HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - PH URGENCY FEES ROUTE 126 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be P
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: September 10, 1991
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXTENSION OF THE URGENCY MEASURE FOR
REVISING THE FEES FOR THE ROUTE 126 AND BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE
AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT; RESOLUTION TO
ADOPT AN EXTENSION OF THE URGENCY MEASURE
DEPARTMENT: Community Development -
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 1991, the City Council approved the fee revisions for the
Route 126 and Bouquet Canyon Bridge. and Thoroughfare Construction Fee
Districts by regular resolution and as an urgency measure. The approval of
the regular resolution for fee revision made the new fees effective in 60
days. As an interim authority„ the urgency measure was also approved and
adopted to make the fees effective immediately and to continue for a period of
30 days.
Government Code 66017 regarding urgency measures provides for an additional
30 -day extension of the interim authority. At the end of this second 30 -day
extension period the regular fee revision resolution shall take effect.
If the fees are not raised at this time, there would be a shortfall in funding
and delay in completing these projects which are necessary for the health,
welfare and safety.of City residents. Therefore, this urgency measure should
be adopted.
"PIPELINE" PROJECTS
The adoption of the revised fees has an indirect affect on the construction of
single-family dwellings. that are not associated with new subdivisions.
Recently, the Council revised the Zoning -Ordinance to require that new
single-family or two-family (duplex) dwellings install street improvements.
The change also imposes B & T fees on all dwelling construction now, not just
those associated with a subdivision. There are approximately twenty
single-family dwellings which are currently in plan check that would not
previously have had to pay a B & T fee that now are subject to the fee in its
revised amount.
Staff feels that a policy should be established to deal with these building
plan submittals.
Adopted: Q:�,9/
Agenda Item:
PUBLIC HEARING
Page 2
In the past, the State has considered that a new regulation, such as when the
energy-saving requirements went into effect, would apply to all new
applications and would not take effect for projects already in plan review.
Since up to now, B & T fees were not required for single-family dwellings not
associated with a subdivision, these new fees are an added approach to funding
these improvements. If the Council chooses to "grandfather" these existing
building permit applications, it would not collect approximately $80,000 of a
combined district fee of $137,300,000.
On the other hand; there is also precedent for collecting whatever fees are
applicable at the time a permit, is issued, regardless of when it was
submitted. The courts have determined that there are no vested rights on a
plan submittal until a building. has been substantially constructed. This
would allow the Council to impose the fee on these twenty projects.
Unfortunately, we did not recognize that these projects were affected when the
Urgency Ordinance was adopted. Had we notified the applicants, they may have
decided to finish the permit processing earlier, thus being exempt from
payment of the B & T fees.
The extension of the interim authority requires a duly noticed public hearing
and approving the appropriate resolution by a four-fifths majority vote.
A public. hearing has been properly noticed to consider the extension on
September 10, 1991. The public notice invited both oral and written testimony
to be presented at this time.
1)Conduct the public hearing.
2) Adopt the Urgency Measure Extension Resolution No. 91-137 by four-fifths
vote of the City Council.
3) Establish a policy regarding existing permit.applications and the payment
of fees.
Resolution 91-137
Exhibits A & B
hds:503
I
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
1. Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3. Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes).
5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony
a. Discussion by Council
9. Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Extension of Route 126 and Bouquet Canyon Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare and Construction Fee Districts
Fee Revisions
The City of Santa Clarita will hold a Public Hearing to discuss the extension
of the Route 126 and Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction
Fee District Fee revisions, adopted by urgency resolution. The establishment
of the fee revisions sets new fees to be levied against future subdivision and
qualifying building permit activity within each district boundary for the
purposes of financing the previously identified district's improvements. On
August 13, 1991 City Council had a Public Hearing on the fee revisions and
adopted an urgency measure Resolution No. 91-127 which is effective for 30
days. Approval of this new Public Hearing and adopting the appropriate
resolution shall extend the urgency measure 30 more days.
The Route 126 B & T Construction Fee District Boundary generally follows the
Angeles National Forest boundaries to the north; the south of the Angeles
National Forest's northern boundary on the south; the Los Angeles City's Owens
River aqueduct and the easterly boundary of the existing Bouquet Canyon B & T
Construction Fee District from, Soledad Canyon Road to the Angeles National
Forest to the west; and the westerly boundary of the Angeles National Forest
to the east.
PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS
The Route 126 Bridge and Major' Thoroughfare Construction Fee District was
adopted by the City of Santa Clarita on November 28, 1989, to fund the
construction of new road improvements for the following proposed District
projects: 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. The total estimated cost of the
proposed District improvements at the time of District establishment was
$81,690,000. The established fee rates for new development were 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
The current estimated cost for the construction of these District improvements
is now $101,900,000. The increases in the construction costs are due to an
increase in the scope of the Whites Canyon Road project, construction cost
inflation increases, and elimination of earlier anticipated public agency
contributions to the District which do not appear to be forthcoming. To date,
$10.99 million in fees have been collected and conditioned. An additional
$90.91 million is needed to fully finance the proposed District improvements.
This amount is proposed to be generated from new development within the fee
district. About 20,077 new residential units and 380 acres of new commercial
development are anticipated to be built within the District boundary. The
proposed fee rates are as follows:
Notice of Public Hearing
Page 2
Residential Property:
Single Family $4,800/unit
Townhouse $3,840/unit
Apartment $3,360/unit
Non -Residential Property:
Commercial $24,000/acre
Industrial $14,400/acre
The Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Thoroughfare Construction Fee District Boundary
generally follows the Angeles National Forest to the north; generally the
North Santa Clara River boundary and Soledad Canyon Road to the south;
following a major north -south ridge line from Angeles National Forest to the
intersection of Valencia Boulevard, Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon
Road as the westerly boundary; and the westerly boundary.of the existing Route
126 B & T Construction Fee District from Soledad Canyon Road to the Angeles
National Forest as the easterly boundary.
PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS
The Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District was
adopted by the City of Santa Clarita on November 28, 1989 to fund the
construction of new road improvements for the following proposed district
projects: Rio Vista Road, Plum Canyon Road, Whites Canyon Road, Newhall Ranch
Road, and Golden Valley Road. The total estimated cost of the proposed
district improvements at the time of district establishment was $240550,000.
The established fee rates for new development were as follows:
Residential Property:
Single Family $2,650/unit
Townhouse $2,120/unit
Apartment $ 855/unit
Non -Residential Property:
Neighborhood Commercial $.2,650/acre
Other Commercial $13,250/acre
Industrial $ 7,950/acre
The current estimated cost for the construction of these district improvements
is now $35,400,000. The increases in the construction costs are due to an
increase in the scope of the Whites Canyon Road project, construction cost
inflation increases and elimination of earlier anticipated public agency
contributions to the district which do not appear to be forthcoming. To date,
$18,800,000 in fees have been collected and conditioned. An additional
$16000,000 is needed to fully finance the proposed district improvements.
This amount is proposed to be generated from new development within the fee
district. About 4,433 new residential units and 25 acres of new commercial
development are anticipated to be built within the district boundary. The
proposed fee rates are as follows:
Residential Property:
Single Family $4,000/unit
Townhouse $3,200/unit
Apartment $2,800/unit
Non -Residential Property:
Neighborhood -Commercial $ 4,000/acre
Other Commercial $20,000/acre
Industrial $12,000/acre
Notice of Public Hearing
Page 3
For both Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 B & T Districts, the new fee rates will
be imposed upon new development projects within district's boundaries.
Payment of fees would be required at the time of: a) Recordation of new
subdivisions, and b) new qualifying building permit issuance.
The proposed fee increases affect only new development.
The Proposed fee increases do not affect:
• Existing homes
• Existing commercial or industrial buildings
• Building permits for residential remodeling or additions
• Building permits for reconstruction of existing residential units
You have the right to appear at said hearing and be heard on this matter, or
you may submit written comments prior to the close of the hearing, addressed
to: Donna Grindey, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 301
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
For information, please call the Department of Public Works at (805) 255-4935.
By order of the City Council, City of Santa Clarita, State of California on
June 4, 1991.
DATE OF HEARING: September 10, 1991
TIME OF HEARING: 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION.OF HEARING: Council Chambers
City of Santa Clarita
1st Floor
1�3320`
Santa Clarita, CA. 91355
�Donna Crindey, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
HDS:996
BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
X
i -I .11W
......C CITY
Y
xJ
-=COUNTY
AREA OF BENEFIT
BOUNDARY OF AREA OF BENEFIT
ll.TTY
O COUNTY
AREA OF BENEFIT
BOUNDARY OF AREA OF BENEFIT
0
RESOLUTION NO. 91-137
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA EXTENDING THE
BOUQUET CANYON AND.ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE
DISTRICTS FEE REVISIONS ADOPTED BY
URGENCY MEASURE
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has adopted by
previous Resolutions the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee Districts ("B&T
Districts" or "Districts") for the funding of certain
highway improvements; and
WHEREAS, upon their adoption the following fees
were established as the District Fees:
Route 126 Bouquet Cyn
Residential Property B&T District B&T District
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
Non -Residential Property
Neighborhood Commercial
Commercial
Industrial
$2,100/unit
$1,680/unit
$1,470/unit
N/A
$10,500/acre
$ 6,300/acre
$2,650/unit
$2,120/unit
$1,855/unit
$ 2,650/acre
$13,250/acre
$ 7,950/acre
WHEREAS, the Districts' fees established by the
Resolutions at the time of B&T District's formation were
based upon the estimated total improvement costs and the
established potential development within the Districts at
that time; and
WHEREAS, the established total improvement costs
for the Districts have increased substantially since the
establishment of the Districts primarily due to an increase
in the scope.of the Whites Canyon Road project, construction
cost inflation increases, and elimination of earlier
anticipated public agency contributions to the District; and
WHEREAS, the development potential estimated within
the District at the time of District formation has been
reevaluated and should be revised downward based upon
experience trends; and
WPX/TBM/RES242499
-1-
WHEREAS, as a result of the above facts, the
projected revenue from collection of Districts' fees at the
existing fee rates will be insufficient to fully finance the
proposed Districtsf improvements; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to revise the Districts'
fees to provide for sufficient revenue to fully finance
Districts' improvements as is demonstrated in the Bouquet
Canyon and the Route 126 B&T Construction Fee Districts' Fee
Revision Agenda Report presented to the City Council on
June 11, 1991; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 1991, the City Council
received and preliminarily approved information regarding
the Districts' fee revisions and called a hearing thereon;
and
WHEREAS, the requirements for notice -and public
hearing in relation to the proposed fee revisions have been
met in accordance with Government Code Section 65091; and
WHEREAS, at the time, date and place set for public
hearing on the Districts' fee revisions, the City Council
duly heard and considered all oral and written testimony in
support of or opposing such fee revisions levy and
collection; and
WHEREAS,•at such public hearing, no written
protests were filed or the written protests filed and not
withdrawn did not amount to more than one-half the area to
be benefited, and
WHEREAS, the Districts are within the jurisdictions
of the County of Los Angeles and the City of Santa Clarita;
and
WHEREAS, the revisions to the Districts' fees
contained in this Resolution will apply only in the area
within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, it.has been determined that the proposed
Districts' fee revisions are categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA in that they are intended only to provide
full funding for those previously identified improvements
within approved Districts; and
WHEREAS, the Districts' Formation Report indicated
that the Districts' fees may be.increased or decreased upon
evaluation of building trends and construction costs.
WHEREAS, on August 13, 1991 the City Council duly
passed and adopted Resolution No. 91-127 concerning an
urgency measure to increase said fees; and
-2-
WPX/TBM/RES242499
WHEREAS, such urgency measure is valid for 30 days,
extending through September 12, 1991 and may be extended for
an additional 30 days; and
WHEREAS, the requirements for notice and public
hearing of the extension have been met in accordance with
Government Code 65091; and
WHEREAS,; at the time, date and place set for
public hearing of the extension, the City Council only heard
and considered all oral and written testimony in support of
or opposing such extension; and
WHEREAS; at such public hearing, no written
projects were filed or the written protests filed and not
withdrawn did not amount to more -than one-half the area to
be benefitted; and
WHEREAS, the extension shall be valid for 30 days
beginning September 13, 1991;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby
resolve as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds, determines and
declares as follows:
A. The proposed District fee revisions are
categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality .Act in that they
are intended only to provide full funding for those
previously identified improvements within the
existing approved Districts.
B. The projected total cost of the Bouquet Canyon
District improvements is now $35.4 million.
C. The projected total cost of the Route 126 District
improvements is now $101.9 million.
Section 2. The B&T District fees are hereby revised as
follows:
Route 126 Bouquet Cyn
Residential Property B&T District B&T District
Single Family $4,800/unit $4,000/unit
Townhouse $3,840/unit $3,200/unit
Apartment $3,360/unit $2,800/unit
-3-
WPX/TBM/RES242499
0
C�
Non -Residential Property
Neighborhood Commercial
Commercial
Industrial
N/A
$24,000/acre
$14;400/acre
$ 4,000/acre
$20,000/acre
$12,000/acre
Section 3. That the City Council further finds, determines
and declares:
A. That the approved revised Districts' fees will be
implemented only in the areas within the City's
jurisdiction.
B. That the method of fee apportionment for the
revised District fees is set forth in the Bouquet
Canyon Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction
Fee Analysis Report, generated by the County,
attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit A.
C. That the method or fee apportionment for the
revised District fees,is.set forth in the Route 126
Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee
Analysis Report, generated by the County, attached
hereto and incorporated as Exhibit B.
D. That the purpose of the revised Districts' fee is
to finance completion of the Route 126 and the
Bouquet Canyon B&T Construction Fee District
Improvements as generally identified in Exhibits C
and D respectively of the original Districts'
Report for formation of the District.
E. That the revised Districts' fees collected pursuant
to this Resolution shall be used to finance, or
where appropriate, to provide reimbursement for
financing of, the Districts' -improvements.
F. That there is a reasonable relationship between the
proposed revised Districts' fee's use for the
District improvements and the affected subdivision
and building permit approvals to which the fee
applies because this new development will directly
benefit from the improved traffic circulation
provided for by the completion of the Districts'
improvements.
G. That there continues to be a reasonable relation-
ship between the need for the Districts' improve-
ments and the affected subdivision and building
permit approvals because the Districts' improve-
ments will help mitigate the additional traffic
congestion impacts generated by those approvals.
WPX/TBM/RES242499
-4-
0
H. That the proposed construction schedule for the
completion of Districts' improvements as set forth
in the respective Bridge and Major Thoroughfare
Construction Fee Districts' Fee Analysis Reports,
attached hereto, to'each report, is adopted.
Section 4. Urgency. Pursuant to Section 66017(b) of the
Government Code this Resolution is adopted as an extension
of the urgency measure adopted by Resolution 91-127 and the
fee revisions set forth in Section 2 shall take effect on
September 13, 1991 upon adoption of this Resolution by a
four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall remain in
effect for a period of 30 days. This extension of the
urgencyordinance is adopted due to an immediate.threat to
the public health, welfare and safety of the City. The
findings of the City Council are as follows:
A.
1-1
C.
Failure to adopt the urgency measure would result
in a funding shortfall in the two B&T Districts.
Such a funding shortfall would cause further delays
in construction of the roads and bridges to be
funded in these B&T Districts.
Construction delays would further exacerbate the
current traffic congestion in the Santa Clarita
Valley.
D. The sooner the District fees are in place, the
sooner the projects will have a positive
environmental effect on the area and residents, as
the traffic congestion will decrease.
Section 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution, and shall record a certified copy'of
this Resolution with the Los Angeles County Recorder.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
. 1991
WPX/TBM/RES242499
-5-
MAYOR
day of
0
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grindey, hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the day of , 1991 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: . COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
-6-
WPX/TBM/RES242499
CITY CLERK
0
BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE AND KUM THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT
BACKGROUND
February 26, 1991
The Boucuet Canyon Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (BST) Construction Fee District
was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 1, 1985. The Dlstrict was
established tp provide for the construction of five projects: the I; rovements
of the Rio Vista Road, Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126), Golden Valley Road,
P1um:Canyon Road, and Whites Canyon Road, originally estimated at $24.55 million.
The fees charged to new development to finance these .1irprovenents were as
follows:
Residential Property:
Single Family $2,650/unit
Townhouse '42,120/unit
Apartment $1,855/unit
Non -Residential Property:
Neighborhood Conmerclal $2,650/acre
Other Commercial $13,250/acre
Industrial $7,953/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
535.4 minion.
F=E ANALYSIS
We have analyzed the remaining amount of potential develommnt 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 of the anticipated development
remaining in the District and the District fee calculation and a proposed
construction schedule.
- I -
r]
DISTRICT PROJECTS COSTS
Projects in District
Whites Canyon Road
Plum Canyon Road
Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126)
Golden Valley Road
Rio Vista Road
DISTRICT FUND STATUS
Fees collected.to date
* Fees conditioned
Funds needed to complete District
Projects
1992
Costs
$14,900,000
i 2,6001000
$ 3.300,000
$ 9,900,000
$ 4,700,000
$35,400,000
$12,200,000
S 6,600,000
$18,800,000
$16.600,000.
�kf�i-► r3 � T �'
* 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
analysts 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.
Residential Non -Residential
Acres Remaining 6,653 25
Estimated Housing Units 4.433 -
- 2 -
DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION
Per the District Report, the proposed fee is 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
*Based an District Report
Total Number of Trios 43,493
FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECTS $16.600.000 * 1381.67*
TOTAL NUMBER F TRIP 4�—
* Round to $400/trip
Fee per factored development unit (fdu) * $400/trip x 10 trips/fdu - $4,000/fdu
i 0.
- 3 -
Trips
Tvoe
% of Total*
! 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
Total Units
4,433
Total Trips
42.467
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown
Based on 25 Acres
Trips
Tyoe
X of Total*
i 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 an District Report
Total Number of Trios 43,493
FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECTS $16.600.000 * 1381.67*
TOTAL NUMBER F TRIP 4�—
* Round to $400/trip
Fee per factored development unit (fdu) * $400/trip x 10 trips/fdu - $4,000/fdu
i 0.
- 3 -
NHC:mv
P -3:14 -FAR
r�
- 4 -
Construction Fee
Fee
Factor
Fee per Development Type
Residential
Single family
4,000
x
1 a
'
54,000/unitS3,200/unit
Townhouse
4.000
x
•8
-
52,800/unit
Apartment
4,000
x
.7
Nor. -Reser al
Neighborhood Commercial
4,000
x
I
5
5 4,000/acre
520,000/acre
Other Coomerclal
4,000
x
3 `
512,000/acre
Industrial
4,000
x
NHC:mv
P -3:14 -FAR
r�
- 4 -
0 February 25, 1991
BOUQUET CANYCH BRIDGE AND WCR THORCI)GHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FE= DISTRICT
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
= whites Canyon Road
Phase i Complete
Phase II Construction began September 14. 1990
Phase III may 1991 -Advertise for crostruction bids
_= Plan Canyon Road Spring 1992 -Advertise for construction bids
Easterly terminus of existing Plt.-n Canyon Road
to existing northerly terminus of whites Canyon Road
Newhall Ranch Road (Route 125)
Rio Vista Road to Golden Valley Road 1993
Golden Valley Road
Newhall Ranch Road to Soledad Canyon Road 2C05
Rio Vista Road
Newhall Ranch Road to Soledad Canyon Road 2011
= This project is being funded jointly with the Route 125 B&T District.
�= The Plum Canyon Road is to be opened within six months of canpletlon of the
Whites Canyon Road project.
'� i � }- .ice? ,:' I 1 •�..� �. \ ...m •.
' -- ' �•-- �r ..-�_li_-.__.. ..�. i_7�� - � - r"• -CF ..ti -Steil,. � \ dY.jair. i
�� �..� � ' •L: �' ; l.r Lam, ��-, ` �� �i�`• ��
. - - � �'.�t- •1i1 S•' Y X11 -J+ 1_ • IL a _ / •k.
is - y err -� t r.1 -i t'•_. ys,��1 �C
1 ` I �a . ,n lil:`�:lri j�f I�I Y J .•, i' 1't.•\� ,! � \ �'-ti'+'i„..1 ,-
I ' Z' ' 1 :•'1 ._ 1 ..444"'' f! SLit: j:\- ' r'� - Y �•�.-
L
`�• _ ..� `asci:_ t t, : iF r• 'E:' ' •'-s•. m.. 1'*"' ' �_ _ _ . tr••� r - sr
� � ..•• ,��-T ♦.alt-' 1 __ * �^ •'. ,j t``fiil<� };f
u. ! 'I'li�Ij�lLei!'3 N1 f 5J10
! —'1• Vii• ,t .� f- _-:,' ,�: t'{—' : Illtr�.:'r.. `w"" '�.i. :t � �'' ` \
ett
m t'• - L
• � "a -'1 � •A at •.. A. .� `• fJ i-. � i�l'11 I�L _ r 1
A all
01
tpt
_ ; - _ � -moi'"'-"" �r d ; I.: . l�, • ;r ' /+i / •• �: �; _ - - f �l
.-= � C ^`�_r '� 1 �� � tom. _� l _; ..� s►� --�.
ar �� //% .:�! a -"tic ♦ . 1 1 1 •.a P.i+]
--.t.rZ+�•Y, '? � % .' �lai♦ / a mit''' ^ � •� ''
�1j{'n r!S; �i'ft .'1-.:.•�`LJ' • f _1 = . 1 ai r ,1 -� • ! `- � r ,,
.it Gtr'�l�ra::"•��11!}II • • ''•. • J •• (� • \j � 4i '�
f 'fit � .� / ♦ •
r d _ ILL _Y
EXHIBIT B
February 25. 1991
ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND XAJOR THOROLQ FARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT
BACVkGROUND
The Route 126 Bridge and Kajor Thoroughfare (BET) Construction Fee District was
approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 2I, 1987. The District was
established to provide for the construction of the following projects: the
improvements of the Golden Yalley Road, Lost Canyon Road, Newhall Ranch Road
(Route 126), Oak Springs Canyon Road, Sand Canyon Road, Shadow Pines Boulevard,
5oledad Canyon Road, and Whites Canyon Road, originally estimated at
:81.69 million. The fees charged to new cevelopment to finance these
improvements were set as follows:
Residential Property:
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
S2,100/unit
S1,680/untt
51,470/unit
Non -Residential Property:
Cormericlal 510,500/acre
Industrial 26,300/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. The proposed total
estimated cost for the completion of District improvements and administration Is
now $101.9 million.
FEE ANALYSTS
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
been conditioned to pay fees, a unit breakdown
semalning to the District, and the District fee
-1-
to date, the tracts that have
in the anticipated development
calculation.
DISTRICT PROJECTS COSTS
1992
Projects to District Costs
Whites Canyon Road $14,900,DDO
Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126) $57,600,000
Golden Valley Road $12,900,060
Lost Canyon Road $ 9,400,000
Shadow Pines Boulevard S 300,000
Oak Springs Canyon Road $ 1,700,000
Sand Canyon Road $ 2,100,000
Soledad Canyon Road $ 3.000.000
5101,900,000
DISTRICT FUND STATUS
Fees collected to date S 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
Undevelaoed 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 **Residential **Non4 esidential
Acres 17,060 380
Housing Units 20,077 -
** Refer to District Fee Calculation for breakdown of Residential and
Non Residential Area.
- 2 -
4 DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION
Per the District Report, the proposed fee is related to the degret with which
future developments beneftt from the proposed improvements. To make the fee
equitable between fending 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
Trips
TYoe
of Total*
I of Units
Per Unit
Total
Single Family
38.8
7,790
10
77,900
Townhome/Congo
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
IR Tyoe
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
Total Number of Trios 189,833
FEES.NEEOED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECTS $90.910.000 • 478.89*
.TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS 189,833
* Rounded to $480/trip
Fee per factored development Unit (fdu) - $480/trip x 10 trips/fdu a $4800/fdu
- 3 -
Construction Fee
Residential
Fee
Single Family
$4,800 x
Townhouse
$4,800 x
Apartment
$4,800 x
Non -Residential
Cwmercial
$4,800 x
Industrial
$4,800 x
HMC:mv
P -3:15 -FAR
E
Factor Fee per Development Type
1 U $4,800/unit
.8 W $3,840/unit
.7 M $3,360/unit
5 0 524,000/acre
3 a $14,400/acre
- 4 -
RWT"c 126 BRIDGE AND }1i CR THCROUGHFARE February 25, 1991
- COiSTRUCiION FEE DISTRICT
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
*Whites Canyon Road
Phase I Complete
Phase II Construction began September 14, 1990
Phase III May 1991—Advertise for construction bids
Route 125
Golden Valley Road to Soledad Canyon Road 1997 C2
Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway 2704
Sierra Highway to Route 14
Golden valley Road _
Soledad Canyon Road to via Princessa 2005
via Princessa to Sierra Highway 2005
Sierra Highway to Green }fountain Drive 2007
Lost Canyon Road
Via Princessa to Tentative Tract Hap 45023 2008
Tentative Tract Hap 45023 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
Soledad Canyon Road
Sand Canyon Road to Oak Springs Canyon Road 2010
Shadow Pines Boulevard to Route 14
t This project is being funded jointly with the Bouquet Canyon B.&T District.
J p
1
_ (� j:*tet _ �[•�^��ti; +='� 1 !�
===t[rim rirtimirm ntrmrttt(tnrutin
i
•.._...._...... ...� ..._.... t .
Clv,I
CONSTRUCTION CO. IR EL E v E ED
31-P 0 4 1991!
19213 ROMAR STREET - NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA 91324 - (818) 885-1076