official action of the los angeles city council prioritization and scoring...system that assigns a...

City of Los AngelesCALIFORNIA

ERIC GARCETTIMAYOR

OFFICE OF THECITY CLERK

Council and Public Services Division200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 395

LOS ANGELES, CA 90012GENERAL INFORMATION - (213) 978-1133

FAX: (213) 978-1040______

BRIAN E. WALTERSDIVISION CHIEF

HOLLY L. WOLCOTTCITY CLERK

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

______SHANNON D. HOPPES

CLERK.LACITY.ORG

When making inquiries relative tothis matter, please refer to theCouncil File No.: 14-0163-S3

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

OFFICIAL ACTION OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

Council File No.:

Council Meeting Date:

Agenda Item No.:

Agenda Description:

Council Action:

Council Vote:

HOLLY L. WOLCOTTCITY CLERK

14-0163-S3

January 24, 2018

5

PUBLIC WORKS AND GANG REDUCTION and BUDGET AND FINANCECOMMITTEES' REPORTS relative to the Sidewalk Repair Program(Program) including the prioritization and scoring system and financing anddelivery options.

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT AND AMENDINGMOTION 5C (KREKORIAN - BLUMENFIELD - BONIN - WESSON) -ADOPTED; PUBLIC WORKS AND GANG REDUCTION COMMITTEEREPORT - RECEIVED AND FILED

YES BOB BLUMENFIELDYES MIKE BONINYES JOE BUSCAINOYES GILBERT A. CEDILLOYES MITCHELL ENGLANDERABSENT MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSONABSENT JOSE HUIZARABSENT PAUL KORETZYES PAUL KREKORIANYES NURY MARTINEZYES MITCH O'FARRELLYES CURREN D. PRICEYES MONICA RODRIGUEZYES DAVID RYUYES HERB WESSON

January 26, 2018

http://clerk.lacity.org

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=14-0163-S3

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=14-0163-S3

File No. 14-0163-S3

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT relative to the Sidewalk Repair Program(Program) including the prioritization and scoring system and the Program's financing anddelivery options. Recommendations for Council action:

1. APPROVE the establishment of the Access Request Program Prioritization and ScoringSystem as detailed in Table 1, Access Request Program Prioritization Matrix of the Bureauof Engineering (BOE) report dated September 26, 2017 (attached to Council file [C.F.] No.14-0163-S3).

2. APPROVE the establishment of the City Facilities and Program Access ImprovementsPrioritization and Scoring System as detailed in Table 2, City Facilities and ProgramAccess Improvements Prioritization Matrix and Table 3, Damage Severity Matrix of theBOE report dated September 26, 2017 (attached to C.F. No. 14-0163-S3).

3. AUTHORIZE the City Engineer to make technical modifications to the ProgramPrioritization and Scoring Systems as necessary to meet the requirements of the Program.

4. INSTRUCT the CAO, in consultation with the City Attorney, to report back to the Budgetand Finance Committee in 60 days relative to financing delivery options to accelerate theProgram (such as Public-Private Partnerships, debt issuance, etc.).

5. INSTRUCT the BOE to remove the scoring category for High Injury Network (Table 2, Tier1-b), and instead allocate the 15 points from that category to Incident Reports category(Table 2, Tier 1-c) as follows:

a. An additional 10 Points to those locations with five or more reported incidents.

b. An additional Five Points to those locations with one to 4 reported incidents.

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the BOE. Neither the CAO nor the ChiefLegislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report. Community Impact Statement: None submitted. SUMMARY At its regular meeting held on December 4, 2017, the Budget and Finance Committeeconsidered a report from the BOE dated September 26, 2017 relative to the Sidewalk RepairProgram Prioritization and Scoring System, and a report from the CAO dated December 16,2016 relative to Program financing and delivery options. A representative of the BOE provided a brief overview of the proposed Program scoring system,and along with representatives of the CAO and the City Attorney, responded to related questionsfrom the Committee.

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=14-0163-S3

During discussion of the matter, the Committee inquired about various financial options for rapiddelivery of the Program such as Public-Private Partnerships and bond issuance, as mentioned inthe CAO's report. The City Attorney representative noted that under the terms of the WillitsSettlement, the Program would have to be carried out over a 30-year period and may not allow foran accelerated schedule for the Program. The Committee instructed the CAO, in consultationwith the City Attorney, to report within 60 days to the Committee on this issue. Additionally, during further discussion, the Committee expressed concern about the CityFacilities and Program Access Improvements Prioritization Matrix - Table 2, Tier 1 AvailableData-Based Criteria, of the BOE's report, specifically the points allocated to locations that arepart of the Vision Zero High Injury Network category. The concern was that locations in the HighInjury Network that have not had incidents could receive higher points than locations that are notpart of the Network that have had an incident or multiple incidents. Therefore the Committeeinstructed the BOE to remove this category and allocate its 15 points to the Incident Reportcategory (10 additional points for five or more reported incidents, and five additional points to oneto four reported incidents). After additional consideration, and after providing an opportunity for public comment, theCommittee approved the recommendations in the BOE report as amended above. This matter isnow forwarded to the Council for its consideration.

Respectfully Submitted,

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER VOTEKREKORIAN: YESENGLANDER: ABSENTKORETZ: YESBLUMENFIELD: YESBONIN: ABSENT REW 12/5/17 FILE NO. 14-0163-S3

-NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL COUNCIL ACTS-

MOTION

I MOVE that the Council AMEND the Budget and Finance Committee Report relative to the Sidewalk Repair Program (Program) including the prioritization and scoring system and financing and delivery options (CF 14-0163-S3 and item 5B on today’s Council agenda) to strike recommendation 3 and INSTRUCT the Bureau of Engineering to use the Sidewalk Repair Program Prioritization and Scoring System Matrix attached to this motion.

Presented by:PAUL KREKORIAN Councilmember, 2nd District

BOB BLUMENFIELBy Councilmember, District

Seconded by: H

JAN 2>4 2018I

Sidev/affc Repair ProgramPrioritization and Scoring System Matrix

PossiblePoints

City Facilities & Program Access Improvements Prioritization Matrix

Tier 1 - Available Data Based CriteriaLocation

BasedTransportation Corridors 70

Hospitals, medical facilities, assisted living facilities and other similar facilities 50

Priority Per SettlementaPlaces of Public Accommodation, such as commercial and business zones

Type of Use 40

Facilities containing employers 30

Residential 10Within 500 feet of HIN 10b High Injury NetworkMore than 500 feet of HIN 0Within the Priority NetworkMetro First-Last Mile

Priority Network10c

Outside the Priority Network 01 or more claims 20

d 5 or more Report a Sidewalk ComplaintsIncident Reports 101 to 4 Report a Sidewalk Complaints 5

Tier 1 Highest Possible Points 160Tier 2 - Field Assessment Criteria

Severity Index 5 (Very Severe) 40

Severity Index 4 (Severe) 30Damage Severity (Refer to Table 3 in the Staff Report)

Severity Index 3 (Moderate) 20e

Severity Index 2 (Minor) 10

Severity index 1 (Very Minor) 0

Cost is less than $30 per square foot 10

Cost is within $30 to $80 per square foot 5f Cost EffectivenessCost is more than $80 per square foot 0

Tier 2 Highest Possible Points 50

File No. 14-0163-53

PUBLIC WORKS AND GANG REDUCTION COMMITTEE REPORT relative to the Sidewalk Repair Program (Program) including the prioritization and scoring system and the Program's financing and delivery options.

Recommendations for Council action:

1. INSTRUCT all City departments, offices and agencies applying for grant funds for capital projects to ensure that sidewalks related to the projects are included to the maximum amount possible.

2. INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning, Department of Building and Safety and the City Engineer to report on ways to maximize sidewalk repair through the use of development agreements, permitting arrangements for third party capital projects and discretionary City approvals.

3. INSTRUCT the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to report on:

a. A potential pilot arrangement for a public/private partnership (P3) and for sidewalk repair and maintenance in consultation with the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) and Bureau of Street Services and Sanitation, the City Attorney and the Chief Legislative Analyst.

b. Expanding the 50/50 program.

c. Allowing for leveraging, discretion and the ability to change the priorities for sidewalk repair and maintenance, specifically for sidewalks abutting the repair of streets with a D or F rating.

d. Allowing the Council to add its prioritization to the scoring.

4. APPROVE the establishment of the Access Request Program Prioritization and Scoring System as part of the Program as detailed in Table 1, Access Request Program Prioritization Matrix as detailed in the BOE report dated September 26, 2017, attached to the Council file.

5. APPROVE the establishment of the City Facilities and Program Access Improvements Prioritization and Scoring System as detailed in Table 2, City Facilities and Program Access Improvements Prioritization Matrix and Table 3, Damage Severity Matrix of the said BOE report.

6. AUTHORIZE the City Engineer to make technical modifications to the Program Prioritization and Scoring Systems as necessary to meet the requirements of the program.

Fiscal Impact Statement: The CAO reports that there is no impact to the General Fund.

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.

SUMMARY

At the meeting held on November 1, 2017, your Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee considered BOE and CAO reports relative to the Program including the prioritization and scoring system and the Program's financing and delivery options. After an opportunity for public comment was held, the Committee moved to approve the BOE and CAO recommendations as amended, as detailed above. This matter is now forwarded to the Council for its consideration. This matter is now forwarded to the Council for its consideration.

Respectfully Submitted,

PUBLIC WORKS AND GANG REDUCTION COMMITTEE

1fl MEMBER VOTE

BLUMENFIELD: YES BUSCAINO: YES MARTINEZ: YES RYU: YES RODRIGUEZ: YES

IVE

-NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL COUNCIL ACTS-

CITY OF LOS ANGELESINTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

September 26, 2017Date:

The Honorable Council Member Paul Krekorian, Chair Budget and Finance Committee

To:

The Honorable Council Member Bob Blumenfield, Chair Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee

Gary Lee Moore, City Engineer Bureau of Engineering

From:

Subject: SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING SYSTEM COUNCIL FILE 14-0163-S3

RECOMMENDATIONS:

As part of the City’s Sidewalk Repair Program:

APPROVE the establishment of the Access Request Program Prioritization and Scoring System as detailed in Table 1, Access Request Program Prioritization Matrix.

1.

APPROVE the establishment of the City Facilities and Program Access Improvements Prioritization and Scoring System as detailed in Table 2, City Facilities and Program Access Improvements Prioritization Matrix and Table 3, Damage Severity Matrix.

2.

AUTHORIZE the City Engineer to make technical modifications to the Sidewalk Repair Program Prioritization and Scoring Systems as necessary to meet the requirements of the program.

3.

BACKGROUND:

This report is in response to Council’s request for the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) to report back on Item No. 15 in Council File 14-0163-S3 as outlined below:

Instruct the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) to develop a prioritization and scoring system that assigns a numerical score to each sidewalk segment, based on the following:

• The Priority List criteria, as indicated in the Willits Term Sheet• Severity of damage• Cost effectiveness and contiguity of a damaged section• Concerns and consistency with the priorities of the Vision Zero Plan, with

special emphasis on the High Injury Network• A mobility disability nexus by nearby residents or other users of the sidewalk

Sidewalk Repair Program - Prioritization and Scoring SystemCouncil File 14-0163-S3September 26, 2017Page 2

• The propensity of complaints about the segment in question• Volume of pedestrian traffic

The BOE has worked with the offices of the Mayor, Council District 2, Council District 15, Council District 3, City Attorney, Chief Legislative Analyst, City Administrative Officer, Department on Disability, Bureau of Street Services, and the Department of Transportation to develop the following recommendations for prioritizing Sidewalk Repair Program work based on the Sidewalk Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) and Council direction. Accordingly, the Sidewalk Repair Program has been organized into three main programs:

I. Access Request Program - allows those with a mobility disability or on behalf of someone with a mobility disability to report a physical barrier such as broken sidewalks, missing/broken curb ramps or other barriers in the public right of way.

City Facilities Program - allows for the repair of sidewalks, curb ramps, or other pedestrian facilities at City government offices and facilities. This includes pedestrian rights of way adjacent to facilities owned or operated by the City and the paths of travel leading to primary entrances.

II.

III. Program Access Improvements - allows the general public and others to report a sidewalk, curb ramps, or other pedestrian facilities in need of repair in the public right of way.

For each of the above programs, a scoring system has been developed assigning a numerical score to each criteria section. Each program’s scoring criteria are further described below.

I. Access Request Program

The Access Request Program allows those with a mobility disability to submit a request for removal of a physical barrier such as broken sidewalks, missing/broken curb ramps or other barriers in the public right of way. Similarly, a request may be submitted on behalf of someone with a mobility disability. The following scoring criteria is recommended for this program:


Table 1 -Access Request Program Priortization Matrix

PossiblePointsAccess Request Program Prioritization Matrix

Residential neighborhood 15AccessRequestProgram

Priority Per Settlement Within 500 feet of bus or transit

stop15a

Priority Per Settlement

ProgramQueue Over 120 days 15

Highest Possible Points 45

a. Priority Per Settlement:

Consistent with the Sidewalk Settlement• Access Request ProgramAgreement, it is recommended that Access Requests be completed in the order received with priority assigned to:

Residential neighborhoods: 15 points■

Locations within 500 feet of bus stops or other forms of public transit: 15 points

■

• Program Queue - It is recommended that sites with requests dated more than 120 days be prioritized using the following score assignment:

Requests dated over 120 days: 15 points■

II. City Facilities Program

The City Facitlites Program allows for the repair of sidewalks, curb ramps, or other pedestrian facilities at City government offices and facilities. This includes pedestrian rights of way adjacent to facilities owned or operated by the City and the paths of travel leading to primary entrances. Consistent with the Sidewalk Settlement Agreement, City Government Offices and Facilities are required to be completed within the first five years of the Compliance Period, if feasible. Due to the overall number of City facilities, it is recommended to implement a two tiered prioritization system. The first Tier will be scored based on criteria that can be efficiently evaluated with available data, such as a site’s proximity to transportation corridors, and/or hospitals, etc. The highest scoring sites from Tier 1 will then be assessed for criteria that requires field investigation, such as damage severity and cost effectiveness. This would allow BOE to focus limited staff resources on assessing priority sites. The


results of field assessment will be considered for Tier 2 scoring, which would then determine the order in which sites will be considered for construction. The following scoring criteria is recommended:

Table 2 - City Facilities and Program Access Improvements Prioritization Matrix

PossiblePointsCity Facilities & Program Access Improvements Prioritization Matrix

Tier 1 - Available Data Based CriteriaLocation

Based Transportation corridors 70

Hospitals, medical facilities, assisted living facilities and other similar facilities

50Priority Per Settlementa

Places of public accommodation such as commercial and business zones

40Type of Use

Facilities containing employers 30Residential 0Within 500 feet of HIN 15

b High Injury NetworkMore than 500 feet of HIN 05 or more reported incidents 10

Incident Reports 1 to 4 reported incidents 5c0 reported incidents 0

Tier 1 Highest Possible Points 145Tier 2 - Field Assessment Criteria

Severity Index 5 (Very Severe) 40Severity Index 4 (Severe) 30

Damage Severity (Refer to Table 3)d Severity Index 3 (Moderate) 20

Severity Index 2 (Minor) 10Severity Index 1 (Very Minor) 0Cost is less than $30 per square foot 10

Cost Effectiveness Cost within $30 to $80 per square foot 5eCost is more than $80 per square foot 0

Tier 2 Highest Possible Points 50

Tier 1 - Available Data Based Criteria

Tier 1 scoring will be conducted for all sites using available data as follows.

a. Priority Per Settlement:

• Location Basedtransportation corridors be defined as Major Highways (Boulevards I and II) and Secondary Highways (Avenues I, II and III) as listed by the City of Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035, Citywide General Plan Circulation System Maps: 70 points

The Department of Transportation recommends


• Type of Use - The location with the highest points will govern:

Hospitals, medical facilities, assisted living facilities, and other similar facilities: 50 pointsPlaces of public accommodation such as commercial and business zones: 40 pointsFacilities containing employers: 30 pointsOther areas such as residential neighborhoods: 0 points. Residential neighborhoods covered under this criterion are those not covered by the Access Request Program.

■

■

■

■

b. High Injury Network:

Vision Zero is a road safety policy that includes engineering improvements intended to improve safety for all street users. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has developed a High Injury Network (HIN) map in which a network of streets has been identified where strategic investments would have the biggest impact in improving road safety.

• In accordance with Council direction to consider HIN in prioritization, the following prioritization point scoring system is recommended:

Located within 500 feet of HIN: 15 points■

Located more than 500 feet of HIN: 0 points■

c. Incident Reports:

The number of incidents reported at a specific location will be considered. This will include claims received from the City Attorney’s office within the last five years, as well as service requests registered and tracked through MyLA 311 or the Sidewalk Repair Program website at http://sidewalks.lacity.org.

• The following prioritization point scoring system is recommended for Incident Reports:

Five or more reported incidents: 10 points■

One to four reported incidents: 5 points■

Zero reported incidents: 0 points■

http://sidewalks.lacity.org/


Tier 2 - Field Assessment Criteria

Tier 2 scoring will be conducted after sites screened from Tier 1 have been field assessed. Tier 2 scoring will be used to determine the order in which sites will be considered for construction.

d. Damage Severity:

Sidewalk damage can vary significantly throughout the City of Los Angeles, as such the damage will be evaluated based on three conditions listed below. Each condition will be scored by 5 categories ranging from very severe to very minor as describe in Table 3 - Damage Severity Matrix

• Vertical Displacement (uplift)

• Sidewalk Cross-slope

• Horizontal Displacement (cracks and crumbling)

If more than one of the above conditions applies to a location, the condition with the highest points will govern.

Table 3 -Damage Severity Matrix (See Attachment for examples)Damage Severity Matrix

Vertical Displacement (Uplift)

Horizontal Displacement (Cracking / Crumbling)

PossiblePointsSeverity Index Sidewalk Cross-slope

5 Very Severe > 12" > 20% > 6" gap 40

< 6" to > 3" gap

4 Severe < 12"to > 6" < 20% to >10% 30> 50% cracking,

chipping, flaking, or crumbling

< 3" to > 1" gap3 Moderate < 6" to > 1" < 10% to > 5% 20

< 50% to > 25% cracking, chipping, flaking, or crumbling

< 1" to > 1/4" gap

2 Minor < 1" to > 1/4" < 5% to > 2% 10< 25% cracking,

chipping, flaking, or crumbling

1 Very Minor < 1/4" < 2% < 1/4" gap 0


e. Cost Effectiveness:

To incorporate cost effectiveness as part of the prioritization and scoring system, staff utilized available construction data to determine the following criteria.

• The following priority scores are recommended for the cost effectiveness:

Project costs less than $30 per SF: 10 points■

Project costs within $30 - $80 per SF: 5 points■

Project costs more than $80 per SF: 0 points■

III. Program Access Improvements

Program Access Improvements will include sites reported by the general public as needing repair, as well as other pedestrian facilities to be repaired by the City. Program Access Improvements will use the same prioritization system as the City Facilities program described above in Part II, "City Facilities Program”, and Table 2 - City Facilities and Program Access Improvements Prioritization Matrix.

Mobility Disability Nexus:

It was requested that mobility disability nexus by nearby residents or other users of the sidewalk be considered in the prioritization system. Requests made by persons acting on behalf of someone with a mobility disability can be submitted through the Access Request Program, which is addressed in Part I above, "Access Request Program.”

Volume of Pedestrian Traffic:

It was requested that the volume of pedestrian traffic be considered in the prioritization system. This request has been included in Table 2 - City Facilities and Program Access Improvements Prioritization Matrix, Section a, "Priority Per Settlement”, by evaluating location and type of use of the site.


Implementation:

It is estimated that full implementation of this proposed Sidewalk Repair Program Prioritization and Scoring System will begin 90 days after Council approval. After two years of implementation, the Bureau of Engineering will report back to Council on status of the Prioritization and Scoring system.

The City Engineer has the discretion to make technical modifications as necessary to meet the requirements of the program.

Exemptions:

The following will not be included as part of the Sidewalk Repair Program. Per the Settlement Agreement, the City of Los Angeles is exempt from the following if:

There exist barriers to remediation controlled by third parties such as the United States Post Office and The Gas Company.

Improvements are required to be performed by a third party pursuant to a lawfully-issued permit or other agreement, in which case the City will issue a Notice of Non-Compliance.

The location is not within the City boundaries or is owned by a third-party government entity such as County of Los Angeles, State of California, or a neighboring municipality.

There exists a technical infeasibility to installing or performing a Program Access Improvement at the particular location because of topography or some other factor, including if remediation would be "technically infeasible” as defined by Standard 106.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

If you have any questions, please contact Deputy City Engineer Julie Sauter, at (213) 847-2230.

GLM\JS:abQ:\GLM\City Engineer\GLM Signed Documents\2017 Documents\20170926- Final - SRP Prioritization Report.pdf

Attachment - Damage Severity Index Examples


Ted Bardacke, Mayor’s OfficeJennifer McDowell, Mayor’s OfficeMatthew Hale, Council District 2John Popoch, Council District 3Dennis Gleason, Council District 15David Hirano, Office of the City Administrative OfficerPaul Smith, Office of the Chief Legislative AnalystTed Allen, Bureau of Engineering

cc:


Attachment - Damage Severity Index Examples

f ... ' m F■i1 ifi

' />Damage

Condition 4S

*i

Severity Index 5 - Very Severe 40 Points

Severity Index 4 - Severe 30 Points

Severity Index 3 - Moderate 20 Points

Severity Index 2 - Minor 10 Points

Severity Index 1 - Very Minor 0 Points

VerticalDisplacement

(Uplift)uplift > 12 12” > uplift > 6’ 6” > uplift > 1 1” > uplift > 1/4’ uplift < 1/4’

SidewalkCross-slope cross-slope > 20% 20% > cross-slope > 10% 10% > cross-slope > 5% 5% > cross-slope > 2% cross-slope < 2%

6” > gap > 3 3” > gap > 1 1” > gap > 1/4’Horizontal

Displacement (Cracking / Crumbling)

gap > 6' gap < 1/4'

cracking, chipping, flaking, or crumbling > 50%

50% > cracking, chipping, flaking, or crumbling > 25%

cracking, chipping, flaking, or crumbling < 25%