Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - RT 126 BRIDGE (2)CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: July 14, 1992 AGENDA REPORT City pager Ap r 1 Item LL to be presented by: I'M Anthony J. Nisich �ztx SUBJECT: VIA PRINCESSA, BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICTS Resolution No. 92-149 and Resolution No. 92-150 DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126 DISTRICTS The funding of an adequate transportation and circulation network is a major concern and challenge to the City because the money received by the City for street purposes is less than the money needed for maintenance and new construction. Through the establishment of Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts, the necessary funds can be provided to construct the roads to provide circulation for new development as well as relieve congestion on the current City roadway network caused by this new development. Prior to incorporation, the County had established the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare (B&T) Construction Fee Districts. On November 28, 1989, the existing districts and fees were adopted by resolution of the City Council. The description of the roads and bridges within the BST Districts are funded as two-lane roadways rather than four -lane roadways. Two-lane roadways do not provide .a level of service that is acceptable to service new development. During peak traffic hours, two-lane roadways may become congested and have a reduced level of service because there is no passing room when slow moving of left -turning vehicles are on the roadway or vehicles must stop because of mechanical or equipment failure. Emergency vehicles are also slowed because of the greater congestion on two-lane roadways. These factors tend to frustrate motorists and may result in greater accident potential as a result of this frustration. The issue regarding roadway capacity and new development were major concerns in the General Plan process. This was identified in the General Plan in several areas relating to issues, goals and policies. The General Plan document requires limits on growth unless development provides sufficient infrastructure to preserve the quality of life in the City. It suggests a "pay-as-you-go" approach through the collection of development fees through the establishment of Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts. Adopted: -r Y --?a. ngc-16:3 Item: VIA PRINCESSA, BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICTS July 14, 1992 Page 2 Since the B&T fees for new development were established in 1985, it was necessary to review these fees and adjust them to account for increased construction costs due to inflation and to reflect the actual number of development units constructed. During May and June of last year, both the City and the County raised the fees in both the 126 and Bouquet B&T Districts. These fees still only covered two-lane roadways. The adoption of the General Plan almost one year ago and the Council's direction provides the impetus to consider the two -to -four -lane approach to preserve the quality of life as development proceeds. Based on previous direction from the Council, staff has met several times with representatives of the County Department of Public Works and the Building Industry Association. Although they support the concept of expanding the roads to four lanes, neither is willing to suggest this to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The major concern of the building industry is the increased cost without offsetting concessions through the development agreement process. In addition, the building industry would not support a single BST District that would include the entire City. Their comments were that developers want the fees they pay used in the area of their development. Having a single district would allow fees to be used to construct roadways anywhere in the City where the need arises. Since it does not appear that further discussion will result in agreement on these issues, it would be appropriate for the City to proceed to accomplish its goal of an expanded roadway system to provide service to new development. The funds needed to complete District projects with four lanes of road construction are as follows: BOUQUET CANYON Total Costs (two lanes): $35.4 million Current Fee: $4,000/unit Total Costs (four lanes): $48.3 million Revised Fee: $10,150/unit ROUTE 126 Total Costs (two lanes): $101.9 million Current Fee: $4,800/unit Total Costs (four lanes): $107.5 million Revised Fee: $6,300/unit The revised fees reflect a reduction in the number of units resulting from the recent adoption of the Hillside Grading and Development Ordinance and are based on only developments within the City paying the cost of the additional two lanes. VIA PRINCESSA, BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICTS July 14, 1992 Page 3 There are two proposed districts, Valencia and Via Princess, which would include the remaining area within the City. The Valencia District includes both City and County areas and is being prepared by the County and should be finalized within the neat few months. The Via Princessa District is entirely within the City, and a report has been prepared and is attached for the Council's review. Highlights of the report are as follows: VIA PRINCESSA • The boundaries of the proposed Via Princessa District lie entirely within the City limits. • All roads and bridges funded by the district are proposed as four lanes except the Quigley Canyon Road Bridge. • Fees have been collected since April 1989 based upon environmental concerns for traffic and will be used to fund the proposed improvements. • Estimated costs of the District projects: $91 million. The following activities have been reviewed: • Establishment of the Via Princessa B&T District; and • Increase in the fees of the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Districts. It has been determined that the activities are subject to the requirements of CEQA. Initial studies have been prepared and, as a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been proposed for the above projects. The Mitigated Negative Declaration will be available for review on July 15, 1992. A public hearing proposed for August 25, 1992 is necessary to: • modify the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Districts by adding two additional lanes of paving and increasing the fees, and • establish the boundaries of the Via Princessa BST District. Since there are more than 1,000 parcels in each B&T District affected by the aforementioned activities, the notification of the hearings will be placed in the local newspaper as required by law. In addition, staff will have a public participation meeting between the Council's adoption of the report and the public hearing to explain and receive further input on the matter. VIA PRINCESSA, BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICTS July 14, 1992 Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT The attached reports are the culmination of the Council's direction to provide adequate roadway capacity, four lanes, to service new development. Although the County did include four lanes in the draft of the proposed Valencia District because of developer support, there is little support for this in the other districts. The single district also lacks support; however, the advantages of using funds throughout a single district can be accomplished by loans between districts similar to what has been done for the Whites Canyon Road project. Rather than lose the opportunity to collect fees that can be used to build four -lane roadways, the recommended approach is to approve the reports and conduct the necessary hearings. The opportunity still exists to continue negotiations with the County and the development community regarding a single district and the four -lane concept. 1. City Council adopt: • Resolution No. 92-149, to preliminarily approve the report on Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District for Via Princessa; and • Resolution No. 92-150, to preliminarily approve the Fee Analysis Reports for the Bouquet Canyon and Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee Districts. 2. Set a public hearing for August 25, 1992 per Government Code Section 66484. 3. Direct staff to provide notice per Government Code Section 65091. ATTACHMENTS Finance Analysis Reports (2) Community Development Report Resolution No. 92-149 Resolution No. 92-150 DLS:687 RESOLUTION NO. 92-149 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING VIA PRINCESSA BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT WHEREAS, proceedings have been instituted for these improvements under Section 66484 of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, a report by the Director of Community Development setting the boundaries of the District, the road improvements to be built, the estimated costs, the method of apportioning costs to the area of benefit, and other applicable information has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita; and WHEREAS, the report of the Director of Community Development has been presented to and duly considered by the City Council on the 14th day of July, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the report of the Director of Community Development regarding this improvement is hereby preliminarily approved by the City Council. SECTION 2. That the 25th day of August, 1992, at the hour of 7 p.m. at the following location: City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 100 Santa Clarita, California 92355 is the time and place fixed by the City Council for hearing protests in relation to the report and proposed improvements. SECTION 3. That at the time and place for hearing protests to the proposed improvements a public hearing will be held to hear objections to the proposed establishment of Via Princessa bridge and major thoroughfare construction fee district. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby directed to receive the report approved by this Resolution and to give notice of the public hearing pursuant to Section 65091 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 92-149 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992. Jill Rlajic, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss 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:685 RESOLUTION NO. 92-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE FEE ANALYSIS REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BOUQUET CANYON AND ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICTS FEE REVISIONS WHEREAS, proceedings have been instituted for these improvements under Section 66484 of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, a Fee Analysis Report, by the Director of Community Development indicating the additional road improvements to be built, the estimated costs, the establishment of fees for each development type, and other applicable information has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita; and WHEREAS, the Fee Analysis Report of the Director of Community Development has been presented to and duly considered by the City Council of the 14th day of July, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: , SECTION 1. That the report of the Director of Community Development regarding this' improvement is hereby preliminarily approved by the City Council. SECTION 2. That the 25th day of August, 1992, at the hour of 7 p.m. at the following location: City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 100 Santa Clarita, California 91355 is the time and place fixed by the City Council for hearing protests in relation to the report and proposed improvements and fee revisions. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby directed to receive the report approved by this Resolution and to give notice of the public hearing pursuant to Section 65091 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 92-150 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992. Jill Klajic, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss 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: NOES: ABSENT: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk DLS:686