Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - GVR SOLEDADCYN UPDATE (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT UNFINISHED BUSINESS City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Anthony J. Nisich DATE: January 25, 2000 SUBJECT: GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD INTERSECTION/INTERCHANGE — SECOND UPDATE DEPARTMENT: Transportation & Engineering Services RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council authorize the City Manager to develop an agreement between the City and the owners of the Valley Business Center to mitigate potential future "takings" that would otherwise cause the costly and obtrusive condemnation of land and buildings of a pending light industrial development. BACKGROUND During the November 30, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council approved the Feasibility Study Report (FSR) and authorized staff to move forward with the preliminary design and environmental assessment phase of the Golden Valley Road and Soledad Canyon Road Intersection/Interchange project, subject to evaluation of additional at -grade alternatives submitted by the Soledad Canyon Road Improvement Alliance before December 17, 1999. Additionally, Mr. Lou Cluster, representing the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)/Metrolink, was present at the Council meeting and indicated that the position of the SCRRA and the PUC had not changed. For reasons previously identified, they would strongly oppose an at -grade crossing, whether as an interim solution or a permanent one. The Soledad Canyon Road Improvement Alliance met with City staff on Thursday, December 16, 1999, to present their proposed at -grade alternatives. The alliance agreed that a grade -separated crossing is ultimately the best solution to address safety and traffic issues for the connection. The Alliance also presented two alternatives, each consisting of an "interim" at -grade crossing, allowing direct access to the Santa Clarita Business Park until construction of an interchange begins. Their current goal is to gain the City's, local businesses' and residents' support, and submit an application to the Public Utilities Commission and the SCRRA/Metrolink, requesting the "interim" at -grade crossing. The purpose of the FSR was to identify ultimate and permanent solutions for the Golden Valley Road and Soledad Canyon Road connection. City staff will therefore proceed with the second phase of the study, and the Alliance will continue developing an "interim" proposal independently of City efforts. APPROVED Asenda Item, GOLDEN VALLEY AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD INTERSECTION/INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY January 25, 2000 - Page 2 The Valley Business Center (VBC), located in the northwest quadrant of the proposed Golden Valley Road and Soledad Canyon Road connection, has nearly completed final Planning approval and permitting for five light -industrial buildings. According to the developer, these buildings would be finished and occupied prior to construction of the roadway, and thus be eventually impacted by any proposed configuration of Golden Valley Road. The project would further be impacted if Alternative No. 4 (this alternative proposes a connector road, which transects the VBC property) continues to be preferred after completion of the second phase of the project study. ASL is currently exploring design issues for the worst-case scenario, Alternative No. 4, that will help minimize right-of-way impacts and help closely determine the extent of impact to the proposed development. City Planning and Engineering staff have met several times with the VBC developers over the past year to keep them informed of the progress of the FSR and the City's process. Staff proposes to immediately enter into an agreement with the developer to facilitate a coordinated effort between the two parties. The costs to condemn property, relocate businesses, and demolish buildings once completed would be significantly more than those associated with an agreement today. The additional indirect impacts including increased time, potential lawsuits, and loss of good will involved with such a complex taking in the future could further jeopardize the ultimate project. 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 new alternatives are realized 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 in eventually setting the configuration and alignment of the proposed connection. ALTERNATIVE ACTION City Council may choose to postpone or cancel further work on these issues. Postponement will have significant impacts on the adjacent developments associated with this study. The results of the next phase of this study will provide the City Council with specific 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 & 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 just completed. I:MYN:INakriIDQfl1 None. KM:tw council \gldnvlbr\updateMoc