parks and waterfront commission regular meeting wednesday ... · waterfront commission . regular...

PARKS AND WATERFRONT COMMISSION

Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 8, 2017, 7:00 P.M. Frances Albrier Community Center 2800 Park Street, Berkeley, CA

Parks and Waterfront Commission

AGENDA

The Commissions may discuss any items listed on the agenda, but may take action only on items identified as Action.

Preliminary Matters 1. Call to Order (Chair). 2. Roll Call (Secretary). 3. Announcements (Chair) 4. Approval of Agenda (Chair). 5. Approval Minutes for February 8, 2017 * (Chair). 6. Public Comment. 7. Director’s Report

a) Director’s Office ** (Scott Ferris): Parks CIP Project List; b) Parks Division (Sue Ferrera): Maintenance Projects; Special Events. c) Waterfront Division (Alexandra Endress): Projects Update; Special Events.

Discussion

8. T1 Infrastructure Bond Program and community input * (Ferris). 9. Update from subcommittee on parks capital projects * (McGrath). 10. Update from subcommittee on planning (McKay). 11. Update from subcommittee on volunteers (Lee).

Information Items 12. Recent Council Reports * 13. Communications *: a. 02-22-2017 – Subject: T1 - Memo from Disaster and Fire Safety Commission b. 02-22-2017 – Subject: T1 - Memo from Energy Commission c. 02-24-2017 – Subject: T1 - email from I. Gaston d. 02-24-2017 – Subject: T1 - email from I. Gaston e. 02-24-2017 – Subject: T1 - email from I. Gaston f. 02-27-2017 – Subject: T1 - email from I. Gaston g. 02-28-2017 – Subject: T1 - Memo from Children, Youth, and Recreation Commission h. 03-03-2017 – Subject: T1 - email from M. Vande i. 03-03-2017 – Subject: T1 - email from O. Sandel j. 03-03-2017 – Subject: T1 - email from K. Lindahl k. 03-03-2017 – Subject: T1 - email from J. Schnell l. 03-03-2017 – Subject: Spring Equinox at Solar Calendar – Cesar Chavez Pk - 03-19-17 - email fr S. Casal

14. Adjournment * document is attached to agenda packet and on the commission website.

** document will be provided at the meeting.


Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 8, 2017

of 34

ADA Disclaimer: This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request disability-related accommodations to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6342 (V) or 981-6345 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.

SB343 DisclaimerAny writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at Parks Recreation & Waterfront Department Office at 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA. Communications Disclaimer: Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or c ommittees 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. All communications to the Commission should be received at least 10 days before the meeting date. 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 commission or committee for further information. Commission Information: The agenda packets for the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Waterfront Commission are available for review at www.cityofberkeley.info/commissions; the Berkeley Main Library and the Parks Recreation & Waterfront Department Office at 2180 Milvia Street –3rd Floor, during their normal business hours. If you have questions, call Commission Secretary, Roger Miller at 981-6704 at 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 or by email at [email protected]. MISSION STATEMENT – PARKS AND WATERFRONT: The Parks and Waterfront Commission shall be an advisory board and shall review the policies, projects, programs, planning efforts, activities, funding, and the physical condition of parks, pools, camps, recreation centers, the Marina, and public greenery, and shall advise the City Council on these matters.

COMMISSION MEMBERS

Mayor - District 3 - Jim McGrath District 6 - Paul Kamen

District 1 - Maritessa Ares District 4 - Kate Harrison District 7 - Taylor Lee

District 2 - Claudia Kawczynska District 5 - Susan McKay District 8 - Caitlin Brostrom



of 34

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/commissions

mailto:[email protected]

2017 Commission Meeting Dates

Name of Commission: Parks and Waterfront Commission

Commission Secretary: Roger Miller Location: Frances Albrier Community Center, 2800 Park St

Month Meeting Day and Date

Time

Notes

January Wednesday, January 11 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

February Wednesday, February 8 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

March Wednesday, March 8 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

April Wednesday, April 12 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

May Wednesday, May 10 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

June Wednesday, June 14 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

July Wednesday, July 12 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

August No Meeting

September Wednesday, September 13 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

October Wednesday, October 11 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

November Wednesday, November 8 7:00 p.m. Regular Mtg

December No Meeting



of 34

Parks and Waterfront Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, February 8, 2017, 7:00pm, Frances Albrier Community Center, 2800 Park St.,

Berkeley

MINUTES – DRAFT

The Commissions may discuss any items listed on the agenda, but may take action only on items identified as Action.

Preliminary Matters 1. Call to Order (Chair).2. Roll Call (Secretary). Present: Ares; Brostrom; Kamen; Kawczynska; McGrath; McKay; Absent:

Harrison; Lee.3. Announcements (Chair): Bay Planning Coalition (Kamen); parks CIP subcommittee met with CEAC

and PW subcommittees (McGrath).4. Approval of Agenda (Chair). (M/S/C : McGrath/Kamen/U): Ayes: Ares; Brostrom; Kamen;

Kawczynska; McGrath; McKay; No’s: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Harrison; Lee.5. Approval Minutes for January 11, 2017 * (Chair). (M/S/C: Brostrom/Kamen/U): Ayes: Ares;

Brostrom; Kamen; Kawczynska; McGrath; McKay; No’s: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Harrison;Lee.

6. Public Comment : Sarick Matsen, Santa Fe ROW; John Tracy, Theater First; Toni Mester, General;Corinne Haskins, Santa Fe ROW; Olivia Sinaiko, Marina Parking; John Steere, T1 bond; Mohfei Geh,Inner City Drones; Beebo Turman, Santa Fe ROW; Erwan Illien, minutes, Marina; Bonnie Borucki,Santa FE ROW; Dan Hernandez, Liveaboards at Marina.

7. Director’s Reportd) Director’s Office ** (Scott Ferris): Parks CIP Project List;e) Parks Division (Sue Ferrera): Maintenance Projects; Special Events.f) Waterfront Division (Alexandra Endress): Projects Update; Small-scale Ferry Service.

Discussion 8. T1 Infrastructure Bond Program and community input * (Ferris).9. Update from subcommittee on parks capital projects * (McGrath). Need larger plan (McGrath);

Why this $100m and not others (McGrath). How can we explain our strategy? (McGrath). Overlyanalyzed and mired in process (Kamen). How will we assess the public comments that we receive?(Kawczsynska). We need to avoid squeaky wheel problem/pitchfork (Kamen). We’ve seen this T1list for over a year; we think its a good list (McGrath). Who will facilitate the joint meetings(Brostrom)? I like the “informational aspect” of the public mtgs; Phase II and III will involve a lot moreprocess; We need people to do more outreach; We know the special interests but we need help incoming to consensus; We need a bond program for the entire bond., e.g. goals & process, guidelines& strategic plan (McKay). Public process should be shorter for Phase One; but for next phases,public process needs to be more robust (McGrath).

10. Update from subcommittee on planning (McKay). No update.11. Update from subcommittee on volunteers (Lee). No update.

Information Items 12. Recent Council Reports *13. Upcoming Agenda Items14. Communications

15. Adjournment at 9:40pm.

Agenda Item 5.



of 34

Press Contact: Matthai Chakko, (510) 981-7008

PARKS, STREETS, BUILDINGS: WORKSHOPS PRIORITIZING IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS

Berkeley, California (Thursday, March 02, 2017) - Share your opinion at three upcoming workshops about how the City of Berkeley should prioritize voter-approved bond dollars to upgrade aginginfrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, storm drains, parks, and community centers.

Staff with extensive knowledge of the city's infrastructure needs have used certain criteria to propose projects for the $100 million November bond's first phase, approximately $32 million. Those criteria include safety; infrastructure whose life cycle has expired; impacting the greatest number of residents; racial, geographic and economic equity; advancing environmental sustainability; contributing to disaster preparedness; and projects that can maximize City dollars by leveraging potential outside funding.

Read the voter-approved Measure T1, review staff recommendations made in this story map and come to one or more of the workshops. You can also give input over email. Future phases will also have many opportunities for public input.

Are there other projects that the City should prioritize? How can we advance these projects so that they provide multiple benefits - environmental, social, or economic?

Measure T1 Workshop #1Focus: parks and general City facilitiesSaturday, March 18, 2017, 10am - 12pmFrances Albrier Community Center2800 Park St.

Measure T1 Workshop #2Focus: streets and storm water infrastructureSaturday, March 25, 2017, 12 - 2pmLive Oak Community Center301 Shattuck Ave.

Measure T1 Workshop #3Focus: gathering additional input on City staff recommendations and summarizing input gathered to dateSaturday, April 8, 10am - 12pmTarea Hall Pittman South Branch Library1910 Russell St.

All workshops - which have been coordinated by City staff, the Public Works Commission and the Parks & Recreation Commission - will be wheelchair-accessible.

The funds from this bond will significantly increase the City's spending on core infrastructure, an existing priority. Current projects include seismic and other improvements to the James Kenney Community Center, reconstructing the Berkeley Rose Garden Trellis and improving paths there, renovating the tennis and basketball courts at Grove Park, paving streets, repairing or building sidewalks, and installing green infrastructure projects that help reduce flooding and protect our creeks.

News

Page 1 of 22017-03-02 Parks, Streets, Buildings: workshops prioritizing improvements and repairs - ...

3/3/2017http://cityofberkeley.info/City_Manager/Press_Releases/2017/2017-03-02_Parks,_Streets,_...

Agenda Item 8.



of 34

Despite this and other continual infrastructure work, the City has over $500 million in unfunded infrastructure needs - a significant problem that results in deferred maintenance and disrepair in existing infrastructure and buildings. The November bond measure will help address some of the unfundedneed.

Additional information about the bond and existing and past infrastructure upgrade efforts is also available at www.CityofBerkeley/MeasureT1. You can also read a staff memo to Council about the recommendations for the first phase.

For more information about the workshops or if you have questions about the Measure T1 bond, please contact Timothy Burroughs (Assistant to the City Manager) at [email protected].

###

Keep up with City of Berkeley news via our News page, email or Follow @CityofBerkeley .

Home | Residents | Businesses | Visitors | Services | Elected OfficialsWeb Policy | Text-Only Site Map | Contact Us

City of Berkeley - Central Administrative Offices, 2180 Milvia St, Berkeley, CA 94704(510) 981-CITY/2489 or 311 from any landline in Berkeley

TTY: (510) 981-6903

Page 2 of 22017-03-02 Parks, Streets, Buildings: workshops prioritizing improvements and repairs - ...

3/3/2017http://cityofberkeley.info/City_Manager/Press_Releases/2017/2017-03-02_Parks,_Streets,_...

Agenda Item 8.



of 34

Date: 3 February 2017 To: Parks and Waterfront Commission From: Parks and Waterfront Commission Subcommittee for Capital

Projects Subject: Report of Current State of Implementation of Measure T1 The subcommittee was established by the Parks and Waterfront Commission to meet more frequently than the full Commission, solicit public input, and formulate a report back to the full Commission on the recommendations of the City Manager in her December 22, 2016, memorandum. The subcommittee previously recommended a series of criteria for evaluating projects that was accepted by the full Commission. We used those criteria, additional criteria suggested by City staff, namely creating a network of seismically safety public buildings for shelter after an earthquake, and the language in the ballot measure and supporting Council resolution of September 13 to evaluate the recommended projects. 1. PROGRAM PLAN Infrastructure bond measures in many cities include a list of pre-approved projects along with project scopes and budgets spelled out, so that in voting for the bond measure, voters are approving how the funds will be allocated. Berkeley’s Measure T1 has taken an alternate route whereby it identifies a large general need for improvements to the city’s aging infrastructure and then requires that a specific plan for allocating funds is to be developed after the bond has been passed.

In addition, the City Council passed a 9/13/16 resolution that establishes guidelines for prioritizing facilities needs based on broad goals and values and leaves the specifics to be developed in a program plan that prioritizes improvements and is to be presented to commissions and the public. “The … Parks. Recreation and Waterfront Department …shall develop program plans to address aging infrastructure needs beyond the $100 million infrastructure bond. (emphasis added)”

Positive attributes of the report include:

This is a good start and represents several City departments working together to implement Measure T1.

Using a 3 phase approach is appropriate, given that some projects are ready to implement and others require advanced planning.

Community input is incorporated into the process.

The project prioritization criteria build from the City’s Resilience Strategy.

There is good definition of the Phase 1 projects.

There is good definition on the limitations for the bond use.

Agenda Item 9.



of 34

Areas that need further clarification: • The Plan lacks a description of outcome goals. Without goals, we cannot tell the

public how the funds will be used and for what benefit. • The Plan needs performance metrics. Since the Program will cover 12 years, we

should be able to monitor if it is on track or not. There should also be a change management process.

• The Plan needs organizational responsibility. There should be a Program Manager, dedicated staff, and a responsible department.

• The Plan needs independent oversight and reporting. Transparency and accountability are important. If the Commissions are to do this, it should be clearly stated.

• The Plan description needed for how the public can provide input and continue to be informed throughout the program.

The Program Plan should be a standalone document that is available to the public, staff, and public officials. It should be the focal document to describe how Measure T1 will be organized, monitored, and implemented. Program Phasing The report shows the approximate budget and schedule for Phases 1, 2, and 3. A description of the objectives and planned work in each phase is needed. Generally Phase 1 projects are near “shovel ready”, Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects need advance planning. Project planning needs to include a programmatic component. Facilities must work together throughout various City programs and each facility must meet specific program needs currently and with a capacity and flexibility to meet expected and unexpected future needs as much as possible. Community Process The community participation process needs to be more carefully thought out. We have had some good examples, such as the Measure M and Adeline Corridor Study, and need to build from them. While understanding the need to implement Phase 1 as quickly as possible, we expect that there will be more time for consideration for the following phases and that plans for the projects for these phases will be developed during phase 1. Reporting and Oversight Semi-annual reports should be given to the lead commissions and an annual report shall be given to Council. The concept of independent oversight is more transparent than this suggests. In order to achieve that, the lead commissions should prepare their own reports to Council. Criteria The overall goal is to have T1 funds spent to the greatest benefit to the citizens of Berkeley and for all of us to have access to monitoring reports that shows how the funds

Agenda Item 9.



of 34

were used effectively. In this way the continued restoration of the infrastructure can continue to be financed with the support of the public. The report lists the criteria used to prioritize the Phase 1 projects. It would be helpful to describe the methodology (i.e. scoring system) used to apply the criteria. As it is currently stated in the Plan, it looks more like the judgement of staff than the use of a robust evaluation system. Knowing how the criteria were applied would be very helpful to understand why these projects were selected. As presented, it is not a transparent process and it is not possible to understand why these were selected and others were not. A criteria list could, with further editing, be as follows:

Agenda Item 9.



of 34

Agenda Item 9.



of 34

2. REVIEW OF STAFF PROJECT PROPOSALS

Parks Facilities

Marina

General Improvements

PARK FACILITIES There are dozens of park facilities in Berkeley’s many parks. The subcommittee focused our attention on the major facilities, the aquatic facilities, and the objective of the Council to create a network of seismically safe facilities to serve as shelters after an earthquake.

The language of T1 established that Senior Centers and recreation centers can

“function as emergency shelters.” However, only limited information is provided

about the cost and scope of upgrades to serve those needs. The most recent

published report is from a January 19, 2016, worksession with the Council. It

identifies those centers—Frances Albrier Community Center, Live Oak

Community Center, North Berkeley Senior Center, MLK Jr. youth Services

Center, South Berkeley Senior Center, and West Berkeley Service Center.

That report identifies about $9.7 million in seismic upgrade costs, and an

additional $7.7 million in deferred maintenance costs. However, the costs

identified in the CM’s recommendation of December 22, 2016, are substantially

greater.

For Live Oak Center, which is recommended for the first phase of bonds, the

seismic costs have increased from $916,000 to $2.1 million, and an additional

2.7 million is proposed to make the structure sustainable and durable, to

integrate green infrastructure and address new programming needs.

The construction currently under way at James Kenney will make that

recreational center seismically safe and able to function as an emergency

shelter. It could not in a timely way address programmatic needs or

opportunities.

The City cannot currently spend T1 funds on property owned by the School

District, which includes the MLK Youth Center and Willard’s Swim Center.

The subcommittee discussed the other park facilities, the aquatic centers,

Frances Albrier, MLK, James Kenney, and Willard.

We discussed our concerns about changing program needs with changing

demographics and geographic equity with staff. We expressed our belief that a

vision for park facilities that addresses equity and changing programmatic needs

to be established before a second round of bonds is issued.

We agreed that the seismic needs of Live Oak are a priority, and that improving

the building to make it sustainable with near the life expectancy of a new building

was a clear choice that we could support.

The Report of December 22, 2016, recommends a planning and design study for

Frances Albrier ($750,000). We recommend that the scope and investment of

Agenda Item 9.



of 34

this effort be increased to include the programming needs for all of the major

park buildings, including James Kenney and the Willard clubhouse so that a

program plan for both later phases of T1 and for future needs can be developed.

MARINA Staff has recommended a planning and design study for renovation of the Berkeley Municipal Pier, and an additional planning and design study for reconstruction of University Avenue. We support both of those projects, but think that they should be combined with an updating of the Marina Plan to address alternative uses at the H’s Lordships site as well as other Marina facilities. The lease for His Lordships expires this year, and the current Marina specific plan was adopted in 2003. It may not provide the guidance needed to guide redevelopment of the site. Additional planning is currently funded and underway at Cesar Chavez Park and it would be integrated into this as well. GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS The subcommittee concurs in the staff recommendation for projects beginning on page 10 of the December 22, 22016, recommendation. Specifically, we concur in the recommendation for:

Grove Park Phase 2-Restroom/Sports Field-$1,000,000

San Pablo Park Tennis Courts--$800,000

Rose Garden Drainage, Pathways and Tennis Courts --$2,000,000

Gilman North Restroom and Storage --$250,000

Aquatic Park Tide Tubes Replacement Planning and Design $250,000

Irrigation System Modernization $750,000

3. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC WORKS Several projects will require close coordination with the Public Works Department and the Public Works Commission. Currently, the dilapidated condition of the aquatic park tide tubes leads to increased flooding in the park. Design of that project will involve close coordination with permitting agencies, consideration of sea level rise, and the impact on the park. University Avenue reconstruction is important to sustaining revenues at the marina, including the Doubletree Inn, which returns a substantial amount of revenue to the city through the temporary occupancy tax. Finally, 4 green infrastructure projects are proposed for parks. Those projects need to be coordinated so that they are compatible with the parks and do not adversely affect recreation. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

We concur in the staff’s proposal to initiate implementation with a series of

projects that are both high priority and capable of being implemented within four

years. To accomplish this, it is acceptable to limit the amount of public outreach,

recognizing that all of the projects proposed have been identified and discussed

for years, and most of them have been identified by the Commission as priorities

for implementing Measure F. However, a more substantial planning effort,

Agenda Item 9.



of 34

including more robust public outreach, is necessary to develop and vet projects

for the remaining phases of T1 and for beyond.

Most important is to begin a more active engagement between the City and the

BUSD. Currently we cannot use T1 money for the buildings at Grove Park, or

any of the pools. While some of the school sites are opened for public use

during holidays and on weekends, not all are. As such, the property owned by

the District is one of the few options that we have to increase recreational

opportunities in the developed area of the city. We recommend that there be

discussions both at the staff level, and at the Board/Council level to establish a

shared vision for park and aquatic use that can be jointly implemented.

Options include: Option 1: Schools seek a bond in the next cycle to rebuild all of

their aquatic facilities and enter into a long term arrangement with the City to

manage aquatics and recreation programming. School bonds require 50%

passage (versus general obligation bonds which require 2/3 support). Option 2:

Schools “give” (or trade) the land to the City so that the City can fund upgrade

and manage the facilities. Schools would have arrangements to use facilities for

their student’s recreation if they wanted to. Option 3: Schools give the City a

long term lease of the land (ongoing concerns with leases and responsibilities)

Option 4: Study to provide equitable access to learning to swim in a sustainable

and durable and green facility during Phase 1. For implementation in Phase 2

and 3.

Finally, we think that a more robust oversight process is needed for

implementation of the bonds. We understand that the City’s accounting system

is rather cumbersome, and it has been Impossible to provide a detailed auditing

of work completed to date, and remaining, in implementing Measure M. Since

the City will still have several hundred million in unfunded infrastructure needs

when Measure T1 funds are spent, there must be a coherent and transparent

tracking process that identifies the project objectives and evaluates success and

lessons learned. While it is not essential that this be done before any bonds are

sold, it is indeed essential.

Agenda Item 9.



of 34

PARKS AND WATERFRONT COMMISSION

RECENT COUNCIL REPORTS

The following council reports are available for review at the Parks Recreation & Waterfront Department administrative desk, 2180 Milvia Street, 3rd floor, or can be accessed from the City Council Website by using the following URL’s: March 14, 2017 4. Contract: GHD, Inc. for Berkeley Municipal Pier Structural Condition Assessment & Ferry

Transportation Feasibility Study URL: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/03_Mar/Documents/2017-03-14_Item_04_Contract__GHD,_Inc.aspx 5. Contract: Western Tree Removal Specialists for Emergency Work at Berkeley Cazadero

Camp URL: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/03_Mar/Documents/2017-03-14_Item_05__Contract__Western_Tree.aspx

6. Amending Contract No. 10217 with TranSystems, Inc. for Design Revisions and Construction Support Services for the South Cove Parking Lot and Restroom Project and the Accessible Gangway Project URL: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/03_Mar/Documents/2017-03-14_Item_06_Amending_Contract_No_10217.aspx 23. Potential Recreational Opportunities at Willard Park and Pool

URL: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/03_Mar/Documents/2017-03-14_Item_23_Potential_Recreational.aspx

February 28, 2017 – Special Meeting Worksession 1. Projections of Future Liabilities

URL: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-28_WS_Item_01_Projections_of_Future.aspx Presentation URL: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-28_WS_Item_01_Projections_of_Future_-_Pres.aspx

Agenda Item 12.



of 34

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/03_Mar/Documents/2017-03-14_Item_04_Contract__GHD,_Inc.aspx




http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/03_Mar/Documents/2017-03-14_Item_05__Contract__Western_Tree.aspx




http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/03_Mar/Documents/2017-03-14_Item_06_Amending_Contract_No_10217.aspx





http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/03_Mar/Documents/2017-03-14_Item_23_Potential_Recreational.aspx



http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-28_WS_Item_01_Projections_of_Future.aspx



http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-28_WS_Item_01_Projections_of_Future_-_Pres.aspx



2. FY 2017 Mid-Year Budget Update

URL: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-28_WS_Item_02_FY_2017_Mid-Year.aspx Presentation URL: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-28_WS_Item_02_FY_2017_Mid-Year_-_Pres.aspx

February 14, 2017

8. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance

After Council Approval on February 14, 2017

URL: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-14_Item_08_Formal_Bid.aspx January 31, 2017

4. Public Process for Implementation of Measure T1

URL: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/01_Jan/Documents/2017-01-31_Item_04_Public_Process_for_Implementation.aspx Revised materials URL: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/01_Jan/Documents/2017-01-31_Item_04_Public_Process_for_Implementation_-_Rev.aspx

6. Berkeley Partners for Parks to the Friends of the Rose Garden: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds URL: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/01_Jan/Documents/2017-01-31_Item_06_Berkeley_Partners_for_Parks.aspx

Agenda Item 12.



of 34

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-28_WS_Item_02_FY_2017_Mid-Year.aspx



http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-28_WS_Item_02_FY_2017_Mid-Year_-_Pres.aspx



http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/02_Feb/Documents/2017-02-14_Item_08_Formal_Bid.aspx




http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/01_Jan/Documents/2017-01-31_Item_04_Public_Process_for_Implementation.aspx



http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/01_Jan/Documents/2017-01-31_Item_04_Public_Process_for_Implementation_-_Rev.aspx



http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2017/01_Jan/Documents/2017-01-31_Item_06_Berkeley_Partners_for_Parks.aspx




Disaster and Fire Safety Commission

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

Date: February 22, 2017

To: Parks and Waterfront Commission

From: Paul Degenkolb, Chairperson, Disaster and Fire Safety Commission

Subject: Feedback on Proposed Measure T Phase 1 Expenditures

BelowisfeedbackandsuggestionsfromtheDisasterandFireSafetyCommissionregardingrecommendationsforallocatingandmanagingMeasureT1GeneralObligationBondfunds.SEISMICEVALUATIONANDPRIORITIZATION WerecommendthatPhase1includeanevaluationoftherelativeseismicriskofall

unretrofittedcity‐ownedstructures.Thisinformationcaninformspendinginlaterphases.Werecommendthatstructuralengineeringfirm(s)behiredtoassesstheprobableperformanceofcity‐ownedstructuresinamajorearthquakeontheHaywardFault,usingaconsistentperformanceratingforallstructuressotheycanbecomparedtoeachother.AmodelforthistypeofevaluationistheUC1997PreliminarySeismicEvaluation,describedhere:http://www.berkeley.edu/administration/facilities/safer/background.html

WeagreethatstructuresthatareconsideredpotentialsheltersinBerkeley'sHazardMitigationPlan(includingallseniorcenters,FrancesAlbriercenter,GroveRecCtr,KenneyCenter,LiveOakCtr)shouldbeprioritizedforseismicretrofit.Buildingswithknownseismicdeficienciesarecurrentlyplannedforuseasearthquakeshelters;thisinconsistencyneedstoberemediedassoonaspossible.

Theretrofitprogramshouldbeaimedatmeetingaspecificperformancestandard–forexample,astandardthatbuildingsneedtobeinspected,opened,andoperationalwithin24hoursoftheearthquake.

SHELTERING‐CITYSTRUCTURESAnyworkoncitybuildingsthathavepotentialuseaspost‐disastersheltersshouldincludemaintainingorcreatingthefacilitiesneededforshelteroperation: Kitchen Showerfacilities(donotremoveanyshowersthataretherenow) Toilets(donotreducethenumberoftoilets.Consideraddingmoretoiletsfor

anticipatedpost‐disasterneeds) Fullyaccessible Emergencygenerators;ideallyanoff‐gridrenewableenergysourcetoallowfacilitiesto

operateduringpoweroutages. Considercompostingtoiletsthatwillworkifsewersystemisnotusable

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

pauld

PHD

Availabilityofdrinkingwaterandnaturalgas(ifusedforheating,hotwater,andcooking).Retrofitshouldevaluatetheconnectionsofthefacilitytotheutilitysystemsandimproveifnecessary.

Storagespaceforstoringemergencysupplies. Considerwhetherthefacilitycanhandleanimalsandwhetheritneedsthatcapability. Addsprinkleringaspartofanyrenovation.SHELTERINGANDCHARGINGSTATIONS‐CITYPARKSPublicparksandopenspacesarelikelytobecomedefacto"tentcities"afteramajorearthquake,whetherthisisdesiredbythecityornot.Werecommendcreating/improvingparkfacilitiesinwaysthatwillbebeneficialeveninnormaltimes,andcrucialinthepost‐disasterperiod: Additionalbathroomfacilitiesatallparks.Parkrenovations(e.g.SanPablotennis

courts)shouldincludebathroomrenovationsand/oradditions. Considercompostingtoiletsthatwillworkifsewersystemisnotusable. Anoff‐gridrenewableenergysource.Ideallythiscanfunctiononnormaldayse.g.

poweringlightsatparks,aswellasduringadisaster. Chargingofmobiledevicesisimportantsothatpeoplecancommunicateand

information‐gatherafteradisaster.Werecommendcreatingoff‐gridsolarchargingstationsinparksthatcanbeusedinnormaltimesaswellasindisasters.

VISIONING–CONSIDERPRE‐ANDPOST‐DISASTERUSES Wesuggestthatallvisioningandconceptualdesignprojectsincorporateideasforpre‐

andpost‐disasterusesforcityspaces. WesuggestthatPhase1includeavisioningprojectfortheopenlotonAllstonSt.next

totheCorporationYard,andthatpotentialpre‐andpost‐disasterusesbeprioritized.Forexample,considerusessuchasdisastershelter,disastereducation/trainingcenter,disasterfirstaidmobilestation,disasterresponsestagingareaandsimilaruses.

Foropenlotsorsimilarhard‐surfacedspaces,consideruseasstagingareasduringpost‐earthquakeorwildfireoperations.Thismayincludesuchactivitiesasstagingfortransportation,repaircrews(e.g.forpowerandgassystems),anddebrisremovaloperations.

TRANSPORTATION Streetrepairprioritizationshouldconsiderthefollowing:

o Post‐disasterneedforaccessbyresponse,repair,anddebrisremovaloperations.Accessforemergencyresponse(e.g.crewstorepairnaturalgasorwaterlines)isconsistentlyachallengeindisasters.

o Evacuationroutes,especiallyforurgentevacuationfromthehillsincaseofwildfire.EvacuationroutesinBerkeleyarenotpredeterminedbutarebasedontheemergency.Becauseofthis,werecommendprioritizingmajorcorridorsin

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

andoutofthecity(N‐SandE‐W,includingHillsaccessandegress),whicharethemostlikelyevacuationchannels.

Afteramajorearthquake,drivingmaynotbepossibleinmanypartsofBerkeleyandgasmaynotbeavailable.Bicyclingcouldbeagoodalternatetransportationmethod.Forthisreason,werecommendthatprioritybegiventotransportationprojectsthatsupportbicyclingasamodeoftransit.

DISASTERCOMMUNICATIONINFRASTRUCTURE TheCity’semergencyradiostationatAM1610isnotoriouslypoorlyfunctioningand

can’tbeheardinmanylocationsinthecity.ThisstationistheprimarywayfortheCitytodistributeinformationcitywideintheearlyperiodpost‐disaster.Suchinformationmayincludeevacuationorshelter‐in‐placeorders,locationsforfood/waterdistribution,andshelterlocations.WerecommendthatPhase1includeaprojecttoassessandimprovetheradiooutputsothatitcanbeheardthroughoutthecity.

WesuggestthatPhase1includeavisioning/feasabilityprojectforpost‐disastercommunicationinfrastructureforthepublic.CurrentlythereisnowayforthepublictocontacttheEOCtoinformrespondersofneedsafteradisaster,inthelikelyeventthat9‐1‐1isoverloadedornotfunctioning.Additionally,thepublicwillhaveastrongneedtocommunicateinternallywitheachother(e.g.families)afteradisaster.Infrastructuresuchasacitywidewirelesslocalareanetwork(WLAN)ordecentralizedmeshnetworkusingBluetoothorothertechnology,especiallywhencoupledwithubiquitoussmartphones,couldcreatearobustpost‐disastercommunicationsystemthatcouldgreatlyimprovecommunitywell‐being,informationdistribution,andemergencyresponseintheearlyperiodpost‐disaster.

FIRESTATIONSANDTRAINING FireStation2isinneedofcapitalimprovements.Firestationrepairwouldsatisfy

severalofthecriteriaforthisspending(advancesequity,prioritizessafetyimprovements,improvespreparedness).Wasthisprojectconsidered?Ifnot,wesuggestaddingittothelist.

BFD’strainingfacilityiscurrentlylocatedinaresidentialneighborhood.Werecommendthatthecitylookforanewlocationforthetrainingfacilityinacommercialorindustriallocation.Werecommendthatanyvisioningprojectincludethispossibleuseforcity‐ownedspaces.

NOTESONSPECIFICPROJECTSNorthBerkeleySeniorCenter($6,800,000):Planning,DesignandConstructionLiveOakCommunityCenter($4,900,000):Planning,DesignandConstructionFrancesAlbrierCommunityCenter($750,000):PlanningandDesignWestBerkeleyServiceCenter($150,000):ConceptualDesign

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

Allfouroftheaboveserveascare/shelterfacilitiesinadisaster.Pleaseseesuggestionsunder“SHELTERING–CITYSTRUCTURES”

WillardClubhouse:Roofandrestroomimprovements Considercompostabletoilets Consideraddingmoretoiletsforanticipatedpost‐disasterneedsGroveParkPhase2‐Restroom/SportsField‐$1,000,000 Considercompostabletoilets Consideraddingmoretoiletsforanticipatedpost‐disasterneeds Consideraddingoff‐gridsolarpoweredlighting Consideraddingoff‐gridsolarchargingstationforthepublic

SanPabloParkTennisCourts‐$800,000 Considercompostabletoilets Consideraddingmoretoiletsforanticipatedpost‐disasterneeds Consideraddingoff‐gridsolarpoweredlighting Consideraddingoff‐gridsolarchargingstationforthepublic

RoseGardenDrainage,PathwaysandTennisCourts‐$2,000,000 Consideraddingoff‐gridsolarpoweredlighting Consideraddingoff‐gridsolarchargingstationforthepublic

GilmanNorthRestroomandStorage‐PlanningandDesign$250,000 Considercompostabletoilets Consideraddingmoretoiletsforanticipatedpost‐disasterneedsTransferStationModernization($250,000):MasterPlan Inthismasterplan,includetheconsiderationofanticipatedneedfordebrisremoval

afteranearthquakeorwildfireCity‐WideStreetImprovements($5,000,000):DesignandConstruction

Asdescribedabove,werecommendprioritizingevacuationroutesaswellasresponderandrecoveryaccessroutes

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

Item 6 February 22, 2017

1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7432 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7490 E-mail: [email protected]

Berkeley Energy Commission

MEMORANDUM

February 22, 2017 To: Berkeley Parks and Waterfront Commission From: Berkeley Energy Commission Re: T1 Infrastructure Bond Recommendations The City of Berkeley Energy Commission submits the following recommendations for spending priorities in the T1 Infrastructure Bond. Projects funded should advance the City of Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions through increasing energy efficiency and shifting from fossil fuels to sustainable renewable energy sources in our building and transportation system. As City infrastructure have lifetimes of several decades, it is important to make decisions that advance the City’s climate goals when major upgrades are being made; otherwise we will miss an opportunity for improvement that may not come again for many decades. To ensure that CAP goals are met, funded projects should be chosen based on their contribution to:

Reducing reliance on fossil fuels;

Maximizing energy efficiency;

Shifting from natural gas consumption to renewable electricity; and

Reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions over the project’s lifetime.

Specifically, when buildings are being retrofitted, the City should assess the systems being worked on to include the following efficiency upgrades, as appropriate:

Include cost-effective, energy efficiency measures such as:

o Occupancy sensors for lights and HVAC systems;

o Programmable thermostats, tied into occupancy sensors;

o On-demand hot water heaters;

o Demand response building systems (hot water heaters, HVAC systems,

etc.) that shift electricity usage from peak load times, to times when more

renewable electricity is available;

o Additional windows, clerestory windows, skylights or lighting tubes to

reduce artificial lighting requirements;

o Smart lighting controls that dynamically adjusts a dimmer to complement

available natural lighting;

o Improving building envelope performance;

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

mailto:[email protected]

T1 Infrastructure Bond Recommendations Item 6 Page 2 February 22, 2017

o Heat pumps with low GHG refrigerants, such as super-critical CO2;

o CO2 sensors and heat recovery in HVAC ventilation systems.

When walls and roofs are accessible in projects, install the maximum insulation

recommended for our climate zone.

If electrical systems are being renovated, upgrade their capacity to support future

needs of electrical vehicles and fully electric buildings.

If natural gas hot water or furnaces are being replaced, use high-efficiency heat

pump alternatives, including ground-sourced heat pumps.

Install electric vehicle charging stations at City buildings (where feasible), or at

least install conduit as part of all parking lot projects to minimize the cost of

installing charging station in the future.

If roofs are being upgraded, consider opportunities for solar integration.

Buildings should be assessed to achieve zero net energy consumption, as well as

connection to micro-grids to utilize any surplus energy production:

o Preferably installing photovoltaic and hot water systems with the roof

replacement;

o Ensure all new solar systems have adequate monitoring and maintenance

to ensure maximum performance;

o Consider using smart microinverters to automate monitoring and avoid

problems of a single shaded solar panel disrupting an entire chain of

serially-connected panels;

o In situations where solar systems cannot be installed, ensure that roofs are

solar ready with the proper mounts, conduits, etc. to lessen the cost of future

upgrades.

For roof or landscaping upgrades, consider opportunities for storm water

management, as well as water harvesting for irrigation and toilets.

For restroom and plumbing upgrades, consider low-flow appliances, waterless

urinals, and electric hand dryers to replace paper towels.

To minimize the environmental impact of building projects, all work done should:

o Avoid insulation containing organohalogen flame retardants or compounds

with high global warming potential;

o Prioritize use of FSC certified sustainably harvested wood;

o Avoid where practical materials containing Living Building Challenge Red

List chemicals;

o Design projects for durability and longevity.

When upgrading street segments, ensure that all related upgrades are made to maximize the life of that segment. This should include:

Assessing gas lines running under the streets and replacing the, as needed, to:

o Mitigate methane leaks (a potent greenhouse gas); and

o Improve public safety by mitigating potentially explosive leaks.

Providing neighborhoods the option of moving power lines underground while the

streets are dug up in order to reduce costs.

Including traffic calming and pedestrian improvement.

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

T1 Infrastructure Bond Recommendations Item 6 Page 3 February 22, 2017

Addressing gaps in the bicycle network and improving safety, as has been

identified in the 2017 City’s Bicycle Plan. Some of the key “hot-spots” include:

o The protected bike lanes called for in the new bicycle plan;

o The gap between the Milvia bike boulevard, in Berkeley, and the Shattuck

bike lanes, in Oakland, especially around the intersection of Shattuck and

Ashby;

o Extending the Hearst Ave project an extra block and connect it to the work

happening above Shattuck, and tie the protected bike lane across Oxford;

o Extending the Bancroft Ave. project an extra block and connect it to the

work happening above Fulton, and tie it to the protected bike lane across

Fulton.

Throughout the implementation of the projects funded through the T1 bond measure, the City should look for grants and other funding opportunities that can add to the available funding to deliver the most value to City residents. This can include funding sources such as EPIC funding announcements from the California Energy Commission, and other matching funds for demonstration projects that support cutting-edge technologies, such as micro-grids for disaster resiliency, zero-impact demand response for hot water and space heating, etc.

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

Miller, Roger

From: Isabelle Gaston <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 8:37 AMTo: T1Subject: question

Can you please tell me the salary of each of the 5 FTEs?

Also, the cost of office space, equipment and supplies?

Thank you, Isabelle

Staffing for Measure T1 Project Management Project management staffing costs for bond projects are estimated to be between 14% and 15%. Over the next 12 years, and with the phasing proposed above, staff estimates that the equivalent of 5 full-time employees (FTEs) will be required to manage the work. In Phase I, staffing costs, including office space rental, equipment, and supplies, are estimated to be $4.6 million.

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

Miller, Roger

From: Isabelle Gaston <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 8:52 AMTo: T1Cc: Hahn, Sophie; Arreguin, Jesse L.; Ray YepSubject: Cost estimates for Live Oak Community Center Renovation Double within Two Months

To T1 Staff:

In the City Manager's Dec. 22nd, 2016 memo, seismic upgrading and renovation of the Live Oak Community Center is estimated as$4,900,000.

However, two months earlier, Oct. 18th, 2016, City staff estimated the Live Oak project (seismic and deferred maintenance) was $2,139,000 or >$2.8 million less.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2016/10_Oct/City_Council__10-18-2016_-_Special_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

In addition, the Dec. 22nd Memo estimates the cost of the North Berkeley Senior Center renovation/seismic upgrade as $6,800,000 but on January 19th, 2016, the North Berkeley Senior Center project (seismic and deferred maintenance) was estimated as costing $5,336,000 or $1.6 million less.

Can you please explain why?

Thank you, Isabelle

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

Miller, Roger

From: Isabelle Gaston <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:00 AMTo: T1Cc: Arreguin, Jesse L.Subject: Fwd: question

In addition, can you please tell me who is the Program Manager for T1? If one has not been hired, can you please tell me who is the acting Program Manager until one is hired?

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Isabelle Gaston <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 8:37 AM Subject: question To: [email protected]

Can you please tell me the salary of each of the 5 FTEs?

Also, the cost of office space, equipment and supplies?

Thank you, Isabelle

Staffing for Measure T1 Project Management Project management staffing costs for bond projects are estimated to be between 14% and 15%. Over the next 12 years, and with the phasing proposed above, staff estimates that the equivalent of 5 full-time employees (FTEs) will be required to manage the work. In Phase I, staffing costs, including office space rental, equipment, and supplies, are estimated to be $4.6 million.

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

Miller, Roger

From: Isabelle Gaston <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 8:12 AMTo: T1; Harrington, PhillipSubject: California Public Records Act Request

This is a California Public Records Act request and you have 10 days to respond:

In the City Manager's Dec. 22nd, 2016 memo, seismic upgrading and renovation of the Live Oak Community Center is estimated as$4,900,000.

However, two months earlier, Oct. 18th, 2016, City staff estimated the Live Oak project (seismic and deferred maintenance) was $2,139,000 or >$2.8 million less.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2016/10_Oct/City_Council__10-18-2016_-_Special_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

Please send me the estimates for the $4.9 million and $2.1 million for these two dates..

Thank you, Isabelle

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

Miller, Roger

From: Miller, RogerSent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:12 AMTo: T1Subject: Comments from the CYRC Commission - Monday - Feb 27, 2017

On Monday, February 27, 2017, Scott Ferris and Roger Miller made a T1 bond program presentation to the CYRC Commission.

The commission provided the following comments during the discussion item:

1. Can there be some overall program planning citywide before we start doing specific renovations to specific community centers? (Julie Sinai)

2. Can T1 funds be used for Tuolumne Camp Rebuild? (Scott Gelfand, Julie Sinai)3. Can we coordinate the planning for renovations at the community centers to include 2020 elements

as well as equity elements? (Julie Sinai)4. Can the renovations to the senior centers and community centers include additional housing, and

can the upcoming federal and state funding for housing be leveraged with these renovation projects? (Julie Sinai)

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

For T1...

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mike Vandeman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:35 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Burroughs, Timothy <[email protected]> Subject: Streets

Whoever is looking for streets to pave should travel by bicycle. It's the only way to tell how the pavement harms bicycles and bicyclists. Pavement or potholes that are no problem for cars can wreck a bicycle.

All landscaping should be done exclusively with native species of plants, to benefit our native animals.

‐‐

I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off‐limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Wildlife must be given top priority, because they can't protect themselves from us.

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://mjvande.info

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

From: Ory Sandel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 8:41 PM To: Measure T1 <[email protected]> Cc: Berkeley Mayor's Office <[email protected]>; d3info <[email protected]>; Burroughs, Timothy <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Feedback on Measure T1 priorities

Please see the below.

Sent from myPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ory <[email protected]> Date: March 2, 2017 at 6:00:53 PM PST To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Feedback on Measure T1 priorities

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a 24-year resident of Berkeley. Most of that time I have lived on the south side (15 years in the LeConte neighborhood and the past 7+ on Grant Street just south of Dwight).

As a general matter, I am appalled at the city's priorities.

Our streets are pockmarked with potholes. Our sewer mains are breaking and wasting water. Our parks are being used as makeshift homeless shelters. Our recreational facilities are a shambles.

Meanwhile, the city council has been busy occupying itself with matters that do not contribute to the health, safety or welfare of city residents and taxpayers (which are, notably, not entirely overlapping categories).

Borrowing $100,000,000 on the backs of city taxpayers to fund "underfunded" or "unfunded" projects is irresponsible. No one can reasonably argue that the "deferred maintenance" was unanticipated; rather, the city council affirmatively opted not to maintain essential infrastructure in favor of spending our money elsewhere. But now that Measure T1 has passed, the city counsel must ensure that those funds are used exclusively for the benefit of the city's taxpayers, who bear the burden of paying back the money and the interest due thereon.

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

2

That means:

* Parks and recreational facilities that are welcoming, serve the needs of city residents and areeasy to reserve (why not make it so that Berkeley library cards can be used for that purpose?)

* Streets that are safe for bicyclists, pedestrians *and* motor vehicles

* Sewer systems that are modern, reliable and environmentally sound

By way of example only, in my neighborhood, it seems that the BUSD property at 1720 Oregon is completely unused (and, frankly, an eyesore). Why not turn it into a facility like the YMCA, with a pool, gym, etc. that can generate money for the city through memberships? City residents could get free or discounted memberships. And the MLK Youth Services Center (with its indoor courts) is already there. We need to be creative in how the city can serve its residents *and* improve its fiscal position.

As a general matter, this city needs to start focusing on spending taxpayer money on serving those taxpayers. That means making the city a better, safer and more pleasant place to live. Reduce crime. Reduce the homeless population (when did it become our responsibility to feed and house everyone who comes within city limits?). End government interference in the real estate market by eliminating rent control and thereby give property owners some incentive to actually maintain their properties. Make the city more business friendly and thereby revive downtown and Telegraph Ave. Limit admission to BUSD schools to children who areBerkeley residents (why was Kamau Berlin, a Richmond resident, allowed to attendBerkeley Tech Academy? If you don't know who he is, Google him).

These Measure T1 funds are not some kind of godsend. The money is not "free". At best, the funds are a temporary panacea that may allow the city council to kick the can further down the road without resolving fundamental fiscal problems and flawed priorities that are toonumerous to list. That is the last thing this city needs.

Regardless of how the Measure T1 funds are spent, I insist that they be spent to improve the lives of the people who are bearing its costs. That is the first step in setting our priorities straight.

Ory Sandel 2536 Grant Street Berkeley, CA 94703

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

Miller, Roger

From: ken lindahl <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 7:24 AMTo: T1Subject: Feedback on Measure T1 priorities

Hi,

The projects shown on the map all seem worthy. But I was surprised not to see mention of the storm drains at the intersection of 6th St. and Hearst Ave. Being in the lower elevation region of Berkeley ‐‐ toward the bay ‐‐ storm runoff accumulates here and the intersection routinely flood even in moderate rainstorms. The entire northeastern corner of the intersection, including the pedestrian sidewalk,is routinely under water and, in my opinion, unsafe to cross. Risk of flooding in nearby residences is elevated. The unusually heavy rain storms of the past few months caused even more severe flooding at this intersection and along 6th St.

It's not clear to me whether the storm drains at this intersection are inadequate, or the underground pipes are already at capacity from uphill drains, or the underground pipes are partially obstructed and therefore at reduced capacity, but it's a serious problem. I hope this can at least be considered for Measure T1 relief.

Thanks, ken lindahl (6th St. resident and homeowner)

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

1

Miller, Roger

From: Julia Schnell <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 9:55 AMTo: T1Subject: Measure T1 Priorities

Hello,

I live in downtown Berkeley and wanted to offer input on the T1 prioritization question since I can't go to any of the upcoming Saturday workshops.

With regard to streets and stormwater infrastructure prioritization, the various Complete Streets projects should be high priority projects for the city. Given the recent death of a cyclist on Hopkins street, the Monterey/Hopkins/The Alameda and Hopkins/San Pablo projects would be the highest-priority in my mind. Given its high volume of traffic and dense, mixed land use, Shattuck Avenue should also be a high funding priority. Creating streets that are safe for all users is a health, environmental, and quality of life benefit to all parts of our community.

Thanks, Julia Schnell

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

Agenda Item 13.



of 34

Directions to Chávez Park and Memorial Solar Calendar

Agenda Item 13.



of 34