Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, September 12, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

Page 324 ends

3 Administration funded more than 30 projects in Berkeley, including roads, improvements to Berkeley High and other schools, the Marina, Rose Garden, and Codornices, Frances Albrier, Indian Rock, James Kenney, John Hinkel, and Live Oak Parks. These, and many other facilities, need repair to extend their useful life.

Berkeley has recognized the needs of our infrastructure and has made progress with our streets, parks, and sanitary sewers. However, the rehabilitation needs are so large that a more focused effort and additional funding is needed. Measure T1 has already provided a major boost to fixings some of the deficiencies and the continuation of Phase 2 will continue the progress of enabling Berkeley to develop modern and effective infrastructure.

As part of the planning process for Phase 2, the PWC has coordinated with City Staff and provided oversight of the public outreach process. An initial list of potential infrastructure improvement projects was provided by City Staff. The PWC along with PWFC attended multiple public outreach meetings in a compressed public input process. Public comments from the outreach meetings as well as emails submitted to the T1 email address were synthesized, some comments led to additional projects that were included for consideration along with the Staff generated project list. Public comment was also considered by the PWC to inform the recommendations to Council for Phase 2 public works projects to be funded by remaining T1 Infrastructure Bond funds. These recommendations were approved by the Public Works Commission on Thursday, November 12th, 2020.

PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS
The Phase 2 public outreach process was initiated in January 2020. At this time, Staff provided an initial list of priority facility and infrastructure projects that were presented in the initial in-person public meetings with specific community groups. At least one member of the PWC participated in each of the public outreach meetings. In March 2020, the planned public engagement process was curtailed by the COVID-19 pandemic and statewide shelter-in-place mandate. The public outreach process was placed on hold until July 2020, when Staff reorganized their approach and redeveloped a plan of action to facilitate virtual public engagement and input meetings via Zoom. The public outreach process then resumed under a substantially condensed timeline while significant restrictions prohibiting commission subcommittees to meet were in effect. PWC and PWFC each met as commissions 8 times, twice jointly, and assigned individual commissioners to attend each of the 19 small area meetings and 5 large area meetings.

Through this process, Staff compiled over 138 pages of notes from the public meetings and emails while making sure to document and collect all project suggestions from members of the public, which are attached to this memo. Following each public meeting and throughout the public input process, Staff incorporated community feedback and revised their recommended project list (including project scope and cost estimates). The PWC read and reviewed all notes and emails to identify any additional Public Works specific projects for consideration in the prioritization and development of said projects.

Additionally, all public comments made at regular commission meetings were also taken into consideration in the development of the PWC T1 Phase 2 project recommendations.

Page 16 of 41 ends

Page 325 ends

4 PROJECT LIST DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
Projects considered for inclusion in the T1 program were organized in three general categories: Public Works Projects, Parks & Waterfront Projects, and Non-Departmental Citywide Projects with the Phase 2 budget allocated with $17 million in each category.

PWC and PWFC each met with Staff to refine their respective project lists, develop a prioritization process, and identify their respective priority projects. The two commissions came to a joint consensus on the final proposed project list being recommended to Council for use of the remaining $53 million.

The project selection and priority process was conducted in three phases, a fatal flaws evaluation, a criteria scoring matrix, and project list finalization. First projects were evaluated on potential fatal flaws, by using four screening questions that evaluated the project’s conformance with the specific borrowing requirements of the bond:
 Can the project be completed with the available funds remaining in T1?  If the project is a study, can the planned project be constructed with T1 funds?  Is the project repairing or improving an existing asset or infrastructure?  Is the proposed project on City-owned or leased property? Any project that resulted in a “no” response was eliminated from consideration.

Next, the projects were evaluated using an excel based decision support tool that uses a matrix approach to score Public Works projects on each of the project criteria. Criteria were based initially on the project selection process and published in the T1 Program Manual. Using these criteria as a foundation, the PWC expanded on the criteria based on public feedback from the public outreach process. Each project was scored from one to five in the eight criteria. Table 2 provides a summary of the criteria used in the prioritization matrix. Criteria scores were then totaled to produce a “Performance Score.” A second evaluation was conducted with the performance score divided by the project cost to produce a “Value Score” (Figure 1). The projects were then sorted on their project score and value score rankings to identify the preliminary priority list of projects. The PWC sees the decision support tool matrix that was used by the commission as something that will provide additional value to the continued delivery of T1, as a means of continuing the same process to continually re-prioritize projects as cost estimates evolve.

It is worth noting the matrix did not outright determine the recommended list of projects, but instead assisted the decision-making process by providing enabling our team to evaluate all projects consistently without any personal prejudice or preference for specific projects.

Page 17 of 41 ends

Page 326 ends

5 PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
Our guiding principles for final project selection considered projects capable of moving Berkeley toward more sustainable green infrastructure capable of addressing climate crisis concerns and providing improvements to the quality of life for the City of Berkeley’s guests, residents, and employees, which is consistent with Vision 2050 recommendations adopted by Council in September 2020. Consideration for specific projects drivers include:

Regulatory Compliance, ADA Compliance, Asset System Maintenance Costs, and Public Support.

The final project list was formulated with consideration of the overall budget allocated to the Public Works projects. It is worth noting that given the accelerated review process, and the preliminary nature of the project scope development, a detailed evaluation of project cost estimates has not been possible. It is understood that these project costs are likely to change as the project scopes mature and bottom-up estimates are developed.

Table 3 provides a summary of the final project list with the current project estimate and the scores used in the project prioritization matrix.

Page 18 of 41 ends

Page 327 ends

6 Table 2: Project Prioritization Criteria
Abrv. Criteria Description
GB Greatest Benefit
Project provides an impact to the greatest number of Berkeley residents.

E Equity
Consideration of geographic and demographic distribution of projects. This criterion is applied after looking at the draft list of recommended projects. (PWC enhancement: Additional
consideration of racial equity, gender equity, and geographic equity among users of different age groups, income, and ability levels.) HSR
Health, safety, and
resilience
Project addresses public health and safety, such as improvements for disaster preparedness or emergency response.

ESD
Environmental
Sustainability/ Durability
Project improves water quality, has elements of green
infrastructure, or also includes energy, climate, or other zero waste goals. Project uses durable elements or technologies that may lower long term cost. (PWC enhancement: Additional consideration given to projects that support climate change resilience and asset life cycle.)
PR Project readiness Considering projects that are underway or already shovel-ready.

LOF Leveraging other funds
Project utilizes other funding sources. (PWC enhancement:

Additional consideration of whether additional funding may be available.)F Feasibility
Consideration of the following:
- The ability to complete a project/sequencing: project does not have any known barriers, such as site conditions,
funding, or permitting issues, that will substantially delay or prevent completion of the project.
- Renovating infrastructure before the end of the asset’s useful life. The goal is to avoid larger future expenses or closure of amenity.

PS Public Support
(PWC enhancement: Review and consideration of input from public meetings and email comments received)
PSR Project Scope/Rank
(PWC enhancement: Criteria weight multiplied by criteria score of all criteria.)
VSR Value Score/Rank
(PWC enhancement: Performance Score/Rank divided by project cost.)
Figure 1. Performance Score/Rank (PSR) and Value Score/Rank (VSR) Formulas

Page 19 of 41 ends

Page 328 ends

7 Table 3: Public Works Commission Project Prioritization Decision Support Tool Public Works Projects Estimate Description and Decision Support Tool Ratings Southside Complete Streets, Telegraph Shared Street, Pedestrian Plan, bikeways, transit routes, Vision Zero, street reconstruction of Arterials & Collectors

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
1 T1 Streets Contribution to
Annual Street Projects
$6,750,000
5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 1 31
Pedestrian access 50/50, ADA

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
2 50/50 Sidewalks
Maintenance & Safety
Repairs
$1,850,000
4 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 6 20
Water quality, Repair and replacement of failed storm drains at various locations

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
3 Stormwater Infrastructure
Repairs/ Replacement
$600,000
4 3 4 5 3 3 3 3 4 7
Disaster preparedness, energy efficient building systems, air quality

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
4 1947 Center Street Facility
Improvements
$1,800,000
3 3 4 5 4 3 3 4 18 23
HVAC, electrical, bedrooms, security, solar

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
5 Fire Station 2 Facility
Improvements
$1,450,000
3 3 5 4 3 4 3 3 22 19
Windows, Leak Repair, Lights, Mold

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
6 Fire Station 6 Facility
Improvements
$1,300,000
3 3 5 4 3 4 3 3 22 17
Gate, parking, wash station compliance, Green Room (B) lockers, bathrooms, Training Room, floors, cabinets, Storage Room (H) roof repair

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
7 Corporation Yard Facility
Improvements
$2,850,000
3 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 34 28
Community building, conversion of bollards to planter/garden boxes, street safety

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
8 Bollard Improvements $150,000
4 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 22 10
Pedestrian access, disaster preparedness, repairs/improvements to pathways (e.g. handrails, Garber Path, and Arlington median stair crossing)

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
9 Pathway
Repairs/Improvements
$200,000
4 3 5 4 3 3 3 5 12 3
Public restroom renovation and ADA compliance

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
10 Channing Garage Bathroom
Renovation
$300,000
4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 8 4
Solar battery backup power at City buildings

GB E HSR SD PR LOF F PS PSR VSR
11 Emergency Power Supply
Solar Batteries
$500,000
4 3 5 4 3 4 4 4 12 6
total $17,750,000

Page 20 of 41 ends

Page 329 ends

8 RECOMMENDED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

1. T1 STREET CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANNUAL PAVING PLAN:

T1 Bond language is focused on improving mobility, access, and safety for streets in need of repair. The Public Works Commission recommends using the Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan criteria for all street projects being considered for T1 Bond funding. The BeST plan project scoring criteria represents a prioritization strategy that takes all relevant City policies into account.

In following T1’s stated goals of improving mobility, access, and safety for streets in need of repair, the Public Works Commission supports adherence to the City’s Complete Streets Policy.

The Complete Streets Policy includes the following list of improvements: shared community spaces, sidewalks, shared-use paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, Bicycle Boulevards, paved shoulders, street trees, landscaping, planting strips, accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, public transit stops and facilities, transit priority signalization, and other features assisting in the safe travel for all users, such as traffic calming devices, transit bulb-outs, and road diets, and those features identified in the Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan and Berkeley Bicycle Plan. Within the life of the T1 Bonds, projects that provide Complete and Shared Streets benefits, including the Telegraph Shared Street Plan, the Adeline Corridor Project, and the Shattuck Square redevelopment should be prioritized.

The PWC continues to recommend funding road surfacing treatments and associated road appurtenances with life expectancies longer than the 40-year bond funding period. T1 funding should be committed to long-lived components of street projects (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, road bedding, trees, and stormwater infrastructure), short-lived components such as asphalt pavements with 15-30 year life expectancies should be constructed with tax monies rather than long term bond funds.

2. 50/50 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY REPAIR:

Following Vision Zero, Complete Streets, ADA, and BeST Plan plans, all street projects should include priorities for accessible sidewalks and considerations for pedestrian and bicycle user safety, and improved access to city sidewalks apply additional funding to the 50/50 sidewalks program.

3. STORMWATER AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (GI) PROJECTS:

Consistent with the Watershed Management Plan (WMP), the PWC recommends that GI should be integrated into street restoration projects. In concurrence with the WMP, GI street projects should be included in the streets that are funded by T1. If the street surface is designed and constructed to improve stormwater quality improvement and reduce runoff, then that would be an appropriate allocation of the T1 funds. Alternatively, stormwater projects concurrent with street projects included in the Five-Year Paving Plan could be funded by T1.

Page 21 of 41 ends

Page 330 ends

9 4 - 7. FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS:

City-owned buildings and facilities are some of the most expensive single assets. Given the critical impacts that roof failures can play in a building's useful life, the PWC prioritized roof repairs. We are recommending project list items 4, 5, 6, and 7 for needed repairs of Public Works assets, which are:

4. 1947 Center Street Facility Improvements

5. Fire Station 2 Facility Improvements

6. Fire Station 6 Facility Improvements

7. Corporation Yard Facility Improvements
However, there is concern that the City does not have adequate asset management or funding to continue to maintain buildings and facilities. The recommendations of the Vision 2050 Report recently adopted by the Council begin to address this challenge. The cost of routine maintenance of city-owned buildings should be incorporated into each department’s operating budget, and those departments can then allocate funds to Public Works to plan, schedule, and contract for work that cannot be undertaken by City Staff.

Bond measures are not an appropriate or cost-effective way to maintain city assets in the long run.

8. BOLLARD IMPROVEMENTS:

There are several types of bollards and diverters in place today - semi-diverters (closing half the street) and full diverters, which either create a cul-de-sac or are placed diagonally across an intersection and force vehicles to turn the corner. Most full diverters have a gap between the bollards and a low steel under-carriage device, which is supposed to only allow passage of fire trucks and other high-clearance vehicles. Nearly all diverters allow bicycles to pass through on the street, while some divert bike passage to the sidewalk.

However, as cities across the state saw increasingly constrained budgets following the passage of Proposition 13, less money was available for diverter reconstruction. Thus, most of the original “temporary” diverters still consist of bollards. In some neighborhoods, residents have attempted to beautify the bollard safety elements by planting flowers in them.

9. PATHWAY REPAIRS/IMPROVEMENTS:

For decades, Berkeley paths and steps have served a critical public safety purpose as evacuation routes in times of emergency. In case of fire or earthquake, paths provide egress and can be used by firefighters to bring up equipment if streets are blocked. The Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan recommends developing a strategy to prevent the loss of existing pathways and to identify opportunities to expand the public pedestrian pathways network in Berkeley. Paths provide an avenue for walking and connect neighbors, as well as to public transportation and shopping areas. They are tree-lined, enchanting, and a peaceful respite from the urban noise beyond. They give all Berkeley residents and visitors access to incredible hillside vistas, parks, and neighborhoods.

10. CHANNING GARAGE BATHROOM RENOVATION:

The Channing Garage Bathroom is one of two publicly accessible restrooms in the Southside neighborhood. However, the restroom facility is significantly dilapidated and

Page 22 of 41 ends

Page 331 ends

10 heavily relied on by both visitors to the Telegraph Business Improvement District and local unhoused populations. The closest alternate restroom facility is located at People’s Park, which is a site soon to be redeveloped and would temporarily result in the elimination of an essential public restroom. Locals, guests, and unhoused residents not only need a renovated and fully accessible restroom capable of meeting occupancy use, but they undeniably deserve safe and dignified restroom facilities to use and tend to their hygiene.

11. EMERGENCY POWER SUPPLY SOLAR BATTERIES:

In the face of rapidly accelerating climate change, and in light of Berkeley’s declared Climate Emergency, resilience and carbon-free energy supplies both become increasingly important investment criteria. Critical facilities need to have backup power, but diesel generators are not viable long-term, let alone reliable solutions. Solar power tied to batteries offer both continual long-term back-up power and bill savings opportunities even during normal grid-tied operation. The full potential for deployment far exceeds the currently available budget, but selecting a priority pilot project like the North Berkeley Senior Center will provide the City with valuable experience developing and implementing this project. As prices and functionality for both solar power and battery storage improve, the City can provide leadership and impetus in our attempts to decarbonize the economy and build resilience for our community.

CITYWIDE NON-DEPARTMENTAL PROJECTS
Multiple Non-Departmental Projects were identified by staff, with additional projects being promoted as part of the public outreach process. Table 4 provides a summary of the four non departmental projects that met the requirements of T1 and received a large amount of public support. These projects were not evaluated by the PWC using the prioritization matrix; however, there was agreement between both PWC and PWFC that these four projects should be prioritized for Phase 2 of the T1 program.

Table 4: Citywide Non-Departmental Project
Project Estimate Description
1 MLK Jr. Youth
Services Center
(YSC)
$7,000,000
The existing MLK Jr. YSC facility has not been updated
since the 1970s. The refurbishment of this facility
includes disaster preparedness, electrification, energy efficient building systems, community building.
2 South Berkeley
Senior Center
(SBSC)
$3,000,000
Refurbishment of the existing SBSC includes disaster
preparedness, electrification, energy efficient building systems, and enhancements to the community building.
3 African American
Holistic Resource
Center (AAHRC)
$7,000,000
Refurbishment of an existing City building to allow for the space to be occupied by the AAHRC. Scope includes
electrification, energy efficient building systems,
community building
4 Restrooms in the
Right of Way $1,350,000
Installation of new restrooms citywide. Restrooms will be selected from a list of facilities identified in the Citywide Bathroom Study. This project will use energy efficient fixtures and will result in a cleaner environment.

Total $18,350,000

Page 23 of 41 ends

Page 332 ends

11 PROJECTS REVIEWED BUT NOT RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME
With over $800M of need that the City has identified for infrastructure maintenance and improvement, many projects did not make the recommended T1 Phase 2 project list. The full list of projects provided by staff and the public process is included on Table 5. As project costs grow or other funding sources become available, staff may need to reprioritize projects off of this list. That said, there is not nearly enough funding in the T1 program to meet all of the infrastructure needs identified. We as a community will need to continue to support additional funding programs to catch up on historic deferred maintenance of public infrastructure of Berkeley.

Table 5: Projects Discussed but Not Recommended for T1 Phase 2 Funding Category Project Description
Facilities Fire Station 1 2422 Eighth St
Facilities Fire Station 3 2710 Russell St
Facilities Fire Station 4 1900 Marin Avenue
Facilities Fire Station 5 2680 Shattuck
Facilities Fire Station 7 3000 Shasta Rd
Facilities Fire Department Warehouse 1004 Murray St
Facilities Animal Shelter 1 Bolivar Dr
Facilities Civic Center Building 2180 Milvia St
Facilities 830 University, Berkeley Health 830 University Facilities Telegraph Channing & Oxford 2450 Durant
Facilities Old City Hall/Veterans, Civic Downtown Civic Center Facilities 1001, 1007, 1011 University 1001-1011 University Facilities Berkeley Health Clinic Electrical Assessment 830 University Citywide Facilities Seismic Upgrades Citywide
Citywide Facilities Swipe Access Citywide
Citywide Facilities ADA Upgrades Citywide
Citywide Facilities Elevators Citywide
Streets Citywide Street Maintenance Citywide
Sidewalks
Sidewalk Improvements identified by ADA Transition Plan Update Citywide
Sidewalks,
bikeways Ohlone Greenway Improvements (lighting and widening) Ohlone Greenway

GENERAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
The PWC reaffirms the following General Recommendations included in our review of Phase 2 Specific Project Recommendations:

Page 24 of 41 ends

Page 333 ends

12 A. REPORTING, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND ANALYSIS:

The PWC does not have oversight or review responsibilities under the T1 Policies and Procedures Manual. Should the Council desire routine input or feedback from the PWC in addition to the Staff reports on the progress of T1 Phase 2 projects, the manual should be revised to include reporting information and frequency. Project costs and cost benefits as well as cost avoidance, should be included in the review of projects recommended by Staff. PWC will provide Staff with the Prioritization Decision Support Tool developed in this process so the same process may be followed as Phase 2 is implemented.

B. STREETS MANAGEMENT PLAN:

The PWC recommends that the Public Works Department prepare a long-term Street Management Plan that will:
 Outline a baseline operations and maintenance funding level that will keep Berkeley’s streets from deteriorating.
 Outline a process to conduct life cycle cost analysis in the selection of street surface treatment technologies.
 Outline the capital projects that will use bond funding.

C. VISION 2050:

The PWC reaffirms the recommendations of the Vision 2050 Task Force, adopted by Council in September 2020, summarized in three principles:
 Support vibrant and safe communities
 Be efficient and well-maintained
 Facilitate a green Berkeley and contribute to saving our planet D. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (WMP):

The WMP should be updated to reflect changing climate knowledge, groundwater management rules, Green Infrastructure Framework, and stormwater discharge permit conditions. The remaining seven city watersheds should be modeled and included in WMP recommendations prior to design work on additional bio-swales citywide.

E. MARINA MASTER PLAN:

The 2003 Marina Master Plan should be updated to reflect changed conditions, climate change, sea-level rise impacts, and a current vision for future mitigation and adaptation.

F. ADA SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN:

The PWC recommends the inclusion of elements and priorities of the City of Berkeley ADA Title II Transition Plan in projects funded under T1 as the ADA Plan is updated.

The PWC acknowledges that there will be changes in priorities, specific projects, and funding as T1 Phase 2 is completed. We hope to remain a focal point for continued public input, feedback, and voice.

Page 25 of 41 ends

Page 334 ends

13 CONTACT PERSON
Matthew Freiberg, Chair, Public Works Commission, (831) 566-3628 Shane Krpata, Vice Chair, Public Works Commission, (507) 398-6117 Joe Enke, Acting City Engineering & PWC Commission Secretary, (510) 981-6411

ATTACHMENT
1 - PWC Project Prioritization Matrix Phase 2 of the Measure T1 Program

Page 26 of 41 ends

Page 335 ends

Project Name
Staff Priority
Y/N
Project
Category Project Cost
Council
District
Public Works,
Park, or City
Wide Benefit
Project
Origin of
Project
(Staff,
Public, other) Description .

Can the project
be completed
with available
funds
Is this project
repairing or
improving
exsiting assets
If a Study, can
the planned
project be
completed with T-
Is the proposed
project on City
owned or Leased
Property
Is the life of the
asset 40 years
or greater? .

Greatest
Benefit
Serves
Historically
Underseved
Community
Health, safety,
and resilience
Environmental
Sustainability /
Durability
Project
Rediness
Leveraging
other funding Feasibility
Public Support
for Project Total
Weights 11111112 9 .

Performance
Rank Project Value Value Rank Cumulative Cost
Priority Project
Inclusion (1 =
include, 0 =
exclude) Priority Cost Priority Max PWC Budget
Citywide Street Rehabilitation Yes Streets 6,750,000$
All
Public Works Staff
Acceleration of Road Resurfacing. Street
reconstruction of arterials, collectors, Bus, and
Low Stress Bike Network. Strong prerferance for
non-asphalt road surface materials. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 53445555 41 162 0 6,750,000$ 1 6,750,000$ 783 17,750,000$ Telegraph Shared Streets Transportation 8,000,000$
7 Public Works Public
Close Telegraph to through traffic (transit,
commercial delivery excepted), add plaza Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 55553535 41 152 1 14,750,000$ 0 -$ Cost of priority Projects Emergency Power Supply Sola
Batteries
Citywid
e
Facilities 500,000$
Various
Staff Solar Battery Backup Power at City Buildings Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 44553555 41 18 2 4 15,250,000$ 1 500,000$ 17,750,000$ ADA Upgrades
Citywide
Facilities 10,000,000$
Various
Staff ADA Compliance Upgrades at City Buildings Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 45554454 40 442 3 25,250,000$ 0 -$ 50/50 Catchup - Citywide by list Yes Sidewalks 1,850,000$ All
Public Works Staff
Funding to Sidewalk repair in residentia
neighborhoods where the cost is split between the
property owner and the City.

Priorty to sidewalks in the ADA Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 44553535 39 62 11 2 27,100,000$ 1 1,850,000$ Seismic Upgrades
Citywid
e
Facilities 20,000,000$
Various
Staff HHCS, Fire Stations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33535555 39 622 6 47,100,000$ 0 -$ Telegraph Channing & Oxford - Bathrooms Facilities 300,000$ 7 Public Works Staff Bathrooms and other Upgrades Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 45544444 38 8 127 3 47,400,000$ 1 300,000$ Jones Street, Heinz Avenue, Tenth Street, Ninth Street, Sacramento Street center median Storm 2,000,000$
1, 2, 2004
Staff
Construction of projects identified for project
planning funding in T1 Phase 1. Installation of
green infrastructure such as bioswales. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 44455335 38 81 91 4 49,400,000$ 0 -$ Bollard conversion to Planter
s Yes Transportatio n 150,000$ CW Public Works Public Beautification Project Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33445355 37 11 247 1 49,550,000$ 1 150,000$ Pathway Repairs Yes Transportation 200,000$
8 Public works Public
Multiple requests including sfety/accessibility
improvements. Includes repairs to Garber Path,
Turnbridge Lane, Visalia Walk, Florida Walk,
Orchard Lane (Upper Section), Vincente Walk,
Arlington median stair crossing improvements, and
others. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 43543335 35 17 175 2 49,750,000$ 1 200,000$ Emergency Power Supply
Citywid
e
Facilities 500,000$
Various
Public Works Staff Generator Upgrades at City Buildings Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 43543444 35 17 70 5 50,250,000$ 0 -$ Aquatic Park Storm 8,000,000$ 2 Public Works Staff Connection Model Yacht Basin to main Lagoon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 44343345 35 17 4 22 58,250,000$ 0 -$ Ohlone Greenway Improvements (widening & lighting -$ Public Works Public Yes Yes Yes Yes 54433335 35 17 0 29 58,250,000$ 0 -$ Elevators
Citywide
Facilities 12,000,000$
Various
Staff
Elevator Upgrades and Replacement at City
Buildings Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33445453 34 22 3 24 70,250,000$ 0 -$ 1947 Center Street - Seismic Upgrade Design,
HVAC/Electrical, Control Upgrades Yes Facilities 1,800,000$ 4 Public Works Staff
Seismic Upgrade Design, HVAC, Electrical Control
Upgrades Yes Yes NA Yes NA 33543434 33 24 18 15 72,050,000$ 1 1,800,000$ Parker Street Storm Drai
n Storm 1,000,000$ 2 Public Works Staff Increase capacity/replacement of aging pipe Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 43453343 32 27 32 8 73,050,000$ 0 -$ Second Street Storm Drain Storm 1,000,000$ 1 Public Works Staff Provide Separation from EBMUD Sewer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 43453343 32 27 32 8 74,050,000$ 0 -$ Fire Station 5 Facilities 3,200,000$ 3 Public Works Staff Lighting, HVAC, Electrical, Lighting, Paint Yes Yes Yes Yes NA 33553433 32 27 10 18 77,250,000$ 0 -$ Stormwater Infrastructure Repairs/Replacement Yes Storm 600,000$ All Public Works R&R of failed storm drains at various locations Yes Yes Yes Yes 43453333 31 31 52 6 77,850,000$ 1 600,000$ Fire Station 7 Facilities 600,000$ 6 Public Works Staff Roof Access, Lighting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33543433 31 31 52 6 78,450,000$ 0 -$ Fire Station 6* Yes Facilitie s 1,300,000$ 1 Public Works Staff Windows, Leak Repair, Lights, Drill Tower, Mold Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33543433 31 31 24 10 79,750,000$ 1 1,300,000$ Fire Station 2* Yes Facilitie s 1,450,000$ 4 Public Works Staff HVAC, Electrical, Bedrooms, Security, Solar Yes Yes Yes Yes NA 33543433 31 31 21 11 81,200,000$ 1 1,450,000$ Berkeley Health Clinic
Electrical Assessment Facilities 1,500,000$
2 Public Works Staff
Electrical upgrades to main switchboard, two
panel boards, and wiring devices. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 55333333 31 31 21 13 82,700,000$ 0 -$ Intersection Repairs -$ Public Works Public
Configure intersections consistently for bicycle and
pedestrian safety so everyone knows what to
expect. Yes Yes Yes Yes 43443333 30 36 0 29 82,700,000$ 0 -$ 1947 Center Street- Window Replacemen
t Facilities 1,700,000$ 4 Public Works Staff Windows, Leak Repair, Lights, Drill Tower Yes Yes Yes Yes NA 33553332 29 39 17 16 84,400,000$ 0 -$ Corporation Yard Improvements Yes Facilities 2,850,000$ 2 Public Works Staff
Green Room (B) Lockers, Bathroom, Training
Room, Floor, Cabinets, Gate, parking, wash statio
n
compliance. Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A 33434442 29 39 10 17 87,250,000$ 1 2,850,000$ Public Safety Building Facilities 3,000,000$ 4 Public Works Staff Electrical, Bullet-Proofing, Misc Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33533332 27 43 9 19 90,250,000$ 0 -$ 1947 Center Street - Other Facilities 8,500,000$
4 Public Works Staff
Elevators
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33413321 21 44 2 25 98,750,000$ 0 -$ Roofs
Citywide
Facilities 20,000,000$
Various
Public Works Staff
Roof Repair/Replacement Needs at City
Buildings Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33433 16 45 1 28 118,750,000$ 0 -$ 1001, 1007, 1011 University Facilities 7,900,000$ 1 Public Works Staff General Upgrades Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 555 15 46 2 27 126,650,000$ 0 -$ Fire Station 1 Facilities 2,100,000$
2 Public Works Staff
General Upgrade
Yes Yes Yes Yes No .. 33543433 - 47 0 29 128,750,000$ 0 -$ Fire Station 3 Facilities 1,700,000$ 8 Public Works Staff Fence, Gate, Leak Repair, Roof Yes Yes Yes Yes No .. 33543433 - 47 0 29 130,450,000$ 0 -$ Fire Station 4* Facilities 800,000$ 5 Public Works Staff Leak Repair, Roof, Floor, Paint Yes Yes Yes Yes No 33543433 - 47 0 29 131,250,000$ 0 -$ Fire Department Warehouse Facilities 800,000$
2 Public Works Staff General Upgrade Yes Yes Yes Yes No .. 33543433 - 47 0 29 132,050,000$ 0 -$ Civic Center Building Facilities 3,200,000$ 4 Public Works Staff Carpets, Windows, HVAC Yes Yes Yes Yes No - 47 0 29 135,250,000$ 0 -$ 830 University, Berkeley Health Facilities 2,400,000$ 2 Public Works Staff General Upgrade Yes Yes Yes Yes No .. - 47 0 29 137,650,000$ 0 -$ Old City Hall/Veterans, Civic Facilities 130,000,000$ Public Works Staff Vision Upgrades No Yes No Yes Yes .. - 47 0 29 267,650,000$ 0 -$ Swipe Access
Citywide
Facilities 2,000,000$
Various
Public Works Staff Access/Safety Upgrades at City Buildings Yes Yes Yes Yes No .. 33525451 - 47 0 29 269,650,000$ 0 -$ Street Striping -$ Public Works Public Restripe lane markings & crosswalks. Focus on areas near schools and high pedestrian areas. Yes Yes Yes No .. 33323333 - 47 0 29 269,650,000$ 0 -$ Parks and Non Departmental Projects
‐
Cazadero Dining Hall & ADA Improvements Camps 400,000$ Parks Energy efficient fixtures, environmental stewardship Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 4 4 5 3 5 3 5 38 Willard Clubhouse/Restroom Replacement Parks - Buildings 7,000,000$ Parks community building Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 5 37 Tom Bates Restroom/ Community Space Parks - Buildings 2,900,000$ Parks Cleaner environment, energy efficient building systems Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 5 37 Restrooms in Parks ‐‐ Harrison Park ‐ Renovation Parks - Buildings 450,000$ Parks Energy efficient fixtures Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 5 4 4 5 2 3 3 5 36 Restrooms in Parks -- Ohlone Park New Parks - Buildings 500,000$ Parks Energy efficient fixtures Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 5 4 4 5 2 3 3 5 36 Aquatic Park Dreamland‐ New ADA and 2‐12 Structure 700,000$ Parks Outdoor recreation, community building Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 5 3 5 2 3 3 5 35 Ohlone (Milvia) 2‐5, 5‐12, Garden Mural, Exercise Structure 500,000$ Parks Outdoor recreation, community building Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 5 3 3 4 3 3 4 33 John Hinkel Lower 2‐12, picnic, parking Structure 400,000$ Parks Outdoor recreation, community building Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 30 Grove Park 2‐5, 5‐12 Structure 700,000$ Parks Outdoor recreation, community building Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 29 Aquatic Park Tide Tubes Clean out, Phase 1B Parks 500,000$ Parks outdoor recreation Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 5 40 Civic Center Park – Turtle Garden Parks 300,000$ Parks Outdoor recreation, community building Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 5 34 King Pool tile and plaster Pools 350,000$ Parks Outdoor recreation and fitness, community building Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 28 Pilings Replacement Waterfront 1,200,000$ Parks Marina safety, outdoor recreation Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 30 D and E Dock Replacemen Waterfront 500,000$ Parks recreation Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 4 33 K Dock Restroom Renovation Waterfront 400,000$ Parks Energy efficient fixtures Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 3 3 4 5 3 3 3 4 32 Cesar Chavez Park Restroom (on Spinnaker Waterfront 350,000$ Parks Cleaner environment, energy efficient fixtures Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 3 4 4 5 3 4 3 5 36 ‐
Citywide Restrooms (add'l)
Non-PW
Facilities 1,350,000$ CW City Restroom installation in Public Right of Way Yes Yes Yes Yes 45544455 SBSC - Seismic Upgrades
Non-PW
Facilities 3,000,000$ 3 City
Life Safety Seismic Upgrades for Care &
Shelter Facility Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 34555353
Y.A.P./MLK Youth Services Center
Non-PW
Facilities 7,000,000$ 3 City Facility Repairs/Renovations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 45533355 African American Holistic Resource Center Yes
Non-PW
Facilities 7,000,000$ 3 City
Development of an African American Holistic
Resource Center facility Yes No Yes No Yes .. 55434455
‐
Project Information Fatal Flaw Evaluation
No to any question eliminates the project for considertion.

Project Criteria
Weighting totals 100%
Score each project on a scale of 1-5. 5 for projects that exemplify the criteria, 1 for projects that do not achieve the goals of the critieria.

Ranking and Optimization
Attachment 1 - PWC Project Prioritization Matrix Phase 2 of the Measure T1 ProgramPage 27 of 41Page 126 of 140

Page 336 ends

Parks & Waterfront Commission
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Parks and Waterfront Commission
Submitted by: Jim McGrath, Chair, Parks & Waterfront Commission Subject: Recommended Action on T1 Phase 2 Projects

INTRODUCTION
The Parks and Waterfront Commission appreciates the trust that the City Council and the citizens of Berkeley have given to us to manage a portion of the $100 million T1 bond. We are nearing completion of over $40 million in projects throughout the City, and we have leveraged an additional $20 million in outside funding to begin the important task of repairing our infrastructure and parks.

After a series of focus group and larger area meetings, the Parks and Waterfront Commission has reached a consensus on a recommendation for projects that we recommend for funding under T1 Phase 2. We reached this recommendation after listening carefully and extensively to the public and after a series of discussions with city staff and our colleagues on the Public Works Commission. This recommendation was adopted by the full Parks and Waterfront Commission, on November 19, 2020.

Our recommendation includes a specific list of recommendations for projects under T1, additional recommendations for projects that could be funded with the Parks Tax, and a program to develop project concepts for the future.

BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Parks and Waterfront Commission used a series of criteria, described below, to help establish these recommendations. The Commission recommendations were also based on input from the public in more than 35 public meetings and hundreds of emails, as well as public comment at Commission meetings. Recommendations were also based on input from staff regarding highest priority unfunded needs.

Recommendations were also informed by our previous efforts at recommending projects for Phase 1 of the T1 bonds, the Final Report of our Sustainability Subcommittee, from September 14, 2016, and the more recent recommendations of the Vision 2050 Task Force. Those efforts recommended that we consider:
● Plan to reduce water consumption
Attachment 3

Page 28 of 41 ends

Page 337 ends

2 ● Modify landscaping to enhance resiliency and reflect more frequent droughts ● Develop natural streetscapes that provide ecosystem services and support urban biodiversity
● Construct complete streets
● Increase the tree canopy to serve these purposes and reduce heating Thus, part of our orientation in formulating this recommendation is to look to the future conditions of Berkeley, which will be hotter and dryer, as well as considering infrastructure that needs repair. Providing additional improvements in parts of the city that have fewer parks, and in areas that have received less funding over the past decade, and addressing racial equity played a major part in formulating the criteria described below in order to form a recommendation.

CRITERIA
The Parks and Waterfront Commission adopted the following criteria upon which to base project selection for T1 funding. These criteria were decided upon for Phase 1 based on input from the City Council, the Commission, and the community. Criteria were updated in 2020 for Phase 2 as described below.
● Greatest Benefit: Project provides impact to the greatest number of Berkeley residents. For Phase 2, additional consideration is given to creation of a memorable project to inspire a broad spectrum of residents. ● Equity: Consideration of geographic and demographic distribution of projects. For Phase 2, additional consideration of racial equity, gender equity, and equity among users of different age groups and income levels. In addition, our park system should reflect the fact that this was once all land occupied by Native Americans.
● Health, safety, and resilience: Project addresses public health and safety, such as improvements for disaster preparedness or emergency response. ● Environmental Sustainability/Durability: Project which improves water quality, have elements of green infrastructure, or also include energy, climate, or other zero waste goals. Project uses durable elements or technologies that may lower long term cost. For Phase 2, additional consideration given to projects that support climate change resilience.
● Project readiness: Considering projects that are underway or already shovel- ready.
● Leveraging other funds: Project utilizes other funding sources. ● Feasibility: Consideration of
○ the ability to complete a project/sequencing: project does not have any known barriers that will substantially delay or prevent completion. ○ renovating infrastructure before end of useful life to avoid larger expense or closure of amenity.

While individual projects may not all meet all criteria, most projects should meet most criteria in order to merit recommendation by the Commission.

Page 29 of 41 ends

Page 338 ends

3 I. PROJECTS THAT WE RECOMMEND BE FUNDED WITH T1 FUNDS Projects listed below have been recommended for funding with T1 Phase 2 funds. For each project, the rationale, as determined by the criteria listed above, is provided.

Project Cost Rationale/Primary Criteria
MLK Jr. Youth
Services
Center
$7,000,000 Greatest Benefit: Providing free programming to youth who benefit from its programs and who are
predominantly youth of color and low income. These
programs have an impact on youth throughout their
lives as testified in public comment.

Equity: Youth that benefit from programs are
predominantly youth of color and low-income, provides
free programming.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Disaster preparedness of a
community building. Health and safety of after-school
programming is increasingly important in pandemic
context.

Sustainability/Durability: Disaster
preparedness/electrification/ efficient building systems for a community building that serves youth. Care and
Shelter facility.

Leveraging other funds: $1.4m FEMA grant
application pending
South
Berkeley
Senior Center
$3,000,000 Equity: Benefits for seniors including people of color, low-income. Provides investment in historically under-
invested South Berkeley community resources.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Programming to support
public health among seniors. Seismic safety and
resilience critical for disaster preparedness in a
community building.

Sustainability/Durability: Ensure building durability in case of earthquake. Care and Shelter facility.

African
American
Holistic
Resource
Center
$7,000,000 Equity: Center with mission to eliminate inequities and provide culturally responsive services for African
American community in Berkeley.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Center will address social
determinants of health and mental health among African
American community.

Sustainability/Durability: Project includes
electrification, energy-efficient building systems
Leveraging Other Funds: $250k available for planning

Page 30 of 41 ends

Page 339 ends

4 Project Cost Rationale/Primary Criteria
Restrooms in
the ROW (2)
$1,350,000 Greatest Benefit: Benefit all in the community Equity: Support human dignity across economic
inequities
Health/Safety/Resilience: Support human health and
public safety
Sustainability/Durability: Reduce environmental
impacts of human waste. Energy-efficient fixtures.

Project Readiness: Community process completed to
identify sites and other priorities.

Leveraging other funds: Funds already supported
study and community process.

Cazadero
Camp Dining
Hall & ADA
Improvements
$400,000 Equity: Cazadero camp provides a camp experience for a wide spectrum of Berkeley children. ADA
improvements are critical to allow camp access for all
children.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Dining hall improvements
and ADA improvements are necessary to maintain a
safe camp environment for Berkeley children.

Leveraging other funds: The camp tenant pays a
significant portion of funds for facility maintenance,
therefore T1 spending leverages private camp funding
to maintain and improve the camp.

Willard
Clubhouse/
Restroom
Replacement
$7,000,000 Greatest Benefit: Willard park draws users from the surrounding neighborhood and, due to the after school
and youth recreation programs provided, draws users
from across the City
Equity: The project supports racial and economic
equity as the Clubhouse is a location for heavily used
youth after-school programs. The project also supports
geographic equity, as the southeast quadrant of the city contains fewer city parks and less park land than other quadrants of Berkeley.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Provision of a new restroom
supports public health and safety.

Project Readiness: An extensive community process
and conceptual design for the project has already been
completed.

Leveraging Other Funds: Planning for this project was
funded through T1 Phase 1, therefore completion of the
project takes advantage of the funds already allocated.

Page 31 of 41 ends

Page 340 ends

5 Project Cost Rationale/Primary Criteria
Tom Bates
Restroom/
Community
Space
$2,900,000 Greatest Benefit: The Tom Bates fields draw users from across the City and therefore provides benefit to a high number of Berkeley residents.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Restrooms support public
health, safety, and human dignity, as well as
environmental health.

Environmental Sustainability/Durability: Restrooms
support a clean environment. Building systems will be
energy efficient.

Project Readiness: Public input, planning and
conceptual design were completed in Phase 1.

Leveraging Other Funds: Phase 1 funds were
allocated to planning and design, therefore completion
of the project takes advantage of previously-allocated
funds.

Harrison Park
Restroom
Renovation
$450,000 Greatest Benefit: Harrison Park has both a
neighborhood draw as well as a citywide draw for users
of the skate park and sports field, therefore facilities in this park have a wide public benefit.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Provision of restrooms
support public health, environmental safety, and human
dignity.

Environmental Sustainability/Durability: Energy
efficient fixtures proposed.

Project Readiness: Public input received in citywide
restroom study.

Ohlone Park
New Restroom
$500,000 Greatest Benefit: Ohlone Park has both a
neighborhood draw as well as a citywide draw for users
of the sports field, dog park and bike/walking paths,
including access to the North Berkeley BART station
and the North Berkeley Senior Center, therefore
facilities in this park have a wide public benefit.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Provision of restrooms
support public health, environmental safety, and human
dignity.

Environmental Sustainability/Durability: Energy
efficient fixtures proposed.

Project Readiness: Public input received in citywide
restroom study. Project supported by active volunteer
group.

Page 32 of 41 ends

Page 341 ends

6 Project Cost Rationale/Primary Criteria
Ohlone Park
Lighting
$700,000 Greatest Benefit: Ohlone Park draws use from
neighboring residents, as well as citywide users who
use the park for recreational purposes or to access
North Berkeley BART or the North Berkeley Senior
Center.

Equity: Park lighting, especially on well-traveled access paths, supports gender equity, facilitating safe access at nighttime. Lighting also facilitates equitable use among diverse age groups, including those seeking to access
the North Berkeley Senior Center or adjacent public
transit.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Adequate lighting promotes
safe use of the park.

Ohlone Park
(Milvia) 2-5
playground, 5-
12 playground,
Garden Mural,
Exercise
Equipment
$500,000 Greatest Benefit: Playgrounds Ohlone Park draw neighborhood as well as citywide use. Garden mural
provides cultural and artistic benefit to the many
citywide residents who use or pass through the park.

Exercise equipment would benefit neighborhood and
citywide users.

Health/Safety/Resilience: New playground equipment
is critical to child safety. Exercise equipment provides a public health benefit, particularly in the current
pandemic context when outdoor exercise is
encouraged.

Equity: The very name of the park evokes the Native
American heritage of the area, and this park received
no funding in phase 1.

Project Readiness: Conceptual design in progress.

Leveraging Other Funds: $600k allocated from FY21
parks tax.

John Hinkel
Lower 2-12
playground,
picnic, parking
$400,000 Health/Safety/Resilience: New playground equipment is critical to child safety.

Project Readiness: Final design in progress.

Leveraging Other Funds: $800k allocated from FY21
parks tax.

Grove Park 2-
5 playground,
5-12
playground
$700,000 Equity: This project allocates funding to historically under-invested South Berkeley.

Health/Safety/Resilience: New playground equipment
is critical to child safety.

Leveraging Other Funds: This project could be
leveraged with a possible Proposition 68 State parks

Page 33 of 41 ends

Page 342 ends

7 Project Cost Rationale/Primary Criteria
grant.

Aquatic Park
Tide Tubes
Clean out,
Phase 1B
$500,000 Environmental Sustainability/Durability: Must sleeve the tubes to prevent further damage and remove
dredged material to protect water quality. Improved
water quality in the Aquatic Park lagoon, improved
lagoon ecology.

Project Readiness: Final design complete.

Leveraging Other Funds: Possible planning grant for
Measure AA funding from the Bay Restoration
Authority.

Feasibility: Important infrastructure renovation before end of useful life to avoid larger expense or further
environmental detriment to the lagoon.

Civic Center
Park - Turtle
Island
Monument
$300,000 Greatest Benefit: The Turtle Island Monument is a vital component of Civic Center Park - District 4's sole
neighborhood park - and a central feature drawing all
Berkeley residents & visitors alike. The project's
enhanced design, including increased biodiversity and
sustainable pollinator plantings, will beautify and benefit the entire Berkeley community.

Equity: Will honor the cultural heritage, community, and ongoing contributions of the Ohlone plus other Native
Peoples.

Health/Safety/Resilience: The current derelict fountain remains a serious public health risk; the new design
addresses and resolves these safety risks.

Project Readiness: Conceptual design in progress.

Feasibility: Renovating this park feature will prevent
immense and increasing ongoing maintenance costs
that are created by the current context.

King Pool tile
and plaster
$350,000 Greatest Benefit: The King pool is used and enjoyed by residents from across the city. Berkeley has limited pools, and maintaining the pools that we do have is
critical to provide the benefit of public pools to Berkeley residents.

Health/Safety/Resilience: In the current pandemic
context, outdoor exercise and recreation provided by
pools is a benefit to public health.

Feasibility: This project competes an important
renovation before the end of the useful life of the pool to avoid larger expense or pool closure.

Page 34 of 41 ends

Page 343 ends

8 Project Cost Rationale/Primary Criteria
Marina Pilings
Replacement
$1,200,000 Greatest Benefit: The marina is a destination for many in the city, including those who do not own boats. It is essential to replace many of the original pilings before they fail catastrophically and damage tenants and
jeopardize revenue.

Project Readiness: Design currently underway
Resilience:

D and E Dock
Replacement
$500,000 Leveraging Other Funds: This project would leverage a $5.5 million State loan.

Project Readiness: Design currently underway.

K Dock
Restroom
Renovation
$400,000 Greatest Benefit: Improvements to the utility of the docks provide a wide and important benefit.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Provision of restrooms
support public health, environmental safety, and human
dignity.

Cesar Chavez
Park
Restroom (on
Spinnaker)
$350,000 Greatest Benefit: Cesar Chavez Park is an incredibly unique park that allows all Berkeley residents to take
advantage of limited shoreline land for recreational use, and as such, improvements to the utility of the park
provide a wide benefit.

Health/Safety/Resilience: Provision of restrooms
support public health, environmental safety, and human
dignity.

Leveraging Other Funds: Utility hook-ups as part of
Marina Streets project
II. PROJECTS THAT WE RECOMMEND BE FUNDED WITH PARKS TAX

THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS
The ongoing theme of all public outreach associated with the T1 process is that there are many more worthy projects than can be funded through the T1 Phase 2 funding pool. Therefore it is worth considering the upcoming allocation of Parks Tax dollars through the budget process, and the priority projects that might be included.

These projects do not require bond funding, and are currently proposed by staff as a direct result of the listening sessions associated with T1.

Page 35 of 41 ends

Page 344 ends

9 FY22 Capital Expenditures:
 Aquatic Park Pathways and Parking Lot Paving
 King School Park 2-5, 5-12 Play Structures
 West Campus Filters
 John Hinkel Hut
FY23 Capital Expenditures:
 *Bicycle Park
 Glendale LaLoma 2-5 Play structure
 *Pickleball Courts
 Skate Park Fencing
 West Campus Plaster Replacement
 A public process is necessary for these projects
III. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
A. GREENING BERKELEY
We received extensive public comment that, where possible, pavement should be removed and landscaping should be added to provide benefits to flood control, pollinators, water quality, and the urban heat island. This recommendation is consistent with the recommendations of the Vision 2050 report that recommended planting additional trees in the flatter portions of Berkeley. It is also consistent with the “Adopt-a- Spot” program that the Council referred to the Commission to develop a recommendation. There are a number of streets such as Sacramento Street where landscaping could be modified over time to have higher habitat value, and possibly to create community gathering spots. There are other streets that may have more pavement than is now needed, particularly those that once carried Red Cars, and others where bollards have restricted through-traffic.

These recommendations, considered as a whole, offer an innovative approach to infrastructure in Berkeley over the long term. Reducing areas of pavement where feasible, continue to prioritize the preservation of trees in all infrastructure project, increasing our tree canopy, and the habitat value of new plantings are at the heart of previous efforts on sustainability and the Vision 2050 report. However, we believe that more work is needed to identify the specific projects and funding mechanisms. For example, while using Sacramento Street to slow water flow has great appeal, it is not clear how such a project can be implemented without damaging the existing trees, or what underground utilities may pose challenges in pursuing this concept. Therefore, we intend to establish a subcommittee to consider these issues, along with the direction we have received from East Bay Municipal Utility District to reduce water consumption in our parks and avoid irrigation of turf in street medians. This effort is one of the first steps we must take to bring the recommendations of the Vision 2050 report into fruition. This

Page 36 of 41 ends

Page 345 ends

10 recommendation includes $150,000 for removing street diversion bollards and replacing them with planting areas as a pilot for the larger, long term effort.

Some funding for this program can come from the Parks Tax and the Clean Water Fund over time if a program is developed.

B. WE RECOMMEND CONTINUED WORK ON THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS

THAT ARE HIGH PRIORITY BUT EXCEED THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE UNDER T1 PHASE 2
● Frances Albrier/San Pablo Park Community Center and Pool ● Replace Berkeley Pier either as a City project or cooperatively with a new ferry service
● Renovate King Pool
● Enhance Aquatic Park, including making it more resilient to sea level rise, improving pathways on the west side, and developing new areas for active recreation.
● Develop a vision for how Berkeley can adapt to sea level rise and still retain access to its waterfront.

Many on our Commission were strongly in support of investing in Frances Albrier Center to create an inspirational community center, and those who participated in the planning effort were strongly in favor of the vision they created, which included a community pool.

It is not possible to renovate or rebuild Willard Pool, and we fear that many children in our city will not have an opportunity to learn to swim. We have already seen the climate warm, and people have begun to swim in the bay, some swimming nearly daily, so the need for a new pool is apparent.

We also heard strong support for rebuilding the Berkeley Pier, and a willingness to consider sharing a new pier with a new Ferry facility with the Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA). Reconstruction of the pier by Berkeley acting alone is clearly beyond the funding available in T1, and the City has begun to update its specific plan for the Berkeley Marina. We don’t anticipate that project reaching construction for several years, but we plan to continue that work.

King Pool remains an important facility, and we believe it is more important to renovate it with a comprehensive project rather than make a series of small repairs that would only extend its useful life for a limited period. That being said, the single small repair proposed as part of Measure T1 Phase 2 funding allocations is critical in the immediate term to extend the life of the pool as we prepare for a more comprehensive renovation.

Aquatic Park is one of Berkeley’s largest parks, and has benefited from the rehabilitation of the tide tubes, improvements on the North end, and volunteer efforts like those of Untrash East Bay. We considered reconstruction of Dreamland, but decided not to recommend that because the existing structure is unique in Berkeley, and because we think it is time to completely revision Aquatic Park. The City has

Page 37 of 41 ends

Page 346 ends

11 applied for grants from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, and we anticipate that the City will eventually receive grants. We also understand that reconstruction of the Ashby interchange will involve elimination of the on-ramp at Potter, providing an opportunity to make changes at the southern end of the lagoon and improve habitat, increase water circulation while mitigating flood risk. We think patience and further work in developing a more comprehensive vision for Aquatic Park will be rewarded by allowing us to improve the park as a signature park and habitat that will be resilient for decades.

While it is clear that the funds in T1 will not allow construction of any of these projects at this time, it is vital that city staff, city Commissions, and the interested public continue to refine these ideas. We remain hopeful that a new Congress will see the need to invest in infrastructure as a way to respond to the economic damage done by the pandemic.

We want to make sure that Berkeley is well positioned to move forward with one of these projects if Federal or State funding is made available.

C. MAINTENANCE
Members of the Parks and Waterfront and Public Works Commission and the public are concerned that the projects that will be built using T1 funds must be properly maintained over time to fulfill their promise to the people of the City. The restrooms proposed within parks here replace existing port-a-potties, and will save those costs and make maintaining clean facilities easier and cheaper. However, we have also concurred in the staff recommendation for two restrooms in the right of way. In these areas, the city also maintains port-a-potties, so the increased costs of maintaining new restrooms will be partially offset by reducing those costs. City staff has estimated that maintaining these new facilities will cost approximately $180,000 per year. We certainly think those costs are warranted for the water quality and quality of life benefits of reducing human waste in our city. To make sure that these costs are properly budgeted, and to carry out one of the recommendations of the Vision 2050 report, we recommend that the City evolve its budgetary approach to public facilities to include asset management for all facilities that require maintenance over time. We recommend that asset management become an element of the city’s budget process.

Page 38 of 41 ends

Page 347 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
Measure T1, Phase 2
Phasing and Funding of 2A and 2B
Project Area Site Description Total Cost Notes Status Sustainability/Resilience Phase 2a
Apr 2021 to
Mar 2024
Phase 2b
Nov 2022 to
Oct 2025 Total
MLK Jr. Youth Services Center $7,000,000 $1.4M FEMA Grant App. Pending Not started $ 1,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $7,000,000 South Berkeley Senior Center
$3,000,000
Renovation 5 yrs ago; needs seismic Not started $ 300,000 $ 2,700,000 $3,000,000 African American Holistic Resource Center
$7,000,000
$250k available for planning Not started
Electrification, energy efficient
building systems, community
building $ 1,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $7,000,000
Restrooms in the ROW (2-3) $1,350,000 Sites identified in study Not started Cleaner environment, energy
efficient fixtures $ 250,000 $ 1,100,000 $1,350,000 Subtotal $18,350,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 15,800,000 $18,350,000 Camps Cazadero Dining Hall & ADA Improvements $400,000
Total Project $1.2M/CPAC
Supplement $800k Not started
Energy efficient fixtures,
environmental stewardship $ 400,000 $400,000
Willard Clubhouse/Restroom Replacement
$7,000,000
Planning in Phase 1
Conceptual design
complete
Electrification, energy efficient
building systems, community
building $ 1,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $7,000,000
Tom Bates Restroom/ Community Space $2,900,000 Planning in Phase 1 Conceptual design
complete
Cleaner environment, energy
efficient building systems $ 250,000 $ 2,650,000 $2,900,000 Restrooms in Parks:

Harrison Park - Restroom Renovation $450,000 Not started Energy efficient fixtures $ 100,000 $ 350,000 $450,000 Ohlone Park - New Restroom $500,000 Not started Energy efficient fixtures $ 500,000 $500,000 Ohlone (Milvia) Ages 2-5, 5-12, Garden Mural,
Exercise $500,000
$1.1M Total Project/$600k in FY 21
PT-Gap $500k
Conceptual design
in progress
Outdoor recreation, community
building $ 500,000 $500,000
John Hinkel Lower Ages 2-12, picnic, parking $400,000
$1.2M Total Project/$800k in FY 21
PT- Gap $400k
Final design in
progress
Outdoor recreation, community
building $ 400,000 $400,000
Grove Park Ages 2-5, 5-12 $700,000 Possible Prop 68 Grant Not started Outdoor recreation, community
building $ 700,000 $700,000
Aquatic Park Tide Tubes Clean out, Phase 1B $500,000
Possible Dev. Funding
Final Design
Complete
Cleaner environment, improved
lagoon ecology, outdoor
recreation $ 500,000 $500,000
Ohlone Park Lighting $700,000 Not started Energy efficient fixtures, safety $ 200,000 $ 500,000 $700,000 Parks
Disaster preparedness,
electrification, energy efficient
building systems, community
building
Care and Shelter
and Non-
Departmental
Citywide Facilities
Buildings in Parks
Parks -Play
Structures

Page 39 of 41 ends

Page 348 ends

Project Area Site Description Total Cost Notes Status Sustainability/Resilience Phase 2a
Apr 2021 to
Mar 2024
Phase 2b
Nov 2022 to
Oct 2025 Total
Disaster preparedness,
electrification, energy efficient
building systems, community
building
Care and Shelter
and Non-
Departmental
Citywide Facilities
Parks Civic Center Park – Turtle Garden $300,000
Conceptual design
in progress
Outdoor recreation, community
building $ 300,000 $300,000
Pools King Pool Tile and Plaster Replacement $350,000 Not started Outdoor recreation and fitness,
community building $ 350,000 $350,000
Piling Replacements $1,200,000 $2.5M Total Project/ This would replace worst Design underway
Marina safety, outdoor
recreation $ 1,200,000 $1,200,000
D and E Dock Replacement
$500,000 $6M Total Project/ $5.5M in State
Loan Not Started
Energy efficient upgrades,
Marina safety, outdoor
recreation $ 500,000 $ - $500,000 K Dock Restroom Renovation $400,000 Not Started Energy efficient fixtures $ 75,000 $ 325,000 $400,000 Cesar Chavez Park - New Restroom (on
Spinnaker)
$350,000 Utility hook ups as part of Marina
Streets Project Not Started
Cleaner environment, energy
efficient fixtures $ 50,000 $ 300,000 $350,000 Subtotal - PRW $17,150,000 $ 7,025,000 $ 10,125,000 $17,150,000 T1 Streets Contribution to Annual Street
Paving: Street Reconstruction of
Arterials/Collectors and Vision Zero, Bus
Network, and Bike/Ped Plan Improvements
$6,750,000 Accelerate Paving
Improvements Citywide
Need coordination
with TC, PWC and
bike groups
Bus and bike network $ 3,750,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 6,750,000 Bollard Conversion to Landscaping $150,000 Conversion of Bollards to Planter/Garden Boxes Community building $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Sidewalks Sidewalks Maintenance & Safety Repairs $1,850,000 Accelerate Sidewalk Improvements Citywide 50/50 list Pedestrian access $ 1,500,000 $ 350,000 $ 1,850,000 Pathways Pathway Repairs/Improvements $200,000 Repairs and improvements to pathways, including handrails
Coordinate with
Path Wanderers
Pedestrian access,
Disaster preparedness $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Storm Stormwater Infrastructure Repairs/
Replacement
$600,000 Repair and Replacement of failed
storm drains at various locations Water quality $ 600,000 $ 600,000 1947 Center Street Improvements: $1,800,000 Safe, Sustainable and Resilient Improvements $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 Seismic Upgrade Design 1947 Center St Design $150,000
HVAC/Electrical, Control Upgrades COVID critical
Fire Stations Emergency Response $ 200,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 2,750,000 FS2 - HVAC, Electrical, Bedrooms, Security,
Solar, Roof
$1,450,000 Fire Station 2
FS6 - Windows, Energy Efficiency $1,300,000 Fire Station 6 Disaster preparedness, energy
efficient building systems, air
quality
Community safety, energy
efficient building systems
Waterfront
Streets
Facilities

Page 40 of 41 ends

Page 349 ends

Page 41 of 41 ends

Page 350 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin (Author), Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Cosponsor), Councilmember Mark Humbert (Cosponsor)
Subject: 51B BRT + University/Shattuck Corridor Mobility Improvements

RECOMMENDATION
1) Refer to the City Manager commencement of a feasibility analysis and community engagement process to develop options for the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) improvements along AC Transit’s 51B route; options are to be developed in tandem with internal city departments, including Public Works, Fire, Police Traffic Unit, and Economic Development, and interagency partners, including AC Transit, the Alameda County Transportation Commission, BART, Caltrans, UC Berkeley, and WETA; community engagement is to emphasize students, transportation advocates, transit riders, the disability rights community, the faith community, the senior community, local merchants, the business community, the arts community, and tenants; consultation with AC Transit and UC Berkeley Bear Transit on planning, scoping, and implementation is to begin as soon as possible; staff are encouraged to explore and pursue quick build improvements.
2) Refer $150,000 to the FY 2024-2025 budget process to increase the budget for the city’s ADA Transition Plan capital project to prioritize and implement ADA improvements at the city’s intersections, such as curb cuts, auditory functions of crossing signals, bulb-outs, shortening crossing distances, and other safety improvements.
3) Refer $150,000 to the FY 2025-2026 budget process for consulting costs to conduct corridor studies along University Avenue, from Seawall Drive, to Oxford Street, and along Oxford Street and Fulton Street, from Virginia Street to Durant Avenue, to identify appropriate road safety improvements that advance city- adopted safety, transportation, and climate goals and are continuous with work currently underway on the Addison Bicycle Boulevard, and explore improvements for curb management, i.e. accessible parking (blue curbs), management of curb space for third party delivery service, etc.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On July 19, 2023, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Harrison/Robinson) to send the item to the full Council with a positive recommendation. Vote: All Ayes.

Page 1 of 77 ends

Page 351 ends

BACKGROUND
Existing Transit Lanes
Currently, Berkeley has a transit lane on Bancroft Way between Telegraph and Downtown that is used by westbound buses, and a transit lane is planned for Durant Ave for eastbound buses. Bus lines using these lanes continue on to Shattuck, University, and Telegraph.

Shattuck, University, and Telegraph Avenues
Berkeley’s University Avenue runs West to East from the Berkeley Marina and I-80 Freeway to its termination at UC Berkeley’s Crescent Lawn. University Avenue is dubbed the “Gateway to Berkeley” due to the location of the city’s lone Amtrak Station at the intersection of Fourth Street, the avenue’s proximity to both the North Berkeley and Downtown Berkeley BART stations, the regularly congested I-80 exit onto the avenue, and the service of AC Transit’s 51B, 52, 79, 88, 802, and FS lines. University Avenue is a wide street with two travel lanes in each direction, parking lanes, turn pockets, and a center median.

As the map below illustrates, the intersections of Ninth Street at University and Addison, respectively, are especially critical for safety at Rosa Parks Elementary.

Page 2 of 77 ends

Page 352 ends

2017 Bicycle Plan
Berkeley’s Shattuck Avenue runs North to South from Indian Rock Park in the Berkeley Hills to 45th Street in Oakland near the intersection of Telegraph Avenue. Shattuck Avenue serves as the main street of Berkeley, running through its Downtown, which is home to the Downtown Berkeley BART Station, AC Transit and Bear Transit stations, and various restaurants and office spaces.

Telegraph Avenue, from Woolsey Street on the Oakland border up through Dwight Way near UC Berkeley, is in the midst of its own Multimodal Corridor Project1 that may result in BRT infrastructure in the coming years. Should this project be completed or significantly underway at the time of the development of BRT plans for Shattuck and University Avenues, close attention should be paid to its initial impacts, successes, and failures so that future applications of BRT infrastructure build on these lessons.

Bus Rapid Transit
While diverse in their application around the world, Bus Rapid Transit is typically a transportation corridor that prioritizes fast and efficient bus service that may include dedicated bus lanes, traffic signal priority, elevated platforms, and off-board fare collection.2 There is no one-size-fits-all approach to BRT and a University Avenue BRT is sure to look different than it might on Telegraph Avenue or International Boulevard in Oakland. However, pursuit of a quicker and more efficient bus corridor along University should result in dedicated bus lanes and elevated platforms at existing AC Transit stops. Most transit planners consider center running bus lanes--such as provided on International Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco--as more effective than curbside bus lanes. However, this would have to be determined in the course of planning the project. Relative to other rapid transit improvements such as light rail, BRT’s advantages include lower upfront capital requirements, a higher degree of flexibility in their application, and a much quicker implementation timeline.3 1https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/telegraph-avenue-multimodal-corridor- project#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Avenue%20Multimodal%20Corridor,bike%20lanes%2C%20and%20transit%2 0improvements.
2 https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/bus-rapid-transit 3 https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=jpt

Page 3 of 77 ends

Page 353 ends

Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco
4 4 https://www.gao.gov/blog/2016/04/13/rapid-buses-for-rapid-transit

Page 4 of 77 ends

Page 354 ends

Population Trends
According to the City of Berkeley’s 2023 Housing Element Update,5 the city’s population has grown steadily since 2000, increasing approximately 9% each decade. The Department of Finance estimates that the city’s population was 122,580 in 2020. The Association of Bay Area Governments’ Plan Bay Area 2040 projections anticipate Berkeley’s population to reach about 136,000 by 2030 and 141,000 by 2040.

Pedestrian Collisions
The City of Berkeley’s 2020 Pedestrian Plan6 determined that Shattuck and University Avenues represent two of the top five streets with pedestrian collisions between 2008 and 2017, ranked first and fifth, respectively, as well as two of the top four streets with fatal or severe pedestrian collisions in the same time period, ranked first and third (tied) respectively.

AC Transit
In AC Transit’s 2019 Annual Report7, they reported a systemwide ridership of over 53 million customers, reflecting a 2.5% increase (1.28 million riders) over the previous year. This occurred at a time when major transit providers nationwide reported a ridership decline of 2.8%. Key factors attributed to this growth included proactive efforts to maintain high service levels, adding service frequency, and a robust local economy.

That same year, AC Transit released its first Strategic Plan8 in about 20 years. In April of 2022, an Addendum9 was added to address the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic has had an enormous impact on transit operations and economic activity.

In 2020, fewer people needed to ride the bus, whether to commute to work or get around the city for personal errands and activities. Schools and colleges closed their campuses and several office workers began working from home. Although there has been a recovery in ridership10 beginning in 2021, pre-pandemic levels have not been reached. Fiscal Year 2021-2022 saw an annual ridership of almost 29 million customers, which was a 36% increase (7.6 million riders) over the previous fiscal year.

Service is at around 85% of pre-pandemic levels, which is the equivalent of deleting one out of every seven trips.

Feedback Received
The District 2 Council office has solicited feedback from businesses, organizations, and othercommunity members through several in-person and virtual listening sessions, meetings, emails, and phone calls in the development of this item. 5https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Combined_HousingElementFinal_redline.pdf 6https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2020-Pedestrian-Plan.pdf 7https://www.actransit.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/0017-20%20Annual%20Report%202019_small_FNL.pdf 8https://www.actransit.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/AC%20Transit%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf 9https://www.actransit.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/0230-22%20Strat%20Plan%20Adden_FNL.pdf 10https://www.actransit.org/ridership

Page 5 of 77 ends

Page 355 ends

Opposition from some participants includes concerns about transit priority lanes, bulb- outs, loss of on-street parking, loss of median trees, and cycling improvements of any kind, as well as assigning blame to public transit for business closures in San Francisco.

Support from some participants includes stances in favor of drivers having to slow down and not drive recklessly, reducing our transportation greenhouse gas emissions, reducing our reliance on vehicles, and improving and incentivizing public transit, therefore reducing the fiscal impact of owning and maintaining a vehicle.

Other participants want a greater emphasis on uniform ADA improvements at major intersections city-wide, for standard ADA guidelines to be the floor for improvement considerations, as they often do not account for issues such as not enough room on raised platforms for multiple wheelchair users or fatigue due to inclines, and for the Fire Department to be involved every step of the way in order to review potential impacts to disaster and emergency responses.

The District 2 Council Office has also solicited feedback from city staff and partner agencies. AC Transit has emphasized their desire to strengthen interagency collaboration throughout this process and has highlighted our inclusion of language that specifically states that not every type of BRT improvement can work at every intersection along a route. The Fire and Public Works Departments have also voiced their support of being involved throughout the process, with Director Garland generously providing the updated language for Recommendation #3 in this report, regarding ADA improvements.

Responses to Feedback
The June 2023 revisions to this item incorporated significant additions to address concerns with respect to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Uniformity and consistency are key features of accessibility improvements. The Fire Department will also be closely integrated into the scoping and planning of any corridor study.

Feedback from some opponents illustrates that infrastructure upgrades, that are nevertheless consistent with already-existing City Council policy on Complete Streets, may modify motorist behavior in ways that are conspicuous and consciously involuntary rather than incentivized by reflex or instinct. It is important to underscore that certain notifications to motorist behavior, such as slower speeds, are an intentional outcome of street improvements to reduce serious injuries and fatalities.

Page 6 of 77 ends

Page 356 ends

For example, surveys on other commercial corridors in San Francisco11 and Oakland12 have shown initial overestimations of the share of corridor patrons who arrive by personal motor vehicle vs. transit, walking, or other modes. Additionally, research has demonstrated that demand-based pricing for parking can reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled by reducing time spent searching for parking.13 In Downtown Berkeley, the new Center Street Garage in particular has a surplus of vacant parking spaces throughout the day and has yet to regain pre-pandemic revenues. To the extent that public policy is concerned with convenience for motorists one way or another, it is important to focus on the availability or elasticity of vacant parking rather than its gross supply. This paradigm is compatible with the City’s ongoing efforts to maximize the positive externalities of reduced VMT and pedestrian safety, as exemplified in the Climate Action Plan and Vision Zero Action Plan.

The community has been clear that a vibrant, mixed-use corridor such as University Avenue will need to carefully balance the need for loading zones and curbside management to accommodate commercial uses while ensuring safe access for all road users and improving public transit reliability. Neglecting this reality would risk illegally double-parked vehicles thwarting any traffic-calming efforts. Therefore, Staff’s consultation with merchants and logistics experts will be critical for maintaining a safe and harmonious environment for the variety of uses along the corridor. Traffic fatalities and increasing automobile dependence are not only an unacceptable cost to pay for economic development; implementing evidence-based solutions for congestion and safety can and should foster a thriving environment for local commerce.

There is no empirical evidence showing that the business closures in downtown San Francisco were caused by public transit improvements. San Francisco retailers have blamed recent closures on a variety of factors ranging from crime to online shopping or remote work, but not public transit.14 To the contrary, as cited above, surveys have found that public transit is essential for a significant share of customers shopping in commercial corridors.

RATIONALE
City of Berkeley Plans
11 https://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/08/Geary-Presentation-Mar-07_31_13.pdf 12 https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abroaddu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/FINAL-REPORT.pdf 13 Shoup, D. C. (2006). Cruising for parking. Transport policy, 13(6), 479-486. 14Li, R. & Whiting, S. (2023). Westfield mall blamed ‘rampant criminal activity’ for Nordstrom closing in S.F. Here’s what the data says. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/westfield-mall-blamed-nordstrom-closure-criminal-18076486.php

Page 7 of 77 ends

Page 357 ends

The City of Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan,15 adopted in 2009, envisions public transit, walking, cycling, and other sustainable mobility modes as the primary means of transportation for residents and visitors. To do so, it lists various goals, such as increasing the safety, reliability, and frequency of public transit and managing parking effectively to minimize driving demand and encourage and support alternatives to driving. It also addresses the fact that transportation emissions are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, a trend that has continued as of the 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

The Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan16, adopted in 2016, envisions the city’s streets, sidewalks, and pathways as multimodal, serving people walking, bicycling, riding transit, driving, and moving goods. To do so, it lists various goals, such as encouraging people to walk, bicycle, and ride transit, improving transit efficiency, designing street networks that ensure comfortable, safe environments for users of all abilities, and prioritizing transit services along transit routes.

The City of Berkeley’s Strategic Plan17, adopted in 2018, includes long-term goals such as providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities, creating a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city, and fostering a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy. That same year, the city declared a climate emergency and committed to mobilize to end greenhouse gas emissions swiftly.

The Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan18, adopted in 2019, is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. To do so, it lists various goals, such as creating safer transportation options for people who walk, bike, and take transit, which would make these modes more attractive and reduce the number of car trips in Berkeley, which can mean fewer severe and fatal collisions.

AC Transit’s Recovery
Supporting AC Transit’s recovery enhances the mobility and safety of Berkeley residents while simultaneously improving the walkability and bikeability of the city as well as breathing life into the local economy.

Any successful transportation project that seeks to increase the speed and reliability of AC Transit service in Berkeley will need to serve a longer route than the single relatively short corridor segment within Berkeley. There are several transit corridors within Berkeley connecting to other cities that AC Transit has identified as needing upgraded types of service. It would be important for the city to work with AC Transit to identify the routings which would be the most productive.

Shattuck, University, and Telegraph Avenues
15https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Climate-Action-Plan.pdf 16https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/adopted-plans/berkeley-strategic-transportation-best-plan 17https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Strategic-Plan.pdf 18https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Berkeley-Vision-Zero-Action-Plan.pdf

Page 8 of 77 ends

Page 358 ends

The central location of University Avenue and the variety of communities it connects makes this corridor an incredibly important focus for the city’s housing and transportation planning for the coming decades. University Avenue has had a number of housing developments completed recently, with additional developments under construction. With University Avenue likely seeing a growth in new housing development under the forthcoming Housing Element, it is important for Berkeley’s transportation infrastructure to keep up with the changing needs of its old and new residents. On top of the expected growth in Berkeley’s population and thus its transportation needs, climate change and the urgency of pedestrian and cyclist safety require that the transportation system of the City’s future be one that prioritizes public transit and bicycle travel over the use personal automobiles. With this in mind, the 2017 Bicycle Plan recommends a Complete Streets Corridor Study for University Avenue.19 Furthermore, these three avenues are each unique and each present their own problems when considering the addition of BRT. The application of BRT on the downtown stretch of Shattuck Avenue, which could improve the service of AC Transit’s 18 and various other lines which briefly serve Shattuck Avenue at the start and end of their routes, will require careful consideration of the already congested conditions of the street. The construction of elevated platforms on University Avenue as a pilot for BRT while completion of Telegraph Avenue’s project is underway and Shattuck Avenue rapid transit is being considered will allow for some near-term service improvements while giving staff the time necessary to study how to bring multimodal improvements to the rest of the corridors as fastidiously as possible.

Breakdown of Recommended Improvements
Dedicated bus lanes improve travel speeds and reliability by reducing delays caused by other traffic. Transit signal priority uses technology to reduce dwell time at traffic signals for transit vehicles, such as extending the duration of green lights or shortening that of red lights. Raised platforms make it easier and more accessible for passengers to board or alight from buses by decreasing the distance between the platform and the vehicle, therefore increasing route efficiency.

ADA Compliance
The recommended improvements also help advance the city’s goal of increasing mobility access for transit riders and cyclists with disabilities. ADA Accessibility Standards for transportation facilities are issued by the US Department of Transportation and include guidance for bus boarding and alighting areas, shelters, signs, and more.20
Impact to Local Businesses and Economy
In addition to advancing various climate and public safety goals of the city, investing in bus and bicycle infrastructure benefits local businesses and the economy. The League 19https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Bicycle-Plan- 2017_AppendixH_Complete%20Streets%20Corridors.pdf
20https://federalist-e3fba26d-2806-4f02-bf0e-89c97cfba93c.app.cloud.gov/preview/atbcb/usab-uswds/ada- alternative/ada/#ada-810

Page 9 of 77 ends

Page 359 ends

of American Bicyclists’s report entitled “Bicycling Benefits Business”21 illustrates that the bicycle industry and its related transportation, tourism, and health benefits spur job creation, economic activity, and cost savings. The Outdoor Industry Association reported that outdoor recreation consumers spend $887 billion annually and create 7.6 million jobs.22
The National Institute for Transportation and Communities published a peer-reviewed study examining BRT lines and found that the areas within a half-mile of BRT corridors increased their share of new office space by one third from 2000-2007, and new multifamily apartment construction doubled in those half-mile areas since 2008.23 PolicyLink released a report entitled “Business Impact Mitigations for Transit Projects”24 that address BRT projects, concluding that best practices include providing the right type of financial and technical assistance and proactive outreach to businesses built on constant communication, flexibility, and trust.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City estimates that transportation-related emissions accounts for approximately 60% of our community’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions.25 By encouraging alternatives to car transportation by making public transportation options quicker and more appealing, policy stands to lower the emissions from our community’s dominant source of carbon emissions.

The goal of any new public transportation initiative must be to increase the local mode share of residents choosing public transportation over personal automobiles for commuting and other trips.. BRT offers many advantages for this pursuit. The U.S.

Government Accountability Office reviewed implemented BRT projects in 2012 and found that “13 of the 15 project sponsors…reported increases in ridership after 1 year of service and reduced average travel times of 10 to 35 percent over previous bus services.”26 Additionally, a 2013 study of Fruitvale and Ashby BART stations found that improved bicycle facilities such as protected bike lanes and secure bike storage increased the bicycle mode share of BART commuters.27 Paired with the multimodal project along Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley has the potential for a large increase in transit ridership and thus a decline in greenhouse gas emissions if the City follows through on BRT in the coming years.
21https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/Bicycling%20Benefits%20Business.pdf 22https://outdoorindustry.org/resource/2017-outdoor-recreation-economy-report/ 23https://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NATIONAL-STUDY-OF-BRT-DEVELOPMENT-OUTCOMES-11- 30-15.pdf
24https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20PolicyLink%20Business%20Impact%20Mitigation%20Strateg ies_0.pdf
25https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/12_Dec/Documents/2018-12- 06_WS_Item_01_Climate_Action_Plan_Update_pdf.aspx
26 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-811
27 Cervero, R., Caldwell, B., & Cuellar, J. (2013). Bike-and-ride: build it and they will come. Journal of Public Transportation, 16(4), 83-105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077291X22017611

Page 10 of 77 ends

Page 360 ends

FISCAL IMPACTS
Staff and consultant costs. An estimated $150,000 for consulting costs to conduct corridor studies, an estimated $150,000 to increase the budget for the city’s ADA Transition Plan capital project to prioritize and implement ADA improvements at the city’s intersections, and costs associated with commencing a feasibility analysis and community engagement process for potential bus rapid transit improvements.

CONTACT
Councilmember Terry Taplin, District 2, (510) 981-7120, [email protected]

ATTACHMENTS

1. AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines

2. Councilmember Kate Harrison’s Budget Referral (11/12/19)

Page 11 of 77 ends

Page 361 ends

Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
April 2018

Page 12 of 77 ends

Page 362 ends

Page 13 of 77 ends

Page 363 ends

Acknowledgments
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
John Urgo
Stephen Newhouse
Toole Design Group
Jesse Boudart, P.E.

Pete Robie
John Dempsey, P
LA
Ashley Haire, Ph.D, P.E.

Stantec
Michael Ohnemus, AICP
Additional Experts
Sean Co

Page 14 of 77 ends

Page 364 ends

Table of Contents
iv
AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Table of Contents

1.0 Guide Overview 1

1.1 Goals of the Guide 2
A. Purpose 2
B. Project Background 3

1.2 Guide Outline 4

2.0 General Design Elements 6

2.1 Existing Guidelines 7

2.2 Bus Stop Design 9
A. Bus Stop Spacing 9
B. Bus Stop Siting 10
C. Spatial Location of Bus Stop 12
D. Bus Stop Design 13
E. Bus Stop Dimensions 14
F. Door Locations and ADA Access 16
G. Bus Stop Pads 18
H. Curbs 18
I. Service Type and Service Level 18

3.0 Typology Design Considerations 20

3.1 General Guidance for Context Zones 21

3.2 Design Elements 22

4.0 Typology Design Considerations 26

4.1 Typology 1 27
A. Typology 1: Section View 27
B. Typology 1: Plan View 29

Page 15 of 77 ends

Page 365 ends

Table of Contents
v
AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Table of Contents
C. Typology 1: Perspective View 30

4.2 Typology 2 31
A. Stop Placement and Bike Facility Alignment 31
B. Typology 2: Section View 31
C. Typology 2: Plan View 34
D. Typology 2: Perspective View 35

4.3 Typology 3 36
A. Typology 3: Section View 36
B. Typology 3: Plan View 38
C. Typology 3: Perspective View 39

4.4 Typology 4 40
A. Typology 4: Section View 40
B. Typology 4: Plan View 41
C. Typology 4: Perspective View 42

4.5 Typology 5 44
A. Typology 5: Section View 44
B. Typology 5: Plan View 46
C. Typology 5: Perspective View 47

5.0 Typology Selection 48

5.1 Typology Selection Guidance 49

6.0 Maintenance Considerations 51

7.0 Reference Endnotes 53

Page 16 of 77 ends

Page 366 ends

1.0 Guide Overview
Introduction
The AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines was developed to provide clear design standards for a range of typical roadway conditions to help ensure efficient transit oper
ations, accommodate the needs of bicyclists,
and facilitate safe access to and from bus stops for AC Transit passengers.

This document offers guidance on design elements of bus stops adjacent to bicycle infrastructure. It is organized around five different typologies that vary based on the type of bicycle facility being considered and its location with respect to the curb, parking lane, and moving traffic. Ultimately, this guide will help create a more predictable, safe, and uniform experience for bus patrons, drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians as they travel through the jurisdictions that comprise the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.

Minneapolis, MN

Page 17 of 77 ends

Page 367 ends

AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Chapter 1.0 • Guide Overview
2 Copenhagen, Denmark

1.1 Goals of the Guide
A. Purpose
This guide has been developed to support the planning and design of bicycle facilities that will complement AC Transit’s bus operations. AC Transit has set a goal to im
prove travel times and reliability on routes throughout its service area, especially on high-ridership corridors. The agency also seeks to promote safe pedestrian environments around its bus stops. This guide will help to establish a basis for collaboration on multimodal corridor projects with local jurisdiction staff and other stakeholders within the AC Transit service area. The guide draws from local, state, and national best practices guidance for multimodal corridor facilities while allowing for design flexibility to provide context-sensitive solutions.

The guide will address the following:
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for bus stop access, bus boarding, and sidewalk clearance outlined in the Designin
g with Transit handbook
• Spacing needs at bus stops for buses entering/exiting and clearance from crosswalks outlined in the Designing with Transit handbook
• Complementary designs for transit and bicycle facilities to ensure projects are integrated from the outset
• AC Transit’s preference for in-lane bus stops and far-side bus stops in most scenarios
• Corridor typologies that reflect the various types of places present in the AC Transit service area
• Best practices for transit operations and accommodations for transit customers and bicyclists in existing designs and for innovati
ve facilities such as separated bike lanes
• Methods to reduce conflicts among bicyclists, buses, and pedestrians to ensure safety while maintaining efficient operations
• Guidance for designing bicycle facilities to increase bicyclist comfort and encourage more people of all ages and abilities to ride bicyc
les
The guide serves as AC Transit’s official resource for planning and designing bus stops when accommodating bicycle facilities in transit corridor
s. The guide is intended to provide additional design guidance that supports existing planning and policy guidance published by the District. Therefore, this document should be used in conjunction with the Designing with Transit handbook and other approved policies or guidelines.

AC Transit hopes that this guide will serve as both an internal and external resource for local jurisdiction staff and developers when planning multimodal facilities and Complete Streets projects in the AC Transit service area. Complete Streets are generally defined as roadways built to enable safe travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. AC Transit will prioritize project support for projects that incorporate these design elements. These guidelines are a mechanism for AC Transit to clarify its roadway and curbside needs to stakeholders with the goal of streamlining the process of designing streets that support all modes.

Page 18 of 77 ends

Page 368 ends

AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Chapter 1.0 • Guide Overview
3 Berkeley, CA
B. Project Background
Multimodal corridors are major transportation facilities which accommodate auto, bus, bicycle and pedestrian travel. These corridor
s provide for travel across town and connect with the regional transportation system. Many cities and agencies in AC Transit’s service area are expanding the reach of their multimodal corridors by designing and building innovative bicycle facilities along roadways. Many of these new bicycle facilities are built as Complete Streets projects which seek to enhance alternative modes of transportation, including bicycling, transit, and walking.

For cyclists, these new facilities can reduce the stress of riding a bicycle by providing physical separation from moving vehicles. However, there is an opportunity for Complete Streets designs to better address traditional bus transit operations. In the highly-constrained rights-of-way in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, facilities such as separated bikeways, parking-protected bike lanes, or conventional bike lanes require reallocation of roadway space. This reallocation can be achieved by relocating or eliminating on-street parking and/or narrowing, realigning, or eliminating traffic lanes. In some cases, these changes have shifted the travel lanes used by buses further from the curbside where bus stops are commonly located, creating challenging and time-consuming maneuvers for bus operators to pull in and out of traffic. Furthermore, the roadway configuration can induce buses to move in and out of bicyclists’ path of travel, which affects both bicyclist safety and bus operations (often referred to as a “leap-frogging” effect). With rates of bicycling increasing and jurisdictions rapidly constructing bicycle infrastructure, minimizing conflicts between bicycle and bus operations is critical to the success of these bikeway facilities. Efficiently managing and reallocating roadway space for these specific users will benefit all people using the streets.

Among many considerations, a multimodal corridor should include bicycle facilities that do not impinge on overall bus travel speeds, on- time performance, or safety. Bus stop designs can separate bicyclists from buses by routing bicyclists behind bus stops to avoid bus-bicyclist conflicts. Also, restricting motor vehicle turning movements, a component of some bicycle facility designs, can reduce delay to buses by minimizing motor vehicle conflicts and queues. Bicycle facility projects may also restrict on-street parking in select locations or along entire blocks, which could reduce the likelihood of cars encroaching into bus stops.

AC Transit recognizes that healthy communities require safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities and effective bus services, often in the same corridors. The Bay Area needs regionally-focused guidance that reflects current best practices in reducing conflicts at bus stops and along corridors, promoting pedestrian and bicyclist safety in coordination with bus operations, maintaining or improving transit operations, providing travel time predictability, and recognizing the local context where bicyclists and buses share roadway space. AC Transit’s Multimodal Corridor Guidelines addresses this gap in guidance in multimodal corridor design by offering templates for bicycle facilities that are compatible with high-quality bus transit service.

Page 19 of 77 ends

Page 369 ends

AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Chapter 1.0 • Guide Overview
4 1.2 Guide Outline
The Multimodal Corridor Guidelines document is not a regulatory document. While much of the design guidance presented here represent
s best practices as published and endorsed by State and national agencies, the practices do not necessarily represent the adopted standards of these agencies. Therefore, users of these Guidelines should also consult regulatory standards such as the Caltrans Highway Design Manual1 (for State facilities), the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices2 (for State and local facilities), and any adopted local street design standards, to identify where design excep
tions may apply.

The guide begins with a discussion of general bus stop design elements related to stop spacing, location, design, and dimensions. A list of existing guidelines that may be referenced in conjunction with the Multimodal Corridor Guidelines is also presented.

Next, the guide presents five different bus stop typologies. These typologies vary based on the type of existing or proposed bicycle facility being located at the bus stop with respect to the curb, parking lane, and moving traffic. These bus stop typologies represent common contexts in the AC Transit service area. The five bus stop typologies are:

Typology 1
Class II Bicy
cle Facility between the Curb and a
General Traffic Lane
Typology 2
Class II Bicycle Facility between Curbside Parking Lane and General Traffic Lane

Page 20 of 77 ends

Page 370 ends

AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Chapter 1.0 • Guide Overview
5 Typology 3
Class IV Bicycle Facility (Separated Bikeway) between the Curb and a General Traffic Lane
Typology 4
Class IV Bicycle Facility (Separated Bikeway) between the Curb and a Parking Lane
Typology 5
Class IV Bicycle Facility (Two-way Separated Bikeway) between the Curb and a Parking Lane
The guide concludes with a discussion on selecting the appropriate bus stop typology. Five guiding principles are presented to help jurisdictions understand t
he factors that should influence bus stop design and the relationships between these factors.

Page 21 of 77 ends

Page 371 ends

2.0 General Design Elements
Plainville, CT
The Guide supplements existing engineering practices and requirements to meet the g
oals of Complete Streets policies in the jurisdictions
served by AC Transit. Design guidelines, standards, and other policies on Complete Streets, transit stops, and bikeways, have been published by local and national entities. In implementing the Guidelines, local agencies should consider any supporting documentation required to address existing local and State design standards. Ultimately, local agencies must evaluate, approve, and document design decisions.

Existing conditions in urban environments can be complex; design treatments must be tailored to the conditions present in individual contexts. Good engineering judgment based on comprehensive knowledge of multimodal transportation design, with special consideration to bicyclists, should be part of any multimodal design.

Decisions should be thoroughly documented.

The following section (2.1) provides a summary of existing design guidelines that can be referenced when making planning and design decisions about local streets and roads. These resources provide a much wider breadth of information on designing Complete Streets, which fall outside the localized scope of this guidebook. Section 2.2 summarizes key elements of bus stop design, as they relate to the five bus stop typologies presented in this Guide.

Page 22 of 77 ends

Page 372 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
7 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines

2.1 Existing Guidelines
The following design guidelines, prepared by national and local bodies, are a selection of resources which closely relate to the Guide. These resourc
es may be referenced in conjunction with the Guide when making planning and design decisions related to Complete Streets, bikeways, and transit.

AC Transit Bus Stop Policy
The AC Transit Bus Stop Policy3 outlines the District’s standards for bus stop spacing, bus stop location, bus stop enforcement, and bus stop inst
allation or removal. Some of these policies are reiterated in the Guide.

AC Transit Designing with Transit
The Designing with Transit4 handbook supports planning that is centered on transit access. The handbook is also intended to encourage multimodal tr
ansportation planning: planning and engineering which
supports transit, walking, and bicycling, not just automobiles. The handbook is particularly focused on the often-overlooked needs and potential of bus transit, the most widely-used mode of transit. It outlines AC Transit’s analysis of how the East Bay can be rebuilt in a more transit- friendly manner and aims to provide practical guidance about how these can be achieved through land use planning, development of pedestrian facilities, and traffic engineering.

Alameda CTC Central County Complete Streets
Design Guidelines
The Alameda Central County Complete Streets Design Guidelines 5 document helps ensure that Central Alameda County street designs consider the full r
ange of users on every street and accommodate all
users wherever possible. While the goal of these design guidelines is to help staff from the three Central Alameda County jurisdictions (San Leandro, Hayward, and Alameda County) clearly understand how to implement Complete Streets for each street type, for different modal priorities, and for varying contexts, the design guidance provided can be applied by jurisdictions throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

The
Central County Complete Streets Design Guidelines build on the street typology developed as part of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Multimodal Arterial Plan (MAP).

Page 23 of 77 ends

Page 373 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
8 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Caltrans encourages local agencies to develop designs that help ensure the needs of non-motorized users in all products and project development ac
tivities, including programming, planning, construction, maintenance, and operations.

Design guidance for bikeway projects is provided in Chapters 100, 200, 300, and 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Alternatives to bikeway design guidance must meet the criteria outlined in Section 891 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

Projects within State right-of-way must refer to Caltrans standards and guidance, including but not limited to:
• Caltrans Highway Design Manual
• Design Information Bulletin, Separated Bikeways
• Design Information Bulletin, Caltrans ADA standards
AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities
The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities6 is the primary national reference for the planning and design of on-street bikeway
s and shared use paths. This guide represents AASHTO policy on bikeway planning and design, and addresses network planning principles, dimensions and treatments for bikeway design, and transitions between on-street bikeways and shared use paths. State DOTs and local jurisdictions often refer to this document when planning and designing bicycle facilities.

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
A blueprint for designing 21st century streets, the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide7 provides a toolbox and tactics for cities to use to make streets safer, more livable, and more economically vibrant. The guide outlines both a c
lear vision for Complete Streets and a basic road map
for how to bring them to fruition. The guide focuses on the design of city streets and public spaces, emphasizing city street design as a unique practice with its own set of design goals, parameters, and tools.

NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
The NACTO Transit Street Design
Guide8 provides design guidance for
the development of transit facilities
on city str
eets, and for the design and
engineering of city streets to prioritize
transit, improve transit service quality,
and support other goals related to
transit. The guide sets a new vision for
how cities can harness the immense
potential of transit to create active and
efficient streets in neighborhoods and
downtowns alike.

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
The purpose of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide9 is to provide cities with state-of-the-practice solutions that can help create Complete Stree
ts that are safe and comfortable for bicyclists. The Urban Bikeway Design Guide addresses treatments not directly referenced in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, although they are virtually all (with two exceptions) permitted under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)10. The Federal Highway Administration has posted information regarding MUTCD approval stat
us of all the bicycle-related treatments in this guide.

Page 24 of 77 ends

Page 374 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
9 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Service Type Spacing (feet) Explanation
Local (trunk,
feeder, etc.) 800-1 ,300 feet
Stops may be located more
closely than listed based on
trip attractors, stop activity
or demand, transfer points
or other land uses that may
warrant it.

Rapid 1,700-5,000 feet
Stops may be located more
closely than listed based on
trip attractors, stop activity
or demand, transfer points
or other land uses that may
warrant it provided that the
increased stops do not cause
operational delays
Transbay/
Express 1,000-2,600 feet
Service may use local stops
as necessary to provide
geographic coverage and to
minimize delay for longer-
distance passengers.

Flexible or
Community
Circulator
TBD
Stops would be determined
on a route by route basis and
would consider trip attractors,
transfer areas or other
factors.

Table 1: AC Transit Bus Stop Spacing Guidelines (AC Transit Policy No. 508)

2.2 Bus Stop Design
It is AC Transit’s policy to encourage counties, cities, and developers to coordinate with AC Transit when locating bus stops on roadways.

Howev
er, AC Transit does not own or maintain the bus stop areas, and the local jurisdiction can make the ultimate decision to site the bus stop.

When properly located, adequately designed, and effectively enforced, bus stops can improve service without disrupting general traffic flow.

Decisions regarding bus stop spacing and location call for a careful analysis of passenger service requirements (demand, convenience, and safety), the type of bus service provided (local, rapid, Transbay/ express, or flexible service/community circulator), and the interaction of stopped buses with general traffic flow. The following sections summarize general bus stop design elements.

A. Bus Stop Spacing
Bus stops are designated locations for bus passengers to board and alight. Therefore, bus stops must be conveniently located to enable easy pas
senger access. Convenience and speed must be balanced
in determining appropriate bus stop placement, as too many bus stops can slow down travel times. Outside of downtown areas, the ideal spacing of bus stops is 1,000 feet apart. This target has been established with the goal of increasing travel speed for AC Transit buses, and means that some existing stops may be eliminated.

Passenger usage of bus stops is an important factor when considering bus stop placement or removal.

Bus stops should be close enough that passengers can walk to them easily, but far enough apart to help buses move quickly. Table 1 provides general guidelines for bus stop spacing. Some discretion may be applied when balancing AC Transit’s interest in improving service and preserving traffic flow with consideration of passenger needs.

Table 1 lists AC Transit’s intended bus stop spacing for the four different Service Types. It is AC Transit’s preference to use the maximum bus stop spacing unless superseded by other determining factors such as topography (hills), limited access areas (freeways, bridges, airports), surrounding attractors, and transfer points. As a result, existing AC Transit routes may have stops that do not conform to the spacing criteria in this policy.

Page 25 of 77 ends

Page 375 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
10 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Seattle, WA
B. Bus Stop Siting
The optimal stop location should improve or minimize impact to bus travel times, maximize reliability and route efficiency, and be safe and acces
sible, while maintaining or enhancing bus passenger access to destinations and amenities. The siting of a bus stop not only impacts transit passengers, but also motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists near the stop.

Multiple factors are used to determine the appropriate siting of a bus stop including:

Demographics and Land Use
Ridership – Assess both existing and projected boardings and alightings, as well a
s the ridership profile (for example, a large proportion of seniors or students) at the stop. Low-ridership stops, particularly those near higher-ridership stops, may be considered for consolidation or removal.

The threshold for a low-ridership stop will be determined by comparing its ridership to that at other stops along the route, or by comparing with a similar bus route, while also considering the frequency of service provided at the stop.

Existing and Future Land Uses – Note sensitive land uses, including medical facilitie
s, municipal buildings, senior housing, and major transit trip generators such as shopping malls, schools, and dense commercial or residential complexes. Stop locations may be adjusted or added to provide better access to passenger origins and destinations, although this determination will also be dependent on pedestrian connections and conditions.

Existing Service and Passenger Amenities
Bus Route Connections – Consideration should be given to maintaining and/or improv
ing bus stops serving parallel or intersecting bus routes.

Under certain circumstances, the relocation of an existing bus stop may be necessary, and doing so may increase the access distance for passengers transferring between intersecting routes. Priority should be given to relocating the stop in close proximity of its former location, thereby minimizing the additional distance a transferring passenger would have to walk between stops.

Passenger Amenities – Evaluate opportunities to add amenities to new or existin
g stops and maintain or upgrade amenities at existing stops.

Many bus stop amenities are justified by high ridership and a desire to improve passenger comfort. Implementation of amenities such as lighting or real-time arrival displays may require a nearby power source or solar panels.

Page 26 of 77 ends

Page 376 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
11 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Speed Limit (MPH) Sight Distance (feet)
15 200
20 265
25 335
30 4
00 35 465
40 530
45 600
50 665
Table 2: Sight Distance for Siting Bus Stops
Adapted from AASHTO 2016 and AASHTO 2011.

Note
: Assume a 9-second time gap is required for buses to re-enter traffic without undue interference to traffic flow.

Pedestrian Environment
Connections and Condition – Sidewalks immediately at the stop and those prov
iding access to the stop and surrounding area are an
important consideration. When choosing a site to establish or relocate a stop, choose the widest, most level sidewalk near the desired location.

Stops should also be located to maximize ridership. A designer will need to balance the demands of pedestrian connections and bus ridership.

Crossings – Where bus stops are located near pedestrian crossings, the crossin
g should be marked and preferably located behind the stop, so that passengers are encouraged to cross behind the bus. Ideally, crossings should be signalized, especially in high-traffic and high-speed environments. Intersections and at-grade driveway crossings should have ADA-compliant curb ramps.

Safety and Bus Stop Visibility
Lighting – Lighting should be provided at stops for the safety and security of bus pa
trons. Bus stop lighting simultaneously offers bus
operators better visibility of waiting passengers. Lighting can be cast by pedestrian-scale light fixtures, lighted shelters, overhead street lights, or brightly-lit signs.

Sight Distance – Consider sight distance for transit passengers, bus operator
s, and other motorists. Avoid obstructions to sightlines between bus operators and passengers such as trees, signs, buildings, shelters, and topography.

For optimal sight distance between bus operators and other motorists, bus stops should not be located over the crest of a hill, immediately in or after a roadway curve to the right, or at locations that might reduce visibility between buses and other vehicles.

Approaching vehicles need to have adequate visibility of stopped buses and buses entering or exiting a stop, particularly when stops are located in the travel lane. Similarly, bus drivers need to be able to see vehicles approaching from behind when exiting a stop. Table 2 provides the recommended sight distance for bus stops, given the posted speed limit.

At a minimum, bus stops should be sited to meet the minimum stopping sight distance provided by AASHTO.

It is not recommended to place stops where there is inadequate sight distance, and existing stops with poor visibility should be considered for relocation or removal. In addition, stopped buses can impact sight distance for vehicles exiting side streets. Depending on the location of the stop relative to an intersection, different vehicular turn movements can be affected.

Page 27 of 77 ends

Page 377 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
12 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
C. Spatial Location of Bus Stop
The specific location of a bus stop within the right-of-way is important for bus operations. A good bus stop location is one that is operationally safe and efficient for buse
s and is safe and convenient for passengers.

The stop should be located where it causes minimal interference with pedestrian movements and other traffic, including bicycle traffic.

On-street bus stops are usually located along the street curb for direct safe passenger access to and from the sidewalk and waiting areas.

Stops may be located on the far side of an intersection, the near side of the intersection, or at a point mid-block.

Far-side stops are stops located after an intersection in the direction of trav
el. They are generally preferred because they reduce conflicts between right-turning vehicles and stopped buses, eliminate sight- distance deficiencies on approaches to an intersection, and encourage pedestrian crossing at the rear of the bus. Additionally, since Rapid and BRT routes use transit signal priority to expedite travel across an intersection, far-side stops are integral to Rapid and BRT route implementation. Also, far-side stops allow passengers to cross the street from multiple directions to access the bus boarding area, due to its location on the corner of the intersection.

Near-side stops are stops located before an intersection in the direction of trav
el. They are acceptable when a far-side stop is deemed unsafe or impractical. They may also be used when a stop serves multiple routes that go in different directions after the downstream intersection. Like far-side stops, the stop’s location allows passengers multiple crossing locations to access the bus boarding area, due to the location on the intersection corner.

Rhode Island bus Stop Design Guide. Providence: Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 2017.11

Page 28 of 77 ends

Page 378 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
13 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Vancouver, Canada
Mid-block stops are stops that are not located in the general vicinity of an intersect
ion. They are typically considered in special cases and are to be used only when no alternative is available. AC Transit and the jurisdiction where the bus stop will be located must approve any mid- block bus stops. This stop location generally has poor access due to the lack of formal street crossings near the stop, sometimes inducing passengers to reach the bus boarding area by crossing at undesignated locations.

In the typologies presented in Section 3, the diagrams feature far- side stops, as this is the stop location preferred by AC Transit. These typologies can be adapted to near-side or mid-block stops, if necessary.

D. Bus Stop Design
Floating bus stops are bus stops where the boarding platform is separated from the sidewalk by a bike lane. The bike lane is brought behind the bus st
op to eliminate any potential conflict points between
buses pulling into the stop and cyclists in the bike lane.

The appropriate width of a floating bus stop depends on many factors, including the width of travel lanes, width of bike lanes, and need for sidewalk space. A minimum width of eight feet is required for floating bus stops to ensure ADA-compliant access. However, where space permits, particularly for stops with large passenger volumes, a wider floating bus stop based on preferred dimensions may be designed.

The floating bus stop functions similarly to a bus bulb in that it allows the bus to stop in the travel lane. This design saves travel time for the bus by eliminating the need for the bus driver to merge in and out of traffic.

The floating bus stop also provides a waiting area for passengers, and can relieve sidewalk congestion. This design may also save linear space compared to a traditional pull out bus stop, because when buses stop in the travel lane, pull-in or pull-out taper space is no longer required for buses to exit or enter the travel lane.

It is often a concern that buses stopping in traffic to serve a bus stop will slow traffic, but Federal Highway Administration studies show that stopping in the lane may actually increase traffic speeds on roadways with two travel lanes per direction (Kay Fitzpatrick, Kevin M. Hall, Stephen Farnsworth, and Melisa D. Finley: TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2001),

2.).
12 Stopping in the travel lane reduces the phenomenon of bus drivers stopping with the bus protruding into traffic, thereby regularizing traffic flow. Typic
ally, floating bus stops should not be installed on high-speed roads where the average travel speed is 35 miles per hour or greater, as stopping in the travel lane in such conditions may be unsafe.

On roadways with a single travel lane in one or both directions, local conditions, including vehicle volume and bus stop activity, should inform the use of floating bus stops. Floating bus stops may still cause the bus to partially block the travel lane when the bus boards and alights passengers. Therefore, motorists will need to wait for the bus to finish loading before they can progress. At a far-side stop, this wait time could cause cars to queue into the intersection and potentially block the intersection when the signal phase changes. Motorists may also try to divert around a stopped bus by entering the opposite-direction travel lane, which could be a safety concern.

Page 29 of 77 ends

Page 379 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
14 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Portland, OR
AC Transit prefers that bus pullouts (turnouts) are avoided. Bus pullouts are generall
y detrimental to bus operations under most circumstances found in the AC Transit district and should be avoided. At a pullout, the roadway is widened just at the bus stop to channel the bus into a special curb lane. The bus then stops and serves the stop outside the travel lanes. Pullouts are generally not desirable for bus operations because they require the bus exit the traffic stream. Leaving the travel lanes can slow bus operations, particularly when the bus seeks to reenter traffic.

Pullouts are generally designed for the convenience of other vehicles, not buses. Further, on Complete Street roadways with bicycle lanes, a bus pullout creates conflict with cyclists by requiring buses to fully cross the bike lane to pull in and out of the bus stop, as illustrated in the photo below.

Special cases where pullouts may be appropriate are unusually narrow roadways, such as those consisting of one very narrow travel lane (without a parking lane) in each direction. High-speed roadways without parking lanes may also be appropriate for pullouts. Further, there might be cases where bus pullouts could be useful for schedule adherence or layovers. However, these situations should be analyzed on a case by case basis. Finally, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) report 65 suggests pullouts for roads where traffic speeds are 40 mph and above.

E. Bus Stop Dimensions
The required length of a bus stop is made up of the following components. Depending on the configuration of the bus stop (i.e. in lane vs. pull-out stop, near
-side stop vs. far-side stop), not all elements will
be present. Therefore, the total space required for a bus stop will be informed by the design and placement of the stop.

Bus Stop – total distance/area required for a bus to safely and efficiently pull into a st
op, stop and load/unload passengers, and
pull away from the stop and return to the travel lane. (Pull-in Taper + Platform + Pull-out Taper)
Platform – the area where the bus comes to a complete stop against the curb and fr
om/to which passengers board and alight.

Pull-in Taper – the distance/area required for a bus to decelerate and exit the tr
avel lane to reach the bus platform.

Pull-out Taper – the distance/area required for a bus to leave the bus platform, ac
celerate, and reenter the traffic stream.

Clearance from Crosswalk – the distance/area required from the front or rear of the bus and the adjac
ent crosswalk to ensure pedestrians and
drivers have adequate sightlines.

Page 30 of 77 ends

Page 380 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
15 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Bus Stop Length
In addition to the selection of an appropriate location, there are other important requirements for bus stops. The required length of a bus stop is det
ermined by the type of stop, stop location, stop amenities, roadway speed limit, and the number and type of buses expected to use the stop. There must be enough curbside space to enable bus operators to pull the bus parallel to the curb, open the doors onto the sidewalk, and pull away from the stop into the travel lane. Providing bus stops with sufficient length also prevents buses from straddling crosswalks, which can block access for pedestrians.

Required bus stop lengths vary depending on several factors:
• Location of the stop relative to the intersection (far-side, near-side, or mid-block)
• Stop configuration
• Approach of bus turning movement
• Roadway speed, and thereby deceleration and acceleration space
• Presence of crosswalks, on-street parking, and driveways • Location of landscaping and street furniture along the sidewalk edge
• Number of buses serving and/or laying over at the stop Because bus stop length will vary depending on the type and design of a specific bus stop, each typology presented in Chapter 4 includes a table detailin
g the dimensions required for that bus stop design. General design principles are described in the next subsections.

For buses that stop in the travel lane, the only consideration for the overall bus stop length is the platform itself, since no separate entering and exiting distance is required. The platform length is primarily determined by the size of the bus used on the route and the number of buses servicing the stop at peak hours.

At stops where the bus must pull out of the travel lane, the length required for a bus stop consists of three elements – the pull-in taper, platform/boarding length, and the pull-out taper. The stop must be long enough so that buses can not only stop there, but also get into and out of the stop easily. Adequate-length bus stops make it more likely that the bus driver will pull completely into the stop, rather than leave the back of the bus protruding into the travel lane. Because stopping flush with the curb is key for passengers with mobility impairments, providing a sufficiently long stop is an ADA issue.

Pull-In/Pull-Out Taper
Pull-in/pull-out taper applies only to curbside stops where the buses pull out of the travel lane. The length required for pull-in or pull-out taper is determined fr
om the posted speed limit or prevailing speed, whichever is greater. If prevailing speed data cannot be collected, the posted speed limit should be used.

The stop location also affects the pull-in or pull-out taper distance required. Far-side stops do not require any additional pull-in taper because the bus can use the intersection to decelerate and pull into the stop. Conversely, for near-side stops, no pull-out taper is required because the intersection provides space to accelerate and merge back into the travel lane.

Platform Length
The length required for the platform is primarily a function of the type of bus the stop is designed to serve and the number of buses the stop must serve simult
aneously. At a minimum, all AC Transit stops should

Page 31 of 77 ends

Page 381 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
16 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
be designed to serve a 40-ft bus. On routes where articulated buses are used, stops should be designed to serve 60-ft buses. The length of a platform should incr
ease if it is determined that the stop must
accommodate multiple buses simultaneously. The Transportation Research Board provides guidance for determining when stops should be designed to accommodate multiple buses, based on the number of buses per hour, average dwell time, and adjacent intersection signal cycle times.

Stop Amenities
Stop amenities include bus shelters, benches/seating, wayfinding, fare vending machines, bike parking, trees/landscaping, trash cans, lighting, and other amenitie
s that are located within the bus platform area.

Stop amenities can help attract customers and increase passenger comfort, improve operational efficiencies, and foster local civic pride and economic development.

The presence of stop amenities, particularly bus shelters or other large amenities, may impact the required platform length. Bus shelters and other large stop amenities restrict the space available for passenger circulation and movement and may require that the platform length be increased. The ADA requires bus stop boarding and alighting areas at the front door landing area, and an accessible route between the landing area, sidewalk, and bus shelters. A clear zone at the first rear door is also required by AC Transit.

Crosswalk Clearance
For all far-side and near-side stops, clearance from the crosswalk is required for pedestrian safety. NACTO’s guidelines recommend a minimum of 10 feet of clear
ance between the rear of the bus and the
crosswalk at a far-side stop. With a near-side stop, a minimum of 10 feet of clearance between the front of the bus and the crosswalk is recommended.

F. Door Locations and ADA Access
AC Transit utilizes a variety of fleet types, including 30-ft, 40-ft, and 60-ft buses, which have two, three, or four doors, depending on the vehicle mode
l. Landing areas and clear zones should be laid out to
accommodate the bus fleet in operation. Landing areas and clear zones should be free of driveways, curb ramps, and obstructions such as utility poles, hydrants, and other street furniture. AC Transit’s design guidelines recommend designing all stops with two door landing areas to accommodate the first two doors of all vehicles, regardless of vehicle length or model.

For the first door landing area, ADA guidelines require that a minimum width of 5 feet along the curb, and a minimum depth of 8 feet perpendicular to the curb, be provided at the landing area, to the extent feasible and within the control of the transit agency. The location of the landing area is primarily dependent on the siting of the stop relative to the intersection, and secondarily, on the availability of sidewalk space to accommodate an ADA-compliant landing area. The first door landing area should begin one foot behind the bus stop pole.

To accommodate rear door passenger activity, bus stops should also have a second door landing area. On AC Transit vehicles manufactured by Van Hool, the second door serves as the ADA-accessible ramp entrance. Therefore, providing a second landing zone is important to ensure that the stop is ADA-compliant. The second door landing area should be 11.5 feet wide along the curb, with a minimum depth of 8 feet perpendicular to the curb. The second door landing area should begin

12.5 feet behind the bus stop pole.

The critical path of travel for passengers at a bus stop is the connection between the landing area and the sidewalk and bus shelters. The ADA requires that there be an accessible route between these points.

Sidewalks and bus shelters shall be connected to the landing area by an accessible route. This requirement means that a clear, unobstructed, ADA-compliant path of travel must be provided. AC Transit prefers a 4-foot wide path, although the ADA requires a minimum 3-foot wide path, which can be used in extenuating circumstances.

Page 32 of 77 ends

Page 382 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
17 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Bus Stop Pole
location
40-ft bus
30-ft bus
Accessible
Landing
Zone
Rear Clear Zone
60-ft bus
40-ft bus
(3 door)
(2 door)
5' 6'
6'
6'

12.5'

11.5'
24'
1'
5' 5'
5' '5
8' 8'
6'5'
6'5'
Start of 3rd door (40-ft bus)
End of 4th door (60-ft bus)
End of 3rd door (40-ft bus)
Start of 3rd door (60-ft bus)
End of 3rd door (60-ft bus)
Start of 4th door (60-ft bus)
31'
36'
45'
50'
54'
58'
Accessible Landing Zone and Rear Clear Zone align
with the front and second door of all buses.

Exhibit 1: AC Transit Landing Area Dimensions of Common Bus Types

Page 33 of 77 ends

Page 383 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
18 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
G. Bus Stop Pads
Bus pads are highly durable areas of the roadway surface at bus stops, usually constructed of concrete, that address the common issue of asphalt dist
ortion at bus stops.

Conventional asphalt pavement is flexible, and can be moved by the force and heat generated by braking buses and trucks, leading to wave-shaped mounds along the length of a bus stop. This issue is pronounced at high- volume stops where dwelling buses further heat the roadway surface, as well as near-side stops in mixed-traffic lanes where trucks can add to wear.

Bus pads should be at least 8.5 feet wide to accommodate both wheels of a bus, but should be wider at locations without precision loading to provide consistent service when the bus does not pull fully to the curb. Bus pad length should be determined based on the length of the platform area.

At stops where the bus crosses a bike lane, the concrete bus pad should end at either the curbside edge of the bike lane or the outside edge of the bike lane (including its full width) to prevent the creation of a longitudinal joint within the bike lane. Bus pads should end before the crosswalk to prevent lateral or longitudinal pavement joints within the crosswalk. If a bus pad must be extended into the crosswalk, it should extend across the full width of the crosswalk to prevent joints between concrete and asphalt.

H. Curbs
The curb alongside the bus stop should be painted red to prevent cars from parking within the bus stop space or within the pull-in or pull-out zone that is r
equired at traditional bus stops where buses must pull out of the travel lane. If cars are parked at a bus stop or within the pull-in or pull-out zone, then the bus will not be able to stop flush along the boarding platform which is inconvenient and dangerous for passengers, and can prevent bus ramps from being deployed, resulting in ADA accessibility issues. Curb height and design should be informed by local conditions or design standards.

I. Service Type and Level of Service
Finally, the service type and level of service provided on a route and/or corridor should be considered when determining the design of bus stops and prioriti
zing capital improvements. AC Transit has identified eight primary service types operated by the District. These are outlined in AC Transit Board Policy No. 550.
13 Trunk Routes and Major Corridors – These are the services operating on corridor
s where residential densities are at least 20,000 residents per square mile (or comparable commercial densities). Routes in these corridors provide the backbone of the transit system; operate along the arterial streets and provide a high level of local and limited stop service.

These routes have the highest priority for capital improvements.

Rapid - Provides limited stop service along a Trunk Route or Major Corridor f
eaturing wide stop spacing, headway based schedules,
transit signal priority and passenger amenities. Underlying local service contributes to aggregate service frequency.

Urban Secondary, Crosstowns and Feeder Routes – These are the routes oper
ating in medium density corridors (10,000 – 20,000
residents per square mile or comparable commercial densities). These routes complement the trunk route network, providing a high level of local stop service. These corridors also are candidates for capital improvements to assist in bus operations.

Suburban Crosstowns and Feeder Routes – These are the routes operatin
g in low density corridors (5,000 – 10,000 residents per square mile). These routes feed BART, park and ride lots, or other AC

Page 34 of 77 ends

Page 384 ends

Chapter 2.0 • General Design Elements
19 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Table 3: Span of Service and Weekday Peak Frequency Standards Adapted from AC Transit Board Policy No. 550
Transit routes, or serve neighborhood circulation functions with a high level of service.

Low Density Routes – These are primarily routes operating in areas of very low densit
y (fewer than 5,000 residents per square mile).

Community Flex Services – These are primarily routes operating in areas of ver
y low density, again, fewer than 5,000 residents per square mile, that provide a more flexible operation than traditional fixed route service.

All-Nighter (Owl) Routes – These are the routes providing service between 12 midni
ght and 6 am. All-Nighter routes operate as a lifeline
service during the “owl gap” period.

Transbay Routes – These are the routes providing service to downtown San Francisc
o via the Bay Bridge Corridor.

These service types form a hierarchy of service both in terms of service investment (annual service hours) and ridership. Therefore, AC Transit’s policy directs staff to prioritize capital investments for service types with the highest levels of service and highest ridership. Additionally, because the service type classifications closely correspond with service frequency and ridership, they can be used to inform the bus stop design, dimensions, and amenities.

Table 3 outlines AC Transit’s service types, span of service standards, and weekday peak frequency standards.

Service Type Span of Service
Standar
d
Weekday Peak
Frequency
Standard
Trunk and Major
Corridors 19-2 4 hours daily 15-20 minutes
Rapid 14-16 hours daily 10-14 minutes
Urban Crosstown/
Feeder 14-16 hours daily 15-20 minutes
Suburban Crosstown
/ Feeder 14-16 hours daily 21-30 minutes
Very Low Density 14-16 hours daily 31-60 minutes
All-Nighter (Owl) Owl gap period 31-60 minutes
Transbay 17-18 hours daily 21-30 minutes

Page 35 of 77 ends

Page 385 ends

3.0 Typology Design Considerations
Seattle, WA
Properly-placed design elements are critical to a positive overall experience f
or transit users. When reviewing individual bus stops and their context, designers must consider a wide range of issues that are unique to each location. In many transit corridors, the adjacent streetscape design elements may also contribute to the bus stop design.

Due to constrained right-of-way, it is not feasible or practical to include all design elements at each bus stop location. The placement and use of design elements at bus stops should maximize safety, visibility, and comfort for all users. Designers are encouraged to consult with AC Transit or local guidance for additional design considerations.

Page 36 of 77 ends

Page 386 ends

Chapter 3.0 • Typology Design Considerations
21 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
EXHIBIT 2: Context Zones
Pedestrian Zone Bus Stop Bypass Zone Bus Stop
Furnishing Zone
Furnishing Zone Transit/Travel Lane Zone Bus Stop Zone

3.1 General Guidance for Context Zones
For the purposes of this guide, establishing context zones simplifies the process of defining the roadway cross section along a corridor.

Zones es
tablish a foundation for designers to appropriately locate design elements tailored to the different uses expected of a roadway user. Exhibit 2 illustrates each zone with subsequent text describing the relationship between the zones and the design elements that commonly contribute to multimodal bus stop design.

Pedestrian Zone - This zone is generally reserved for pedestrian mobility for users of all a
ges and abilities to access pedestrian oriented
destinations.

Furnishing Zone - This zone is generally reserved for seating, bicycle racks, street lights, parking pay stations, stormwater infrastructure, stree
t trees, transit shelters, trash receptacles, in addition various utilities that support a multimodal environment. This zone can also be flexible and may vary between blocks and along a corridor.

Bus Stop Bypass Zone - This zone is generally reserved to route the bikeway ar
ound the rear of the bus stop between the furnishing zone and floating bus stop furnishing zone.

Bus Stop Furnishing Zone - This zone is generally reserved to function similar to the fur
nishing zone and may consist of seating, lean bar or
railing, transit shelter, or vertical railings as space provides. The available width and length of the floating bus stop will determine the amount, type, and function of design elements placed in the floating bus stop furnishing zone.

Floating Bus Stop - This zone is generally reserved for users waiting in a dedicated space to access transit.

Floating Bus Stop

Page 37 of 77 ends

Page 387 ends

Chapter 3.0 • Typology Design Considerations
22 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Vancouver, Canada
Bicycle Facility Elevation (Bus stop bypass zone) – Standard Bicycle facilities may be provided at the same elevation with the sidewalk, at street level, or at an intermediate height with a 2- to 3-inch curb reveal be
tween the sidewalk and street level. The appropriate elevation of the bicycle facility will often be based on known physical constraints or design feasibility. The advantages or disadvantages of these designs are discussed thoroughly in separated bike lane guidance. A designer should consult these references prior to choosing the appropriate bikeway elevation treatment.

Bicycle Racks (Furnishing zone or bus stop furnishing zone) – Recommended
Installing bicycle parking at bus stops increases a transit passenger’s flexibility to park their bicycle and take transit. These decisions may be based on many ext
ernal factors including distance, weather, convenience, and effort. This amenity improves first- and last-mile connections and can increase the desirability of combined bicycle and transit trips.

3.2 Design Elements
All bus stops should consider utilizing appropriate design elements to provide a safe, accessible, and high-quality transit experience. This section defines t
ypical bus stop design elements either as standard,
recommended, or optional. Standard design elements are typical of bus stops, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, etc. Including recommended design elements should result in a high quality bus stop for all users.

Design elements have been noted as optional to be sensitive to design preferences of jurisdictions.

Accessible Landing Pad (Furnishing/pedestrian zone or bus stop furnishing zone) – Standard
ADA guidelines require a minimum of 5 feet along the curb and a minimum depth of 8 feet perpendicular to the curb to be provided at the landing area
. It should be a firm, stable surface, with a maximum 2% cross slope. The landing area should match the roadway running slope to the extent practicable and be parallel to the roadway.

Benches (Furnishing/pedestrian zone or bus stop furnishing zone) – Optional
Providing seating at bus stops is a pleasant amenity for transit users waiting for the bus. Benches may be stand-alone or integrated into a shelter. AD
A does not provide guidance for outdoor benches, however the Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of- Way (PROWAG) suggests that benches providing full back support and armrests better assist pedestrians with mobility impairments to sit and stand.

Page 38 of 77 ends

Page 388 ends

Chapter 3.0 • Typology Design Considerations
23 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Cambridge, MA
Furthermore, if the bus bicycle rack is at capacity, bicycle parking allows bicyclis
ts to lock their bike if they choose. Bicycle racks should be placed outside of the path of travel at the bus stop and positioned so that no matter how a bicycle is locked, a one foot buffer from the bikeway and the edge of the locked bike will be maintained. Refer to the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) Bicycle Parking Guidelines for the appropriate type and placement of bike racks.

Essentials of Bike Parking: Selecting and Installing Bike Parking that Works. Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals. 2015. 14 Bike Ramp (Bus stop bypass zone) – Standard
When the elevation of the bicycle facility changes at a floating bus stop, a smooth ramp transition should be provided to allow comfortable passa
ge for bicyclists through the bus stop influence area.

Bus Shelters (Furnishing zone or bus stop furnishing zone) – Optional
Shelters provide a safe, secure, and comfortable space for users waiting for their bus. Shelters offer protection from inclement weather, and, in some cases
, include lighting, heating, and opportunities for additional seating. Transit information, including route numbers, timetables, and, in some cases, maps, may also be provided at shelters.

The design of shelters should be simple, functional, and easy to maintain.

The size of shelters will largely depend upon the amount of available space at a bus stop location.

Bus Stop Pole (Furnishing zone or bus stop furnishing zone) – Standard
Bus passengers need information to understand which bus routes will stop at their location. This pole and sign can also include information such as the r
oute direction, schedule, etc.

Channelization (Bus stop bypass zone) – Recommended
Channelizing infrastructure can be designed to manage pedestrian and bicyclist movements between the travel lane, bikeway, and pedestrian facility. Pede
strians and bicyclists can be separately and effectively channelized by locating a vertical object (e.g., planter) to physically deflect and direct users to desired areas. For example, pedestrians could be channelized to designated crossings of the bikeway between sidewalk and floating bus stop. Effectively channelizing bicyclists and pedestrians through a bus stop can improve safety, provide maximum convenience, and enhance functionality.

Page 39 of 77 ends

Page 389 ends

Chapter 3.0 • Typology Design Considerations
24 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Portland, OR
Crosswalks (Pedestrian zone) – Standard
Crosswalks provide designated routes for pedestrians to cross another facility. Maintaining a pedestrian access route between the sidewalk, floating bus s
top, and additional bus stop design elements is required. All crosswalks should be located to maximize visibility for pedestrians and of pedestrians by drivers and bicyclists. Bus stops should connect to a marked pedestrian crossing, preferably a crosswalk behind the stop, so that passengers are encouraged to cross behind the bus. Intersections and at-grade driveway crossings should have ADA-compliant curb ramps.

Detectable Warning Surface (Pedestrian zone) – Standard The ADA requires that bus stop boarding and alighting areas shall be connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an accessible route. De
tectable warning surfaces provide a tactile and noticeable message that a change of environment will occur between these areas.

Green Colored Pavement (Bus stop bypass zone) – Optional The consistent use of green colored pavement may be used to delineate the bicycle zone or to emphasize areas of potential conflict. An alternat
ive option is to use contrast to mark the separate zones, such as different colored concrete, or using asphalt for the bikeway and concrete for the floating bus stop and sidewalk.

Green colored pavement may be considered for optional use in marked bicycle facilities and in extensions of bicycle facilities through intersections and other traffic conflict areas. The use of dashed green colored pavement indicates merging areas for the bicycle facility and vehicular traffic. Solid green colored pavement may be used to designate the bike lane zone
Lean Bar or Lean Rails (Pedestrian/Furnishing Zone or bus stop furnishing zone) – Optional
Lean rails may be used in place of traditional benches. These amenities establish a narrow barrier between the bus island and the bus stop bypass to de
ter transit passengers from crossing the bicycle facility in non-designated spots. They also invite passengers to use these amenities casually as they wait for their bus.

Lighting (Furnishing Zone or bus stop furnishing zone) – Recommended
Bus stop lighting provides safety and security for all users while also increasing visibility of waiting passengers for bus operators. Sufficient illumination can be ac
hieved with pedestrian-scale fixtures, lighted
shelters, and street lights. The Illuminating Engineering Society provides guidance on how much illuminance to provide. Refer to Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), Roadway Lighting RP-8-14. 2014. 15

Page 40 of 77 ends

Page 390 ends

Chapter 3.0 • Typology Design Considerations
25 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Sydney, Australia
Railings (Bus stop furnishing zone) – Optional
Vertical railings may be useful at channelizations (bus stop bypasses), as they establish a barrier between the bus island and the bicycle facility routing be
hind it, deterring transit users from crossing the bicycle facility in non-designated locations.

Rear Landing Area (pedestrian/furnishing zone, bus stop furnishing zone) – Standard
The clear zone is the area where the back doors of the bus open onto the sidewalk or floating island. AC Transit requires bus stops to have a clear zone for t
he first rear door. The clear zone should be free of
driveways, curb ramps, and obstructions such as utility poles, hydrants, and other street furniture. Although there is no requirement for the clear zone to be ADA-compliant, it is desirable, and at a minimum should be a level surface area. The clear zone should be 11.5 feet wide by 8 feet deep.

Street Trees and Stormwater Infrastructure (furnishing zone or bus stop zone) – Optional
Properly selected and maintained landscaping helps enhance passenger comfort at a bus stop and may improve the overall aesthetic of transit service
. Street trees at bus stops can help provide shade and protection from adverse weather. Placement of street trees or stormwater infrastructure should not disrupt safety, visibility, or service at the bus stop location. Street trees, landscaping, and stormwater infrastructure should be selected based on environmental performance, maintenance, and aesthetic goals of the jurisdiction.

Trash receptacles (furnishing zone) – Optional
Trash and recycling receptacles or solar compactors are desirable at higher-ridership stops, stops in commercial areas and retail centers, and stops wit
h shelters. AC transit recommends locating trash and
recycling receptacles on the sidewalk to clarify that maintenance is a City responsibility, which may assist with keeping the overall buildup of debris to a minimum.

Page 41 of 77 ends

Page 391 ends

4.0 Bus Stop Design Typologies
Seattle, WA
Designing a safe, comfortable, and functional bus stop for all users with special c
onsideration to bicycle users is a primary purpose of this guide. Local jurisdictions are implementing more separated bike lanes on transit corridors and need design guidance to safely and seamlessly maintain bikeways through the bus stop. Based on common roadway and bikeway configurations, transit operations, and other considerations, five bus stop design typologies have been identified:
• Typology 1: Class II Bicycle Facility between the Curb and a General Traffic Lane
• Typology 2: Class II Bicycle Facility between Curbside Parking Lane and a General Traffic Lane
• Typology 3: Class IV Bicycle Facility (Separated Bikeway) between the Curb and a General Traffic Lane
• Typology 4: Class IV Bicycle Facility (Separated Bikeway) between the Curb and a Parking Lane
• Typology 5: Class IV Bicycle Facility (Two-way Separated Bikeway) between the Curb and a Parking Lane

Page 42 of 77 ends

Page 392 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
27 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
sidewalk &
furnishing
bike lane travel lane
BUS
4’ min.
5’ pref.
8’ min.
10’ pref. varies
4’ min
A. Typology 1: Section ViewEach design typology contains design elements reflecting the context of the roadway environment. Required and optional design elements are specified within t
he typologies, but the designer should use engineering
judgment when selecting and locating design elements for a bus stop design. These bus stop typologies are intended to illustrate how and why design elements are included to provide a safe, comfortable, and functional bus stop.

Bus stops should be provided curbside (against a curb) in most instances, as this is the most functional location for a bus stop. In the typologies, the bus stop curb is located either along the sidewalk (Typology 1) or along a floating bus stop (Typologies 2-5).

Four of the five typologies utilize floating bus stops, which are sidewalk- level platforms built between the bicycle lane and the roadway travel lane. When using floating bus stops, bicyclists are directed behind the bus stop, reducing or eliminating most conflicts between buses and bicyclists. By eliminating the need for buses and bicycles to interact, floating bus stops have large safety benefits for bicyclists. They can also benefit pedestrians, as the floating bus stop doubles as a pedestrian refuge, which if designed efficiently, can shorten crossing distances and enable shorter signal cycles.

4.1 Typology 1
Class II Bicycle Facility between Curb and a
General Traffic Lane
The first Typology illustrates locations where the bike lane is located adjacent to the curb on a roadway. This typology more likely pertains to transit r
outes outside of a priority bicycle network. The section view illustrates that the bus will position itself on top of the bike lane to board and alight passengers. This means the bus may block motorists and bicyclists. These roadway users may have to wait or move around a bus during boarding/alighting operations.

Page 43 of 77 ends

Page 393 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
28 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Arterial Speed Limit
< 20 MPH 20-35 MPH >35 MPH
Platform
40’ Bus 40’ 40’ 40’
60’
Bus 60’ 60’ 60’
Two 40’ Buses 120’ 120’ 120’
One 40’ Bus and
One 60’ Bus 140’ 140’ 140’
Two 60’ Buses 180’ 180’ 180’
Pull-in Taper
Far-side Bus Stop N/A N/A N/A
Nea
r-side Bus Stop 10’ 15’ 20’
Mid-block Bus Stop 10’ 15’ 20’
Pull-out Taper
Far-side Bus Stop 10’ 15’ 20’
Nea
r-side Bus Stop N/A N/A N/A
Mid-block Bus Stop 10’ 15’ 20’
Clearance from Crosswalk
Far-side Bus Stop 10’ 10’ 10’
Nea
r-side Bus Stop 10’ 10’ 10’
Mid-block Bus Stop N/A N/A N/A
Table 4: Typology 1 Influence Area Minimum Dimensions
If a transit corridor consistently implements Typology 1, normal bus operations may cause a “leap-frogging” effect for bicyclists. Leap- frogging is de
scribed as: A) a bus will pass a bicyclist between bus
stops, B) the bus boards/alights passengers, C) the bicyclist passes the dwelling bus, and D) then the bus passes the bicyclist between the bus stops again. The leap-frogging process could repeat several times, especially if the average bus speed is similar to a bicyclist’s riding speed.

This effect is uncomfortable for bicyclists and increases the likelihood they will exit the bike lane into mixed traffic to pass a dwelling bus, which increases their crash risk with automobiles.
16 Leap-frogging is a
known operational issue and is usually mitigated by implementing more separation be
tween the vehicle lane and the bike lane, which may then necessitate the use of the subsequent design typologies described in this document.

Several design elements have been explicitly called out for Typology 1. A bus stop has minimum design constraints so that an accessible landing zone and a rear clear zone are provided. The location of these zones at the bus platform varies depending on the prevailing bus size. Also, this typology includes design elements typically employed at roadways and bus stops such as a furnishing zone, bus stop pole, and detectable warning surfaces on the sidewalk ramps. Lastly, note the optional design elements such as the bus shelter, green pavement markings, and red curb zone. The exact location and scale of these design elements may vary based on the constraints and context of the bus stop.

The bus stop and platform length will vary based on many factors including the pull-in/-out taper, sight distance, physical bus dimensions, and headways. Table 4 provides guidance for these dimensions on Typology 1, but the designer should use engineering judgment based on the roadway context and design constraints.

Page 44 of 77 ends

Page 394 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
29 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
1 2
6 3
4 5
Platform
(length varies with bus length and headways)
Bus Stop
(length varies with platform length, pull-in/-out taper, and sightline clear space)
10’ min.

B. Typology 1: Plan View
1 Bus shelter (optional)
2 Accessible landing zone (min.
5’ x 8’)
3 Rear clear zone (11.5’ x 8’)
4 Green pavement (optional)
5 Furnishing zone
6 Bus stop pole

Page 45 of 77 ends

Page 395 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
30 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
C. Typology 1: Perspective View

Page 46 of 77 ends

Page 396 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
31 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
sidewalk &
furnishing
bike lane bus stop travel lane
8’ min.
10’ pref.
5’min.

6.5’ pref. variesvaries
4’ min
1’
min
1’
min

4.2 Typology 2
Class II Bicycle Facility between Curbside Parking Lane and a General Traffic Lane
A. Stop Placement and Bike Facility Alignment
Adding parking to the roadway influences the spatial relationship between the bus boarding/alighting operation and the bike lane. Parking operations may c
ause conflicts with bus operations, and the door zone
of parked vehicles can be a hazard for bicyclists. However, implementing a floating bus stop is an improvement for bicycle and transit operations, because the bus boarding/alighting operations can be performed independently of through bicycle movements.

AC Transit prefers far-side bus stops for a variety of bus-related operational reasons (AC Transit Policy No. 508); however, the designer can consider using near-side or mid-block bus stops. Note that conventional mid-block bus islands are illustrated but are not a preferred design because they create a potential conflict with bicyclists by requiring buses to fully cross the bike lane to pull in and out of the bus stop.

The key design characteristic of Typology 2 is the routing of the bike lane behind the bus stop, which minimizes conflicts between the bicycle movement and the bus boarding/alighting operation. The design elements at the floating bus stop and the furnishing zone should be located at least one foot from the edge of the bike facility. If a bicycle rack is located in the furnishing zone, the edge of a parked bicycle should be at least one foot from the edge of the bike facility, which may necessitate moving the bike rack further toward the building frontage. This shy distance improves bike operations and minimizes safety hazards from handlebar or pedal strikes.

Bus passengers have two designated bike lane crossings from the sidewalk to the floating bus stop, which helps manage pedestrian/bicycle interactions. Importantly, bicyclists are required to yield to pedestrians B. Typology 2: Section View

Page 47 of 77 ends

Page 397 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
32 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Delft, Netherlands
at these designated crossings with the use of yield markings and an optional “Bike Y
ield to Pedestrians” MUTCD R9-6 sign. The furnishing
zone and/or detectable edge assists with managing bus passenger crossings at those two locations.

Furnishing elements could include bicycle racks, trash receptacles, etc.

Alternatively, detectable longitudinal panels can be embedded along the bike lane to guide visually impaired pedestrians to the designated bike lane crossing, as shown in exhibit 3 and in the photo to the right. These directional indicators are in accordance with International Standard 23599 and their color should contrast with adjoining concrete or asphalt pavement.

Exhibit 3: Longitudinal detectable edge

Page 48 of 77 ends

Page 398 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
33 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Arterial Speed Limit
All Speeds
Bus Stop Island
40’ Bus 40’
60’ Bu
s 60’
Two 40’ Buses 120’
One 40’ Bus and One 60’ Bus 140’
Two 60’ Buses 180’
Entering Bike Lane Taper Distance
Far-side Bus Stop N/A
Near-
side Bus Stop 24’
Mid-block Bus Stop 24’
Exiting Bike Lane Taper Distance
Far-side Bus Stop 24’
Near-
side Bus Stop N/A
Mid-block Bus Stop 24’
Clearance from Crosswalk
Far-side Bus Stop 10’
Near-
side Bus Stop 10’
Mid-block Bus Stop N/A
Table 5: Typology 2 Influence Area Minimum Dimensions
There are several bike lane-specific design elements which should be included when designing a bus stop based on Typology 2. 6 The bicyclist yield area provides space for bicyclists to stop for crossing pedestrians while also being protected from traffic. 7 The maximum bicycle ramp slope should be 1:12 from street to sidewalk level.
9 The bike lane transition taper of 1:10 is preferred, with a maximum of 1:5.17
Providing more space for bicyclists to yield for pedestrians and/or constructing a gentler slope or taper for the bike lane will improve comfort f
or bicyclists.

Lastly, vertical railings or lean rails may be optionally employed in Typology 2.

Table 5 provides guidance for these dimensions on Typology 2.

Page 49 of 77 ends

Page 399 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
34 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Platform
(length varies with bus length and headways)
1 23
6 4
9 Bus Stop
(length varies with platform length, pull-in/-out taper, and sightline clear space) 1:5 taper max.
8’ min.
10’ pref.
8’ min.
10’ pref.
10’ min.
12 5
5 8
varies
6’ pref.
7 10
11 13
1 Bus shelter (optional)
2 Accessible landing zone
(min. 5’ x 8’)
3 Rear clear zone (11.5’ x 8’)
4 Green pavement (optional)
5 Bikes yield to peds sign (optional)
6 Bicyclist yield area
7 Bicycle ramp (max 1:12 slope)
8 Furnishing zone/Detectable edge
9 Bike lane taper
(pref
erred 1:10 / max. 1:5)
10 Detectable warning surface
11 Vertical railing (optional)
12 Bus stop pole
13 Red curb zone (optional)
C. Typology 2: Plan View

Page 50 of 77 ends

Page 400 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
35 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
D. Typology 2: Perspective View

Page 51 of 77 ends

Page 401 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
36 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
sidewalk &
furnishing
bike lane bus stop travel lane
8’ min.
10’ pref.
5’min.

6.5’ pref. variesvaries
4’ min
1’
min
1’
min

4.3 Typology 3
Class IV Bicycle Facility (Separated Bikeway) between the Curb and a General Traffic Lane
Typology 3 contains the same elements and dimensions in the cross- sectional view as Typology 2. Both designs route the bike lane behind the floating bus s
top platform with a 1-foot shy distance between the bike lane and any furnishing or bus stop elements.

The difference between Typologies 2 and 3 is the presence of parking.

In Typology 2, a parking lane is located to the inside of the bicycle lane; in Typology 3, there is no parking lane. Parked vehicles influence the bike lane taper lengths through intersections and exiting the bus platform area.

Typology 3 illustrates vertical separation with white plastic flexposts between the travel lane and the bikeway. There are many different forms of vertical separation that can be employed and there are several guidebooks discussing their benefits and drawbacks. In general, choosing any form of approved vertical separation will be appropriate in conjunction with a floating bus stop design.

Table 6 provides guidance for these dimensions on Typology 3.

A. Typology 3: Section View

Page 52 of 77 ends

Page 402 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
37 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Table 6: Typology 3 Influence Area Minimum Dimensions
Arterial Speed Limit
All Speeds
Bus Stop Island
40’ Bus 40’
60’ Bu
s 60’
Two 40’ Buses 120’
One 40’ Bus and One 60’ Bus 140’
Two 60’ Buses 180’
Entering Bike Lane Taper Distance
Far-side Bus Stop N/A
Near-
side Bus Stop 18’
Mid-block Bus Stop 18’
Exiting Bike Lane Taper Distance
Far-side Bus Stop 18’
Near-
side Bus Stop N/A
Mid-block Bus Stop 18’
Clearance from Crosswalk
Far-side Bus Stop 10’
Near-
side Bus Stop 10’
Mid-block Bus Stop N/A

Page 53 of 77 ends

Page 403 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
38 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
6 1
23 8
4 8’ min.
10’ pref.
8’ min.
10’ pref.

Platform
(length varies with bus length and headways)
Bus Stop
(length varies with platform length, pull-in/-out taper, and sightline clear space) 12 9
1:5 taper max.10’ min.
5 5
vertical separation
(spacing varies)

varies
6’ pref.
7 10
11 13
B. Typology 3: Plan View
1 Bus shelter (optional)
2 Accessible landing zone
(min. 5’ x 8’)
3 Rear clear zone (11.5 x 8’)
4 Green pavement (optional)
5 Bikes yield to peds sign
(optional)
6 Bicyclist yield area
7 Bicycle ramp (max 1:12 slope)
8 Furnishing zone/Detectable
edge
9 Bike lane taper
(pref
erred 1:10 / max. 1:5)
10 Detectable warning surface
11 Vertical railing (optional)
12 Bus stop pole
13 Red curb zone (optional)

Page 54 of 77 ends

Page 404 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
39 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
C. Typology 3: Perspective View

Page 55 of 77 ends

Page 405 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
40 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
sidewalk &
furnishing
bike lane bus stop travel lane
8’ min.
10’ pref.
5’min.

6.5’ pref. variesvaries
1’
min
4’ min
1’
min

4.4 Typology 4
Class IV Bicycle Facility (Separated Bikeway) between the Curb and a Parking Lane
Typology 4’s section view is also the same as the section views shown in Typologies 2 and 3.

A separated bik
eway adjacent to parking can create a geometric
cross section eliminating bikeway tapers through the intersection and exiting the floating bus platform area. Like Typologies 2 and 3, required, preferred, and optional design elements are annotated. The designer should consider the context of the area when including or excluding these design elements.

Table 7 provides guidance for these dimensions on Typology 4.

A. Typology 4: Section View

Page 56 of 77 ends

Page 406 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
41 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Bus Stop
(length varies with platform length, pull-in/-out taper, and sightline clear space) Platform
(length varies with bus length and headways)
1 2
3 4
8’ min.
10’ pref.
8’ min.
10’ pref.
10’ min.
9 6
5 5
vertical separation
(spacing varies)

varies
6’ pref.
7 8
10 11
12 B. Typology 4: Plan View
1 Bus shelter (optional)
2 Accessible landing zone
(min. 5’ x 8’)
3 Rear clear zone (11.5’ x 8’)
4 Green pavement (optional)
5 Bikes yield to peds sign
(optional)
6 Bicyclist yield area
7 Bicycle ramp (max 1:12 slope)
8 Furnishing zone/Detectable
edge
9 Detectable warning surface
10 Vertical railing (optional)
11 Bus stop pole
12 Red curb zone (optional)

Page 57 of 77 ends

Page 407 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
42 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
intermediate level bikeway (optional)
2-3”
curb
reveal
C. Typology 4: Perspective View

Page 58 of 77 ends

Page 408 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
43 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Table 7: Typology 4 Influence Area Minimum Dimensions
Arterial Speed Limit
All Speeds
Bus Stop Island
40’ Bus 40’
60’ Bu
s 60’
Two 40’ Buses 120’
One 40’ Bus and One 60’ Bus 140’
Two 60’ Buses 180’
Clearance from Crosswalk
Far-side Bus Stop 10’
Near-
side Bus Stop 10’
Mid-block Bus Stop N/A
The perspective view of Typology 4 on the previous page features a callout diagram of an intermediate level bikeway design. A 2- to 3-inch curb reveal can be used to create an intermediate-level bikeway in lieu of a sidewalk-level bikeway adjacent to the floating bus stop island. There are several benefits and drawbacks of this optional design:

Benefits of Intermediate-level Bikeway Design
• Vertical separation helps define the pedestrian and bicycle operating space. Cities with mature bicycling infrastructure regularly c
onstruct vertical separation between bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
• Decreased bike ramp length is needed between the street and bus platform level.
• The curb reveal provides a detectable edge between the sidewalk and the bikeway, eliminating the need for other longitudinal det
ectable elements. However, ADA-compliant
ramps including detectable elements are required at
pedestrian crossings of the bikeway.

Drawbacks of Intermediate-level Bikeway Design
• This design increases construction complexity.
• Drainage and maintenance of the bikeway in the bus stop platform area will require extra attention due to water pooling, leaf and debr
is buildup, etc.

Importantly, curbs 4 inches or greater increase the risk of bicycle pedal strikes, so a 2- to 3-inch curb reveal is critical. Lastly, the 2- to 3-inch curb can be used in T
ypologies 2 through 5.

Page 59 of 77 ends

Page 409 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
44 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
sidewalk &
furnishing
bike lane bus stop travel lane
8’ min.
10’ pref.
8’ min.
10’ pref. variesvaries
4’ min
1’
min
1’
min

4.5 Typology 5
Class IV Bicycle Facility (Two-way Separated Bikeway)
between the Curb and a Parking Lane
The cross section of Typology 5 uses the basic form of Typologies 2 - 4 where the bikeway is routed behind the floating bus stop platform and adjacent the sidew
alk. Unique to Typology 5, the bikeway is designed for
two-way travel, which necessitates increased minimum and preferred bikeway widths.

The plan view in Typology 5 illustrates fully curbed separated bikeway designs adjacent to parking. Again, there are many different vertical buffer treatments available to the designer, who should consider the context and constraints. When implementing Typology 5, special consideration should be given to increasing awareness of two-way bikeway travel at the floating bus stop platform. Signs, pavement markings, and other visual cues should be employed near the bus stop consistent with design guidance for two-way separated bike lanes.

Table 8 provides guidance for these dimensions on Typology 5.

A. Typology 5: Section View

Page 60 of 77 ends

Page 410 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
45 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Table 8: Typology 5 Influence Area Minimum Dimensions
Arterial Speed Limit
All Speeds
Bus Stop Island
40’ Bus 40’
60’ Bu
s 60’
Two 40’ Buses 120’
One 40’ Bus and One 60’ Bus 140’
Two 60’ Buses 180’
Clearance from Crosswalk
Far-side Bus Stop 10’
Near-
side Bus Stop 10’
Mid-block Bus Stop N/A

Page 61 of 77 ends

Page 411 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
46 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
1 23
8 6
4 9
Platform
(length varies with bus length and headways)
Bus Stop
(length varies with platform length, pull-in/-out taper, and sightline clear space) 8’ min.
10’ pref.
8’ min.
10’ pref.
10’ min.varies
6’ pref.
5 7
10 5
11 12
13 B. Typology 5: Plan View
1 Bus shelter (optional)
2 Accessible landing zone
(min. 5’ x 8’)
3 Rear clear zone (11.5’ x 8’)
4 Green pavement (optional)
5 Bikes yield to peds sign (optional)
6 Bicyclist yield area
7 Bicycle ramp (max 1:12 slope)
8 Furnishing zone/Detectable edge
9 Detectable warning surface
10 Vertical railing (optional)
11 Bus stop pole
12 Buffer treatment varies
13 Red curb zone (optional)

Page 62 of 77 ends

Page 412 ends

Chapter 4.0 • Bus Stop Design Typologies
47 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
C. Typology 5: Perspective View

Page 63 of 77 ends

Page 413 ends

5.0 Typology Selection
Edmonton, Canada
Designing an appropriate bus stop depends on many factors including but not limited to t
he roadway configuration, posted/actual vehicle speeds, and bus passenger activity. Due to this contextual variability, it is possible to select multiple typologies on a single transit corridor. Subsequently, tailoring design elements for each bus stop will depend on site constraints, context, and local jurisdictional preference. While designers should strive for consistency, being flexible with the final design could result in a safer, more comfortable, and better-functioning bus stop for all users

Page 64 of 77 ends

Page 414 ends

AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Chapter 5.0 • Typology Selection
49 5.1 Typology Selection Guidance
Selecting a typology is influenced by several factors:
• Roadway classification
• Roadway constraints
• Traffic posted/actual speeds
• Vehicle volumes
• Bike volumes
• Bus volumes
• Passenger activity
Choosing a bus stop typology based on the relationship between these factors is challenging because a local jurisdiction may prioritize some roadway use
s over others. AC Transit is sensitive to these local priorities and encourages designers to consider these alongside the guiding principles presented in this Guide when selecting a typology and eventual bus stop design.

Guiding Principle 1 – The proposed roadway configuration should be the primary determinant in the choice of a typology.

The presence of vehicle lanes, parking, buffers, bike lanes, and other roadway elements may be the more static elements of a roadway configurat
ion as compared with dynamic roadway characteristics such as posted speeds, user volumes, and passenger activity. The presence of a bike lane, separated bike lane, or two-way separated bike lane provides one filter of typology choice. The presence of parking is another important consideration in choosing a typology.

Also, some static objects within the roadway configuration are less permanent than others. Vehicle lanes, parking and design elements of the furnishing zone are commonly removed, rearranged, or re-sized to accommodate other uses. Removing or resizing vehicle lanes and/or parking spaces may be needed to provide appropriate entering/exiting tapers for the bikeway. If there are existing design elements such as bus shelters, they could be too large to fit into a new floating bus stop location based on the typology dimensions. The local jurisdiction should work with AC Transit to develop solutions to design issues considering the range of roadway users.

However, there are several unique roadway configurations which could make selecting a typology difficult:
• Suburban/rural locations with no sidewalks
• Roadway configurations with mixed-traffic bicycle facilities • Locations with exclusive bus lanes
• Roadways with angled parking
• Shared street
• Other roadway configurations
In these cases, the stop location should be examined in detail and engineering judgment should be applied to develop a design solution that balances the needs of all r
oadway users.

Guiding Principle 2 – Floating bus islands are preferred for bus routes with headways of 15 minutes or less.

Floating bus islands have two types of bus operational benefits. When a bus approaches a floating bus stop, it does not need to exit and re-enter the vehic
le lane to serve each request for boarding or alighting. Merging back into the travel lane can be challenging for bus operators due to motorists failing to yield to the merging movement. Eliminating this issue can lead to travel time savings, which translates into operational cost savings and improved travel experience for customers. The other operational benefit includes a designated area for passengers to wait for their bus. This additional space allows AC Transit, and potentially

Page 65 of 77 ends

Page 415 ends

AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Chapter 5.0 • Typology Selection
50 Emeryville, CA
the local jurisdiction, to add further bus stop amenities to improve the passen
ger transit experience. Given a bus route with 15-minute headways, the operational and passenger benefits of floating bus islands may accumulate over a typical day and beyond.

Guiding Principle 3 – Floating bus islands are not preferred for roadways with posted speeds of 35 mph or higher.

Implementing a floating bus island means that a bus will stop in traffic and subsequently block traffic. With posted speeds of 35 mph or higher, a boarding/alig
hting event may create a safety issue between vehicles
and bus operations. In these situations, a bus pull-out may be a more appropriate bus stop design treatment.

Consideration should be given to how bicyclists travel through a bus pullout. Bus pullouts may remove the bus completely from the vehicle and bike lane, allowing an unobstructed bicycle through movement.

Designers should consider routing the bikeway behind the bus stop pullout, especially on higher speed roads and where bicycle through movements may be blocked by a stopped bus.

Where roadways have posted speeds of 35 mph or higher, separated bike lanes are recommended due to the increased risk bicyclists face on these types of roads. If separated bike lanes are implemented, their separation should be continued through a bus stop and potential bus pullout. In this situation, Typologies 3 to 5 may be appropriate to reference when designing the bus stop.

Guiding Principle 4 – A typology choice should incorporate future curbside use and future roadway configurations.

Choosing a typology could involve planning for future transit and/ or roadway projects. AC Transit may make route enhancements or modifications in a c
orridor, and there could be changes to land use or
other transit demand-related contexts. When these transit-related changes are being planned, changes to bus frequency could justify a floating bus stop at certain locations along the new route. Integrating an appropriate typology corresponding to the planned change may be especially important given the presence of bikeways and parking.

Local jurisdictions should consider floating bus stops when redesigning a corridor that carries an existing transit route and has existing bicycle facilities. Even if the transit route is low-frequency, designing the corridor with floating bus stops will allow for higher-quality bikeways and result in a safer, more balanced, comfortable, and functional corridor.

Page 66 of 77 ends

Page 416 ends

6.0 Maintenance Considerations
Washington, D.C.

Bus stop locations are typically on the edge of the roadway corridor and located in dense
ly populated environments which accumulate debris during all seasons. Providing and implementing an effective maintenance program ensures continuity throughout the system.

Page 67 of 77 ends

Page 417 ends

AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Chapter 6.0 • Maintenance Considerations
52 Salem, MA
Bus stops require routine maintenance to ensure functionality and provide a pleasant env
ironment for all users. Litter can accumulate at bus stops and trees or other vegetation may drop foliage regularly or seasonally. Vandalism can also occur and should be remedied. Regular, seasonal, and as-needed maintenance agreements should be established with local jurisdictions or property owners. Some of these maintenance costs can be offset with bus stop and bus-related advertising.

Floating bus stops have special maintenance considerations because of the channelization created for the bikeway route. Bikeways may catch debris, dirt, and leaves, which should be swept on a regular or seasonally. Leaves, especially when wet, are very slippery and can create hazards for bicyclists passing through the area. Bus stop maintenance workers can use a variety of techniques to keep these areas clean, including hand sweeping, pressure washing, small hand-operated machines, or narrow maintenance vehicles.

Lastly, bus stops should be regularly inspected and the quality of design elements should be noted over time as they slowly deteriorate and lose their colorful luster. Inspecting and inventorying design elements could yield valuable information on longevity, replacement, and cost expectations. The information could then be used to investigate more robust design elements to be installed for existing or future bus stops.

Page 68 of 77 ends

Page 418 ends

7.0 Reference Endnotes
Berkeley, CA

Page 69 of 77 ends

Page 419 ends

Reference Endnotes
54 AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines
Reference Endnotes
1 Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition. Caltrans. 2017
2 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. State of California.

Caltrans. California State Transportation Agency. 2014. 3 Bus Stop Policy. AC Transit. Policy No. 508 Board Policy. Adopted 1989, Amended 2005.
4 Designing with Transit: Making Transit Integral to East Bay Communities. AC Transit. 2004.
5 Central County Complete Streets Design Guidelines. Alameda County Transportation Commission. 2016.
6 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th edition. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. 2012. 7 Urban Street Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2013.
8 Transit Street Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2016.
9 Urban Bikeway Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2014.
10 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Federal Highway Administration. 2009 Edition.
11 Rhode Island Bus Stop Design Guide. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. 2017.
12 Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs. Fitzpatrick, et al. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC. 2001.
13 Service Standards and Design Policy. AC Transit. Policy No. 550 Board Policy. Adopted 1994, Amended 2004, 2008.
14 Essentials of Bike Parking: Selecting and Installing Bike Parking that Works. Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals. 2015. 15 Roadway Lighting RP-8-14. Illuminating Engineering Society. 2014. 16 A Summary of Design, Policies, and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes. Florida Department of Transportation Researc
h Center. 2012.
17 Design Information Bulletin Number 89. Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks). California Department of Transpor
tation (Caltrans). 2015.

Page 70 of 77 ends

Page 420 ends

Page 71 of 77 ends

Page 421 ends

Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail:

[email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
November 12, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Kate Harrison
Subject: Budget Referral: Evaluation and Implementation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Along Oxford Street

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $75,000 to the FY20 2019 AAO Process for the purpose of assessing, identifying, and implementing improvements to pedestrian and bicycle safety across Oxford Street, particularly between University Avenue and Bancroft Street.

BACKGROUND
Oxford Street connects the University to Downtown Berkeley, and hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists cross it every day. As a four-lane street with a curve at Kittredge Street, drivers approach at high speeds and limited visibility, and there are frequent collisions (see Attachment 2).

Pedestrian safety measures were installed at Addison and Oxford; there have not been collisions involving a pedestrian or cyclist since 2013. Similar measures should be considered for other intersections along this stretch, particularly at Kittredge and/or Allston.

A similar budget referral was passed by the Council in 2017 but not funded (see Attachment 1). Since 2017 the street continues to pose a threat to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
$75,000 from excess equity.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Protecting the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists is directly in line with the Climate Action Plan and subsequent plans as it has the potential to lower greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging residents to use bicycles and other low-carbon methods of transportation.

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 422 ends

Budget Referral: Evaluation and Implementation of Consent Calendar Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Measures Along Oxford St November 12, 2019 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981- 6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

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

ATTACHMENTS
1: Item 32, “Budget Referral: Evaluation and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Features at Oxford Street and Kittredge Street.” May 30, 2017 Berkeley City Council Meeting
2: Collision data along Oxford Street. Organized by cross-street, then date. Data gathered from TIMS (Transportation Injury Mapping System).

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 423 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax:
(510) 981-7133
E-Mail: [email protected]
Councilmember Kate Harrison
District 4
To:

From:

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 30, 2017
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Councilmember Harrison
SUBJECT: Budget Referral: Evaluation and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Features at Oxford Street and Kittredge Street

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to assess, identify, fund, and implement improvements to pedestrian safety for the crosswalk across Oxford St. at Kittredge St. Our office requests that the Department evaluate the installation of pedestrian activated beacons, such as those at Oxford and Addison, or a similarly effective improvement for the Oxford and Kittredge intersection.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Cost of improvements to be determined.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No ecological impact.

BACKGROUND
This pedestrian intersection at across Oxford at Kittredge is adjacent to a parking garage, a carwash, an affordable housing development, and a bus stop for the 6 and the F bus lines. At the intersection, Oxford is a four-lane street with limited visibility for drivers, who often approach the crosswalk at high speeds from around a curve. No significant pedestrian safety features currently exist at this crossing.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 424 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax:
(510) 981-7133
E-Mail: [email protected]

CONTACT PERSON
Kathryn Harrison, Councilmember
District 4, 510-981-7140

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 425 ends

Collision Data on Oxford/Fulton
Between University and Durant
(Organized by Intersection, then by date)
Highlights represent collisions involving pedestrians and/or bicyclists.

Cross Street Month, Year Kind of Collision How many
injured?
How many killed?
University January 2011 Broadside: 2 cars 4 0
August 2012 Broadside: 1 car
and 1 bicycle
1 0
October 2014 Vehicle-
Pedestrian
1 0
Addison January 2013 Vehicle-
Pedestrian
1 0
November 2013 Sideswipe: 2 cars 1 0
April 2016 Rear End: 2 cars 1 0
June 2017 Read End: 2 cars 1 0
Center September 2011 Rear End: 2 cars 1 0
September 2012 Vehicle-
Pedestrian
1 0
July 2013 Rear End: 1 car
and 1 bicycle
1 0
September 2015 Vehicle-
Pedestrian
1 0
Oxford Lane December 2011 Sideswipe: 1 car
and 1 bicycle
1 0
April 2015 Sideswipe: 1 car
and 1 bicycle
1 0
July 2016 Vehicle hit a fixed
object
3 0
Allston January 2011 Sideswipe: 1 car
and 1 bicycle
1 0
April 2013 Rear End: 2 cars 1 0
April 2016 Vehicle hit a fixed
object
1 0
November 2016 Vehicle hit a fixed
object
1 0
September 2017 Head-on Collision:
2 cars
1 0
Kittredge July 2012 Rear End: 1
moving car and 1
parked car
1 0
December 2012 Vehicle-
Pedestrian
1 0
June 2013 Sideswipe: 2 cars 1 0

Page 5 of 6 ends

Page 426 ends

February 2016 Vehicle hit a fixed
object
1 0
Bancroft September 2011 Broadside:
1 car
and 1 bi
cycle
1 0
July 2012 Broadside: 1 truck
and 1 bicycle
0 1
October 2013 Vehicle-
Pedestrian
1 0
December 2017 Rear End: 2 cars 1 0
July 2017 Vehicle hit a fixed
object
1 0
Durant May 2013 Broadside: 2 cars 1 0
February 2014 Rear End: 1
moving car and 1
parked car
1 0
August 2014 Broadside: 2 cars 1 0
September 2014 Broadside: 2 cars 1 0
Januar
y 2017 Vehicle-
Pedestrian
1 0
August 2017 Vehicle-
Pedestrian
1 0
September 2017 Sideswipe: 2 cars 1 0

Page 6 of 6 ends

Page 427 ends

Page 428 ends

Kate Harrison
Councilmember, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison
Subject: Budget Referral: Refer $100,000 to the FY 23 and FY 24 AAO #1 to beautify Vacant Storefronts in Berkeley Commercial Districts

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $100,000 to the FY 23 and FY 24 AAO #1 to help fund art or district branding vinyl window graphics on vacant storefronts in Berkeley Commercial Districts to beautify our Commercial Districts. The fund would be administered by the Downtown Berkeley Association on behalf of all Commercial Districts, and would reimburse property owners for 50% of the entire cost of the project:

1. Artist fee

2. Costs associated with non-commercial printed material that is ideally non-plastic (may be vinyl if no alternative exists)

3. Installation of non-commercial window graphics

CURRENT SITUATION AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
As seen below, retail vacancy rates remain high in many of Berkeley’s commercial districts1 due to the lingering impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in internet sales:
1 https://berkeleyca.gov/doing-business/economic-development/economic-dashboards-and-reports

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 429 ends

Budget Referral: Refer $100,000 to the FY 23 and FY 24 AAO #1 to beautify Vacant Storefronts in Berkeley Commercial Districts

CONSENT CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
2 While new retail is slowly returning, closures continue; for example Missing Link Bikes in the Downtown and Annapurna on Telegraph, two Berkeley mainstays, have shuttered in the past year. Not only does the community suffer when foundational businesses are lost, the remaining vacant storefronts are a visual blight to pedestrians visiting and patronizing our commercial districts and discourage new businesses from opening.

Window graphics with district branding and/or artwork are an excellent way to positively engage pedestrians and discourage graffiti and debris. These would be similar to the work shown on banners throughout the Downtown. Cost of window graphics however is quite high, ranging from $9 to $20 per square foot installed. Because of the expense, property owners have been reluctant to install graphics on their own.

The Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA), property owners, and the City of Berkeley are invested in the development and stimulation of Berkeley’s economy and have devised innovative and creative ways to address blight. Building on the success for the retail damage repair fund introduced during the height of COVID-19, this referral proposes that the City cover half of the installation cost, giving property owners an incentive to install graphics on vacant properties, with the fund administered by the Downtown Berkeley Association although the funds would be available for commercial districts citywide.

Case Examples:

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 430 ends

Budget Referral: Refer $100,000 to the FY 23 and FY 24 AAO #1 to beautify Vacant Storefronts in Berkeley Commercial Districts

CONSENT CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
3 2200 Block Shattuck Ave:
737sqft vacant window spaces
Total Estimate: $6,663 to $14,750 ($9-$20/sqft)
50% Share: $3,331 to $7,370
2300 Shattuck Ave:
561sqft vacant window spaces
Total Estimate: $5,049 to $11,220 ($9-$20/sqft)
50% Share: $2,525 to $5,610
Other Examples of Blighted Vacant Storefronts:

Page 3 of 6 ends

Page 431 ends

Budget Referral: Refer $100,000 to the FY 23 and FY 24 AAO #1 to beautify Vacant Storefronts in Berkeley Commercial Districts

CONSENT CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
4 2524 Shattuck Ave.
2333 Telegraph Ave

Page 4 of 6 ends

Page 432 ends

Budget Referral: Refer $100,000 to the FY 23 and FY 24 AAO #1 to beautify Vacant Storefronts in Berkeley Commercial Districts

CONSENT CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
5 .
2522A Telegraph Ave.
2480 Telegraph Ave

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Impact on General Fund of $100,000. However, the benefit of beautifying formerly blighted buildings could generate budgetary efficiencies, economic stimulation, and better outcomes for Berkeley residents.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Pedestrian-oriented design can encourage residents to walk and bike more.

Page 5 of 6 ends

Page 433 ends

Budget Referral: Refer $100,000 to the FY 23 and FY 24 AAO #1 to beautify Vacant Storefronts in Berkeley Commercial Districts

CONSENT CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
6 CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140

Page 6 of 6 ends

Page 434 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
Councilmember Sophie Hahn
City of Berkeley, District 5
1 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author); Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral: Miyawaki “Pocket Forest” Pilot Program to Support Carbon Sequestration, Biodiversity, Cooling, Noise Reduction, Health, and Equity

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the November 2023 Budget Process $140,000 to fund staffing, materials, and consultants for a Miyawaki Pocket Forest Pilot Project, including the planting of two pocket forests on City of Berkeley sites, preferably in areas most impacted by poor air quality, and a report to Council on opportunities and funding for a broader Citywide Miyawaki Forest program.

Should November 2023 funding not be available, refer to subsequent budget processes for consideration.

SUMMARY STATEMENT
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Greenhouse gas emissions have led to catastrophic heatwaves, wildfires, loss of biodiversity, and instability. Large scale deforestation has further escalated the crisis. As carbon dioxide is one of the most commonly emitted greenhouse gasses, carbon sequestration - the removal of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere - is an important tool to fight global warming.

Miyawaki Forests - small, fast growing “pocket forests” densely planted with native shrubs, bushes and trees. They are a quick and effective method of achieving carbon sequestration, and offer numerous additional environmental benefits, both local and global. Under the leadership of Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) science teacher Neelam Patil and head of sustainability Steven Collins, with the partnership of BUSD, students and community members

Page 1 of 15 ends

Page 435 ends

2 have already successfully planted four Miyawaki forests in Berkeley at Cragmont Elementary, King Middle School, Malcolm X and most recently the Berkeley Technology Academy.1 The City of Berkeley can also benefit from the establishment of Miyawaki Forests, especially in areas prone to excessive air pollution and heat. Funding a pilot Miyawaki Forest project with two sites on City property provides the opportunity for the City’s Parks/Forestry Division to learn from BUSD’s facilities staff and Miyawaki Forest specialists and to establish protocols for the potential establishment of pocket forests in appropriate locations citywide.

Grant funding, including from the State of California as well as via federal Inflation Reduction Act funding, is already available and may become more abundant soon. With the experience of a successful pilot, Berkeley will be better positioned to apply for outside funds, and may decide to allocate future one-time City funds for additional projects, which can likely be delivered at lower cost than the two initial pilot locations. As established Miyawaki forests require only minimal maintenance, ongoing costs for the City will be insignificant, while generating significant environmental, health, and other community benefits.

BACKGROUND
Miyawaki Pocket Forests (also called micro forests, mini forests, and tiny forests) are densely- planted, multilayered indigenous forests planted in urban spaces that act as self-sustaining ecosystems, reconnecting fragmented habitat and restoring biodiversity. Named after Akira Miyawaki, a Japanese botanist and plant ecologist who had a particular interest in phytosociology, i.e. how plant species interact with each other within communities, the Miyawaki method is an innovative approach to growing forests.

The density of a Miyawaki forest doesn’t merely support the growth of biodiversity; it also increases carbon capture, enhances air pollution filtration, and produces an area more resilient to flooding, landslides, and wildfires. In addition, increased canopy cover reduces the amount of rainfall that hits the ground, increases shade, and promotes cooling - as well as providing a sound barrier to reduce ambient noise.

The 40 year old
forest at Yokohama National University in Yokohama, Japan, pictured on the following page, was formerly a golf course. It is now a thriving ecosystem that mimics the positive impacts of old growth forests.
1 Ally Markovich, “Berkeley Schools’ ‘pocket Forests’ Are Taking Root,” Berkeleyside, December 8, 2022, https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/12/08/miyawaki-pocket-forests-berkeley-unified-school-district.

Page 2 of 15 ends

Page 436 ends

3 Miyawaki forests do not require significant space. They can be planted almost anywhere in sites as small as 60 square feet. Even at this size they quickly become habitat for species and offer multiple ecosystem services. Pocket Forests planted using the Miyawaki method are an excellent tool for rapid regeneration of urban areas, and have been used across the globe to transform school playgrounds, city parks and curtilage, and urban rivers. Even in the most crowded urban environment, a Miyawaki forest can have an important impact, providing greenery, shade, and cooling the environment.

The Miyawaki method is community-based and people-centered, using volunteers for planting and early maintenance, and providing social and health benefits for both people and the planet.

Dr. Miyawaki, who first developed the method, asserts that “[o]ne of our fundamental tasks is to restore ‘native forests of native trees’ that will be the main component of ecosystems that will also encompass human beings. That is something each of us can do immediately, wherever we are, no matter what our position; it is the most realistic way to secure the scenery for playing out our future.”
According to SUGi, an NGO devoted to restoring biodiversity that plants Miyawaki “Pocket Forests” across the globe, the Miyawaki method of afforestation draws inspiration from nature’s ecosystems to create 100% organic, dense and diverse pioneer forests in as little as 20-30 years. 2 They’re quick to establish and relatively maintenance-free after the first two-to-three years. As such, Miyawaki pocket forests are viable solutions for cities looking to rapidly build climate resilience.
2 “The Miyawaki Method for Creating Forests,” SUGi, accessed August 1, 2023, https://www.sugiproject.com/blog/the-miyawaki-method-for-creating-forests.

Page 3 of 15 ends

Page 437 ends

4 The Miyawaki forest planting method mimics the way natural habitat would recolonize an area if humans - and their transplanted invasive plants - disappeared. Naturally-occurring native species that have spent thousands of years adapting to their environment would be re- established, increasing biodiversity and responsiveness to climate change.

The Miyawaki method’s afforestation principles are based on the understanding of how local species interact in a natural forest. A diverse mixture of trees is planted close together to maximize density and create balance. As closely planted saplings have to compete for light, they shoot upwards very quickly, creating rapid growth not experienced when trees are planted individually or in more widely spaced configurations.

Page 4 of 15 ends

Page 438 ends

5 In addition to fostering extremely rapid growth, planting a wide variety of native trees and other plants close together results in increased biodiversity, providing forage for pollinators and refuge for birds. More dense canopy cover shades weeds, creating a cool home for insects and increased leaf litter enhances soil fertility.

Planting densely provides multiple additional benefits. Mature multi-strata pocket forests create their own precipitation on top of annual rainfall - reducing the need for watering and recycling water through a natural system. This is partly due to the cooling effects of shade and photosynthesis that produce humidity and precipitation - particularly at the upper canopy layer.

The lower layers of the forest then cycle the cooler moist air as it naturally sinks down to the forest floor where it is absorbed. This effect doesn’t happen within single strata mono plantations where cooler air and moisture are blown away by the wind and lost to evaporation. (see below, a 3-year old Miyawaki Forest)
According to James Godfrey-Faussett, lead SUGi Forest Maker, “Within a forest, biodiversity means balance, birds control pests, insects pollinate plants, and beneficial fungi keep the trees healthy. Every organism has a role to play, and all these roles interact. And if you build a healthy, biodiverse habitat that can look after itself, it becomes self-sustaining. You can step away and let nature get to work."

Page 5 of 15 ends

Page 439 ends

6 Miyawaki Pocket Forests support the creation of flourishing forest habitats with a range of social, environmental and ecological benefits, including air purification, water management, climate regulation, oxygen creation, biodiversity, soil health, species habitat, sound mitigation, and shelter. Green spaces have even been found to increase joy and reduce violence.

The Miyawaki Method:

Planting a Miyawaki Pocket Forest is a four-step process:

1. Species Identification and procurement: Identify local native vegetation best suited to the area being planted, and coordinate with local plant nurseries to grow saplings of the target species. Plants should be grown from locally-collected seeds; in some cases locally-collected cuttings may be used but seeds provide greater genetic diversity to support climate resilience. It is important to arrange for procurement of enough saplings to plant the forest all at once. Forests are multi-layered, and as the Miyawaki method mirrors nature, layers of vegetation build a resilient green assemblage of canopy trees, shrubs, subshrubs, and forbs. A variety of species are used in each forest, maximizing density.

2. Soil preparation. In urban areas soil is often degraded, compacted, waterlogged or otherwise impaired. However, freshly planted saplings and other plants need soft, porous, crumbly soil so their roots can establish faster and have better access to nutrients. Forest makers till the soil to add amendments to restore the missing biology, and put it on the path to becoming fertile and self-sustaining. Compost tea is also added as the soil is turned; this contains strains of beneficial fungi (known to interact with the specific tree species) and a stimulant, such as molasses or liquid seaweed, to give the fungi fuel to grow.

3. Planting: Plant multiple layers of forest, with the help of community volunteers: canopy tree, tree, sub-tree, and shrub. The Miyawaki method requires randomized planting of small saplings of various indigenous shrubs and trees (grown from local, regionally adapted seeds) in very close proximity together, where no two trees or shrubs of the same height are planted side by side. This complex layering ensures that the trees are able to grow to their ideal sizes without directly competing with a neighboring tree of the same height, while at the same time, maximizing every bit of space in the forest.

Planting can often be achieved over just one weekend with the assistance of volunteers, creating an opportunity for community members to learn about and invest in climate resilience.

4. Apply a layer of mulch. Once planted, mulching protects the soil and retains moisture.

Species such as earthworms, beetles, and other insects feed from the top-down, building soil fertility by pulling the mulch into the ground to be broken down by microbes.

As mulching helps soil retain moisture and enhances the ability for soil biology to improve, Miyawaki Pocket Forests require limited watering and only need to be

Page 6 of 15 ends

Page 440 ends

7 maintained for the first two-to-three years. Once established, weeding, watering, and mulching are no longer required.

5. Maintenance: A temporary irrigation system is installed to ensure adequate water for young saplings. This will only be necessary for the first 18 months to 3 years. Other than watering during these early months and years, the Miyawaki Forest requires very low to no ongoing maintenance. Weeding can be beneficial in the first year as well, but is not required on an ongoing basis. Community “weeding parties” have brought together volunteers of all ages and offer a much-appreciated opportunity to take action to address climate change and to expose children and families to nature.

Benefits of Miyawaki Forests: Environmental, Human Health, and Community

1. Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration: According to the United Nations, climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.3 Since the 1800s, human activity has been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, and the release of methane. Energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and land use are among the main emitters of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) including gasoline, coal, animal husbandry, clearing of land and forests, and landfills.

According to the City of Berkeley’s 2022 Climate Action Plan and Resilience update, Berkeley’s GHG emissions are down 31% since the year 2000, with transportation and buildings accounting for the largest share of emissions.4 While the city works to create a fossil fuel-free transportation system and benefits from transitioning to the East Bay Community Energy’s 100% renewable energy plan, if it is to meet its goal of reducing emissions by 80% below 2000s levels by 2050, more progress must be made.

One method for reducing the impacts of climate change is carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is the capturing, removal, and storage of atmospheric carbon. Biological carbon sequestration is when carbon is stored in trees, woodlands, grasslands, and other natural environments. Nature-based solutions such as pocket forests are considered one of the more efficient “carbon sinks,” and as such are specifically promoted by State policy and funding. Miyawaki forests are an efficient mechanism of carbon sequestration, helping to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis both locally and globally.

2. Mitigating the effects of biodiversity loss: California is a biodiversity hotspot and home to more than 6,500 species of native plant. Roughly 40% of these plant species are found nowhere else and more than 2,000 of California plant species are ranked as 3 “What Is Climate Change?,” United Nations, accessed August 1, 2023, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change#. 4 Jesse Arreguin, “Progress on the Climate Action Plan,” Mayor Jesse Arreguín, December 7, 2022, https://www.jessearreguin.com/newsletters-2/2022/12/6/progress-on-the-climate-action-plan.

Page 7 of 15 ends

Page 441 ends

8 rare, threatened, or endangered.56 While not specifically including rare or protected plant species, the diversity of native plants used makes Miyawaki forests far more biodiverse than other planting methods. They help bring wildlife to the area by introducing new habitat, reducing existing habitat fragmentation, increasing landscape-scale connectivity, and attracting a diversity of species.

3. Reducing the urban heat island effect: The urban heat island effect occurs when cities replace natural land cover with dense concentrations of pavement, buildings, and other surfaces that absorb and retain heat. This effect increases energy costs (e.g. air conditioning), air pollution levels, and heat-related illness and mortality. Climate change will likely lead to more frequent, more severe, and longer heat waves. Miyawaki forests can help mitigate urban heat islands by shading building surfaces, deflecting radiation from the sun, and releasing moisture into the atmosphere.7

4. Making our air cleaner: Trees remove air pollution by the interception of particulate matter on plant surfaces and the absorption of gaseous pollutants through the leaf stomata.8 Poor air quality is a critical issue that damages ecosystems and negatively impacts human health and wellbeing. Poor air quality can lead to a myriad of health issues, including bronchitis symptoms, increased risk for glaucoma, heart attacks, changes in vascular function, autism, high blood pressure, cognitive development problems in children, heart failure, and increased mortality. 9 Air quality in Berkeley is especially low in areas close to the freeway and downwind from the Chevron facility in Richmond. Berkeley’s health report shows that asthma and other respiratory illnesses are more prevalent in African American and other communities of color. Due to historical redlining, these communities are clustered in areas with poor air quality. Improving air quality is thus a health and equity issue.

5. Reduction in violent crime: Researchers in South Africa found that, controlling for socio-demographic confounders (such as unemployment, education, income, etc.), for every 1% increase in green space, violent crime decreased by 1.3%.10 A 2021 study conducted at Michigan State University found that nature can help reduce violence by 5 Soumya Karlamangla, “What Makes California the Most Biodiverse State in the Nation,” The New York Times, April 17, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/us/california-biodiversity-conservation.html 6 Irene Gutierrez, “California’s Role Fighting the Global Biodiversity Crisis” (Natural Resource Defense Council , February 3, 2023), https://www.nrdc.org/bio/irene-gutierrez/californias-role-fighting-global- biodiversity-crisis.
7 “Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect,” EPA, July 17, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/green- infrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-island-effect.
8 Nowak, David, Hirabayashi, Satoshi, Bodine, Allison, Greenfield, Eric, “Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States,” Environmental Pollution, Volume 193 (October 2014), pgs 119-129, https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/46102#. 9 Meaghan Weeden, “How Trees Clean the Air,” One Tree Planted, June 22, 2023, https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-trees-clean-air. 10 Venter, Zander, Shackleton, Charlie, Faull, Andrew et al., “Is green space associated with reduced crime? A national-scale study from the Global South,” Science of the Total Environment, Volume 825, June 2022, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972201097X.

Page 8 of 15 ends

Page 442 ends

9 lowering stress and bolstering mental and physical health.11 Furthermore, a literature review published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found, across the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of the relationship between green spaces and crime, that an increase in green space leads to a statistically significant reduction in crime.12
Additional Benefits of Miyawaki Forests:

In addition to carbon sequestration, reduced temperatures, cleaner air, and biodiversity enhancement, reforestation is healing for the community and brings people together. Previous Miyawaki forest plantings in Berkeley were honored by involvement of local and out-of-state Native American participants, who spoke to the meaning of this restoration. It is a way we can honor Indigenous knowledge and bring in Indigenous communities. Caring for the forest uplifts people through service, increases neighborly connections, and helps address eco-anxiety and eco-grief.

Maintenance of Miyawaki forests requires work and attention in their first three years, typically mulching and weeding. During the first two-to-three years they require watering only every ten days, as the plants are native and once established are able to thrive in the local environment, saving water, time, and money. Once mature they become autonomous. 13 11 Katherine Cullen, “Can Green Spaces Reduce Violence?,” Psychology Today, September 23, 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-truth-about-exercise-addiction/202109/can-green-spaces- reduce-violence.
12 Shepley, Mardelle, Sachs, Naomi, Sadatsafavi, Hessam et al, “The Impact of Green Space on Violent Crime in Urban Environments: An Evidence Synthesis,” Int J Environ Res Public Health (December 2019), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6950486/. 13 Sullivan, Kelly. Posing for a photo as part of the Miyawaki forest project are, top row from left: Vernon Medicine Cloud of the Assiniboine and Turtle Mountain Chippewa nations, Alisha Graves, Marlene Hunt of the Yakama Nation, Tamsin Smith of SUGi, Joelle Jones of the Yakama Nation, Jeff Smith, Mary Lee Jones of the Yakama Nation, Ethan Bryson of Natural Urban Forests, Monica Arellano of the Muwekma

Page 9 of 15 ends

Page 443 ends

10 ● The City of Berkeley has recognized the benefits of planting trees and has taken on tree planting initiatives over the past few years:
○ The city has planted over 200 trees in industrial areas in West Berkeley, courtesy of a $725,000 grant awarded by the state in 2020.14
○ In March of 2022, the City was awarded a further $500,000 grant from the California Transportation Commission to continue its work planting trees, especially in underserved neighborhoods in Berkeley.
○ Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan calls for “a healthy urban forest” that will be able to reduce energy consumption, reduce temperatures, intercept stormwater, improve quality of life, and serve as a carbon sequestration mechanism.15 ○ Berkeley has plans to plant significantly more trees. There have been pledges to plant over 1000 trees in residential neighborhoods, as well as a “wall of trees” along the I-580 to reduce freeway noise.

Ohlone Tribe, Elise Van Middelem of SUGi, Kat Livingston, science teacher Neelam Patil, Sofia Peltz of BUSD, Travis Andy of National Urban Forests. Bottom row: Principal Candy Cannon, Grounds Supervisor Genaro Macchiavello, and Stephen Collins, December 8, 2022, Berkeleyside. 14Jesse Kathan, “Berkeley Residents Can Request Free Saplings to Combat Tree Inequity,” Berkeleyside, August 4, 2022, https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/03/08/trees-make-life-better-berkeley. 15 Climate Action Plan, City of Berkeley, 2009. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley- Climate-Action-Plan.pdf

Page 10 of 15 ends

THE PILOT PROJECT PROPOSAL - TWO MIYAWAKI FORESTS
Refer to the November 2023 Budget Process $140,000 to fund staffing, materials, and consultants for a Miyawaki Pocket Forest Pilot Project. These will allow City Staff, working with consultants, to plan, organize, and plant two approximately 10,000 square foot pilot Miyawaki forests on City of Berkeley property, preferably in an area in West Berkeley where the tree canopy is less dense and air pollution and its health impacts are more prevalent.

Carrying out a pilot project with two sites will allow the City to establish protocols appropriate for City locations (conditions at City sites are significantly different from BUSD sites) and to better understand how the City can more broadly disseminate this uniquely powerful carbon sequestration, biodiversity, shade, and air quality intervention to support our climate action, health, and equity goals. Once completed and evaluated, the City Council may consider seeking and allocating additional funds, including state and/or private funds, for a larger rollout of Miyawake forests throughout Berkeley.

Due to the accelerated carbon sequestration, cooling, habitat provisions, and other benefits of Miyawaki forests, this pilot program is likely to offer a valuable complement to the city’s existing efforts. Staff should report back to the City Council on progress and outcomes of the Pilot
Project and may use existing tree-planting funds, grant funds, or additional one-time City of Berkeley funds to roll out a broader program of Miyawaki forests citywide.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES AND LAWS

Page 444 ends

11 ○ Through the Trees Make Life Better program, residents can apply to have a tree planted in front of their residence.16
● BUSD has already planted several thriving Miyawaki forests. Miyawaki forests have been planted on the Cragmont Elementary, Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School, Berkeley Technology Academy, and Malcolm X campuses (see photos below). Through this process, Indigenous groups, BUSD students, and other members of the community have joined efforts to solve the climate crisis. Community members and BUSD Staff have expertise in planting, growing, and maintaining these forests and are committed to supporting the city in pursuing and expanding Miyawaki Forests. 17 ● The State of California is encouraging tree-planting programs around the state:
○ California allocated $74.8 million in 2022 for urban forestry, via the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Urban Forestry Program, and has recently allocated additional amounts.18
16 “Get a Tree in Front of Your Home or Business – or Help Plant One,” City of Berkeley, April 7, 2022, https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/news/get-tree-front-your-home-or-business-or-help-plant- one.
17 Sullivan, Kelly. Students plant saplings in the Miyawaki forest at Cragmont Elementary, November 15, 2021, Berkeleyside. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/12/08/miyawaki-pocket-forests-berkeley-unified- school-district
18 “Urban and Community Forestry Program,” California Climate Investments, November 30, 2022, https://www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/urban-forestry.

Page 11 of 15 ends

Page 445 ends

12 ○ In the 2022 budget, the state appropriated a total of $292 million for Resilient Forests and Landscapes, including $20 million for urban forestry. ○ In the 2023-2024 budget, the Governor proposed an additional $290 million for Resilient Forests and Landscapes, with $10 million earmarked to support urban forestry.19
○ In 2022 the Governor signed into law AB 2251, requiring the creation of a plan to increase urban tree canopy cover by 10% by 2035.
○ CA Assembly Bill No. 57, introduced by Assemblymember Ash Kalra and co- authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, would establish a Pocket Forest program through CAL FIRE for “pocket forests” initiatives rooted in the Miyawaki method. It was originally introduced during the 2021-2022 legislative session, and reintroduced in 2023.20 AB 57 has passed through the Assembly and is nearing passage in the Senate.
● The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 made funding available for conservation and forestry through the Urban and Community Forestry Program.
○ This includes $1 billion in grants available to increase equitable access to trees and green spaces in urban and community forests.

The Miyawaki Forest pilot program will be an extension of these existing efforts, bringing greenery to the City while also combating poor air quality, loss of biodiversity, and climate change. Even this small proposed investment would give the City a significant advantage in applying for these and other funds.

ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The City of Berkeley could forgo exploring Miyawaki forests and continue with only traditional tree planting methods that yield less environmental, health, community, and other benefits, and whose benefits accrue more slowly. California lost 2.65 million hectares of tree cover from 2001 to 2021, leading the nation in tree loss.21 Given these circumstances, and the acceleration of Global Warming, the City will be well-served by piloting this proven method of rapid urban reforestation, at very low initial and long-term cost, and considering the addition of a broader Miyawaki forest initiative to the City’s reforestation programs.

CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Councilmember Hahn and her office have consulted with City Staff, BUSD, and Miyawaki Forest experts, as well as undertaking an extensive literature review. Throughout the planning, planting, and growth of King Middle School’s Miyawaki forest in District 5, Councilmember Hahn met and worked with BUSD Miyawaki Forest project sponsor Science Teacher Neelam Patil, 19 Legislative Analyst’s Office, Wildfire and Forest Resilience Package, January 22, 2022, https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4495
20California Pocket Forests Initiative, AB-57, California State Assembly (2023-2024), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB57 21 Sabrina Toppa, “Neelam Patil: Time Innovative Teachers 2022,” Time, June 8, 2022, https://time.com/6181167/neelam-patil-innovative-teachers-2022.

Page 12 of 15 ends

Page 446 ends

Page 13 of 15 ends

BUSD facilities staff, Foundations providing funds for BUSD’s projects, community volunteers, and students. She also participated in planting events at other BUSD locations.

Councilmember Hahn invited City Parks and Forestry staff to visit the King Middle School forest site and meet with BUSD facilities staff to examine the forest and learn about the school’s processes. City Staff has expressed support for a pilot for the City of Berkeley, as the reforestation method has been successful at BUSD, and can offer significant environmental benefits more quickly than traditional plantings. There are factors around siting of forests on City vs. BUSD property which are best addressed via a pilot program, prior to moving forward to incorporate Miyawaki Forests citywide.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
The Parks Department has expressed interest in taking on this pilot, and BUSD has generously offered to provide technical support and guidance. Hiring of a consulting group with expertise in Miyawaki forests will further ensure that the pilot is successfully implemented, documented, and evaluated. Once established, Miyawaki Forests require little, if any, maintenance, which can be carried out by existing City of Berkeley Forestry staff. As more trees are planted citywide via a variety of programs, it is expected that additional staffing may be needed to maintain those trees; the Miyawaki Forests are likely to have less costs and staffing impacts than traditionally planted trees and greenery while providing more rapid and concentrated benefits.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
See above.

FISCAL IMPACTS
$140,000 for the pilot project, including two sites. In the future, existing City tree planting funds, grant funding, federal funding, and funds from the State of California may be used to roll-out a citywide Miyawaki Forest program.

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION
City Parks and Forestry staff, with the support of the Miyawaki Forest consultant, should evaluate outcomes on an ongoing basis and report back to the City Council on benefits, challenges, costs, and savings associated with a potential expansion of the Miyawaki Forest program. Suggested evaluation metrics could include: ease/difficulty of implementation, environmental benefits/costs, community benefits/challenges, and cost/savings/benefits to implement and maintain Miyawaki Forests, with comparisons to alternative reforestation programs and a “no program” alternative. Speed of deployment and regeneration and other measurable benefits (average tree height after 12 months and 24 months, air and surface temperatures within and next to the forest, amount of water used per square foot, amount of volunteers engaged, amount of hours people are exposed to nature in areas typically starved of nature, increase in tree equity scores, air quality, sound reduction, species return, level of volunteer involvement, etc.) can provide useful metrics to form the basis of the evaluation.

Page 447 ends

14 If the experience is deemed positive and public or private grant funding becomes available during the Pilot Project implementation period, staff should apply for funding, even if no report has yet been issued to the City Council.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, (510) 981-7150
1 year of growth at MLK Middle School

Page 14 of 15 ends

Page 448 ends

15 Students at Cragmont Elementary School in approx. 1 year’s growth

Page 15 of 15 ends

Page 449 ends

Page 450 ends

Kate Harrison
Councilmember, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison
Subject: Designating Open Space Adjacent to and in Front of Old Berkeley City Hall as a Linear City Park Pursuant to BMC 6.42

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution designating open space in front of Old City Hall as linear City park space and formally dedicate this site for permanent recreational use pursuant to BMC

6.42. CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The built environment of Downtown Berkeley lacks an abundance of open space and recreational facilities. Parks and open space are critical for the well-being of residents.

Measure ‘L’, the Berkeley Public Parks and Open Space Preservation Ordinance, adopted by the City of Berkeley in 1986 and codified as Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 6.42, designates “census tracts containing less than the master plan provision of two acres of parks and open space per one thousand population shall be singled out as having a high priority for funding the acquisition, development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.”
The Downtown Census tracts 4229.02 and 4230 with respective populations of 3,033 and 4,676 fall short of this threshold and should be prioritized for additional open space.

The only park in Census tract 4229.02 is Civic Center Park with 3.46 acres of open space, nearly half the amount of space recommended by Measure L. Similarly, tract 4230 in Central Berkeley has a mere .63 acres of open space, when according to Measure L it should have approximately just under 10 acres.

Page 1 of 8 ends

Page 451 ends

Designating Open Space Adjacent to and in Front of Old Berkeley City Hall as a Linear City Park Pursuant to BMC 6.42

ACTION CALENDAR
September 12, 2023

Pursuant to BMC 6.42, this item would contribute approximately an additional .68 acres of Parks and Open space for use by residents and visitors to these two Central/Downtown census tracts by converting the open space in front of Old City Hall.

BACKGROUND
The District 4 Council District, where Old City Hall is located, contains nearly 14,082 residents according to the 2020 census but only contains roughly 4.02 acres of open space and park land. This means that, according to Measure L, District 4 has a high priority for funding, acquisition, development, and maintenance of new open space.

The open space and landscaping along the western side of MLK and in front of and to the sides of Old City Hall is currently designated a landscaping associated with civic buildings. The space does not currently enjoy the same status of a City park, which would

Page 2 of 8 ends

Page 452 ends

Designating Open Space Adjacent to and in Front of Old Berkeley City Hall as a Linear City Park Pursuant to BMC 6.42

ACTION CALENDAR
September 12, 2023
confer additional maintenance and protection benefits via the Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department.

The open space in front of these three public buildings is already often used for variety of civic events and as a lunch spot for residents, workers, and Berkeley High students.

Within Berkeley’s Open Space and Recreational Element of the General Plan, adopted April 3, 2002, the objectives are stated as follows and are consistent with the goals of this item:
 preserving, maintaining, and repairing the city’s existing open space and recreational resources and facilities;
 expanding open space and recreational resources to meet the evolving open space and recreational needs of all segments of this community through land acquisitions and improvements;
 increasing funding for parkland, recreational facilities, and open space maintenance, improvement, and expansion; and
In addition, designating this area as an official public park would help achieve the goals ED-2 and OS-1 of the Berkeley Downtown Area Plan, to “maintain a safe and inviting streets, parks and plazas that contribute to the success of businesses and the wellbeing of residents” and “create new public gathering places that support nearby uses and Downtown as a destination.”
In 2019, Council previously designated Berkeley’s portion of Ohlone Greenway and the West Street Bike Path as linear City parks pursuant to BMC 6.42. It is the public interest to similarly designate the Berkeley-owned open space and land included in this item as an official part of Berkeley park infrastructure.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This area is already owned and maintained by the City of Berkeley so the fiscal impacts of making it an official park would be small. A minimal use of staff time would be required to dedicate the area as a park and add park signage.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Designating the open space adjacent to and in front of Old City Hall will enable the City to better maintain these dedicated these spaces as safe and enjoyable low-carbon and carbon sequestering recreation areas.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Voter Information Pamphlet Text of Measure L

Page 3 of 8 ends

Page 453 ends

RESOLUTION ##,###-N.S.

DESIGNATING THE BERKELEY-OWNED OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO AND IN

FRONT OF OLD CITY HALL AS AN OFFICIAL PART OF CITY PARK

INFRASTRUCTURE
WHEREAS, in Berkeley’s Open Space and Recreational Element of the General Plan, adopted April 3rd, 2002, the objectives are stated as:
 preserving, maintaining, and repairing the city’s existing open space and recreational resources and facilities;
 expanding open space and recreational resources to meet the evolving open space and recreational needs of all segments of this community through land acquisitions and improvements;
 increasing funding for parkland, recreational facilities, and open space maintenance, improvement, and expansion; and
WHEREAS, in Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan, adopted March 20th, 2012, the objectives are stated as:
 maintaining a safe and inviting streets, parks and plazas that contribute to the success of businesses and the wellbeing of residents;
 creating new public gathering places that support nearby uses and Downtown as a destination; and
WHEREAS, Measure L, the Berkeley Public Parks and Open Space Preservation Ordinance adopted by the City of Berkeley in 1986 requires the Council “To preserve and maintain the public parks and open space which exist in Berkeley, as well as To acquire and maintain public parks and open space in the census tracts and Neighborhoods of Berkeley having less than the minimum amount of open Space relative to population (2 acres per 1,000)”; and
WHEREAS, District 4 and the census tracts therein adjacent to Old City Hall contains less than 2 acres of public parks and open space per 1,000 residents and therefore has a high priority for funding, acquisition, development, and maintenance of open space; and
WHEREAS, the above goals and ordinances establish the protection of open space and the establishment of public parks as an important City priority; and WHEREAS, the open space and land along the western side of MLK and in front of Old City Hall are already being used for civic and recreational activities and are comparable to existing Park Space in the adjacent Civic Center Park.

Page 4 of 8 ends

Page 454 ends

NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Berkeley-owned open space and land adjacent to and in front of Old City Hall is designated as an official part of City park land and infrastructure.

Page 5 of 8 ends

Page 455 ends

Page 5 of 9 ends

Page 456 ends

Page 6 of 9 ends

Page 457 ends

Page 7 of 9 ends

Page 458 ends

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: LPO NOD: 60 Panoramic Way, #LMIN2023-0001

INTRODUCTION
The attached Notice of Decision (NOD) for the Landmarks Designation is presented to the Mayor and City Council pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code/Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC/LPO) Section 3.24.160, which requires that “a copy of the Notice of Decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and the City Clerk shall present said copy to the City Council at its next regular meeting.”

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPO/Commission) has designated the subject property as a City Landmark.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.190 allows the Council to review any action of the Commission in granting or denying Landmark, Structure of Merit or Historic District status. In order for Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the NOD. To do so, a Councilmember must move this Information Item to Action and then move to “certify” the decision. Such action must be taken within 15 days from the mailing of the NOD or by September 12, 2023. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.

If the Council chooses to appeal the action of the Commission, then a public hearing will be set within 25 days pursuant to BMC/LPO Section 3.24.300. The Council must then rule on the designation within 30 days from the date that the public hearing is opened or the decision of the Commission is automatically deemed affirmed.

Unless the Council wishes to review the determination of the Commission and make its own decision, the attached NOD is deemed received and filed.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE IMPACTS
Landmark designation provides opportunities for the adaptive re-use and rehabilitation of historic resources within the City. The rehabilitation of these resources, rather than

Page 1 of 33 ends

Page 459 ends

LPO NOD: 60 Panoramic Way/#LMIN2023-0001 INFORMATION CALENDAR SEPTEMBER 12, 2023

Page 2 ends

their removal, achieves construction and demolition waste diversion, and promotes investment in existing urban centers.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Council may choose to certify or appeal the decision to grant designation status, setting the matter for public hearing at a future date.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no known fiscal impacts associated with this designation action.

CONTACT PERSON
Reina Kapadia, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7410 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – 60 Panoramic Way, #LMIN2023-0001

Page 2 of 33 ends

Page 460 ends

Attachment 1, Part 1

L A N D M A R K S

P R E S E R V A T I O N

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: June 1, 2023
DATE NOTICE MAILED: August 28, 2023
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: September 12, 2023
EFFECTIVE DATE OF PERMIT (Barring Appeal or Certification): September 13, 20231 60 Panoramic Way – William J. Moore
House
Landmark application #LMIN2023-0001 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a residential building constructed in 1913 that is a Contributing Property to the Panoramic Hill National Register Historic District – APN 55-1853-15
The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the following request:
 Structure of Merit designation
APPLICANT: Jordan Kanarek and Gabrielle Goldstein
60 Panoramic Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 14-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Use Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

Page 3 of 33 ends

Page 461 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2023-0001
60 Panoramic Way
Mailed: August 28, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

ZONING DISTRICT: Environmental Safety-Residential (ES-R) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).

Page 4 of 33 ends

Page 462 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2023-0001
60 Panoramic Way
Mailed: August 28, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

The application materials for this project is available online at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/zoning-projects or https://permits.cityofberkeley.info/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx

FINDINGS FOR FINAL ACTION AND APPLICATION ARE ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE COMMISSION VOTE: 8-0-0-1
YES: ADAMS, CRANDALL, ENCHILL, FINACOM, LEUSCHNER, MONTGOMERY,

SCHWARTZ, TWU
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: LINVILL
TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code):

To appeal a decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to the City Council you must:

1. Submit a letter clearly and concisely setting forth the grounds for the appeal to the City Clerk, located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley. The City Clerk’s telephone number is (510) 981-6900.
a. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.A, an appeal may be taken to the City Council by the application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the application of at least fifty residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of Chapter 3.24.

2. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $500. This fee may be reduced to $100 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300.A may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.

Page 5 of 33 ends

Page 463 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2023-0001
60 Panoramic Way
Mailed: August 28, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

b. The fee for appeals of affordable housing projects (defined as projects which provide 50 percent or more affordable units for households earning 80% or less of Area Median Income) is $500, which may not be reduced.
c. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $2500.

3. The appeal must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the "APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION" date shown above (if the close of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the appeal period expires the following business day).

If no appeal is received, the Structure of Merit designation will be final on the first business day following expiration of the appeal period.

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

If you object to this decision, the following requirements and restrictions apply:

1. If you challenge this decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Landmarks Preservation Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.

2. You must appeal to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed. It is your obligation to notify the Land Use Planning Division in writing of your desire to receive a Notice of Decision when it is completed.

3. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b) and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1), no lawsuit challenging a City Council decision, as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(e), regarding a use permit, variance or other permit may be filed more than ninety (90) days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that ninety (90) day period will be barred.

4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), notice is hereby given to the applicant that the 90-day protest period for any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions included in any permit approval begins upon final action by the City, and that any challenge must be filed within this 90-day period.

5. If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a “taking” of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, your appeal of this decision must include the following information:

A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal.

B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above.

Page 6 of 33 ends

Page 464 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2023-0001
60 Panoramic Way
Mailed: August 28, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above.

If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website.

Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Reina Kapadia, at (510) 981-7410 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings for Final Action

2. Landmark Application for 60 Panoramic Way, prepared by Jordan Kanarek (property owner); received March 9, 2023
ATTEST:

Fatema Crane, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Applicant and Property Owner: Jordan Kanarek and Gabrielle Goldstein, 60 Panoramic Way, Berkeley, CA 94704

Page 7 of 33 ends

Page 465 ends

Attachment 1, part 2
F i n d i n g s
JULY 6, 2023

60 Panoramic Way – William J. Moore House
Landmark application #LMIN2023-0001 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a residential building constructed in 1913 that is a Contributing Property to the Panoramic Hill National Register Historic District – APN 55-1853-15

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Structure of Merit designation of the property at 60 Panoramic Way, William J. Moore House.

CEQA FINDINGS

1. The project is found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15061.b.3 of the CEQA Guidelines (activities that can be seen with certainty to have no significant effect on the environment).

LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS

2. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.110.B.2(d) of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the Commission finds that the subject property meets the designation criteria for Structure of Merit (SOM) status because the structure has historical significance to the City and/or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings as a good example of the First Bay Tradition style of architecture, and as a contributor to the Panoramic Hill National Register Historic District.

The building retains integrity of location, materials, feeling, association, setting, workmanship, and design throughout its street-facing (primary) elevation, despite some exterior alterations on the side and rear elevations. Through these qualities, it conveys its associations with its period of construction (1913) and has historic significance to the City, neighborhood (Panoramic Hill), block, and group of buildings in the historic district in which it is located.

Page 8 of 33 ends

Page 466 ends

FINDINGS 60 Panoramic Way – William J. Moore House

Page 2 of 3 ends

FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED

1. This Structure of Merit designation shall apply to the subject property and the following distinguishing features of the main building and site shall be preserved:

Setting
 Its location in the Panoramic Hill residential neighborhood amongst the grouping of single-family residences built between 1901 – 1950 in various examples of the First Bay Tradition of architecture (National Register Historic District)
Overall Visual Aspects
 Two-and-a-half story over basement height of structure  Natural, unpainted, wood-shingled exterior wall cladding throughout  Those aspects of its design and materials associated with its First Bay Tradition style of architecture
West Elevation (Primary/Front)
Floor 1
 Inset entry porch
 Wooden entry door with inset panel and two flanking sidelights  Wooden French doors with divided light panels
 A square bay covered with wood shingle cladding and:
o Two double-hung wooden sash windows (8/1)
o One center double-hung wooden sash window (10/1)
Floor 2
 Two secondary hip roof overhangs between each floor with exposed rafter tails  Two three-part projecting bay windows with three double-hung wood sash windows in each:
o Two 1/1 windows in the central bays
o Four 6/1 windows on side bays
 Two casement windows with valance grid mullions (4/1) Floor 3 (Attic)
 Single double-hung wood sash window (1/0)
Basement
East Elevation (Rear)
 Wooden double undivided casement window
 Wooden French doors with divided light panels

Page 9 of 33 ends

Page 467 ends

FINDINGS 60 Panoramic Way – William J. Moore House

Page 3 of 3 ends

North Elevation (Side)
Floor 1
 One double-hung wood sash window (10/1)
 Three double-hung wood sash bay windows (1/1) underneath a hip roof overhang
 Two double-hung wood sash windows (towards the rear)
Floor 2
 Two double-hung wood sash windows (10/1)
South Elevation (Side)
Floor 2
 Four divided (3/1) picture windows
 Two divided (5/1) picture windows
Roof
 Front-facing gable roofline with exposed wooden roof beams with pyramidal rafter tail end
 Clinker brick chimney
 Beadboard soffits
Site Features
 Rhyolite (local volcanic) stone retaining walls and pilasters along the front property line and the south side property line as it returns into the sloped front yard
 Rhyolite (local volcanic) stone staircase (single flight) at the front property line leading up to the residence
 Rhyolite (local volcanic) stone planter beds in the sloped front yard

Page 10 of 33 ends

Page 468 ends

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division
City of Berkeley
Ordinance #4694 N.S.

LANDMARK APPLICATION
________________________________________________________________

1. Street Address
City Berkeley
County Alameda
Zip

2. Assessor's Parcel Number:

Block and Lot:

Tract:

Dimensions:

Cross Streets:

3. Is property on the State Historic Resource Inventory? Form #
Is property on the Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey?
Form #

4. Application for Landmark includes:
a. Building: Garden: Other features:
b. Landscape or Open Space: Natural Designed Oth er
c. Historic Site:
d. District:
e. Other:

5. Historic Name:

Commonly Known Name:

6. Date of Construction:
a. Factual: b. Approximate:

Source of Information:

7. Architect:

8. Builder:

9. Style:

Attachment 1, part 3

Page 11 of 33 ends

Page 469 ends

10. Original Owners:

Original Use:

11. Present Owners:

12. Present Use:

Residential: Single Family Duplex
Multiple
Commercial: Office Store Industrial Hotel
Institutional: School Hospital Other

Current Zoning:

Adjacent Property Zoning:

13. Present Condition of Property:

Exterior: Excellent Good Fair Poor
Interior: Excellent Good Fair Poor
Grounds: Excellent Good Fair Poor

Has the property's exterior been altered?

14. Description:

15. History:

Page 12 of 33 ends

Page 470 ends

16. Significance:

Historic Value:

National State County City Neighborho od

Architectural Value:

National State County City Neighborhood

17. Is the property endangered?

18. Photographs: Date: Repository:

Photographer:

19. Bibliography:

20. Recorder: Date:

Organization:

Page 13 of 33 ends

Page 471 ends

60 Panoramic Way Description + Building/Site Features
Description
In 2005 this home, and several other neighboring homes, was placed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register Designation #05000424). The house at 60 Panoramic Way was designed and built by Henry Rowe, who purchased several contiguous lots on the hill and built ﬁve houses, including this one. The ﬁve houses, all Craftsman-styled, are distinct from each other, and this particular house was built in 1913.

The two and a half story single-family dwelling is situated on the uphill side of Panoramic Way, close to the ﬁrst hairpin turn. The exterior of the house is covered in natural wood shingles, with a front gabled roof that has overhanging eaves supported by exposed roof beams. The chimney is constructed of clinker brick. The ﬁrst story of the western facade includes a square bay with three double-hung windows and an inset entry porch. The front door has a vertical inset panel ﬂanked by side lites of non-original diamond-paned leaded glass. The second story features a pair of three-sided bay windows under a secondary hip-roof overhang. A stone retaining wall, made of local volcanic rhyolite and about four feet in height, wraps around the property line at the street, adjoining the retaining wall at 62 Panoramic Way. A ﬂight of steep stone steps leads to the wooden entry porch.

Over the years, this house has undergone several renovations and additions. In 1962, a basement apartment and bathroom were added, and it appears that this is when structural support piers and casement windows were installed at the front of the home. In 1980, a kitchen addition extended the rear ﬁrst ﬂoor into a roughly 5’x5’ portion of the rear patio to make room for a breakfast nook. In 1984, a multilevel garden designed by Jonathan Plant was constructed, and a redwood bridge was installed to create access to the garden from the second ﬂoor of the house. This design further enhances the house's connection to nature. Jonathan's work demonstrates the power of thoughtful landscape design in cr
eating a harmonious living environment with this historic home.

In 2004, an attic conversion was completed, and skylights were added to the home, further enhancing its charm and livability.

Overall, this house is an excellent example of the Craftsman style and has undergone several renovations and additions that have enhanced its livability without compromising its historic character.

Page 14 of 33 ends

Page 472 ends

Site features
* = historic feature to be preserved
● Rhyolite stone retaining walls and staircase*
● Rhyolite stone planter beds*
● Decorative hand railing on stairs
● Timber retaining wall street-level at 58 Panoramic Way ● Fence and retaining wall at the south side of the property ● Terraced garden and patio at the rear of property
General building features
● Two Clinker brick chimneys*
● Blue painted window trim
● Wood shingles*
Western facade / Front features
Floor 1:
● A square bay consisting of
○ Two double-hung divided windows (8/0)*
○ One double-hung divided window (10/0) *
● Inset entry porch*
● Handrails
● Stained glass sidelight panels at both sides of door at entry porch ● French doors with divided panels*
● Two medium sized divided (4/1) picture windows*
Floor 2:
● Two double hung windows*
● Four divided (6/0) double hung windows*
● Secondary hip-roof overhang *
Floor 3/Attic:
● Double hung window*
Basement:
● Two sets of casement windows
● Structural support piers

Page 15 of 33 ends

Page 473 ends

Eastern facade/ Rear features
Floor 1:
● Exterior utility/storage closet with double doors.*
● Glass door
● Double hung window
● French doors with divided panels*
● One casement window*
Floor 2:
● Bridge connecting bedroom to second level of backyard ● Double hung window
● Door with divided windows
● Two divided sidelights (5) on either side of the patio door Floor 3/Attic:
● Double hung window
Northern facade features
Floor 1:
● One large double hung divided window (10/0)*
● Three double-hung window bay underneath a hip-roof overhang* ● Two double hung windows at rear*
Floor 2:
● Two large, double hung windows *
● One small, frosted, double hung divided (4/0) window
● One small, frosted, double hung window
Southern Facade features
Floor 1:

Page 16 of 33 ends

Page 474 ends

● Three double casement windows in a bay with divided panels under hip-roof overhang ● Two single casement windows with divided panels
Floor 2:
● Four divided (3/0) picture windows*
● Two divided (5/0) picture windows*

Page 17 of 33 ends

Page 475 ends

Stone retaining wall at the front of 60 Panoramic Way.

Page 18 of 33 ends

Page 476 ends

Front of 60 Panoramic Way.

Page 19 of 33 ends

Page 477 ends

North side of 60 Panoramic Way.

Page 20 of 33 ends

Page 478 ends

South side of 60 Panoramic Way.

Page 21 of 33 ends

Page 479 ends

South west corner, including bridge to patio.

Page 22 of 33 ends

Page 480 ends

North west corner, including bridge to patio.

Page 23 of 33 ends

Page 481 ends

NFS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
(Oct. 1990) (7^C/
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
T National Register of Historic Places '
Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NFS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.

1. Name of Property_____________________________________________________ historic name Panoramic Hill___________________________________________________ other names/site number University Terrace, University Hill________________________________

2. Location___________________________________________________________ street & number Panoramic Wy.Canvon Rd.Mosswood, Orchard Ln. Arden Rd. Q not for publication city or town Berkeley__________________________________CD vicinity state California code CA county Alameda code GO ( zip code 94704

3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated au
D request for deterr
Historic Placeaand i
03 meets [H does n<
D statewide E3 pea
______ Sr-. A__,| ^^
Signature of certifyini
California Office of H
ihority under the National 1
nation of eligibility meets
eets the procedural ana p
meet the National Reast
y. ( D See continuation £
\JjT?-v\tw< £V/u-'-"
/official/Title
storic Preservation
Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this _3 nomination he documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of rofessional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property 3r Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant CU nationally heet for additional comments.)
Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property D meets D does not meet the National Register criteria. ( D See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau

4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is:

S-Q_aotered in the National Register
LS D See continuation sheet,
n determined eligible for the
National Register
D See continuation sheet.

D determined not eligible for the
National Register
n removed from the National
Register
D other (explain): ________
Date of Action

Page 24 of 33 ends

Page 482 ends

Panoramic Hill
Name or Property
Alameda, California
County and State

5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply)
£<] private
13 public-local
n public-State
n public-Federal
Category of Property
(Check only one&Wp | 1
D building(s)
13 district
Qsite
H] structure
n object
Number of Resources within Property
2QQ5(Do not include previously listed resources in the count.) Contributing Noncontributing
61 18 buildinas
sites
14 (roads, oaths,walls) 1 (wall) structures
1 (fountain) objects
76 19 Total
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.) N/A
Number of contributing resources previously listed in
the National Register

6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
(Enter categories from instructions)
Domestic - sinqle and multiple dwellings
Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions)
Domestic - sinqle and multiple dwellings

7. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions)
Shingle; Bungalow/Craftsman: Mission/Spanish
Colonial Revival: Beaux-Arts__________
Materials
(Enter categories from instructions)
foundation Earth, concrete
roof Shingle: Terra Gotta; Concrete
walls Shingle: Brick: Granite: Stucco: Concrete: Fabricrete other Brick: Iron: Copper: Ceramic Tile: Glass: Concrete:

Fabricrete
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) See Continuation Sheets

Page 25 of 33 ends

Page 483 ends

Panoramic Hill Alameda. California
Name ot Property County and State

8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing)
O A Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.

D B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
[X]C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.

D D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria Considerations
(Mark "X" in all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:

D A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes.

D B removed from its original location.
n C a birthplace or a grave.

D D a cemetery.

D E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
n F a commemorative property.

D G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
within the past 50 years.

Areas of Significance
(Enter categories from instructions)
Arch itecture___________
Period of Significance
1901 -1950________
Significant Dates
Significant Person
(Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
Cultural Affiliation
Architect/Builder
Bernard. Mavbeck: Coxhead. Ernest: Morgan. Julia:_____
Steilberq. Walter. Ratcliff. Walter H.. Jr.; Thomas. John Hudson; Wright. Frank Lloyd: Atkins. Henry: Paine. Robert:

Ratcliff. Robert: Wurster. William.

Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)

9. Major Bibliographical References
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.) Previous documentation on file (NPS):

D preliminary determination of individual listing (36
CFR 67) has been requested.

D previously listed in the National Register
n previously determined eligible by the National
Register
D designated a National Historic Landmark
D recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
#______________
n recorded by Historic American Engineering
Record # ______________
Primary Location of Additional Data
D State Historic Preservation Office
D Other State agency
n Federal agency
I3 Local government
£3 University
G3 Other
Name of repository:

See Continuation Sheet________

Page 26 of 33 ends

Page 484 ends

Panoramic Hill
Name or Property
Alameda. California
County and State

10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property: 12.3 acres
UTM References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet) Zone Easting Northing
1 10. 666060 4191480
2 10 660250 4191600
Zone
10 10
10 Easting Northing
666360 4191360
666170 4191210
666100 4191300
Verbal Boundary Description
(Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.) Boundary Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.)

11. Form Prepared By
name/title Janice Thomas & Fredrica Drotos
organization __
street & number_
city or town__
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association date November 8. 2004 37 Mosswood Road telephone. (510)549-1171
Berkeley state CA zip code 94704
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:

Continuation Sheets
Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.

A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.

Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.

Additional items
(Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Property Owner______________________________________________ (Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.) name ________________________________________________
street & number_
city or town__
telephone
state zip code
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 etseq.).

Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-0018), Washington, DC. 20503.

Page 27 of 33 ends

Page 485 ends

NPS Form 10-900-a QMS Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Panoramic Hill, Alameda County, CA
Section number 7 Page 9
A two story, single family, wood shingle clad structure with a low-raking gable roof, broad eaves and projecting end beams atop a concrete foundation, follows an L-shaped plan. The home was built into a triangular lot inside the first hair-pin turn on Panoramic Way, with a very shallow setback on the uphill side and nestled in among redwood trees. Steilberg composed the home to conform to the setting so that the southern wall is angled away from what is now a tree stump but would have been a mature tree when the house was designed. On the western facade a second redwood was used in place of a decorative pillar holding up a trellis over the half round portico containing a rooftop terrace.

A stone retaining wall combines with a concrete retaining wall covered with wooden lattice curved to follow the contour of the hillside. Above the retaining wall is a terrace. A pergola gateway with wooden columns, tapering from bottom to top with hand carved cross braces, marks the entrance from the eastern side. The second story was designed in 1954 by architect Howard Moise although visual inspection does not reveal where the addition begins and ends. The house was later subdivided into two apartments with the entryway to one apartment on the eastern (uphill) side of the lot. The entryway is inset with a substantial wooden lintel where the original street number (#71) is carved. To the left of the entry is a window screened by six green glazed perforated Oriental tiles.

Additional fenestration includes two-lite casement windows placed asymmetrically. A north-east corner window configuration groups three windows per side separated by natural redwood vertical supports and two incised horizontal bands at the top. A large, mullioned bay window dominates the south-facing elevation. A red brick chimney is prominent on the northwest elevation. A single-car wood frame garage is wedged into the narrowest part of the lot at Panoramic Way's first hairpin turn.

Lattice work overlapping in squares atop wood siding gives the garage the appearance of an over- sized Japanese jewel box; the effect is enhanced by ochre glazed perforated Oriental tiles on the eastern side and similar tiles glazed "Steilberg-green" on the western side.

12. 60 Panoramic Way - TWO CONTRIBUTING: house
retaining wall (a)
Year built: 1913
Contractor: Rowe, Henry
Original owner: Moore, William J.

This two and one half story single-family dwelling is built on the uphill side of Panoramic Way near the first hairpin turn. The exterior is clad in natural wood shingle and topped by a front gabled roof with overhanging eaves which are supported by exposed roof beams. The chimney is clinker brick. On the first story of the western facade is a square bay with three double-hung windows consisting of multiple lites and an inset entry porch. The front door has a vertical inset panel flanked by side lites of diamond-paned leaded glass. The second story contains a pair of three-sided bay windows under a secondary hip-roof overhang. A stone retaining wall of local volcanic rhyolite about 4 feet in height wraps around the property line at the street, adjoining the retaining wall at 62 Panoramic Way. A flight of steep stone steps leads to the wooden entry porch.

Page 28 of 33 ends

Page 486 ends

Page 29 of 33 ends

Page 487 ends

Goldstein / Kanarek
Tel/Fax (510) 528-6368
Cell (510) 912-6931
[email protected]
1912 Vine Steet
Berkeley, CA 94709
guylubrotharchitect.com
Guy Lubroth, Architect60 Panoramic Way
Berlkeley, CA 94704

BASEMENT
PLAN
4/27/22
3/16"=1'-0"

(EXISTING)

REMODEL
Scale:

Date:

Title:

Project:

Revisions:
1 PROGRESS PRINT
Sk
Architect:
0' 5' 10' 20'

BASEMENT PLAN - (EXISTING)
1/4" = 1'-0"1
UP

Page 30 of 33 ends

Page 488 ends

Goldstein / Kanarek
Tel/Fax (510) 528-6368
Cell (510) 912-6931
[email protected]
1912 Vine Steet
Berkeley, CA 94709
guylubrotharchitect.com
Guy Lubroth, Architect60 Panoramic Way
Berlkeley, CA 94704
1ST FLOOR
PLAN
4/27/22
1/4"=1'-0"

(EXISTING)

REMODEL
Scale:

Date:

Title:

Project:

Revisions:
2 PROGRESS PRINT
Sk
Architect:
0' 5' 10' 20'
1ST FLOOR PLAN - (EXISTING)
1/4" = 1'-0"1
UP DN
DN

Page 31 of 33 ends

Page 489 ends

(EXISTING)

REMODEL
Scale:

Date:

Title:

Project:

Revisions:
3 PROGRESS PRINT
Sk
Architect:
0' 5' 10' 20'
2ND FLOOR PLAN - (EXISTING)
1/4" = 1'-0"1
UP
DN

Page 32 of 33 ends

Page 490 ends

Goldstein / Kanarek
Tel/Fax (510) 528-6368
Cell (510) 912-6931
[email protected]
1912 Vine Steet
Berkeley, CA 94709
guylubrotharchitect.com
Guy Lubroth, Architect60 Panoramic Way
Berlkeley, CA 94704

ATTIC FLOOR
PLAN
4/27/22
3/16"=1'-0"

(EXISTING)

REMODEL
Scale:

Date:

Title:

Project:

Revisions:
4 PROGRESS PRINT
Sk
Architect:
0' 5' 10' 20'

ATTIC FLOOR PLAN - (EXISTING)
1/4" = 1'-0"1

Page 33 of 33 ends

Berkeley City CouncilSeptember 12, 2023

Berkeley City Council
September 12, 2023