HomeMy Public PortalAbout02) Staff Report - Las Tuns Drive Project (OCR)City Council
June 10, 2015
Page 2 of6
meeting concluded with an interactive workshop that solicited public response on
the presented concepts.
4. On December 4, 2012, the City Council authorized funding consultant Avant-Garde
to develop a grant application for the Project through the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) 2013 Call for Projects.
5. On December 19, 2012, FTS conducted a second community meeting with roughly
100 attendees, again at Live Oak Park Community Center. FTS presented three
streetscape scenarios for Las Tunas, developed based on input received at the first
community meeting. The design concepts primarily focused on modifying roadway
and parking configurations, and integrating multi-modal amenities consistent with
adopted City policies as reflected in the Bicycle Master Plan, Comprehensive
Downtown Parking Strategic Plan, and Traffic Calming Master Plan. As at the first
meeting, community members concluded with an interactive exercise, submitting
input on the three design options including gateway monuments and landscaping
schemes.
6. On December 27, 2012, FTS presented three design concepts to the City Council.
Summarized below, each option would result in various degrees of change to the
Las Tunas corridor. Each of the options divided the Las Tunas corridor into four
segments, from west to east:
• Western Gateway: Rosemead Boulevard to Sultana Avenue;
• Midtown: Sultana Avenue to Cloverly Avenue;
• Downtown Core: Cloverly Avenue to Golden West Avenue; and
• Eastern Gateway: Golden West Avenue to eastern City boundary.
Although the options shared some common elements, there were specific
differences focused on the Downtown Core segment, with additional differences in
the Midtown and Eastern Gateway segments.
Option 1 -Four lanes of traffic; angled and parallel parking in the Downtown Core:
Option 1 proposed that one westbound through lane be eliminated through the
Midtown, Downtown Core, and Eastern Gateway segments, resulting in one
westbound lane, one center turn lane, and two eastbound lanes. On-street parking
would remain as parallel parking except on the south side of the street in the
Downtown Core segment, which would provide back-in angled parking.
Option 2 -Four lanes of traffic; parallel parking in the Downtown Core: Option 2
proposed an identical roadway lane configuration as Option 1. The primary
difference between Options 1 and 2 was the on-street parking layout. All parking
along the corridor would remain as parallel parking. Planters with trees would be
placed between the parking spaces in the Downtown Core segment.
City Council
June 10, 2015
Page 3 of 6
Option 3 -Three lanes of traffic; angled parking in the Downtown Core: Option 3
proposed a configuration with one lane in each direction and a center turn lane in
the Midtown and Downtown Core segments. Back-in angled would be provided on
both sides of the street in the Downtown Core segment, and on the south side of the
street in the Western Gateway and Midtown segments. The stated goal of Option 3
was to maximize pedestrian space and to transform the Downtown Core into a
livelier downtown destination.
7. On December 27, 2012, the City Council selected Option 3 as the "Preferred
Alternative," and authorized the submittal of a funding application for Option 3
through the Metro 2013 Call for Projects. Based on the funding application, Metro
awarded to the City $6,907,974 in the following categories:
Bicycle Improvements:
Pedestrian Improvements:
Transportation Enhancement Activities:
Total:
$2,721,868
$2,910,046
$1,276,060
$6,907,974
8. On March 28, 2014, the Las Tunas Ad Hoc Committee directed staff to retain a traffic
consultant to prepare a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to analyze the potential
traffic impacts of all three options. This was pursuant to a recommendation from
FTS, which as part of the concept development had prepared a brief traffic review
and recommended that a detailed traffic analysis be prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
9. On May 6, 2014, the City Council entered into a Professional Services Agreement
with Kimley Horn and Associates to prepare a detailed TIA analyzing all three
options.
10. On December 5, 2014, the TIA was presented to the Las Tunas Downtown
Revitalization Standing Committee.
11. On January 16, 2015, a meeting was held with the Las Tunas Downtown
Revitalization Standing Committee to further review the TIA and the Project. The
Standing Committee recommended that the TIA be presented to the full City Council
for its consideration.
12. On February 4, 2015, the City Council reviewed the TIA and the proposed design of
the Project (Option 3). The City Council directed staff to move forward with the
Project using an improved and more cost efficient Option 2, instead of Option 3.
City Council
June 10, 2015
Page 4 of 6
ANALYSIS:
The City Council on February 4, 2015, directed staff to move forward with a more cost
efficient and improved Option 2, instead of Option 3. The City Council also provided
additional specific direction regarding the design of the Project including the following
components:
• Two westbound travel lanes;
• One eastbound travel lane;
• Raised and landscaped medians with left turn pockets at intersections;
• Parallel parking on both sides of the street with no angled parking;
• Bike lanes in both directions; and
• Sidewalk bulb-outs at intersections, but otherwise retaining the existing curb
alignment.
Consistent with the original vision of the design and City Council direction, staff is
recommending the following additional components:
• Maintain existing sidewalk widths, reconstruct and improve sidewalks where
necessary for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, replace broken and
damaged areas, and add architectural features such as colored panels and/or brick
inlays at selected locations;
• Keep existing street trees and install additional trees and cost effective
landscaping consistent with the Option 2 design vision;
• Install additional and improved street and pedestrian lighting; and
• Install midblock sidewalk bulb-outs at selected locations in addition to intersection
bulb-outs.
The following table compares the design previously proposed in 2012 (Option 3) with the
revised design based on City Council direction on February 4, 2015 (Improved Option 2).
2012 Proposed Design Current Proposed Design Based on
(Option 3) City Council Direction
(Improved Option 2)
One travel lane in each direction through Two westbound travel lanes and one
downtown area between Sultana and eastbound travel lane between Sultana
Golden West and Golden West
Raised and landscaped center median Same
with left turn lanes at intersections
Bike lanes westbound and eastbound Same
Back-in angled parking on the south side Parallel parking on both sides of the
of Las Tunas from Rosemead to Golden street for full length of Las Tunas
West and on the north side of the street
from Cloverly to Golden West
City Council
June 10, 2015
Page 5 of 6
2012 Proposed Design
(Option 3)
All new curb, gutter, and sidewalk with
bulb-outs at intersections and midblock
All new street trees with added trees
median
in
Additional and improved sidewalk lighting
and furniture
CONCLUSION:
Current Proposed Design Based on
City Council Direction
{Improved Option 2)
Existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk to
remain in place with repairs where
needed; bulb-outs to be added at
intersections and midblock where
appropriate
Existing street trees to remain in place;
new trees to be added in median and
possibly on bulb-outs to supplement
existing trees
Same
The proposed revised design for the Project responds to concerns that have been raised
by residents and businesses about the original 2012 design. The proposed design is also
a more cost effective alternative to the original design, and seeks to retain many of the
existing features of Las Tunas Drive such as the existing sidewalks and street trees, and
to reduce the overall scope of the Project, while remaining consistent with the original
design concept.
A presentation will be given to the City Council at the June 10 meeting that includes
additional details about the proposed design and funding (Attachment "A").
FISCAL IMPACT:
The original Project was estimated to cost $21,550,000, of which $6,907,974 would have
been funded through the Metro Call for Projects grant. The estimated cost with the revised
design is $13,250,000, of which $4,695,652 would be funded by the Metro grant. The grant
amount is based on a percentage of the construction cost, so a decrease in cost results in
a corresponding decrease in the grant amount.
Staff continues to seek additional funding sources for the Project. Staff worked with Metro
to submit an application earlier this year for an Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities grant, but the application was unsuccessful. Staff just submitted an
application for an Active Transportation Program grant and are awaiting the results of the
application. Using only the currently known funding sources, the proposed funding for the
Project is as shown in the following table:
City Council
June 10, 2015
Page 6 of 6
Fund Source
Metro Call for Projects grant
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funds
Surface Transportation Proqram-Local (STPL) federal funds
Proposition A local return funds
Proposition C local return funds
Measure R local return funds
Landscape and Lighting District
Other City funds not yet identified
(includes required local match for HSIP and STPL funds)
Total
Amount
$4,695,652
$538,470
$193,500
$905,000
$1,605,000
$1,481,048
$2,000,000
$1,831,330
$13,250,000
The proposed use of Proposition A and Proposition C local return funds would require
allocating the current balance for these funds and committing the entirety of the City's
allocation of these funds for Fiscal Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 (not including funds
committed to existing programs such as Dial-A-Ride).
The proposed use of Measure R local return funds would require committing about $1.5
million of an estimated $2.1 million including the current fund balance and allocations for
Fiscal Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Additional MeasureR funds of approximately $600,000
could be allocated to help cover a portion of the remaining $1.8 million for which a funding
source has not yet been identified.
ATTACHMENT:
A. Project presentation
ATTACHMENT A
Presentation
to be shown at
City Council meeting
c z
::l
0 a::
C)
~ u
<(
1:0
1-u w
--t
0 a:: c.
!!'! ... PROJECT SCOPE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
In 2012, Consulting Firm Freedman, Tung and Sasaki (FTS) was retained by the City to develop CONCEPTS
various option to Improve Las Tunas Drive.
FTS developed 3 Options as follows:
Option 1 -Four lanes of traffic; angled and parallel parking in the Downtown Core
Option 2-Four lanes of traffic; parallel parking in the Downtown Core
Option 3 -Three lanes of traffic; angled parking in the Downtown Core
Based on City Council's December 27, 2012 meeting, Option 3 was selected as the preferred concept.
Based on the preferred concept, Option 3, Consulting Firm Avant-Garde was directed to prepare funding
application for this concept for the MTA 2013 Call for Projects Funding program.
Based on the Funding Application, MTA awarded to the City $6.9 m in the following categories:
Bicycle Improvements: $2.7 m
Pedestrian Improvements: $2.9 m
Transportation Enhancement Activities: $1.3 m
Total: $6.9 m
Total MTA Grant Amount is $16.9 m, of which MTA provides $6,9 m, and City Match is $10m
Total estimated project cost is $21.6m, which will require $4.6m additional City funds (in addition to $10 m).
! PROJECT SCOPE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Per direction provided by the Standing Committee at its March 28, 2014 Meeting, City retained the Traffic
Consulting Firm of Kimley Horn and Associates (KHA) to prepare a detailed Traffic Impact Study (TIA) to analyze
all 3 Options.
TIA was presented to Standing Committee at its December 5, 2014 Meeting.
TIA was presented to City Council at its February 4, 2015 Meeting.
~
lii'3l PROJECT SCOPE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
At February 4, 2015 Meeting, Council directed staff to move forward with the project using design option 2
while looking into derivative designs for the selected option.
Based on City Council's direction to develop an improved and cost efficient concept based on Option 2 and
maintaining three funding components* of the project, the following criteria was used:
Council Direction from February 4, 2015 Study Session:
• 2 west bound thru travel lanes.
• 1 east bound thru travel lane.
• 10' wide raised and landscaped medians, with left turn pockets at intersections.
• Parallel on-street parking on both sides.
• Bike lanes in both directions.
• Keep existing curb alignment as is, but install bulb-outs at intersections.
Additional recommended features consistent with Council direction:
• Maintain existing sidewalk widths, reconstruct/improve sidewalk areas where necessary for ADA compliance
and replace broken and damaged areas, and add architectural features such as colored panels and/or brick
inlays at selected locations.
• Install cost effective Landscape Concepts consistent with Option 2 design vision, which includes keeping existing
trees and sidewalks.
• Install additional/improved street and pedestrian lighting.
• Install midblock bulb-outs at selected locations.
*Three funding components are Bicycle Improveme nts, Pedestrian Improvements, Transportation Enhan cement Activities. After final approval of City Council, staff
will present the final alignment concept to MTA to confirm that all three funding components have been met.
1-z w
~ z
C) -.....
<(
c w
~
0
Q.
0
0:::
Q.
t-z w
~ z
C)
::;
<(
c w
V)
0
Q.
0 a::
Q.
1-z
LLI
~ z
C)
.....
<(
c
LLI
~
0
Q.
0
0:::
Q.
~fD
t-z w
~ z
~ -...I
<(
c w c.n
0
Q.
0
0:::
Q.
~ . ,.
ll .•
. I
I PROJECT COST AND FUNDING (INITIAL CONCEPTS AND BUDGET IN 2012)
lS
Est i mat ed Pr oj ect Cost and Funding per MTA Call For Pr oj ects Application i n 2012. Des i gn Alternative 3 was u sed fo r M TA Applicat ion. $21,550,000
Estimated Construction Cost Items that will be paid by MTA Grant up to $16,918,139 with 59.17% Local Match $16,918,139
Amount that would be paid by MTA Grant 40.83% $6,907,974
Amount that would be paid by City as Local Match 59.17% $10,010,165
Additional Required City Funds for the $21,550,000 Project Budget $4,631,861
Total of MTA Grant with City Match $16,918,139 plus Additional Required City Funds $4,631,861 $21,550,000
Total Outside Funds $8,098,944
Total City Funds $13,451,056
Bicycle Improvements S2,n1,868
MTAGrant Pedestrian Improvements $2,910,046 $6,907,974 $6,907,974 $6,907,974
Transportati on Enhancement Activities $1,276,060 ,,
BTA (State Funding Program
State funds
City Required Match
$166,SOO
$18,500
$185,000
Federal Funds $538,470 HSIP (Federal Funding Program)
$59,830
$598,300 $1,323,300 $1,323,300
City Required Match
Total Funding Amount Federal Funds $486,000
approved by MTA Call for STPL (Federal Funding Pr ogram, Thru FY 13/14) $540,000 $16,918,139
Proj ects City Required Match $54,000
Required City Matching Prop C $1,350,000 Funds for MTA Grant
Prop A $2,600,000
MeasureR $1,020,000 $10,010,165
Gas Tax $400,000 $8,686,865 $8,686,865
UO (landscape and lighting District) $2,135,000
Econom ic Development Reserve $1,100,000
Other City Funds $81,865
Additional City Funds (not part of MTA Match) $4,631,86
To t al $21,550,00(
Funds provi ded by MTA Grant $6,907,974
Total Outside Funds Other Grant Programs used by City as Part of City's Matching Funds for the MTA Grant $8,098,944
(staff will look for other funding sources to increase outside f!!.nding_ amount) $1,190,970
Total City Funds $13,451,056
To tal $21,550,000
i.!
i3l
19
PROJECT COST AND FUNDING (CURRENT CONCEPT AND BUDGET)
Current Estimated Project Cost for improved and cost efficient concept developed by staff based on City Coun cil's 2/4/15 direction. $13,250,00 0
Estimated Construction Cost Items that will be paid by MTA Grant up to $16,918,139 with 59.17% Local Match $11,500,000
Amount that would be paid by MTA Grant 40.83% $4,695,652
Amount that would be paid by City as Local Match 59.17% $6,804,348
Additional Required City Funds for the $1 3,250,000 Project Budget $1,750,000
Total of MTA Grant with City Match $11,500,000 plus Additional Required City Funds $1,750,000 $13,250,000
Total Outside Funds $5,427,622
Total City Funds $7,822,378
Bicycle Improvements $1,850,173
MTAGrant Pedestrian Improvements $1,978,086 $4,695,652 $4,695,652 $4,695,652
Transportation Enhancement Activities $867,394 '
State Funds
BTA (State Funding Program
City Required Match
$0
$0
$0
Federal Funds $538,470
HSIP (Federal Funding Program) $598,300 $813,300 $813,300
City Required Match $59,830
Total Funding Amount Federal Funds $193,500
approved by MTA Call for STPL (Federal Funding Program, FY 15/16, 16/17) $215,000 $11,500,000
Projects City Required Match $21,500
Required City Matching Prop C (CURRENT BALANCE 53S K +$535K FOR 16/17 + $535K FOR 17/18 = $1,605,000) $1,605,000 Funds for MTA Grant
Prop A (CURRENT BALANCE 81SK + $45K FOR 16/17 + $45K FOR 17/1~905,000) $905,000
MeasureR (CURRENT BALANCE $1.3M +400K FOR 16/17 + $400K FOR 17/18=$2,100,000) $1,481 ,048 $6,804,348
Gas Tax $0 $5,991,048 $5,991,048
LLD (Landscape and Lighting District) (LD CURRENT BALANCE $2,900,000) $2,000,000
Economic Development Reserve $0
Other City Funds $0
Additional City Funds $1,750,000
Total $13,250,000
Funds provided by MTA Grant $4,695,652
Total Outside Funds Other Grant Programs used by City as Part of City's Matching Funds for the MT A Grant $5,427,622
(staff is working on other funding sources to increase outside funding_ amount; ATP Funds-application submitted; Toll Credits) $731,970
Total City Funds $7,822,378
Total $13,250,000
m " PROJECT COST AND FUNDING COMPARISON
Current Estimated Cost
Estimate Costs and and Budgets per improved
Budgets per Design and cost efficient concept
Alternative 3 in 2012 developed per CC 2/4/15
Direction
Total Estimated Project Cost $21,550,000 $13,250,000
Total Outside Funds $8,098,944 $5,427,622
•
Total City Funds $13,451,056 $7,822,378
z
0 -1-u
LLI c:: -c
c z
<C s
LLI -> LLI c::
....I -u z
:::l
0 u