HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - TMF PLAN (2)x
City Manager Approv
Item to be presented
Ron Kilcoyne
NEW BUSINESS
DATE: March 10,19#16
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE TMF PLAN AND SITING STUDY, AND
PRELIMINARY SITE EVALUATION
DEPARTMENT: Transportation and Engineering Services
•Ma 1• •
The City Council (1) Receive and approve the Transit Maintenance Facility Plan and Siting
Study (Phase I); and (2) Direct staff to pursue information and discussions regarding
acquisition of the.top four sites identified in that document.
On June 24, 1997, the Council provided direction to contract with Gannett Fleming, Inc., for
the preparation of a Transit Maintenance Facility Plan (TMF Plan) and Siting Study (Phase D.
The document identifies the structures and systems needed to provide transit
maintenance/support, projects future staffing, estimates. space needs, evaluates 20 sites for
their suitability, and provides a cost estimate and funding strategy for project construction.
Space Needs: The TMF Plan examines the existing conditions of Santa Clarita Transit (SCT)
facilities and provides the assumptions and methodology used to determine the future needs.
Findings from the report include:
Staff will grow from 134 to 284 employees at build out.
The TMF will require approximately 72,000 square feet (75 percent for maintenance
activities, 25 percent administration and operations), .with a total of 14 vehicle
repair/maintenance bays.
Site size requirements to accommodate the above are approximately 12.3 acres.
Facility Siting: Selection criteria were developed by City staff, ATC/Vancom, and Gannett
Fleming for the following: site location, characteristics, and availability; traffic
circulation/access and environmental concerns; and cost of land. An analysis was also
performed to determine the center of the future service area. A list of potential sites was
developed from multiple sources and a matrix developed to determine suitability (for more
information, see Chapter 4, Site Selection).
z1f
APPHOWED Agenda Itann.a—s-
T
APPROVAL OF THE TMF PLAN AND SITING STUDY, AND PRELIMINARY SITE
EVALUATION
March 10, 1998 - Page 2
From a list of 20 sites, four sites were determined suitable for the TMF: Lockheed Business
Park, Valley Business Center, Saugus Speedway, and Porta Bella/Bermite. Their overall
suitability is discussed in Section 4.5 of the report.
The Porta Bella site warrants special comment. Under strict application of the criteria, the site
would likely have been eliminated. However, the 1995 Porta Bella Development Agreement
provides for dedication of an eight -acre site to the City for a public facility. The developer has
also verbally indicated a willingness to substitute a larger lot. Due to ongoing remediation on
the larger property, no site will be deliverable until at least 2001 pursuant to the project's
conditions of approval. Other constraints remain, including access and the City's inability to
control construction scheduling of a private project. At this time, only the alignment of the
proposed Santa Clarita Parkway has been approved as part of the Porta Bella project.. While
new alignments for this road, and for various extensions of Golden Valley Road or Redview
Avenue, have been the subject of recent discussions, they are generally speculative and cannot
be suitably evaluated for the purpose of this study. Substitute sites suggested by the developer
are contingent on these speculative alignments. The site to be dedicated to the City has already
been identified as a potential "local match" for the federal funds needed to construct the TMF
and has value. The site should remain in consideration for the TMF, some other facility, or for
its value in negotiating a more suitable TMF location.
TMF Cost and Funding Strategy: Based on the TMF s projected space needs and land
requirements, Phase I of the project will cost approximately $14 million for land acquisition and
facility development. Phase I will include acquisition of the total acreage required for future
system expansion, and constructing/equipping that portion of the facility and site needed for
SCT operations through approximately 2005.
The financing options identified in the report for land acquisition and TMF construction fall
into two general categories: traditional funding through the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA); and alternative contracting approaches such as design/build/leaseback
(more information is available in Chapter 5, Funding Strategies).
IY�1:l►/:�
No alternative actions have been identified.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. Future actions pursued as a result of this recommendation will have known fiscal
impacts and will be presented at the time that additional action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
Transit Maintenance Facility Plan and Siting Study (Phase I) is available for review in the City
Clerk's Reading File.
transit\agenda\ tmfmulv02
I
A
Final Report
^� � .
! Prepared by
Gannett Fleming
L _ ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
in association With
Miralles Associates
March 2,1998
idy
I
II
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT
TRANSIT MAINTENANCE
FACILITY STUDY
TASK FIVE-- FINAL REPORT
GANNETT FLEMING, INC.
In Association With
Miralles Associates, Inc.
March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. -Executive Summary ....................................... 1
Chapter 2 — Study Requirement and Report Organization ................... 3
Chapter 3 — Facility Requirements ..................................... 5
Chapter 4 — Site Selection ........................................... 22
Chapter 5 — Funding Strategies ....................................... 41
Appendices
Appendix A — Space Program Calculations
Appendix B — Site Photos and Property Mapping
A
Gannett Fleming, Inc. i March 1, 1998
'1
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
CHAPTER 1- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW: This Chapter: of the report is 'an executive summary that presents Ahe
highlights of the discussions.and results of the actual re ori. .
Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) provides transit services to a community that is undergoing tremendous growth and
change. The population in 1990 was 110,794; the population is anticipated to be 140,000 through 1997: In order
to cope with that growth from a transit services point of view, the City commissioned a Transportation
Development Plan (TDP) study which was issued in February 1997. The plan outlined the service needs for the
community for.the next 10 to 20 years. To meet those needs, a fleet of 150 vans and buses will be required.
It is the objective of this report to accomplish the following goals:
• Define the facilities required to store, service, and maintain the design fleet
• Identify candidates sites that will accommodate those facilities
Present funding strategies for the implementation of those facilities
STAFFING AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS
The report examines the existing conditions of SCT facilities and provides the assumptions and methodology used
to determine the future needs of the facility. Typically, industry standards and practices are used, except where
previously prepared studies adopted by the City (the 1990 Hughes/Heiss Space Needs Report, for example) provide
more specific information. Based on the above, findings from the report are as follows:
• From existing staff of 134 (administration and operations/maintenance), future staffing at system build out
(approximately 2010-2015) will be 284 employees, an increase of about 112°/x.
• To house all functions identified (administration, maintenance, operations), the proposed facility will require
approximately 72,000 square feet; 75% of this space is required for maintenance activities alone, with the
remaining 25% for administration, operations, and ancillary functions.
A total of 14 general and specialized vehicle repair/maintenance bays will be required to service the transit
fleet.
• Total site requirements for structures, outside operations (fueling, bus washing, and so forth), employee and
visitor parking, fleet parking, site circulation, and landscaping, is approximately 12.3 acres.
FACILITY SITING
Using the space program information as a basis for area requirements, the report also describes the process and
methodology employed to identify a number of candidate properties, both in and out of the City, suitable as sites
forthe futureTMF. Selection criteria were developed by the consultant based on discussions with City staff and
ATCNancom and the experience of the consultant. Detailed criteria were identified for: site location,
characteristics, and availability; traffic circulation/access and environmental concerns; and cost of land. A
deadhead analysis was also performed to determine the centroid of the future service area as projected by the TDP
and to estimate relative deadhead costs for selected sites.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 1 .. March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
The list of potential sites was developed from multiple sources consisting of SCT and City Planning staff,
commercial real estate agents, and several independent property owners. A matrix was developed to determine
suitability. From a beginning list of 20 sites, an initial _screening process eliminated 13 sites from further
consideration.
The final seven sites (Lockheed Business Park, Valley Business Center, HR Textron, SC Edison, Bermite/Porta
Bella, Saugus Speedway, and the Soledad Canyon Retail/Office Development) were further evaluated, and three
more eliminated primarily on -the basis of the deadhead and environmental analysis. The four remaining properties
are recommended for additional consideration. They are:
• Lockheed Business Park
Saugus Speedway
• Valley Business Center
Bermite/Porta Bella
Ofthese, the Porta Bella site warrants special comment. Generally, under strict application of all criteria used, the
site would likely have been eliminated from further consideration for reasons of availability, access/topography,
and potential environmental issues. However, the Porta Bella Development Agreement approved in 1995 provides
for the dedication of this eight -acre site to the City for a maintenance facility. Due to ongoing remediation
activities elsewhere on the Porta Bella property, the site is not deliverable until 2001 at the earliest, and other
constraints remain, particularly concerns regarding access and the City's inability to control construction
scheduling of a private project.
FUNDING
The financing options identified in the report for the construction of the facility falls into two general categorizes.
They are:
• Traditional funding through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
• Alternative contracting approaches such as design/build/lease back
Traditional Funding
While the role of the Federal Government has changed from time to time, it appears that the support for the
construction of fixed facilities such as bus maintenance facilities is firm. Funding is typically accomplished
through Section 3, Bus Capital Facilities, monies. Typically, the contributionto atransit project is 75 to 80 percent
of the projects eligible costs.
In order to be eligible for funding, the project must be in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
approved by the Southern California Association of Governments. Additionally, preliminary design and
environmental clearances are required and the earmarking process must be initiated.
Alternative Contract Approaches
The design/build approach intransit projects is becoming more widely accepted and has been encouraged by FTA.
The approach may be attractive to smaller properties that does not have a large support staff like Santa Clarita
Transit. In order to use this approach, discussions must be initiated with FTA at an early stage and it recommended
that the services of a design consultant be used to determine the design concepts and facility standards. The
advantages to this approach is that total project costs and schedule are likely to be reduced. Additionally, the City
will have fewer contracts to administer.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 2 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
CHAPTER 2 - STUDY REQUIREMENT AND REPORT ORGANIZATION
OVERVIEW: ThisChapter the report presents background. information as Why the
report is required and how it, fits into the overall development of the Santa Clarita transit
system as well as an overview'6 how the report is organized.
2.1 REQUIREMENT FOR STUDY
The City of Santa Clarita provides transit services to a community that is undergoing
tremendous growth and change. The 1990 U.S. Census showed the total population of the
City to be 110,794 people. April 1996 figures from the State of California show the
population to be about 128,000 residents. Due to annexations and general growth, the 1997
population was predicted to increase to about 140,000 people.
In response to this rapid increase in population, the City commissioned a Transportation
Development Plan (TDP) study which was completed in February 1997. The Plan outlined
the goals, objectives, and standards needed to guide the transit system's expansion over the
next 10 to 20 years. Included in the Plan is the requirement to expand the local transit fleet
in three phases, expansion of the regional express service, and the initiation of neighborhood
feeder/circulator service, resulting in an overall transit fleet (buses and vans) of up to 150
vehicles. This represents a doubling of the current fleet of 71 vehicles.
The plan, by design, does not identify the space requirements and other criteria associated
with the storage and maintenance of the expanded fleet. The current maintenance facility,
located at 25663 Avenue Stanford cannot meet the needs of the current fleet and will,
therefore, be grossly undersized in terms of the projected 150 -vehicle fleet. Obviously,
additional or totally new facilities will be required. This study is the first step in addressing
the maintenance and storage needs of the expanded fleet.
2.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION
It is the objective of this report to accomplish three goals:
1. Define the facilities needed by Santa Clarita Transit to store and maintain the
fleet required to provide the service indicated in the Transportation
Development Plan, dated February 20, 1997.
2. Identify candidates sites that will accommodate these facilities.
3. Present funding strategies for the implementation of these facilities.
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 3 March 2, 1998
Ik
II
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
The report is organized into the following 5 chapters:
• An Executive Summary which is located at the beginning of the report.
• This chapter which presents project background information and discusses report organization.
Chapter 3, Facility Requirements, which defines the ultimate facility required tostore and
maintain the Santa Clarita design fleet of 150 vans and buses. The Chapter defines functions and
associated space requirements, indicates staffing requirements, presents atypical layout of a
facility that meets the requirements of the space program, and includes a budget level cost
estimate for that facility.
Chapter 4, Site Selection, which indicates the methodology and results of the site selection
process. Also included in the Chapter are recommendations regarding the procurement of sites.
• Chapter 5, Funding, which presents strategies for procuring funding to construct the facilities
indicated in Chapter 3 of the report as well as a discussion of a design/build option.
• Appendices are located at the end of the report. Appendix A is the Space Program calculations.
Appendix B is are photographs and property maps that were collected as part of the site selection
process and presented to the City at a November 25,1997• Site Selection meeting.
Gannett Fleming Inc. 4 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
CHAPTER 3 - FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
w The basis for this chapter of the report is the Task One working paper submitted to Santa Clarita
Transit as part of the overall report preparation process. A draft report was submitted on August 19,
1997 with a revised version submitted on October 15, 1997. The revised version contained revisions
to the original report resulting from internal reviews as well as a meeting held on September 8, 1997
with Santa Clarita Transit and ATC/Vancom personnel.
I
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
An understanding of an agency's existing operation is critical for the programming of a
proposed facility. This section of the report summarizes existing conditions including the
current facility located at 25663 Avenue Stanford and Santa Clarita Transit's current
operating procedures for maintenance, servicing, dispatching, and so forth. However, it
should be noted, that a new facility will require different operating procedures. This is due
to the fact that the current operations reflect the very limited physical resources of the
existing facility which would change significantly in the proposed new facility.
The existing building was originally designed as a warehouse/fiberglass company before
being converted by the City of Santa Clarita to the maintenance garage for their transit fleet.
Currently the fleet is used to provide three different services to the community. Local transit
and Dial -A -Ride services are provided through out the Santa Clarita Valley which includes
the City of Santa Clarita, Castaic, and Val Verde. Commuter Express service is provided to
downtown Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, and Antelope Valley.
The City has contracted ATC/Vancom as its transit operator. ATC/Vancom provides
administration, operations, and maintenance personnel totaling approximately 120
employees. These employees, along with the Santa Clarita Transit personnel, all work within
this facility. Recent improvements to the facility includes a newly remodeled office area
providing operation offices, dispatch, and a driver's lounge.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 5 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
Maintenance Operation
Maintenance operations are currently performed in conditions that fall short of what would
be considered minimum requirements in a modern maintenance facility. Ventilation and
heating capabilities are poor. The building is not high enough to lift a bus full height. The
only lifting capabilities available are two sets of portable lifts. This requires buses to be
transferred to jack stands in order to perform undercarriage work which is a time consuming
and inefficient process. Currently there are two bays configured for the larger vehicles and
one for para -transit vans. A large area behind these bays and a small area in front are used
as flat bays when necessary. Extensive maneuvering is required by the mechanics in order
to move buses in and out of the bays since there is no direct entry into the work bays. The
concrete floor slab is in poor shape having been saw cut and.repaired at least once.
The garage is equipped with one set of wall mounted fluid dispensing reels mounted on the
front wall of the garage. Fluids are stored in 55 -gallon drums with the exception of motor
oil which is stored in a 250 -gallon tank. The tanks are stored within a bermed area in case
of accidental spillage. This configuration represents the most minimum of requirements.
The facility has no capability to provide any support shops for component testing and repair
or the rebuilding of engines or transmissions. There is no support electric equipment
available with the exception of a battery charger and a freon recovery system, both stored in
a caged area along the wall facing the outside of the garage.
Tire repair and change out is done within the existing building, however, in a very limited
space. The facility has a contract vendor providing tire stock. The vendor maintains one
double tire rack full of tires inside the garage. No tire working equipment is available and
tires are mounted and dismounted manually by the mechanics. There is an inflation cage
available for inflating the tires once mounted. Tire staging occupies a very small space near
the supervisor's station.
Running repair operations are constrained because of the lack of ventilation in the building.
The only source of air circulation were several floor exhaust fans placed around the garage.
Because there is no vehicle exhaust system, mechanics cannot let motors run for the time
required to make repairs. The majority of the fleet has the lower exhaust systems which the
accentuates the problem by discharging at floor level.
ATC/Vancom currently employ two Class A, two Class B, and two Class C mechanics
sharing day and night operations. Two supervisors are assigned to each of the day and night
shifts. Both are also Class A mechanics and supplement the other mechanics on an as
needed basis.
The garage is equipped with two overhead doors. The door located on the east side of the
garage (away from Avenue Stanford) is considered the main entrance to the garage. Buses
drive in and back out of the repair bays through this door. Additional activity occurs at this
door during night operations including removal of fares and checking of fluids. As a result,
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 6 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five —Final Report
there is a high concentration of activity in this general area. The City is considering
installing an additional overhead door in the near. future in order to facilitate movement of
vehicles and also provide more flexibility. While facilitating access, this may actually reduce
the number of vehicles that can be inside the facility at any one time.
Contract Work
Due to limited facility capabilities, ATCNancom contracts much of the mechanical work to
outside vendors. For example, when engine or transmission work is required, the bus is
either driven or towed to a Detroit Diesel repair facility in Bakersfield. Other major
mechanical component work as well as body and frame work, including painting, are also
contracted to local outside sources. Bus panels are replaced in-house as necessary but that
work is kept to a minimum.
Parts Storage
The main parts storage area is located on the second floor above the ATCNancom office
space. Accessible from the garage, minimal stock is cataloged and stored in bins in an area
approximately 3,500 square feet in size. A one-person station is located at the entrance of
the -parts storage area. The person assigned to this station is responsible for parts
distribution, ordering, and inventory. There is no elevator to parts storage area so access is
by stairway only. The second story location of the parts area increases the time required to
obtain parts and, therefore, increases the time required for the overall work.
Waste Storage
The facility does not provide for the efficient handling of hazardous wastes produced by the
daily maintenance of buses. Waste oil is stored in an underground tank located outside the
garage. Waste oil removed from a vehicle must be first drained into a portable shop -made
oil drain tank.. This tank, once full, is wheeled outside where the product is manually
transferred to the underground tank. This is done by inserting a drain hose into a 2 -inch
diameter pipe located near the outside wall of the garage and draining the portable
containment. This procedurerepresents double handling and increases the chance of
spillage. There are 55 -gallon drums against one side of the facility sitting on a portable
containment unit where old oil filters, used coolant, old brake shoes are stored awaiting pick
up. The only protection from the rain is a plastic tarp covering the storage drums. Currently,
oil filters are not crushed which would greatly reduce the volume of materials.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 7 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
Washing Operation
Washing of vehicles is performed in a bay located outside of the maintenance building
adjacent to the Public Works garage. The wash bay is an open area with stairs to access the
roof area of the vehicles. The drainage is piped through an oil/water clarifier located
adjacent to the bay. The buses are hand washed by two workers, one utilizing a brush broom
to apply detergent and the other utilizing a portable high pressure washer. At the same time,
another member of the crew cleans the interior of the busby manually sweeping the floor
while a fourth worker cleans the windows and dusts. In order to eliminate the problem of
spotting, the outside windows are squeegeed after each washing.
Buses exteriors are washed on an as needed rather than daily basis, presumably due to the
amount of time it requires to do the job manually. In accordance with City requirements,
however, bus interiors are wiped down, dusted, and swept nightly. Interior windows are also
cleaned nightly basis. If not performed in the wash area as described above, interior cleaning
is performed across Avenue Stanford in the bus parking area after the service operation.
Detailed cleaning of each vehicle is scheduled on a monthly basis. At that time any
additional work such as graffiti removal or other minor damage repairs are performed.
Fueling Operation
The facility does not have permanent on-site fueling capabilities at this time. Previously, all
fueling was performed at the Schwartz Oil Company, an offsite location approximately five
miles from the facility. Operators were responsible for fueling their vehicles at the end of
their route. The procedure was to drive to the fueling location where each vehicle would be
fueled in turn by a Schwartz employee. The operator was required to get off the bus and
manually log in fuel amounts. Actual observations indicated that, at any one time, as many
as five vehicles would be in line each waiting approximately twenty minutes to be fueled.
The driver would then return the vehicle to the facility for the continuation of the service
process.
This procedure has been replaced by "wet hosing" which is performed while the vehicles are
in their parking stalls. The process involves fueling the vehicles by moving a tanker truck
from vehicle to vehicle. While the operator labor costs associated with the offsite fueling
were eliminated, the cost of fuel has increased 25 to 30 cents per gallon to cover the cost of
wet hosing services. This procedure is not considered acceptable on a long term basis and
carries with it an additional risk of spillage.
Nightly Inspection
After the drivers have finished their assigned route, the bus is driven to the garage where the
fare boxes are emptied and the vehicle serviced. Fare removal and the topping of fluids is
done at the main door to the maintenance shop. The operation requires the vehicle to pull
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 8 March 2, 1998
'f
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
ITask Five — Final Report
up to the door and than back out when the operation is completed. The operation is both
time consuming, mainly due to the backing move, and requires the following vehicle to stay
well back of the vehicle being serviced. This greatly reduces the queuing space available and
often causes vehicles to spill out onto Avenue Stanford.
Fare collection is performed by a maintenance employee under the supervision of the night
supervisor. His duties are to probe the fare box, remove the safe from the fare box, empty
its contents into a vault located just inside the overhead door, and return the empty safe to
the bus. Due to space constraints, the vault is located on the far side of the bus requiring
additional time to complete the operation. After the fare box is emptied, the same employee
also checks and tops all fluids as required. This is done using portable drums and manual
pumps working at the back end of the bus.
When this operation is completed, the operator, who has remained with the vehicle, then
either drives to the bus parking area across the street where it is parked for morning pull out
or moves it to the wash area where the vehicle is washed. In either case, the driver must
walk back from the. parking area and into the dispatch office before clocking out.. The
commuter buses, which provide restroom facilities, have their service tanks emptied at a
location near the oil/water interceptor. This step is performed prior to returning to the
parking area or wash bay for washing, if scheduled.
Existing Facility Deficiencies
' As a result of the consultant team's review of the existing transit operation, a number of
deficiencies were identified. The following is a listing of those deficiencies. The listing is
in no way intended nor should it be taken as criticism of the City or the current operator. The
deficiencies are, in our opinion, a result of the physical limitations of the site and associated
facilities.
• The majority of vehicles are currently being parked "off-site" in a lot across Avenue
Stanford from the maintenance facility. Access to the site requires drivers and
f maintenance personnel to cross Stanford, sometimes during periods of heavy traffic.
n The parking lot indicated above is undersized resulting in vehicles being parked in
close proximity without adequate spacing between vehicles. ATC personnel have
indicated that the vehicles are sometimes as close as eighteen inches from each other.
• Because of the lack of area, a "stacked" parking scheme is being used. This type of
parking configuration, that is, with vehicles on all sides, precludes access to
individual vehicles for servicing purposes and complicates operations.
• As indicated above, wet hosing, the current method of fueling the vehicles,
significantly increases the cost of fueling.
I�
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 9 March Z 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
Because the operation is not consolidated at one site, the drivers are with the vehicles
and,' therefore, presumably "on the clock" longer than they would be in a
consolidated operation. Based on our observations, the drivers are with the vehicles
through the fare removal and service operations. They must also drive the vehicle
back to the parking lot across Avenue Stanford and walk back to the dispatch area to
complete their shifts. This is not acceptable operating procedure for a modern bus
maintenance facility.
The fare removal operation is performed at one of the entry doors to the current
maintenance area. The operation requires that the bus pull up to the door and park.
When the fare box has been probed and emptied, the vehicle must than perform a
backing move away from the door before continuing through the service cycle. A
move of this kind is not recommended. Additionally, it precludes the next vehicle
from pulling fully into the yard sometimes resulting in overflow onto Avenue
Stanford.
The exterior cleaning of the vehicles is performed by hand which is a time
consuming process. Exterior cleaning is typically performed by automated vehicle
washing systems specifically designed for vehicles of this type. City personnel have
mentioned dissatisfaction with the interior cleanliness ofthe vehicles. An automated
exterior wash system would free up personnel to do a more thorough interior
cleaning.
• The actual maintenance facility itself is undersized. The bays are small and difficult
to access due to the configuration of the existing overhead doors. The parts storage
area is on the second floor and there is no mechanical system to get parts from that
area to the shop floor where they are required.
�I
3.2 FACILITY FUNCTIONS
A list of the Functions proposed for the new Santa Clarita facility can be found in Table 3.1
on the next page. The list was developed based on discussions with Santa Clarita and
ATCNancom personnel during the field interviews held during the week of July 21, 1997.
The list also reflects the consultant's experience with facilities serving similar sized fleets.
Maintenance and servicing functions represent two of the major functions to be included at
the new facility. While it is the intent of Santa Clarita Transit to maintain as much in-house
capability as possible, the personnel projections indicate that some level of maintenance
(peak demands) will be accommodated by outside vendors. In particular, major accident
repair/rebuilding and a limited number of major component rebuilding are anticipated to be
contracted.
It is anticipated that Santa Clarita Transit will have to gradually develop the capacity and
personnel capabilities to rebuild engines, transmissions, and other major components in -
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 10 March 2, 7998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 11 March Z 1998
TABLE 3.1
FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES TO BE PROVIDED AT PROPOSED FACILITY
Functional Group
Sub -Function
Comment
City Administration
Santa Clarita Transit
Part of Public Works Department
Transit Management
Transit Planning
Contractor Administration
Proiect Director
Contracted Service (A -TC- N-ancom)
Operations Director
Fixed Route
Commuter
Dial -a -Ride
Maintenance Director
Payroll
Finance/Acmunting
Risk Manapernmt
Safety Training
Human Resources
Transit Operations
I
Di=innii
Contracted Service (ATCNancom)
R..,
Commuter
Dial -a -Ride
Road
_Igervision
Vchcle Operations
V, 'I Ope,
Fixed Route
Commuter
F Dial - Ride
Dial -a -Ride Reservations
Customer
er Information
D.MN—r.ing
I Money Counting
I Pass ricket Sales (Public)
Maintenance
Vehicle Servicing
Contracted Service (ATCNanc0m)
Fare Retrieval
Fueling
Fluids Topping (MO, ATF, ANFR,
Interior Cleaning
Exterior Washing
Vehicle Maintenance
Ins tions
Running Repair
Brake Repair
Tim Change/Mounting/Storage
Electrical Rebuild/Repair*
Functions may not be included in initial facility
Electronic Repair
Component Exchange
Small Component Rebuild/Repair
A/C Service
A/C Repair*
Functions may not be included in initial facility
Cooling System Repairs
Fuel System Repairs
Minor Body Repair
Component painting
In -Chassis Engine Tune-up
Engine Rebuildingfresting-
Functions may not be included in initial facility
Transmission Rcbuilding/TestingO
Functions ma not be included in initial facility
Pato Storage
Shippin meiving
Parts Storage
Component Storage
HAZMAT (Pre -Disposal)
Consumable Fluid Storage
Building Maintenance
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 11 March Z 1998
ISanta Clarila TMFStudy
ITask Five — Final Report
house. These items have been identified as "not proposed for initial facility construction".
1 However, the required spaces have been included for facility and planning purposes.
Personnel projections do not provide individual allowances for the maintenance of service
and staff vehicles which are currently accommodated within the existing maintenance space
and manpower programs.
1 3.3 PROPOSED OPERATING SCENARIO
- The following are operating procedures that are compatible with a modem operating facility
as is being proposed in this report. These procedures are reflected in the site layout found
in Section 3.7 and in the proposed space program. For the purposes of this report, three
components have been identified and defined. They are:
• Pull-in/Pull-out (Dispatch)
• Servicing
• Maintenance
' The following is a brief discussion of each of these proposedoperatingprocedures:
Pull-in/Pull-out Cycle (Dispatching)
Operators arriving for the morning pull-out will park in the employees parking lot and
proceed to the dispatch area where they will report to the dispatcher, pick up their paper
work, walk to their assigned bus, start the bus, and perform their pre -trip vehicle inspection.
Once the pre -trip inspection has been completed, the bus is ready to leave the yard and begin
revenue service.
Operators returning on the evening pull -in will proceed to the head of the service lane where
the driver will leave the bus for the service crew. The driver will proceed to the Dispatch
Area where he or she will turn -in any appropriate paperwork, clock out, and proceed to the
employees parking lot. A queuing area of sufficient size preceding the service lane will
allow for up to eight revenue vehicles to be staged off-street awaiting service. In the event
that the queuing area is full, or during. mid-day returns to the yard, the driver will proceed
directly to the assigned vehicle parking space and park.
' It is anticipated that diagonal parking for the bus and van fleet will be provided. This will
allow direct access to all vehicles.
Ij
I
IGannett Fleming, Inc. 12 March 2, 1998
II
II
I
1
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
Service Cycle
The service crew will move the vehicle into the service lane where the following will occur:
• The fare box will be probed and money dropped into a through -the -wall
vault.
• Consumable fluids will be checked and topped off as necessary
• The vehicle will be fueled
The vehicle will then be driven to the washer if washing is scheduled or taken to the vehicle
parking area and stored. An interior crew will sweep and clean the inside of the vehicle at
this location.
If a vehicle is scheduled for preventive maintenance, or if the driver has submitted a defect
card, the vehicle will be moved to a maintenance holding area after servicing to await
Iappropriate maintenance action before being parked for the next moming's pull-out.
Maintenance Cycle
Vehicles awaiting maintenance will be stored in a maintenance holding area identified on the
prototype site plan as "Bad Order" parking. During the day shift, maintenance action focuses
on major inspections (durations of 4 hours or longer) and major repair work, such as engine,
transmission, major component repair, or body work. Second shift work concentrates on
minor inspections and running repair (minor repair work) such as mirrors, running lights,
door problems, and small mechanical defects that can be repaired in less that 3 to 4 hours.
The main focus of the second maintenance shift is to prepare as many coaches as possible
for the next morning's pull-out. Repairs that are diagnosed to take more than three hours are
returned to the maintenance holding area for the day crew. If the maintenance load requires
a third shift, the work will primarily be running repair with more emphasis on minor
inspections being conducted by the second shift.
3.4 PRELIMINARY STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
Table 3.2 presents an estimate of the staffing requirements for the proposed 150 -vehicle
facility and can be found on the next page. Estimates are based on July 21, 1997 levels
1 projected as necessary to support a fleet of 150 vehicles. The number of operators is based
on the total number of vehicle hours for the projected fleet of 150 vehicles divided by the
current average total vehicle hours per driver. The calculation was made separately for each
type of service: fixed, commuter, and Dial -a -Ride. The number of mechanics is determined
by determining the number of maintenance hours required for the functions that are to
provided in the facility and dividing those hours by the number of productive man hours per
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 13 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
IGannett Fleming, Inc. 14 March 2, 1998
TABLE 3.2
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR 150 -VEHICLE FLEET
FunctionalGroup
Fnnetion
Classil5cation J
Current Number { Proposed Number
City Administration
Santa Clarita Transit
Transit Manager I
I
1
Transit Coordinator 1
I
Senior Transit Planner I
I
Assistant Planner 0
1
Executive Secre 1
i I
Support Staff 0
1 2
Administrative Anal st 3
1 3
Administrative Intern 1
1
Receptionist 0
1
Subtotal 8
12
Contractor Administration
General Mana er I
1
1
Office Mana er 1 1
1
Subtotal 2
I 2
Accwuntinjz Support 0
5
Pass Sales and Lost and Found I I
t
Subtotal I 1
6
Personnel Mana er 0
1
Subtotal 1 0
I
Transit Operations
Operations
Dvector of0 erations
1
I 1
O erations Su ervisor 0
I
Dial -a -Ride Manager I
1
Dis etchers 4
1 4
Customer Service Agent 5
1 5
Road Supervisor A8
Dial -a -Ride Supervisor 0
1
Coach Operator(Full Time 69
160
Coach Operator Part Time 13
30
Subtotal 97
211
Safety and Training
Safety and Training Manager I1
1
Training Supervisor 0
2
Trainers art Time 2
4
Secre 0
1
Subtotal 3
8
Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance
Director ofFleet Maintenance
I
I I
Maintenance Supervisor 0
1
Lead Mechanics Work Supervisor) 2
3
Mechanics 6
25
Parts Clerks 1
2
Utility/Cleaner 5
11
Secret /Clerk 1
1
Subtotal 16
44
SUMMARY
Subtotal - Ci Administration 8
12
Total City Staff 8
12
Subtotal- Contractor Administration 3
9
Subtotal - Transit Operations 100
219
Subtotal - Maintenance 16
44
Total ContractedStaff119
272
TOTAL STAFFING 127
284
IGannett Fleming, Inc. 14 March 2, 1998
ISanta Clarita TMFStu dy
ITask Five — Final Report
person per year. The remaining staffing requirements were determined through discussions
with City and ATC/Vancom personnel. It should be noted that the administrative
requirements for the service contractor are very "lean and mean" and may not be
representative of personnel requirements should the City some day take over the day to day
running of the transit operation.
3.5 DESIGN PARAMETERS
Table 3.3 presents the major design parameters usedto develop the space allocation program.
These parameters include the sizes of the design fleet, maintenance bay dimensions, and the
areas required for vehicle parking. The following is a brief discussion of the parameters of
' major importance.
Facility Capacity
The criteria and program assume that no articulated buses will be operated or maintained by
' Santa Clarita Transit during the life of these facilities. The target design fleet is 150 vehicles,
65 of which will be standard 40 -foot city coaches, 40 will be inter -city commuter coaches,
and 45 will be body -on -chassis buses such as those currently providing Dial -a -Ride services.
' In addition to maintenance and servicing functions, individual parking spaces will be
provided for the bus fleet.
The program also accommodates storage and maintenance for Santa Clarita Transit's service
and staff vehicles. A total of 12 vehicle spaces are planned for these vehicles. This number
reflects the anticipated increase in road supervisors' and maintenance service vehicles
associated with the service expansion identified in the TDP.
Clearances
' Vertical and horizontal clearances are established for maintenance bays, service lanes, and
so forth. Maximum vehicle dimensions are established for standard, commuter, and Dial -a -
Ride buses. Due to a recent industry trend, the planning dimensions for commuter buses will
be 45 feet. Dial -a -Ride vehicle dimensions will approximate current vehicle style typical
dimensions. Maintenance bay dimensions are established by vehicle dimensions and work
area clearances.
3.6 SPACE ALLOCATION PROGRAM
tThe Space Allocation Program is a listing of areas associated with the proposed 150 -vehicle
facility. The Program identifies the space requirements for each of the functional groups
identified in Table 3.2 as well site requirements for vehicle parking of the revenue and non -
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 15 March 2, 1998
' Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Repord
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 16 March Z 1998
TABLE 33
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FACILITY SIZING
Assigned Fleet
T e
Current
No. No.
Pro
Length
osed
Width
Height
Standard Bus
65
40'-0"
8'-6"
10'-1"
Commuter Buses
40
45'-6" 1
8'-6"
11'-5"
Dial•a-Ride Vans
45
32'-0"
8'-0"
10'-5"
Articulated Buses
0
Service Vehicles
4
Supervisors Vehicles
8
Work Bay Length
Type
Vehicle Length Front of Vehicle Rear of Vehicle
Total Bay
Length
Standard
40'-0" 5'-0"
10'-0"
55'-0"
Commuter
-65'-0"
10'-0"
DAR Vans
32'-0" 1 5'-0"
10'-0"
Articulated Bus
60'-0" 1 5'-0"
10'-0"
75'-0"
Widths and Vertical Clearances
Item
Description
Clear Height or
Width
Vertical
Maintenance Bays
Lifts
Flats/Pits
18'-0"
14'-0"
Service Lanes
1 14'-0"
Parts Storage
16'-0"
Horizontal
Maintenance Bays
Lifts
Flats
Body Shop
Pits (Inspect
18'-0"
18'.0"
20'-0"
16'-0"
Service Lanes width 12'-0"
Service island width T-0"
Doors
Width
Sin le
14'-0"
Double 20'-0"
Height 14-0-
Tyve Sectional Overhead
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 16 March Z 1998
' Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
I
revenue fleets and for employees. The program was developed through the use of an
interactive PC-based spread sheet found at the end of this report.
The program is based on information gathered by Gannett Fleming during the July 1997 staff
interviews, site visits, and facility walk-throughs. Each operating department within Santa
Clarita Transit was contacted for interviews and data collection during that period. That
information is supplemented where necessary with the use of industry standards and the
experience of the consultant's staff in the planning and design of maintenance and operating
facilities.
Space allowances, have been provided for an CNG fueling station with a compressor and
buffer tanks. The allowance provided represents the worst case square footage area
requirement. It should be noted that alternative fuels will also have a substantive impact on
the facility cost beyond simple square footage implications. Typically, this impact includes
the requirement for enhanced ventilation systems and a gas detection system.
The following is a brief discussion of the major components of the Space Program:
IEmployee Parking Requirements
Parking requirements are based on the projected number employees on-site during the
maximum shift (defined to be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). The parking space calculation assumes that
85 percent of these employees will require automobile parking spaces with the remainder
accommodated through car pooling or public transportation. In addition, spaces have been
allocated for visitors and handicapped parking. Parking is assumed to be on a surface lot
(e.g., not a parking structure) with entry and circulation separated from bus traffic.
N Inspection Bays
It is anticipated that preventative maintenance (PM) work will be divided between the night
and day maintenance shifts. Short duration inspections (3 hours or less) will be performed
' on the night shift so that vehicles will be ready for the next morning pull-out. Longer
duration PM's will be scheduled for the day shift. Page SP Prog-6 of the Program indicates
approximate durations by inspection type and the resultant number of inspection bays
required to complete the inspections scheduled.
Fleet Maintenance Work Bay Requirements
Inspection and work bay requirements are based on projected annual mileage and Santa
' Clarita Transit! s preventive maintenance intervals. Current annual miles per revenue vehicle
for the Santa Clarita Transit system is more than 37,000 miles per year. When analyzed by
fleet, standard buses average 52,800 miles per year. This average is substantially higher
than industry norms. However, it is anticipated that this fleet average will decrease and
1 Gannett Fleming, Inc. 17 March 2, 1998
II' Santa Clarita TMF Study
' Task Five — Final Report
approach 40,000 miles per year per bus as the fleet expands. Dial -a -Ride buses and the
commuter fleet average 23,000 and 28,000 miles per year, respectively. Personnel
projections and work bay estimates are based on the current miles per year average.
Additional maintenance assumptions are listed on page SP Prog-7 under "Estimated
IMaintenance Requirements".
Maintenance Bays
Maintenance bay requirements are calculated by first predicting the annual number of
' maintenance man hours that will be required to support the proposed fleet., The total annual
number of man-hours is reduced by the percentage of work that is contracted to outside
vendors, and the result translated into a total number of maintenance bay hours that are
required based on the number of work shifts operating.
Estimates are made for nine basic repair categories using standard maintenance man hour
estimating procedures. The resultant annual predictions were averaged to estimate total bay
requirements. The data used to calculate maintenance bay requirements is taken from
' industry standards and corroborated through consultant data bases from other transit
agencies. The number of bays tabulated is exclusive of specialty bays such as steam cleaning
or chassis dynamometer bays although it is not anticipated that a chassis dynamometer will
be a part of the new facility. The total number of bays required will be translated into square
footage building space under the Space Allocation Program.
Space Allocation Program
Space allocations for office and other finished spaces were calculated following the
guidelines of the Civic Center Space Needs Master Plan prepared by Hughes/Heiss and
Associates in 1990. Several functional areas however have been identified as requiring
additional square footage based on the consultant's experience. Issues of security, privacy,
storage needs, personnel shifts and shared facilities were taken into account when calculating
the areas. In addition, a contingency factor of 15 percent was added for unanticipated growth
' and/or changes in operational needs for selected office -type spaces. (The Hughes, Heiss
study uses a 20 percent factor, however, due to the above mentioned increases this
percentage was reduced) See the Space Allocations Table on page SP Prog-8.
For the purpose of assessing the overall spatial requirements of the facility several
assumptions were made:
�I
IGannett Fleming, Inc. 18 March 2, 1998
U
II
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
The City and ATC/Vancom will continue to share the facility in the
foreseeable future
A number of spaces will be shared by both City and ATC/Vancom
personnel as long as security and privacy can be maintained
Areas allowed for circulation are sufficient to assure proper functional
Area allocations are based on the particular applications and sized according to consultant
experience with similar facilities. Final programming is typically performed prior to the
schematic design phase of the project.
The office area estimates contain two inherent assumptions. First, the space allocation
program, as presented, assumes that all offices are located on the first floor, thereby
maximizing the site area required. The second assumption is that mechanical rooms,
electrical rooms, and telephone rooms are sized proportionately to the total area served.
Therefore, a portion of the mechanical/electrical space needed is ascribed to each operating
department sub -total. This tabulation is not meant to imply that there are separate
mechanical/electrical rooms for each department.
Wash and service buildings are sized based on the on the assumptions that the servicing
facilities will be located separately from the maintenance facility. Additional area is
apportioned to the service building for the possible incorporation of alternative fuels as
previously discussed.
Site Acreage Requirements
Estimated acreage for the functions listed for each option are based on the space allocation
program. Vehicle circulation space is calculated as a percentage of total paved area based
on a survey of similar facilities. A landscaped area allowance has been included to provide
for such items as surface storm water detention. Resultant site acreage are nominal areas
required to accommodate the functions described.
Based on the Space Allocation Program, a 12.3± acre site is required for the construction of
a full -function facility. This acreage assumes that all functions can be accommodated on a
single level, and that all automobile parking be accommodated on surface lots.
As indicated on page SP Prog - 1 of this report, the total acreage requirement includes a 30
' percent allowance for landscaping and buffering requirements. This percentage will depend
on the specific zoning and site development requirements and the full 30 percent may not be
required. It is included at this time in order to assure that sufficient area is included. A site
meeting other requirements should not be excluded if it is slightly smaller than the 12.3 acres
indicated until it is analyzed in light of specific landscaping and buffer requirements.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 19 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
3.7 PROTOTYPE FACILITY
A prototypical transit maintenance facility was develop using the space programming and
other design requirements presented in this chapter of the report. A layout of a sample
facility on 12 acres can be found at the end of this section. The layout illustrates the
following concepts:
Separation of employee and revenue vehicles including separate entrances and
parking areas for each.
2. Diagonal parking of revenue vehicles allowing access to each vehicle without having
to move other vehicles.
3. Counter -clockwise circulation of the site allowing for left turns where ever possible.
4. Provisions for future CNG fueling in addition to diesel fueling.
5. Thein -line configuration ofmaintenance bays to facilitate phased construction of the
facility.
An order of magnitude cost estimate for the prototype facility was also developed and can
found on the next page. The estimate was prepared using square footage cost factors for the
building and comparative costs for site work and equipment. The cost of land was computed
on the basis of $9 per square foot which is higher than what appears to available in the
market place but is considered conservative. The estimate reflects a finished lot being
purchased and, therefore, off site costs are at a minimum. The construction cost for a site
that is not finished could increase significantly. Ten percent has been added for City
Administration as directed by the City. As can be seen, the project estimated to be a $25
million project for full build out.
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 20 March 2, 1998
11
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT
TRANSIT MAINTENANCE FACILITY STUDY
BUDGET PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Subtotal (Items 1, 2, and 3) $23,004,000
4 City Administration (% of subtotal) % 10 $2,301,000 $2,301,000
Total Facilities Capital Costs $25,305,000
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 21 March 2, 1998
Item Description
Unit
Unit Price
Quanti
Amount
Totals
'No.
1
Facility Costs
1.1
Administration
1.1.1
>NewConsWction
SF
$145
5,588
$811,000
'
1.1.2
>Rehabilitation
SF
$100
0
$0
1.2
Operations
SF
$145
12,573
$1,824,000
'
1.3
Fleet Maintenance
1.3.1
>Administration
SF
$129
897
$116,000
1.3.2
>Repair Bays
SF
$92
15,120
$1,392,000
'
1.3.3
1.3.4
>Shop Areas
>Parts Storage
SF
SF
$134
$75
11,040
5,478
$1,480,000
$411,000
1.3.5
>Employee Facilities
SF
$134
1,898
$255,000
1.3.6
>Support
SF
$134
1,748
$235,000
1.3.7
1.3.8
>Building Maintenance
>Outdoor Areas
SF
SF
$119
$0
1,815
3,700
$216,000
$0
1.4
Vehicle Wash/Fuel Facility
1.4.1
>Wash Building
SF
$93
4,131
$385,000
1.4.2
>Fuel/Service Building
SF
$93
7,904
$736,000
Subtotal — Buildings .
71,892
$7,8613000
1.5
Furniture
LS
$250,000
1.6
Equipment
LS
$2,000,000
1.7
Site Improvements
LS
$2,500,000
$25,000
1.8
Off Site Improvements
LS
1.9
Connection/Development Fees
LS
$200,000
'
1.1
Environmental Fees
LS
$0
Total
$12,836,000
Contingency
%
20
$2,568,000
Total Facility Costs
$15,404,000
$15,404,000
'
2
Professional Services (Design and
%
18
$2,773,000
$2,773,000
Const Management 10%, 8 /o respect)
3
Land Costs
SF
$9
12
$4,827,000
$4,827,000
Subtotal (Items 1, 2, and 3) $23,004,000
4 City Administration (% of subtotal) % 10 $2,301,000 $2,301,000
Total Facilities Capital Costs $25,305,000
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 21 March 2, 1998
2 STORY
ADMINISTRATION/
OPERATIONS/
TRAINING
I PARTS
I STORAGE
SHIP/REC.
SHOPS
a
I
m
no -
I
ch
N [u
=
102
�Q1
I
w
l
ZI CD ce
Io
112
Ic�l o
ISI m
REQUIRED
105
flIIII I1111111111111illlll111111111111H
EMPLOYEE PARKING &
�IIIIIIIIIIillllllllllllllllLlLllllllfl
STAFF/SERVICE VEHICLES
BUS PARKING AREA
BUS PARKING AREA
TYPICAL FACLRY LAYOUT
SCALE= 1 "a 100'
►-
J K
0
a
u -m n-
cn
CNG I
COMPRESSORS &I
STORAGE
0 111J
SANTA CLAWA TFdWW
> r
•'5 1 BWA1.
BUS
VAN
YARD
102
46
BAD ORDER
10
TOTAL
112
46
REQUIRED
105
45
SANTA CLAWA TFdWW
> r
•'5 1 BWA1.
II
II
II
li
'J
II
11
1
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
CHAPTER 4 - SITE SELECTION
4.1
METHODOLOGY
The following is the methodology used to identify and evaluate potential sites for the location
of the proposed Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility:
Selection criteria was developed based on discussions with the City and the experience of
the consultant team. Detailed selection criteria were identified for each of the following
general areas:
• Site Location
• Site Characteristics
• Availability
• Traffic
• Environmental Considerations
• Cost of Land
A detailed listing of the criteria can be found in Section 4.2 of this chapter. Additionally, a
deadhead analysis was performed for seven of the sites to determine the centroid of the
service area for both the existing as well as the ultimate service as defined in the Santa
Clarita Transit Transportation Development Plan, dated February 20, 1997. An
environmental overview was also provided for the seven sites. That analysis was developed
by the City.
A "long list' of candidate sites was developed based on the requirement of approximately
10 to 12.5 usable acres of land. The sites could be located in any of the following zoning
districts: Industrial (I), Industrial/Commercial (IC), Business Park (BP), and Commercial
' Office (CO). Of these, the most desirable would be the I and UC zones. Although the
preference was for sites within the city limits, that was not an absolute requirement.
I'
II
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 22 March 2, 1998
II
'1
II
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
The list was developed based on discussions with the following entities:
• Santa Clarita Transit
• City of Santa Clarita Planning Department
• Independent Property Owners
• Crissman Commercial Services, Inc.
• CB Commercial, Inc.
The objective of developing the long list was to give the City an overall sense of what was
available in the market place in terms of sites, their locations, and probable costs. The
original thought was about eight to ten sites would be generated using only the site size
criteria. However, the list that was finally developed included twenty sites located both
inside and outside the City limits.
The long list of candidate sites can be found in Table 4.1 located at the end of this chapter
of the report. The table includes the following information for each of the sites:
• Availability
• Work Force Accessibility
• Gross Acreage
• Net Acreage
• Existing Building of Site
• Asking Price Including a Market Price
and Target Price When Available
• Zoning
• Available Utilities
• Site Conditions
• Pertinent Comments Including
Advantages and Constraints
Available mapping and photographs of each of the sites, as applicable, can be found in
Appendix B. As indicated by the mapping, many of the "sites" are actually developments
containing many lots. The twenty sites identified are:
1 Valencia Commerce Center
2 Valencia Industrial Center
3 High School Site
4 Lockheed
5 Santa Clarita Business Park (Includes non-
contiguous 12 -acre Rasmussen tract to south
of main development)
6 Saugus Station Industrial Ctr.
7 Hondo Newhall Refinery
8 Valley Business Center
9 Former Cyanamid Facility
10 The Old Road Properties
11
Pioneer Refinery
12
HR Textron
13
Southern California Edison
14
Arklin at SCBP
15
Gil Glazer Site
16
Bermite/Porta Bella
17
Saugus Speedway
I8
Cardinal Health
19
Future City Hall Site
20
Soledad Canyon Retail/Office
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 23 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
A Location Map showing the approximate location of each of the sites can be found at the
end of this chapter.
Because of the extensive number of sites initially identified, the long list was trimmed to the
three finalist sites using a two part process. The twenty -site list was reduced to an
intermediate list of seven sites based on an evaluation against the selection criteria and
discussions between the City's project team and the consultant. The following are the sites
that were eliminated from further consideration as part of the first cut: Numbers 1 through
3, 5 through 7,-9 through 11,14 and 15; and 18 and 19. A list of the reasons associated with
the elimination of each of the above sites on a site by site basis can be found in Table 4.2
located at the end of this chapter.
The sites remaining after the first cut were:
4 Lockheed 16 Bermite/Porta Bella
8 Valley Business Center 17 Saugus Speedway
12 HR Textron 20 Soledad Canyon Retail/Office
Development
This intermediate list of sites was subjected to additional analysis including a deadhead
analysis and an environmental review which was performed by City personnel. Thexesults
of the deadhead analysis and of the environmental review can be found in Sections 4.3 and
4.4 of this chapter, respectively. All of this information was then used to develop the
recommendations for site selection. A discussion of the final selection recommendations can
be found in Section 4.5 of this chapter.
4.2 SELECTION CRITERIA
The following site selection criteria was developed based on discussions with the City and
on experience of the consultant team:
Site Location
General Plan Consistency - Candidate sites must be located within areas where the
projected uses are consistent with the City's General Plan.
Central Location - The site must be centrally located in relation to the present and
projected service areas.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 24 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
Proximity to Labor Force - Consideration must be given to possible location of labor
resource centers with availability to public transportation and alternatives such as
pedestrian or bicycle routes.
Access - Site must be accessible by existing or projected vehicular arteries without
negatively impacting nearby development.
Crossing of Railroad Tracks - The site should not.result in buses having to cross
tracks at grade even at a traffic signal.
Site Characteristics
• Size and Configuration - Candidate sites should contain approximately 10 to 12.5
usable acres. Irregular shapes and significant easements could reduce the usability
of a parcel. The ideal configuration would be a rectangle with its length
approximately twice its width.
• Zoning - Zones which permit the development of the Transit Maintenance Facility
or require a Minor Use Permit per the City's Land Use Regulations are: Industrial
(I), Industrial/Commercial (IC), Business Park (BP), and Commercial Office (CO).
Of these, the most desirable would be the I and UC zones.
• Soils, Topography and Drainage - Soil conditions, grading and proximity to existing
storm drain system must be considered. Candidate sites should be relatively level in
order to minimize grading and reduce construction costs.
• Utilities - Electricity, -water, sewer, gas and telephone must be available. Three-
phase, 480 -volt service is typically required for the large maintenance equipment
found in a facility of this type. The availability of "high" pressure natural gas is
desirable since that could significantly reduce the initial and operating cost of
compression of gas for vehicle use.
• Constraints - Site development conditions, easements, existing structures and other
environmental conditions presenting constraints for development of the site should
be considered.
• Adjacencies - Adjacent land uses must be compatible with the proposed functions of
the facility.
• Faults - The site should be free of discernible faults. If there are faults on the site,
parking areas could be located over the faults. The location of buildings over faults
is not advisable.
• Environmental Impacts - Project impacts that could trigger a need for a significant
environmental review such as an EIR or EIS should be avoided. Those impacts
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 25 March Z 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
include air quality, noise and visual impacts, traffic, displacement of residences
and/or businesses, impacts on parks and historical structures, water quality, biological
impacts, and so forth.
Site Availability
Traffic
Sites should be available for construction within two years (December 1999).
Safety - Traffic patterns and speed in the vicinity of the site must not conflict with
the anticipated peak flows of bus circulation to and from the facility.
Environmental Considerations
Costs
Water, Air, Noise, Flora, Fauna - These and other environmental issues must be
considered in the selection ofthe site to minimize mitigation of any negative impacts.
Initial Costs - Land acquisition or land transfer costs.
Development Costs - Construction, permits, utilities, relocation of existing uses,
grading, drainage, environmental mitigation and required off-site development.
Operational Costs - Site Location and efficiency of site layout.
4.3 DEAD HEAD ANALYSIS
' Analysis Methodology
' A major concern in the location of a new transit operating facility is the on-going cost
associated with deadhead miles. Deadhead miles are those miles associated with a vehicle
traveling to the beginning point of a route or returning from the end point. During that time,
the vehicle cannot pick up passengers and, therefore, has no revenue potential. Because of
the large size of the Santa Clarita Transit service area, the annual cost of deadhead mileage
could be substantial. Whenever possible, it is desirable to establish the new facility in a
' location that would produce the fewest deadhead miles, thereby, reducing the total operating
costs ofthe facility. Assuming that all other cost are equal (land value, utility relocation, site
development), one of the most important site selection criteria becomes the locating of a site
as close as possible to the system centroid. The closer that the facility is to the system
' centroid (the number of deadhead miles is at a minimum at the centroid), the lower the
number of system deadhead miles incurred.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 26 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
The system centroid is located by taking a weighted average of the start and end points of
each unit of service that results in a deadhead trip to or from the operations base. In the case
of trips which start and/or end at the operations base, no deadhead miles are assigned. The
locations of the trip end points are plotted on a map, given x -y coordinate values based on
their location, and the resultant values summed. Dividing the summed totals of the x and y
values by the total number of deadhead trips produces a coordinate location which is the
system centroid.
Locational Summary
Two centroids were calculated for Santa Clarita Transit's service area. The first centroid
represents the current service schedule. Based on the current fixed route.and commuter
service operated, the system centroid is approximately located near the intersection of
Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road.
Future service routes and trip ends were plotted using the Santa Clarita Transportation
Development Plan - Final Report (February, 1997) Phase 3 service plan. Detailed
descriptions of the routes were provided in Chapter 3 of the report and plotted on the map
grid. The resultant centroid of the future system shifted slightly south along Soledad
Canyon Road in the vicinity of the Saugus Metrolink Station (see Site Location Map).
Given the relative proximity of the current and future system centroids it appears that as
Santa Clarita Transit's service area expands the center of the system will remain relatively
stable. Assuming that the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road is constructed across
the Santa Clara River and connects to Soledad Canyon Road, there is little practical
difference in these two centroid locations.
Deadhead Mileage Analysis
A deadhead mileage model was constructed in order to provide a comparison of the
differences in deadhead mileage between alternative sites. The model utilizes the system trip
ends plotted in the centroid analysis and calculates an estimated travel distance (L-shaped
path) between the selected site and the trip end. By summing the total distances for all the
proposed trips; the model can simulate the total daily (weekday) deadhead mileage. While
it is impossible to eliminate deadhead mileage in daily operations, the closer to the system
centroid that a site is located, the lower the daily deadhead mileage that will be accumulated.
Seven of the initial twenty sites proposed were tested on the model to compare deadhead
mileages. Note that the model has not yet been calibrated against actual on -street operations
and the average daily deadhead mileage estimates are comparative only. Daily totals are for
the proposed maximum system service expansion (Santa Clarita Transportation
Development Plan - Final Report). Given variances in trip routings, the mileage estimates
are accurate to 5%+.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 27 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
Deadhead costs were estimated in order to compare the relative costs for each of the seven
remaining sites. That comparison is found in the following table. The Total Annual
Deadhead Mileage was calculated on the basis of 250 weekdays with an additional 20
percent added for weekend mileage. The nominal cost per mile of $1.50 was provided by
Santa Clarita Transit. As indicated in the tabulation, there is a significant annual cost
associated with deadhead mileage. Any one time savings in capital costs needs to be
evaluated against deadhead costs which recur annually over the life of the facility.
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An environmental overview assessment was performed by the City to identify any obvious
"fatal flaws" associated with the seven intermediate sites. This process is not intended to
replace the Environmental Assessment Process.
Site No. 4 (Lockheed/Rye Canyon Business Park)
The site is a 12 -acre, parcel -specific property located in the southern one-third of the
Lockheed Business Park (LBP). The LBP is an approximately 377 -acre project approved
subject to a Development Agreement and Final Environmental Impact Report (certified in
1996), and is generally located north of the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road and
west of the future Copper Hill Road extension. The LBP consists of a 73 -lot subdivision,
and new construction of approximately 3.5 million square feet of business park
commercial/light industrial uses. The approved development agreement also "grand
'' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 28 March 2, 1998
:Estimated Daily
Difference in `-
:�: Weekday i::!
Total
:=Annual Cost
':: Costfrom .;
. Deadhead -i'
"l.t Deadhead
'Based on S1.50—;;
Lowest Cost --
No.
Site Designation`
_ Mileage I's
`:'; Mileage
Per mde,.
4
Lockheed
983
294,900
$442,350
$144,000
8
Valley Business
741
222,300
$333,450
$35,100
Center
12
HR Textron
881
264,300
$396,450
$98,100
13
SC Edison
916
274,800
$412,200
$113,850
16
Bermite/Porta Bella
665
199,500
$299,250
$900
17
Saugus Speedway
663
198,900
$298,350
$0
20
Soledad Canyon
682
204,600
$306,900
$8,550
Retail/Office
Development
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An environmental overview assessment was performed by the City to identify any obvious
"fatal flaws" associated with the seven intermediate sites. This process is not intended to
replace the Environmental Assessment Process.
Site No. 4 (Lockheed/Rye Canyon Business Park)
The site is a 12 -acre, parcel -specific property located in the southern one-third of the
Lockheed Business Park (LBP). The LBP is an approximately 377 -acre project approved
subject to a Development Agreement and Final Environmental Impact Report (certified in
1996), and is generally located north of the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road and
west of the future Copper Hill Road extension. The LBP consists of a 73 -lot subdivision,
and new construction of approximately 3.5 million square feet of business park
commercial/light industrial uses. The approved development agreement also "grand
'' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 28 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
' Task Five — Final Report
fathered" the existing 500,000 square feet of industrial research and development uses on the
northernmost end of the property, approximately one-half mile north of the subject site.
The site is in a semi -natural state, and is relatively level. While no construction has occurred
on this portion of the LBP property, vegetation and natural topography have been
substantially disturbed and altered by human activity (agricultural uses, minor grading for
access, brush clearance, etc.). A small portion of the site is traversed northwest to southeast
by the San Gabriel Fault Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Hazard Zone; the San Gabriel is
considered an active fault. Additionally, the site may have significant alluvial deposits which
would require investigation prior to site acquisition. One oak tree has been identified on the
' parcel, but no other significant flora or fauna were identified in the FEIR. High voltage
electrical transmission lines also traverse the southerly portion of the site. The potential for
soil contamination due to use or presence of hazardous materials at this site or adjacent sites
is unknown, but is considered low and would be further reviewed during an environmental
assessment of the property. Visual impacts of the TMF would be mitigated both due'to site
' topography (it is slightly higher than surrounding parcels) and landscaping. No public access
currently exists (there is a paved private road traversing the property north to south), but
proposed future access to the site is considered good.
Site No. 8 (Valley Business Center)
This property is located adjacent and north of Soledad Canyon Road, and south of the Santa
Clara River. The site is relatively level, sloping gently northward to the River, where
riparian habitat and possible wetlands (USGS designation) are in evidence along the.River's
southern edge. The northern and eastern portions of the site are within Flood Zone A (100 -
year flood), an area of potential flooding, and the property's vicinity to the River makes the
occurrence of a high water table likely, creating potential concerns for underground fuel
storage. The site may have significant alluvial deposits which would require investigation
prior to site acquisition. The remainder of the site is substantially denuded of vegetation due
to past and present use. High voltage electrical transmission lines traverse north to south on
the east side of the property. The property appears to be at least partially fill, with piled
concrete debris in evidence in several areas.
The potential for soil contamination due to the presence or use of hazardous materials on this
site or adjacent sites is unknown, but is considered low and would be further reviewed during
an environmental assessment of the property. Visual impacts of the TMF from the public
right-of-way would be somewhat mitigated by landscaping. Access to the site is considered
below average, as ingress/egress is somewhat restricted for transit use due to high traffic
volumes on Soledad Canyon and the lack of a signalized intersection at this location.
Information from the Realtor has also indicated that there is a non-operating oil well on the
site which will have to be abandoned and capped.
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 29 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
Site No. 12 (H.R. Textron)
The approximately 10 -acre site is located immediately adjacent and east of the H.R; Textron
facility at 25200 Rye Canyon Road, and is a portion of the property that facility rests on.
While no construction has occurred on the east most portion of the site, the vegetation and
natural topography have been substantially disturbed due to past human activity (minor
grading for access, brush clearance, etc.) The site is relatively level. While the site is not
considered to be in an area of potential flooding, it may be subject to a high water table,
creating potential concerns for underground fuel storage. The site may also have significant
alluvial deposits which would require investigation prior to site acquisition.
The potential.for soil contamination due to presence or use of hazardous materials on this site
or at adjacent sites is unknown, but is considered low and would be further reviewed during
an environmental assessment of the property. Visual impacts of the TMF from the public
right-of-way would be significantly mitigated by landscaping. Access to the site is
considered good, with no known natural or man-made flow constraints.
Site No. 13 (Southern California Edison Yard)
The approximately 8.4 -acre site is located at 25625 Rye Canyon Road. The property is level
and built out with complete coverage of the acreage by buildings and parking areas.
The potential for soil contamination due to use and/or presence of hazardous materials at the
site is unknown, but is considered low -to -moderate and would be further reviewed during
an environmental assessment of the property. Visual impacts of the TMF from the public
right-of-way are significantly mitigated by existing landscaping and perimeter walls. Access
to the site is considered average.
Site No. 16 (Porta Bella/Bermite)
This site is a parcel -specific property located at the eastern end of the Porta Bella Specific
Plan development (PBSP), and was reviewed for environmental constraints as part of the
Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for that project (FEIR certified in 1995).
The approximately 8 -acre site is in a predominantly natural state, though some topographic
and vegetative disturbance has occurred as a result of human activity (minor grading for
' access, brush clearance, past oil drilling operation, etc.). The site proposed is comprised of
twoadjacentproperties due to the land form (the parcels would be formed by filling two
small canyons) and the presence of the (second) Los Angeles Aqueduct, which bisects the
property north -to -south. No oak trees are present at the site and no other significant flora or
fauna were identified in the FEIR.
!I
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 30 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
Access to the site is currently extremely limited due to the rugged and hilly terrain, and heavy
grading both on the site and on proposed approaches to the site, would be required prior to
facility construction. Finished road grades to the property from the approved Santa Clarita
Parkway would meet or exceed ten percent (10%).
The potential for soil contamination due to use and/or presence of hazardous materials at the
site is unknown, but is considered low -to moderate, and would be further reviewed during
an environmental assessment of the property. While contamination at other locations on the
Porta BellaBermite property is well documented and the subject of ongoing environmental
remediation, this site has not been identified as contaminated or in need of remediation by
state and/or federal authorities; however, development restrictions on the site have been
conditioned by the City as part of the Porta Bella project approval, indicating the TMF can
be constructed upon the developer's successful remediation of all known contaminated areas
on the Porta Bella property.
Public access to the site currently does not exist, and proposed future access to the site is
considered below average for transit purposes. (It should be noted that it is anticipated that
both approved Santa Clarita Parkway and proposed Golden Valley Road are to be
constructed by developers as a result of approved or pending, or speculative projects and,
accordingly, their construction will occur beyond the scheduling control of the City.) As set
forth previously, approaches to the site would require substantial grading, with finished road
grades up to 6%, a potentially significant factor for bus traffic. (The grade elevation change
from the site to Soledad Canyon Road —a half -mile to the north—is approximately 230 feet.)
Access to the site from Soledad Canyon Road would require transit traffic to use the at -grade
crossing of the railroad tracks at Golden Valley Road. Generally, at -grade crossings are
considered a significant constraint to transit vehicles. Finally, as previously mentioned, the
site is traversed north -to -south by the L.A. Aqueduct. The presence of the aqueduct through
the middle of the site may result in significant property usage limitations by the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, which generally seeks to restrict crossings of the pipeline
in all cases; the DWP may have significant concerns in particular with the type and amount
of heavy vehicle traffic anticipated at the TMF.
Visual impacts of the TMF would likely be mitigated both due to site isolation, topography,
and landscaping.
Site No. 17 (Saugus Speedway)
The approximately 22 -acre site is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Road. The property is
level and built out with complete coverage of the acreage by buildings, parking areas, and
the speedway racetrack.
The potential for soil contamination due to use and/or presence of hazardous materials at the
site is unknown, but is considered moderate -to -high due to length of time and type of past
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 31 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
usage (automotive racing) and would be further reviewed during an environmental
assessment of the property.
Visual impacts of the TMF from the public right-of-way on soledad Canyon Road could
likely be mitigated through landscaping and other screening methods. Access to the site is
considered above average due to existing approaches and signalization. Though not
specifically an environmental issue, it is perhaps worth considering that conversion of the
former Saugus Speedway (and current swapmeet) to a transit maintenance facility may
generate some concern in the community regarding the perceived loss of local/regional
history and color.
Site No. 20 (Soledad Canyon Retail/Commercial Development)
This property is located adjacent and north of Soledad Canyon Road, and south of the Santa
Clara river, approximately 1200 feet east of the Commuter Way/Soledad Canyon
intersection. The site is relatively level, sloping from the center of the property both
southward to Soledad Canyon Road, and northward to the River. Riparian habitat and
probably wetlands (USGS designation) are in evidence along the River's southern edge. The
northern and western portions of the site are within Flood Zone A (100 -year flood), an area
of potential flooding, and the property's vicinity to the River makes the occurrence of a high
water table likely, creating potential concerns for underground fuel storage. The site may
have significant alluvial deposits which would require investigation prior to site acquisition.
Along the northernmost portion of the east property line, the site is adjacent to a mobile
home park. Noise from bus maintenance operations, which are generally ongoing 24 hours
a day, would be enclosed in the facility, but should be evaluated due to the presence of
potentially sensitive residential noise receptors.
While no construction has occurred on this portion of the property, vegetation and natural
topography have been substantially disturbed and altered by past human activity (agricultural
uses, grading, brush clearance, etc.). The property appears to be at least partially
' uncompacted fill (a fairly extensive central "plateau"), with trace concrete debris in evidence
in several locations, and minor soil failure along the western edge of the plateau. Further soil
analysis will be required as part of project development.
' The potential for soil contamination due to use or presence of hazardous materials at this or
adjacent sites is unknown, but is considered low and would be further reviewed during an
environmental assessment of the property prior to purchase. Examination of some fill
materials may also be undertaken, as trace asphalt debris was also identified in the area of
the central plateau.
Visual impacts. of the TMF from the public right-of-way would be somewhat mitigated by
landscaping.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 32 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
Access to the site is considered average to below average, as ingress/egress is somewhat
restricted for transit use due to high traffic volumes on Soledad Canyon and the lack of a
signalized intersection at this location. Eastbound turning movements onto Soledad Canyon
Road are especially impacted during am/p.m. peak flow hours.
4.5 SITE SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
An additional evaluation was. made of the seven remaining sites using the deadhead and
environmental analyses and the selection criteria. The following three sites were eliminated
from further consideration for the reasons indicated:
12 HR Textron Not currently on the market and, therefore, availability not
know at this time
• Located very close to Lockheed site which is available
• Third highest relative deadhead costs
13 SC Edison Not currently on the market and therefore availability not
know at this time
• Environmental issues possible based on existing use
• Includes existing building — extensive study is required to
determine if retrofitting of the buildings is feasible
• Second highest relative deadhead costs
20 Soledad Canyon Designated for "high end" retail and office development and,
Retail/Office therefore, price has been raised to $20 per square foot.
Development Preliminary site evaluation indicates soil conditions that
would increase the cost of development
Ofthe four remaining sites, the Bermite/PortaBella property warrants special comment. The
site would have been eliminated from further consideration as part of the first cut due to
environmental and availability issues. For example, due to environmental problems, the
project is not deliverable until sometime after the Year 2001. However, the development
agreement provides for a dedicated 8 -acre site for a transit maintenance facility. While
acreage does not appear to be sufficient, it may be possible to trade the dedicated site for a
12 -acre parcel elsewhere in the development that could be delivered at an appropriate date.
Regardless of whether a trade is a possibility, the dedicated site does have value and should
be included as part of the financial package that is developed for the facility regardless of its
final location.
The Lockheed site appears to be the farthest along in terms of availability. Drawings have
in fact been prepared showing a potential location of a transit facility. The area indicated on
the plan is 10.5 usable acres and 11.0 overall acres. That area is slightly less than what is
recommended in the space program but is probably adequate. The starting price of about $8
per square foot is in line with comparable properties. There are seismic considerations,
however, those areas could be used for parking which is acceptable. The disadvantage of the
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 33 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
location is the high relative deadhead costs. The site has the highest cost at $144,000 per
year based on the ultimate service area identified in the TDP. The site located fairly close
to the existing facility and the City and operator appear to be comfortable with the general
location. If it was not for the high deadhead costs, this might well be the site of choice.
In terms of central location, the Saugus Speedway site is the ideal location. The deadhead
analysis has indicated that the centroid of the service area virtually coincides with the
location of the site. The site is adjacent to the existing MetroLink Station which would allow
for the use of the existing traffic signal. However, because the property is not on the market,
very little information is available including, of course, a probable cost. The former use as
a speedway could result in environmental issues. However, because of its location, it
remains an attractive site.
The Valley Business Center is in the general location of the service center although its
location is not as good as the Saugus Speedway. The property is available for immediate
delivery and the asking price at $8 per square foot is consistent with comparable properties.
However, the size of the site is less than recommended in the space program at 8.18 acres
gross. Available mapping indicates that the parcel has an irregular shape which would make
the smallish size even more critical. The size and shape could, for example, result in the
need for a parking garage which would add cost to the project.
Based on the above information, it is recommended that the City proceed on a five -front
approach:
Pursue negotiations for the Lockheed site. The price is acceptable and the owner appears
to be eager to accommodate the City. It is a "safe" site with no overriding environmental
flaws and availability appears to acceptable. However, the additional deadhead costs due
to its location will have to be considered and could; perhaps; be a point of negotiation.
2. Pursue a Porta Bella site and negociate for a larger parcel. The general area of the
property has an excellent central location. However, before any final decision can be
made, additional information especially in terms of size and shape of the parcel would
have to be established.
3. Because of its excellent location, pursue the Saugus Speedway site. As with the Porta
Bella site, before any final decision could be made additional.information especially in
terms of size and shape of the parcel would have to provided.
4. Pursue the Valley Business Center site. Determine if additional acreage is available or
if land can be traded to create a more regular shaped site. Do a more detailed analysis of
the property to determine if the proposed facility could be made to fit on the site using
stacked parking or deleting functions.
S. As additional information becomes available, reassess the City's position in regard to the
final procurement of a site for the transit facility. Select the best possible scenario as the
facts come to light.
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 34 March 2, 1998
= M M M = = M = M = M M M
TABLE 4.1- SUMMARY OF SITE INFORMATION
ALL SITES ON LONG LIST
= = M M = =
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five -Final Report
No .�
Available
7.DC.: Work
Gross,
NeC.
auildin
:AskiingPri
:.Zonin
"Available
Site
Il
Comments
Teres.
F
PW:��
�
�:'Utilities
Conditions
v:� Accessibility:
777777
I
Valencia Commerce
Decemb.
Approx. I mile
12
12
None
$ 9.50-$ 10.00
M 1.5
All utilities
Clear- level,
- Advantages: Part of master planned
Center
1998
to line 0 10, and
or as
Target Price:
at property
rough graded.
business park.
Gateway III -Livingston
2 miles to line 9
mq'd.
$10.00
line
. Constraints: Outside City Limits
Valencia
20
Incorporation questionable. High
Development cost. - Connection of
Commerce Center Drive to Hwy 126 not
I
complete.
2
Valencia Industrial Center
Now
V. mile to lines N
8.39
839
None
Not on Market
M 1.5
All utilities
Clear, level,
. Advantages: Part of master pinned
24900 Avenue
10 and # 20
Target Price:
at property
rough graded.
business park. Area being annexed
Rockefeller
$10.00
line
into City. Accessible from Avenue
Valencia
Scott.
. Constraints% Less than 12 acres in size..
In escrow with developer who is
planning to build 12 buildings.
3
1 ligh School Site
Now
Close to line #
40
40
None
$9.50
BP
All utilities
Clear,
. Advantages: Part of master planned
Dickason at Smyth
55,# 10 and#
Divisible
(buildable)
at property
partially
business park. Seismic easement (can
Valencia
20
$6.50
line
level, rough
provide inexpensive parking). Area
(unbuildable)
graded.
being annexed into City.
Target Price:
. Constraints: Steep slope toward future
Same as above
Newhall Ranch Rd. Accessible from
existing portion of Newhall Ranch Rd.
by way of Smyth Drive and Dickason.
4
Lockheed Site
Late 1998
V. mile to lines
377.1
155.2
None
$10.00
BP
All utilities
Clear, level,
Advantages: Finished sites available in
Rye Canyon Business
910 and # 20.
Divisible
(buildable)
at property
rough graded.
4'^ Quarter 1998. Project includes
Park
$6.00
line
475,127 square feet of existing bldigs.
25 100 Rye Canyon Road
(unbuildable)
Power line and seismic easements can
Valencia
Target Prim
provide puking. Area annexed into
$8.00
City- Central location
(Average)
Constraints: Not centrally located.
Access contingent upon extension of
Newhall Ranch Road.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 35 March 2, 1998
r r r r r r r■ r r r r r r r r r r r r
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five -Final Report
Ngo
ite
Available
. Work
Gross
Viet
'-Building
'Asking Price
Zoning
1� Available :'
Site
Comments
haes
ore :
`Acres 'PSF
Utdmes '
Condrtions�
'Accesstbtr -
5
Santa Clarita Business
Lower
Lower portion %
1 to
142
None
$ 7.50 to $8.50
BP
All utilities
Raw land
• Advantages: Centrally located. Power
Park
portions
mile from lines #
220
Divisible
Target Price:
at
with portions
line casements available for staging of
21300 Golden Triangle
available
10, # 20 and
acres
$7.50
deliverable
relatively
buses. Several potential sites.
Rd.
now
# 55
portions of
level.
• Constraints: Owner interested in
Santa Clarita
1 mile to
sites
reselling entire site. In negotiations with
Metrolink
several buyers.. Golden Triangle Road
Station
not completed'/. mile from future Santa
Adjacent to
Clarita Parkway. Acces over rail road
Soledad Canyon
crossing.
Rd. Bikeway
Alternative is 12 acre gross site on
Golden Valley Road extension currently
in raw condition. Delivery possible late
1998. Rail road crossing is a concern.
Separate 12 acres north of
Late 1998
12
Unkn.
None
main development.
6
Saugus Station Industrial
uncertain
Aecessto line #
I8
18
Adjacen
Not on Market
BP
All utilities
Mostly clear,
• Advantages: Centrally located. In
Cit.
at this time
50 and'r/. mile to
t to 1
at property
level, rough
excess of 12 acres. Industrial area.
26555 Springbrook
line # 30
million
line
graded.
• Constraints: Access problem contingent
Avenue
sf of
upon road improvements. Rail road
Santa Clarita
metal
crossing. Possible environmental
bldgs.
problems.
7
Hondo Newhall Refinery
Now
Access to lines #
117
117
None
$ 0.98
BP
Sewer and
Raw hilly
• Advantages: Low price. North parcel
22647 N. Clampitt Road
50 and # 55
Divisible
Target Price:
water at''/.
land with
can be delivered separately.
Santa Clarita
Unknown
mile.
some portions
• Constraints; Remote location -
'
Electrical
rough graded.
Marginal size. Partial hilly raw land.
yes.
Petroleum based contamination affects a
No gas
portion of the Property. Difficult access
from heavily trafficked Sierra Highway.
8
Valley Business Center
Now
'/4 mile to
8.18
8.18.
None
$ 8.00
IC
All utilities
Clear,
Advantages: Reasonable price. Power
21021 Soledad Canyon
Metrolink Sta.
Target Price:
at property
finished site.
line easement (useable for parking)..
Rd.
Access to lines
$8.00
line
Central location in Santa Clarita Valley.
Santa Clarita
# 10, 920 and
New Metrolink Station and Soledad
#55, and.
Canyon Road Bikeway.
•
Bikeway
Constraints: Access to heavily -
traflicked Soledad Canyon Road
requires signalization..Marginal size..'
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 36 March Z 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five -Final Report
No.
Site
Available
Work
Gross
i, Net
fAC[CS
.Building
Askinn Price
Zonin
'Available
i Unlrties
Site
Conditions
Comments
Acres
,�:
ccessibility
9
Fortner Cyanamid Facility
Now
'/: mile to
12.25
12.25
79,730
$2,900,000
BP
All utilities
Approx. 50%
• Advantages: Part of master planned
21444 Golden Triangle
Metrolink
sf
Target Price:
at property
of site rough
business park Central location in Santa
Rd.
Station. Access
$2,500,000
line
graded.. Hilly
Clarita Valley.
Santa Clarita
to lines # 10,
$4.69
terrain at
• Constraints: May require modifications
# 20 and # 55
southern
or demolition of existing buildings.
portion.
Access from heavily trafficked Soledad
Canyon Road with rail crossing.
_
Drainage problems. Portions of land
sloped-
loped10
10
The Old Road Properties
Unlikely
line # 20. '/.
12
12
None
$ 12.00 to $
C
All utilities
Level, rough
• advantages: Finished site with all
The Old Road/ N of Aye
mile from Route
15.00
at property
graded.
utilities to property line. Adjacent to 1.5
Cyn.
430
Target Price:
line
Freeway..
Valencia
$12.00
• constraints: Outside City limits. Seller
will discourage this use on freeway
corridor. Site adjacent to Magic
Mountain amusement park.
I I
Pioneer Refinery
Within
line # 55
9.21
Approx. 7
None
Approx. $8.00
IC
All utilities
Raw site,
• Advantages: County has additional land
23860 Pine St.
2 years
Target Price:
at property
partially
adjacent to site. Within City limits.
Newhall
$6.00
line
rough graded.
• Constraints: Site is in raw condition.
Not centrally located. Possible
environmental cleanup problems.
12
HR Textron
Less than
lines # 10 and #
Appr
Approx.
None
Not on Market
BP
All utilities
Fairly level,
• Advantages: Industrial company's
25200 Rye Canyon Road
50%
20
ox.
10
Target Price:
at property
raw land.
excess land. Fairly centrally located.
Valencia
Chance
10.
$10.00
line
• Constraints% Site is in raw condition..
Possibly in flood plane. Security
requirements.
-
• Undetermined availability.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 37 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five —Final Report
'No
Site
:'Available
= Work ".
Gross
: Net
-Buddm -
:.Asking Price -:
Zoning
'Available '-.
Site
Comments
Acres
a Force -'
`- cres_
,:: PSF
- --` Utilities --.
- Conditions
Accessibility
.i
...
13
SC Edison Yard
70%
lines # 10 and #
8.4
8.4
60,000
Not on Market
BP
All utilities
Level,
• Advantages: finished site, existing
Rye Canyon Road
Chance
20.
at property
finished.
structures and all utilities to property
Valencia
line
line. Part of master planned business
park.
• Constraints: Under consideration for
closure. Status undetermined. Structures
may not be appropriate for projected
use.. May need environmental clean up.
14
Arklin at SCBP
V2 mile to lines
40
Approx.
None
Not on Market
BP
All utilities
Irregular,
• Advantages: Fairly centrally located.
South end of Golden
Possibly
10 and # 20.
20
at property
partially
Adjacent to Santa Clarita Business Park
Valley Rd.
within 2
2% miles from
line
rough graded.
• Constraints: Site in raw condition.
Saugus
Years
Metrolink Sta.
public. Delivery uncertain. Rail road
crossing required.
15
Gil Glazer Site
Not for this
line # 50
200
Unknown
None
Not on Market
R
Unkn.
Fairly level
• Advantages: Within City Limits. Entry
East side of San Femando
use
raw site
to Placerita Canyon.
IL
• Constraints: Site is in raw condition.
North of 13^ Street
Planned for residential development.
San Fernando
Rail road crossing required. Possible
drainage problems..
16
Bermito / Port Bella
3 years or
Uncertain
1000
8
None
Not on Market
R
Unkn..
Site in raw
• Advantages: Undetermined location
South side of Soledad
more
proximity to
condition at
within future planned development 8
Canyon Rd.
public transit at
this time
acres free to City
Saugus.
this time.
• Constraints: Site is in raw condition.
Planned for residential development.
Environmental cleanup will not occur
until approximately year 2002. Seismic
-
constraints.
17
Saugus Speedway
long shot
lines # 10 and #
Unkn
Unkn.
None
Not on Market
C.
Unkn.
Unkn,
• Advantages: Excellent location.
South side of Soledad
20. Adjacent to
Current site of swap meet. Speedway
Canyon Rd.
Metrolink
was closed. in 1995.
Saugus
Station and
• Constraints: No current plans to sell
bikeway
property. Unknown environmental
conditions. Possible clean up required.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 38 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five -Final Report
No
Site Ir
Available
Work':
Dreg
Gross
Net
{ cres
Building
Asking Price :
Zoning
Available �:
° Utilities 's
Site
Conditions
Comments
Acres
r: PSF
SAccessibili
18
Cardinal Health
2 years
'/4 mile from
12.13
12.13
144,256
Not on Market
BP
All utilities
Finished Site
Advantages: Finished site with all
27680 Avenue Mentry
-
lines #10 and
available at
utilities to property line. Part of master
Valencia
#20
property
planned business park. Cardinal I lealth
line.
acquiring another company which may
make this site surplus real estate.
• Constraints: Not on Market at this time.
Existing building inappropriate.
19
City Hall Site
City owned
Unkn.
228
12.5+
none
N/A
C and
Mostly raw
• Advantage: City owned site.
SE comer of Soledad
Open
Unkn.
land
• Disadvantages: Many topographic, and
Canyon Road and San
Space
environmental constraints. Restricted
Fernando Road
Access Adjacent to undesirable land
uses and traversed by Alquisl-Priolo
seismic restricted zone.
20
Soledad Canyon
IS months
Bus lines and
30
Unkn.
None
Not on Market
C
Unkn.
Raw land.
• Advantage: Good location. Tentative
Retail/Office
+.
Metrolink
Target
Map on file.
Development, N. of
Station.
I
Price:S20.00
• Unfinished site affected by flooding.
Soledad Canyon Rd.
Needs channel construction. Requires
Saugus
I sirmalization. Ili h cost.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 39 March Z 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
TABLE 4.2 — SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR SITES
ELIMINATED FROM LONG LIST
No.
.;Site
.- : Reason for Elimination from Further Consideration �.
I
Valencia Commerce Center
High land costs
Gateway III - Livingston
• Not in City
Valencia
• Newhall land - development costs likely to be high - e.g., block
perimeter walls
• Located too far to the NE of the center of service center
2
Valencia Industrial Center
• High land cost
24900 Avenue Rockefeller
• Marginal lot size (8.39 acres)
Valencia
• Located near river - concems with runoff of hazardous materials
during emergency
• Not currently on market
3
High School Site
• Shape of lots not appropriate for this type of facility
Dickason at Smyth
• Access roads to site are steep
Valencia
5
Santa Clarita Business Park
• Requires buses to cross RR tracks
21300 Golden Triangle Rd.
Santa Clarita (Includes non-contiguous
12 -acre Rassusan tract to south of main
development)
6
Saugus Station Industrial Ctr.
• Requires buses to cross RR tracks
26555 Springbrook Avenue
• Access is through former glass factory complex - not appropriate to
Santa Clarita
bus operations
7
Hondo Newhall Refinery
• Environmental clean up required
22647 N. Clampitt Road
• Location too far to the south of center of service area
Santa Clarita
9
Former Cyanamid Facility
• Requires buses to cross RR tracks
21444 Golden Triangle Rd.
• 12.25 acres indicated are not all usable - approx. 4 acres are hills
Santa Clarita
• Includes existing building requiring extensive rehabilitation
10
The Old Road Properties
• Close to Magic Mountain entrance resulting in high land cost
The Old Road/ N of Rye Cyn.
• Not in City
Valencia
• Best use of land may not be facility of this type
11
Pioneer Refinery
• Location too far to the south of center of service area
23860 Pine St.
• Probable environmental clean up required
Newhall
14
Arklin at SCBP
• Not currently on market
South end of Golden Valley Rd.
• Requires buses to cross RR tracks
Saugus
15
Gil Glazer Site
• Requires buses to cross RR tracks
East side of San Fernando R.
• Planned for residential development
North of 13'" Street
• Possible drainage problems
San Fernando
• Not currently on market
18
Cardinal Health
• Not currently on market
27680 Avenue Mentry
• Includes existing building which is not appropriate for facility of this
Valencia
type
• Insufficient yard space due to high percent of coverage by building
19
City Hall Site
• Location at top of hill introduces access problems for buses
SE comer of Solcdad Canyon Road and
• Timing of availability not known
San Fernando Road
• Seismic issues
' Gannett Fleming, Inca 40 March 2, 1998
SEE W TAK INSET AT RIGHT
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
CHAPTER 5 - FUNDING STRATEGIES
OVERVIEW. This Chapter'of the report addresses strategies for procuring financing
and construction services for the facilities outlined in this report. tr. discusses
,The Chape;
traditional'funding options and alternatives approaches inch as design/huild contracting'
The financing options that will support the development of a new bus operating and maintenance
facility generally fall into two categories. They are:
• Traditional Funding For Major Transit Capital Investments
• Alternate Contracting Approaches
These two options are described below together with brief descriptions of the advantages and
disadvantages of each, and the schedule implications of each option. Neither of the outlines
represent a detailed financial plan for the project. They are intended to provide strategic direction
that can be translated into a financial plan depending on the option chosen.
These options are based on industry experience throughout the country and on the financial capacity
of the Santa Clarita Transit System. Revenues from Proposition C within Los Angeles County
continue to return larger than expected sums of money to local transit agencies, forming a strong
base for supporting operations of the Santa Clarita bus system. Revenues generated from
Proposition C and other local sources (e.g. fares) are projected to be sufficient to meet the operating
and maintenance requirements for the future.
5.1 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been used for evaluating the financial strategies that are
appropriate for the project.
• The capital cost of the full build out of the project is about $25 million
• Included in that cost is about $4.8 million for land acquisition
• The facility needs to be completed by the first quarter of 2001
5.2 TRADITIONAL FUNDING OPTION
Most projects of this nature are funded through the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and its predecessors with commitments from the Federal Transit
Administration for financial support. The role of the Federal government in the transit arena
has changed from time to time, but a consistent factor over the past decade or more has been
the support for bus facility projects. Although the question of the level of Federal match for
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 41 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
these projects may be addressed in the next version of the ISTEA legislation, the program
element which is Section 3, Bus Capital Facilities, appears secure.
Section 3 funds are allocated by FTA on a project specific basis. The federal contribution
to a transit project is in the order of 75 to 80 percent of the project's expected cost. Since
these funds are the only large source of financial support for transit investment projects,
competition for these monies among the nation's transit agencies is intense. Therefore, it is
becoming quite accepted practice for an agency to seek earmarked funds in the annual
appropriations process. Earmarking of transit funds for bus facilities has been used
successfully by Foothill Transit to support the two new facilities they now operate from.
Local matching funds for a Federal Section 3 grant for this project would be in the order of
$5 to $6.2 million. Proposition C revenues can be used for this purpose.
The only other major source of financial support for such a project would be State funds.
However, the monies allocated to Los Angeles County by the State that are not already
programmed are now being directed to RedLine budget issues by the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority. Pending any change in this policy these state funds are not likely
to be available for the bus facility.
Action Required
• The project must be in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and
approved by Southern California Association of Governments.
• Preliminary design and environmental clearances are required.
• The process for obtaining an earmark for the federal portion of the project must be
initiated. This involves determining a Congressional sponsor and providing
sufficient support material for the project.
Timetable
The TIP must be amended to include the project in the order that it be eligible for
Federal funding.
Federal budget drafting (and earmarking) is almost a year long process. Generally,
the project sponsor with support from the agency, initiates the request in the Spring.
Timing for approval is dependent on the level of support from others in Congress and
the competition from other agencies for the limited funds.
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 42 March 2, 1998
'iI
I
I
I
I
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
Advantages
This funding system has proven to be a strong support for bus operators throughout
the country for many years.
The agency is in direct control of the project throughout the design and construction
process.
Disadvantages
The schedule for the project's construction is dependent upon the Congressional
budget process.
There are many FTA regulations that must be complied with prior to any grant being
released.
5.3 ALTERNATE CONTRACTING APPROACHES
The traditional contracting approach, in which the agency engages an engineering firm to
prepare design documents and the contracts with a construction company(s) to complete the
project, has a number of new options to consider. For facilities such as that proposed in
Santa Clarita, a design -build approach offers many advantages.
The design -build approach simplifies the number of contracts that the agency must
administer. Following completion of a design concept and standards, the agency solicits bids
for a contractor to design and build the entire facility. In many situations the contractor also
finances the project and then leases the facility to the agency for a fixed period. At the end
of the lease period, the agency owns the facility.
There are some economic advantages that are realized through this approach. Typically, the
construction schedule is advanced by the contractor through parallel activities, and costs are
reduced. Design -build approaches in transit projects are becoming more accepted and have
been encouraged by FTA. In these projects, FTA has contributed to the annual lease
payments through the Section 9 grants program.
Action Required
The City and FTA should initiate discussions concerning the opportunity to proceed
with a design -build facility.
The City should engage a consultant to develop the terms and conditions of a design -
build contract.
'' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 43 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
The agency must complete a design concept and facility standards for the project.
Timetable
Subject to FTA concurrence the contractor could be selected within six months.
Advantages
• The project can be built much sooner than in a traditional approach.
The total cost of the project is likely to be reduced.
The agency will have fewer contracts to administer.
Disadvantages
The approach is relatively new to the public sector, and requires explanation and
marketing to ensure competitive bidding.
5.4 FUNDING STRATEGY
The traditional approach, utilizing the capital funding program of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), is certainly the most risk-free funding strategy. The disadvantage is
the time it may take to obtain the "earmark" for funds in the Federal appropriations process.
Competition for these funds is very intense. A delay of some length in the project funding
could impact the day-to-day operations of the bus system.
The most efficient approach in terms of schedule and level of effort on behalf of the City is
the design -build alternative. By employing the design -build approach the schedule for the
building will be directed by the City (through a procurement process) and will reduce the
administrative effort by the City in managing a multi -contract project.
The first step will involve the negotiation with the FTA seeking their concurrence with the
design -build program and an agreement for Federal contribution to the annual lease -purchase
program. These negotiations should establish a long term funding program that supports the
equivalent of the Federal share for the bus garage program. Santa Clarita's.share of the
budget (estimated to be in the order of $5 to $6 million) could be used to purchase the land
and provide the site to the contractor.
IGannett Fleming, Inc. 44 March Z 1998
I
I
I
1
U1
_'I
LJ
I
'1
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
The negotiation process, if not to yielding a satisfactory financial program in the view of the
City, could transition to the initial approach to the Federal Transit Administration for
funding. The decision with respect to the FTA Section 3 funding should be made by late
spring of this year in order to attempt to have the project included in next year's budget.
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. 45 March 2, 1998
Santa Clarita-TMFStudy
' Task Five — Final Report
II
I
II
li
11
�I
II
�I
APPENDICES
Gannett Fleming, Inc. March Z 1998
1
r1
�I
Santa Clarita TMFStudy
Task Five — Final Report
APPENDIX A -
SPACE PROGRAM CALCULATIONS
Gannett Fleming, Inc. March Z 1998
Draft Space Program (SPAC 4.WK4)
Santa Clarita TMF
SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT
Design Criteria, Staffing, and Space Allocation Program
SUMMARY OF SPACE REQUIREMENTS
$q -EL
Acres
ADMINISTRATION FUNCTIONS
City of Santa Clarita
4,210
0.10
Contracted Services (1)
1,377
0.03
Subtotal
5,588
0.13
'
(1) Includes Management, Finance, Human Resources
OPERATION FUNCTIONS
Operations
8,163
0.19
Safety and Training
4,410
0.10
Subtotal
12,573
029
MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS
Maintenance Administration
897
0.02
Vehicle Repair Bays
15,120
0.35
Maintenance Shops
11,040
0.25
Parts Storage
5,478
0.13
Wash Building
4,131
0.09
Fuel and Service Building
7,904
0.18
Employee Amenities
1,898
0.04
Support Areas
1,748
0.04
Building Maintenance
1,815
0.04
Outdoor Areas
3,700
0.08
Subtotal
53,730
1.23
VEHICLE PARKING
j
Revenue Fleet
217,800
5.00
Service and Staff Vehicles
5,361
0.12
Employee
59,494
1.37
Visitor and Handicapped
7,260
0.17
Circulation
50,735
1.16
Subtotal
340,650
7.82
TOTAL
412,540
9.47
OPEN SPACE (Assumes 30% Landscaped Area)
123,762
2.84
TOTAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
536,302
12.31
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog -1
312/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC 4.WK4)
SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT
' Design Criteria, Staffing, and Space Allocation Program
PARAMETERS USED TO SIZE FACILITY
Operating Functions
Vehicle Servicing
,J
'i
Building Maintenance
* Functions may not be proposed for initial facility construction
Santa Clarita TMF
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 2 3/2/98
Fare Retrieval
Fueling
Fluid Topping (M0, ATF, ANFR, WA)
Interior Cleaning
Washing
Vehicle Maintenance
'
Inspections
Running Repair
Brake Repair
Tire Change
Electrical Rebuild/Repair*
Electronic Repair
Small Component Rebuild/Repair
Component Exchange
'
A/C Service
A/C Repair*
Cooling System Repairs
Fuel System Repairs
'
Minor Body Repair
Component Painting
In -Chassis Engine Tune-ups
Engine Rebuildingfresting*
'
Transmission Rebuildinglresting*
'
Parts Storage
Shipping/Receiving
Parts
Component Storage
HAZMAT (Pre -Disposal)
Consumable Fluid Storage
,J
'i
Building Maintenance
* Functions may not be proposed for initial facility construction
Santa Clarita TMF
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 2 3/2/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC_4.WK4) Santa Clarita TMF
Facility Capacity
Vehicle Storage
Standard Bus 65
Commuter Buses 40
Dial -a -Ride Vans 45
Articulated Buses 0
Service Vehicles 4
Supervisors Vehicles 8
Parking Requirements
Diagonal parking for buses with direct access to all vehicles
Bus parking density is 30 vehicles per acre
Employee and service vehicle parking density is 130 vehicles per acre
Handicapped parking density is 120 vehicles per acre
'
Clearances and Dimensions
Vertical Horizontal
Maintenance Bays Maintenance Bays
Lifts 18'-0" Lifts
18'-0"
Flats/Pits 14'-0" Flats
18'-0"
Service Lanes 14'-0" Body Shop
Parts Storage 16'-0" Pits (Inspection)
20'-0"
16'-0"
Service Lanes (width)
12'-0"
Service Island (width)
8'-0"
'
Doors
Width Single 14'-0"
Double 20'-0"
Height 14'-0"
Type Sectional Overhead
Work Area Clearance
Front of Bus 5'-0"
Rear of Bus (Engine) 10'-0"
'
Work Bay Length
Standard 55'-0"
Commuter 60'-0"
DAR Vans 45'-0"
Articulated Bus 75'-0"
Maximum Vehicle Dimensions (Bus)
Standard DAR Van Commuter
Length 40'4" 32'-0" 45'-6"
Width 8'-6" 8'4. 8'-6"
Height 10'-1" 10'-5"
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 3
3/2/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC 4,WK4)
Santa Clarita TMF
SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT
Design Criteria, Staffing, and Space Allocation Program
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR 150 -VEHICLE FLEET
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Santa Clarita Transit Administration Staff
Transit Manager
Transit Coordinator
Senior Transit Planner
Assistant Planner
Executive Secretary
Support Staff
Administrative Analyst
Administrative Intern
Receptionist
CONTRACTEDSERVICES
Contractor's Administration Staff
General Manager
Office Manager
Finance
Accounting Support
Pass sales and Lost and Found
Human Resources
Personnel Manager
Operations
Director of Operations
Operations Supervisor
Dial -a -Ride Manager
Dispatchers
Customer Service Agent
Road Supervisor
Dial -a -Ride Supervisor
Coach Operator (Full Time)
Coach Operator (Part Time)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 3
1 1
0 1
9 12
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 5
0 1
1 6
0 1
0 1
1
1
0
1
1
1
4
4
5
5
4
8
0
1
69
160
13
30
97 211
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 4 3/2/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC_4.WK4) Santa Clarita TMF
Safety and Training
Safety and Training Manager 1 1
Assistant Training Supervisors 0 2
Trainers (Part Time) 2 4
Secretary 0 1
Subtotal 3 8
Fleet Maintenance
Director of Fleet Maintenance
1
1
Maintenance Supervisor
0
1
Lead Mechanics (Work Supervisor)
2
3
Mechanics
6
25
Parts Clerks
1
2
Utility/Cleaner
5
11
Secretary/Clerk
1
1
Subtotal
16
44
Grand Total
128
284
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 5 3/2/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC_4.WK4)
Santa Clarita TMF
SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT
Design Criteria, Staffing, and Space Allocation Program
CALCULATION OF PARKING AND BAY REQUIREMENTS
1. Parking Requirements
TOTAL' 1 128 284 1 196 191
" Does not include Handicapped and Visitor parking requirements
2. Fleet Maintenance Work Bay Requirements
Max # of Vehicles 150
Avg Miles/Year/Vehicle 37,337
Estimated Annual Miles 5,600,500
Annual
Inspection Schedule/Duration Inspections
3,000 mile 2 Hr. (A) 933
6,000 mile 3 Hr. (B) 700
24,000 mile 4 Hr. (C) 117
48,000 mile 8 Hr. (D) 117
A Inspections performed by Night Crew
B Inspections split between Night and Day Crews
C & D Inspections performed by Day Crew
Inspection Bays Required
Night Shift 1.80
Day Shift 1.51
Standard Commuter DAR
65 40
Staff Levels
1997 Projected .
MaximumParking
Shift Spaces
Administration
I ill
14
141
12
Finance
1
6
6
5
Human Resources
0
1
1
1
Oerations
97
211
148
148
Safe and Trainin
3
8
61
5
Fleet Maintenance
j44
221
21
TOTAL' 1 128 284 1 196 191
" Does not include Handicapped and Visitor parking requirements
2. Fleet Maintenance Work Bay Requirements
Max # of Vehicles 150
Avg Miles/Year/Vehicle 37,337
Estimated Annual Miles 5,600,500
Annual
Inspection Schedule/Duration Inspections
3,000 mile 2 Hr. (A) 933
6,000 mile 3 Hr. (B) 700
24,000 mile 4 Hr. (C) 117
48,000 mile 8 Hr. (D) 117
A Inspections performed by Night Crew
B Inspections split between Night and Day Crews
C & D Inspections performed by Day Crew
Inspection Bays Required
Night Shift 1.80
Day Shift 1.51
Standard Commuter DAR
65 40
45
52,800 28,000
23,300
3,432,000 1,120, 000
1,048,500
Inspections
Bay Hrs
per Day
Required
3.73
7.47
2.80
8.40
0.47
1.87
0.47
3.73
5,367 Estimated annual PM hours
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 6 312198
11
7
L
I
In
L1
F
Draft Space Program (SPAC_4.WK4)
3. Estimated Maintenance Requirements
Assumptions:
Mature Fleet (Out of Warranty Period)
Warm Climate
Above Average Annual Miles per Bus
20% of Body Repair Work Performed In -House
70% of Maintenance Work Performed In -House
Industry Average Annual Maintenance Requirements (Predictive)
Standard/Commuter 69,324 Hrs. Average Prediction
Dial -a -Ride 15,212 Hrs. 84,536 Hrs.
Estimated Annual Hours by Repair Type and Work Bay Requirements
TOTAL 1 89,706 66,3321 31,052 12.8
Hours
In -House
Hours
Bay
Hours
Shifts
Bays
Re wired
Repair Type
23,374
Predicted Annual Contract Maintenance Hours
'
17,850
Predicted Annual Service Hours
Body
17,753
3,551
1 ,775
Estimated Service Manpower Requirement'
PM
10,144
10,144
8,623
2
2.7
Brakes
51918
5,918
2,959
21
0.9
,Engine/Fuel
8,454
5,495
2,198
1'
1.4
Electrical
5,918
3,846
2,308.4
A/C/Heating5,072
3,297
1,978
1
1.2
Drive Train
4,227
2,747
1,099
1
0.7
CoolingSystem
2,536
1,648
1,236
1
0.8
RunningRepair
10,990
10,990
8,242
2
2.5
Service & Cleaning17,850
17,850
Tire
845
8451
634111
2
0.2
TOTAL 1 89,706 66,3321 31,052 12.8
67%
33%
Santa Clarita TMF
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 7 3/2198
48,482
Predicted Annual Maintenance Hours (In -House)
23,374
Predicted Annual Contract Maintenance Hours
'
17,850
Predicted Annual Service Hours
27.4
Estimated Maintenance Manpower Requirement'
'
10.7
Estimated Service Manpower Requirement'
Exclusive
of Supervision
67%
33%
Santa Clarita TMF
' Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 7 3/2198
,J
Draft Space Program (SPAC 4.WK4)
SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT
Design Criteria, Staffing, and Space Allocation Program
SPACE ALLOCATIONS FOR ALL FUNCTIONS
ADMINISTRATION FUNCTIONS
CCo ra_ct de_Sendces
Contractor Management
' General Manager 230
Office Manager 150
Finance
Accounting Support 300
i' Pass Sales/Lost and Found 48
i' Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Frog - 8
Santa Clarita TMF
3/2198
r
hof Santa Clarita
Transit Manager
230
Executive Secretary
Transit Coordinator
150
150
ReceptionlWaiting
120 0)
Conference Room
700
Senior Transit Planner
150
'
Assistant Planner
88
Administrative Analysts
342
Administrative Interns
48
'
Support Staff
128
Record Storage
160
Restrooms (M/F - one each)
240
Lounge/Lunchroom
400 (t)
'
Janitors Closet
40
Supply/Storage
60
Coat Closet
25
Coffee Alcove
20
Subtotal
3,051
Circulation @ 15%
458
Mechanical/ElectdcallTelephone @ 5%
153
'
Subtotal
3,661
Contingency Factor @ 15%
549
Subtotal
4,210
'
(1) Indicates space shared with Contractor Administrative Personnel
CCo ra_ct de_Sendces
Contractor Management
' General Manager 230
Office Manager 150
Finance
Accounting Support 300
i' Pass Sales/Lost and Found 48
i' Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Frog - 8
Santa Clarita TMF
3/2198
r
Draft Space Program (SPAC_4.WK4)
Lost & Found Storage
40
Record Storage
80
Human Resources
150
Personnel Manager
150
Subtotal
998
Circulation @ 15%
150
Mechanical/Eiectricalrrelephone @ 5%
50
Subtotal
1,198
Contingency Factor @ 15%
180
Subtotal 1,377
OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS
Operations
Director of Operations
150
Operations Supervisor
114
Dial -a -Ride Manager
150
Dial -a -Ride Supervisor
80
Dispatch Office
352
Dispatch Restrooms
100
Radio Room
80
Road Supervisors Office
384
Money Counting Room
240
Customer. Service Agents
320
Conference Room
500
Records Storage
60
Counseling Office
120
Security Office wl Secured Storage
100
Supply/Storage
60
Coat Closet
25
Coffee Alcove
20
Janitor's Closet
40
Driver's Ready Room
900
Quiet Room
220
Exercise Room
500
Driver's Locker Room
400
Driver's Restrooms (M/F)
1,000
Subtotal
5,915
Circulation @ 15%
887
Mechanical/Electrical/Telephone @ 5%
296
Subtotal 7,098
Santa Clahta TMF
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 9 3/2/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC 4.WK4)
Contingency Factor @ 15% 1,065
Subtotal 8,163
Safety and Training
Safety and Training Manager
150
Safety and Training Assistants
176
Record Storage
60
Large Training Room
1800
Chairfrable Storage
80
Classroom w/ Workstations
120
Maintenance Training Room
650
First Aid Room w/ Restroom
160
Subtotal
3,196
Circulation @ 15%
479
Mechanical/ElectricaUTelephone @ 5%
160
Subtotal 3,835
Contingency Factor @.15% 575
Subtotal 4,410
MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS
Maintenance Administration
Director of Fleet Maintenance
150
Maintenance Supervisor
120
Clerk/General Office
120
Records Storage
80
Copy/Mail
80
Office Restroom
70
Lead Mechanics Office (2)
160
Circulation (15%) 117
Subtotal 897
Santa Clarita TMF
Vehicle Repair Bays
Size
No.
Bay Sq. Ft
Total
Inspection Pits/Lifts
1660
3
960
2880
Running Repair
18x60
3
1,080
3240
Component Change -Out
18x60
1
1,080
1080
BrakelTire Repair
20x60
1
1,200
1200
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 10 3/2/98
Parts Storage
' Parts Clerk 100
Parts Room 4,500
' Shipping/Receiving 300
Tool Room 80
Aisles/Circulation (10%) 498
' Subtotal 5,478
'
Wash Building *
Day Cleaning, 1 Position
1,200
Draft Space Program (SPAC 4.WK4)
80
'
Bus Washer
Santa Clarita TMF
'
Water Reclaim Room
500
Electrical Room
100
Electrical Repair
18x60
1
1,080
1080
Engine (In -Chassis)
18x60
1
1,080
1080
A/C/ Heating
18x60
1
1,080
1080
'
Drive Train
18x60
1
1,080
1080
Chassis Wash *
20x60
1
1,200
1200
Body Repair
20x60
1
1,200
1200
15,120
Subtotal (Bays)
14
'
Subtotal (Sq. Ft.)
15,120
• May be removed from main structure
-
'
Maintenance Shops
Bench Repair Area (Gen.)
800
Tire Shop/Storage
1,300
'
Battery Charging Room
180
Brake Shop
440
Tool Cart Storage
180
Component Rebuild Shop*
3,000
'
Disassembly*
400
Parts Cleaning*
500
Engine Run-in Room/Dynamometer*
320
'
Transmission Dynamometer*
280
Electrical Rebuild Shop
350
Electronic/Farebox Repair
450
Welding
220
'
Recycling Equipment
300
Floor Equipment Storage (2)
480
'
Aisles/Circulation (20%)
1,840
Subtotal
11,040
'
* Functions may not be proposed for initial facility
construction
Parts Storage
' Parts Clerk 100
Parts Room 4,500
' Shipping/Receiving 300
Tool Room 80
Aisles/Circulation (10%) 498
' Subtotal 5,478
'
Wash Building *
Day Cleaning, 1 Position
1,200
Cleaning Storage
80
'
Bus Washer
1,875
Water Reclaim Room
500
Electrical Room
100
'
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 11
3/2/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC_4.WK4)
Aisles/Ci rcu I ation(10°%)
Subtotal
Fuel/Service Building
Service Office
Service Lanes (2)
Fare Box Receiver
Compressor Room
Electrical Room
Lube Room
Storage
CNG Compressors
CNG Cascade
CNG Fast Fill Position
Aisles/C i rculation(10%)
Subtotal
' Separate structures
Employee Amenities
Restrooms (M)
Restrooms (F)
Locker Room (M)
Locker Room (F)
Training Room
Maintenance Lounge/Lunch Room
Aisles/C ircul ation(15%)
Subtotal
* Included in Safety & Training
376
4,131
80
2,800
120
200
130
80
50
1,600
1,000
1,125
i&;
7,904
300
200
600
150
w
400
246
1,898
Santa lrlarita TMF
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Frog -12 3/2/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC_4.WK4)
SupportAreas
Gas Meter Room
70
Water Meter Room
120
Electrical Room
180
Telephone Room
80
Air Compressor Room
450
Lube Room
400
Emergency Generator •
220
Corridor/Circulation (15%) 228
Subtotal 1,748
* May be removed from main structure
Building Maintenance
Fabrication Shop 800
Material Storage 450
Dead Storage 400
Circulation (5%) 83
Mechanical/Electrical 83
Subtotal 1,815
Outdoor Spaces
Scrap & Waste Storage
300
Loading Dock
1,200
HAZMAT Storage
200
Tank Farm
2,000
Subtotal 3,700
Vehicle Parking
Vehicle Parking by Spaces Required
Buses (Standard)
65
Buses (Commuter)
40
Buses (DAR)
45
Buses (Articulated)
0
Support Vehicles
4
Staff Vehicles
12
Employees
191
Visitor Parking
10
Handicapped Parking
10
Santa Clarita TMF
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog -13 3/2/98
Draft Space Program (SPAC 4.WK4) Santa Clarita TMF
Vehicle Parking by Area in Sq. Ft
Buses 217,800 @ 30 vehicles per acre
Service & Staff Vehicles 5,361 @ 130 vehicles per acre
Employees 59,494 @ 130 vehicles per acre
Visitor/Handicapped Parking 7,260 @ 120 vehicles per acre
Circulation 50,735
TOTAL 340,650
Gannett Fleming, Inc. SP Prog - 14 3/2/98
Santa Clarita TMF Study
Task Five — Final Report
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND
PROPERTY MAPS
Gannett Fleming, Inc. March 2,-1998
SITE PHOTOS AND MAPPING
Santa Clarita TMF Study
November 25, 1997
Site 1
Valencia Commerce Center
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
WN, ws M A ow 4W -wo oar►
Finished Lots for Sale
Land parcels are available from .5 to 25 acres.
Flexible parcel sizes can be facilitated with lot line adjustments.
i
Speculative Development '
An ongoing development program is in process with flexible
buildings ranging in sizes from 10,000 square feet to 250,000
square feet. Additional buildings have been permittedandare
ready for construction within thirty days and occupancy within
_ six months. ammim
'
Build -to -Suit �
Unit parcels are available for "build-ta-suiY opportunities from
10.000 to 500,000 square feet Highly competitive quotes, including
facility engineering/space planning, are available through our
Development Alliance. The Alliance includes: Valencia Company,
The Hewson Company, Hill Pincken Architects, Ciltman's
:-�construction, and Barry & Company. In addition, other parcels with.
in V2lencia Commerce Center could accommodate buildings up ro
1 million square feet. s;arewar m
1e T' - Musa It
Approximately 1.25% of Assessed Valuation
• Bonds and Assessments -
None. The Newhall Land and Fanning Company has paid all s
I Bonds and Assessments including Bridge and Thoroughfare fees.
Purchaser will pay fees associated with the development or'
the property.
Soils, Toxics and Regulatory Clearance Sutra '
Comprehensive soils testing has been conducted per the State
-I Regional water Quality Board V.Urk Plan. Clearance has been -
obtained on the enire parcel map. Copies of all repots are available
upon request
a' Utilities
4' All Utililies will be undergrousded and adjacent to the sites.
• Zoning
iProperly is zoned M I lb
"
Accessibility
j Valencia Gateway is at a major hub of ground and air transportation systems. Deep -water
seaports and an imemational airport bring the world to the Gateways doomep. Burbank Airport is
• just 20 minutes away, while Los Angeles International Airport is within a 40 minute drive. Harbors
include the Pons of Los Angeles (55 minutes) and Long Beach (60 minutes).
I Situated just TO minutes north of the San Femando Valley off the Golden State (1.5) Freeway, the
J major north/south interstate connecting Canada and Mexico, Valencia Gateway is convenient to an
interconnecting network of freeways which include the Foothill (1-210), San Diego (1-00S), Ronald
Reagan (118), Hollywood (170), Ventura (101), Antelope Valley 174), and Santa Paula (126).
Metrolink and commuter buses complete the area's efficient transportation system.
• The Developer
The Gateway is a development of Valencia Company, a division of The Newhall Land and Farming
J Company, a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Founded in 7883, Newhall
Land currently owns more than 91,000 acres throughout the state. The company's Los Angeles area land
holdings consist of a careful balance of commercial, industrial, retail, residential, recreational and
hospitality use designations which come together to form the mastenplanned community of Valencia
and the proposed Newhall Ranch community which encompass 36,000 acres.
U r
Valencia Commerce Center is a pan of Valencia
r
E
Gateway. Valencia Gateway encompasses in excess of 4,$00
V
acres and is recognized as the largest master -planned center for
1\
Business, Technology, and Industry in Los Angeles County.
.WKWAT 91.
MASS 11
9.
-£SSv PgP 72 11�_ C1E ipG;99
1.
[A„�vg_8� Z
67 X25 .83AC. AC 1S'rk ]]� W
369 AG 78 *28 L L7B AC 151 ACw G 6 Z
66 2.93 AC. -22 >{t5P'4 14 s.LU
29fi AC. \2 153AC ➢ ,T' _..,� 803AL:n,
66 28 G r,� -Jse AG
4NAC, ; 258 AGIIwC. e` 156AC� 2
4849 v N 18 '` 3 1]3.
'L;I TAB AC. 4 1 1.58AC. 106 AC'uEN�E
1.7A
63' 47 C ; 0.73 cN0 sura y..- 2
9]8 AC. 62 2.69 AG i C s`� �+}+,s'�,--` O
1.762 < <t W
I ? O
261 G C 9.55 Ac. .; -17.63 AC-
U
fig 1 3.fie AG
223 AC. O
TO
{ -!
66
1.42 AC.
IF
N
w
ow = m 00-
2811 'c
�.�► +�.�. a� air ter, aw w � WON w r.� >a+ u�■�3
Site 3 - High School Site
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
SCALE Y • 300'
W 0: 1030-Z43 {
OC.' 31. :355
w.u,�vw,waor_.sas
3
TRACT N0. 52111
i
�" AILF I
�/ RA
s., 1ta
C+A SUR gae .R �a
3tl' ll g
7
— 8
6
s .
qp{{ AWAS
NEWHALL RANCH ROAD
LOT AREAS (SO. FT.)
---------------
r
F
13
'\
10
12
I
F
lm�
.
OR, mt .sae M a arc wm-)10 W m O i %Jw sm, a& *rrr; No >•
Site 4 - Lockheed Site
I Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
NO MAPPING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
+� ow. ON, onw ■r; I= »c OW j2mIPW s ter, U N, M No r m
Site 5 - Santa Clarita Business Park
Santa Clarita TMF Study 11/25/97
r m ew m r� r ae NNW -Am m mi lm m 10 r 10 m r
Site 6 - Saugus Station Industrial Ctr.
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
t1w an __lam, m � _�__
2838 1 6 7
SCALE 7• - 4oD• 1 kr.•rM
i)
a
!ti
1S 18 3aa
9)J
r
f
33 JM � Srb
S 230
� aoo
fo
JI rSntr. � O
EO 26 raxA74 33
7s z }fo 34 �a
e,6eroW
A4rKvl-K
ls.lNpeda
lleXlOSAis<b/ �
tANvf.mroes �
fl,ifl. ft
fMf01./f �
9f
4igN � q' y
2 Nue
URCLE JQRANCFI
DETAIL A
ND SCALE
ASSESSOR*$ NAP
COMM OF LOS ANGELES, CAUR
1
27
y Me
/mei
r�h
`L
'maxi
,s,s„rlsAw
trr
dly+fe. 3mwm
21 '
Fn
29
t
""
av--
,gf
�
^
- ins. IMlal
4
CUOE
n IRCLE
JRANCH
Nom.�5
w
973
073
RD.
<rla wa.
g
c... n•,. y., ...rq
FDR PACY. ASSMT SEE
TRACT.
NO. MOP
M. B.
21-158459
Sf1F� ,
e,6eroW
A4rKvl-K
ls.lNpeda
lleXlOSAis<b/ �
tANvf.mroes �
fl,ifl. ft
fMf01./f �
9f
4igN � q' y
2 Nue
URCLE JQRANCFI
DETAIL A
ND SCALE
ASSESSOR*$ NAP
COMM OF LOS ANGELES, CAUR
Site 7 - Hondo Newhall Refinery
I Santa Clarita TMF Study
Wamm'"m maw
11/25/97
r lr Fi IW. we r 4"
2827 1 10 I .. .....__ .. 2eiete��9�a
e1W • 1
9 eee++si-v
u 9/a IN"
sra�x
+rn•
220
2N
et6
FON PAEY. ASSM'r SEE:
2ur- Le
NA
32 `�
T. 3K,R 16 W.
_TRACT NO._2703 _ _M.5._28 -2_O- 26
LICENSED SURVETOR'S W L.S. 31.36.45
i
k s.^uiw nn
tr ai,
POR. LGf 2,E. I/7,YC
f l 3
i
`i
i\ N
4 �
11 t4 ee t\
VJ d
`\\ W
EESL Z
NO SCALE
Y
�p
4
OE TAIL 'O'
NO SCALE
ASSESSO'S MRP
COUItrY OF LOS ANGELES. CALIF.
m
m ow m :,M r r a wlip� am- ON ars m m m am as " m m
Site 8 - Valley Business Center
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
PLAT TO AC4:0I1f'HNr Lur LIML nuJu2s7nclr7
VRLLEY 9u51NESS CENTER
POR, Ro SAN FRANCISCO
r N0.
eEAa1No
D15147Ri
1
S 27.19'42' E
f hi 37'
2
5 621A0'18' w
54.02'
3
N 27.19'42' w
e$ 88'
4
N 08'35'55' w
162 00
5
N 81.24'0$' E
11 00'
d
N 81.24'05- E
15 00'
7
ry 06.35'55' w
34 00'
$
N 08'35'55' w
Nfi bl
9
$ EA3' d5-1 I - w
42.48'.
10
N 28'50'05' L
45 45'
11
S 72b6 05' E
tad 43
l2
S 12'3b'29' E
252-44'
IA
S 6N 22'26' w
121 GI
id
N 12'36•c9 w
= I!
(FOR COMPLETE. PARCEL 6 SEf
ACCOMPANYINU 300 -SCALE HAPI
6 (POR.)
n
" T21
11
i
i
L -
PARCEL i
CERT. OF COMPL.. NO -6623
O.S.65-1293134 j
NOT APART
OF THIS MAP
t N7
8EAR1t40
DISTANCE
t'
: BN22'26' r
6 a$' 1
15
N 72.56'06' w
24 90
20
N E540A'57' w
70 00'
2t
S 71.45 03' w
is 52
22
N 44120'41' w
1$ 0o'
23
S 32'08'23' a
67 61'
24
5 40'12'21' w
I08 99
25
N 43.44'45' E
125 02
1Cj
-G o•4y UC' •
t E,7
P_11521-522
'E
P
5
p
1RUE D 11 v1 2
a
p• 150'c1 300'
(,MAPIi I C
1RUE P D 6
i t4
x14 ^' 17 5 6
�f
� I
iri- c c
co P
M
7."38 50 Oci
E 46 33 P 6
s Cg C0 N 2a OP RDAD
I SOLEDAD
CAMON
A'''02� 83 '
p �'6 4
pcls x
SIUN0 ENGINEERING DISSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
p �5i1 en0.•IOM•119 �aa0G1 n.]71eV41 _9E6 '
:EP 13i
NO.
PAD IUS
DELTA
LENGIM
L':
530.00
1?'3y'48-
:16 Y3'
U
345
00
10'43'47'
ll1 78'
C3
345
00
9'01-54-
54 38'
C4
345
00
9.41 53'
68 40•
E5
302787-
0'2:'42'
20 00
Ip
JOdI
V1
Tc'11 14
IOD 411
'E
P
5
p
1RUE D 11 v1 2
a
p• 150'c1 300'
(,MAPIi I C
1RUE P D 6
i t4
x14 ^' 17 5 6
�f
� I
iri- c c
co P
M
7."38 50 Oci
E 46 33 P 6
s Cg C0 N 2a OP RDAD
I SOLEDAD
CAMON
A'''02� 83 '
p �'6 4
pcls x
SIUN0 ENGINEERING DISSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
p �5i1 en0.•IOM•119 �aa0G1 n.]71eV41 _9E6 '
:EP 13i
Site 9 - Former Cyanimid Facility
I Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
MMM
"MM
MIMM
Now
M
Site 9 - Former Cyanimid Facility
I Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
i No io m m» m go � r so� a m go
r w,.
ARS W-52
�s l
i korvF3 —,
t2
jim t S�S.WhofL.A.I%y AQutduc! perOD5QS5Z-/78
315 14
tow
N\ %QX 2,4r. ~ \ \ N
1 b
J
a
11
t �
rR r m w ■. mom r
•• :�_ -�� , = ,- _ _ J fes'
i<- LOS ANGELES AQUEDUCT R/W
" : W ^ , • " ••� ` ,—. _—�P=-..�_---_ � J�. �-r" � �a;cAc .vm� Mn/a'� 1
1
r, i�,-'• ,?i y . %—..".,- cxwe"w 7' —� I I I �1 I IT Tl
gym• 1 -
' i - `S2I1`,1�-•a I '� xo" NEW WAREHOUSE.r�-A�'•nw•w� srn>.�r,'.,•
' 2 d' 7'wu` /I`•' I �3 3b.•.. 9<?• ' 9/a ` 9i 19 I reeve x ,wenn
I. �ll BUILDING
tis-.�4 .!'"• Cit r ^. I 1 -• I "9 i''�S ¢ " NM6Ibv5E _ 1
Cam)m
yti ix . r:.,-+. Z I r'_ '�' � r.. 1 �'�' �:lv�Jse acaY. „ � - ... •.
s
� L! .! T��..J L •AY/d %•R' - 11g•/ t. L. �PILi CB�� ^v .
•}-'f� T.�..-,Fn.
w`�'t�4' �'�"'" F �r 0-c f� ��'``(c3xs - ��. �'erolrai/f,2� _ .(ri1) : - __ . • ^. -� .
F.+"� Io�t.Z-%+y-�'�^ 4L.Q �"NJP LaT ' .I... "r -.ro. _. "'r � [[--.''��,{—�. ,. - •" ... ,
i, �.T'7:t.= e,J-#!.-x ii , %L• -, -' , - >Ci.°v sa<^°'•
� 1 111 _ y r ®�.ea new l;.ey r - . icwara ..moi/ .. M..
C�. F � x 'Ky •i .-i. J .. :u`f /�ueT Gue..wR. s � . �¢ 1 A
LJ
2 AcKrceann /• ,Y!•.. ..^...! QJ.E.lM •— - �I
- - - SITE PLAN
1
m m m� no= a
Site 10 - The Old Road Properties
Santa Clarita TMF Study
m 10 m m
11/25/97
NO MAPPING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
go = » Im w as
Mr mm m ,m � m MIM w" w
Site 11- Pioneer Refinerey
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
A w m m
Me
m
N
ON
1
A
y
!y
.34 Ac
3�1e6
s
47" D
S
sale
m m m m m m = m 7
219
0
t
S 62 o t
>36 9s I
F l
i
i'j�3 s C,y I
.a
t S an-
� 6, 100r •�« �PI
O
REFPNERY
ADWALL CO.
WAUR Q'SMCr
.e• 4.9.J-s°.Oa
.Harr:.
lot e. T.
t f
d df!Ae I I�rol J. jam.' 2
060! - Pr fate! no �<4 • 4
I o { 1
3 gr. Ac t .i�W.her *45e 1•11.6e �o
I j t/1Q4'3DE. 3.36Cn
10$•54 90 1 4j-,"vz
f
mw f I
R_ S. 87 - 90 - 99
a 1 1 Mi.
hr i
15
m m = � m m m m= m m m i m m m m m w
Site 12 - HR Textron
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
354 954
__ -
kAoo: „c.
r a
♦ � fPY,�rwi 4
68d+0
754
355
+� or r �r .r .� r r r r� r .■rr �r r r r rr r
Site 13 - SC Edison Yard
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
I
M
�1
IS
r
N
r
• r
p'
bt Js t' a
8 pi
tit;
V t
6 1 QC] trC �M �6'Fr a
• (ie1 a r L -
i
'�• t� OV S�.p6 .
n•I;,
�Fl S
O
G V I ♦ e.
o
ti�' aid 'S y�' �♦
Q /�y I / � -S Y ♦ P
a \ +Cn or z
� u \ LQ SVR' , Sf{r + fr '� y + Q- ♦
�
Ti
tet_ a tt
,
♦ ��^, err _ +++ „p rr ;
�-r►+ ♦+ U dirrr
- tea♦ ,♦ b' `- � -:
m m m m r m= m m m m m m m== m= m
Site 14 - Arklin at SCBP
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
m r= m= m= w m w m m
NO MAPPING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
nV� F
Site 15 - Gil Glazer Site
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
P834 I_ JrfvrvrAarrl,:e-a.♦o• Ja,ef
I drl1,
SME 1" 300• ( 773--'Y^'371 9h 97J f.vN
- M` alcor ♦ n
♦� !wi 7 \ ,q,ro:: ,ral :•' I \ erica: it
N �� ,(�i YrtJ C sanYu
['ed NYS � aJJ•w P rieuglla.e♦d
ti-�� + tfyNar2Hlb'N
T HI: , �Je-a•Afr:'}•l F 1 KP�YreNM
"• 's' e.� I xl'D 9, ,4. 203 tN7y .n �I IT 202srlE.n �j Hmr.IVJ
09 f !, rcM •• ,aa 5 �� 204 r •�` �c1; .. _- _ ;rl^ _ �w n
•' e � I0 OS O• \ -•t. y_1.a}___ .�. lJStJ1� - �-�%.Nea�. - N: ;
� J•
BIN
�..-._.L�--Ti=PJB_ la1 B•.�.Y,•.- _- ..- c I
2 h eta M [c Y. y
aaM •".: '•• 20B c 206
207 -1,
^}
209 `o >•n �^
^ ^ Sea .!r [IS a U See ry.,. ElI
y1 fee
V. ea r!l 7
JzlyT
_ N
saa. n,c
pea.p1if' a 212 o s 211 •� 210 i
v ^ ^
214 213 t: s
• 1 : Ar .g.6 r) J.e H B 2 Jaa qs e
\2 ~ `%VINE xas.aJ 3T.Y
laTJa JT,l a JJ'11
-------------------- --_-_---;----._-.�
SAN fERMAMD09 a Vy % `L A '� I
SEy
�c3J
yR♦Bw rg�
C0DE
2L9
974
384
973
227
r0P 1erv. A 7. $EE: 1730-1
.2834- is a 19
RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO
P. 1 — 521 — 522
TRACT N0. 1078
M. B. 18 — 169
All Soo series pa•Cels - ,his p.9e a,. assessed
to los Angeles C..ty Trampo,i Mia. Comnisswn,
.mess olheeaisr poled_
r
364—�-- 27.7—�•-f -219
w
FDR ELKS 202.203 a 206 TO
214, SEC PGS 27017, 20 a21
LOTS IN 5L%5 204&205 NEFIT DELETED
t.V0 SIMPLIFY ASSLSSLIELIT DESCRIPTION
ellEllovs Mer
MUTT W L01 AKELES, CALIF.
w w �w we w� w w w� w� w w w ■w w �w w■ �w wM w
Site 16 - Bermite / Porta Bella
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
NO MAPPING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
Site 17 - Saugus Speedway
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
NO MAPPING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
Site 18 - Cardinal Health
Santa Clarita TMF Study
11/25/97
XI?;