CITY OF BURBANK

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM

Agenda Item - 4

August 3, 1999

Robert R. Ovrom, City Manager

Robert M. Tague, Community Development Director; via: Rick Pruetz, Chief Asst Community Development Director/City Planner, Dennis Mackay, Deputy City Planner, Greg Herrmann, Principal Planner; by: Joy R. Tuncay, Associate Planner

CHANDLER BOULEVARD ACCESSWAY

The purpose of this report is to request a City Council decision on the Chandler Boulevard Accessway improvements and direct staff to complete final design and cost estimates for the project. This report summarizes the project’s history, and discusses the advantages and challenges to the alternatives proposed for improving the former railroad right-of-way along Chandler Boulevard.

BACKGROUND:

In 1991, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, now the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), purchased the Burbank Branch (Chandler Boulevard) railroad right-of-way from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The Cities of Burbank and Los Angeles agreed to jointly purchase the right-of-way with the MTA (Exhibit A). Burbank's share of the three-mile segment of the right-of-way is 41.1% and MTA’s share is 58.9%. The same percentage breakdown exists between the City of Los Angeles and the MTA for the Los Angeles portion of the right-of-way, which is approximately one mile in length. In this purchase agreement, the City of Burbank agreed that the right-of-way would always be used for its "highest and best transportation use" and that the MTA would be involved in the planning and implementation process for any improvement to the right-of-way.

The Southern Pacific Transportation Company has officially abandoned all rail service along Chandler Boulevard, except for a portion of track used by Terry Lumber that extends 300 feet west of Victory Boulevard. Any potential improvement project must necessarily end at Mariposa Street because of this active portion of rail.

On March 30, 1993, the City of Burbank submitted a grant application through the MTA Call for Projects for the design and construction of a proposed bikeway along Chandler Boulevard. This was a joint application with the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (LACRA) acting on behalf of the City of Los Angeles. The entire four-mile project received MTA approval of $24,000 for preliminary design of several alternatives for the accessway. A local match of $6,000 was appropriated from Proposition A Local Return funds. Using these funds, Boyle Engineering was selected to prepare preliminary design and cost estimates for the project.

On October 26, 1994 a community workshop was held to gauge public interest in the project and to discuss options being considered for the corridor. Many residents were concerned that a transit system was being considered by the MTA for the corridor.

A Mayor's Town Hall Meeting was held on May 25, 1995 to present the alternative preliminary design concepts, receive comments, and solicit community volunteers to participate in a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). On July 11, 1995, the City Council appointed 13 residents to the Chandler Accessway CAC, along with five ex-officio (non-voting) members representing the Transportation Commission, Planning Board, Park and Recreation Board, Advisory Council on Disabilities, and the Magnolia Park Citizens Advisory Committee. The CAC mission was to "Develop a design of the Chandler Accessway which preserves the character of the surrounding neighborhood while implementing a transportation improvement using the railroad right-of-way along Chandler Boulevard." The CAC held its first meeting on August 8, 1995 and continued meeting regularly until October 1996. Throughout their review of the various design alternatives, the CAC received input from various local residents, regional agencies, and advocacy groups, including the MTA, the Human Powered Transit Association, and Safe Moves.

With input from the community, the consultant, Police, Traffic Engineering and Community Development staff, the CAC focused on five concepts. Each was evaluated in terms of traffic impacts, volumes in alleys, safety, grant funding availability and other criteria. Following are the five concepts (Exhibit B):

Concept 1

This concept does not alter the existing right-of-way width of 36 feet. It provides a separate eight-foot wide bi-directional Class I bikepath within the right-of-way. The remaining portion of the right-of-way would be landscaped.

Concept 2

This concept provides five-foot Class II bike lanes on the southern roadway of Chandler by narrowing the right-of-way by 10 feet. The remaining 26-foot wide right-of-way would be landscaped.

Concept 3

This concept widens the right-of-way by 14 feet to a total width of 50 feet. This design provides a Class I bikepath in the right-of-way, separated from on-street traffic. Travel lanes on Chandler would be converted to single, one-way lanes (westbound on the north and eastbound on the south). Cut-through lanes would be provided at specific mid-segment locations to provide access across the landscaped right-of-way to the opposite direction of travel.

Concept 4

This concept provides two Class II bike lanes (one on each side of Chandler) by converting the existing two-way traffic to one-way traffic with one lane in each direction. This would modify the median to add left-turn pockets and three-phase signals to improve traffic flow.

Concept 5

This concept was included by staff, at the request of CAC members, to consider an interim improvement that could be implemented while grant funds are secured for construction of the bike lane components of the Accessway. This concept would not alter the existing roadway or median configurations. Rather, the railroad tracks would be removed, and non-irrigated drought tolerant landscaping would be planted along the periphery of the median. This concept was later modified by the Council to include an irrigated, landscaped right-of-way with no bikeway project.

Staff ranked Concept 4 as the first choice because it was the best for bicycle movement and it corrected existing problems with traffic flow at the six intersections. The CAC ranked Concept 2 as the preferred design because it was the best for vehicular traffic flow and the community would most likely not support a one-way street option. They voted unanimously to move forward with the design of Concept 2.

The preliminary designs were presented on the February 28, 1996 episode of "Ask the Mayor" and on March 20, 1996, a community meeting was held to present them to the public. The majority of those in attendance (70% of 78 people) were in favor of a bikeway on the southern roadway of Chandler. There were also 20% in favor of a bike path in the right-of-way.

In April 1996, the CAC finalized their recommendations for the bikeway design (Exhibit C). The CAC voted in favor of a narrowed and improved median and Class II bike lanes on the southern roadway of Chandler Boulevard.

On May 13, 1996, staff presented the alternatives to the Planning Board. The Board unanimously voted in favor of Concept 1, which places a mixed-use Class I bikepath in the right-of-way. They did not want a design which narrowed the right-of-way.

After receiving public input in July 1996 on the two recommended design concepts, the City Council requested that the CAC reconvene to develop additional designs for the former railroad right-of-way. The Council wanted to look into designs to place the bicycles in the median, but also had concerns about getting the bicycles across the intersections. They felt additional designs could be developed to correct these problems.

A City Council Workshop was held on October 17, 1996 for the community to review design concepts and to provide comments and ideas to the City Council. The Planning Board, Transportation Commission and CAC also participated in this workshop. At this meeting, staff presented other design alternatives for the bikeway (Exhibit D). At the conclusion of the workshop, Council directed staff to move forward with environmental review of Concept 2 (Class II bike lanes) and Concept 5 (permanent landscaping, no bikeway), looking at both an irrigated and non-irrigated median, and also to consider including a pedestrian path. Staff was not directed to continue consideration of Concepts 1, 3 or 4.

The Cities of Burbank and Los Angeles received a $150,000 grant through the 1995 MTA Call for Projects to complete a final design of the bikeway.

On January 6, 1998 the City Council held a public hearing and adopted a mitigated negative declaration of Concept 2 and 5 (Exhibit E). Council also directed staff to circulate Requests for Proposal (RFPs) for final design of the Class II bikeway project and pedestrian path in the right-of-way. Ultimately, David Evans and Associates was selected in December 1998 to prepare the final design and cost estimates.

At this time, David Evans and Associates has informed staff that they cannot continue with final landscaping design until a final decision is made regarding the type of landscaping desired.

In February of 1997, Burbank and the LACRA jointly submitted an application through the MTA Call for Projects for construction funding of the Chandler Bikeway project. The Cities received a $1,000,000 grant ($750,000 is Burbank’s portion), which will be available in September of 1999. This grant is to be matched with $600,000 ($450,000 from Burbank and $150,000 from Los Angeles).

A Community meeting was held on June 28, 1999. Approximately 100 residents attended the meeting. Many were unaware of the progress made on the project and the Council direction that has been given. Several members of the public simply wanted an improved right-of-way and no bike lanes. Others wanted to use the grant funding to improve the median with landscaping and a Class I bikeway.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:

The following lists the pros and cons of the alternative currently supported by the community, the alternative supported by the CAC and staff, and the "no bikeway project" alternative.

Concept 1

This concept does not alter the existing median width of 36 feet. It provides a separate 8-foot wide bi-directional Class I bikepath within the median. The remaining portion of the median width would be landscaped.

Pros:

Design provides a bikepath physically separated from vehicular traffic, except at the cross streets.

Design does not alter existing median width.

Design provides the opportunity to access the facility from either side of the median.

Supported by many of the residents in the community.

Cons:

The need for cyclists to cross busy streets at mid-intersection locations places bicycles in an unexpected position for vehicles making turning movements onto cross streets.

To cross bicycles safely at the intersections, a separate signal phase would be required, thus delaying all motorized and non-motorized vehicular traffic approximately 20 seconds.

Accessing the bikepath would have to be limited to the intersections along the length of the bikeway. Additional access points would increase the opportunities for conflicts between bicycles using the facility and vehicles traveling on Chandler.

There is a concern about multiple uses of the bikepath. Skateboarders, rollerbladers, and pedestrians may impede cyclists, and create unsafe conditions.

Enforcement may be a problem for the Police to prevent skateboarders and others from using the path and to prevent people from entering the path mid-block.

MTA funds are not available for recreational paths; the bikepath and intersections would have to be designed to keep cycle traffic delays to a minimum.

The need to redesign the project would delay construction until mid-2000.

Options:

To protect cyclists at the intersections, signals would have to be installed for the bikes at the two existing signalized intersections. Stop signs and possibly barriers would be required at the other four intersections.

If future bicycle traffic on the path increases significantly, it may be necessary to replace stop signs, at each of the four non-signalized intersections, with signals, at an estimated cost of $100,000 per location.

To prevent people from entering the path "mid-block," signs could be added directing people to enter at the intersections.

To remedy multiple uses of the bikepath, an additional path may be added for pedestrian and other uses. Again, there is a concern for mid-block crossing to enter the pedestrian path. An estimated cost for a five foot wide pedestrian path would be approximately $100,000-$200,000 depending on the material used. Grant funds could be used for the pedestrian path with the Class I bikeway.

The estimated construction cost for the Concept 1 bikeway is $850,000 and the non-irrigated landscaping improvements is $120,000. These costs are funded from existing transportation funding. The CAC recommended additional landscape improvements cost $600,000, $480,000 above currently available funding. This additional expense would have to be funded from the General Fund.

Concept 2

This concept provides Class II bike lanes on the southern roadway of Chandler by narrowing the median by 10 feet. The remaining 26-foot wide median would be landscaped.

Pros:

The on-street bike lanes place bicycles in a position on the street and at the intersection where vehicles are conditioned to expect them. Travel through the intersection is therefore safer for cyclists.

Motorized and non-motorized vehicular travel times are not penalized, as they would move through intersections with the existing signal phasing.

This concept does not provide a formal pedestrian path, therefore, the median will not likely attract additional users to the right-of-way.

This concept is recommended by Police, Traffic Engineering and Community Development staff, the CAC and Safe Moves (Exhibit F). This concept was approved by the City Council in January 1998.

The continuation of design work currently underway would permit project construction to begin in April 2000 as final design began in January.

Cons:

This concept requires the narrowing of the median and the reconstruction of approximately three miles of curb and gutter along the median including the relocation of 67 street lights.

Access to the bike lanes would be limited to cross streets on the south side of the median and at the six existing grade crossings.

Does not provide a bicycle facility separated from vehicular traffic.

This concept would not include a formal pedestrian path on the right-of-way.

The estimated construction cost for the Concept 2 bikeway is $1,150,000 and the non-irrigated landscaping improvements is $120,000. These costs are funded from existing transportation funding. The CAC recommended additional landscape improvements cost $600,000, $480,000 above currently available funding. This additional expense would have to be funded from the General Fund.

Concept 5 - Median Landscaping Only

This concept would not alter the existing roadway or median configurations. The railroad tracks would be removed and the right-of-way graded. The median would be irrigated and landscaped.

Pros:

Provides the most immediate aesthetic improvement to the median.

Does not create an additional 10 feet of asphalt in front of homes on the southern side.

This concept appears to have considerable community support.

Cons:

Local funds must be spent on any project that does not contain a bikeway element. Local transportation funds (Proposition C or Development Impact Fees) may not be used.

This design does not provide a bikeway linking Burbank and the North Hollywood Metro Red Line, and other destinations to the west.

The estimated construction cost of Concept 5 is $1,000,000. Because the landscape only option does not involve bike lane improvements, it is not eligible for transportation funding. The $1,000,000 cost must be completely absorbed by the General Fund.

Funding Implications:

The $1,000,000 MTA grant provides funding solely for a bikeway project. The fiscal strategy for this project has always been to leverage grant funds with local dollars.

The $1,000,000 MTA grant needs to be shared with the City of Los Angeles. Because three-fourths of the project is in Burbank, the City will be receiving $750,000. The City has identified Development Impact Fees in the amount of $450,000 to match this grant. Ten percent (10%) of this grant and local match ($120,000) can be used for landscaping the right-of-way. This $120,000 will fund for a non-irrigated ground covered median (some type of gravel or wood chip covering).

An irrigated median connected to domestic water and covered with grass would cost approximately $600,000. Of course, this does not include the cost of narrowing and grading the median.

Although the cost difference between Concept 1 and Concept 2 is $300,000, the cost to the General Fund is the same. Because the cost for the Class I bikeway is under the grant and local match amount ($1,080,000 for the bikeway), the additional funds saved could not be used for landscaping. Because the cost for the Class II bikeway is over the grant and local match amount, transportation funds could be used for the $70,000 overrun (Development Impact fees or Proposition C). Therefore, the shortfall to fund the CAC recommended landscape improvements remains the same for either project, $480,000. The ongoing annual maintenance for the improved median is $115,000. These costs must be completely absorbed by the General Fund. There will be no additional costs to the General Fund with staff’s recommended non-irrigated landscaping.

In February of 1999, staff again jointly applied with the City of Los Angeles for an additional construction grant for the improvements to the median. Unfortunately, the initial rankings for the project are below the funding lines for the next two fiscal years.

The City has the potential to receive grant funds through the 2001 MTA Call for Projects to enhance the median; however, those funding cycles are over two years away.

Council may choose to move forward with a three-year phased project. However, Park and Recreation staff and the final design consultants note that there are costs associated with phasing either the bikeway or the landscaping (could be up to 10% more).

COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATION:

Most of the community is in favor of an improved median. Those that do support the bikeway as a means of receiving grant funding to improve the median, prefer bike lanes in the right-of-way rather than on the street. Although staff has received some comments in favor of bike lanes on the street, the majority of the community states that if bike lanes are necessary to receive grant funding, they should be in the median.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

Design issues such as benches or seating areas along the median have been reviewed and the CAC does not believe that the median improvements should serve as a "park-like" facility because of the tendency to attract users from outside the neighborhood. The CAC recognizes that the median is currently used by the neighborhood for such activities as jogging and dog walking and that these uses will continue within the median. However, the CAC members do not want to dramatically increase the volume of such uses by creating a facility that would attract users of the median from outside the adjacent residential neighborhood.

As stated in the final report dated April 10, 1996, the CAC is in favor of Class II bike lanes on the street and a narrowed and improved median. Additionally, the CAC requested the following improvements to the right-of-way at their January 1999 meeting:

an irrigated, landscaped median with a simple design (mostly grass);

trees within the median - there do not have to be many of them and they do not have to be large;

some "railroad" elements incorporated in the design, such as railroad ties or crossing arms at the intersections, to provide decorative accents;

no formal pedestrian path; and,

no benches or ornamental lighting.

These improvements are most similar to Scheme 3 of the final design landscaping alternatives (Exhibit G).

It is important to note that the CAC’s mission has always been to improve the median while incorporating a transportation use. There are some CAC members who have expressed a desire to simply improve the right-of-way without a bikeway project.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORATION AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION:

The MTA is in support of a bikeway project. Though they have no plans for the jointly owned corridor, other than a bikeway for the next 20 years, the MTA does want the right-of-way to continue to be available for a transit use at some time in the future. They request the following for the project:

Class I or Class II are both acceptable bikeway projects; however, a recreational bike path will not be funded. If the City moves forward with a Class I project, it must be designed to limit delay of cyclists both at street crossing points and on the right-of-way.

Planting of trees will be allowed only along the outside edge of the right-of-way

If rails are removed, signs will be placed on the median to the effect that the right-of-way is being preserved for a future transportation use

Maintenance of the improved right-of-way is the responsibility of Burbank

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

At their June 21, 1999 meeting, the Transportation Commission supported the Class II bike lane project which narrowed and improved the median. They were also in favor of an irrigated and landscaped median with no formal path, ornamental lighting or benches. They also wanted the project to have a link to its railroad history. They were split on whether to have trash receptacles and whether to replace some grass cover with shrubs. They also wanted accessible cross-overs on the two long portions of the right-of-way, signs indicating that the corridor would always be available for a transportation use, and to remove the no trespassing signs. They also voted to build the project in phases if funding became a problem.

PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Board reviewed the history of the project at their July 12, 1999 meeting (Exhibit H). They voted 2-1 to move forward with a Class I phased bikepath project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If Council directs staff to move forward with final design of the Class II bikeway project, this will enable the current cost estimating task to be completed by December by the consultant. If Council directs staff to move forward with a Class I bikeway project, final design and cost estimates will be complete by May 2000, delaying project construction by three to four months.

The estimated cost of the staff recommended alternative (Concept 2) would be $450,000 from Development Impact fees to match the grant, $70,000 from Proposition C or Development Impact fees for bikeway costs above the grant. The CAC recommended additional landscape improvements will cost an additional $480,000 from the General Fund and an additional $115,000 in annual maintenance and utility costs. These costs have not been budgeted and funding will need to be appropriated.

The estimated cost of a Class I bikeway project (Concept 1) would be $450,000 from Development Impact fees to match the grant and the CAC recommended additional landscape improvements and maintenance would cost the same as in Concept 2. Therefore, the cost difference between the two projects is $70,000. This is because grant savings on the bikeway project cannot be used for landscaping.

The graphs below provide funding summary information.

* Burbank's portion is from Development Impact Fees.

* Any surplus after bikeway construction costs may not be used for landscaping.

** The median would have to be graded and prepared first.

*** If a bikeway is not constructed, grant funds may not be used for landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council re-affirm its previous decision to design Concept 2 and direct staff to move forward with the final design to include a non-irrigated landscaped median. If the Council chooses to select an alternative that requires funding from the General Fund, staff recommends returning to Council with funding options.

EXHIBITS:

A Purchase Memorandum of Understanding with the MTA for Chandler right-of-way

B Preliminary design concepts

C CAC Preliminary Design Final Report dated April 10, 1996

D Other preliminary design concepts developed

E Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted January 13, 1998

F Article submitted by Safe Moves dated July 1995

G Final design landscaping schemes

H Planning Board staff report dated July 12, 1999