HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - COMMUTER RAIL STATION SITE (5)0
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: February 12, 1991
AGENDA REPORT •
SUBJECT: COMMUTER RAIL STATION SITES
RESOLUTION NUMBER: 91-2
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Offic
r
BACKGROUND
City Manager Approval �/���W
Item to be presented by:
George A. Caravalho
On February 11, 1991, staff conducted a commuter rail station site forum. Based
on the Council's direction] the purpose was to receive testimony from the public
regarding the station sites.
Approximately 100 people were in attendance at the meeting. City staff, as well
as representatives from the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission,
presented a.brief background on the why, the how, and the where, regarding these
sites.
Each of the nine sites that staff had identified were reviewed individually.
They were considered for short-term implementation, that is by October 1992,
when the commuter rail service is expected to begin. They were also discussed
for long term implementation, which would be after the October, 1992 start-up
date. Of the nine sites, those attending the meeting recommended that the City
continue to investigate three short-term sites, i.e., Gates, Glazer, and
Drayton. The recommendations for long-term sites were the Bermite and Schmidt
properties. The attached is a list of the comments that were made at the
meeting.
Although time is of the essence because of the deadlines and planning necessary
to implement the whole commuter rail program, we feel that we should continue
investigation of the three short-term and two long-term sites identified above.
With that in mind, weexpect the next step will be to present these sites to the
Planning.Commission for their comments and recommendations. We will continue to
assemble information on these sites, as well as any that would lend themselves
to immediate start-up by October, 1992.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. City Council direct staff to present the station sites to the Planning
Commission for their recommendations and comments.
2. Council direct staff to continue its investigation of the five sites with
a focus on the four short term commuter rail station sites.
ATTACHMENTS
Comments from Commuter Rail Station Forum
Commuter Rail Station Site Selection Criteria
Agenda Item
•
COMMENTS FROM COMMUTER RAIL STATION FORUM
GLAZER:
• Flood plain/asphalt/ground water discharge
• Placerita Canyon Road traffic from Route 14 (may or may not be a
detriment).
• Residential community close by and would be negatively impacted.
• Another access needed. east/west to reduce impact on Placerita Canyon
Road.
• Security for autos.
• Must cross tracks to access.
GATES:
• Single access to site.
• Bus/train transfer.
• Start-up time constraints (although owner wishes to cooperate on land
acquisition.
• Good for regional traffic/poor for local (impacts local streets).
OLD SAUGUS STATION SITE:
• Disrupt existing historical aspect.
• Traffic on San Fernando would back up in morning hours.
CIRCLE J:
• Encroaching on commercial property.
• Site access requires crossing the tracks.
DRAYTON•
• Same as Circle J.
• Train wouldblock street crossing for loading and unloading of
passengers only.
• Not enough space for development.
SAUGUS SPEEDWAY
• Long-term site.
• If.Bermite developed, this one would be too close.
BERMITE:
• Opportunity for multi -modal transportation center.
• Most centrally located.
SCHMIDT•
• Pedestrian access excellent.
• Commercial close by.
• Rider use very easy.
CALEX:
• Same comments as Gates Property.
• Large gas main may limit developmental.area.
• Near a curved track, affecting station placement.
RECOMMENDATIONS•
Short -Term Sites:
Drayton, Gates, Glazer
Rejected:
Saugus Station, Calex, Circle J
Long -Term Sites:
Bermite, Schmidt
/ce 2/12/91
E
COMUTER RAIL STATION SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
* City to provide station site and commuters.
* Santa Clarita is the end of the line.
because of steep grade.
LACTC Criteria
Rail cannot go to Antelope Valley
* Safety/security
* rider ease
* pedestrian access
*-secondary transit (can ride bus there)
* multi—modal accessibility (no crossing the tracks!)
* location on a target track with 425' feet for a platform
* parking for 300 autos, plus ability for expansion
* near commercial growth
* general plan compatibility
* convenience
* grade crossing
* station spacing (3-5 miles apart)
* local circulation
* grade crossing
* compatible with existing land use
* close to employment area
LACTC Schedule
* Start October, 1992
0
* State funds applied for by•LACTC for City to construct station (decision in
April)
GPAC has identified 3 possible areas:
1. Downtown Newhall
2. Future City Hall area
3. Canyon Country — 126 at Santa Clara River
City service to Los Angeles now — 240 passengers each way. .
City studied 9 possible station sites along railroad.
141
' ,`Cori s.,f •J _ \ �' f �,� ;c�. *� �p�•%�� �9S fi �I / , �.
WILEY CYN �.
or
IL
ItY
\ � r d Kms• I)1 � .��•' .T r ��%/,�+n�, \r._l.
yv� �1.✓ 1,' .�s� y
t �4
o \ �`' r \��L� a° L\�CL )�c`o 1 Jf \I `l� � 1 +i s i w •�,�•.
•� l wo � \ ��'. + .'�i�`l � fc'/� II i�C/,�}- �r .'0 .R-'..• '. , e • • � y��°. `
Lt
~ � 1 Vii\ A� i t .J'Yy"3 �� '•Z'\J♦^/ \ , A�.1 `y '.
.tip• , l.� I( i'r �/�f� r��45�,�� �, � • \te�tt. Q, �J..
�; ,•�. T � '� � l IL 'q�l, ��R V s+ �. � ,"-i0p'a. ��A1`v � n
6
S
NAO
r a7r4 i
r ,/L
1500 "� - _ ,✓.. _
� ��'` % � � � �• .y Jam'
P
/ yam• � . �� , � � -. 1 - ,• ,�.��l\C\J
• 6 (- r f% r r- �I
1 is .r
IF
''' r
IS
170 ..,.. �.=il_ •-i Tit- I• "�},• �
} t�,IOU
//�• .� t c ��'C1 lit
If Qr" / /1 1 • f• 'rl�! .V b .. nmoi' f —'' ,,%��� r ' ri
i % 1 J � "' � O 1•
11 r
:(: tom- .!/`�x J. ,� i,• '
i+"��_ `�,yr �ti - -'�tV 7••�'�v �t,!,�" -cin � ..� -
'/;�.-.`��•t� _ _ _ o� tom.
1 /11ji
1 i