultant shall save, keep, hold harmless and indemnify and defend the Town, its officers, agent, employees and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity that may at any time arise or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which may be occasioned by a willful or negligent act or omissions of the Consultant, or any of the Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant.

IV. GENERAL TERMS

4.1 Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

4.2 Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara.

4.3 Termination of Agreement. Town and Consultant shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen days (15) written notice of termination. In the event of termination, Consultant shall deliver to the Town all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such termination, Town shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the Town bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination.

4.4 Prevailing Wages. This project is subject to the requirements of Section 1720 et seq. of the California Labor Code requiring the payment of prevailing wages, the training of apprentices and compliance with other applicable requirements. Contractors and all subcontractors who perform work on the project are required to comply with these requirements. Prevailing wages apply to all projects over $1,000 which are defined as a “public work” by the State of California. This includes: construction, demolition, repair, alteration, maintenance and the installation of photovoltaic systems under a Power Purchase Agreement when certain conditions are met under Labor Code Section 1720.6. This include service and warranty work on public buildings and structures.

4.4.1 The applicable California prevailing wage rate can be found at www.dir.ca.gov and are on file with the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department, which shall be available to any interested party upon request. The contractor is also required to have a copy of the applicable wage determination posted and/or available at each jobsite.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 160 ends

Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements (CIP No. 813-0218) Agreement for Consultant Services

Page 6 of 8 ends

4.4.2 Specifically, contractors are reminded of the need for compliance with Labor Code Section 1774-1775 (the payment of prevailing wages and documentation of such), Section 1776 (the keeping and submission of accurate certified payrolls) and 1777.5 in the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Further, overtime, weekend and holiday pay, and shift pay must be paid pursuant to applicable Labor Code section.

4.4.3 The public entity for which work is being performed or the California Department of Industrial Relations may impose penalties upon contractors and subcontractors for failure to comply with prevailing wage requirements. These penalties are up to $200 per day per worker for each wage violations identified; $100 per day per worker for failure to provide the required paperwork and documentation requested within a 10-day window; and $25 per day per worker for any overtime violation.

4.4.4 As a condition to receiving progress payments, final payment and payment of retention on any and all projects on which the payment of prevailing wages is required, the contractor agrees to present to the Town, along with its request for payment, all applicable and necessary certified payrolls (for itself and all applicable subcontractors) for the time period covering such payment request.

The term “certified payroll” shall include all required documentation to comply with the mandates set forth in Labor Code Section 1720 et seq, as well as any additional documentation requested by the Agency or its designee including, but not limited to: certified payroll, fringe benefit statements and backup documentation such as monthly benefit statements, employee timecards, copies of wage statements and cancelled checks, proof of training contributions (CAC2 if applicable), and apprenticeship forms such as DAS-140 and DAS-142.

4.4.5 In addition to submitting the certified payrolls and related documentation to the Town, the contractor and all subcontractors shall be required to submit certified payroll and related documents electronically to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Failure to submit payrolls to the DIR when mandated by the project parameters shall also result in the withholding of progress, retention and final payment.

4.4.6 No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].

4.4.7 No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project, unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. Contractors MUST be a registered “public works contractor” with the DIR AT THE TIME OF BID. Where the prime contract is less than $15,000 for maintenance work or less than $25,000 for construction alternation, demolition or repair work, registration is not required.

4.4.8 Should any contractor or subcontractors not be a registered public works contractor and perform work on the project, Contractor agrees to fully DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 161 ends

Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements (CIP No. 813-0218) Agreement for Consultant Services

Page 7 of 8 ends

indemnify the Town for any fines assessed by the California Department of Industrial Relations against the Town for such violation, including all staff costs and attorney’s fee relating to such fine.

4.4.9 Town shall withhold any portion of a payment; including the entire payment amount, until certified payroll forms and related documentation are properly submitted, reviewed and found to be in full compliance. In the event that certified payroll forms do not comply with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., Town may continue to hold sufficient funds to cover estimated wages and penalties under the contract.

4.5 Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the Town and the Consultant.

4.6 Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, including costs of appeal.

4.7 Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:

Town of Los Gatos
Attn: Town Clerk
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030

ACTIVEWAYZ ENGINEERING
Attn: Admas Zewdie
2170 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126
or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as Consultant designates in writing to Town.

4.8 Order of Precedence. In the event of any conflict, contradiction, or ambiguity between the terms and conditions of this Agreement in respect of the Products or Services and any attachments to this Agreement, then the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail over attachments or other writings.

4.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including all Exhibits, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the Town and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 162 ends

Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements (CIP No. 813-0218) Agreement for Consultant Services

Page 8 of 8 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Town and Consultant have executed this Agreement.

Town of Los Gatos by:

Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager

Recommended by:

Matt Morley
Director of Parks and Public Works
Consultant, by:

Printed Name and Title
Approved as to Form:

Robert Schultz, Town Attorney
Attest:

Shelley Neis, MMC, CPMC, Town Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 Admas Zewdie, President
5/18/2021
5/19/2021
5/20/2021
5/20/2021
5/20/2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 163 ends

SCOPEOF SERVICE
ActiveWayz Engineering | Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements 1 Deliverables:
• Meeting agenda and minutes
• Project schedule
• Monthly invoice and progress report
Assumptions:
• The project will be completed within the duration
shown in the attached project schedule.
• Outreach meetings will be noticed, organized and
led by Town staff.

SCOPEOF SERVICES
1 PROJECTMANAGEMENT
• Project Management and Coordination – Communicate regularly with Town of Los Gatos project manager regarding project progress, challenges, and next action items; Coordinate activities of internal and subconsultant team members; Prepare monthly invoices and progress reports; Prepare and maintain project schedule. • Project Schedule – Prepare a base line project schedule, and update project schedule as the project progresses. • Kick-Off Meeting – Organize, attend, and lead project kick-off meeting; Prepare agenda and meeting minutes for each meeting.
• Project Coordination Meeting – Organize, attend, and lead bi-weekly coordination meetings; Prepare agenda and meeting minutes for the meetings.
• Outreach Meetings – Attend up to two (2) community outreach meetings and up to two (2) Town’s Complete Streets and Transportation Commission meetings.
2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
• Field Topographic Survey – Provide a design-level topographic survey extending 10 to 20-feet beyond the right of way to allow for conform design and at minimum 50-feet beyond work limits shown in the exhibit attached to the RFP. The survey shall include existing right-of-way, roadway, surface utilities, sewer and storm drain manholes and their inverts, trees, fence, driveway, sidewalk, etc. Site coordinates will be established with RTK GPS at each intersection. Site control will be established and noted in the CAD file for future use by the contractor. • Right of Way Mapping – Based upon a combination of record data and any monuments collected during topographic surveying, calculate the record data location of the existing right of way for the mapping corridor. Additionally, calculate and show the location of each adjoining parcel lot line from record data (assessor’s parcel data, record mapping and apparent lines of occupation). Easements will be shown on the mapping product only to the extent shown on existing recorded maps.
• Plat and Legal Description (OPTIONAL) – Prepare Legal descriptions and Exhibit Plats for right of way acquisition.

One summary sheet and calculations sheet, including the total area of the property, areas of acquisition, areas the acquisition overlaps any easements of record and the remainder area of the parcel will be prepared for each separate property owner where acquisition is proposed. One acquisition document may describe various takes including: CLIENT Right of Way, Utility Easements, Slope Easements, and Drainage Facility Easements. Since the number of acquisitions cannot be accurately determined at this time, we propose to include this work item as an optional task. The fee for preparing plat and legal description is $1,000 per parcel.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 164 ends

SCOPEOF SERVICE
ActiveWayz Engineering | Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements 2 Deliverables:
• Site photos
• Base map in AutoCAD containing topographic
mapping, and existing utilities and right-of-way
• Exhibits of proposed alternatives (3)
• Exhibit of preferred alternative (1)
• Alternatives Analysis Memo
Assumptions:
• Town will provide as-builts for Town-owned
utilities.
• Town will be responsible for coordination with
adjacent property owners.
3 DATACOLLECTIONANDALTERNATIVEANALYSIS
• Site Assessment – Conduct a field visit to confirm existing conditions, obtain additional information, and take site pictures.
• Project Background Information – Obtain from Town and review background project information, such as prior studies, traffic analysis, traffic counts, collision data, community meeting minutes, etc. Request as-built maps from utility companies.
• Base Map Preparation – Using topographic survey, prepare a base map that depicts the existing information collected during the site visit and from utility companies. The base map will show approximate locations of existing utilities, signs, and pavement delineation.
• Alternatives Analysis – Prepare up to three feasible project alternatives for the proposed improvements. The alternatives shall be developed with careful evaluation of the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, and adjacent residents. The concept plans shall clearly show the scope of improvements and the associated geometric parameters for the project. The plans shall show the proposed improvements and sufficient notes and references to communicate the design intent. The alternatives will take the following factors into consideration:
> cost
> implementation timeline
> on-street parking
> utility relocations
> tree impacts
> drainage (public and private)
> impacts to private property improvements
> pedestrian street crossings
> variations in right of way width
> enhancing safety and convenience for pedestrians
and bicyclists
> street cross section (sidewalk type, bicycle
accommodation, planting, parking, travel lanes, etc.)
> public acceptance
The alternatives will be presented on exhibits using aerial map background. Typical cross-sections at key locations will be included. At the conclusion of the alternative analysis, a written memo summarizing the alternatives and associated costs together with a recommendation will be provided in addition to the conceptual drawings to document the work effort.

Assumptions:
• Topographic survey for the optional segment
(Cherry Blossom Lane to Short Road) is not
included. It is possible that the Town’s currently
available topographic mapping may be sufficient for
the traffic calming work. If supplemental surveys are
needed, the survey scope can be amended once the
limits of additional surveys are determined.

Deliverables:
• AutoCAD Civil 3D file with survey points and
Digital Terrain Model
• AutoCAD file with existing right of way
information
• Plats and Legal descriptions for acquisitions
(OPTIONAL)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 165 ends

SCOPEOF SERVICE
ActiveWayz Engineering | Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements 3 Deliverables:
• Exhibits using material prepared under other tasks
• Attendance at coordination meetings (3)
Assumptions:
• Preparation of graphic renderings are not included.

Deliverables:
• Exhibits using material prepared under other tasks
• Attendance at coordination meetings (3)
Assumptions:
• Preparation of graphic renderings are not included.
4 COMMUNITYOUTREACH
• Exhibits for the proposed alternatives will be prepared under Task 3 above. Under this task, consultant will minor adjustments to format the exhibits for public presentations. • The consultant project manager will attend up to three (3) additional meetings with private property owners or other project stakeholders at the request of the Town’s project manager. 5 UTILITY COORDINATION
• Identify potential utility conflicts, and if possible, identify design modifications to avoid utility conflicts. • Where conflicts are unavoidable, identify utility relocation needs and coordinate with utility companies to complete relocations.
• For each utility conflict, prepare conflict maps identifying the location of the conflicts, and coordinate with utility purveyors to prepare conflict resolution plans.
• Review the conflict maps and confirm that they will resolve the conflict. • Prepare Notice to Owner (NTO) to utility companies to begin physical relocation of utilities. Town staff will perform field inspection to ensure that the relocation work is performed in conformance with the approved conflict resolution plans.
• Assist the Town in preparation of a pothole exhibit. The Town will hire a pothole contractor to identify utility locations and depths along the proposed storm drain alignment. Survey pothole locations and add information to design drawings.
6 FINALDESIGN
Prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimate in conformance with the 2010 Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications, supplemented by Town specific flatwork, signing, striping, and tree planting details.

6.1 65%PS&E
• Plans – Plans will be prepared on 24”x36” size pages on the Town’s title block. All major design issues and solutions will be represented in the plans. The plans will show the existing conditions, the proposed improvements, and associated details, standards, and notes. The following types of plans are expected to be included in the plan set:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 166 ends

SCOPEOF SERVICE
ActiveWayz Engineering | Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements 4 Deliverables:
• 65% Plans (PDF)
• 65% Technical Specifications
(MS Word, PDF)
• 65% Cost Estimate
(MS Excel, PDF)
Assumptions:
• Town will prepare front-end specifications.
• Town will provide sheet border, and CAD drafting standards if available.
• Town will be responsible for environmental clearance, right of way certification, and E-76 authorization coordination.
• Landscaping and irrigation design is not included in the scope of work. • The optional segment (Cherry Blossom Lane to Short Road) is not included.

Deliverables:
• Comment Response Matrix
• 100% Plans (PDF)
• 100% Technical Specifications
(MS Word, PDF)
• 100% Cost Estimate
(MS Excel, PDF)
Assumptions:
• Town will provide a compiled set of comments after resolving inconsistencies between various reviewers.
> Title Sheet (1 sheet)
> Notes, Legend, and Abbreviations (1 sheet)
> Existing Conditions Plan (1”=20’ scale, 3 sheets)
> Demolition Plan (1”=20’ scale, 3 sheets)
> Improvement Plans (1”=20’ scale, 3 sheets)
> Signing and Striping Plans (1”=20’ scale, 3 sheets)
> Construction Details (6 sheets)
> Standard Details (2 sheets)
> Best Management Practices (1 sheet)
> Total (23 sheets)
• Technical Specifications – Prepare draft technical specifications using the Town of Los Gatos specification format and content. Supplement technical specifications as needed with Caltrans standards for project work not already covered by the Town’s standard specifications. Prepare bid tabulation and detailed measurement and payment section. The bid tabulation and the units of measurement shall be consistent with the cost estimate. • Estimate – Prepare estimate of probable cost based on items and quantities of work shown on the plans. Unit prices will be based on the magnitude of the quantities and recently awarded local projects and engineer’s judgment.

6.2 100% PS&E
• Comment Review – Review Town’s comments on the 65% submittal and provide responses in a matrix format. Identify comments that consultant disagrees with, need further clarification on, or may result in change in scope for discussion with the Town’s project manager.
• Update Plans, Specifications, and Estimate of Probable Cost – Prepare 100% construction documents by refining the 65% design documents based on comments received after the Town’s review of the 65% construction documents. The 100% plans, technical specifications, and estimate of probable cost shall be submitted together.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 167 ends

SCOPEOF SERVICE
ActiveWayz Engineering | Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements 5 Deliverables:
• Comment Response Matrix
• Final Plans (PDF)
• Final Technical Specifications
(MS Word, PDF)
• Final Cost Estimate
(MS Excel, PDF)
Assumptions:
• Town will provide a compiled set of comments after resolving inconsistencies between various reviewers.
• It is assumed that if Town decides to split the project in two, the same plan set will be used and non-applicable work items will be crossed out from the plans. This scope does not include preparing standalone plan sets for two separate bid packages.

Deliverables:
• Responses to RFIs
Assumptions:
• The project will be constructed in a single construction package.

Deliverables:
• Responses to RFIs
• Reviewed shop drawings
• Change order plans
• As-built plans
Assumptions:
• This task will be performed on a time-and-material basis.

6.3 Final PS&E
• Bid Set – Address miscellaneous Town comments on the 100% submittal and prepare a bid-ready set of plans, technical specifications, and cost estimate.
7 BIDSUPPORT
• Support the Town through the bid process and construction contract award. • Respond to questions or requests for clarifications during the bid phase. • Attend a pre-bid meeting.
• Assist the Town establish the lowest responsible bidder. • Provide value engineering services as needed if bids are above the construction budget. 8 CONSTRUCTIONADMINISTRATION
• Provide construction support services. Tasks may include attending pre-construction and other field meetings, reviewing submittals, responding to requests for information, providing field check services, preparing design modifications if necessary due to unforeseen conditions, prepare as-built documents, and project closeout. • Consultant shall conduct site visits during construction at appropriate stages. Consultant shall provide submittal list, respond to requests for information (RFI), review shop drawings, and prepare change orders, and provide written recommendations to the Town. Consultant shall participate in the final walk-through and assist with preparing the punch list of deficiencies.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 168 ends

SCOPEOF SERVICE
ActiveWayz Engineering | Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements 6 9 SUPPLEMENTARY SERVICES
• Work under this task item shall include other supplemental services as related to right-of-way, utility relocation, additional meetings, and other design elements not already outlined or specified under other task items. Any work under this task will first need to be requested or approved by the Town and as authorized by Town staff.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 169 ends

ActiveWayz Engineering
Fee Estimate
4/6/2021
Project ManagerProject EngineerDesign EngineerEngineering TechnicianTotal Tasks $198 $168 $124 $60

1. Project Management 54 — — — 54 $10,692 — $10,692 — $10,692 Project Management & Coordination 16 — — — 16 $3,168 — $3,168 — $3,168 Project Schedule 4 — — — 4 $792 — $792 — $792
Kick-Off Meeting 2 — — — 2 $396 — $396 — $396
Project Coordination Meeting 16 — — — 16 $3,168 — $3,168 — $3,168 Ourteach Meetings (4) 16 — — — 16 $3,168 — $3,168 — $3,168

2. Topographic Survey — — — — — — — — $18,500 $18,500
Field Topographic Survey & R/W Mapping — — — — — — — — $18,500 $18,500

3. Data Collection and Alternative Analysis 32 — 52 66 150 $16,744 — $16,744 — $16,744 Site Assessment 4 — 4 — 8 $1,288 — $1,288 — $1,288
Project Background Information — — 8 8 16 $1,472 — $1,472 — $1,472 Base Map Preparation 2 — 8 8 18 $1,868 — $1,868 — $1,868 Alternatives Analysis 26 — 32 50 108 $12,116 — $12,116 — $12,116

4. Community Outreach 16 — 16 40 72 $7,552 — $7,552 — $7,552 Prepare Exhibits 8 — 16 40 64 $5,968 — $5,968 — $5,968
Attend Meetings (up to 4 additional) 8 — — — 8 $1,584 — $1,584 — $1,584

5. Utility Coordination 16 — 24 — 40 $6,144 — $6,144 — $6,144 Utility Coordination 16 — 24 — 40 $6,144 — $6,144 — $6,144

6. Final Design 81 111 86 189 467 $56,689 — $56,689 — $56,689 65% PS&E 60 82 64 140 346 $41,992 — $41,992 — $41,992
100% PS&E 15 21 16 35 87 $10,498 — $10,498 — $10,498
Final PS&E 6 8 6 14 35 $4,199 — $4,199 — $4,199

7. Bid Support 4 4 — — 8 $1,464 — $1,464 — $1,464
Pre-bid meeting 2 — — — 2 $396 — $396 — $396
Bid Support 2 4 — — — $1,068 — $1,068 — $1,068
— — — — — — — — — —

8. Construction Administration 9 8 — 12 29 $3,846 — $3,846 — $3,846 Meetings 3 — — — 3 $594 — $594 — $594
Shop Drawing Reviews 2 4 — — 6 $1,068 — $1,068 — $1,068 RFIs 2 4 — — 6 $1,068 — $1,068 — $1,068
As-builts 2 — — 12 — $1,116 — $1,116 — $1,116

9. Supplementary Services — — — — — — $5,000 $5,000 — $5,000 Supplementary Services — — — — — — $5,000 $5,000 — $5,000 Total 212 123 178 307 820 $103,131 $5,000 $108,131 $18,500 $126,631

TOWN OF LOS GATOS
SHANNON ROAD PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS (CIP No. 813-0218) Grand Total
ActiveWayz Engineering PLS Surveys
Hours
SubtotalFeeDirectExpensesTotalFeeTotalFee
ACTIVEWAYZ COST PROPOSAL - Shannon Road.xlsx
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 170 ends

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Notice to Proceed 0 days Mon 5/17/21 Mon 5/17/21
2 Task 1: Project Management 49 days Fri 5/21/21 Mon 8/2/213 Kick‐Off Meeting 0 days Fri 5/21/21 Fri 5/21/21 1FS+5 days4 Community Outreach Mtg #1 0 days Fri 6/11/21 Fri 6/11/21 15SS+5 days5 Community Outreach Mtg #2 0 days Fri 7/16/21 Fri 7/16/21 17SS+5 days6 Complete Streets & Transportation Commission Mtg #1 0 days Fri 6/25/21 Fri 6/25/21 4FS+10 days 7 Complete Streets
& Transportation Commission Mtg #2 0 days Mon 8/2/21 Mon 8/2/21 5FS+10 days 8 Task 2: Topographic Survey 10 days Mon 5/17/21 Fri 5/28/219 Topographic Surveys 10 days Mon 5/17/21 Fri 5/28/21 1 10 Task 3: Data Collection and Alternative Analysis 59 days Mon 5/17/21 Mon 8/9/2111 Project Background Research and As‐Built collection 10 days Mon 5/17/21 Fri 5/28/21 112 Site Assessment 1 day Tue 6/1/21 Tue 6/1/21 9,1113 Base Map Preparation 3 days Wed 6/2/21 Fri 6/4/21 12,11,914 Alternative Analysis 45 days Mon 6/7/21 Mon 8/9/2115 Develop Draft Alternatives 20 days Mon 6/7/21 Fri 7/2/21 1316 Town Review of Draft Alternatives 5 days Mon 7/5/21 Fri 7/9/21 1517 Refine Alternatives 20 days Mon 7/12/21 Mon 8/9/21 1618 Select Preferred Alternative 0 days Mon 8/9/21 Mon 8/9/21 1719 Task 4: Community Outreach 45 days Fri 5/28/21 Mon 8/2/2120 Prepare Exhibits 45 days Fri 5/28/21 Mon 8/2/21 4SS‐10 days21 Task 5: Utility Coordination 60 days Mon 7/19/21 Wed 10/13/2122 Utility Coordination 60 days Mon 7/19/21 Wed 10/13/21 1823 Task 6: Final Design 83 days Tue 8/10/21 Wed 12/8/2124 65% PS&E 40 days Tue 8/10/21 Tue 10/5/2125 Prepare Plans 25 days Tue 8/10/21 Tue 9/14/21 1826 Prepare Estimate 2 days Wed 9/15/21 Thu 9/16/21 2527 Prepare Specifications 3 days Fri 9/17/21 Tue 9/21/21 2628 Complete 65% PS&E 0 days Tue 9/21/21 Tue 9/21/21 2729 Town Review 10 days Wed 9/22/21 Tue 10/5/21 2830 100% PS&E 28 days Wed 10/6/21 Tue 11/16/21 1231 Respond to 65% Comments 3 days Wed 10/6/21 Fri 10/8/21 2932 Update PS&E Package 20 days Tue 10/12/21 Mon 11/8/21 3133 Complete 100% PS&E 0 days Mon 11/8/21 Mon 11/8/21 3234 Town Review 5 days Tue 11/9/21 Tue 11/16/21 3335 Final PS&E 15 days Wed 11/17/21 Wed 12/8/2136 Update PS&E 15 days Wed 11/17/21 Wed 12/8/21 3437 Complete Final PS&E 0 days Wed 12/8/21 Wed 12/8/21 3638 Task 7: Bid Support Assistance 50 days Thu 12/9/21 Thu 2/17/2239 Bidding and Award 50 days Thu 12/9/21 Thu 2/17/22 37,2240 Task 8: Construction Support 60 days Fri 2/18/22 Fri 5/13/2241 Construction Support 60 days Fri 2/18/22 Fri 5/13/22 39 5/17
5/21
6/11
7/16
6/25
8/2
8/9
9/21
11/8
12/8
4/114/184/25 5/2 5/9 5/165/235/30 6/6 6/136/206/27 7/4 7/117/187/25 8/1 8/8 8/158/228/29 9/5 9/129/199/2610/310/1010/1710/2410/3111/711/1411/2111/2812/512/1212/1912/261/2 1/9 1/161/231/30 2/6 2/132/202/27 3/6 3/133/203/27 4/3 4/104/174/24 5/1 5/8 5/155/2 May June July August September October November December January February March April May TaskSplitMilestone
SummaryProject SummaryInactive Task
Inactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual Task
Duration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual Summary
Start-onlyFinish-onlyExternal Tasks
External MilestoneDeadlineCritical
Critical SplitProgressManual Progress
Town of Los Gatos
Project Schedule for
SHANNON ROAD PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

Page 1 ends

Project: P2020-040 ScheduleDate: Wed 4/28/21
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 171 ends

ACTIVEWAYZ’ RESPONSES TO CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS ON THE

PROJECT SCOPE
04/06/2021

1. Overview: Confirm the physical limits included in both the Alternatives Analysis and Final Design scope of work items.

RESPONSE: The proposal covers the CIP No. 813-0218 project limits (Los Gatos to Cherry Blossom).

2. Topographic Survey: The scope indicates the right of way will be determined from "a combination of record data and any monuments." What do you propose for areas where no record data is available? RESPONSE: In our experience, roadways and private lands have always been defined by deeds and maps. We cannot think of a time we've come across such an issue where nothing is defined. If, in fact, there is no record data, the situation will require negotiation between the City and the adjacent private property owner to define the right of way. Such work may involve legal action and is beyond the scope of our work.

3. Timing vs Cost vs Safety: One item not explicitly addressed in the proposal is the question of which side of the street is improved first and why. We expect the tradeoffs between cost, timing, and safety will all be in play as we struggle with federal grant and PG&E relocation timing issues. How do you propose to address this?
RESPONSE: It’s too early to say whether bifurcation is needed. My suggestion is to develop the plans to the 65% design level and decide if we need to split the project. There could be several options to consider, including:
• The use of add-alternate bid items;
• Segmented construction (both sides for a few blocks); • Low-cost interim improvements
Rest assured that we will propose an optimal implementation strategy that balances the various considerations. If the project needs to be phased, we propose preparing one set of plans and cross-out/hide improvements that are not part of the construction package. We used this approach on a recent project that’s about to start construction. This approach can be accommodated within the budget we proposed.

4. Trees: How have you addressed tree impacts in the past? RESPONSE: Trees should be dealt with in close coordination with the Town arborist. Possible options include:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 172 ends

Tree removal – if the tree causing the problem is an ornamental tree, a old/dying tree, or a sick tree, removing it can be an option. Many trees planted along Los Gatos streets for beautification are not appropriate for sidewalk location due to their shallow roots. As part of the Almond Grove project, many magnolia trees that were lifting sidewalks were removed during the street reconstruction.

Cutting Tree Roots – Cutting roots can result in the death or instability of a tree, so should be attempted with a close supervision of the Town Arborist.

Reinforcing the sidewalk concrete – building a longer section of sidewalk and reinforcing it with rebar can help counter the force of a growing tree root underneath the sidewalk and hence limit uplift.

Realigning sidewalk – The whole or a portion of the sidewalk can be realigned to be away from the tree roots, and root barriers installed to prevent further root encroachment. This may require reduction of pavement width, and may be incorporated as part of an overall traffic calming measure.

Also, it’s important to note that not all of the sidewalk width needs to be ADAcompliant. As long as a PAR (pedestrian accessible route) of 4-foot width is provided along the sidewalk, the remaining sidewalk can have slopes that are not consistent with ADA.

5. Storm Water Management: How will you track C.3 treatment requirements for new development as the project proceeds?
RESPONSE: Provision C.3.c of the municipal stormwater permit excludes certain projects from the C.3 treatment requirements. This project will fall under that exception because it meets the requirement “Sidewalks, bicycle lanes and trails that are not built as part of new roadways or are constructed with permeable surfaces”. The Town has developed a Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan in 2019. We will follow the recommendations of that plan to identify and incorporate green infrastructure elements to the extent feasible.

6. Federal Process: What is your experience on federal projects? RESPONSE: We are very familiar with the federal requirements for projects. We are currently wrapping up two federally-funded projects for the City of South San Francisco. Per the RFP, the Town will be responsible for the E-76 coordination.

We will make sure that the specifications include the required federal requirements and forms, and help the Town with the calculation of the DBE participation goal and completion of the PS&E checklist.

7. Traffic Calming: Will ActiveWayz be able to provide traffic calming measure as part of the project?
RESPONSE: Our project scope is limited to the Shannon Road segment that’s shown in the Project Limit exhibit attached to the RFP. The scope of the traffic DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 173 ends

calming element between Cherry Blossom and Short Road is unclear. We can discuss this and incorporate it as part of the project. If the traffic calming work has a separate funding source, it may be beneficial to develop it as a stand-alone project. There may be an opportunity for Town staff and ActiveWayz to collaborate in the development of the plans for this segment, with Town staff preparing the plans, and ActiveWayz providing technical review support. We can discuss this when we meet.

8. Do you anticipate the need to bifurcate PS&E and construction for northern and southern side of Shannon due to funding? If bifurcation is needed, is it included in the current proposal?
RESPONSE: See response to Question 3 above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DB1111D-8870-497D-BFEB-422C94958976 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3053538C-F7D8-4A81-B8EC-02963122D00E

Page 174 ends

ACTIVEWAYZ ENGINEERING
Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvement Project, Los Gatos, CA

WORK SCOPE
03/08/2023
TASK 1: Bid Support
ActiveWayz Engineering will perform the following tasks:
• Provide clarifications and assistance during the bidding phase to satisfactorily answer any questions from prospective bidders, if requested by Town. Town to reproduce and distribute Contract Documents, maintain a plan holder’s list and log of bidder’s questions and responses.
• Attend Pre-Bid Meeting and Council meeting for construction award. Attend up to three (3) additional coordination meetings.
• Prepare up to two Addenda to Construction Documents, if needed. Town to reproduce and distribute all addenda.
• If addenda are issued, prepare a conformed set of documents that incorporated addenda into the documents.
• Assist Town in evaluating bids.

Deliverables:

1. Written clarifications and response to questions from prospective bidders, if needed

2. Addenda to the Bid Documents, if needed.

3. Conformed construction documents, if needed.

TASK 2: Construction Support
The Town’s construction management team will have primary responsibility for construction management and inspection. Upon request by Town, ActiveWayz will perform the following tasks:
• Attend Pre-Construction Meeting and respond to pre- construction meeting questions.
• Review and approve shop drawings and submittals.
• Review Contractor’s request for information (RFI’s) and furnish additional drawings and/or specifications for supplementing, clarifying, and/or correcting purposes. • Attend up to three (3) meetings and site visits when necessary as determined and requested by Town.
• Attend punch-list walk through meeting.
• Assist Town with the review of construction, and other activities, as requested. • Prepare, review, and recommend approval of up to two (2) design related change orders, as requested.

EXHIBIT B, Page 1 of 3 Page 175
Deliverables:

1. Shop drawing and submittal comments.

2. RFI responses.

3. Site visit memoranda, as required.

4. Drawings and specifications forsupplementing, clarifying, and/or correcting the contract documents and for design related change orders.

5. Change orders, as required.

TASK 3: Record Drawings
ActiveWayz will perform the following tasks:
• At Final Completion of the Project, provide Town with one set of reproducible Record Drawing that reflects the changes to the work during construction based upon marked up prints, drawings, and other data furnished by the Contractor, Town, and Consultants.
• Provide a complete set of the Record Drawings and all X-ref files “bound,” including other associated fonts, plot style files on AutoCAD, including electronic copies in PDF format.

Deliverables:

1. Record Drawings using AutoCAD, and one set electronic copy in PDF format.

Page 2 of 3 ends

ActiveWayz Engineering
Fee Estimate
3/8/2023
Project ManagerDesign EngineerEngineering TechnicianTotalProject ManagerDesign EngineerEngineering Technician $220 $136 $109
Tasks $220 $136 $109

1. Bid Support 21 6 14 41 $4,620 $816 $1,526 $6,962
Sub-Task
Pre-bid Meeting 2 — — 2 $440 — — $440
Council Meeting 3 — — 3 $660 — — $660
Coordination Meetings (3 tot) 6 — — 6 $1,320 — — $1,320 Prepare Addenda (2 tot) 2 4 8 14 $440 $544 $872 $1,856
Prepare Conformed Set 2 2 6 10 $440 $272 $654 $1,366
Evaluate Bids 6 — — 6 $1,320 — — $1,320

2. Construction Support 38 36 12 86 $8,360 $4,896 $1,308 $14,564 Sub-Task
Pre-Construction Meeting 2 — — 2 $440 — — $440
Coordination Meetings (3 tot) 6 — — 6 $1,320 — — $1,320 Review Shop Drawings and Submittals 16 16 — 32 $3,520 $2,176 — $5,696 Respond to RFIs 4 8 — 12 $880 $1,088 — $1,968
Prepare Change Order (2 tot) 6 12 12 30 $1,320 $1,632 $1,308 $4,260 Punch-list Walkthrough 4 — — 4 $880 — — $880

3. Record Drawings 4 8 16 28 $880 $1,088 $1,744 $3,712
Sub-Task
Prepare Record Drawings 4 8 16 28 $880 $1,088 $1,744 $3,712 Total 63 50 42 155 $13,860 $6,800 $4,578 $25,238
ActiveWayz Engineering
Hours
SubtotalFee

Page 3 of 3 ends

ActiveWayz_Fee - Shannon Road Construction Support.xlsx Page 177 From: Helen Sun < >
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 9:04 AM
To: Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>
Cc: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>; James Watson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Shannon Road Project (For the next Town Council Meeting) [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Town Council Members,
I just realized that the screenshot in my earlier letter did not go through. Here is what I was referring to on the EXTRA wide buffer right in front of 16680 and 16668. Can you please point to me where else in town that has this? Is this section of the Shannon Rd considered more dangerous/busier to the bikers/walkers than the other streets, like Roberts, Fisher Ave, Kennedy, Englewood or any other streets near schools that do not have a buffer? LG Blvd does not even have a wide buffer or buffer throughout. We would like to see the justification backing this. Thanks.

Best,
Helen
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 178 ends

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 8:00 PM Helen Sun < > wrote:

Dear Los Gatos Council Members,
This is Helen, resident on Shannon Road since 2013. We are writing to let the Town Council know that we agree with everything that our neighbor, Ned Finkle, said in his email dated March 23rd.
1) First off, we very much support this project to make our street safer for the kids who walk/bike to and from their schools. However, we really don’t need to go to the extent of adding the full width of bike lanes, walkways, and even the larger than usual buffers. I hope you all still agree that Shannon Rd is a neighborhood street and should continue to be kept that way. Shannon Rd is NOT Winchester or Blossom Hill. While it is necessary to add the safety elements, there is absolutely NO reason for the town to OVER expand and OVER spend (whether it is federal or local tax dollars). 2) When designing the street, the design team should have looked at the connecting streets in the neighborhood, such as Englewood, Roberts and Cherry Blossom, to make sure the layout is aligned and not vastly different. The 2-block of the Shannon Rd is NOT busier than the streets below during the school rush hours. So, why should the 2-block on Shannon Rd be so largely different from the others? *Fields in red font are areas where the elements differ from the Shannon Rd design of the 2-block length.

Buffer Bike Lane Sidewalk Parking Trees
Shannon-Roberts NO In Car Lanes 2 Sides 2 Sides YES
Shannon-Englewood NO NO NO 2 Sides YES
Shannon Beyond the 2 Blocks NO NO 1 Side 2 Sides YES
Shannon-Cherry Blossom NO 2 Sides 2 Sides 1 Side YES
Yes, it is true that none of these streets have buffers. Over the past year and half, we have reached out to the town engineer numerous times to talk about the street design and stress that we don’t need the buffers on this street, and most definitely, not a wider buffer than others. As of today, this is what we are seeing on the project plan, a whole 6’ width of marked buffer right in front of our property and 7' outside of 16668. This is even much wider than the buffers I see on Los Gatos Blvd! Most of the LG Blvd does not even have a buffer. With all due respect, I don't think anybody reading this would be pleased to have this implemented right outside of their property. 3) As a community, we have raised our voice about these views/opinions over and over, but not much has changed. One of the items we feel very strongly about is NO barriers of any kind. We don’t want barrier on our street. There are no barriers in any other neighborhood streets in town. Barriers got knocked over and they are extremely unsightful and they don’t work!

Page 179 ends

4) We also expressed strongly that we need to add trees on our street as part of the Shannon Rd project. The current plan will add much more CO2 footprint, take away the existing trees with no plan to add any more back. This can not be considered acceptable given the environmental crisis we are in. Adding trees on our street as part of this project was one of the first few things that the residents asked for. However, that has been neglected all along as well.
5) Lastly, but not the least, we ask the town council to consider scoping down the project also because of the budget issue that the town is facing. Everything is getting even more expensive around here than just a year ago. The actual implementation of this plan will cost a lot more than the number on the paper. This is NOT a good use for the tax money for all the reasons that we mentioned above.

We really hope the Town Council members would review the objectives of the project again and scope down accordingly. While we modernize the town, we also should continue to keep the same feel and look that we all love and came here for. Thank you again for your time and consideration, and for continuing to serve the people in this town.

Best,
Helen

Page 180 ends

From: Maxine Granadino < >
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Shannon Road project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Council Members,
We are writing to you regarding the proposal to implement 6ft sidewalks on both sides of Shannon Road. Our family have lived on Hilow Court just off of Shannon Road for 33 years.

Much of what follows we owe to Ned Finkel, who managed to encompass all the concerns we have so well that we felt it appropriate to use his words. We would like to add that we understand that neighbors on Shannon will be required to move trees from their properties, which is a huge shame for a town that values it’s trees as ours does, as well as for the homeowners losing that valuable asset.

Thank you for your service to the town in such a demanding role, given how tight and personal our town is. Most LG’ers care deeply about our town, and that is part of what makes it special.

However, we are writing to express the views of ourselves and the neighbors in the area affected by the proposal, who are not happy with its implementation.

To be blunt, we feel that the proposal will be visually unattractive (very ugly) and not in keeping with the town's character. Furthermore, it is not representative of the normal neighborhood implementations for sidewalks and trees, and it is not environmentally friendly, as zero trees are included in the proposal. The implementation calls for 6ft sidewalks for a quarter mile on both sides of the street, while the norm in the town is 5ft. As a result, we will have half a mile of sidewalks with no trees and no carbon offset to the 187,393 pounds + of CO2 it took to put the concrete in. The sidewalk with no trees and utility poles sticking out is moved to the near edge of the property lines on nearly all homes. The bike lane plus padding on both sides has essentially eliminated all street parking. This, plus the proposed barriers, has residents unified in opposition to the implementation.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, we had tried to politely present these feelings via just a few representatives in consideration for the council. However, what was recorded in the notes was that only a few had problems with the implementation. We followed with a signature list from nearly all the homes requesting a meeting to express our views. We did have that meeting, and there was a great amount of sharing of views by the neighbors and listening by the now departed town engineers. While there were meetings that followed with individual homeowners, the plan was essentially unchanged. Lots of reasons were given, but my understanding is that there was no funding to make slight adjustments with the contractor. So, the plan moved ahead for council vote at “65% completion “and was moved forward on a 3-2 vote. Here we are 1 year later, and the street feels the same about the proposal as we currently understand it. It is so bad that most fear reduction in property values as a result.

This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Page 181 ends

We all know that the town budget is in poor shape, and we sense that the actual implementation will cost much more than what the grant provides. We also know thatthe original grant request letter signed by County Supervisor & former LG Mayor Mike Wasserman was for a 5ft sidewalk on one side of the street plus a Class 1 bike lane. A much more modest approach and fiscally conservative. If we are going to make improvements, why not do them right. I propose the following to gain the support of the neighborhood.

1. Speed humps will get you 70+ percent of your safety improvement, and they are cheap. Do them now. You have the data from the other part of Shannon, and we can see the positive effect it has had, reducing the average speed by 10-15 mph and nearly eliminating the high speeds.

2. Revise to 5ft sidewalks & include trees.

3. Adjust the bike lane to a more modest implementation due to the speed reduction.

How about a 2 ft space next to the road and pass on the 2ft next to the curb as cars will almost never be there to open a door.

4. Add the 4 ft of space back to the property line buffer and open room for the addition of trees.

We think that you will save money with the reduction in concrete…1/2 mile times one foot is a lot of concrete & CO2 savings (~29,440lbs). We also are happy to water the trees until they are self-sustaining. Also, less direct costs to the homeowners from the repairs of driveways and fences.

We think all the council members would have a hard time convincing your current neighbors to happily implement what is proposed for our street. We are being pulled out from the neighborhood onto LG boulevard visually and don’t even get the trees.

We close with this final ask. Do the right thing and revise this to a more modest and cheaper version. Do what a neighbor would do for a neighbor. That is the core of why our town has a durable & charming character & we love it so much.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Maxine and Francisco Granadino
108 Hilow Ct
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Page 182 ends

From: Maxine Granadino < >
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 9:16 AM
To: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>
Subject: Shannon Road project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Ms Burnham,
We are writing to you regarding the proposal to implement 6ft sidewalks on both sides of Shannon Road. Our family have lived on Hilow Court just off of Shannon Road for 33 years.

Thank you for your service to the town in such a demanding role, given how tight and personal our town is. Most LG’ers care deeply about our town, and that is part of what makes it special.

However, we are writing to express the views of ourselves and the neighbors in the area affected by the proposal, who are not happy with its implementation.

This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Page 183 ends

2. Revise to 5ft sidewalks & include trees.

3. Adjust the bike lane to a more modest implementation due to the speed reduction.

How about a 2 ft space next to the road and pass on the 2ft next to the curb as cars will almost never be there to open a door.

4. Add the 4 ft of space back to the property line buffer and open room for the addition of trees.

We think anyone would have a hard time convincing your current neighbors to happily implement what is proposed for our street. We are being pulled out from the neighborhood onto LG boulevard visually and don’t even get the trees.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Maxine and Francisco Granadino
108 Hilow Ct
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Page 184 ends

Page 185 ends

Page 186 ends

Page 187 ends

From: Cheri Finalle < >
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 12:54:33 PM
To: Maria Ristow <[email protected]>
Subject: Shannon Road
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor Ristrow,
April 4th, the Shannon Road project will again come to you for a vote. You and I spent much time brainstorming ideas with staff at the meetings and discussing safe green roads in other communities. Parking was removed in sections as we discussed but instead of getting large planters for trees we got even larger buffers and more asphalt - still not space for trees. This project continues to be a major concern to me because it changes our residential road into something that will look like an airport runway. It will be a sea of pavement & asphalt. I am pro walking/biking but I am also pro environment. The current street design has buffers which cannot be made into green space. Furthermore, this road does not meet the town's own standards. There has been much staff turnover since this project started. Please have the new staff spend more time on this to get it right. Please send this back to staff for more permeable surfaces and more green space/trees.

Please do not prematurely rush this through just to get something done - spend the time to get this right.

Respectfully,
Cheri Finalle Binkley

Page 188 ends

From: Sridevi Sheth
To: Rob Moore; Rob Rennie; Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame; Maria Ristow; Nicolle Burnham; James Watson Subject: Shannon Rd pedestrian/bikeway project proposal Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 8:55:40 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Los Gatos Town Council Members,
From: Sri Sheth of 16090 Shannon Road
My neighbor Ned did a fantastic job below sharing the resident's (on Shannon Road) concerns on the pedestrian / bikeway project and I wanted to add my thoughts as well.

I've lived in Los Gatos for ten years and recently moved to Shannon road during the pandemic.

I remember hopping on the zoom council meetings to share our concern for the proposed project. Los Gatos has always been an extremely charming town and that's due to the extreme efforts of the council and the community to keep it full of trees, visually charming and not industrial.

This proposed plan turns our humble town into a common city which is not what Los Gatos is about. It's also concerning to see so many residents raise concern over a project and have the council move forward with the plan anyways without any changes that the resident's have requested/proposed.

We're all for improving our neighborhood for the better! But the current plan does not achieve this at all. This is why Ned's suggestions below should be highly considered.

1.Speed humps will get you 70+ percent of your safety improvement, and they are cheap. Do them now. You have the data from the other part of Shannon, and we can see the positive effect it has had, reducing the average speed by 10-15 mph and nearly eliminating the high speeds.

2.Revise to 5ft sidewalks (which was on the original grant request letter signed by County Supervisor & former LG Mayor Mike Wasserman was for a 5ft sidewalk on one side of the street) & include trees.

3.Adjust the bike lane to a more modest implementation due to the speed reduction.

How about a 2 ft space next to the road and pass on the 2ft next to the curb as cars will almost never be there to open a door.

4.Add the 4 ft of space back to the property line buffer and open room for the addition of trees.

I live on the side of Shannon with the speed humps and was already living on this road when they were being added. I've seen the increase of safety and the reduction of speed firsthand in front of my house and can confirm that this addition is highly beneficial to our community.

We need to move forward with things that work, are cost efficient and are supported by the community and not a plan that is intrusive of its residents and over budget, just so that we can spend money!
I appreciate your time! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and seeing you all at the public hearing on April 18.

Thanks,

Page 189 ends

Sri Sheth
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:44 PM Ned Finkle < > wrote:

To: Los Gatos Town Council Members
bcc: Friends and Neighbors
From: Ned Finkle of 16608 Shannon Road
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you regarding the proposal to implement 6ft sidewalks on both sides of Shannon Road. Some of you may already know me, as I have lived in the town for 50 years since my father moved here. I have lived on and off Shannon Road for nearly all those years, and my father still resides in his house off Shannon. Therefore, I know the road well, and I have raised my family here, with my three children growing up on this road.

Firstly, I want to thank you for your service to the town in such a demanding role, given how tight and personal our town is. Most LG’ers care deeply about our town, and that is part of what makes it special. However, I am writing to express the views of myself and the neighbors in the area affected by the proposal, who are not happy with its implementation.

The bike lane plus padding on both sides has essentially eliminated all street parking. This, plus the proposed barriers, has residents unified in opposition to the implementation.

So, the plan moved ahead for council vote at “65% completion “and was moved forward on a 3-2 vote. Here we are 1 year later, and the street feels the same about the proposal as we currently understand it. It is so bad that most fear reduction in property values as a result.

We all know that the town budget is in poor shape, and we sense that the actual implementation will cost much more than what the grant provides. We also know that the original grant request letter signed by County Supervisor & former LG Mayor Mike Wasserman was for a 5ft sidewalk on one side of the street plus a Class 1 bike lane. A much more modest approach and fiscally conservative. If we are going to make improvements, why not do them right. I propose the following to gain the support of the neighborhood.

Page 190 ends

2. Revise to 5ft sidewalks & include trees.

3.Adjust the bike lane to a more modest implementation due to the speed reduction. How about a 2 ft space next to the road and pass on the 2ft next to the curb as cars will almost never be there to open a door.

4. Add the 4 ft of space back to the property line buffer and open room for the addition of trees.

I think all the council members would have a hard time convincing your current neighbors to happily implement what is proposed for our street. We are being pulled out from the neighborhood onto LG boulevard visually and don’t even get the trees.

I will close with the final ask. Do the right thing and revise this to a more modest and cheaper version. Do what a neighbor would do for a neighbor. That is the core of why our town has a durable & charming character & we love it so much.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Ned Finkle
--
Shannon Road Traffic Calming Program......
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shannon Road Project" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shannon[email protected].

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/shannon-roadproject/CAGHMObbVRUejp3xjshMO3K77bdwcns2FJXKxkMhkN%2BR28j1Qg%40mail.gmail.com. --
Thanks,
Sri Sheth

Page 191 ends

From: Frank Lawrence
To: James Watson; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Maria Ristow; Nicolle Burnham; Rob Moore; Rob Rennie Cc: Frank Lawrence
Subject: Shannon Road bike lanes project
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 3:24:21 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Council & Staff members,
I am a 27-year resident on Shannon Road and write to you in support of the residents who are very unhappy with the current proposal for a radical bike lane implementation between Cherry Blossom and Los Gatos Boulevard.

A significant majority of the directly impacted residents, i.e. those whose property directly abuts the current proposal, and many of us who live on Shannon, are strongly opposed to the present design, as it will have a very negative impact on the character and feel of the neighborhood and bring limited benefit, considering the overall transit routes along Shannon Road and it’s adjoining streets, (e.g. Englewood) which cannot accommodate grandiose redesign such as that proposed for just two blocks of Shannon Road.

Please refer to the recent communication from Ned Finkle for a more detailed commentary on the current project.

The implementation of a more modest design for a bike lane, in addition to the planned speed humps (which have been very effective on the rest of Shannon to Short Road), would be more sympathetic to the character of the neighborhood and Town, deliver improved safety of all road users, reduce the environmental impact and could be supported and welcomed by the resident's.

The specter of the monstrosity recently inflicted on Winchester Boulevard looms large.

Yours sincerely,
Frank Lawrence
--
Frank

Page 192 ends

From: Town PPW
To: James Watson
Cc: Nicolle Burnham
Subject: FW: Raised crosswalks on Shannon Road?
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:05:18 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Hammers < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:48 AM
To: Town PPW <[email protected]>
Subject: Raised crosswalks on Shannon Road?
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear PPW Department,
Thank you for the efforts to slow traffic on Shannon Road. It has made a big difference in safety and quality of life for families like ours who live on Shannon. Unfortunately, cars still run the stop sign at Shannon and Blossom Hill Park as well as at Shannon and Cherry Blossom, which children and pedestrians use heavily. For this reason, I wonder if the Town might consider adding raised crosswalks to Shannon Road as we embark on Phase Two of the Shannon safety improvements? Having watched countless children dart across the street in front of traffic at Englewood, I think another stop sign and raised crosswalk there could be lifesaving as well.

I recognize plans are already set, but I also know there is always room to make changes and adjust plans to meet community needs.

Thank you for considering my suggestions and thank you again for the work already completed on Shannon.

Respectfully,
Mary Hammers
Sent from my iPad

Page 193 ends

From: kalpana sheth < >
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:32:00 AM
To: Mary Badame <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Shannon Rd Bicycle lane Project

[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mary,
I voted for you as I resonated with your message of keeping the charm of Los Gatos while at the same time addressing the issues that face our community.

In this email I want to address a project that the town council is considering on our street - Shannon Rd.

I am a resident of Shannon Rd and want to reach out to you about the proposed bike lane project on this neighborhood street that the majority of the residents are opposed to. Not because we don't want the bike lane and the pedestrian lane , but we absolutely dont want those awful industrial style green ballards to disrupt this beautiful neighborhood.

I've been walking Shannon Rd. for years at different times of the day and I can honestly say that I have never seen a single bike on this road!! Has anyone done a survey or a put up cameras to see how many bicycles actually go up and down this road? You will find on any given day - probably none!!
To make an industrial style bike lane that will cost the LG city over $2 million for bicycles that won't even be using this road is fiscally irresponsible, bad political decision, and worst of all takes away from a beautiful tree lined street with homes and homeowners who value the community aspect of their street.

To be clear as a walker on Shannon Rd. I do want a pedestrian walkway, the same can also be used for the occasional bicyclist who rides on this street. But to spend so much money, time, and energy on a fancy bike lane for bicyclists that don't use this road and that none of the residents on Shannon Rd want is beyond ridiculous and sheds light on how a small number of overzealous bicycle enthusiasts can ruin the beauty of a serene neighborhood.

Thanks for reading this input.

Kalpana Sheth

Page 194 ends

From: < >
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 4:30 PM
To: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Town council date for Shannon Rd pedestrian/bikeway project update [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Nicolle,
Thanks for responding on a Saturday. Will keep my fingers crossed. I can't imagine the town council authorizing this overkill project due to the huge town deficit we are experiencing. All we need is a simple 5 ft sidewalk and 4-foot bike line which can built in the current shoulder.

Thanks,
Sheila
From: Cheri Finalle < >
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:34 PM
To: James Watson <[email protected]>; Peter Binkley < > Subject: Shannon Road
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
James,
Hi! I wanted to reach out to see if there was a final design plan for Shannon Road as it is slated for another vote April 4th with the town council. I am a resident of Shannon Road and would like to have proper time to review it prior to the meeting for discussion.

Thank you, Cheri Finalle Binkley

Page 195 ends

From: Cheri Finalle < >
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:34 PM
To: James Watson <[email protected]>; Peter Binkley < > Subject: Shannon Road

[EXTERNAL SENDER]
James,

Hi! I wanted to reach out to see if there was a final design plan for Shannon Road as it is slated for another vote April 4th with the town council. I am a resident of Shannon Road and would like to have proper time to review it prior to the meeting for discussion.

Thank you, Cheri Finalle Binkley
From: < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 3:14 PM
To: Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>
Cc: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>; James Watson <[email protected]> Subject: Shannon Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvement Project [EXTERNAL SENDER]
To: Los Gatos Town Council Members
From: Sheila Bony 16675 Shannon Road
Dear Council Members,
I have been a Los Gatos resident for 32 years and a Shannon Road resident for 7 years. I love our beautiful historical town, the soaring mountains, and our charming community.

We urge you to send the Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvement project back to the engineering department to scale back this excessive design plan. This project is overkill and the costs are out of control.

We absolutely want a sidewalk and a simple bike line on our street for pedestrian and bike safety. All we need is a simple 5-foot sidewalk and a 3-foot bike line. These two elements can be built on the existing wide shoulder on the street. Telephone poles would not need to be moved. The plants/trees/greenery/driveways/walkways in front of residents' homes will not need to be ripped out. Concrete costs will be lower. The project will be completed sooner, etc. Image the cost savings for the town! Also, plants

Page 196 ends

and trees beautify our neighborhood so why is the town council ok with the logic of ripping it all out?
Shannon Road is a residential street and sidewalks and bike lanes should conform to a residential street-not the other way around. Class 4 bike lanes do not belong on a residential street. This pedestrian and bikeway plan is stripping our neighborhood of its residential feel. The current plan with excessive concrete, 3 ft buffers, too large sidewalks, and extra-wide bike lanes should be used on a major thoroughfare-not a residential street. We believe the town engineering department's goal should be to install a minimally invasive sidewalk and bike lane that will not negatively affect residents' property or the residential feel of the street.

We feel the town's Bicycle Advisory Commission is out of touch with the Shannon resident's recommendations and we ask you, council members, to question their excessive recommendations. We believe the safety of all residents is important and want our neighborhood to look like....a neighborhood and not a boulevard.

The funding for this project is from 2 VTA grants are $940,100 + $174,250 from two different programs. The town only has to match 10% of the total grant sum to accept the grant which is $107,829.47. The grant totals and the town match $$ is enough to build a simple 5-foot sidewalk on both sides of the street and paint for a 3ft bike lane. The engineering department requesting an additional $1 to $1.2 million dollars for this project is not fiscally responsible. As you know, Los Gatos staff are predicting a $3 million annual budget deficit over the next 5 years.

The remaining planned speed humps for Shannon near LG Blvd will help immensely with pedestrian/bike safety. The speed humps and simple 3ft bike line and 5 ft sidewalk is all that we need. Say no to excessive spending.

Thank you,
Sheila Bony

Page 197 ends

From: mark bony < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 9:06 PM
To: Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>
Cc: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>; James Watson <[email protected]> Subject: Regarding the Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvement [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Council Members,
I would respectfully request that you reconsider the decision made so far on the Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvement initiative.

Some helpful contexts:
• Initially three separate “Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements” proposals were given by the PPW department to all residents, including the impacted Shannon neighborhood, to consider. • Most of us participated in 1-1 meetings with Woo Jae + Suyesh and most of the impacted residents actively called into several online Zoom meeting updates. The Shannon neighborhood group also was able to meet face-toface with Matt Morley/Suyesh/WooJae to further discuss this in a Q&A session.
• At first, there were a lot of different opinions among the affected Shannon residents, but we all got together quickly to agree upon a unified response in order to make it easier for all concerned. • The impacted Shannon residents unanimously chose option #1 and made a few additional requests that were forwarded to the town council members + the PPW department. We all felt that option #1 was the best compromise between improving pedestrian/biker safety and optimizing the town's budget while minimizing the impact on the Shannon Road properties.
• Aside from a few advances on deleting the green bollards and other minor points, our overall collective feedback on the preferred option #1 seemed to fall on deaf ears. Despite all our pleas, option #3 was unfortunately approved by the council. Honestly, given the fact that we received minimal (if any) feedback on all our concerns, it really felt that the decision to push option #3 had already been pre-determined by a few in power, ahead of time.

Page 198 ends

Some pertinent observations:
• Did you know that starting at the Presbyterian Church (16575 Shannon Rd) and finishing at Ann-Arbor Drive, a perfectly good, working combination of a sidewalk and bike lane already exists? why not continue the same sidewalk/bike lane format for the west side of Shannon vs. the extreme, costly, and unnecessary solution being considered today (option#3)? Doing so would make the entire length of Shannon Rd consistent, safer, and less intrusive on the property owner, and probably would limit expenses by a great deal. It is a win-win.
• Also, I have heard rumors that some claimed that the neighborhood had conflicting requests and was not unified; hence the PPW key stakeholders had to make the final recommendation. That could not be further from the truth. Our Shannon Road group response was succinct and unanimous.

In conclusion:

Our Shannon neighborhood is a vibrant residential and exceptional part of Los Gatos. We all want safer roads for pedestrians and bikers alike, but we deserve and respectfully request that the council members consider an alternate, less extreme, and costly proposal in order to better balance the intent of improving safety while not jeopardizing the serene quality of our residential neighborhood with over-the-top road/bike lane/sidewalk changes.

Yes, we need safer pedestrian/biker streets and bike lanes, but do we really need a 3’ buffer in addition to 7-10’ sidewalks? What we need is a simple (yet effective) 5’ sidewalk and ~3’ bike lane. That’s it.

At the risk of repeating myself, the current Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvement initiative as currently approved (option #3) is extreme in its design and fiscally irresponsible.

Thank you for listening, and your consideration to make our town safer while protecting its unique character and beauty.

Regards,
Mark Bony
16675 Shannon Road
32 yrs. + Los Gatos resident

Page 199 ends

From: Peter Binkley < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 2:45 PM
To: Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>; James Watson <[email protected]> Subject: Shannon Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvement Project [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello,
Below are my comments for the upcoming Town Council meeting with regards to the Shannon Rd. Pedestrian and Bikeway improvement project.

I am a bike commuter and home owner living within the proposed project area. I walk my children to school every day along this stretch of road, and ride my bike to and from work along it as well.

I support the construction of a curb/gutter, and of pedestrian/bike paths along Shannon Rd., but the project as planned excludes a planting strip and/or room for trees and instead incorporates an abundance of asphalt surface that will be marked of as "buffer." I propose these buffers be shrunk and/or removed where possible, in order to make room for planting/beautification (tree planting also offers much needed shade, sequesters CO2, and cools the vicinity).

I find these proposed wide bike lane buffers unsightly and believe they will only serve to discourage me and my family from walking/riding. I would rather drive then walk through an industrial feeling area. Aesthetics count for a lot when considering mode of transport.

The original Connect Los Gatos Master Plan shows a Class 1 Bikeway along this stretch of road, which I think would be a beautiful and well informed approach to remodeling this road. I have been at every community meeting re Shannon Rd traffic calming project and the ped/bike improvement project, and do not feel it was ever adequately addressed why the Class 1 bikeway (as planned by the town!) was rejected without community discussion.

If we can't do a class 1 bikeway as originally proposed, then I would think we could at least attempt to capture the intent of that plan, which is for a beautiful and scenic walk/bike route, incorporating planting strips on either side of the sidewalk. As planned it will look like an airport tarmac, not at all desirable to the walkers and bikers among us.

As a case in point, when the Winchester Rd remodel was complete, I stopped biking to work along that route when I commute to El Camino Hospital LG-solely because it is unsightly. Nowadays I bike to work on the creek trail, which I think is not what the town intended and so was an unintended consequence of overlooking the importance of aesthetics when designing a roadway.

The wide asphalt expanse as drawn is unsightly and will only discourage walking and riding. Please eliminate and/or shrink buffer zones on this plan in favor of planting

Page 200 ends

some trees and saving space for homeowners to landscape. The buffer only needed between the bike lane and the moving traffic, never between the bike and parked cars or worse yet, between the bike and curb! With a nice wide bike lane, a 2 foot buffer is more than comfortable as far as safety perception goes, and as we know the little kids will be up on the sidewalk, not down on the roadway.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Peter Binkley, MD
Emergency Medicine
Good Samaritan and El Camino Hospitals
Safe Routes To School Volunteer, Blossom Hill Elementary School

Page 201 ends

PREPARED BY: Nicolle Burnham
Director of Parks and Public Works
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
ITEM NO: 14

ADDENDUM
DATE: April 14, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider the Following Actions for the Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project (CIP No. 813-0218):
a. Approve the Plans and Specifications;
b. Authorize Advertising the Project for Bid Contingent on Receiving Caltrans Authorization;
c. Authorize the Town Manager to Execute the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with ActiveWayz Engineering for Additional Engineering Services During Bid, Award, and Construction in an Amount of $25,238, Resulting in a Total Agreement Amount Not to Exceed $196,709;
d. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $133,380 from available Traffic Mitigation Funds;
e. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $200,000 from Available Funds in Fund 461 CIP #816-0420;
f. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $60,000 from Available Funds in CIP #813-0221;
g. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $231,524 from Available Funds in CIP #813-0231; and
Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $219,772 from Available Funds in CIP #811-9902.

RECOMMENDATION:

Attachment 3 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday, April 13, 2023, and 11:00 a.m. Friday, April 14, 2023.

Attachments received with the Staff Report:

1. ActiveWayz Engineering Consultant Agreement Proposed Second Amendment with Exhibit “A” – Original Agreement and First Amendment and Exhibit “B” - Scope of Services

2. Public Comment

Page 202 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project (CIP No. 813- 0218)
DATE: April 14, 2023
Attachments received with this Addendum:

3. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday, April 13, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.

Friday, April 14, 2023.

Page 203 ends

ATTACHMENT 3
From: Ryan Rosenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 9:20 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter submitted for April 18, 2023 Los Gatos Town Council meeting [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Town Clerk,
Please distribute the following letter regarding the Shannon Road project for the April 18, 2023 town council meeting.

Thanks much for your help!
Regards,
Ryan Rosenberg
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I’d like to comment on the Shannon Road project.

I actually see a great deal of alignment here. The block currently has no sidewalk, no bike lane, and no speed bumps. By the the time this project is over all these will be added - with the support of most of the residents. The block will certainly be safer, especially for students.

However, from what I’ve seen, the residents of this street, and of the surrounding blocks, are unified that the proposed implementation is undesirable.

The disagreement is with specific elements of the design. Much greenery will be torn out to be replaced by concrete and painted asphalt. This concerns me, concerns other residents, and should concern all the citizens of Los Gatos.

Los Gatos cares about our greenery. The recent “Spring Into Green” event celebrated Keep Los Gatos Beautiful Month, environmental sustainability, and Earth Day. A tree planting ceremony was held to honor Arbor Day and the Los Gatos 42nd Tree City USA award. Yet here on Shannon we are about to remove extensive trees and greenery.

The current proposal would cause a single block of Shannon to be significantly different than every other street and block around it. Why? No student commutes just in the project area and parents will consider the entire route. For example, Middle school students who come down Shannon immediately cross over to Roberts Road which is much busier during school hours and has no bike lanes at all.

Minimize or eliminate buffers. Maybe even consider a single sidewalk? Thank you for your consideration, and each of you have my appreciation for your dedicated service to this town.

Regards,
Ryan Rosenberg

Page 204 ends

PREPARED BY: Nicolle Burnham
Director of Parks and Public Works
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
ITEM NO: 14

ADDENDUM B
DATE: April 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider the Following Actions for the Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project (CIP No. 813-0218):
a. Approve the Plans and Specifications;
b. Authorize Advertising the Project for Bid Contingent on Receiving Caltrans Authorization;
c. Authorize the Town Manager to Execute the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with ActiveWayz Engineering for Additional Engineering Services During Bid, Award, and Construction in an Amount of $25,238, Resulting in a Total Agreement Amount Not to Exceed $196,709;
d. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $133,380 from available Traffic Mitigation Funds;
e. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $200,000 from Available Funds in Fund 461 CIP #816-0420;
f. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $60,000 from Available Funds in CIP #813-0221;
g. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $231,524 from Available Funds in CIP #813-0231; and
Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $219,772 from Available Funds in CIP #811-9902.

RECOMMENDATION:

Attachment 4 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, April 14, 2023, and 11:00 a.m. Monday, April 17, 2023.

Attachments received with the Staff Report:

1. ActiveWayz Engineering Consultant Agreement Proposed Second Amendment with Exhibit “A” – Original Agreement and First Amendment and Exhibit “B” - Scope of Services

2. Public Comment

Page 205 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project (CIP No. 813- 0218)
DATE: April 14, 2023
Attachments received with the previous Addendum:

3. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday, April 13, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.

Friday, April 14, 2023.

Attachments received with this Addendum B:

4. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, April 14, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.

Monday, April 17, 2023.

Page 206 ends

Page 207 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
From: < >
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 1:22 PM
To: Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>
Cc: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>; James Watson <[email protected]> Subject: Shannon Road Project Comment for 4/18
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I am writing to echo the opinion and sentiments of the many neighbors of Shannon Road who oppose the current project plans to modify the street.

The intent of the plan is not in dispute. The street currently has no sidewalk, no bike lane, and no speed bumps. By the the time this project is over all these will be added - with the support of most of the residents. The block will certainly be safer, especially for students.

However, based on our neighborhood group discussions, the residents of this street, and of the surrounding blocks, are unified that the proposed implementation is undesirable.

Los Gatos cares about our greenery. Many planning commission decisions focus on the number of trees to be removed and the environmental impact of these changes. Yet here on Shannon we are about to remove extensive trees and greenery.

The current proposal would cause a single block of Shannon to be significantly different than every other street and block around it. This doesn't quite make sense. No student commutes just in this block alone and the entire route should be considered for safety. For example, Fisher students who come down Shannon immediately cross over to Roberts road which is much tighter and busier during school hours and has no bike lanes at all.

The residents (and I) would like to see the project move forward but with increased efforts to minimize the impact on the street and the town. Removing some parking can be considered, but please limit the size of the sidewalks and bike lanes, and make the block more in the character of Los Gatos, like the other neighborhood streets in town.

Thank you for your consideration, and I appreciate your dedicated service to this town.

Regards,
Peggy Cannan

Page 208 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
From: varun s < >
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 9:45 PM
To: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>; James Watson <[email protected]>; Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>
Cc: pooj < >
Subject: Re: Shannon Rd Project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I’d like to share our comments on the Shannon Road project prior to the meeting next week. We connected with our neighbors and are in alignment with their comments/feedback.

My wife, Pooja, and I are generally aligned with the high level intent of the project. We have 3 little kids and the oldest has just started at Blossom Hill Elementary. The new version of the street will be safer for our children to commute to school every single day. The road currently has no sidewalk, no bike lane, and no speed bumps. By the time this project is over all these will be added - with the support of most of the residents.

However, we genuinely feel that the proposed implementation is undesirable. We moved to Los Gatos since we loved the residential vibe the town & this street (in specific) had. We feel that with this change, the street loses its residential feel. Here are a few things that matter to us that we will lose:
• Much greenery will be torn out to be replaced by concrete and painted asphalt. It definitely feels hypocritical when the town mandates new trees be planted on site when residents remodel/remove trees from their property, and the town isn't held to the same standards. • The current proposal would cause a single block of Shannon to be significantly different than every other street and block around it. No student commutes just in the project area and parents will consider the entire route. For example, Middle school students who come down Shannon immediately cross over to Roberts road which is much busier during school hours and has no bike lanes at all. It feels like we are rushing through this project on this street due to the grant expiring instead of careful review from each neighbor.

I would urge you to reconsider the design and limit the size of the sidewalks and bike lanes, eliminate the buffers, and make the block more like the other neighborhood streets in town. I would also like to see more greenery or give each resident some space back to plant greenery to make this road something beautiful (& of course, safe).

Thank you for your consideration and service to this beautiful town.

Best,
Varun & Pooja
Shannon Rd

Page 209 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
From: KENNETH ARENDT < >
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 4:33:11 PM
To: Maria Ristow <[email protected]>
Subject: Shannon Road issue - beware

[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Maria,
I hope you remember Pat and me from St Mary's and Fischer and as very long time residents of LG. Since 1974. I don't usually do this, but I'm writing just to you, not the entire TC, in hopes that you listen to your constituents out there on Shannon Road. Pat and I live on Ann Arbor Ct, but as such, we know many of those folks. Some since their child-hood.

You personally might or might not be mis-informed about this project and resident attitudes, but let me tell you, these folks on Shannon Road are enraged at what might go down as currently proposed from your engineering department. From what I have seen and heard from them and the residents on surrounding streets/blocks, they are unified on this issue.

They are well educated and sophisticated residents who have a strong vested interest in what happens to their property and to our community. They are not stupid and are well aware of Town issues and its financial situation. For example, we have been told by Town engineering people that they could not properly repair the hazardous sidewalk in front of our house because there wasn't enough money! They threw on a slab of asphalt instead of repairing the concrete sidewalk! It seems we can't take care of our own sidewalks much less going further in debt!
Maria, a vote in the wrong direction here will not be well received, nor will it be ignored by them.

As Mayor of our community, I hope that you can lead the TC in the right direction on this issue. I know that you are getting many letters from the Shannon Road residents asking that the TC do the right thing. In fact, I have seen options proposed from them that would seem to work better for everyone.

Maria, I hope you take this letter of mine the right way, as I would hate to see something like this tear the Town apart more.

Thanks for listening!
Ken and Pat Arendt
Ann Arbor Ct.

Page 210 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
From: Jessica Richter < >
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>
Cc: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>
Subject: Shannon Rd resident Opposed to irrational and unnecesarry bike lane changes on Shannon Rd. [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Town Council,
I have lived on the corner of Shannon and Hilow Court for 10 years. I bought my house when my son was four years old. He’s now almost 14. Since buying this house, I’ve asked for a safer route along Shannon to Fisher Middle School. I live East of Cherry Blossom, and I would be livid if the town wanted to put ballards on Shannon in front of my house. I appreciate that efforts are being made to make Shannon a safer bike route. Having the crossing guard at Cherry Blossom and Shannon stay longer this year has been a welcome (if belated change).This should continue indefinitely. I appreciate the speed bumps and they seem to be helping. Now they need to be added between LG Blvd and Cherry Blossom.

I AGREE WITH Ryan Rosenberg and his letter below—a sidewalk, a bike lane, speed bumps and other traffic calming measures (islands with greenery!) are needed in this section between Cherry Blossom and Los Gatos Blvd. However, I agree that the current plan calls for too much greenery to be removed.

In addition the ballards are illogical and not necessary because no connecting streets have this kind of protection. They are ugly and remove greenery. Any changes MUST preserve trees and some parking spaces. It makes no sense to destroy the character of this short stretch of roadway when all of the connecting streets are unchanged.

My 14 year-old regularly rides his bike on Blossom Hill between Cherry Blossom and Los Gatos Blvd. Why isn’t there a ballard protected bike lane on Blossom Hill Rd. West of LG Blvd? That makes no sense. He and other students also also have to ride ON LARK on a regular basis to get to the JCC, Yavneh Day School, and to/from neighborhoods off Lark to Fisher and LGHS. Most students do not use the LG Creek Trail because it’s longer. There have been some bike lane improvements on Lark but these are inadequate and disconnected. It makes ZERO sense to do such an elaborate and ugly bike lane project on this one little section of Shannon and leave these other areas without protected bike lanes and desperately needed traffic calming.

I’d like to add that the Safe Routes to School bike safety classes at the elementary schools seems to have really improved student bike safety from my casual observations. When we first moved to Hilow Court/Shannon and my child was young, I would see students repeatedly and regularly riding on the wrong side of the road down Shannon and blasting through stop signs. Now, I rarely see that behavior.

Students seem to be more aware and cautious than they were before the course started. I think my son was the second group of students who did the bike safety classes (2017-2018 I think?). He’s now in 8th grade so that means that most Fisher students have had bicycle safety classes. It’s not a perfect result, but I think this should be considered in terms of the necessity of this short overly protected route on Shannon..

Also, as I have written to the city on multiple occasions. There is a safety issue at the intersection of Shannon and LG Blvd. It’s fine for cars but terrible for cyclists and pedestrians because when you cross in the crosswalk you can end up on the wrong side of the road and need to cross twice. If ballards are needed anywhere on Shannon, it would be right at the intersection of Shannon and LG Blvd to try to prevent cyclists and pedestrians from jay walking from the parking lot across the street to Orange

Page 211 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
Theory on the other side. In my opinion driving up and down this street for ten years, this is where the largest problem lies—right at this intersection. I’d like to see funds used to deal with this situation onto Roberts Road West of LG Blvd.

It’s time to find a reasonable compromise. It’s time not to spend grant money on an unnecessary project. It’s time to listen to the residents most impacted. Use funds and focus on improving safety on the larger intersection of Shannon/LG Blvd, BH Rd, LG Blvd and Lark.

Regards,
Jessica Richter
Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I’d like to comment on the Shannon Road project.

Actually I see a great deal of alignment. The street currently has no sidewalk, no bike lane, and no speed bumps. By the the time this project is over all these will be added - with the support of most of the residents. The block will certainly be safer, especially for students.

However, from what I’ve seen, the residents of this street, and of the surrounding blocks, are unified that the proposed implementation is undesirable.

The current proposal would cause a single block of Shannon to be significantly different than every other street and block around it. Why? No student commutes just in the project area and parents will consider the entire route. For example, Middle school students who come down Shannon immediately cross over to Roberts road which is much busier during school hours and has no bike lanes at all.

The residents (and I) would like to see the project move forward but with increased efforts to minimize the impact on the street and the town. Removing some parking is fine (with me), but please limit the size of the sidewalks and bike lanes, and make the block more like the other neighborhood streets in town. Minimize or eliminate buffers. Maybe even consider a single sidewalk?
Thank you for your consideration, and each of you have my appreciation for your dedicated service to this town.

Regards,
Ryan Rosenberg

Page 212 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
From: Michael Hwang < >
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2023 7:14:02 AM
To: Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]> Subject: Shannon Rd Project

[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Nicole,
My name is Michael Hwang and my family lives on Shannon Rd.

By now, I am sure you have read all the letters from the residents on this road. I am writing to add my voice to speak against the current version of the Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Project. I am very much on board with the speed humps (effective to curb the speeding) and the bike lane that was addressed previous meetings (the one that residents voted for that did not have the green bollards).

Please reconsider this implementation.

Thank you,
Michael Hwang

Page 213 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
From: Maria Gerst < >
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2023 9:11:16 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Nicolle Burnham <[email protected]> Subject: Shannon Road Project

[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I would like to comment on the current Shannon Road project.

I feel that the plans I first saw two years ago - adding a sidewalk and adding a bike lane while retaining much of the greenery - looked very reasonable. The addition of speed bumps has also been fine. I am not sure how things evolved to what we currently have planned but I do know that I am not happy, nor are other residents. No one seems to be objecting to making the road safer.

As mentioned in other letters, the current plan would cause a single block of Shannon to be significantly different than every other street in the area. I would like the project to consider safety, but also to minimize the impact on residents. Taking away much of the greenery will negatively effect the look and feel of the street.

I am hoping that the project can be rescoped for a smaller sidewalk, retain more greenery and a bike lane with no buffer and no barrier. Besides being an eye sore a physical barrier would make a bike lane difficult to clean. If the bike lane is not clean less bikers will want to use it.

This is just one street but if residents here are unhappy on this project it could mean other street projects will be difficult to implement.

In summary, please consider reducing the scale of this project and implementing something a little more resident friendly.

Thank you for your consideration and your service to our town.

Regards,
Maria Gerst
Shannon Rd

Page 214 ends

PREPARED BY: Nicolle Burnham
Director of Parks and Public Works
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
ITEM NO: 14

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider the Following Actions for the Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project (CIP No. 813-0218):
a. Approve the Plans and Specifications;
b. Authorize Advertising the Project for Bid Contingent on Receiving Caltrans Authorization;
c. Authorize the Town Manager to Execute the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with ActiveWayz Engineering for Additional Engineering Services During Bid, Award, and Construction in an Amount of $25,238, Resulting in a Total Agreement Amount Not to Exceed $196,709;
d. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $133,380 from available Traffic Mitigation Funds;
e. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $200,000 from Available Funds in Fund 461 CIP #816-0420;
f. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $60,000 from Available Funds in CIP #813-0221;
g. Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $231,524 from Available Funds in CIP #813-0231; and
Authorize an Expenditure Budget Transfer in an Amount of $219,772 from Available Funds in CIP #811-9902.

REMARKS:

The updated project plans are now available:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/33054/2021-003-Shannon-Rd-Final-plans2020413-reduced?bidId= These plans are also accessible from the link that was provided in the original staff report.

Page 215 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Shannon Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Improvements Project (CIP No. 813- 0218)
DATE: April 18, 2023
Attachments received with the Staff Report:

1. ActiveWayz Engineering Consultant Agreement Proposed Second Amendment with Exhibit “A” – Original Agreement and First Amendment and Exhibit “B” - Scope of Services

2. Public Comment
Attachments received with the first Addendum:

3. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday, April 13, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.

Friday, April 14, 2023.

Attachments received with Addendum B:

4. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, April 14, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.

Monday, April 17, 2023.

Page 216 ends

Reviewed by: Town Attorney, Community Development Director, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
ITEM NO: 15
DATE: April 13, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Potential Disposition and Use of Calfhill Court (APN 529-21-034)
RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction for the potential disposition and use of Calfhill Court [Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN 529-21-034)].

BACKGROUND:

A couple of years ago, staff discovered that the Town owned a 0.87-acre property along Calfhill Court near the western terminus of Pine Avenue (see Attachment 1 for an aerial view and Attachment 2 for the APN map). The property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential (0-5 units per acre) and is zoned R-1:8 (Single-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet). This agenda item is the first time the Town Council has had an opportunity to provide direction for this property.

DISCUSSION:

The Town Council may wish to provide direction for the future disposition and use of the subject property. The options include and are not limited to:
 Retain Town ownership of the property until after the Town has a certified Housing Element; or
 Direct staff to complete additional analysis regarding any constraints, limitations, or opportunities, including a property history assessment; or  Consider leasing the land for a private residential development (market rate and/or affordable housing); or
 Consider selling the land for a private residential development (market rate and/or affordable housing); or
 Consider other alternatives.

Page 217 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Potential Disposition and Use of Calfhill Court DATE: April 13, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

If the Town Council decides to lease or sell Calfhill Court, at a subsequent Council meeting, the Town Councill would need to consider adopting a resolution declaring the property surplus.

Under State law, certain entities, such as affordable housing builders and open space organizations, would be given the first opportunity to lease or purchase the land. If there is no interest by such entities, the Town could then negotiate with a prospective tenant or a buyer of its choice.

After the surplus process, if the Council is interested in leasing or selling the land, staff would prepare a Request for Interest (RFI) for the Council’s consideration based on its preferences for desired uses. Once approved for distribution by the Council, potential tenants or buyers would submit responses to the RFI and the Council would decide which entity it would like to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. Based on the negotiations, the Town Council would decide whether to enter into a lease or sale with the entity, or take other steps.

CONCLUSION:

Staff looks forward to the Council’s initial direction for this property.

COORDINATION:

The preparation of this report was coordinated with the Community Development Director, Finance Director, and Town Attorney.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact depends upon the direction provided by the Town Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.

Attachments:

1. Aerial Photograph of the Subject Site

2. Assessor’s Parcel Map

Page 218 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 219 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 220 ends

Reviewed by: Town Attorney, Community Development Director, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
ITEM NO: 16
DATE: April 13, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Potential Disposition and Use of 224 W. Main Street (APN 510-44-069)
RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction for the potential disposition and use of 224 W. Main Street [Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 510-44-069].

BACKGROUND:
224 W. Main Street, located at the northeast corner of W. Main Street and Lyndon Avenue (Attachment 1), was purchased by the Town, using Redevelopment funds, for the purpose of building affordable housing. The Town demolished the previous residential structure and paved it as a parking lot as an interim use on this approximately 0.27-acre site. This created a larger Town parking lot with the adjacent parcels 510-44-039 and -037 (Attachment 2) of approximately 1 acre. These properties have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Central Business District and are zoned C-2 (Central Business Commercial Zone) and C-2:LHP (Central Business Commercial Zone with a Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay Zone).

In 2015, the Town Council created a Parking and Infrastructure Ad Hoc Committee with appointments determined by the Mayor. The Mayor appointed Council Member Rennie and then Vice Mayor Barbara Spector. From 2015 to early 2018, the Committee explored the possibility of building a parking garage on the three lots with at least six below market rate housing units, as required, as well as market rate housing and/or retail. The Town issued a Request for Interest (RFI) for the proposed mixed-use development and the Town Council approved entering into exclusive negotiations with Presidio Development Partners, LLC.

After many design iterations and pro forma financial reviews, the parking garage and housing development was found financially infeasible. Instead of continuing to pursue a garage, the Council directed the preparation of a comprehensive parking study which was completed by Dixon parking consultants and is now being implemented.

Page 221 ends

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Potential Disposition and Use of 224 W. Main Street DATE: April 13, 2023
BACKGROUND:

With the dissolution of all Redevelopment Agencies in California, the Town was under a deadline to determine the disposition of 224 W. Main Street. Since the Town decided to retain ownership of the property, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22, the Town transferred approximately $1.5 M from the General Fund Appropriated Reserve to the Town’s Below Market Rate Housing Fund, representing the value of the land. This satisfied the State’s requirement.

DISCUSSION:

The Town Council may now wish to provide direction for the future disposition and use of the subject property and perhaps the neighboring Town-owned parcels. The options include and are not limited to:
 Retain Town ownership of the property as a parking lot until the Town has implemented more of the Dixon parking recommendations; or
 Consider leasing or selling the land for a private development (commercial, retail, market rate and/or affordable housing); or
 Return to Council with a resolution to declare the property surplus with an ultimate intent to lease or sell; or
 Consider other alternatives.

If the Town decides to lease or sell 224 W. Main Street (and/or the adjacent Town-owned parcels), at a subsequent Council meeting, the Town Councill would need to consider adopting a resolution declaring the property(ies) surplus. Under State law, certain entities, such as affordable housing builders and open space organizations, would be given the first opportunity to lease or purchase the land. If there is no interest by such entities, the Town could then negotiate with a prospective tenant or a buyer of its choice.

After the surplus process, if the Council is interested in leasing or selling the land, staff would prepare a Request for Interest (RFI) for the Council’s consideration based on its preferences for desired uses. Once approved for distribution by the Council, potential tenants and buyers would submit responses to the RFI and the Council would decide which entity it would like to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. Based on the negotiations, the Town Council would decide whether to enter into a lease or purchase agreement with the entity, or take other steps.

CONCLUSION:

Staff looks forward to the Council’s initial direction for this property.

Page 222 ends

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Potential Disposition and Use of 224 W. Main Street DATE: April 13, 2023
COORDINATION:

The preparation of this report was coordinated with the Community Development Director, Finance Director, and Town Attorney.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact depends upon the direction provided by the Town Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The direction provided by Town Council with this agenda item is not a project defined under CEQA. Any future development or change of use would require environmental review.

Attachments:

1. Aerial Photograph of the Subject Site

2. Assessor’s Parcel Map

Page 223 ends

Page 224 ends

Page 225 ends

Reviewed by: Town Manager, Finance Director and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
ITEM NO: 17
DATE: April 13, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
SUBJECT: Rescission of Planning Commissioner Censure
RECOMMENDATION:

Rescission of Planning Commissioner censure.

BACKGROUND:

Earlier this year, the Town received a number of complaints regarding an email sent by Planning Commissioner Clark to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

A copy of the email to HCD is attached as Attachment 1.

Based on the divisive nature of the email, on February 15th, the Town Council verbally censured, and recommended counseling regarding future communications for, Planning Commissioner Clark for comments made to the HCD regarding the General Plan referendum proponents.

After the Town Council meeting, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) wrote to the Town Council and stated that the verbal censure and required counseling was unconstitutional in that the verbal censure was directed at comments made by the Planning Commissioner in her personal capacity. A copy of the ACLU’s letter is attached as Attachment 2. The ACLU also made a Public Records Act request for all communications related to the complaints and the verbal censure. A copy of the complaints and documents provided in response to the ACLU’s Public Records Act request is available at this link:
https://losgatosca.justfoia.com/publicportal/requests/PR-2023-50/view I have reviewed the case law provided by the ACLU and concluded that the case law provides that public officials cannot be disciplined for comments made in their personal capacity. (Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116(1966)(holding that disqualifying a public official from taking office based

Page 226 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Rescission of Planning Commissioner Censure
DATE: April 13, 2023
BACKGROUND (continued):
on statements endorsed as a private citizen violated the public official’s First Amendment rights). Based on this case law and the fact that the email to HCD stated that the comments were being made in the sender’s personal capacity, I recommend that the Town Council rescind its verbal censure of Planning Commissioner Clark for the divisive nature of the email to HCD. I also recommend against any subsequent disciplinary action based on the Commissioner’s email to HCD since the email stated that the comments were being made as a private individual.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, I recommend that the Town Council:
1) Rescind its verbal censure of Planning Commission Clark; and 2) State that counseling regarding communications made in one’s personal capacity should not have been provided and will not be provided in the future.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Rescission of the verbal censure will not have a direct fiscal impact, but will avoid litigation expenses and a potential award of attorney fees.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.

Attachments:

1. Email to HCD

2. Letter from ACLU

Page 227 ends

From: Kylie Clark < >
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 4:42 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: Los Gatos General Plan Referendum
Hello,
I hope this email finds you well! Thank you so much for all of the work you are doing on the Housing Element. As someone who does housing work in a lot of anti-housing cities, I really appreciate the work you are doing to resolve our state's housing crisis. I'm a Los Gatos Planning Commissioner, but I am writing to you just as a concerned citizen.

I am reaching out to make sure you are aware of a referendum [losgatosca.gov] that was recently signed by enough Los Gatos voters to be placed on the ballot. The referendum suspends the town's Land Use and Community Design Elements in our General Plan, which was approved by our Town Council in the last few months. The referendum was fully paid for and passed by a few rich white anti-housing men in our town (they paid the signature gatherers $10 per signature).

The justification for this referendum is their opposition to our planned housing numbers, as we went above the state mandate (which makes sense, as this is our General Plan looking 20 years out, not just planning for this 8-year HE cycle). The anti-housing group is claiming that the town will build 12,000 new units in the next 8 years (haha I wish).

I have a lot of questions about this referendum, including whether it is even lawful, as it places land use on the ballot, meaning if the town wanted to make any future changes to our land use we would have to take it to the voters. It also might cause some serious problems with our Housing Element, as obviously our Land Use Element is closely tied to it.

I wanted to make y'all aware of this and to see if you would be able to support our town in any way. We put a lot of work into our General Plan, and these are very strong elements. I would hate to see them reformed to allow for less housing just because of a few upset rich residents.

Thank you so much!
In community,
Kylie
(Pronouns: she, her, hers)
Yes, We Live on Ohlone Land. But What Does That Mean? [thebolditalic.com] ------
Kylie Clark
Community organizer, nonprofit professional
|

Page 228 ends

1 March 1, 2023
Via Electronic Mail
Los Gatos Mayor and Town Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
[email protected]
Re: Unconstitutional Censure of Kylie Clark; Public Records Act Request Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (“ACLU”), I write regarding the decision by the Los Gatos Town Council (“Town Council”) to formally censure Kylie Clark, a resident of Los Gatos, based on a November 18, 2022 email that she sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). As more fully set forth below, the Town Council’s decision to discipline Ms. Clark for her purported failure to engage in “constructive communication” violates her free speech rights under federal and state law. The Town Council’s actions—formal censure (both written and verbal), a lengthy public meeting, and a requirement that she engage in future “counseling”—constituted the kind of retaliatory discipline that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits. The ACLU urges the Town Council to reconsider its decision and, moving forward, to better comport its approach to complaints and its interpretation of town codes with the free speech rights of its constituents. We also request, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), additional records regarding the Council’s handling of this and similar complaints.

The First Amendment protects the right of all citizens, including public employees, to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern.1 Thus, when a person who serves in a
1 Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will County., Ill., 391 U.S. 563, 574 (1968); see also Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407, 2423 (2022) (affirming Pickering framework).

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 229 ends

2 public role speaks in their personal capacity on a matter of general public interest—even one that is related to their public duties—that speech is protected. 2 California’s housing crisis has engendered much debate and discourse among the public; so too has the varied response by municipalities and towns to California’s statewide housing plan. The press has regularly reported on the ways in which wealthy, predominantly white communities have responded to state mandates to build more housing.3 Ms. Clark, in her November 18 email to HCD, voiced concern about a referendum undermining a Los Gatos housing plan that the Town Council had recently approved; she also noted the racial and economic issues at play. While she acknowledged her service on the Los Gatos Planning Commission, Ms. Clark expressly offered her comments “just as a concerned citizen.” In expressing her personal thoughts to HCD, Ms. Clark was clearly opining as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. Whether her comments were “constructive” or “respectful” in the eyes of others is beside the point; they were protected speech.

Of course, the other members of the Los Gatos community are free to agree or disagree with Ms. Clark’s opinion—in fact, many did just that at the February 15, 2023 special meeting convened by the Council. But under the First Amendment, a public agency—like the Town Council—can discipline an employee for personal speech only if it has a legitimate interest in regulating speech that strongly outweighs the employee’s interest in exercising their constitutional rights.
4 This foundational framework holds true whether the person against whom a government entity has retaliated is an employee, volunteer, or legislator.5 Thus, federal and
state courts have held that it is unconstitutional for the government to discipline an employee for 2 See, e.g., Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802, 809 (9th Cir. 2004); Gray v. Cnty. of Tulare, 32 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 1090 (1995); Hyland v. Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 1992). 3 See, e.g., Conor Dougherty, Twilight of the NIMBY, N.Y. Times (last visited Mar. 1, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/business/economy/california-housing-crisis-nimby.html; Liam Dillon, Thousands of Apartments May Come to Santa Monica, Other Wealthy Cities Under Little-known Law, L.A. Times (last visited Mar. 1, 2023), https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-10- 24/santa-monica-housing-apartment-boom; Nico Savidge, The State Rejected Berkeley’s Housing Plans.

What Happens Next?, Berkeleyside (last visited Mar. 1, 2023), https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/02/01/berkeley-housing-element-builders-remedy-hcd. 4 Pickering, 391 U.S. at 563; see also Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 135 (1966) (ruling that the government has “no interest in limiting its legislators’ capacity to discuss their views of local or national policy”).
5 Hyland, 972 F.2d at 1136.

Page 230 ends

3 advocating to overthrow the government,6 for expressing a desire that the President of the United States be assassinated,
7 for using racial slurs,8 for complaining about racially discriminatory employment and hiring policies,
9 for opining on their employer’s affirmative action policy,10 and for criticizing the provision of government assistance for low income populations. 11 Here, the Town Council has not expressly identified any clear interest that would overcome Ms. Clark’s presumptive right to speak on politically charged issue of housing.

Instead, the Council decided to impose discipline based on the mere finding that, through the contents of her November 18 email, Ms. Clark violated a “code of conduct” that applies to her voluntary service as a Planning Commissioner. But it is unclear what precise rule or written provision is the purported basis for this finding. The Town Council seemingly relies upon the phrase “constructive communication”12 from the Town Council Code of Conduct as the primary basis for its conclusion. The Council’s own process, however, diverged significantly from the steps laid out in this very same Code of Conduct; to explain this divergence, the Town Attorney repeatedly stated that this Code serves only as a “model” for situations involving Commissioners like Ms. Clark. The Town Council also referenced various undefined terms from the “Commissioner’s Handbook,” citing phrases such as “model of leadership and civility,” “respect and dignity,” “fair treatment,” and “highest standards of the community.” None of these generic phrases contains a prohibition on referencing race or socio-economic status, nor does any suggest that a volunteer Commissioner may be disciplined or removed for failing to use “constructive” language in their personal communications. Instead, the Town Council Code of Conduct expressly provides that “Council Members may from time to time express opinions regarding broad policy matters which may be in conflict with currently adopted Council policies. Such 6 Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589, 602-04 (1967). 7 Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 392 (1987).
8 Hardy v. Jefferson Cmty. Coll., 260 F.3d 671, 675 (6th Cir. 2001). 9 Givhan v. Western Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410 (1979). 10 Dep't of Corr. v. State Pers. Bd., 59 Cal. App. 4th 131 (1997). 11 Davi v. Roberts, 523 F. Supp. 3d 295 (2021); see also Deltondo v. Sch. Dist. of Pittsburgh, 2023 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 15133 (2023).
12 Presumably, this phrase was taken from the following sentence in the Town Council Code of Conduct:
“[t]he commitment of Town Council Members to their work is characterized by open constructive communication, innovation, and creative problem solving.”

Page 231 ends

4 statements are permissible if clearly characterized as personal opinion or policy change objectives.”
Fundamentally, the Town Council’s invocation of a “constructive communication” requirement, whether supported in writing or not, is at odds with the Constitution. If the national political stage has proven anything, it is that what is deemed “offensive” to one person may seem “constructive” to another; what some see as behaviors that model “leadership” may seem repugnant to others. More to the point, while some may think it “divisive” or not “constructive” to reference racial and socio-economic privilege in discussing matters of public policy, others consider use of that very language critical to progress. To the extent that any rule in the Town Council Code of Conduct or any phrase in a handbook allows the Town Council—based only on its subjective view of what is “constructive”—to regulate, constrain, or discipline personal expression on public issues, that rule is impermissibly content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory, overbroad, vague, lacking in standards, and constitutionally invalid.13 Finally, the actions that the Town Council took against Ms. Clark are plainly retaliatory.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from taking, in response to protected speech, adverse actions against an official that would “chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity.”14 Ms. Clark serves as an unelected, volunteer Commissioner for the Town of Los Gatos. In response to complaints regarding a single email that she sent in her personal capacity, the Town Council took the following actions: 1) sent Ms.

Clark a formal written censure on February 3, 2023; 2) held a 2.5-hour special public meeting at which they verbally presented the censure and invited the residents of Los Gatos to comment on Ms. Clark’s personal communication and to opine on what punishment she should bear; 3) 13 See, e.g., Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015) (noting that “[c]ontent-based laws— those that target speech based on its communicative content—are presumptively unconstitutional”); Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 788 (2002) (Minnesota Supreme Court’s canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment); Edge v. City of Everett, 929 F.3d 657, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2019) (requiring “specificity and clarity of laws” when “First Amendment freedoms are at stake” because uncertain rules “might have the effect of chilling protected speech or expression by discouraging participation”) (citation omitted); Kaahumanu v. Haw., 682 F.3d 789, 806 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “unbridled discretion” doctrine, which requires that laws include adequate standards, protects against risk that officials “will favor or disfavor speech based on its content”) (citation omitted). 14 Boquist v. Courtney, 32 F.4th 764, 775 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 608 F.3d 540, 542-43 (9th Cir. 2010)); see also Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019).

Page 232 ends

5 formally voted at that February 15, 2023 meeting for censure, although written censure had already been delivered; and 4) imposed on Ms. Clark an obligation to participate in additional “counseling [with the Mayor and Town Manager] regarding the Town Council’s expectations with regard to future communications.”
Indeed, these disciplinary measures were specifically designed to chill future speech and to force Ms. Clark to conform her communications to the expectations of her assigned “counselors.” The Town Council neither sought outside legal counsel, as is required by its Code for any violation deemed “major,” nor did they handle the matter in private, as is called for with complaints that are deemed “minor.” Instead, the Council chose a particularly punitive hybrid approach: it first decided via written letter that censure was appropriate, then convened a 2.5- hour public meeting at which Ms. Clark was personally and publicly insulted, and then conducted a public vote for censure and continued counseling. It is particularly concerning that the Town Council also seriously considered and invited public comment on whether Ms. Clark should be removed entirely from her post on the basis of her speech. It is clear that the Council intended to make an example of Ms. Clark and to “chill” any similar expression in the future. 15 Because its decision to discipline Ms. Clark violates her free speech rights protected under federal and state law, we now urge the Town Council to take the following actions: 1) revoke the public and written censure of Ms. Clark; 2) revoke any requirement that she attend “counseling” or “coaching”; and 3) revisit its policies on citizen complaints and its application of the Town Council Code of Conduct and related handbooks and apply those codes in a manner that is consistent with the free speech rights of its constituents. 15 While Hous. Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson, 142 S.Ct. 1253 (2022) held that some forms of verbal censure do not rise to the level of retaliation, the Supreme Court specifically stated that their holding in Wilson was not meant “to suggest that verbal reprimands or censures can never give rise to a First Amendment retaliation claim.” There, the Supreme Court found that the verbal censure in Wilson did not constitute retaliation because 1) Wilson (the subject of censure) was an elected official and was thus expected “to shoulder a degree of criticism about [his] public service,” and 2) the verbal censure in Wilson encompassed only the censure of individuals who were “equal member[s] of the same deliberative body.” The Court was careful to note that Wilson did not touch upon the “First Amendment implications of censures or reprimands issued by government bodies against government officials who do not serve as members of those bodies.” Here, Ms. Clark was not an elected official, she was given both a written and a public verbal censure, she was subject to censure by the Town Council (of which she is not a part), and she has been instructed to attend “counseling.”

Page 233 ends

6 We look forward to the Town Council’s response and welcome further conversation regarding this matter.
. . .

Furthermore, and pursuant to the CPRA16 and the California Constitution,17 we also request the following records in the possession or control of the Town of Los Gatos for the time period of January 2013 to present:

1. All records in which the Town Council has censured, either verbally or in writing, another Town Council member, a commissioner, a committee member, or another public official of Los Gatos;

2. All records related to any prior complaints regarding a Los Gatos town official using divisive, disrespectful, or “non-constructive” language; including records of any actions taken by Town Council in response to those complaints;

3. All records related to complaints made against Kylie Clark and the Town Council’s response;

4. All records related to the Town of Los Gatos’s rules, policies, and practices regarding censure or removal of a public official.

We look forward to receiving your response to this record request within ten days. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,
________________________________
Shilpi Agarwal
Legal Director
ACLU Foundation of Northern California
cc: Maria Ristow, Mayor
[email protected]
Mary Badame, Vice Mayor
[email protected]
Matthew Hudes, Council Member
[email protected]
Rob Moore, Council Member
[email protected]
Rob Rennie, Council Member
[email protected]
16 Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7920.000 et seq. 17 Cal. Const. art. I, § 3(b)(2).

Page 234 ends

Reviewed by: Town Manager, Finance Director and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
ITEM NO: 17

ADDENDUM
DATE: April 17, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
SUBJECT: Rescission of Planning Commissioner Censure
REMARKS:

Attachment 3 contains public comments received before 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 17, 2023.

Attachments Received with the Staff Report:

1. Email to HCD

2. Letter from ACLU
Attachments Received with this Addendum:

3. Public Comments

Page 235 ends

From: jvannada
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 11:00 AM
To: Town Manager <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Rob Moore; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Wendy Wood <[email protected]>
Cc: Phil Koen; Rick Van Hoesen
Subject: Town Council Meeting 4-18-23 Item 17
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Ms. Wood, please include this in the packet for the Council meeting of 4-18-23.

We take issue with the statement that Ms Clark made that she was speaking as a citizen, not as a Planning Commissioner.

In her last paragraph, she says the following:
“I wanted to make y’all aware of this and to see if you would be able to support our town in any way. We put a lot of work into our General Plan and these are very strong elements.”
In this sentence, that is a strong indication that this is a knowledgeable Planning Commissioner speaking. She said “WE” put a lot of work into our General Plan. If she was speaking truly as a citizen and not a commissioner, would she not have said “They”? There were likely to have been no citizens that attended all of the meetings; spoke nor wrote letters at the meetings. "We" were the Planning Commissioners she is referring to.

When you join any commission, you don’t get a “bye” because of your age, your tenure, a slip of the tongue; nor should you get a “bye” due to your friendships on the Council nor the staff. In reviewing the text’s sent by staff, Council, and past Councilmembers, they are undoubtedly sympathetic to Ms. Clark’s wanting the censure removed. But her letter proves she was speaking as a commissioner, not a commissioner speaking as a private citizen.

Page 236 ends

Jak Van Nada -
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters

Page 237 ends

Reviewed by: Town Manager, Finance Director and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
ITEM NO: 17

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
SUBJECT: Rescission of Planning Commissioner Censure
REMARKS:

Attachment 4 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m. Monday, April 17, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 18, 2023.

Attachments Received with the Staff Report:

1. Email to HCD

2. Letter from ACLU
Attachments Received with the previous Addendum:

3. Public Comments
Attachments received with this Desk Item:

4. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Monday, April 17, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 18, 2023.

Page 238 ends

Page 239 ends

Page 240 ends

From: Patti van der Burg
To: Clerk
Subject: Kylie Clark
Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 7:02:22 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Town CouncilThank you all for serving out town.

I’d like to register my support of Kylie Clark. I am surprised at the way some on the council handled their disagreement with her right to free speech. The public shaming wasn’t right and not a proud moment for Los Gatos.

The censure should absolutely be removed.

It’s important to understand: those who study racism have noted that pointing out systemic racism is not racist.

I have grown to understand the housing issue more in the last year and have personally changed from being pro lowdensity to pro affordable housing (which requires higher density).

I applaud her courage and forward thinking, and am glad she is working on the housing crisis our region is facing.

We can’t lament the regional housing crisis yet not want anything done in our town about it.

I feel represented by her. Bravo Kylie!
Sincerely,
Patti van der Burg
LG resident

Page 241 ends

Page 242 ends

Los Gatos City CouncilApril 18, 2023

Los Gatos City Council
April 18, 2023