HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - VENTURA RAIL (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be presented by: Lisa M. Hardy
NEW BUSINESS
DATE: November 24, 1998
SUBJECT: VENTURA RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY RESTORATION STUDY
DEPARTMENT: Department of Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt the final report prepared for the Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Restoration
Study. '
BACKGROUND
In November 1997, the City of Santa Clarita, together with Southern California
Association of Governments, launched a study to evaluate several rail line
alternatives for future passenger and freight rail service through the City of
Santa Clarita. This study, the Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Restoration Study,
builds upon previous efforts to identify a preferred rail alignment for the
restoration of rail service to Ventura County, as well as passenger and freight rail
service to the Antelope Valley and Los Angeles.
The final report prepared for this study (see attached) identifies a preferred rail
alignment selected from three rail line alternatives to focus the City's rail corridor
preservation efforts. The technical evaluation for this study, conducted by Korve
Engineering, was based on environmental, cost, engineering and rail service
criteria. The preferred alternative would accommodate passenger and freight rail
service to both Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley, extending east along the
historic rail alignment from Interstate 5. The alignment would cross the Santa
Clara River on a new bridge located to the east'of the historic bridge (allowing for
higher speed service) and continue along the south bank of the Santa Clara River
to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) property. The alignment would
continue east along the MWD utility corridor, running just north of Valencia
Boulevard and Soledad Canyon Road. After crossing Bouquet Canyon Road, the
alignment would turn south to run parallel with the existing Metrolink track to
the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. This alignment alternative also includes an
option to use MWD right-of-way to join the existing Metrolink track just south of
Cinema Drive, providing direct service to the San Fernando Valley and Los
Angeles.
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Restoration Study
Agenda Report
Page 2
Historically, rail service has existed between the Santa Clarita Valley and
Ventura County via a right-of-way along Magic Mountain Parkway and State
Route 126. In an effort to restore this line, the Ventura County Transportation
Commission has purchased the rail line from the Port of Ventura to the Ventura -
Los Angeles County line and prepared a master plan for that segment. However,
portions of the historic right-of-way throughout the City of Santa Clarita no
longer exist due to line abandonment and subsequent development. Identification
of a new, preferred rail alignment in Santa Clarita is a major step to securing
future rail service opportunities to Ventura County and expanded service to the
Antelope Valley and the metropolitan Los Angeles area. The final report provides
a variety, of preservation strategies and funding resources to facilitate the future
construction and operation of a Class 4 rail line within a designated corridor.
Parties involved in the Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Restoration Study include:
Southern California Association of Governments; Ventura County Transportation
Commission; Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency, Newhall
Land and Farming, Southern California Regional Rail Authority; North County
Subregion; and Supervisor Antonovich's office.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Support rail alignment alternative 2 or alternative 3 as the preferred rail
alternative to focus future preservation and funding efforts.
2. Other action as determined by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Restoration Study Final Report
(Available in City Clerk's reading file)
LMH
s: \ pbs \ Council \ ARventrl
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way
Restoration Studv
Submitted to the:
City of Santa Clarita
and
Southern California
Association of Governments
Submitted by:
Korve Engineering, Inc.
R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc.
EIP Associates
Final Report
November 10, 1998
I
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way
Rail Service Restoration Study
for
City of Santa Clarita
and
Southern California Association of Governments
November 10, 1998
By:
Korve Engineering, Inc.
In Association With:
R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc.
EIP Associates
A
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND ............................................. 1-1
1.1 Historic Context .............................................. 1-1
1.2 1991 Engineering Study ....................................... 1-2
1.3 Preservation Measures ........................................ 1-2
1.4 Study Overview .............................................. 1-4
CHAPTER 2 - EVALUATION OF RAIL LINE ALTERNATIVES ..................... 2-1
2.1 Engineering Assessment Results ...... . ......................... 2-6
2.2 Traffic Assessment Results ..................................... 2-8
2.3 Environmental Assessment Results ............................. 2-13
2.4 Summary of Assessment Results ............................... 2-18
2.4.1 Steering Committee Discussion ......................... 2-19
CHAPTER 3 - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................... 3-1
3.1
Engineering Assessment Results ................................
3-1
3.2
Traffic Assessment Results .....................................
3-4
3.3
Environmental Assessment Results ..............................
3-4
3.4
Conclusions ................................................
3-5
CHAPTER 4 -
PRESERVATION STRATEGIES .................................
4-1
4.1
Land Use and Planning Policies .................................
4-2
J
4.1.1 General Plan Designation .................
. ............. 4-2
4.1.2 Setting Plan Lines .....................................
4-2
4.1.3 Developer Dedications .................................
4-4
4.2
Acquisition .................................................
4-4
4.2.1 Purchase of All Interests ................................
4-6
4.2.2 Purchase/Lease of Partial Interests .......................
4-6
4.2.3 Purchase of Operating Rights ............................
4-6
4.2.4 Option to Purchase ....................................
4-7
4.2.5 Lease ..............................................
4-7
4.3
Recreational/Open Space Strategies .............................
4-8
4.4
Public Awareness Efforts .....................................
4-10
4.5
Organizational/Institutional Arrangements .........................
4-11
Korve Engineering, Inc. i November 10, 1998
t
:I
n
Ventura Rail Riqht-of-Way Citv of Santa Clarita
4.6
Funding Strategies ..........................................
4.6.1 Federal Funding Sources ..............................
4-13
4.6.2 State Funding Sources ................................
4-13
4.6.3 Local Funding Sources ................................
4-14
4.6.4 Funding for Next Steps ................................
4-14
4.7
Summary .................................................
4-15
4.7.1 Next Planning Steps ..................................
4-16
- CHAPTER 5 -
ACTION PLAN ..............................................
5-1
5.1
Protect Future Opportunities ...............................:....
5-1
5.2
Build a Constituency ..........................................
5-2
5.3
Leverage Existing Opportunities .................................
5-3
5.4
Identify and Implement a Funding Strategy .........................
5-3
5.5
Continue the Planning Process ..................................
5-4
5.6
Action Plan .................................................
5-4
5.6.1 Immediate Actions ....................................
5-4
5.6.2 Near -Term Actions ....................................
5-5
Korve Engineering, Inc. ii November 10, 1998
i
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City
of Santa Clarita
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Study Context .................................................
1-1
Figure 1.2
Alignment Alternatives (1991 Engineering Study) ......................
1-3
Figure 1.3
Status of Preservation Actions ....................................
1-4
- Figure 2.1
Rail Right -of -Way Alternative 1 ....................................
2-3
Figure 2.2
Rail Right -of -Way Alternative 2 ....................................
2-4
Figure 2.3
Rail Right -of -Way Alternative 3 ....................................
2-5
Figure 2.4
Existing (1997-1998) Peak Hour Volumes ............................
2-9
Figure 2.5
Existing (1997-1998) Average Annual Daily Traffic ....................
2-10
s Figure 2.6
Future Link Levels of Service ....................................
2-11
Figure 2.7
Projected Future (2020 & Beyond) Average Annual Daily Traffic .........
2-12
Figure 2.8
Study Area Hazards ...........................................
2-14
Figure 2.9
Study Area Natural Resources ...................................
2-15
Figure 2.10
Study Area Utilities and Recreation ................................
2-16
Figure 2.11
Alignment on Raised Earthen Fill .................. . ..............
2-20
Figure 3.1
Preferred Alignment Alternative ....................................
3-2
Figure 3.2
Revised At -Grade Alignment Option ................................
3-3
Figure 3.3
Revised Trench Alignment Option ..................................
3-3
Korve Engineering, Inc. iii November 10, 1998
i
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Comparison of Alternative Alignments ...............................
2-7
Table 2.2
Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments ..................
2-21
Table 3.1
Preferred Alternative: Vertical Alignment Information ...................
3-7
Table 3.2
Conceptual Cost Estimate ........................................
3-8
Table 3.3
Environmental Comparison of Preferred Alignment .....................
3-9
Table 4.1
Model Land Use Plan Text for Rail Corridor Preservation ................
4-3
Table 4.2
Santa Paula Branch Preservation Strategies .........................
4-15
Table 4.3
Project Development Steps ......................................
4-17
Korve Engineering, Inc. iv November 10, 1998
I
I
7
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
.I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study has been to identify and evaluate all possible rail alignment options for
restoration of rail service through the City of Santa Clarita. The alignment alternatives considered
connect east to existing Metrolink service and west to future service from Ventura. A complete
range of alignment options was identified and evaluated based on engineering and operational
constraints, environmental impacts, order -of -magnitude costs and resulting transportation benefits.
Possible alternatives were identified from the previous study efforts, along with input from the
Steering Committee and the consultant team. The full set of alternatives considered was reduced
to an initial set of the three most viable options. An assessment of the initial set of alternatives
resulted in the identification of a preferred option by the Steering Committee that they felt best met
the study goals established at the beginning of the study process. The study goals include:
• Accommodate both passenger and freight rail service;
• Provide for the capability to operate service at Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Class
4 (80 mph) speeds;
• Allow for future regional rail connections to both Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley;
• Provide new rail service to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station;
• Support city land use policies;
• Minimize environmental impacts;
• Minimize highway impacts; and
• Result in a reasonable construction cost.
Alternative 1 from the initial set of alternatives was recommended as the preferred alignment
alternative through the City of Santa Clarita. This alternative provides significant local and regional
transportation advantages over the other alternatives considered in previous efforts and this study.
The recommended alignment meets a majority of the above study goals. The two goals not totally
met are: (1) meeting FRA Class 4 speeds and (2) minimizing environmental impacts. This
alignment would allow for 80 mph operation except for two places: 1) a 60 mph curve crossing over
Bouquet Canyon to keep the alignment from major floodplain encroachment; and 2) a 50 mph
curve crossing over Soledad Canyon Road to join the existing Metrolink tracks. While alternative
1 has been designed to minimize environmental impacts, the segment common to all of the
identified alignment alternatives, from 1-5 to just east of McBean Parkway, has significant
environmental impacts that will require mitigation.
Description
As shown in the following map, the preferred alignment alternative uses the historic Santa Paula
Branch rail alignment running east from the 1-5 Golden State Freeway and crosses the Santa Clara
River on a new bridge located to the east of the historic bridge. The new bridge and alignment
approach allows for higher speed service to meet the FRA Class 4 speed requirement. This
alternative then continues along the south bank of the Santa Clara River to the Metropolitan Water
District property where it transitions to straight alignment running north of Valencia Boulevard and
Soledad Canyon Road. The alignment then turns south to run parallel with the existing Metrolink
track to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. A future branch option would use the Metropolitan
Korve Engineering, Inc. E-1 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
Water District right-of-way to join the existing Metrolink track just south of Cinema Drive to provide
direct service to the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles.
Several vertical alignments were analyzed for this preferred alternative: 1) raised on an earthen
berm above adjacent properties, 2) at -grade or level with the Santa Clara riverbank, and 3) in a
trench along the riverbank. These alternatives were found to have adverse environmental and land
use impacts. A fourth alternative was identified that would meet the intent of at -grade operations
which was to avoid blocking the view corridor from adjacent properties to the river. The
recommended vertical alignment would keep the top of rail at least five feet above the 100 -year
floodplain. This alternative minimizes the impact of the future trackbed by infilling along the
- riverbank to keep it above the floodplain and approximately level with adjacent properties as shown
in the drawing below.
The recommended alternative would run along the existing at -grade trackbed running east from
the 1-5 Freeway to a new bridge located east of the historic bridge. The alignment would then
continue on new fill along the south bank of the Santa Clara River at approximately the same level
as the adjacent developable property, and on new fill under the level of the existing McBean
Parkway, which would be replaced with a new bridge at a slightly higher grade. It would then
continue along the south bank at the same level as adjacent land to the Metropolitan Water District
property where it would transition to an above -grade alignment running north of Valencia Boulevard
and Soledad Canyon Road. This above -grade configuration is designed to provide grade
separation over Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. The above -grade configuration
would also allow for a future branch line along the Metropolitan Water District property to provide
direct service connection to Los Angeles. The alignment then turns south to run parallel with
existing Metrolink track to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station.
Recommended Vertical Alignment Option
-6'
-16'
The preferred alternative is projected to cost $113 million. The conceptual cost estimate provides
for two barebone station costs- one to modify the existing Metrolink station and the other at a
location to be determined near McBean Parkway.
Korve Engineering, Inc. E-3 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Impacts
The recommended alignment alternative would result in moderate -to -significant environmental
impacts due to the encroachment on Significant Ecological Area No. 23 along the Santa Clara
riverbank. The alignment impacts approximately 7.41 acres of cottonwood willow and alluvial scrub
with a probable mitigation replacement ratio of 3:1. By avoiding the San Francisquito Creek, it
results in no placement of fill in wetlands. The alignment does result in minor displacement
impacts on the William S. Hart ballfields; and has potential visual and noise impacts on the Arco
Station, the Del Rio Center, the Santa Clara Valley Dental Center and the Santa Clara Water
Company along Soledad Canyon Road. Close coordination with regulatory agencies, along with
development and implementation of mitigation measures and a monitoring program, will be
required.
Korve Engineering, Inc. E-4 November 10, 1998
I
i
M�
Chapter 1
BACKGROUND
.t
,i
7
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
1.0 BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study has been to identify and evaluate all possible rail alignment alternatives
to restore rail service through the City of Santa Clarita connecting west to the Ventura County and
east to existing Metrolink service to Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley. This study builds on
previous efforts undertaken by the City of Santa Clarita and others to preserve the Santa Paula
Branch Line and restore rail service. This section presents the study context including previous
study efforts and right-of-way preservation actions.
1.1 HISTORIC CONTEXT
At one time, Southern California was overlaid with an extensive system of active rail lines providing
regional passenger and freight service. With the frequent transfer of freight service to trucks along
with consolidation of the region's railroads, a growing number of rail lines have been underutilized,
sold or abandoned. While not currently required for passenger or freight operations, these rail lines
represent an irreplaceable opportunity to accommodate future rail service, particularly to serve the
projected need for alternative transportation options to maintain regional mobility.
Figure 1.1 Study Context
The Santa Paula Branch of the former Southern Pacific Railroad presents such an opportunity to
preserve a transportation corridor for future passenger and freight rail service. Extending east from
the Port of Ventura, this line runs parallel to State Route 126 through Ventura and Los Angeles
counties to the City of Santa Clarita with an opportunity to extend service to the growing Antelope
Valley.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 1-1 November 10, 1998
Lancaster
Ventura County
Palmdale
'
Vs/
Soho Ckaita incent Grad
Acton
t
Y_
Los Angeles County
Son
Fernando
h��'1 ,G,s J{✓i.�,
Burbank
ifY s4�h�YV�& i4 #"tl✓'riCJ'i`�d .[ .� i V y.
.
Tw.. JF��QB_J{Q PAQtS1�YIInCt1 tlfl8 t"a
N�eftdjlnk$etvi�8�
Los Angeles
Y'`9
Figure 1.1 Study Context
The Santa Paula Branch of the former Southern Pacific Railroad presents such an opportunity to
preserve a transportation corridor for future passenger and freight rail service. Extending east from
the Port of Ventura, this line runs parallel to State Route 126 through Ventura and Los Angeles
counties to the City of Santa Clarita with an opportunity to extend service to the growing Antelope
Valley.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 1-1 November 10, 1998
IVentura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
1.2 1991 ENGINEERING STUDY
The historic rail right-of-way through the City of Santa Clarita ran parallel to what is now Magic
Mountain Parkway through property which is primarily owned by the Newhall Land and Farming
Company. Based on their interest in restoring passenger rail service to access their future
development projects, Newhall Land and Farming Company commissioned an engineering study
I in 1991 to identify feasible rail alignments through the City of Santa Clarita connecting east to
existing Metrolink service and west to future service along the Santa Paula Branch Line to Ventura.
The study developed three possible new alignments using conventional rail service along the.Santa
Clara River. Ongoing discussions with the City of Santa Clarita identified the opportunity to
accommodate freight traffic and passenger rail service using Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) technology
to serve residents on three alignment options. A fourth alignment alternative, extending along
Magic Mountain Parkway and providing passenger rail service only, was also considered in this
previous study. These options are presented in Figure 1.2.
Beyond Santa Clarita city limits, the Newhall Land and Farming Company has agreed to dedicate
the historic right-of-way extending through their property from the Ventura County line to
approximately Commerce Center Drive as part of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. This agreement
allows for the preservation of a right-of-way ranging from 35-50 feet in width, including a station
area parcel, for future rail service. A two -and -a -half mile gap, approximately, exists between the
right-of-way preserved by the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and the right-of-way within the City of
Santa Clarita, which is the subject of this study. This gap in the right-of-way corridor, which falls
under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County, will need to be addressed to ensure the future viability
of any rail system plans.
1.3 PRESERVATION MEASURES
Of key interest to the City of Santa Clarita along with Ventura and Los Angeles counties, several
actions have been taken to preserve the Santa Paula Branch Line right-of-way for future use:
In Ventura County, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) has purchased
the portion of the Santa Paula Branch Line from US -101 in the City of Ventura to the
Ventura -Los Angeles county line. This 32 -mile -long section was purchased in 1995 with a
combination of federal, state and local funding and is currently being used for freight
service and for movie filming purposes.
2. In Los Angeles County, the former right-of-way runs through property owned by the Newhall
Land and Farming Company. The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and the Development
Agreement for the Newhall Ranch between the Newhall Land and Farming Company and
J
IKorve Engineering, Inc. 1-2 November 10, 1998
I
r1
1
} Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
the County of Los Angeles specify that the railroad right-of-way will be preserved as a
condition of the approval of this project from the Ventura County line to just short of the
Santa Clarita city limits, approximately Commerce Center Drive, west of the 1-5 Golden State
Freeway. This agreement allows for the preservation of a right-of-way ranging from 35-50
feet in width, including a station area parcel for future rail service,
Ventura
County
LV= as
Figure 1.3 Status of Preservation Actions
Santa GaHta
tosAngeles
County
3. East of the 1-5 Freeway, the City of Santa Clarita and the Newhall Land and Farming
Company are seeking to preserve a rail right-of-way to provide expanded future service to
this growing city. The City has taken a proactive role in the identification and preservation
of this rail corridor, identifying it in the City's Circulation Element, the Newhall Ranch Specific
Pian and the North Valencia Specific Plan.
Currently, Santa Clarita is served by Metrolink with 26 daily trains from two stations located
on Soledad Canyon Road and Via Princessa. A third station is under construction on San
Fernando Road in the Newhall area. This Metrolink service connects Santa Clarita south
to the San Fernando Valley, Glendale and downtown Los Angeles, as well as north to the
Antelope Valley. Current and future travel patterns show an increasing number of trips
along the SR -126 corridor into the western portion of the city. Provision of future rail service
along the preserved right-of-way will provide much needed future connections west to
Ventura County and through Santa Clarita to the existing Metrolink service.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 1-4 . November 10, 1998
J
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
1.4 STUDY OVERVIEW
The purpose of this study has been to identify and evaluate all possible rail alignment alternatives
to restore rail service through the City of Santa Clarita connecting west to the Ventura County and
east to existing Metrolink service to Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley. The following chapter
presents an overview of the study process and rail line alternatives that were identified and
evaluated based on engineering constraints, environmental impacts, order -of -magnitude costs and
resulting transportation benefits. A two-tier evaluation process led to a.recommended rail
alignment which is discussed in detail in Chapter Three. Chapter Four presents an overview of the
range of right-of-way preservation and service restoration strategies available to the City of Santa
Clarita. The final study chapter presents an Action Plan Framework with recommended Immediate
and Near -Term Actions to be undertaken.
t Korve Engineering, Inc. 1-5 November 10, 1998
u �-
j
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
2.0 EVALUATION OF RAIL LINE ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of the Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Restoration Study has. been to further evaluate all
possible alignment alternatives, initially identified in the 1991 study, for future rail service along an
approximately three-mile segment through the City of Santa Clarita.
A complete set of alignment alternatives with sub -options was identified and evaluated based on
engineering and operational constraints, environmental impacts, order -of -magnitude costs and
resulting transportation benefits. A two-tier evaluation process resulted in a recommended rail
alignment through the City of Santa Clarita. The following sections present a detailed discussion
of the set of alternatives considered. The recommended rail alignment alternative is presented in
the next section of this report.
A Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Restoration Study Steering Committee was formed to participate in
and guide this planning study. In addition to representatives of the City of Santa Clarita, the
Newhall Land and Farming Company and the Southern California Association of Governments, the
Steering Committee included members from the office of Los Angeles County Supervisor
Antonovich, the Ventura County Transportation Commission, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, the County of Los
Angeles Department of Regional Planning, the City of Lancaster and the City of Palmdale.
Initial Steering Committee discussion focused on clarifying the study intent by developing study
goals. These goals helped the committee to evaluate the alignment alternatives developed through
the study process. The resulting goals, or evaluation criteria, included the following:
.s
• Accommodate both passenger and freight rail service;
• Provide for the capability to operate service at Federal Railroad Administration Class 4 (80
mph) speeds;
• Allow for future regional rail connections to both Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley;
• Provide new rail service to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station;
• Support City land use policies;
• Minimize environmental impacts;
• Minimize highway impacts; and
• Result in a reasonable construction cost.
The Steering Committee considered a wide range of rail line alternatives starting with the set of
alternatives identified in the previous study efforts, as well as alternatives along the northern edge
of the Santa Clara River. Based on the above criteria, the full set of alternatives considered was
reduced to the three most viable alternatives with sub -options presented below. Two alternatives
were dropped from further consideration:
1 Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-1 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
• Alignments along the northern edge of the Santa Clara River were eliminated from further
consideration primarily due to land use and ridership considerations. Future rail service
located on the northern riverbank would negatively impact the single-family residential
development planned in this area with regard to noise and visual impacts. In addition, rail
service along this alignment would not serve Santa Clarita's commercial center located on
the southern bank.
• Use of Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) technology along the northern edge of Magic Mountain
Parkway was also deleted. This was primarily due to the fact that a rail system designed
to accommodate DMU service would preclude freight rail service and Metrolink passenger
I service.
The three alignment alternatives identified for further study are described below and presented in
the accompanying maps:
1. Alternative 1 uses the historic rail alignment extending east from 1-5 and crosses the Santa
Clara River on a new bridge located to the east of the historic bridge. This allows for higher
speed service. The rail line then continues along the south bank of the Santa Clara River
to the Metropolitan Water District property where it transitions to a new, straighter alignment
running north of Valencia Boulevard and Soledad Canyon Road. This alternative then turns
south to run parallel with the existing Metrolink track to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station.
This alignment alternative provides service to both Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley.
Option 1A uses the Metropolitan Water District right-of-way to join the existing Metrolink
track just south of Cinema Drive to provide direct service to the San Fernando Valley and
Los Angeles. This option would not provide service to the Antelope Valley.
2. Alternative 2 follows the same alignment as Alternative 1 east from 1-5 to the South Fork
- , of the Santa Clara River. This alternative then follows the north bank of the South Fork and
crosses under Magic Mountain Parkway, which would be elevated, and joins the existing
Metrolink track providing service to Los Angeles.
Option 2A follows the north bank of the South Fork to just north of Magic Mountain
Parkway where it swings sharply to the north, joining the existing Metrolink track running
to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station and the Antelope Valley.
3. , Alternative 3 follows the same alignment as Alternatives 1 and 2 east from 1-5 to the South
Fork of the Santa Clara River. This alternative then follows the same alignment as
Alternative 2 along the north bank of the South Fork to Magic Mountain Parkway where it
crosses overthe parkway, then runs parallel with San Fernando Road and joins the existing
Metrolink track providing service to Los Angeles.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-2 November 10, 1998
J
N
W
Figure 2.1 Rail Alignment Alternative 1
f,92-l.cdr 10/7M
Figure 2.2 Rail Alignment Alternative 2
N
N
Figure.2:3 Rail Alignment Alternative 3
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
s
Option 3A branches out north of Magic Mountain Parkway to extend parallel to the
proposed Magic Mountain Parkway extension with a half -mile tunnel completing the line to
connect with the existing Metrolink track and Santa Clarita Metrolink Station.
2.1 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The initial engineering assessment of the three alignment alternatives was based on rail standards
designed to accommodate both Metrolink commuter rail service and rail freight requirements. The
assessment results are summarized in Table 2.1, Comparison of Alternative Alignments. A
j detailed discussion of the engineering analysis, including project design standards, is presented
in the Rail Alignment Analysis Report provided in the Appendix.
All three alternatives were designed at a conceptual level as single-track service with a parallel
maintenance road that could be converted for a future second track when service becomes more
frequent than every 30 minutes in each direction. The recommended right-of-way width depends
on numerous factors including: adjacent land use; type of rail service; soil drainage; and the related
-� construction and maintenance costs. The conceptual engineering plans call for a 100 -foot right-of-
way where possible, with a narrowing of the right-of-way to 50 feet where constrained.
These right-of-way alternatives reflect a concern that narrower rights-of-way increase noise, and
_ vibration impacts on adjacent residential and commercial properties, as well as result in higher
construction and maintenance costs. Narrower right-of-ways can also increase the potential risk
i to adjacent properties due to train derailments and other rail service accidents. Narrower rights-of-
way lead to higher construction costs primarily due to the resulting constrained construction site,
which may then require expensive mitigation measures for adjacent residents and the purchase
and/or lease of additional property to store construction materials. A wider right-of-way allows for
these construction activities to be accommodated on railroad property and typically mitigates a
majority of the construction impacts. A wider right-of-way also reduces maintenance costs by
allowing for incorporation of maintenance access roads and facilities within the right-of-way
improving accessibility and ease of maintenance activities. A wider right-of-way also preserves
• • room for future service improvement needs such as a second track, or a station area, while offering
the ability to accommodate related uses such as a bike trail system.
Due to the heavy existing and future automobile traffic on all of the City's arterials, all rail -highway
crossings were assumed to be grade separated, where rail activity is physically separated from all
vehicular traffic . Due to floodplain considerations, the railroad would be raised on bridges across
roadways and then continue in a raised configuration along the riverbank on earthen fill.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-6 November 10, 1998
e�
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
In summary, other conceptual engineering assumptions for all rail line alternatives included:
• Reuse of the existing alignment and curvature of the historic rail line under the 1-5 Freeway
and the Old Road. Existing rail alignment conditions limit passenger train speed to about
45 mph adjacent to the proposed Magic Mountain Station.
• Construction of a new bridge over the Santa Clara River to allow for a higher operational
speed of 80 mph. Designing a curved alignment, which would avoid the high-voltage
electric line towers could reduce the cost of a new bridge. However, the revised alignment
would result in reduced operating train speeds.
• Completion of the Santa Clara River channelization prior to future rail construction.
• Rather than purchase full 100 -foot rights-of-way from Southern California Edison adjacent
to their high voltage power lines, design the line with a sloping/grading easement which
would reduce the required right-of-way by 50 percent.
• Construction of a new railroad grade separation to grade separate McBean Parkway.
• Rebuild all displaced recreational trails fronting on the Santa Clara River,
Table 2.1: Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Alignment
1
2
3
Running time to:
-Antelope Valley
- Los Angeles
Fast
Moderate
Slow
Moderate
Fast
Moderate
Freight compatible?
Yes
Not to
Antelope Valley
Yes
New Rail Line to Metrolink Station?
Yes
No
Yes
Order -of -magnitude cost (millions)
$92
$89
$114
In summary, the initial engineering assessment results showed the following:
1. Alternative 1 results in a fast running time to the Antelope.Valley and a moderate running
time to Los Angeles, accommodates both freight and passenger service, and provides new
1 rail service from Ventura to the Santa Cladta Metrolink Station. This alternative is projected
to cost $92 million.
I
Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-7 November 10, 1998
6
M
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
2. Alternative 2 provides a slow running time to the Antelope Valley and a moderate running
time to Los Angeles, does not accommodate freight service to the Antelope Valley, and
does not provide new rail service to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. This alternative is
estimated to cost $89 million.
3. Alternative 3 results in a fast running time to the Antelope Valley and a moderate running
time to Los Angeles, accommodates both freight and passenger service, and provides new
rail service to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. This alternative is projected to have the
highest cost at $114 million. While this alternative saves construction costs in soil
-" excavation, highway underpass construction, bike path and utilities relocation and retaining
wall construction, the tunnel connection to provide Antelope Valley service is projected to
add approximately $21 million to the project cost.
2.2 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The following four maps present the results of the initial traffic assessment of roadways that could
- cross the three alignment alternatives for existing and future conditions. The existing annual daily
traffic volumes show that the highest traffic volumes currently occur on the three streets potentially
affected by future rail service:
Valencia Boulevard has the highest daily traffic volumes in the study area with 26,700 daily
northbound trips and 23,800 southbound trips;
McBean Parkway has the second highest daily volumes with 22,432 northbound trips and
20,315 southbound trips in the commercial area adjacent to the common segment of all
three rail alignment alternatives; and
San Fernando Road/Magic Mountain Parkway is the third most active roadway in the study
area with 16,000 daily northbound trips and 16,700 daily southbound trips.
The existing peak hour volume map indicates that the highest peak hour volumes in the study area
occur on the same three streets. Sixteen percent of the daily traffic occurs during the peak hour -
the same period that peak commuter rail service would be operating in the study area.
The projected future (year 2020) annual daily traffic is presented in two maps - one showing the
estimated growth in annual daily traffic and a second map comparing that future volume growth to
the street capacity with planned improvements. The year 2020 projections show the following
impacts on the three streets:
Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-8 November 10, 1998
N
<O
Figure 2.4 Existing (1997-1998) Peak Hour Volume
N
O
Figure 2.5 Existing (1997-1998) Average Annual Daily Traffic
N
i
Figure 2.6 Future Link Levels of Service
N
N
Figure 2.7 Projected Future (2020 & Beyond) Average Annual Daily Traffic
Rename: rg2.7.Mr iQW
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
Valencia Boulevard - A 29 percent growth in traffic volumes is projected to result in an
estimated level of service "D" to "E." Level of service D indicates that traffic volumes are
beginning to approach capacity, but have not yet resulted in unstable flow conditions. Level
of service E indicates that traffic volumes have reached capacity with unstable traffic flow.
McBean Parkway- A 64 percent growth in traffic volumes is projected to result in a level
of service "D" adjacent to the proposed rail right-of-way.
• San Fernando Road/Magic Mountain Parkway - A minor growth in traffic volume, along
with planned improvements, will allow this intersection to remain at a level of service "B."
• Level of service B indicates free flow traffic conditions.
• _t
The addition of peak hour, at -grade rail service would have a significant impact on the traffic flow
on city streets crossing the future rail right-of-way. Many communities with existing at -grade
I commuter and freight rail service are currently going through the effort of seeking federal and state
funds to grade separate their road and rail facilities to provide safe, high-quality service on both
transportation systems. Construction of a grade -separated railroad system represents the best
operational decision for the City of Santa Clarita.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS
At this planning stage, the identified alignment alternatives were environmentally assessed under
both the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection
- Act (NEPA). CEQA review is required by state law to provide an informed basis for decision-
making, while NEPA review is necessary if federal funds are to be sought in the future. The
environmental assessment results presented below are preliminary in scope, and a more detailed
environmental review would be prepared in the next planning stages.
Each of the three alignment alternatives was assessed based on the following environmental
considerations:
Hazards - including encroachment into the 100 -year floodplain, the potential for river bank
erosion and sedimentation, encroachment into the earthquake special study zone; and
potential noise impacts to residential receptors;
Biological Resources - including the number of river crossings, encroachment into sensitive
habitats, impacts on wetlands and rivers, encroachment into Significant Ecological Areas
(as designated in the Santa Clarita General Plan), and disturbance to listed plant and
wildlife species;
Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-13 November 10, 1998
11
N
A
Figure 2.8 Hazards
Existing Bank Stabilization
-------- RiverIn
® 100 Year Flood Plain
500 Year Flood Plain
0 San Gabriel Fault Zone
Figure 2.9 Natural Resources
.6
CrI
A r.4
Cottonwood - Willow Riparilan Woodland
LLJ Agricultural Fields Special Status F -I Mule Fat Scrub
Alluvial Scrub- Disturbed Developed Non -Native Grassland
Alluvial Scrub -Special Status
Disturbed Riparian Scrub - Special Status
Cottonwood - Willow Riparian Woodland Disturbed I Ruderal Upland Riversidian Sage Scrub
sturbed [a
F—I Unsurveyed Area - Outside of Oak Tree
Corridor SEA Boundary
li Cr L _ LY L__.: 1..._.: i ...
Figure 2.10. Utilities and Recreation
Existing Trails
Proposed Trails
Rail
LA County Flood Control District
® MWD
® Parks
Proposed Elementary School
SC Edison
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
• Cultural Resources - resulting impacts to known archaeological sites and historic sites (the
existing railroad bridge and the Saugus Cafe);
• Air Quality - resulting positive and adverse impacts on regional air emissions and the
creation of carbon monoxide "hotspots;"
• Parks and Recreation - resulting impacts to existing and proposed parks and trails;
• Utilities - encroachment into the right-of-way of the three utilities in the study area:
Southern California Edison, the Metropolitan Water District and the Los Angeles County
t Flood District;
• Land Use - resulting residential and business displacements and potential land use
conflicts. Implementation of rail service also has the potential to support redevelopment
efforts and existing land use policies and provide access to key activity centers.
The summary of the initial environmental assessment results presented in Table 2.2 on pages 2-21
to 2-28 shows the following:
.1
• Alternatives 1, 2 and 3- Reduce vehicle miles traveled, support improved regional air
quality, and enhance local and regional mobility. All three alternatives support land use
policies, including the Community Town Center and Valley Center Concept Overlay, and
provide access to key activity centers. Resulting impacts include: one grade -separated
crossing of the Santa Clara River, minor -to -moderate impacts on the 100 -year
floodplain/flood line and related potential for bank erosion; and potential minor -to -moderate
disturbance to listed plant and.wildlife species.
• The common segment - All of the alternatives include the segment from the 1-5 Freeway
to the south fork of the Santa Clara River. This segment has some of the most significant
environmental impacts including: potential for fill in wetlands and waters of the United
States; potential encroachment into Significant Ecological Area No. 23; potential for
significant disturbance to existing and future trails; and potential noise impacts on the South
River Village residential development.
• Alternative 110ption 1A - Provide the best support for the City's Community Town Center
and Valley Center Concept Overlay land use policies.
• Alternative 1- Provides the strongest support for the Community Town Center and Valley
Center Concept Overlay land use policies and the best access to key activity centers. This
alternative crosses the San Gabriel Fault Zone at -grade, runs along the riverbank in
Significant Ecological Area No. 23 for almost its entire length, has a moderate impact on
Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-17 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way' City of Santa Clarita
listed wildlife species, and potentially displaces an Arco gas station. This alternative does
not create potential noise impacts on sensitive land or encroach upon property owned by
the area's three utilities.
• Option 1A- Requires an easement through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) property
and results in minor noise impacts on adjacent residential units as it runs through the MWD
site.
• Alternative 2/Option 2A- Result in potential noise impacts on residential and other
sensitive land uses. Both alternatives would significantly impact existing recreational
E facilities. Both alternatives require additional easements through the Southern California
Edison (SCE) right-of-way and displace. auto -related commercial businesses on the west
side of San Fernando Road. These alternatives best support Newhall Redevelopment
- Project efforts.
• Alternative 2- May impact the Saugus Cafe, a potential historic resource.
• Alternative 3/Option 3A - Result in potential noise impacts on residential and other
sensitive land uses and significant impacts on existing recreational facilities. Both
alternatives require additional easements through the Southern California Edison right-of-
way, have significant potential land use conflicts, and result in the displacement of auto -
related commercial businesses on the west side of San Fernando Road.
• Alternative 3 - Results in potential land use conflicts and moderate business displacement
of commercial uses located south of San Fernando Road.
• Option 3A - Crosses the San Gabriel Fault Zone in a tunnel, may disturb small quantities
of coastal sage scrub at tunnel portals, and results in potentialbusiness displacement of
industrial uses on the east side of San Fernando Road.
2.4 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
In summary, the comprehensive assessment of the initial set of alternatives resulted in the
following findings:
• Alternative 1 - Accommodates freight and passenger rail service, provides future
connections to both Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley, and provides new rail service to
the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. While this alternative does potentially have moderate -
to -significant environmental impacts related to rail operation along the Santa Clara
riverbank, this alignment alternative has little or no noise impacts on sensitive uses, land
Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-18 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
use conflicts, or business displacements. It provides the best support for the City's adopted
land use policies.
• Alternative 2 - Does not provide rail service to the Antelope Valley,,nor does it provide
new rail service to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. While option 2A allows for a rail
connection to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station and Antelope Valley; the tight curve does
not meet any current railroad standards and precludes freight operations. This alternative
results in moderate -to -significant noise impacts on adjacent residential properties, has
significant impacts on existing recreational facilities, and results in land use conflicts and
the displacement of area businesses.
j
• Alternative 3 - Without the costly tunnel connection, this alternative does not provide rail
service to the existing Santa Clarita Metrolink Station or to the Antelope .Valley. This
alternative results in moderate -to -significant noise impacts on adjacent residential
properties, has significant impacts on existing recreational facilities, and results in land use
conflicts and displacement of area businesses.
2.4.1 Steering Committee Discussion
The Steering Committee discussed the assessment results and reached a preliminary consensus
that Alternative 1 appeared to be the most viable alternative based on the following points:
Accommodates both freight and passenger rail service;
Provides future connections to both Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley; and
Provides new rail service to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station.
During the Steering Committee discussion, participants raised concern regarding the proposal to
construct the future rail service on raised earthen fill, which would block views of the river for area
residents, particularly South River Village residents (see Figure 2.11). A potential solution was
identified to run the rail service at -grade along the riverbank and raise any roadway crossings over
the rail system, thus avoiding the need for the raised earthen fill. There was agreement that this
idea appeared.viable and would address some of the environmental and engineering concerns
regarding river and floodplain impacts. The consultant team was directed to conceptually lay out
the revised alternative and perform an initial engineering and environmental assessment of that
alternative for further Steering Committee consideration.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-19 November 10, 1998
.1
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
I Korve Engineering, Inc. 2-20 November 10, 1998
I
I
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 2.2: Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Environmental Issue/Measure Common Segment I la 2 2a 3 3a Comments
+++- Affects issue to a significant degree ++- Affects issue to a moderate degree +- Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
.
....... . .. .
-NOW
..... . . ... .. .. ,
..... . .... . .
M . .. . .....
EM lwmm�. -Mom-
Encroachment into 100 -year
+ +
+
++ +
All alternative alignments
floodplain and County Capital
This segment is almost
415.6k cy
273.3k cy
229.9k cy
229.9k cy
365.9k cy 290.3k cy
are within 100 -year
Flood Line
entirely within the 100 -year
of fill
of fill
of fill
of fill
of fill of fill
floodplain; bank
floodplain/flood line: 430.6k
stabilization/fill required for
cubic yards of fill
much of the alignment
Potential for erosion of river
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+
Bank stabilization/fill
banks and sedimentation
required for much of the
alignment; soils in vicinity
potentially expansive
Encroachment into earthquake
0
+
0
0
0
0
+
I and 3a cross the San
special study zone
The San Gabriel Fault Zone
Gabriel Fault Zone; I at
is east of the common
grade and 3a In tunnel;
segment
although max. probable
magnitude of 6.3, there is
low probability of movement
over the next 100 years
Potential noise Impacts to
+ +
0
+
+ +
+ +
+
2, 2a, 3, and 3a follow the
residential receptors (>65 dB
Proposed attached and
east bank of the South
during the day or >55 d13 at
clustered units at South
Fork, within 250 feet of
night)
River Village
multi -family units (including
Canyon Club) on San
Fernando Road; 2 and 3
also pass near single-family
residences west across
South Fork
+++- Affects issue to a significant degree ++- Affects issue to a moderate degree +- Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
N
N
N
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 2.2: Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Environmental Issue/Measure Common Segment 1 1a 2 2a 3 3a Comments
Disturbance to listed plant
+ +
o
a
o
o
c
+
Minimal habitat could occur
species expected in the corridor:
Potential in alluvial scrub
at tunnel portals of 3a
slender -horned spineflower
Disturbance to listed (rare,
endangered, threatened) wildlife
species:
- Least Bell's Vireo and Willow
+ + +
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
May occur in riparian habitat
Flycatcher
Potential in riparian habitat
along Santa Clara River
west of Bouquet Canyon
- California Condor
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Expected to forage in the
Expected to forage in the
area
area
- U armored Threespine
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+
Segment of Santa Clara
Stickleback
Segment lies within
River along project corridor
designated Essential
lies in EMA, 1 has the
Management Area (EMA)
greatest amount of ROW In
the EMA
Arroyo Southwestern Toad
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+
Recently reported in Santa
Suitable habitat in riparian
Clara River west of McBean
I
and alluvial areas
I
I
I
Parkway (1996)
+++. Affects Issue to a significant degree ++- Affects issue to a moderate degree + - Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
N
N
CA)
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 2.2: Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Environmental Issue/Measure Common Segment 1 1a 2 2a 3 3a Comments
Placement of fill in
wetlandshvaters of the US:
- Santa Clara River
+
0
0
0
0
0
o
Permanent loss due to
X0.2 ac
bridge supports
- San Francisquito
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
All alignments avoid the
No disturbance
San Francisquito Creek
Encroachment into SEAS:
- No. 23/Santa Clara River
+ + +
+ + +
+ +
+
+
+
+
1 is in SEA N0.23 for almost
This segment follows the
its entire length; 1 a extends
Santa Clara River
to the MWD ROW; 2, 2a, 3,
and 3a divert from SEA No.
23 at the South Fork
- No. 19/San Francisquito Creek
o
0
0
o
o
a
o
All alignments avoid the
This segment does not
San Francisquito Creek
cross the San Francisquito
Creek
Disturbance to regionally
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
No oak trees identified
sensitive oak trees
None affected
along alignments
Number of river crossings/iength
+ +
0
0
0
0
0
o
Only river crossings occur
Across Santa Clara River at
within the common segment
the west end (about 900
feet); across the South Fork
(about 1,200 feet)
+++- Affects Issue to a significant degree ++. Affects issue to a moderate degree + - Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 2.2: Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Environmental Issue/Measure Common Segment I la 2 2a 3 3a Comments
Encroachment into sensitive
I
habitats (linear feet/acres):
- Coastal sage scrub
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
3a may disturb small
Not found along this
quantities of low quality
segment
scrub at the tunnel portals
- Cottonwood Willow
+ + +
++
++
+
+
+
+
3900'4-5 ac
2400'
1000,
600'
600'
609
600,
2-3 ac
1-2 ac
<1 ac
<1 ac
<1 ac
<1 ac
- Riparian scrub
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not found along this
segment
-Alluvial Scrub
+ +
+
+
0
0
0
0
1500' 1-2 ac
700'
500,
<1 ac
<1 as
M U Wak�
Disturbance to known 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not applicable, since no
archaeological sites There are no resources
known archaeological
within this segment
resources occur in the
project corridor
Disturbance to the riveted steel
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
All alignments avoid this
Warren truss RR bridge
This segment would avoid
structure
using the bridgeto merge
with the existing ROW
+++ - Affects issue to a significant degree
++ -Affects issue to a moderate degree + - Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 2.2: Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Environmental Issue/Measure Common Segment 1 12 2 2a 3 3a Comments
Disturbance to Saugus Caf6
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
2 passes near this site
(historic site)
This segment is not near
the site
2 i*4'*'u#m,��,,-,�5..:,��*,I
", . ........
..
5 x:R� "X-
Regional air emissions
+ +
+
+
+
All alternatives reduce
Beneficial effect
vehicle miles traveled and
support improved regional
air quality
Carbon monoxide "hotspots"
+
+ +
+ +
0
0
0
0
1 and 1 a have termini that
Minor effect
draw traffic through Bouquet
Cyn/San Fernando
Rd.Nalencla Blvd., which is
projected at LOS F
.. . . . . .... .. ...... .....
M..
.. . . ......... ......
ffiffil A:M
}larks and ilei eattrf':::
-W,
Disturbance to Pony League
0
+
+
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1 and la traverse the
This segment ends west of
northern boundary and may
park
pose noise impacts; all
other alignments may
involve using portions of the
park for ROW
Disturbance to proposed parks
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
No other proposed parks
This segment passes near
near the alignment
proposed park in South
River Village
+++ - Affects issue to a significant degree ++-Affects issue to a moderate degree + - Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 2.2: Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Environmental Issue/Measure Common Segment 1 la 2 2a 3 3a Comments
Disturbance to existingtrails
+ + +
+
+
+
+
+
+
All alignments involve one
/
Conflict east of McBean
grade -separated crossing of
Parkway along riparian
Santa Clara River Trail
restoration area
Disturbance to proposed trails
+ + +
o
0
0
0
0
o
No other proposed trails
Conflict along Santa Clara
potentially affected
R. Trail at McBean Parkway
£ Y¢'e.
giJNli£te$ 4 ¢i' i .;,
:' .:,<..
t ....... 4.:. ..: s..3 .....,..:..`
.. •,
: , s 'a:.
.,.,
...
£...
?, i bas
Encroachment into ROW
+
o
+ +
+
+
+
+
1a requires use of MWD; 2,
SCE and LACFCD
2a, 3, and 3a require
additional SCE easements
,<?.........
..
z .:
ff
Displacement
o
+
o
+
+
+ +
+ +
1, Arco station; 2 and 2a.
Segment crosses currently
auto -related commercial
undeveloped land
businesses on the west side
of San Fernando Rd.; 3,
same as 2 plus portion of
commercial strip further
south: 3a, same as 2 plus
industrial uses on the east
side of San Fernando Rd.
+++- Affects issue to a significant degree ++- Affects issue to a moderate degree +- Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
L_
N
N
V
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 2.2: Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Environmental Issue/Measure Common Segment 1 1a 2 2a 3 3a Comments
Potential to support
redevelopment efforts
o
Segment is not near
redevelopment or
revitalization efforts
0
0
+ +
+ +
+
0
2 and 2a have termini within
the Newhall Redevelopment
Project Area; terminus for 3
is just south; Magic
Mountain/San Fernando (on
west side) designated for
Community Commercial
Support policies of Community.
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+
All lie within the overlay
Town Center and Valley Center
Segment lies within overlay
zone, with 1 and 1 a to a
Concept Overlay
zone
greater extent
Potential land use conflict
+ +
+ +
+
+
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
1, visual isolation/noise at
Within 309 of 9-10 lots of
Community Commercial
South River Village; South
uses along Soledad Cyn.
River Village water quality
Rd.; 1 a, proximate to San
basin; Santa Clara River
Fernando Rd. residences;
Conservation Area
2, proximate San Fernando
Rd. residences, precludes
proposed commercial lot at
Pony League; 2a, isolation/
noise, visual at San
Fernando Rd. residences,
precludes proposed
commercial lot at Pony
League; 3, 3a, preclude
proposed commercial use
at Pony League (1 lot),
adjacent to San Fernando
Rd. residences
+++. Affects issue to a significant degree ++- Affects Issue to a moderate degree + -Affects Issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 2.2: Environmental Comparison of Alternative Alignments
Environmental Issue/Measure Common Segment 1 la 2 2a 3 3a Comments
Access/proximity to key activity
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
1 offers best connection to
centers (within 1/4 mile)
Magic Mountain
existing Metrolink station
and Saugus Speedway; all
enhance local and regional
mobility
+++-Affects Issue to a significant degree
++ - Affects issue to a moderate degree +_ Affects Issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
Chapter 3
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SOM
J�
J
J:
Chapter 3
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SOM
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
3.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alignment alternative continues to use the same horizontal alignment, or path, as in
the initial set of alternatives:
Alternative 1, identified in Figure 3.1, uses the historic rail alignment running east from 1-5 and
crosses the Santa Clara River on a new bridge located to the east of the historic bridge which
allows for higher speed service. This alternative then continues along the south bank of the Santa
Clara River to the Metropolitan Water District property where it transitions to a new, straighter
alignment running north of Valencia Boulevard and Soledad Canyon Road. This alternative then
turns south to run parallel with the existing Metrolink track to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station.
This alignment alternative provides service to both Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley. Option
1A uses the Metropolitan Water District right-of-way to join the existing Metrolink track just south
't of Cinema Drive to provide direct service to the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles. Option 1A
would not provide service to the Antelope Valley.
Two vertical alignments were evaluated: 1) rail service operating at -grade or level with the Santa
Clara riverbank; and 2) rail service running in a trench along the riverbank.
3.1 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Conceptual engineering analysis revealed that constructing an at -grade (or level) track with the
Santa Clara riverbank is not viable due to floodplain constraints. The existing riverbank has a
rolling profile with the bank edge varying in vertical height drastically from point-to-point. Rail line
construction along the existing riverbank contours would negatively impact an ecologically sensitive
area and preclude rail operations during flood conditions at some locations. Table 3.1 on page 3-7
provides detailed vertical alignment information.
An alternative alignment was identified that would meet the intent of at -grade rail operations, keep
the top of the track at least five feet above the 100 -year floodplain, and is viable from an
engineering perspective. This alternative minimizes the impact of the future trackbed by infilling
along the riverbank to keep it above the floodplain and approximately level with adjacent properties
as shown in Figure 3.2. This alternative would extend along the existing at -grade trackbed running
east from the 1-5 Freeway to a new bridge located to the east of the historic bridge. It would then
continue on new fill along the south bank of the Santa Clara River at the same level as the adjacent
developable property, and on new fill under the level of the existing McBean Parkway, which would
be replaced with a new slightly raised bridge. This alternative would continue along the south bank
at the same level as adjacent land to the Metropolitan Water District property where it would
' transition to an above -grade alignment running north of Valencia Boulevard and Soledad Canyon
Road. This above -grade configuration is designed to provide grade separationoverValencia
Boulevard and Bouquet Canyon Road and would allow for a branch line along the MWD property
to provide direct service to Los Angeles. This alternative then turns south to run parallel to the
existing Metrolink track to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. This alternative is projected to cost
$113 million as shown in Table 3.2 on page 3-8.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 3-1 November 10, 1998
oy
w
N
Figure 3.1 Preferred Alignment Alternative
Fkmme: fig9 I.cdr 10J23A3
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
Figure 3.2 Revised At -Grade Alignment Option
s
:t
—6'
FLOOD
HEIGHT
The trenching alternative, depicted in Figure 3.3, included placing the future rail line in a watertight
trench along the riverbank edge. After crossing the river on a new bridge located to the east of the
historic bridge, this alternative would run at -grade until just before McBean Parkway Bridge, which
would require minor changes to allow for the necessary rail clearance. This alternative would then
return to ground level for a short distance to cross the South Fork before transitioning into another
t trench under Bouquet Canyon Road. This alternative would then cross over Soledad Canyon Road
and return to at -grade to serve the existing Santa Clarita Metrolink Station with through -service to
the Antelope Valley and transfer a to the Los Angeles service. The trenching alternative is also
viable, but is more costly with an estimated price of $160 million.
0
Figure 3.3 Revised Trench Alignment Option
Retaining Wall
FLOOD
Watertight Trench
Korve Engineering, Inc. 3-3 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
3.2 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS
As all rail -highway system crossings would be grade -separated, there would be no impact on the
City's traffic operations, except for minor impacts at the station areas during peak periods.
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Table 3.3 on pages 3-9 to 3-14 presents a summary of the environmental effects of the preferred
rail alignment. This assessment was based on the same environmental considerations used in the
previous assessment efforts. Preliminary assessment results are presented for: the common
segment for all alternatives considered; the refined preferred Alternative 1; and, for comparison
purposes, Option 1A which uses the Metropolitan Water District right-of-way to join the existing
Metrolink track just south of Cinema Drive to provide service to Los Angeles. In summary, the
environmental assessment results indicated the following:
• The common segment - All of the alternatives identified and evaluated in this study
include the segment from the 1-5 Freeway to the south fork of the Santa Clara River. This
segment has some of the most significant environmental impacts including: potential for fill
_ in wetlands and waters of the United States; potential encroachment into Significant
Ecological Area No. 23; potential for significant disturbance to existing and future
recreational trails; and potential noise impacts on the -South River Village residential
development.
_- The refined preferred alternative - Reduces vehicle miles traveled, supports improved
regional air quality, and enhances local and regional mobility. It supports City land use
policies including the Community Town Center and Valley Center Concept Overlay Zone,
and provision of access to key activity centers. Resulting impacts include: one grade -
separated roadway crossing the Santa Clara River; minor -to -moderate impacts on the 100 -
year floodplain/flood line and related potential for bank erosion; and potential minor -to -
moderate disturbance to listed plant and wildlife species.
The following presents a more detailed overview of the refined preferred alternative by assessment
category:
• Land Use - minor displacement impacts on the William S. Hart ballfields; potential visual
isolation and noise impacts on the Arco Station, the Del Rio Center, the Santa Clarita Valley
Dental Center and the Santa Clarita Water Company along Soledad Canyon Road.
The preferred alignment lies within the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, but at this
point, no new station is proposed in the Project Area. This alternative enhances local and
regional mobility by providing a local connection to the existing Metrolink station and
regional connection to Los Angeles and Antelope Valley.
Cultural Resources _ No impacts as the preferred alignment avoids both the historic railroad
bridge and the Saugus. Cafe, a potential historic resource.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 3-4 November 10, 1998
i
J
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
_. Air Quality- Has beneficial effect by reducing vehicle miles traveled and supports improved
regional air quality. The preferred alternative would attract additional traffic through Bouquet
Canyon, which is projected to operate at LOS F in 2020.
• Utilities - Has no impact on the right-of-way of the three utilities in the study area.
• Hazards - Has no noise impacts to residential receptors; alignment will require bank
stabilization/fill for much of the alignment; soils in vicinity are potentially expansive increasing
risk of river bank erosion and sedimentation; and the alignment crosses the San Gabriel
Fault Zone.
• Biological Resources - Requires new river crossing at South Fork; has no effect on coastal
sage scrub and riparian scrub, but impacts a total of approximately 7.41 acres of
cottonwood willow and alluvial scrub with a probable mitigation replacement ratio of 3:1. By
avoiding San Francisquito Creek, Alternative 1 results in no placement of fill in wetland/water
of the U.S. but does encroach in Significant Ecological Area No. 23 for almost its entire
length. Alternative 1 has impacts on listed wildlife species in riparian habitat along the Santa
Clara River.
_ Option 1A provides no local or regional connection to the existing Santa Clarita Metrolink station nor
to the Antelope Valley, severely impacting future freight service opportunities. This alternative does
provide a direct connection to the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles. Option 1A has more
significant environmental impacts and would result in land use conflicts and displacements. It has
significant encroachment impacts into the rights-of-way of all three utilities and has potential noise
_ impacts due to its proximity to multi -family structures along Bouquet Canyon Road. This option
does have fewer biological resource impacts due to its divergence from the South Fork riverbank.
Option 1A should be dropped from further consideration as the preferred alignment option, but
should continue to be considered as a future branch line providing a direct connection to Los
Angeles.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
Alternative 1, in the at -grade vertical alignment configuration, is recommended for adoption as the
preferred alignment altemative through the City of Santa Clarita. This alternative provides significant
local and regional transportation advantages over -the other rail alignment alternatives considered
in previous efforts and this study. Alternative 1 meets a majority of the study goals including:
I 1
• Accommodates both passenger and freight rail service;
• Allows for predominant operation at Federal Railroad Administration Class 4 speeds;
• Provides new rail service to the Santa Clarita Metrolink station;
• Supports City land use policies;
• Minimizes highway impacts; and
• Results in a fairly reasonable construction cost.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 3-5 November 10, 1998
I�
i Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
This alternative does have moderate -to -significant environmental impacts related to passenger and
freight rail operation along the Santa Clarita riverbank. Close coordination with regulatory agencies,
along with development and implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring, will be required.
The revised at -grade alignment alternative is recommended for adoption as it is more viable than
the trench alternative from an environmental, engineering, land use and cost perspective.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 3-6 November 10, 1998
LA
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
Table 3.1 Preferred Alternative: Vertical Alignment Information
Street
Distance
from 1-5
Freeway
Present
Ground
Elev.
Approx.
Flood
Height
Top of Rail
Elev.
Top of
Fill/Grade
Elevation
Fill Height
Adj.
Land
Height
Rail Height
Above
500
1,070
1,073
1,070
0
1,075
(2)
11000
1,062
1,078
1.075
13
1,079
(1)
1,500
1,081
1,084
1,081
0
11081
3
2,000
1,086
1,079
1,087
1,084
(2)
n/a
n/a
2,500
1,058
1,080
11089
11086
28
1,089
3,000
1,057
1,090
1,087
30
1,090
31500
1,071
1,092
1,089
16
1,093
(1)
4,000
1,070
1,094
1,091
21
1,095
(1)
4,500
1,098
1.096
1,093
(5)
1,098
(2)
51000
1 1,084
1,090
1,098
1,095
11
1,100 -
(2)
5,500
1,090
1,102
1,099
9
1,100
2
6,000
1,084
1.095
1,106
11103
19
1,100
6
6,500
1.090
1,110
1,107
17
1,111
(1)
7,000
1,104
1,103
1,112
1,109
5
1,113
(1)
McBean
7,500
1,116
1,116
1.113
(3)
1,119
(3)
8,000
1,120
1,121
1,118
(2)
1,123
(2)
8.500
1,099
1,115
1,125
1,122
23
1,124
1
9,000
1,110
1,128
1.125
15
1,127
1
91500
1,111
1,131
1,128
17
1,128
3
10,000
1,120
1,124
1,134
1,131
11
1,133
1
10,500
1,125
1,138
1,135
10
n/a
n/a
11,000
1,130
1,137
1,146
1,143
13
n/a
n/a
11,500
1,130
1,156
1,153
23
Na
n/a
12,000
1,128
1,163
1.160
32
Na
n/a
12.500
1,139
1,144
1,168
1,165
26
1,151
17
13,000
1,139
1,173
1,170
31
1,153
20
13,500
1,150
1,152
1,180
1,177
27
1,157
23
Bouquet
14,000
1,164
1,157
1.186
1,183
19
1,164
22
14,500
1,155
1,189
1,186
31
1,166
23
15,ODD
1,159 1
1.191
1,188
29
1,166
25
15,500
1,165
1,195
1,192
27
1,166
29
Soledad
16,000
1,178
1,200
1,197
19
1,176
24
16,500
11190
1,213
1,210
20
1,180
33
17,000
1,216
1.208
1,205
(Irl))
Na
n/a
17300
1219
1216
1,213
n/a
n/a
I
Korve Engineering, Inc. 3-7 November 10, 1998
I Korve Engineering, Inc. 3-8 November 10, 1998
I
_i �
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way
City of Santa Clarita
Table 3.2 Conceptual Cost Estimate for Route 1, 1a
South Bank of Santa Clarita River
CAPITAL COSTS Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Costs ($98)
Grading
Clear and Grub
45
Acre
$ 3,300
$ 148,000
Excavate Rock
CY
25
Excavate Soil
27,557
CY
6
165,000
Purchase Fill
911,628
CY
4
3,647,000
i
Transport/Place Fill
884,071
CY
5
4,420,000
Place Subbailast
19,536
LF
15
293,000
Grade/Gravel road
-
LF
30
-
Seed
163,136
SY
1
163,000
{
Highway Crossings
Crossing Surface
-
Track
30,000
-
Install/Modify Warning Devices
-
Each
200,000
-
Install/Modify Warning Devices
-
Each
125,000
-
Track
Build Track
3.7
Mile
686,400
2,540,000
-
Rehabilitate Track
-
Mile
90,000
-
Shift/Throw Track
-
Each
12,500
-
•
Shift/Relocate Existing Track
-
Mile
60,000
-
Retire Existing Tracks
-
Mile
(30,000)
-
Medium Speed Turnout
4
Each
170,000
680,000
Medium Speed Turnout
-.
Each
170,000
-
Slow Speed Turnout
-
Each
130,000
-
Install RR Crossing
-
Each
90,000
-
Structures
New Bridge Over Highway
4
Each
3,000,000
12,000,000
New Bridge at McBean Parkway
1
Each
15,000,000
15,000,000
Lower Highway- Valencia Boulevard
1
Each
1,000,000
1,000,000
Lower Highway- Bouquet Canyon Road
1
Each
1,000,000
1,000,000
'-'
Trail Underpasses
1
Each
500,000
500,000
River Crossings
2
Each
5,000,000
10,000,000
Pipeline Bridge
1
Each
200,000
200,000
Trestling
500
Feet
4,000
2,000,000
-
Relocate Bike Path
4,500
Feet
Soo
2,700,000
Retaining Walls
7,800
Feet
800
6,240,000
River Lining
12,200
Feet
250
3,050,000
Drainage Structures/Culverts
1
Lump
$0,000
50,000
Signals
-
interlocking - Modify
-
Each
400,000
-
-
Interlocking-
3
Each
600,000
1,800,000
Retire Interlocking
-
Each
200,000
-
_i
Electric Lock
-
Each
110,000
-
Install Intermediates
3.7
Mile
100,000
370,000
Stations
2
Each
1,000,000
2,000,000
Parking
-
Lump
320,000
-
'
r
Utility Relocation
1
Lump
2,550,000
2,550,000
Land
Rail Corridor
n/a
Lump
100,000
-
Non -rail Land
n/a
Lump
100,000
-
I
Purchase/Remove Building
1
Each
unknown
-
Possible Wetlands Relocation
n/a
Acre
50,000
-
Permitting
1
Lump
2,000,000
2.000.000
Subtotal
$ 74,516,000
• •
Engineering and Project Management - 17 percent
12,668,000
Contingency - 30 percent
26.155.000
t
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
$ 113,339,000
f
Source: RLBA estimates
I Korve Engineering, Inc. 3-8 November 10, 1998
I
_i �
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 3.3: Environmental Comparison of Preferred Alignment
Environmental Issue/Measures Common Segment 1 la Comments
+++. Affects issue to a significant degree ++-Affects issue to a moderate degree +- Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
-
X",
Uwnn�
N11—
�*-�
.."0
. ........... .
Encroachment into 100 -year floodplain
+ + + +
+
All segments are partially within 100 -year floodplain; bank
and County Capital Flood Line
stabilizationtfill required for much of the alignment.
Potential for erosion of river banks and
+ +
+ +
+
Bank stabilization/fill required for much of the alignment; soils in
sedimentation
vicinity potentially expansive.
Encroachment into earthquake special
0
+
0
Alternative I crosses the San Gabriel Fault Zone on an elevated fill
study zone
embankment; although max. probable magnitude of 6.3, there is a
low probability of movement over the next 100 years.
Potential noise impacts to residential
+ +
0
+
The common segment's proximity to the South River Village and the
receptors (>65 dB during the day or >55
Proposed attached
Newhall Pony League Development may create potential noise
dB at night)
and clustered units
impacts; Option 1 a may cause noise effects due to proximity to
at South River
multi -family structures at Kantor Apartments and Canyon Club along
Village
Bouquet Canyon Rd.
..........
. ......
Two river crossings occur within the common segment; across Santa
Number of river crossings/linear feet of
+ +
1!0/2,400
+
0
affected area
2/112,00
0
Clara River at the west end (about 900 feet); and across the South
Fork (about 200 feet).
Encroachment into sensitive habitats
(linear feettacres):
- Coastal Sage Scrub
TO
0
0
Not found along project corridor.
+++. Affects issue to a significant degree ++-Affects issue to a moderate degree +- Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
w
0
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 3.3: Environmental Comparison of Preferred Alignment
Environmental Issue/Measures Common Segment 1 la Comments
- Cottonwood Willow/Riparian Woodland
+ + +
4.38 acres possibly disturbed, probable mitigation replacement ratio
21.5 ac.
5 ac.
o
= 3.1, no alluvial scrub In common segment. Replacement required
by N. Valencia Specific Plan for permanent loss 1:1 if installed 2 yrs.
in advance; otherwise 3:1.
Placement of fill in wetland/water if the US:
- Santa Clara River & South Fork
+
o
o
Permanent loss due to bridge supports.
= 0.2 ac
- San Francisquito Creek
o
0
o
The preferred alignment avoids San Francisquito Creek.
Encroachment into SEAS:
- No.23/Santa Clara River
+ + +
+
o
Alternative 1 is in SFA #23 for almost its entire length; Option 1a
extends to the MWD right-of-way.
- No.19/San Francisquito Creek
o
o
o
The preferred alignment avoids San Francisquito Creek.
Disturbance to regionally sensitive oak
o
0
o
No oak trees occur along the preferred alignment.
trees
Disturbance to listed plant species
No other known list plants occur along the project corridor.
expected in the corridor
- Slender -horned Spineflower
+
o
o
Potential in alluvial scrub, nearest reported population is Mint
Canyon (last seen in 1937).
Disturbance to listed (rare, endanger d,±
F
30 acres of riparian habitat that could support sensitive bird
threatened) wildlife species:
species.
+++. Affects issue to a significant degree ++ -Affects issue to a moderate degree +- Affects Issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
FL -
L i.. [ L.__ . ._ ..... - w_.I .. _ _1 ._.
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 3.3: Environmental Comparison of Preferred Alignment
Environmental Issue/Measures Common Segment 1 la Comments
Least Bell's Vireo and Willow Flycatcher
+ + +
+ +
o
May occur in riparian habitat along Santa Clara River west of
Bouquet Canyon.
California Condor
+
+
o
Expected to forage in the area.
Unamored Threespine Stickleback
+ +
+
o
Segment of Santa Clara River along project corridor lies in a
designated Essential Management Area (EMA), the common
segment has the greatest amount of right-of-way in the EMA.
Arroyo Southwestern Toad
+ + +
+ +
o
Suitable habitat In riparian and alluvial areas.
Recently reported in Santa Clara River west of McBean Parkway
(1996).
i.' :.. ..a .. ..
-@ii k 3 -. t
,..
_ •per. t.�'�:..
"R.£
�:...... 'li):'s?.>:::':.::....
tz
Disturbance to known archaeological sites
o
0
o
Not applicable, since no known archaeological resources occur in
the project corridor.
Disturbance to the riveted.steel Warren
o
0
o
The preferred alignment avoids this structure.
truss RR bridge
Disturbance to Saugus Cafe
a
a
o
No direct disturbance; Option 1 a may have indirect effects but they
are not anticipated to be significant.
Al! L1t3ality' r s ss
, .w:OEM
A
Regional air emissions+
+
+
The preferred alignment reduces vehicle miles traveled and supports
Beneficial effect
improved regional air quality.
----Affects issue to a significant degree ++- Affects Issue to a moderate degree + - Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
L
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 3.3: Environmental Comparison of Preferred Alignment
Environmental Issue/Measures Common Segment I la Comments
Carbon monoxide "hotspots"
+
+ +
+ +
The preferred alignment would attract additional traffic through
Minor effect
Bouquet Cyn. RoadNalencia Blvd. intersection, which is projected at
LOS F.
..0
Disturbance to the William S. Hart
+ +
0
0
The common segment encroaches on lots 96 and 119, the northern
baseball/softball complex
boundary, of the Newhall Pony League development area, which
Includes the William S. Hart Complex. Two fields definitely would be
displaced and three more possibly would be affected.
Disturbance to proposed parks
0
0
0
The commons segment passes near proposed park in South River
Village. No other proposed parks are near the preferred alignment.
Disturbance to existing trails
. . .
+
+
The common segment requires relocation of the Santa Clara River
Conflict east of
Trail east of McBean Parkway and would reconstruct the trail along
McBean Parkway
the north side of the alignment; Alternative I would cross over the
along riparian
existing trail near the Water Company building; Option to would
restoration area
cross over the existing trail along the northern portion of the MWD
ROW.
Disturbance to proposed trails
. . .
0
0
The common segment creates a conflict along Santa Clara River
Trail at McBean Parkway; Alternative I would cross over additional
trails near the Water Company building; Option la would cross over
proposed trails as it enters the MWD ROW.
Eitilrtles osn
�'00=
0 RNM0�' 56
+++ -Affects issue to a significant degree ++ - Affects issue to a moderate degree +- Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
q
w
f
w
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 3.3: Environmental Comparison of Preferred Alignment
Environmental Issue/Measures Common Segment 1 la Comments
Encroachment into ROW
+ + .
o
+ . +
The common segment encroaches laterally onto the SCE ROW for =
SCE AND
1.25 miles and crosses the LACFCD ROW. There may be
LACFCD
constraints to use the SCE ROW, although they did not preclude use
of the ROW for the rail line. Option 1a encroaches laterally on the -
MWD ROW and would likely be opposed by MWD because of
potential land use conflicts and MWD intends to install an additional
pipe line.
c i{Q (j'., ... - ff. fi i
Y Q
';" s by
i
M'Q ii
Q`
YYY' 3.
�SY
d
f.>. ;: p
4�te• '#
3 c.
Qf l
„
;..a S3
Displacement
o
+
+ +
The common segment traverses open space lots 127 and 128 of the
Segment crosses
South River Village and lots 119 and 120 of the Newhall Pony
currently
League development area; Alternative 1 - William S. Hart ballfields;
undeveloped land
Option 1a - a portion of the American Pacific State Bank and the
parking lot between the Do it Center, the cinemas, and K -Mart.
Potential to support redevelopment efforts
o
0
o
The preferred alignment would lie withing the Newhall
Redevelopment Project Area, but no new stations are proposed in
the Project Project Area.
Support policies of Community Town
+ +
+ +
+ +
The preferred alignment lies within the overlay zone.
Center and Valley Center Concept Overlay
+++ - Affects issue to a significant degree 4+ -Affects issue to a moderate degree +_ Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na • No effect or not applicable
w
,
A
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Study
Table 3.3: Environmental Comparison of Preferred Alignment
Environmental Issue/Measures Common Segment 1 1a Comments
Potential land use conflict
+ +
+ +
The common segment encroaches laterally onto the SCE ROW, the
Within 300 of 910
South River Village water quality basin and the Santa Clara River
residential lots of
Conservation Area; Alternative 1, visual isolation/noise at the Acro
South River Village
Station, the Del Rio Center, the Santa Clarita Valley Dental Center
and four
and the Santa Clarita Water Company along Soledad Canyon Road;
commercial lots of
Option 1a, the MWD ROW, the Do it Center, the cinemas, K -Mart,
the Newhall Pony
the Kantor Apartments, and the Canyon Club.
League.
development area
and encroaches on
conservation area.
Access/proximity to key activity centers
+
+ +
+
The preferred alignment offers a connection to the existing Metrolink
(within 1/4 mile)
station and Saugus Speedway and enhances local and regional
mobility.
+++-Affects issue to a significant degree ++-Affects issue to a moderate degree +. Affects issue to a minor degree 0 or na - No effect or not applicable
Chapter 4
PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
4.0 PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
The abandoned and underutilized rail lines throughout Southern California represent an
irreplaceable opportunity to accommodate a full range of transportation options to maintain regional
mobility in the future. The SCAG 98 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) documents the importance
of identifying and preserving transportation corridors for future use, and encourages planners and
policy -makers to initiate preparation of corridor preservation strategies. The RTP cites the following
benefits that early preservation efforts provide as documented in the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Report on Corridor Preservation:
• Prevent inconsistent development;
• Minimize or avoid environmental, social and economic impacts;
• Prevent the loss of desirable corridor locations;
• Allow for the orderly assessment of impacts (such as mobility and cost impacts);
• Permit orderly project development; and
• Reduce costs.
The Santa Paula Branch Line running from the Port of Ventura through the City of Santa Clarita
is identified in the SCAG 98 RTP as a Long -Range Corridor required for regional mobility beyond
the year 2020. Several actions have been taken to preserve this important corridor:
• In Ventura County, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) has acquired
the rail line from the Port of Ventura to the Ventura -Los Angeles county line;
• In Los Angeles County, the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and the Development Agreement
_c for Newhall Ranch between the Newhall Land & Farming Company and the County of Los
Angeles specify that the railroad right-of-way shall be preserved as a condition of approval
of this project from the Ventura County line to just short of the Santa Clarita city limits; and
• The City of Santa Clarita has completed a study to identify a recommended alignment for
preservation within its city limits connecting with existing Metrolink service to downtown Los
Angeles and the Antelope Valley.
With the identification of a recommended alignment within the City of Santa Clarita, the next step
is to identify a viable strategy to preserve the right-of-way. The full range of available preservation
tools fall into three main categories which are discussed in detail in the following sections:
1. Land use and planning policies;
2. Acquisition; and
3. Recreational/open space strategies.
E
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-1 November 10, 1998
s
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
In addition, the successful implementation of each of the above preservation tools requires the
closely integrated support of:
1. Public awareness efforts;
2. OrganizationaVinstitutional arrangements; and
3. Funding strategies.
4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICIES
This section describes three land use approaches that can be used by local governments to
preserve rail corridors: 1) General Plan designation; 2) setting plan lines; and 3) developer
dedications.
4.1.1 General Plan Designation
For years, municipal governments in California have for years successfully designated future
highway corridors through a General Plan Amendment process to preserve a corridor without
- purchase. This designation prevents the sale of land in the corridor for any other purpose. The
courts have held that seven years is a reasonable time to preserve a corridor for the "public good"
without an actual purchase. At the time of the designation, the governmental agency must be able
to show that it expects to construct the transportation improvement in a `reasonable" time period.
— This approach has not been used for railroad corridors, but has been used to preserve light rail
corridors (Orange County). Again, the agency must have a real use in mind for the corridor and
an expectation to secure funding for the project within a reasonable time period.
At a minimum, the General Plan of each city and county along a corridor to be preserved should
include a policy statement supporting preservation of the corridor. Table 4.1 presents model land
use planning text to address rail corridor preservation as part of a General Plan approach.
4.1.2 Setting Plan Lines
Another technique is the use of official mapping of future transportation corridors. When planning
for transportation facilities, state, county and city governments have the statutory authority to
— prepare plans and maps showing the approximate location and width of future rights-of-way in
order to prevent development from taking place in the corridor. In the case of streets and
highways, mapped right-of-way widths are identified to accommodate anticipated `build -out" traffic
' conditions. That is, highway widths are identified which are sufficient to handle the traffic volumes
expected when adjacent properties are fully developed. A property owner who desires to develop
or improve lands within a mapped corridor must then apply to the city, county or state for approval.
Unless a permit is granted, any construction or enlargement of a building within the mapped areas
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-2 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
Table 4.1 Model Land Use Plan Text for Rail Corridor Preservation
INTRODUCTION
Abandonment of railroad lines may close future options for alternative transportation modes such as local or
commuter rail service, or for light rail transit which can provide rail transit service within more densely populated
areas. This land use plan is designed to preserve such corridors.
OBJECTIVES
a. Plan for a safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation system to meet the future needs of
residents, industry, commerce and agriculture.
b. Integrate rail corridor preservation with planning for other transportation modes.
C. Coordinate rail corridor preservation efforts with the railroads, the RTPA's, cities, other local agencies and
the State Department of Transportation.
d. Preserve railroad rights-of-way for local rail, light rail, other transportation modes, and/or recreational uses.
e. Promote efforts to develop an integrated muni -modal transportation system to interconnect all transportation
modes.
POLICIES
a. Establish a railroad corridor designation and appropriate Zone District to help preserve railroad rights-of-way
of main lines and branch lines for local rail, light rail, other transportation modes, and recreational uses.
b. Support acquisition by local agencies of railroad rights-of-way required for public health, safety and welfare.
C. Work cooperatively with the railroad operators and railroad right-of-way owners on the long-term protection
of the rail rights-of-way.
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Developers of adjacent properties shall be responsible for providing all facilities and improvements necessitated by
their project to accommodate rail and other planned transportation modes.
IMPLEMENTATION
a. Support designation of an existing public agency or establishment of a new agency to receive, hold and
preserve rail facilities for a future local rail, light rail, and/or other modal transportation system.
b. Designated railroad corridors shall be plan -lined to ensure that the rights-of-way are reserved for future rail
expansion, other appropriate transportation facilities and recreational facilities.
C. Designated railroad corridors shall be zoned appropriately to ensure preservation of rail facilities for future
local rail use and shared uses such as fiber optics or pipelines.
PERMITTED USES
a. Railroad roadbed and track(s).
b. Railroad passenger station.
C. Bus passenger transfer facilities.
d. Facilities for other transit modes - for local or regional service.
e. Parking lots, garages and passenger loading areas - to serve transit facilities listed above.
I. Transit support services - including ticket sales, limited maintenance equipment storage and public and/or
transit operator rest rooms.
g. Linear park.
h. Pedestrian, bicycle and/or equestrian trails.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-3 November 10, 1998
r
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
is not entitled to compensation when the corridor land is purchased in the future for transportation
purposes. When local ordinances require that development be consistent with the master plan,
t the community has the legal justification for rejecting a development proposal within the mapped
area.
•i
Attempts to set aside land for future transportation improvements may be in conflict with the rights
t of individual property owners as the preservation tools may have an adverse effect on the property
value. The longer the time between development of the official map and the purchase of the land
` for the transportation facility, the greater the likelihood of arguments regarding financial hardship.
_ Courts have held that an official map should contain a definite time limit on development restriction
t on private property and that active planning and budgeting for the transportation project should
' occur during the hold on development. Past case law has indicated that restrictions should be
limited to approximately 12 -to -18 months. However, official maps are often used to indicate the
probable location of much longer range transportation improvements. While they may be subject
- to challenge in the courts, such maps do serve to notify landowners of the intent to expand or
develop transportation corridors. Knowing that a portion of their land is likely to be required for
future transportation projects, property owners will generally choose to build outside the future
rights-of-way.
Transportation planners can work with local land use planners, local transportation officials and
developers to formulate site plans which serve both development needs and longer -range
transportation planning objectives. For example, developers. can be encouraged to create site
plans in which buildings are located outside of the areas required for future transportation
purposes.
4.1.3 Developer Dedications
It is common for local governments to request developers and individuals to dedicate a portion of
their land for necessary transportation improvements. This technique is used to acquire land for
the construction of new routes to serve new developments as well as to obtain the needed right-of-
way for service expansions. Dedications are also frequently used to require developers to set
aside land for pedestrian and bike paths to provide for intra -neighborhood circulation and to
interconnect one neighborhood with another.
4.2 ACQUISITION
There are five acquisition options typically available for rail corridor preservation:
Purchase of all interests;
Purchase of partial interests;
Purchase of operating rights;
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-4 November 10, 1998
1J
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
_ Option to purchase; and
` Lease.
i
When using acquisition as a preservation strategy, the following decision-making factors should
be considered: what rights need to be acquired; the acquisition procedures to be used; and the
trigger for the preservation action.
Acquisition of corridor rights involves identifying the specific rail.rights being obtained to achieve
the desired preservation goal including:
• Purchase of all interests;
Lease of all interests;
,. Purchase or lease of all interests except the right to conduct freight operations, and
possibly the right to receive income from corridor utility usage, such as fiber optics;
• Easement (including trackage rights, sometimes called running rights or operating rights);
• Purchase of services; and
E Options to obtain any of the previous rights at a later time.
Acquisition procedures by which rights are acquired include: condemnation; federally influenced
transactions; negotiated transactions; and public use action. Another factor for determining the
rights to be acquired is to distinguish the trigger for the preservation action such as:
• Transactions triggered by a freight railroad's initiative to seek abandonment of all service;
Transactions initiated by a freight railroad's desire to recover its capital investment in the
corridor, but continue freight service; and
• Transactions initiated by a transportation authority's interest in adding passenger service
to the uses being made of a rail corridor, but without having to purchase the corridor.
In the case of abandonment, transactions take the form of either assuming responsibility for freight
=f service through an Offer of Financial Assistance (OFA), or successfully negotiating interim trail use
via some form of purchase or railroad agreement. In the second type of transaction, there would
be a purchase of all interests except the right to provide freight service, creating the possibility of
adding passenger service at some future time at the option of the new owner. A similar alternative
transaction might be for the public transportation authority to pay the relocation expense for moving
overhead freight service, i.e., through traffic not serving local industries, to a parallel corridor so
that passenger service would have exclusive use of the corridor. The third transaction option might
consist of a transportation authority's "purchase of services," or alternatively, securing an
easement to provide passenger service through trackage rights, sharing the corridor with freight
service. This method is currently used by Metrolink on the Union Pacific Railroad.
t
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-5 November 10, 1998
_I
r•
i
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
4.2.1 Purchase of All Interests
I
The most direct approach to preserve a rail corridor is the outright purchase of all interests. This
involves negotiating a mutually acceptable price and other terms for buying the right-of-way from
the owning railroad or developer.
4.2.2 Purchase/Lease of Partial Interests
Since railroad deregulation in 1980, many major North American freight railroads have reduced
-� their trackage significantly through a combination of abandonment and rail line sales. These actions
have been prompted by deregulation of the abandonment process, and are facilitated by Surface
Transportation Board (STB) exemption of line sales from the collective bargaining process. In
.� addition, railroads have become interested in concentrating long distance trains on high speed,
high capacity corridors. Lines which make little positive contribution to cash flow are coming under
increasing scrutiny by railroad managements. A number of such line sales have occurred in major
metropolitan areas where a network of railroad lines can no longer be justified by relatively lower,
and often declining, freight activity.
What started as an attempt by the freight railroads to improve operating profits has taken on a new
look in the last few years. In California, freight carriers have sold substantial portions of corridors
for passenger services over which they retained the right to provide freight service. While initially
reluctant to consider shared use due to the complications to system operations, declining rail freight
volume in urban corridors has supported a new look by the railroads. Thus, public transportation
authorities have proposed such transactions for busy freight corridors where immediate passenger
service is desired, and/or find themselves responding to carrier -initiated proposals to cash -out their
ownership position whether or not starting passenger service is timely.
4.2.3 Purchase of Operating Rights
This method of corridor access is the least commonly used in recent years. Chicago and several
eastern cities have had shared use of rail corridors by freight and commuter rail services for
decades. Initially, commuter rail was but one of the services provided by a railroad owner/operator
which, as a common carrier railroad corporation, also offered freight and intercity passenger
services: The decreasing profitability of commuter rail service forced railroads to seek public
` subsidy for their continuance. Local public entities paid the railroads a negotiated amount each
year, intended generally to cover operating costs not offset by passenger fares. However, the
commuter service was operated by and on behalf of the railroad, which usually determined train
frequency, schedules and fares.
Subsidy agreements eventually transitioned to arrangements called "purchase of service" in which
the railroad operated the service on behalf of a public entity such as a transit agency. The transit
agency determined train frequency and schedules (although requiring coordination with the railroad
i
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-6 November 10, 1998
4
0
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
still providing freight service) and set fares, which were collected for the transit agency by the
railroad. The equipment was owned by either the transit agency or the railroad, and the railroad
was contracted to run the trains with its own employees for a periodic payment reached through
negotiation. Thus, public access to the rail corridor was provided through operating services
provided by an entity which already had such right of access, typically, but not necessarily the
corridor owner. The operator could be a third party, such as Amtrak.
When the term "purchase of service" is used in reference to classifying methods of access to a
corridor, it implies that the transit agency neither owns the track nor has an independent right to
run its own trains over it, but derives the right to -operate passenger services through the track
ownership, or running rights of its train service contractor. If the agency wishes to have some other
operator for the service, it would need to purchase "trackage rights." This would be a more costly
,i option as the owner does not then receive the revenue benefit of running the train service with its
employees.
4.2.4 Option to Purchase
A purchase option is a monetary transaction where a buyer gives the seller a consideration for the
exclusive right to purchase the corridor in the future. Usually the option is limited to a fixed period
of time. An agreement could also include the right to renew the option at the end of the time period
for an additional consideration. It may contain an agreed upon purchase price, or designate the
transaction be at 'lair market value" at the time the option is exercised or other terms mutually
agreeable to the parties.
A purchase option makes sense if the railroad believes there is no other real buyer than the
1 interested public entity and if the agency foresees a potential use at some time in the future.
However, it is important that the agency should identify that there will be funds available at the time
-' it expects to exercise the option. If it can designate some future source of funding, then the option
approach is a low cost way of preserving a corridor. This option does require that the owning
railroad be willing to tie up its property for a relatively long period of time with only limited
compensation, but when there is no other buyer in sight, some railroads have been willing to do
this.
4.2.5 Lease
Under a lease, the lessee pays the lessor a consideration for the use of the property for a fixed
period of time. This option can include a purchase option at the end of the term or the right to
` i renew. Historically, long-term leases of railroad properties (i.e., 99 years) was common as a
means of consolidation, but were normally used only for lines with traffic potential, not to prevent
abandonment. However, a railroad could be interested in a relatively short-term lease, i.e., five
years, to forestall abandonment, if it were convinced that the likelihood of purchase was real at the
end of the term. The agency should have the expectation of securing purchase funds before the
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-7 November 10, 1998
�J
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
lease expires. A lease would make sense if the entity wished to actually use the corridor in the
interim. As an example, if it were desired to test the market for rail service, a lease might be
negotiated for a two -to -three year demonstration period to verify service viability.
4.3 RECREATIONAUOPEN SPACE STRATEGIES
A number of California jurisdictions, as in other states, have preserved former rail corridors for
purposes other than future transportation use, or in combination with an existing transportation use.
_ In some cases, a future transportation use may be a distant possibility, and the short-term
justification for corridor preservation is to provide an aesthetic and/or recreational benefit. In
general, local jurisdictions can consider enacting ordinances that declare that linear, undeveloped
open space to be of critical public concern and require special permits or reviews prior to
fragmentation of such corridors for private development. Following are some examples of this
approach in California.
• Ojai Valley Trail - This 9.5 -mile trail was developed on an abandoned Southern Pacific
(SP) Railroad right-of-way purchased by the Ventura County Planning Commission. It
follows the Ventura River and is owned and managed by the County of Ventura.
• Monterey Recreation Trail - This trail was also built on an abandoned SP railroad right-of-
way. The corridor was purchased as part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the cities of Monterey and Seaside, and Caltrans. The City of Monterey has
developed its portion into a popular recreation trail along the shore of Monterey Bay which
passes through the heart of Cannery Row. Plans for the future use of the remaining
corridor varies by segment. After years of study of possible transit uses, the portion
through Fisherman's Wharf and Cannery Row has been limited to recreational trail use.
The other portion of the corridor is under consideration as a joint rail -with -trail route which
would restore rail passenger service to Monterey.
• Former SP Altamont Line - This line was abandoned and purchased by Alameda County.
Most of it is currently undeveloped for recreational use, but a local railroad club has
replaced tracks on a seven -mile portion of the right-of-way and operates a bi-monthly
excursion train.
• San Ramon Valley Iron Horse Trail - This abandoned railroad line was purchased by
Contra Costa County using state funds. One of the conditions on the grant was that the
corridor be used for future transportation purposes. The County conducted several studies
of rail transit use, but this option generated substantial opposition from local residents who
opposed the project due to noise and safety concerns. Concurrently, funding was provided
by the East Bay Regional Park District to develop a regional trail on the corridor.
I
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-8 November 10, 1998
i
11
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Citv of Santa Clarita
Another useful strategy to preserve an abandoned rail corridor is the "railbanking" section of the
National Trails System Act. Railbanking allows corridors proposed for abandonment to be
preserved intact or put in a "bank" for future transportation use. In the meantime, these corridors
can be used as trails. The Rails -to -Trails statute provides that a corridor which has been
provisionally approved for abandonment may be the subject of a review period during which offers
for purchase by appropriate entities may be made in order to reserve the corridor for future
r
transportation use. A similar section of the Interstate Commerce Act allows purchase for any public
{ purpose.
_ All railbanking activities, including the setting of a fair purchase price, are supervised and approved
' by the Surface Transportation Board. Currently, railbanking is a voluntary process and without the
") railroad's approval, the corridor cannot be railbanked. Also any railroad can file for restoration of
,t rail service on a railbanked corridor. If restoration of rail service is approved, the trail agency is
entitled to receive fair market value for the corridor plus reimbursement for any improvements.
The Rails -to -Trails Conservancy (RTC), a national organization that supports efforts to preserve
abandoned rail rights-of-way for future use, is a good resource for information on recreational trail
development. The RTC has published a guide book on implementing trails on both active and
abandoned rail corridors entitled Trails for the Twenty -First Century (Islands Press, 1993).
In 1996, the RTC prepared a report summarizing the results of a survey of the existing trails
adjacent to active rail lines entitled Rails -with -Trails: Sharing Corridors for Transportation and
Recreation. This RTC report established that rails and trails can safely co -exist and trails adjacent
to active rail lines are becoming significant additions to the nation's transportation and recreation
system. The survey found one key reason for the rails -with -trails combination working so well is
the difference in peak hours of usage. For a majority of the existing trails, peak hours of rail usage
do not correspond with peak hours of trail use.
Over 50 percent of the trails surveyed were along side rail mainlines with service running from four
trains per day to over nine trains per hour. More than 60 percent of trails were adjacent to rail
f service with an operating speed of 30 miles -per -hour or greater. Trails adjacent to less active,
u slower. speed rail lines typically have minimal barriers, and those with barriers most commonly use
vegetation and/or a slight grade separation. A majority of the trails adjacent to the more active,
faster speed rail lineswere separated from the railroad tracks by 50 to 100 feet, in addition to some
type of barrier. The most common barriers are grade separation, vegetation (including trees),
ditches, or some type of fencing. The survey found several successful examples where the
separation between the rails and trails was reduced to 15 to 25 feet with a fence separating the two
' functions.
Funding sources cited in the survey, for both acquisition and construction, included: federal, state,
regional, county and city funds; park bond monies; developer donations; and private fund-raising
efforts. With one exception, all of the rails -with -trails are covered by an existing city, county or state
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-9 November 10, 1998
.1
J
'i
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clanta
t
self-insurance policy. The survey results showed no trail user/train accidents and only one claim
filed for a train versus cow incident. (The cow was found to be at fault.) Trail maintenance is
j usually handled by the trail manager or through a maintenance agreement with the adjacent
s
railroad.
i
4.4 PUBLIC_ AWARENESS EFFORTS
Developing public awareness is a major step to the successful preservation of any rail corridor and
the ultimate implementation of future rail service. Corridor -related public awareness efforts should
be designed to build an understanding of the project, maintain visibility of the project and develop
a support base for project -related decision-making. A multi -phased public program should be
.., developed, incorporating a variety of public awareness tactics designed to complement each other
and keyed to varying audiences and project -related objectives. Each phase of the public program
-- should use slightly different tactics to reflect the different type of information and public response
required. For example, initial outreach efforts should present the study results and build consensus
for the preservation strategy and action plan; while ongoing outreach efforts should maintain
interest in and awareness of the project. As the project moves forward into more detailed planning,
the regional/state/federal planning process does require identification and implementation of a
detailed and closely integrated public outreach program.
Initial public awareness efforts should focus on maximizing distribution of project information to
interested residents, businesses and decision -makers. Possible tactics include:
• Project brochure presenting the study results, illustrating the proposed alignment and
explaining the future rail service.
• Direct mailing of the brochure to residents and businesses with an opportunity to comment.
• Community open houses to provide project information; answer questions and provide
t opportunities to comment.
• Leadership briefings with legislature, business and community leaders.
• Presentations to targeted audiences to allow key groups to engage in a discussion focused
on their concerns.
" Speakers bureau to make presentations to interested groups.
• Media efforts including local television, radio and newspapers.
• Web site with project information and an opportunity to comment.
i
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-10 November 10, 1998
t
ci �
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
• Outreach to current Santa Clarita Transit and Metrolink patrons.
t Project task forces to provide ongoing input and support.
Ongoing public outreach efforts to continue awareness of the project could include:
• Print a corridor brochure with the adopted alignment and action plan.
• Distribute a project brochure to current and new residents and businesses.
I Establish the physical presence of the future rail project with a colorful signage system
`¢ including: corridor banners; informational/interpretive signs with information on the history
and future of the corridor; and informational kiosks displaying corridor and. corridor -related
event information.
• Implement an annual corridor event program including special speakers, workshops with
groups like the Rails -to -Trails Conservancy, related trail events, historic trains, and visits
to other communities who have successfully integrated rail service.
• Establish a corridor newsletter.
• Set up a corridor web site.
• Continue Task Force efforts.
• Continue the speakers bureau with special outreach to children (future service users).
• Continue outreach to current transit users.
• Continue media efforts.
Y
4.5 ORGANIZATIONALIINSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
While the City of Santa Clarita has control over right-of-way preservation decisions within its city
boundaries, future detailed engineering work and implementation of rail service in the Santa Paula
Corridor may require the cooperative efforts of a wide range of organizations and institutions
' f including the following:
• Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC);
• Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG);
• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA);
i
i
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-11 November 10, 1998
t
I
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
• Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA);
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); and
• County of Los Angeles.
In addition, future efforts may include the involvement of the Port of Ventura, the cities of Palmdale
and Lancaster, appropriate freight railroads/operators, and others to be identified.
The City of Santa Clarita should build relationships with elected officials, policy -makers and staff
members of the above organizations in order to:
1 Ensure inclusion of the preserved right-of-way and future rail service project in all related
strategic planning and programming documents.
• Ensure the timely and coordinated design of the future rail service project to meet the
needs of all entities along the Santa Paula Corridor.
• Build an awareness of and support for the Santa Paula Corridor project among regional,
state and federal elected officials.
• Build a political coalition to secure funding for ongoing corridor design and rail service
implementation efforts.
The City of Santa Clarita could build organizational relationships through the following actions:
• Establish a City of Santa Clarita Task Force of elected officials and community leaders to
serve as project advocates and build awareness of the future rail service project with local,
regional; state and congressional decision -makers.
• Form a Santa Paula Corridor Elected Officials Group to brief regional, state and federal
legislative leaders and to demonstrate support for the future rail service project.
..` Establish an Inter -agency Task Force Group, using staff members who participated in the
study to ensure coordination of planning and programming efforts.
As the project moves forward, the City of Santa Clarita and other corridor member organizations
may want to consider formation of a Santa Paula Corridor.Joints Powers Agency to focus and
ensure corridor preservation, planning, engineering, construction and operational efforts.
.a
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-12 November 10, 1998
i
ci
J
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
4.6 FUNDING STRATEGIES
i
The public funding process for transportation projects; from planning to implementation to
operational support, is a complicated one. Monies come from a number of sources including gas
and sales taxes, and are administered through a variety of governmental funds and programs.
Each governmental fund or program has its own requirements and restrictions as to which
agencies/organizations are eligible to receive funding and for what purpose the funds can be used.
s The following is a summary of the governmental - federal, state, and local - transportation funding
sources. Following the general summaries below is a discussion of the specific sources of funds
potentially available for future study of the Santa Paula Corridor Project.
s
;t
" 4.6.1 Federal Funding Sources
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21" century (TEA21) is the recently passed federal legislation
-- that replaces the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and is the means by
which nationally collected gas tax and. other revenues are made available for transportation
projects. Included in TEA21 are funds allocated directly to the states for implementation of the
Statewide and Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (FSTIPs and FRTIPs) and planning
purposes; to public transit operators for support of public transit; to specific projects for which funds
have been earmarked in the legislation; and to special programs (e.g. value pricing, MAGLEV) from
which qualifying projects can be awarded funds. Each special program mayor may not require that
available funds be channeled through the states.
4.6.2 State Funding Sources
The primary funding sources for the state of California's transportation spending, other than that
allocated to the state by the federal government, are the monies made available through the
-` Transportation Development Act (TDA) and the State Highway Account (SHA). The Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) are the two primary funding
sources under the TDA. The LTF is made up of a 1/4 percent statewide sales tax and the STA
fund from a portion of statewide gasoline/diesel fuel tax. The SHA revenues come from statewide
Ll fuel tax and weight fee revenues. TDA funds become apart of the Public Transportation Account
(PTA) and are returned to the transportation planning agencies in the state for allocation among
local jurisdictions (LTF monies) and transit operators (50 percent of STA monies). The other 50
percent of STA funds are used for a number of purposes including funding of public transit capital
s improvements (TCI program) and support of Caltrans planning activities. Projects are eligible for
TCI funds only if they have been included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
which documents the programming of state transportation revenues in the SHA and PTA.
_j
# 4.6.3 Local Funding Sources
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-13 November 10, 1998
.f
a�
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
i
Los Angeles County has established local revenue sources for public transit through the passage
of Propositions A and C in 1980 and 1990, respectively. Each added a'/2 cent retail transactions
I and use tax for transit -related improvements in Los Angeles County. In addition to these funds,
sub -state entities receive funding for local and/or regional purposes from the state through the LTF
and STA funds described above. Funds are also received from the federal government in the form
of metropolitan planning funds disseminated by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) to the 14 subregions within its planning area.
4.6.4 Funding for Next Steps
The funding sources potentially available for the next steps of the Santa Paula Corridor Project vary
according to how the affected organizations and institutions identified above cooperate in the
•t pursuit of project funding. A variety of federal, state, regional and local funds are available for
planning, acquisition, construction and operation. However, tough competition for some of these
funds requires extensive political efforts on the part of project proponents. Federal and state
t political leaders tend to favor projects with a demonstrated . wide range of coordinated
constituencies. The following is a summary of the currently available sources of funding.
Should the City of Santa Clarita pursue further planning efforts for that portion of the corridor within
its City limits independent of the rest of the corridor, the following sources of funding could be
pursued:
Proposition A and C discretionary funds; and
North Los Angeles County metropolitan planning funds.
However, the projectwould become eligible for a much larger pool of funding sources if the entire
Santa Paula Corridor to the Port of Ventura was made part of the study area. These additional
funding sources include:
• Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) metropolitan planning funds;
Lt SCAG metropolitan planning funds;
• VCTC federal Section 9 planning funds;
i
• Inclusion of the project in the STIP and RTIP makes the project eligible for state TCI funds,
and federal TEA21 funds channeled through the state;
s"f
• The Transportation and Community. System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP) of TEA21
for corridor preservation activities, with funding available starting 1999;
i
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-14 November 10, 1998
I
11
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
• The Light Density Rail Line Pilot Project of TEA21 for capital improvements to and
rehabilitation of publicly and privately owned rail line structures, with funding available to
states with state rail plans; and
• The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program (RRIF) of TEA21 that
gives priority to railroad projects that enhance public safety, enhance the environment,
promote economic development, enable U.S, companies to be more competitive in
international markets and preserve or enhance rail intermodal service to small communities
or rural areas; priority is also given to projects that are endorsed by the state.
j 4.7 SUMMARY
Chapter 4 presents numerous approaches to preserving rail corridors for future transportation use.
In identifying the most appropriate preservation strategy, each locality has selected the tools that
best serve its needs and the objectives. The following table presents the four segments of the
Santa Paula Branch and identifies either the preservation strategy that has been used, or where
a preservation strategy is needed.
Table 4.2 Santa Paula Branch Preservation Strategies
Port of Ventura to
Ventura -Los Angeles
County Line
Ventura County Line
to Commerce Center
Drive
Commerce Center
Drive to City of Santa
Clarita
City of Santa Clarita
Preserved through
Preserved through
- Unprotected
- Corridor identified
acquisition
developer dedication
- Protection included
documented in a
in: Circulation
Letter of Agreement
Element of the City's
and the Newhall
General Plan, the
Ranch Specific Plan
North Valencia
Specific Plan and the
Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan
- Complete preserva-
tion process
The preservation tools that appear to best match the needs and objectives of the City of Santa
Clarita and merit consideration include the.following: 1) land use and planning policies; and 2)
K recreational and open space strategies.
Land use and planning policies that could be used to preserve the identified right-of-way within the
City of Santa Clarita include a combination of General Plan designation and developer dedication.
The Newhall Land and Farming Company has indicated its willingness to dedicate a future rail -of -
i
s
{ Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-15 November 10, .1998
i
,3
...i
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
way as part of the specific plan approval process. With local approval of the preferred alignment,
the City could conclude the land transfer with the Newhall Land and Farming Company and
document the future rail right-of-way in City planning documents. Existing planning documents
which could document the preserved right-of-way include the City's General Plan, the Valencia
Master Plan, the North Valencia Annexation Plan, and/or others to be determined. This would serve
to protect the right-of-way until it is required in the future.
The City of Santa Clarita is in the process of implementing an extensive trail system along the
Santa Clara River based on a Trail Master Plan. There is a potential opportunity to revise the trail
_ system master plan to accommodate future rail service. A future system of rails -with -trails could
be developed with sufficient width to accommodate both trails and future rail service.
* e The price tag for the future rail system is daunting, but there are planned and programmed projects
with funding in place, or anticipated to be secured, that could be leveraged to provide needed rail
program elements, such as the widening of McBean Parkway. In addition, as projects are
developed along the future rail right-of-way, there are opportunities for City staff to work with
project developers to create site plans which support and enhance future rail service.
Developing a project constituency is a major key to the successful implementation of any right-of-
way preservation plan and ultimate implementation of rail service. A corridor -related public
awareness program should be developed to build an understanding of the project, maintain visibility
of the project and develop a support base for project -related decision-making. Initiation of efforts
to build strong, cooperative relationships with other organizations and agencies, who may be
involved in future decision-making related to the Santa Paula Branch Line, is also important. This
outreach effort to other agencies will also ensure inclusion of the identified right-of-way and future
rail service project in all related strategic planning and programming documents.
4.7.1 Next Planning Steps
A number of planning steps must be taken to move a project from concept to implementation. This
study serves as the first of these steps which are outlined in Table 4.2. The study results
.i demonstrate the viability of a future passenger/freight rail service project connecting east to existing
service to Los Angeles and the Antelope. Valley, and west to future service along the Santa Paula
Branch Line into Ventura County and the Port of Ventura. If project construction funding were
available within the next five years, an argument could be made to initiate a Major Investment
Study. Without the demonstrated funding availability, the project could move forward into the
Corridor Study phase. Work in this phase would move the project forward with additional design
s and engineering efforts which typically has a longer shelf life while construction and operational
funding is being secured. Regional planning funds are available to move the project forward.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-16 November 10, 1998
J
I
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
j auie 4.a rrolect weveiopment steps
1. Ventura Rail Right -of -Way Restoration Study (Preliminary Study)
- Determine need of project
- Assess initial set of modal options
- Assess initial set of alignments
- Determine initial engineering feasibility
- Perform initial environmental assessment
2. Corridor Study
- Consider full range of modal options
- Prepare initial CEQA/NEPA environmental assessment
- Prepare two (2) percent level of engineering design work
- Develop conceptual capital and operating costs
- Identify ridership/freight capacity
- Identify funding opportunities
3. Major Investment Study
- Consider full range of modal options
- Prepare full CEQA/NEPA review process
Demonstrate constrainability of project -fundable within reasonable period of time
(5 years)
Prepare 10-20 percent level of engineering design work
4. Preliminary Engineering
- Design refinement
- Complete CEQA/NEPA process
- Implement financial plan
5. Final Design
- Prepare construction plans, specifications and estimates
- Right-of-way acquisition (station areas, support facilities)
- Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) negotiations
6. Construction
- Construction management
- Vehicle procurement
- Start-up activities
Korve Engineering, Inc. 4-17 November 10, 1998
Chapter 5
ACTION PLAN
of
J
r�
J
. I
_1
J
Chapter 5
ACTION PLAN
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
I —
5.0 ACTION PLAN
I
This section identifies a list of action steps that can be taken to protect the identified right-of-way
alignment and to continue efforts toward implementing a future rail service project. The steps are
identified under five key tasks:
1. Protect future opportunities.
2. Build a constituency.
3. Leverage existing opportunities.
—s 4. Identify and implement a funding strategy.
5. Continue the planning process.
5.1 PROTECT FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES
Actions for protecting future opportunities focus on ensuring that the future rail right-of-way is
protected through inclusion in all strategic planning and programming documents. Actions to be
taken include:
City of Santa Clarita - Conclude land transfer with Newhall Land and Farming Company
and document the future rail right-of-way in City planning documents including the City's
General Plan, Valencia Master Plan, North Valencia Annexation Plan, South River Village
Specific Plan and others to be determined.
• County of Los Angeles - With the City of Santa Clarita acting as an advocate, complete
the right-of-way preservation effort by protecting the approximately two -and -a -half mile gap
between the Santa Clarita City limits and the right-of-way protected by the Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan and the Development Agreement for the Newhall Ranch. Work with
Supervisor Antonovich's's Office, the Newhall Land and Farming Company, the Los
Angeles County Department of Regional Planning and the LACMTA to preserve this
missing piece of right-of-way that could preclude future rail service.
• SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) - Maintain and build on the identification of
1 the preferred right-of-way alignment as a Long -Range Corridor in the 98 RTP requiring
preservation. Work with SCAG staff to prioritize this Corridor for future development.
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Long Range Strategic Plan -
Work with SCRRA staff to include future Metrolink service in this corridor in their Long
Range Strategic Plan.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 5-1 November 10, 1998
NOM
I
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) - Work with
LACMTA staff to ensure this corridor is reflected and prioritized in their planning and
programming documents.
Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) - Work closely with VCTC staff to
ensure the Ventura County portion of the project is included in their strategic transportation
document and remains a County priority.
• Oxnard Harbor District - This operator of the Port of Hueneme may be the greatest
generator of freight for the Santa Paula rail line and, as such, future study efforts should
„i include participation of the District.
k
5.2 BUILD A CONSTITUENCY
Developing a project constituency is a major key to the successful preservation of the right-of-way
and the ultimate implementation of future rail service in this corridor. Project advocates maintain
the visibility of the project, build a political base for future funding decisions and ensure the project
continues to move toward implementation. And while the City of Santa Clarita has control over the
right-of-way preservation decisions within its City boundaries, future implementation of rail service
in the Santa Paula Corridor may require the cooperative efforts of a wide range of organizations
and institutions. Building a cooperative relationship with elected officials, policy -makers and staff
members of those organizations and institutions will ensure the project is reflected in all related
planning and programming documents and can result in a powerful coalition to secure funding for
ongoing corridor design and rail service implementation efforts.
Establish a City of Santa Clarita Task Force of elected officials and community leaders
to serve as project advocates and build apolitical base for future funding decisions. Use
this group to build awareness of this project with congressional, state, regional and local
decision -makers, including outreach to Ventura County leaders, SCAG committees such
as the Goods Movement Group, the railroads, as well as SCRRA and LACMTA board
members.
Establish an Inter -Agency Task Force Group that meets on a quarterly basis at a
minimum to review progress on the steps identified in this plan and to strategize on
additional actions to be taken.
Establish a Public Awareness Program to ensure the community is aware and supportive
of the preservation of the right-of-way and future rail service plans. Elements of the
awareness program are detailed in Chapter 4 of this report and can include: developing a
brochure illustrating the alignment and explaining the future rail service; holding community
meetings to explain the project and hear public concerns; creating a speakers bureau to
Korve Engineering, Inc. 5-2 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
i
make on-going presentations to community groups; making the physical presence of the
corridor visible with a colorful signage system along the right-of-way providing historic and
future information; and creating a corridor events program with annual rail -oriented events
along the right-of-way to build public support.
5.3 LEVERAGE EXISTING OPPORTUNITIES
The price tag for the future rail system is daunting, but there are planned and programmed projects
with funding in place, or anticipated to be secured, that will provide rail service program elements
such as the widening of McBean Parkway and construction of a new bridge over the Santa Clara
River. Other opportunities include using City development agreements to set aside land for future
station areas and revising the City's trail system master plan to accommodate future rail service.
• Compare the identified rail system project elements to the City's Capital
Improvement Program and other improvements planned within the City limits to identify
similar elements. City staff can ensure that as programmed improvements are made they
will accommodate the future rail system.
• Identify ways the City's Trails Master Plan can be modified to include a sufficient width
to accommodate both trails and future rail service.
- Work closely with Ventura County Transportation Commission to build on and
leverage their rail service upgrade plans.
5.4 IDENTIFY AND IMPLEMENT A FUNDING STRATEGY
Identifying and implementing a phased funding strategy will ensure the ultimate implementation of
rail service. There is a wide range of funding sources available, and the City should develop a
phased funding strategy with other Santa Paula Corridor agencies and then aggressively
implement it.
Secure funding for the next planning phase for the identified alignment- preparation of
a Corridor Study.
Hire a funding consultant to identify the full range of appropriate funding sources and
develop a phased funding program.
• Develop a political advocacy strategy to support the funding strategy.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 5-3 November 10, 1998
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
• Work closely with the Ventura County Transportation Commission to leverage funding
opportunities as projects with multiple jurisdictional support have the best chance of being
funded.
• Work closely with other Santa Paula Corridor agencies and organizations to leverage
funding opportunities.
5.5 CONTINUE THE PLANNING PROCESS
Nothing shows the intent to implement a project as having design plans on the shelf and ready to
go as funding becomes available. Continuing the design process into the next phase shows local
•� resolve and allows further refinement of the design to provide for a more informed decision-making
process on this and other City land use and transportation issues, including any revisions to the
City's Trails Program.
• Initiate Corridor Study work providing a conceptual level (two percent complete)
engineering drawings.
5.6 ACTION PLAN
5.6.1 Immediate Actions
While all of the above steps should be implemented, actions requiring immediate follow-through
include:
1. Conclude the land transfer for the future rail right-of-way with the Newhall Land and
Farming Company.
2. Document the future rail right-of-way on all appropriate City plans.
3. Work with Supervisor Antonovich's office, the County of Los Angeles Department of
Regional Planning, the Newhall Land and Farming Company and the LACMTA to preserve
the right-of-way gap between Commerce Center Drive and the Santa Clarita city limits.
4. Establish the City of Santa Clarita Task Force and Inter -Agency Task Force groups.
5. Develop and implement a proactive Public Awareness Program.
6. Initiate efforts to secure funding for Corridor Study planning activities within the City of
Santa Clarita.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 5-4 November 10, 1998
I
Ventura Rail Right -of -Way City of Santa Clarita
5.6.2 Near -Term Actions
1. Use the City of Santa Clarita Task Force to present the study results and action plan to
congressional, state and regional leaders to build knowledge of the future project.
2. Initiate efforts to build relationships with other Santa Paula Corridor organizations and
agencies.
3. Continue Public Awareness Program activities.
4. Initiate Corridor Study planning activities.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 5-5 November 10, 1998
---VntFkail Right -of -Way
xw-s �'r aYy}�qaE ,�`t � ;s
A YMA *A B$� i9
igg
estoration Study
1A g` 3. 1 i
i ac T �* $ i #S ..,.� I m L:,•�+.j .E .a..�.s. >r
�`
ce �.
t mw
ITT, 4a�m7"dAT iiRR
,�tre-
IT
17
IT
*.q#'f"it`
6 r
R . x -moi ,r, / � �� T�itRigX
^ q'
f
fl PA�Ta�ThtRECflDA�.w�1'�/ Of SQI11'Q.'ClQr�I�'k_
MEW, �
rr ;iity ,ry.. � November °`24,r 4998
�- Ii .•
E
rs
frIV
f
3reg�sentation Purpose
m�
I x$,?;i �n na• any, 'xe.^4 "
tj}f�al�,�'��„�
Amyl,
It e
PresenV,{ar"d p°p o e@ � y�k r
R `�a *! , M WYa£.P+I� • IA
rt f� �•k ,} :: Yt S !. "s*= k k
76
a °"' ,r, A L i Anysa„ # ,d fip py a -,' �.Y{. c m a lam' • ., •'" m - • e , ,.
"�e��}�m a k '€ g ` y,a" �;+�*�t a :2chn`Sgr. "' r a �fd ` ` H - .e a fiis ` ,as,, .m� axf a rs"ees-'yea C•
^t C��: i 4 ^� Aitviu t+
I ,� ' `j � PM
.. r:. w # . f
xu+, a i ° far aj'vl tk E �`i+r 9 �;��
n: n e
fie-$ + r ��. 3VV�:.: {.;,.�(/�Dfw.x ., a;.�y[�� 33. •(N,fs �.M �� -' �`•,m�.#_
€tys baa'•�t��l, p;o VLl es. Ai�• f� �`'g.'j■ �C� s y$rrc a ,.
xci #i!:-
9
rm� x ,; � a'�"`rf a ``«r� F�7+� �� � ,'� „ , r � � k i# n:� x x �:s� ` " •� r m �a�"( � x s � �" t 3 tF � + � ,5i y �u,�, 7 $ : ��
;r.a '� E'�2'� w�.' sr �w�h,� �ni(' ---9 �" 6� � 1 ",� `�-• # � 7 �: � a � � Y ,ge , r
�Y
k,a ,s:'ri.i" _ LJ'�a ( .ldtt °94# 2 k• s w ,i� : e` ft,'U� +�5;# +#;:,. ' x "ti. x -m,rz `x ;; Wit..
' "-= , . € i 4, .1 jsfi -�. �'r-a
�'s=` i-„ y� m; a , }'.-
,„ tt .�E, n g 's-•.'�" ?"_".' 7s-i::K
�_' Q ` + .��•••••• Y�++a t� �..td -+n n+ sP7'ui•,fi n�,�,? }�'sp,r- • "£'fa 5 t*+, ,�''9u'."
r1\eVo ende.dQ�'.i T a t 3 �xri
R mn n # ent alaernat•i�e u ..
^:s "'• .`C€ ,_. i ' ". Cit?+nfi
r`��iG!i IMF
'#k'�,,vYn'tF 'yam�i
}+ I:��£Y' 'dX "aSfi A"' q hd 4 #3
.,5• n � 4 ; r x`�i,. �trx °" �>. #4
fi' g - •'9•i . =-5. 3^:= aaR
�s,.�I
'w,F'^t' i t°`re kqq i ,a -y -fitIn tg a.. to •i= d •nom 4 #I 3p�..x t, m-"-y*�pRn k r
7,'+..-,#x G ` ,l.+.'�a ;:, +* •y m u '{',J? ytr: �qu'�i .. ta.a� wrt I R€
+(I}t � � + ;.-• �a ~i €,. �. ��` ft, � �A � #`" .rv^W � � "ys , €a3 rc�a�}�4,�+�°,
�
Wt A ctni on; P�aAn �3� ntg conte
K.
�Ag,Sx+ n�.n
R11 �``` +s,✓ 1:'+ii` f+m`,#€ s +i 1 $ ..�:'A S. * 9 m sA anea x• f i R avc. n
°i
Yto Z
�t { 4 r .,F
�.
;pp 2 0 F C'tk- -q;-Al
s s� z k r __' a .m 3 -r �•.-Ex n •r.< - .i„ter ^-e�m.w—.� ..
vi t n A, ye k ta.f-.S• i e d � A I
mm at o Asa a onVm
s
Im
r s x ai$h ! ?: c E r.M o • t yaxr�� ��il - w P x x °a. ..
r a
Y
g�tl s �&�� ,� '1{ S Y 'P 41 {� �Y �2ni •�.
M r e Y3 a`i ”"s mt
m?
�_'� "tu: • '..+,.'"=ay ;aim t+s'' M�.hr''k
4
PrE
4� Study Purpose
s � iNi ti
30,
rs+ar-—�TyaSat'aExre p� 93?.'+s�'§
N
w« g p
• dN P'i + 1
Idents }a� deuallua�:e
k. nment a ternat�ves
• + n
€
;�®ffe!Ki}�mw�*�
i w 4 if
A y, �H "t tit+ tirCC(t q
trre?a: 3 9 � PG '�..= Y3 fr t s-:5 m.'. `ik- H. V. � n�a
¢
EYA��Ml� �e �'�. a? g *�`.R ".
si" k� t t n" L`s • ,: x ,e 8 ;fi t -_ �xm r r s n "a.,.3. 'v`ou
zap '"*akn ,� s r r ar, m �+ r "+ ` Att k '} ffi u ..., e3 ' r
-u d �� AR. cud vt5# r'i Yom' P'� t. .
Y ", vy " d ti ` ^ 1{CvY'z+ ; V.v.
CC {�/�{ k 5 a�(//�� ((//��..{{ 1! (�/j�e,� �yR�$" • ■/�� Cd a ,:.
V e f,�/ I tg t� V s V ��d a� V �.� t _ M B ? H� 9k t � v.
TVs
•ys. •; T 3.- -; s; -TM4 `� it ;; 3 -- a r u ' F qtr k• ,` 6; c x c. - q ,� `sx
�' � �,11
3m q7-
UG
rd�'��I vv ki# �
.u'�k
� eo,per, L
."
ct<,'onnzcti
@V6,.t au l #aNr#FPd
§
'� d At;� VenturavenfU�d COUij},
�
AIN Lancaster
t
Wr jrt..: PGIR1dQ18 �..:
1
VlncenT Grade/
,, ; ''# — Santa Clarity
>aiAction
NOR!& u i
"As
fi #NO In sawSh,t Los Angeles CouMj/
m
San
All
?'"y,`,. Fernando'' .
G I Imp z 1
IWO
Burbank
t•aw
ax
re "�C z e ti ari Prl ti+ tt "`Jl, '"a* -ss Los Angeles
tir'rk��$�ty'b''kRR� I
Are
' tervation Actions
T
Venturaa? SPI
County
0 Vp
i nt L -
Los Angeles
County
%
I
'-EH"T, 51
PP
TWO I
I
INg
ION
miz I ME 00
ON
;'M dy�within-;�'City
Vn
protected gap
®rl W.,
U
Study Process
rangeto e n e t,,�ppt es��ul�t� rsu b -
I �
5k` P&�M, .n gig `A,°M�, @•P P ffi '�I g3 � + `� '� $? � �,`r$d h�ily ..
.� P 'W sl'4� �Pe , 'qSY sem- tom',-:� �" 9 e '. A>n a ����*'�§+ a,..,ka � x x .n ;� a A 5 ,"�i"p t+wt�v„ . •.
,:.a• � I.6« r'a�� �'i �k�g • � � 1 � .... vee (� 'zs � `•a w� � �n •,.i r,; .r "o <
Lr�w'�A�/1Y��'ik"�s�ii��w r,•E��„��a�w/i �i�. � w � � �$� ���� �.:.�
fii� � � � "..y • � � •i, a 'i.
wit
� �'c, "at §ffi.rae- ....- �..
'c ' �4 _ uE a s*' r�z r "ar '! �v
r .# s
ads Wr �• r' 9 ro v X £ F `A� `i y1 P �rPix ax:�
t�n ,uneerin(�//j��� andoperaTt�ngoonstra�nts}
,254Y,-
ONE
g v} xirh V I'l SDI
t �$Sf f7�# kpP ti 'il6 IM tRWY•.i d aS. 6ki # X a w y'�}q
oda r. r c '
` i5 vu Z � V
nr e• r s.1 f5 n` a .t NE
w
'Wo" yaR,vn$A i If I LIMY � a{#{ � vx -k+ 'ear fa'1 ' t ,,�,.r'�
„' ...,�:' •. j9n't 1 4 X1'1, V '3 • '.'.:'".,rhe' y� f+`x I '#';• nd„ F.,.9{ Yin'Re .,`�``- ..r, '3 "? r� wrg`Pl �"y.
°i e t— Cf i f4ilt llAi P .8 krE"fi„ 'SF N ' tX zf..a
{ � t } � � t i L � � �& � �^c ' � '�•.€','�i � smn 1� 'i 2` �If sin-Gw R s t 11t� `i`'n `t? 3
Envuronmental•�m acs
pii
a{fyil
'�.It§�-�F.r�t.�w� S`aam sa a`91, >"� i�SEt� zip ✓.�'u`EL:���n`.. to , ru 1 is � li�.�,..1# .w �t � t`�'.1
Ze
` "" '" yg�ry '''k-� Ail al;s s•,
�4,t '�
a •-
;;{f_ +� � : �((//''►►(/�� C
`�v {yt $ era s'3 t{'f iYiA i�t.�k�ue xrmT✓�i sts w�k�a, afu eft{f�411����,1Tm' rl.
�."�f4'�'i^`i'�i IN
�Ula �®„'i���xy11IIW��4';a�1XE4'd""�ei%c
3 ran ,uz °X iI, tur ,1. ,
+iM ' k;Svi Y,rslnl f ,sir �! �ktN,r- u r rs n i £ s i
c°t 'r ' N "' „µ. i �d w k � � w tw
OR
w v,.. s p , 4 ,w Air
ate. xYa ` a y"r
m
rz yg .�a� �y�
Re'suIting trans
pr .5oiv`_:�rov� itrx9�1,>tugtrXIra4•t
on benefit31�s3
e
AT ISi
t i4
&g
[ s s�
I
fieJering Committee
ay rA.......
s,
'IJ5
OU, p L_�"7p
RKA
r vll�
M al
.,
4t
0j, i AnM1.3lb-Z
NO+
J"I
pq 1 A-;, A
"RRA'� VCTC -LWi
C
U
D"nal plannl
rid rig"-
of--Lb'660ster and Palmdale
align
jqn
Study Goals
w
N
I�Eernatv�es�eaM A
t{d4 MS
$dj
30
te5",
J,
rise ger ahd reig'h rail se vice
�R,
6ON
t, 4
, W
6
1 14
" i�el Ou"
4il"', 2,ry iNg'
q n
M4,
-Y t: " M -
",6®r t
15,
14 M 4 A
01I I: h""I" Ili
-z!
iJ n reasonable
construction
:,
'
lian
Study Steps
TV
4W
ted
ell UMNU
J� , . � �
e 'na ve
nm
r re ivg�!
It t
"JI -,-ll
&:L, - , - 1.1=0
'NA• -19
ry
MA
M fE'..
BID,
,vs M
�IaT t
nt alternative-
e prefeedrrnme
11Za m5
iU Ylk
w �
- p� k 5 o,A,A�l i nt Alternatives
r,` SFtM..Nks#fUA. 6 :� �� eia.a �' �..i.:i.m. ,'S
3 WN,f
"E � 4 = t 991- �Engineering Study)
�:�yk �� me '"a'�'W�'�3'P'�.,y"'r-fit a @ d � � ""'"�j y r6 +•,��w� � r o
r a
w b K
n �F'Kry ry * %77� �N� q cc
S
x
`s 1a#
1,
A
i
�wa"` A$
is ,-era
iat s� s'f r•
r.
.tt ... 'k
k'=: +,ctt _.a JktH ,�'
1 t�'b
t,±'� Rtl10�MP*rw��/h'SYAW tRG415
�'°°lfl''T'N'9 MykGryaF9r/eCYA VmaSV igmM
4 f`tli
E
fjr �{ e%
p' C RMlMiM1 9d1 #'�ItiY+U�drdgrt' k3 Al
�, �,a.b
x
xq
y S r'
'
C
4 Y PYi!
it 13I! F}
r
•'
K
jk 0.N 5 i��+ X (1.4' H
i :] R Y _ 9 �. 5
� 0.
... n .. � -
"�A+�"a�'{'w'°"
a t
Alignment 1
Y }{n. i!i49i .. � J f �'1•� 9.. b A iy'"+§�i�:j4 �3
�
a
RA....i'3 'f'
'
y e", i yy, k
P
E fi mkl i
f g.� ..y t
'Pci'r# 'zciru IP L
y�
YBYi ry�-�aRlf�.':�+•n�l/W�WIIN 2� )�CR[ C�*'c�
�'V fLvl Mrxi WNfNyixU'itl 4z
Svi�epa'bg4i
�+ Pt�4 v9tl _g
# ?P :
.V2
� 3' � 4i � s y.� S •'
� ry
4 B'
n m 5 � is
q�'�'{'iY
' ' » a E
q„r.,• jjp� {P
:YA - � � lkPk�+`
iN44�MK/^xM]JY6Y6 MnN (�y✓%SWYnZYbibvbNl AI TBhMbi4 �
�� wi kbblva> w�i �'! "fir '�'�� i
r
.If {,
�y _
aC
-
«
T
.:
�+-g j r'
I'
Alignment 2
oes1 ' 8
a �r k \4* !Rytgl51 x112o J;P`I32-1
r`3.�.="':
vrc sm n ? tz t sruoe vnr nwom men mKaw a s.
,' ty�' A. 4 5 -et �r i'l ' �: § mrea.Aaoameaname"�+m+aidsvmacA�-?''�
'u �# -3F a-� +k y Exp i F5.. 1 a 'ymt..+ �p Chass*nae�iveanrmerlekz
3 � �€ i - n ms ! � � x t r i� 1� � � ti
1rt Wmw'3 {' �:*� r, <} nl. "fi F.. 'Rett Wk si ftweprc+�Y3x5+.
Y
a
G
oes1 ' 8
a �r k \4* !Rytgl51 x112o J;P`I32-1
r`3.�.="':
vrc sm n ? tz t sruoe vnr nwom men mKaw a s.
,' ty�' A. 4 5 -et �r i'l ' �: § mrea.Aaoameaname"�+m+aidsvmacA�-?''�
'u �# -3F a-� +k y Exp i F5.. 1 a 'ymt..+ �p Chass*nae�iveanrmerlekz
3 � �€ i - n ms ! � � x t r i� 1� � � ti
1rt Wmw'3 {' �:*� r, <} nl. "fi F.. 'Rett Wk si ftweprc+�Y3x5+.
Y
a
V, �r
`p:u '���°:.,s°z'�3&5ek ftIiSc
Alignment 3
'IN u Y b
a
. i
L
w i ti �
V n mt
!Nyaa',n1Y 'tt.9c(}f,f ' ¢
fY vt
It
Alignment 3
i
Design.
17.
traints/Issues
ie
�n
NAN t t t8 nw.rom, me�, I
HIR
NA; n i rhi z e construction -cost"
x,j it -p:,
Findi
WIii
Alignmen
"It 2,
1.1i np3 -4
A k
qPOW4
�i C H C
'1 6
ISIY
,�ja
rr a
7� qkl;
LosAngeles
Moderate
Moderate
*,rfodernte�#
pit
IS
iztx m
-IA
M !I
1 1 MiI fir
-OMPQT1D1eediq
C
t�,CTf
Yesp, i�� R
-1 -
Ril
IT
- -1 Not
' -I.-
s,
Yes
a 11
Y itE-Rziii
I, ka
1 ,
1{ o
ME V5 M
v eal
.. . ... .... . �J,
q
P -M 11111-d
Tliqw
i'l,
�Pk R
,
WaRmi"
Vd I [ft
" S.4
?
Vffi I,�, M
I u
SM W
NTII�
RK
Ai, MT -ii,
Mgt
"'t, I
s,
11A
xt
digi
Is M h e,
N 0'
Vy"ANiii [f•
Ir
st t'a
Viet "dihkly onr,,,,p oniq
a i
61 P �l sA
AN IV
i,tv
00d'
J-
$ 8�%,
IiN
Z
Trna . r df6de cos4:11 24
9,
'. 11 1. .. —1. 1 1 , �,.r ..� 1 . I v , " r . I F1
I
mm-
v`:
straints/Issues
Jv,
ue to a
*771 .�'Ry
t i �M 2 Av as ma ?,ti
t �q„. e* m yi x : a .max x �,
a�.'"�a�r�'�rt`R�a`�S �� is �_�» 3 � �� t � o- S. r �i R �:'.t � a. a- p� i R'"rx '�'�sr
3.s eavy�e�xist%ngand f,uture.:t�ax f�c volurneson study
�°istkr b44� ;. k 3 RE a w F .. a5
R .d <cea 9 x m:�n v �s C,a
`t y Si. -' �3rzs_bc wain a4s ,.w �R� Fes} • ��A�• �I rt'1 �3�•
9zail/hic
It
r § £ x R ?naS.`��` row!+;'' K- -sx -+ ",�.F'Ss ^h�' a ^4"mt ys'a ` s •u n s..%v-a�z,, r''e'`'.wz `y, gg_
$ i
• � r*fy e t� 9t� r� e qtr z�A +x xrr • '� �r�
iunities with of grade crossings Iare N.
?syxa,,. $ a ar r.'"€ es%v.�.� �& i -A' 1 s.., za '71$nav".3'i
1 r
srto grade:_separate
z ' s
to
a- b C $
�sR <- �; n � r r -x;v+er art err .: m .-. ;,wer � aert crux i a.. s �.a—�•a.
fans s"
r s 7
V d P
sway crossings are grade`separated
• r
Alicinm(
iorm�ttal Considerations
IV
VIM
,wr
-1441
4
- ` , ,
i�,;,,g Q �M
RAN
al
fE7
*rwMwK0
. v -g 4 N 3 k �,j Y�
sl
mum ij
"Y r :testi aAu"'vw � -:A
'fi
xecreCIT 10
4
Pr
• (itilitiet
i�,;,,g Q �M
RAN
al
fE7
*rwMwK0
. v -g 4 N 3 k �,j Y�
sl
mum ij
"Y r :testi aAu"'vw � -:A
'fi
xecreCIT 10
4
Pr
• (itilitiet
" A"
W -V
4
ssment Results
All s-' 'a•14
1�"4,�.$.sr"
^a 1� ,sds. same
y"5 r _? ., ° j f•. j�1 i� W9a $i'j x 3 be g s f?.�:'r•3 'cY 's.`M1v',a.' Y' '.',
fi3 of NF } 'Y`A tlp^R*-}5' P R.jf d� fi+. E V •�;,`�M (Z2 i d pie' _ K S mcr 4- tS '? r� .f •S F"&J,,,1 JA g( K'SS,X R '
+3.' , `v 3%" p'''
4�` � � l �. s 14. # � :w .re,.: � �. .�. .
Enha 4ceo*. ad=N a i{oE�tal mob�I it ht
ml y �� T M , y
IN
n H"f `'u... 'i x m x a s u ao- t faro 3
r tl� Ic. est - f ^s '^`' �'.. s.! � ''t �r ', s ' a , +} $ ,�5m, r.ye aw
r��,r',"'C�;:�f-; s}:'!y;S Pi is it
VI -7
ate.:;
s ,. Im T-- 4 t"R.4 =r & .I l °�.�. ;• '� .. Biu' t `'° ` a j
.+,x Nue 1 a a✓. ,':, -K a
ort Io a�h layuse�! oal�c�es��
#y
r,fi' i $xyaEu
it 3 ~
s ` "�#s i✓n '} �$ .,.. ra� � ., des ml::� :•rc! �� . ;: lit *�,a "= ,Y t�
r (�?r{,� n>v,#� �,�: x'c sp:, Fdl3}ia sf
-S e t .k'= r {I�hiE-*.sbiw9 a t ".'fie { a�rE- " ?' "%a {T �
Irn roe re {t=�onala�r ual�t� :Yr1p z� ar xh:
'i i t k1 iti+x t� g 9 PO `� r+ �s t t 3-}i r � �
a 6 sTx � `s ' t:b i x,3>
a;^�lit,
. iA`s:
dx sY` `1 � is
!i M'�ria (, ; 'ift k"N' ..c`r, 4!".5a' 1 #'.; dlst
s z g n 1! >r'� 1}�`t?aA'.;i #�� ^a-3 vd4 _! ! a ;za'ikrd
it
xd.z Ne 'Na`o-.z
a=x= x� '#� [' „S,e- s'; n, z'fa . s •$ { -.:3 r•�'a+.
s ,ft n E F `� "33E�•I3 aa,,•A3 3� „� s i a
o:rnw$ on seg e � t I 5 reew,a, 5$ uth ark}
i}Gr t s.a r #� #'" "'� a tt�n ^mrmw+ N'N t
.E t€ r y.Nwf."dil ! sl_-.. &fid �.:;; a a . r bii �"„''} ;* fl s' '?", e.3xk
P - i ' c _ - x _ v a R 1
8 a.:'."a • r • • -i i
Vim` g fm cast ,environmentalVim
�s impacts.
xas tont n
Tip,
{}"?.#� �. a
Ili
YY ,
l
i -A2
0
v
r
� r
ry
S r
yg�
s�=Z J3 �yl� taf 4 iTm si✓N - _� - ' �
Yr "Ry - - 'A
NP,
;7�
Findingti. ARRNNI
i R E -M.If
of Alternatives
';i'e
go "
fe
�u
JAp
Oni�
,.,.e,r, access 't
par,
W�*t
D"
W 77=4 T7510 TVORWICONRA-1 P 4T;'A-N— 7
WO
k' W•
r.'e, 0 MPG, 'b--Q-Sllrf6ss
4f
TIN
Ilk.
A.1 5 P I acem. Ont6 fie
,
f Ia an'duse impact
' 1`
bb n 'e" SS' isplacement"s,
Altern(
w
ment Summary
1"
eo
OPTan
11 neigh...
4-•4 am
aYiI c 1 es,
ib,rfs,-,
rq D-VotgI
M.1
. ..... . ..
i z es environmental' . impacts
..
Its ,.m�a.-reasonabie construction cost
E.
Res!
w
ment Summary
1"
eo
OPTan
11 neigh...
4-•4 am
aYiI c 1 es,
ib,rfs,-,
rq D-VotgI
M.1
. ..... . ..
i z es environmental' . impacts
..
Its ,.m�a.-reasonabie construction cost
t Alernativ'e
a
c IVA
xg�
RIP
lit -
JI
ical Alignment
IM
I Iq i LOVIMA RMI
VU2
Oak
FA,
vn
7.1
M -T 4
SJ
Ig
na
Oil
, :z "
A 11
11 A+ nigIN
&PI
iO
Iry
Tl
PQ
iffu
Ell
P6 - m
gqpIle"
-All j,
�Dtj�s- 0�):)Do U'a, /11DUpl,]"�
C� "YT'.4,•
Va
r. 'nw
a
71. ta fi ;
�I;h
Ilk lvl
MIN
RN15 —
A
- in
..............
%
Q
1 A
z
a,, } . ' .'a¢!' I�°I 6�-!�Id= pun
SIOOJL U014MAJ3
13
PUI)q
0
4 V .�
i N.A
IN �R
vn2i
A
�Dtj�s- 0�):)Do U'a, /11DUpl,]"�
C� "YT'.4,•
Va
r. 'nw
a
71. ta fi ;
�I;h
Ilk lvl
MIN
RN15 —
A
- in
..............
%
Q
1 A
z
a,, } . ' .'a¢!' I�°I 6�-!�Id= pun
SIOOJL U014MAJ3
13
PUI)q
0
-n114
tion Strategies
S4�11
I r
4n
to flu.
INA
u n
X
K M
-1Y, _q
F0
Al
iYll,
z�i i
on
SML12T!K�l
3X
UM
', �R,v" -11,,�,e��—rj,,, ��, I -
I � -
tern privL.
um i�tS
14,114 Qt
(develop r ed. -1c
F 1%
-1 1-3
If%
VIA V,
Y3 ik
ant
Developerde to
d f
n
eftrbl: Pldh:,',deSl 9nd ion
40
w
0
ing Strategies
MO
IN 13,�JI!,4IJ1� � �;� f � r t�s �� 43 # � Q u� � s �^ � �." �``a�` i•�'x �'�''�
1.4
vNN
V
ASIR
&Tb&
CIA -T,% .....
-lR
...............
AR,
ll, Pre
FI
i5
4z,
-,pNjk-Ad hr�& z
WR
I. 0
,m
m
m
lopment Steps
eo u
dr—
TM �JXT`
ul MIR
M 711
7,y
it
MIC71"ci-i"I
J40 Ul
WNwr
UFM
ti
K v
g, IFL
7.
`TstrusCo�ction r � .�. ,� � ����.
a
Next Step
Y
•�j/'`�`'" ggg at ' r- e a'f',--
00 r I d o Fm a�tud s i,9 Ys �� c �'YE� rN j 4 L
k 9 F i i fi � i • �T t x d i >, � � � TY4nc >< kE a �`t,- vw nub' -s e R C>� �'T.u"iR" b�i w.�._kT'�z'�
s
p
'REiA^
"� pp r"55 'd F'-:u"..sM�� � �x iS � Y n•�a Y Y'�`7. � _. fg�-s�Z_r.,r � �4 m v x ar � v� '# trot„ _. � a,•
arC, ra(`�}i s"(}�*Y is{�S>a ,.,;?� "zffiKR^'e#r�` 4`�' •�'.i4 �..t ,+t'L. , "� �.?.�nYu �yv t�i.rw �^j�m c�Fk G"�t:'S',y r,
s't of $i r C 'a i' i o I y o t I H j F� d is -i' t h; t iirct
k4 u it raonis
i t I0. t-
mn..,,y '2*.ts R '7✓'F �3 1,121
;
�sms
5�1',r
;'# t` o- � �a'+x '� x �
+� .« ry t 7 ,RLQ
,r LN, �;vt# I ,c,r. p i'�4
A/i EPA�v�sr�r.
onrre tal_assessrnentf
"'t 7;'*.t. �gp;.}.,.�,re F',`}: 1% '� ti'x ?^a'R }:n a s i>t.,��'
It y t4 x i:.. t E t j� ,ref ��'.. - ssi�.:E, `abs t dt ?* f� t
5a�gjFln ��3
�9Av
s
a4-: x 1 1111t,Y s.�E„y
r, ..a:?i • ,',`±Y �53r a+ £ st is + € ;��
rnae�sr���u�o�r,k,f2/o.`e�.e1,
�
ii,
'Py ry -3 p i.$_ �um°� ulT � ?% w '"PT R..n � "�^+a+•-^�i^3€'sr—anP-emc � .e
•s; a,Il art kn `%`'•::, nl, Fi
ClMW4 [peetal �ndoprat�ng fcostWW�,tria��y
x,53f kw nt wa .Eati CE ''i.. #,: a i° .e^rxe ,.,.. x xx' tin.k:5b M kN4 'i4s. .&'�P LT �rd:t hr�"'ti:
}.':°�j",7'° t
in : _b. ,,x''a.'�`.� 1 }'t a
f re�ght capacity u
�_.�':
M tl i :'141'V
u
q a
rtunities �s _
-
e x .
0
pm�au&�s
Action Plan
m
M"j VE Q., 40;
. ..... ... .. .....
zcnl V'V
R
iiSFS4
F'4
ivinuethe%planning,"rpr et,.� ,.,,,.,oc -ss wi
,'0'
1 1ff"tF
Con
diate Actions
o na �fl A : xiik o of •i,ll
1r .ur!
TT.M
A�' K• ieVI ae
�veTl�op rlmple11
ment pU C
h
t R Y '1 •r Rk PW.2 S [ H ^n tl Y^k fib"1' � svt. BKrIX
.ogram.
2
l is K M
-i.v2-^✓ fh xiP ¢ t..i!>} -.. .9. % Yt
cure fI'hding for'tCorridi
,
1� v
• n • g r�
s a ,A
Fps f tk
y� e,q'HTestd Council Actions
n C sm 4
Fit
Kw 1 �MM
a 1k q{
�yx4' W�
��yyti"d.°Qaauc.i
' �=�� )fit r � ,a g p$�� p
Y7`� ,. E �1 o n 3�
a "Y °-'Pn,'� q} s *t CQa
_ r ° v�!S�a�km +ra h" i4 g ."�elf3a €F x i'� z. t=arl
7 F P-0 ' Y3 • rs E 8 , a -ax ' ' M ` .kn a nx vn� ,. ; a e 'u+
a d a m .* �n a .i"s.'� c t A n °x` yi zT s x
@" :h+�s r r ;F Shy > y ;� n s,m
'rz v+a R "#. _ • Asa ,'an ate.+' „i �W &a1€.-��fa iei3 . r� a rj
aAdloptf a=`I�reportprepar * =t,aor Tthisssturdy
vu F-.l
s- k
r�
v a`
a i �c,r
.1 k rr6
J119! m
In
p.x - n.
�.i,
TIN
1 61115 gin: �N a p "r t
4s63y. e r .{ '" 4 U Y as s
IIIA
A � � `g�
.s€".4 Ny*t,.
111111 1U1001 nL I laU,l IJ�
it �x p t ng ,+ `CWall,
''P��,Ts.a �'af .?'.8..
rn .� u n gym, .:`k baM k c tra
1 s"e'-s.� w..en ie� a t .r .. s, a ``'„" ,77
x4} w ;i. qa a°n k a n 'wx*xw - mniy
;-jr�5�
,{
. p Ail
Si
-' i :fin s z, ,r v mrra 4-.mn+s-5a rvr.� a -,:mr eamm}yjca.�xr war
i
plyd �Qq.` m oil�$ I t ' � na a ;F .e rc'Y�sa -t t'ilip (r"ut jy :.,�� {,
.A ��y y r r �� ia. a_ r �`,n„k�+Hr k"�� eax 3.� +'�+w}y'"' Poy�
W F R iI i #` x ,p " m* v kb Ab, pig.
A
n, i>ix x d W ,J!rl azf �i N n m tr #
of
`.'
a _