HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEGDEC GVR SOLEDAD PHASE 2 (2)UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
July 11, 2000
City Manager Appro`
Item to be presented
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD
AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD INTERSECTIONANTERCHANGE,
PROJECT NO. S3005 — PHASE 2
DEPARTMENT: Transportation & Engineering Services
1. City Council adopt a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared
for the Golden Valley Road and Soledad Canyon Road Intersection/Interchange, and
direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and
2. City Council make a final determination on a design alternative and direct staff to
exclusively consider that one alternative during the development of the second phase of
the Golden Valley Road and Soledad Canyon Road Intersection/Interchange project,
subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
WWRRITUNT51
In response to City Council's direction at the November 30, 1999 meeting, ASL Consulting
Engineers has begun the preliminary design and environmental assessment phase of this
project. This phase addresses many of the issues raised during the project's initial study,
including aesthetics, noise, and potential impacts to the adjacent properties. Staff, along
with ASL, is further developing the design and has prepared the required environmental
documents for CEQA clearance to more precisely determine the extent of environmental,
right-of-way, and fiscal impacts of four conceptual alternatives. The findings within the
CEQA document of this project provide the City Council with specific information enabling
a final determination to be made regarding the alignment of the proposed interchange.
As discussed during the June 13, 2000 City Council meeting, five separate meetings have
been hosted in order to provide project status updates and obtain public input from local
residents and businesses during the development of this project and the preparation of the
environmental document. Flyers advertising these meetings were sent to over 700 separate
addresses to elicit input from the public. The June 13 meeting was also advertised in this
manner. These measures greatly exceed the requirements of CEQA and City policy.
Additional public meetings are planned to provide status updates and incorporate public
input as the process moves beyond this point.
Adopted: � SoAnda Iter: D
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD
July 11, 2000 — Page 2
In order to perfect the CEQA process, the review and comment period was advertised and
extended an additional 21 days. As stated on June 13, the four conceptual design
alternatives under consideration are as follows (plans included in the CEQA document):
ALTERNATIVE 1— Golden Valley Road crosses over Soledad Canyon Road,
Golden Triangle Road, and the Metrolink railroad tracks with a loop
connector through the Department of Water & Power (DWP)
easement.
ALTERNATIVE 2 — Golden Valley Road crosses over Soledad Canyon Road,
Golden Triangle Road, and the Metrolink railroad tracks, with a free
right -turn -only loop connector through the DWP easement, and with
on/off ramps along the south side of Soledad Canyon Road going up to
Golden Valley Road.
ALTERNATIVE 3 — At -grade intersection of Golden Valley Road and Soledad Canyon
Road, with southward relocation of Golden Triangle Road to provide
adequate vehicle storage space at the railroad crossing.
ALTERNATIVE 4 — Golden Valley Road crosses over Soledad Canyon Road,
Golden Triangle Road, and the Metrolink railroad tracks, with a
connector road through the Valley Business Park, west of
Golden Valley Road.
As part of the Feasibility Study Report, a Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report
(PEAR) was prepared in June 1999, for seven initial design alternatives. The PEAR
identified the potential environmental effects of each alternative. The preferred alignment
was identified to be the current Alternative 4.
As a part of the project's environmental assessment phase, it was determined that although
there were environmental impacts as a result of the project, mitigation measures could be
incorporated into the design and construction to minimize the impacts on the environment
to an insignificant level. Subsequently, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) was prepared to evaluate the impacts of four of the five conceptual
design alternatives identified in the Feasibility Study Report. The MND has been
circulated to public agencies and made available for public review per CEQA requirements.
For the purposes of this analysis, each alternative has been compared within each issue
area to the preferred alignment (Alternative 4) as identified in the PEAR. A determination
has been made whether the alternative was superior, inferior, or similar to the preferred
alignment within that specific issue area. Consideration was then given to issues of greater
and lesser importance in determining the relative merits of the various alternatives.
In addition, for CEQA purposes, environmental impacts that are unavoidably significant
are generally regarded as more important than those that can be mitigated to a level of
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD
July 11, 2000 — Page 3
insignificance. All of the impacts of the preferred alignment (Alternative 4) can be
mitigated to a less than significant level. However, each of the other alternatives has at
least one impact that may be considered unavoidable. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 result in the
removal of a historic resource. Alternative 3 creates potentially significant safety conflicts
associated with an at -grade railroad crossing, which may also be considered unavoidable.
Overall, given the safety and traffic circulation impact considerations, Alternative 4 would
be considered environmentally superior to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and it remains the
Study's preferred alignment.
In addition, written comments received to date from public agencies in response to their
review of the MND document do not voice any disagreement with the findings of the
environmental assessment. In particular, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(DWP) voices its support for the preferred Alternative 4, opposing Alternatives 1, 2, and 3,
due to considerable and unavoidable impact to the adjacent DWP aqueduct and
transmission towers.
The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Metrolink have also restated their strong
support for a grade -separated alternative. Subsequent to the City's June 14, 2000 meeting
with the PUC Rail Engineering Crossing Section staff and Commissioner Carl Wood, PUC
has forwarded another letter restating the Commission's policy on the construction of at -
grade versus grade -separated crossings at mainline railroad lines carrying both high-speed
freight and passenger trains. The letter adds that since the Commission had already
granted authority to construct the existing Ruether Avenue at -grade crossing in 1986, "it is
extremely unlikely that the Commission would grant authority to construct yet another
Golden Valley Road at -grade nearby."
Per Council's request, at the February 1, 2000 Study Session, staff gave a brief overview of
the concept alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study Report, and illustrated possible
right-of-way impacts to the Valley Business Center given each of the five alternatives. In
addition, staff informed Council of the two "interim" at -grade options proposed by the
Soledad Canyon Improvement Alliance, which were presented to staff by Allan Cameron
and Larry Rasmussen on December 16, 1999.
In response to traffic circulation concerns for the time period between the construction of
Golden Valley Road and the interchange at Soledad Canyon Road, staff proposed items in
the budget to directly deal with these issues. If approved, staff will implement a plan to
enhance circulation at each of the six intersections bordering the three rail crossings at
Rainbow Glen, Ruether Avenue, and Golden Oak. These improvements should combine
with the business park project to significantly enhance circulation during the
aforementioned "interim" period.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by the City Council
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD
July 11, 2000 — Page 4
A
The anticipated full cost of this project is projected to be approximately $14 million for an
at -grade intersection, and $25 to $35 million for a grade -separated interchange. The
environmentally preferred Alternative 4 is estimated at $25.1 million, plus potential
right-of-way impacts to a proposed development. Currently, MTA staff has recommended
that the project be granted $8.5 million through the Abbreviated Call for Projects. The
MTA Board is expected to substantiate their staffs recommendation in the next three
weeks.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Area Map
Mitigated Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's reading file)
KM:tw
WundI%ddo.Ibr\pb2__07u.da