The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-06-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - BOUQUET CYN ROUTE 126 FEE (2)CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: June 11, 1991 AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by John E Medina SUBJECT: BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND'MAJgR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICTS FEE REVISIONS Ji DEPARTMENT: Public BACKGROUND This item is being brought back to the Council at this time as a result of the recent action by the County Board of Supervisors to raise the fees in the unincorporated area for the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee (B & T) Districts. Previously the Board had tabled the issue, and we have been awaiting the completion of the General Plan Circulation Element to revise the City's fees including four—lane roadways. In light of the Board's action, it would be appropriate to bring the City's fees up to the County's as an interim measure. Prior to City incorporation, the County had established the .Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee Districts. On November 28, 1989, the existing districts and fees were adopted by resolution of the City Council. These fees are imposed by the County and the City in their respective areas at the time of subdivision within district boundaries or upon issuance of qualifying building permits. The fees are used to fund various road and bridge improvements to serve the traffic circulation needs of the Santa Clarita Valley area. Recently completed evaluations of the construction fees by the County have shown that projected costshave increased substantially. The major causes for the increases are due to an increase in the scope of the Whites Canyon Road project, construction cost inflation increases, and the elimination of earlier anticipated public agency contributions to the districts which do not appear to be forthcoming. Also, the amount of development potential was originally overestimated in the Route 126 District. As a result of these changes, projected revenue had fallen short of the expected amounts. The original estimates and revised estimates for both districts are shown below: Bouquet Canyon Route 126 Original estimate $24.55 million Original estimate $81.69 million Revised estimate $35.4 million Revised estimate $101.9 million Original fee basis $2650/unit Original fee basis $2100/unit Revised estimate $4000/unit Revised fee basis $4800/unit r_ffluffl Agenda Item: June 11, 1991 Page 2 Using the County General Plan land use policy as a guide, the County has estimated the remaining amount of development within each district, has applied the fees collected and conditioned to date, and has calculated estimated revised fees for each development type. Since these are intended to be interim fees, they can be modified to reflect the City's General Plan land use when adopted. Descriptions of the funded roads and bridges have not changed. Most of those roads are funded as a two-lane rather than four -lane that the City Council has previously indicated that they would prefer. The County has determined that these fee revisions are categorically exempt from CEQA provisions pursuant to State CEQA Guideline Section 15273(a)4 in that they are intended only to provide full funding for previously identified projects within the existing approved districts. The City Attorney is in agreement with the methods of existing district fee revisions regarding CEQA and the recommendations included below. Additionally, the County has approved and adopted their reports and fee revisions for both districts as of May 9, 1991. This proposed action does not negate the City's intent to include four lanes in a future district fee revision. We intend to proceed with discussion with the County (see attached letter) on the issue and hopefully will return shortly with a revised fee, both City and County, for four lane roadways. A public hearing proposed for July 23, 1991 is necessary to increase the fees. Since there are more than 1,000 parcels affected' by the increase, the notification of the -hearing will be placed in the local newspaper as required by law. In addition, staff will have briefing meetings with the entities, i.e., Building Industry Association, Board of Realtors, etc., which are affected to a greater extent by this proposed action. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. City Council to preliminarily approvethereport and file with the City Clerk. 2. Set a Public Hearing for July 23, 1991 per Government Code Section 66484. 3. Direct staff to provide notice per Government Code Section 65091. 4. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, providing that there is less than fifty percent written protest from the represented area: a. Find that the fee revisions are categorically exempt from provisions of CEQA. b. Adopt a resolution, approved as to form, authorizing the fee revisions to equal the County's fees. c. Instruct City Clerk to record a certified copy of the adopted resolution with the County Recorder. ATTACHMENTS County Letter County Reports /ce-459 BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT FEE ANALYSIS REPORT I:7:193d3d�P,1�7 February 26. 1991 The Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (BBT) Construction Fee District was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 1, 1985. The District was established to provide for the construction of five projects: the improvements of the Rio Vista Road, Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126), Golden Valley Road, Plum Canyon Road, and Whites Canyon Road, originally estimated at $24.55 million. The fees charged to new development to finance these improvements were as follows: Residential Property: Single Family $2,650/i+nit Townhouse $2,120/unit Apartment $1,855/unit Non -Residential Property: Neighborhood Commercial $2,650/acre Other Commercial $13,250/acre Industrial $7,950/acre Since the adoption of this District, the estimated project costs have changed substantially due to construction cost inflation increases, the increased scope of the Whites Canyon Road project, and elimination of earlier projected public agency contributions to the District which are not materializing. The total estimated cost for the completion of the District improvements is now $35.4 million. FEE ANALYSIS We -have analyzed the remaining amount of potential development to be constructed in the District and have calculated the new fee rates needed to balance the expected cost of the District projects. The following analysis shows the fees collected been conditioned to pay fees, a unit breakdown remaining in the District and the District fee construction schedule. -1- to date, the tracts that have of the anticipated development calculation and a proposed DISTRICT PROJECTS COSTS 1992 Projects in District Costs Whites Canyon Road $149900,000 Plum Canyon Road $ 2,600,000 Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126) S 3,300,000 Golden Valley Road $ 90900,000 Rio Vista Road $ 4,700,000 $35,400,000 DISTRICT FUND STATUS Fees collected to date $12,200,000 Fees conditioned $ 6,600,000 $18,800,000 Funds needed to complete District $16,600,000. Projects * Only developments that have received tentative tract approval are included in this category. DEVELOPMENT REMAINING IN DISTRICT Undeveloped Area This includes tentatively approved tracts that have expired, proposed developments that have not reached the Tentative Tract approval stage, and an analysis of the remaining developable area in the District. The amount of development in this categorey is based on the County's current Land Use Policy. Acres Remaining Estimated Housing Units Residential 6,653.-.:,.' .• . 4,433 - 2 - Non -Residential 25 DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION Per the District Report, the proposed fee 1s related to the degree with which future developments benefit from the proposed improvements. To WAke the fee equitable between funding participants, the fee is based on the participants' proportionate share benefit from the improvements. The proportionate shares are based on the number of trips generated by the development. Residential Unit Breakdown Based on 4,433 Units Non -Residential Acres Breakdown Based on 25 Acres Trips Type % of Total* f of Units Per Unit Total Single Family 80 3,546 10 35,460 Townhome/Condo 18 798 8 6,384 Apartment 2 89 7 623 Industrial Total Units 4,433 Total Trips 420467 Non -Residential Acres Breakdown Based on 25 Acres Trips Type % of Total* of Acres Per Acre Total Neigh. comm. 5 1.2 10 12 Other comm. 60 15 50 750 Industrial 35 8.8 30 264 Total Acres 25.0 Total Trips 1,026 *Based on District Report Total Number of Trips 43,493 FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECTS $16 600 000 • $381.67* 7 TAL NUMBER -OF TRIPS b,493 * Round to $400/trip Fee per factored development unit (fdu) • $400/trip x 10 trips/fdu • $4,000/fdu - 3 - -Construction Fee Residential Fee Factor Fee per Development Type Single Family 4,000 x 1 0 $4,000/unit Townhouse 4,000 x .8 • (3,200/unit Apartment 4,000 x .7 M ;2,800/unit Non -Residential Neighborhood Commercial 4,000 x 1 a $.4,000/acre Other Commercial 4,000 x 5 0 520,000/acre Industrial 4,000 x 3 a $12,000/acre PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE * Whites Canyon Road - Phase I Complete Phase II Construction began September 14, 1990 Phase III May 1991 -Advertise for construction bids ** Plum Canyon Road Spring 1992 -Advertise for construction bids Easterly terminus of existing Plum Canyon Road to existing northerly terminus of Whites Canyon Road Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126) Rio vista Road to Golden Valley Road 1993 Golden Valley Road Newhall Ranch Road to Soledad Canyon Road 2005 Rio Vista Road Newhall Ranch Road to Soledad Canyon Road 2011 * This project is being funded jointly with the Route 126 BST District. ** The Plum Canyon Road is to be opened within six months of completion of the Whites Canyon Road project. HMC:mv -P-3:14-FAR1 - 4 - ro# uvam �lr r al r fS Sir ro# uvam �lr 1 1 361 i.. �,,,f.t�®;�_'•r111J-y� 1=N-;� `--- y�— --= -I—— — Vis;--— — ( j— - �i._L- 15 1 -�•,�A t ��-4"� .,"'' :.' I:�FQ RE ST ;SPARK ..• .,. i, , � Ir•W 1 t_ :4 s l_� gip, r'*' ... � - 1 1 L� � l�• •i i � ! �� i ,�{,,u.'�' - , • * f ' -, 1 ' ' �-^ 17 i.'il�uiiii I 1 1 u "�_•••f .I.wM �� .wirrn wr 1 I {e • , 1 1 yl,�u 1 h•, �ii��` I�C��rl��llti �CLU N THY; ; ,.,.MINT /�♦ _ ANY \ aL� (•�+ � S / ✓y �'r'• ' tr' r... (' ^1!x,1 1 ,,,17Vr fj, � ,(e{NS lie 1 , . • y 1. — ^'' il _11..•• � '• 1-1 1 1 r.. Prcw cw 1�/ , :I •1_ _ _ _,. .. ti� �, 'I I��-! �1 1,1 ri'n'i"<• t �T+ w 1 Q, � ! 1 j t. 1i..—�a•srq.i�.'M. S t •k� '/- �, 27 I 1 Y� �,�• 1 I( I �w�i• J , 1 r al 1 1 361 i.. �,,,f.t�®;�_'•r111J-y� 1=N-;� `--- y�— --= -I—— — Vis;--— — ( j— - �i._L- 15 1 -�•,�A t ��-4"� .,"'' :.' I:�FQ RE ST ;SPARK ..• .,. i, , � Ir•W 1 t_ :4 s l_� gip, r'*' ... � - 1 1 L� � l�• •i i � ! �� i ,�{,,u.'�' - , • * f ' -, 1 ' ' �-^ 17 i.'il�uiiii I 1 1 u "�_•••f .I.wM �� .wirrn wr 1 I {e • , 1 1 yl,�u 1 h•, �ii��` I�C��rl��llti �CLU N THY; ; ,.,.MINT /�♦ _ ANY \ aL� (•�+ � S / ✓y �'r'• ' tr' r... (' ^1!x,1 1 ,,,17Vr fj, � ,(e{NS lie 1 , . • y 1. — ^'' il _11..•• � '• 1-1 1 1 r.. Prcw cw 1�/ , :I •1_ _ _ _,. .. ti� �, 'I I��-! �1 1,1 ri'n'i"<• t �T+ w 1 Q, � ! 1 j t. 1i..—�a•srq.i�.'M. S t •k� '/- �, 27 I 1 Y� �,�• 1 I( I �w�i• J , 1 February 25, 1991 ROUTE -126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT FEE ANALYSIS REPORT The Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (B&T) Construction Fee District was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 21, 1987. The District was established to provide for the construction of the following projects: the improvements of the Golden Valley Road, Lost Canyon Road, Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126), Oak Springs Canyon Road, Sand Canyon Road, Shadow Pines Boulevard, Soledad Canyon Road, and Whites Canyon Road, originally estimated at $81.69 million. The fees charged to new development to finance these improvements were set as follows: Residential Property: Single Family $2,100/unit Townhouse $1,680/unit Apartment $1,470/unit Non -Residential Property: Commercial $10,500/acre Industrial $6,300/acre Since the adoption of this District, the estimated project costs have changed substantially due to construction cost Inflation increases, the increased scope of the Whites Canyon Road project, and elimination of public agency contributions to the District which are not materializing. Also, the original District Report had overestimated the development potential of the area. The proposed total estimated cost for the completion of District improvements and administration is now $101.9 million. FEE ANALYSIS We have analyzed the amount of development remaining to be constructed in the District and have calculated the new fee rates needed to balance the expected cost of the District projects. The following analysis shows the fees collected to date, the tracts that have been conditioned to pay fees, a unit breakdown in the anticipated development remaining in the District, and the District fee calculation. -1- 61STRICT PROJECTS COSTS $101,900,000 DISTRICT FUND STATUS Fees collected to date $ 81810,000 *Fees conditioned $ 2,180,000 $10,990,000 Funds needed to complete District Projects $90,910,000. *Only developments that have received tentative tract approval are included in this category. DEVELOPMENT REMAINING IN DISTRICT Undevelooed Area This includes tentatively approved tracts that have expired, proposed developments that have not reached the tentative tract approval stage, and an analysis of the remaining developable area in the District. The amount of development in this category is based on the County's current Land Use Plan. Total Acres Housing Units **Residential 17,060 20,077 *Non -Residential 380 ** Refer to District Fee Calculation for breakdown of Residential and Non Residential Area. - 2 - 1992 Projects in District Costs Whites Canyon Road $14,9009000 Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126) =57,600,000 Golden Valley Road $12,900,000 Lost Canyon Road $ 9,400,000 Shadow Pines- Boulevard $ 300,000 Oak Springs Canyon Road $ 1,700,000 Sand Canyon Road $ 2,100,000 Soledad Canyon Road $ 3,000,000 $101,900,000 DISTRICT FUND STATUS Fees collected to date $ 81810,000 *Fees conditioned $ 2,180,000 $10,990,000 Funds needed to complete District Projects $90,910,000. *Only developments that have received tentative tract approval are included in this category. DEVELOPMENT REMAINING IN DISTRICT Undevelooed Area This includes tentatively approved tracts that have expired, proposed developments that have not reached the tentative tract approval stage, and an analysis of the remaining developable area in the District. The amount of development in this category is based on the County's current Land Use Plan. Total Acres Housing Units **Residential 17,060 20,077 *Non -Residential 380 ** Refer to District Fee Calculation for breakdown of Residential and Non Residential Area. - 2 - DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION Per the District Report, the proposed fee 1s related to the degree with Mich future developments benefit from the proposed improvements. To make the fee equitable between funding participants, the fee is based on the participants, proportionate share of improvements. The proportionate shares are based on the number of trips generated by the development. Residential Units Breakdown Based on 20.077 Units Total Units 20,077 Total Trips 175,433 Non -Residential Acres Breakdown Based on 380 Acres Trips Type % of Total* I of Units Per Acre Total Commercial 39.5 150 50 7500 Industrial 60.5 230 30 6900 Total Acres 380 Total Trips 14,400 *Based on District Report FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECTS TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS * Rounded to 5480/trip Total Number of Trips 289,833 ■ $90,910,000 - 478.89* 189,833 Fee per factored development Unit (fdu) - 5480/trip x SO trips/fdu - 54800/fdu - 3 - Trips Type % of Total* I of Units Per Unit Total Single Family 38.8 7,790 10 77,900 Townhome/Condo 57.4 11,524 8 92,192 Apartment 3.8 763 7 5,341 Total Units 20,077 Total Trips 175,433 Non -Residential Acres Breakdown Based on 380 Acres Trips Type % of Total* I of Units Per Acre Total Commercial 39.5 150 50 7500 Industrial 60.5 230 30 6900 Total Acres 380 Total Trips 14,400 *Based on District Report FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECTS TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS * Rounded to 5480/trip Total Number of Trips 289,833 ■ $90,910,000 - 478.89* 189,833 Fee per factored development Unit (fdu) - 5480/trip x SO trips/fdu - 54800/fdu - 3 - Construction Fee Residential Single Family Townhouse Apartment Non -Residential Commercial Industrial Fee Factor Fee per Development Type $4,800 x 1 a $4,800/unit $49800 x .8 0 $3,840/unit $4,800 x .1 a $3,3601unit $4,800 x 5 a 524,000/acre $4,800 x 3 • $14,400/acre PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE *Whites Canyon Road Phase I Phase II Phase III Route 126 Complete Construction began September 14, 1990 May 1991 -Advertise for construction bids Golden Valley Road to Soledad Canyon Road 1997 Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway 2002 Sierra Highway to Route .14 2004 Golden Valley Road Soledad Canyon Road to Via Princessa 2005 Via Princessa to Sierra Highway 2006 Sierra Highway to Green Mountain Drive 2007 Lost Canyon Road Via Princessa to Tentative Tract Map 45023 2008 Tentative Tract Map 4SD23 to Sand Canyon Road 2009 Shadow Pines Boulevard Grandiflores Drive to Begonias Lane 2009 Oak Springs Canyon Road Lost Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road 2009 Sand Canyon Road At Route 14 2009 At Santa Clara River 2010 -4- 'Soledad Canyon Road Sand Canyon Road to Oak Springs Canyon Road 2010 Shadow Pines Boulevard to Route 14 2011 * This project is being funded jointly with the bouquet Canyon UT District. HHC:mv P-3:15-FAR1 - 5 - f� ET •,..:`'�F � -� ; ; i It ili It It��i'iitifiiliriiitni�itlil�ttltn � ...�,�i , ..� LfOkw:CANYPN ....•.KI f ^T �n\fJJ • •••• _, 31 ' 32 ' 1 '. '•, 3} ! 30' 31 1 39 • }' c._... ,.. ,, - • 1. .,t" .......... •,'tom�—• �•—�---;'---- / `„—,F.:� c : F PEST ,,t3ARK ' •• •yt I �' ' �.. 1 S �''.: :' : w•_`M •' 3 to V • ' �'j; ^L" t ��' ^ � ,F�-��.;1�-.pP1(I�In .I .. i.i-....�� ..il••_N�...��,y 3..... � 1-T ^yy, •�19• .. ;. .:r� R (JTE 12 ' . • �,.s. , 3_...; F� r1`'lh•r• ' r err. �' / • �,l 'PINETRE � 3ir.'.i• F 11�1!I ..� f. . r �•� L. ' p{lul.iii� f' 1 IR.� •..: r ,2' I/ ��' • r oRFJYON • .4 u ;,, :. ::MIN= ; � r' Y � THY � L L� `�' ��i ~�18"�. �'.-,;• , � � '1�II ISN ,.. � � ��• I ' � 111 IUlil�llll &7&i r••, .� ; Ililuwt1111tX1NG : 811.11 L �y / .. U. Z. fI • ' �.3 .. is _:ILI /� ! i� SA\J .7U't1.1► I`, e'•��.. ",y...•i. +.nn+! 1 ':., .... ..I,r-- ; ._i. :.' ••• .• / .LG^• ..i t �� r rte' , •'j,lry• ,� R ' •I ,;,K.•'•-.• d � ; , id `f f/� �. r'; '� -,i �� ....�.; . 30 jWr t v : .wry / ir 31 34 32 OL •.. � . �.. ' ,_• , � . - � " �• - �� 114 ;- ....... ; .-\-•,,;, .�:_� ' P. , •• I �_„ ,: y 11' I�11111 111lIIII III Jill 111 4 n,°w ^ = '