HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-28 - ORDINANCES - ASMT DIST 92 5 VALENCIA INDUS (2)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 Exhibi
M, 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
FX:6M7.1
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;
l 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.
7:M7.1
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 within 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 the28th day of September 1993.
CALIFORNIA
11
on V V03
. 4 ,
F :M7.1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
MAYOR
r
r
FX.67247.1
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.93-18 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 28th day of sentember , 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS Boyer, Darcy, Klajic, Pederson, Beidt
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS tie
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS EMBERS tone
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS None
CITY CLERK
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
Councilmembers
Carl Boyer
Jill Klajlc
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. Kolln - Director of Public Works/Deputy City Manager
Anthony J. Nisich - City Engineer
Rick Putnam - Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Steve Stark — Director of Finance
Professional Services
Burke Williams & Sorensen - Special Counsel
Wliidan Associates - Assessment Engineer
City of Santa Clarlta
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 "A" - BOUNDARY MAP
r
FINAL
REPORT OF ENGINEER
FOR
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEGRATED FINANCING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-5
VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL CENTER
TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
City of Santa Clarfta
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clar ta, 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 hs Resolutloq
of Intention No. 93-100 expressly order the filing of a written Engineer's Report ("Report") with the
City of Santa Clarfta, 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.
Ill. 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 Clarfta
IV. BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The proposed boundaries of the District and a boundary map.
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Richard Kopecky, authorized representative of Wllldan 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:
Richard cky, VIdb President`,
Wllldan Associates
CERTIFICATION
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Preliminary approval by the _Ptt_y Council of the City of Santa Clarita on the day of
19.
onna Gdndey, City Clerk, C.M.17�—
City of Santa clarita
FINAL APPROVAL
Final pproval by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarha on the �.'tf J day of
.19�
of Santa clarlta
Page 2
C.M.0
September 14, 1993
City of Santa Clarlta
I. 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 comer 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 TIMIS (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 slgnalization Is
warranted as well as the priority for Installation. If signallzatlon 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
meeccemante
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
$ 375,000
Subtotal $ 375,000
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
Subtotal $ 8,000
TOTAL TO ASSESS $ 383,000
City of Santa Clarha
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
REIMBURSEMENT NO.
ACREAGE
1
4.61
2
(4 parcels)
2.56
3
(5 parcels)
3.75
4
(2 parcels)
2.33
5
(2 parcels)
2.80
6
(4 parcels)
3.60
7
2.90
8
1.13
9
(2 parcels)
3.36
10
(6 parcels)
48.18
11
(2 parcels)
4.49
12
2.49
13
1.80
14
(17 parcels)
15.78
15
(2 parcels)
6.74
16
(3 parcels)
2.19
Page 4
PROPOSED AMOUNT
TO ASSESS
$ 11,883.35
6,624.86
9,688.86
6,024.48
7,204.54
9,233.40
7,225.24
2,898.38
8,633.03
124,071.30
11,552.11
6,417.84
4,637.41
40,639.41
17,369.59
5,631.14
September 14, 1993
I
City of Santa Clartta
ASSIGNED PROPOSED AMOUNT
REIMBURSEMENT NO. ACREAGE TO ASSESS
17 (3 parcels) 27.53 70,855.35
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 IMPROVEMENT:
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 50%
annual Interest rate beginning one year after the final District approval. The cumulative
Interest rete 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/entitles 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 5
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 locatlon(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 Clar la
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
The boundaries of 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 comer 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 Ciartta
ASSESSOR
r PARCEL NUMBER
ASSIGNED
ACREAGE
REIMBURSEMENT NO.
2866-018-060
2.49
12
2811-001-068
1.80
13
2811.001-071
7.02
14
2811-001.072
0.74
14
2811-001-073
0.56
14
2811-001.074
0.56
14
2811.001-075
0.87
14
2811-001-076
0.73
14
2811.001-077
0.72
14
2811-001-079
1.54
14
2811.001-085
0.33
14
2811-001-086
0.33
14
2811.001-087
0.33
14
2811.001-088
0.33
14
2811-001-089
0.33
14
2811.001-090
0.33
14
2811-001.091
0.33
14
2811-001-092
0.33
14
2811-001-093
0.33
14
2811-027-023
3.26
15
2811.027-024
3.48
15
�. 2811-027.022
1.05
16
2811.027-025
0.55
16
2811-027.026
0.59
16
2811-001-082. (por)
13.67
17
2866.007.032
3.51
17
2866.007-044
10.35
17
2866.032.001
0.50
18
2866-032.002
0.34
18
2866.032-003
0
18
2866-032.004
0
18
2866.032-005
0.36
18
2866-032-006
0,37
18
2866.032-007
0.41
18
2866-O32-008
0.55
18
2866.032-009
0.52
18
2866.032-010
0
18
2866.032-011
0.39
18
2866-032-012
0.35
18
2866-032-013
0.46
18
2866-006.800. (por.)
8.23
19
Page 9
September 14, 1993
City of Santa Clarta
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
iwndN%93•100.bn
Page 10
September 14, 1993
............... .
l p
a
f
W
............... .
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [I 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 Clarha, 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 Franclsquito
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 Tlbbits (unincorporated Los Angeles County); 3) One intersection to be
determined later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information 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 Clarka
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
Approved
Public Review Period From 7/16/93 To 8/15/93 .
Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner
(Name/Title)
Don Williams, Senior Planner
(Name/Title)
Public Notice Given On 7/16/93 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [ ] Posting of properties. (X] Written notice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFICATION DATE: September 14, 1993.
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
Proposed Assessment District will provide funds for traffic signal InValencia Industrial Center Traffic Signal Integrated Financing Assessment District (11925), This
engineering, and administration) for nineteen parcels on 148.8 acres (see attached table for specific stallation (materials, labor,
Parcel numbers of properties within this proposed District).
Fees obtained through this financing mechanism will be considered as developers "fair share"
contributions to offset the Incremental Impacts created by their projects. Individual projects, In
and of themselves, may result in a relatively Insignificant Impact. However, the overall development
Of this area will result In cumulative Impacts which are significant.
The City of Santa Clarita CEQA 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:
I. Avenue Scott and Rye Canyon Road (City of Santa Clartia);
2. Avenue Scott and Avenue Tibbhs (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 Clartta, bounded to the south-west by the Golden State Freeway (45); -to the north by
Proposed State Route 126/Newhall Ranch Road; to the south-east by San Francisqulto Creek (see
attached map).
Applicant: City of Santa Clarlta.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1• Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Unstable earth conditions or In changes
In geologic substnxtures? .
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? .... .
I I I ] IXI
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relieffeatures? ................................
d• The destruction, covering or modification of
.., any unique geologic or physical features? .......... I I I l
e. Any Increase In wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
2.
3.
YES MAYBE NO
f.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudsildes, ground failure, or similar hazards? .......
[ J
g.
Changes In deposition, erosion or siltation? .........
[ ]
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ................................
I l
I.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubicyards or more? ... ......................
[ ]
J.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25% natural grade? ..................
[ ]
It.
Development wlthin the Alquist-Prlolo
Special Studies Zone? ..........................
[ I
1.
Other? .......................................
II
Air.
Will the proposal result In:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? ............................
I 1
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? ......................................
Il
Water. Will the proposal result In:
a.
Changes In absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surfacerunoff? ................................
[]
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
floodwaters? .................................
II
C.
Change In the amount of surface water
In any water body? ............................. '[I
d.
Discharge Into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
-2-
11 Ixl
11 P(I
[ I [x}
[l Pq
[ ] [X1
[ 1 IXI
dissolved
YES MAYBE NO
oxygen or turbidity? ....................
[ I [ I [Xl
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate
of
flow of ground waters?
.........................
[ I [ ] [X]
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? ...................
[
] [ ] [x]
9.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ...............................
[I I] PQ
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .................
[ I [ ] [7(]
1.
Other? .......................................
II [ 1 [x]
4. Plant Lffe. 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)? ............
[ l [ I [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ..............
[ l [) [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of Into
plants
an area, or In a barrier to the normal m.
plenishment of existing species?
..................
[ I [ l [X]
d.
Reduction In acreage of any agricultural
crop? ...........
I [ l
5 Antmal Lite. Will 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)? .........................
[) [ I [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
............
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species
of animals
Into an area, or result In a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
.............
[ I [) [t(]
.3.
6.
7
8.
9.
10.
YES MAYBE NO
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ..................
[
] [ ] [Xl
Noise. Will the proposal result In:
a. Increases In existing noise levels? .................
b. Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ......................
[ j [ ] IX]
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations?
...........
I ] [ ] [XI
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ..........................
I I [ ] [X]
Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
landuse of an area? ............................
[ ] I I [X]
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? .....................
[ ] [ ] IXI
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? .................................
Il I ] [X]
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...........................
[ ] [ ] [X]
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result In:
a. Increase In the rate of use of any natural
resources? ......................... ......
[] [I IXI
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
naturalresources? .............................
[ ] [ ] [X]
Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
Of hazardous substances (Including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) In the event of an accident or
upset conditions? ......................
[] I] [Xj
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (Including, but not
.4-
YES MAYBE NO
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ...........
C. Possible Interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...........
d. Otherwise expose People to potential safety
hazards? .....
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Atter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
Population of an area?
b. Other? ........
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ............................
b. Other? .......
13. TransportatbNClrculation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generatlon of aubstantlai additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing Parking facilities,
or demand for new Parking? .....
.
Pq
C. - Substantial impact upon
existing
transportation systems, Including public
transportation? ......
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?
................
pq
f• A disjointed pattern of roadway
Improvements? ......
-5-
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? ...............................
[ 1 [ 1
[X1
b. Police protection? .............................
I 1 I 1
IXl
C. Schools? ....................................
II I1
[X1
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ...............
[ ] [ ]
[X]
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
Including roads? ..............................
I 1 [ 1
IX]
f. Other governmental services? ....................
[ 1 I 1
[X1
15. Energy. Will the proposal result In?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? .....................................
[1 11
IX1
b. Substantial Increase In demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? .........
[ ] [ 1
[X]
16. Utilltles. Will the proposal result In a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? .........................
(1 11
IX1
b. Communications systems? ......................
[ 1 1.1
IX]
c. Water systems? ................ ............
11 11
IXI
d. Sanitary sewer systems? ........................
[ 1 I 1
[XI
e. Stone drainage systems? ........................
11 11
LXI
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? ................
[ 1 [ 1
IX]
g. Will the proposal result In a disjointed
or Inefficient pattern of delivery system
Improvements for any of the above? ...............
[ ] []
IXI
.6-
r
YES MAYBE NO
17. 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?
............
19. Recreation. WIII the proposal result In an
Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
............................ [)
[ ]
20. Cultural Resources
a• Wgl the proposal result In the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
.... .
b• Will the proposal result In adverse physical
,or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
hlstorlc building, structure, or object?
.............. [ I
[ ] [xj
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?
.7.
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 construction 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 Clarfta
General Pian by providing needed traffic signals to maintain a safe and efficient
circulation system (Goal 1 and subsequent policies of the City of Santa Clar to
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.
-8-
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 aor ct Report maybe,
an Environmental Impact the project may have a significant
Shall be prepared. effect on the environment and
YES MAYBE No
I. Does the protect have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildllfs 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 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
P lea have the potential to achieve short -tern, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term Impact on the environment Is one which occurs In a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long4erm impacts will endure well Into the future.)
3. Does the project have Impacts which are Individual Pq
(A Project may Impact on two or more separate resources where he Impact ocumulatin ealy ch resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those Impacts on the environment Is significant.)
[.1 H
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects o
human beings, either directly or Indirectly? . , _. n
-8.
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. [X)
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. ( I
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT Is required. [ j
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By:
43P& 6 Z Jeff Chaffin. Assistant Planner July 8, 1993
nature) (Na Vile) (Date)
.dw,�ewuwu,,,
.to-
July 9, 1993
(Date)