TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA (Revised) June 15, 2017

Transcription

1 North Berkeley Senior Center TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA (Revised) June 15, 2017 Public Works Transportation Division 1947 Center Street, 4 th Floor, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: Thursday MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM June 15, Hearst Ave. (at MLK) 7:00 PM Berkeley, CA A. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS 1. Call to Order; Introductions 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comment on items not on the Agenda 4. Approval of Draft Action Minutes of May 18, 2017** 5. Approval and Order of Agenda 6. Update on Administration/Staff 7. Announcements B. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS * Written material included in packet ** Written material to be delivered at meeting *** Written material previously mailed The public may speak at the beginning of any item. 1. Election of Officer- Reappoint Vice-Chair Mark Humbert Chair Thomas 2. Hopkins/The Alameda Safe Routes to School Project Update on the protected intersection pilot; No action. Staff (Javandel) 3. Council Referral: Grant Street Permit Only Parking (Ohlone Dog Park) (Carried over from May 18) See Information Item # 4 for Council-ranked Transportation projects) Update; No action. Staff (Javandel) 4. Commission Work Plan for Fiscal Year- Council Report* Discussion: Reporting requirements for Council Action: Revise and adopt TC Work Plan for Council Report Staff (Javandel) and Commissioner Thomas 5. Ashby/Hwy 13 Corridor Projects ( 4 th Bore Mitigations) Status update; No action Staff (Javandel) 6. Traffic Calming Program/Projects Update** Verbal Report; No action Staff (Javandel) 7. Sidewalk Maintenance Program Policies (Carried Over from April 20; referred to Commission on Disability and Public Works Commission) Update; possible action. Staff (Javandel) 8. Subcommittee Appointments* Chair Thomas

2 Transportation Commission Agenda Thursday, June 15, 2017 C. INFORMATION ITEMS AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Information items can be moved to Discussion or Action by majority vote of the TC. 1. Subcommittee Reports (Verbal reports from Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittees, and Liaisons to PWC, COD, and goberkeley Advisory Group) 2. Council Summary Actions 2017* 3. Link to Council and Agenda Committee Agendas and Minutes 4. Council Ranked (PW-Transportation) Referrals 2017 Update* D. COMMUNICATIONS Received at May 18 meeting 1. April 20 Draft Minutes 2. May 16 Public Works Commission Sidewalks Subcommittee Meeting Agenda 3. from Claire Schoen re 1800 block Grant Street 4. from Bernard Marszalek re 1800 Block Grant Street Parking Restrictions Petition, letter, photos 5. April 21, 2017 Memo to PWC and COD referral of TC Sidewalk Repair Program 6. May 18 Slideshow with video links : King Safe Routes to School: Hopkins/The Alameda E. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Ashby/Hwy 13 Corridor Projects (qtrly) I-80 Gilman Interchange Project - Sept Council Referral: Grant Street Resident Permit-only Parking F. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 P.M. Agenda Posted: June 9, 2017 A complete agenda packet is available for public review at the Main Branch Library and at the Transportation 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 (V) or (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting. Communications Disclaimer Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City s electronic records, which are accessible through the City s website. Please note: 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 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 contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information. Commission Secretary: Farid Javandel, Transportation Division Manager, 1947 Center St., 4th Floor, Berkeley, CA, 94704, Telephone (510) , Fax: (510) TDD: (510) Fjavandel@ci.berkeley.ca.us 2

3 B-1 City Clerk Department March 3, 2017 To: From: Commission Secretaries Mark Numainville, City Clerk Subject: Commission Work Plans Council Item from 2016 This is a reminder regarding the requirement for annual commission work plans. In 2016 the City Council approved an item that directs Berkeley Commissions, with the exception of the Board of Library Trustees, the Zoning Adjustments Board, and the Design Review Committee, to submit a workplan to the City Council at the beginning of each fiscal year. Some commissions currently produce a workplan on a regular or semi-regular basis. This is a best practice that aligns with the direction given in the Commissioners Manual. For more information, please see the attached agenda item and the relevant excerpt from Chapter V. Section A. of the Manual. Please agendize this topic for discussion by the commission and inform the members that they must take all steps needed to meet this direction. As stated in the Commissioners Manual, it is the responsibility of the commission members, not staff, to draft the content of reports to Council. This responsibility includes drafting the content of the work plan. This task cannot be delegated to the commission secretary or other city staff. Please contact me directly if you have any questions. Enc. cc: Department Heads

4 Att 1 Lori Droste, District 8 Susan Wengraf, District 6 CONSENT CALENDAR July 19, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Councilmembers Lori Droste, Susan Wengraf, Linda Maio, and Kriss Worthington Commission Work Plans RECOMMENDATION Commissions with the exception of the Board of Library Trustees, Design Review Committee, and the Zoning Adjustments Board will submit a work plan detailing its goals and objectives for the year. Plans will be submitted at the start of the fiscal year, annually. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Although additional staff time will be needed to assist commissions in drafting work plans, staff time will be reduced overall if misaligned commission referrals are reduced. In addition, if boards and commissions do not direct city staff to perform research, gather information, or otherwise engage in activities involving projects or matters that are not aligned with the City s Strategic Plan, staff will be able to make more efficient use of their time. BACKGROUND The City of Berkeley is in the process of introducing its first strategic plan. To ensure that Berkeley s commissions are in alignment with the overall mission of the City, commissions should submit annual work plans. Each work plan should contain the following information: 1. Commission mission statement 2. What are the commission s goals? In order to achieve these objectives, please specify: a. Resources i. What specific resources are needed and available to achieve desired change? (i.e. staff time, $, time, materials, equipment) b. Program activities i. What will the commission do with its resources? ii. Processes, tools, events, technology, actions that are employed to bring about the intended objectives Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA TDD: (510) ldroste@cityofberkeley.info or mailto:swengraff@cityofberkeley.info

5 Commission Work Plans CONSENT CALENDAR July 19, 2016 c. Output(s) i. What will be the direct results of commission activities? ii. How much will be done? (i.e. Number of forums/meetings held, # of participants reached, etc.) d. Outcomes i. The specific changes desired/achieved in the short-term (1-3 years) and long-term (4-6 years) Outcomes should be measurable, action-oriented, and realistic (W. K Kellogg Foundation, 2004). ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Not applicable CONTACT PERSON Lori Droste, City Councilmember District 8, Susan Wengraf, City Councilmember District 6, Attachments: 1: Logic Model Summary (W.K. Kellogg Foundation) Page 2

6 Attachment 1 Logic Model Summary A logic model brings program concepts and dreams to life. It lets stakeholders try an idea on for size and apply theories to a model or picture of how the program would function. The program logic model is defined as a picture of how your organization does its work the theory and assumptions underlying the program. A program logic model links outcomes (both short- and long-term) with program activities/processes and the theoretical assumptions/principles of the program. The Basic Logic Model components shown above are defined below. These components illustrate the connection between your planned work and your intended results. They are depicted numerically by steps 1 through 5. YOUR PLANNED WORK describes what resources you think you need to implement your program and what you intend to do.

7 Commission Work Plans CONSENT CALENDAR July 19, Resources include the human, financial, organizational, and community resources a program has available to direct toward doing the work. Sometimes this component is referred to as Inputs. 2. Program Activities are what the program does with the resources. Activities are the processes, tools, events, technology, and actions that are an intentional part of the program implementation. These interventions are used to bring about the intended program changes or results. YOUR INTENDED RESULTS include all of the program s desired results (outputs, outcomes, and impact). 3. Outputs are the direct products of program activities and may include types, levels and targets of services to be delivered by the program. 4. Outcomes are the specific changes in program participants behavior, knowledge, skills, status and level of functioning. Short-term outcomes should be attainable within 1 to 3 years, while longer-term outcomes should be achievable within a 4 to 6 year timeframe. The logical progression from short-term to long-term outcomes should be reflected in impact occurring within about 7 to 10 years. 5. Impact is the fundamental intended or unintended change occurring in organizations, communities or systems as a result of program activities within 7 to 10 years. In the current model of WKKF (W.K. Kellogg Foundation) grantmaking and evaluation, impact often occurs after the conclusion of project funding. Compiled from: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide. (2004) Page 4

8 A. Work Program Att 2 A. WORK PROGRAM CHAPTER V. COMMISSION PROCEDURES 1) Development of a Work Program Many commissions find it effective to establish a yearly work program or statement of goals. A work program is a planning document that specifies how and when the objectives (outcomes) which the commission expects to accomplish during the fiscal year will be achieved. Goal statements explain the nature and scope of the work to be performed and the time needed to accomplish the goal. The nature of the duties of specific commissions may determine which method is most suitable. Designing yearly work programs or goal statements may be done in conjunction with the development of the relevant departmental work plan so that the department and commission's work will complement each other throughout the year. When developing a workplan Commissions should take special care to ensure that they remain within their subject area purview and the constraints of their enabling legislation. B. MEETING PROCEDURES 1) Establishment of Meeting Rules Each commission may establish additional rules and limit debate. It is the responsibility of the chairperson to control the debate among commissioners so that everyone has a chance to speak before others speak for a second time, and to expedite the business at hand. To this end, commissions may establish rules to limit debate. 2) Processing of Motions When a motion is made and seconded, it should be stated by the maker of the motion and read by the Chair prior to debate. If the motion is adopted, the maker's written version of the motion, if any, should be given to the secretary for reference in preparation of Council reports and/or the minutes. A motion may not be withdrawn by the mover without the consent of the member seconding it. After discussion has ended and immediately prior to the vote, the secretary clearly states the full motion (with any amendments). If a roll call vote is used, the secretary then calls the roll (always calling the names in the same order). After all commissioners have voted, the secretary announces the vote totals and whether or not the motion passes. Commissioners' Manual 49 Chapter V. Commission Procedures

9 Transportation Commission Subcommittees and Liaisons B8 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION- Ad Hoc Subcommittee Assignments Subcom Members* Staff Contact Date/Location Due TC Work Plan Bicycle Gerhardstein (Eric April 2017 Humbert Anderson) ** Parolek Pedestrian Project Delivery Public Works Commission goberkeley Advisory Group Commission on Disability Ghosh Thomas Bruzzone Gerhardstein Ghosh Lathbury LIAISONS Bruzzone Gerhardstein (alt) Ghosh Bruzzone (alt) Humbert (Eric Anderson) ** As required by TC. Ad Hoc Subcommittees do not have regular meeting schedules As required by TC. Ad Hoc Subcommittees do not have regular meeting schedules April 2017 Review Bike Plan Projects and Complete streets implementation; Represent TC actions/recommendations at Council Sidewalk Maintenance Policies Meeting 2/23 N/A April 2017 Edit report per TC discussion at 3/16 Meeting Attend PWC meetings relating to assignment Attend goberkeley Advisory Group mtgs Attend COD meetings as needed Report to TC re Undergrounding Utility wires; Meas. M Updates Report to TC re Value-Priced Parking Program Report to TC on issues of common concern There are no Standing Subcommittees. There must be at least two commissioners present to hold a subcommittee meeting, but never a quorum of the total TC membership Ad Hoc Subcommittees must be reviewed annually by the commission to determine if a subcommittee is needed, specify work assignments, and clarify response times. (Reso. 60,504-N.S.) Subcommittees do not have officers or submit minutes, but may submit written summary meeting notes for inclusion in the TC Agenda Packet under Information or as Communications. may submit their recommendations to support an Action or Discussion item with written or verbal reports. The Commission Secretary needs to receive written material 10 days before the meeting date for inclusion in the Agenda Packet.n *Subcommittee member(s) prepares agenda based on TC adopted Work Plan or specific assignment. **Staff maintains subscription lists, publishes and (e)mails agendas, reserves meeting room, and routes communications between public and Commissioners, Commissioners and staff; Staff attendance is optional. Updated March 16, 2017

10 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 June 13, FY 2018 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Fund Allocation From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Authorizing the City Manager to: submit an allocation request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) prior to the June 27, 2017 deadline for $250,000 of FY 2018 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds for the Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan Update; accept the funds; execute any resultant agreements and amendments; and authorize the implementation of the project, subject to securing the funds; and 2. Declaring that: the City of Berkeley is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section of the Public Utilities Code; there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Berkeley to carry out the project; the project has been reviewed by the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) of the City of Berkeley; the City of Berkeley attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case may be, of Alameda County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, C2 May 30, Regular 28. Expedite the Construction of Beacon Lights at Dwight Way and California Street to Take Place on the Onset of Phase 1 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan From: Councilmembers Bartlett and Harrison Recommendation: Refer to the Transportation Department to expedite the construction of Beacon Lights at Dwight Way and California Street as part of Phase 1 of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan. Financial Implications: To be determined Contact: Ben Bartlett, Councilmember, District 3, Action: Councilmember Davila added as a co-sponsor. Approved recommendation revised to be a budget referral. 32. Budget Referral: Evaluation and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Features at Oxford Street and Kittredge Street From: Councilmember Harrison Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to assess, identify, fund, and implement improvements to pedestrian safety for the crosswalk across Oxford St. at Kittredge St. Our office requests that the Department evaluate the installation of pedestrian activated beacons, such as those at Oxford and Addison, or a similarly effective improvement for the Oxford and Kittredge intersection. Financial Implications: To be determined

11 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, Action: Approved recommendation. 53. Eliminate the Required Affidavits of Residency for Commissioners Revised materials From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: Eliminate the requirement for Commissioners to submit Affidavits of Residency when they are appointed, and annually thereafter, in pursuit of saving time and money for the City of Berkeley. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, Action: Moved to Consent Calendar. Approved revised recommendation from Supplemental Reports Packet #2 as written below. That the City of Berkeley amend the Affidavit of Residency form by combining it with the appointment form into one document, and allowing applicants to submit the document electronically instead of in person. In addition, establish a six month residency reminder notification from the City Clerk. May 30, Special City Council Referral Prioritization Process Using Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV) Presentation From: City Manager Recommendation: 1. Review the completed Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV) rankings for all outstanding City Council referrals; 2. Approve the removal of referrals that have been marked as rescinded by the sponsoring Councilmember or District; 3. Adopt a Resolution approving the list of prioritized referrals to city staff. Financial Implications: None Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, Action: M/S/C (Maio/Wengraf) to remove the referrals marked for removal except # (Fourth Street) and to adopt Resolution No. 67,991 to approve the referral list with the amendment to swap items 15 and 16 on the list. Vote: Ayes Maio, Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Worthington, Arreguin; Noes Droste. May 16, Install 4-Way Stop at Gilman Street and Peralta Avenue From: Councilmember Maio Recommendation: Request to the City Manager to install a 4-way Stop at Gilman Street and Peralta Avenue. Financial Implications: Minor Page 2 of 14

12 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 Contact: Linda Maio, Councilmember, District 1, Action: Councilmember Davila added as a co-sponsor. Approved recommendation revised to be a budget referral. 34. Referral to the Budget Process: Increased Funding for Neighborhood Traffic Calming From: Councilmembers Wengraf, Hahn, and Droste Recommendation: Refer to the Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Budget Process an increase in allocation for neighborhood traffic calming from the current 50 thousand dollars to 100 thousand dollars per year. Financial Implications: $50,000 Contact: Susan Wengraf, Councilmember, District 6, Action: Councilmember Harrison added as a co-sponsor. Approved recommendation. 35. Referral to the Budget Process: Funding for Street Lighting From: Councilmembers Wengraf, Hahn, and Droste Recommendation: Refer to the Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Budget Process an allocation of $50,000 for neighborhood street lighting. Financial Implications: $50,000 Contact: Susan Wengraf, Councilmember, District 6, Action: Councilmember Harrison added as a co-sponsor. Approved recommendation. 38..Protected Pedestrian Walkways From: Councilmembers Droste, Wengraf, Maio, and Hahn Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager and request that the Transportation Commission review and craft potential policy solutions including but not limited to open or covered protected walkways to improve pedestrian accessibility immediately surrounding construction or sidewalk upgrades. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8, Action: Approved recommendation. 39. Budget Referral: Hawk Light at Claremont Boulevard and Russell Street From: Councilmember Droste Recommendation: Refer to the budget process a one-time allocation for a hawk light at Claremont Boulevard and Russell Street. Financial Implications: $50,000 Contact: Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8, Action: Councilmember Wengraf added as a co-sponsor. Approved recommendation. Page 3 of 14

13 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions Prioritizing Pedestrians at Intersections From: Councilmembers Droste, Wengraf, and Bartlett Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager and the Transportation Commission the development of policies to improve the pedestrian crossing experience and reduce pedestrian wait times at intersections with beg buttons, potentially by activating pedestrian crossing signaling with every cycle (as opposed to the current situation, which only activates crossing signals when a button is pushed). Consider the development of a pedestrian-driven intersection improvement process to address signaling and timing inadequacies. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8, Action: Approved recommendation. 58. Amend BMC Sections , 040, and 050 Related to Commission Procedures (Continued from May 2, 2017) From: Human Welfare and Community Action Commission Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution requesting that the City Manager examine the addition of language to the Berkeley Municipal Code that clarifies aspects of the management of City of Berkeley commissions and the removal and appointment of commissioners. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Wing Wong, Commission Secretary, Action: Item held over to June 13, Communications: BART Policy on Immigrant Riders 6. Transportation Commission May 2, Updated Commissioners' Manual From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 65,570-N.S. and adopting the updated edition of the Commissioners Manual to include new legislative regulations, clarify current procedures, and increase organization and efficiency. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, Action: Item referred to the City Manager for revision and to be resubmitted to Council in June Contract: Raimi+Associates for Professional Planning Services for the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan From: City Manager Page 4 of 14

14 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Raimi + Associates to perform professional planning services for the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan for an amount not to exceed $340,000 for the period from May 15, 2017 to December 31, Financial Implications: See report Contact: Carol Johnson, Planning and Development, Action: Adopted Resolution No. 67,934 N.S. April 25, Contract: ERA Construction for Le Conte Safe Routes to School Project From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for the Le Conte Safe Routes to Schools Project, Specification No C; and authorizing execution of a contract with ERA Construction and any amendments, extensions or change orders until completion of the project in accordance with approved plans and specifications, in an amount not to exceed $449,298. Financial Implications: MTC Fund - $449,298 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Item held over to May 2, Amending BMC Sections and : Modifying Revolving Door Restrictions From: Mayor Arreguin and Councilmember Harrison Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Sections and of the Berkeley Municipal Code. This amendment would extend the time requirement between the termination of City office or employment and lobbying from 12 months to 3 years, and ending service on a commission and lobbying from 12 months to 2 years. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, Action: Moved to Action Calendar. Item referred to the Agenda Committee for scheduling. 63. Interstate-80/Gilman Interchange Improvement Project - Update From: City Manager Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Received and filed. April 4, 2017 Page 5 of 14

15 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions Additional Grant Funds for Hearst Avenue Complete Streets Project From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept grant funds of $316,000 from the Alameda County Transportation Commission and $100,000 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to support completion of the Hearst Avenue Complete Streets Project, and to execute a grant agreement with Alameda County Transportation Commission. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Adopted Resolution No. 67,893 N.S. 16. Creation and Adoption of a Transit Streets Cooperative Agreement with the Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District From: Councilmembers Hahn and Worthington Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager the Creation and Adoption of a Transit Streets Cooperative Agreement with the Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, Action: Councilmember Davila added as a co-sponsor. Approved recommendation. 18. City Manager Referral; Expansion of the GoBerkeley Transportation Program by Installing Streetline Hybrid Smart Parking From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: City Manager Referral; Expansion of the GoBerkeley Transportation Program to include the installment of Streetline Hybrid Smart Parking. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, Action: Councilmembers Davila and Hahn added as co-sponsors. Approved recommendation as revised in Supplemental Reports Packet #1 to add that the consideration of Streetline Hybrid Parking is on a non-exclusive basis. 19. City Manager Referral; Expansion of the GoBerkeley Transportation Program to Increase Parking Efficiency From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: City Manager Referral; Expansion of the GoBerkeley Transportation Program to allow private parking vendors to charge adjustable rates for parking spaces Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, Action: Approved recommendation. 24. Traffic Engineer Regulations for Objects on Sidewalks (Continued from March 14, 2017) From: City Manager Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Item referred to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Homelessness. March 28, Contract: Ray s Electric for Ashby/Claremont and Ashby/Hillegass Intersections Improvements Project Page 6 of 14

16 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for the Ashby/Claremont and Ashby/Hillegass Intersections Improvements Project, Specification No C; accepting the bid of Ray s Electric Company as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $687,978. Financial Implications: Various Funds - $687,978 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Adopted Resolution No. 67,882 N.S. 30. Progress Report for the Development of a Comprehensive Plan for the Funding of Undergrounding Utility Wires in Berkeley (Continued from February 28, 2017) From: Public Works Commission; Disaster and Fire Safety Commission; Transportation Commission Recommendation: 1. Approve the following work item: a. An updated work plan to develop a comprehensive plan (the Undergrounding Plan ) for the funding of undergrounding utility wires in Berkeley. 2. Accept the following informational items: a. A baseline study for the development of an undergrounding program, prepared by Harris and Associates, dated July 22, b. An application to U.C. Berkeley s Goldman School of Public Policy to conduct Phase 2 studies for the development of an undergrounding program. c. Hold a workshop with service providers, such as PG&E, AT&T, Comcast, in early 2017 to get their input on the development of an undergrounding program. Financial Implications: None Contact: Tracy Clay, Commission Secretary, ; David Brannigan, Commission Secretary, ; Farid Javandel, Commission Secretary, Action: 0 speakers. M/S/C (Harrison/Maio) to approve the commission recommendation amended to place the program on hold after the completion of Phase II. Vote: All Ayes. March 14, Contract: Redgwick Construction for Tunnel Road Access Improvements and Ashby/Telegraph Intersection Improvements Project From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for the Tunnel Road Access Improvements and Ashby/Telegraph Intersection Improvements Project; accepting the bid of Redgwick Construction Company as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $951,649. Financial Implications: CalTrans Fund - $951,649 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Page 7 of 14

17 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 67,859 N.S. 24. Referral to Consider Caregiver Parking in Residential Shared Parking Pilot From: Councilmembers Droste, Maio, Wengraf Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager and Transportation Commission to consider a pilot program for caregiver parking permits in RPP zones in the goberkeley Residential Shared Parking Pilot. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8, Action: Approved recommendation. 35a. Recommendations to Promote Sidewalk Safety for People with Disabilities in Berkeley From: Commission on Disability Recommendation: 1. Increase the public signage in Berkeley instructing bicyclists that a) riding on sidewalks; b) using curb cuts to access sidewalks; and c) riding in crosswalks is illegal (per BMC section ). Recommend that new signs include reference to a fine that will be enacted should they break that rule. (We would like to recommend that optional attendance at a bike safety class conducted by a local bike agency could waive the monetary fine.) These signs should be posted on blocks with high pedestrian traffic, including blocks with commercial business and also specifically at the site of any new city bike-share stations. No bikes stencils should be considered for all curb cuts to educate cyclists not to use those to access sidewalks. 2. Add signage to existing stop signs at certain dangerous intersections instructing bicyclists that all bikes must stop. 3. Work with stakeholders such as bicycle merchants, UC Berkeley, and any bicycle rental or bike-share programs to develop: a) posters about sidewalk safety that can be hung in their establishments; b) FAQs or instructional brochures given to all new bike owners outlining rights and illegal behavior; and c) forms for bike renters to sign indicating that they have read the City of Berkeley rules, understand what is legal and illegal in terms of bicycle behavior, and agree to comply. 4. Review current legislation to investigate whether new legislation should be enacted to further protect pedestrians. 5. Work with Berkeley law enforcement to ensure that pedestrian safety laws (such as BMC section ) are enforced and that ticketing of individuals who endanger pedestrian safety are prioritized. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kenneth Emeziem, Commission Secretary, b Companion Report: Recommendations to Promote Sidewalk Safety for People with Disabilities in Berkeley From: City Manager Recommendation: The City Manager concurs with the intent of the Commission on Disability report entitled Recommendations to Promote Sidewalk Safety for People with Disabilities in Berkeley, that the City should continue to improve sidewalk safety and accessibility. The City Manager, however, advises a gradual approach to implement the process in three phases. Phase I would ask the Transportation Commission to analyze the scope of work and budgetary implications recommended in Page 8 of 14

18 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 the Commission report. Further, this phase would require staff support to assess the recommendation s consistency with the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) and State of California traffic regulations. Following this evaluation, in partnership with the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) and other agencies and organizations (including local business associations), Phase II would seek to educate the public about the dangers of bicycle riding on sidewalks, and prioritize enforcement of existing BMC Sections related to bicycle riding, specifically BMC Section Concurrent with this education and enforcement effort, the City should opt-in to the bicycle traffic ticket diversion program established by Bicycle Traffic School Bill, State Assembly Bill 902 (2015). The City Manager suggests other recommendations be addressed in a third, ongoing phase wherein the City would install and maintain additional signs and markings to support expanded education and prioritized enforcement. Financial Implications: Unknown Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Moved Item 35b to the Consent Calendar. February 28, Expansion of Downtown Berkeley goberkeley Program Area; Amending BMC Chapter From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,533-N.S. revising Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter Parking Meters to authorize expanding the Downtown Berkeley goberkeley program area. First Reading Vote: All Ayes. Financial Implications: None Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Adopted second reading of Ordinance No. 7,533-N.S. 12. Contract No Amendment: C. Overaa & Co. for the Center Street Parking Garage From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No with C. Overaa & Co. for the Center Street Parking Garage Project, increasing the contract amount by $3,446,583 for a total amount not to exceed $36,970,983. Financial Implications: Off Street Parking Fund - $3,446,583 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Adopted Resolution No. 67,847 N.S. 14. Progress Report for the Development of a Comprehensive Plan for the Funding of Undergrounding Utility Wires in Berkeley Page 9 of 14

19 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 From: Public Works Commission; Disaster and Fire Safety Commission; Transportation Commission Recommendation: 1. Approve the following work item: a. An updated work plan to develop a comprehensive plan (the Undergrounding Plan ) for the funding of undergrounding utility wires in Berkeley. 2. Accept the following informational items: a. A baseline study for the development of an undergrounding program, prepared by Harris and Associates, dated July 22, b. An application to U.C. Berkeley s Goldman School of Public Policy to conduct Phase 2 studies for the development of an undergrounding program. c. Hold a workshop with service providers, such as PG&E, AT&T, Comcast, in early 2017 to get their input on the development of an undergrounding program. Financial Implications: None Contact: Tracy Clay, Commission Secretary, ; David Brannigan, Commission Secretary, ; Farid Javandel, Commission Secretary, Action: Item held over to March 28, Increasing the Parking Permit Guidelines for Two BUSD Schools with Limited Access to Public Transit From: Councilmember Maio and Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: Request the City Manager to increase the guidelines used to grant residential permit parking to BUSD schools from 60% to 70% of the number of BUSD staff (includes teachers) for schools more than 1/2 mile from a BART Station, or 1/4 mile from a Rapid Transit Stop, or 1/4 mile from two (2) major transit lines. Financial Implications: None Contact: Linda Maio, Councilmember, District 1, Action: Councilmembers Davila and Droste added as co-sponsors. Approved recommendation. 17. Budget Referral: Funding to Create a Pedestrian-Activated Crosswalk Across Sacramento Street at the North Berkeley BART Station From: Councilmember Maio Recommendation: Refer to the budget process the funding of pedestrian-activated lights across Sacramento Street at the North Berkeley BART Station. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Linda Maio, Councilmember, District 1, Action: Approved recommendation. 26. ZAB Appeal: 2777 Shattuck Avenue/2747 Adeline Avenue (Continued from February 7, 2017) From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution dismissing the appeal and affirming the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board to approve Use Permit No. ZP to establish a full service auto dealership, including auto sales, repair and maintenance, in an existing building; to construct a 4,427 square-foot addition to the building for auto Page 10 of 14

20 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 access and service; and to use a portion of the existing 31-space surface parking lot at 2747 Adeline Street for project parking, car display, and inventory. Financial Implications: None Contact: Carol Johnson, Planning and Development, Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Worthington) to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Vote: All Ayes. Action: 65 speakers. M/S/Failed (Bartlett/Davila) to re-open the public hearing, continue the item and re-notice the hearing for a future date. Vote: Ayes Davila, Bartlett, Hahn, Arreguin; Noes Maio, Wengraf, Worthington; Abstain Droste. Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Davila) to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:40 p.m. Vote: Ayes Davila, Bartlett, Hahn, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste, Arreguin; Noes - Maio. Action: M/S/Failed (Arreguin/Davila) to remand the project to the Zoning Adjustments Board and request that the project be evaluated as a sales location without auto repair services. Vote: Ayes Davila, Bartlett, Hahn, Arreguin; Noes Worthington, Droste; Abstain Maio, Wengraf. 30. Berkeley Bicycle Plan 2017 From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the Berkeley Bicycle Plan 2017, and directing the City Manager to pursue implementation of the Plan as funding and staffing permit. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Item referred to the Agenda Committee for future scheduling. 38. goberkeley Parking Management Program - Recommended Adjustments for March 1, 2017 (Expansion Areas) From: City Manager Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Item held over to March 14, February 14, Updated Information Report on Measure M From: Councilmember Wengraf Recommendation: Request that the City Manager return to the City Council in April with an Information Report on Measure M implementation, expenditures, projected expenses and plans. Page 11 of 14

21 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Susan Wengraf, Councilmember, District 6, Action: Councilmember Hahn added as co-sponsor. Approved recommendation. 14. Expansion of Downtown Berkeley goberkeley Program Area; Amending BMC Chapter From: City Manager Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter Parking Meters to authorize expanding the Downtown Berkeley goberkeley program area. Financial Implications: None Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Public Testimony: The Mayor opened the public hearing. 0 speakers. M/S/C (Worthington/Maio) to close the public hearing. Vote: All Ayes. Action: M/S/C (Worthington/Maio) to adopt first reading of Ordinance No. 7,533 N.S. Second reading scheduled for February 28, Vote: All Ayes. 22. Traffic Engineer Regulations for Objects on Sidewalks From: City Manager Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Action: Moved to Action Calendar. Item held over to March 14, February 7, 2017 Special Meeting 1. ZAB Appeal: 2777 Shattuck Avenue/2474 Adeline Avenue From: City Manager Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution dismissing appeal and affirming the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board to approve Use Permit No. ZP to establish a full service auto dealership, including auto sales, repair and maintenance, in an existing building; to construct a 4,427 square-foot addition to the building for auto access and service; and to use a portion of the existing 31-space surface parking lot at 2747 Adeline Street for project parking, car display, and inventory. Financial Implications: None Contact: Carol Johnson, Planning and Development, Action: M/S/C (Bartlett/Hahn) to continue to hearing to a later date. Vote: Ayes Bartlett, Hahn; Noes Maio, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste; Abstain Davila, Arreguin. Public Testimony: The Mayor opened the public hearing. 119 speakers. M/S/C (Droste/Maio) to close the public hearing. Vote: All Ayes. Page 12 of 14

22 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 Action: M/S/Failed (Hahn/Bartlett) to uphold the appeal and overturn the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board to approve Use Permit No. ZP to establish a full service auto dealership, including auto sales, repair and maintenance, in an existing building; to construct a 4,427 square-foot addition to the building for auto access and service; and to use a portion of the existing 31- space surface parking lot at 2747 Adeline Street for project parking, car display, and inventory. Vote: Ayes Davila, Bartlett, Hahn, Arreguin; Noes Worthington; Abstain Maio, Wengraf, Droste. January 31, Public Process for Implementation of Measure T1 From: Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: Direct the City Manager to establish a delineated and robust public process for the implementation of Measure T1 that would include two (2) Lead Commissions (Public Works and Parks), affected commissions, and the public based on the following guidelines: 1. A minimum of three joint meetings for the general public and participating commissions to provide input on criteria and projects. Public meetings should be held in workshop format, to allow citizens to engage with commissions and staff to provide input on criteria and project priorities. Staff and commissions will engage in robust public outreach, including online forums to gather comments from residents. 2. An agreement from all participants of project ranking criteria that would include, but not be limited to: complexity ( shovel ready to master plan), safety, environmental impact, equity in outcomes and impact across all city neighborhoods, cost/matching fund/grant availability, and resiliency. 3. A program- based development approach to maximize the benefit of phasing larger projects or multiple project implementation. 4. Opportunity to review staff recommendations and suggest modifications based on matching criteria and public input. 5. Development of a longterm plan for projects that will extend beyond the funding capacity of T1, including possible future funding mechanisms. 6. An ongoing oversight and reporting process including timelines for financial reassessment. The proposed public process would supplement the City Manager s proposed timeline for implementation of Measure T1. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, Action: Moved to Action Calendar. 1 speaker. M/S/C (Worthington/Wengraf) to approve the recommendation as revised in Supplemental Reports Packet #1. Vote: All Ayes. 9. Extend Residential Preferential Parking Program on Sections of Harper Street, Allston Street, Grant Street, and Claremont Avenue From: City Manager Page 13 of 14

23 Transportation Commission Excerpts of Council Actions 2017 Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 56,508-N.S. Sections 25M, 25C, and 25L by adding subsections to extend the Residential Preferential Parking Program on four city blocks. Financial Implications: General Fund - $2,079 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, Public Testimony: The Mayor opened the public hearing. 4 speakers. M/S/C (Maio/Wengraf) to close the public hearing. Vote: All Ayes. Action: M/S/C (Bartlett/Droste) to adopt Resolution No. 67,834 N.S. as revised in Supplemental Reports Packet #1. Vote: All Ayes. January 24, Special RPP Designation, Grant Street between Ohlone Park and Delaware Street From: Councilmember Maio Recommendation: Request the City Manager to designate a special no 2-hour parking grace period residential permit parking zone for the one cul-de-sac block of Grant Street between Ohlone Park and Delaware Street. Financial Implications: None Contact: Linda Maio, Councilmember, District 1, Action: Moved to Action Calendar. 2 speakers. Mayor Arreguin added as a cosponsor. M/S/C (Maio/Hahn) to approve the recommendation revised to include a request of the City Manager to provide the Council with information on the process for approving the RPP designation and a request for increased enforcement. Vote: All Ayes. Page 14 of 14

24

25 North Berkeley Senior Center 1901 Hearst Avenue (at MLK) Berkeley, CA DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Transportation Commission Regular Meeting April 20, 2017 D-1 A. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order by Chair Thomas at 7:04 PM 2. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Anthony Bruzzone (lv 10:04), Ben Gerhardstein, Mark Humbert, Donald Lathbury (arr 7:06), Karen Parolek, Ghanya Thomas Barnali Ghosh (L/A), Sofia Zander (L/A) Farid Javandel, Eric Anderson, Tamlyn Bright 3. Public Comment on items not on the Agenda Speakers: 3 4. Approval of Draft Action Minutes of March 16, 2017 Acton: It was M/S (Gerhardstein/Parolek) to adopt the minutes of March 16 as written. Ayes: Bruzzone, Gerhardstein, Humbert, Lathbury, Parolek, Thomas Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Motion carried. 5. Approval and Order of Agenda Action: It was MSC (Parolek/Humbert) Unanimous to take up B4 (Bike Plan) first and the remainder in order. Carried. It was MSC (Gerhardstein/Bruzzone) Unanimous to take up Item B3 (Hopkins/ The Alameda) second, and the remainder in numerical order. Carried. 6. Update on Administration/Staff 7. Announcements Bike to Work Day is May 11; One-Way Car Share program begins April 30 B. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS 1. Sidewalk Maintenance Program Policies Speakers: 1 After discussion of and amendments to the Draft 4/20/17 Recommendations for Sidewalk Repair Program from the Pedestrian Subcommittee (Thomas, Bruzzone) the Commission took the following action: It was M/S (Bruzzone/Parolek) to refer the draft Sidewalk Program recommendations as currently amended to the Public Works Commission and the Commission on Disability asking for feedback; include the 4/29/2014 Staff report (to Council) Status of Sidewalk Repairs as an attachment to the referral; and schedule it for discussion and action on June 15 before sending final recommendations to Council. Ayes: Bruzzone, Gerhardstein, Humbert, Lathbury, Parolek, Thomas Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Motion carried Project Delivery Recommendations Speakers: 0 Action: It was M/S (Gerhardstein/Humbert) to approve the April 20 recommendations of the Project Delivery Subcommittee (Gerhardstein, Ghosh, Lathbury) as amended: The City of Berkeley is committed to improving transportation infrastructure through the 1947 Center Street, 4 th Floor, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: transportation@cityofberkeley.info

26 Transportation Commission Minutes Thursday, April 20, 2016 implementation of capital improvement projects. It is important to maximize limited resources and seek every available revenue source to increase the number of projects that will improve transportation in the City. These projects need to be delivered on time and consistent with the City s policies to avoid rushed jobs and missed funding and transportation enhancement opportunities. To do that it is critical that the Public Works Department and the Transportation Division develop a working relationship that is responsive to the increased need for capacity and expertise. Recommendation The Transportation Commission recommends that City Council and City Manager support the following recommendations in the Public Works Department to ensure that the Transportation and Engineering Divisions capital improvement pipeline deliver quality transportation projects efficiently. 1. Increase staff capacity: Increase the project development and project delivery capacity within the Transportation Division. Since the Transportation Division currently relies on Public Works engineers who do not report to the Transportation Manager to build projects, there is a potential for accountability issues. In addition, neither the Public Works Department as a whole and the Transportation Division in particular have enough engineering capacity to deliver the City s street projects on time. 2. Build specific expertise: Provide additional training opportunities on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facility design for all engineers who work on street projects. Currently engineers may have broad knowledge on capital projects (e.g. buildings, sewers, streets, etc.) but they may lack knowledge of important transportation-specific city policies (e.g. Complete Streets) and up-to-date multi-modal design guidelines. 3. Enhance collaboration: Establish or enhance systems to ensure better communication and collaboration between the Transportation and Engineering Divisions across all stages of transportation capital project planning, development, and delivery. Ayes: Bruzzone, Gerhardstein, Humbert, Lathbury, Parolek, Thomas Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Motion carried. 3. Safe Routes to School Project - Hopkins/ The Alameda Protected Intersection Speakers: 0 No action. Carry over to next meeting. 4. Bicycle Plan Speakers: 3 The Commission reviewed 4/18/17 Staff memo Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update 2017 Recommended Revisions, and the 3/24/17 Staff Memorandum to AC Transit and Alameda CTC Staff (For full text of Memo see D3 in 5/18/17 agenda packet online: Transportation_Commission_Homepage.aspx ) Action: It was M/S (Gerhardstein/Bruzzone) that the TC recommend Staff make changes to the 3/24/17 Staff Memorandum to AC Transit and Alameda CTC Staff in the spirit of clarifying that the Plan will study how to enhance the bicycle network on Complete Street corridors with the following edits: 1) Amend sentences under Pg. ES-11 Recommended Text: to read Studies to consider the inclusion of bikeways will be coordinated with proposed improvements Page 2 of 4

27 Transportation Commission Minutes Thursday, April 20, 2016 to transit performance on Primary Transit Routes and At the conclusion of the Complete Streets Corridor Study process, design alternatives which will have a significant negative effect on transit on Primary Transit Routes will not be recommended. Criteria to define what constitutes a significant negative effect on transit will be developed and applied during the Study process for each corridor ; 2) Amend sentences under Pg. ES-17 Recommended text: to read utilizing the latest state and nationally accepted guidance for design best practices such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Transit Street Design Guide and Urban Street Design Guide. AC Transit Major Corridors Study and the forthcoming AC Transit Design Standards and Guidelines Manual for Safe and Efficient Multimodal Transit Stops and Corridors will also be consulted ; and 3) Make these changes in the above sections and wherever they appear in the rest of the document. Ayes: Bruzzone, Gerhardstein, Humbert, Lathbury, Parolek,Thomas Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Motion carried. 5. Sanctuary Transit Policy (BART) Action: It was M/S (Lathbury/Gerhardstein) to communicate the following message to Council at its April 25 meeting: The Transportation Commission urges the Council to support ongoing efforts by members of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board to make BART safe, accessible, and welcoming for all riders. Thousands of Berkeley residents and workers depend on BART, including undocumented residents and their families. Consistent with City policy, all immigrants, regardless of documentation status, should feel comfortable riding BART. These riders should be able to approach BART authorities without fear of deportation. The system's fiscal solvency is improved with more riders, and safety on BART is improved when all riders feel they can approach BART staff and BART police should they have a concern. Ayes: Gerhardstein, Humbert, Lathbury, Parolek, Thomas Noes: None Absent: Bruzzone (recused himself from participating in discussion and vote) Motion carried. C. INFORMATION ITEMS AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Subcommittee Reports (Verbal reports from Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittees and Liaisons to PWC, COD, and goberkeley Advisory Group) 2. Council Summary Actions Link to Council and Agenda Committee Agendas and Minutes: 4. National Safety Council: April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month Link: D. COMMUNICATIONS Received at March 16 meeting and published in April 20 web agenda Transportation_Commission_Homepage.aspx : 1. 2/16/17 Draft TC Minutes (approved and published) 2. 3/9/17 Staff memo to AC Transit Staff re Berkeley Bicycle Plan 2017 Recommended Changes 3. 3/16/17 Recommendations from Project Delivery Subcommittee (Gerhardstein, Parolek, Bruzzone) 4. The Alameda/ Hopkins Safe Routes to School: Analysis of Bike/Ped collision data, design issues and countermeasures 5. Top Proposed Changes and Amendments to the Council Draft of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update and Appendices (Michael Katz) Received after March 16 meeting: Page 3 of 4

28 Transportation Commission Minutes Thursday, April 20, /16/17 Michael Katz - Bike collisions vs. protected intersections * 7. 3/24/17 Charles Siegel - North End of Milvia Bike Track with attachment Milvia Bike Boulevard Design * E. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Ashby/Hwy 13 Corridor Projects Update - June Traffic Calming Program Update June Hopkins/The Alameda SR2S Project - May Revising the Pedestrian Plan ACTC Annual Report w/ Meas. BB Distribution - May COD Referral: Sidewalk stencils vs. signs - TBD I-80/Gilman Interchange Project ACTC Presentation F. ADJOURNMENT It was MSC (Parolek / Gerhardstein) to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 PM. Unanimous. Public Present: 7 Speakers: 7 Commission Secretary: Farid Javandel, Public Works/Transportation Division, 1947 Center St., 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA, 94704, Telephone (510) , fjavandel@ci.berkeley.ca.us, Fax: (510) Minutes on the web: Page 4 of 4

29

30 Transportation Commission Communication 6/15/17 D3 From: Javandel, Farid Sent: Monday, May 15, :56 PM To: Bright, Tamlyn Subject: FW: May 18 agenda item Dear Transportation Commissioners, Below is a letter regarding item B5 on your upcoming agenda. Best Regards, Farid From: Claire Schoen [mailto:cschoen@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 15, :41 AM To: Javandel, Farid <FJavandel@cityofberkeley.info> Cc: Linda Maio <lindamaio@yahoo.com>; Arreguin, Jesse L. <JArreguin@cityofberkeley.info>; Bernard Marszalek <ztangi@lmi.net>; Stephen Most <smost@earthlink.net>; Bill Newton <wnewton48@gmail.com>; Meuris Crissie <cmeuris@lmi.net>; CJ Higley <cjhigley@gmail.com>; Andy Love <alove@lmi.net>; Howard Pollick <howardpollick@gmail.com>; Pauline Mohr <pauline@lmi.net>; Linda Strean <lindastrean@yahoo.com>; Carol Lashof <clashof@gmail.com>; annemarsz@hotmail.com; Mark Harpainter <harpainter@lmi.net>; heymarjorie@gmail.com; Brook <brook@vinnedgeconsulting.com> Subject: May 18 agenda item Dear Farid Javandel, Please distribute the following message (see below) to the entire Transportation Commission before this Thursday's meeting. Thank you, Claire Schoen ********** To the Berkeley Transportation Commission: I understand that the Transportation Commission is taking up an agenda item at your meeting this Thursday (May 18th) that pertains to the parking restrictions on the 1800 block of Grant Street. This is Item #27. This item requests that the City Manager designate a special "No 2-hour grace period" for E- Parking on our block. Neighbors on this block are burdened by the constant coming and going of people driving their

31 dogs to the Ohlone dog park, which is situated right next to us. Literally hundreds of dog owners come to this park daily. Many park on our block. Since the expansion of the dog park this year, this traffic has worsened. It is very hard to park on our own block. Plus people park constantly in our driveways and in the red zones. And most of our cars on the block have been side-swiped by cars turning around. Increased enforcement has been tried and does not work long-term. NOTE: Almost all dog park users stay for under 2 hours, so the current E-Parking restrictions, with a 2-hour grace period, does us no good. The Grant Street neighbors have done due diligence regarding this matter: 1.) 100% of all the residents in all the affected households have signed our petition requesting this change. (Including tenants) 2.) Households in the surrounding blocks were all given fliers informing them of our request and giving them a way to respond. We had no negative replies. 3.) The head of the ODPA agreed to this. 4.) Our request is sponsored by our city council member who is also the vice mayor and cosponsored by the mayor. Thank you, Neighbors on the 1800 Block of Grant Street ********* Claire Schoen Media cschoen@earthlink.net

32 D-4-6/15/17 Transportation Commission Communication 5/18/17 B Original Message----- From: Javandel, Farid Sent: Tuesday, May 16, :36 AM To: Bright, Tamlyn Subject: FW: Grant St file re Parking Restrictions Transportation Commissioners, Below is another communication for Item B5 on your May 18 agenda. Best Regards, Farid Javandel -----Original Message----- From: Bernard Marszalek Sent: Friday, May 12, :49 PM To: Javandel, Farid Cc: Maio, Linda Skjerping, Lars Harrison, Kate Arreguin, Jesse L. Subject: Grant St file re Parking Restrictions Greetings Mr. Javandel, I have attached three documents (pdf/s) pertaining to the Grant St residents request to restrict parking on our cul-de-sac. 1. Petition signed by all residents and tenants on Grant St.(1800 Block cul-de-sac) 2. Letter delivered to all neighbors within a one block radius of Grant/Delaware. No negative responses received. 3. A small sample of the documentation of illegal parking on Grant St. by Dog Park visitors. (1.9MB file) Please distribute these items to all Commission Members. Thank you, Bernard (for Grant St. residents) Bernard Marszalek Berkeley, CA 94703

33 Greetings Neighbors, A change to parking regulations on the Grant St cul-de-sac All the residents along the 1800 block of Grant St. the Grant cul-de-sac are petitioning the City to change parking regulations in order to ensure safer traffic conditions on our street. This letter is to notify you of our petition and to explain the reason for our request. Loss of parking privileges: For decades, because of the increasing popularity of the Ohlone Dog Park, we have, in practice, lost E-permit parking privileges, which we pay for, ostensibly to have parking near our homes. Dog park users usually stay no longer than an hour, but are quickly replaced by others all day and especially mid to late afternoon, precisely the time when we return from work or errands. We feel as if we are living adjacent to a popular retail store. Damage to our cars: Grant St. is narrow and has no turn-around bulb at the end of the street, so all our cars have been side-swiped by drivers trying to make three point turns to exit or to find a parking space. Blocking our driveways: Our driveways have been repeatedly blocked and cars regularly park in the emergency red zone adjacent to the west gate of the dog park. Parking enforcement: And while most of the drivers are respectful when we approach them about blocking a driveway or parking in the red zone, others have been verbally abusive, which is intimidating to our families. Even more traffic on our street: With the addition of the small dog park we expect even more traffic. While we have to listen to dogs barking all day and to shouting owners intervening in dog fights that further disturb the peace, we believe we can obtain some relief when it comes to parking by limiting it on our small half-block. We therefore have all signed a petition to limit parking to E-permits and those with Disabled Stickers on weekdays. This would apply only to the small number of spaces, twelve, on our street. All E-sticker cars will be allowed to park there. All other vehicles, driven by dog park attendees from other cities and outside our permitted area will not have the 2-hour parking privileges. This restriction will not apply on the weekends, or at night. If you wish to comment, please leave a note in the mailbox behind the gate at 1804 Grant St. (Please DO NOT USE the mail slot in the gate) To open the gate pull down on the ring and push. Thank you for reading this. Bernard (for the 1800 Block neighbors)

34

35

36

37 Att 3 Grant Street illegal parking This car is in my driveway as is the one below. Photos taken at various times Nov We have 20 photos of illegally parked cars. Several repeaters. Bernard Marszalek 1804 Grant St. ztangi@gmail.com

38 :D5 Tran sportat ion Com mi ssion MEMORAND U M Date: April 21, 2017 To: From: Subject: Tracy Clay, Public Works Commission Secretary Ella Callow, Commission on Disability Secretary Farid Javandel, Transportation Commission Secretary Request for Commission Review and Comment The Transportation Commission is developing a recommendation to the City Council to encourage a pro-active approach to sidewalk repair and maintenance and is asking for review and comments of the draft report (attached) by both the Public Works and Disability Commissions. The Transportation Commission expects to revisit this recommendation at its June 15th meeting and would appreciate your commission's formal review and comment in time for consideration at that meeting. \ Commission Secretary : Farid Javandel, Public Works/Transportation Division, 1947 Center St., 4th Floor, Berkeley, CA, 94704, Telephone (510) , fjavandel@ci.berkeley.ca. us, Fax (510) http :// Transportation Commission Homepaqe.aspx

39 PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TO CITY COUNCIL April 20, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Transportation Commission SUBJECT: Recommendations and Options for Sidewalk Repair Program SUMMARY Nearly 16% of Berkeley residents use the city s 300 mile sidewalk networks for work commuting and education. They travel to BART stations and bus stops, representing the 3rd highest walking rate in the Bay Area. At least half of Berkeley residents use city sidewalks daily. Included are Berkeley s thriving population of persons with disabilities who travel in wheelchairs, motorized scooters and other mobility aids that rely on the city s sidewalks to maintain their independent lifestyles. However, the city s sidewalks are in desperate need of repair and currently Berkeley does not have a sustainable sidewalk policy maintenance program. In addition to normal wear-and-tear it is estimated much of the sidewalk damage is attributed to the city s 32,000 street trees. Sidewalk deferred maintenance costs money. Public Works reported in 2014 the city s trip and fall incident settlement costs (between FY 2010-FY2014) totaled nearly $1.2 million. During the same year the city reported approximately miles of Berkeley s sidewalks needed permanent replacement at an estimated cost of $4 million. At present, more than 2,000 locations are wait-listed for sidewalk repair. The average sidewalk repair cost (at a bundled rate including a large area) is about $13 per square foot, with ranging from $11 to $15 per square foot. Prices vary dependent upon inclusion of curb ramps or driveway replacement, as well as the overall scale of the bundled project. In 2015 the City of Los Angeles settled a $1.4 billion class action lawsuit on behalf of a quartermillion disabled city residents after determining the city s broken sidewalks were in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Given Berkeley s historic activism around designing safe, wheelchair-accessible sidewalks, this is unacceptable. CURRENT PROGRAM Although California State Law requires property owners to cover the costs of all sidewalk repairs, in 2011 the City of Berkeley s Public Works department adopted a 50/50 cost sharing program whereby the City and the property owner split the repair costs for damaged sidewalks regardless of the cause of damage. This eliminated ongoing disputes between owners and the City. However, after accounting for the funding sources in addition to the 50/50 plan, Public Works determined in its 2014 report, the city s Sidewalk Repair Program still lacks the sufficient funds to significantly reduce sidewalk hazards and liability.

40 Page 2 April 20, 2017 TC Sidewalk Repair Program Recommendations POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The Transportation Commission recommends the City Council establish a comprehensive sidewalk inspection, repair and maintenance policy. In addition to the several recommendations and three funding options listed below, the Transportation Commission recommends the council enact the following Guiding Principles to ensure that Berkeley residents have a transparent, adequate, long-term and systematic approach to sidewalk maintenance and repair. Coordination with Pedestrian Plan and Street Repair Programs: As the sidewalk program is institutionalized, sidewalk repairs should be coordinated with the pedestrian improvements recommended in the pedestrian plan, as well as ongoing street repairs. Street Trees: The city should continue to retain responsibility for street trees, and by extension, their damage to the sidewalks. If property owners were required to assume the maintenance of trees, there could be calls for fewer trees to limit costs to individual property owners. Additional Dedicated Funding: The city uses a mix of funding sources, including some general fund sources and additional funds dedicated to street repair, for sidewalk repair. The city should establish a firm policy that dedicates a percentage of the street repair funds to the city s share of sidewalk maintenance. Proactive Approach: The City should proactively inspect and program sidewalk repairs before the condition rises to the level of failure. Elevation of Policy: Sidewalks are important resources and changes to the maintenance and repair program policies should be discussed openly and endorsed by City Council. Program Recommendation The city should develop and then execute a pro-active 15-year Sidewalk Inspection and Response Program (see the City of San Mateo s program details below). Every year, at least 7% of the City sidewalks should be inspected and then scheduled for repair as necessary. The City would then contract for a sidewalk repair blitz through a competitively-bidding process and hire a qualified contractor to bundle all the repairs together to obtain economies of scale and a lower cost per repair. FUNDING OPTIONS Various funding options are identified below. Funding - Option 1 Increased Provisions for 50/50 Program - The city and property owners alike will split the cost 50/50 for all sidewalks. The city would bill the owners for their share of the cost. The repair includes a 5 year warranty from the city. If a property owner does not pay within 90 days the city

41 Page 3 April 20, 2017 TC Sidewalk Repair Program Recommendations can impose a tax lien against the home. Or if the owner chooses to repair the sidewalk instead of the city, the owner must hire a licensed contractor and obtain the required City permits for the repair. Funding - Option 2 Sidewalk Repair Special Flat Parcel Tax - Ask Berkeley voters to approve a 10 or 15 year tax measure to fund Berkeley s sidewalk maintenance program to improve Berkeley s sidewalks. Funding - Option 3 Property Owner Pays - Property owners are 100% responsible (up to 72 sq feet) for the cost to repair sidewalk damage including street trees. Beyond 72 sq ft (about 6 ft x 12 ft), the city will pay the balance of the repair. Under this program, the city will not necessarily increase costs, but will need to actively manage the sidewalk repair contractual scope to ensure the bidding packages are both large and within the city budget constraints. All Funding Plans The Commission also recommends whatever funding option is chosen, that all include the following additional components: Additional City Resources With the passage of Measure BB and the new additional state gas tax funding, the city should increase its funding allocation of sidewalk repair. Sidewalk Maintenance Certificate -Require Berkeley homeowners to obtain a sidewalk maintenance certificate by a city-certified inspector prior to selling their home. Sidewalk Repair Financial Assistance Program Financial assistance should be available for homeowners who meet the income eligibility requirements determined by the Housing & Urban Development (HUD) area median income (AMI) which is calculated annually. Or if they meet the income level criteria established by the city. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS The cost associated with the report is unknown currently. PUBLIC WORKS See attached 2014 Status of the Sidewalk Repair Program report ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Unknown

42 Page 4 April 20, 2017 TC Sidewalk Repair Program Recommendations APPENDIX BEST PRACTICES Sidewalk Program Survey 82 Cities in 45 States Sidewalk Program Survey 40% 14% 46% City & Property Owner City Property Owner Source: City of Los Angeles Sidewalk Repair Program Presentation (2015) Below is a summary of Sidewalk Program s from other cities within the Bay Area. CA City Who is responsible for Description repairs? Oakland City & Property Owners Property owners are responsible for the cost of maintaining and repairing front property sidewalks. City repairs sidewalks damaged by City trees only. Where a defective sidewalk is identified without the presence of an official City tree, a Notice to Repair (NTR) is sent to the property owner requiring the sidewalk to be repaired within 30 days. If the owner fails to do so, the City may repair the sidewalk and bill the property owner. If the owner doesn t pay for the repairs, a tax lien will be placed on the property. Owners may enter into a Voluntary Agreement with the City when the City has a planned project (where both private and public damage is being repaired along a corridor) to have the City contractor perform the work. By entering into an agreement, owners are bond to reimburse the actual cost of the repair. San Francisco City & Property Owners Conducts a 25-year cycle proactive sidewalk inspections of all city sidewalks for repairs. Sidewalk damage that is the responsibility of city agencies or private utilities is also repaired as part of the program. Property owner(s) receive a (NTR), if the sidewalk adjacent to their property is damaged. Owner(s) can immediately make the

43 Page 5 April 20, 2017 TC Sidewalk Repair Program Recommendations repairs, or they can take part in a competitively-bid contract administered through Public Works. Owners who qualify under economic hardship may apply for a deferred payment plan up to $5,000. San Jose City & Property Owners Owners are 100% responsible for the cost of adjacent property line sidewalk repairs including street tree repairs. Sidewalk inspections are done by request only. San Mateo City & Property Owners Proactive 15-Year Sidewalk Repair Plan inspection to ensure property owners and the City work together to repair damaged sidewalks. Owners have the option to have the city repair the sidewalk through a publicly-bid contractor. Residents can also hire their own contractor. Once notified property owner(s) are required by law to complete the repairs within 90 days. If, after 90 days, the property owner has not completed the repairs, the City will notify the property owner that the City will undertake the repairs and bill the property owner. If the property owner does not pay the invoice within 60 days of receipt, the City can place a tax lien against the property. Sacramento Property Owner 100% Property Owner, including damage caused by street trees. City will do the repairs and warranty for five years. City responds to requests for inspections, but does not proactively inspect. Street tree maintenance (other than roots and sidewalks) are a city responsibility.

44 ATT 1 Office of the City Manager INFORMATION CALENDAR April 29, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Christine Daniel, City Manager Submitted by: Andrew Clough, Director, Public Works Subject: Status of the Sidewalk Repair Program SUMMARY Berkeley has over 32,000 street trees, which constitute most of the City s valuable urban forest. However these trees also cause damage to sidewalks, creating hazards to public safety and liability for the City and property owners. Public Works strives to balance the safety of pedestrians, and others who travel on the City s sidewalks, with the sustainability and health of our urban forest. A major challenge is sidewalk damage that is caused by the roots of street trees in the public right-of-way. In order to more fairly apportion the cost of sidewalk repairs and maintaining public safety, staff is changing the basis of assessing payment for the cost of sidewalk replacement necessitated by City-owned street trees. Currently, when a City-owned street tree causes damage to a sidewalk, the City splits the cost of replacement with the adjacent property owner on a 50/50 basis. Under the change in policy, when the same City-owned street tree causes damage to the sidewalk more than once within 10 years, the City would pay the entire repair cost, and should it happen a third time within the same period, the City would also give the property owner the option of removing and replacing the tree with a less invasive City-approved tree at the owner s expense. CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Street Trees and Sidewalk Damage The City has over 35,000 trees, 32,000 of which are street trees, and many of these cause damage to sidewalks. While some species of trees grow shallow roots, and thus damage sidewalks more frequently, any tree has the potential to cause such damage. Tree roots require soil, air, water and nutrients to grow. Street trees tend to grow in heavily compacted soil areas, where only small air pore places exist and water condenses on the underside of concrete sidewalks, causing the production of shallow roots. These factors lead to the condition of roots growing directly under sidewalks, and when they expand, the concrete is raised. Public Works and the Parks Urban Forestry Unit work collaboratively to repair sidewalks that have been damaged by trees. Typically, if a repair is needed, damaged concrete is removed, the roots are pruned, and new concrete is poured and finished. Although, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: (510) TDD: (510) Fax: (510) manager@cityofberkeley.info Website:

45 Status of the Sidewalk Repair Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 29, 2014 under 50/50 cost sharing, the property owner pays 50% of the sidewalk replacement cost, there is no charge for root pruning. In some cases, the extent of the necessary pruning is so severe that the health and safety of the tree is compromised, and the tree must be removed. Funds for root pruning or tree removal are allotted from the Parks Tax. Trees are also removed for other reasons. A list of tree removal criteria is posted on the Urban Forestry website 1. Some of these factors include: desirability of the tree species, amount of space allowable for tree growth, overall quality and structural integrity of the tree, wishes and desires of the property owner/resident and extent and frequency of damage the tree is causing to surrounding infrastructure such as sidewalks, streets, and sewers. Last year 419 public trees were removed and only 406 were planted, the first year in a decade when there was a negative net gain in City trees. This trend will continue as fewer trees are planted because of the lack of available funding from the Parks Tax and the conclusion of a state-funded planting grant. Changes to 50/50 Cost Sharing In FY 2012 the Sidewalk Repair Program established a shared cost by the City and property owners for sidewalk repairs, with each party paying 50% of the cost, regardless of what caused the damage. Staff recognizes that there are some concerns about the fairness of this policy when the damage is caused by City-owned street trees, despite the value everyone gains from maintaining the City s healthy urban forest. In particular, property owners have voiced concerns over having to pay a second or third time for repeated repairs to sidewalks damaged by City-owned street trees. This is a legitimate concern, and although it has not happened since the 50/50 cost sharing plan was adopted, it is likely that it will. To address this concern, staff will implement the following change to the 50/50 cost sharing plan: 1. If sidewalk replacement is needed where damage is caused by the same Cityowned street tree a second time within 10 years of completion of the initial 50/50 cost-sharing replacement, the City will pay the full cost of the second sidewalk replacement. 2. If sidewalk replacement is needed a third time within 10 years of completion of the initial 50/50 cost-sharing replacement, the City will again pay for the full cost of the sidewalk replacement, and the property owner will have the option of removing and replacing the tree with a less invasive City-approved tree at the owner s expense. The City will continue to provide street tree root pruning, sidewalk grinding and sidewalk make-safes at no cost to the property owner. Reduce Incidents Reduce Claims One of the primary goals of the Sidewalk Repair Program overall, and specifically of 50/50 cost sharing and recent increased prioritization of high-pedestrian traffic areas, is to reduce the potential for trip and fall incidents (see map on City s website 2 ). This is 1 Tree Removal: 2 Map of Proactive Program High Pedestrian Areas: Page 2

46 Status of the Sidewalk Repair Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 29, 2014 roughly indicated by the number of liability lawsuits and claims the City settled. This table shows the number and amount of liability lawsuits and claims the City settled in the past 5 fiscal years. FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 (est.) # of Claims & Lawsuits (est.) Amount of Settlements $110,732 $202,797 $212,940 $463,314 $170,000 (est.) As indicated, the number of claims has remained relatively steady during the period and the amount of claims has increased, particularly in FY 2013 when 4 large cases were settled. While the number and amount of claims are due to several factors, all other things being equal, this is an argument for increasing funding to increase the rate of needed repairs. There are approximately 300 miles of concrete sidewalk in the City of which it is estimated that approximately miles are damaged enough to justify permanent replacement, at a total estimated cost of $4 million. While some areas identified for permanent repair are addressed quickly in an emergency or unusually hazardous situation, many have been waiting several years for repair. To address the backlog of sidewalk repairs, increase program efficiency, and correspondingly reduce the time it takes to complete repairs, over the past 2 years staff has been developing and implementing a variety of actions and operational and process improvements, as discussed below. In the immediate term, locations with the greatest potential to reduce possible trip and fall incidents are being identified and repaired. While in the aggregate these changes have improved, and will continue to improve, the effectiveness and efficiency of the Program, additional funding is needed to significantly reduce the backlog and reduce the time required to complete repairs. Recent Accomplishments, including Operational and Process Improvements The table below lists the approximate number of miles of sidewalk replaced the last four fiscal years under the Proactive and Responsive Sidewalk Projects, and the number of make-safes and grinding repairs completed by City crews. Type of Work FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Sidewalk Replacement (miles) * Make-safes (# of locations) Grinding (# of locations) 372 *FY 2013 does not include 1-time sidewalk replacement work completed as part of street paving with funding from the City s annual paving project. With this funding taken into account, the amount completed in FY 2013 was approximately 2.8 miles. Sidewalkreplacement work in FY 2012 and FY 2013 included sidewalk repairs in several high-pedestrian traffic areas, including 4 th Street from Virginia to University Avenue, Dwight Way from Ellsworth to Telegraph Avenue, and spot locations along Shattuck Avenue and Telegraph Avenue. Additional locations are planned for FY Page 3

47 Status of the Sidewalk Repair Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 29, 2014 Thenumberofmake-saferepairs completed by City crews has increased primarily because of the increased number of service calls during the reporting period. Provided funding is maintained, the number of make-safes completed is expected to remain higher in the coming years until the backlog of permanent repairs is reduced. Grindingrepairs were not completed from FY 2010 to FY 2012 due to lack of funding. In FY 2013, funds became available for grinding repairs completed through an on-call grinding contract. Operations staff plans to issue a new grinding contract to complete grinding repairs in FY 2014 and FY Recordingandtracking: In FY 2012, staff began recording sidewalk repair cases in Lagan, the City s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software program, to better track and respond to them. Over the past year, staff has streamlined the way cases are recorded and responses are generated, and Operations staff has begun using Lagan to generate work orders for work completed by City crews. The number of sidewalk repair cases recorded in FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014 to date (and FY 2014 projected) are 392, 329, and 130 (390), respectively. This data illustrates the high volume of cases that staff processes annually, and over time can be an indicator of the overall condition of the sidewalks in the City. Recently, staff has updated the criteria for closing a case. With this procedure in place, in future years staff should be able to generate more reliable data of the number of closed and open cases that can be used to assess the status of the Program. For example, because cases are left open until permanent repairs are completed, the number of open cases for prior years can be an indicator of the time it takes to complete repairs. Staffsendsoutnoticestopropertyowners after identifying sidewalk damage and prior to completing sidewalk replacement work. Residents opting to have the City complete the repairs are required to send back signed consent forms. This table shows the number of notices sent, and the number of signed consent forms received in these fiscal years, and reflects the increase in the percentage of property owners returning consent forms as of FY 2012, when the 50/50 cost sharing was adopted. FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Notices Sent Consent Forms Received % Received 43% 48% 88% 77% BiweeklySidewalkCoordinationMeetings have been held since early this year with Forestry (Parks), and all Public Works Engineering, Operations and Fiscal Services staff involved in planning and completing sidewalk repairs. These ongoing meetings have improved communication and provide an opportunity for staff to discuss current issues and develop improvements to the program. Outcomes have included development of a written standard operating procedure for the sidewalk repair process, and a new comprehensive sidewalk spreadsheet tracking tool to help plan and execute repairs. Among other benefits, the tracking tool will help ensure that temporary make-safe repairs transition to permanent repairs. Also in the past year, management designated a new Page 4

48 Status of the Sidewalk Repair Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 29, 2014 Sidewalk Repair Program Manager to oversee and coordinate the overall program, including the sidewalk capital projects and operations and maintenance activities. Anadditional$100,000in1-timeVRFfundinghasbeenallocated to increase the total funding available for the Proactive Sidewalk Project in FY This funding level for the capital project, when combined with the work projected to be completed by Operations, will result in the replacement of approximately 1.8 miles of sidewalk in FY With the increased funding allocation from the Private Party Sidewalk Fund in FY 2015, a greater amount of sidewalk is expected to be replaced that fiscal year. The increases in funding and operational efficiencies in the 50/50 program should extend into future years, but staff analyses indicate that additional funding is needed to meet the ultimate objectives of the Sidewalk Repair Program to significantly reduce sidewalk hazards and liability. BACKGROUND Sidewalk Repair Program The Sidewalk Repair Program was developed to systematically address damaged sidewalks, driveways, curbs and gutters throughout the City. The Program currently consists of: 1) the annual Proactive and Responsive Sidewalk Projects; 2) ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) activities including make-safes, grinding, and spot replacements; and 3) the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Curb Ramps, and various Pathways projects. The Proactive Sidewalk Project (formerly the Spiral Project ) was created in the 1980s to repair damaged sidewalk starting from the Civic Center area and spiraling outward to the City limits. Today, the program includes the spiral area and commercial areas where pedestrian traffic, and corresponding potential for trip and fall incidents are highest. The Responsive Sidewalk Project (formerly the Emergency Repair Project ) was created in the late 1980s to address damaged locations outside of the spiral areas on an as-needed basis in response to complaints, or as identified during inspections. In addition to the annual sidewalk projects, Operations crews routinely perform, or contract for, sidewalk make-safes, grinding and spot sidewalk replacements on an asneeded basis to quickly address potentially hazardous sidewalk conditions. Make-safes are temporary asphalt patches or ramps over/between uplifted sections of sidewalk, and sidewalk grinding reduces the height of uplifted sections of sidewalk and provides a flatter walking surface. Grinding can be done in lieu of sidewalk replacement work in some cases and when the uplift is less than 1-7/8 inches. City crews also complete sidewalk replacements when an area needs to be repaired more quickly than if it were bid and constructed as part of the Responsive Sidewalk Project. Sidewalk damage is identified primarily through field inspections performed by City staff and public requests submitted to the City s 311 Call Center. An Engineering Inspector reviews the site of the damage, marks the damaged areas, and, if necessary, requests that City crews make temporary repairs until a permanent repair can be completed. Once cases are identified, staff enters them into Lagan, where they remain open until the permanent repair is completed. Permanent repairs are prioritized by the order they Page 5

49 Status of the Sidewalk Repair Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 29, 2014 were identified, and by the location, severity, and potential trip and fall risk posed by the damage. Cost Sharing In October 2011 the City established a 50/50 cost sharing plan under which property owners are responsible for 50% of the cost to replace damaged sidewalk and curbs and gutters fronting their property, regardless of the cause of the damage. Prior to adoption of 50/50 cost sharing, the City was responsible for damage caused by City street trees, and property owners were responsible for damage from other causes. The City continues to fund 100% of make-safe and grinding repairs. 50/50 cost sharing better reflects the liability that the City and property owners share in sidewalk-related accidents and, because of the change in the way cost is apportioned to property owners, provides additional funding to increase the amount of sidewalk the City can repair each year, particularly in high-pedestrian traffic areas. Prior to performing the work, staff sends a notice and cost estimate to the property owner(s) abutting the damaged sidewalk. The owners cost is based on the City s average cost of completing the work and is updated periodically to reflect current market conditions. Owners are also given the option to contract for sidewalk replacement work themselves; and if they opt to do so, they are responsible for 100% of the cost of the repairs and the permit fee. Because the new payment plan does not require determining whether damage was caused by tree roots, it is more straight-forward and simpler for staff to administer and property owners to understand. By shifting to an equal cost-sharing model regardless of the cause of the damage, the 50/50 plan was projected to result, and has resulted, in increased receipts from property owners. Funding Background Prior to FY 2013, the Sidewalk Capital Improvement Program (CIP) received annual recurring funding from these funds: State Proposition 111 Gas Tax Fund (Fund 366)...$43,551 Capital Improvement (General) Fund (Fund 610)...$635,000 PrivatePartySidewalkFund(Fund642) $100,000 Total $778,551 In FY 2012, while analyzing Gas Tax Fund expenditures, staff found that in addition to recurring funding, approximately $275,000 per year was spent on operations and maintenance (O&M) for unbudgeted sidewalk repairs. In FY 2013, to temporarily fund necessary O&M repairs and account for these funds until a sustainable funding source could be identified, or revenue increased as a result of the 50/50 cost sharing, Sidewalk CIP funding was reduced by $275,000 and this funding was shifted to Operations. In FY 2014, additional 1-time funding of $100,000 and recurring annual funding of $100,000 from the Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Fund (Fund 397) was allocated to the 2014 Proactive Project. The FY 2014 funding allocations to the various components of the Sidewalk Repair Program are shown in this table. Page 6

50 Status of the Sidewalk Repair Program INFORMATION CALENDAR April 29, 2014 Project Description State Transportation Tax Fund* Capital Improvement Fund Private Party Sidewalk Fund VRF Fund FY 2014 TOTAL Proactive and Responsive $43,551 $110,000 $100,000 $200,000 $453,551 O&M $275,000 $275,000 ADA Curb Ramps $200,000 $200,000 Pathways $50,000 $50,000 TOTAL $43,551 $635,000 $100,000 $200,000 $978,551 *Individual State Gas Tax Funds consolidated into 1 State Transportation Tax Fund in FY As expected, revenue to the Private Party Sidewalk Fund has increased since adoption of 50/50 cost sharing, from $128,000 in FY 2012 to $170,000 in FY 2013 to $302,000 currently projected for FY Staff did not increase funding from the Private Party Sidewalk Fund in FY 2014 because at the time the budget was established the Fund s FY 2014 revenue projection was uncertain. Additional Private Party Sidewalk Fund revenue will be requested as part of the first adjustment to the FY 2015 Annual Appropriations Ordinance (once all FY 2014 receipts are posted to determine the actual revenue available). ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY In March 2013 the City hired a consultant (Arborwell) to conduct a tree inventory. They quantified the financial benefits of the saved energy, air quality effect, reduction and retention of storm water, and aesthetic values at an annual $1.6 million. To receive this level of benefits, older trees need to be preserved whenever possible, and younger trees properly maintained. Additional benefits from the City s urban forest include: absorbing air pollutants, ozone and other particulates; absorbing and sequestering carbon dioxide; producing oxygen; saving energy by shading buildings, vehicles, pavement; cooling the air; preventing erosion; and adding to property value. In addition, sidewalk repair is an important component of the City s Climate Action Plan; well-maintained sidewalks help to promote walking, which is a healthy and clean form of transportation. POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Staff will continue to monitor and improve the Program, and report back to the Public Works Commission on progress and challenges. FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Unknown at this time. CONTACT PERSON Phil Harrington, Deputy Director, Public Works, Public Works, Sean R. Rose, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works, Vincent Chen, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works, Page 7

51 King Safe Routes to School: Hopkins / The Alameda. CITY OF BERKELEY MAY 18, 2017

52 Process and Timeline Bike / Ped Subcommittee Meeting May 10, 2017 May 18, 2017 Transportation Commission Recommendation Repaving of The Alameda Implementation of Interim Treatments July Evaluate: Collect data and review pilot Seek input from public and commission /2020 Prepare and implement final design with repaving of Hopkins

53 Presentation Outline Pre-construction conditions Why a protected intersection here? What is a protected intersection? Benefits of current design Feedback to date Interim treatments What s next?

54 Pre-construction conditions Pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved injury collisions ( ) Pedestrian collisions: 5 2 were after the road diet (Aug 2013) Bicyclist collisions: 1 Under 18 years old: 1 Over 60 years old: 2 80% involve turning vehicles. All turning vehicles that hit pedestrians were at fault for violating the pedestrian Right of Way N

55 Pre-construction conditions Hopkins/Alameda vs. Thousands of Berkeley Intersections o Of 24 Berkeley intersections that have had more pedestrian collisions: o 6 have safety projects completed or in-progress o 4 have projects pending o The remaining 14 have much higher pedestrian and vehicular volumes, such as San Pablo/Gilman and University/MLK Pedestrians at Hopkins/Alameda have among the highest per capita risk for being hit by a vehicle The Pedestrian Master Plan identified Hopkins/Alameda as the #19 high-priority intersection out of 34 identified

56 Why a protected intersection here? o Safe Routes to School o Limited Time to Spend Grant Funds ($180,000) o Complex Drainage and ADA Considerations o Time to Design o Cost to Build o Bicycle comfort o Preserves bike lanes with bulb-out concept rather than forcing them next to traffic o Protected Intersection Pilot o Common in The Netherlands, which has the best cycling safety record globally o 12 in the US. 3 in California o Need to Evaluate Design

57 What is a protected intersection?

58 What is a protected intersection?

59 What is a protected intersection? What we know about safety 2011 Dutch study of bike lane deflection (setback) Base case: bike lane without deflection or no bicycle facility vs. Test cases: Bike lane with 0-6 ft deflection: +3% crash risk Bike lane with ft deflection: -45% crash risk Bike lane with ft deflection: -7% crash risk

60 What is a protected intersection? Adoption of guidance in US MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide setback US DOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA) setback

61 What is a protected intersection? United States built examples First wave (2015): Salt Lake City, UT Austin, TX Davis, CA Second wave (2016): Atlanta, GA Berkeley, CA Chicago, IL San Francisco, CA College Station, TX Rendering from Salt Lake City, UT

62 Built Examples

63 Salt Lake City, UT WBUR Salt Lake City Evolution of the Protected Intersection Alta Planning & Design Back to US Examples

64 Austin, TX People for Bikes Evolution of the Protected Intersection Alta Planning & Design Back to US Examples

65 Davis, CA Evolution of the Protected Intersection Alta Planning & Design Back to US Examples

66 Chicago, IL San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Back to US Examples

67 Benefits of current design Pedestrian Injury Severity vs. Vehicle Speed +10 mph = Double severe injury risk Source: Tefft, B. (2011). Impact speed and a pedestrian s risk of severe injury or death. Higher speeds lead to significantly higher risk of severe injury and death

68 Benefits of current design Before Turning speed: mph Severe injury risk: 14%-17% Reduce corner radius Improve sightlines Reduce pedestrian crossing distance Consolidate bus routes After Turning speed: mph Severe injury risk: 7-10% Nearly 50% reduction in pedestrian severe injury risk

69 Feedback o Unfamiliar/Confusing/Cluttered/Islands in the Way o Parking Changes/Blue and Green Zones Moved o Aesthetics in Context of Library o Traffic Delays/Queuing/Slow Turning o Quality Control o Gas Station Access and Circulation o Private Buses Stop in Former Bus Stop Public Comments from May Bike/Ped Subcommittee Meeting o 11 out of 15 in support of interim treatments / improvements to interim proposal

70 Interim Treatments Aesthetics and Clarity o Rose-Colored Treatment on Islands and Surrounding Asphalt Border Similar to Sidewalks o Yellow School Zone Crosswalks with Solid Outline o Forest Green Bike Lanes o New Asphalt Paving for Cars o Also Parking, Access, Signal Timing

71 Interim Treatments Important Geometric Principals Repaving for cleaner, smoother intersection Improved alignment through restriping lanes Straighter path through intersection More clearly indicated turning path around corners Narrowed openings between islands More gradual bike lane transition

72 Interim Treatments Important Geometric Principals More clarity for drivers making turns by more clearly designating pedestrian and bike refuge / waiting areas Pedestrian refuge with concrete and detectable warning surfaces Bike areas with green paint

73 Interim Treatments Important Geometric Principals Narrowed openings between islands to clarify space and guide pedestrians closer to curb ramps

74 Interim Treatments Important Geometric Principals Reduced vehicle queueing on eastbound Hopkins approach due to right-turning traffic having increased queue space on The Alameda southbound

75 Interim Treatments Important Geometric Principals More gradual transition for bikes

76 Interim Treatments Important Geometric Principals Green-backed sharrows to guide bikes into and out of traffic

77 Interim Treatments Operational proposals o Work with gas station on access management o Automatic pedestrian signal recall o Green zone on Hopkins for library book returns o Resume shuttle / school bus use of AC Transit stop in new location on Hopkins

78 Interim Treatments Alternative Considerations EXISTING: PROPOSED OPTION: Permitted lefts Split Phasing