Title
Highlights of the Facilities and Transportation Committee Meeting of May 17, 2016.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommends RFP for pilot program for 4 parklet locations
Body
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO
FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
May 17, 2016
5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
San Leandro City Hall
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California
(Sister Cities Gallery)
HIGHLIGHTS
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Mayor Reed called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
1.A. Attendance
Committee members present: Vice Mayor Ursula Reed and Councilmember Corina Lopez
City staff present: Community Development Director Cynthia Battenberg, Senior Traffic Engineer Reh-Lin Chen, Engineering & Transportation Director Keith Cooke, Administrative Services Manager Kirsten Foley, Acting Assistant City Manager Jeff Kay, Senior Engineer Austine Osakwe, Public Works Director Debbie Pollart, Principal Engineer Michael Stella, City Engineer Nick Thom and Water Pollution Control Plant Division Manager Dean Wilson
Public present: Resident Leah Hall, Resident Paula Hansen, San Leandro Improvement Association District Manager Dominic LiMandri
1.B. Announcements
None.
2. DISCUSSION ITEMS
2.A. Discussion Regarding Water Reuse/Reclaimed Water
Dean Wilson presented an update on Water Reuse/Reclaimed Water.
Potential industrial laundry company looking to locate in San Leandro started us down the path of having a study prepared, to realize what potential industrial/commercial companies were around that could take advantage of the City’s reclaimed water. However, with that company ultimately not moving here, it quickly became evident that there currently doesn’t exist a large users’ base close enough to the plant (pipe is very expensive; $1M to $1.5M per mile to get pipe in the ground).
A 2005 study of reclaimed water did identify a project to install an irrigation pump station at Monarch Bay Golf Club, which was constructed and is in use. Because of that infrastructure, and the EBMUD pump station at the WPCP, we are currently producing about 200m gallons of reclaimed water per year; currently 12% of our annual flow (35% of total flow during summer) is reclaimed and reused. No one on this side of the East Bay is producing that high a percentage of reclaimed water that is used for irrigation. This water is sold at cost to American Golf Corporation for Monarch Bay (approximately $200 per acre foot).
Another project currently under construction is a 100 gallon/minute residential fill station, which should be installed by the end of August/September. This station will provide high-quality tertiary treated water similar to what is provided in Dublin. The Council action for this $400k project is already complete and construction is being accomplished by existing mechanical staff at the WPCP. EBMUD is reviewing the existing 1989 MOU to allow the City to distribute reclaimed water in their area. It will then go to the State Water Resources Control Board for approval. Residents will need to do one time training and then will be able to fill up containers for free beginning in August or September.
There are two main drivers to reuse water: first, the amount of permit fees charged for discharge - for San Leandro, these costs are not an issue. The second driver is supply monitoring and guidance issued from water agencies (state and local) on how to boost using reclaimed water to supplement overall supply. The City continues to discuss options and work with EBMUD to increase incentives to the Metropolitan Links Golf Course (Oakland), located adjacent to the WPCP. Currently, this course uses well water for irrigation due to the fact that EBMUD charges users far more (4-5 times the City’s cost to produce) for reclaimed water than what the City sells the water to EBMUD for. The WPCP is also talking with Waste Management about their future need for use of reclaimed water in their onsite operations. Lastly, as the Shoreline Project proceeds, the City will be in conversation with the developer about installing purple pipe in order to facilitate use of reclaimed water in the project.
2.B. Discussion Regarding Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study & Master Plan
K. Cooke introduced the discussion on the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study & Master Plan noting that the duration was extended due to the lack of rain needed for measurement and that the study cost approximately $500,000. Nick Thom presented an update on the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study & Master Plan (PowerPoint included).
The 1992 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan has been replaced with a new master plan dated 2015. The new master plan started in 20111-12 evaluated demand upon the system due to changes in zoning under the downtown TOD Strategy as well as zoning changes anticipated in the City’s General Plan 2035 which is currently under development.
The 2015 Master Plan concludes that our system is adequate for current demand and recommends 11 projects at approximately $3 million needed to increase capacity to the amount required for full build out of our 2035 General Plan. These projects will be added to CIP list for evaluation and ranking. Sanitary sewer improvement projects are eligible for funding by WPCP Enterprise Fund.
D. Wilson: Collection system is regulated, so the capacity analysis within this master plan is a requirement. We anticipate that the State will audit our records soon.
Councilmember Lopez: What prompted audit?
D. Wilson: Audits are routinely conducted of all sanitary sewer system operators.
2.C. Discussion Regarding Parklets
Keith Cooke presented information to the Committee on parklets. (PowerPoint included).
Staff proposes and seeks input from the Committee for a pilot program for Parklets in San Leandro. San Francisco defines Parklets as an economical solution to the desire and need for wider sidewalks and they are intended to provide space for the general public to sit and enjoy the space where existing sidewalks would preclude such occupancy. Staff proposes releasing an RFP for 3-5 locations to pilot and will collect data which will then be used to draft ordinance. Staff will also reference what other local agencies (SF, Oakland) have in place for parklet ordinances & programs.
Safety is the foremost consideration. Need to consider risks and as such, find roadways with low speed, no obstruction such as hydrants, space needs to be accessible. No table service allowed if fronting establishment that serve food and drink. Other agencies review possible locations on a case by case basis.
For design, cost is also a primary consideration - where possible, parklets can be done in conjunction with a streetscape project. Ideally business or building owners’ requests drive creation of parklets and those owners take the initiative to make it happen.
The review and permitting of possible and planned parklets will most likely be kept with E&T. CD, BD and PW will need to be involved in review process (PW for maintenance, drainage).
Parklet requirements should be: 6 ft. wide, inside parking tees, approximately 2 parking spaces long, no fire hydrants, bus stops and other obstruction located nearby. Traffic safety will be a major concern for parklets. Application process could require application fee or other fee to offset loss of parking revenue.
Liability insurance is required by both SF and Oakland. Additionally, public noticing, outreach to neighbors would be required as well as agreements on who will be responsible for maintenance. Parklet would have to adhere to planning review, zoning and building codes, and other City review as necessary.
Councilmember Lopez: Agrees on strategy to start off small and see how it goes before doing an ordinance. Identify funding source. Maintenance?
Vice Mayor Reed: Who bears the financial responsibility for installation and maintenance - proponent or City?
K. Cooke: Parklets (cost) and maintenance thereof becomes the responsibility of the proponent and not the City. City’s responsibility is to review request (ADA, drainage, flooring) and approving of parklets.
Vice Mayor Reed: Has anyone asked for it?
K. Cooke: Yes, near Zocalo Coffee on Bancroft. A worry is the excessive speeds of traffic near that location as Bancroft speed limit is 35 MPH. Additional discussion regarding the need for outreach to adjoining business. Business or property owners should be main proponents for these projects.
Councilmember Lopez: Pilot program will go by posted speed limit or with speed limit at 85th percentile?
K. Cooke: Most programs say 25MPH, while some locations at higher speeds probably will look at individual location basis.
Councilmember Lopez: Liability will be held by proponent. Who’s responsible in excess of the basic $1M?
J. Kay: Liability in excess of $1M would lie with City. Should have City Attorney and Risk Management review liability.
Councilmember Lopez: Before proceeding with drafting ordinance, need to iron out liability issue and consider if City should raise liability limits. Also how to address issue of design standard and compatibility with neighborhood? Design standards will need to be addressed appropriately for the location.
C. Battenberg: Planning will make sure that neighborhood is informed and will get comments. Staff will also ensure that the design is consistent with the aesthetic of neighborhood and put through planning review consistent with any other proposed improvement.
Councilmember Lopez: Would like to give Mayor a chance to comment. Is it possible for K. Cooke to meet with her and review this meeting’s discussion? Councilmember Lopez and Vice Mayor Reed like the idea. This discussion is an opportunity for education and to learn about issues. Staff will take this input and use it to develop a Parklet Program and bring it back to Council.
Public Comment Period:
Leah Hall, resident, North Area: Involved in a group of 5 people consisting of realtors, architectural designers, and other creative types. National Realtor Association offers a Micro Placemaking Grant which gives grants to realtors to do projects like parklets. Ms. Hall’s group is interested in submitting grant application that will be focused on reclaiming neighborhoods from traffic and speeding cars with installation of parklet. Her group is very interested in a parket in front of Zocalo and understands the traffic safety components for that location. She asked if anyone has compared designated speeds on streets where parklets are located in other cities.
K. Cooke: Street speeds in Oakland and SF are 25MPH for potential parklet sites, but locations are evaluated on a case by case basis.
Committee Recommendation for City Council Consideration
The Committee recommends an RFP for 4 parklet locations for pilot program.
2.D. Project Updates
• Siempre Verde Park Rehabilitation: Contractor’s work is proceeding on schedule and HCD grant funds will be expended by end of grant.
• Thrasher Park Play Equipment Replacement: 95% complete and HCD grant funds will be expended by end of grant.
• Annual Street Sealing: Out to bid
• Annual Overlay and Rehabilitation: Going out to bid in 2 weeks.
The combined allocation for current road projects is $3.5M. We need to spend down our Measure B fund balance as Alameda County Transportation Commission is moving toward implementation of one year deadline to spend funds. Staff will request that Council approve additional money for bid alternatives for planned street projects. Combined with pavement work already completed this year on San Leandro Blvd., there is a total of $5M spent for roadwork and street improvements this fiscal year.
Councilmember Reed asked about recent Next Door notifications of roadwork.
D. Pollart: Public works has been posting notice of road preparation work being done in advance of street sealing work.
Councilmember Lopez asked for a presentation of street selection process/evaluation, and a map showing historical work completed on the streets.
K. Cooke will review street program and revisit in July Facilities Meeting or possibly at a work session or council meeting.
2.E. Discussion Regarding Future Agenda Items
Staff will also add more info to flyer for street maintenance, and show the quadrant map. A display board with this information was available at the May town hall meeting and will be brought to the July town hall meeting.
Staff will email Committee members CIP survey.
Public Comment Period:
San Leandro Improvement Association (SLIA) Dominic LiMandri discussed proposed Bocce Ball Courts at Root Park. SLIA received prelim invoice from landscape architect. SLIA hopes to bring to Council in June. Currently preparing presentation that will presented with plans to Recreation and Parks Commission. Commission to comment and then plans will be finalized and put out to bid.
Councilmember Lopez recommends presentation at Facilities and Transportation Committee for review and discuss funding source. Put on Facilities agenda for July 2016 meeting based on feedback from Recreation?
Councilmember Lopez: What is timeline for construction?
LiMandri: Expected to take 4-6 weeks, hoping to start in mid-August.
Vice Mayor Reed: Many things need to take place - Recreation and Parks Commission, Facilities and Transportation Committee, review of funding package, permits and maintenance agreement. This will not happen for anticipated August start date since allocation of funds and review will take time.
Councilmember Lopez: Serves as alternate for Business Improvement District so wanted to advise Committee that Association is considering asking the City for a loan. They would pay back loan through assessment fees.
K. Cooke: We would like to provide an update on our Local Hazard Mitigation Plan:
N. Thom: Our LHMP must be revised every five years. The current LHMP was adopted in 2010 and its time for the 2015 year update. Council received a status report on the plan in November, 2015. Since that time the plan has been approved by the State Office of Emergency Services and is now with FEMA for review. We need to have the plan approved by both FEMA and the City Council in order to be eligible for hazard mitigation grant funding. Approval of the LHMP is scheduled at the May 23 Council work session. If the Council and FEMA approve the plan by mid-June we will be able to request funding for the Shoreline Flood Protection project which moves about 900 homes out of the flood plain.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comments made throughout.
4. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
None.
5. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 6:41 p.m.