HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - PH REVISION ROUTE 126 (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA REPORT
November 24, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REVISION OF THE ROUTE 126 AND BOUQUET
CANYON BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE (B & T) CONSTRUCTION
FEE DISTRICT
Resolution No. 92.229
Community Development
Two Informational public participation forums and many meetings with development representatives
and the Los Angeles County staff have put into focus what we consider satisfactorily revised fee
analysis reports for the two subject districts. These revised reports address the concerns and
questions raised at the meetings and reflect the consensus reached.
The revised fees reflect the expansion to four -lanes throughout the districts and the Impact of
County generated traffic. Since these districts are jointly administered, the County has agreed to
revise their fee to match the City's.
Other major Items of the revision are revised project costs, flexibility In the timing of fee payment,
and flexibility in accounting for other funding sources.
The following is the consensus results of this very positive process
FEE RATES PER FACTORED DEVELOPMENT UNITS (FDU)
Bouquet Canyon District Route 126 District
Existing Fee $ 4,000. $ 4,800.
*Proposed Fee Per
July 14 Report $ 10,150. $ 6,300.*
"Proposed Revised FEe $ 5,300. $ 5,600.**
Increase width In funded roads from two -to -four lanes in the City only (City four -lane cost/City
FDU) = Fee.
•' Increase width in funded roads from two -to -four lanes in the City and County (City and County
four -lane cost/Clty and .County FDU) = Fee.
Agaid- attem: —.
Adopted:
1.
AGENDA - ROUTE 126 & BOUQUET CANYON B & T CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
Page 2
Priorities have been Indicated in the report as required by law; however, the City's Citizens'
Transportation Committee will be reviewing and recommending their priorities for future
adjustments.
Initial studies were prepared by the Bouquet Canyon and the Route 126 B & T District. The findings
indicate that mitigation measures are not considered necessary at this time. Mitigation measures
may be necessary at the time Individual road projects are proposed for construction and will be
considered at that time.
The Public Hearing has been properly noticed. Since the hearing has been continued to
November 24, 1992, we are now ready to invite testimony to be presented at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Conduct the Public Hearing.
2. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing providing there is less than 50 percent written
protest from the presented area of benefit:
• Approve the Negative Declaration for these fee revisions.
• Adopt a resolution, authorizing the fee revision.
• Instruct the City Clerk to record a certified copy of the adopted resolution with the
County Recorder.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. 92-229
Revised Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 B & T Construction Fee Analysis Report.
13MRE92.229.4
?U3L:C HEARaIC ?ROCZ;'UBZ
1.
Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2.
City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3.
Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4.
Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
S.
Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6.
Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. ,Proponent
7.
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8.
Discussion by Council
9.
Council Decision
10.
Mayor Announces Decision
RESOLUTION NO. 92.229
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REVISED
FEE ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR THE BOUQUET CANYON AND
THE ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
(B & T) CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, proceedings have been Instituted for these Improvements under Section 66484
of the Government Code of the State of California;
WHEREAS; the fee analysis reports forthe Bouquet Canyon and the Route 126 B & T District
had been preliminarily approved at the July 14, 1992 City Council meeting;
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was set for the August 25, 1992, City Council meeting;
WHEREAS, the Fee Analysis Reports for the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 B & T Districts
proposed and increased In fees to pay for two additional lanes of Improvements on District roads
within the City limits to be paid for by remaining units to be built In the City area of benefit;
WHEREAS, the City Council continued the Public Hearing until October 27, 1992, to allow
discussion and comments from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the
development community to be Incorporated into the report;
WHEREAS, the City Council continued the Public Hearing until November 24,1992, to revise
the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Fee Analysis Report;
WHEREAS, the Fee Analysis Reports have been revised to Include funding of two additional
(total of four) lanes of Improvements on District roads In the County and City areas of benefit to
be paid for by remaining units to be built in the County and City areas of benefit;
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of Route 126 Expressway between Golden Valley Road to
Soledad Canyon Road Is to be shared between the. Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 B & T District;
WHEREAS, the Soledad Canyon Road Bridge Widening project Is to be added and the
estimated cost shared between the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 B & T District;
WHEREAS, If funding for these District roads is obtained from other sources, the reports
and fee will be revised accordingly;
WHEREAS, the development potential estimated within the District; at the time of formation,
has been reevaluated and should be revised downward;
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing has been held requesting oral and written comment;
WHEREAS, such comment did not constitute a majority protest of the land owners in the
area of benefit; and
WHEREAS, 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 Guidelines and Local CEQA Guideline requirements for the two-lane expansion of roadway
within the existing approved District.
RESOLUTION NO. 92.229
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Negative Declaration prepared for this project is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2. The requirements for notice and Public Hearing In relation to the proposed fee
revisions have been met in accordance with Government Code Section 65091.
SECTION 3. The estimated totalimprovement costs for the District projects have Increased
primarily one to expansion to four lanes of Improvements within the District.
SECTION 4. The development potential estimated remaining in the Districts has been
reevaluated and revised downward.
SECTION 5. As a result of the above facts, the project revenue from collection of Districts'
fees, at the existing fee rates, will be Insufficient to fully finance the proposed District's
Improvements.
SECTION 6. There Is a need to revise the District fees to provide for sufficient revenue to
fully finance Districts' Improvements as demonstrated in the Bouquet Canyon and the Route 126
B & T District 's revised Fee Revision Report.
SECTION 7. At the time, date, and place set for Public Hearing on the Districtss fee
revisions, the City Council duly heard and considered all oral and written testimony In support of
or opposing such fee revision's levy and collection.
SECTION 8. At such Public Hearing, -no written protests were filed or the written protests
filed and not withdrawn did not amount to more than one-half the area to be benefited.
SECTION 9. The Districts' are within the jurisdictions of the County of Los Angeles and the
City of Santa Clarita.
SECTION 10. The revisions to the Districts' fee, contained In this resolution, will apply only
In the areas within the City's jurisdiction.
SECTION 11. The approved revised Districts' fee will be Implemented only in the areas
within the City's jurisdiction.
SECTION 12. 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".
SECTION 13. The method of fee apportionment for the revised District fee Is set forth in the
Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee Analysis Report, attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "B".
RESOLUTION NO. 92-229
Page
SECTION 14. 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.
SECTION 15. 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.
SECTION 16. There Is reasonable relationship between the proposed revised fees to be
used for Districts 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.
SECTION 17. 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.
SECTION 18.. The revised Fee Analysis Reports and revised fees for the Bouquet Canyon
and Route 126 B & T Districts are approved.
SECTION 19. That the City Clerk is instructed to record a certified copy of this resolution
with the Los Angeles County Recorder.
SECTION 20. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1992.
Jill Klajic, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 92-229
Page
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 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
DLS:RE92•S29.JS
"EXHIBIT A"
WORDS DELETED (XX)O
WORDS ADDED (XXXXX)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ON THE
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
W9
BOUQUET CANYON DISTRICT
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECT I Op
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WORDS DELETED (XXXXX)
WORDS ADDEDX( XXXX)
BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT.FOR
ROADWAY EXPANSION (WITHIN)
(THE CITY L[MIT 3)
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 project costshavechanged
substantially due to construction cost inflation increases, the increased scope of the Whites
Canyon Road project, and elimination of previously anticipated public agency contribution 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.
Presently the fees (charges) charged to new development to finance these Improvements are vrere
set as follows: Based upon $35.4 million of Improvements divided by 4349 remaining vehicle trips
in the City and County and taking into account fees collected and fees conditioned.
Residential Property:
Sing le -Family
Multiple -Family
Multiple -Family
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)'
(RM, RMH)
(RH)
Non -Residential Property:
Neighborhood Commercial
Other Commercial
Industrial
*General Plan Designations
(CN)
(CTC, CC, CO, VSA)
(BF, IC, 1)
.2-
$ 4,000./Unit
$ 3,200./Unit
$ 2,800./Unit
$ 4,000./Unit
$ 20,000./Unit
$ 12,000./Unit
WORDS DELETED (P(
WORDS ADDED { XX
XXX1
The total estimated
costs for four -lane Improvements in the District is now
m
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.
The following analysis shows the fees to be required for new development within the (Clty), areas
(the;`trad s) that (haps been condit[oned >to pay fees, a unit) (brealtdown of the anticipated
development) remainQn_g) in the District, (and) the District fee Increase calculation and a proposed
construction schedule. Should funding be obtained from other sources for these roads, a review
of -this reoort and the fee shall be made and the fee correspondingly _adjui sted.
DISTRICT PROJECTS COSTS
Prolect in District
*Whites Canyon Road
Plum Canyon Road
Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126)
Rio Vista Road to Golden Valley Road
1992 Costs
14,900,000
6..
(Funded for roadway expanslon)
(in. BouquetCagyon Road & 126 District)
(County;af*0 3,400,000
($1,343,009)
4,667,000
*Golden Valley Road to Soiedad Canyon Road 13,610,000
Golden Valley Road($7,51.'7. 17, 639,000
Rio Vista Road ($3,255,009) 8,135,000
*Soiedad Canyon Road Bridge.Widening
(at Santa Clara River) $ 805,000
District Administration ($12,?..211099) 700,000
Total Cost 63,856,000
*This project Is being funded jointly with the route 126 B & T District.
-3-
DISTRICT FUND STATUS
Fees collected to date City and County
Fees conditioned County only
Additional funds needed to complete
District Projects
DEVELOPMENT REMAINING IN DISTRICT
Undeveloped Area
WORDS DELETED (XXXXX)
WORDS ADDEDX( XXXX)
p 12-14-32-10-3-0-
61725,640
2,432,030
6,725,640
{512 921,OOP) $44,698,330
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 City of Santa Clarita's
General Pian Land Use Map and the County General Land Use Policy Map for Santa Ciarita Valley,
1990.
Acres Remaining
Estimated Housing Units
DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION
Residential
City Count
(843) -
3930 (2,161) 4834
Non -Residential .
city County
The proposed (additional) fee Is related to the degree with which future developments benefit from
................
the proposed Improvements. (16r.two lane expanslan) 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.
-4-
WORDS DELETED ( M)
WORDS-ADDED(XXXXX
Residential
Unit Breakdown Based an 2.1618764 Units
Construction Fee
-5-
Use $5,300 per
Trips Per
Type
% of Total
#of Units
Unit (PbDAV)
Total
Single-Famlly
Cltv
County
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
80 2605
(1 J?P) 3867
(10) 1.0
(1 .7, 0)
6472
Multiple-Family
(RM, RMH)
18 1325
(089,)170P
21 .8
V.12)
1756
Multiple -Family
2
(43)97
0_7
(301)
68
3930
4834
Total Trips
(?qM
8296
Total Units
(2)t61) 8764
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown (Basdc1'dnA0Acre
Trips Per
Type
% of Total
# of Units
Unit
Total
City
County
Non -Commercial (CN) 5 3
RM -
(1'b) L. 02
M
Other Commercial
60 45
(6.0) z
(WI) 5.0
(qpp)
260
Industrial
35 --
(qq) 3.0
(10-5)
Total Acres
48
7
Total Trips
.263
(T tal".Aq
(710.
Total Number of Trips
(;1_113)
8559
$44,698,330
5222
FEES NEEDED TO
FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECT =
(12,921',000)
MI.99)
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS
(21t13)
855q
Construction Fee
-5-
Use $5,300 per
WORDS DELETED
WORDS ADDED (XXXX
Non -Residential
Neighborhood Comm. $5300
-1.."1 2 Pq pi
F P. ?P ; $6,150 -My IMAM
-6-
5 30
Acre
$26,500
Acre
$15,900
Acre
Revised
Residential
Fee Factor
Fee Per Development Type
Single -Family
$5,300 x I =
gin
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
($. MAP)
($10,15U)Unit
Multiple -Family
k4k: =
$4240
(RM, RMH)
MIAIM x .8 =
($8,'129) Unit
Multiple -Family
VMAR x .7
Unit
(RH)
$5300
M710
Non -Residential
Neighborhood Comm. $5300
-1.."1 2 Pq pi
F P. ?P ; $6,150 -My IMAM
-6-
5 30
Acre
$26,500
Acre
$15,900
Acre
WORDS DELETED (XXXXX)
WORDS ADDED XXXXX
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 to Soledad 1997
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 Clara River'
1994
`This project is being funded Jointly with the Route 126 B & T District.
DLS;b&mouq..1W
.7.
"EXHIBIT B"
Words Deleted OX]pmy
Words Added (XXXXX)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT
ON THE
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FOR
ROUTE 126 DISTRICT
LYNN M. HARRIS
(DIRECTOR OF)
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
b&trt126.far
Words Deleted WXffl
Words Added xxxxx
ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FEE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR
ROADWAY EXPANSION (WITHIN)
(Tye 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. Presently the fees charged to new development to finance these Improvements are.( ete
$2f). as follows: Based upon $101.9 million of Improvements divided bV 16983 remaining trips in
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
estimated costs for four lane Improvements in the District is now
Taking into consideration fees collected and fees conditioned, the amount needed to complete the
district Is $83.554 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.
* General Plan Designations
-2-
The following analysis shows the fees to be required for new
that (hare: been'5'conditfoned 'tri oav lfees a unit'bteakdew
DISTRICT PROJECT COSTS
Protects in District
*Whites Canyon Road
Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126)
*Golden Valley Rd. to Soledad CVn. Rd., Sierra Hwy. to
Route 14, Soledad Cyn. Rd. to Sierra Hwy.
Golden Valley Road
Lost Canyon Road
Shadow Pines Boulevard
Oak Springs Canyon Road
Sand Canyon Road @ Route 14 and
Santa Clara River
Soledad Canyon Road Sand Cyn. Rd. to Oak Springs
Cyn. Rd., Shadow Pines Blvd. to Route 14
*Soledad Cyn. Rd. Bridge Widening at Santa Clara
River.
District Administration
Total Cost
FUND STATUS
Fees collected to date City and County
Fees conditioned County only
Words Deleted X%XXX
Words Added xxxxx
within the
:ufation, and a proposed c
for these roads a review o
1.
1992
Costs
(-0) 14,900,000
43.890,000
($3856,000)
783,250)'
($!"81$;000)
O
300000
($5574;250)
15,851,000
12,183,000
617,000
3,336,000.
1,030,000
1,070,000
2.100,000
1,500,000
805,000
900,000
98.182.000
i1IXPkfPdI i
4,499,080
Funds needed to complete District Projects ($5;574;250) 83,554,713
These projects are being funded jointly with the Bouquet Canyon B & T District.
Words Deleted 0#
Words Added xxxxx
DEVELOPMENT REMAINING IN DISTRICT
Undeveloped Area
This Includes tentatively approved tracts that have expired, proposed developments that have not
reached the tentative tract approval stage, and an analysis of the remaining developable area In the
District. The amount of development In this category Is based on the current City of Santa Clarita
General Pian Land Use Map and the County General Land Use Policy Map for Santa Clarita Valley,
1990.
Total Residential
City County
Acres
Estimated
(3;111)
Housing Units 5265 9564
DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION
Non -Residential
city County
(212)
283 165
The proposed (addltional):tee is related to the degree with which future developments benefit from
the proposed Improvements (forawo-lane1-0 Ion } To make the fee equitable between funding
participants, the fee Is based on the participants' proportionate share of Improvements. The
proportionate shares are based on the number of trips generated by the developer.
Residential
Units Breakdown Based on 14829 (fit .11.) Units
Trips Per
Type %, of Total # of Units Unit (Per l M
Single -Family
CITY
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
38.8 4160
Multi -Family (RM, RMH) 57.4 1105
Multi -Family (RH)
3.8 _
5265
Total Units
(t,786)
(lynj
(3,f,11l
14829
4
COUNTY
3710
(10) 1_0
5490$)
D_8
364
(7) 2.7
9564
Total
(1:2670} 7870
(14,2g0) 5276
(826)255
Total Trips (27,184) 13401
Words Deleted . XO - j1
Words Added xxxxx
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown (Based ort 2112 Acres),
Rounded jo:
Use $5,600 per Factored Development
(Fee pet l t red developmentdolt uym:,; 50i�,Iqtr ...t..f..d.....U....i..
$1g0j)
Construction Fee
5587
Trips Per
Residential
# of Acres
Acre (Per:060
Single -Family
Total
City County
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
{6,300]' x 1 =
5600 nit
Neighborhood Commercial 7 0
1.0
4500 (;§;qjQ)/unIt
7
(193),
0. 9)
(9,850)
Commercial 96 15
5.0
555
E(1P)
P
(579)
Industrial 180 150
3.0
990
Total Acres 53 165
1-552
(T.6tW'Acrev
Total Trips
0,224)
Total Number
of Trips
f37,404)
14953
Rounded jo:
Use $5,600 per Factored Development
(Fee pet l t red developmentdolt uym:,; 50i�,Iqtr ...t..f..d.....U....i..
$1g0j)
Construction Fee
5587
Non -Residential
Commercial 5,600 {6, 300) -x 5 = 28,000 ($,3j,.,$00).1acre
Industrial U00 M300} x 3 = 16,800:. 01. spqVacre
("Cu.I1'etlt.DistrictFeo:14,800p1us$1�5001ncreaseCFep .$4;;300)
When a B &Tfee Is nald In full for a nmiprt. no ffirrPa-cm In R P. TfPA nbileintInn will ha mads nntl
R
Revised
Residential
Fee* Factor
Fee Per Development Type
Single -Family
55,600
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
{6,300]' x 1 =
5600 nit
Multi -Family (RM,RMH) (63n0};x
.8 =
4500 (;§;qjQ)/unIt
Multi -Family (RH)
M300),
x .7 =
3950 ($4,4,.1.0)/unit
Non -Residential
Commercial 5,600 {6, 300) -x 5 = 28,000 ($,3j,.,$00).1acre
Industrial U00 M300} x 3 = 16,800:. 01. spqVacre
("Cu.I1'etlt.DistrictFeo:14,800p1us$1�5001ncreaseCFep .$4;;300)
When a B &Tfee Is nald In full for a nmiprt. no ffirrPa-cm In R P. TfPA nbileintInn will ha mads nntl
R
Words Deleted zxzxz
Words Added xxxxx
ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
(ap/lt)WAY_]�P!ANS1ON� WITFIIN CITY I,.IMI�Sj
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 Cahyo68 ldg#1Nldening at 5ahta Cfa�a River (1994)
Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway 2002
Sierra Highway to Route 14 2004
Golden Valley Road
Via Princessa to Tentative Tract Map No. 45023 2008
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 No. 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
Sand Canyon Road to Oak Springs Canyon Road 1993
Shadow Pines Boulevard to (city Limits) Route 14 2011
*Soledad Canyon Road Bridge over Santa Clara River 1994
*This project Is being funded jointly with the Bouquet Canyon B & T District.