Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - BURRTEC FRANCHISE AGMT AMEND (2)NEW BUSINESS DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: April 12, 2005 lq I "RNA, 1. 1 =-1; AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES TO EXECUTE NEW IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINES Field Services RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council approve resolution for the first amendment to the Agreement Between City of Santa Clarita and Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. for Commercial Solid Waste Management Services (Franchise Agreement) to execute new implementation deadlines for the siting and construction of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and the use of alternative fueled vehicles. BACKGROUND In November of 2003, Council approved a new Commercial Franchise Agreement with Burrtec Waste Industries. The Franchise Agreement outlines several requirements for Burrtec and provides implementation deadlines to insure the requirements are met in a timely manner. Certain deadline requirements have not been met by Burrtec. Siting and Construction of a MRF. Pursuant to Section 4.2.7 of the Franchise Agreement, "Construction of the MRF shall begin no later than April 15, 2006, and the MRF shall be constructed and operational by February 15, 2006. If Company (Burrtec) fails to meet either of the preceding milestones, City may, at its option, either continue the milestone date(s) or immediately terminate this Agreement, and/or take another action that it deems appropriate at its sole and absolute discretion." Shortly after being awarded the Commercial Franchise, Burrtec approached City staff to discuss potential locations for a MRF. After reviewing the options available and receiving feedback from City staff, Burrtec decided to pursue the site previously utilized by Keysor-Century on Springbrook Road, off Drayton Street, for the MRF. Adopted: moo. os -3 P7 After selecting the location, Burrtec began working immediately toward the construction of the MRF at the location. They met with the Solid Waste Diversion Subcommittee on January 27, 2004, and November 1, 2004, to discuss their proposed project. They submitted a complete application to the Planning Division in September of 2004, brought the project before the City's Development Review Committee on October 14, 2004, and attended public meetings on November 1, 2004, and November 4, 2004, to address the concerns of residents regarding the site. It was not until recently that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) wrote a letter to the City stating they will not support Burrtec's request for the railroad crossing required to access the site and recommended that Burrtec find an alternative location. The following is a timeline which outlines when and how City staff and Burrtec reached the point of determining that the Springbrook location will have some major issues as a result of the rail crossing: • October 19, 2004 — A Metrolink letter, dated October 15, 2004, was received by Planning. The letter outlined several concerns with the use of the private rail crossing and additional design considerations that Burrtec will have to implement if they are to build a MRF near the railroad. A copy of the letter has been attached for your review. • Week of October 19, 2004 — Planning informed Burrtec of the Metrolink letter and faxed a copy to them. Planning was told of the need to coordinate with Metrolink regarding an easement for access over the tracks. • November 4, 2004 — After a Saugus Action Committee meeting, Planning spoke with Eric Herbert and Chuck Tobin (Burrtec) regarding the letter and gave them another copy. No issues had been worked out as yet. • November 18, 2004 — Planning called Deana Knox at Metrolink to discuss the issue. She indicated that Ron Mathieu was the person Planning needed to speak with and said she would forward the City's appropriate contact information to him. After coordinating with Ron and his staff, a meeting was scheduled for December 6, 2004. • December 6, 2004 — Planning met with Metrolink staff at the site to show them the site plan and to discuss project details, after which the applicant and staff from other City departments met to discuss the issue. After the meeting, City staff and Burrtec went back into the field to review areas where alternative crossings may be feasible. At this point, Metrolink encouraged the applicant to work with engineers who have experience in the field. • Week of December 27, 2004 — Planning met with the applicant to discuss their progress with the issue. Burrtec was still doing research. • January 19, 2005 — Burrtec met with the City Manager and City staff to discuss the project. • February 7, 2005 — Planning held a meeting with the Waste Diversion Subcommittee to inform them of the status of the project and to identify outstanding issues. • March 21, 2005 — Staff received a letter from the PUC dated March 18, 2005. The letter indicated they will not support an expansion in vehicle use of the crossing and recommended that Burrtec seek an alternative site. A copy of the letter has been attached for your review. • March 24, 2005 — Buniec and City staff met with the Subcommittee to bring them up-to-date with the MRF railroad crossing issue and also presented an alternative site to the Subcommittee. • March 28, 2005 — Burrtec, Metrolink, and City staff met with the Subcommittee to discuss the problems they had with locating the MRF at said location and its impact on the rail crossing. In addition to the rail crossing, there are several other concerns with the proposed location. The following is a list of some of the additional concerns associated with potentially siting the MRF at the said location: • The location will require significant grading and the Engineering Division believes it would require larger retaining walls than were originally proposed by Burrtec. • The grading needed for the site will require the removal of four oak trees, two of which are heritage oaks. The oaks will have to be removed and not relocated since the relocation of the oaks would be too expensive and would require them to be transported by helicopter. • There are concerns with ingress and egress to the site through Springbrook and Drayton since a portion of Springbrook is a private street utilized by several businesses in the area and a small multi -family unit is located at the comer of Springbrook and Drayton. This impacts the turning radius available to Burrtec trucks. • There are concerns with the impact the MRF will have on traffic in the area. • Engineering is concerned with getting the utilities needed for the MRF to the site, especially with obtaining a sewer connection. • There are concerns with the view of the MRF from San Fernando Road. Burrtec is now pursuing the Gates King development in Newhall for the MRF. According to Burrtec, one of the advantages to siting the MRF at Gates King rather than the Springbrook location is that Gates King has more acreage available (17 acres as opposed to 15.4 acres) and a layout that would be more acceptable for a MRF at a size appropriate for the City. Since the MRF may be one of the first, if not the first, site to be constructed at Gates King, this will provide an added benefit to the City. Given that their proposed location is in a fairly sensitive area and the City has a strong vested interest in the MRF, the siting and construction of the MRF will be handled in a sensitive manner, setting a high standard for all other businesses looking to be sited in the area. Additionally, because the City has the option to purchase the MRF at the end of Burrtec's franchise term, the City can insure that the site will comply with the Newhall specific plan and will be designed in an aesthetically pleasing manner. A disadvantage to the location is its distance from a rail spur for the potential transport of materials by rail. Although the new proposed site is not located near a rail spur, it should not interfere with the operation of the MRF. According to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts), although they are looking at the possibility of utilizing large, distant landfills that will utilize trash being delivered by rail in the future, in order for a location to be an appropriate place for loading the waste onto the rail system, it will need approximately 4,000 tons per day to load over 170 rail cats (which is estimated to be approximately one mile long). Based on the City's 2003 disposal numbers, if all of the waste generated in the City were taken to the transfer station, the City would only contribute approximately 750 tons per day (it would be difficult for the City to direct all of its waste to one location as City waste is currently being directed to landfills located in Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, and Orange County). Therefore, the City would need to import waste from at least five cities the size of, if not larger than, the City of Santa Clarita. Since the MRF will be built with a transfer station in it, it will have the capacity to prepare the waste for transport by transfer truck to an appropriate rail station to utilize the system. Burrtec believes the original plans for the Springbrook location can be adapted for the Gates King location. After evaluating the feasibility of siting and constructing a MRF at the Gates King development, the new dates City staff is recommending are October 15, 2005, for breaking ground and August 15, 2006, to have the MRF up and running. Alternative Fueled Vehicles. Section 4.4.2 of the City's Commercial Franchise Agreement requires Burrtec to use alternative fueled collection vehicles for their operations in the City. Following the requirements of the Franchise Agreement, Burrtec purchased several liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles which were to comprise their entire fleet for City commercial collection services. Staff has visited Burrtec's yard to verify that the trucks were there, that they were LNG fueled vehicles, and to insure that the trucks complied with other Franchise Agreement requirements. The trucks were ready for use in time for the August 1, 2004, deadline. Although Burrtec has purchased the vehicles and had the vehicles on site, Burrtec has not been utilizing the vehicles to provide their services since they have had difficulties in obtaining the permits required to put in place a mobile fueling station for the trucks. Burrtec is working with the Los Angeles County Fire Department in an effort to obtain the permits. Since this is a new request for the Fire Department, there are no set standards, and the Fire Department is working with Burrtec to ensure safety. On March 10, 2005, the Fire Department sent Burrtec a list of requirements for installing the mobile fueling station. Staff recommends giving Burrtec until October 15, 2005, to implement alternative fueled vehicles for their collection services. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. ATTACHMENTS Burrtec Extended Implementation Dates Resolution Metrolink Letter Dated 10/15/04 Public Utilities Commission Letter Dated 3/18/05 SourimiN CAL>FORNIA REcfoNAL RAO. Aurxoxm October 15, 2004 Ms. Wendy Deats City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 R PLANNINGDIVISION D OCT 19 2004 PLANNINGCIT! OF SANTA CLAHITA DEVELOPMENT Member Agenda: i.a Angela County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. orange County Transportation Aut orhty. Riverside County Transportation Co runimoa Sen Bernardino Associated Governments. Ventura County Transportation Commission. Er Officio Members southern California Association of Govemmnenb. San Diego Association of Governments. State of California. Subject: Burtec Waste Industries (BWI) Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in Santa Clarita at 26000 Springbrook Avenue - Conditional Use Permit (CUP.) 04-025 and Initial Study (IS) 04-029 Dear Ms. Deats: Thank you for notifying Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) of this proposed development and for providing a copy of the project description and justification statement, plus three sheets of drawings for our review on October 5, 2004. As background information, SCRRA is a five -county Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that operates the regional commuter rail system known as Metrolink on member agency -owned and on private freight railroad rights of way. Additionally, SCRRA provides a range of rail engineering, construction, operations and maintenance services to its five JPA member agencies. The JPA consists of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). The 15.4 acre property proposed for BWI's MRF - near the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and Bouquet Canyon Road/San Fernando Road,— is separated from these streets by the Antelope Valley rail line, which is owned by the MTA, and is maintained and operated by SCRRA. The following are specific recommendations being conveyed by SCRRA after reviewing the brief application for a CUP/IS: The MTA purchased the rail right-of-way, which is near the proposed project site in 1992 from the Southern Pacific R.R. The drawings indicate that "Southern Pacific R.R." (successor. is Union Pacific Railroad - UPRR) owns the railroad right of way, but the UPRR has no ownership on this portion of the rail line, only access rights, so it should be referred to as "MTA/SCRRA' right of way. 2. Drawing Number 2 of 2, Item 38 - indicates an easement granted to the City of Santa Clarita for use of the private road crossing (north of the Drayton Street public crossing), but our records differ. The City may have executed a private crossing agreement with Southern Pacific Railroad in August 1992, we do not believe this agreement was transferred to MTA after MTA bought the property in December 1992. The County Sanitation District (District) 700 S. Flower Street 26th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017 Tel [213] 452.0200 Fax [213] 452.0425 of Los Angeles County signed a private crossing agreement with MTA in August 1995, for the same private crossing. After the agreement was executed, SCRRA installed railroad warning devices, which were paid for by the District. Our records show that only the District has a right to use the private road crossing, so the status of the City's crossing access rights needs to be cleared up with SCRRA and MIA's real estate section. 3. The existing, private, at -grade crossing is not suitable for use during construction or operation of the proposed facility. The steep grade of the approach from Bouquet Canyon Road/San Fernando Road is not suitable for low clearance construction vehicles. It appears that the MRF facility will have trucks, containers and low -clearance trucks accessing the site for future operations. The existing private crossing is also not designed and constructed to allow for these types of vehicles. If special circumstances deem it necessary for the private crossing to be used during construction or operations and if use of the crossing is permitted by the City, MTA, SCRRA, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the District, then BWI will be required to enter into a private crossing agreement with MTA. BWI will also be required to make all necessary improvements to the crossing, in order to meet CPUC and SCRRA requirements. Additionally, if the private crossing is used during construction, a SORRA. flagperson will be required along with execution of SCRRA's Temporary Right -of -Entry Agreement (SCRRA Form No. 6), payment of flagging fees and insurance certificates must be submitted as per SCRRA's requirements. 4. SCRRA prefers that the existing public grade crossing of the rail right of way at Drayton Street be the sole access to the proposed facility, during construction and operation of the facility. This crossing will not pose the safety and logistical issues that the private crossing poses. 5. Occasionally, passenger or freight trains may block the private crossing for variable periods of time since there is a rail siding at that crossing and private crossings can be blocked with siding trains. This provides an additional reason for BWI to use the public crossing at Drayton Street. 6. The entire 15.4 acre site is designed to drain towards an existing drainage pipe that crosses under the railroad track, but the drawings do not show the size of this drain pipe. It needs to be determined if the current pipe can handle the storm water flow from the site and any upstream catchment area. A hydrology report should be submitted for SCRRA's review and approval to determine the adequacy of the proposed storm water system as it impacts the rail right of way. Once SCRRA and the City approve a final drainage system, please provide a copy of the final version for our files. 7. It is SCRRA's understanding that the City of Santa Clarity is planning to extend Magic Mountain Parkway beyond its present terminus at San Fernando Road. In the past, SCRRA reviewed drawings that suggested an overcrossing of the rail right of way at the proposed BWI site location. Please verify that these two projects are not in conflict. If an overcrossing of the railroad is still being considered by the City, then safer access to the MRF and existing businesses on that same side of the tracks could be achieved from the overcrossing, instead of either at -grade crossing. 8. SCRRA recommends adding a public health and safety mitigation measure that will require the construction of a minimum six-foot high welded wire fabric fence as per engineering standards or a minimum six-foot high block wall along the entire project site adjoining railroad property. Either improvement will help to prevent trespassing, illegal dumping and loose debris from the MRF from littering railroad property. 9. Please provide SCRRA with a copy of the final determination for this facility. Once again, thank you for accepting SCRRA's input on this CUP/1S. If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Deadra Knox, Strategic Development Planner, at (213) 452-0359 or by e-mail at knoxd Oscrra.net. zer cc: Patricia Chen (MTA) Susan Chapman (MTA) Freddy Cheung (UPRR) SCRRA Central Files STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAMS, Govemor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RECEIVED 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102 -USB MAR Z 12005 March 18, 2005 DIRECrOCRRIS OAS -rt FIELD SERVICES Chris Daste City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. - Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Private Crossing, CPUC No. 101 VY -37.78-X Dear Mr. Dastd: Thank you for meeting with me on March 15, 2005, at the private at -grade highway -rail crossing, north of Drayton Street, to discuss the proposed usage of the crossing. It is my understanding that Burrtec Waste Industries is seeking a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Santa Clarita for the construction of a materials recovery facility that will use the private at -grade crossing as the primary access point for the facility. If the facility is constructed, traffic involving large and heavy trucks will significantly increase at the crossing. During the meeting, I noted the following safety concerns with the crossing: • The profile of the crossing is not adequate for low -clearance heavy trucks • There is not enough storage space between the tracks and San Fernando Road for large trucks to queue on the private roadway without fouling the tracks • The crossing is used by freight and high-speed passenger trains • The sight lines along the track are impaired • The crossing has two tracks I brought this matter to the attention of my superiors and we decided that the Commission's Rail Crossings Engineering Section will not support an expansion in vehicle use of the crossing and recommends that Burrtec Waste Industries seek an alternative site for the proposed materials recovery facility. The safety concerns cited, combined with an increase in truck traffic, would undermine the safety of the crossing and contribute to vehicle -train related accidents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 576-7082. Sincerely, - ,ryi-tL-�L Mike Robertson, Senior Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Section cc: Ron Mathieu, Southern California Regional Rail Authority Freddy Cheung, Union Pacific Railroad