Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-30 - AGENDA REPORTS - GVR SOLEDADCYN UPDATE (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: . November 30, 1999 City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: SUBJECT: GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD INTERSECTION/INTERCHANGE - UPDATE DEPARTMENT: Transportation & Engineering Services RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council accept the Feasibility Study Report and the City staff presentation on the Golden Valley Road and Soledad Canyon Road intersection/interchange. Based on the report recommendations, authorize staff to move forward with the preliminary design and environmental assessment phase of the project, subject to evaluation of any additional at - grade alternatives submitted prior to December 17, 1999 by the Soledad Canyon Road Improvement Alliance. Authorize the City Manager to extend the current contract with ASL Consulting Engineers (ASL) to move forward with the next phase of the project. BACKGROUND During the May 11, 1999 City Council meeting, Councilmembers approved a contract with ASL Consulting Engineers to perform a preliminary design analysis and prepare a Feasibility Study Report for a new intersection/interchange between the proposed Golden Valley Road and existing Soledad Canyon Road. The results of that study were presented to the City Council during a study session on October 5, 1999, and repeated during a Council meeting on October 26, 1999. Council directed City staff to meet with local developers, business owners, and residents within the area to provide the property owners and residents another opportunity to review the developed concept alternatives and solicit their input on specific issues raised by each alternative design. On Monday, November 8, 1999, City staff and ASL held a second meeting with the Soledad Canyon Road Improvement Alliance (Larry Rasmussen, Allan Cameron, and their engineers) to discuss their proposed at -grade intersection design. Later that evening, the City held its second public meeting inviting 700 local business owners and residents, including representatives from Santa Clarita Business Park, Valley Business Center, and Canyon Country Beautification Committee to address public questions and collect comments to incorporate into the next phase of the study. The Soledad Canyon Road Improvement Alliance indicated that they have two additional at -grade alternatives that they believe are superior to any alternative evaluated in the Feasibility Report. City staff has agreed to evaluate their alternatives prior to initiating the environmental process, given that the requested information is submitted by December 17,1999 °� RECEIVED Re. 5 _ GOLDEN VALLEY AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD INTERSECTIONANTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY November 30, 1999 - Page 2 Questions and concerns raised during the public meeting were similar to those raised during the first public meeting held in July 1999. In addition to the right-of-way, issues raised include the railroad and traffic safety, geology and seismic safety, and aesthetics. Mr. Lou Cluster, representing the SCRRA/METROLINK, was present at the meeting to answer questions regarding rail -crossing issues. Mr. Cluster indicated that the position of the SCRRA and the PUC had not changed, and for reasons previously identified, they would strongly oppose an at -grade crossing, whether as an interim solution or a permanent one. One of the reasons that the Council requested the study was to begin to understand the impacts that would result on the adjacent properties. There are both public and private pending projects that may be impacted by the eventual construction of any configuration linking the two six -lane major highways. City staff cannot provide direction to area business owners and applicants interested in developing adjacent properties until the City has completed the geometric design of said intersection. Based on criteria and methodology set for the study, the feasibility report recommends one alternative as the preferred design for the proposed connection. This recommendation may change if additional alternatives are proposed before or during the process. Further analysis (by staff, consultants, and the City Council) during the environmental review and preliminary design phases, along with additional public participation, will allow staff to continually address concerns and comments raised by the public, and will aid to eventually set the configuration and alignment of the proposed connection. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS City Council may choose to postpone or cancel further work on this issue. Postponement will have significant impacts on the adjacent projects associated with this study. The results of the next phase of this study will provide the City Council with adequate background information to make further decisions regarding the alignment of the proposed connection. FISCAL IMPACT The subject project is within the joint City/County Bouquet Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (B&T) Construction Fee District under the City's jurisdiction. The City anticipates that the County will fund this next phase of the project in the same manner as the phase that was just completed. ATTACHMENT None. KM:tw council\gldnvlbr\update.doc COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL November 23. 1999 ASL Consulting Engineering Site Feasibility Report: With respect to the bridge: Reasons for City to ask for more information prior to approving report: DWP 1. Letter from DWP letter (water division) a. Protect 76" waterline adj. to bridge b. 16 general conditions to protect line c. Condition 11 (page 3) no driven piles d. Condition 4 (page 2) no additional temp. or perm. loads on line. e. Show how to build bridge adj. To 76"Line that goes under Soledad Cyn. Rd. & railroad tract to the satisfaction of DWP/railroad/travel public? No letter from DWP transmission? a. No letter from transmission division? b. Height and separation clearance? c. Materials (metals) used under and adj. to power lines? Soils/Geology Report with ASL Report 1. Driven piles recommended — (page 1 1)`The granular nature of the alluvial sediments and the shallow groundwater table will likely create substantial difficulty with installation of uncased drilled piles. Therefore, driven piles are anticipated to be the appropriate foundation type for the bridge support". 2. Collapsible soils - (page 11) Paraphrasing Section 6.8 "The study area is underlain by alluvial soils which are generally poorly consolidated, reflecting a history without substantial loading. These soils pose the risk of adverse settlement under static loads imposed by new fills or structures." "Alluvial soils may also include potentially collapsible layers above the groundwater table." "New fills or improvements built over collapsible soils can be adversely affected by differential settlement which may not occur until long after the completion of construction, initiated by a rise in groundwater levels." 3. Liquefaction — (page 8) "the presence of sandy alluvium in the project area and the reported shallow groundwater conditions suggest that liquefaction may be a geotechnica! issue for the project." 4. Seismic Event - the San Gabriel fault is located 5600 feet from the site (page 5). Capable of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake (page 7). Pi'.� i OF m EZ RECORD AT 11 3OM _MEETING ITEM NO SUMMARY THE BRIDGE MUST BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A 7.5 EARTHQUAKE, FROM A FAULT, 5600 FEET FROM THE SITE, WHICH IS ON COLLAPSIBLE SOILS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO LIQUEFACTION WITH GROUNDWATER 18-20 FEET FROM THE SURFACE AND IS APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET TO THE 76 -INCH WATERLINE FEEDING THE LOS ANGLES BASIN AND APPROXIMATELY 75 FEET FROM OVERHEAD HIGH-POWER TRANSMISSION LINES ALSO FEEDING THE LOS ANGELES BASIN, THAT CROSS THE ONLY EAST -WEST STREET ON THE NORTH END OF THE CITY AND THE METROLINK RAILROAD & OTHER UTILITIES IN SOLEDAD CYN ROAD AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $30 MILLION, THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. AFTER THESE POINTS ARE CONSIDERED, THEN IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT THIS IS A ONE-WAY BRIDGE WITH NOMINAL BENEFITS, UNDETERMINED RISKS AND COSTS. WITH RESULTS CREATING A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON LONG-TERM LOCAL BUSINESSES ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED $30 MILLION BRIDGE TO NO -WHERE. I AM REQUESTING THAT THE COUNCIL POSTPONE ITS DECISION ON ACCEPTING THE ASL REPORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO CONSIDER THE INTERIM AT -GRADE CROSSING ALTERNATIVE WHICH HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO THEM. BY THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 14TH WE WILL PROVIDE A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR AN AT -GRADE CROSSING WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A SAFE AND WORKABLE INTERIM SOLUTION FOR TODAYS AND TOMMOROWS SHORT TERM FUTURE TRAFFIC AT SOLEDAD CYN AND GOLDEN VALLEY ROADS. THIS WILL PROVIDE ENOUGH TIME FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER ALL DESIGN ASPECTS OF A BRIDGE AND WHETHER ONE CAN BE BUILT SAFE AND AT A COST THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS CAN AFFORD AND ARE WILLING TO PAY. I AM ALSO ASKING THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE AT -GRADE CROSSING IN AN APPLICATION TO THE METROLINK LINE AND PUC. WITHOUT CITY SPONSERSHIP, THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. FOR STAFF TO ASK US TO GET APPROVAL FROM METROLINK AND PUC BEFORE ANY CITY SUPPORT WILL DOOM OUR EFFORTS WITHOUT THE PROPER CONSIDERATION THEY MERIT.