The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-08-13 - RESOLUTIONS - B&TDIST FEE REVISIONS (2)RESOLUTION NO. 91-127 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONFIRMING THE BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICTS FEE REVISIONS AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR ADOPTION AS AN 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: Residential Property Single Family Townhouse Apartment Non -Residential Property Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Industrial Route 126 B&T District $2,100/unit $1,680/unit $1,470/unit N/A $10,500/acre $ 6,300/acre Bouquet Cyn B&T District $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 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 Districts' 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. 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 Townhouse Apartment Non -Residential Property Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Industrial $4,800/unit $3,840/unit $3,360/unit N/A $24,000/acre $14,400/acre $4,000/unit $3,200/unit $2,800/unit $ 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. 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 urgency measure and the fee revisions set forth in Section 2 shall take effect immediately 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. The effectiveness of the fee revisions may be extended for an additional 30 days, with no more than two such extensions, following a duly �-- noticed public hearing and upon a four-fifths vote of the City Council. This urgency ordinance 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. Failure to adopt the urgency measure would result in a funding shortfall in the two B&T Districts. B. Such a funding shortfall would cause further delays in construction of the roads and bridges to be funded in these B&T Districts. C. 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 13th day of August • 1991 MAYOR ATTEST: CIT L RK 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 13th day of August 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Darcy. Neidt, NCKeon, Boyer NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Klajic CITY CLkRK-— ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND K&JOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT FEE ANALYSIS REPORT BACZGROUND EXHIBIT B Februar; 25, 1991 The Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (BET) 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 foilwing 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, Soledad Canyon Road, and Whites Canyon Road, originally estimated at 531.69 million. The fees charged to new aeveiopment to finance these improvements were set as follows: Residential Property: Single Family S2,100/unit Townhouse ;1,680/unit Apartment 51,410/unit Non -Residential Property: Conmericial 510,500/acre Industrial 56,300/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 ANALYSIS We have analyzed the amount of development remaining to be constructed to 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 semaining to the District, and the District fee calculation. -1- DISTRICT PROJECTS COSTS 1992 Protects in District Costs Whites Canyon Road $14,900,000 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 to 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 to the District. The aaount of development in this category is based on the County's current Land Use Plan. Total **Residential **Non -Residential Acres 17,060 380 Housing Units 20,077 - ** Refer to District Fee Calculation for breakdown of Residential and Non Residential Area. - 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 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 Non -Residential Trips Acres Breakdown Type % of Total* t 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 Acres 380 Total Units 10,077 Total Trips 175.433 Non -Residential Acres Breakdown Based on 380 Acres ^ Trips Type % of Total* f 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 NuRber of Trips 189,833 FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECTS S90,910,0DO * 418.89* TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS 189,833 * Rounded to $480/trip Fee per factored development Unit (fdu) - $4801trip x 10 trips/fdu * $4800/fdu - 3 - Construction Fee Residential Fee Single Family $4.800 Townhouse $4,800 Apartment $4,800 Non -Residential Factor Fee per Development Type x 1 54,800/unit x .8 - $3,840/unit x .7 $3,360/unit Commercial $4,800 x Industrial $4,800 x HMC:mv P -3:15 -FAR 5 a $24,000/acre 3 a $14,400/acre - 4 - February 25, 1991 ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND WOR TIHOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE *Whites Canyon Road Coavlete Phase I Phase II Construction began September 14, 1990 Phase IIi May 1991 -Advertise for construction bids Route 125 Golden Valley Road to Soledad Canyon Road 1497 Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway 2002 Sierra Highway to Route 14 2004 Golden Valley Road Soledad Canyon Road to Via Princessa 2005 2006 Via Princessa to Sierra Highway 2007 Sierra Highway to Green Mountain Drive Lost Canyon Road Via Princessa to Tentative Tract Map 45023 2008 Tentative Tract Map 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 20010 Shadow Pines Boulevard to Route 14 * This project is being funded jointly with the Bouquet Canyon BST District. csoilw1fr=— S �' i s - ♦/ �. �:.' s m"fir ; • "C ��av �."`l'7. Sirr�r�l�r l�� . a... < � l !. j 4.JAAr .. _ � _:--_ _ ''_rZ�. ..._ � __��_~ --t _�-":1�'-- -• , _ r�- �{jto-.. Wit+ .^'' `.'r. 1� ---- /-�'-- Vs Z. M� •r• M ~ � r ♦_� �IF ��l '` ••1 .,'1J_-_�Ci fI N .� ;naij jjl I� r 'yi�i. • L3 :� ----- ---•------ _ ��-�-��':I '' E is / . r C ` r. ti - « •.-�. ``��``�� y _=Z z i p ,�. � _; � '�ti `�, -- ��' '�t glinr�nuu i�lpppp, nnnniri a�p•mill iin' . � � • i I � '. V X11 t �� y� •. \, i\ - r Cv / ��_ fit' _ _ ,.•c irnri` 1 �mI�(Igilrflhlin,llfru _ Rlsw__ ---"-- -f — 1 '1 _�� _�. �. amu°} � I ♦ I. • - — tItTT^11111 1111111`11111111tlttlfltntttltttit,tn=•