Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, January 18, 2022 (part 4 of 4)

410
2 A. The provisions of this chapter apply to zoning districts where residential uses are permitted, on lots that have at least one existing or proposed Dwelling Unit or Group Living Accommodation that is not a Fraternity House, Sorority House or Dormitory.

1. Exceptions. The provisions of this chapter that permit ADUs and JADUs do not apply to lots in the R-1H (Single-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), R-2H (Restricted Two-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), or R-2AH (Restricted Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay) districts. In such districts, ADUs and JADUs shall only be permitted to the extent required by subdivision (e)(1) of Government Code section 65852.2.

B. Number of ADUs and JADUs Permitted Per Lot. Except as expressly modified by Chapter 12.99, the following number of ADUs and JADUs shall be the maximum number of accessory units permitted on lots subject to this Chapter.

1. Lot with one Single Family Dwelling: One ADU and/or one JADU.

2. Lot with more than one Single Family Dwelling: One ADU.

3. Lot with a Duplex or Multiple-Family Dwelling, either:
a. Up to two detached ADUs; or
b. At least one ADU converted from non-habitable portions of the existing Main Building (e.g. basement, attic, storage room). The maximum number of ADUs converted from non-habitable portions of the existing Main Building shall not exceed 25% of the total number of existing Dwelling Units on the lot.

4. Lot with a Group Living Accommodation that is not a Fraternity House, Sorority House or Dormitory: One ADU.

23.102.010 – Permit Procedures
A. Zoning Certificate. An application for an ADU or JADU shall be allowed with a Zoning Certificate. Review must be completed within 60 days of submission of a completed application. A completed application must include evidence of compliance with this Chapter, including Development Standards, Deed Restrictions, and Neighborhood Noticing.

1. If an application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted as part of a project that requires discretionary review, a Zoning Certificate for a Building Permit shall not be issued for the ADU or JADU until the discretionary approval(s) has/have been granted and any applicable appeal periods have expired.

2. Issuance of a Zoning Certificate shall not be denied for the construction or conversion of an ADU or JADU that complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1).

Page 27 of 33 ends

411
3 3. Issuance of a Zoning Certificate for the construction or conversion of an ADU or JADU shall not be denied based on the failure of an applicant to correct a nonconforming zoning condition.

23.306.040 Development Standards
A. Basic Standards. See Table 23.306-1: ADU and JADU Development Standards.

TABLE 23.306-1 ADU AND JADU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ADU1 JADU
Maximum Size Outside of
HOD2, 5 500 sf
Studio or 1 bedroom 850 sf
2 + bedrooms 1000 sf N/A
Maximum Size Within HOD 800 sf 500 sf
Maximum Height Outside of
HOD 20 ft.

Maximum Height Within HOD 16 ft.

Front Yard Setback Same as underlying district
Rear Setback 4 ft3
Side Setback 4 ft3
N/A
Required Off-Street Parking
Outside of HOD None4
Required Off-Street Parking
Within HOD
The lesser of 1 space per
bedroom or ADU6. 7 None7
[1] An ADU converted from an Accessory Building or Accessory Structure legally established prior to December 1, 2021 that does not comply with the Maximum Height, Size, and/or Rear and Side Setback requirements is allowed to maintain non-conformity to the same dimensions of the existing Accessory Building or Accessory Structure, provided that the existing side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety as determined by the Building Official and the Fire Marshal. Any physical additions to the existing Accessory Building or Accessory Structure shall comply with the development standards in this table. [2] An ADU created entirely through conversion with no modifications to the existing building envelope that is non-compliant with the standards in this table is allowed a physical addition of no more than 150 square feet that complies with Maximum Height and Setback requirements in this table.
[3] If there is a lesser setback allowed for a comparable Accessory Building or Accessory Structure in the underlying zoning district, that setback shall apply. [4] Replacement of off-street parking for the Main Building is allowed and does not need to comply with Parking Maximums (BMC 23.322.070) nor Parking Layout and Design (BMC

23.322.080).
[5] For purposes of Table 23.306-1, ‘HOD” means lots that are within Fire Zones 2 or 3 (BMC

19.48.020, para. III.), but does not include lots located within the R-2H (Restricted Two-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), R-2AH (Restricted Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside

Page 28 of 33 ends

412
4 Overlay), R-3H (Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), or R-4H (Multi-Family Residential) districts.
[6] No off-street parking shall be required for ADUs that satisfy the criteria defined in subdivision (d) of California Government Code section 65852.2 or any successor provision thereto.
[7] If an applicant provides off-street parking for an ADU or a JADU in the HOD, parking shall be allowed in any configuration on the lot, including within the front yard setback.

B. Projections.

1. Except as limited by Paragraph B.2 of this Section, architectural Architectural features (Chimneys, Water Heater Enclosures, Flues, Heating and Cooling Equipment, Eaves, Cornices, Canopies, Awnings) may project two feet into the required setbacks, so long as there remains at least a two-foot setback from property lines. Bay windows may not project into a setback.

2. No projections shall be allowed within the required setbacks on lots that are within Fire Zones 2 or 3 (BMC 19.48.020, para. III.) except on lots located within the R-2H (Restricted Two-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), R-2AH (Restricted Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), R-3H (Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), or R-4H (Multi-Family Residential) districts.

23.306.050 - Deed Restrictions
A. The property owner shall file a deed restriction with the Alameda County Recorder which states:

1. The JADU shall not be sold separately from the Main Building;

2. The ADU shall not be sold separately from the Main Building unless the conditions of BMC 23.306.050 B are met;

3. The ADU and/or JADU shall not be rented for a term that is shorter than 30 days; and

4. If the property includes a JADU, the JADU, or the Single Family Dwelling in which the JADU is located, shall be owner-occupied.

B. ADUs Developed by a Qualified Nonprofit Developer. An ADU built or developed by a “qualified nonprofit corporation” may be sold or conveyed separately from the Main Building to a “qualified buyer,” as such terms are defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65852.26 of the California Government Code. The ADU must be held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement recorded on or after December 31, 2021 that includes the following elements:

1. Delineation of all areas of the property that are for the exclusive use of a cotenant;

Page 29 of 33 ends

413
5 2. Delineation of each cotenant’s responsibility for the costs of taxes, insurance, utilities, general maintenance and repair, and improvements associated with the property;

3. Procedures for dispute resolution among cotenants before resorting to legal action;

4. Allocates to each qualified buyer an undivided, unequal interest in the property based on the size of the dwelling each qualified buyer occupies;

5. A repurchase option that requires the qualified buyer to first offer the qualified nonprofit corporation to buy the ADU or primary dwelling if the buyer desires to sell or convey the property;

6. A requirement that the qualified buyer occupy the ADU or primary dwelling as the buyer’s principal residence; and

7. Affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the ADU or primary dwelling that ensure the ADU and primary dwelling will be preserved for low- income housing for 45 years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold to a qualified buyer.

8. If requested by a utility providing service to the primary residence, the ADU shall have a separate water, sewer, or electrical connection to that utility.

23.306.060 – Neighbor Noticing
A. Scope and Timing of Notice. Notice of an ADU application shall be mailed to owners and tenants of the subject, adjacent, confronting and abutting properties within ten working days of submission to the Planning Department.

B. Content of Notice. Notice shall provide the address of the project, allowable hours of construction, and a link to the City’s ADU webpage.

C. Mailing Fees. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of materials, postage and staff time necessary to process and mail notices.

23.306.070 Rooftop Decks and Balconies
A. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Title to the contrary, rooftop decks and balconies shall be prohibited on lots that are within Fire Zones 2 or 3 (BMC 19.48.020, para. III.) except on lots located within the R-2H (Restricted Two-Family Residential— Hillside Overlay), R-2AH (Restricted Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), R- 3H (Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), or R-4H (Multi-Family Residential) districts.

Section 2. Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 12.99 is adopted to read as follows:

12.99 Wildfire Hazard Evacuation Risk Mitigation Ordinance

Page 30 of 33 ends

414
6 Sections

12.99.010 Title and Purposes

12.99.020 Applicability

12.99.030 Total Number of Units Permitted

12.99.010 Title and Purposes
A. This Chapter may be referred to as the “Wildfire Hazard Evacuation Risk Mitigation Ordinance.”
B. The purposes of this chapter are to permit and promote the construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units while protecting human life and health, promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, and minimizing public and private losses due to dangerous conditions in specific areas.

C. Government Code 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(A) allows local agencies to regulate ADUs based on "adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts of traffic flow and public safety."
D. The Hillside Overlay District has unique conditions and hazards that require additional restrictions on ADUs and JADUs because of impacts of traffic flow and public safety:

1. Wildfires, earthquakes and landslides put residents of the Hillside Overlay District at significant risk.

2. The Hayward fault bisects the Hillside Overlay District.

3. Due to the maze of narrow, winding streets, the Hillside Overlay District has extremely poor emergency access and egress conditions. Safety is compromised by a substandard street infrastructure that has limited accessibility for emergency responders as well as inadequate capacity for fast and reliable escape. A majority of street widths in the North Berkeley hills have substandard widths.

4. A study published by UC Berkeley researchers concluded that in the best-case scenario, if each household evacuated from the hill with one vehicle, estimated evacuation time would be two hours and 245 vehicles would be exposed to immediate fire danger. However, if each household evacuated with 1.7 vehicles, evacuation time would increase to three hours and 782 vehicles would be exposed to immediate fire danger.

E. Increasing density and intensity by permitting both one ADU and one JADU (2 total) in addition to the primary home, on every parcel zoned residential in the Hillside Overlay District or in a very high fire hazard severity zone will seriously exacerbate the already very hazardous conditions that currently exist, necessitating reasonable limitations that reduce exposure to hazardous conditions.

Page 31 of 33 ends

415
7 12.99.020 Applicability
A. A lot that meets all of the following criteria shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter.

1. Lots that are located within the very high fire hazard severity zone (“Fire Zone 2” or “Fire Zone 3”) as designated in paragraph III. of Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.48.020; and

2. Lots that are not located within the R-2H (Restricted Two-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), R-2AH (Restricted Multiple-Family Residential— Hillside Overlay), R-3H (Multiple-Family Residential—Hillside Overlay), or R-4H (Multi-Family Residential) districts.

12.99.030 Total Number of Units Permitted
A. Notwithstanding any provisions of Chapter 23.306 to the contrary, no more than one ADU or JADU shall be permitted per lot that is subject to this Chapter.

Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 32 of 33 ends

416
Attachment 2

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL

AMENDMENTS TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) ORDINANCE
The City Council will consider adopting a local ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

The proposed Municipal Code amendments are consistent with Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 and include local regulations for the size, location, and other development standards for ADUs and address public safety measures in portions of the hillside area. The amendments would apply throughout the City. This action is considered exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. The hearing will be held via videoconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and the state declared emergency.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.CityofBerkeley.info as of December 2, 2021. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology.

Written comments should be mailed directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or emailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

For further information, please contact Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Department at (510) 981-7489, or by e-mail at [email protected].

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service. 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 City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: December 3, 2021 – The Berkeley Voice
City Clerk shall publish a notice at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing with the date, hour, and place of the public hearing for annual levy and collection of assessments in accordance with Streets and Highway Code Sections 22625, 22626, 22552, and 22553 and Section 6061 of the Government Code. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on December 2, 2021. __________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Page 33 of 33 ends

417
418
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy and Five-Year Plan

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution updating the Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy and Five- Year Plan.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan (Five Year Plan) is based on the projected budgets for Fiscal Years 2023 through 2027, and the estimated available funding levels from State Transportation (Gas) Taxes, Alameda County Transportation Sales Tax Measure BB, County Vehicle Registration Fee Measure F, and the City of Berkeley’s General Fund, as laid out in Table 1.

Table 1: Five-Year Paving Program Funding Source Allocations by Year Fund Description FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 State Transportation
Tax
495,303 495,303 495,303 495,303 495,303
Measure BB – Local
Streets & Roads
2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000
Measure F Vehicle -
Registration Fee
155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000
Capital Improvement
Fund
1,925,000 1,925,000 1,925,000 1,925,000 1,925,000
Road Repair and
Accountability Act of
2017
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
TOTAL 7,275,303 7,275,303 7,275,303 7,275,303 7,275,303 Additional funding includes $6.9 million from Measure T1, Phase 2, and a $1.2 million federal grant for the street rehabilitation portion of the Southside Complete Streets project.

Page 1 of 29 ends

419
Street Maintenance Rehabilitation Policy and Five Year Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022

Page 2 ends

Table 2: Other Funding Source Allocations by Year
Fund Description FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 Measure T1 6,375,000 246,000 286,000 0 0 Grants 1,200,000 0 0 0 0

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Public Works is on track to bid and award a paving contract for FY 2022 that implements the first year of City Council’s Five Year Plan adopted on January 26, 2021. The construction contract award will be submitted to City Council later this winter and is not affected by tonight’s City Council actions.

This staff report recommends that City Council complete a long-sought update to the City’s Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy (Policy) and adopt its next Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan (Plan).

Pavement Condition. The current state of Berkeley’s streets is simply unacceptable. The City has 214 miles of streets with a total replacement value of over $793 million. Our Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is at 56 out of 100, which means that the condition of our streets is very much “at risk.” Total deferred maintenance in the City’s streets is $250 million, and if the status quo continues, will surpass $1 billion by 2050.

Many of the City’s streets have been neglected for so long that they are at the very expensive end of the life-cycle cost curve. At the City’s currently budgeted average of $7.2 million in baseline annual paving funding, the PCI will drop to 52 by the year 2023.

To maintain our current at-risk PCI, an additional $8 million of annual funding is required.

To improve the PCI from the “at risk” category to the “good” category, the City would need an infusion of $22 million more in annual baseline funding.

Studies have shown that $1 invested in pavement treatments early in the pavement’s useful life save $8 spent on more expensive repairs later. With a PCI of 56, Berkeley is in the life cycle’s steep decline where the cost of repairs is escalating rapidly. The proposed Policy and Plan are powerless to do anything other than tinker with this fundamental dynamic. Simply put, without a significant infusion of new revenue into street maintenance and rehabilitation, street condition will continue to deteriorate and become even more expensive to repair.

Policies and Plans. Per the City’s existing Policy, a Five Year Plan is required to be adopted by City Council annually. However, the Policy itself has not been updated since 2009. In the intervening years, City Council has adopted many plans and policies that effect the City’s paving program, yet the written Policy remains exactly as it was in 2009.

For this reason, the City Auditor’s November 2020 audit titled, Rocky Road, Berkeley

Page 2 of 29 ends

420
Street Maintenance Rehabilitation Policy and Five Year Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022

Page 3 ends

Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, identified the need to update the Policy in Finding 2.1.

The proposed, updated Policy at Attachment 2 simplifies the paving planning process; addresses equity and tree removals; and includes additional long-sought after initiatives, such as an emphasis on paving contiguous (as opposed to one block) segments, development of a “Dig Once” policy, and performance targets (e.g., PCIs of 70 for arterials, collectors, bus routes, low-stress bikeway network, and equity zone). The updated Policy requires exploration of new funding sources from heavy vehicles and transportation network companies, and updates and aligns to the City’s already adopted policies and plans, including the City’s Climate Action Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, Green Infrastructure Plan, Resilience Strategy, Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan, Undergrounding Plan, Complete Streets Policy, Vision 2050 Framework, Transit First Policy, Strategic Transportation Plan, public realm plans and/or other localized transportation plans.

Equity. The City Council, Public Works Commission, and City Auditor have all identified the need to bring equity into the Policy and 5 Year Plan. Finding 2.2 of the Rocky Road audit specifically identified the need to incorporate equity into the updated Policy.

Bringing equity into infrastructure work has the support of the community. Recent scientific surveys of residents found broad and deep support for inclusion of equity in infrastructure work. In one recent survey, 76% of residents found equity important to address in infrastructure. When respondents were offered alternative definitions of equity, 55% of respondents preferred a definition of equity where more infrastructure benefits were distributed to lower income neighborhoods and communities of color. In contrast, only 9% of respondents preferred a definition of equity focused on distribution between Berkeley’s eight Council districts. Another recent scientific survey found 76% of residents agreed with the City allocating more money for transportation improvements in lower income neighborhoods and communities of color that have historically been underfunded.

Residents’ consensus on equity and its meaning align with the conceptions of equity included in the approved Vision 2050 Framework and Pedestrian Plan.

The discussion of equity in paving is not a theoretical one. As pointed out in the Rocky Road audit, streets in need of repair in the San Francisco Bay Area cause an additional $1,049 in vehicle repair and other costs. These repair bills and other costs are a barrier for low-income families and their mobility, and, for some, may mean the difference between having transportation to a job or not. Similarly, for those who are disabled, mobility-impaired, use bicycles, or walk, deteriorated streets and faded pavement markings pose particular dangers.

To translate the City Council’s and public’s desire for equity into an implementable component of the paving program, staff began to consider the concept of an Equity Zone

Page 3 of 29 ends

421
Street Maintenance Rehabilitation Policy and Five Year Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022

Page 4 ends

earlier this year. Over time, the concept and methodology have been refined into a proposed Equity Zone based on three Census-based factors.

The first factor used in the analysis is the Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status (NSES) Index.1 The NSES Index was selected because it includes a variety of key indicators of socioeconomic distress, including median income and population below the poverty level, low educational attainment, unemployment rate, and concentration of single-parent households headed by females. The second factor utilized is the percentage of people with one or more disabilities, with the data provided through a service called PolicyMap.2 People with disabilities are disadvantaged in their ability to utilize the streets and are disproportionately impacted by poor paving quality. The final factor utilized is neighborhood redlining using historical federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps provided through the Mapping Inequality project of the University of Richmond. 3 This factor was included because it accounts for the entrenched and intergenerational neighborhood impact of racial segregation and exclusion from home ownership opportunities. The Equity Zone covers the Census tracts where the average scores for these factors are in the City’s lowest quartile. The methodology in developing this Equity Zone is very much in line with the City’s adopted Vison Zero Action Plan (2019) and Pedestrian Plan (2020). In addition, if this Equity Zone were a City Council district, it would have the lowest PCI of any district in the City.

Staff recommend this approach as it is data-based, implementable, consistent with past adopted plans and public opinion, and would be an important step in achieving the City’s strategic goal of championing social and racial equity.

Strategic Road Resurfacing Plan. The Public Works Commission and Public Works staff have started a project to develop a Strategic Resurfacing Plan. The purpose of this plan is to take a longer view of our street rehabilitation program, review the City’s approach to pavement maintenance and rehabilitation, and evaluate if there are better approaches to preserve, maintain, rehabilitate, and improve the City’s decaying street system in a more efficient and environmentally friendly way.

BACKGROUND
Policy. A sub quorum of the Public Works Commission and Public Works staff have been working over the past year to update the Policy. This work was assisted by the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment, and Sustainability Committee (FITES). The Public Works Commission recommended approval of the updated Policy in March 2021.

FITES unanimously approved a positive recommendation for submission of the Policy to 1 Miles, Jeremy and Weden, Margaret; Lavery, Diana; Escarce, José; Kathleen Cagney; Shih, Regina. 2016. “Constructing a Time-Invariant Measure of the Socio-Economic Status of U.S.

Census Tracts.” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 93, issue no.1, pp. 213-232. 2 https://www.policymap.com/newmaps#/
3 https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=5/39.1/-94.58

Page 4 of 29 ends

422
Street Maintenance Rehabilitation Policy and Five Year Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022

Page 5 ends

City Council in May, and the proposed Policy was put on the agenda for the City Council meeting on June 1, 2021 with Councilmember Bartlett added as a co-sponsor. At that meeting, the City Council continued the item to July 13, 2021. On July 13, 2021, City Council referred the item to the Agenda and Rules Committee for future scheduling along with the annual adoption of the next Five Year Plan.

PWC Recommended Five Year Plan, Arterial Alternative. On November 4, 2021, the Public Works Commission (PWC) recommended a 5 Year Paving Plan version 12A, included at Attachment 3 and referred to in this staff report as focusing on arterials. The PWC’s recommended plan does not specifically address equity, as the PWC was operating under the constraints of the existing, out-of-date Policy from 2009. In other words, staff and the PWC developed this alternative to conform with existing policy and City Council directives.

PWC’s recommended Five Year Plan distributes the paving costs and mileage as shown in the table below.

Table 3: FY 2023-2027 Totals, Arterial Focus
Mileage Estimated Cost %Cost % Mileage
Arterials 5.99 $15,463,965 39% 39%
Collectors 4.12 $12,346,983 31% 27%
Residentials 5.38 $12,216,433 31% 35%
Total 15.49 $40,027,381 100%* 100%*
Bikeways** 8.05 $25,474,015 64% 52%
Equity Zone** 2.19 $6,490,040 16% 14%
* Due to rounding, these numbers do not add up exactly to 100%. **A street segment that is on a bikeway and in the Equity Zone is counted for both, hence these categories are not mutually exclusive.

A map of this Plan is included at Attachment 4.

The PWC’s recommended Plan addresses serious needs in our arterials, and does so by addressing the maintenance of these arterials earlier in the life cycle, thereby properly maintaining these important streets. It also focuses much of its investments in residential streets on bikeways, another important commitment. On the other hand, the Plan does not address equity, does much less for residential streets generally, and is not based on the proposed, updated Policy.

Staff Recommended Five Year Plan with Focus on Equity. Staff’s recommended 5 Year Plan at Attachment 5 distributes more paving dollars and miles to residential streets throughout the City, but especially so in the Equity Zone. These investments are offset by a corresponding reduction of investment in arterials.

Page 5 of 29 ends

423
Street Maintenance Rehabilitation Policy and Five Year Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022

Page 6 ends

The Plan also addresses the City’s commitments to its low stress bicycle network, with 65% of the plans’ resources dedicated to this network. Similarly, the recommended Plan also continues the City’s commitments to Vision Zero by investing 32% of the plan’s resources in collector streets, where injuries are more likely to occur. These investment levels are on par with the PWC’s recommended plan, leaving the key distinction between these alternatives being the Equity Alternative’s focus on the Equity Zone and residential streets.

Staff’s recommendation is based on three important assumptions. First, the City is at an important historical moment where translating the commitment to equity from words into action is critical. Second, our community wants better streets. In a recent scientific survey of voters, 97% said repairing deteriorating streets was important (extremely important at 35%, very important at 38%, and somewhat important at 24%). By better streets, most community members consider the residential streets in front of or near their homes, and the equity alternative’s investments in residential streets is consistent with this sentiment.

Third, the equity alternative’s focus on residential streets is consistent with the City’s exploration of a significant infusion of new revenue into our streets, perhaps via a November 2022 revenue measure focused on infrastructure, and/or seeking federal or state grants, where applications involving arterials are more likely to be competitive.

Staff’s recommended Five Year Plan distributes cost and mileage of paving as shown in the table below.

Table 4: FY 2023-2027 Totals, Equity Focus
Mileage Estimated Cost %Cost % Mileage
Arterials 1.18 $2,915,254 8% 7%
Collectors 4.06 $12,273,663 32% 25%
Residentials 10.70 $23,196,396 60% 67%
Total 15.94 $38,385,313 100%* 100%*
Bikeways** 9.61 $24,869,854 65% 60%
Equity Zone** 5.21 $13,866,514 36% 33%
* Due to rounding, these numbers may not add up exactly to 100%. **A street segment that is on a bikeway and in the Equity Zone is counted for both, which is why these categories total more than 100%.

A map of this Plan is included at Attachment 6.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Streets in good condition are lower stress and improve safety for those who bike, walk, or use public transit, thus are important for promoting non-automobile trips and lowering greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the City’s 2009 Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency Declaration.

Page 6 of 29 ends

424
Street Maintenance Rehabilitation Policy and Five Year Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022

Page 7 ends

In addition, environmentally friendly pavement treatments are evaluated for use in the paving projects such as Full Depth Reclamation (FDR). FDR is used as a cost-effective alternative to traditional street reconstruction methods. It recycles much of the existing pavement on site, and incorporates it into the pavement subgrade, thereby reducing waste and reducing truck trips to and from construction sites.

The last two years of Berkeley’s paving projects have included use of pervious concrete.

Berkeley is one of the first cities in the San Francisco Bay Area to use this particular technology, which enables stormwater to filter through the concrete panels and save stormwater and pollution from reaching the Bay. Due to their form as panels, this technology enables lifting and removal, rather than cutting, of the panels in case underground utility work is later necessary. This technology was used last year on Ward Street adjacent to San Pablo Park, and this year on Channing Way adjacent to Berkeley High School.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The updated Policy and proposed Plan advance the City’s strategic goals, respond to prior audit findings, and are consistent with the City’s already-adopted plans and priorities.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff did not consider alternative actions as the City Council is required to update the Five Year Plan and has requested an update of the Street Maintenance Rehabilitation Policy.

If the City Council does not adopt an update to the Policy and a new Plan tonight, staff suggest City Council provide direction to staff on both the Policy and Plan, and request staff return with updates per Council’s direction at a future City Council meeting.

CONTACT PERSON
Liam Garland, Public Works Director, 510-981-6303
Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering, Public Works, 510-981-6411 Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A. Staff’s Recommended Five Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY 2023 to FY 2027, Equity Alternative
Exhibit B. [Proposed] Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

2. [Proposed] Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

3. PWC’s Recommended Five Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY 2023 to FY 2027, Arterial Alternative

4. PWC’s Recommended Five Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Map, Arterial Alternative

5. Staff’s Recommended Five Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY 2023 to FY 2027, Equity Alternative

6. Staff’s Recommended Five Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Map, Equity Alternative

Page 7 of 29 ends

425
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

ADOPTION OF THE STREET REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE POLICY AND FIVE-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 WHEREAS, the Street Rehabilitation Policy, Resolution No. 55,384-N.S. approved on May 22, 1990, requires a Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for the entire City be adopted by the City Council;
WHEREAS, the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and the Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy shall be reviewed and updated by the City Council, with advice from the Public Works Commission;
WHEREAS, the Public Works Commission reviewed and advised on both the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and update to the Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy; and
WHEREAS, Public Works recommends City Council adopt both the updated Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy and Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan, Equity Alternative for FY 2023 to FY 2027.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Five- Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY 2023 to FY 2027, attached as Exhibit A hereof is hereby adopted, as is the Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy, attached as Exhibit B.

Exhibit A: Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY 2023 to FY 2027, Equity Alternative Exhibit B: Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

Page 8 of 29 ends

426

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027, EQUITY ALTERNATIVE Revised: 10/20/2021
Fiscal
Year Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current PCI Last M&R Date
Last Paved
2023 BANCROFT WAY SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST C Heavy Rehab 341,126$ 4 N 4*, C 0.09 41 8/7/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 BANCROFT WAY MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE C Heavy Rehab 418,348$ 4 N 4* 0.13 34 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 BANCROFT WAY TELEGRAPH AVE BOWDITCH ST C Heavy Mtce 133,325$ 7 N 4*, C 0.13 63 12/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 BANCROFT WAY BOWDITCH ST COLLEGE AVE C Heavy Mtce 161,036$ 7 N 3C*, C 0.13 56 12/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 BANCROFT WAY COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE C Heavy Rehab 254,076$ 7 N 3C*, C 0.13 28 12/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 CHANNING WAY ROOSEVELT AVE MCKINLEY AVE R Reconstruct 445,230$ 4 N 3E 0.13 1 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 CHANNING WAY SACRAMENTO ST ROOSEVELT AVE R Heavy Rehab 926,780$ 4 N 3E 0.31 22 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 DANA ST BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY R Heavy Rehab 458,900$ 7 N 2A to 2B*, C 0.25 45 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 DANA ST DWIGHT WAY BLAKE ST R Light Rehab 91,440$ 7 N 3E 0.06 44 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 DANA ST BLAKE ST WARD ST R Light Rehab 466,580$ 7 N 3E* 0.25 65 7/30/2008 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 DURANT AVE MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE C Reconstruct 693,355$ 4 N N 0.13 11 11/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 DURANT AVE SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST C Heavy Rehab 268,880$ 4 N C 0.10 32 8/12/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 TELEGRAPH AVE BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY C Heavy Rehab 473,060$ 7 N 3C*, C, VZ 0.25 39 7/1/1988 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 HOPKINS ST GILMAN ST SACRAMENTO ST R Heavy Rehab 233,942$ 5 N 3A, C 0.10 32 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 HOPKINS ST HOPKINS CT MONTEREY AVE C Light Rehab 87,193$ 5 N 3A, C, VZ 0.05 59 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 HOPKINS ST MONTEREY AVE MC GEE AVE C Heavy Rehab 119,167$ 5 N 2A, C 0.05 47 12/1/1989 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 HOPKINS ST MC GEE AVE CARLOTTA AVE C Heavy Rehab 149,680$ 5 N 2A, C 0.06 45 12/1/1989 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 HOPKINS ST CARLOTTA AVE JOSEPHINE ST C Heavy Rehab 874,580$ 5 N 2A, C 0.35 50 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY 2023 HOPKINS ST JOSEPHINE ST THE ALAMEDA C Heavy Rehab 216,700$ 5 N 4*, C 0.06 49 7/1/1991 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE 2023 HOPKINS ST THE ALAMEDA SUTTER ST C Heavy Rehab 876,500$ 5 N 4* 0.26 30 7/1/1991 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2023 HOPKINS ST NORTHSIDE AVE PERALTA AVE R Light Mtce 239,587$ 1 N N 0.10 78 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 HOPKINS ST PERALTA AVE GILMAN ST R Heavy Mtce 493,031$ 15 N N 0.27 58 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 HOPKINS ST SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS CT A Heavy Rehab 101,755$ 5 N 3A, C, VZ 0.04 38 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 HOPKINS ST SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE R Light Mtce 37,188$ 1 N N 0.09 74 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 HOPKINS ST STANNAGE AVE NORTHSIDE AVE R Heavy Mtce 181,658$ 1 N N 0.17 69 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 CONTINGENCY 874,312$
TOTAL FUNDING 9,617,428$ 3.70
57% bike/ ped
62% bike/ ped not incl contingency
2,342,125$ additional fundin g from T1
FISCAL YEAR 2023 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $9,617,428 3.70 miles
Cost w/o Miles w/ o
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.04 $101,755 1% 1% 1 $704,948 0.51 $704,948 0.51 Collectors 1.93 $5,067,026 58% 52% 2 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Residentials 1.74 $3,574,336 41% 47% 3 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
4 $3,093,719 0.90 $3,093,719 0.90
Bikeways 2.08 $5,457,408 62% 56% 5 $2,906,033 1.11 $2,804,278 1.07 Curb Ramps $276,000 3% 6 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Total $5,733,408 66% 7 $2,038,417 1.19 $2,038,417 1.19
8 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Equity Zone 0.00 $0 0% 0% $8,743,117 3.70 $8,641,362 3.67 Equity Zone w/Arterials 0.00 $0 0% 0%
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v11c_equity.xlsx

Page 9 of 29 ends

427

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/20/2021
Fiscal
Year Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current PCI Last M&R Date
Last Paved
2024 CRESTON RD SUNSET LANE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD R Heavy Mtce 116,258$ 6 N N 0.36 64 11/1/1988 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2024 DERBY ST TELEGRAPH AVE HILLEGASS AVE R Reconstruct 621,503$ 8 N 3E 0.16 19 8/8/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 DERBY ST HILLEGASS AVE COLLEGE AVE R Reconstruct 577,560$ 8 N 3E* 0.14 25 8/8/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024* DWIGHT WAY HILLSIDE AVE DEAD END ABOVE R Reconstruct 387,040$ 8 N N 0.11 22 9/1/1993 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2024* DWIGHT WAY PIEDMONT AVE HILLSIDE AVE R Reconstruct 501,840$ 78 N N 0.14 12 9/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD NORTH CITY EUCLID AVE C Reconstruct 794,084$ 6N 3 C 0.20 24 11/1/1990 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2024 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD EUCLID AVE KEELER AVE C Reconstruct 634,478$ 6 N 3E, C 0.21 13 11/1/1990 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2024 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD KEELER AVE MARIN AVE C Reconstruct 859,622$ 6 N 3C*, C 0.27 19 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 HILLEGASS AVE ASHBY AVE CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY R Light Mtce 76,400$ 8 N 3E 0.16 76 7/28/2003 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2024 HILLEGASS AVE DWIGHT WAY ASHBY AVE R Light Mtce 334,500$ 8 N 3E 0.61 78 5/31/2000 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2024 LATHAM LANE MILLER AVE GRIZZLY PEAK R Heavy Mtce 38,500$ 6 N N 0.10 59 6/1/1994 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2024 MC GEE AVE DERBY ST RUSSELL ST R Light Rehab 551,992$ 3 Y N 0.25 59 12/10/1998 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2024 MC GEE AVE DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST R Light Rehab 374,400$ 3 Y N 0.26 51 7/1/1988 THIN OVERLAY w/FABRIC 2024 MILLER AVE HILLDALE AVE SHASTA RD R Light Rehab 449,880$ 6 N N 0.66 53 6/1/1994 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2024 OTIS ST RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE R Heavy Rehab 224,000$ 3 N N 0.13 49 4/1/2001 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2024 ROSE ST SACRAMENTO MARTIN LUTHER KING C Reconstruct 2,302,332$ 15 N 3E 0.48 21 8/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 WOOLSEY ST HILLEGASS AVE COLLEGE AVE R Reconstruct 434,534$ 8 N 3 A 0.11 13 N/A 2024 CONTINGENCY 927,892$
TOTAL FUNDING 10,206,815$ 4.38
32% bike/ ped
35% bike/ ped not incl contingency
* in Fiscal Year column denotes coordination with EBMUD project 2,931,512$ additional fundin g from T1 FISCAL YEAR 2024 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $10,206,815 4.38 miles
Cost w/o Miles w/ o
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.00 $0 0% 0% 1 $1,151,166 0.24 $1,151,166 0.24 Collectors 1.16 $4,590,516 49% 26% 2 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Residentials 3.22 $4,688,407 51% 74% 3 $1,150,392 0.64 $1,150,392 0.64 4 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Bikeways 2.35 $6,635,013 72% 54% 5 $1,151,166 0.24 $1,151,166 0.24 Curb Ramps $378,000 4% 6 $2,892,822 1.80 $2,892,822 1.80 Total $7,013,013 76% 7 $250,920 0.07 $250,920 0.07
8 $2,682,457 1.37 $2,682,457 1.37
Equity Zone 0.51 $926,392 10% 12% $9,278,923 4.38 $9,278,923 4.38 Equity Zone w/Arterials 0.51 $926,392 10% 12%
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v11c_equity.xlsx

Page 10 of 29 ends

428

Page 11 of 29 ends

429

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/20/2021
Fiscal
Year Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current PCI Last M&R Date
Last Paved
2026 ADDISON ST 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R Reconstruct 1,140,652$ 2 Y 3E 0.31 16 8/27/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 ADDISON ST SAN PABLO AVE CURTIS ST R Reconstruct 503,880$ 2 Y 3E 0.14 23 8/18/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 DERBY ST MABEL ST SACRAMENTO ST R Heavy Rehab 456,020$ 2 Y 3E 0.25 32 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 CHANNING WAY SAN PABLO AVE SACRAMENTO R Heavy Rehab 914,500$ 2 Y 3E 0.53 50 9/2/2008 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2026 MABEL ST DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST R Heavy Rehab 236,400$ 2 Y 3E 0.12 31 9/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 MABEL ST PARKER ST DERBY ST R Reconstruct 468,400$ 2 Y 3E 0.12 21 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 MABEL ST DERBY ST WARD ST R Heavy Rehab 97,400$ 2 Y 3E 0.06 33 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 CAMELIA ST 8TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R Reconstruct 697,680$ 1 Y 3E 0.20 19 4/1/2001 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE 2026 8TH ST GILMAN ST CAMELIA ST R Heavy Rehab 212,445$ 1 Y 3E 0.12 35 4/1/2001 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 8TH ST CAMELIA ST PAGE ST R Heavy Rehab 144,978$ 1 Y N 0.08 42 4/1/2001 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 8TH ST PAGE ST JONES ST R Reconstruct 293,378$ 1 Y N 0.09 16 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 8TH ST JONES ST VIRGINIA ST R Reconstruct 710,367$ 1 Y N 0.21 19 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 BATAAN AVE 7TH ST 8TH ST R Reconstruct 144,294$ 1 Y N 0.06 16 N/A CONTINGENCY 1,254,909$
$7,275,303 2.28
65% bike/ ped
79% bike/ ped not incl contingency
FISCAL YEAR 2026 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,275,303 2.28 miles
Cost w/o Miles w/ o
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.00 $0 0% 0% 1 $2,203,142 0.75 $2,203,142 0.75 Collectors 0.00 $0 0% 0% 2 $3,817,252 1.52 $3,817,252 1.52 Residentials 2.28 $6,020,394 100% 100% 3 $0 0.00 $0 0.00 4 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Bikeways 1.84 $4,727,377 79% 81% 5 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Curb Ramps $246,000 4% 6 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Total $4,973,377 83% 7 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
8 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Equity Zone 2.28 $6,020,394 100% 100% $6,020,394 2.28 $6,020,394 2.28 Equity Zone w/Arterials 2.28 $6,020,394 100% 100%
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v11c_equity.xlsx

Page 12 of 29 ends

430

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/20/2021
Fiscal
Year Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current PCI Last M&R Date
Last Paved
2027 DERBY ST COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE R Heavy Rehab 268,765$ 8 N 3E 0.12 31 8/1/1996 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 DERBY ST PIEDMONT AVE WARRING ST R Heavy Rehab 114,903$ 8 N 3E 0.06 27 N/A 2027* FOREST AVE COLLEGE AVE CLAREMONT BLVD R Heavy Rehab 618,000$ 8 N N 0.36 45 8/1/1996 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2027 HARMON ST IDAHO ST SACRAMENTO R Reconstruct 829,900$ 2 Y 3E 0.36 15 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 IDAHO ST 66TH ST ALCATRAZ AVE R Reconstruct 547,888$ 2 Y 3E 0.36 18 5/1/1996 THIN AC OVERLAY 2027 OREGON ST SAN PABLO AVE MABEL ST R Reconstruct 537,740$ 2 Y 3E 0.36 18 11/1/1990 MILL AND THIN OVERLAY 2027 HASTE ST PIEDMONT AVE COLLEGE AVE A Heavy Rehab 270,400$ 7 N VZ 0.12 43 8/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 HASTE ST COLLEGE AVE BOWDITCH ST A Heavy Rehab 313,947$ 7 N VZ 0.13 41 8/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 HASTE ST BOWDITCH ST FULTON ST A Heavy Rehab 1,304,756$ 47 N VZ 0.51 35 8/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 HASTE ST FULTON ST SHATTUCK AVE A Heavy Rehab 241,280$ 4 N VZ 0.11 29 8/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 EUCLID AVE BAYVIEW PL CEDAR ST C Heavy Rehab 695,412$ 6 N 3C, C 0.36 28 11/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 EUCLID AVE CEDAR ST HEARST AVE C Heavy Rehab 614,509$ 6 N 3C, C 0.31 41 11/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC CONTINGENCY 917,803$
$7,275,303 3.14
63% bike/ ped
73% bike/ ped not incl contingency
* in Fiscal Year column denotes coordination with EBMUD project FISCAL YEAR 2027 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,275,303 3.14 miles
Cost w/o Miles w/ o
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.87 $2,130,383 34% 28% 1 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Collectors 0.67 $1,309,921 21% 21% 2 $1,915,528 1.07 $1,915,528 1.07 Residentials 1.61 $2,917,196 46% 51% 3 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
4 $893,658 0.36 $0 0.00
Bikeways 1.92 $3,609,117 57% 61% 5 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Curb Ramps $654,000 10% 6 $1,309,921 0.67 $1,309,921 0.67 Total $4,263,117 67% 7 $1,236,725 0.50 $0 0.00
8 $1,001,668 0.54 $1,001,668 0.54
Equity Zone 1.07 $1,915,528 30% 34% $6,357,500 3.14 $4,227,117 2.27 Equity Zone w/Arterials 1.07 $1,915,528 30% 34%
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2027 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $43,158,767 15.94 miles
Cost w/o Miles w/ o
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 1.18 $2,915,254 8% 7% 1 $6,048,572 2.09 $5,365,456 1.82 Collectors 4.06 $12,273,663 32% 25% 2 $7,742,220 3.16 $7,742,220 3.16 Residentials 10.70 $23,196,396 60% 67% 3 $4,373,575 1.65 $4,373,575 1.65 4 $4,216,177 1.39 $3,322,519 1.03
Bikeways 9.61 $24,869,854 65% 60% 5 $4,057,199 1.35 $3,955,444 1.31 Curb Ramps $1,782,000 5% 6 $4,202,743 2.47 $4,202,743 2.47 Total $26,651,854 69% 7 $4,060,702 1.92 $2,823,977 1.42 8 $3,684,125 1.91 $3,684,125 1.91
Equity Zone 5.21 $13,866,514 36% 33% $38,385,313 15.94 $35,470,059 14.76 Equity Zone w/Arterials 5.21 $13,866,514 36% 33%
Total Funding $43,158,767
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v11c_equity.xlsx

Page 13 of 29 ends

431
1 City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy Section 1. General Policy
It is the policy of the City of Berkeley to maintain our streets in safe, good condition that protects our environment and to properly maintain the existing investment in City assets. Staff will implement a Citywide road resurfacing plan that will ensure street maintenance and repair in a timely manner, reduce long term-replacement costs, and provide for the safe and efficient use of our streets. The users of the street surface in the public right-of-way include powered vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians. The right-of-way also provides for storm water conveyance and is the location of many public utilities.

The policy requires that a 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan for the entire City be prepared and adopted biannually in line with the City’s budget process. Any changes to the 5-year Plan made in the interim shall be reported to City Council. Streets and their surfacing treatment shall be prioritized using a multi-criteria adaptive planning framework to achieve sustainable, resilient, and integrated solutions for the City’s right- of-way and the downstream environments. The criteria shall consider equity, quality of life, safety, opportunities for leadership, resource allocation, environmental impacts, and climate and resilience.

Section 2. Assumptions
This section of the policy defines basic assumptions that inform the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 5-year plan.

1. This policy defines the priorities for managing the road surface infrastructure from curb to curb. This policy does not provide guidance on how to prioritize sidewalks or other infrastructure associated with complete streets planning.

2. Streets include arterial, collector, residential, and commercial/industrial streets as defined in Berkeley’s General Plan.

3. Consistency with the City’s General Plan policy of encouraging use of forms of transportation other than automobiles.

4. Conformance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s stormwater permit requirements.

5. Support of the City’s plans and updates thereto, including the City’s Climate Action Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, Resilience Strategy, Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan, Undergrounding Plan, Complete Streets Policy, Vision 2050 framework, Pedestrian Plan, Transit First Policy, Strategic Transportation Plan, public realm and/or other localized transportation plans, and Bicycle Plan.

6. Poorly maintained streets have a disproportionate impact on certain members of the community:
a) Low-income residents are more seriously impacted by higher vehicle repair costs than higher income residents;
b) Those with mobility or visual impairments face greater challenges of unequal access and safety compared to those without such challenges;
c) Bicyclists and pedestrians face greater danger than those driving; and d) Poorly maintained streets in dense, more populous neighborhoods are detrimental to more users than poorly maintained streets in less dense neighborhoods.

Page 14 of 29 ends

432
2 7. Utility trench and pothole repair work shall be done in accordance with permit conditions, standard details, and/or standard operating procedures adopted by the Public Works Department.

8. To the extent practical, the City shall use life cycle cost analysis to evaluate different road surfacing options.

9. Runoff from roadways carry pollutants that negatively impact public health, creeks and streams, and the Bay.

10. Street trees are valuable part of the landscape, as they sequester carbon, soak up stormwater, improve land values, and add greenery.

11. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission requires the use of a Pavement Management Tool (such as StreetSaver). Pavement Management Tools are used to optimize road surface conditions through the use of a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) performance metric.

Section 3. Funding
The Five-year Street Rehabilitation Plan shall identify all available funding and the sources used to deliver the proposed road improvement projects. This shall include Federal, State, County and City funding sources. In the event that the planned projects are not able to achieve the City’s desired roadway condition level of service, the Five-year Plan should identify the level of funding and activities needed to expand roadway improvements to achieve the stated goals of this policy. Bond funds shall strive to be used for long-lasting capital improvements (projects with a useful life that meets or exceeds the duration of the bond repayment schedule) or to accelerate road work that will result in long-term cost savings for ratepayers.

Section 4. Specific Policy
The Street Rehabilitation Program shall be based on the following objectives:

1. Planning
a) The 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan shall be supported by a 30-year road surfacing projection, where roadway improvement projects are forecast over a long-term planning period. The first five years of the projection will become the first draft of the 5-year Plan. b) To the extent financially practical, implementation of the paving plan shall advance plans identified in section 2.5.
c) Rehabilitation of contiguous sections of roadway, rather than one block at a time, shall be preferred, when feasible.
d) Tree removals shall only be permitted as a last resort consistent with BMC 12.44.020, with the approval of both the Director of Parks and Waterfront and Director of Public Works. If tree removal is necessary, replacement trees shall be planted where and when feasible in accordance with BMC 12.44.010.

2. Equity
a) The benefits of good infrastructure shall be distributed equitably throughout the entire community regardless of the income, political influence, or demographic characteristics of the residents in each area. Equity means that disadvantaged residents with more pressing needs experience benefits sooner than others, as defined by the City within the adopted 5-Year Plan.

Page 15 of 29 ends

433
3 b) A new Equity Zone shall be established. This Zone shall be prioritized to meet an average PCI of 70 sooner than the remainder of the City. This Zone contains historically underserved neighborhoods that have experienced decades of underinvestment, and the residents in this zone experience more pressing needs and receive benefits sooner. c) Over the longer term, road surfacing activities shall be planned within Pavement Analysis Zones. A Pavement Analysis Zone shall consist of a logical set of street segments, excluding the arterials, collectors, bus routes, bicycle boulevards and non-representative demonstration projects.
a. The department may revise the pavement analysis zone boundaries from time to time, consistent with the other goals of this policy. Any changes to pavement analysis units shall be proposed within the biannually updated 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan submitted to City Council.
b. It shall be the goal of the City to seek parity of street condition between pavement analysis zones, except in regards to the Equity Zone.

3. Performance Metrics
a) The City will strive to maintain all roads within the primary transportation network at a standard no less than the following PCI targets for any stretch of roadway1:
a. Arterial - 70,
b. Collector - 70,
c. Bus Routes - 70,
d. Existing and proposed low-stress bikeway network - 70. i. Bikeways shall be surfaced with a treatment that emphasizes smoothness of the road surface.
e. Equity Zone- 70.
b) Funding should be prioritized towards maintenance activities to achieve the goals of item 4.2a. c) The biannually updated 5-year plan shall report on these performance metrics, PCI measurements for each street segment in the City, and percent of overall funding dedicated to each of the following: arterials, collectors, bus routes, existing and proposed low-stress bikeway network, equity zone, and residential streets.

4. Dig Once
a. Street rehabilitation shall conform with a dig once approach. This includes coordinating with sewer, water, electrical, telecom, undergrounding and other activities to minimize the cost and maintain the quality of the street surface.
b. In order to protect the City’s investment on street improvements, the City shall place a moratorium on recently paved streets that prohibits digging through them for up to five years, excluding emergency work2.

5. Demonstration Projects and Use of New Technologies
a. To the extent practical, the City shall evaluate the use of permeable pavement, concrete pavement, and other street surface technologies using life cycle cost analysis. 1 PCI of 70 is the lower threshold of what is considered “Good.” Streets that fall below a “good” condition require much more expensive repair process.
2 As cited in Berkeley Municipal Code 16.12.030 and documented on the City website

Page 16 of 29 ends

434
4 b. The use of new technologies that provide enhanced durability, lower cost, and more environmentally beneficial impacts shall be evaluated and reviewed in the biannually adopted 5 Year Street Rehabilitation Plan.

Section 5. Plan and Policy Development and Update
The plan and policy development shall be as follows:

1. Every two years, in line with the City’s budgeting process, the 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan adopted by City Council shall include a funding sufficiency analysis based on the existing deferred maintenance at that point to determine what level of funding is required to maintain our streets in safe, good condition that protects our environment and properly maintains the existing investment in City assets.

2. Identify new funding sources such as:
a. Heavy vehicles, which have a disproportionate impact on the degradation of paved assets, and
b. Transportation Network Company (TNC) vehicles.

3. At a minimum, this Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy shall be reviewed and adopted by the City Council every five years, with advice of the Public Works and Transportation Commission.

Page 17 of 29 ends

435

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027, ARTERIAL ALTERNATIVE Revised: 10/08/2021
Fiscal
Year Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current
PCI Last M&R
Date
Last Paved
2023 729042 65 BANCROFT WAY SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST C Heavy Rehab 341,126$ 4 N 4*, C 0.09 41 8/7/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 729042 60 BANCROFT WAY MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE C Heavy Rehab 418,348$ 4 N 4* 0.13 34 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 728042 76 BANCROFT WAY TELEGRAPH AVE BOWDITCH ST C Heavy Mtce 133,325$ 7 N 4*, C 0.13 63 12/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 628042 78 BANCROFT WAY BOWDITCH ST COLLEGE AVE C Heavy Mtce 161,036$ 7 N 3C*, C 0.13 56 12/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 627042 80 BANCROFT WAY COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE C Heavy R ehab 254,076$ 7 N 3C*, C 0.13 28 12/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 728140 50 DANA ST BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY R Heavy Rehab 458,900$ 7 N 2A to 2B*, C 0.25 45 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 736140 60 DANA ST DWIGHT WAY BLAKE ST R Light Rehab 91,440$ 7 N 3E 0.06 44 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 736140 65 DANA ST BLAKE ST WARD ST R Light Rehab 466,580$ 7N 3 E * 0 . 2 5 65 7/30/2008 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 830155 050 DWIGHT WAY SACRAMENTO MARTIN LUTHER KING A Reconstruct 2,809,600$ 3, 4 N C 0.50 23 12/10/1998 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023* 627155 85 DWIGHT WAY HILLSIDE AVE DEAD END ABOVE R Reconstruct 387,040$ 8 N N 0.11 22 9/1/1993 RECONST RUCT SURFACE (AC) 2023* 627155 83 DWIGHT WAY PIEDMONT AVE HILLSIDE AVE R Reconstruct 501,840$ 7, 8 N N 0.14 12 9/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 418492 050 ROSE ST SACRAMENTO MARTIN LUTHER KING C Reconstruct 2,302,332$ 1, 5 N 3E 0.48 21 8/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 728584 50 TELEGRAPH AVE BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY C Heavy Rehab 473,060$ 7 N 3C*, C, VZ 0.25 39 7/1/1988 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 47 HOPKINS ST GILMAN ST SACRAMENTO ST R Heavy Rehab 233,942$ 5 N 3A, C 0.10 32 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 213293 50 HOPKINS ST HOPKINS CT MONTEREY AVE C Light Rehab 87,193$ 5 N 3A, C, VZ 0.05 59 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 213293 52 HOPKINS ST MONTEREY AVE MC GEE AVE C Heavy Rehab 119,167$ 5 N 2A, C 0.05 47 12/1/1989 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 213293 53 HOPKINS ST MC GEE AVE CARLOTTA AVE C Heavy Rehab 149,680$ 5 N 2A, C 0.06 45 12/1/1989 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 213293 55 HOPKINS ST CARLOTTA AVE JOSEPHINE ST C Heavy Rehab 874,580$ 5 N 2A, C 0.35 50 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY 2023 213293 059 HOPKINS ST JOSEPHINE ST THE ALAMEDA C Heavy Rehab 216,700$ 5 N 4* 0.06 49 7/1/1991 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE 2023 114293 060 HOPKINS ST THE ALAMEDA SUTTER ST C Heavy Rehab 876,500$ 5 N 4* 0.26 30 7/1/1991 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2023 319293 45 HOPKINS ST NORTHSIDE AVE PERALTA AVE R Light Mtce 239,587$ 1 N N 0.10 78 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 46 HOPKINS ST PERALTA AVE GILMAN ST R Heavy Mtce 493,031$ 1, 5 N N 0.27 58 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 49 HOPKINS ST SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS CT A Heavy Rehab 101,755$ 5 N 3A, C, VZ 0.04 38 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 40 HOPKINS ST SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE R Light Mtce 37,188$ 1 N N 0.09 74 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 42 HOPKINS ST STANNAGE AVE NORTHSIDE AVE R Heavy Mtce 181,658$ 1 N N 0.17 69 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC CONTINGENCY 1,240,968$
TOTAL FUNDING 13,650,652$ 4.27
40% bike/ ped
44% bike/ ped not incl contingency
* in Fiscal Year column denotes coordination with EBMUD project 6,375,349$ additional funding from T1 FISCAL YEAR 2023 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $13,650,652 4.27 miles
Cost w/o Miles
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.53 $2,911,355 23% 12% 1 $1,856,114 0.75 $1,856,114 0.75 Collectors 2.18 $6,407,123 52% 51% 2 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Residentials 1.56 $3,091,206 25% 37% 3 $1,404,800 0.25 $0 0.00 Total 4.27 $12,409,684 4 $2,164,274 0.48 $759,474 0.23
5 $4,057,199 1.35 $3,955,444 1.31
Bikeways 2.57 $7,759,740 63% 60% 6 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Curb Ramps $468,000 4% 7 $2,289,337 1.27 $2,289,337 1.27 Total $8,227,740 66% 8 $637,960 0.18 $637,960 0.18
$12,409,684 4.27 $9,498,329 3.74
Equity Zone 0.00 $0 0% 0%
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v12aequity.xlsx

Page 18 of 29 ends

436

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/08/2021
Fiscal
Year Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current
PCI Last M&R
Date
Last Paved
2024 CHANNING WAY ROOSEVELT AVE MCKINLEY AVE R Reconstruct 445,230$ 4 N 3E 0.13 1 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 830104 50 CHANNING WAY SACRAMENTO ST ROOSEVELT AVE R Heavy Rehab 696,780$ 4 N 3E 0.31 22 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 933146 045 DERBY ST MABEL ST SACRAMENTO ST R Heavy Rehab 456,020$ 2 Y 3E 0.25 32 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 834146 50 DERBY ST SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING R Reconstruct 1,688,560$ 3 Y 3E 0.48 18 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 835146 060 DERBY ST MARTIN LUTHER KING MILVIA ST R Light Mtce 31,327$ 3 N 3E 0.13 86 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 735146 063 DERBY ST MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R Reconstruct 490,456$ 3 N 3E 0.12 16 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 735646 065 DERBY ST SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST R Reconstruct 478,200$ 3 N 3E 0.13 22 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 736146 70 DERBY ST FULTON ST TELEGRAPH AVE R Reconstruct 1,069,280$ 3, 7 N 3E 0.31 13 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 729152 60 DURANT AVE MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE C Reconstruct 693,355$ 4N N 0 . 1 3 11 11/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 729152 64 DURANT AVE SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST C Heavy Rehab 268,880$ 4N C 0 . 1 0 32 8/12/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2024 739285 70 HILLEGASS AVE ASHBY AVE CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY R Light Mtce 98,900$ 8 N 3E 0.16 76 7/28/2003 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2024 736285 60 HILLEGASS AVE DWIGHT WAY ASHBY AVE R Light Mtce 312,000$ 8 N 3E 0.61 78 5/31/2000 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2024 639671 78 WOOLSEY ST HILLEGASS AVE COLLEGE AVE R Reconstruct 434,534$ 8 N 3 A 0.11 13 NA CONTINGENCY 358,176$
TOTAL FUNDING 7,521,698$ 2.95
82% bike/ ped
87% bike/ ped not incl contingency
246,395$ additional funding from T1
FISCAL YEAR 2024 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,521,698 2.95 miles
Cost w/o Miles
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.00 $0 0% 0% 1 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Collectors 0.23 $962,235 13% 8% 2 $456,020 0.25 $456,020 0.25 Residentials 2.72 $6,201,287 87% 92% 3 $3,223,183 1.00 $3,223,183 1.00 Total 2.95 $7,163,522 4 $2,104,245 0.67 $2,104,245 0.67 5$ 0 0 .00 $0 0.00
Bikeways 2.72 $6,201,287 87% 92% 6 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Curb Ramps $222,000 3% 7 $534,640 0.15 $534,640 0.15
Total $6,423,287 90% 8 $845,434 0.88 $845,434 0.88
$7,163,522 2.95 $7,163,522 2.95
Equity Zone 0.72 $2,144,580 30% 24%
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v12aequity.xlsx

Page 19 of 29 ends

437

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/08/2021
Fiscal
Year Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current
PCI Last M&R
Date
Last Paved
2025 931104 040 CHANNING WAY SAN PABLO AVE SACRAMENTO R Heavy Rehab 914,500$ 2 Y 3E 0.53 50 9/2/2008 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2025 931129 50 CURTIS ST UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY R Reconstruct 2,009,440$ 2 Y N 0.57 9 8/18/1997 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2025 319241 40 GILMAN ST SAN PABLO AVE SANTA FE AVE A Heavy Rehab 683,116$ 1 N 4*, C 0.27 48 10/2007 MILL AND OVERLAY 2025 111249 010 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD NORTH CITY EUCLID AVE C Reconstruct 794,084$ 6 N 3C 0.20 24 11/1/1990 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2025 111249 15 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD EUCLID AVE KEELER AVE C Reconstruct 634,478$ 6 N 3C, C 0.21 13 11/1/1990 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2025 111249 17 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD KEELER AVE MARIN AVE C Reconstruct 859,622$ 6 N 3C, C 0.27 19 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2025 321274 030 HEARST AVE 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE C Reconstruct 1,306,200$ 1 Y N 0.31 25 10/1/1994 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC CONTINGENCY 360,072$
TOTAL FUNDING 7,561,512$ 2.35
41% bike/ ped
43% bike/ ped not incl contingency
286,209$ additional funding from T1
FISCAL YEAR 2025 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,561,512 2.35 miles
Cost w/o Miles
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.27 $683,116 9% 12% 1 $1,989,316 0.59 $1,306,200 0.31 Collectors 0.98 $3,594,384 50% 42% 2 $2,923,940 1.09 $2,923,940 1.09 Residentials 1.09 $2,923,940 41% 46% 3 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Total 2.35 $7,201,440 4 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
5$ 0 0 .00 $0 0.00
Bikeways 1.47 $3,885,800 54% 63% 6 $2,288,184 0.67 $2,288,184 0.67 Curb Ramps $150,000 2% 7 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Total $4,035,800 56% 8 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
$7,201,440 2.35 $6,518,324 2.08
Equity Zone 1.40 $4,230,140 59% 60%
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v12aequity.xlsx

Page 20 of 29 ends

438

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/08/2021
Fiscal
Year Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current
PCI Last M&R
Date
Last Paved
2026 932155 030 DWIGHT WAY 6TH ST 7TH ST C Heavy Rehab 115,320$ 2 Y N 0.06 30 8/31/1999 MILL AND OVERLAY 2026 932155 032 DWIGHT WAY 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE A Heavy Rehab 597,600$ 2 N C 0.26 43 6/14/2000 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 830510 050 SACRAMENTO ST UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY A Light Mtce 224,075$ 24 N C, VZ 0.57 76 12/2/2011 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2026 834510 060 SACRAMENTO ST (SB) DWIGHT WAY OREGON ST A Light Mtce 98,560$ 23 N C, VZ 0.44 78 11/21/2011 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE 2026 834510 062 SACRAMENTO ST (NB) OREGON ST DWIGHT WAY A Light Mtce 101,640$ 23 N C, VZ 0.44 87 11/21/2011 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE 2026 834510 064 SACRAMENTO ST OREGON ST ASHBY AVE A Light Mtce 97,764$ 23 N C, VZ 0.19 90 11/21/2011 RECONST RUCT STRUCTURE 2026 840510 070 SACRAMENTO ST ASHBY AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT A Light Mtce 184,662$ 2 N C, VZ 0.41 89 6/26/2013 MILL AND OVERLAY 2026 417250 030 MARTIN LUTHER KING YOLO AVE CEDAR ST A Heavy Mtce 313,200$ 5 N C, VZ 0.49 54 8/11/2008 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2026 424250 040 MARTIN LUTHER KING CEDAR ST UNIVERSITY AVE A Heavy Mtce 496,440$ 14 N C, VZ 0.56 64 8/11/2008 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2026 829250 050 MARTIN LUTHER KING UNIVERSITY AVE ALLSTON WAY A Heavy Reh ab 693,334$ 4 N C, VZ 0.19 41 8/11/2008 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2026 829250 055 MARTIN LUTHER KING ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY A Light Rehab 997,920$ 4 N C, VZ 0.38 56 8/11/2008 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2026 835250 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING DWIGHT WAY ASHBY AVE A Light Rehab 1,705,032$ 3 N C, VZ 0.64 54 8/11/2008 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2026 516196 032 EUCLID AVE BAYVIEW PL CEDAR ST C Heavy Rehab 677,412$ 6 N 3C, C 0.36 28 11/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 525196 040 EUCLID AVE CEDAR ST HEARST AVE C Heavy Rehab 590,509$ 6 N 3C, C 0.31 41 11/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC CONTINGENCY 381,835$
7,275,303$ 5.29
17% bike/ ped
18% bike/ ped not incl contingency
FISCAL YEAR 2026 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,275,303 5.29 miles
Cost w/o Miles
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 4.56 $5,510,227 80% 86% 1 $248,220 0.28 $0 0.00 Collectors 0.72 $1,383,241 20% 14% 2 $1,158,602 1.54 $115,320 0.06 Residentials 0.00 $0 0% 0% 3 $1,854,014 1.17 $0 0.00
Total 5.29 $6,893,468 4 $2,051,512 1.13 $0 0.00
5 $313,200 0.49 $0 0.00
Bikeways 0.67 $1,267,921 18% 13% 6 $1,267,921 0.67 $1,267,921 0.67 Curb Ramps $48,000 1% 7 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Total $1,315,921 19% 8 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
$6,893,468 5.29 $1,383,241 0.72
Equity Zone 0.06 $115,320 2% 1%
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v12aequity.xlsx

Page 21 of 29 ends

439

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/08/2021
Fiscal
Year Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current
PCI Last M&R
Date
Last Paved
2027 736584 060 TELEGRAPH AVE DWIGHT WAY WARD ST A Reconstruct 3,187,400$ 78 N 4* , C, VZ 0.33 26 7/31/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 736584 065 TELEGRAPH AVE WARD ST ASHBY AVE A Reconstruct 3,171,867$ 78 N 4* , C, VZ 0.30 25 7/31/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 916,036$
7,275,303$ 0.63
87% bike/ ped
100% bike/ ped not incl contingency
FISCAL YEAR 2027 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,275,303 0.63 miles
Cost w/o Miles
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.63 $6,359,267 100% 100% 1 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Collectors 0.00 $0 0% 0% 2 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Residentials 0.00 $0 0% 0% 3 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Total 0.63 $6,359,267 4 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
5$ 0 0 .00 $0 0.00
Bikeways 0.63 $6,359,267 100% 100% 6 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Curb Ramps $0 0% 7 $3,179,634 0.31 $0 0.00
Total $6,359,267 100% 8 $3,179,634 0.31 $0 0.00
$6,359,267 0.63 $0 0.00
Equity Zone 0.00 $0 0% 0%
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2027 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $43,284,468 15.49 miles
Cost w/o Miles
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 5.99 $15,463,965 39% 39% 1 $4,093,650 1.62 $3,162,314 1.06 Collectors 4.12 $12,346,983 31% 27% 2 $4,538,562 2.88 $3,495,280 1.40 Residentials 5.38 $12,216,433 31% 35% 3 $6,481,997 2.43 $3,223,183 1.00 Total 15.49 $40,027,381 4 $6,320,030 2.27 $2,863,719 0.90 5 $4,370,399 1.84 $3,955,444 1.31
Bikeways 8.05 $25,474,015 64% 52% 6 $3,556,105 1.34 $3,556,105 1.34 Curb Ramps $888,000 2% 7 $6,003,611 1.73 $2,823,977 1.42 Total $26,362,015 66% 8 $4,663,028 1.38 $1,483,394 1.07 $40,027,381 15.49 $24,563,416 9.50
Equity Zone 2.19 $6,490,040 16% 14%
Total Funding $43,284,468
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v12aequity.xlsx

Page 22 of 29 ends

440
Five Year Plan, Arterials Alternative

Page 23 of 29 ends

441

Page 24 of 29 ends

442

Page 25 of 29 ends

443

Page 26 of 29 ends

444

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/20/2021
Fiscal
Year Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current PCI Last M&R Date
Last Paved
2026 ADDISON ST 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R Reconstruct 1,140,652$ 2 Y 3E 0.31 16 8/27/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 ADDISON ST SAN PABLO AVE CURTIS ST R Reconstruct 503,880$ 2 Y 3E 0.14 23 8/18/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 DERBY ST MABEL ST SACRAMENTO ST R Heavy Rehab 456,020$ 2 Y 3E 0.25 32 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 CHANNING WAY SAN PABLO AVE SACRAMENTO R Heavy Rehab 914,500$ 2 Y 3E 0.53 50 9/2/2008 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2026 MABEL ST DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST R Heavy Rehab 236,400$ 2 Y 3E 0.12 31 9/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 MABEL ST PARKER ST DERBY ST R Reconstruct 468,400$ 2 Y 3E 0.12 21 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 MABEL ST DERBY ST WARD ST R Heavy Rehab 97,400$ 2 Y 3E 0.06 33 10/1/1992 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 CAMELIA ST 8TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R Reconstruct 697,680$ 1 Y 3E 0.20 19 4/1/2001 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE 2026 8TH ST GILMAN ST CAMELIA ST R Heavy Rehab 212,445$ 1 Y 3E 0.12 35 4/1/2001 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 8TH ST CAMELIA ST PAGE ST R Heavy Rehab 144,978$ 1 Y N 0.08 42 4/1/2001 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 8TH ST PAGE ST JONES ST R Reconstruct 293,378$ 1 Y N 0.09 16 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 8TH ST JONES ST VIRGINIA ST R Reconstruct 710,367$ 1 Y N 0.21 19 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2026 BATAAN AVE 7TH ST 8TH ST R Reconstruct 144,294$ 1 Y N 0.06 16 N/A CONTINGENCY 1,254,909$
$7,275,303 2.28
65% bike/ ped
79% bike/ ped not incl contingency
FISCAL YEAR 2026 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,275,303 2.28 miles
Cost w/o Miles w/ o
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.00 $0 0% 0% 1 $2,203,142 0.75 $2,203,142 0.75 Collectors 0.00 $0 0% 0% 2 $3,817,252 1.52 $3,817,252 1.52 Residentials 2.28 $6,020,394 100% 100% 3 $0 0.00 $0 0.00 4 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Bikeways 1.84 $4,727,377 79% 81% 5 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Curb Ramps $246,000 4% 6 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Total $4,973,377 83% 7 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
8 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Equity Zone 2.28 $6,020,394 100% 100% $6,020,394 2.28 $6,020,394 2.28 Equity Zone w/Arterials 2.28 $6,020,394 100% 100%
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v11c_equity.xlsx

Page 27 of 29 ends

445

EXHIBIT A
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY 2027 Revised: 10/20/2021
Fiscal
Year Street Name From To Class
Treatment
(from
StreetSaver)
Updated Total
Cost District Equity Zone P Mileage Current PCI Last M&R Date
Last Paved
2027 DERBY ST COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE R Heavy Rehab 268,765$ 8 N 3E 0.12 31 8/1/1996 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 DERBY ST PIEDMONT AVE WARRING ST R Heavy Rehab 114,903$ 8 N 3E 0.06 27 N/A 2027* FOREST AVE COLLEGE AVE CLAREMONT BLVD R Heavy Rehab 618,000$ 8 N N 0.36 45 8/1/1996 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2027 HARMON ST IDAHO ST SACRAMENTO R Reconstruct 829,900$ 2 Y 3E 0.36 15 9/1/1991 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 IDAHO ST 66TH ST ALCATRAZ AVE R Reconstruct 547,888$ 2 Y 3E 0.36 18 5/1/1996 THIN AC OVERLAY 2027 OREGON ST SAN PABLO AVE MABEL ST R Reconstruct 537,740$ 2 Y 3E 0.36 18 11/1/1990 MILL AND THIN OVERLAY 2027 HASTE ST PIEDMONT AVE COLLEGE AVE A Heavy Rehab 270,400$ 7 N VZ 0.12 43 8/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 HASTE ST COLLEGE AVE BOWDITCH ST A Heavy Rehab 313,947$ 7 N VZ 0.13 41 8/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 HASTE ST BOWDITCH ST FULTON ST A Heavy Rehab 1,304,756$ 47 N VZ 0.51 35 8/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 HASTE ST FULTON ST SHATTUCK AVE A Heavy Rehab 241,280$ 4 N VZ 0.11 29 8/1/1993 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 EUCLID AVE BAYVIEW PL CEDAR ST C Heavy Rehab 695,412$ 6 N 3C, C 0.36 28 11/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2027 EUCLID AVE CEDAR ST HEARST AVE C Heavy Rehab 614,509$ 6 N 3C, C 0.31 41 11/1/1990 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC CONTINGENCY 917,803$
$7,275,303 3.14
63% bike/ ped
73% bike/ ped not incl contingency
* in Fiscal Year column denotes coordination with EBMUD project FISCAL YEAR 2027 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,275,303 3.14 miles
Cost w/o Miles w/ o
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 0.87 $2,130,383 34% 28% 1 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Collectors 0.67 $1,309,921 21% 21% 2 $1,915,528 1.07 $1,915,528 1.07 Residentials 1.61 $2,917,196 46% 51% 3 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
4 $893,658 0.36 $0 0.00
Bikeways 1.92 $3,609,117 57% 61% 5 $0 0.00 $0 0.00
Curb Ramps $654,000 10% 6 $1,309,921 0.67 $1,309,921 0.67 Total $4,263,117 67% 7 $1,236,725 0.50 $0 0.00
8 $1,001,668 0.54 $1,001,668 0.54
Equity Zone 1.07 $1,915,528 30% 34% $6,357,500 3.14 $4,227,117 2.27 Equity Zone w/Arterials 1.07 $1,915,528 30% 34%
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2027 TOTALS
Total Estimated Cost and Miles $43,158,767 15.94 miles
Cost w/o Miles w/ o
Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost % Mileage District Cost Miles Arterials Arterials Arterials 1.18 $2,915,254 8% 7% 1 $6,048,572 2.09 $5,365,456 1.82 Collectors 4.06 $12,273,663 32% 25% 2 $7,742,220 3.16 $7,742,220 3.16 Residentials 10.70 $23,196,396 60% 67% 3 $4,373,575 1.65 $4,373,575 1.65 4 $4,216,177 1.39 $3,322,519 1.03
Bikeways 9.61 $24,869,854 65% 60% 5 $4,057,199 1.35 $3,955,444 1.31 Curb Ramps $1,782,000 5% 6 $4,202,743 2.47 $4,202,743 2.47 Total $26,651,854 69% 7 $4,060,702 1.92 $2,823,977 1.42 8 $3,684,125 1.91 $3,684,125 1.91
Equity Zone 5.21 $13,866,514 36% 33% $38,385,313 15.94 $35,470,059 14.76 Equity Zone w/Arterials 5.21 $13,866,514 36% 33%
Total Funding $43,158,767
Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; VZ for Vision Zero; and N for none. *Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2023-2027_v11c_equity.xlsx

Page 28 of 29 ends

446

Page 29 of 29 ends

447
448
Public Works Commission
1 ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Public Works Commission
Submitted by: Margo Schueler, Chair, Public Works Commission Subject: Public Works Commission Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution that recommends approval of the Five-Year Paving Plan version 12A (“Arterial Alternative”) for FY2023 to FY2027.

SUMMARY
The Public Works Commission (PWC) reviewed multiple 5-year paving plan options from staff and evaluated them based on their conformance with the existing Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy. The commission specifically looked for the greatest value to the city by focusing on long contiguous stretches of paving on the primary transportation network - arterials, collectors, bus routes and bikeways. Of the plans reviewed, Plan 12A was the most in conformance and generally consistent with the current policy.

Plan 12A funds are distributed relatively equivalently across council districts, but equity is not addressed. The 5-year plan was not evaluated with an equity lens because there is no policy or direction on what areas or model should be used. Historically, it has been the practice of the City to evaluate equity in roadway investment in terms of equivalent allocation of financial resources and miles of roadway surfaced among the Council Districts. However, this does not result in equitable outcomes across the City.

The Public Works Commission has submitted a recommendation to the FITES Committee and City Council with a proposed update to the definition of equity. The leading definition would move the Public Works Department towards a results-oriented performance evaluation, where investments of resources are allocated in a way that seeks to provide equivalent PCI outcomes across all planning areas, rather than focusing purely on the monetary inputs.

As staff has reported, our streets will be in poor condition and failing at the end of the 5- year paving plan. In 2021 the citywide average PCI was 55.8. By 2027, at the current

Page 1 of 4 ends

449
PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
2 level of investment, the citywide PCI will be 49.1. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) defines a PCI below 50 as the lowest rating of “Poor” condition. We have among the worst road conditions in the Bay Area.

Our streets are in crisis and additional funding, innovation and clear prioritization in the management of our public right of way is critical to reversing the ever-worsening road conditions. Every year of delay or inaction the deferred maintenance is rapidly increasing the cost of roadway improvement.

The Commission continues to have significant concerns about the need to revise the policy so there is clear guidance to staff on how to prioritize the allocation of resources.

The policy was last updated in 2009. It should be reviewed and updated to incorporate current thinking about using life cycle cost analysis, Vision Zero, equity, sustainable multi-benefit technologies, and other factors. With these considerations in mind, the updated policy should include new performance metrics that capture the diversity of objectives the City holds for our road network. In March 2021, PWC put forward a draft policy recommendation to FITES which we urge Council to act on in the immediate future.

Page 2 of 4 ends

450
PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
3 The recommendation to approve the 5-year paving plan, and to forward it to Council was discussed by the Public Works Commission at its November 4, 2021 meeting.

Action: M/S/C (Erbe/Freiberg) to submit report to Council recommending approval of the Five-Year Paving Plan version 12A, for FY2023 to FY2027, as proposed by staff.

Vote: Ayes: Erbe, Freiberg, Constantine, Barnett, Hitchen, Schueler; Noes - None; Absent - None; Abstain - Nesbitt)

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CITY MANAGER REPORT
See companion report

CONTACT PERSON
Margo Schueler, Chair, Public Works Commission
Joe Enke, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-6300
Attachments:

1. Resolution

Page 3 of 4 ends

451
PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
4 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

APPROVAL OF THE FIVE-YEAR PAVING PLAN FOR FY 2023 TO FY2027 WHEREAS, the Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy, Resolution No. 55,384-N.S. approved on May 22, 1990, requires there be a Five-Year Street Paving Plan for the entire City to be adopted by the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council requests advice from the Public Works Commission on the Five-Year Paving Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2021, the Public Works Commission voted to approve the Five-Year Paving Plan, submitting the FY 2023 to FY 2027 Five-year Paving Plan to City Council;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the FY 2023 to FY2027 Five-Year Paving Plan, is hereby adopted.

Page 4 of 4 ends

452

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

SUPPLEMENTAL

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 1

Meeting Date: June 1, 2021

Item Number: 19

Item Description: Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

Submitted by: Joe Enke, Secretary, Public Works Commission

Supplemental material contains the Public Works Commission’s council report entitled, Recommendation for Updates to the City of Berkeley Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy.

Page 1 of 20 ends

453

Public Works Commission
1 May 25, 2021

To: Berkeley City Council

From: Public Works Commission (PWC)

Submitted By: Margo Schueler, Chair

Subject: Recommendation for Updates to the City of Berkeley Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy

RECOMMENDATION
Review and adopt updates to the Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy (Policy).

SUMMARY
The City’s Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy Section 5.2 provides that the Policy shall be reviewed annually and updated formally by the City Council, with advice of the Public Works Commission.

The Short-Term Paving Policy Subcommittee of the PWC developed these updates to the Policy which focus on enhancements to equity, and roadway condition performance targets achievable over time that may be tracked during staff’s development of the Annual 5 Year Paving Plan.

The Subcommittee worked with City staff and applied their own extensive individual expertise to this work. The PWC reviewed and unanimously accepted these recommended updates to the Policy and forwarded them for discussion to the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability (FITES) Council Subcommittee on two occasions. PWC Director Liam Garland provided separate input and recommendations to the FITES and his staff attended both meetings, with the Council Members engaging in detailed discussion and providing input that was incorporated by PWC staff and returned to the PWC for review.

The updated policy includes changes designed to simplify planning, enhance equity of road condition across the City, identify new funding sources, enhance alignment with the City’s broader infrastructure plans and environmental goals, establish roadway condition performance targets, establish a “Dig Once” policy, and leverage demonstration projects and use of new technologies.

The updates initiated by the PWC Short Term Paving Policy Subcommittee demonstrate responsiveness to issues which continue to rise in our nation and community and will

Page 2 of 20 ends

454
2 increase Berkeley’s competitiveness for upcoming federal infrastructure aid. The work is responsive to analysis and recommendations made by the Auditor’s Reports on Paving, are reflective of the City’s Climate Change and Complete Streets Policies and reflect the values adopted by Council included in the Mayor’s Vision 2050 Initiative.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The update of this policy will not result in any new costs to the City’s Paving Program.

The updated Policy provides new guidance on how to prioritize the allocation of resources that are available to City Staff to invest in roadway surfacing. The Policy focuses roadway improvements on roads that are shared by the largest number of the City’s residents as well as neighborhoods that have historically received lower levels of investment. To achieve a “good” level of service across the City, additional funding will be needed.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The current Street Repair and Maintenance Policy directs the City of Berkeley to maintain our streets in safe, good condition that protects our environment and to properly maintain the existing investment in City assets.

By clarifying and stating outright in Section 2, Assumptions, underlying assumptions will allow staff to develop priorities and metrics that will enable our Council leaders and the community to assess the success of our Paving Plans. will help inform the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 5-year plan.

In recognition of the challenges of providing annual Policy update recommendations to the Council, the recommendation is to aim for updates every two years.

The PWC would like to acknowledge the depth and breadth of this policy update bringing input from the community through the service of expert community members appointed by Council to the PWC, the collaboration with City Public Works staff and leadership and the review and discussion during two FITES Subcommittee cycles is bringing forth a well thought out, elegant policy update achieving the balanced approach of our community through the commission process, staff input, consideration, review and augmentation followed by Council Subcommittee discussion and amendment is a remarkable achievement by our community, particularly as it has occurred during one of the longest, deepest crisis the City has managed through.

RECOMMENDATION
The attached Update to the Policy reflects the collective efforts of the PWC, Public Works Department, and the members of the FITES to lead the City towards broader improvements in citywide roadway condition. The approach aims to achieve this goal by shifting toward maintaining the roads that serve the greatest number of residents, enhancing coordination of roadway improvements with other plans and infrastructure work, and focusing on enhancing safety and equity of outcomes for the City’s residents.

The PWC recommends that Council accept the recommendation to update the 2009 Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy.

Page 3 of 20 ends

455
Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
(Continued from July 13, 2021)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Bartlett, and Councilmember Taplin
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution updating the City’s Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy dated June 1, 2021.

2. Refer the exploration of potential bonding and funding opportunities for improving the PCI of streets and creating a Paving Master Plan back to the FITES Committee for further review.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION Resolution No. 55,384-N.S. (1990) as subsequently updated by Resolution No. 64,733- N.S. (2009) authorized the Public Works Commission to work with staff to submit an annual update to the Street Repair Policy. However, the Street Paving Plan has been updated every year but the Street Repair Policy has not been updated for many years.

The Public Works Department maintains 214 miles of streets in the City of Berkeley, with a replacement value of over $793 million and Berkeley’s current Pavement Condition Index is at 57, which means that the condition of our streets is very much “At- Risk.” The new policy included in this item seeks to achieve improvements to PCI while ensuring equity.

It is in the public interest to adopt a new paving policy, which includes best practices and new strategies, as developed by the Public Works Commission, Public Works Department and the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee.

It is also important for the Committee to continue its work on opportunities for improving the PCI of streets and creating a Paving Master Plan back to the FITES Committee for further review.

Page 4 of 20 ends

456
Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
2 POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Action: 1 speaker. M/S/C (Robinson/Harrison) move the Public Works supplemental item “City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy to Council” with a positive recommendation including amendments made during the meeting today, and ask Council to refer the exploration of potential bonding and funding opportunities for improving the PCI of streets and creating a Paving Master Plan back to the FITES Committee for further review.

Vote: All Ayes

BACKGROUND
A sub quorum of the Public Works Commission and the Public Works Department have been working intensively over the past year to revise the City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy to conform to best practices in other cities and to enhance equity and outcomes. The initial policy was adopted by the Council in 1990 and was subsequently updated in 2006 (see attached). For example, the current policy includes an outdated conception of equity based on Council districts, lacks PCI targets for major street types and Performance Metrics, and a “Dig Once” policy.

Amidst the backdrop of significantly deteriorating street conditions and the climate emergency, Councilmember Harrison concurrently submitted a referral to the FITES Committee to explore potential bonding and funding opportunities for improving the Paving Condition Index (PCI) of streets during the 2020 5-year paving plan adoption process. FITES spent a number of meetings discussing with Public Works staff and members of strategies to improve PCI and funding options. The Council subsequently agreed to extend the mandate of the Committee and also to expand their role to consider:
 the Public Works Commission Paving Policy, which sets criteria for determining how to pave streets;
 a paving master plan, which will set out long-range financing plan for doing so; and
 continue working with the Public Works Department and the Commission to explore potential bonding and funding opportunities to make the paving master plan a reality.

These efforts are in addition to a rolling five-year short term paving plan adopted by the Council to allow staff to bid out specific street segments for the next year’s work.

Therefore, the Council designated the FITES committee with the task of reviewing the final version of the new Paving Policy.

Page 5 of 20 ends

457
Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
3 The prior Paving Policy:
 is the basis of the rolling a 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan;  aims to maintain a safe surface conveyance system in the public right-of-way for vehicles, bicycles, transit and pedestrians;
 breaks streets into three categories: Arterials; Collectors and Residentials  provides that federal, state, regional and local transportation funds are to be invested as follows:
o 10% for Arterials
o 50% for Collectors
o 25% for Residentials
o 15% for Discretionary and Demonstration Projects;
 provides for direction regarding water conveyance systems, other public utilities and trenching practices.

The Public Works Commission and FITES Committee framed their work around the following key principles, including but not limited to:
 The City’s climate goals, especially its transportation goals (60% of City emissions are from transport); the importance of shifting away from traditional asphalt approaches to paving in order to reduce emissions and ensure longevity;  Issues of equity, distribution of paving and addressing that certain commercial uses have a disproportionate impact on road conditions;  The imperative of maintaining baseline lifecycle street conditions amidst a severe lack of funding for paving maintenance.
 A more comprehensive approach to paving with regard to utility upgrades as we begin to phase out natural gas and build advanced internet communication networks;
 Rapid deployment of pedestrian, bicycle and mobility improvements, i.e., the evolving street;
 Water management best practices (permeable pavers) or landscaping that is visually pleasing, human health supportive, and plant, insect, and animal sustaining.

The updated paving policy included in this item incorporates the following assumptions:

Page 6 of 20 ends

458
Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
4  That there is currently not enough paving funding to stabilize PCI across all neighborhoods, especially with regard to residential streets. Rather, the policy attempts to achieve short-term stabilization of citywide arterials, collectors, bus routes, existing and proposed low-stress bikeway network. Concurrently, the Commission, staff and FITES are working on a paving master plan and funding opportunities that will adequately fund residential streets. Therefore, it is expected that the paving policy will be updated again in conjunction with the availability of new funding.
 Adopts an expanded emphasis on climate and sustainability and expanded conformance to the City’s Climate Action Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, Resilience Strategy, Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan, Phase 3 Undergrounding Study, Complete Streets Policy, Vision 2050 framework, Pedestrian Plan, Transit First Policy, Strategic Transportation Plan, public realm and/or other localized transportation plans, and Bicycle Plan;  Recognizes that poorly maintained streets have a disproportionate impact on certain members of the community, including low-income residents; those with mobility or visual impairments who face greater access and safety challenges; bicyclists and pedestrians, who face greater danger than those driving; and dense, more populous neighborhoods with thoroughfares;
 Emphasizes using life cycle cost analysis to evaluate different road surfacing options;
 Promotes the rehabilitation of contiguous sections of roadway, rather than one block at a time, shall be preferred, when feasible;
 States that bond funds shall strive to be used for long-lasting capital improvements (projects with a useful life that meets or exceeds the duration of the bond repayment schedule) or to accelerate road work that will result in long- term cost savings for ratepayers;
 Asserts that street trees are valuable part of the landscape, as they sequester carbon, soak up stormwater, improve land values, and add greenery;  Asserts that tree removals shall only be permitted as a last resort consistent with BMC 12.44.020, with the approval of both the Director of Parks and Waterfront and Director of Public Works. If tree removal is necessary, replacement trees shall be planted where and when feasible in accordance with BMC 12.44.010.

Page 7 of 20 ends

459
Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
5 In addition, the new policy incorporates the following new policies:
 Planning
o The 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan shall be supported by a 30-year road surfacing projection, where roadway improvement projects are forecast over a long-term planning period. The first five years of the projection will become the first draft of the 5-year Plan.
 Equity
o The benefits of good infrastructure shall be distributed equitably throughout the entire community regardless of the income, or demographic characteristics of the residents in each area. Equity means equity of outcomes as opposed to equity of inputs, and that disadvantaged residents with more pressing needs experience benefits sooner than others, as defined by the City within the adopted 5-Year Plan. o A new Equity Zone shall be established according to Attachment 1. This Zone shall be prioritized to meet an average PCI of 70 sooner than the remainder of the City. This Zone contains historically underserved neighborhoods that have experienced decades of underinvestment, and the residents in this zone experience more pressing needs.

Page 8 of 20 ends

460
Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
6 o Over the longer term, road surfacing activities shall be planned within Pavement Analysis Zones. A Pavement Analysis Zone shall consist of a logical set of street segments, excluding the arterials, collectors, bus routes, bicycle boulevards and non-representative demonstration projects.  The department may revise the pavement analysis zone
boundaries from time to time, consistent with the other goals of this policy. Any changes to pavement analysis units shall be proposed within the biannually updated 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan submitted to City Council.
 It shall be the goal of the City to seek parity of street condition between pavement analysis zones, except in regards to the Equity Zone.
 Performance Metrics

Page 9 of 20 ends

461
Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
7 o The City will strive to maintain all roads within the primary transportation network at a standard no less than the following PCI targets for any stretch of roadway1:
i. Arterial - 70,
ii. Collector - 70,
iii. Bus Routes - 70,
iv. Existing and proposed low-stress bikeway network - 70.

1. Bikeways shall be surfaced with a treatment that
emphasizes smoothness of the road surface.
v. Equity Zone- 70.
o The biannually updated 5-year plan shall report on these performance metrics, PCI measurements for each street segment in the City, and percent of overall funding dedicated to each of the following: arterials, collectors, bus routes, existing and proposed low-stress bikeway network, equity zone, and residential streets.
 Dig Once
o Street rehabilitation shall conform with a dig once approach. This includes coordinating with sewer, water, electrical, telecom, undergrounding and other activities to minimize the cost and maintain the quality of the street surface.
o In order to protect the City’s investment on street improvements, the City shall place a moratorium on recently paved streets that prohibits digging through them for up to five years, excluding emergency work.  Demonstration Projects and Use of New Technologies
o To the extent practical, the City shall evaluate the use of permeable pavement, concrete pavement, and other street surface technologies using life cycle cost analysis.
o The use of new technologies that provide enhanced durability, lower cost, and more environmentally beneficial impacts shall be evaluated and reviewed in the biannually adopted 5 Year Street Rehabilitation Plan. 1 PCI of 70 is the lower threshold of what is considered “Good.” Streets that fall below a “good” condition require much more expensive repair process.

Page 10 of 20 ends

462
Adopt a Resolution Updating City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
8  Plan and Policy Development and Update
o Every two years, in line with the City’s budgeting process, the 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan adopted by City Council shall include a funding sufficiency analysis based on the existing deferred maintenance at that point to determine what level of funding is required to maintain our streets in safe, good condition that protects our environment and properly maintains the existing investment in City assets.
o Identify new funding sources such as:
o Heavy vehicles, which have a disproportionate impact on the degradation of paved assets, and
o Transportation Network Company (TNC) vehicles.
o At a minimum, this Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy shall be reviewed and adopted by the City Council every five years, with advice of the Public Works Commission.

It is the public interest to adopt these updates through the attached Resolution to improve the lives of Berkeleyans, protect the environment and promote equitable outcomes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time will be necessary to implement the new paving policy.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Supporting low-carbon paving policies will complement and accelerate Berkeley’s ongoing efforts to reduce carbon emissions at an emergency and equitable pace in line with the Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency Declaration.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Kate Harrison, Council District 4, 510-981-7140

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. 2006 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy

Page 11 of 20 ends

463
RESOLUTION NO. -N.S.

ADOPTING THE 2021 STREET MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION POLICY UPDATE
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 55,384-N.S. (1990) as subsequently updated by Resolution No. 64,733-N.S. (2009) authorized the Public Works Commission to work with staff to submit an annual update to the Street Repair Policy and the annual Street Paving Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Street Paving Plan has been updated every year but the Street Repair Policy has not been updated for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department maintains 214 miles of streets in the City of Berkeley, with a replacement value of over $793 million; and WHEREAS, Berkeley’s current Pavement Condition of Index is 57, which means that the condition of our streets is very much “At-Risk”; and
WHEREAS, the Public Workers Commission and Public Works Department established a working group to consider updates to the paving policy to improve planning outcomes, ensure equity, identify new funding sources, better align with environmental goals, implement performance metrics, establish a “Dig Once” policy, and leverage demonstration projects and use of new technologies; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2021 Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee moved the updated policy including amendments to the Council; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the following Street Repair Policy update dated June 2021 is hereby adopted:

City of Berkeley Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Policy
Section 1. General Policy
It is the policy of the City of Berkeley to maintain our streets in safe, good condition that protects our environment and to properly maintain the existing investment in City assets. Staff will implement a Citywide road resurfacing plan that will ensure street maintenance and repair in a timely manner, reduce long term-replacement costs, and provide for the safe and efficient use of our streets. The users of the street surface in the public right-of-way include powered vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians. The right-of-way also provides for storm water conveyance and is the location of many public utilities.

The policy requires that a 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan for the entire City be prepared and adopted biannually in line with the City’s budget process. Any changes to the 5-year Plan made in the interim shall be reported to City Council. Streets and their surfacing treatment shall be prioritized using a multi-criteria adaptive planning framework to achieve sustainable, resilient, and integrated solutions for the City’s right-of-way and the downstream environments. The criteria shall consider equity, quality of life, safety, opportunities for leadership, resource allocation, environmental impacts, and climate and resilience.

Page 12 of 20 ends

464
Section 2. Assumptions
This section of the policy defines basic assumptions that inform the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 5-year plan.

1. This policy defines the priorities for managing the road surface infrastructure from curb to curb.

This policy does not provide guidance on how to prioritize sidewalks or other infrastructure associated with complete streets planning.

2. Streets include arterial, collector, residential, and commercial/industrial streets as defined in Berkeley’s General Plan.

3. Consistency with the City’s General Plan policy of encouraging use of forms of transportation other than automobiles.

4. Conformance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s stormwater permit requirements.

5. Support of the City’s plans and updates thereto, including the City’s Climate Action Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, Resilience Strategy, Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan, Phase 3 Undergrounding Study, Complete Streets Policy, Vision 2050 framework, Pedestrian Plan, Transit First Policy, Strategic Transportation Plan, public realm and/or other localized transportation plans, and Bicycle Plan.

7. Utility trench and pothole repair work shall be done in accordance with permit conditions, standard details, and/or standard operating procedures adopted by the Public Works Department.

8. To the extent practical, the City shall use life cycle cost analysis to evaluate different road surfacing options.

9. Runoff from roadways carry pollutants that negatively impact public health, creeks and streams, and the Bay.

10. Street trees are valuable part of the landscape, as they sequester carbon, soak up stormwater, improve land values, and add greenery.

Section 4. Specific Policy

Page 13 of 20 ends

465
The Street Rehabilitation Program shall be based on the following objectives:

2. Equity
a) The benefits of good infrastructure shall be distributed equitably throughout the entire community regardless of the income, or demographic characteristics of the residents in each area. Equity means equity of outcomes as opposed to equity of inputs, and that disadvantaged residents with more pressing needs experience benefits sooner than others, as defined by the City within the adopted 5-Year Plan b) A new Equity Zone shall be established according to Attachment 1. This Zone shall be prioritized to meet an average PCI of 70 sooner than the remainder of the City. This Zone contains historically underserved neighborhoods that have experienced decades of underinvestment, and the residents in this zone experience more pressing needs and receive benefits sooner.
c) Over the longer term, road surfacing activities shall be planned within Pavement Analysis Zones. A Pavement Analysis Zone shall consist of a logical set of street segments, excluding the arterials, collectors, bus routes, bicycle boulevards and non-representative demonstration projects.
a. The department may revise the pavement analysis zone boundaries from time to time, consistent with the other goals of this policy. Any changes to pavement analysis units shall be proposed within the biannually updated 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan submitted to City Council.
b. It shall be the goal of the City to seek parity of street condition between pavement analysis zones, except in regards to the Equity Zone.

4.2a.
c) The biannually updated 5-year plan shall report on these performance metrics, PCI measurements for each street segment in the City, and percent of overall funding dedicated to each of the following: arterials, collectors, bus routes, existing and proposed low-stress bikeway network, equity zone, and residential streets.

4. Dig Once
a. Street rehabilitation shall conform with a dig once approach. This includes coordinating with sewer, water, electrical, telecom, undergrounding and other activities to minimize the cost and maintain the quality of the street surface. 1 PCI of 70 is the lower threshold of what is considered “Good.” Streets that fall below a “good” condition require much more expensive repair process.

Page 14 of 20 ends

466
b. In order to protect the City’s investment on street improvements, the City shall place a moratorium on recently paved streets that prohibits digging through them for up to five years, excluding emergency work2.

5. Demonstration Projects and Use of New Technologies
a. To the extent practical, the City shall evaluate the use of permeable pavement, concrete pavement, and other street surface technologies using life cycle cost analysis. b. The use of new technologies that provide enhanced durability, lower cost, and more environmentally beneficial impacts shall be evaluated and reviewed in the biannually adopted 5 Year Street Rehabilitation Plan.

Section 5. Plan and Policy Development and Update
The plan and policy development shall be as follows:

2. Identify new funding sources such as:
a. Heavy vehicles, which have a disproportionate impact on the degradation of paved assets, and
b. Transportation Network Company (TNC) vehicles.

3. At a minimum, this Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy shall be reviewed and adopted by the City Council every five years, with advice of the Public Works Commission. 2 As cited in Berkeley Municipal Code 16.12.030 and documented on the City website

Page 15 of 20 ends

467
Attachment 1: Equity Zone

Page 16 of 20 ends

468

Public Works Home
About Us
Contact Us
FAQ

Bicycle Boulevard
Information
Bulky Waste Pickup
Parking Information
Plant Debris & Food
Waste
Private Sewer Lateral
Compliance Policy
Recycling Services
Street Sweeping

Berkeley Transfer Station
Bicycle Resources
City Property Available for
Lease or Sale
Construction Updates
Public Works Services &
Contact Information
Utility Service Information
Watershed Resources
Translation Disclaimer
Department of Public Works
CITY OF BERKELEY STREET REHABILITATION
AND REPAIR POLICY
Updated March 2009
A. STREET REHABILITATION POLICY
Secti on 1. General Policy
It is the policy of the City of Berkeley that there shall be a 5year Street Rehabilitation Plan for the entire City to be adopted by the City Council.

The primary purpose of the street rehabilitation program is to maintain a safe surface conveyance system in the public right-ofway for vehicles, bicycles, transit and pedestrians. The right-ofway also provides ancillary functions of a water conveyance system and location of public utilities.

The City shall strive to identify and implement integrated solutions that address the multiple demands on the street infrastructure that are designed for safety, environmentally sustainable and economically efficient over the long run.

The Plan shall make use of all available funding and set priorities for rehabilitation of streets in accordance with their use, as follows:

Arterials
Collectors
Residentials

(Within the collectors and residential street categories, bus and bicycle routes shall be given first consideration.)
To the extent practicable, these priorities shall be consistent with:
1)  the City’s General Plan policy of encouraging use of forms of transportation other than automobiles,
2)  the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) goals regarding water quality, flooding potential and runoff control, and
3)  the City’s Measure G goal of an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Secti on 2. Assu mptions
1) Emergency and interim work for trench and pothole repair will be done and funded outside this program.
2) Available funds for street rehabilitation include Gas Tax, Measure B Sales Tax, and other federal, state, and local funds appropriated by the City Council for this purpose during the annual budget process.
3) Additional sources of funding other than those above will be needed to ensure acceptable levels of effort in street rehabilitation.

Secti on 3. Funding
Federal and State transportation and other similar funds shall be used for repair of arterials. When all search:

GO
Home Residents Businesses COVID-19 Services Elected Offi cials

Page 17 of 20 ends

469
eligible work on arterials has been completed in a certain year, these fund sources may be applied to collectors.

All Berkeley's Measure B Sales Tax funds allocated for local streets and roads, all new gas tax subventions, as much of the current gas tax subventions as available and other similar funds shall be used for street rehabilitation as follows:
10% for Arterials
50% for Collectors
25% for Residentials
15% for Discretionary and Demonstration Projects
The fees assessed to mitigate for excessive deterioration on and wear and tear of streets resulting from construction activities, public or private, shall be used for street rehabilitation.

To provide for maximizing the use of the limited funds available, the Program may provide for paving publicly owned unimproved streets in areas other than those zoned S1 (industrial and manufacturing) if at least 75% of the cost is borne by the adjacent property owners.

Secti on 4. Specifi c Policy
The Street Rehabilitation Program shall be based on the following criteria, listed in order of priority:
1) Street rehabilitation shall be coordinated with utility, sewer, water contamination runoff issues, and other underground activities to minimize the cost and maximize the effectiveness of rehabilitation and improve the environment.
2) Long term cost effectiveness, long term street pavement durability and aesthetics are important for priority setting and repair methodology selection. 3) In order to benefit the greatest number of residents, heavy street use (as indicated by traffic counts and bus routes designated in AC Transit's Comprehensive Service Plan) shall be given great consideration.
4) Demonstration and test projects for new technologies should be located in high visibility and heavily used areas. See attached document on background and recommendations for the trial permeable paver sites.
5) Rehabilitation of an entire street, rather than one block at a time, shall be scheduled as much as possible.
6) First hand assessment of streets, as well as computer based analysis, shall be a basis for street rehabilitation program development.

Secti on 5. Prog ram and Poli cy Developmen t and Update The 5year Street Rehabilitation Program shall be adopted by the City Council and the 5-year planning process shall be adopted as a City policy as follows:
1) Each year, the 5year program shall be reviewed and updated formally by the City Council, with the advice of the Public Works Commission.
2) On an annual basis coinciding with budget preparation, the Street Rehabilitation Policy shall be reviewed and updated formally by the City Council, with advice of the Public Works Commission.
3) Both the 5-Year Program and the Street Rehabilitation Policy shall be reviewed and updated annually to ensure that the revolving 5-Year Street Plan is consistent with the policy stated herein and for consistency with General Plan and Area Plan policies.

B. UTILITY TRENCH AND POTHOLE REPAIR POLICY
Secti on 1. General Policy

Page 18 of 20 ends

470
It is the policy of the City of Berkeley that there shall be an annual Utility Trench and Pothole Repair Program for the most heavily used streets and in the priority order, as follows:

1. Arterials

2. Collectors

3. Residentials with bus routes
Additionally, the other residential streets shall be repaired on an area by area basis at least every five (5) years. The program shall be reviewed and updated annually to ensure adherence to the City policy.

Secti on 2. Assu mptions
a. Emergency work for trench and pothole repair will be done as a part of this program. b. Utility company created trenches will be repaired by the respective utility company, and no City resources will be used for these purposes.

Secti on 3. Funding
a. Gas Tax subventions and General Funds of the City shall be used for pothole repair. b. Sanitary sewer funds shall be used for City created sewer trench repair.

Secti on 4. Specifi c Policy
In addition to applicable policy under Street Rehabilitation Policy, the Utility Trench and Pothole Repair Program shall be based on the following criteria:
a. A trench or a pothole is defined as any pavement surface irregularities with a change of elevation (plus or minus) of more than one (1) inch in twelve (12). b. All ongoing trench and pothole repair shall use the permanent repair technique, i.e., prepare the trench or pot hole into a rectangular shape, fill with hot asphalt mix, and roll to match the grade adjacent to it.

Home | Web Policy | Text-Only Site Map | Contact Us
Department of Public Works, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Questions or comments? Email: [email protected] Phone: (510) 981-6300 (510) 981-CITY/2489 or 311 from any landline in Berkeley TTY: (510) 981-6903

Page 19 of 20 ends

471

Page 20 of 20 ends

472
Public Works Commission
Parks and Waterfront Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/manager

ACTION CALENDER
January 18, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Public Works Commission
Parks and Waterfront Commission
Submitted by: Margo Schueler, Chairperson
Gordon Wozniak, Chairperson
Subject: Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopt a Resolution to support and fund two new full-time dedicated Volunteer Coordinators to run an expanded Adopt-a-Spot program and coordinate new programs for youth volunteers, and funding for operational expenses should be included.

The programs shall promote participation and civic pride by providing a unified portal for all programs across all departments, and incorporate many of the Program Elements outlined below. The Coordinators shall build on recent efforts by Public Works staff to fortify the existing programs for storm drains and traffic circles and incorporate existing programs from the Parks & Rec department. In addition, the Adopt-a-Spot program shall be expanded and improved upon to support additional community engagement opportunities that can include, but are not limited to, restoring native habitat to promote biodiversity (including a Bee City USA liaison), litter removal, vegetation maintenance, graffiti removal, tree planting/watering/monitoring, monitoring sidewalk conditions, adoption of homeless encampments, coordinating volunteers for emergency situations, beautification efforts, and other ideas that the Berkeley community may wish to support and organize around.

Some features of the program are beyond the scope of our Commissions' visibility and will need to be finalized by Council and Staff. However, the following recommendations are offered:
● Budget Commitment - to ensure success, the two new positions must be dedicated to volunteer coordination. Sharing of responsibilities across staff or financing only a single or half-time position should be avoided as it likely wouldn’t meet the needs of the community. If at least one dedicated position cannot be

Page 1 of 38 ends

473
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
2 supported the role of Volunteer Coordinator should be given to a third-party or community non-profit group.
● Program Design - the Volunteer Coordinators may work with interns and the community to define program features and details of implementation, which could include a phased approach (alternatively, the City could hire a consultant to outline the program),
● Reporting Structure - options include Parks Rec & Waterfront, Public Works, Office of Sustainability, or the City Manager’s office (alternatively, the position could be shared across departments)
● Supporting Tools - begin with the fewest but most necessary initial features. For example, policies and waivers, outreach tools such as a robust city webpage presence including dynamic maps and signage to recruit, volunteer reporting mechanisms to ensure compliance and track activity, volunteer appreciation events to build community, etc.

BACKGROUND
Council Referrals
City Council has expressed strong support for a robust Adopt-a-Spot program.

Beginning in fall 2019 Council introduced the first of four separate Referrals to both the Public Works and Parks & Waterfront Commissions with the following dates: (1) April 23, 20191, (2) September 24, 20192, (3) November 12, 20193, and (4) February 23, 20214. The Referrals mentioned a range of goals for the Adopt-a-Spot program, including, supporting city cleanup and maintenance efforts, addressing Vision 2050 storm water and watershed goals, promoting a thriving volunteer force to adopt and maintain traffic circles, creating and maintaining pollinator habitat and funding a City Liaison as part of a Bee City USA program, adopting encampments and street campers/RVs, and more.

History of Adopt-a-Park and Grant program
Berkeley has a history of supporting programs like Adopt-a-Spot and has even provided grants to incentivize participation. For at least ten years, beginning in FY93-94 with Resolution No. 57-5575, and in response to a $1.5M refund from PERS, a popular mini- grant program was created and later supported by funds from the Park Tax6. Small grants were allocated to volunteer groups to assist in the development of small programs, not to exceed $3,500. The program was implemented through a Joint Committee with representatives from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Berkeley Partners for Parks and staff from the Parks and Recreation department. This mini-grant program provided a method for involving citizens and stimulating their interests in the care of parks and open space. The funds were to be used for materials, supplies and 1 City Council Agenda, Regular Mtg, April 23, 2019, Item 33. 2 City Council Agenda, Regular Mtg, September 24, 2019, Item 24. 3 City Council Agenda, Special Mtg November 12, 2019, Item 1a. 4 City Council Agenda, Regular Mtg, February 23, 2021, Item 24. 5 Resolution No. 57,557-N.S., June 28, 1994
6 City of Berkeley webpage, "Parks Mini-Grant Program"

Page 2 of 38 ends

474
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
3 general assistance. It was a very popular program that generated enthusiasm and nourished the community spirit through wide-ranging activities such as the installation of chess tables at San Pablo park, the creation of Halcyon Commons, dog waste dispensers and trail improvements in Cesar Chavez Park, a cultural exhibit on the Ohlone Greenway, and many more.

At a regular meeting of the Public Works Commission on July 1, 2021, it was M/S/C to send this item to Council for consideration: (Schuler/Erbe/U): Ayes: Barnett; Constantine; Erbe; Freiberg; Hitchen; Napoli; Nesbitt; Schuler; Noes: None; Absent:

None.

At a regular meeting of the Parks and Waterfront Commission on August 11, 2021, it was M/S/C to send this item to Council for consideration: (McGrath/Wozniak/U): Ayes:

Cox; Diehm; Kamen; Kawczynska; Landoni; McGrath; Srioudom; Wozniak; Noes:

None; Absent: None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Updates in Progress
As of June 2021 the City is working with UC Berkeley interns and currently interviewing for a CivicSpark7 fellow to begin enhancing the Adopt-a-Spot program and unifying all volunteer opportunities within the City in one place. The table below outlines the current situation. However, several changes are in progress including website updates, creation of a GIS map showing all opportunities within the city (including Parks), updated volunteer agreement forms and procurement of safety vests and tools for volunteer use.

Current Volunteer Offerings
Berkeley currently has a set of volunteer opportunities available to the community through Public Works and Parks & Rec. The information about available programs is located on the City’s website, on three separate webpages, and through programs housed in three different divisions. Two programs have their own logo. The table below illustrates the current organization of the programs.
7 See the CivicSpark webpage for 2021-2022 Projects, “Adopt-A-Spot: Enhancing Public Works’ Community Outreach, Volunteerism And Stormwater Quality” (https://civicspark.lgc.org/2021-22-projects/)

Page 3 of 38 ends

475
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
4 Public Works Parks, Rec & Waterfront
Adopt-a-Spot

Traffic Circles Storm Drains PRW Volunteer

As illustrated in the table above, the Adopt-a-Spot program lives within the Public Works Department at this time. The top-level webpage is found on a page marked “General Information”. From there the user can click on either of two links to navigate to a webpage for Traffic Circles (which lives on a webpage of the Transportation Division) or Adopt-a-Drain (which lives on a webpage of the Public Works Department). The many programs associated with our Parks, Rec and Waterfront Department can be found on a separate webpage within the Recreation Division. Links to these webpages are listed here:

● (General Adopt-a-Spot) https://www.cityofberkeley.info/adoptaspot.aspx ● (Storm Drains) https://www.cityofberkeley.info/adoptadrain.aspx ● (Traffic Circles) https://www.cityofberkeley.info/adoptatrafficcircle.aspx ● (Parks, Rec & Waterfront)
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Parks_Rec_Waterfront/Recreation/Volunteer_Opp ortunities.aspx

Looking at the two Adopt-a-Spot programs within Public Works, forms such as Volunteer Agreement and Waivers must be printed, scanned (or photographed), and then emailed to the address ([email protected]). In addition, and in collaboration with the associated Task Force, helpful supporting materials are now 8 This centralized email address, which includes a new logo, is a recent development after collaboration with the Traffic Circles Task Force.

Page 4 of 38 ends

476
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
5 available for Traffic Circles, including (1) a list of suggested plants (the Planting Guide), (2) the approval form for plants (Planting List; waived if plants chosen from the approved Planting Guide), and (3) a map of traffic circles location and availability (Map of Traffic Circles).

The 16 volunteer opportunities within Parks, Rec & Waterfront are organized by frequency (on-going vs. annual) and also include 2 links to suggest a project, as either an All Crew Day or Create Your Own, specified for weekdays only. Printable Application and Waiver forms and a phone number is listed. An online "Volunteer Application Form" is also available, with the general parks email listed at the top for possible follow-up contact.

Updating and merging all of these programs into a unified Adopt-a-Spot program, with a single City webpage that links to all volunteer opportunities, would facilitate the user experience by creating a kind of “one stop shopping”. For example, all volunteer opportunities, those under Public Works and Parks & Rec, can be listed on a single webpage. In addition, the print-and-submit forms can be replaced by online forms. The static map of traffic circle locations & availability can be replaced with a dynamic one.

Once the volunteer coordinator positions are created and the City’s overall website is redesigned9, additional programs and functionality can be added, as outlined in the section Suggested Program Elements, below.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Goals of Program
The primary goal of a successful volunteer program is to positively engage the community. This can be done by creating a structure in which individuals are given the best possible opportunities to perform useful environmental maintenance work safely and efficiently, with a focus on equity. An easily accessible volunteer website which includes all participating departments, an interactive signup and data entry functions, and appropriate forms and information for the various types of tasks.

Volunteers can perform many basic maintenance tasks in our parks, on traffic circles, on landscaped areas, on drains, litter and trash pickup, and report on observed problem areas such as overgrown vegetation, and sidewalk hazards and obstructions. They can support the growing effort to provide native habitat to promote biodiversity. Youth volunteers can participate in summer job programs to gain experience and address needs identified by staff. Volunteers are not a substitute for the work of dedicated city staff, but there are often areas where additional hands can make a positive difference.

City Staff are responsible for city infrastructure and environmental features, and Volunteers clearly work under their ultimate direction. City workers already know what needs to be done, and how to do it, and they can establish clear policies and procedures for volunteers. A Volunteer program is successful when it builds upon existing staff efforts and priorities, so that the program is a clear benefit to employees.

9 City Council Agenda, Regular Meeting, July 28, 2020, Item 15, Rolling Orange Redesigning Website

Page 5 of 38 ends

477
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
6 Risk management by the use of liability waivers, mandating best safety practices, and in some cases by direct Supervision is essential to ensure no one is injured while volunteering, and that the city has a strong legal defense if an accident were to occur.

The most successful programs actively highlight Volunteer activities, have a formal recognition component, and collect accurate data on the number of volunteer hours and projects completed to be included in official city documents and for public information.

An annual event possibly including awards and prizes is a sure way to boost volunteer spirit and incentivize additional participants.

Finally, continually reaching out to the community with excellent communications, soliciting suggestions for new projects, and sincere feedback for Volunteers assures the future success of the program.

Precedent and Research
Our working group researched more than 30 Adopt-a-Spot programs nationwide. For each location we documented a wide variety of features. See Appendix M for the data spreadsheet. The cities we reviewed are listed below:

Adopt-a-Spot Programs Reviewed
California
Burlingame, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Marin County, CA
Riverside, CA
Santa Clara, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Mateo, CA
Truckee, CA

Other U.S. Cities
Boulder, CO
Muncie, DE
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Carbondale, IL
Indianapolis, IN
Columbia, MO
Minneapolis, MN Anne
Arundel County, MD
Prince George's, MD
Minneapolis, MN
Missoula, MT
Albuquerque, NM
Santa Fe, NM
Ferguson, PA
Austin, TX
Fort Worth, TX
San Antonio, TX
Hampton, VA
Seattle, WA
Madison, WI

Canada
Vancouver, BC
We found that many cities and local government agencies in the Bay Area and throughout the U.S. have created Adopt-a-Spot programs. San Francisco, Oakland, Marin County, City of Santa Clara, Pittsburg, and others maintain successful programs based on the basic principle of enlisting residents to volunteer and sign up for ongoing cleanup, maintenance and beautification of specific areas.

These city-led volunteer programs have many things in common, both structurally and in the type and scope of citizen participation. Logistically, the programs include a list (or clickable online map) of suggested spots, a liability waiver, a registration system, and staff support in providing tools, supplies, and waste disposal. The staff positions may be located in a variety of departments but the most common are Public Works and Parks & Rec.

Page 6 of 38 ends

478
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
7 Some of the most common adoptable "spots" in our peer research are listed here:
● Storm drains maintenance
● Litter & graffiti action, both patrolling and mitigating ● Greening, planting and maintenance, e.g. medians, traffic circles and street gardens
● Tree planting and watering
● Various civic art projects including decorating assets such as trash cans or utility boxes
● Trail maintenance and/or construction
When thinking about our community, programs could specifically target Berkeley’s needs and values, such as:
● Installing and maintaining pollinator & native habitat gardens ● Monitoring, reporting and prioritizing found sidewalk defects ● Supporting encampments, campers and RVs
● Maintenance of off-leash dog areas
● Creation of city art, including murals
The Volunteer Coordinator can also serve as:
● Liaison for a Bee City USA program
● Liaison with the Ecology Center (e.g. Community Gardens, Recycling Efforts) ● Outreach and coordination of Cal Project Day
● Liaison with East Bay Regional Parks
● Liaison with other local non-profits
Suggested Program Elements
Flexibility & adaptability is critical for ongoing success of the program. The following elements are commonly found in programs in other cities. (See the Appendices for sample images.)

A. Administrative Elements

1. Promotion: Promotion is an important part of any citywide volunteer program and most cities have some means of accomplishing this through their websites, community bulletin boards, social media, monthly newsletters, or signs in other public spaces like parks.

2. Recruiting & Onboarding: A simple streamlined application process where each volunteer receives acknowledgement and information about the citywide volunteer program is necessary for success of the program. Setting expectations for the approval process, including a checklist and typical timeline of approval, can enhance usability.

Page 7 of 38 ends

479
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
8 3. Liability & Waivers: A means of addressing legal liability for the City is required.

Most jurisdictions have legal waivers for volunteers that are completed when the volunteer is onboarded.

4. Safety Rules & Training: Related to liability, basic rules and safety training is an element of onboarding for volunteers in many cities. (e.g. Oakland’s training project coordinators for Earth Month). Provide clear and up-to-date guidelines, sometimes in the form of a Volunteer Manual, so volunteers understand the scope of their involvement and the responsibilities of their participation.

5. Recognition: Volunteer recognition is important for retention and builds a sense of community. Other cities use items including signage in public areas, volunteer appreciation events or annual parties, volunteer of the month or top volunteer of the year, or certificates or cards recognizing volunteer contributions. More locally, East Bay Regional Parks has given out badges for events attended.

B. Operational Elements

1. Mapping & Identification of Opportunities: Dynamic and clickable citywide maps show “adopted” areas and those available for adoption. Layering within the maps allows volunteers to focus on different kinds of opportunities (e.g. drains vs. gardens)

2. Single Point of Contact & Website: Successful programs have some sort of “coordinator” position that provides a single point of contact for volunteers and this contact information is prominently listed on the website.

3. Calendar of Events: A centralized calendar listing volunteer events promotes participation and transparency. Calendar entries can hyperlink to event descriptions and digital sign-up. Color-coded sub-calendars by 'type' (e.g. litter, gardening, drains) can allow for easy sorting. Individual user accounts support customization.

4. Tools, Supplies, & Support: Tools for common programs - litter pickers, garbage bags, shovels, gloves, etc. - are often provided upon request, either for pickup or drop-off. Post-event garbage pick-up is often available, too.

5. Tracking & Reporting: Documenting volunteer time spent or accomplishments (e.g. # of trash bags filled) is a common feature of successful programs. These data can serve as quality control, to help ensure work is done, and quantify the total number of volunteer hours spent, which can be included in grant applications. Photos documenting regular maintenance of certain locations, like traffic circles or medians, can be submitted via a new digital portal.

6. Problem Resolution: With a volunteer program, problems and issues will arise and the volunteers need a means of relaying issues back to city staff. Utilization of the existing 311 or SeeClickFix could be used or another means of communication can help identify locations in need. Problem resolution between

Page 8 of 38 ends

480
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
9 persons, volunteers and/or the community, should be handled by a Volunteer Coordinator.

7. Coordinating with external organizations: Some volunteer groups and non- profits will remain independent of any City programs. The City's Volunteer Coordinators can serve as a liaison between residents with external groups, to promote volunteerism city-wide.

8. Plant Lists and Seedlings: A list of suggested plants can introduce volunteers to habitat plants that are native to the region, ones that meet potential requirements (e.g., height or water needs), and can facilitate approval of plant palettes. Some cities provide free plants to volunteers (and in some cases these plants are grown by other volunteers. See Appendix L, Madison WI) Suggested Implementation Options
The preferred option is for one of the two new volunteer coordinators, the senior Coordinator, to design the program, engaging the interns and CivicSpark fellows to build out desired new tools. As a second option, or in the event that additional input or resources are needed, an outside consulting firm could be engaged to more clearly define and develop the program using best practices in existing public programs.

The expansion of the programs can be done in a phased manner, starting with existing ones, for example, adding online tools and materials, and then over time adding new kinds of “spots”, depending on community input and city goals.

The following departments, commissions and stakeholders should be engaged during the development of the program:
● Public Works Department
● Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department
● Public Works Commission
● Parks and Waterfront Commission
● Traffic Circle Task Force
● Community Organizations that have historically worked with the City Location of Program in the City
The Commissions did not reach a final recommendation about the location of the new Volunteer Coordinators. Their work will span a broad range of activities, functioning as a kind of "umbrella" position, supporting the work associated with many departments. For this reason, the best place to start the Adopt-a-Spot program may be in the City Manager’s Office, where the Customer Service Center and Online Service Center already exist. There is also a Fighting Graffiti program, which already solicits volunteers.

On the other hand, since many of the volunteer efforts will require input from Parks or Public Works it may be best for the position to live in one of these departments or be split between them.

Page 9 of 38 ends

481
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
10 Not hiring dedicated coordinators and sharing the responsibilities of the program across multiple employees is greatly discouraged as some departments are short-staffed and team members already have full work loads. For comparison, the City of Oakland has four full time employees and two part-time trainees affiliated with their Adopt-a-Spot program. They are deployed by subject area, 1) parks; 2) creeks/storm drains; and 3) streets.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
A well-run Adopt-a-Spot program will help residents support many of the City's climate, safety and greening goals, including improving stormwater flows, reducing refuse that reaches the Bay, promoting safe and beautiful intersections, mitigating urban heat island effect, monitoring sidewalks for safety, and widespread planting of California- natives to increase urban ecology that supports pollinators and promotes public health.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Commissions discussed taking no action to expand the Adopt-a-Spot program but concluded that the benefits from funding a more robust program, with dedicated staff positions, far outweigh the program costs.

CITY MANAGER
Refer to the budget process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Funding
To ensure a successful Adopt-a-Spot program it is essential that two dedicated FTE positions be fully funded, a Volunteer Coordinator, who will function as the manager, and an entry-level position Coordinator who can coordinate year-round youth programs, or the equivalent. In addition, funds should be allocated for supporting materials, such as tools, vests, signs, litter pick-up materials, T-shirts, and an annual recognition and awards party.

At writing, it is estimated that $500,000 is needed to cover both fully-loaded FTEs and operational costs. There are two possible sources of funding: the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds.

At the end of FY21 the total revenue of the Discretionary General Fund was $196M. A fee of approximately 0.25% from this fund would cover all proposed program costs.

However, the General Fund is susceptible to fluctuations, which could introduce uncertainty into the long-term health of the program and is not the Commissions’ first choice.

The preferred alternative is to allocate a percentage of total revenue from four Special Revenue Funds in the Public Works and Parks departments, as these funds tend to be more stable and citizen engagement will directly benefit both these departments. At the end of FY21 the total revenue of these four funds was almost $100M. A fee of just half a percent - or 0.5% - from the four funds can cover all costs.

Page 10 of 38 ends

482
Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022
11 Revenue Adopted Update FY21 ($M)
$ 48.7 Zero Waste

27.7 Sewer

14.4 Parks Tax

5.0 Storm Water
-----------------------------------
$ 96M TOTAL

0.5% of $96M = ~$500,000
Funding from the Special Funds is ideal because it’s a more stable long-term source.

But funding from the General Fund could also be a good strategy, if necessary.

CONTACT PERSON
Margo Schuler, Public Works Commission, (510) 528-1975
Erin Diehm, Parks and Waterfront Commission, (510) 666-0662 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Appendices

Page 11 of 38 ends

483
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

APPROVAL OF AN EXPANDED AND FULLY FUNDED ADOPT-A-SPOT PROGRAM TO POSITIVELY ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY, PROMOTE CIVIC PRIDE, and

SUPPORT CLIMATE ACTION GOALS
WHEREAS, beginning in fall 2019 Council introduced the first of four separate Referrals to the Public Works and Parks and Waterfront Commissions with the following dates: (1) April 23, 2019, (2) September 24, 2019, (3) November 12, 2019, and (4) February 23, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Referrals mentioned a range of goals for the Adopt-a-Spot program, including, supporting city cleanup and maintenance efforts, addressing Vision 2050 storm water and watershed goals, promoting a thriving volunteer force to adopt and maintain traffic circles, creating and maintaining pollinator habitat and funding a City Liaison as part of a Bee City USA program, adopting encampments and street campers/RVs, and more; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley has a long history of volunteerism and community participation, it is critically important to provide a robust program to manage and facilitate citizen efforts; and
WHEREAS, the two commissions conducted research and compiled succinct data in order to determine what was necessary for the successful implementation of this program; and
WHEREAS, we found that many cities and local government agencies in the Bay Area and throughout the U.S. have created robust and comprehensive Adopt-a-Spot programs; and
WHEREAS, a well-run Adopt-a-Spot program will help residents support many of the City's climate, safety and greening goals, including improving stormwater flows, reducing refuse that reaches the Bay, promoting safe and beautiful intersections, mitigating urban heat island effect, monitoring sidewalks for safety, and widespread planting of California- natives to increase urban ecology that supports pollinators and promotes public health; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2021 the Public Works Commission and on August 11, 2021, the Parks and Waterfront Commission voted to approve the implementation of an expanded Adopt-A-Spot program, as described above.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley hereby adopts an expanded Adopt-a-Spot program, including two full-time Volunteer Coordinators (2 FTEs) and associated operational costs.

Page 12 of 38 ends

484
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the expanded Adopt-a-Spot program shall be paid for by a 0.5% fee on four Special Revenue Funds (Zero Waste, Sewer, Parks, and Storm Water) or, as an alternative, by an approximate 0.25% fee from the General Fund.

Page 13 of 38 ends

485

APPENDICES
Berkeley
A: Selected Materials from Berkeley’s current Adopt-a-Spot program Other Cities
B: Signage
C: Clickable Maps
D: Videos
E: Calendars
F: Brochures
G: Online Grant Application
H: Online Program Application
I: Online Reporting
J: Volunteer Handbook
K: Volunteer Appreciation
L: Native Plants
Research
M: Screenshot of Google sheet with details for locations researched

Page 14 of 38 ends

486
Appendix A: Selected Materials from Berkeley’s Adopt-a-Spot program for Traffic Circles
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/adoptatrafficcircle.aspx Public Works staff shared some exciting news at the June 2021 meeting of the Public Works Commission. They’re working with interns and fellows to create a dynamic ArcGIS map, to update and replace the static one pictured below (due Summer 2021).

Berkeley’s Map of Traffic Circles - Identifies circles, adopted and available Berkeley’s Suggested plantings for traffic circles (1 of 4 pages, 20 plants total) Focus is on CA natives that support butterflies, bees and birds.

Page 15 of 38 ends

487
Appendix B: Examples of Signage
Signage identifies spots that are either available or already adopted, sometimes including the name of the adopting party. The signs are placed directly in the public space or marked on GIS maps, and help recruit new volunteers and acknowledge existing ones.

Examples of Adopt-a-Spot Signage
Adopted
Indianapolis, IN
Vancouver, Canada
Muncie, DE
Available
Vancouver, Canada
Truckee, CA
Greene Co., OH
Atlanta, GA
Saginaw, TX
Marin, CA

Page 16 of 38 ends

488
Appendix C: Examples of Clickable Maps
Usually color-coded to identify availability.

Storm Drains
Fort Worth, TX - Adopt a Drain
Green (“unlocked”) = available
Red (“locked”) = adopted (name of adopting party - not published)

Page 17 of 38 ends

489
Traffic Circles
Missoula, MT - Adopt a Traffic Circle
Green = adopted (name of adopting party - published)
Red = available

Page 18 of 38 ends

490
Medians
Muncie, Delaware - Adopt a Median
Green = adopted (name of adopting party - published)
Red = available

Page 19 of 38 ends

491
Streets
Seattle, WA - Adopt a Street
Red (turns green when clicked) = adopted (name of adopting party - published)

Page 20 of 38 ends

492
Litter
Carbondale, IL - Adopt-a-Spot (Keep Carbondale Beautiful) Color-coded by adoptee, “Citizen Hero”. Many are fraternities and sororities.

Page 21 of 38 ends

493
Appendix D: Examples of Videos from Programs in Other Cities General (1 min.)
San Angelo, TX - Adopt a Spot
Includes contact information for signing up
Drains (1 min. 21 sec.)
Riverside, CA - Adopt a Drain
Encourages volunteers to post photos to Facebook and Instagram Litter (1 min 5 sec)
Hampton, VA - We Put Litter In Its Place #4
End of video gives contact information for signing up
Medians - News Segment (2 min. 26 sec.)
Albuquerque, NM - Adopt-a-Median
Includes city staff describing plans to expand program

Page 22 of 38 ends

494
Appendix E: Examples of Calendars
Calendar - Simple
Carbondale, IL - Keep Carbondale Beautiful

Page 23 of 38 ends

495
Calendar - Comprehensive
Boulder, CO - “Count Me In” Volunteer Cooperative
Calendar for all city-sponsored events. Filters by event type, department and activity.

Page 24 of 38 ends

496
Appendix F: Examples of Brochures
Brochure - Medians/Rain Gardens
Madison, WI - Adopt-a-Median or Rain Garden
Tri-fold, includes application

Page 25 of 38 ends

497
Brochure - Litter
Hampton, VA - Adopt-a-Spot Litter program

Page 26 of 38 ends

498
Appendix G: Example of Online Grant Application

Page 27 of 38 ends

499
Indianapolis, IN - Adopt-a-Block - apply for grant online (up to $500)

Page 28 of 38 ends

500
Appendix H: Example of Online Adoption Application
Missoula, MT -Traffic Circles - Application Form

Page 29 of 38 ends

501
Appendix I: Example of Online Reporting
Hampton, VA - Adopt-a-Spot - Reporting Form
For 16 available programs

Page 30 of 38 ends

502
Appendix J: Example Volunteer Handbook
Boulder, CO - Volunteer Cooperative - Volunteer Handbook

Page 31 of 38 ends

503
Appendix K: Examples of Volunteer Appreciation
Appreciation - Annual Party and Awards
Boulder, CO - Volunteer Appreciation
Appreciation - Annual Oscar Awards
Muncie, DE - Annual “Oscar” Awards and Party
Annual Beautification Party and Award
Prince George’s County, MD - Annual Beautification Award Ceremony (pg. 20)

Page 32 of 38 ends

504
Appreciation - Annual Award Recipients
Prince George’s County, MD - Annual Volunteer Awards
Appreciation - Monthly Recognition
Columbia, MO - Volunteer of the Month

Page 33 of 38 ends

505
Appreciation - Quarterly Recognition
Santa Fe, NM - Keep Santa Fe Beautiful - Median of the Quarter

Page 34 of 38 ends

506
Appendix L: Examples of Native Plants
Native Plants - Video, Guide and Free Plants
Indianapolis, IN - Adopt a Block - Designing a Native Plant Garden

Page 35 of 38 ends

507
Native Plants - Database
Columbia, MO - Adopt-a-Spot - Resources for Native Plantings - Missouri Prairie Foundation
Native Plants - Guide
Columbia, MO - Adopt-a-Spot - Resources for Native Plantings - Info from the Missouri Dept of Conservation

Page 36 of 38 ends

508
Native Plants - Example of Free Plants
Madison, WI - Plants for Rain Gardens (Dane County)
Opportunities to order, grow, donate, and request free plants (above)

Page 37 of 38 ends

509
Appendix M: Screenshot of spreadsheet used to capture details of Research Link available upon request

Page 38 of 38 ends

510
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

ACTION CALENDAR
January 18, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Subject: Companion Report: Adopt-a-Spot Program Development Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION
Staff appreciates the thoughtful and important Parks and Waterfront and Public Works Commissions (Joint Commission Report) Adopt-a-Spot recommendation and recommends referring it to the FY2023-FY2024 budget process for consideration with other worthy requests.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Joint Commission Report recommended $500,000 in annual recurring costs to run a new Adopt-A-Spot Volunteer Program in the City with two FTE positions and associated materials. The text of the report describes two different methods to fund the program, as follows:

There are two possible sources of funding: the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds.

At the end of FY21 the total revenue of the Discretionary General Fund was $196M. A fee of approximately 0.25% from this fund would cover all proposed program costs.

However, the General Fund is susceptible to fluctuations, which could introduce uncertainty into the long-term health of the program and is not the Commissions’ first choice.

Revenue Adopted Update FY21 ($M)
$ 48.7 Zero Waste

27.7 Sewer

14.4 Parks Tax

5.0 Storm Water
-----------------------------------
$ 96M TOTAL

Page 1 of 3 ends

511
Companion Report: Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022

0.5% of $96M = ~$500,000
Funding from the Special Funds is ideal because it’s a more stable long-term source.

But funding from the General Fund could also be a good strategy, if necessary.

It should be noted that each of the four Special Funds described by the Joint Commission Report are subject to spending restrictions according to the legislative actions that established each fund. As such, any potential volunteer activities covered by these funds would be subject to the same restrictions, and a detailed analysis would be required to ascertain these restrictions, and whether it would be feasible to co-mingle these funds to cover a robust Volunteer program with wide-ranging activities.

Additionally, charging a new program to these Special Funds with new FTE’s when these funds do not currently adequately generate enough revenue for maintenance and capital of their associated inventory is problematic. A more straight-forward method would be to try and identify unrestricted General Funds to cover the staffing and program costs associated with the new Volunteer program.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Berkeley currently has a set of volunteer opportunities available to the community through the Public Works and Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront departments. The Public Works Department provides two volunteer opportunities: The Adopt-A-Drain program and the Adopt-A-Traffic Circle program. The PRW Department provides several volunteer opportunities for parks and shoreline cleanups, several annual special events and festivals, gardening opportunities, the monthly All-Crew Day (PRW staff), and the UC Berkeley Project Day twice a year with approximately one thousand college students. At present, these opportunities are described on two separate City webpages, Public Works and PRW, and residents typically must call City staff to link up to specific volunteer events. It is likely that access to and participation in these volunteer efforts could be improved with better and more centralized coordination, as funding allows.

BACKGROUND
In the summer of 2021, the Public Works and the Parks and Waterfront Commissions jointly developed a report to Council recommending the funding of a new Adopt-A-Spot Volunteer Program for the City. On September 26, 2021, the report was submitted into the agenda review process for the October 26, 2021 Council agenda. On October 12, 2021, the Council Agenda and Rules Committee acted to defer the report for 60 days to provide for City Manager companion report.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental sustainability and climate impacts associated with the recommendation in this report.

Page 2 of 3 ends

512
Companion Report: Adopt-a-Spot program development recommendations ACTION CALENDAR January 18, 2022

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
No funds have been identified in the FY2022 Budget to cover the cost of this new program. Revenue for these costs will need to be identified during the FY2023 – FY2024 budget process when more is known about the fiscal condition of the City.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSONS
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Dept, (510) 981-6700 Liam Garland, Director, Public Works Department, (510) 981- 6300

Page 3 of 3 ends

513
514

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/recordsonline

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF

Berkeley City CouncilJanuary 18, 2022

Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2022