HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-24 - RESOLUTIONS - FEE ANALYSIS RPT APPROVAL (2)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 for the 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 total Improvement 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 Clarha.
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.
1992. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of November
ATTEST: k:
JIII KI , Mayor
'46nna M. Grindle�,'Cfty 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 Clarlta at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
24th day of November , 1992 by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boyer, Darcy, Heidt, Pederson, Rlajic
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DLS:RE92-229JS
"EXHIBIT A"
WORDS DELETED (OO=)
WORDS ADDED XXXXX
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ON THE
BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
FOR
BOUQUET CANYON DISTRICT
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF
.- DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WORDS DELETED (XXXXX)
WORDS ADDED XXXXX
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 project costs 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 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 were
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:
Single -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, I)
IWZ
$ 4,000./Unit
$ 3,200./Unit
$ 2,800./Unit
$ 4,000./Unit
$ 20,000./Unit
$ 12,000./Unit
WORDS DELETED (MM)
WORDS ADDED XXXXX
(A two-lane expansion of the roadways In the District will cost $12.9 million.) The total estimated
costs for four -lane improvements in the District is now ($48.3) $63.856 million.
Taking Into consideration fees collected and fees conditioned the amount to complete the district
Is $44.69833 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.
The following analysis shows the fees to be required for new development within the (City), areas
(the tracts) that (have been conditioned to pay ;fees, a unit) (breakdown z of the anticipated
development) remain(Ing) In the District, (and) the District fee Increase calculation and a proposed
construction schedule. Should funding be obtained from othar sources ter thaw rnaris 7 ra,Aaw
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
(- 0 -) (Funded for roadway expansion)
(in Bouquet Canyon Road & 126 District)
(- 0 -) (County area) 3,400,000
($1,343;000)
4,667,000
"Golden Valley Road to Soledad Canyon Road 13,610,000
Golden Valley Road
Rio Vista Road
'Soledad Canyon Road Bridge Widening
(at Santa Clara River)
District Administration
Total Cost
($7i517000) 17, 639,000
($3,256,000) 8,135,000
$ 805,000
($12;921,000) 700,000
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)
(- 0 -) 12,432,030
( 01I') 6,725,640
($12,921,000) $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 Clarfta's
General Pian Land Use Map and the County General Land Use Policy Map for Santa Clarita Valley,
1990.
Residential Non -Residential
city County City Count
Acres Remaining - (843) - 48 (10) 7
Estimated Housing Units 3930 (2,161) 4834 _ (-0-) _
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.
-4-
WORDS DELETED (XXXXX)
WORDS ADDEDX( XXXX)
Residential
Unit Breakdown Based on 2,161 8764 Units
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown (Based on 10 Acres)
^ Type
% of Total # of Units
City County
Non -Commercial (CN) 5 3 (0.5) -
Other Commercial 60 45 (6.0) 7
Industrial 35 -- (3.5) -
Total Acres 48 7
(Total Acres) (10.0)
Trips Per
Unit (Per Day) Total
(10) 1_0
(5) 3
(50) 5_0
Trips Per
(30) 3_0
Type
% of Total
# of Units
Unit (Per Day)
Total
Single -Family
city
County
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
80 2605
(1,729) 3867
(10) 1.0
(17,290) 6472
Multiple -Family
(RM, RMH)
18 1325
(389) 870
(B) 0_8
(3,11,2) 1756
Multiple -Family
2
(43) 97
(7) 0_7
301 68
3930
4834
Total Trips
(20,703) 8296
Total Units
(2,161) 8764
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown (Based on 10 Acres)
^ Type
% of Total # of Units
City County
Non -Commercial (CN) 5 3 (0.5) -
Other Commercial 60 45 (6.0) 7
Industrial 35 -- (3.5) -
Total Acres 48 7
(Total Acres) (10.0)
Trips Per
Unit (Per Day) Total
(10) 1_0
(5) 3
(50) 5_0
(300) 260
(30) 3_0
105
Total Trips
(410) 263
Total Number of Trips (21;113) 8559
$44.698.330 5222
FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE DISTRICT PROJECT = (12,921,000)
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS (21,113)
8559
(Roundto'615/trip)
(Fee per factored development unit (fdu) = $615Arip z 10 trips/fdu = 6,150Ndu) Use $5.300 per
Factored Development Unit.
Construction Fee
5-
WORDS DELETED (XXXXX)
WORDS ADDED XXXXX
• Current District Fee $4,000 plus $6,150increase = $10,150)
sm
Revised
Residential
Fee
Factor
Fee Per Development Type
Single -Family
$5,300
x
1
$5,300
(RE, RYL, RL, RS)
($10,150)
($10,150) Unit
Multiple -Family
$5,300
=
$4240
(RM, RMH)
($16,150)
x
.S =
($5,920) Unit
Multiple -Family
($10,150)
x
.7 =
($7,105) Unit
(RH)
5300
$3,710
Non -Residential
Neighborhood Comm.
5300
$5,300
(CN)
($101150)
x
1 =
($10,150) Acre
Other Commercial$5300$26,500
($10,150)
x
5 =
($50,750) Acre
Industrial
$5300
$15,900
($10,1,50)
x
3 =
($30,450) Acre
• Current District Fee $4,000 plus $6,150increase = $10,150)
sm
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.
.7.
"EXHIBIT B"
Words Deleted (XXXXX)
Words Added (XXXXX)
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)
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
b&trt126.far
Words Deleted (xxxxx)
Words Added xxxxx
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. Presently the fees charged to new development to finance these Improvements are (were
set) as follows: Based upon $101.9 million of Improvements divided by 1R9R3 ramalninn frine 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
$14,4001acre
total
FEE ANALYSIS
costs for
Is now
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-
Words Deleted (xxxxx)
Words Added xxxxx
The following analysis shows the fees to be required for new development within the areas (City)
that (have been conditioned to Ray fees, a unit breakdown in the anticipated development)
the District, (and) the District fee Increase calculation, and a proposed construction
schedule.
DISTRICT PROJECT COSTS
1992
Prolects in District Costs
*Whites Canyon Road 0.) 14,900,000
Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126) (-0-) 43,890,000
*Golden Valley Rd. to Soledad Cyn. Rd., Sierra Hwy. to
Route 14, Soledad Cyn. Rd. to Sierra Hwy.
Golden Valley Road ($3,856,000) 15.851,000
Lost Canyon Road ($ ,283,250) 12,183,000
Shadow Pines Boulevard ($ 317,000) 617,000
Oak Springs Canyon Road ($ 81S,ow) 3,336,000
Sand Canyon Road @ Route 14 and (-0-) 1,030,000
Santa Clara River 1,070,000
Soledad Canyon Road Sand Cyn. Rd. to Oak Springs (S 300.000) 2,100,000
Cyn. Rd., Shadow Pines Blvd. to Route 14 1,500,000
*Soledad Cyn. Rd. Bridge Widening at Santa Clara ($5,574,250) 805,000
River.
District Administration 900,000
Total Cost 98.182,000
FUND STATUS
Fees collected to date City and County (-0-) 10,128,207
Fees conditioned County only (-C-) 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.
3
Words Deleted (tpcxlk>C)
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 Plan Land Use Map and the County General Land Use Policy MaD for Santa Clarita Valley,
1990.
Total Residential
C�It C
County
Acres (2,205)
Estimated
Housing Units 5265 (3,11'1)9564
DISTRICT FEE CALCULATION
Non -Residential
Ut County
(212)
283 165
ON
The proposed (addltkttla() fee Is related to the degree with which future developments benefit from
the proposed Improvements. (fortwtt 119 0x0011¢10!Q. 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 (2,111) Units
Trips Per
T % of Total # of Units Unit (P* 0811'1
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
0"An
(1f7t#ti)
(3,111}
14829
4
COUNTY
3710
(10) 1.0
5490
(0) 0_8
364
(7) 0_7
9564
Total
(194711)
7870
(74,28x))
5276
{826)
255
Total Trips (27,184) 13401
Non -Residential
Acres Breakdown (Based on 212 Acres
Words Deleted (xxxxx)
Words Added xxxxx
Trips Per
Acre (Per Day) Total
1.0 7
(50) (9,650)
5_0 555
(30) (570)
3_0 990
1552
Total Trips (10,220)
Total Number of Trips (37,404) 14953
$83,554,713 5587
FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE ADDT'L DISTRICT PROJECTS = (5,574,250) _ (149.03')
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS (37,404)
14953
(* Rounded'; to $150/trip)
Construction Fee
Revised
Residential Fee' Factor
Single -Family 5,600
(RE, RYL, RL, RS) (6,300)', x 1
Multi -Family (RM,RMH) (0,300) x .8 =
Multi -Family (RH) (6,300) x .7
Fee Per Development Type
5600 ($6,300yunit
4500 ($5,040)/untt
3950 ($4,410)/unit
Non -Residential
Commercial 5,600 (6,300) x 5 = 28,000 ($31500)lacre
Industrial 5,600 (8,300) x 3 = 16,800 ($18 900yacre
('Current District Feel $4,800 plus $1,500', Increase In Fee = $6,300)
5
# of Acres
City County
Neighborhood Commercial
7 0
(193)
Commercial
96 15
(19)
Industrial
180 150
Total Acres
283 165
(Total Acres)
(212)
Words Deleted (xxxxx)
Words Added xxxxx
Trips Per
Acre (Per Day) Total
1.0 7
(50) (9,650)
5_0 555
(30) (570)
3_0 990
1552
Total Trips (10,220)
Total Number of Trips (37,404) 14953
$83,554,713 5587
FEES NEEDED TO FINANCE ADDT'L DISTRICT PROJECTS = (5,574,250) _ (149.03')
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS (37,404)
14953
(* Rounded'; to $150/trip)
Construction Fee
Revised
Residential Fee' Factor
Single -Family 5,600
(RE, RYL, RL, RS) (6,300)', x 1
Multi -Family (RM,RMH) (0,300) x .8 =
Multi -Family (RH) (6,300) x .7
Fee Per Development Type
5600 ($6,300yunit
4500 ($5,040)/untt
3950 ($4,410)/unit
Non -Residential
Commercial 5,600 (6,300) x 5 = 28,000 ($31500)lacre
Industrial 5,600 (8,300) x 3 = 16,800 ($18 900yacre
('Current District Feel $4,800 plus $1,500', Increase In Fee = $6,300)
5
Words Deleted (xxxxx).
Words Added xxxxx
ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
(ROADWAY ]EXPANSION WITHIN CITY LIMrM)
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
'Whites Canyon Road
Phase I Complete
Phase 11 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
Y004
.— Golden Valley Road
Via Princessa to Tentative Tract Mao 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 (qty units) 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.