HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - COMMUTER RAIL STATION BERMITE (2)City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: March 10, 1992
SUBJECT: COMMUTER RAIL STATION - BERMiTE SITE
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
BACKGROUND
This commuter rail project has an'active Council/Commission history extending back
approximately one year (see Attachment 1). The following three paragraphs summarize its
most recent history.
On February 18, 1992 the Planning Commission heard staffs presentation on the proposed
Rail Station. Plot Plan, Oak Tree Permit and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Bermite site to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission took action "not to
approve the plot plan" and raised several concerns regarding environmental issues, lease
agreement issues and the value of the rail station to the community.
The City Council at their February 25, 1992 meeting directed staff to return all information
submitted in their agenda report and staff presentations on this subject back to the Planning
Commission for their review and consideration.
At the March 3, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, staff with its new report, and
representatives from other agencies addressed unanswered concerns raised by the
Commission at their February 18, 1992 meeting. After reading and hearing staffs report,
the Planning Commission approved the Plot Plan, adopted the Negative Declaration and
adopted Resolution P92-08.
At tonight's meeting, staff is prepared to give a report similar to the one presented at the
March 3, 1992 Commission meeting. The topics listed below are to give the Council
background and update any changes between tonight and the March 3, 1992 Commission
meeting.
Adopted:3_
APPROVED Agenda Item:
Commuter Rail Station - Bermite Site
March 10, 1992
Page 2
ITN/Ian ►h I ►Y V:\i!
Attachment II of this report responds to the Planning Commission's concerns expressed at
their February 18, 1992 meeting. Staff is in the process of conducting independent
environmental toxins and geological studies for the site. On site work was completed
March 3, 1992 and is now being analyzed. Staff expects this to be complete within two
weeks. Geological analysis may commence after the toxics are complete.
The City Attorney concurs with staff that the environmental. testing and research must be
completed before the lease agreement with the Whittaker Corporation can be executed by the
City. Most recently, the attorneys for Whittaker and the City have agreed to
indeminification language in the lease for the rail site.
CALEPA, Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) has submitted a letter
(February 25, 1992) (see Attachment Ill) and has given testimony to both the Council and
Commission which, when summarized, states that there are 14 toxic sites at the Bermite
location. However, none are on the parcel of land being considered for the Rail Station.
While no hazardous matter is known to be on the property, DTSC requests that a Preliminary
Endangerment Assessment (PEA) be prepared for their approval. Staff believes that when
the environmental Phase One is complete (March 1992) it will have the necessary
information to submit the PEA to the DTSC which can then certify the Rail Station site as
not having toxic substances on it.
LEASE AGREEMENT
Attachment IV lists the major points of the lease agreement between the City and the
Whittaker Corporation. In summary, itis a five year agreement of which the first three
years the City pays $1.00 per year. In the remaining two years the City must make lease
payments in the amount of 10% of the property's appraised value, this is estimated to be
$500,000 each year. The City has the option to purchase at any time. The appraisal will be
based on the current value of similar unimproved land. The major points of the lease have
been agreed to by legal representatives of each party and finalization of the lease is now
taking place. Staff plans to bring the final lease agreement to Council for execution after
environmental reports have been complete and are negative or mitigated. This is estimated
to be their meeting of March 24, 1992 or April 14, 1992.
Commuter Rail Station - Bermite Site
March 10, 1992
Page 3
STATION COSTS
The total estimated cost for the development of this rail site, less the cost of the land is $5.5
million (see Attachment V). The proposed funding for this will come from four sources;
loan of Proposition A funds, Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) funds, SB300 funds and
Proposition C Reserve funds. Because of litigation over the Prop C Transportation Sales
Tax, the loan of Proposition A funds for future Proposition C must be secured with TDA
Article (8) funds. If Prop C is successfully litigated by its opponents, TDA Article (8) funds
would be used to repay the loan. This requires a five year commitment of 32% of the City's
estimated $2.3 million annual TDA allocation. The LACTC is confident that Proposition C
will not be overturned.
COST BENEFIT
Staff has conducted a cost comparison between rail and buses in providing alternative
transportation modes to Los Angeles. Attachment VI summarizes the per passenger per day
(roundtrip) cost between rail and buses on. the operational and capital levels. Essentially,
over five and ten year periods, it is less expensive for the City to provide a rail station than
it is to purchase and maintain buses to transport the equivalent amount of passengers. The
rail station has a more expensive initial capital cost, but has a much longer life cycle.
Coaches on the other hand; have less expensive capital start up costs, but require
replacement every 12 years and have higher operation and maintenance costs to the City.
With rail, the City's financial -obligation is limited largely to the station's capital costs. With
transit, the City's financial obligation is to the capital costs of the buses as well as their
operations and maintenance.
In conclusion, staff believes that the Bermite site is a viable one. The station would be
multi -modal, serving not only as a rail station, but also as the City's main transit transfer
station for its local bus service and what would be its only owned park -n -ride lot. Staff
believes that the City should continue on its course to construct a multi -modal rail site within
the City which will assist in alleviating current and future environmental and traffic concerns.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the Rail Station Plot Plan and Oak Tree Permit.
2. Direct staff to proceed with procuring the construction plans in order to meet the
LACTC's start schedule.
3. Direct the City Manager to sign the Letter of Acceptance of Drainage Cut/Fill Slopes.
4. Adopt Resolution 92-47 certifying proposed Negative Declaration
92-009 for the Commuter Rail Lease Agreement and associated site
development plans.
Commuter Rail Station - Bermite Site
March 10, 1992
Page 4
ATTACHMENT
1. Chronology of Council/Commission action.
2. Staff response to Planning Commission's February 20, 1992 comments.
3. DTSC Letter of February 25, 1992
4. Lease AGreement Points
5. Cost/Revenue Summary
6. Cost Benefit Summary
7. February 18, 1992 Bermite Site Planning Commission Report on Plot Plan
8. Caltrans letter
9. Planning Chairman's February 20, 1992 comments to Mayor
10. Planning Chairman's February 25, 1992 comments to Mayor
11. Letter of Acceptance of Drainage Cut/Fill Slope
12. February 25, 1992 Council report ont he Negative Declaration 92-009
13. Resolution 92-47 certifying Negative Declaration 92-009
RESOLUTION NO. 92-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-009 FOR
THE COMMUTER RAIL LEASE AGREEMENT AND RELATED APPLICATIONS, -
IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The .City Council does hereby make the following findings
of fact:
a. The City of Santa Clarita proposes to lease an approximately ten -acre
site and, in coordination with the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission (LACTC), to construct a public commuter rail station to
provide commuterrail service between the cities of Santa Clarita and
Los Angeles. This project will utilize existing leased track of the
Southern Pacific Railroad and will include construction of a 500'
platform and canopy, parking facilities, commuter bus facilities,
bike paths, street improvements, and associated signalization.
Landscaping and irrigation are also included as part of the project
design.
b. In June 1991, the City's Public Works Department prepared and
submitted an environmental questionnaire along with proposed lease
agreement to the Community Development Department. The Community
Development Department reviewed the proposal to assess potential
environmental effects and General Plan consistency.
C. The proposal (the lease and associated site development plans to be
submitted later) is determined to be a project per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been reviewed pursuant to
its provisions. In August 1991, The Community Development Department
completed the draft Initial Study on this project and determined that
the project as proposed would not have any significant effect on the
environment. On September 25, 1991, the City Council conceptually
certified the negative declaration and conceptually approved the
proposed lease agreement. The Council directed that the negative
declaration be returned to Council for final certification upon
finalization of the lease agreement:
d. In wary, 1991, the Community Development Department completed the
final Initial Study on this project and determined that the project
as proposed would not have a significant effect on the environment,
with the adoption of mitigation measures identified in the Initial
Study. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
lease agreement, site design and proposed construction plans. The
Initial Study also determined that project implementation will not
impact resources protected by the California Department of Fish and
Game and that a finding of de minimus impact on such resources is
appropriate.
qa
Resolution No. 92-47
Page 2
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact and upon studies
and investigations made on behalf of the City Council, the City Council
further finds as follows:
a. At its meeting of February 25, 1992, the City Council considered the
agenda report, the Negative Declaration and corresponding
environmental documents as needed, including, but not limited to, the
Initial Study prepared for the project.
b. Based on the Initial Study, the project does not have the potential
to adversely effect the environment or resources under the protection
of the California Department of Fish and Game, and no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation.
C. A proposed Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project
based on the Initial Study findings and determination that the
proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment.
d. A notice of environmental assessment was posted and advertised, and
the proposed Negative Declaration was made available for a 30 day
review period in compliance with CEQA and other State law.
e. No correspondence regarding the project has been received from any
agency. or from the public, during the 30 day review period.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City
Council hereby determines that;
a. The project is compatible with existing and proposed development in
the area, consistent with the Residential Suburban/Valley Center
Overlay General Plan land use designation, and complies with the uses
allowed in the M 1.5 (Limited Meavy Manufacturing) zone.'
b. The project will not have a significant impact on the environment or
on resources under the protection of the California Department of
Fish and Game.
NOV, THEREFORE, BE IT -RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita,-California as follows:
a. The City Council hereby certifies the Negative Declaration prepared
for the project.
Resolution No: 92-47
Page 3
b, The City Council hereby approves that a final determination of
Negative Declaration be issued. _
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992.
Jill Klajic, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I. Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and 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 1992 by
the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Donna M. Grindey, City.Clerk
ENV/136
qcl
ATTACHMENT I
Chronology of Events
February 11, 1991 Staff conducts a Commuter Rail Station
site forum
February 12, 1991 Request a recommendation from the
Planning Commission for a Rail Station
site
February 19, 1991 At this meeting, staff informed the
Planning Commission that Bermite was
not feasible as a short-term site because
the additional right-of-way was not
purchased. In ranlang short-term rail
site, the Planning Commission split; two
preferred Gates; two preferred Glazer;
and one preferred Drayton. Three of the
Commissioners preferred Bermite as the
long-term site, and two preferred
Schmidt. Since that time, the LACTC
has purchased right-of-way to the
Bermite site.
February 26, 1991 Council adopts Resolution No. 91-21
establishing the City's intention to
construct a Commuter Rail Station by
applying for funding
April 23, 1991 Council presented an outlined summary
of agreement for the.Bermite site. Staff
directed to negotiate toward final
agreement
June 11, 1991 Council receives the latest outline.
agreement; staff directed to work out
final agreement
September 24, 1991 Council conceptually approves the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Bermite (Glazer) sites, approves '
the lease/purchase agreement.
Chronology of Events
Page 2
February 18, 1992 Planning Commission agrees not to
approve:
The proposed Commuter Rail site
located on the Bermite property
Negative Declaration
Oak Tree Permit
February 25, 1992 Council directs staff to return all
information submitted in their February
25, 1992 agenda report and staff
presentation on this subject back to the
march 3,1 992 Planning Commission for
their review and consideration.
March 3, 1992 Commission approves Bermite site Plot
Plan, Negative Declaration and
Resolution P92-08
ATTACHMENT II
RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS
1. Concern: There continues to be a lack of public confidence that the site is free from the
hazardous materials that have accumulated there over the years. This concern could be
mitigated by state or federal certification that the site no longer poses a threat to public
health and safety.
Answer: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by a consultant for the
Whittaker Corporation. This .site assessment was submitted to the City, for review.
Based on the information contained in the report and discussions with Mr. Lee Lisecki
(City's Environmental Consultant), the site exhibits no significant evidence of toxic.
contamination.
In addition, the City has contracted with a consultant to prepare an independent Phase
I -Plus -Environmental Site Assessment. To date, the testing will be completed and a
report shall be submitted to the City by March 6, 1992 to either validate the findings of
the original site assessment or be made aware of potential contamination of the site.
2. Concern: The Commission was not convinced that adequate measures have been taken
to demonstrate that seismic hazards do not constitute a substantial risk to public safety.
Answer: Testing for seismic hazards on the Bermite site has not commenced.- Prior to
geotechnical testing (geological, and/or soil stability),, all testing for hazardous materials
and contamination must be completed. Since the site lies within the designated "Special
Studies Zone" required by the Alquist-Priolo Act, a geological report is inquired. It
should be noted that the rail station is not considered a habitable structure and such a
structure would be permitted on the site. The structure would have to be designed to
meet the seismis requirements of the building codes plus any additional requirements
prescribed by the consulting geologist.
3. Concern: Because the lease negotiations were not part of the Commission's information
packet, the Commission had no assurance that the City would be protected against
litigation resulting from either toxic or seismic hazards on the site.
Answer: The concerns regarding litigation resulting from toxic hazards have been
addressed in the lease agreement by the City requesting warranties from Whittaker
Corporation. Briefly, the lessor (Whittaker Corporation) warrants compliance with all
federal, state, or local laws pertaining to hazardous materials; no unauthorized dumping
or migration of hazardous materials have occurred on the site. The lessor is responsible
for all costs incurred for cleanup resulting from damages caused by the lessor. The City
is responsible for all costs incurred for clean up resulting from damages caused by the
City. (Note: The Hazardous Waste Section of the lease agreement is on file in the City
Clerk's Office.)
4. Concern: The Commission was concerned that the lease (represented to the Commission
as a three year term with a single two year extension) was too short for amortization of
the expense of improvements. -If, for any reason, the site were abandoned in five years,
the City would essentially make a gift of the improvements to the property owner.
Answer: The terms of the agreement are those approved by the Council as council
modified. It provides the City with the opportunity to protract the total cost area a
number of years rather than a major capital investment immediately. The need to expend
funds for actual acquisition is deferred to be purchased with future funds.
5. Concern: Adequate assurance that the quality of the railroad track does not constitute
a threat to public safety was not given to the Commission.
Answer: The redesign of the railroad track at the platform will now be linear instead
of curvilinear as it currently exists. The new track should be as safe if not safer than the
existing track.
6. Concern: There was unanimous concern that the proposed site would generate additional
traffic during peak hours through the Bouquet Junction intersection and through the
Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway intersection.
Answer: A traffic impact study was prepared for the proposed commuter rail station
project. The study indicates that both Soledad Canyon/Sierra Highway and Bouquet
Junction intersections will have an increase in traffic volume but will maintain the current
deteriorated level -of -service during the evening peak hours.
The morning peak hours for both intersections will also experience traffic volume
increases and change in levels -of -service, resulting in greater congestion. However, the
anticipated deterioration in level -of -service at the above intersections would be mainly
due to other growth and development in the vicinity. Basically the volume of traffic
already exists and will increase' related to commuter traffic. The Rail Station will
potentially provide the opportunity to redirect traffic from the heavy current flow.
Vehicles from the Valencia and Newhall area to the Rail Station will be opposite of the
major flow of traffic. In addition, the Rail Station will also serve as the transit station
for the local bus system providing more convenient service for commuters rather than
their personal cars.
7. Concern: The expense of land acquisition and improvement (estimated to be well over
$5,000,000) to benefit an estimated 500 commuters appears to be unwarranted.
Answer: The cost of land acquisition and improvements over a 5 -year period amount
to a cost effective rate per commuter trip as follows:
255 days x 500 passengers = 127,500 round trips per year
127,500 round trips per years x 5 years = 637,500 round trips
$5,000,000 _ 637,500 = $7.84 per round trip per commuter
ATTCHMENT III
?TATE-or CAUFOMA • ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PEPAHIh9ENT OF TOXIC SUssTANCEs CONTTRoL
(neGiON 3)
1406 N. CAN FERNANDO BOULEVARD, BURG 300
BURMW CA 916P4
(eta) sera000 -(a
February 25, 1992
City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. suite 300
Santa Clarita, .CA 91355
Dear Councilmembers:
STATUS REPORT ON WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE DIVISION PROPERTY
As requested by a member of your staff on February 10, 1992,
this report is intended to summarize the status of the
above -referenced property with regard to the formal closure of
the hazardous waste management units.
As a facility which generated and managed hazardous west
during the course of business, the Bermite facility is subject to
the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the
analogous California law,. the Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA).
These laws and the implementing regulations require, among other
things, that a facility which closes must follow an approved
closure plan which describes how hazardous waste will ba removed
and how the hazardous waste management units will be
decontaminated during the closure procedures.' Unless adequate
decontamination is achieved, restrictions would be placed on the
use of some portions of the property.
The enclosed reports prepared by this office for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency should provide you with the
necessary background and detail regarding the closures. Please
read the July 1989 report.and then the January 1992 report.
We would like to emphasize the following points:
The closure plan addresses the 14 "RCRA-regulated" units
which Whittaker listed with the EPA in the early 1980s. So
far, we have accepted closure for 9 units: 6 portable
storage shacks, 2 storage buildings and 1 wastewater
treatment unit.
Whittaker has performed additional closure work at three.
open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) areas and has
re -submitted closure certifications for them. We have
tentatively decided to accept the certification for two of
the units, but feel that additional soil sampling must be
done at the remaining 08/01) unit.
City Council of Santa Clarita
February 25, 1992
Page Z,
_ Whittaker continues to perform additional closure work
including the extraction of groundwater and solvent vapors
from the soil near the location of one former surface
impoundment (pond).and groundwater monitoring at both of the
surface impoundment areas.
Based on the January 16, 1992 Initial study, it appears that
none of the above-mentioned RCRA-regulated.hazardous waste
management units were located within the site of the
proposed commuter rail station.
Three of the closed portable storage units were
approximately 1/4 -mile from the station area. These have
since been removed. other hazardous waste management units
are even further south and have been closed and/or removed
except for the two impoundment areas and the "Burn Area."
Also, an area used for paint storage and an old lead azide
sump and drainage area were sampled and do not appear to
pose a threat. These are approximately 500 and 800 feet
southeast of.the.railroad tracks.
This facility is the subject of enforcement activity and we
are continuing negotiations with Whittaker to settle the
matter administratively. At this time, we cannot disclose
the details of the negotiations. so far, however, the
facility has complied with or is in the process of complying
with the technical field work we have required.
Finally, the Department is in possession of a 1979 map of
the facility, submitted by. Whittaker as part of their closure
plan, which.shows numerous small production facilities on the
property. At this time, we have no information if these areas do
or do not present any environmental or public health threat. We
believe they were removed/demolished in early 1987 by the company
without agency oversight. we believe that they may be subject to
the real estate laws covering disclosure and therefore an
environmental assessment of them may be required. These should
also be considered in the up -coming EIR for the development
project. Our Site Mitigation Branch has in place a mechanism,
the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment, (PEA), for dealing with
these sort of issues. Usually, a city or county would require
this of an applicant, or the applicant can perform the PEA
voluntarily.
City Council of Santa claiita
February 25, 1992
Page ,I
If you have any questions, please contact Alan Sorsher at
818-567-3119 or Allan Plaza at 818-567-3101.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Dickerson
Regional Administrator
enclosures
cci Mr. Ed Muller
Vice President
Whittaker Corporation
10880 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4163
Mr. Steve Koyasako
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Mr, Mukul Agarwal
Site Mitigation Branch
Region 3, Burbank
ATTACHMET IV
Brief Outline of Lease Agreement Points
February 25, 1992
o Initial Term of the Lease 3 years
o Lease Rate $1.00 per year
o Initial leasehold will be approximately 6.57 acres
o Potential area of ultimate leasehold/purchase of site to be 10 acres.
o At City's option, the leasehold may be increased to the ultimate area of 10 acres.
o The City may continue with the lease for up to two years with an option to purchase.
o The lease rate for the continuing two years shall be an annual payment of 10% of the
appraised property value.
o At the City's option, the property may be purchased with a cash down payment. The
provisions of the cash down payment are as follows:
0 10 % of the purchase price
o Balance of purchase price shall be an unsecured promissory note. The note
shall bear interest at 2 % above the prime rate.
o All principal and interest shall be due and payable in a lump sum two years on
the anniversary of the close of escrow.
o A portion of the lease payments shall apply as a credit against the down payment.
o If the City leases less than 8 acres, then 25 % of the lease payments shall
apply.
o If the City leases 8 acres or more, then 35 % of the lease payments shall apply.
o The City may condemn the property.
o The City shall have the right to sublease the City leased property and retain the
proceeds from the sublease.
o The language for the following points of the lease agreement needs to be finalized by
the attorneys. The points are as follows:
o Environmental language as it relates to hazardous waste is being negotiated.
o Exchange of property: parking strip between "kiss -n -ride" and future
development (Arden property) for future development.
JK:ms:gmm
lease.ms
bermite
61 0
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
COMMUTER RAIL STATION
BERN= SITE
Funding Report Summary
Excluding Land Acquisition
COSTS
$3,900,000 Construction
600,000 Financing Cost
1,000,000 2 -Year Lease Cost
$5,500,000
ATT,ACHMET V,
$2,500,000 Prop A Loan
1,200,000 TCI
500,000 SB300
1,300, Prop C Reserves
$5,500,000
ATTACHMET VI
SUMMARY
CITY OF- SANTA CLARITA
TRANSPORTATION COST COMPARISONS
Item
Commuter Rail Station
Buses*
CAPITAL EXPENSE
5 Years
(Construction & lease)
$6.17 pppd
$12.36 pppd
10 Years
(Construction, lease &
land acquisition)
$6.08 pppd
$7.48 pppd
pppd (per passenger per day)
*Buses must be replaced after 12 years at an approximate cost of $3.8 million for 10 buses.
OPERATION COSTS
Item 5 Year
Commuter Rail $;40 pppd
Commuter Buses $4.08 pppd
Automobile $9.00 per vehicle per day (source: American Auto
Assoc. "Your Driving Costs, 1991 Edition)
pppd = per passenger, per day
CAPEXPEN.rai
0
CAPITAL EXPENSE ESTIMATE COMPARISON:
5 YEARS
Estimated ridership of commuter rail from Santa Clarita is 400 passengers, with an estimated
yearly increase of 15-20 percent.' These figures are from the LACTC.
Commuter Rail Station
699 passenger (5th year)
Station construction + 2 year lease = $5.5 million
Cost: $6.17 pppd
Commuter Bus Facilities:
699 passengers requires 18 buses (40/bus)
18 (buses) x $250,000 (cost per bus) = $4.7 million
Development of parking facilities, i.e.: park -n -ride, lot
Improvements @ $2,500/space = $1.75 million
Property - 7 acres @ $15/sq. ft. = $4.57 million
Total Capital Outlay: $11.02 million
CAPITAL EXPENSE I COMPARISON:
10 YEARS
Note: After the 12th year, buses will normally have to be replaced at an
approximate cost of $3.8 million for the original 10 buses.
Commuter Rail Station:
1,407 passengers (10 years)
Station construction + 2 year lease = $5.5 million
Station property purchase = $5.7 million
Addiditional parking facility (structure) $10.6 million
Total Capital Outlay = $21.8 million
Cost: $6.08 pppd
Commuter Bus Facilities:
1,407 passengers requires 35 buses = $10.35 million*
*includes 3.5% annual inflation
Development of parking -facilities, i.e.: park -n -ride lot
Improvements and propery purchase = $5.87 million
Additional parking facility (structure) $10.6 million
Total Capital Outlay: $26.82 million
Cost: $7.48 pppd
0
OPERATIONAL COSTS TO THE CITY
Commuter Rail: The actual operation costs for the rail system incurred by the City is
$0.00. Security and maintenance of commuter rail station is 5% of.
Proposition C, earmarked - funds ($40,750 per year) or $.40 pppd
Commuter Buses: Based upon the City's current operations and maintenance. contract with
ATE/Ryder, costs = $4.08 pppd
ATTACHMET VII
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Master Case No. 92-009
Plot Plan 92-002, Oak Tree Permit.92-004
DATE: February 18, 1992
To= Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. H ' s, D r i of Community Development
PROJECT PLANNERS: Kristi Kimbrough, Assistant Planner
Kevin Michel, Senior Planner
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: The Bermite property, generally located along the south
side of Soledad Canyon Road, east -of the Saugus Speedway,
and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way
(Assessor Parcel Nos. 2836-011-012; -012-010, 011; and
-010-909)
REQUEST: A plot plan review for a commuter rail station to include a
passenger platform and a parking .area that would initially
accommodate approximately .540 cars. Re -alignment of the
railroad tracks to accommodate the station may require the
removal of up to four oak trees. The project site is zoned
M-1.5 (Limited Heavy Manufacturing).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
propose to construct a commuter rail station for the purpose of establishing a
public transportation rail link between the City of Santa Clarita and the City
of Los Angeles. The passenger platform will be approximately 500 feet long by
30 feet wide and will include a canopy structure. The project will also
include a parking area with approximately 540 parking spaces to be used .by
commuter rail passengers.
SURROUNDING LAND USE/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN'CONSISTENCY:
The proposed commuter rail station is an allowable use in the existing M-1.5
zone.* The City's General Plan designation for this area is Residential
Suburban with a Valley Center overlay which identifies the Bermite site as a
possible location for a commuter rail station. ..The existing zoning; General
Plan designations and existing land uses- of the project site and adjacent
properties are as follows:
Agenda Item:. 3r.
a"
V,
`~
T7-�"
- -___---_---'-_
~ �
-
-2 -
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEYs
As part of the lease agreement for the rail site, an environmental assessment
was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. The.institution of commuter
rail service on rail rights-of-vay already in use is statutorily exempt from
CEQA. Local jurisdictions are responsible for constructing the individual
commuter rail stations and preparing any environmental documentation required
per CEQA guidelines. The environmental areas of concern for the project were
traffic and the. station, a location within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study
Zone. It vas determined that this proposal shall have no 1 adverse
environmental impacts which could not be avoided through project design and
mitigation measures. Subsequently, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared for this project pursuant to the California Enviroamental';Quality
Act. This Mitigated Negative Declaration was given conceptual approval by the
City Council on September 24, 1991. It will be presented to the Council for
final approval on February 25, 1992.
INTERDEPARTHM/nn=AGENCr REVMt
The Community Development Department has distributed the project Ito the
affected City, departments and agencies for their comments. These comments and
concerns have been addressed in the attached recommended Conditions of
Approval for this project.
ANALYSISs
The City of Santa Clarity and the Los.Angeles County Transportation Commission
propose to construct a commuter rail station for -the purpose of establishing a
public transportation rail link between the City of Santa Clarita and lthe Los
Angeles Union Passenger Station (LAUPS) in downtown Los Angeles. A lease
agreement (with an option to purchase) for the approximately ten acre !site is
currently being processed by the Public Works Department. The project site is
Existing
Draft
General Plan
Zone
Land Use
UDC Zone
Project
RS (Residential
M-1.5
Parking lot
RS
Site
Suburban) with a
leased by the
Valley Center overlay
Saugus Speedway
North
CO (Commercial
A-2-5 (Heavy
Santa Clara
CO (PD)
Office) and
Agriculture,
River
(Planned
SEA
five acre min
Dev.)
lot size
East
RS with Valley
M-1.5
warehousing
RS
Center overlay
facilities
South
OS (Open Space)
M -2 -DP (Heavy
Vacant
OS and
Manufacturing.
OS (PD)
Dev. Program)
West
CC (Community
M-1 (Light
Saugus
CC
Commercial)
Manufacturing)
Speedway
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEYs
As part of the lease agreement for the rail site, an environmental assessment
was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. The.institution of commuter
rail service on rail rights-of-vay already in use is statutorily exempt from
CEQA. Local jurisdictions are responsible for constructing the individual
commuter rail stations and preparing any environmental documentation required
per CEQA guidelines. The environmental areas of concern for the project were
traffic and the. station, a location within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study
Zone. It vas determined that this proposal shall have no 1 adverse
environmental impacts which could not be avoided through project design and
mitigation measures. Subsequently, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared for this project pursuant to the California Enviroamental';Quality
Act. This Mitigated Negative Declaration was given conceptual approval by the
City Council on September 24, 1991. It will be presented to the Council for
final approval on February 25, 1992.
INTERDEPARTHM/nn=AGENCr REVMt
The Community Development Department has distributed the project Ito the
affected City, departments and agencies for their comments. These comments and
concerns have been addressed in the attached recommended Conditions of
Approval for this project.
ANALYSISs
The City of Santa Clarity and the Los.Angeles County Transportation Commission
propose to construct a commuter rail station for -the purpose of establishing a
public transportation rail link between the City of Santa Clarita and lthe Los
Angeles Union Passenger Station (LAUPS) in downtown Los Angeles. A lease
agreement (with an option to purchase) for the approximately ten acre !site is
currently being processed by the Public Works Department. The project site is
-3 -
currently zoned H-1.5 (Limited Heavy Manufacturing) in which a commuter rail
station is a permitted use. The project site is designated Residential
Suburban (3.4 to 6.6 DU/acre) with aValley Center overlay on the City's
General Plan. The Valley Center component of -the General Plan identifies the
Bermite property as a possible location for a commuter rail station.
The commuter rail station would consist of a parking lot initially
accommodating approximately 540 cars and a station platform and canopy
structure approximately 30 feet vide and 500 feet long. The City's parking
ordinance does not address parking requirements for a commuter rail station.
LACTC is requiring that the City provide a minimum of 500 parking spaces.
Approximately 6I of the site is proposed to be landscaped.
Approximately 3.5 acres of the site will be left vacant. These areas may be
used for possible future commercial uses or parking. However, approval of
these uses is not sought as part of this plot plan approval.
The station will require the re -alignment and straightening of approximately
1.400 feet of the existing railroad track. This will require 11,000 cubic
yards of cut work and 66,000 cubic yards of fill, 55,000 cubic yards of which
will be imported from a location off-site not yet determined. The haul route
for this earth shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development. The re -alignment may also require the removal of up to four oak
trees (none of which are heritage oaks). Three of these oak trees are located
on property currently owned by the City.
Two entrances to the commuter rail station parking lot are proposed from
Soledad Canyon Road. The primary access would be anew signalized entrance
from Soledad Canyon Road to be constructed at the western end of the project
site. The existing entrance to the Bermite property at the eastern end.of the
project site would serve as a second entrance for vehicles traveling in either
direction. However, vehicles leaving the parking lot at this intersection
would be restricted to right turns only onto Soledad Canyon Road.
The initial operating schedule would consist of a total of three trains
traveling from Santa Clarita to Los Angeles on weekday mornings and three
trains returning to Santa Clarita from Los Angeles on weekday afternoons. The
first train would leave Santa Clarita at approximately 6 AM vith subsequent
trains departing at 1 -hour intervals. In the afternoon, the first train would
arrive in Santa Clarita at approximately 4 PH with subsequent trains arriving
at one hour intervals. The trains would consist of a diesel locomotive and
four double -deck passenger cars each of which would be approximately 85 feet
in' length. As no weekend service is anticipated, the City will be able to
generate revenues by sub -leasing the parking lot to the Saugus Speedway for
weekend events.
According to the ,traffic study prepared for .the project, the rail station
would generate approximately 135 cars on the local street system during the
peak AM and •PH traffic hours. Commuter buses will serve the site for
destinations not served by the commuter rail: However, overall, the project
is anticipated to have a beneficial impact on region -vide congestion by
providing commuters with access to an alternative mods of transportation other
than the automobile. It is anticipated that, initially, only 300 of the 525
parking spaces would be utilized by commuter rail passengers. The Public
Vorks Department plans to utilize theseadditional parking spaces for
park-and-ride.
Y(00
-4-
A multi -use trail is proposed to run adjacent to and north of Soledad Canyon
Road .along the Santa Clara River. Access between the trail and the site will
be provided, as well as bike -lockers. -
The proposed project could be found to be consistent with the following goals
and policies of the City's General Plan:
1. Goal 2, policy 2.3 of the Circulation Element of the 'General Plan
promotes coordination of local transit planning with regional
transportation planning agencies and transit agencies in adjacent
communities.
2. Goal 2, policy 2.4 -of the Circulation Element of the General Plan
which encourages the development of a multi -modal transit facility
that is strategically located in the City, adjacent to a potential
public transit rail line.
3. Goal 3, policy 3.3 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan
encourages the promotion of bicycle accessiblilitq to all public
facilities.
4. Goal 3, policy 3.5 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan
encourages the development. with the support of other agencies, of
alternative transportation systems.
S. Coal 4, policy 4.2 of the Circulation Element, of the General Plan
encourages the provision of public parking resources (including
park-and-ride facilities).
6. Goal 4, policy 4.5 of the Circulation Element encourages the provision
of enclosed bicycle lockers at major facilities.
7. Goal 5,, policies 5.1 thru 5.3 encourage pursuing an agressive posture
in the region in advocating a. regional transportation system.
8. Goal 2, policy 2.4 of the Air Quality Element promotes programs which
reduce vehicle emissions including public transit enhancement and
park-and-ride facilities.
9. Goal 12, policies 12.1 thru 12.3 encourage the reduction of mobile
source emissions by promoting a shift from single occupancy to higher
occupancy vehicles.
10. Goal 2, policy 2.6 of the Noise Element encourages working with local
transit agencies to improve and expand current public transit services
and routes to reduce trip -generated noise.
-5 -
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration- with the finding that the proposed
Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Approve Plot Plan 92-002 (Exhibit A) with the recommended findings, and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval'(Exhibit 8).
3. Adopt the attached Resolution No. P92-08.
KMK:422
RESOLUTION N0. P92-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING PLOT PLAN 92-002 AND pA$ TREE PERMIT 92-004
TO ALLOW FOR A CO'hWTER RAI, STATION
TO BE LOCATED ON THE BERMITE PROPERTY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA.CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE.AS FOLLOWS;
SECTION I. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following
findings:
a. An application for a plot plan review and oak tree.permit were filed
on January 16, 1992, by the City of Santa Clarita (the
"applicant•). The property for which this entitlement has been
filed is located south of and adjacent to Soledad Canyon Road, east
of the Saugus Speedway and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad
right-of-vay (Assessor Parcel Nos. 2836-011-012; -012-010 011; and
-010-909) (the •site•).
b•
The existing zoning for the project is M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy
Manufacturing). The
�.
General Plan designation for the site is RS
(Residential Suburban, 3.4
to 6.6 DU/acre) with a Valley Center
overlay. The General Plan identifies
the site as a possible
location for a commuter rail station.
C.
The plot plan (Exhibit A) proposes a commuter rail station to
include a
passenger platform and a parking area that would initially
accommodate approximately 540
cars.
d•
Re -alignment of the railroad tracks to accommodate the station may
require the removal
of up to.four oak trees.
e.
The approximately ten acre site is a portion of the 996 acre Bermite
property and is currently owned
by the Whittaker Corporation. The
City is currently processing a lease
agreement (with an option to
purchase) for the site.
f.
The site is relatively flat andis currently leased by the Saugus
Speedway for use
as a parking lot. The majority of the site is
paved with asphalt.
9.
An initial study was conducted on this project. It was determined
that the project would
not have any significant environmental impact
because mitigation measures have been included
in the project design
and conditions of.approval (Exhibit B). Staff
prepared a Negative
Declaration for this project
puksuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act provisions.
AM
h• A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
February 18. 1992 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
/ Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
SECTION 2.' Based upon the .testimony and other evidence received at
the public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning
Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds as follows:
a• The City,s General Plan designation for the project site is
Residential Suburban with a Valley Center overlay. The project is
consistent with the intent of the designation regarding land use.
b. The following goals and policies of the General
approval of the projectPlan support the
:
1) Goal 2, policy 2.3 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan promotes coordination
regional transportation planniof local transit planning with
In adjacent communities. ng- agencies and transit agencies
2) Goal .2, policy 2.4 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan which encourages the development of a multi -modal transit
facility that is strategically located in the City, adjacent to
a potential public transit rail line.
3) Goal 3, policy 3.3 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan encourages the promotion of bicycle accessibility to all
public facilities.
4) Goal 3, policy 3.5 of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan encourages the development, with the support of other
agencies, of alternative transportation systems.
5) Goal 4, policy 4.2 of the Circulation Element. of
Plan (includin encourages the provision the General
Of public parking resources
8 Park-and-ride facilities).
6) Goal 49 policy 4.5 of .the Circulation Element encourages the
provision of enclosed bicycle lockers at major facilities.
7) Goal 5, policies 5.1 through 5.3 encourage pursuing an
aggressive posture in the region in advocating
transportation system. a regional
8).. Goal 2, policy 2.4 of the Air Quality Element promotes programs
which reduce vehicle emissions including
enhancement and park-and-ride facilities. public transit
9) Goal 12, policies 12.1 through 12.3 encourage the reduction of
mobile source emissions by promoting a shift from single
occupancy to higher occupancy vehicles.
10)
RESO P92-08
Page 2
Goal 2, policy 2.6 of the Noise Element encourages working with
local transit agencies to improve and expand current public
transit services and routes to reduce trip -generated noise.
c. The identified environmental impacts can be mitigated through the
conditioning of the project.
d. The Commissionfinds that approving.,
ehe project, as proposed with the
addition of conditions (Exhibit B), does satisfy the following
principles and standards for consideration of a plot plan:
That the use, development of land and/or application of
development standards, when considered on the basis of the
suitability of the site for the particular use or .development
intended, is so arranged as to avoid traffic congestion, insure
the protection of public health, safety and general welfare,
prevent adverse effects on neighboring property and is conformity
with good zoning practice.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and.findings, the Planning
Commission hereby determines as follows:'
a. The proposed project is compatible with existing development in the
area and is consistent with the City's General Plan.
b. The proposed project will not have a significant effect upon the
environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Conditions of approval (Exhibit B) have been added to the project to
mitigate all identified impacts caused.by the project.
SECTION 4. NOV. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
Cof the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
a. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the negative declaration
prepared for the project with the finding that the project .will not
have a significant effect upon the environment.
b. The Planning. Commission hereby approves Plot Plan 92-002 and Oak Tree
Permit 92-004.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
Jerry Cherrington, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Lynn M. Harris
Director of Community Development
RESO P92-08
Page 3
, 1991.
5l
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
C CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I. Donna M. Grindey, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of 'Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the
following vote of the Planning Commission day of 1992, by the
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk.
KMK:431
RESO P92-08
Page 4
A sa
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLOT PLAN N0. 92-002
(EXHIBIT "B')
GES
1) This approval shall not supercede any other affected agencies requirements.
.2) This approval must be utilized within one year.of the date of issuance.
3) The applicant shall comply with all inspection requirements as deemed
necessary by the City of Santa.Clarita.
4) The project is approved as shown on the submitted plot plan. Any changes
shall be subject to further review by the Community Development Department.
5) The applicant must sign the attached notorized affidavit to .confirm
acceptance of the above conditions. The notorized affidavit then must be
returned to the Community Development Department before approval is
granted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING D1U !i
6) This grant allows the construction of a commuter rail platform with canopy
and a parking lot to accommodate a maximum of 700 cars. Future commercial
uses shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community
Development.
7) No signage is approved under this permit. The applicant shall submit a
sign program to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development
prior to the construction of any signage.
8) The applicant shall submit colored exterior elevations for the platform
structure as well as a sample materials board for review and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
9) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
lighting plan subject to the approval of the Director of Community
Development. All exterior lighting .shall be unobtrusive and constructed
or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site
glare is fully controlled.
10) Tree Nos._ 25, 31, and 35 may require removal_ or _encroachment due to
realignment of the railraod tracks. All removals or encroachments shall
be verified ,with the Com mu
construction. nity Development Department prior to
111 Tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 may be subject to encroachment and will require
corrective pruning prior to initiation of construction in order to
accommodate the rail station. All pruning shall be performed by a
qualified arborist and shall be coordinated with the Community Development
Department.
53
AD
Reso No. P92 -OB
�- Page 1
12) All oak trees within the vicinity of construction shall be fenced
protected zone prior the
to construction, per the Oak Tree Preservation. and .
Protection Guidelines. The fencing plan shall be subject to the approval
of the Community Development Department.
13) All seedling oak trees within the vicinity of the rail station shall be
transplanted on -the site. All relocations shall be coordinated with the
Community Development Department.
14) The City Oak Tree Consultant shall be present during any grading operation
within the protected zone of any oak tree.
15) No irrigation shall be placed within fifteen feet of the trunk of any oak
tree.
16) The applicant - shall provide bike lockers to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development.
17) The applicant shall provide portable restrooms (to include sink
facilities) to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
The maintenance schedule for these restrooms shall be to the satisfaction
of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
ENGINFrarwG DIVIsin� ,
18) All building, drainage and grading requirements will be established at the
time of plan check and permit issuance.
19) The applicant shall widen the sidewalk to 8,-o• to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
20) Driveways shall be constructed using the City of Santa Claritaalley
intersection design 144-01. The applicant shall obtain approval from the
City Engineer for the location of all driveways.
21) All building, drainage and grading requirements will be established at the
time of plan check and permit issuance.
22) The applicant shall comply with all state requirements for construction
within a special studies zone. Buildings and structures must be setback
from fault lines as recommended by a geologist and as approved by the City
Engineer. A geology report must be submitted and approved. Copies of the
report must be sent to the state geologist.
23) The applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer. of dedication for
reciprocal. access rights for the driveways along both sides of the
property.
TRAFFIC DIVicTnw
24) The applicant shall install a traffic signal system at the intersection of
Soledad Canyon Road and the vest entrance to the site.
be installed at the direction This system shall
Engineer. of, and to the satisfaction of the City
Reso No. P92-08
Page 2
n
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
25) The applicant shall provide recycling, containers to be located within the
trash enclosure to the satisfaction of the Director of the Public Works
Department.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
26) Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the .Director of the
Parks and Recreation Department. Use trees from the City's approved
Master Street Tree List, which can be obtained from the City Arborist.
Existing street trees shall be relocated to the ten foot landscaped
setback.
27) The applicant shall provide landscape and irrigation plans for review and
to the satisfaction of the Director of the Parks and Recreation
Department. All landscaping materials and' sprinkler systems shall be
clearly indicated on the required plan. Drought resistant plant material
and water efficient irrigation systems shall be utilized in the design.
28) When funds become available, median landscaping improvements shall be made
to the medians adjacent to the commuter rail site frontage and Saugus
Speedway frontage to the satisfaction of the Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department.
29) The applicant shall provide access between the project site and the
adjacent trail to the satisfaction of the Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department. On site bike lanes shall be installed per City
standards.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
30) All fire requirements will be established at the time of plan check.
KMK.426
91
j,.lrr�n'^—•wwtsf AND
�ardrPool4
TANS
PORLpN A
OlN1f'
1.r_�kMENT OF RANOPAT(ON,:o so. sPrt,No srP2. CA
711P.763
February 13, 1992
ATTACHMET Vlll
IGR/CEQA
city of Santa clarita
INITIAL ENVIR STUDY
DRAFT !'LITIGATED N8C DEC
Bermite or Glazer Rail
Station
Ma• Kristi Vic. LA -5/14/126 -VAR
City of santimbr°ugh/ • DOn Williams
Department of �1a to .
Valencia Community Development
Santa CValOn a Boulevard, Suite
P CA 91355
Dear Hs. Kimbrough/Mr. Williams
RECEIVED
FEB 18 1992
CCAINUf , r R vht"�Mj .T
Cih Cf U4-AGLAa1T4
the
TransZ�an yy°u for incl
POrtation (Caltrans)Californiathe California Department of
for the above -referenced documentenviro
(Freeways, we suggest that any eased Ontai review process
Y FIi hw y impacts n the information
Office- Thisgays) be discussed to State Facilities
and/or tion: c'can study,deither meansOfa brielesummary
to
information:whie
! which addresses report
a) Level of following
b) Traffic imervice bet ra ate and
after development.
pacts on St
ramps, 80 and a21 siortaticn Facilities
tions, , crossrcads and niticantly affected
0
Trans. controlling intersec-
distributi � and (AM and PH hour):
d) Future conditions assignments. Peak
Project + emulative t inoludea both
e) Traffic mitigation traffic Projeot and
if generated.
J►lso, at. the any, to be proposed,
When 1Y with all 0 proposed
Hermite Site the a
that transporting materials hpzardoua.waste oaf pplicant shall
°k trips be 1 ram the site. ety measures
It You have an iaited to of! -peak commute Periods. also mmend
Please cell me at (21questions 338egardin9 this response,
Sincerely,
4)0-
e-t76.#M—
WILAOAdvance planTO
ZGR/CO°ninrdinator
9 Branch
D. . nh\1067%106,
City of
Santa Clarita
Jill Klajic
Mayor
Howard"Buck" McKeon
Mayor Pro -Tem
Carl Boyer, 3rd
Counollmember
Jo Anne Darcy
CouncwlmemDer
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
February 20, 1992
Phone
(805) 259-2489
Fax
(805)259-8125
Mayor Jill Rlajic and City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Commuter Rail Station
Dear Mayor Rlajic and Councilmembers:
qrw
v r
<�K ,
I FEB 2 5 1992
CDM1iLd�i�ITY' b[FElCYpid°Fri
At the February 18, 1992 meeting of the Planning Commission,
the Commission voted 4-0 (with one abstention) not to approve
the Negative Declaration and Plot Plan for the commuter rail
station proposed to be located on the Whitaker property. The
members of the Planning Commission asked me to communicate our
concerns to you.
Jan Heidt 1. There continues to be a lack of public confidence -that the
Councilmemoer site is free from the hazardous materials that have
accumulated there over the years. This concern could be
mitigated by state or federal certification that the site
no longer -poses a threat to public health and safety.
2. The Commission was not convinced that adequate measures
have been taken to demonstrate that seismic hazards do not
constitute a substantial risk to public safety.
3. Because the lease negotiations were not part of the
Commission's information packet, the Commission had no
assurance that the City would, be protected against
litigation resulting from either toxic or seismic hazards -
on the site.
4. The Commission was concerned that the lease (represented
to the Commission as a three year term with a single two
year extension) was too short for amortization of the
expense of improvements. If, for any reason, the site
were abandoned in five years, the City would essentially
make a gift of the improvements to the property owner.
5. Adequate assurance that the quality of the railroad track
does not constitute a threat to public safety was not
given to the Commission.
Mayor Klajic. and City Councilmembers
February 20, 1992
Page 2
6. There was unanimous concern that the proposed site would
generate additional traffic during peak hours through the
Bouquet Junction intersection and through the Soledad
Canyon/Sierra Highway intersection.
Speaking only for myself, I chose to abstain from voting
because I did not wish to be misinterpreted. .as. believing that
resolution of the six concerns the Commission shared would
remedy my personal concerns with the project. In my judgment,
the need for commuter rail service between Santa Clarita and
Los Angeles has not been demonstrated to the Commission. The
expense of land acquisition. and improvement (estimated to be
well over $5M) to benefit an estimated 500 commuters appears to
be unwarranted. The idea that commuter rail will provide a
long term solution to the commuter problems of City residents
is ill-conceived, in my judgment. The money could be better
spent in the development of local industry which would preclude
commutation into the San. Fernando Valley or beyond. The money
could be better spent in subsidization of telecommuting which
would assist those who live in Santa Clarita to work in Santa
Clarita.
If it could be shown that there is. substantial public benefit
in having commuter rail service, there are a number of
alternative sites which would not encourage rail commuters from
the Saugus,. Valencia, Newhall and Placerita Canyon areas of our
City, as well as residents to the West and North of our City to
pass through the Bouquet Junction intersection during peak
hours. I do not believe that the project as currently
described is in the best interests of all the citizens of Santa
Clarita.
r
Sincerely,
4
Jerry D. Cherrington
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
scw:1189
cc: Members, Planning Commission
George A. Caravalho, City Manager
Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
3
ATTACHMET X
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON COMMUTER RAIL STATION PROJECT
City Council Presentation by Planning Commission Chairman
February 25, 1992
Mayor Klajic and Councilmembers:
Ordinarily when an applicant appeals a project denial by the
Planning Commission, the Staff represents the Commission's
position to the City council. In this case, the City of Santa
Clarita is the applicant appealing a project denial by the
Planning Commission, and it is appropriate for the Commission to
appear personally.
If. the City Council approves the the negative declaration, the
rail station plot plan and the oak tree permit this evening, it
will overturn the unanimous judgment of the Planning
Commission. I would like to describe how the Planning
Commission came to this judgment.
At no time has the Planning Commission been asked whether a
commuter rail station constituted an appropriate land use in the
City of Santa Clarita. The desirability of commuter rail
service has never been presented to the Commission.
On February 19, 19910 the Commission was asked to recommend a
rail station site to the Council. Contrary to the written Staff
report this evening, the Commission did not recommend the
Bermite site. As the Chronology of Events in your packet
correctly states, Staff informed the Commission that Bermite was
not feasible because. the additional rail right-of-way had not
been purchased. No consensus was achieved on alternative sites
by the Commission, and, as a result, no recommendation was made.
The Planning Commission had no further involvement of any kind
until one year later when the Commission denied the proposed
Anden development agreement for the Bermite site. Then, last
week, on February 18, 1992, Staff recommended approval of the
Negative Declaration and the plot plan for the Bermite site.
During the public hearing, citizens expressed their concerns
about both the negative declaration and the plot plan.
Individual members of the commission amplified and expanded
these public concerns. when the Staff, as.applicant, was called
upon to address these concerns, there was no response. In light
of the unaddressed concerns, the Planning Commission had no
alternative but to deny both the. negative declaration and the
plot plan.
LF
Because of the uniqueness of the circumstances, the Commission
asked me to communicate our concerns to you, and I have done so
through the letter which is a part of your package this
evening. In attempting to address these concerns in this
evening's Staff report, the Staff makes it clear that
information was available which was not presented to the
Planning Commission. Had this information been available, it is
possible that the outcome at the Commission level would have
been different. If it meets with your pleasure, the Planning
Commission would be willing to receive a complete Staff report
which addresses our expressed concerns and those of the
community. After this presentation and further review, the
Commission would give you our recommendation based on that
additional evidence. In the absence of additional information,
the Planning Commission's vote not to approve either the
negative declaration or the plot plan for the commuter rail
station at the Bermite site stands as our recommendation to you.
Jerry D. Cherrington
0
After recording return to:
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
BUILDING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300_
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attention: Mr. Richard Eopecky
City Engineer
INDEX: ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE - CDT/PILL SLOPES
(Whichever is. applicable)
City of Santa Clarita
(OWNER'S NAME)
(OWNER'S NAME)
Gentlemen:
ATTACHMET XI
I/We, The City of Santa Clarita , am/are the owners(s) of the
following described property:
Exhibit "A" (Attached)
As owners(s), we have examined all plans for the development Of the realigned
Southern Pacific Rail Line in conjunction with the. Santa Clarita Commuter Rail
Station known as Assessor's Parcel No. 2836-010-907 give permission to the Loa
Angeles County Transportation Commission to perform grading on City property. The
undersigned state(s) that the City of Santa Clarita will be free and clear of any
and all liability for damages due to this work. The coat and maintenance of the
cut slopes, fills and oak tree protection as specified intheoak tree report shall
be the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
(OWNER'S SIGNATURE) (OWNER'S SIGNATURE).
• ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY A NOTARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY
On this _ day of , in the year
19_ before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally
appeared
personally known to me to be the person whose
WITNESS my hand and name is subscribed to the instrument, and
official seal acknowledged to me that he
executed it.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR STATE
(SIGNATURE)
ATTACHMET XII -
AGENDA REPORT _._.
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented.b
CONSENT CALENDAR Lynn M. Harrisr29�t1�
DATE: February 25,.1992
SUBJECT: COMMUTER RAIL STATION, Resolution No' 92-47,,A Resolution
Certifying Negative Declaration 92-009;`Prepared for the v
Commuter Rail Site Lease Agreement and AssociatedDevelopment
Applications (PP 92-002, etal)...
DEPARTMENTS Community Development
BACKGROUND:
On February 26, 1991, the Council adopted Resolution No.. 91-21 and applying,.
for funding,- establishing the City's intention to construct, in.coordination
with the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), a Commuter.Rail.: r
station. Staff was directed to focus on the -Bermite Property,- as the primary
location, with the "Glazier' and 'Gates' properties as alternate locations.,
Pursuant to the Council's direction and CEQA, initial studies were conducted
on all three sites in September 1991. It was determined that a negative:
declaration would be appropriate for the first two sites, and:that an -EIR
would likely be required for development of the 'Gates' property.:.. Public
Works staff also worked with the 'Bermite Property- owner, the (ihittaker
Corporation, to secure a lease agreement for.devlopment of the station on an;
approximately ten acre portion of that site.
On September 24, •1991, the Council. conceptually approved the Lease Agreement
with the owners of the 'Bermite Property', and conceptually approved a
proposed Negative Declaration for that agreement and associated. site :._--
development plans. Staff was directed to complete the Negative Declaration-"
------- and-return it-to-Council-for-final–certification. —
The Community Development Department has prepared a Negative' Declaration for
the project -.A compliance with CEQA requirements.i Technical appendices to.
Negative Decalation 92-009 include the following: Phase I -Archaelogical.
Study, Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Oak Tree Report, Traffic Impact Study'—=-
and a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Toxic Report). The Initial Study
and technical appendices. are available for public review in the.Citq ClerkIs
Office.
The Initial Study and supporting documentation indicate 'that development of
this site will have no significant impact on the: environment.. with
incorporation of mitigation measures. Mitigation' identified in-the
Initial Study have been_. incorporated into 'the-;Commuter Rail lease agreement;
F site plan, and related construction specification plans Mitigation, mea sures
t°
t
r
"enda Item: r z b
• 'a' Ag `ln/
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGAT IVE DECLARAT ION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
.............................................................................
PERMIT/PROJECT: Commuter Rail Station, City of Santa Clarita (Lease/Site Pian)
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
MASTER CASE NO: 92-009
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The approximately ten -acre site is a small portion
of the "Bermite" property, located .75 miles east of Bouquet Canyon Road on
the south side of Soledad Canyon Road immediately east and adjacent to the
Saugus Speedway site, and generally north of the SPRR- right -of -way. (APN's
2836-011-012; -012-010,011; and -010-909 are affected.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles
County Transportation Commission propose to construct a commuter rail station
for the purpose of establishing'a public transporation rail link between the
City of Santa Clarita and the City of Los Angeles. The passenger platform
will be approximately 500 feet long by 30 feet wide and will include a canopy
structure for protection. The project will also include a parking area with
approximately 525 spaces for use by commuting rail passengers.
...............................................................................
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X]City Council [ ]Planning Commission [ ]Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect
upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted
pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required. [ ] are attached
...........................................
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by:
Reviewed
[x] are not attached.
Myra Frank 6 Associates
(Name/Title)
Don Williams, Senior Planner
(Name/Title)
Approved by: Don Williams, Senior Planner
ignatu ) (Name/Title)
...........................................................................
Public Review Period From 01/18/92 To 02/17/92
Public Notice Given On 01/18/92 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [ ] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
........................................................................s.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
M
include, but are not limited to: traffic improvements and signalization on
ti Soledad Canyon Road at thelocation of the station, on-site parking and
landscaping improvements, site design to avoid removal of two Heritage oak
trees, and appropriate construction practices to reduce noise, air quality
impacts, and erosion.
All required notices and public review. periods for the proposed Negative
Declaration have been completed, and no correspondence regarding the lease
agreement or the proposed Negative Declaration has been received from any
agency or from the public.
RECOMMENDATIO
Staff recommends that the City Council take action to adopt Resolution No.
92-47, certifying proposed Negative Declaration 92-009, for the Commuter Rail
Lease Agreement and associated site development plans.
ATTACHMENTS•
Resolution No. 92-47
Proposed Negative Declaration 92-009
DMW:138
Ll
RESOLUTION NO. 92-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-009 FOR
THE COMMUTER RAIL LEASE AGREEMENT AND.RELATED.APPLICATIONS,
IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings
of fact:
a. The City of Santa Clarita proposes to lease an approximately ten -acre
site and, in coordination with the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission (LACTC), to construct a public commuter rail station to
provide commuter rail service between the cities of Santa Clarita and
Los Angeles. This project will utilize existing leased track of the
Southern Pacific Railroad and will include construction of a 500'
platform and canopy, parking facilities, commuter bus facilities,
bike paths, street improvements, and associated signalization.
Landscaping and irrigation are also included as part of the project
design.
b. In June 1991, the City's Public Yorks Department prepared and
submitted an environmental questionnaire along with proposed lease
agreement to the Community Development Department. The Community
Development Department reviewed the proposal to assess potential
environmental effects and General Plan consistency.
C. The proposal (the lease and associated site development plans to be
submitted later) is determined to be a project per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been reviewed pursuant to
its provisions. In August 1991, The Community Development Department
completed the draft Initial Study on this project and determined that
the project as proposed would not have any significant effect on the
environment. On September 25, 1991, the City Council conceptually
certified the negative declaration and conceptually approved the
proposed lease agreement. The Council directed that the negative
declaration be returned to Council for final certification upon
finalization of the lease agreement.
d. In JAnuary, 1991, the Community Development Department completed the
final Initial Study on this project and determined that the project
as proposed would not have a significant effect on the environment,
with the adoption of mitigation measures identified in the Initial
Study. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
lease agreement, site design and proposed construction plans. The
Initial Study also determined that project implementation will not
impact resources protected by. the California Department of Fish and
Game and that a finding of de minimus impact on such resources is
appropriate.
�a
Resolution. NO. 52-47
Page 2
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact and upon studies
and investigations made on behalf of the City Council, the City Council
• further finds as follows:
a. At its meeting of February 25. 1992, the City Council considered the
agenda report, the Negative Declaration and corresponding
environmental documents as needed, including, but not limited to, the
Initial Study prepared for the project.
b. Based on the .Initial Study, the project does not have the potential
to adversely effect the environment or resources under the protection
of the California Department of Fish and Game, and no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation.
C. A proposed Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project
based on the Initial Study findings and determination that the
proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment.
d. A notice of environmental assessment was posted and advertised, and
the proposed Negative Declaration was made available for a 30 day
review period in compliance with CEQA and other State.law.
e. No correspondence regarding the project has been received from any
agency, or from the public, during the 30.day review period.
• SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City
Council hereby determines that;
Ll
q3
a. The project is compatible with existing and proposed development in
the area. consistent with the Residential Suburban/Valley Center
Overlay General Plan land use designation, and complies with the uses
allowed in the M 1.5 (Limited Heavy Manufacturing) zone.
b. The project will not have a.significant impact on the environment or
on resources under the protection of the California Department of
Fish and Game.
NOV. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California as follows:
a. The City Council hereby certifies the Negative Declaration prepared
for the project.
iaso: -on No. 92-07
Page 3
b. The City Council hereby approves that a final determination of
. Negative Declaration be issued.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992.
Jill Rlajic, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I. Donna M Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and 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 1992 by
the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
0 ENV/136
ra
Southern California
Regional Rail Authority—Adopted Plan
N
A
CLARITA
VENTURA
4 L.A. UNION
PASSENGER
TERMINAL
PACIFIC OCEAN
D San Bernardino—Los Angeles (Fall 1992)
Moorpark—Los Angeles (Fall 1992)
Santa Clarita—Los Angeles (Fall 1992)
Riverside -Los Angeles (Mid-1993)
D Oceanside—Los Angeles (Fall 1993)
D San Bernardino—Riverside—Los Angeles (1993-95)
Riverside—Irvine (1993-95)
Hemet—Riverside (1995)
ORedlands—San Bernardino (Post 1995)
Dependent on purchase of rights-of-way from Santa Fe Railway
FERNANDO LOS ANGELES
�P P QPP�
NORWALK
BUENA PARK
FULLERTON
ANAHEIM
ORANGE
SANTA ANA
ORANGE
11Im.'*)IIMETROLINK
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSI
Q�PO`�ypQ�P CASA BLANC/
C jq�
SF�P
N/N.IRVINE
IRVINE SPECTRUM
MISSION VIEJOI /LACI
SAN JUAN CAPISTRi
I
SAN CLEMENIL
EANSIDE
FEBRUARY, 1992