DOCSLIB.ORG

[Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Project Title]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
[Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Project Title] I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION CSULB T ECHNOLOGY P ARK P HASE III S EPTEMBER 2017 C ITY OF L ONG B EACH, C ALIFORNIA APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTS P:\CLB1704\Draft ISMND\Draft ISMND.docx «09/05/17» CSULB T ECHNOLOGY P ARK P HASE III I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION C ITY OF L ONG B EACH, C ALIFORNIA S EPTEMBER 2017 This page intentionally left blank P:\CLB1704\Draft ISMND\Draft ISMND.docx «09/05/17» HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE III PROJECT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 7402-021-020, 7402-021-021, 7402-021- 029, 7402-021-031, 7402-021-032, 7402-021-033, 7402-021-044, AND 7402-021-045 CITY OF LONG BEACH LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 2017 HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE III PROJECT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 7402-021-020, 7402-021-021, 7402-021- 029, 7402-021-031, 7402-021-032, 7402-021-033, 7402-021-044, AND 7402-021-045 CITY OF LONG BEACH LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Christopher Koontz, Advance Planning Officer Long Beach Development Services/Planning Bureau 333 West Ocean Boulevard, 5th Floor Long Beach, California 90802 Prepared by: Elisa Bechtel, MLitt LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California 92507 (951) 781-9310 LSA Project No. CLB1704 August 2017 H ISTORIC R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT CSULB T ECHNOLOGY P ARK P HASE III P ROJECT A UGUST 2017 L ONG B EACH, C ALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) was retained by Long Beach Development Services to conduct a historic resources assessment of the California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) Technology Park Phase III Project (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 7402-021-020, 7402-021-021, 7402-021-029, 7402- 021-031, 7402-021-032, 7402-021-033, 7402-021-044, and 7402-021-045) located on the west side of the centerline of Cota Avenue between 20th Street and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. The proposed project includes 205,300 square feet of warehousing land use, which includes approximately 20,000 square feet of office (including 10,000 square feet of proposed mezzanine office). There are two proposed alternatives for the project. Alternative 1 proposes to develop the building for occupation by a single tenant, with access to PCH provided via two driveways. Access will also be provided to Technology Place. Only egress will be permitted onto Cota Avenue. Alternative 2 proposes to develop the building for occupation by two tenants with equal square footage. Access to PCH will be provided via two driveways. Access will also be provided to Technology Place. Full access will be provided onto Cota Avenue. The City of Long Beach (City) as Lead Agency for the project required this study as part of the environmental review process to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical resources that may exist in or around the project area, as mandated by CEQA. In 2013, LSA conducted a similar study for a different project that was to be located on the same site. As a result of that study, one historic-period (50 years of age or older) resource (the former gas meter building) was documented and evaluated for significance using the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and the City’s criteria for designation as a local Landmark (Title 2, Chapter 2.63 of the City’s Municipal Code). The former gas building was determined ineligible and not a historical resource pursuant to CEQA due to lack of integrity. As part of this study, LSA conducted additional archival research and a subsequent intensive-level field survey of the entire project area to identify any additional resources that now meet the age threshold of 50 years or older. As a result of these efforts, two office buildings and three covered carports were identified, documented, and evaluated as a part of this study. The buildings and structures have sustained alterations, retain a low level of architectural integrity, and do not meet either the California Register or the City’s Historic Landmark criteria. Therefore, the property is not a historical resource pursuant to CEQA and LSA recommends to the City a finding of No Impact regarding historic-period built environment resources. No further historic resources investigation is recommended for the project unless the development plans change to include areas not covered by this study. R:\CLB1704\Report revised August 2017.docx (8/25/2017) i H ISTORIC R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT CSULB T ECHNOLOGY P ARK P HASE III P ROJECT A UGUST 2017 L ONG B EACH, C ALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. ii FIGURES............................................................................................................................................ ii APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 7 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 7 ARCHITECTURAL FIELD SURVEY ....................................................................................................... 7 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 8 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 8 World War II: Cabrillo Housing Project ..................................................................................... 8 FIELD SURVEY ................................................................................................................................. 11 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 17 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................... 17 California Register of Historical Resources .............................................................................. 17 City of Long Beach ................................................................................................................... 18 EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................. 19 Summary of History ................................................................................................................. 19 Significance Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 19 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 22 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 23 FIGURES Figure 1: Regional and Project Location Map......................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Project Aerial ........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Project area in 1963. ............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Project area in 1972. ............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 5: 1900 West 19th Street, eastern façade, view to the west (6/8/17). ...................................... 11 Figure 6: 1916 and 1908 West 19th Street, eastern façade, view to the west (6/8/17). ...................... 12 Figure 7: 1940 and 1948 West 19th Street, northern façade, view to the southwest (6/8/17). .......... 12 Figure 8: 1932 and 1940 West 19th Street, northern façade, view to the southeast (6/8/17). ........... 13 Figure 9: 1956 and 1948 West 19th Street, southern elevation, view to the northwest (6/8/17). ...... 13 Figure 10: Overview of property and fire damage, view to the east (6/8/17). .................................... 14 th Figure 11: Fire damage, western elevation of 1900 West 19 Street, view to the east (6/8/17). ...... 14 R:\CLB1704\Report revised August 2017.docx (8/25/2017) ii H ISTORIC R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT CSULB T ECHNOLOGY P ARK P HASE III P ROJECT A UGUST 2017 L ONG B EACH, C ALIFORNIA Figure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2006 C.3 Harbor Subdivision Transit Analysis
    1JiIi~ ENGINEERS ?LAo~NERS •••••• ECONOMISTS ........~ro'" WilburSmith ASSOC, ... TlS Metro ---34937 TF OCT 02 2007 870 .H377 2006 c.3 Harbor Subdivision Transit Analysis Final Report Submitted to: The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trausportation Authority Prepared by: Wilhur Smith Associates UltraSystems Environmental RAW International December 22, 2006 • Executive Summary HARBOR SUBDIVISION TRANSIT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In 1992, the former Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LAcrq purchased the majority of the Harbor Subdivision, the mainline of the former Atchison Topc:ka & Santa Fe Railw:ay (ATSF or Santa Fe) ~tween downtown Los Angeles and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. As part of that agreement, ATSF retained the right to provide freight rail servia on the portion of the line owned by the LAcre, and LAcre retained the right to operate passenger service on the line. Today, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), the succ('ssor railroad to the ATSF, still operates freight trains on the line, although the total is a small fraction ofwhat it was at Ute time of the purchase. Neither LACfC nor its successor agency, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), ran any passenger service on the line. The line studied appears as Figure £5.1 on the following page. With this analysis, Metro has attempted to investigate the feasibility of the potential deployment of various transit modes on its portion of the Harbor Subdivision. The attempt has been to make use of as much of the 26.36-mile right-of-way as may be practical, realizing that some sections of the line run through primarily industrial land uses.
    [Show full text]
  • LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan    
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan 2020 In Memory In Tribute LA Metro honors the memory and legacy of Connie Rivera, the LA County owes a deep debt of gratitude to the truck drivers, Public Affairs Director for the Alameda Corridor Transportation warehouse workers and all essential members of the logistics Authority, who for many years provided tremendous insight, sector for keeping our homes, businesses and hospitals wisdom, leadership and her trademark great sense of humor supplied with food, medicine and other necessities during in many LA County goods movement forums and discussions. the COVID-19 crisis. Your dedication and bravery ensured our families would be fed and have access to necessary goods at a A product of Southern California, Connie resided in Long critical time in our history. Thank you. Beach, attended local schools and earned her bachelor’s degree from Cal State University, Long Beach. She was passionate about her family and serving her community through the YMCA and Rotary Club. She will be remembered fondly by her many colleagues, especially the Ladies of Logistics, an informal group of women in non-traditional jobs serving the Logistics Industry in Southern California. Connie led with humility and graced Metro as a member of the Freight Working Group – her vision and voice are embedded within the vision, principles and priorities of the LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan. Metro dedicates this Plan to Connie’s memory and her unwavering belief that through hard work, collaboration and kindness people can come together to lift up and improve the quality of life for all LA County residents, families and communities.
    [Show full text]
  • CPY Document
    July 26, 2006 Honorable Members of the Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor City of Los Angeles City Council of the City of Los Angeles CD No. 15 Board of Harbor Commissioners SUBJECT: EAST 74TH STREET BRIDGE OVER THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR - EASEMENT DEED AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PORTS OF LOS S. David Freeman President ANGELES AND LONG BEACH, THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Jerilyn Lopez Mendoza Vice President Pursuant to Section 385 of the City Charter and related implementing Kaylynn L. Kim provisions of the Los Angeles Administrative Code, enclosed for passage by your Honorable Body is an Ordinance, approved as to form by the City Douglas P. Krause Attorney, approving Order No. 6873, which was adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners at its meeting held Wednesday, May 17, 2006. Joseph R. Radisich RECOMMENDATION: Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D. The City Council adopt the Ordinance approving Order No. 6873 which Executive Director approves and authorizes the execution of proposed Easement Deed and Agreement (East 74th Street Bridge) (assigned Harbor Agreement No. 2481), by and among the City of Los Angeles acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners, the City of Long Beach acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA), and the County of Los Angeles (County) therein granting necessary easement rights to the County for public road and highway purposes to construct a new bridge and a new traffic signal over and across the Alameda Corridor at East 74th Street and Alameda 425 S. Palos Verdes Street Street to provide access to the Florence and Alameda Commercial Center.
    [Show full text]
  • BNSF Harbor Subdivision
    South Bay Cities Railroad Study BNSF Harbor Subdivision Final Report Prepared for: Southern California Association of Governments In Coordination with South Bay Cities Council of Governments The preparation of this report was financed in part through grants from the United States Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration – under provisions of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century. Additional financial assistance was provided by the California State Department of Transportation. Prepared by: Wilbur Smith Associates Schiermeyer Consulting Services Cheryl Downey February 28, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Project Overview .................................................................................................... ES-1 How the Study was done......................................................................................... ES-1 Recommendations................................................................................................... ES-2 Next Steps ............................................................................................................... ES-2 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Study Process................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Agencies Consulted.......................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Legal Framework
    [Show full text]
  • CPY Document
    December 7, 2005 Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor City of Los Angeles Honorable Members of the Board of Harbor Commissioners City Council of the City of Los Angeles CD No. 15 S. David Freeman President SUBJECT: SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 1989 BElWEEN Jerilyn Lopez Mendoza V1ce President THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND PACIFIC HARBOR LINES Kaylynn L. Kim Transmitted herewith, pursuant to Section 606 of the City Charter, is a Douglas P. Krause copy of Order No. 6830, which was adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners at its meeting held Wednesday, August 31, 2005. Joseph R. Radisich RECOMMENDATION: Bruce E. Seaton The City Council approve Board of Harbor Commissioners Order No. 6830, Interim Executive Director approving and authorizing the Second Amendment to Agreement No. 1989 (assigned Harbor Department Agreement No. 1989-B), between the City of Los Angeles and Pacific Harbor Lines, and return to the Board of Harbor Commissioners for further processing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Director of Environmental Management has determined that the proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Article II, Section 425 S. Palos Verdes Street 2(f) of the Los Angeles City CEQA Guidelines. Financial Impact: Posl Office Box 151 A transfer from the Unappropriated Balance to Account 59965, Center San Pedro, CA 90733-0151 0330, Program 636 (Air Quality), Work Order 79236 for Fiscal Year Budget 2005/2006 will be required in the amount of $4,961,875 to cover the TelffDD 310 SEA-PORT 2005/2006 expenses for the Locomotive Fleet Modernization Program.
    [Show full text]
  • The Need for Freight Rail Electrification in Southern California
    The Need for Freight Rail Electrification in Southern California Brian Yanity Californians for Electric Rail [email protected] May 13, 2018 Executive Summary Full electrification of freight trains is the only proven zero-emissions freight railroad technology. Electric rail propulsion can take several different forms, including locomotives powered by overhead catenary wire, on-board batteries, or more advanced concepts such as battery tender cars and linear synchronous motors. This white paper is largely a literature review of previous studies on electric freight rail in the Southern California region, with information compiled about existing electric freight rail locomotives and systems from around the world. The two main benefits of freight rail electrification in the region would be reduced air pollution, and reduced consumption of diesel fuel for transportation. Electrification of freight rail in Southern California would reduce the public health impacts to local communities affected by diesel-powered freight transportation, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions of freight movement. The main challenge for electric freight rail is the high capital costs of electric rail infrastructure, especially the overhead catenary wire over tracks. A variety of options for public and/or private financing of freight rail electrification need to be explored. Electrification of the proposed short-haul rail service between the ports and the Inland Empire, currently under study, is an opportunity for using electric locomotives though the Alameda
    [Show full text]
  • THE PORT of LOS ANGELES DATE: JULY 22, 2021 Executive Director's Report to the FROM: CARGO & INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE Board of Harbor Commissioners
    I,\ THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES DATE: JULY 22, 2021 Executive Director's Report to the FROM: CARGO & INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE Board of Harbor Commissioners SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. _____- APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG CITY OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR DEPARTMENT, PORT OF LONG BEACH, ALAMEDA CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY FOR THE DOLORES YARD CROSSOVER PROJECT SUMMARY: Staff requests approval of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (Harbor Department), Port of Long Beach (collectively "Ports"), Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), BNSF Railway Company (collectively "Railroads") and Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) for the Dolores Yard Crossover Project (Project) located in the City of Carson. The Project consists of a new crossover rail connection to/from the Alameda Corridor at the south end of the UP owned Dolores (rail) Yard . Rail crossovers are additional rail that allow trains to move from one railroad track to another. The Project will improve rail cargo movement operations to/from the Ports and on the Alameda Corridor. The parties above entered into an Amended and Restated Alameda Corridor Use and Operating Agreement (UOA), dated December 15, 2016, that governs the use and operations of the Alameda Corridor. The proposed MOA is required to address the specific details on this Project, including but not limited to the design and construction,operations, maintenance and repair, and UP's sole responsibility to bear all costs associated with the Project. This MOA requires approval from the Board of Harbor Commissioners of both Ports. The Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners approved th is MOA at its meeting on June 28 , 2021 .
    [Show full text]
  • The Port of Los Angeles Comparative Analysis of International Business Practices & Solutions for Competitiveness
    Port of Los Angeles Nolan Simons The Port of Los Angeles Comparative Analysis of International Business Practices & Solutions for Competitiveness By: Nolan Simons April 30, 2014 Dr. Anatoly Zhuplev Academic Advisor Independent Study MGMT 4699 Loyola Marymount University 2014 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Loyola Marymount University 1 MGMT 4699 Port of Los Angeles Nolan Simons Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 4 SITUATION ANALYSIS: THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES (POLA) Retrospective and Current Role in National Economy 5 Integration, Cooperation, Competition, and Interdependence 8 Alternative Modes of Transportation: Domestic and Global 12 Strategic Implications for the Future 14 SWOT Analysis 14 STRATEGIC ANALYSIS: THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES (POLA) Past Business Strategies 18 Port of Long Beach (POLB) Relationship 19 PEST Analysis 22 Global Benchmarking Analysis 26 BEST PRACTICES, STRATEGIES, AND SOLUTIONS FOR COMPETITIVENESS Best Domestic Practices and Methods 27 Best Global Practices and Methods 28 Porter’s Model: Level of Competitiveness 29 CONCLUSION 31 REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY 33 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Loyola Marymount University 2 MGMT 4699 Port of Los Angeles Nolan Simons EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Port of Los Angeles (or “POLA”) is located in the city of San Pedro, California, just 25 miles south of downtown Los Angeles. This port is one of the most frequented transition points for the distribution of products shipped from all around the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars flow through the port each year. In 2013, $415 billion worth of cargo was shipped in and out of the POLA, breaking the record from previous years. The United States has benefited greatly from the port’s business, taking more than $6 billion in state taxes and $23 billion throughout the country (Martinez, 3).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Project Profile
    USA Alameda Corridor, California - 1 - This report was compiled by the NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management. Please Note: This Project Profile has been prepared as part of the ongoing OMEGA Centre of Excellence work on Mega Urban Transport Projects. The information presented in the Profile is essentially a 'work in progress' and will be updated/amended as necessary as work proceeds. Readers are therefore advised to periodically check for any updates or revisions. The Centre and its collaborators/partners have obtained data from sources believed to be reliable and have made every reasonable effort to ensure its accuracy. However, the Centre and its collaborators/partners cannot assume responsibility for errors and omissions in the data nor in the documentation accompanying them. - 2 - CONTENTS A INTRODUCTION Type of project Project name Description of mode type Principal transport nodes Major associated developments Parent projects Country/Location Current status B BACKGROUND TO PROJECT Principal project objectives A description of the project from key stakeholders Stakeholders Project objectives Key enabling mechanisms and decision to proceed A description of key mechanisms Process and events leading up to decision Feasibility studies Main organisations involved Pre-construction phase Construction phase Operations phase Planning regime Outline of planning legislation/policy related to the project and its associated developments Environmental statements and outcomes related to the project Overview
    [Show full text]
  • PACIFIC HARBOR LINE a Report ANACOSTIA
    PACIFIC HARBOR LINE A Report ANACOSTIA Spring 2015 MOW approaches nine years injury free Pacific Harbor Line maintenance of way employees are closing in on a significant safety milestone: nine years with- out a reportable injury, which they intend to achieve in April. The key is teamwork. Gabriel Calderon, track foreman, commended the team for their everyday commitment to working safely. “When we’re on the track, we can’t let our guard down,” he said. “We ensure that proper protection is in place and that it’s understandable to everyone. We also talk about where to clear up if necessary.” From left, Jose Rodriguez, roadmaster; Gabriel Calderon, track fore- man; and Luiz Diaz, welder, examine the track. About one-quarter of PHL’s 150 employees are military veter- ans or active guardsmen and reservists. Cliatt serves as American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association chairman of the Veterans Recruitment Committee. “This was an exceptional opportunity, spearheaded by the FRA, to bring military, federal agencies and the railroad industry together for one cause: to take care of America’s service members — America’s heroes,” Cliatt said. The event’s roundtable chairs were Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) Frank DiGiovanni, FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo and FRA Executive Director Stacy Cummings. All parties received information about the benefits of bridging the gap between exiting service members and hiring railroad companies. “The military expressed their pleasure with the short-line in- dustry’s brochures, which include interviews from current military Otis Cliatt II, PHL president, attends the Nov. 12 roundtable meeting veteran railroad employees and lists the website for additional at the Pentagon.
    [Show full text]
  • PHL Tradition,” Trainmaster Eric Flores Said
    Pacific Harbor Line Report Winter 2017 News for customers, employees and friends of Pacific Harbor Line Going pink to fight breast cancer It began as a dare two years ago and ended up being one of Pacific Harbor Line’s strongest employee-led causes. When Locomotive Engineer Melissa Espinoza challenged her railroad co- workers to wear pink on behalf of the fight against breast can- cer, they did not hesitate. With October being Breast Cancer Awareness Month, employees wanted to show their support. “I think it is going to be- come a yearly PHL tradition,” Trainmaster Eric Flores said. “It is important we remember the women in our lives because they are so important to us.” Espinoza and Flores de- signed a pink T-shirt that in- cluded a locomotive, container crane and ribbon with the encouraging words, “Operation SupPORT – Railroaders Supporting the Fight Against Breast Cancer.” On the back, the shirt donned the words, “Real Trainmen Wear Pink.” Espinoza and Flores sold the shirts at the railroad with all funds raised going to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Employees raised $2,000 in- cluding PHL-matched dona- tions. The event made the fight against breast cancer more than visible during terminal and dock jobs. Speaking of visibility, em- ployees wore pink vests while in the yard. “We had a sense of Continued on page 3 Cyclists take the challenge Making time for health and wellness always is the right choice. That is why some Pacific Harbor Line employees organized a bicycling challenge in October. Locomotive Engineers Scott Bailey, Mike Casey, Leroy Pasis, James Rodriguez and Trainmaster Craig Cherne found time in their schedules to put a few miles on their bikes Locomotive Engineer Mike Casey chal- lenged his co-workers to put on the miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority a a 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 200, Long Beach, California 90806 – Tel
    ALAMEDA CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY A A 3760 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, SUITE 200, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90806 – TEL. (562) 247-7777 • FAX (562) 247-7090 January 29, 2021 To: Parties listed on Exhibit A Subject: Notice of Mutual Agreement No. 2021-1 - Request for Approval under Amended and Restated Alameda Corridor Use and Operating Agreement Matter: Term Extension through October 14, 2021 for Alameda Corridor Dispatching Agreement dated as of January 30, 2002, as amended Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to that certain Amended and Restated Alameda Corridor Use and Operating Agreement (the Operating Agreement), dated December 15, 2016, by and among the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), the City of Los Angeles, acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners (POLA), the City of Long Beach, acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners (POLB), and the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA). The Operating Agreement governs the use and operation of the Alameda Corridor and, among other things, contains provisions that enable certain parties to make decisions from time to time by Mutual Agreement (as defined in the Operating Agreement) or unanimous consent/approval. In particular, Mutual Agreement requires the approval from at least three of the following parties: BNSF, UP, POLB, and POLA, while unanimous consent/approval requires the approval of each of the same four entities. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, ACTA as an entity does not approve or disapprove Mutual Agreement matters. Attached as Exhibit B is Notice of Mutual Agreement (NMA) No. 2021-1, for which approval by the requisite parties is requested at this time.
    [Show full text]