The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-02-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - I-5 MCBEAN JT PROJECT (2)AGENDA REPORT r' City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: UNFINISHED BUSINESS John E. Medina DATE: February 27, 1990 SUBJECT: INTERSTATE 5/Mc EAN PARKWAY CALTRANS/LOS A ELES COUNTY JOINT PROJECT DEPARTMENT: Public Works y BACKGROUND The Council has previously received information regarding a request by the County to widen the bridge on McBean Parkway across Interstate 5 and to provide both a northbound and southbound on-ramp. The County has requested that the City grant them consent and jurisdiction to make these improvements. The necessity for the City's consent is that a small portion of the work (shown on the attached sketch) will be provided on City rights-of-way. Over 95% of the improvements will be provided in State right-of-way or in unincorporated County area. A concern was expressed by a local resident that the City could exact additional requirements from the Poe Development Company in exchange for our consent to allow the roadway improvements. The details of this concern and our discussions with the County are described in our previous agenda report dated February 13, 1990, and are included for your reference. We have analyzed all of the material including an indication that the Environmental Impact Report would limit the number of units for the Poe Development if the City would not grant its consent. Our analysis indicates that even if we did not grant consent, the project could be modified and constructed. Doing this would cause inconvenience for Santa Clarita residents and increase the cost of the total project. In view of these facts, we do not believe that it is in the best interest of the City residents and the general public within the Santa Clarita Valley, to delay construction of this project. In addition, there are provisions within the Subdivision Map Act that would make a condition such as the widening of the bridge and the installation of the on -ramps null and void if the local jurisdiction, in this case the County, could not secure the necessary rights-of-way. In this case, the funding that has been provided may in fact be negated if the County cannot construct the improvements. The net result is the project is not constructed, the Stevenson Ranch is allowd to proceed, and traffic flow is not improved. Adopted: 7�1d Rm1p t Interstate 5/McBean Parkway February 27, 1990 Page 2 In summary, our investigation indicates that our original recommendation regarding the approval and adoption of the resolution granting consent jurisdiction to the County is still appropriate. We feel that adopting this Resolution is in the best interest of our total traffic/street network and is necessary to improve that network. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution Number 90-15 ATTACHMENTS Resolution Number 90-15 Maps Agenda Report - February 13, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PORTION OF MCBEAN PARKWAY WITHIN SAID CITY AS A PART OF THE SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors did on December 5, 1989, duly adopt a Resolution declaring the portion of McBean Parkway from 550 feet west of the Golden State Freeway to 1,100 feet east of the Golden State Freeway and intersecting streets appurtenant to the construction thereof, within the City of Santa Clarita, to be a part of the System of Highways of the County of Los Angeles, all as provided in Sections 1700 to 1704 inclusive of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, said Board of Supervisors by said Resolution requested this Council to give its consent to allow the County to construct improvements and perform appurtenant work on said portion of McBean Parkway in the City of Santa Clarita described above; and WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Transportation has determined that this project is categorically exempt in accordance with Class 1, Section 1510.1, of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Act. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Consent to Inclusion in County Highway System. This City Council does hereby consent to the establishment of the portion of McBean Parkway from 550 feet west of the Golden State Freeway to 1,100 feet east of the Golden State Freeway and intersecting streets appurtenant to the construction thereof, within the City of Santa Clarita, as a part of the System of Highways of the County of Los Angeles as provided in Sections 1700 to 1704 inclusive of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Said consent is for the purpose of constructing improvements and performing appurtenant work as may be necessary by the County of Los Angeles. SECTION 2. Find of a Minor Nature. This City Council does hereby find that pursuant to Government Code, Section 65402 (b), the aforesaid improvements are for street improvements of a minor nature and that, therefore, the provisions of said Section requiring the submission to and report upon said project by the City Planning Agency do not apply. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly, adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 19 , by the following vote of the Council.: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK MC UJ BRlpGE wIDENINr, ® 07rER RR woRK scnce I". I s ' EX/ST/NG MED/AN /N C/T Y /[v 7-0 /3E �c'F,yod�0 LiMirS oF' CrrY .%t/ w PROJECT VICINITY MAP 1 ".fir" '� - - - - - ��• t VICINITY MAP AGENDA REPORT • UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: February 13, 1990 SUBJECT: INTERSTATE 5/MCBEAN CALTRANS/LOS AN6ELE! DEPARTMENT: Public Works,4f, Y� BACKGROUND City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: John E. Medina PARKWAY COUNTY JOINT PROJECT The City Council in its meeting of January 23, 1990 approved, then reconsidered the relinquishment of jurisdiction to the County for the improvement of the subject intersection. Concern was expressed by Allen Cameron that inadequate funds and improper development was proposed by Poe Development Company and that this was an area where the City Council could take action preventing the construction of the development or for providing more funding for roadways. Discussions have been held with Mr. Roger Burger, Deputy Director of Public Works, Los Angeles County Public Works Department, who has indicated the following: 1. The improvement of the McBean intersection is not a condition of development for Poe Development Company. 2. Poe Development Company is required to provide money to the Bridge and Thoroughfare District, not for specific projects. 3. The Los Angeles County Public Works Department, who is the administrator of the McBean Bridge and Thoroughfare District, determine the priority of projects to be constructed within the District. 4. Poe has agreed to advance Bridge and Thoroughfare fees to permit construction at the interchange prior to occupancy within his development. 5. If construction were not to proceed at this. interchange, the Bridge and Thoroughfare money would just remain in the account until it could be used, or if other projects are identified necessary for -construction. 6. Minimal work is included within this City's limits. It is understood that only a small portion of a raised median would be removed and re -striped to provide proper turning movements. f Interstate 5/McBean Parkway February 13, 1990 Page 2 There is an Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared for the project which identifies the improvements to the Interstate 5/McBean Parkway intersection as one of the necessary requirements. At this time we do not have sufficient documentation to verify this requirement nor do we have plans indicating whether or not the improvements can be made outside of the City's right-of-way. This information will be available within the next two weeks which will allow us to present our complete findings with recommendations at your February 27, 1990 regular meeting. RECOMMENDATION a Council receive this information and reconsider the matter at the February 27, 1990 regular meeting.