|
Post by joshuanickel on Mar 5, 2009 22:53:49 GMT -8
The City of Santa Monica is protesting the proposed maintenance facility. Where do you think it should go? I honestly think that the proposed location is good enough as long as the facility has sound walls to block the sounds going into the residential neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 6, 2009 12:22:20 GMT -8
If they want the line built then there has to be a maintenance facility somewhere. Is it really such a huge issue?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 6, 2009 14:02:21 GMT -8
Repating from another thread. How about this option: The line would continue in the right-of-way until 11th St instead of 17th St and the transition to median running would be at 11th St instead of 17th St. This would have six blocks less of median-running headaches than proposed, resulting in faster line and less traffic congestion. The station would be built at 14th St. Note that the area between 14th and 17th St is already public property. The acquisition would have to take place between 14th and 11th St, where a Mercedes-Benz deler and some small businesses are located. That's where the maintenance yard would be located. The business there could be moved to the Verizon site or some other site.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 26, 2009 17:13:44 GMT -8
From today's LA Times: Santa Monica rail yard idea stirs alarm at arts complexHow about moving the Blue Bus yard to the Verizon site and building the light-rail yard at the Blue Bus site?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 26, 2009 18:17:33 GMT -8
How about moving the Blue Bus yard to the Verizon site and building the light-rail yard at the Blue Bus site? 1. Big Blue Bus is in the middle of building new facilities on their existing site 2. BBB's site is squarer than the longer, narrower shape that's convenient for a rail yard 3. Bus maintenance would be even worse than rail car maintenance as a neighbor 4. The current BBB site is very close to most of its bus routes that go along 4th Street or end downtown, while Olympic is farther away
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 26, 2009 18:36:18 GMT -8
How about moving the Blue Bus yard to the Verizon site and building the light-rail yard at the Blue Bus site? 1. Big Blue Bus is in the middle of building new facilities on their existing site 2. BBB's site is squarer than the longer, narrower shape that's convenient for a rail yard 3. Bus maintenance would be even worse than rail car maintenance as a neighbor 4. The current BBB site is very close to most of its bus routes that go along 4th Street or end downtown, while Olympic is farther away Actually the four points above are mitigatable but after I thought more about it, the main problem would be getting the buses in and out of the site and on the freeway. With rail you don't have that problem since it's already next to the main line. So, the Verizon site (not the Bergamot site) seems to be by far the best for the rail yard.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 26, 2009 19:11:51 GMT -8
I drew these on the DEIR base maps to show every possibility I could think of for the maintenance yard along phase 2, using the footprint of the Verizon proposal. It's not hard to see why the Expo Authority narrowed their choices to Verizon. It's a large-enough parcel with one owner that is even currently offering it for sale. Others are not large enough, or the wrong shape, or conflict with adjacent land uses, or are inaccessable. I'll be interested to see what the City of Santa Monica's real estate consultant comes up with. I'd guess they'll look at the old warehouse areas east or west of Barrington, although those would become difficult to access if Barrington is grade-separated.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Mar 26, 2009 20:32:06 GMT -8
Very Informative renderings Darrell. Thank you. I spent the last half hour looking at Google Earth for suitable parcel/clusters of parcels and have come to the conclusion that hands down the best location by far for both phase 1 and 2 is the Verizon facility with Bergamont Station being a far second. I did gleam from this Santa Monica Daily Press article: www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2009-03-09-50584.113116_From_one_destiny_to_another.htmlthe following: "The minutes from the City Council meeting on Aug. 22, 1989 state that elected officials authorized the $17.3 million purchase of Bergamot from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company "to be used as a rail car storage and light maintenance yard." The council also in the same meeting borrowed $6.9 million from the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission — which in 1993 merged with the Southern California Rapid Transit District to form the MTA — toward the purchase of the station. ... reading further... "On top of that, the lease would only be month to month, a condition set forth by City Hall because the property was purchased with transit funds, requiring any interim use be such that rail-related purposes could be introduced readily." With this in mind if the Verizon location was taken off the table for whatever reason Bergamont Station would be open game. It would be a very sensitive issue and a yard would have to be built with some sort of shared use. Perhaps a lid could be placed on the yard with a gallery intensive TOD built on top.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 27, 2009 6:47:08 GMT -8
That may be the case, but 20 years later the obvious thing is to go with the Authority's recommendations for the Verizon site and not to "cheap out" with regards to mitigation. Methinks we'll do the political dance and show we did due diligence as to the inability to place this yard any where else, but every other potential site was rejected by the Authority for a reason.
After the political dance--which is time wasted on what should be spent on more $$$ to really, really mitigate for that neighborhood--I believe we'll end up where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Mar 27, 2009 9:36:04 GMT -8
If the maintenance site is too big enough for Bergamot, could part of it be moved over to Bergamot and the galleries moved over to Verizon to be used as a buffer between the maintenance yard and the residences? I use Stewart Street a lot and there's not much traffic south of Olympic, so moving off-line train cars back and forth across Stewart between Verizon and Bergamot wouldn't seem to be a big problem. If it is, since Stewart Street goes under the 10 freeway perhaps it could be lowered below-grade until it gets back to Olympic.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 27, 2009 10:09:12 GMT -8
I think the Verizon site is by far the optimal out of the suggested sites. It's buffered from Olympic Blvd by a series of commercial buildings on the north side and it's buffered from the houses by Exposition Blvd on the south side. It has the right size and shape. It's already auctioned for sale. All that is needed are sound walls and landscaping on the Exposition Blvd side of the facility. Noise is really not a problem, I think. My apartment building near the Expo Line right-of-way was immediately adjacent to the Palms Fire Station for five years I've lived there. I've never heard the fire trucks. I also loved the convenience of having the emergency personnel next door. Last year they moved the Palms Fire Station to a new facility close to Motor and Venice, more than half mile away from my apartment building. Now, I hear the fire trucks all the time! So, the neighbors are overreacting over the noise issue. And City of Santa Monica is just being nasty and trying to take advantage of the situation so that they could use the Verizon site for transit-oriented development instead. But the facility needs to be built and it needs to be built on the Verizon site. If you wanted to fully satisy everyone, you wouldn't be able to accomplish anything.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Apr 3, 2009 16:59:39 GMT -8
Check out this proposal. la.curbed.com/archives/2009/04/architects_dreaming_bergamot_station_sandwich_proposed.php#moreCurbed LAEater LARacked LAMore cities... AdvertiseSubmit a tip Architects Dreaming: Bergamot Station Sandwich Proposed Friday, April 3, 2009, by Dakota Even though Expo Line authorities have publicly shot down suggestions that a maintenance yard could be housed at Bergamot Station as part of Phase II (which'll go from Culver City to Santa Monica), the line is going to need to take land that lies directly south of the arts and cultural facility. (According to Monica Born, Expo Line project director for Phase II, authorities would have to get an easement from the city or buy the land.) Which brings us to architect Peter Zellner of ZELLNERPLUS Design Planning Research. Yes, an architect has thrown his hat into the Bergamot-Expo Line hullaboo. While Zellner acknowledges, that yes, the arts area isn't being threatened by a possible maintenance facility, he notes in an email to Curbed that "the future of Bergamot as a cultural facility needs to be better discussed in light of the arrival of the Expo line." Among other things, his project proposes a "sandwich" that'd consist of a park, light rail station, automated parking, and more. There's even affordable housing thrown in the mix. Let's go to his proposal, which is after the jump. Better to just let Peter explain. And Zellner's proposal: Los Angeles architect and coordinator of SCI-Arc’s SCIFI (Future Initiatives) program Peter Zellner offers up an urban proposal for Bergamot Station that won’t eliminate the current public and private art-based uses from the site in order to house a maintenance facility for the proposed EXPO Line extension to Santa Monica. Acknowledging the importance of Bergamot Station as a rich arts and cultural resource for Santa Monica and greater Los Angeles-- while also valuing the need for the EXPO Line stop and a maintenance facility on the 8 acre site—Zellner proposes an integrated solution that would allow all the current uses on the site (the Santa Monica Museum of Art and over 30 private art galleries) to comfortably co-exist with a new EXPO line station and a Metro maintenance facility. Zellner, founder of LA based design and planning firm ZELLNERPLUS, offers up an elegant but radical means to resolving the current public controversy surrounding the future of Bergamot Station: 1) Raise the existing uses; 2) Add a light rail, bus station and Metro maintenance facility at grade; 3) Cap these functions with an elevated public park; 4) Bury two levels of automated parking under this sandwich of functions in order to serve the station and the neighborhood; and 5) Improve and enlarge the Santa Monica Museum while providing market rate and affordable housing mixed with new commercial galleries, restaurants and cafes. Like other Transit Oriented Developments (or TODs) RAISE BERGAMOT would provide: - A Light Rail station as a prominent feature of a cultural center - A local urban node containing a mixture of uses in close proximity - Manageable parking inside a 10-minute walk circle around a cultural center and light rail / bus station “This a solution,” says Zellner, “that sees current crisis surrounding the future of Bergamot Station not as a catastrophe but as an opportunity to literally and metaphorically elevate the state of the site. Rather than begin with the assumption that one new use must cancel out other current uses, our office proceeds from an understanding that great cities are complex, integrated organisms. Pulling apart, instead of combining urban functions is essentially a suburban approach that will only reinforce sprawl and limit the development of a more integrated Los Angeles.” There are pictures on the site
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 3, 2009 17:51:24 GMT -8
The Verizon site makes the most sense, from what I can see. I know that area: it's predominantly industrial. Thus, the rail yard would be compatible with most of the dominant land use in that area.
The "Pico Neighborhood", on the other hand, is incompatible with the other industrial area, and even now has lots of environmental impacts. Maybe the best thing would be to remove the residential uses from the area.
I can understand Santa Monica politicians defending their constituents in the Pico Neighborhood. But on the other hand, why is it so willing to sacrifice Bergamot Station for the rail yard? This would eliminate not only residences, but also a cultural resource.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 4, 2009 11:00:56 GMT -8
This is political showmanship at its best. Santa Monica needs to put up with the impacts of this project as much as any municipality along the way. I agree with joshuanickel; mitigate, mitigate well, and put it at the Verizon place. If Santa Monica wants to pay more to put it somewhere else in Santa Monica, and the new location serves the Expo Line as well or better than the Verizon site, then put it there (although I think it's crazy for the S.M. Council to do that).
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 4, 2009 21:01:19 GMT -8
A few years ago I recall there being some discussion in regards to a TOD above the Red Line yards.
Perhaps, the Expo yard can be taken down one level and a TOD built at ground level Given that Santa Monica is prime real estate developers will jump at the opportunity to develop such a large parcel. The question is what is an appropriate size project that would meet the developers bottom line and still keep the community happy.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Apr 6, 2009 8:46:35 GMT -8
; Do any of you O.G.'s remember where the old Pacific Electric yard was in Santa Monica? Why not buy and use that site? Sincerely the Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2009 14:54:02 GMT -8
Let's go back to 1952, a year before the passenger service on the Santa Monica Air Line was discontinued and trolley wire was removed. Note that Pacific Electric and later Southern Pacific continued the diesel freight service until 1987. Metro bought the right-of-way in 1990. This is the mileage table for the Santa Monica Air Line. It was taken from the ERHA source, which gives good information on the line. You can measure the distances and locate the Air Line Stations using Google Earth. Los Angeles (6th and Main) 0.00 miles Nevin 2.62 Hooper 3.05 San Pedro Street 3.77 Jefferson 4.18 Grand Avenue 4.54 University 5.40 11th Avenue 7.68 Sentous 10.04 Culver Junction 11.16 Palms 12.20 Talamantes 13.73 West Los Angeles 14.87 Soldiers' Home 15.87 Bergamot 15.25 Sunset 16.18 Santa Monica 16.88 Tool House 17.54 Ocean Park 19.20 Inglewood 26.43 The following historic aerial photographs are from historicaerials.com/. There were several rail yards along the Air Line route and these are some of them. Sentous Station and Rail Yard was probably the largest one, located at the southeastern corner of La Cienega and Jefferson. Bergamot Station was located at Centinela Ave. Note how false information becomes a fact when it's told over and over again. Bergamot Station today, that is the art galleries and businesses near Cloverfield and Olympic across from Watergarden, has nothing to do with the historic Bergamot Station. The real, historic Bergamot Station was located at Centinela Ave and it's marked with an ellipse here. It's sad how history gets manipulated like this. LA Times a few days ago also incorrectly stated that the Air Line ran from USC, whereas in reality it ran from Downtwon. Where they name it Bergamot Station today at Cloverfield and Watergarden was a rail yard called "Sunset," again not Bergamot. This rail yard was huge and it also covered the Watergarden area. The next stop was the "Santa Monica" Station, located at 14th St. That's where the Fisher Lumber was located (between 14th and 16th Streets). The next stop was Tool House at 5th St, that is the current terminus of the Expo Line at the Sears Auto lot. This was also a rail yard. Finally comes the Ocean Park Car House at Main St and Sunset Ave/Thornton Pl, where the rail cars were stored at night. Today this is an MTA bus yard. The line then continued all the way to Inglewood through Venice, Marina Del Rey, and Westchester. Part of this right-of-way is still intact, part of it is gone. It would be a great Expo - Green Lines connector.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 6, 2009 16:29:19 GMT -8
Fascinating history, and clearly the result of some good, hard work on your part, Gokhan!
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 7, 2009 3:55:37 GMT -8
Perhaps, the Expo yard can be taken down one level and a TOD built at ground level Given that Santa Monica is prime real estate developers will jump at the opportunity to develop such a large parcel. The question is what is an appropriate size project that would meet the developers bottom line and still keep the community happy. There aren't too many uses conducive to share with a rail yard. For one thing, it is a Prop. 65 hazard. It will store toxic fluids and lubricants. You can pretty much rule out a school or anything residential. Most high-value commercial businesses would avoid it because of fear of potential litigation.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 4, 2009 12:35:59 GMT -8
Why not build a yard here: maps.google.com/maps?q=&ie=UTF8&ll=34.008558,-118.242974&spn=0,359.978027&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.008849,-118.242972&panoid=743QeM9LLr0wSymHbvYKsQ&cbp=12,82.28,,0,5 or here: maps.google.com/maps?q=&ie=UTF8&ll=33.996995,-118.243167&spn=0,359.978027&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.997076,-118.243158&panoid=T1y5MZpXzsw1FUW_YnRryA&cbp=12,80.49,,0,5
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 4, 2009 12:43:16 GMT -8
^^ The Phase 2 yard needs to be close to the end of the line, hence in Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 4, 2009 12:53:39 GMT -8
^^ The Phase 2 yard needs to be close to the end of the line, hence in Santa Monica. And the City of Santa Monica bought property with Prop. 116 bonds for that rail yard. They paid $16-17 million at the time. If that property is not used as a rail yard, the City must refund the State Bonds. Interestingly, I understand that the Verizon property is going for an asking price of $55 million and is only 50% of the acreage needed for present and future yard needs. The strange thing is that the Metro Expo Authority did NOT environmentally look at the City of Santa Monica owned property which has the rail use tied in. Denny Zane carefully explained all this, as he was one of the folks involved in the purchase of the property.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 5, 2009 17:18:39 GMT -8
^^ I guess there are TOD conflicts at the site near Olympic/Cloverfield/26th, where they want to build TOD instead of a rail yard and keep some of the existing Bergamot Station art facilities and shops. But Darrell would know about this best being a Santa Monican.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jul 13, 2009 11:39:48 GMT -8
Here is the alternative that the city of santa monica will vote on tomorrow. www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2009/20090714/s2009071403-A.htmAn overview of the site: 1. The rail storage and car wash will still be on the verizon site and the santa monica college parking lot. 2. The maintenance facility, employee parking, offices and paint/body shop will be on the west side of stewart on a lot that the city has a long term lease on. 3. There is a 150' buffer zone between the rail storage and exposition blvd.. This area will become housing, a park, and some sort of retail. 4. The bike/ped path will run along side the rail tracks instead of diverting to exposition blvd. 5. There are 4 track going across stewart.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 13, 2009 13:25:17 GMT -8
^^ So, this is the conceptual engineering found in the link above. These are my additional notes: * Santa Monica has finally agreed for a maintenance yard in Santa Monica. * I really like it that the bike/pedestrian path is not being diverted in this plan. * It's funny that they are putting the maintenance yard 150 ft further away from the existing houses because of NIMBYism but within this buffer zone they are building new residences that are immediately adjacent to the yard. LOL! So, the moral of the story is that if you build something (a house, a school) after you build the tracks, you don't have to deal with NIMBYism, even though the same or even bigger environmental impacts exist. Anyway, I like this plan a lot, as long as it's workable for Metro's operations.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jul 13, 2009 14:21:28 GMT -8
It includes the possibility of housings which the city wants in that area.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 13, 2009 15:39:51 GMT -8
Thanks for posting the link, Joshua! For comparison, here are five key diagrams. First is the proposed new plan (Gokhan's link to Attachment A): For comparison, here is approximately the same view in the Draft EIR (Appendix F). Note the loop tracks in the new version but not the original. Here's Santa Monica's (Appendix D) concept of housing and retail (at the left, on the northeast corner of Exposition and Stewart). Note the big disclaimer, that applies to all of the new images. Here are two 3D visualizations, from the east and from the west. The taller gray boxes are the 2-story apartments across Exposition Blvd. from the current Verizon site.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 13, 2009 21:07:45 GMT -8
And this shows how willing, proactive, and involved City of Santa Monica is with the Expo Line. They also showed impressive political tact in their handling of the NIMBYs there, with their proposal of a new residential buffer zone between the yard and the NIMBYs.
They also showed wisdom with their straight routing of the bike/pedestrian path.
Their consultants are also very impressive. They've carried out an impressive conceptual design for the rail yard and they are involved with other aspects of the line as well. The work of the consultants of the Expo Authority looks vanilla in comparison with City of Santa Monica's consultants'.
If every city was as eager for light-rail as Santa Monica, we would have had light-rail everywhere by now.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jul 13, 2009 21:41:28 GMT -8
Here is an article about the maintance facility from the santa monica daily press. www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2009-07-13-60710.113116_Proposing_a_new_plan_for_Expo_maintenance_yard.htmlProposing a new plan for Expo maintenance yard By Melody Hanataniwrite the author DOWNTOWN — More than four months after the City Council rebuked a proposal to place a rail maintenance yard within earshot of residences, officials will return tonight with a different set of plans to create a sound buffer mixed-use development between the facility and homes. The Exposition Construction Authority is proposing to build a maintenance yard to service the Westside portion of the light rail, which goes from Culver City to Santa Monica, at the old Verizon site on Exposition Boulevard, a plan that's received opposition from residents because the property faces homes in the Pico Neighborhood. City staff has spent the past few months looking at different locations with the Exposition Construction Authority and has identified an alternative that would involve moving the noisier operations to the other side of Stewart Street, placing it right next to the city yards and farther away from homes, while the storage tracks and train washing facility would be located on the east side of Stewart Street. Doing so would still involve using part of the site owned by Verizon, which sits east of Stewart Street, but the yard would instead by separated from homes on the south side of Exposition Boulevard by a mixed-use development that will include residences and perhaps some neighborhood-serving retail. City Hall owns the property — 1800 Stewart St. — where some of the louder operations would take place. A representative from the Exposition Construction Authority could not be reached for comment. The alternative plans have not however allayed concerns from residents about noise and health impacts from the maintenance facility. The Pico Neighborhood Association is planning on sending a letter to the council opposing the plans, stating that it's disappointed that residents were not given an opportunity to participate in the process of finding new locations. Maria Loya, the co-chair of the association, said the alternative creates a whole new set of problems, including forcing trains to constantly cross Stewart Street, creating safety issues. She added that the proposed buffer is inadequate and defeats the purposes of separating the noise from homes. "You're creating impacts to a whole new set of residents, which doesn't address the fact that we feel a maintenance facility should not face residential," she said. Expo officials said they looked at more than 40 different properties from Downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica, searching for sites that would meet the facility's many physical requirements — located on land about six to 10 acres and is next to the main line, ideally in an industrial area away from homes, provide enough parking for employees, and have a reasonable shape that could accommodate the tracks. The criteria narrowed the list to a few viable candidates, including Bergamot Station and the Casden property off Sepulveda Boulevard. The Casden site, which houses a cement factory, was taken off the list because its size was deemed inadequate along with other issues involving its configuration. Officials also nixed Bergamot because it was found to require property acquisitions and for its value in the cultural community. The station was however purchased in 1989 by City Hall to one day house such a facility, thought it has since grown to be one of Southern California's premier art and cultural centers, housing more than 30 galleries. City staff hired a real estate consultant and engineering firm to review options for the maintenance yard, only to find that there was not a site that met all of Expo's operational requirements. Kate Vernez, the assistant to the city manager, said if the alternative plan gets the greenlight from council, City Hall will ask Expo to include it in the environmental analysis that looks at the Culver City to Santa Monica phase of the light rail. She stressed that the final decision as to where to place the facility will fall on the Expo board. If the board decides to go with the alternate plans, City Hall will also need to work around an existing lease it has with the Lionstone Group, a real estate investment firm, for 1800 Stewart. Lionstone has a leasehold on the site until 2030. The proposed alternative could also mean impacts to Santa Monica College, which has a satellite parking lot on Exposition Boulevard. "The overall objective is to bring the Expo Light Rail to Santa Monica while sensitively dealing with neighbors and the college's needs," City Manager Lamont Ewell said. melodyh@smdp.com
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 14, 2009 8:06:02 GMT -8
Excellent plan. I like how the city neutralized the argument against the site.
The property would be going from industrial (Verizon) to industrial (rail yard), which is fine because the yard will be consistent with past use and zoning. And actually, with the residential strip and retail, it will become slightly *more* residential in character. So to me the argument on the base of incompatible land use is moot.
Clearly residents will argue that the additional traffic crossing Stewart, with trains going in for maintenance, is unacceptable. I think that's all they have left. I'll be interested to see how many extra trains per day Expo expects to cross Stewart for maintenance purposes.
|
|