The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-09-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - SC TRAFSIG IMPROVEMENTS (2)AGENDA REPORT UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: September 28, 1993 City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: Anthony J. Nisich�n SUBJECT: SANTA CLARITA INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-5 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE NO. 93.18 - SECOND READING DEPARTMENT: Community Development On September 14,1993, a public hearing was held In compliance with California Government Code Section 54954.6 to hear public testimony regarding District No. 92-5. At that time, the first reading of Ordinance No. 93.18 was made. confirming the Engineer's Report, approving the Negative Declaration and ordering the formation of Assessment District No. 92.5. In addition, the first draft of the reimbursement agreement was presented to the City Council. Once the Ordinance takes effect, 30 days following the second reading, and the reimbursement agreement is approved as to form, the District will be in place to provide for the Installation of traffic signals, the sharing of costs for properties benefiting both County and City and a reimbursement mechanism within the Valencia Industrial Park. RECOMMENDATION Waive further readings, and adopt Ordinance No. 93-18, ordering formation of Integrated Financing Assessment District No. 92-5. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 93-18 Adopted: 9 j s! 93 BM:hds couMlMisg4d6m Agenda Item: ORDINANCE NO. 93-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA ORDERING FORMATION OF ITS INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-5 (VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council ("City Council") of the City of Santa Clarita, California ("City") on July 13, 1993, adopted its Resolution No. 93-100 (the "Resolution of Intention") declaring its intention to proceed with the construction of certain improvements and payment of incidental expenses by creation of its Integrated Financing Assessment District No. 92-5 (Valencia Industrial Center Traffic Signal Improvements) (the "District"), as shown on that certain map designated "Proposed Boundaries of Integrated Financing Assessment District No. 92-5 (Valencia Industrial Center Traffic Signal Improvements)", attached to the Resolution of Intention and incorporated therein as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has considered all matters relating to the proposed financing and construction of certain public improvements in the vicinity of the Valencia Industrial Center pursuant to the Integrated Financing District Act ("Financing District Act") and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), and specifically for the levy of contingent assessments (the "Assessments") against properties within the District, a description of the rate and method of apportionment for such Assessments being attached to the Resolution of Intention and incorporated therein as Exhibit "B"• and WHEREAS, the Financing District Act provides an alternative method of financing the improvements,. by authorizing the Assessments which are contingent upon the development of land and which may be made payable at the time of approval of a tentative subdivision map, vesting tentative subdivision map, final subdivision map, zoning change, or upon receipt of a building permit for any parcels which have already received all other required approvals for development; and WHEREAS, the Financing District Act authorizes proceedings to create an integrated financing district to be combined with formation proceedings under the 1972 Act; and ux:srtar.t <. WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on September 14, 1993, the City Council did not receive protests from owners of more than one-half (1/2) of the area of the property within the District; SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The above recitals are all true and correct. B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53184, the City Council of the City hereby determines to proceed with formation of the District as set out in the Resolution of Intention, as modified herein. C. The total amount of the principal sum of all unpaid special assessments levied against the parcels proposed to be assessed, plus the principal amount of the contingent assessment proposed to be levied in the instant proceedings, does not exceed one- half of the total value of the parcels proposed to be assessed. D. The -Engineer's Report as modified (the "Final Engineer's Report"), the assessment, and the diagram are hereby confirmed and approved. The Final Engineer's Report shall stand as the report for the purpose of all subsequent proceedings for the District and shall govern all details thereof. A true and correct copy of the Final Engineer's Report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". E. The improvements be constructed in accordance with the Resolution of Intention and the Final Engineer's Report for the District. F. The Negative Declaration respecting the District is hereby approved and the City Clerk shall record the Notice of Determination in the office of the County Recorder. G. Pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, the City shall repay advances of funds made by developers and property owners to finance improvements within the District. A reimbursement agreement shall provide that the City issue a warrant pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 53190.5(b). The general fund of the City, its credit, or its taxing power shall not be liable for any obligation arising out of any reimbursement agreement. The City shall not be compelled to exercise its taxing power or forfeit any of its property to satisfy any obligation arising out of any reimbursement agreement. ux:s7zar.1 SECTION 2. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest to such signature. The.City Clerk is directed to cause the title and summary of the same, together with the vote thereon, to be published mithin fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Newhall Signal, a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City and to post at the offices of the City a certified copy of the full text of the adopted Ordinance along with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance. SECTION 3. This Ordinance takes effect and shall be in force from and after thirty (30) days from the date of final passage. A copy of this Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, and the Assessor and the Treasurer -Tax Collector of Los Angeles County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of September 1993. CALIFORNIA ATTEST: LAX:67247.1 CITY CLERK CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, MAYOR r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I, DONNA GRINDEY, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of September, 1993. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS IAX:67247.1 CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT LAMM47.1 FINAL REPORT OF ENGINEER FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92.5 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS Janice H. Heidt Mayor George Pederson Mayor Pro -Tem Councllmembers Carl Boyer Jill Kiajic Jo Anne Darcy George Caravalho - City Manager Kenneth Pulskamp - Assistant City Manager Donna M. Grindey C.M.C. - City Clerk Lynn Harris - Director of Community Development/Deputy City Manager Jeffrey C. Kolin - Director of Public Works/Deputy City Manager Anthony J. Nlsich - City Engineer Rick Putnam - Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Steve Stark — Director of Finance Professional Services Burke Williams & Sorensen - Special Counsel Willdan Associates - Assessment Engineer FINAL REPORT OF ENGINEER FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-5 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1,2 INTRODUCTION 2 CERTIFICATIONS 3 I. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE 4,5 II. COST ESTIMATES 6 III. EXPLANATION OF FEE 8,9 IV. BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT A-1 EXHIBIT W - BOUNDARY MAP City of Santa ClarRa City of Santa Clarlta FINAL REPORT OF ENGINEER CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92.5 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Ciarita, In the State of California, did, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 commencing with Section 22500 of the California Streets and Highways Code and the Integrated Financing Act, being Chapter 1.5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 53175 adopt Its Resolution of Intention No. 93.100 expressly order the filing of a written Engineer's Report ("Report") with the City of Santa Clarlta, for a proposed Traffic Signal Fee which shall be designated as: INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-5 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (hereinafter referred to as "District'); and' WHEREAS, the ordering of the Report did direct that the Report generally contain the following: DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE Description of the Improvements to be Included In the district. 11. COST ESTIMATES A cost estimate setting forth the costs and expenses for providing the Improvements. 111. EXPLANATION OF FEE An explanation of the fee structure and method of reimbursement for the district Improvements. Page 1 September 14, 1993 City of Santa Clarita IV. BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT The proposed boundaries of the District and a boundary map. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Richard Kopecky, authorized representative of Willdan Associates, the appointed responsible officer directed to prepare the Report pursuant to the provisions of the Integrated Financing Act do hereby submit the following data: !C� Richard Kop cky, Vie President Wllidan Associates CERTIFICATION PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Preliminary approval by the Pity Council of the City of Santa Clarlta on the day of 19. onna Grindey, City Clerk, C.M.Cr City of Santa clarita FINAL APPROVAL Final pproval by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita on the 129 day of 19 Page 2 September 14, 1993 City of Santa Clarita 1. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE Traffic Signal Fees are necessary to fund Improvements at existing or new Intersections as a result of Increased traffic needs to accommodate new development. Traffic Signal Fees would be considered as the developer's "fair share" contribution to mitigate incremental traffic Impacts of their projects. When these projects are relatively small, their traffic Impact Is considered "Insignificant." However, the accumulated development Impacts are significant. Significance Is defined as any Impact of traffic created by the project which results in a change In the volume/capacity ratio of more than two percentage points. This fee Is intended to provide for Improvements to intersections for traffic signal Improvements only. The Valencia Industrial Center, located in the northwest corner of the City of Santa Clarita, is situated In both the City and the unincorporated area of the County. As a result of traffic impact studies, It has been determined that there is a need for three traffic signals within the center. • Avenue Scott and Rye Canyon Road (City) • Avenue Scott and Avenue Tibbits (unincorporated County) • One intersection to be determined at a later date The Improvements will consist of traffic signals only. Once the district Is established, an analysis of the two existing Intersections will be done to determine If signalizatlon is warranted as well as the priority for Installation. If signalizatlon is not warranted, further warrant analysis will be performed as traffic volumes Increase or accident occurrences dictate that a new analysis be performed. The parcels and assessments Included herein do not Include any prior unpaid special assessments. The current total true value of land and improvements on the parcels. listed in Exhibit "C" based on 1993 assessor Information Is $49,089,700. The proposed district will not Include more than three proposed signalized Intersections. Page 3 September 14, 1993 II. COST ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES PROJECT INCIDENTAL Traffic Signals" GENERAL INCIDENTALS Assessment Engineer District Administration Subtotal $ 375.000 $ 375,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 Subtotal $ 8,000 TOTAL TO ASSESS $ 383,000 City of Santa Clarita ASSESSMENT FEES Fees are based upon acreage divided Into the total cost. Total Cost $ 383,000 Total Acreage 148.80 - Acres Fee Per Acre $ 2,573.93 'This amount Includes all construction, design, and administration incidental expenses. PROPOSED FEE ASSIGNED PROPOSED AMOUNT REIMBURSEMENT NO. ACREAGE TO ASSESS 1 4.61 $ 11,883.35 2 (4 parcels) 2.56 6,624.86 3 (5 parcels) 3.75 9,688.86 4 (2 parcels) 2.33 6,024.48 5 (2 parcels) 2.80 7,204.54 6 (4 parcels) 3.60 9,233.40 7 2.90 7,225.24 8 1.13 2,898.38 9 (2 parcels) 3.36 8,633.03 10 (6 parcels) 48.18 124,071.30 11 (2 parcels) 4.49 11,552.11 12 2.49 6,417.84 13 1.80 4,637.41 14 (17 parcels) 15.78 40,639.41 15 (2 parcels) 6.74 17,369.59 16 (3 parcels) 2.19 5,631.14 Page 4 September 14, 1993 City of Santa Clarita ASSIGNED PROPOSED AMOUNT REIMBURSEMENT NO. ACREAGE TO ASSESS 17 (3 parcels) 27.53 70,865.35 18 (13 parcels) 4.33 11,200.15 19 (portion of 1 parcel) 8.23 21,199.56 TOTAL 148.80 Acres $ 383,000.00 Page 5 September 14, 1993 PRELIMINARY REPORT OF ENGINEER FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92.5 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS EXPLANATION OF FEES City of Santa Clarita An approved joint public facilities agreement between the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County grants the City sole power to. establish and operate the District. Fees will be determined by dividing the total assessment cost by the number of undeveloped acres, Including that acreage for which an interim fee has already been paid. If fees have already been paid, an amount equivalent to those fees will be credited towards the District following verification that the fees were received. Fees are payable upon approval by the City Council or Board of Supervisors of a subdivision map or Issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first. The assessments, as placed on the parcels of land within this District, will be subject to a 5% annual Interest rate beginning one year after the final District approval. The cumulative Interest rate adjustment shall not exceed 100 percent. Should the undeveloped land remain vacant, with no building permits Issued or approved subdivision map, the fees will not be collected. The City, County, or any developer may construct the intersection Improvements as mutually agreed upon. Once the District Is established, a reimbursement agreement will be prepared and the developer or property owner will fund the cost of the traffic signal Improvements to the Avenue Scott/Rye Canyon Road and the Avenue Scott/Avenue Tibbits Intersections if warranted. The developer or property owner will also fund up to, $8,000 for City costs to establish this district. The City shall establish the district and collect the fees which shall be kept in a separate Interest bearing account and not commingled with other City funds. Reimbursement payments will be made quarterly from fees collected by the City based on the earliest date of the expenditure of funds for traffic Improvements. After all the lots are built upon or fees collected from all the lots obligated to pay fees, an accounting shall be made of the district account. If all three signals have been Installed and appropriate reimbursements made to the entity/entities which Installed the signal, any fees totaling In excess of $20,000 shall be refunded to the payees of the original fees based on a ratio of their fees to the total fees collected. Fees totaling less than $20,000 In the combined County/City funds shall be used for signal maintenance of the signals within the District. Page 6 September 14, 1993 City of Santa Clarita If any of the three signals have not yet been Installed, a warrant analysis should be done and If that location(s) meets 75 percent or more of any of the improvements, these funds should be retained for a period of one year. At the end of this year, if warrants as indicated above are still not met, excess fees collected shall be refunded to the owners of record at that time. After the final accounting has been done, the district shall be dissolved. Once this district Is established with the appropriate fee, adjustments or refunds should Immediately be made to all having paid the current in -lieu fee of $4,500 per acre. Funds provided to initiate and establish this district must be Included In district costs and be refunded to the payee from collected fees. Page 7 September 14, 1993 City of Santa Clarlta PRELIMINARY REPORT OF ENGINEER FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92.5 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS IV. BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT Theboundariesof the District will Include the parcels with the following assessor parcel number, within the Valencia Industrial Center. The Valencia Industrial Center Is located off Interstate 5, at Rye Canyon Road In the northwest corner of the City. ASSESSOR ASSIGNED PARCEL NUMBER ACREAGE REIMBURSEMENT NO. 2866-018.122 4.61 1 2866-018-137 0.64 2 2866-018-138 0.64 2 2866-018.139 0.64 2 2866-018.140 0.64 2 2866-018-126 0.75 3 2866-018.127 0.75 3 2866-018.128 0.75 3 2866-018.129 0.75 3 2866-018-130 0.75 3 2866-018-059 0.57 4 2866.018-065 1.76 4 2866-023-017 1.49 5 2866-023-018 1.31 5 2866.023-008 1.27 6 2866-023.009 1.27 6 2866-023.011 0.53 6 2866-023-012 0.53 6 2866-013-009 2.80 7 2866.013-069 1.13 8 2866-013-043 1.70. 9 2866-013-044 1.66 9 2866-013-002 16.31 10 2866-013.072 26.21 10 2866-013-073 1.67 10 2866.013-074 1.71 10 2866.013-075 1.13 10 2866-013-076 1.15 10 2866-013-023 2.58 11 2866-013-024 1.91 11 Page 8 September 14, 1993 City of Santa Ctarita ASSESSOR ASSIGNED • PARCEL NUMBER ACREAGE REIMBURSEMENT NO. 2866-018-060 2811-001-068 2811-001-071 2811-001-072 2811-001-073 2811-001.074 2811-001.075 2811-001.076 2811-001.077 2811-001-079 2811-001-085 2811-001-086 2811-001.087 2811-001-088 2811-001.089 2811-001.090 2811-001-091 2811-001.092 2811-001.093 2811.027-023 2811.027-024 2811-027.022 2811-027-025 2811.027-026 2811.001.082. (por) 2866-007-032 2866-007.044 2866-032-001 2866-032-002 2866-032-003 2866-032-004 2866-032-005 2866-032-006 2866.032-007 2866.032-008 2866.032-009 2866.032-010 2866.032.011 2866-032.012 2866-032-013 2866-006-800. (por.) 2.49 12 1.80 13 7.02 14 0.74 14 0.56 14 0.56 14 0.87 14 0.73 14 0.72 14 1.54 14 0.33 14 0.33 14 0.33 14 0.33 14 0.33 14 0.33 14 0.33 14 0.33 14 0.33 14 3.26 15 3.48 15 1.05 16 0.55 16 0.59 16 13.67 17 3.51 17 10.35 17 0.50 18 0.34 18 0 18 0 18 0.36 18 0.37 18 0.41 18 0.55 18 0.52 18 0 18 0.39 18 0.35 18 0.46 18 8.23 19 Page 9 September 14, 1993 City of Santa Clarha FINAL REPORT OF ENGINEER FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEGRATED FINANCING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-5 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS BOUNDARY MAP The Boundary Map (Diagram) is shown In a -reduced scale formate as Exhibit "A." BM:dls:hds i..=IrM9 100.bm Page 10 September 14, 1993 DIAGRAM VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER SIGNAL DISTRICT NO. 92 - 5 CRY OF SAMA CF WA COUI OF LOS AR ELES STATE M CALFORW AM ASWStlrEJ?!AIEvinaY OF Fm4IDMFZoM M1Lil.ANO PAacTls W I.SMO.YIOWMa1mn niSF13 ElM MM]UM Snm Ali�YeIXfMA31EYFD ax YfF wrW__ Iv_ aAm /'xm3EElli DlnUaN.IMNA35Ei514NItOL WFAE IM •&.CMOm x T@6A'I W 1NE(IITp{IIIEZI W fnOprYa11)!_D.Y W n�axY.EMit'n MAwmnl�uaura'.rFra41 YA.F.i'. COp n�®x n¢ oEExf w n! cm Erc,1.E�u 10a n! P3n(T nMa1M W FApI Id1F13ME1/I IFYfm MMIMJF EnI]I..R[FI.W LAIm LgWN OM 11D5 ASeCW ED W F DLW MM. te// ' FIITA—_ ~ LAGAUXAGLumm N1 Fn1R111.W WIlIS.VIDD11e1L'lYR ' MT1913W AE18t1W3aWaJa� NSF IlAearoleE A.LBfEI! erAPf ArmlOLarIV N IrIMMIWY16piy 481{ TI PAHA fDnMFF®, ns3l AN®Wew�m[Muere¢ _. L[OOO: Nw-.. YM/rfJL�MiIIKl�I1N1lMNMY w anrmalxlYfl� �� UflfEt 01lIraC1lDIaW1 4 1MIFi wlatlxoolfx rrlFrrw - YtlWI ® SEYlLp� I�NTEOxQ W 11i43Y'p1(W lIl4T� A 4.LLRA ip{ � DAY W �� rf� 4R4r.x •. mY W wrM4wI1FfA nm xYlloesm WYIlSm peONmFWYIlart W fAMA4AaRAY16� W Y W M_ 1. saulr(Ex [ulioA mrsov c«wnxr InEll(F 51051n/ILW SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 7=11— u Ltm3 __DAYW le ATMYW Fmoa Of _ otMn _ .Ix earl w MN'S Di n33CSSMEM mSiRIL'TS n1 PAGFISI_ M n E OFFLLi w n! QNMTY n"OE OF mF NIiMiY w LIM .V1OEUlP,3� srnnwcwl.uElMu. aYlirrr IrivnmFp mux3Yw us nxcFl>:s e 8 DOM 2811 ........ P.IMNaf..... A a ti r 31 A a ti r CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final PERMIT/PROJECT: Valencia Industrial Center Traffic Signal Integrated Financing Assessment District (#92-5). APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO: 92-135 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The Valencia Industrial Center is located In the north-west portion of the City of Santa Clarita, bounded to the south-west by the Golden State Freeway (1-5); to the north by proposed State Route 126/Newhall Ranch Road; to the south-east by San Francisquito Creek. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: This proposed project would establish an area of benefit to assess fees for the placement of traffic signals at specified locations in the Valencia Industrial Center. This proposed Assessment District will provide funds for traffic signal installation (materials, labor, engineering, and administration) for nineteen parcels on 148.8 acres. If warranted, traffic Impact fees assessed through this District will be used to pay only for the construction of three following traffic signals: 1) Avenue Scott and Rye Canyon Road (City of Santa Clarita); 2) Avenue Scott and Avenue Tibbits (unincorporated Los Angeles County); 3) One intersection to be determined later. ----------------------------------------------------- -------- Based on the iriformation contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita City Council finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project are not required. LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: L I Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner ( nature) (Namelritle) Approved by: Don Williams, Senior Planner ( Ignature) (Namerritle) Public Review Period From 7/16/93 To 8115/93 . Public Notice Given On 7/16/93 By: [X] Legal advertisement.. [ ] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice. --------------- CERTIFICATION DATE: September 14, 1993. Wvan wW1ndslmg ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MASTER CASE NO: 92-135 Project Description and Setting: This proposed project would establish an area of benefit to assess fees for the placement of traffic signals at specified locations in the Valencia Industrial Center. This area of benefit Is known as the Valencia Industrial Center Traffic Signal Integrated Financing Assessment District (#92-5). This Proposed Assessment District will provide funds for traffic signal Installation (materials, labor, engineering, and administration) for nineteen parcels on 148.8 acres (see attached table for specific Parcel numbers of properties within this proposed District). Fees obtained through this financing mechanism will be considered as developer's "fair share" contributions to off -set the incremental impacts created by their projects. Individual projects, in and of themselves, may result In a relatively Inslgnlf[cant Impact. However, the overall development of this area will result In cumulative Impacts which are significant. The City of Santa Clarfta CEOA Resolution (RESO 91-50) has established that a change In the volume to capacity ratio of more than two percentage points will result in a significant impact. If warranted, traffic Impact fees assessed through this District will be used to pay only for the construction of three traffic signals within the Valencia Industrial Center as follows: 1. Avenue Scott and Rye Canyon Road (City of Santa Clarlta); 2.Avenue Scott and Avenue Tibblts (unincorporated Los. Angeles County); 3. One Intersection to be determined later. Project Location: The Valencia Industrial Center is located In the north-west portion of the City of Santa Clarita, bounded to the south-west by the Golden State Freeway (1-5);-to'the north by Proposed State Route 126/Newhall Ranch Road; to the south-east by San Francisquito Creek (see attached map). Applicant: City of Santa Clarita. A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result In: YES MAYBE NO a. Unstable earth conditions or In changes In geologic substructures? ....................... [ ] [ ] (7t] b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ...... . . . . . . . . . ..... O [ ] [X] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ................................ (] I ] IX] d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .......... [ ] [ ] (X] e. Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .................... [ ] (] (XI 2. 3. YES MAYBE NO f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ....... [ ] g• Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ......... [ ] h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ................................ [l I• Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of io 000 cubic yards or more? ........................... [ ] J. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? .................. [ ] k. Development within the Alqulst-priolo Special Studies Zone? .......................... [] 1. Other? ....................................... L] Air. Will the proposal result in: a• Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ............................ I I b. The creation of objectionable odors? ............... [ ] C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change In climate, either locally or regionally? ...................... ( ] d. Other? ...................................... [] Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes In absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ................................ [] b• Alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters? ................................. [] C. Change in the amount of surface water In any water body? ........... ............... [ ] d. Discharge Into surface waters, or In any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, '2- [ ] [X] [ l [X] [ ] [X] I ] [X] [ ] [X] [ 1 [X] [] [X] [ ] [XJ 11 [X] 11 [X] 4. 5. YES MAYBE NO -3- [ I PX] Il [X] 11 [X] dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .................... e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ......................... [ ] I. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ................... [ ] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................... [] h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ................. [ ] I. Other? ....................................... [) Plant Life. Will the proposal result In- a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ............ [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered.species of plants? .............. [ ] C. Introduction of new species of plants Into an area, or In a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ................. [ ] d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ...................................... {] Animal Lffe. WIII the proposal result in: a. Change In the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals Including reptiles, fish and Insects or microfauna)? ......................... [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ............ [ ] C. Introduction of new species of animals Into an area, or result Ina barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ............. [ ] -3- [ I PX] Il [X] 11 [X] RN 7 1:1i 9. 10. YES MAYBE NO d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ....... [ ] [ Noise. Will the proposal result In: a. Increases in existing noise levels? .................. b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? .............. . . . . . . . . [) I) IK) C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ........... I ) I) IX) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? .......................... I I I) [XI Land Use. Will the proposal result In: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ............................. I I I ] [X) b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ........... • , , .. , , I� I LXI C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ................................. [] [] IX] d. A use that does not adhere to established development crlteria? ........................... I I I ] [X) Natural Resources. WIII the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? .................................. I] [] IX) b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ............................. II [] IX) Risk of Upset/Marl-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, all, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditlonsT .. ....................... I ] I l [X) b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard• ous or toxic materials (including, but not -4- 11 12. 13. YES MAYBE NO limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................... Il [] C. Possible Interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ............................... [1 [] d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ..................................... I1 [l Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human Population of an areal .......................... [ ] [ ] b. Other? ....................................... I] [] Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ............................ I ] [ ] b. Other? ....... [ ] [ l Transportaticn/Circulation. Will the proposal result In: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ...... • .I ] [ ] C. Substantial Impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ................................ I] Il d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ................................ [] [] e. Increase In traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ................ [ ] [ ] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway Improvements? ................................ [] [] -5- IX] [X] [X1 IX] IX] [X] [X] IX] YES MAYBE NO 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ................................ [ I [ 1 [X] b. Police protection? ............................. I ] [ 1 [X] C. Schools? .................................... II [1 [XI d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ............... [ ] [ ] [)(J e. Maintenance of public facilities, Including roads? .............................. I ] [ ] IXl I. Other governmental services? .................... [ ] [ ] [)(J 15. Energy. Will the proposal result In? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ..................................... [] [] IXl b. Substantial Increase In demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? ......... [ ] [ ] [X] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ........................... [ ] [] IXI b. Communications systems? ............... [ ] 1-1 IX1 ... C. Water systems? ............................... [ 1 11 IXI d. Sanitary sewer systems? ........................ I 1 [] [X] e. Storm drainage systems? ........................ [ l [] IXl I. Solid waste and disposal systems? ................ [ J [ J [X] g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or Inefficient pattern of delivery system Improvements for any of the above? ............... [ J [ 1 [X] -6- 17 18. 19. 20. YES MAYBE NO Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ............ ( ] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? .............. [] Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ........................ ( ] b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ........................... [ ] C. Will the visual Impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? ............ [ ] Recreation. WIII the proposal result In an Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ............................ [ ) Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result In the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological she? ..................... I ] b. Will the proposal result In adverse physical ,or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ............... [ ] C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? .................... [ ] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential Impact area? ......................... [ I , .7. [] [X1 YES. MAYBE NO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDING Will the project have an adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish. amphibians, and related ecological communities, Including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code......................................................................... [) [N/A] [X) DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS. Section Answer and Evaluation of Impacts 1 thru 20 The State Subdivision Law authorizes the use of Construction Fee Districts for the funding of constructlon and maintenance of new roadway Infrastructure.' The Proposed project is the formation of the Valencia Industrial Center Traffic Signal Integrated Financing Assessment District to. finance the signalization of three separate Intersections within the area known as the Valencia Industrial Center. This project appears to be consistent with the Circulation Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan by providing needed traffic signals to maintain a safe and efficient circulation system (Goal 1 and subsequent policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element). - The establishment of a financing assessment district does not. encourage nor approve additional development. The collection of fees is dependent on Individual and private development decisions as to when, where, and how much to build on all proposed development projects. This assessment is a one-time fee charged against developments on identified parcels .as a condition of issuing a building permit. The District, by funding the placement of these two identified and one future traffic signal, will also Improve existing circulation and provide traffic mitigation for future development. Individual development projects which may be required to contribute to the District will Individually receive CEQA review, as required, to assess specific environmental Impacts and establish mitigation measures as needed. The formation of the Valencia Industrial Center Traffic Signal Integrated Financing District will not result in any physical changes to the environment within the Proposed district or surrounding areas. As a financing mechanism, the proposed assessment district would allow the funding of Improvements currently underway to improve levels of service, provide adequate Infrastructure, and Implement the City of Santa Clarha General Plan, and would have no significant Impact on the physical environment. The proposed financing assessment district may have socioeconomic Impacts on the property owners, tenants, and future property owners in the proposed area of benefit. Discussion of potential socioeconomic Impacts In an environmental document, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Is not required because socioeconomic impacts are not considered to be physical Impacts on the environment. -a- C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. YES MAYBE NO 1. Does the project havethepotential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ...................... 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage oflong-term, environmental goals? (A short-term Impact on the environment Is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term Impacts will endure well into the future.) .......................... Il I IX] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may Impact on two or more separate resources where the Impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ......... [] [] IX] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? ....................... [ ] I l VI .9- D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. Pq Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect In this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [ j The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required. [ ] LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: nature) Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner July 8, 1993 (Name/Title) (Date) .to- July 9, 1993 (Date)