Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - CA HIGH SPEED RAIL (2)CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: June 11, 2012 Michael Murphy CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL SPECIAL MEETING City Manager's Office RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council receive presentation and public comments and provide direction to City staff. BACKGROUND In November 2008 the voters of California passed Proposition 1 A, which authorized a $9.95 billion bond for the planning and construction of a "safe, reliable high-speed passenger train" between the San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station. In addition to the original $9.95 billion, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was authorized to obtain other private and public funding (in the form of federal funding, revenue bonds and local funds). As part of the Statewide Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for this project the CHSRA analyzed two major corridors that pass through Santa Clarita; the Soledad Canyon/ SR -14 corridor and the Interstate 5 corridor. The CHSRA has selected the corridor through Soledad Canyon/ SR -14 (Antelope Valley) with a high-speed train station at Palmdale as the preferred option for crossing between the Central Valley and Southern California. Although the longer Antelope Valley corridor adds about 10 minutes to travel times between northern and southern California than the I-5 option, the CHRSA stated it would have fewer potential environmental impacts, less seismic activity, less tunneling and thereby have fewer constructability issues. Public and agency support for the Antelope Valley option is strong in Los Angeles County because of the potential connectivity and accessibility it would provide for the Antelope Valley. Agencies which have indicated support for the Antelope Valley alignment include: the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA), Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City of Palmdale, City of Lancaster, County of Kern, Kern Council of Governments, and the City of Bakersfield. On January 8, 2002, the City Council voted to adopt Resolutions 02-5 and on March 23, 2004, the Council voted to adopt Resolution 04-31. Both resolutions support an Antelope Valley alignment of the CHSRA project, generally following the SR -14 through the Santa Clarita Valley, and requesting the CHSRA consider a rail station to be located in Santa Clarita. This preference was made in opposition to the I-5 Grapevine option. No specific rail alignment was indicated in these resolutions, only a preference of which corridor to follow. There is no station planned for the Santa Clarita community in the CHSRA reports or analysis. Currently CHSRA staff is evaluating three areas for a single station location in the San Fernando Valley. At the September 2010 Study Session, the City Council requested that the CHSRA consider a station within Santa Clarita. CHSRA has eliminated this possibility, however, they did indicate a willingness to consider making improvements in Santa Clarita to enhance connectivity between the three City of Santa Clarita Metrolink stations and the proposed High Speed Rail stations in Palmdale and San Fernando Valley. At the April 12 CHSRA Board meeting the 2012 Revised Business Plan was approved. The most significant change concerning the City of Santa Clarita is the initial construction segment of the high speed rail line. Originally in the Draft Business Plan released November 2011, this portion was scheduled to be located in between Merced and Bakersfield. Now, in the revised Business Plan, this segment has been renamed the Initial Operating Section (IOS) and was extended from Merced to the San Fernando Valley. The reasoning behind the extension of the IOS to the San Fernando Valley was to connect the state's largest population (Los Angeles Basin) with the fastest growing part of the state (Central Valley), and provide an economic boost to the Central Valley, an area that has been hardest hit by unemployment. The 300 mile section from Merced to the San Fernando Valley is planned to be in service by 2022. At the May 3, 2012, CHSRA Board meeting held in Fresno, CA, the Board unanimously approved the Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (SAA). The SAA shows the proposed high speed rail alignments from Sylmar to Palmdale, potential rail alignment alternatives on this route, and initiates the EIR/EIS process to be performed specifically for this region. There are two corridor options going through Canyon Country described in the SAA that were carried forward by the CHSRA Board for specific environmental reviews. The two options are the Preliminary AA Alignment, and the Metrolink 200 Option. Both of these rail alignments have similar routes and contain underground bored tunnels that begin in the Sylmar area south of Newhall Pass and daylight just south of the proposed Vista Canyon Ranch Development a mile west of Sand Canyon Road. These two lines continue either at grade level or on a raised viaduct while traveling through the Sand Canyon community in Canyon Countryjust south of the existing Metrolink rail line. Mike Murphy, Intergovernmental Relations Officer for the City, was in attendance at the April 19 and May 3, 2012 CHSRA Board meetings and requested a third alignment alternative be evaluated in the ER;UEIS process continuing a tunnel east for an additional two miles under Sand Canyon. This will allow the Sand Canyon area to be less affected by the high speed trains. Mike Hogan, Sulphur Springs School District Board Member, and Steve Valenziano, from JSB Development, on behalf of the Vista Canyon Ranch Project, also requested that the bored tunnel extension option be included as an alternative in the EIR/EIS. The CHSRA Board did not respond to any of these three requests regarding the tunnel, and approved the SAA without including the tunnel extension option. Representatives of CHSRA will be providing the City Council with a presentation outlining the newly adopted Business Plan, and updated information about the overall high speed rail project with an emphasis on the Santa Clarita area. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other direction as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT No additional resources are needed to implement the recommended action.