public works commission action minutes€¦ · m/s/c (yep /smith /6-0-1) kelley arrived late. chair...

PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION – REGULAR MEETING March 2, 2017

Public Works Commission

Regular Meeting PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION

Action Minutes Thursday, March 2, 2017

Corporation Yard, 1326 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA Willow Room

CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM Present: Schueler, Freiberg, Smith, Kelley, Hitchen, Henry, Yep, Dominguez Absent: Staff: Tracy J. Clay (PWC Secretary) PUBLIC COMMENT: A members of the public, Colleen Neff, President of Berkeley Path Wanderers, spoke in support of renaming of Keeler Walk (Path #32) to John Muir Path and renaming of The Short Cut (Path # 45) to Oxford School Path. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: PWC discussed the minutes, and requested that staff present information on Comcast’s aerial conduit installation project, responsive to public comment at the February 2, 2017 PWC meeting, and made the following action: Action by Commission: Recommend that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 2, 2017 be approved with the following amendment: Correct the spelling of Robert Krumme’s name under Public Comment, correct the times for the T1 public meetings listed on page 2, and correct the spelling of the “Envision” under Action Item 5. C., 5th bullet. M/S/C (Yep /Smith /6-0-1) Kelley arrived late. CHAIR REPORT: The Chair welcomed the new Commissioner, John Hitchen, distributed the updated work plan and asked for comments and for volunteers to serve on the subcommittees. It was noted that the PWC quorum is now larger that Commissioner Hitchen has filled the vacancy so there is room for additional subcommittee members. STAFF REPORT: Staff reported that bid results for the Rose/Hopkins and Shattuck/University Green Infrastructure Project have been received. The apparent Low Bidder is Empire Engineering and Construction, with a bid cost of $725,000. The engineers estimate was $421,500. Staff was requested to give a presentation on the bid results at the next Watershed Subcommittee meeting. PRESENTATION: None.

of 3


ACTION ITEMS: 1. Workplan and Subcommittee assignments (10 minutes) Item was discussed under Chair Report. No

additional discussion.

2. Path Renamings (Keeler Walk (Path #32) to John Muir Path, The Short Cut (Path # 45) to Oxford School Path): Commissioner Yep distributed a draft council report recommending the path renaming for both paths. Discussion ensued and the following motion was made:

Action by Commission: Motion: Recommend approval of renaming Keeler Walk (Path #32) to John Muir Path, and The Short Cut (Path # 45) to Oxford School Path. (Kelley) Discussion: Need to acknowledge that Colleen Neff, President of the Berkeley Pathwanderers, came to the PWC meeting and offer support of the renaming. (Yep) Amended Motion: Colleen Neff, President of the Berkeley Pathwanderers, attended the Public Works Commission meeting and offered strong support of renaming Keeler Walk & The Short Cut as proposed and with this support the Public Works Commission recommends approval of renaming Keeler Walk (Path #32) to John Muir Path, and The Short Cut (Path # 45) to Oxford School Path. M/S/C (Kelly /Henry/7-0-0)

3. Five Year Paving Plan: Staff provided the following information on the 5 year plan: A. Five-Year Paving Plan in tabular and map format. B. City of Berkeley Paving Policy. C. Paving Plan Schedule Update.

• March 20th: Present final Draft Paving Plan and Program Analytics to PWC. - PCI by year, by type of street, and other summary Street Saver data. - Measure M past and projected expenditures. - Project listing of measure M funded work. - Summary of Paving and GI Expenditures. - New streets selected for T1 that have a durable treatment – reconstruct or overlay. - We will look for opportunities to use Phase 1 T1 GI funds in parking strips and

pedestrian areas for clean water, stormwater and paving benefits in-lieu of some or all of the projects that staff proposed.

• April 6th: Present staff’s final draft of the 5 Year Paving Plan to the Public Works Commission for a recommendation to the City Council.

• May 30th: Deliver the 5 Year Paving Plan to City Council. D. Table showing the PCI by District over the life of the paving plan E. Paving Program funding breakdown by source. F. Unit cost for pavement items are based on the latest bid results, the 2017 seal and rehab bids.

The cost for related non-pavement items have been estimated based on recent bids as well. For surface seal projects - 75% additive cost, and rehab projects are 55%.

Discussion ensued by commissioners: G. It was suggested that the paving subcommittee review the paving policy, and consider the

impact that the new comprehensive roadway improvements, such as storm drains and sidewalk improvements are having to overall street improvement cost. Where appropriate they should collaborate with the Transportation Commission and also incorporate BeST Policy considerations. In addition pothole repair metrics should be addressed by paving subcommittee. Staff should present on current pothole repair practices.

of 3


H. Bonds are not a good funding mechanism for ongoing pavement needs. Should obtain adequate baseline funding for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation.

4. Measure M Performance and Reporting Status

No discussion.

5. Discuss status and recommendations for Measure T1: The following brief report on the T1 status was provided: A. Staff has worked with Council on Phase 1 projects. B. Many of the Facilities projects included need to act or loose federal funding. C. Parks and Waterfront Commission is ready to support the staff Phase 1 recommendations. D. PWC should be prepared to vote at the May Meeting. Discussion ensued by commissioners: E. Phase 1 projects are finishing up ongoing projects & programs. Review should focus on

improving projects on the list. F. Phase 2 & 3 projects needs to have a more robust public process and it should start soon.

INFORMATION ITEMS:

Standing Information Item: Subcommittee Reports: Subcommittee chairs gave brief reports from the following subcommittees:

A. Utility Undergrounding B. Paving C. Watershed Master Plan D. Mission Statement E. Sidewalks

FUTURE AGENDAS: None. ADJOURN: 9:15 pm Action by Commission: Meeting Adjourned. M/S/C (Dominguez /Freiberg/7-0-0)

of 3

NOTICE OF FIELD WORK AND PUBLIC MEETING

City of Berkeley

Panoramic Hill Street Rehabilitation Project The City of Berkeley has initiated a project to rehabilitate pavement, retaining walls, and storm drainage on the following streets, as shown on the map: Panoramic Way, Mosswood Road, Arden Road and Canyon Road; and portions of Dwight Way, Bancroft Way and Prospect Street. All work will be within the City of Berkeley limits and within the City’s right of way. The project is funded by the local Transportation dollars including Measures B & BB.

PRSRT STD ECRWSS

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

EDDM Retail *****************ECRWSSEDDM**** Postal Customer Berkeley, CA 94704

Project Streets

City of Berkeley Engineering Division 1947 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1196

NOTICE OF INVESTIGATIVE FIELD WORK The City of Berkeley has hired Harrison Engineering Inc. (HEI) to provide civil engineering design services for the project. In the coming weeks, HEI and their subconsultants will be onsite performing surveying, video inspection of the storm drain, marking existing utility locations, and performing cores and borings in the roadway for geotechnical investigation. Deeper borings will be done for slopes and retaining walls that will be evaluated near 161 Panoramic Way and Orchard Lane on Panoramic Way. Field work will be performed during the month of April between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Complete roadway closures are not anticipated, but you will encounter one-lane traffic control with flaggers; short delays of less than 10 minutes can be expected while equipment is in the street. Please be on the lookout for workers and parking restrictions that will be posted on barricades 72 hours in advance of the work. Please drive and walk with caution in the area of the work. EBMUD’s ongoing waterline project may also have traffic control in place as they continue their work, possibly creating additional delays.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING The community is invited to attend a public meeting for the Panoramic Hill Street Rehabilitation Project. The City of Berkeley and the engineering team will make a brief presentation about the project and answer questions about the project. The meeting will also provide an opportunity for the community to help the City identify any drainage issues or any other concerns within the project area that may be incorporated into the design. Even though the work will take place in the City of Berkeley, all affected residents are welcome, as anticipated construction impacts will also be discussed. Date: April 12, 2017, 6:00 PM Location: U.C.’s Clark Kerr Campus – Conference Center

Newel Perry Room (Building 14, Room 104, in South West portion of the campus) 2601 Warring St Berkeley, CA 94720

If you have questions about the City’s project or the upcoming meeting, please contact Ryan O’Kane at HEI, preferably by email at [email protected] or at (925) 691-0450 x103.

SCHEDULE Work being done Date Investigative field work (City’s Engineering Team) April 2017 EBMUD Waterline Construction Now through late 2017 Public Meeting (City’s Street Rehabilitation Project)

April 12, 2017, 6 pm

Roadway Rehabilitation Construction Between mid-April 2018 and October 2018 (exact dates to be determined)

For additional EBMUD waterline project information, please visit: www.ebmud.com/about-us/construction-my-neighborhood/panoramic-hill-improvements/

Street Funding

Fund Approx. Annual Allocation Description Uses/Restrictions369 - State Transportation Tax (Gas Excise Tax) $495,303 State Board of Equalization

adjusts the excise tax rate every year by March 1. The new rate is effective July 1 of each year.

Any street or road purpose

Ineligible Expenditures:- Cost of rearranging non-street or road facilities, including utility reloctaion, when not a legal road or street obligation- New (first instllation of) utilities, including water mains, sanitary sewers, and other non-street facilities- Cost of leasing property or right-of-way, except when required for construction work purposes on a temporary basis- Cost of constructing or improving a street or area for parking purposes, except for the width normally required for parking adjacent to the traveled way and within the right-of-way- Decorative lighting- Park features such as benches, playground equipment, and restrooms- Work outside the right of way which is not a specific right-of-way obligation- Equestrian under- and overpasses or other similar structures for any other special interest group unless as a part of a right of way obligation- Construction, instllation, or maintenance of cattle guards- Acquisition of buses or other mass transit vehicles or maintenance and operating costs for mass transit power systems or passenger facilities (passenger facitilities include but are not limited to bus benches, shelters, and bus stop signs, or equipment and services)- Maintenance or construction on alleys that have not bee3n formally designated as part of the jurisdiction's street and road system- Improvements and maintenance to park and ride designated lots- Driveways outside of the street and road right-of-way

610 - Capital Improvement Fund (General Fund) $1,861,875 Original Budget Book allocation = $1,925,000$43,125 deducted for 1st Source and Public Art funding$20,000 deducted for Survey funding

Street Funding

Fund Approx. Annual Allocation Description Uses/Restrictions391 - Alameda County Measure B Transportation Sales Tax Local Streets & Roads Funds

$724,000changes to $700,000 in FY2020

Regional priorities are to:•Expand mass transit•Improve highway infrastructure•Improve local streets and roads•Improve bicycle and pedestrian safety•Expand special transportation for seniors and people with disabilities Timeframe: 1987-2002 & 2002-2022

406 - Alameda County Measure BB Transportation Sales Tax Local Streets & Roads Funds

$1,600,000changes to $1,700,000 in

FY2020

Alameda County voters approved Measure BB, authorizing an extension and augmentation of the existing transportation sale tax (Measure B).Timeframe: April 2015 - March 2045

Measure B & BB Local Streets and Roads pass-through funds may be used for capital projects, programs, maintenance, or operations that directly improve local streets and roads and local transportation including streets and road projects, local transit projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects and other transportation uses. Eligible uses for these funds include, but are not necessarily limited to:1) Capital projects, including:a) All phases of capital projects, including feasibility studies, planning, and environmentalb) Upgrades to or installation of new local streets and roads infrastructure including installation of streets, roads, and highwaysc) Street resurfacing and maintenance including repaving and resurfacing of on-street surfaces including stripingd) Improvements or upgrades to bridges and tunnelse) Installation of or upgrades to sidewalks and curb rampsf) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on-street improvements, including sidewalk upgrades and curb ramp installationsg) Purchase or lease of equipment or new vehicles for local streets and roads improvementsh) Crossing improvements including traffic signals, signage, and traffic lights (at intersections, interchanges, railroads, freeways, etc.) for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclistsi) Improvements to or installation of new pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, curb ramps, countdown signals, accessible signals, at-grade bike crossings)j) Improvements or upgrades to or installation of new bikeways (such as bicycle routes, boulevards, lanes, multi-use pathways)Alameda CTC Local Streets and Roads Program Implementation Guidelinesk) Maintenance of or installation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including construction, maintenance, and operations of bike parking facilities.l) Pedestrian and bicycle access improvements to, from and at transit facilitiesm) Traffic calming projects2) Transit system operations, operations of traffic signal system controls and interconnections, and corridor monitoring and management3) Mass transit project operations including bus, ferry, shuttle, rail, and Welfare to Work services4) Paratransit services5) Direct staff and consultant costs that support eligible activities, including the end-of-year compliance report6) Direct staff training costs directly related to implementation of projects or programs implemented with the Local Streets and Roads Funds

Ineligible Uses: The following is a list of ineligible uses of Measure B & BB Local Streets and Roads pass-through funds:1) Non-transportation projects such as fees charged to capital construction projects for services or amenities not related to transportation2) Capital projects, programs, maintenances, or operations that do not directly improve local streets and roads and local transportation3) Projects or programs that exclusively serve city/county staff4) Indirect costs, unless the RECIPIENT submits an independently audited/approved Indirect Cost Allocation Plan

May not be substituted for property tax funds which are currently being used to fund existing local transportation such as street and road maintenance and transit projects.

Street Funding

Fund Approx. Annual Allocation Description Uses/Restrictions 630 - Measure M Streets & Watershed General Obligation Bond $30 million General

Obligation Bond Proceeds of bonded indebtedness shall be used to construct the following facilities (“Improvements”):1. Street repaving and rehabilitation consistent with the 5 year street repaving plan as it is updated annually, and sufficient to significantly accelerate the implementation of that plan.2. Installation of Green Infrastructure (GI), as it is defined in the Watershed Management Plan as part of the street work described in the preceding paragraph, when appropriate. GI includes, but is not limited to: (a) surface level bio-retentionmeasures (rain gardens, swales, bio-retention cells, permeable paving, etc.) within the parking strip, planter area of sidewalks, red zone curb-extensions, and in street medians as feasible; and (b) large underground storage pipes, which would fill during storm events and then discharge metered flows into the existing storm drain pipelines.For purposes of this measure, “Improvements” shall also include design, permitting, administrative and overhead costs.

Measure T1 Infrastructure General Obligation Bond $5,000,000 from Phase 1 $100 million General Obligation Bondin 3 phases ($32 million in Phase 1)

To finance construction of the Improvements and functional art integrated into the Improvements, to pay any fees and costs in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, including but not limited to, legal fees and bond printing costs.Improvements:- Streets and sidewalks- Storm drains and green infrastructure- Senior Centers- Parks and recreation centers and facilities- The City's public buildings and other facilitiesCriteria include safety; infrastructure whose life cycle has expired; impacting the greatest number of residents; racial, geographic and economic equity; advancing environmental sustainability; contributing to disaster preparedness; and projects that can maximize City dollars by leveraging potential outside funding.

1% of the bond proceeds shall be available for functional art integrated intoImprovements that are paid for by bond proceeds, as and to the extent determined bythe City Council.

Limitations on Use of Bond Proceeds- Bond funds must be spent (not merely encumbered) promptly: 85% must be spent within 3 years of each issuance. If 85% is not spent the balance must be income-restricted, i.e., invested in a manner that does not generate income. When the bond is issued, the City will need to provide a draw down schedule, which reflects our reasonable expectation of expenditures as of the closing date of the issuance.- Bond proceeds can be used for hiring staff to work on projects and for soft costs, but not for purely “community process” efforts. E.g., a bondfunded project manager is not prohibited from talking to residents or attending meetings, but proceeds should not be used to hire consultants to run public outreach or participation. Bond funds may be used to pay administrative costs (including staff time) directly related to bond-funded projects.- Bond proceeds may only be spent for the improvement of real property with “municipal improvements” as defined in BMC Section 7.64.020. Expenditures are limited to property owned or leased by the City. Bond funds may not be spent to improve real property that is not owned or under a long term lease by the City. Properties owned by BUSD that are not under a long term lease to the City are not eligible. Nor are Berkeley Tuolumne Camp or Echo Lake Camp, since the real property where they are located is owned by the federal government and the City operates the camps under a special permit, not a lease.

5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 1

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: April 2017

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LASTYEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE

(updated)T1 ADELINE ST DERBY ST STUART ST A OVERLAY 666667 3 B 0.14 42 1994 OT1 ADELINE ST STUART ST ASHBY AVE A RECONSTRUCT 1333333 3 B 0.28 5 45 1988 O2018 CEDAR ST EAST FRONTAGE RD (STATE P/L)4TH ST A OVERLAY 292300 1 D 0.18 10 29 1993 O2018 CEDAR ST 4TH ST 6TH ST A OVERLAY 152909 1 D 0.13 51 1993 O2018 OXFORD ST CEDAR ST 161' N/O HEARST AVE A CONC REPAIR 392791 4 C 0.25 47 - -2018 SHATTUCK AVE (SB) CENTER ST UNIVERSITY AVE A RECONSTRUCT 689920 4 C 0.13 20 1994 O2018 SHATTUCK SQUARE UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST/BERKELEY SQ A OVERLAY 156245 4 C 0.07 34 1994 O2018 BERKELEY SQUARE ADDISON ST CENTER ST A OVERLAY 139040 4 C 0.06 39 1994 O2018 SHATTUCK AVE CENTER ST ALLSTON WAY A OVERLAY 414649 4 C 0.06 11 1994 O2018 CEDAR ST 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE C OVERLAY 440917 1 D 0.31 8 32 1994 O2018 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD NORTH CITY LIMIT (SPRUCE) EUCLID AVE C RECONSTRUCT 341367 6 B 0.18 3 5 1990 O2018 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD EUCLID AVE KEELER AVE C RECONSTRUCT 322812 6 B 0.21 3 6 1990 O2018 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD KEELER AVE MARIN AVE C RECONSTRUCT 442089 6 B 0.27 3 9 1992 O2018 ADDISON ST SHATTUCK AVE SHATTUCK AVE R OVERLAY 38220 4 D 0.03 48 1994 O2018 ALLSTON WAY MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R RECONSTRUCT 188760 4 B 0.14 24 1990 O2018 ALLSTON WAY SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST R RECONSTRUCT 138454 4 D 0.11 11 14 1992 O2018 ARCADE AVE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD FAIRLAWN DR R RECONSTRUCT 52287 6 D 0.06 12 1995 O2018 ARDEN RD MOSSWOOD RD PANORAMIC WAY R RECONSTRUCT 67100 8 D 0.12 8 6 - -2018 BANCROFT WAY PROSPECT ST PANORAMIC WAY R OVERLAY 22050 8 B 0.03 43 1993 R2018 BONAR ST UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST R RECONSTRUCT 82896 2 B 0.06 19 1992 O2018 BONAR ST ADDISON ST ALLSTON WAY R RECONSTRUCT 176880 2 B 0.13 8 1992 O2018 BONAR ST ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY R RECONSTRUCT 388472 2 B 0.38 27 1991 O2018 CANYON RD PANORAMIC WAY RIM RD (UC CAMPUS) R RECONSTRUCT 60500 8 B 0.05 23 1993 R2018 CANYON RD RIM RD (UC CAMPUS) DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 64130 8 D 0.11 12 0 - -2018 CHANNING WAY SACRAMENTO ST ROOSEVELT AVE R OVERLAY 317520 4 A 0.31 7 27 1995 O2018 CHANNING WAY ROOSEVELT AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY R RECONSTRUCT 264000 4 A 0.19 7 6 1991 O2018 CHANNING WAY MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST R RECONSTRUCT 176880 4 A 0.13 7 12 1991 O2018 CHANNING WAY MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R OVERLAY 139160 4 A 0.13 7 31 1991 O2018 CORNELL AVE HOPKINS ST CEDAR ST R RECONSTRUCT 73370 1 B 0.07 0 1992 O2018 CORNELL AVE CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST R RECONSTRUCT 145200 1 B 0.13 1 1992 O2018 DWIGHT WAY PIEDMONT AVE HILLSIDE AVE R RECONSTRUCT 201960 8 D 0.14 5 1993 O2018 DWIGHT WAY HILLSIDE AVE DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 155760 8 D 0.11 0 1993 O2018 DWIGHT WAY PANORAMIC WAY EAST CITY LIMIT R SURFACE SEAL 3423 8 D 0.02 67 - -2018 EL DORADO AVE THE ALAMEDA SUTTER ST R RECONSTRUCT 307720 5 D 0.24 9 1996 O2018 FOLGER 3RD ST HOLLIS R RECONSTRUCT 197120 2 D 0.12 11 14 - -2018 HENRY ST ROSE ST VINE ST R RECONSTRUCT 174240 5 C 0.13 0 1995 O2018 HENRY ST VINE ST CEDAR ST R RECONSTRUCT 172920 4 D 0.12 0 1992 O2018 HILGARD AVE LA VEREDA RD DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 59840 6 D 0.06 14 1999 R2018 JONES ST EASTSHORE HWY 2ND ST R SURFACE SEAL 12663 1 D 0.05 54 - -2018 JONES ST 4TH ST 6TH ST R RECONSTRUCT 180840 1 D 0.13 12 - -2018 JOSEPHINE ST THE ALAMEDA HOPKINS ST R RECONSTRUCT 151800 5 D 0.11 17 1997 O2018 MICHIGAN AVE MARYLAND AVE SPRUCE ST R OVERLAY 193387 5 D 0.28 34 1988 O2018 MODOC ST SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE R OVERLAY 109760 5 D 0.11 47 1995 R2018 MOSSWOOD RD PANORAMIC WAY DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 88000 8 D 0.15 8 0 - -




(updated)2018 MURRAY 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R RECONSTRUCT 252062 2 D 0.25 6 4 - -2018 PAGE ST EAST FRONTAGE RD 2ND ST R RECONSTRUCT 71280 1 D 0.05 19 - -2018 PAGE ST 3RD ST 4TH ST R OVERLAY 52648 1 D 0.06 46 1989 O2018 PANORAMIC WAY CANYON RD 1ST TURN R RECONSTRUCT 83527 8 D 0.13 8 11 1998 O2018 PANORAMIC WAY 1ST TURN ARDEN RD R RECONSTRUCT 133650 8 D 0.23 8 17 - -2018 PANORAMIC WAY ARDEN RD EAST CITY LIMIT R RECONSTRUCT 186450 8 D 0.32 8 12 - -2018 POE ST BONAR ST DEAD END (BONAR ST) R RECONSTRUCT 38500 2 D 0.03 4 1995 O2018 PRINCE ST TREMONT ST TELEGRAPH AVE R OVERLAY 467460 37 B 0.45 49 2002 O2018 PROSPECT ST UC CAMPUS HILLSIDE AVE R RECONSTRUCT 187440 8 B 0.13 9 12 1993 O2018 RUGBY AVE NORTH CITY LIMIT VERMONT AVE R RECONSTRUCT 38500 5 D 0.04 0 1994 O2018 SPINNAKER WAY BREAKWATER DR MARINA BLVD R OVERLAY 326667 1 B 0.28 28 1991 O2018 VERMONT AVE DEAD END MARYLAND AVE R RECONSTRUCT 129874 5 D 0.15 8 1994 OT1 WARD ST SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST R RECONSTRUCT 440000 * 2 B 0.31 24 1991 O

FISCAL YEAR 2018 TOTALS

Total Estimated Cost and Miles $12,598,409 8.64 miles

MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGEARTERIALS 1.29 $4,237,854 34% 15% 1 1.39COLLECTORS 0.97 $1,547,185 12% 11% 2 1.28RESIDENTIALS 6.38 $6,813,370 54% 74% 3 0.65

4 1.74SURFACE SEALS 0.07 $16,086 5 1.06OVERLAYS 2.66 $3,929,599 6 0.77RECONSTRUCTS 5.94 $8,652,724 7 0.23

8 1.54PCC STREETS 0.25 $392,791 8.64BIKEWAYS 3.98 $6,563,523 52%

Green Infrastructure- Woolsey Street GI (Measure M) $1,959,543- Parker Street (Measure M) $1,300,000

$3,259,543




(updated)T1 HOPKINS ST SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS CT A OVERLAY 57934 5 B 0.04 36 2002 O2019 SHATTUCK AVE ROSE ST VINE ST A OVERLAY 324427 5 C 0.13 10 43 1996 R2019 SHATTUCK AVE VINE ST CEDAR ST A RECONSTRUCT 963014 4 C 0.13 8 23 1996 O2019 SHATTUCK PL HENRY ST & ROSE ST SHATTUCK AVE A OVERLAY 697434 5 C 0.10 10 25 1996 R2019 SHATTUCK AVE CEDAR ST HEARST AVE A RECONSTRUCT 2036658 4 C 0.32 8 22 1996 O2019 SHATTUCK AVE HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE A OVERLAY 756125 * 4 C 0.12 1 26 1996 RT1 BANCROFT WAY MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE C OVERLAY 184600 4 D 0.13 33 1989 OT1 HOPKINS ST HOPKINS CT MONTEREY AVE C OVERLAY 53167 5 B 0.05 58 2002 OT1 HOPKINS ST MONTEREY AVE MC GEE AVE C OVERLAY 61222 5 B 0.05 75 1989 RT1 HOPKINS ST MC GEE AVE CARLOTTA AVE C OVERLAY 97067 5 B 0.06 53 1989 RT1 HOPKINS ST CARLOTTA AVE JOSEPHINE ST C OVERLAY 506147 * 5 B 0.35 64 1989 OT1 MONTEREY AVE THE ALAMEDA HOPKINS ST C OVERLAY 938827 5 B 0.57 57 1990 OT1 2ND ST DELAWARE ST HEARST AVE R RECONSTRUCT 146300 1 D 0.09 11 8 - -T1 2ND ST HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE R OVERLAY 106712 1 D 0.09 11 49 - -T1 2ND ST UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST R RECONSTRUCT 105600 2 D 0.09 4 1997 OT1 HOPKINS ST GILMAN ST SACRAMENTO ST R RECONSTRUCT 132147 5 B 0.10 7 0 2002 O



MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGEARTERIALS 0.82 $4,835,592 67% 34% 1 0.18COLLECTORS 1.22 $1,841,030 26% 51% 2 0.09RESIDENTIALS 0.37 $490,759 7% 15% 3 0.00

4 0.69SURFACE SEALS 0.00 $0 5 1.45OVERLAYS 1.69 $3,783,662 6 0.00RECONSTRUCTS 0.72 $3,383,719 7 0.00

8 0.00PCC STREETS 0.00 $0 2.41BIKEWAYS 1.22 $1,846,511 26%

Green Infrastructure- Additional Site(s) TBD pending funds (Measure M) $1,169,052

5-YEAR STREET PLAN Page 4



(updated)2020 COLLEGE AVE ASHBY AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT (ALCATRAZ) A SURFACE SEAL 112060 78 C 0.41 56 2000 R2020 DWIGHT WAY SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY A RECONSTRUCT 1594569 * 34 C 0.50 10 13 1998 O2020 DWIGHT WAY MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST A OVERLAY 175560 34 C 0.13 64 1998 O2020 DWIGHT WAY MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE A OVERLAY 197854 34 C 0.13 63 1998 O2020 HEARST AVE MILVIA ST HENRY ST A SURFACE SEAL 25000 4 B 0.06 63 1995 O2020 OXFORD ST UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST A SURFACE SEAL 28000 47 B 0.07 79 2002 R2020 SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS ST ROSE ST A SURFACE SEAL 41028 15 D 0.15 62 1989 R2020 COLUSA AVE SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE C SURFACE SEAL 37669 5 B 0.13 87 1989 R2020 HOPKINS ST JOSEPHINE ST THE ALAMEDA C SURFACE SEAL 22400 5 B 0.05 59 1991 R2020 CENTER ST MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R SURFACE SEAL 77550 4 B 0.14 4 32 1991 O2020 DERBY ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST R SURFACE SEAL 34137 3 D 0.13 87 1992 O2020 DERBY ST MILVIA ST FULTON ST R RECONSTRUCT 448140 3 D 0.28 11 0 1992 O2020 DERBY ST FULTON ST TELEGRAPH AVE R RECONSTRUCT 430320 37 B 0.31 7 16 1992 O2020 DERBY ST TELEGRAPH AVE HILLEGASS AVE R RECONSTRUCT 227040 * 7 D 0.16 4 13 1997 O2020 FULTON ST PARKER ST STUART ST R SURFACE SEAL 57992 3 B 0.25 63 1992 O2020 HILLEGASS AVE DWIGHT WAY ASHBY AVE R SURFACE SEAL 140800 78 A 0.61 84 2000 R2020 HOPKINS ST SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE R SURFACE SEAL 24445 1 D 0.09 75 2002 O2020 HOPKINS ST STANNAGE AVE NORTHSIDE AVE R SURFACE SEAL 44734 1 D 0.17 82 2002 O2020 HOPKINS ST NORTHSIDE AVE PERALTA AVE R SURFACE SEAL 21982 1 D 0.10 80 2002 O2020 HOPKINS ST PERALTA AVE GILMAN ST R SURFACE SEAL 58161 15 B 0.27 67 2002 O2020 MAGNOLIA ST ASHBY AVE WEBSTER ST R SURFACE SEAL 19360 8 D 0.13 63 1993 O2020 MILVIA ST BLAKE ST RUSSELL ST R OVERLAY 458640 3 A 0.44 7 33 1993 O2020 WALKER ST DERBY ST WARD ST R OVERLAY 32340 3 D 0.06 46 - -2020 WARD ST FULTON ST ELLSWORTH ST R RECONSTRUCT 174240 3 D 0.13 11 13 1992 O2020 WARD ST ELLSWORTH ST TELEGRAPH AVE R RECONSTRUCT 232320 7 D 0.17 11 13 1992 O


MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGEARTERIALS 1.45 $2,174,071 46% 29% 1 0.58COLLECTORS 0.18 $60,069 1% 4% 2 0.00RESIDENTIALS 3.43 $2,482,201 53% 68% 3 1.81

4 0.61SURFACE SEALS 2.76 $745,318 5 0.39OVERLAYS 0.76 $864,394 6 0.00RECONSTRUCTS 1.54 $3,106,629 7 1.02


Green Infrastructure- Dwight and Sacramento Bus Stop Permeable Pavers (T1) $239,200- Civic Center Park Bioswale (T1) $340,000

$579,200




(updated)2021 TELEGRAPH AVE DWIGHT WAY WARD ST A RECONSTRUCT 2554534 7 B 0.33 2 7 2002 O2021 TELEGRAPH AVE WARD ST ASHBY AVE A RECONSTRUCT 2339805 7 B 0.30 2 5 2002 O



MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGEARTERIALS 0.63 $4,894,339 100% 100% 1 0.00COLLECTORS 0.00 $0 0% 0% 2 0.00RESIDENTIALS 0.00 $0 0% 0% 3 0.00

4 0.00SURFACE SEALS 0.00 $0 5 0.00OVERLAYS 0.00 $0 6 0.00RECONSTRUCTS 0.63 $4,894,339 7 0.63





(updated)2022 COLLEGE AVE DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST A OVERLAY 875320 78 C 0.52 48 2000 R2022 COLLEGE AVE DERBY ST ASHBY AVE A OVERLAY 488400 8 C 0.35 54 2000 R2022 HEARST AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST A OVERLAY 199958 4 B 0.13 44 1997 R2022 6TH ST ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY C OVERLAY 677734 2 C 0.37 49 1994 O2022 COLUSA AVE MARIN AVE MONTEREY AVE C OVERLAY 257907 5 B 0.16 69 1986 O2022 DWIGHT CRESCENT 6TH ST 7TH ST C OVERLAY 136500 2 C 0.08 50 1988 O2022 SHASTA RD GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD PARK GATE C RECONSTRUCT 70778 6 B 0.05 22 1988 R2022 SHASTA RD PARK GATE EAST CITY LIMIT C RECONSTRUCT 123045 6 B 0.11 19 1988 R2022 UNIVERSITY AVE MARINA BLVD WEST FRONTAGE RD C RECONSTRUCT 1254400 12 B 0.30 8 1989 O2022 CARLETON ST MILVIA ST FULTON ST R OVERLAY 281260 3 D 0.27 45 1989 O2022 CATALINA AVE COLUSA AVE THE ALAMEDA R OVERLAY 144060 5 D 0.19 14 1993 O2022 CENTER ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST R OVERLAY 193333 * 4 C 0.13 62 1991 O2022 STATION PL CATALINA AVE DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 52360 5 D 0.04 5 - -



MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGEARTERIALS 1.00 $1,563,678 33% 37% 1 0.15COLLECTORS 1.07 $2,520,364 53% 40% 2 0.60RESIDENTIALS 0.62 $671,013 14% 23% 3 0.27

4 0.25SURFACE SEALS 0.00 $0.00 5 0.39OVERLAYS 2.20 $3,254,472.00 6 0.15RECONSTRUCTS 0.50 $1,500,583.00 7 0.26


Green Infrastructure- San Pablo Park Bioswale with cistern* (T1) $110,400- Willard Park Bioswale* (T1) $100,000- North Brance Berkeley Library Bioswale* (T1) $100,000- King School Park Bioswale with cistern* (T1) $110,400

$420,800* planning and design only

To: Public Works Commission (PWC)

From: Ray Yep, Chair of the T1 bond measure sub-committee

Subject: Progress report

Date: April 6, 2017 This report is submitted to bring the commission up to date on activities related to the T1 bond measure.

Activity Work Status Phase 1: No Regrets Projects

1. Community meeting was held on March 18th. The focus was on parks and facilities projects. There were about 70 attendees from the public. Input was collected through break out groups.

2. Community meeting was held on March 25th. The focus was on streets and storm drain projects. There were about 30 attendees from the public. Input was collected through break out groups.

3. A third community meeting is planned on April 8th. The intent is to report back on the previous meetings and to gather further pubic input. Staff is consolidating input from the community meetings, from emailed input, and from commissions.

Phase 2 and 3 Projects

1. The Public Works and Parks and Waterfront Commission will take the lead for a robust community input process. We are estimating this to be in late 2017 or early 2018.

General Activities

1. The Public Works Commission needs to synthesize input from 5 commissions and to develop its own recommendations for Phase 1. This was scheduled to be submitted to Council in April.

2. We have on-going coordination with the Parks and Waterfront Commission.

1

Public Works Commission Input to Measure T1 - Outline

1. Background 2. Initial T1 Proposal

a. Project Selection and Criteria b. Project Phasing c. Public Outreach Process d. Review of Public Comments

i. Other Commissions ii. Workshops

iii. Comments on the City Website iv. Public Works Summary of Public Comment

3. Public Works Commission Recommendations a. Project Recommendations

i. Phase 1 1. No regrets projects 2. Projects with external funding

ii. Phases 2 & 3 iii. Recommended changes in proposed projects

b. Program Plan i. Clear and specific goals and objectives

ii. Defined program outcome and benefits iii. Defined organizational structure and resources

1. Program Management Office iv. Quantifiable criteria for prioritizing v. Method for project reprioritization (if projects exceed program budget)

vi. Project Delivery Model 1. Specific model for core project types

a. Facilities b. Small Projects c. Street Projects

2. Define key program review milestones 3. Define key project deliverables

vii. QA/QC Process viii. Internal and external reporting

1. Defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 2. Project schedule 3. Cost estimate and actual cost tracking

c. Ongoing Public Involvement i. Community involvement in future projects

ii. Phase 2&3 Planning iii. Commission Oversight

4. Appendix a. All letters from other Commissions b. Tabulation of public comments from Workshops c. Tabulation of all public comments from City Website

1

T1 issues for consideration

1. Public Process and Input a. Commissions input b. Public input from community meetings c. Public input other sources

2. PWC subcommittee Project Review a. Criteria

i. changing demographics, equity across the City ii. resilience needs including water quality and green infrastructure mandates and other sustainability objectives

iii. Long lasting capital projects not maintenance work iv. durable, sustainable technologies

b. Historic costs info c. No Regrets – go/no go criteria d. Alternative recommendations

i. support green infrastructure projects, but the projects should link with the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) or the storm water update process

ii. WMP update first in Phase 1 3. Phase 2 and 3 Recommendations

a. Program Plan b. Robust transparent public process

4. Cost estimates

a. 10% of project costs fund city staff b. 12 staff anticipated over 10 years c. outside consultants and contractors also will be used d. Bond issuance costs at $800,000/issuance X 3 issues = $2.4M in bond costs e. State contracting accounting guidelines assume 20-30% of costs for admin/PM/CM = $30M f. Planning level cost estimates are ± 50%

i. Phase 1 $32M cost estimate range $16-48M g. Do project estimates provided include admin/PM/CM costs? h. How much is actually available for construction?

Phase 1 project review criteria

# Criteria Description PWC 1 Equity across the

City

Providing equitable facilities includes consideration of geographic distribution of improvements, condition, size, and cost

2 Resiliency Life safety, emergency response element, increase environmental sustainability and resiliency

3 Sustainable, Multiple Benefits

Address more than one infrastructure issue or satisfy more than one Plan or objective such as water quality, green infrastructure, transportation (BeST), energy, climate, zero waste, or resiliency plans and mandates; sustainable construction

4 Cost effectiveness

LCA; make major repairs before maintenance costs increase dramatically; improvements that reduce maintenance costs over time, leveraging other funds especially grants

5 Capacity Increasing capacity in proximity of service need: parks near underserved population centers, GI at stormwater inputs or for flood mitigation or contamination treatment; streetwork on emergency, arterial and collector streets, increase mobility and access for all transportation mode choices; increase access to commercial districts and opportunity areas;

6 Durability Use of durable elements or technologies that will outperform the bond repayment life

7 Project Readiness

Can be immediately implemented

8 Strategic How well does the project fit into a systematic analysis of future needs as developed in the Strategic Plan

9 Community Support

1 DRAFT March 31, 2017

Framework for

Green Infrastructure Plan Development

This Framework for Green Infrastructure Plan Development is organized as follows.

Section 1: Purpose

Section 2: Municipal Stormwater Permit Deadlines

Section 3: Specific Tasks for Plan Development

Section 4: Timeframe for Plan Development

Section 5: Staffing Assignments

Section 6: Budget

1. Purpose

The purpose of the Green Infrastructure Plan is to guide the identification, implementation,

tracking, and reporting of green infrastructure projects. “Green infrastructure” refers to a

sustainable system that slows runoff by dispersing it to vegetated areas, harvests and uses

runoff, promotes infiltration and evapotranspiration, and uses bioretention and other low

impact development practices to clean stormwater runoff. The Green Infrastructure Plan will be

developed in accordance with Green Infrastructure Plan requirements in Provision C.3.j of the

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R2-

2015-0049, adopted on November 19, 2015), which states in part:

….the [Green Infrastructure] Plan is intended to describe how Permittees will shift their

impervious surfaces and storm drain infrastructure from gray, or traditional, storm drain

infrastructure where runoff flows directly into the storm drain and then to the receiving

water, to green—that is, to a more resilient, sustainable system that slows runoff by

dispersing it to vegetated areas, harvests and uses runoff, promotes infiltration and

evapotranspiration, and uses bioretention and other green infrastructure practices to clean

stormwater runoff…. The Plan is intended to serve as an implementation guide and reporting

tool… to set goals for reducing, over the long term, the adverse water quality impacts of

urbanization and urban runoff on receiving waters.

2. Municipal Stormwater Permit Deadlines

Provision C.3.j.i.(1) of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requires the City of Berkeley to approve a framework or workplan to develop a Green Infrastructure Plan by June 30, 2017. The complete Green Infrastructure Plan must be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board by September 30, 2019.

Framework for Green Infrastructure Plan Development


3. Specific Tasks for Plan Development

Preparation of the Green Infrastructure Plan will require the following specific tasks.

Identify Green Infrastructure Projects

Future green infrastructure projects will be identified for inclusion in the Green Infrastructure

Plan. This will include documentation of existing plans for private and public development

projects that would be subject to MRP Provision C.3 requirements for development projects to

include stormwater treatment facilities. The Green Infrastructure Plan will also document the

continuing implementation and results of the City of Berkeley’s process, initiated in Fiscal Year

2015-16, to review planned capital improvement projects that are not subject to Provision C.3

stormwater treatment requirements, to identify the potential for incorporating green

infrastructure. Additionally, a GIS-based tool will be used to identify, map, and prioritize

potential green infrastructure projects that may be included in the Green Infrastructure Plan.

Develop Tracking Procedures

Procedures will be developed for estimating the pollutant load reduction benefits of green

infrastructure projects, and for tracking and reporting on completed projects. The procedures

will be described in the Green Infrastructure Plan.

Incorporate Guidelines and Typical Designs

The Green Infrastructure Plan will incorporate guidelines for streetscape and green

infrastructure project design and construction, and green infrastructure typical design drawings

and specifications. These will be based on regional examples and guidelines, typical design

drawings, and specifications. The City of Berkeley will evaluate the regional materials for

consistency with local standards, and will revise existing guidelines, standard specifications,

design details, and procedures as needed.

Update Planning Documents and Programs

Planning documents and programs, including those listed below, will be reviewed, and relevant

sections will be modified, as needed, for implementing green infrastructure in public and

private development projects to support the implementation of the Green Infrastructure Plan.

Planning documents will be updated during their regular revision cycles. This will include the

following City of Berkeley planning documents and programs:

General Plan, specific plans, and area plans

• Strategic Transportation Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Bicycle Plan

• Street Rehabilitation Plan

• Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Capital Improvement Program

• Urban Forestry Management Program

Watershed Management Plan



Other plans and programs that may affect the future alignment, configuration, or design

of roadways, parking lots, buildings, and other facilities that may present the

opportunity for the installation of Green Infrastructure.

Evaluate Funding Sources

An evaluation of funding sources for potential future public green infrastructure projects will be

included in the Green Infrastructure Plan. Guidance provided by the Clean Water Program may

be used to develop an in-lieu fee for private development projects that are constrained from

fully meeting stormwater treatment measures onsite, as a potential funding source for future

public green infrastructure projects.

Training and Outreach

Staff will attend training sessions on green infrastructure planning, implementation, design, and

maintenance. Updates and opportunities for input on the preparation of the Green

Infrastructure Plan will be provided to the Berkeley City Council, Public Works Commission, and

other appropriate City of Berkeley commissions. Additional outreach to the general public and

development community will be conducted in coordination with the Clean Water Program.

Compile Green Infrastructure Plan

Documentation of the tasks described above will be compiled into the Green Infrastructure

Plan for review by the Berkeley City Council.

Adopt the Green Infrastructure Plan

An appropriate legal mechanism will be adopted to begin implementing the Green

Infrastructure Plan.

Submit Plan to the Water Board

The Plan, and applicable policies or other legal mechanisms for Plan implementation, will be

submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) with the City of

Berkeley’s 2019 Annual Report of Stormwater Program Implementation.

4. Timeframe for Plan Development

The schedule for conducting specific tasks is presented below. Adoption of the Green

Infrastructure Plan is scheduled for June 30, 2019. The Plan, and applicable policies or other

legal mechanism for Plan implementation, must be submitted to the Regional Water Board by

September 30, 2019.



Schedule of Specific Tasks

Task FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Identify Projects

Develop Tracking Procedures

Incorporate Guidelines

Update Planning Documents and Programs

Evaluate Funding Sources

Training and Outreach

Compile Plan

Adopt Plan

Submit Plan to Water Board

= Milestone

5. Staffing Assignments

Phillip Harrington, Director of Public Works will direct the preparation of the Green

Infrastructure Plan.

6. Budget

The City of Berkeley’s Clean Stormwater Program has an annual budget of $300,000.

Preparation of the Green Infrastructure Plan will be funded through the existing program

budget.

DRAFT RESOLUTION

ADOPT THE CITY OF BERKELEY’S FRAMEWORK FOR GREEN

INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN DEVELOPMENT

WHEREAS, in order to be in compliance with Provision C.3.j of the reissued Municipal

Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP2) adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water

Quality Control Board on November 19, 2015 (Order No. R2-2015-0049); the City of

Berkeley is required to prepare a Green Infrastructure Plan for the inclusion of low

impact development drainage design into appropriate projects on public and private lands

to address the adverse water quality impacts and pollutants from urban stormwater runoff

and urbanization, including the paving of roadways and parking lots; and

WHEREAS, the goal of low impact development drainage design is to reduce runoff;

minimize land disturbance; minimize pavement and other impervious cover; and remove

pollutants from stormwater runoff using methods that employ natural processes of

storage, detention, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and filtering of runoff through soil

media as described in Provision C.3.c of MRP2; and

WHEREAS, the said Green Infrastructure Plan shall meet the following milestones

specified in Provision C.3.j of MRP2:

1. Approval of a framework for the Green Infrastructure Plan by June 30, 2017.

2. Approval of the Green Infrastructure Plan by June 30, 2019.

3. Submittal to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board of said

Green Infrastructure Plan with the City of Berkeley’s Annual Stormwater Report

by September 30, 2019: and

WHEREAS, in order to be in compliance with the MRP2, a Framework for Green

Infrastructure Plan Development has been prepared and presented to applicable City of

Berkeley Commissions including Public Works, Planning, and Community

Environmental Advisory Commissions;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that

it hereby adopts the Framework for Green Infrastructure Plan Development to prepare

said Plan.

To: Public Works Commission (PWC)

From: Ray Yep, Chair of the Undergrounding sub-committee

Subject: Progress report

Date: April 6, 2017 This report is submitted to bring the commission up to date on activities related to utility undergrounding.

Program Phase Work Status Phase 1: Prepare Baseline Study This phase will develop baseline information for the undergrounding program.

Completed by Harris and Associates.

Phase 2: Conceptualize the Undergrounding Program Phase 2A (Goldman School of Public Policy) Study Area 1 – Future Technologies and Social/Geographic Equity This component will evaluate how PG&E, service providers, and street lighting may change in the next 50 years. This will help with forecasting the type of undergrounding methods to be used and the type of above ground poles that will remain. Also included shall be considerations for social/geographic equity for implementation. Study Area 2 – Benefit/Cost Analysis This component will evaluate the benefits and costs of an undergrounding program. Phase 2B (Public Works Department and Commissions) This phase will pull together the work done in Phase 1 and Phase 2A into a cohesive Concept Plan for Berkeley. A summary report shall be written for the City Council’s consideration. The schedule for Phase 2B is from June 2017 to March 2018.

Phase 2A We have selected De En Ni to conduct the future technologies and Daniel Bradway to conduct the benefit/cost analyses. Both of them are in the one year MPA program. We have been meeting with them approximately bi-weekly to review their progress. They plan to complete their studies in May. Phase 2B 1. A meeting with Comcast was held on March 30th

and a meeting with ATT and PG&E is scheduled for April 6th. Other meetings are being planned.

2. Visits with San Diego, Anaheim, Los Angeles, and Palo Alto are being planned for spring or summer.

3. We are planning to collect community input. 4. Will prepare a Conceptual Report by the end of

2017. 5. A progress report was on the City Council’s agenda

on March 28th. The Council approved completing Phase 2 and to report back to them. Their intent is to not authorize Phase 3 and 4 and to create a new project that will develop a year 2050 vision for infrastructure in Berkeley.

Phase 3: Comprehensive Funding and Implementation Plan City Council approval of the Concept Plan is needed before moving forward with this phase. This phase will prepare a detailed Comprehensive Funding and Implementation Plan.

Not authorized.

Phase 4: Program Implementation This phase will implement the recommended undergrounding program. This will be a long term effort.

Not authorized.

1

1

PavingSubcommittee-meetingnotesMeetingDate/Time: February28,2017,3:00pmMeetingLocation: ElmconferenceroomAttending:

Affiliation TeamMember Affiliation TeamMember

PublicWorksCommission(PWC) LarryHenry√ PublicWorksDepartment

TracyClay√MargoSchueler√ WendyWong√AndyKelly KyleSmith

Public RobertKrumme JohnHitchen

√Indicatespresentatmeeting

MeetingNotes1. SubcommitteeChairLarrycalledthemeetingtoorderat3:00pm.

2. Publiccomments:

• RobertKrummesuggestedthatweinvestinmoretoolsforstaff,thatwillenablebetterforecastingandcostingmodelsforstreetpavingalternatives.Healsosuggestedthatweusedesign/buildforcomplexPublicWorksprojects.Healsoofferedtomatchupto$500andmaybe$1500,forprizemoneyforinnovationinstreetpavingifthecitycreatedsuchaprize.HealsosuggestedthattheCityestablisha“sinking”fundforPWinfrastructuregenerallyandstreetsinparticular.

• RogerPritchardaskedwhythebinderforasphaltstreetsfailsonsomestreetsandnotothers.

CommissionerSchuelersuggested,thatitwasherprofessionalexperience,onecausemaybethattheasphaltmixwasover-heatedandthatpavingContractorspaycloseattentiontoheatingvariabilitywhendoingthepavingonourstreets.

• Therecommentsabouttheexistingsidewalkrepairpolicyandhowtobetterintegrateitintothe

pavingplan.

3. StaffpersonsTracyClayandWendyWongdisplayedaseriesofdocumentsthatweregoingtobe

sharedattheMarch2,2017PWCmeeting.a. Listofpavedstreetsthathadbeencompleted2014-2016

i. Therewasadiscussionabouthowtodisplayinformationofthepavedstreetshistory“plannedvsactuals”,sothatthePWCcouldbettercommenton‘future’5-yearStreetPavingPlanaspartofthePWC’sannualresponsibilityto“reviewandrecommend”toCouncil.

2

1)StaffpersonWongstatedthatfundsareverydifficulttodisentanglebystreet,asthecontractsaredoneinbatchwithmultiplestreetsinacontract.WendycommittedtoprovidingacomparisonbycontractCostandMilesPavedforyear2015(asthatisthemostrecentyearwithcompleteinformation)bythefollowing:

1. 20155-YearStreetPavingPlanestimate2. Engineer’sestimate3. Contractor’sBid4. FinalConstructioncost

ii. ChairpersonHenryaskedifthevariousformsofstreetpavingfunding(GeneralFund,

GasTax,MeasureB,BB,MandnowT1)couldbeidentifiedforeachstreetbyfundingsource.HerelayedCouncilpersonWengraf’sinterestinunderstandinghowtheMeasureMandMeasureT1areusedtopavewhichstreets.ItwasstatedbyMs.ClaythatsinceMeasureMandMeasureT1maybepossibletodisentanglethosefundingsourcesformtheotherfundingsourcesforstreetpavingprojects.

b.5YearStreetPavingPlan2018-2022

i.TherewasadiscussiononthosestreetsthatweredesignatedtobepavedusingtheT1bondmonies.ChairpersonHenrypresentedthe9-13-2016CouncilResolutionno.67,666-N.S.thatstatesT1bondfunds…”TheBondproceedsneedtobeusedforlonglastingcapitalprojectsandnotformaintenancework.Theprojectsshouldusedurable,sustainabletechnologies,sothatcapitalinvestmentslowerfuturemaintenancecosts”.

a. Itwaspointedoutthatofthe19streetsthataredesignatedasT1fundedandtreatedasfollows:7(37%)slurryseals,7(37%)Overlaysand5(26%)Reconstruct.

i. Itwasthusnotedthat74%(slurrysealsandoverlays)ofT1fundswerebeingusedfor“maintenancework”andnotasCouncilhaddesignatedintheaboveresolutionas“capitalprojects”

ii. TherewasadiscussiononhowtosubstituteotherplannedreconstructionprojectsasfortheT1maintenanceprojectsintheplan.

iii. CommissionerHenryaskedwhytherewerenodurable,sustainablestreetpavingprojectsintheplan.TheCouncilResolution,thatwaspassedpriortotheNovemberelectionwascraftedtohelpgaincitizensandcitizensgroupstosupportthepassageofMeasureT1.Ms.Claystatedthatdurable,sustainableprojectswere“expensive”.Commissioneraskedwhatwasthetimehorizonthatanalysiswasbasedupon.Ms.Claytoldusshedidaskconsultantstofindoutthecomparativecostsandcrossoverpointforasphaltvs.concrete,usingexisting30-yearStreetSaverdatabase.ItwasdiscussedthatsinceconcretestreetslikeOxfordStreetandMarinAvenueare50-60yearsoldthat,anyfindingsoutoftheComparativeCrossoveranalysisusing

3

StreetSaver,beextrapolatedtoatleastthelifespanofthoseofBerkeley’sexistingconcretestreetsifnotbeyond.

iv. CommissionerHenryspoketoaPavementConditionIndexbymatrixfortheCityaswholeandbyCouncilDistrict,thatthedevelopedandhadsubmittedtoMs.Clay.Shestatedthatitwasbeingworkedonbyaconsultant.

Belowisthatrequest:

To:TracyClay

From:LarryHenry

Topic:PavingPlan2018-2022

Tracy,canyouprovidethePWCsubcommitteeonPavingthefollowinganalytics,sothatthePWCPavingsubcommitteecanrecommend,tothefullPWCommission,apathforwardontheCouncilrequiredannualreviewandrecommendationontheFive-YearStreetPavingPlan.

• CanyouprovideandIDthefundingsourceforeachstreetthatisrecommendedinthe2018-2022StreetSavingPlan(i.e.,GeneralFund,GasTax,MeasureB,MeasureBB,MeasureMandMeasureT1

PavementConditionIndex(PCI)

CouncilDistrict

CurrentPCIMean

CurrentPCIMedian

ProposedPCIMean

ProposedPCIMedian

PCIMeanChangefrom2013

PCIMedianChangefrom2013

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

4

TotalsforBerkeley

b.

Themeetingwasadjournedat4:40pm.

Endofnotes.

1

City of Berkeley Paving Subcommittee

of the Public Works Commission

MEETING AGENDA

Subject: 2018-2022 Street Paving Plan Date: March 21, 2017 - 3:00-4:30 pm Location: 1947 Center Street, 4th Floor, Elm Room 1. Call to Order and Roll Call

2. Comments from the Public (3 minutes each speaker) 3. APPROVALOFMINUTES:TheminutesoftheRegularMeetingsofFebruary28,2017 4. Discuss/Action:

a. Review 2018-2022 street paving plan and analytics 5. Adjournment An agenda packet is available for public review at the Engineering Division front desk. ADA Disclaimer: This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346 (V) or 981-7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting. SB 343 Disclaimer: Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Public Works Department located at the address below. Communications Disclaimer: Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the Secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please the contact the Secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee for further information. Commission Secretary:

2

TracyJ.Clay,P.E.,SupervisingCivilEngineer,PublicWorksEngineeringDivision1947 Center Street, 4th Floor, Berkeley, CA, 94704, Telephone (510) 981-6406, Fax: (510) 981-6390 TDD: (510) 981-6903, Email: [email protected].

3

PavingSubcommittee-meetingnotesMeetingDate/Time: March21,2017,3:00pmMeetingLocation: ElmconferenceroomAttending:



TracyClay√MargoSchueler√ WendyWong√KyleSmith√

JohnHitchen√ Public



2. Publiccomments:Nopublicinattendance3. APPROVALOFMINUTES: The minutes of the 2-28-2017 were approved (attached below)

4. Discussion/Action:Reviewof5YearStreetPavingPlan2018-2022andanalytics

a. Workproposedisthesameas12/22/16memoforT1–GIandstreetsfromCityManager

o Storymapandmemoremainconsistento StaffunderstandsandconcurswithPWCrecommendationaboutcapitalspendingfor

longertermstreettreatments-overlaysandreconstructso CapitalprojectsinagreementwithCaliforniaUniformConstructionCostAccounting

Commission:CostAccountingPoliciesandProceduresManual,2015o DiscussiononlanguagearoundwhataretheattributesofCapitalprojects:“shallbe

durableandsustainablelonglastingandreducefuturemaintenancecosts”wasintheCouncilResolutionpassedon9-13-2016insupportoftheT1Bondmeasure.ThislanguagewasakeyconsiderationingainingsupportoftheSierraClubandSFChronicleeditorialsupportpriortothe2016Novemberelection.

o PWCPavingsubcommitteereiteratesthatT1moneyshouldonlybespentonlongtermprojects

b. Reviewedseveralhandoutsandplan(seephotoattachments)

4

c. PWCrequestsinformationfor:i. Markuptreatmentsonthecitymap–seal,overlay,reconstructii. Presentfundingsourcesforpavingprojects,identifyoverlapwithT1(Timothy

BurroughspresentmultiplefundingsourcesforT1)iii. Maintaincapitalsourcesdistinctivenessin5-yearpavingplanbyidentifying(General

Fund,Gastax,MeasureBandBB((AlamedaCounty¼%salestax)),MeasureMandMeasureT1)forcapitalprojects

iv. Kylesuggestedstaffidentifyhowemergencyroutesoverlayoncollector/arterial/truckroutemaps

d. DiscussionofvarietyofmethodsandmaterialstosealACstreets–cape,slurrye. ReminderthatMwasnotstreetsonlyballotmeasure-itwasa“StreetsandGreen

Infrastructure(GI)Measure”i. GIfromMfundsplanned–2017Shattuckbuspads,2018Woolseycistern,some

Bioswales–which??f. “Completestreets”asatermisnotconsistentlydefinedacrossPWdepartments.TheCouncil

passedTransportationCommissiondefinitionrefersto“modeoftransportation”(i.e.,pedestrian,bike,busorvehicle)notthe“typeofstreetandsidewalkrehabilitationtreatment”.

g. TracystatedthattheyhadsomeNCEdataovera30-yearperiodwhichdemonstratesthatasphaltandconcretestreetpavingcostareaboutthesame.TherewasadiscussionofthelimitationofonlyusingtheStreetSaverdatabasethathasonly30yearsofdata.NumerousconcretestreetsinBerkeley(e.g.Marin,Ave,OxfordStandRoseSt.)areover50yearsold.Needtofindafactor(e.g.,30yrsRSL/50YRsRSLor1.6)toenhancetheNCE30yearStreetSaverdatatogetanaccurateRemainingServiceLife(RSL)toarriveatarealisticcostbenefitofasphaltvsconcrete.

Recommendations:

1. PavingsubcommitteerequestsPWStafftomoveforward,tomakethisaplanthePavingsubcommitteecanrecommendtothefullPWCwesupportbythefollowing

2. TakeallSlurrySealsoutofcapitalprojectsincludingMeasureT1streetexpenditures

3. Clearyidentify“MeasureM”GIprojectsaffiliatedwithMeasureMstreetwork

4. Listsourcesofpavingfundingappliedtoprojects

5. Describe“comprehensiveroadwayimprovements”ratherthanuse“completestreets”asthecityisusingtheterm.

6. Providethecost,bothfuturecapitalscostsandmaintenancecosts,ofretainingthe“Very

Good/Good”designationforthosestreetscurrentlyatthatlevel,overa40-yeartimehorizonfortheCityandbytheeightCouncildistricts.

5

5. Meetingwasadjournedat4:45PMAttachments:PhotoattachmentsofPWstaffhandouts:

11

PavingSubcommittee-meetingnotesMeetingDate/Time: February28,2017,3:00pmMeetingLocation: ElmconferenceroomAttending:



TracyClay√MargoSchueler√ WendyWong√AndyKelly KyleSmith

Public RobertKrumme JohnHitchen RogerPritchard



7. Publiccomments:

• RobertKrummesuggestedthatweinvestinmoretoolsforstaff,thatwillenablebetterforecastingandcostingmodelsforstreetpavingalternatives.Healsosuggestedthatweusedesign/buildforcomplexPublicWorksprojects.Healsoofferedtomatchupto$500andmaybe$1500,forprizemoneyforinnovationinstreetpavingifthecitycreatedsuchaprize.HealsosuggestedthattheCityestablisha“sinking”fundforPWinfrastructure.

• RogerPritchardaskedwhythebinderforasphaltstreetsfailsonsomestreetsandnotothers.CommissionerSchuelersuggested,thatitwasherprofessionalexperience,thattheasphaltmixwasover-heatedandthatpavingContractorspaycloseattentiontoheatingvariabilitywhendoingthepavingonourstreets.

• Therecommentsabouttheexistingsidewalkrepairpolicyandhowtobetterintegrateitintothe

pavingplan.

8. StaffpersonsTracyClayandWendyWongdisplayedaseriesofdocumentsthatweregoingtobe

sharedattheMarch2,2017PWCmeeting.a. Listofpavedstreetsthathadbeencompleted2014-2016

i. Therewasadiscussionabouthowtodisplayinformationofthepavedstreetshistory“plannedvsactuals”,sothatthePWCcouldbettercommenton‘future’5-yearStreetPavingPlanaspartofthePWC’sannualresponsibilityto“reviewandrecommend”toCouncil.

12

1)StaffpersonWongstatedthatfundsareverydifficulttodisentanglebystreet,asthecontractsaredoneinbatchwithmultiplestreetsinacontract.WendycommittedtoprovidingacomparisonbycontractCostandMilesPavedforyear2015(asthatisthemostrecentyearwithcompleteinformation)bythefollowing:

1. 20155-YearStreetPavingPlanestimate2. Engineer’sestimate3. Contractor’sBid4. FinalConstructioncost

ii. ChairpersonHenryaskedifthevariousformsofstreetpavingfunding(GeneralFund,

GasTax,MeasureB,BB,MandnowT1)couldbeidentifiedforeachstreetbyfundingsource.HerelayedCouncilpersonWengraf’sinterestinunderstandinghowtheMeasureMandMeasureT1areusedtopavewhichstreets.ItwasstatedbyMSClaythatsinceMeasureMandMeasureT1maybepossibletodisentanglethosefundingsourcesformtheotherfundingsourcesforstreetpavingprojects.

b.5YearStreetPavingPlan2018-2022

i.TherewasadiscussiononthosestreetsthatweredesignatedtobepavedusingtheT1bondmonies.ChairpersonHenrypresentedthe9-13-2016CouncilResolutionno.67,666-N.S.thatstatesT1bondfunds…”TheBondproceedsneedtobeusedforlonglastingcapitalprojectsandnotformaintenancework.Theprojectsshouldusedurable,sustainabletechnologies,sothatcapitalinvestmentslowerfuturemaintenancecosts”.

a. Itwaspointedoutthatofthe19streetsthataredesignatedasT1fundedandtreatedasfollows:7(37%)slurryseals,7(37%)Overlaysand5(26%)Reconstruct.

i. Itwasthusnotedthat74%(slurrysealsandoverlays)ofT1fundswerebeingusedfor“maintenancework”andnotasCouncilhaddesignatedintheaboveresolutionas“capitalprojects”

ii. TherewasadiscussiononhowtosubstituteotherplannedreconstructionprojectsasfortheT1maintenanceprojectsintheplan.

iii. CommissionerHenryaskedwhytherewerenodurable,sustainablestreetpavingprojectsintheplan.TheCouncilResolution,thatwaspassedpriortotheNovemberelectionwascraftedtohelpgaincitizensandcitizensgroupstosupportthepassageofMeasureT1.MSClaystatedthatdurable,sustainableprojectswere“toexpensive”.Commissioneraskedwhatwasthetimehorizonthatanalysiswasbasedupon.Ms.Claytoldusshedidaskconsultantstofindoutthecomparativecostsandcrossoverpointforasphaltvs.concrete,usingexisting30-yearStreetSaverdatabase.ItwasdiscussedthatsinceconcretestreetslikeOxfordStreetandMarinAvenueare50-60yearsoldthat,anyfindingsoutoftheComparativeCrossoveranalysisusing

13

StreetSaver,beextrapolatedtoatleastthelifespanofthoseofBerkeley’sexistingconcretestreetsifnotbeyond.

iv. CommissionerHenryspoketoaPavementConditionIndexbymatrixfortheCityaswholeandbyCouncilDistrict,thatthedevelopedandhadsubmittedtoMSClay.Shestatedthatitwasbeingworkedonbyaconsultant.

Belowisthatrequest:

To:TracyClay

From:LarryHenry

Topic:PavingPlan2018-2022

Tracy,canyouprovidethePWCsubcommitteeonPavingthefollowinganalytics,sothatthePWCPavingsubcommitteecanrecommend,tothefullPWCommission,apathforwardontheCouncilrequiredannualreviewandrecommendationontheFive-YearStreetPavingPlan.

• CanyouprovideandIDthefundingsourceforeachstreetthatisrecommendedinthe2018-2022StreetSavingPlan(i.e.,GeneralFund,GasTax,MeasureB,MeasureBB,MeasureMandMeasureT1

PavementConditionIndex(PCI)

CouncilDistrict

CurrentPCIMean

CurrentPCIMedian

ProposedPCIMean

ProposedPCIMedian

PCIMeanChangefrom2013

PCIMedianChangefrom2013

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

14

TotalsforBerkeley

b.

Themeetingwasadjournedat4:40pm.

Endofnotes.

1

PWC Watershed sub-committee – Meeting Notes Meeting Date/Time: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:00-4:30 pm Meeting Location: City of Berkeley Public Works Elm Room

1947 Center Street, 4th Floor, Berkeley, CA

Affiliation Team Member Affiliation Team Member

Public Works Commission (PWC) Margo Schueler √ Public Works Department

Tracy Clay √

Ray Yep √ Danny Akagi √

Matt Freiberg √ Mitch Buttress √

John Hitchen √

Public none

√ Indicates present at meeting

Notes: 1. Subcommittee Chair Margo Schueler called the meeting to order at 3:03 pm. 2. Public comments: none 3. Staff update on the MRP Green Infrastructure Plan requirements:

A. Draft Framework for Green Infrastructure Plan Development (Framework), Staff provided the 4 page Framework dated 3/31/2017, attached, to be submitted by staff to Council in June.

a. Tracy reported that staff has seen the sampling results from the SF Estuary Institute on contaminant runoff from Berkeley. She noted there is one sample with high levels of PCBs and Mercury from the Gilman storm drain into the Bay.

B. Framework list of tasks to be included in the Plan to be developed over the next 2 years. John and Margo asked about the Watershed Plan Tracy described the GI Plan Implementation Framework and the future GI Plan as compliance documents, required of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) and addressing primarily water quality, the Stormwater Management Plan addresses primarily water quantity, and the Watershed Management Plan is an aspirational document that addresses what the City would do if there were available funds. Over the next two years staff will be developing the GI Plan to meet compliance requirements. The Watershed Management Plan (WMP) will be addressed after the compliance issues are addressed in the GI Plan. Margo tried to map the Plans, goals, and relationships John asked for a flow chart of how these interrelate

C. Funding needed for projects will be addressed following adoption of the Framework, consultant resources will focus on developing a funding strategy including applying for DWR grants and developing a 218 public process to request a fee increase for the Clean Stormwater Program.

D. Additional contamination study needed. a. Tracy noted that without further study we will not be able to determine the success of

private GI installed with development projects and water quality in the old industrial areas. Permit conditions require citywide pollutant reductions based on population.

b. Danny noted that the City has an inventory of about 10 properties with historic PCB issues based on land use under investigation. Work is being done in unpaved lots in W.Berkeley to identify sources based on historic land use.

E. Questions raised: Plan interrelationships? How do we identify where GI projects are appropriate, effective? How do we use hydrologic information? Why are bioswales the City’s preferred GI?

2

F. Items to discuss with the full PWC: Ray noted that the Framework is required, now it is done, now focus on updating of the WMP. Recommendation was made to take the Framework to the 4/6 PWC. Discussion followed of whether the PWC needed to recommend anything to Council about the Framework and it was determined no recommendation was needed, staff wanted to document that they had reviewed the document with us and we had been kept informed of the process thru our 3 subcommittee meetings in Nov 2016, Feb 2017, and March 2017. The subcommittee discussed recommending PWC approval of the proposed T1 GI projects but decided that this should be addressed by the T1 subcommittee for PWC recommendations. The subcommittee recommends that the PWC recommend using T1 funds to update the Watershed Management Plan.

4. The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 pm.