HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - FEE REVISIONS BOUQUET CYN (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
August 25, 1992
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagerApproval
Item to be presented by.
`t n i'
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FEE REVISIONS TO THE BOUQUET CANYON AND
ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE (B &T) CONSTRUCTION
FEE DISTRICTS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VIA PRINCESSA BRIDGE
AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
Resolution No. 92-166
DEPARTMENT: Community. Development
The first B & T District (Bouquet Canyon) was formed in the Santa Clarita Valley in 1985. Since
then, three others have been established to fund new roadways necessary to serve the traffic
demands resulting from new development. These Districts have provided for two-lane roadways _
with some exceptions. The Council has directed staff to include the cost of four -lane roadways
rather than two. Two-lane roadways (one travel lane in each direction) do not providethe necessary
roadway section to accommodate slow and disabled vehicles especially trucks, passing and left
turning opportunities and an overflow lane for emergency situations.
In May, 1991, the County raised its B & T District fees to reflect 1992 construction costs.. At the
direction of the Council, staff commented to the Board of Supervisors that the County should
Include the 1992 cost of four -lane roadways. Although the Board did not approve the City's
suggestion, Supervisor Mike Antonovich did directthe County Director of Public Works to meet with
the City and the Building Industry Association (BIA) to discuss the four -lane approach. (See
attached letter)
Several meetings have been held, attended by a representative of the BIA and County and City staff,
to discuss the two-lane/four-lane issue and a possible single district for the entire Santa Clarita
Valley. The meetings have been very productive for sharing Information and discussing concerns
but no agreement for a single district or the inclusion of four -lane roadways has been reached.
After one year, City staff felt that the City needed to proceed with the increase In fees for the two
existing B & T Districts and form the Via Princessa District which includes only City area. The
existing fees and proposed fees are shown on attached Exhibit "A."
On July 14,1992, the City Council preliminarily approved the Fee Analysis Reports for Fee Revisions
for the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 B & T Districts and preliminarily approved the Fee Analysis
Report for the establishment of the Via Princessa B_& T. Construction Fee District.
Confinued To:.10 -9a
Ag�;do Item:7
AGENDA REPORT
Public Hearings for Fee Revisions to the
Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare (B & T)
Construction Fee Districts and Establishment
of the Via Princessa Bridge and Major
Thoroughfare Construction Fee District
August 25, 1992
Page 2
Two public forums were held to discuss the increased fees and the new Via Princessa District.
Input from the public focussed on the economic hardships of the Increased fees especially for
subdivisions which were conditioned to pay the existing fees but would pay the increased fees if
their subdivisions are not approved and building permits issued prior to the effective date of the
higher fees. Staff does have a proposal that would establish an administrative process to
accommodate these developments if that is the Council's direction. Attachment 1 is a summary of
the questions and answers that were discussed at the public participation forums.
Certain facts need to be considered to determine if there may be other options other than approving
the increased fees and forming the new district. They are:
• The County has proposed four -lane roadways for the Valencia District which will be
considered by the Board of Supervisors in about 60 days.
• Four -lane roadways are already indicated for Whites Canyon Road, Via Princessa, and Route
126 in the two existing districts.
• A single district will be opposed by the members of the BIA because they feel that fees
collected in their area should be spent for roads in their area regardless of need.
• The flexibility to borrow funds between individual districts accomplishes the same goal i.e.
building roads wherever the need exists as does the formation of a single district.
• the increased fees may be a hardship in light of the current economic climate and make
development in the County more attractive while traffic will still flow through the City
Option No. 1 Would be for the Council to conduct the public hearing, adopt resolutions raising
the fee and establishing the Via Princessa District all including four lanes.
Option No. 2 Would be to keep the fees as they exist (two-lane roadways,) and adopt the Via
Princessa District with two-lane roadways rather than four. This would soften the
economic hardship caused by the increased fees until the demand for housing
supports the four -lane fees.
Option No. 3 Slnce the County Director of Public Works has Indicated some support for the four -
lane approach (see attached letter) now is the time to bring the Board's direction to
closure. The City is ready to proceed with the four lane concept. What is the
County's official position? The Mayor could bring this issue up for discussion at the
meeting with Supervisor Antonovich on August 27,1992. Staff could follow up with
a letter outlining the results of our meetings and requesting conclusion on the issue.
Staff believes that a continuation of the hearing will afford the best opportunity for
the County and City to finalize our recommendations.
AGENDA REPORT
Public Hearings for Fee Revisions to the
Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare (B & T)
Construction Fee Districts and Establishment
of the Via Princessa Bridge and Major
Thoroughfare Construction Fee District
August 25, 1992
Page 3
Initial studies were prepared for the Bouquet Canyon, Route 126; and Via Princessa B & T Districts.
The findings Indicate that mitigation measures are not considered necessary atthistime. Mitigation
measures may be necessary at the time individual road projects are proposed for construction and
will be considered at that time. On August 3,1992, the Initial studies and the negative declarations
for each B & T District were posted for public review and comments. As of this date, no comments
were received.
Public hearings for the subject projects have been properly noticed for August 25, 1992 per the
applicable government code sections. The public notice invited both written and oral testimony to
be presented at this time.
1. Continue the public hearing.
2. Direct the Mayor to discuss the need for four -lane roadways and the time schedule for a
final report on the.direction adopted by the Board.
3. Direct staff to summarize the results of their meetings with County staff and the BIA and
request that a recommendation on the four -lane issue be presented to the Board.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. 92.160
Resolution No. 92-159
Attachment I
Exhibit "A"
Letters From County
USAESZ188.AGN
RESOLUTION NO. 92.159
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
ESTABLISHING THE VIA PRINCESSA BRIDGE AND MAJOR
THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT AND
ESTABLISHING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF FEES THEREIN
The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council does find, determine and declare:
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66484 and its police powers, the City of Santa
Clarita has adopted by reference Los Angeles County Code Section 212.32.200 and
Bridge and Thoroughfare: Fee Districts, as well as, the levy of fees on new
development to support construction of major roads and bridges as set out herein;
b. Those code sections enable the City of notice and hold a public hearing and adopt
a resolution providing for the formation of such districts and levy and collection of
fees therein under the requirements of the code and state law;
C. On July 14,1992, as required bythe code, the City Council received and preliminarily
approved information regarding the district and called a hearing thereon, which
report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment "A';
d. Notice of the hearing has been given as required by law;
e. At the time, date and place set for public hearing on the formation of the district and
levy and collection of fees, the City Council duly heard and considered all oral and
written testimony in support of or opposed to such formation, levy and collection;
f. 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 benefitted
as set out in Attachment "A';
g. The purpose of the fee proposed to be levied is to construct bridges over
waterways, railways, freeways and canyons orto construct major thoroughfares, as
"construct" is defined In Government Code Section 66484 as set out in
Attachment "A";
h. The fee proposed to be levied shall be used for the construction of the road and
bridge projects listed In Attachment "A";
The relationship between the fee and the construction projects is that the total cost
of construction of the projects listed has been allocated to each unit of new
development as set out in Attachment "A" and the amount of the fee is no more than
each property is benefitted by the construction of such projects;
The roads and bridges proposed to be constructed are needed to serve new
development of all types within the proposed district;
RESOLUTION NO. 92-159
Page 2
k. The City already, as of the date of this resolution, has expended and allocated funds
for such road and bridge projects and, therefore, such fees should be collected at
the time of issuance of building permits; and
I. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration which conform to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and. Local CEQA
Guidelines have been prepared and filed and duly considered by the City Council.
SECTION 2. The City Council resolves as orders:
a. The Negative Declaration prepared for this project Is adopted;
b. That the Via Princessa Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District
hereby formed with the boundaries of the area of benefit set out in Attachment "A";
c. That the total cost of the road and bridge projects to be constructed within the
District is set out In Attachment "A'';
d. That the method of allocation of such cost to the area benefitted shall be as set out
in Attachment "A";
e. That the amount of the per-unit fee for each unit of new construction shall be as set
out in Attachment "A";
f. That the City Finance Officer hereby is instructed to set up an account entitled
"Planned Bridge Facility and Major Thoroughfare Fund" and to establish within such
account a separate fund for each road and bridge project;
g. That all road and bridge fees levied and collected within the District and the
proceeds of any such fees (from investment or otherwise) shall be deposited in the
account so established, which fees and proceeds shall be used only for the projects
and construction proposes set out herein which serve the area benefitted;
h. That the account so established shall be reviewed pursuant to Government Code
Section 66001(d) -(f), as that may be amended from time -to -time;
That the City Clerk is Instructed to record a certified copy of this resolution with the
Los Angeles County Recorder.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-159
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this dayof •.1992.
Jill Klajic, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA }
1, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and 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 . 1992 by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
US:NE82.188.AGN
RESOLUTION NO. 92-159
Page 3
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CERTIFICATION BY THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Donna Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the attached copy of
Is a complete and correct copy of the original
now on file in my office and as adopted by the City Council at the
City Council meeting on
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
MAE98166.AGN
RESOLUTION NO. 92-160
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
CONFIRMING THE BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION
FEE DISTRICTS FEE REVISIONS
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does resolve as
follows:
a. 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) for the funding of certain highway improvements;
b. Upon the adoption of new B & T Districts the following fees were established:
Residential Property Route 126 B & T District Bouquet Canyon B & T District
Single -Family (RE, RYL, RL, RS*)
Multiple -Family (RM,RMH*)
Multiple -Family (RH*)
Non -Residential Properly
Neighborhood Commercial (CA*
$ 4,800.00/Unit
3,800.00/Unit
3,360.00/Unit
WA
Other Commercial (CTC, CC, CO, VSA*) 24,000.00/Acre
Industrial (BF, IC, 1*) 14,400.00/Acre
*General Plan Designations
4,000.00/Unit
3,200.00/Unit
2,800.00/Unit
4,000.00/Acre
20,000.00/Acre
12,000.00/Acre
C. The Districts' fees established by the resolutions at the time of the B & T District's
last fee reviews were based upon the estimated total improvement costs and the
established potential development within the Districts at that time;
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
a two-lane expansion of roadway within the District;
e. As a result of the above facts, the projected review from collection of Districts' fees
at the existing fee rates will be insufficient to fully finance the proposed Districts'
improvements;
RESOLUTION NO. 92-160
Page 3
f. There is a need to revise the Districts' fees to provide for sufficient revenue to fully
finance Districts' Improvements as to demonstrate in the Bouquet Canyon and the
Route 126 B & T Construction Fee Districts' Fee Revision Agency Report presented
to the City Council on July 14, 1992;
g. On July 14, 1992, the City Council received and preliminarily approved information
regarding the Districts' fee revisions and called a hearing thereon;
h. The requirements for notice and public hearing in relation to the proposed fee
revisions have been met In accordance with Government Code Section 65091;
1. 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;
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 benefitted;
k. The Districts are within the jurisdictions of the County of Los Angeles and the City
of Santa Ciarita;
The revisions to the Districts fees contained in this resolution will apply only in the
areas within the City's jurisdiction;
M. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared and filed and
considered by the City in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), State CEQA Guideline and Local CEQA Guideline requirements for the two-
lane expansion of roadway within the existing approved Districts.
SECTION 2. The City Council resolves and orders:
a. The proposed District fee revisions are intended to provide full funding for those
previously identified improvements, as well as, the two-lane expansion of roadway
within the existing approved Districts.
b. The projected total cost of the Bouquet Canyon District improvements is $48.3
million.
0. The projected total cost of the Route 126 District improvements is $107.54 million.
d. The revised Districts' fees are approved and adopted as follows:
Residential Property Route 126 B & T District Bouquet Canyon B & T District
Single -Family
$ 6,300.00/Unit
$ 10,150.00/Unit
Townhouse 5,040.00/Unit 8,120.00/Unit
RESOLUTION NO. 92-160
Page 4
=11
Commercial
Industrial
Apartment
Non -Residential Property
Neighborhood Commercial
Route 126 B & T District
31,500.00/Acre
18,900.00/Acre
4,410.00/Unit
N/A
Bouquet Canvon B & T District
50,750.00/Acre
30,450.00/Acre
7,105.00/Unit
10,150.00/Acre
e. The approved revised Districts' fees will be implemented only in the areas within the
City's jurisdiction;
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,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A';
g. The method of fee apportionment for the revised District fees is set forth in the
Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee Analysis Report,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B'
h. 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 Resolution Nos. 89-147 and 89.148 respectively of the original Districts'
Reports for formation of the Districts and adopted by resolution, as well as, the two-
lane expansion of roadway within the approved Districts as identified in Exhibits "A"
and "B" attached hereto;
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;
j. There is reasonable relationship between the proposed revised fees to be used for
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;
k. There continues to be a reasonable relationship between the need for the Districts';
Improvements and the affected subdivision, and building permit approvals because
the Districts' improvements will help mitigate the additional traffic congestion
Impacts generated by those approvals;
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;
RESOLUTION NO. 92-160
Page 2
M. That the City Clerk is instructed to record a certified copy of this resolution with the
Los Angeles County Recorder.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 11992.
Jill Klajic, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ciarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
day of . 1992 by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
USAE92166AGN
Existing
(two lanes)
Proposed
(four -lane)
Option
(two lanes)
EXHIBIT ••A••
B & T Construction Fee District Rates
4,000.00/SFU
3,200.00/MFU(MD)
2,800.00/MFU(HD)
4,000.00/ACRE N.C.
20,000.00/AC O.C.
12,000.00/AC IND.
10,150.00/SFU
8,120.00/MFU(MD)
7,105.001MFU(HD)
10,150.00/ACRE N.C.
50,750.001O.C.
30,450.00/IND.
Same
as
Existing
4,800.00/SFU
3,840.00/MFU(MD)
3,360.00/MFU(HD)
N/A
24,000.00/ACRE O.C.
14,400.00/ACRE IND.
6,300.00/SFU
5,040.00/MFU(MD)
4,410.00/MFU(HD)
N/A
31,500.00/ACRE O.C.
18,900.00/ACRE IND.
Same
as
Via Princessa•
4,000.00/SFU
3,200.00/MFU(MD)
N/A
N/A
20,000.001AC O.C.
12,000.00/AC IND.
13,450.00/SFU
10,760.00/MFU(MD)
N/A
N/A
67,250.00/ACRE O.C.
40,350.00/ACRE IND.
11,650.00/SFU
9,320.00/MFU(MD)
Existing NIA
N/A
58,250.001AC O.C.
34,950.00/AC IND.
'Fees are collected at these rates in anticipation of the formation of the District. Agreements are
entered with developers to pay actual fees when district formed.
IND. = Industrial
SFU = Single -Family Unit
MFU(MD) = Multiple -Family Unit - Medium Density
MFU(HD) = Multiple -Family Unit - High Density
N/A = Not Applicable: Type of Zoning Does Not Exist in District
N.C. = Neighborhood Commercial
O.C. = Other Commercial i.e. Not Neighborhood
DLS:RE92-166.AGN
Attachment I
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE DISTRICTS (B & T)
Public Participation Forums
The following are examples of typical questions that were asked by the meeting attendees at the
City's Public Participation Forums held on August 3 and 11, 1992.
1. Program Introduction and Project Background presented by Mr. Anthony J. Nislch, City
Engineer.
It. Review and Update of Fee Analysis of the B & T Districts presented by Mr. Richard Kopecky,
Consultant.
III. Questions and Answers:
Question
To what extent does approval of the B & T District relate to the actual building of the road?
Answer
Dynamic Process. The fact that it is in the B & T District does not guarantee that the road
will be built. B & T District identifies the road and that it is a needed road.
Question
Cost? Does it reflect today's cost? Shouldn't these fees be more since the fee will reduce
development and full buildout will not be realized_ for say 20 years; then the costs will be
much more to build the roads.
Answer
We will change the fees by an inflation factor. We will modify as we go.
Question
Will there be fee escalation every year?
Answer
Fees will increase based on CPI cost of construction for Los Angeles. It is not known if the
fees will change every year. Fees may go lower if cost of construction goes down
considerably.
Question
Handout says roads are marginally adequate. I've heard comments that the roads are hardly
adequate.
Attachment I
Page 2
n w
Marginally adequate is a relative term. Some roads are good, some not so good and it
changes from time -to -time.
3111FL - •,
When do fees take effect?
Thirty days after the second reading of the ordinance, collected at time of map recordation
or single building permit issuance.
Question
Some have paid $1,800 fee three years ago. Will he have to pay the increased fee if the fee
is increased and now he pulls a building permit? .
Yes. They are subject to the new fee if a permit has not been pulled.
3111FL• ,
When lots are created fee are paid?
Yes.
Where did the increased gasoline tax money go? Does the City get It?
The amount we receive from state is small compared to budget of City. If we get tax money
from the state, we can use that amount and apply it to our numbers once we are assured
that we are In fact receiving that money.
Are adjustments made yearly? Is this fee set yearly and held the same for a year?
Attachment I
Page 3
Answer
Yes, pretty much. But is also depends on how fast development is proceeding.
Doesn't Los Angeles county have to agree with these proposals? LAFCO?
Answer
No, the City is taking action on their own without Los Angeles County. We do not need their
approval.
(Question
When we incorporated, did we get the fees from the County?
Answer
No, the County kept the fees. The idea being that any money they.spend will mostly be
used to build roads In City and County.
DLS:RE94.188.AGN
THOMAS A. TIDE99ANSON. Dlreny,
June 27, 1991
COUNTY OF LOS ANG&j'ES
-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TH
�'M SOUFREMONT AVENUE
ALHAlt"A, CALM(ORNIA 91903-1331
i�pboax (N9) s.Sa-5700
Mr. George Caravaiho
City Manager
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr. Caravalho:
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT FEES
JUL - 21991
CaG'.l«d: t7 dl:4: da't+'• A'i
C,R1' •a c•
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE To.
P -0 -BOX 1460
ALHAMRRA,CALIFORNIA 91102•1490
IN REPLY PLER9E-�
A9rze 10 PL,:
This is in response to your March 28, 1991 letter and the May 23, 1991 letter
from Ms. Lynn M. Harris regarding the fee increases 1n the Bouquet Canyon and
Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (B&T) Construction Fee Districts.
As you know, the Board of Supervisors on May 9, 1991 approved an increase in the
er factored
unitfees In and fromh$2B100uto $4,800 per factored unit In,the Rourom $2650 to teP126 8&T District.
At the same time, the Board of Supervisors, recognizing that the new fee will
only provide for 2 -lane roadway improvements, requested the Director of Public
Works.to work with the Building Industry Association (BIA) and the City toward
developing 4 -lane roadway Improvements in these Districts.
In her letter, Ms. Harris advises that City staff intends to recommend the same
fee.inerease to your City Council as an interim measure and requested that we
move forward with the 4 -lane roadway Improvement proposal.
We are looking forward to working with the City and the BTA In studying the
Districts and developing recomnended changes to their scope and fee schedules.
Please contact Mr. Carl Blum, Assistant Deputy Director, Planning Division, at
(818) 458-4300. to set up an initial meeting,
very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Works
DONALD L. WOLFE
Deputy Director
HMC:nr
1/59
CG: Flcha"rd' Wirths
RCU BY:WILL7AN LANQASiER,,._,� 6_16-97,:_7:28¢k_;616 457 1526
COUNTY OF LOS ,i NGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
go BOUT& naMONT AYME
A1NAM11A, CAUFO1MAg10*1n 1
TN.p6eec (nO tl4S100
S1tOMA8A.TipCMA7aON.D{n.ur
August 18, 1992
Mr. Tcny Nisich
cityEngineer
city of Santa
23920 Valencia
Santa Clarita,
» 8057�3085d_ � 1
A=9999 ALL CD&RZOONDENC870a
r.O.Box 140
ALH&USRA. CAMPORMA OW -140
ClariLa
.Boulevard, Suite'300
CA 91355
Dear Mr. Nislcn:
•-3
VIA pRINCBSSA. SOVQU1;T CA1aON AND ROUTE 126 BRIDon AND MAJOR
nomuwmz cONSTRUCTIOH FEE DISTRICTS
RESOLUTION NOS. 92-149 AND 92 -150 -
We have reviewed your city's Fee Analysis Report of the
Via princessa BET District and'
the Foe Revision, Reports of the
Bouquet Canyon Route lab BET 016tri wes'have the discussed
with
Mr. Jim Schroeter an August 12. 1993+
comments. .
via Princess& SET District
The Via PritcG505 District"5 proportionate share of the coat of the
ded
extension of Route 126 between I-5 and ROute 14 sloeul a{ atelthat
lvno
viiapPrinceesahs sharsicomasart of te Distrct's pto�be*$10e336ects t000.
The total number of new trips to,be,generated in,the District was
calculated by.the,county ]pack in August 1987 to be ali8a32t hvse
times higher than that one calculated. by' your City;
5,779 trips.
Your city's proposal for District.improvements on Rio,V'ista Road,
Magic mountain Parkway and Wiley Canyon account for
quitoBhigh,,G00.
The estimated costa of the projects app
Collected .1005 from recorded trects must be subtracted from the
total project cost estimates to obtain a more accurate construction
fee rate. Approximately 42 million was collected by aur Dspartment
before your city's incorporation, our record indicated that two
certificates, totalling $1,444,800 were released to your City an
June 13, 1991. (See enclosed spreadsheet Of 'the Department's
collected lees and transmittal letter regarding the rslease of
certificates.)
RQV BY%WILLDAN LANGA5T_d. ,i 9_16-OZ,G„7_29AM_;JA 457 1520 + 9057;39C54jA 2
Mr. Tony Nisich
August 16, 1992
Page 2
Bouquet and Route _126 SO Districts
A sentence on page 4, in the '"Fiscal Impact” paragraph of the
Agenda Report, indicated that the whites Canyon Road project, A
joint District project, was financed by loans between Districts,
This statement is misleading. he you are aware, under AB 1600
(Government Code Section 66000 et. goq,) fees Collected in the
various Motricts must be deposited in separate capital facilities
fund accounts to avoid commingling. Each of the fund accounts is
earmarked for imprevementes within the respective Districts. on
May 12, 1992, the Hoard of Supervisors authorized the issuance of
a bond, to be purchased as an investment of the County's Flood
Control District in an amount not to exceed $8.5 million. It was
secured by the Bouquet and the Route 126 R&T funds and other funds
available to those s&Ts to complate the project's financing.
The City's analysis shows a now improvement project to widen the
bridge on Solsdad Canyon Road over Santa Clara River being added to
the Bouquet District. and it is to be funded jointly with the Route
126 District. Yowever, this project was not mentioned in your
Route 126 nistrict Yee Revision Report.
The 2 -lane baso rate of ';4,800/du in the Route 126 B&T District
would need to be increased to $6,000/du due to the large reduction
of the remaining developable units calculated by your staff for the
city's portion of the Diatrict. The fee analyoje Conducted by
County staff in March 1991 had estimated the Cities remaining units
to be about twice as much ns currently estimated by your City.
Enclosed for review is our Analysis of the County's Land use and
total combined trips and 2 -lane roadway fee analysis.
The City's fee analysisproposal fur these Districts shows; the
4 -lana improvement proposal being financed by the City's portion of
the District only. This Department would be willing to recommend
to the Board of
portions
of the BouquetCA yre
Canyon andRoute126ctt"es in e Districts tohare in"fins ding
the 4 -lane improvement proposal, assuming that we get the Building
Industry Association's concurrence to the tour lane concept. The
substantiallyireduceothenCityaactee whites inntheesesoDiatricts.
RCI 9Y?WILLDAH LARGASTER_ .„� d-jB-B,Z,j„7:2BAM-;619'457 1526
June 13. 1981
Mr. Dick Kopatky
City or Santa Clan to
23820 Valencia Boulsvard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91369
Dear. Mrs KaP9cky:
y 6p¢�?soeu�s a
TIME SAVINGS CERTIFICATE NUMBERS 18-217313-8 AND 18-217441-7
CERTIFIED MAIL 69542
BF -4
Enclosed are the above mentioned certificates for the improvement of Tract 32365
Which now lies within your City.
The assignment of these certificates to the D partment of Public works is hereby
released to you so that you may negotiate with the developer, Wastereek Properties
Limited, on banalf of your City:
Certificate i9-217313-8
amount $1,264,200.00
Financial Institution - East River Savings Bank
Certificate 18-217441-7
Amount $180.800.00
Financial institution - East River Savings Bank
If you have any questl0ns, please tali Mrs. Darlene Adams at (818) 438-8953.
vary truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Arks 1 F, •r
t.
PATRICK V. DeCHELLIS, Acting Chief
Business and Finance 01vislun .
DA:dh
BF-4/1-LOCIO
Ene,
cc: East River savings Bank
be: Planninq (Whitehead)
RGV _BY:WILLOAN LANQASTER , ,,,j 457 late 805?�so85a:8 6
CONIITRUCTION F@5 CALCULATIONS
Cnur,,ty Aree RA=d = f=oumtyIa i.aCs( 1129 plan: NX
2en1i v':
Residential Unit/Trip Breakdown Based
nn 12x" Unfits:
Trip. Generation
Typs x of Total S of Units
Per -Unit
Total
Single Fam. 38.8 4,895
1.0
0•8
4885
5794
TownhomslCon- 57.4 7242
0.7
335
Apartment 3.8 478
i2— 618
'Total Trips 11,024
Non - Residential Breakdown Based an
125 Acres!
Type a of Total f of Acres
Per Acrp
Total
-
Commercial30•
5.0
3.0
iso
285
Industrial - 95
..W.
436
County's Total = 11,459 Trips
i, Sr�1cY A=
Total Numbsr of Tripe
729- ,Totmi. a2mwmo ccuot7G ard c tv Tri
110489 + 31740 = 10,199 Trips
.fir. ES8 BR for I - Ian* 1.112rov2mant i
original Project Cost
Total Number of Trips (County + City Total)
$91,0009000/15,109 !31967/FGU
.say: ys,000/FOU (bass fee)
Units ** Trips obtained from 1992 Ct,Foe
y sFoeRevisionoAnalys�ia,s
RCV 9Y;WILLDAN LANC-kFEREll 8.704, 457 1579
F
77
__......-
y �
r, 0
Pi
i
B57•^�8985��� 4
ti
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT
ON THE
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FOR
VIA PRINCESSA DISTRICT
LYNN M. HARRIS
' DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
hds:1646
4
THE VIA PRINCESSA BRIDGE AND MAJOR
FEE DISTRICT
I. SUMMARY
This report presents for approval by the City Council an area of benefit
for financing specific highway and improvements in the Saugus and
Newhall area of the City of Santa Clarita.
State Subdivision Law and.the Santa Clarita Municipal Code authorize the
establishment of a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee
District for the funding and construction of new bridges and major
thoroughfares, including addition to, widening, or reconstruction of
existing facilities, provided these bridges and thoroughfares are
identified .on the local agency's adopted circulation element of its
General Plan. Based on the transportation needs in the -Saugus -and
Newhall area of the City of Santa Clarita and the lack or limitation of
other funding sources, this funding method has been determined to be the
best alternative for the construction of ,needed highway improvements.
This report describes 'the concept and mechanics of the proposed Via
Princessa Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District.
Information included in this report will enable property owners within
the District to determine the potential fee assessed against their
property if and when development occurs.
II. CONCLUSIONS
1. Certain areas of the City of Santa Clarita have topographical
.features that limit the ability to provide access. One such area is
the Saugus and Newhall area.
2. Traditionally, municipalities have cooperatively assisted developers
in the funding and construction of needed highway improvements.
3. Gas Taa.Revenues,. the traditional source of highway funding, is now
at a level that provides only maintenance ,dollars with no funds
available for new construction.
4. Private decisions to locate development in outlying areas have
further increased the difficulty in providing funds for adequate
access.
5. At this time, there are no public funding resources readily
available to provide highway improvements for the future anticipated
development in the Via Princessa Bridge and Major Thoroughfare
Construction Fee District.
6. The current highway system in the City is considered marginally
adequate for existing development. The construction of additional
highway improvements only directly benefits properties subject to
further development.
-2-
III. THE BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
A. Authority
The State of California Government Code Section 66484, regarding
Subdivisions, gives local agencies the authority to adopt local
ordinances.that "may require the payment of a fee.as.a condition of
approval of a final map or as a condition of issuing a building
permit for purposes of defraying the actual or estimated cost of
constructing bridges over waterways, railways, freeways and canyons,
or constructing major thoroughfares."
The local adopted ordinance must refer to the circulation element of
its general plan, provide for a public, hearing, provide for the
establishment of boundaries of an area of benefit, provide for the
identification of the costs, a fair method of allocation of the
costs to the area of benefit, and a fair fee apportionment.
Further, the local ordinance must provide that the payment of fees
shall not be required unless the major thoroughfares are in addition
to or a reconstruction of any existing thoroughfares serving the
area at the time of district adoption and that the planned bridge
facility is an original bridge serving the area or an addition to
any existing bridge facility serving the area at the time of
district adoption. It must further provide, that if owners of more
than one-half of the area of property to be benefited by the
improvement(s) file proper written protests, the district
proceedings as proposed shall be abandoned for at least one year.
-3-
The local ordinance may provide acceptance of considerations in lieu
of the payment of fees, may permit a local agency to advance money
from its general fund or road fund to be reimbursed from bridge and
major thoroughfare funds, may permit a local agency to incur an
interest bearing indebtedness for the construction of bridge
facilities or major thoroughfares, and does not preclude a local
agency from providing funds for the construction of bridge
facilities or major thoroughfares to defray costs not allocated to
the area of benefit. The _Santa Clarita City Council adopted
Ordinances 88-37 on August 11, 1988 and 88-14 on March 14, 1988,
which thereby adopted the Los Angeles County Code and all other
ordinances of the County of Los Angeles of which the establishment
of bridge and major thoroughfare construction fees to be paid by
subdividers or building permit applicants were made a part thereof.
The referenced sections are consistent with the requirements and
provisions of the State Law. (Ordinances 88-37 and 88-14 are
included. by reference and Los Angeles County Code, Sections
21.32.200, 27.48.235 and 22.48.280 are included in this report as
Exhibit "H".)
B. Purpose
The purpose of the bridge and major thoroughfare construction fee
district is to defray the costs of additional highway improvements
needed to service new development. The District provides a source
of highway funding for new highways and bridges where City revenues
are unable to do so.
-4-
C. Concept
As authorized by statute cited above, the adoption of a specific
Area of Benefit permits the City to levy a charge against future
subdivisions or buildings located within that. Area of Benefit. This
funding method appropriately assesses those developments causing the
need for additional highways and bridges for the additional public
facility costs. The charge is levied in proportion to the estimated
number of trips generated by the development based on development
type and nationally accepted trip generation data. The adoption of
this Construction Fee District does not cause a charge against
existing development, publicly used land, or undeveloped land. The
construction fee is secured at the time of recordation of a tract
map or charges against a property when a building permit is issued.
IV. THE VIA PRINCESSA ACCESS PROBLEM
A. Background
Prior to incorporation, access to new development was built
cooperatively by the County and land developers. The County funded
its share with Gas Tax Funds, a source of revenue that has not kept
pace with the rise in construction costs. Land development
generally began in the flatter areas, expanding away from urban
centers. Public facilities were built to accommodate. this
expansion. In recent years, development has taken place away from
urban development- where land is less expensive but where topography
is more rugged and restrictive. This geographical characteristic
-5-
has dictated development locations and hindered the ability to
provide public facilities. It has also increased the cost of
providing these necessary public facilities, including roadways. An
example of this phenomenon is in the Saugus and Newhall area of the
City, where recent land development has been brisk and ahead of the
normal infrastructure construction. The Bouquet Canyon Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District was formed by Los
Angeles County in October 1985 and adopted by the City of Santa
Clarita on November 28, 1989 by Resolution No. 89-147, in the
adjacent Bouquet Canyon area of the Santa Clarita Valley in order to
alleviate the traffic congestion anticipated from approved area
development, particularly at the Bouquet Junction. Bridges and
roadways will be constructed to allow newly generated traffic to .
avoid locations where current volumes are heavy.
The Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee
District was formed by Los Angeles County and adopted by the City of
Santa Clarita on November 28, 1989 by Resolution No. 89-148 in the
adjacent Friendly Valley - Mint Canyon - Sand Canyon area of the
Santa Clarita Valley, in order to alleviate the traffic congestion
anticipated from approved area development. Route 126 is a vital
connection between State Route 14 and Interstate 5. The
construction of the Route 126 Expressway is of regional benefit
because it collects traffic from the various highways that connect
to it.
-6-
The Valencia Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District -
has not been established ' in the City. The Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works has contracted with Newhall Land and Farm
to prepare a District Report. When adopted, Valencia B & T
Districts will provide a funding source for needed highway
improvements. The general boundary lines for the proposed Valencia
District are: west boundary line: Interstate 5; south boundary
line: northerly line of the Via Princessa B & T District; east
boundary line: westerly line of the Bouquet Canyon B & T District;
north boundary line: follows the City limits, northerly. to the
Angeles -National Forest. The Valencia B & T District will link the
most westerly portion of the City to the Via Princessa and Bouquet
Canyon B & T Districts and encompass the industrial area of the City
(Valencia Industrial Center).
B. Current Traffic Problem and Route Selection
The discussion that follows refers to specific improvements selected
for' the District. that are enumerated in Exhibit "C" and shown on
Exhibit "B" map. -
The Southern Pacific Railroad and the undeveloped rolling hills
along the southerly side .of Soledad Canyon Road limits north/south
access to Soledad Lanyon Road and to the Route 126 Expressway. Rio
Vista Road is a vital north/south link for access to the northerly
part of the Via Princessa Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction
Fee District. The Southern Pacific Railroad bridgeoverRio Vista
Road is needed to provide access from a large industrial area to
Soledad Canyon Road and Route 126 as is an all-weather bridge
crossing over.Placerita Creek.
-7-
Magic Mountain Parkway extension to Soledad Canyon Road is needed to
provide access to Interstate 5 from the industrial and residential'
areas between Soledad Canyon Road and San Fernando Road. A major
bridge over San Fernando Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad
tracks and extending to an at -grade intersection with Rio Vista Road
is needed to provide such access.
Via Princessa from Wiley Canyon Road to Golden Valley Road is needed
to provide access in the Bermite area to Interstate 5. A portion of
via Princessa in the Circle J Ranch area has been built. A major
bridge over the Southern Pacific Railroad, San Fernando Road and the
south fork of the Santa Clara River from Circle J Ranch Road to Via
Pacifica is necessary to provide access to Interstate 5.
Wiley Canyon Road provides access to Interstate 5 from development
in Wiley Canyon.
Quigley Canyon Road provides access to development in the
northwesterly portion of Placerita Canyon. Quigley Canyon Road
crosses Placerita Creek on an Arizona crossing, a dip crossing which
is underwater during major storms, and does not provide all-weather
c
access. A bridge over Placerita Creek is needed for all-weather
access.
V. THE PROPOSED VIA PRINCESSA BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION
FEE DISTRICT
A. The Area of Benefit Boundary
The legal description of the Area of Benefit is defined in Exhibit
A map of the Area of Benefit is shown on Exhibit "G". The
10
following is a generalized description of the boundary lines. West
Boundary Line - The west boundary line is along San Fernando Road to
Magic Mountain Parkway, then across the Santa Clara River to the
westerly side of the Santa Clara River, then southerly along the
westerly right-of-way line to the northerly boundary of Tract
Nos. 36723 and 36725 to the westerly right-of-way line of McBean
Parkway. Then southwesterly along McBean Parkway to the City of
Santa Clarita City limits at Interstate 5, then south along last
said City limit to the southern City limit of the --City of Santa
Clarita. South Boundary Line - The southerly limit of the City of
Santa Clarita is the southerly boundary. Easterly Boundary Line -
The easterly City limit of the City of Santa Clarita and the
westerly boundary of the Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare
Construction Fee District are the easterly boundary. Northerly
Boundary Line -. The southerly boundary line of the existing Bouquet
Canyon Bridge and major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District is
the northerly boundary.
B. Development Analysis
Development was estimated based on four categories:
• Single -Family (units)
• Multi -Family (units
• Commercial (acres)
• Industrial (acres)
6+15
General Plan Desionation
RE, RVL, RL
RM, RMB
CC, CN
BP
Approximately 4,017 single-family units, 1,003 multi -family units,
170 acres of commercial development, and 370 acres of industrial
development are expected to be built on land within the proposed
Area of Benefit. These estimates were determined by calculating the
mid-range unit count of undeveloped urban -designated land on the
Santa Clarita General Plan,.incorporated herein by this reference.
C. Proposed Improvements and Estimated Costs
The improvements proposed to be funded by the District are based on
both -a determination of the traffic needs of the development
expected within the Area of Benefit and an analysis of highways and
bridges designated in the City General Plan that could meet the
expected traffic needs. Special consideration was given to those
highways and bridges that provided an area -wide benefit and were not
likely to be built as an on-site subdivision requirement. -
The proposed improvements are shown on Exhibit "B" and defined in
Exhibit "C". They are .estimated to cost approximately $91 million.
The City has also financially contributed to this District, by
preparing route studies and preliminary design work.
D. Improvement Phasing
The timing and phasing of the construction of improvements by the
City will, in some respects, be determined by private development
decisions as to when and where development is occurring. The amount
of the funds received will affect the City's determination of when
improvements will be constructed.
-10-
E. Traffic Analysis
The proposed fee is related to the degree to which future
developments benefit from the proposed improvements and the
estimated traffic generated from those developments within ± 5%.
Without the additional improvements, there would be insufficient
traffic capacity to permit the approval of additional. development.
To make the fee equitable between the funding participants, the fee
is based on the proportionate share or use of the improvements. Use
in this case has been defined as the number of peak -hour trips
generated by a development, since this is considered to be the most
equitable and practical basis of measure. The peak -hour trip
generation factors used in this fee program are based on federally
accepted trip numbers determined by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) and incorporated herein •by this reference. The ITE
has compiled average trip generation figures for various types of
developmenty including single-family units, multi -family units, as
well as different types of industrial and commercial uses. The
following findings are relative to the proposed construction fee:
Findings
1. The existing highway system handles the traffic generated by
existing development located within the Area of Benefit.
Further, existing development will not specifically benefit from
the additional highway improvement.
-11-
2. It is estimated that an additional 4,017 single-family units;
1,003 multi -family units; no apartments; 170 acres of
commercial, and 370 acres of industrial property will be
developed over the nest 20 years within the Area of Benefit and
that the current highway system cannot handle this additional
development.
3. The development of commercial and industrial properties within
the Area of Benefit will assist in reducing the number of trips
made to locations outside of the Area of Benefit.
F. The Construction Fee
Based on the preceding findings, the fee will be based on the number
of trips generated by anticipated development. Different lana use
types generate different numbers of peak -hour trips, and this has
been considered in the fee.
The estimated cost of construction was divided by the total number
of generated peak -hour trips.
The per peak -hour tripcost was calculated. into a per-unit
construction fee based on the number of peak -hour trips a particular
unit -type generated.
G. Developer Constructed Improvements
Should development- occur after construction of the district
improvements; the developer of the adjacent parcels will be required
to improve and dedicate those portions denoted by widths C and D on
Exhibit "F" as conditions of development.
-12-
11
Development occurring prior to construction of district improvements
provides that the district fee obligation may be satisfied by a
developer, subject to the approval by the Director of Community
Development, by constructing improvements that are designated to be
funded by the district. The early construction of routes that
complete a system that serves overall valley and regional
circulation are more likely to be eligible for fee credit
agreements. The basis of these credits for each classification of
roadway is depicted on the typical sections shown on Exhibit "F".
The width denoted A shows the limits of credits for base and
pavement. The width denoted 8 shows the limits of credit for
grading and drainage structures. Although not practical for
construction, these limits are vertical planes in order to provide a
precise determination of credits. Drainage systems that are
constructed to protect private property as part of development will
not be eligible for credit. Culverts needed to construct the road
without development are eligible for credit. Where the dedication
of right-of-way to implement the street system set forth herein
would normally be a condition imposed upon the development of the
property, no credit will be given toward the fee. Should it be
necessary for the City to acquire such right-of-way by purchase or
condemnation in advance of the development of the property, all
costs incurred by the City for such right-of-way acquisition shall
be added to the fee to be imposed upon the development of the
property to which such payment has been made.
-13-
H. Provisions for Updating Costs and Unit Information
Development of the land located within the Area of Benefit is not
constant nor is the cost of construction. Therefore, in order to
equitably assess future development as well as collect sufficient
funds to .complete the improvements, it is necessary to periodically
evaluate the construction cost index and the type of development
being constructed within the Area of Benefit. Every year on July 1,
this district will have its construction fee. adjusted based on
building trends, zoning modifications, and the construction cost
index increases for the previous year (April to March). With this
information, the fee will automatically be adjusted yearly to an
extent to match the construction cost inflation rate and building
activity. Additional fees may be collected due to a denser zoning
designation at the time of building permit issuance or recordation
of the map if that zoning differs from the established zoning at the
time of this district's adoption.
I. The Environmental Analysis
The activity has been reviewed, and it, has been determined to be a
project subject to the requirements of C.E.Q.A. An. initial study
has been prepared: As a result, a Negative Declaration has been
proposed for the project. The Negative Declaration will be
available for review on July 15, 1992. The establishment of the
District does not approve additional development. Each development
project will be subject to CEQA requirements prior to construction.
-14-
EXHIBIT "A"
THE AREA OF BENEFIT
KNOWN AS
THE VIA PRINCESSA BRIDGE AND MAJOR
THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE .OF HIGHWAY 14 (ANTELOPE
VALLEY FREEWAY) WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE LOS- ANGELES AQUEDUCT AS SAME
EXISTED ON FEBRUARY 2, 1990; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF LOS
ANGELES AQUEDUCT ALSO BEING THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND
.MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT TO ITS INTERSECTION -WITH THE
BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
BOUNDARY; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED BOUNDARY TO
ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BOUQUET CANYON ROAD, 93 FEET
WIDE AS SAME EXISTED ON FEBRUARY 2, 1990; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST
MENTIONED NORTHWESTERLY LINE AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF BOUQUET CANYON ROAD
THROUGH ITS VARIOUS COURSES AND DISTANCES TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MAGIC MOUNTAIN PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 126) OF VARYING WIDTH,
AS SAME EXISTED ON FEBRUARY 2, 1990 AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD
(HIGHWAY 126), 90 .FEET WIDE AS SAME. EXISTED ON FEBRUARY 2, 1990; THENCE
WESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAN .FERNANDO ROAD TO THE
WESTERLY .RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SANTA CLARA RIVER; .THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG
SAID LAST MENTIONED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF
TRACT NO. 36723 FILED IN BOOK -966, PAGES 77 TO 85 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT 90. 36723
AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT 36725 FILED IN BOOK 966, PAGES 91 TO 96 OF
A-1
MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF CORETINA DRIVE, 56 FEET
WIDE AS SAME EXISTED ON FEBRUARY 2, 1990; THENCE WESTERLY.IN A DIRECT LINE TO
THE CENTERLINE OF ARROYO PARR DRIVE, 84 FEET WIDE AS .SAME EXISTED ON
FEBRUARY 2, 1990; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CENTERLINE TO THE
WESTERLY LINE OF MCBEAN PARKWAY, 100 FEET WIDE AS SAME EXISTED ON.FEBRUARY 2,-
1990; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED EASTERLY LINE ALSO BEING THE
WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THROUGH ITS VARIOUS COURSES AND
DISTANCES TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID CITY OF SANTA CLARITA; THENCE IN AN
EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE THROUGH ITS VARIOUS COURSES AND
DISTANCES TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID CITY OF SANTA CLARITA; THENCE IN AN
EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY�LINE THROUGH ITS VARIOUS COURSES AND
DISTANCES TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF HIGHWAY 14 (ANTELOPE.VALLEY FREEWAY); THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED WESTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
A-2
EXHIBIT "C"
VIA PRINCESSA BRIDGE AND MAJOR
THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
I. RIO VISTA ROAD
A. Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway
1. Acquire 104 feet of right-of-way plus easements.
2. Full width grading.
3. Drainage structures as required.
4. Four lanes of base and pavement.
5. Preliminary and construction engineering.
B. Under Southern Pacific Railroad
1. Construct railroad bridge over Rio Vista Road.
2. Preliminary and construction engineering.
C. Over Placerita Canyon
1. Construct four -lane bridge over Placerita Creek.
2. Construct channel levee .on Placerita Creek necessary to protect
the bridge.
3. Preliminary and construction engineering.
D. Lyons Avenue
1. Extend Lyons Avenue to an at -grade crossing, of SPRR.
2. Construct bridge over Newhall Creek and intersect with Rio Vista
Road.
3. Four lanes of base and pavement.
4. Preliminary.and construction engineering.
II. MAGIC MOUNTAIN PARKWAY
A. Bridge over San Fernando Road to Soledad Canyon Road
1. Construct raised roadway/bridge at San Fernando Road, construct
bridge over Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, on and off ramps
to San Fernando Road, at -grade intersection with Rio Vista Road.
2. Four lanes base and paving and full, width grading.
3. Drainage structures.
4. Acquire right-of-way.
5. Preliminary and construction engineering.
C-1
B. Rio Vista Road to Soledad Canyon Road
1. Acquire 104 feet or right-of-way plus easements.
2. Full width grading.
3. Drainage.structures as required.
4. Four lanes of base and pavement.
5. Preliminary and construction engineering.
C. Southern Pacific Railroad Crossing
1. Construct four -lane bridge near Soledad Canyon Road.
2. Preliminary and construction engineering.
III. VIA PRINCESSA
A. Claibourne Lane to Golden Valley Road
1. Acquire 104 feet of right-of-way plus easements.
2. Full width grading.
3. Drainage structures as required.
4. Four lanesofbase and pavement,.
5. Preliminary and construction engineering.
IV. WILEY CANYON ROAD
A. Via Pacifica to Circle J Ranch Road
1. Acquire varying amounts of right-of-way plus easements.
2. Construct 96 -foot wide bridge over South Fork of Santa Clara
River, Newhall Creek, San Fernando Road and Southern Pacific
Railroad.
3. Construct channel levee on the South Fork of the Santa Clara
River and Newhall Creek necessary to protect the bridge.
4. Construct full width roadway.improvements.
5. Preliminary and construction engineering.
V. QUIGLEY CANYON ROAD
A. Over Placerita Creek
1. Construct 40 -foot wide bridge over Placerita Creek.
2. Construct channel levee on Placerita Creek necessary to protect
the bridge.
3. Preliminary and construction engineering.
C-2
EXHIBIT "D"
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COSTS*
Project - Limits
1. Rio Vista Road Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway
2. Magic Mountain Pkwy San Fernando Road to Soledad Cyn Rd
3. Via Princessa Claibourne Lane to Golden Valley Road
4. Wiley Canyon Road Via Pacifica to Circle J Ranch Road
and Powell Drive to Western Boundary
of Tract 30340
5. Quigley Canyon Road Over Placerita Creek
* Costs include construction and preliminary engineering.
D-1
Estimate
$33,000,000
33,800,000
7,400,000
15,720,000
1,080.000
$91,000,000
EXHIBIT "E" '
VIA PRINCESSA-BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
CONSTRUCTION FEE
Single -Family
Multi -Family Commercial Industrial
(RE, RVL, RL)
(RM,
RMH)
UNDEVELOPED URBAN -DESIGNATED
LAND
4,017 units
1,003
units 170 acres 370 acres
TOTAL
by Type
Single Family
4,017 D.U.
1,003
T.U. 170 acres 370 acres
UNIT/TRIP BREAKDOWN
PER TRIP COST
ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS = Peak Hour - -
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS Trip Cost
PEAK HOUR TRIP COST = $91,000,000 = $13,424/Peak Hour Trip
6,779 use $13,450
- I E-1
Peak Hour
Trip Generation
Type
# of Units
Per Unit - Total
by Type
Single Family
4,017
1.0
4,017
Multi -Family
1,007
0.8
802
Commercial
170 acres
5.0
850
Industrial
300 acres
3.0
1.110
Total Trips
6,779
PER TRIP COST
ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS = Peak Hour - -
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS Trip Cost
PEAK HOUR TRIP COST = $91,000,000 = $13,424/Peak Hour Trip
6,779 use $13,450
- I E-1
Single Family
.Multi -Family
Commercial
Industrial
E-2
FEE
$13,450/unit
$10,760/unit
$67,250/acre
$40,350/acre
EXHIBIT "r "
521
C A A C
D R 1 D
MAJOR
N.T.S.
42' I 42!
SECONDARY
N.T.S.
A = BASE AND PAVEMENT FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT
B = GRADING AND DRAINAGE FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT
C = ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS BY DEVELOPERS OR PUBLIC
D = GRADING & DRAINAGE BY DEVE...OPERS OR PUBLIC
E = MEDIAN BY DEVELOPERS OR PUBLIC
AN...... _
NORTH
N.T.S.
BRIDGE
THOROUGHFARE
DISTRICT
....................
•••�rN. p Rid•••
_
.........
CANyoNf
O
0• F..
V 1 A
a:m
3
L
:N
h
............
F`p
PRINCESSA
ya�a
29
cn
and
EXHIBIT
AVEN F
�••••_1•\••.•••
THOROUGHFARE
DISTRICT
....................
L
C
............
cn
EXHIBIT
�••••_1•\••.•••
58 CHAPTER 21.32 Sec. 32.190 (Cont.) — 32.200
EXHIBIT "H"
21.32.200 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEES. A. A
subdivider, as a condition of approval of a final map for property within
an area of benefit, or a building permit applicant, as a condition of.
issuance of a building permit for property within an area of benefit, shall
pay a fee as hereinafter established to defray the cost of constructing
bridges over waterways, railways, freewys and canyons, and/or
constructing major thoroughfares.
B. Definitions.
1. Area of benefit means a specified area wherein it has been
determined that the real property located therein will benefit from the
construction of a bridge and/or major thoroughfare.
2. Bridge facilities means those locations in the Transportation
Element of the General Plan requiring a bridge.
3. Construction means and includes preliminary studies, design,
acquisition of right-of-way, administration of construction contracts, and
actual construction.
4. Major thoroughfare means those roads designated in the
transportation element of the General Plan, the primary purpose of
which is to carry through traffic and provide a network connecting to the
state highway system.
5. The singular number includes the plural, and the plural the
singular.
C. The provisions herein for payment of a fee shall apply only if
the bridge and/or major thoroughfare has been included in an element
of the General Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors at least 30 days
prior to the filing of a map or application for a building permit on land
located within the boundaries of the area of benefit..
D. Payment of fees shall not be required unless any major
thoroughfares are in addition to or a widening or reconstruction of any
existing major thoroughfares serving the area at the time of the adoption
of the boundaries of the area of benefit.
E. Payment of fees shall not be required unless any planned bridge
facility is a new bridge serving the area or an addition to an existing
bridge facility serving the area at the time of the adoption of the
boundaries of the area of benefit.
F. 1. Action to establish an area of benefit may be initiated by the
Board of Supervisors upon its own motion or upon the recommendation
of the Road Commissioner.
H-1
Sec. 32.200 (Cont.) CHAPTER 21.32 59
2. The Board of Supervisors will set a public hearing for each
proposed area benefited. Notice cf the time and place of said hearing.-
including
earing.including preliminary information related to the boundaries of the area
of benefit, estimated costs and the method of fee apportionment shall
he given pursuant to Section 65905 of the Government Code.
G: 1. At the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors will consider
the testimony, written protests and other evidence. At the conclusion
of the public hearing; the Board of Supervisors may, unless a majority
written protest is filed and not withdrawn, determine to establish an
area of benefit. If established, the Board of Supervisors shall adopt a
resolution describing the boundaries of the area of benefit. setting forth
the cost, whether actual or estimated, and the method of fee
apportionment. A certified copy of such resolution shall be recorded with
the County Recorder.
2. Such apportioned fees shall be applicable to all property within
the area of benefit, and shall be payable as a condition of approval of a
final map or as a condition of issuing a building permit for such property
or portions thereof. Where the area of benefit includes lands not subject
to the payment of fees pursuant to this section, the Board of Supervisors
shall make provisions for payment of the share of improvement cost
apportioned to such lands from other sources.
3. Written protest will be received by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at any time prior to the close of the public hearing. If written
protests are filed by the owners of more than one-half of the area of the
property to be benefited by the improvement, and sufficient protests
are not withdrawn so as to reduce the area represented by the protests
to less than one-half of the area to be benefited, then the proposed
proceedings shall be abandoned and the Board of Supervisors shall not,
for one year from the filing of said written protests, commence or carry
on any proceedings for the same improvement under the provisions of
this section. Any protest may be withdrawn by the owner making the
same, in writing, at any time prior to the close of the public hearing.
4: If any majority protest is directed against only a portion of
the improvement, then all further proceedings under the provisions of
this section to construct that portion of the improvement so protested
against shall be barred for a period of one year, but the Board of
Supervisors shall not be barred from commencing new proceedings not
including any part of the improvement so protested. against. Such
proceedings shall be commenced by a new notice and public hearing as
set forth in Subsection F above.
5. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Board of Supervisors,
within such one-year period, from commencing and carrying on new
proceedings for. the construction of an improvement or portion of the
improvement so protested against if it finds. by the affirmative vote of
four-fifths of its members, that the owners of more than one-half of the
area of the property to be benefited are in favor of going forward with
such improvement or portion thereof.
H. Fees paid pursuant to this section shall be deposited in a planned
bridge facility and/or major thoroughfare fund. A fund shall be
established for each planned bridge facility project and/or each planned
H-2
60 CHAPTER 21.32 Sec. 32.200 (Cont.)
major thoroughfare project. If the benefit area is one in which more
than one bridge and/or major thoroughfare is required to be constructed,
a separate fund may be established covering all of the bridge projects
and/or major thoroughfares in the benefit area. Moneys in such fund
shall be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for
construction- of the improvement serving the area to be benefited and
from which the fees comprising the fund were collected, or to reimburse
the County for the costs of constructing the improvement.
I. The Board of Supervisors may approve the acceptance of
considerations in lieu of the payment of fees established herein.
J. The Board of Supervisors may approve the advancement of
'money from the General Fund or Road Fund .to pay the costs of
constructing the improvements covered herein and may reimburse the
General Fund or Road Fund for such advances from planned bridge
facility and/or major thoroughfare funds established pursuant to this
section.
K. If a subdivider, as a condition `of approval of a subdivision, is
required or desires to construct a bridge and/or major thoroughfare, the
Board of Supervisors may enter into a reimbursement agreement with
the subdivider. Such agreement may provide for payments to the
subdivider from the bridge facility and/or major thoroughfare fund
covering that specific project to reimburse the subdivider for costs not
allocated to the subdivider's property in the resolution establishing the
area of benefit. If the bridge and/or major thoroughfare fund covers
more than one project, reimbursements shall be made on a prorata basis,
reflecting the actual or estimated costs of the projects covered by the
fund. (Ord. 82-0240 Sec. 1, 1982, Ord. 82-0050 Sec. 1, 1982.)
H-3
Sec. 48.220 — 48.235 CHAPTER 22.48 269
PART 4 — CHAPTER 22.48
ROAD DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENT
REQUIREMENTS
SECTIONS:
22.48.220 Exceptions to Part 4 applicability.
22.48.230 Highway dedication and improvement near structures.
22.48.235 Mayor bridge and thoroughfare lees.
22.48.240 Dedication standards.
22.48.250 Improvements.
22.48.260 Agreement to dedicate.
22.48.270 Agreement to improve — Contents — Completion of work by County
authorized when — Costs.
22.48.280 Exemptions — Existing buildings and structures.
22.48.290 Modifications authorized when.
22.48.300- Variances from standards.
22.48.220. EXCEPTIONS TO PART 4 APPLICABILITY. This Part 4 does
not apply to the following buildings or structures which, if they comply
with all other provisions of this Title 22, may be used without complying
with any, provision of this Part 4:
— Buildings or structures permitted in Zone P.-'_.
— Outdoor advertising.
— Accessory agricultural buildings where used primarily for agricultural
purposes, including but not limited to: barns, silos, chicken houses, rabbit
hutches and roadside stands.
— Oil wells.
— Electrical distribution and transmission substations.
— Water storage tanks, reservoirs and water pumping plants, but excluding
offices or maintenance yard facilities.
— Gas measurement, distribution, and meter and control stations.
— Telephone repeater stations.
— Temporary carnivals and revival meetings.
— Other similar uses which, in the opinion of the Hearing. Officer, will not
generate a greater volume of traffic than the uses enumerated in
this section. (Ord. 1494 Ch. 4 Art. 4 .G 4.91. 19_'7.)
22.48.230. ROAD DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENT NEAR STRUCTURES.
Except as otherwise provided in Sections 22.48.?220 and 22.48.280, a
building or structure shall not be used on any lot or parcel of land any
portion of which abuts upon an alley, street, or highway, unless the one-
half of the alley street, or highway which is located on the same side of
the centerline as such lot or parcel of land has been dedicated and im-
proved as provided in this Part 4.. (Ord. 85-0168 Sec. 83; Ord. 1494 Ch. 4
Art. 4 F 49Z 1927.)
2248.235. MAJOR BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEES. Except as
otherwise provided in Section 22.48.280, a building or structure shall not
be used on any lot or parcel of land, any portion of which is located within
a Bridge or Major Thoroughfare District established pursuant to Section
21.32.200, unless the required district fee has been paid as a condition of
issuing a building permit. (Ord. S,5-0168, Sec. 33)
t;a4
Sec. 48.270 (Cont.) — 48.290 271
D. LJpon the failure of said responsible person to complete any im-
provement within the time specified in an agreement, the Board of
Supervisors may, upon notice in writing of not less than 10 days served
upon the person, firm or corporation signing such contract, or upon.
notice in writing of not less than 20 days served by registered mail
addressed to the last known address of the person, firm or corporation
signing such contract, determine that said improvement work or any
part thereof is incomplete, and may cause to be forfeited to the County
such portion of deposits or bonds given for the faithful performance of
said work, or may cash any instrument of credit so deposited in such
amount as may be necessary to complete the improvement work.
(Ord. 1494 Ch. 4 Art. 4 f 496, 1.927 )
22.48.280. EXEMPTIONS — EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES.
This Part 4 does not apply to the use, alteration or enlargement of
an existing building or structure or the erection of one or more
buildings or structures accessory thereto, or both, on the same lot
or parcel of land, if the total value of such alteration, enlargement, or
construction does not exceed one-half of the current market value of
all -existing buildings or structures on such lot or parcel of land.
(Ord. 1494 Ch. 4 Art. 4 C 4.97, 1927.)
22.48.290. MODIFICATIONS AUTHORIZED WHEN. A. The Director of.l
Planning may grant a modification to the provisions of this Part 4 and
relieve the applicant either from compliance with all or a portion of the
provisions thereof if he finds:
1. Property adjoining on both sides of the subject property
is developed with lawfully existing buildings or structures which,
were they not already existing, would be subject to the provisions of
this Part 4, and the requirement to dedicate, pave or improve would
require a greater width than is the alley, street, or highway abutting
the existing buildings or structures on the adjoining properties; or
2. The lot or parcel of land adjoins an alley, street, or highway
for a distance of 100 feet or more, and only a portion of said lot or
parcel of land is to be used for such building or structure or occupied
by such use. .
B. The Road Commissioner may grant a modification to the provi-
sions of this Part 4 and relieve the applicant either from compliance with
all or a portion of the provisions thereof if he finds;
1. There is in existence or under negotiation a contract be-
tween the County and a contractor to install the required improve-
ments; or
2. The Road Commissioner is unable to furnish grades within a
reasonable time; or
3. The required construction would create a drainage or traffic
problem; or
4. The construction mill be isolated from a continuous roadway
which may not be improved for many years; or
H -s
O ;D,NANC: NO- 80-14
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ADOPTING
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND OTHER NON -CODIFIED
LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORDINANCES, BY REFERENCE, AS
CITY ORDINANCES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE HUNDRED TWENTY
DAYS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Los Angeles County Code and all other
ordinances of the County of Los Angeles, theretofore applicable,
are hereby adopted, by reference, as ordinances of the City of
Santa Clarita, to the extent applicable to the City and not in-
consistent with the existing Santa Clarita Municipal Code, for
a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the effective
date of this ordinance. Three (3) copies of the said Los Angeles
County Code are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the
city.
Section 2: The following amendments are made to the
County of Lcs Angeles Ordinances referenced herein:
(a) Whenever "Board of Supervisors" or "Board" is
used in the Ordinance, it means the Santa Clarita
City Council.
(b) Whenever "County" is used in the Ordinances, it
means geographical limits of the City of Santa
Clarita unless a different geographical area is
clearly indicated by the context.
CC) Whenever "County "County of Los Angeles" or
"unincorporated Territory of the County c`_ Los
Angeles" is used, in means the.City of Santa
Clarita.
Section No City Ordinance enacted within one hundred
twenty (120; days from the effective date of thisordinance shall
be deemed to supersede any County ordinance referenced herein
unless the City Ordinance specifically refer thereto and states
an intention to supersede it.
Section 4: This ordinance shall become effective 30
days after adoption and shall remain in effect for 120 days there-
after unless sooner repealed.
First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of
said* City held on the 25 th day of February , 1988, and
finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said
City Council held on the 14 th day of Ma -.-h 1988,
by the following vote:
H-6
AYES: Councilmember Carl $over
Joanne Darcy
Jan Heidt
Dennis Koontz -
Howard McKeon
NOES: Councilmember
ABSENT: Councilmember
ATTEST:
City Cleric of tge•City o�
Santa Clarita-
Howard "Buck" McKeon
Mayor
H-7
ORDINANCE NO. 68-37
AN ORDINANCE OF. TaZ CITY COUNCIL OF TH
CITY OF SANTA CIARITA, CALIFORNIA,
INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND PROVIDING FOR THE
ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE AS -AN URGENCY
MEASURE.
WHER_AS, the City of Santa Clarita is a newly
incor-jorated City which comprises. territory formerly within
the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, immediately following
its organization and prior to performing any other official
act, adopted Ordinance 87-1, pursuant to California
Government Code Section 57376, providing that all Los
Angeles County ordinances previously applicable shall remain
in full force in effect as the City Ordinances for the City
of Santa Clarita for a period of 120 days after a
corporation, or until the City Council has enacted
ordinances superseding the Los Angeles County ordinances:
and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 19BS, the City Counc;'_ of the
City of Santa Clarita adopted ordinance number 88-14
providing that all Los Angeles County ordinances previously
applicable shall remain in full force in effect as the City
ordinances for the City of. Santa Clarita for a period of 120
days, or until the City Council has enacted ordinances
superseding the Los. Angeles County Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in
an orderly fashion to draft and adopt permanent codified and
non -codified ordinances applicable to its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City of 'Santa Clarita has not yet
adopted a comprehens 4 ve municipal code, no: sufficient
codified and non -codified ord!nances to allow the
applicability of the Los Angeles County Code to expire.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita does ordain as follows:
. SECTION 1. The Los Angeles County Code is hereby
adopted, y reference, as the Municipal Code for the City of
Santa Clarita to the extent applicable to the City and not
inconsistent with existing provisions of the Santa Clarita
-Municipal Code and shall remain in full force and effect
indefinitely from the effective date of this ordinance, or
H-8
until the C -;--y Council enacts an ordinance supersedinc all
or any portion of these Los Angeles County Code provisions.
A'cony of such Los Angeles Code provisions is on
file in the office of the City Clerk, shall be maintainea by
such clerk, and shall at all times be availableforbublic
insoection.
SECTION 2. The following amendments are made to the
County of Los Angeles Code referenced herein:
(a) Whenever "Board of Supervisors" or
"Board" is used, it shall mean the Santa
Clarita City Council;
(b) Whenever the geographical limits of
the County of Los Angeles are used, they shall
mean the geographical limits of the City of
Santa Clarita, unless a different geographical
area is clearly indicated by the context;
(c) Whenever "County", "County of Los
Angeles" or "unincorporated territory of t^e
County of Los Angeles" is used, it shall mean
the City of Santa Clarita.
SECTION 3. No City ordinance enacted after the
effectivehate o this ordinance shall be deemed to
supersede any County ordinance referenced herein unless the
City Ordinance specifically refers thereto and states an
intention to supersede it.
SECTION 4. .The City of Santa.Clarita has not yet .
adopted a comprehensive Municipal Code, and pursuant to
Ordinance 88-14, the effective date of the Los Angeles
County Code within the City of Santa Clarita shall expire on
August 12, 1988. The absence of the effectiveness of this
ordinance would leave the City without a comprehensive set
of local ordinances and, therefore, this ordinance is
necessary `or the protecton o£.the.public health, welfare,
orsafety of :the City of Santa Clarita and shall take effect
immediately upon adoption by a four/fifths vote of the City
Council.
H-9
SEC'T'ION 3. TheCityClerk shall certify to the
adoption oror zRis ordinance and cause it to be published in
the manner prescribed by law.
PASSED AND- APPROVED this lith day 'o: :Uaust ,
J J
ACL ✓ �✓
idAYGR
H-10
STATE OF CALI='ORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGZLES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Georce Caravalho Ci_y Clerk all the City Of
Santa Clarita o nereoy derb y that the -foregoing Ordinance
c
was duly adopted as an urgency measure at a recular"meet'_^?
o= the City Council on the 11th day or Aucust
19 88 , by t. *.e following roll. call vote:
AYES: COUNCT_LMEMSERS. Boyer, Darcy, Heidt, Koontz, McKeon
NOES: COUNCILMEMSERS:-Nane
ABSENT:
COUN=MEMBERS:
E
H-11
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT
ON THE
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FOR
BOUQUET CANYON DISTRICT
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
hds:1649
BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR.
ROADWAY EXPANSION WITHIN
THE CITY LIMITS
BACKGROUND
The Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (B&T) Construction Fee
District was approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on
October 1, 1985. Subsequently, the City adopted the Bouquet Canyon B & T
District on November 28, 1989 by Resolution No. 89-149 in order to alleviate
the traffic congestion from approved area development. Primarily, 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. Since the adoption of
this District, the estimated projectcosts have changed substantially due to
construction cost inflation increases, the increased scope of the Whites
Canyon Road project, and elimination of previously anticipated public agency
contributions to the District.
The estimated cost for the completion of the District improvements, which
included a two-lane roadway and administration, is currently $35.4 million.
The fees charges to new development to finance these improvements were as
follows:
Residential Property:
Single Family (RE, RYL, RL, RS)*
Multi -Family (RM, RMH)
Multi -Family (RH)
Non -Residential Property:
$ 4,000/unit
$ 3,200/unit
$ 2,800/unit
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) $ 4,000/acre
Other Commercial (CTC, CC, CO, VSA) $20,000/acre
Industrial (BF, IC, I) $12,000/acre
A two-lane expansion of the roadways in the District will.cost $12.9 million.
The total estimated costs for improvements in the District is now $48.3
million.
FEE ANALYSIS
We have analyzed the remaining amount of potential development to be
constructed in the District and have calculated the new increase in fee rates
needed to balance the expected cost of the District projects.
* General Plan Designations
The following analysis shows the fees to be required for new development
within the City, the tracts that have been conditioned to pay fees, a .unit,
breakdown of the anticipated development remaining in the District, and the
District fee increase calculation and a proposed construction schedule.
DISTRICT PROJECTS COSTS
1992
Projects in District Costs
Whites Canyon Road -0- (Funded.for roadway expansion
in Bouquet Cyn Rd and 126 Dist.)
Plum Canyon Road -0- (County area)
Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126) $1,343,000
Golden Valley Road $7,517,000
Rio Vista Road $3,256,000
*Soledad Cyn Road Bridge Widening
(at.Santa Clara River) $ 805,000
DISTRICT FUND STATUS,
Fees collected to date
Fees conditioned
$12,921,000
SiE
Additional funds needed to complete
District Projects $12,921,000
DEVELOPMENT REMAINING IN DISTRICT
Undeveloped Area
This includes tentatively approved
developments that have not reached the
analysis of the remaining developable
development in this category is based
Plan Land Use Map.
tracts that have expired, proposed
Tentative Tract approval stage, and an
area in the District. The amount of
on the City of Santa Clarita General
Residential Non -Residential
Acres Remaining. 843 10
Estimated Housing Units 2,161 -0-
* This project is being funded jointly with the Route 126 B & T District.
-2-
DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION -
The proposed additional fee is related to the degree with which future
developments benefit from the proposed improvements for two-lane expansion.
To make 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 2,161 Units
Single -Family
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
Multi -Family (RM, RMH)
Multi -Family (RH)
% of Total # of Units
80
18
2
Total Units
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown Based on 10 Acres
Tvae
Neigh. Comm. (CN)
Other Comm.
Industrial
% of Total
5
60
35
Total Acres
1,729
389
43
2,161
# of Acres
0.5
6.0
3.5
10.0
Trips Per -
Unit Per Day
10
8
7
Total Trips
Trips Per
Acre Per Day
10
50
30
Total
17,290
3,112
301
20,703
Total
5
300
105
Total Trips 410
Total Number of Trips 21,113
FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECTS = 12,921,000 611.99
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS 21,113
* Round to 615/trip
Fee per factored development unit (fdu) _ $615/trip x 10 trips/fdu 61150/fdu
-3-
Construction Fee
Fee Per Development Tyne
$10,150/unit
$ 8,120/unit
$ 7,1051unit
* Current District Fee $4,000 plus $6,150 increase = $10,150
-4-
$10,150/acre
$50,750/acre
$30,450/acre
Revised
Residential
Fee
Factor
Single -Family
$10,150
x
1
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
Multi -Family (RM, RMH)
$10,150
x
.8
Multi -Family (RH)
$10,150
x
7
Non -Residential
Neighborhood Comm. (CN)
$10,150
x
1
Other Commercial
$10,150
x
5
.Industrial
$10,150
x
3
Fee Per Development Tyne
$10,150/unit
$ 8,120/unit
$ 7,1051unit
* Current District Fee $4,000 plus $6,150 increase = $10,150
-4-
$10,150/acre
$50,750/acre
$30,450/acre
BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
ROADWAY EXPANSION WITHIN CITY LIMITS
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Whites Canyon Road N/A
Plum Canyon Road N/A
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
Soledad Canyon Bridge.Widening
at Santa C1ara.River* 1994
*This project is being funded jointly with the Route 126- B & T District.
hds:1649
M70
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT
ON THE
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FOR
ROUTE 126 DISTRICT
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
hds:1650
ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR
ROADWAY EXPANSION WITHIN
THE CITY LIMITS
BACKGROUND
The Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (B&T) Construction Fee District
was approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on July 21, 1987.
Subsequently, the. City adopted the Route 126 B & T District on
November 28, 1989 by Resolution 89-148 . in order to alleviate traffic
congestion anticipation from approved area development and provide a vital
link between State Route 14 and Interstate 5. 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.
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. The estimated cost for the completion of
District improvements, which included a two-lane roadway and administration,
is currently $101.9 million. The fees charged to new development to finance
these improvements were set as follows:
Residential Property:
Single -Family (RE, RYL, RL, RS)* $4,800/unit
Multi -Family (RM, RMH) $3,840/unit
Multi -Family (RH) $3,360/unit
Non -Residential Property
Commercial $24,000/acre
Industrial $14,400/acre
A two-lane expansion of roadways in the District' will cost $5.6 million. The
total estimated costs for improvements in the District is now $107.5 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 to be required for new development
within the City that have been conditioned to pay fees, a unit breakdown in
the anticipated development remaining in the District, and the District fee
increase calculation, and a proposed construction schedule.
* General Plan Designations
DISTRICT PROJECTS COSTS
$5,574,250
FUND STATUS
Fees collected to date -0-
Fees conditioned -0-
Funds needed to complete District Projects $5,574,250
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 category is based on the current City of Santa Clarita
General Plan Land Use Map.
Total Residential Non -Residential .
Acres 2,295 212
Housing Units
-2-
mo
1992
Projects in District
Costs
Whites Canyon Road
-0-
Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126)
-0-
Golden Valley Road
$3,856,000
Lost Canyon Road
$ 283,250
Shadow Pines Boulevard
$ 317,000
Oak Springs Canyon Road
$ 818,000
Sand Canyon Road
-0-
Soledad Canyon Road
$ 300,000
$5,574,250
FUND STATUS
Fees collected to date -0-
Fees conditioned -0-
Funds needed to complete District Projects $5,574,250
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 category is based on the current City of Santa Clarita
General Plan Land Use Map.
Total Residential Non -Residential .
Acres 2,295 212
Housing Units
-2-
mo
DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION
The proposed additional fee is related to the degree with which future
developments benefit from the proposed improvements for two-lane expansion.
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 3,111 Units
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown Based on 212 Acres
Trips Per
Tvoe # of Acres Acre Per Day Total
Commercial 193 50 9,650
Industrial 19 30 570
Total Acres 212 Total Trips 10,220
Total Number, of Trips 37,404
FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE ADDT'L DISTRICT PROJECTS_ $5,574,250 = 149.03*
TOTAL NUMBER.OF TRIPS 37,404
* Rounded to $150/trip
Fee per factored development unit (fdu) = $150/trip x 30 trips/fdu = $1,500/fdu
-3-
Trips Per
Type
% of Total
# of Units
Unit Per Da v
Total
Single -Family
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
38.8
1,207
10
12,070
Multi -Family (RM;
RMH) 57.4
1,786
8
14,288
Multi -Family (RH)
3.8
118
7
826
Total Units
3,111
Total Trips
27,184
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown Based on 212 Acres
Trips Per
Tvoe # of Acres Acre Per Day Total
Commercial 193 50 9,650
Industrial 19 30 570
Total Acres 212 Total Trips 10,220
Total Number, of Trips 37,404
FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE ADDT'L DISTRICT PROJECTS_ $5,574,250 = 149.03*
TOTAL NUMBER.OF TRIPS 37,404
* Rounded to $150/trip
Fee per factored development unit (fdu) = $150/trip x 30 trips/fdu = $1,500/fdu
-3-
Construction Fee
Factor Fee Per Development Tvoe
1 = $ 6,300/unit
g = $ 5,040/unit
_ $ 4,410/unit
5 =
3 =
$31,500/acre
$18,900/acre
* Current:District Fee $4,800 plus $1,500 Increase in Fee = $6,300
-4-
Revised
Residential
Fee*
Single -Family
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
$6,300 x
Multi -Family (RM,
RMH) $6,300 x
Multi -Family (RH)
$6,300 x
Non -Residential
Commercial
$6,300 x
Industrial
$6,300 x
Factor Fee Per Development Tvoe
1 = $ 6,300/unit
g = $ 5,040/unit
_ $ 4,410/unit
5 =
3 =
$31,500/acre
$18,900/acre
* Current:District Fee $4,800 plus $1,500 Increase in Fee = $6,300
-4-
ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
ROADWAY EXPANSION WITHIN CITY LIMITS
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
*Whites Canyon Road
Phase I Complete
Phase II Construction began September 14, 1990
Phase III July to October 1992 (mobilize)
October 1992 Construction Start
Route 126
Golden Valley Road to Soledad Canyon Road 1997
Soledad Canyon Bridge Widening at Santa Clara River 1994
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
Tentative Tract Map 45023 to Sand Canyon Road 2009
Shadow Pines Boulevard
Grandifloras 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
Shadow Pines Boulevard -to City Limits 2011
* This project is .being funded jointly with the Bouquet Canyon B & T District.
hds:1650
Valencia Company
23823 Valencia Boulevard, Valencia, California 91355 A (805) 255-4000
(805) 2554013
W RIIERS DIRECT DIAL NVMOER
August 25, 1992
Ms. Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager
Community Development
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Valencia, CA 91355
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NOS. 92-149 AND 92-150
BOUQUET CANYON, SR -126 AND VIA PRINCESSA BRIDGE AND
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICTS
Dear Ms. Harris:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's proposal to increase the fees in the
Bouquet Canyon and SR -126 B&T Districts and the proposal to adopt the Via Princessa B&T
District.
The Newhall Land, and Farming Company supports the idea of providing foto lane
improvements in the Valley's B&T Districts. However, the cost of the four -lane
improvements for the Bouquet and SR -126 Districts should apply to land within both the City
and the County. The fee increase should be approved only when both the City and County
agree to adopt and implement the increase. County participation in financing the
improvements would significantly reduce the City's fee rates in these Districts.
We have attended the two public workshops and had conversations with Mr. Tony Nisich,
City Engineer and Mr. Jim Schroeter of Wildan regarding these three districts. The following
information provides specific comments on each district.
BOUQUET CANYON DISTRICT
1. The land use in the original Bouquet Canyon District report adopted by the County
in 1985 indicated 8,238 FDU's. This land use is located in both the City and the
County. If this level of development were to construct the proposed $48.3 million in
four lane improvements, the fee per FDU would be $5,860.
BDkGWR TME NEWHALL LAND AND RARNINGCOMWANY i A CALIVORNIA LI..ITED RARTNESswRI
City B&T Districts
Ms. Lynn Harris
August 25, 1992
2. There are signifcant contradictions between the total amount of land use within the
City portion of the District when compared with the County portion. There are also
different land use numbers and different methods of calculation between the original
1985 report and the City's proposal. This information needs to be more clearly
indicated.
To properly determine the construction fee rate required to build four -lane
improvements, the total cost of the improvements should be divided by the total
number of FDU's within the entire District.
3. The 1989 Second Access Agreement between several Valley developers and Los Angeles
County will provide for the construction of two lanes of Rio Vista Drive. between
Bouquet Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road. The cost estimates for these
improvements should be reduced to reflect the Second Access obligation.
The City's report indicated that the construction of Rio Vista between Newhall Ranch
Road and Soledad Canyon Road would not occur until the Year 2011. This facility
should be listed as the top priority project within the District. Previous City analyses
have indicated the dire need for this facility. Rio Vista Parkway should be the first
project constructed
4. The Soledad Canyon bridge widening over the Santa Clara River is included as a
project to be jointly funded with the SR -126 District. This project, No. 91-0102, is
identified in the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program. It is scheduled for
construction in FY 1992-93 and should be removed from the District.
5. Fees which have already been collected from recorded and tentatively approved tracts
must be subtracted from the total project cost estimates to obtain an accurate
construction fee rate.
6. The total cost of the improvements and the land use projections for both jurisdictions
should be recalculated to incorporate these comments. The proposed $10,150 fee per
factored development unit (FDU) should be revised to reflect the recalculations.
BD\rtarr6A«
City B&T Districts
Ms. Lynn Harris
August 25, 1992
SR -126 DISTRICT
1. There are signifcant contradictions between the total amount of land use within the
City portion of the District when compared with the County portion. There are also
different land use numbers and methods of calculation between the original 1987 report
and the City's details. This information needs to be more clearly indicated
To properly determine the construction . fee rate required to build four -lane
improvements, the total cost of the improvements should be divided by the total
number of FDU's within the entire District.
2. The Soledad_Canyon bridge widening over the Santa Clara River is included as a
project to be jointly funded with the Bouquet Canyon District. This project, No. 91-
0102, is identified in the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program. It is scheduled
for construction in FY 1992-93 and should be removed from the District.
3. Fees which have already been collected from recorded and tentatively approved tracts
must be subtracted from the total project cost estimates to obtain an accurate
construction fee rate.
5. The total cost of the improvements and the land use projections for both jurisdictions
should be recalculated toincorporatethese comments. The proposed $6,300 fee per
FDU should be revised to reflect the recalculations.
VIA PRINCESSA DISTRICT
1. A preliminary version of the Via Princessa District report indicated that the Rio Vista
improvement would not be constructed until the Year 2011. This facility should be
listed as the top priority project within the District. Previous City analyses have
indicated the dire need for this facility. Rio Vista Parkway should be the first project
constructed
2. The Via Princessa District should contribute to the construction of SR -126 between I-5
and SR -14. The County estimates the "fair -share" contribution to be approximately
$10,336,000. This contribution is based upon all of the land use within all of the
Valley's districts contributing to the construction costs. Addition of this project would
increase the fee per FDU by $1,500.
IMiarrisAtr
City B&T Districts
Ms. Lynn Harris
August 25, 1992
Via Princessa continued
4. The total. cost of the improvements and the land use projections should be recalculated
to incorporate these comments. The proposed $13,450 fee per FDU should be revised
to reflect the recalculations.
Please send us a copy of the revised information when completed Thank you for your
consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Bill Dvorak
VALENCIA COMPANY
CC. Tony Nisich, City Engineer
BD\Hamsntr 4
August 25, 1992
City Council
23920 Valencia Boulevard
City of Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RE: Proposed Via Princessa Bridge & Thoroughfare District
Honorable Councilmembers:
The Whittaker Corporation and Anden Group protest the formation of the Via Princessa
Bridge and thoroughfare District as currently proposed. While we believe that development
should pay its' fair share, it is unclear that the methodology of this report generates an
equitable or implementable solution. The comments herein describe specific concerns
associated with the proposed district report as transmitted to Anden on August 21, 1992.
It is debatable that current roadways are adequate to service existing and approved
development. A deficiency in roadways exist and those improvements should be addressed.
The report gives special consideration to area wide benefits which appears to contradict that
improvements will only be necessary to offset new. development. This is especially true of
the need identified for the bridge connecting Via Princessa over Wiley Canyon road.
The size of the proposed district implies that the use of collected fees may not directly
benefit the project that generated these funds. The language should state that first priority
of funds will be used to install roads that will be needed by the development to function at
an adequate level of service on a phase by phase basis. This is particularly significant when
considering that the Porta Bella specific plan as proposed will be assessed +/- $45,000,000
or approximately one-half of the total district funds yet, Porta Bella represents less than one-
half of all undeveloped land uses in the district.
The proposed civic center will generate significant volumes of traffic that is being subsidized
by private development. Bridge and thoroughfare fees should apply especially if commercial,
office or non-public administration facilities are involved including cultural and performing
arts, recreation.
It is unclear that the fees are directly related to dwelling units such that variations in the
approved density will not be offset by decreases to the total fees collected by the district.
Under this assumption a 20% reduction in midpoint densities will result in a 20% reduction
A"
City Council
August 25, 1992
Page 2
in collectible fees. However, this is not the case as a commensurate amount of roadway will
not be eliminated.
There are no credit provisions for developing alternative sources of transportation or closer
proximity to jobs/housing balance. If the report correctly states that only new development
is serviced by these roadways, then a reduction in demand should be reflected in the
program.
All cost adjustment formulas should be. a part of this program and be a nationally accepted
industry index.
Whittaker/Arden request a continuation of this hearing until such time as a mutually
beneficial solution or explanation is available.
Sincerely,
`A�
Salvatore J. Veltri
Director of Planning & Engineering
cc: Edward Muller, Whittaker Corporation
Tony Nisich, City of Santa Clarita
Lynn Harris, City of Santa Clarita
ViaPrincesa.Ltr.
ROBERT R. SIMS
127 Cottonwood Circle
Rolling Hills. Estates, California 90274
(310)541-1664
August 24, 1992
City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Valencia, CA 91355
Re: B&T District
Council Members:
I am requesting that Golden Valley Road, a master plan highway, north of Newhall Ranch Road .
to the City boundary, be placed: in the appropriate B&T district. This road will serve the
important Plum Canyon and upper Bouquet Canyon areas and, therefor, is a vital,road to the.
community, thus deserving of being placed in a.B&T district to assure its.being built when
needed.
Sincerely,
Y
ARobertims P.E.
SCCity0l.wp