HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-02 - AGENDA REPORTS - INFRASTRUCTURE MP (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Smyth and Councilmembers
FROM: George A. Caravalho, City Manager
DATE: December 2, 1997
SUBJECT: INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
City Council receive staff and consultant presentations and discuss and comment on the
Infrastructure Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 1996, City Council approved a contract with CH2M HILL to develop the
Infrastructure Master ,Plan (IMP). The IMP will provide the City with an effective
management tool to help prioritize infrastructure maintenance activities and expansion of both
existing and new infrastructure. The plan provides an inventory of all facilities and assesses
their condition to determine future repairs and upgrades. It will also assist in determining the
impact of new development on our existing infrastructure.
The elements of the IMP consist of sewers, street network, street lights, traffic control systems,
parks and trails, and public transit. The IMP also includes a less detailed analysis of other
issues that are important but not under the direct control of the City, such as water supply,
annexations, and infrastructure issues related to a sphere -of -influence.
The IMP evaluates existing conditions of the City's infrastructure by identifying existing
deficiencies and providing a cost estimate to construct the improvements needed to correct the
continuing deficiencies. The IMP also identifies build -out improvements per the General Plan
and Unified Development.Code. It estimates the cost to construct new infrastructure as well
as improve the existing infrastructure as development occurs.
Community Input
Four open houses were held to obtain public input on the plan. In addition to this
announcement, letters were sent to over 700 organizations and individuals, study information
was provided to TV, radio, and print media, and 1,500 mail -in survey questionnaires were
mailed to the community. As a result of this information, articles were published in the local
magazines and both local newspapers.
Agenda Item: z-
INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
December 2, 1997 - Page 2
The IMP was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on November 6, 1997 and to
the Planning Commission on November 18, 1997 for discussion and comment.
Summary of Findings
This is a brief summary of the findings of the master plan for the street, sewer, and parks and
trails elements. It categorizes the deficiencies for the 10 planning areas identified in the City's
General Plan, both existing and at "build -out."
Streets
This element of the Master Plan analyzed the street network, including arterials, and local
streets, bridges, street lighting, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaped medians, traffic
controls, and transit access facilities. It identified the deficiencies of this street network, both
existing and at "build -out," per the City's General Plan.
Street infrastructure maintenance, including the pavement management program and current
maintenance practice for street lights, signals, bridge, and landscaped medians, was also
analyzed and recommendations were made. Some of these recommendations include increasing
the annual budget amounts for pavement maintenance, taking control of . street light
maintenance activities, and taking control of street median landscaping activities. The latter
of these recommendations are currently being implemented.
Sewer
The collection system serves a sewered area of approximately 11,210 acres, which is about
40 percent of the total area within the City limits. Some of the sewered area falls outside the
City limits but contributes flow to the City's system. The existing collection system contains
92 individual drainage basins, all connecting to trunk sewers owned by the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County. No improvements are recommended to the existing system at
this time because of the low percentage of deficiencies identified, the small increase in required
diameters, and the excess capacity in the system.
There are currently five areas within the City where sewage disposal is being done with private
on-site systems (septic tanks). These septic tanks, located on private property; are not
maintained by the County Department of Public Works. Typically, individual homeowners
contract for septic tank maintenance services privately. The City has a policy of requiring
public sewers to be installed when development occurs. It is the responsibility of the new
development to fund the cost of these sewer expansions.
A capital improvement cost of $33 million for approximately 157,700 linear feet of 8 -inch pipe
has been estimated to provide future sewer services only to the areas currently served by septic
tanks. These projects should be coordinated with street improvement or resurfacing projects
to minimize impacts to the community.
INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
December 2; 1997 - Page 3
Parks and Trails
The Parks and Trails Element identifies current and future park and trail needs for the City
based on 13 planning areas --10 within the City boundaries (Planning Areas 1 to 10) and three
outside the City's boundaries (Planning Areas I, II, and III).
The Master Plan process began with research to create a base of information for the planning
effort. This base information included an inventory of existing parks and trails, identification
of future parks and trails opportunities, population analysis, and review of the City's parkland
standard. This parkland standard or goal is to provide five acres of parkland for every 1,000
residents.
The results of this study indicate that the City has an immediate need to increase its inventory
of parks in order to meet the current need for recreation facilities. Only 76 acres of parks are
available to meet the identified demand of 773 acres within the City. This results in a deficit
of 697 acres.
Staff has identified 317 acres of future park projects within the current City boundaries to help
meet the identified 943 acres of parkland in the year 2006. This still leaves a deficit of 626
acres within the City. Prioritizing a significant number of proposed projects to be implemented
over the next five years will help address current deficiencies.
The City currently has 7,920 linear feet of developed equestrian trails and 62,370 linear feet
of Class I trails within its jurisdiction. As the trail system is a relatively newly developed
infrastructure, there has been no existing deficiency identified for the City's trails. City staff
has identified 128,199 linear feet of future equestrian trails and 95,707 linear feet of future
Class I trails within the City limits.
Costs to acquire future parklands are not included in these figures. Annual costs for park and
trail maintenance are also included in this report.
SUMMARY
*This does not include existing deficiencies.
Existing Deficiency Costs
Build -out Costs*
Sewer
$34.2 million
-0-
0 -
Street
Street Network
$83.0 million
$213.0 million
Parks and Trails
$163.6 million
$93.5 million
Total
$280.8 million
$306.5 million
*This does not include existing deficiencies.
INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
December 2, 1997 - Page 4
Conclusion
Now that the Infrastructure Master Plan is completed, we will have a better understanding of
the existing and future infrastructure needs. This Master Plan can be used to determine
budget needs for maintenance and new construction, set impact mitigation requirementsfor
new development, update various development -related fees, and develop methods for funding
of future infrastructure needs.
Over the course of time we will find more ways to utilize the data made available through this
plan, and there will be a need to update the data on a regular basis. The ease in which this
information can be acquired, updated, and utilized to perform a variety of functions will be
important to the future planning of the City and the maintenance of its infrastructure.
Infrastructure Master Plan - Executive Summary
CLN:lkl
m"cl\imp tg.dn
City of Santa Clarita
ffkN Ur VA
CU1f AN -i
CH2MHILL
October 1997
City of Santa Clarita
'
Infrastructure Master Plan
Executive Summary,
i
1
Prepared by
'
CH2MHILL
'
Jeff Bingham, Project Manager
with
RJM Design Group
TransCore (JHK & Associates)
■
Robert K. Sandwick, Civil Engineer
■
Decision Dynamics
October 1997
'
SC0972930011.DOC117
I
I
I
H
I
I
iJ
I
I
I
Acknowledgments
City of Santa Clarita City Council
Carl Boyer, Council Member
Hamilton C. Smyth, Mayor
Jo Anne Darcy, Council Member
Janice H. Heidt, Council Member
Jill Klajic, Council Member
Transportation, and Engineering Services
Anthony J. Nisich, Director
T. Brad Therrien, Assistant City Engineer
Lawrence P. Cushman, Supervising Civil Engineer
Monica Fernandez, Associate Engineer
Curtis Nay, Associate Engineer
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
John Danielson, Manager - Parks, Rec. & Comm. Svcs.
Wayne Weber, Park Development Administrator
1
k
I
I
I
Iscosrzsaoon.00crn
CH2M HILL
Alison Ratilff, Sanitary Engineer
Nick Biro, Transportation Planner
Tom lonta, Transportation Engineer
Kathleen Higgins, Hydraulic Engineer
Valerie Young, Senior Planner
Douglas Fredricks, Bridge Engineer
Joe Gautsch, GIS Analyst
Ed Lee, Engineer
City Technical Staff
Rabie Rahmani, Traffic Engineer
Dennis Welch, Street Supervisor
'
Ron Kilcoyne, Transit Planning
Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager
Mike Rubin, Associate Planner
Ken Stripling, Management Analyst
1
k
I
I
I
Iscosrzsaoon.00crn
CH2M HILL
Alison Ratilff, Sanitary Engineer
Nick Biro, Transportation Planner
Tom lonta, Transportation Engineer
Kathleen Higgins, Hydraulic Engineer
Valerie Young, Senior Planner
Douglas Fredricks, Bridge Engineer
Joe Gautsch, GIS Analyst
Ed Lee, Engineer
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
LJ
I
CONTENTS
Section
Page
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1
PublicParticipation................................................................................................................1
CriticalElements....................................................................................................... 2
FundingPriorities..................................................................................................... 2
Scopeand Methodology........................................................................................................ 2
Objectives................................................................................................................... 2
ProjectPlanning Areas............................................................................................. 3
Overview of Related Infrastructure Factors....................................................................... 5
WaterSupply ............................................................................................................. 5
Sphereof influence................................................................................................... 8
Infrastructure Geographic Information System.................................................11
2. Street Network, Street Lights, and Traffic Controls.............................................................13
ExistingStreet Network......................................................................................................13
FutureStreet Network.........................................................................................................14
Intersections..........................................................................................................................14
TrafficControls.....................................................................................................................15
Basisof Cost Estimate.............................................................................................15
ExistingDeficiencies...............................................................................................15
Build -out Deficiencies............................................................................................16
TransitAccess.......................................................................................................................16
Bridges...................................................................................................................................16
Preliminary Estimate of Deficiency and Build -out Costs...............................................17
StreetInfrastructure Maintenance..................................................................................... 20
Signal Maintenance Program................................................................................ 20
PavementManagement.......................................................................................... 20
BridgeMaintenance................................................................................................ 23
StreetLights............................................................................................................. 23
LandscapedMedians.............................................................................................. 24
3. Parks and Trails............................................................................................................................ 25
Parksand Trails Master Plan .............................................................................................. 25
IdentifiedDeficiencies......................................................................................................... 26
EstimatedCosts.................................................................................................................... 26
ParkMaintenance................................................................................................................. 27
CurrentMaintenance Program............................................................................. 27
CurrentMaintenance Costs................................................................................... 28
4. Sewer System................................................................................................................................ 31
Existing Wastewater Collection System........................................................................... 31
DesignFlow Summary ........................................................................................................ 32
CapitalImprovement Costs................................................................................................ 33
MaintenanceCosts............................................................................................................... 35
OtherRecommendations.................................................................................................... 35
Sco972930011.00c417
I CONTENTS, CONTINUED
I
ISection
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page
5. Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis................................................................................ 37
Overviewof the Model........................................................................................................ 37
Project -Specific Factors........................................................................................... 40
GeneralCity Factors................................................................................................ 40
Population and Employment Factors................................................................... 40
Current Municipal Expenditure and Revenue Base .......................................... 40
Resultsof Fiscal Impact Analysis...................................................................................... 41
Recommendations................................................................................................................ 42
Figures
Figure 1 Study Area
Figure 2 Planning Areas I, II, and III
Tables
4
we
Table 1-1 Annual Water Supply and Demand by Source........................................................6
Table 1-2 Existing Annual Supply and Demand....................................................................... 6
Table 2-1 Summary of Estimated Costs by Planning Area....................................................17
Table 2-2 Pavement Maintenance Management Plan ............................................................22
Table 2-3 Pavement Maintenance Comparisons
23
Table 3-1 Summary of Parks and Trails Totals........................................................................27
Table 3-2 Annual Maintenance Costs
29
Table3-3
Maintenance of River Parks......................................................................................29
Table 3-4
Maintenance of Trails.................................................................................................30
Table4-1
Summary of Peak Design Flows...............................................................................33
Table 4-2
Capital Improvement Costs.....................................................................................34
Table4-3
Septic Tank Replacement Priority............................................................................
35
Table 5-1
Northbridge Area Annexation Analysis Assumptions.........................................39
Table 5-2
Population and Employment Data.........................................................................40
Table 5-3
Revenue and Expenditure Data................................................................................41
Table5-4
Fiscal Impact Analysis...............................................................................................41
SCO972930011.DOG77
I
I
I
I
7
[1
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Introduction
In 1989, the recently incorporated City of Santa Clarita prepared a study to determine the
status of selected infrastructure elements in the Santa Clarita Valley and the community of
Acton, and to prepare an analysis of future infrastructure needs based on a population
estimated to grow from 127,000 in 1987 to 294,000 in 2010. That study, entitled An Analysis
of Infrastructure Needs (DMJM 1989), analyzed the following infrastructure elements: water
supply; wastewater systems; solid waste disposal; local and regional parks; public libraries;,
fire facilities; stormwater management systems, and roads and bridges. The total estimated
cost of infrastructure improvements to meet the needs for public services in 1989 and to
serve future growth was estimated to be $911.8 million (excluding stormwater management
systems): Since incorporation in 1987, the City of Santa Clarita has spent approximately
$110 million on physical infrastructure improvements. Of this total, about 17 percent was
spent on parks and recreation improvements, 74 percent for community development, and
9 percent for building and engineering projects.
In April 1996, the City of Santa Clarita contracted with CH2M HILL to prepare an
Infrastructure Master Plan. The resulting Master Plan has a detailed analysis of existing
and future deficiencies and estimated improvement costs of a limited number of
infrastructure elements. It addresses the following public works infrastructure elements,
primarily restricted to the city limits of Santa Clarita:
• Local Streets, Arterials, and Bridges (existing and proposed)
• Street Lighting, Curb -Gutter -Sidewalks, Median Landscaping
• Traffic Controls
• Pavement Maintenance
• Transit Access
• Sewer Systems
• Local and Regional Parks and Trails
The Master Plan also addressed, at an overview level, the current and future status of the
City's water supply system; recent annexations; infrastructure issues related to a sphere of
influence; and potential applications of geographic information systems (GIS) for
infrastructure monitoring and maintenance. This Master Plan does not address other key
City public works and community infrastructure elements including solid waste disposal
and recycling, public libraries, fire protection facilities, public schools, and stormwater
management systems.
Public Participation
Part of the planning process included community participation. Open House meetings
were held in four different locations within the City during development of the Master
Plan. At these meetings members of the public could ask questions and voice their desires
for infrastructure needs. A recent community survey was conducted as part of this outreach
process to measure public priorities concerning key elements of the City's infrastructure,_
SC0972930011.DOC117
I
I
I
I
I
L7
I
LJ
1
[J
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ♦ INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER FLAN
including roads, parks, sewers, and street. lighting. Nearly 1,500 survey forms were mailed
to businesses and residents.
Critical Elements
The following survey results revealed a high importance placed on transportation and
parks, and less on the City's sewers:
Most Important Least Important
Streets Bus Stops
Traffic Signals
Intersections
Parks/Trails
Sewers
Sidewalks
Street Lights
Funding Priorities
Concerning the question about how the City should allocate its infrastructure budget; the
responses were as follows:
Most Important Least Important
Streets Bus Stops
Parks/Trails Street Lights
Traffic Signals Sidewalks
Scope and Methodology
The Infrastructure Master Plan identifies the deficiencies in the City's existing infrastructure
system and future needs, including related costs, in accordance with the City of Santa
Clarita General Plan, its recent Community Strategic Plan — Share the Vision 11, the Master Plan
of Arterial Highways, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Master Plan, the recently
adopted Transit Transportation Development Plan, and the Santa Clara River Plan. The
Infrastructure Master Plan will function as a management tool for the identification of
maintenance requirements and the cost-effective rehabilitation and improvement of the
City's infrastructure. The integration of the infrastructure elements within the Master Plan
will allow for the effective programming of deficiency improvements, project budgeting,
and maintenance management.
Objectives
This Infrastructure Master Plan provides a database and a tool to help optimize City staff
resources and effectiveness in planning, improving, financing, and maintaining Santa
I
ScosTzsaoort.00an
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRYOF SANTA CLAWTA ♦ 1NFNASTNUCTUHEMASTER PUN
tClarita's
physical infrastructure elements. The specific objectives of the Master Plan
elements, as articulated in the project scope of work, are as follows:
'
• The Sewer Element will enhance development decisions, identify system capacity
requirements, and evaluate areas not presently served.
• The Street Network, Street Light, and Traffic Control Element will enhance the
programming of existing and future infrastructure capital expenditures through the
identification of system improvements, pavement maintenance strategies, future bridges
and arterials, traffic control requirements, transit access, and the identification of system
deficiencies, costs, and maintenance requirements.
• The Parks and Trails Element will identify the present and future development of the
City's parks and trails and ongoing maintenance needs.
• The Annexation Element will demonstrate how the City determines the cost of
maintenance and expected revenues from the annexation of property and provide a
methodology to measure its impact on infrastructure expenditures.
IThe
overall objectives of this project are then identified as:
1. Identify infrastructure deficiencies based upon present and future use.
2. Evaluate the impact upon the City's infrastructure expenditures from the build -out of
Master Plan elements.
3. Evaluate and recommend cost-effective maintenance programs for system elements.
4. Provide the City an effective management tool to help prioritize infrastructure
maintenance activities and expansion of both existing and new infrastructure.
The
Infrastructure Master Plan will provide a guide for the future upgrade and
maintenance of the City's infrastructure systems. The document is based upon the City's
land use plans. Each Master Plan element is a stand-alone document that identifies specific
infrastructure deficiencies, budget estimates for each improvement, and provides a program
level estimate of the total deficiency within identified Planning Areas.
Project Planning Areas
To facilitate the analysis and allow easy comparison of various communities within the City
of Santa Clarita, the Infrastructure MasterPlan divided the City into 10 specific planning
areas. These planning areas are shown in Figure 1 and are described in the City of Santa
Clarita General Plan (1991). Areas newly annexed to the City in April 1997 are not included
in the majority of the infrastructure assessed in this Master Plan. The planning areas are
designated as follows:
1. Planning Area 1 includes the majority of the Newhall area
2. Planning Area 2 includes the majority of the Valencia area
3. Planning Area 3 includes the majority of the Valencia Industrial Center and the
Lockheed area
i
ISCC972930U,T.DCC/17
I
F
I
I
I
I
11
I
:J
I
I
I
I
I
I
ExEcLmyESUMMAPY CRY OF SANTA Wpm ♦ INFRAmucTUREMASTER PM
4. Planning Area 4 includes the majority of the Northbridge area and Proposed
Annexation Area 21
5. Planning Area 5 includes the majority of the Saugus and Seco Canyon areas
6. Planning Area 6 includes the majority of the Canyon Country area
7. Planning Area 7 includes the majority of Annexation Area 4
8. Planning Area 8 includes the majority of the Sand Canyon/Annexation Areas 1, 2, 5, 7,
.and 8
9. Planning Area 9 includes the majority of the Friendly Valley/Central Santa Clarita areas
10. Planning Area 10 includes the majority of the Placenta Canyon area
Overview of Related Infrastructure Factors
In addition to the street network, sewer, parks and annexation elements, which are
discussed in detail in separate sections following this introduction, the Master Plan also
addressed at an overview level the City's water supply system, sphere of influence issues,
and potential applications of geographic information systems (GLS) for infrastructure
monitoring and maintenance. .
Water Supply
The Infrastructure Master Plan, Water Supply Overview, presented information on the
water agencies and retailers serving the area, discussed both existing and future water
supply and demand, presented capital improvement projects of the water suppliers, and
discussed management of water throughout the Santa Clarita Valley.
Water Purveyors
The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) is the water wholesaler for the Santa Clarita
Valley. The CLWA provides State Water Project water to the Valley, which is distributed by
the four local water retailers: Valencia Water Company, Santa Clarita Water Company,
Newhall County Water District, and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 36.
Water Supply and Demand
The Santa Clarita Valley receives its water supply from two 4ources: the State Water Project
and local groundwater. Local groundwater consists of the shallow Santa Clara River
Alluvial Aquifer and the deeper Saugus Aquifer. Table 1-1 outlines the annual existing and
future (2010) supply -and demand.
SC0972930011.DOC/17
I
ISco972930011,DOC/17
E%ECUTIVE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CLAARA ♦ INFWMUOUFEMASTER PIAN
TABLE 1.1'A
Annual Water Supply and Demand by Source
Existing Future 2010)
(Year
Supply Demand Supply Demand
Source (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)
State Water Project 54,200 22,300 54,200 54,200
Alluvial Aquifer 32,500 17,500 32,500 32,500
Saugus Aquifer 20,000 4,445 20,000 12,600
Reclaimed Water 8,700 8,700
Water Conservation
-12,000
Total 106,700 44,245 115,400 96,000
'Source: Castaic Lake Water Agency and L.A. County Development Monitoring System
` Includes Devil's Den Water District supplies
Each of the water retailers in the Santa Clarita Valley reports information on supply and
demand to the County of Los Angeles on a regular basis. Table 1-2 summarizes the latest
existing water supply and demand based on information obtained from the County of Los
Angeles Development Monitoring System.
TABLE 1.2
Existing Annual Supply and Demand'
Agency/Retailer Service Wells in Supply Demand
Connections Production (acre-feet) (acre-feet)
L.A. County Waterworks District 770 None 539 454
No. 36
Valencia Water Company 17,200 19 45,000 19,720
Santa Clarita Water Company 20,000 14 36,500 18,976
Newhall County Water District 6,000 11 14,080 7,219
Total 96,119 46,369
' Source: L.A. County Development Monitoring System, March 1997
The existing supply outlined in Table 1-2 is current importation plus available groundwater.
These values are lower than the numbers provided by CLWA (see Table 1-1) because they
do not include the entire water supply from the Devil's Den State Water Project water
entitlement and also only include production from existing groundwater wells.
Although the existing supply exceeds the existing demand, CLWA is continually working
on improving the reliability of the State Water Project water. For example, CLWA has the
rights to 5,000 acre-feet of water in storage in Castaic Lake, additional water from the
Monterey Agreement, and 8,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the Devil's Den Water
District. These quantities are not included in the numbers noted above.
I
ISco972930011,DOC/17
IEXECUTNE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CLARrTA♦ 1NFRAS7RUCTUREW7rR PLAN
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
E1
I
Groundwater Management
The latest study on groundwater was conducted in the mid-1980s. Many of the purveyors
cite this study when discussing the safe yield of the groundwater basins. There are no
current groundwater management plans for the area. However, the Newhall County Water
District is preparing a groundwater management plan, and the CLWA is preparing an
Integrated Water Resources Plan.
During the drought from 1986 to 1991, emergency connections between the Santa Clarita
Water Company, Valencia Water Company, and the Newhall County Water District were
required to deliver State Water Project water to areas affected by the loss of well
production. The CLWA is confident that additional sources of water can be drawn upon in
the event of future droughts. In this regard, CLWA has additional water available through
the Monterey Agreement and also up to 12,700 acre-feet from groundwater in the Devil's
Den Water District in Kern County. The Monterey Agreement is an agreement between
agricultural and urban users of State Water Project contractors and allows transfer of up to
130,000 acre-feet of water between agricultural and urban users. Table 1-1 includes Devil's
Den Water supplies, but no existing or projected Monterey Agreement water.
City's Role in Water Delivery and Development
The City of Santa Clarita does not have a direct role in water delivery to the Valley.
However, the City notifies the water purveyors of each new development project. A
Development Review Committee Agency Comment Sheet is distributed to the water purveyors
by the Planning and Building Services Department. The water purveyors are asked to
provide comments and recommendations on all new developments relative to the
anticipated costs, infrastructure improvements, treatment and storage requirements, and
other water supply issues related to these projects.
Future Conditions
As shown in Table 1-1, the Valley has sufficient water resources to satisfy the demand
through the year 2010. However, water -supply banking programs will be necessary to
improve the reliability of water deliveries. A water -banking program would involve the
storage of water in underground basins or open reservoirs for use during those times when
there are droughts and/or shortages affecting the State Water Project water supply.
Implementation of water banking would create the need for substantial new infrastructure,
potentially including construction of reservoirs, recharge basins, and piping and pumping
systems.
A more detailed analysis of future conditions is currently being performed by the CLWA as
part of the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) they are developing for the Santa
Clarita Valley. Water -banking and other conservation measures are being investigated as
sco972930011.Doc117
Capital Projects
Improvement
Each water purveyor constructs projects as needed for new development. Most of the
projects are paid for by developer fees. CLWA has a defined capital improvement program
(CII') consisting of 20 projects totalirg $281.7 million dollars. Except for L.A. County
Waterworks District No. 36, the other purveyors do not have well-defined CIPs. Instead,
the purveyors construct new projects in response to development needs. L. A. County
Waterworks District No. 36 CII' consists of 6 projects totaling $3.9 million dollars.
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
E1
I
Groundwater Management
The latest study on groundwater was conducted in the mid-1980s. Many of the purveyors
cite this study when discussing the safe yield of the groundwater basins. There are no
current groundwater management plans for the area. However, the Newhall County Water
District is preparing a groundwater management plan, and the CLWA is preparing an
Integrated Water Resources Plan.
During the drought from 1986 to 1991, emergency connections between the Santa Clarita
Water Company, Valencia Water Company, and the Newhall County Water District were
required to deliver State Water Project water to areas affected by the loss of well
production. The CLWA is confident that additional sources of water can be drawn upon in
the event of future droughts. In this regard, CLWA has additional water available through
the Monterey Agreement and also up to 12,700 acre-feet from groundwater in the Devil's
Den Water District in Kern County. The Monterey Agreement is an agreement between
agricultural and urban users of State Water Project contractors and allows transfer of up to
130,000 acre-feet of water between agricultural and urban users. Table 1-1 includes Devil's
Den Water supplies, but no existing or projected Monterey Agreement water.
City's Role in Water Delivery and Development
The City of Santa Clarita does not have a direct role in water delivery to the Valley.
However, the City notifies the water purveyors of each new development project. A
Development Review Committee Agency Comment Sheet is distributed to the water purveyors
by the Planning and Building Services Department. The water purveyors are asked to
provide comments and recommendations on all new developments relative to the
anticipated costs, infrastructure improvements, treatment and storage requirements, and
other water supply issues related to these projects.
Future Conditions
As shown in Table 1-1, the Valley has sufficient water resources to satisfy the demand
through the year 2010. However, water -supply banking programs will be necessary to
improve the reliability of water deliveries. A water -banking program would involve the
storage of water in underground basins or open reservoirs for use during those times when
there are droughts and/or shortages affecting the State Water Project water supply.
Implementation of water banking would create the need for substantial new infrastructure,
potentially including construction of reservoirs, recharge basins, and piping and pumping
systems.
A more detailed analysis of future conditions is currently being performed by the CLWA as
part of the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) they are developing for the Santa
Clarita Valley. Water -banking and other conservation measures are being investigated as
sco972930011.Doc117
C1
I
CJ
I
I
I
11
I
1
1
H
I
I
[JI
r_1,
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CLARITA • INFRASTRUCTUREMASTER PLAN
part of the IWRP. The IWRP Oversight Committee includes representatives from the four
local water retailers and the City of Santa Clarita. The goal for the IWRP is to produce a
study accepted by all stakeholders that can be used as the water master planning tool for
the future of the Santa Clarita Valley. A draft of the Phase I portion of the IWRP is expected
to be completed this year.
CLWA has also prepared a reclaimed water Master Plan to provide reclaimed water to the
area's golf courses, freeway landscaping, and open -space irrigation. The system is planned
to ultimately provide 8,700 acre-feet of reclaimed water, which is equal to the future
projected demand for reclaimed water.
If the City Council entertained the idea of purchasing a water purveyor currently serving
the Santa Clarita Valley, there would need to be a detailed assessment of the water
purveyor's system. This assessment would include existing infrastructure and system
deficiencies, current and future supply/demand, and required capital improvements for
existing systems and future development.
Sphere of Influence
The City of Santa Clarita was incorporated in December 1987. The area within the City
limits currently encompasses about 44 square miles. Three boundaries are typically
established when a city incorporates. These boundaries consist of the City Limit, Urban
Service Areas, and the Sphere of Influence. For Santa Clarita, incorporation occurred
without the adoption of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) or Urban Service Areas. These
boundaries have major implications for land use planning, infrastructure management, and
control of development on a city's borders.
The Regional Planning Areas and City Limits are depicted in Figure 2, which is derived
from the Santa Clarita General Plan.
Background
Since incorporation, Santa Clarita has applied twice to the Los Angeles County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approval of an SOI. The first application was
made in 1989, and the requested SOI area covered approximately 160 square miles. For
various reasons, one of them being that LAFCO felt that Santa Clarita's SOI area was larger
than the area into which Santa Clarita ultimately might grow, the first SOI request was not
approved. Instead of approving the Santa Clarita request, LAFCO approved a SOI
boundary that was coterminous with the Santa Clarita City limit line.
Santa Clarita filed a second SOI application with LAFCO in 1991, again proposing the same
160 -square -mile area that was proposed with the first application. The second application
was filed not long after the City's adoption of its General Plan, which occurred in June 1991.
The second application was also denied by LAFCO, for many of the same reasons that the
first application was denied. Therefore, the current SOI boundary for Santa Clarita remains
the same as the City limit line.
Since 1989, LAFCO has amended the SOI and City limit line to permit several annexations
jwhich were completed by the City. There are currently several other annexation proposals
in various stages of development. Annexation requests by the City are typically approved
ISC0972930011AOC117
TO BAKERSFIELD
TO 5AN FERNANDO
TO
I
LI
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
11'
I
I
I
f -
LI
I
I
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CrrY OF SANTA CDMA ♦ INFRASMUCTUREMASTER PUN
by LAFCO if there is property owner support and the parcels are contiguous to existing
City boundaries.
According to Jeff Lambert, Santa Clarita's Planning Manager, the City will not be pursuing
an SOI application this year (in 1997), but eventually hopes to get to a point where an
"approvable" application will be filed, which may occur in 1998. To get to this point, the
City hopes to conduct a "Governance Summit" later this year, which will use town
meetings, focus groups, and information outreach to help the City define key development
and "quality of life" issues for the community. As part of this Governance Summit, the City
may invite a "panel of experts" on urban development issues, including SOIs and high
quality development. From this effort, the City may then identify an SOI that reflects the
community's vision, and would prepare an SOI application with the goal of having broader
community and County support.
County Areawide Plan
Land use in the unincorporated areas surrounding the City of Santa Clarita is governed by
Los Angeles County. The County adopted the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan
in 1984. This plan addresses each of the existing communities within Santa Clarita Valley,
and proposes land uses and development densities designed to recognize each
community's development and its place in relation to the Los Angeles Basin and the
Antelope Valley. The County's Areawide Plan, which was amended in 1990, will continue
to govern land use in unincorporated areas until those areas are annexed to the City. The
1990 update of the Areawide Plan was precipitated by numerous requests for amendments
to the Plan to allow new development in the area.
In addition to the Areawide Plan, many "specific plans" for areas in the Santa Clarita Valley
have been adopted by the County. These include the Santa Fe Ranch Specific Plan,
Clougherty Ranch Specific Plan, Canyon Park Specific Plan, Northlake Specific Plan,
Stevenson Ranch Specific Plan, Valencia Company Master Plan, and the Castaic Corridor
Plan. Each of these documents identifies the proposed land uses within the Specific Plan
boundaries, how public services are to be provided, and development standards for specific
projects.
Development Control
Most cities in California have SOI boundaries that are larger than their city limit lines.
Santa Clarita is atypical in this respect, because its SOI is coterminous with its City limit
line. The normal process for review of development applications that are proposed in
county unincorporated areas but are within a city's SOI is that the applicant files first with
the county. The county then refers the application to the city for a determination whether
the property should be annexed to the city prior to development. If the city determines that
annexation is desirable, the property would go through the annexation process and the
city's development standards would be applied. If annexation is not recommended, the
property may be developed in the county and the county development standards would be
applied.
Because Santa Clarita's SOI is the same as its City limit line, it has very limited jurisdiction
or control over what occurs in its surrounding unincorporated areas. According to Mr.
Lambert, the City currently receives application referrals from Los Angeles County for
projects in the Santa Clarita Planting Area just like any other "interested party" or property
SC0972930011.DOC/17 10
IE%EcuwE Summoy - CRY OF SANTA CWiITA♦ INFNAmucTvREWTER RAN
I
I
I
I
I
LI
I
I
I
1
[_1
I
I
I
I
I
owner. The City has the opportunity to review and comment on these development
proposals, but there is no legal standing to the City's comments or recommendations. If the
County does not incorporate the City's recommendations into the project or take the City's
comments into consideration, the only recourse left to the City would be to file suit through
the courts which the City has done in the past and may continue to do until an SOI is
adopted.
According to Mr. Lambert, the City is currently trying to develop a more proactive
approach to its review of County development proposals. In addition to reacting to
development applications when they are referred to the City, the City is preparing a list of
its own development standards including infrastructure that it would like the County to
apply to these new developments, particularly those which are in County areas adjacent to
or within the viewshed of Santa Clarita. Although there has beenno formal commitment
made by the County to implement the City's development standards on projects located in
the County, the City is hopeful that this proactive approach will improve the planning
review process between the two agencies.
Planning Implications
The lack of a sphere of influence beyond the city limits does not meet the City's General
Plan goal of managing growth to ensure both orderly development and development that
comes with sufficient infrastructure. In addition, the City has identified in the General Plan
the "Valley Center" concept, which recommends that more intensive uses and densities are
located in the central area of the City, with lesser densities and intensities provided in
outlying areas. The General Plan states that "County recognition and assistance in the
accomplishment of the Valley Center will be an important component of the City/County
future relationship" (Santa Clarita General Plan, page I-7). If relatively intense development
is allowed to occur in the County at the edge of the city limit line, the Valley Center concept
might not be achieved and could be compromised.
In order to gain more control over the future use of land outside its City limits, Santa Clarita
must pursue the adoption of a sphere of influence boundary that is larger than its city limit
line. As indicated above, the City has filed such an application twice in the past, and is
currently working towards the concept of an "approvable" SOI through community
workshops and focus groups.
Infrastructure Geographic Information System
The Infrastructure Master Plan included an overview of potential applications of a
Geographic Information System (GIS) for managing and maintaining the City's various
infrastructure elements. This overview assessed what comparable cities have done with
GIS. for their public works infrastructure.
For example, the City of Simi Valley adopted a General Plan Comprehensive Update in
1988. The City Council expressed a desire to see further computerization of the City's
geographic information and permit issuance services as part of this update. In 1994, the
City identified a GIS project as a priority with the City's MIS Strategic Plan, MIS 2000. For
the first three years (1994-1996) of GIS implementation, the City established a budget of
$400,000 for non -turnkey GIS including hardware, software, and initial map conversion
services. The $400,000 did not include the full cost of water/sewer map conversions and
other data capture. The City hired a GIS coordinator to identify the additional data needs,
ISC0972930011.DO 17 11
IEXECUTNE SUMMARY CITY OF SANTA CLAHITA ♦ INFiLASTAUCTUREMASTEH PLAN
review GIS configuration alternatives, and develop recommendations. The GIS coordinator
estimated the cost of the City's GIS program to be $230,000 to $395,000 annually for a period
T of 7 years.
As part of a GIS outsourcing study, City of Simi Valley staff surveyed 14 other public
agencies that had initiated projects to implement GIS systems. The cities surveyed
included: Alhambra, Burbank, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Encinitas, Fresno, Glendale, Ontario,
Oxnard, Palmdale, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, Santa Monica, and Ventura. The survey
showed that none of the municipalities contacted have fully outsourced GIS functions. The
survey also indicated that the GIS project costs to date in the cities surveyed ranged from
$250,000 to $12 million.
In another example, the City of Ontario recently conducted a study to determine the
financial benefits of an enterprise GIS system for:
• Parcel audit utilizing licenses and fire inspection databases (estimated benefit of
$262,600 to $2.9 million)
• Audit unlicensed businesses within City limits (estimated benefit of $154,000, cost
avoidance of $10,675, and 3 to 4 months of time savings)
• NPDES permit audit (estimated benefit of $84,000), and map production (actual savings
of $29,000).
The City of Santa Clarita Planning Department is currently initiating a consultant contract
to perform a feasibility study and implement a GIS -driven Development Monitoring
System, consistent with the City's General Plan.
1
I
I
I
u
11
I
1 SC0972930011.DOC/17 12
I
[1,
2. Street Network, Street Lights, and Traffic
Controls
This element of the Master Plan analyzed the street network, including arterials and local
streets, bridges, street lighting, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaped medians, traffic
controls, transit access facilities, and pavement maintenance. It identified the deficiencies of
this street network, both existing and at "build -out" of the City's General Plan. City staff
may use this document to prioritize and schedule improvements within the identified
planning areas of the City of Santa Clarita. The integration of the infrastructure elements
within the Master Plan will also facilitate infrastructure budgeting and maintenance
management. Table 2-1 contains a preliminary estimate of costs for correcting the identified
deficiencies in the street, lighting and traffic control system. For existing arterials and local
streets, the percentage of deficiency derived for cost estimating was a qualitative estimate,
the accuracy of which is ±10 percent; deficiency costs include a contingency factor of
50 percent to provide the factor of safety needed in planning level estimates.
j
Existing Street Network
The current circulation system is a network of state highways, county roads and developer -
funded roadways consisting of five roadway types: major highways, secondary highways,
limited secondary highways, collectors, and local streets. The expansion of the roadway
system has generally occurred in conjunction with the development of adjacent properties.
The City currently has 70 miles of arterials and secondary highways, 230 miles of local
streets and 9,781 street lights.
The City of Santa Clarita's circulation system consists of five roadway types:
1. Major highways consist of six lanes with limited vehicular access to the roadway though
driveways and streets; the roadway is divided by a raised or striped median with left -
turn pockets at intersections; and the roadway generally intersects with other major
highways at approximately 1/4 -mile intervals.
I
1 S00972930011.000/17 13
2. Secondary highways have four lanes with limited vehicular access from driveways and
streets; the roadway usually has raised or painted medians with left -turn pockets at
intersections; intersections along major secondary highways are at approximately
1/8 -mile intervals.
3. Limited secondary highways are planned as two-lane, undivided roadways with partial.
control of access; they serve as local routes and connect major and secondary highways.
4. Collector streets gather traffic from local streets and distribute it to the limited
secondary or secondary highways. They also provide direct access to neighborhoods
and commercial businesses.
I
1 S00972930011.000/17 13
IEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITYoF SANTA CwuA# INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PIAN
Intersections
Thirty-four critical intersections identified by City staff were evaluated to verify if existing
traffic demands were accommodated by the intersection geometry, including number of
left -turn lanes, right -turn lanes, and through lanes. Of these 34 intersections, 19 were
identified by City staff as having existing capacity or operational deficiencies requiring
improvements within the next 2 to 3 years and 24 were predicted to require new or
additional improvements to accommodate anticipated build -out traffic conditions at some
time in the future.
I100972930011.DOCl17 14
5. Local streets provide access to adjacent residential land uses and feed traffic to collectors
and other roads of higher classification. Local streets are two-lane, undivided roadways
with frequent driveway access.
Data on the existing arterial network, local street network and street light system were
obtained by the review of maps, aerial photographs, visual inspections, and discussions
with City staff. The infrastructure inventory included roadways, sidewalk, curb and gutter,
street lights, raised medians, and street trees (trees located in the median islands) along the
arterial system. This inventory identifies locations where these elements do not currently
exist, but should be located to meet City standards. Landscaping and irrigation in medians
are noted, if readily apparent, and the absence of street trees where required to meet City'
standards is documented. This inventory is not detailed for incidental maintenance
purposes, but for overall element deficiencies.
Local street elements inventoried included sidewalk, curb and gutter, and street lights. The
inventory deficiency percentages were derived from total linear length of paved local
roadways per area, using aerial photographs supplemented by field inspections of each
Planning Area. Local streets were evaluated based on whether or not the County standards
for sidewalk, curb and gutter, and street lights were met.
Future Street Network
Build -out improvements of the existing street system included new arterials and widening
of existing arterials. Information regarding the general location of new arterials was
provided by City staff and is subject to change as future developments and precise
alignments are approved. With exception of The Porta Bella Development, precise
horizontal alignments were not available for the Infrastructure Master Plan. The horizontal
alignments used were derived from a previous circulation study alternative, designated
Scenario 5 (Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, 1995). Precise vertical alignments have also not
been developed for the future arterials. For new arterials, it was assumed that in flat terrain
an earthwork balance between cut -and -fill is achievable. In steep terrain, it was assumed
that an average of 15 feet of fill would be required to construct the new roadway
embankment.
Nineteen new arterial projects were included in the Master Plan analysis. These arterials
are in various stages of planning from conceptual alignment studies to final design. Cost
estimates for the build -out condition were developed for these arterials and are included in
Table 2-1.
Intersections
Thirty-four critical intersections identified by City staff were evaluated to verify if existing
traffic demands were accommodated by the intersection geometry, including number of
left -turn lanes, right -turn lanes, and through lanes. Of these 34 intersections, 19 were
identified by City staff as having existing capacity or operational deficiencies requiring
improvements within the next 2 to 3 years and 24 were predicted to require new or
additional improvements to accommodate anticipated build -out traffic conditions at some
time in the future.
I100972930011.DOCl17 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
' EAECUTNE SMAARY CRY OF SAMA CLARITA♦ INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
The number of lanes required at each intersection to accommodate existing traffic volumes
was determined by City staff. Left -tum and right -turn lanes were added as recommended
with the minimum length of storage set at 300 feet on major intersections with a 120 -foot
taper and 200 feet on secondary intersections with a 90 -foot taper. Additional through lanes
were added to the next major intersection or for a minimum length of 1,000 feet.
For cost estimating purposes it was assumed that any outside widening required the
acquisition of right-of-way. There will be potential high cost and/or high impact right-of-
way acquisitions (schools, shopping centers, gas stations) at some locations which will
require consideration in prioritization of improvements by City staff. The components of
the cost for improving the intersections were pavement, sidewalk, right-of-way, street
lights, medians; landscaping, traffic signals, and bridges. An additional cost based on a
percentage of roadway improvements accommodated roadway additions, drainage
improvements, contingencies, and mobilization.
Traffic Controls
The City of Santa Clarita recently conducted a signal system feasibility study. The results of
this study are documented in the report City of Santa Clarita Signal System Feasibility Study
(JHK & Associates, August 1996). This Infrastructure Master Plan incorporates the relevant
portions of that study in an evaluation of Citywide traffic controls deficiencies,
improvements, and maintenance costs.
Basis of Cost Estimate
Costs were determined for four items within the City's signal system infrastructure; as
follows:
1. New Traffic Signal
2. Upgrade Traffic Signal
3. Interconnect
4. Central Computer
$120,000 per signal
$60,000 per signal upgrade
$30 per foot
$250,000
Items 1 and 2 were determined based on the experience of JHK & Associates in signal
design and preparation of cost estimates for previous full traffic signal installation and
upgrades. Items 3 and 4 were determined from the Signal System Feasibility Study. There
are currently 86 traffic signals installed or in the process of being built by the end of 1997
and the City will have 132 signals under its jurisdiction by build -out.
Existing Deficiencies
It is estimated that six traffic signals will be installed in 1997. After measuring the
deficiencies in signal interconnects, the study determined there is a need for 13.3 miles of
interconnect. Planning Area 2 will need 69 percent of the total interconnect, while the
remaining interconnect is distributed throughout Planning Areas 6 and 9. Also, no central
T computer is scheduled to be purchased at this time.
■
I
1 SC0972930011.D=17 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTNE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CURRA ♦ INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PUN
Build -out Deficiencies
Deficiencies for build -out were determined from January 1997 and beyond. The City is
expected to increase from 86 to 132 traffic signals fully under its jurisdiction as the City is
built -out. Therefore, 46 new signals should be built and under the City's jurisdiction by
build -out. Since six new signals are being built in 1997, it was assumed that approximately
six additional signals will be phased in each year until build -out occurs. The selection and
priority of installation of new signals should be determined on an as -needed basis by the
City's Traffic Engineer.
Signal interconnect deficiencies were determined by the feet of interconnect needed to
connect future and existing signals to the existing network. A total of 29.3 miles of
additional signal interconnect was determined to be needed. Additionally, it was
determined in the City of Santa Clarita Signal System Feasibility Study that hybrid systems can
offer more capabilities but would require the purchase of a new central computer, software,
and integration services. Therefore, the cost of such an upgrade should be added to the
build -out scenario as an optional build -out cost to keep up with future advances in
technology.
Transit Access
The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for the City of Santa Clarita (March 25,1996) has a
4 -year planning horizon (1997 - 2000). It identifies specific capital and operations projects
requiring funding through the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(LACMTA). The SRTP includes goals and objectives covering both long and short range
transit planning efforts. The main thrust of the goals and objectives is to increase the role
that transit plays in the Santa Clarita Valley. One specific goal is to provide safe pedestrian
access between each bus stop and all development within 1/4 mile. In addition, the Santa
Clarita Transit Transportation Development Plan outlines a set of Development Guidelines.
One guideline calls for retrofitting sidewalks, constructing missing waiting pads in
developed areas, and building paths leading to them where existing facilities are lacking.
Sidewalks and paved waiting places are notably absent on many segments along Santa
Clarita Transit routes including areas near many of the logical boarding and alighting
points. The new Transit Transportation Development Plan recommends restricting bus
turn -outs only "where they can be constructed with sufficient length to provide a
satisfactory acceleration lane for transit vehicles, facilitating their safe and efficient reentry
to the traffic stream." Consistent with this guideline, the Infrastructure Master Plan
provided data on existing bus stop access deficiencies and associated costs to provide
necessary improvements. The analysis does not address arterial segments which are not
presently built, but are shown on build -out plans and would be required for full
implementation of future bus route extensions.
Bridges
A total of 69 bridges were determined to be located in the City. Of these, the City holds
100 percent jurisdiction of 61 bridges, 50 percent jurisdiction of 4 bridges, and no
jurisdiction of 4 bridges; the latter two categories indicate joint or full jurisdiction by the
County of Los Angeles. Costs for correcting existing bridge deficiencies were calculated
ISC0972930011.000117 16
IExECUnYE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CURrrA♦ INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PUN
1 only for bridges at the 34 critical intersections discussed above, given that the Master Plan
1
I
1
_1
L__I
I
Cost data in this Master Plan element will need to be updated as the precise alignments of
build -out arterials are developed and specific earthwork requirements and bridge layouts
become known. Furthermore, it is recommended that proposed intersection improvements
be prioritized and design studies be conducted to determine specific geometric and
operational requirements and costs. An additional consideration would be to input the
results of this street and lighting infrastructure study to the Geographic Information System
(GIS) being developed for the stormwater system or the development monitoring system
being proposed.
TABLE 2.1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DEFICIENCY CASTS BY PLANNING AREA
BUILD - OUT
Total TOTAL EXISTING COST COST Total
Planning Area 1
Arterial Highways 48,950 In. ft. $ 10,148,200 $ -
Local Streets 118.800 In. ft. $ 1,903,080 $
Intersections $ $ 433,800
Traffic Control $ 120,000 $ 570,000
Proposed - Highways & Bridges $ - $
1 Planning Area 2
1
1
1
Arterial Highways
Local Streets
Intersections
Traffic Control
Proposed - Highways & Bridges
Total $ 12,171,280 $ 1,003,800 $ 13,175,080
74,660 In. ft. $ 11,210,030 $ -
253,800 In. ft. $ 904,284
$ 2,739,450 $ 7,193,400
$ 531,000 $ 1,785,000
4,800 In. ft. $ $ 15,393,955
Total $ 15,384,764 $ 24,372,355 $ 39,757,119
1 SCO972930011.DOG17 17
did not assess Citywide arterial/bridge capacity deficiencies. Of these, two bridges were
found to have existing deficiencies requiring widening within the next few years. Thirteen
'
new bridges were identified in the build -out costs for the City's future expanded arterial
street system.
Preliminary Estimate of Deficiency and Build -out Costs
'
Table 2-1 provides a breakdown of the current Citywide deficiency costs and build -out costs
for arterial highways, local streets, major intersections, traffic controls, and bridges. Arterial
and local street costs include sidewalks, curb and gutter, medians, street lights, and median
3
landscaping. Deficiencies and costs are broken down by the ten planning communities
described in the City General Plan. The total cost for existing deficiency improvements
Citywide is estimated to be $82,901,172, in addition, Citywide bus stop access deficiencies
are estimated to require improvements totaling $190,500 for pedestrian access ramps.
Build -out costs are estimated to total $213,019,345.
1
I
1
_1
L__I
I
Cost data in this Master Plan element will need to be updated as the precise alignments of
build -out arterials are developed and specific earthwork requirements and bridge layouts
become known. Furthermore, it is recommended that proposed intersection improvements
be prioritized and design studies be conducted to determine specific geometric and
operational requirements and costs. An additional consideration would be to input the
results of this street and lighting infrastructure study to the Geographic Information System
(GIS) being developed for the stormwater system or the development monitoring system
being proposed.
TABLE 2.1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DEFICIENCY CASTS BY PLANNING AREA
BUILD - OUT
Total TOTAL EXISTING COST COST Total
Planning Area 1
Arterial Highways 48,950 In. ft. $ 10,148,200 $ -
Local Streets 118.800 In. ft. $ 1,903,080 $
Intersections $ $ 433,800
Traffic Control $ 120,000 $ 570,000
Proposed - Highways & Bridges $ - $
1 Planning Area 2
1
1
1
Arterial Highways
Local Streets
Intersections
Traffic Control
Proposed - Highways & Bridges
Total $ 12,171,280 $ 1,003,800 $ 13,175,080
74,660 In. ft. $ 11,210,030 $ -
253,800 In. ft. $ 904,284
$ 2,739,450 $ 7,193,400
$ 531,000 $ 1,785,000
4,800 In. ft. $ $ 15,393,955
Total $ 15,384,764 $ 24,372,355 $ 39,757,119
1 SCO972930011.DOG17 17
ExECUnYE SUMMARY OTYOFSAMA CLARRA ♦ INFRASMUCTURE WSTER PLAN
TABLE 2.1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DEFICIENCY COSTS BY PLANNING AREA
BUILD -OUT
Total TOTAL EXISTING COST COST Total
'
Planning Area 3
67,242 In. ft. $
10,846,221
$
-
Local Streets
Arterial Highways
28,800 In. fL
$
5,381,450
$
Intersections
$
Local Streets
19,000 In. It.
$
724,800
$
-
58,000
Intersections
. 3,695,000
$
' 1,017,600
$
1,926,000
$
Traffic Control
$
-
$
750,000
76,202,056 $ 89,761,207
Proposed - Highways & Bridges
26,700 In. it.
$
$
20,022,533
Planning Area 4
Total
$
7,123,850
$
22,698,533 $ 29,822,383
Arterial Highways
30,760 In. it:
$
7,410,513
$
-
Local Streets
77,100 In. it.
$
251,406
$
-
Intersections
$
531,000
$
2,067,300
Traffic Control
$
480,000
$
1,080,000
Proposed - Highways & Bridges
7,680
$
$
7,833,902
--
Total
$
8,672,919
$
10,981,202 $ 19,654,121
Planning Area 5
Arterial Highways
48,837 In. ft.
$
10,901,517
$
-
Local Streets
230,500 In.fL
$
603,820
$
'
Intersections
Traffic Control
$
2,098,800
$
1,586,475
$
$
1,950,000
Proposed- Highways & Bridges
$
$
4,159,386
'
Total
$
13,604,137
$
7,695,861 $ 21,299,998
Planning Area 6
SCO97293D011.DOG17 18
Arterial Highways
67,242 In. ft. $
10,846,221
$
-
Local Streets
254,500 In. ft. $
609,580
$
-
Intersections
$
1,045,350
$
6,347,100
Traffic Control
$
58,000
$
. 3,695,000
Proposed - Highways & Bridges
19,600 In. ft.
$
66,159,956
Total $
12,559,151
$
76,202,056 $ 89,761,207
SCO97293D011.DOG17 18
I
I
I
II
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CrrY OF SANTA CLARITA ♦ AFAASTRUCTURE MASTER PUN
TABLE 2.1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DEFICIENCY COSTS BY PLANNING AREA
BUILD - OUT
Total TOTAL EXISTING COST COST Total
Planning Area 7
Arterial Highways 14,892 In. ft. $ 1,041,500 $ -
Local Streets 79,000 In. ft $ 215,940 $ -
Intersections $ - $ -
Traffic Control $ - $ 630,000
Proposed - Highways & Bridges $ $
Total $ 1,257,440 $ 630,000 $ 1,687,440
Planning Area 8
Arterial Highways 17,344 In. ft $ 5,979,793 $
Local Streets 48,700 In. ft. $ - $ -
Intersections $ - $ -
Traffic Control $ - $ 144,000
Proposed - Highways & Bridges - $ $ 833,250
Total $ 5,979,793 '$ 977,250 $ 6,957,043
Planning Area 9
Arterial Highways 37,462 In. ft. $ 4,961,852 $ -
Local Streets 135,100 In. ft. $ 437,286 $ -
Intersections $ - $
Traffic Control $ 350,000 $ 3,120,000
Proposed - Highways & Bddges 62,530 In. ft. $ - $ 58,914,838
Total $ 5,749,138 $ 62,034,838 $ 67,783,976
Planning Area 10
Arterial Highways
1,790In. ft.
$
188,550
$
-
Local Streets
47,300 In. ft.
$
-
$
-
Intersections
$
210,150
$
1,575,450
Traffic Control
$
$
42,000
Proposed - Highways & Bridges
9,000 In. tL
$
-
$
4,806,000
Total
$
398,700
$
6,423,450
$ 6,822,150
Total for all 10 Planning Areas
$
62,901,172
$
213,019,345
$ 295,920,517
Additional City-wide Needs
Transit Access Ramps
381 Units
$ 190,500
$ 296,111,017
Estimated Total Cost
$ 296,1D0,000
SC0972930011.DOC/17 19
The County and City have different perceptions of the level of signal maintenance service
currently being provided. The service provider's perception appears to be that the
responsiveness to City's needs is good. The City's perception of the service being provided
is less favorable. These differences in perception can be attributed to several factors such as
control of timing, frequency and quality of routine maintenance inspection walk-throughs,
and time required to service bad detectors.
The City has two options other than the current County maintenance program. These two
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF SPMA CUR TA ♦ MFRASTRUCTUREMASTER FUN
organization. Private contractors play a significant role in the maintenance of traffic signals
Street Infrastructure Maintenance
services including heavy construction and initial installation, preventive maintenance,
Signal Maintenance Program
Eighty-six signals are fully under the jurisdiction of the City. As the City develops, the
i
number of traffic signals under the jurisdiction of the City is likely to increase to 132. The
City should select the most suitable maintenance approach for those locations fully under
its jurisdiction based on local concerns and input. The City of Santa Clarita currently has an
overall signal maintenance budget of $170,000 and use's the Operational Services Division of
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to provide signal maintenance. Tlie
County's maintenance program offers Santa Clarita a full spectrum of signal maintenance
services.
The County and City have different perceptions of the level of signal maintenance service
currently being provided. The service provider's perception appears to be that the
responsiveness to City's needs is good. The City's perception of the service being provided
is less favorable. These differences in perception can be attributed to several factors such as
control of timing, frequency and quality of routine maintenance inspection walk-throughs,
and time required to service bad detectors.
A number of cities in Southern California have their own signal maintenance organizations.
' Such organizations become reasonably cost-effective when a high level of attention to local
needs is required and when the number of signals maintained is greater than 60. It is
common for cities to have their own maintenance department if more than 100 intersections
are in their jurisdiction. This suggests that signal maintenance by City of Santa Clarita staff
would be a viable alternative.
After discussions with City staff it is understood that the overall goal for the City is to
transition into a private contractor service in the near term, with the long-term goal being a
Dedicated City Maintenance Organization. This phasing should take place over a period of
approximately 8 to 10 years, with the City maintaining approximately 132 signals by
build -out.
Pavement Management
According to the Pavement Management Plan prepared by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works in 1994, the City of Santa Clarita maintains 5,565,000 square
' SCO972930011.DOC117 20
The City has two options other than the current County maintenance program. These two
alternatives are: 1) a private maintenance contractor, or 2) a dedicated city maintenance
organization. Private contractors play a significant role in the maintenance of traffic signals
in Southern California. Contractors normally provide a full range of signal maintenance
services including heavy construction and initial installation, preventive maintenance,
controller testing and repair, emergency response, and a spare parts inventory. Contractors
can often offer services more efficiently than small public agencies because more intensive
i
use is made of expensive capital equipment such as vehicles, construction equipment, and
test equipment; however, there are disadvantages including the need for City supervision to
ensure that services are performed in a timely and appropriate manner as specified in the
contract.
A number of cities in Southern California have their own signal maintenance organizations.
' Such organizations become reasonably cost-effective when a high level of attention to local
needs is required and when the number of signals maintained is greater than 60. It is
common for cities to have their own maintenance department if more than 100 intersections
are in their jurisdiction. This suggests that signal maintenance by City of Santa Clarita staff
would be a viable alternative.
After discussions with City staff it is understood that the overall goal for the City is to
transition into a private contractor service in the near term, with the long-term goal being a
Dedicated City Maintenance Organization. This phasing should take place over a period of
approximately 8 to 10 years, with the City maintaining approximately 132 signals by
build -out.
Pavement Management
According to the Pavement Management Plan prepared by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works in 1994, the City of Santa Clarita maintains 5,565,000 square
' SCO972930011.DOC117 20
ExEcun/E SUMA4RY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA • INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PIAN
yards of asphalt pavements in their street system. It is estimated that all the additions to the
City pavements through annexations amount to 10 percent of the 1994 system, resulting in
6,121,500 square yards currently maintained. Approximately one-half of Santa Clarita's
pavements were field reviewed regarding their conditions, overlay thickness requirements,
previous maintenance efforts and condition of utility trenches. Table 2-2 is a summary of
field observations and contains pavement areas and estimated rehabilitation costs for each
of the 10 planning areas.
Pavement Reconstruction
Major repairs requiring pavement and base removals and/or resurfacing programs are _
managed by the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the Transportation and
Engineering Services Department. Likewise, the slurry seal projects are also managed by
the CII' group.
The City of Santa Clarita utilizes Los Angeles County services for some of the street
maintenance as needed by service requests to augment the major work being performed by
the City's Field Services Department. Some of the preparation work required for both
slurry seal and overlay projects is also performed by the County by way of service requests.
Pavement Program Compared With Other Cities
Meetings were held with Mr. Dennis Welch, Santa Clarita Street Supervisor, and pavement
maintenance officials of five other cities of comparable size to determine how Santa
Clarita's pavement program compares with other cities whose populations are in the
100,000 to 200,000 range. Those cities were El Monte, Glendale, Moreno Valley, Ontario,
and Pomona. The results of those meetings are shown in Table 2-3.
The average population of the six cities is 145,000, just about the same as Santa Clarita.
However, the average pavement area for those cities is 9,196,800 square yards, considerably
more than Santa Clarita's pavement system. In general, Santa Clarita's streets were in much
better condition than the comparison cities' streets. Four of the five comparison cities were
older communities. The fifth city, Moreno Valley, experienced rapid growth about the same
time as Santa Clarita.
Based on annual slurry seal expenditures per 1,000 square yards of pavement, the average
frequency of slurry seal application was computed. Table 2-3 shows that Santa Clarita has
the lowest and best frequency of application, at the current rate of 5 years. This is one of the
reasons that Santa Clarita's streets are in such good condition. Pavement Engineers
generally recommend a 5- to 7 -year frequency of application.
Data was provided for Santa Clarita slurry seal and overlay programs for the 1992-93 to the
' 1994-95 budget years. Using averages for those 3 years, comparisons are made with the five
cities and Santa Clarita in Table 2-3. It should be noted that Santa Clarita spends less
money on resurfacing than four of the other five cities.
IEstimated Maintenance Budget and Frequency
The pavements in Santa Clarita are presently in good condition. However, if Santa Clarita
does not increase their annual pavement management budget, maintenance will fall behind
and Citywide pavement conditions will deteriorate. To prevent this, it is recommended
that the City increase their annual slurry seal budget to $1,225,000, which would provide an
ISCO972930011.DOC/17 21
U
1
1
SCO972930011.DOC117 22
MASTER PIAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CIARITA • INFRASTRUCTURE
average frequency of application of 5 years. Considering current resurfacing practices, as a
result of field observations of about one half of the streets in the system, a total of $2,799,200
needs to be spent for that portion of the street system (Table 2-2). Extrapolating to the entire
pavement system, $6,470,000 worth of resurfacing should be considered when formulating
future years' budgets. If a 5 -year program is implemented for resurfacing, an annual
'
budget of $1,294,000 would be required.
TABLE 2.2
Pavement Maintenance Management Pian
Summary of Field Evaluations for Pavement Resurfacing
Estimated
Pavement Area Rehabilitation Cost
Planning No. Square Yards (1;000 Dollars)
1 314,434 103.6
2 751,029 967.8
3 102,493 120.4
4 129,410 15.0
5 377,836 887.8
6 941,012 485.9
7 144,515 157.5
8 61,140 25.0
9 336,761 36.2
10 30,387 0.0
Totals 3,189,017 $2,799.2
Combining the recommended seal coating and resurfacing budgets ($1,225,000 for seal
coating and $1,294,000 for resurfacing), a total of $2,519,000 budgeted annually for the next
5 years should keep Santa Clarita's pavements in proper condition (see Table 2-3). This is
about the amount spent in fiscal year 1993-94. However, the recommended budget is
I
approximately $1,200,000 more than the amount spent for slurry sealing and resurfacing in
fiscal year -1994-95. It should be emphasized that the recommended budget for Santa
Clarita's pavements would still be less than four of the five comparable cities evaluated in
this study. By maintaining the above recommended budget and present operation
practices, Santa Clarita's pavements should continue to be in good condition.
'i
U
1
1
SCO972930011.DOC117 22
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CrrY OF SANTA CLARITA ♦ INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
TABLE 2.3
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE COMPARISONS
Moreno
City EI Monte Glendale Valley Ontario Pomona Santa Clarita
Population
112,000
194,000
130,000
147,000
140,000
147,000
Street Miles
126.0
356.9
597.0
490.0
350.0
216.6
Pavement Area
3,091.0
9,317.5
15,585.7
12,792.3
7,383.3
6,121.5
(1,000 Sq. Yds.)
Slurry Seal Budget
200.0
265.0
750.0
200.0
500.0
1,225.0
(1,000 $)
Area Sealed Per Year
421.1
557.9
1,578.9
421.1
1,052.6
1,225.0
(1,000 Sq. Yds.)
Slurry Seal Application
7.4
16.7
9.9
30.4
7.0
5.0
Frequency in Years
Resurfacing Budget
2,000.0
1,400.0
1,391.3
1,300.0
2,150.0
1,294.0
(1,000 $)
Resurfacing Budget
647.0
150.2
89.3
101.6
291.2
211.4
Per 1,000,000 Sq. Yds.
in Street System
Total Pavement Budget
2,415.0
4,145.0
3,448.2
3,006.0
6,425.0
2,519.0
(1,000 $)
Total Pavement Budget
781.3
444.9
221.2
239.7
870.2
411.5
Per 1,000,000 Sq. Yds.
in Street System
Bridge Maintenance
The cost of maintaining a bridge is dependent on a number of factors, including the bridge
age, the material the bridge was constructed from, and the condition rating. Maintenance
costs rise with bridge age. Annual maintenance cost and bridge age were assessed against
the cost per square foot of deck area to maintain it. The condition rating of the deck,
superstructure, and substructure on each bridge was also factored in the maintenance cost
estimate. Those structures with no known rating were assigned the City average rating.
Because the City's timber bridges are recently constructed, the maintenance cost of these
structures is expected to be low. They were assigned the same cost as concrete bridges.
Bridge replacement costs were not considered.
The cost of maintaining the City's 61 bridges was determined using this methodology. The
study concluded that the City's annual bridge maintenance cost is estimated to be $168,800.
Street Lights
The primary street light maintenance expense is for energy and upkeep which is charged by
the Southern California Edison Company (Edison). All of the 9,800 street lights in the City
are owned and maintained by Edison. Based on information provided by City staff and an
SCO972930011.000/17 23
IExEcUnyE SUMMARY CITY OF SAMA CIARTA♦ NFRASTRUCTUREMAS TER ROAN
Iinterview conducted with Edison personnel, it was determined that the maintenance cost
The general requirements for publicly managed landscape medians within the City include:
• All work shall be performed in accordance with the best landscape maintenance
practices and in keeping with the. high aesthetic level of the facilities being maintained.
• Trees and shrubs shall be pruned as frequently as necessary to preserve visual access for
automobile traffic.
• Trees and shrubs shall be pruned to maintain their natural form.
• Dead flowers shall be removed and replaced with annual color plants where required to
maintain a continuous field of flowers.
The cost of the required maintenance needed for proper care of landscaping including
I' labor, materials, trimming, irrigation, and administration is estimated at $0.01 per square
foot per month. This unit cost is based on industry standards and comparable cities'
landscape maintenance practices.
1
SCO972930011.DOC 17 24
for a street light and the electrical power to operate the light is $ 8.00 per month. This
maintenance cost includes lamps, photocells, starting aide, and cable repairs. Therefore, the
current street light operations maintenance cost to the City is calculated as follows:
(9800 x $ 8.00 )12 = $ 940,800. Not including administrative cost and incidentals.
The Street Lighting District operating budget for FY 1996/97, developed by the County of
Los Angeles, is $1,102,620.
In 1995, the City of Santa Clarita began exploring the feasibility of taking over the County
Lighting Maintenance District. The transfer of jurisdiction from County to City control
would resolve at least two major issues: 1) local control could be asserted over the level of
assessments and level of service, and 2) the County has been unwilling to use the available
reserves for improvements in the District. Currently, the City is in the process of taking
over management of the Lighting Maintenance District within the incorporated areas.
Landscaped Medians
The City's goal for the maintenance of its raised landscape medians is to enhance all
vegetation through proper care. High visibility landscape areas such as medians should
have a manicured appearance. In these areas, maintenance will increase the safety of users.
Safety and proper visibility can be achieved by maintaining pruned trees and trimming
ground covers away from walkways and other hardscape elements.
The general requirements for publicly managed landscape medians within the City include:
• All work shall be performed in accordance with the best landscape maintenance
practices and in keeping with the. high aesthetic level of the facilities being maintained.
• Trees and shrubs shall be pruned as frequently as necessary to preserve visual access for
automobile traffic.
• Trees and shrubs shall be pruned to maintain their natural form.
• Dead flowers shall be removed and replaced with annual color plants where required to
maintain a continuous field of flowers.
The cost of the required maintenance needed for proper care of landscaping including
I' labor, materials, trimming, irrigation, and administration is estimated at $0.01 per square
foot per month. This unit cost is based on industry standards and comparable cities'
landscape maintenance practices.
1
SCO972930011.DOC 17 24
I
1 3. Parks and Trails
1
This analysis identified current and future park and trail needs for Santa Clarita and
assessed current park maintenance program and costs. The study was divided into
13 planning areas -10 within the City boundaries and three outside the City's boundaries
1 (County Parks Planning Areas I, II, and III). Refer to Figure 2 for a map of the regional
planning areas outside the City limits. The study also produced a detailed Parks and Trails
Master Plan Map, which is included in the present Infrastructure Master Plan.
Parks and Trails Master Plan
The 10 existing developed City parks are spread throughout the City, and provide
recreation opportunities for a wide variety of residents. Existing undeveloped park sites
include sites currently owned by the City (i.e., Pamplico, Calgrove, Oak Springs, Central
City, Creekview, Via Princessa, and Whites Canyon), future conceptual park sites (i.e.,
Castaic Lake Water Agency and Vista del Lago Park Sites), and an existing private park that
could potentially become part of the City park system in the future (Northbridge Park).
The Santa Clara River is a central element of the City's open space and provides
outstanding recreation opportunities for its citizens. The proposed river park sites occur on
both sides of the river, and are intended to work closely with the river trail system.
Private, County, and State parks are included in the plan to indicate additional recreation
opportunities in the City. They have not been included in the inventory of City parks. For
example, Hart Park is an existing County park within the City boundary that provides a
significant recreational opportunity. Existing private parks occur primarily in City
Planning Area 2.
Existing and future trails are included in the Parks and Trails Master Plan. The location of
future trails is only conceptual at this time, and the location of these trails will be refined as
they are designed and implemented. The intention of the trail system is to provide a variety
of trail experiences, and access to many of the City's park and recreation facilities.
The only equestrian trail existing in the City lies along the South Fork of the Santa Clara
River. Equestrian trails on levee areas adjacent to Class I trails will require lodge pole
fencing separating the bike trail and the equestrian trail.. These trails may also include
decomposed granite surfacing. Rather than constructed decomposed granite trails in the
river bottom, these equestrian trails will likely consist of a simple system of carsonite posts
every 100 feet, indicating the location of the trail riding area. These posts are inexpensive
and will be easy to replace in case of damage or destruction due to flooding.
The major existing Class I trails occur along the Santa Clara River, Soledad Canyon Road,
the South Fork of the Santa Clara River, and Newhall Ranch Road. Class I trails will be
constructed according to Caltrans standards, and will be a minimum of 16 feet wide where
site conditions allow. Class I trails include one 10 -foot -wide asphalt paved trail with a
4 -foot -wide pedestrian trail and a 2 -foot clearance to any structures such as fencing. The
SCO972930011.DOC117 25
IEXEcom SUMMARY CITY OF SAMA CLARITA ♦ INFAASTAl1CTURE MASTER PUN
pedestrian trails will be paved with asphalt when the Class I trail occurs on levee areas. In
other areas, the pedestrian trails may include a decomposed granite surfacing.
i Identified Deficiencies
The Infrastructure Master Plan process for parks and trails began with research to create a
base of information for the planning effort. This baseline information included an
inventory of existing parks and trails, identification of future park and trail opportunities,
population analysis, and review of the City's parkland standard. This parkland standard or
goal is to provide 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents.
Park needs were assessed at the present time and approximately 10 years in the future. The
results indicate that the City has an immediate need to increase its inventory of parks in
order to meet the current need for recreation facilities. Only 76 acres of parks, located in
10 existing parks, are available to meet the identified demand of 773 acres within the City.
This results in a deficit of 697 acres. Within County Parks Planning Areas I, II, and III the
current need is well matched to the existing acres of parkland, located in 5 existing parks,
' resulting in an insignificant deficit of about 1 acre. The overall current deficit for the City
and the greater region (Planning Areas I, II, and III) remains high at an estimated 698 acres.
The City currently has 7,920 linear feet of developed equestrian trails and 62,370 linear feet
of Class I trails within its jurisdiction. There are 1,980 linear feet of Class I trails in Planning
Areas I, II, and III. No present deficiency has been identified for the City and County trail
system.
The City has identified 317 acres of future park projects within the current City boundaries
to help meet the identified acreage need of 943 acres in 10 years. This acreage is located in
10 planned City parks. This still leaves a deficit of 550 acres within the City, and a 575 -acre
total deficit within the City and surrounding region. There are three planned parks
presently within the County of Los Angeles. Prioritizing a significant number of proposed
projects for implementation over the next 5 years will help to address current deficiencies.
City staff has identified 128,199 linear feet of future equestrian trails and 95,707 linear feet of
future Class I trails within Santa Clarita. There are 67,670 linear feet of future equestrian
trails and 98,640 linear feet of future Class I trails proposed within County Parks Planning
Areas I, II, and III.
Estimated Costs
1 The parks and trails element of the Infrastructure Master Plan also estimated costs for
development of all future park and trail projects that have been identified by the City. In
addition, costs have been included for the development of the number of acres needed to
meet the existing parkland deficit. In the City and Planning Areas I, II, and III costs for
development of future parks along with costs for improvements to existing parks total
$217,011,341. Costs for development of future trails in the City and Planning Areas I, II,
and III total $40,096,078. The total development costs for park and trail projects in the City
and surrounding areas is estimated to be $257,107,419 in 1997 dollars (see Table 3-1). Costs
to acquire future parks are not a part of these dollar figures.
I�
SCO972930011.DOC/17 26
IEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CIARITA♦ hVFRASTRUCTUREMASTER PUN
I
I
Park Maintenance
Along with the capital cost of developing new parks and trails comes the operating expense
of providing for the maintenance of those facilities. Park maintenance expenditures are
anticipated to increase in the future, as the quantity and quality of parks and trails change.
Inflationary effects aside, in the future the City of Santa Clarita will likely maintain more
acres and more improvements per acre. The City is in the process of developing a
maintenance report that outlines current practices and identifies annual maintenance costs.
Current Maintenance Program
Currently, City staff performs all maintenance tasks, except for large-scale tree -trimming
operations., The City maintenance staff operates within the structure of three groups:
grounds maintenance, building maintenance, and urban forestry. All three groups
contribute to the maintenance of parks and trails, but their responsibilities include other
City facilities as well.
j The grounds maintenance group includes 1 supervisor and 14 employees. Roughly two-
thirds of the grounds maintenance personnel's time is spent in maintaining parks, with the
remaining time spent maintaining trails, medians, open space, and the corporate facility.
These crews are responsible for maintenance of turf areas, shrub and groundcover planting
areas, irrigation systems, sports courts, trash cans, and graffiti removal. The building
maintenance crew, includes 1 supervisor and 6 employees. These crews are responsible for
the recreational structures within the City, such as recreation centers, swimming pools,
playgrounds, and restrooms. The urban forestry group includes 1 supervisor and
I2 employees. The urban forestry group performs maintenance tasks for the City s street
SC0972930011.AOC117 27
TABLE 3.1
Summary of Parks and Trails Totals
Acres or
Miles
Estimated
Budget
Future Parks (City)
1,318
$204,455,381
Future Parks (Planning Areas 1, 11, and III)
103
$10,048,860
Proposed Improvements to Existing Parks
$2,507,100
(City)
Parks Total
1,421
$217,011,341
'
(City & 1, II, III)
Acres
Future Trails (City)
42
$20,876,000
Future Trails (Planning Areas 1, 11, and Ili)
32
$19,220,078
Trails Total
74
$40,096,078
(City & 1, II, III)
Miles
'
Parks & Trails Total
(City & I, 11, III)
$257,107,419
I
Park Maintenance
Along with the capital cost of developing new parks and trails comes the operating expense
of providing for the maintenance of those facilities. Park maintenance expenditures are
anticipated to increase in the future, as the quantity and quality of parks and trails change.
Inflationary effects aside, in the future the City of Santa Clarita will likely maintain more
acres and more improvements per acre. The City is in the process of developing a
maintenance report that outlines current practices and identifies annual maintenance costs.
Current Maintenance Program
Currently, City staff performs all maintenance tasks, except for large-scale tree -trimming
operations., The City maintenance staff operates within the structure of three groups:
grounds maintenance, building maintenance, and urban forestry. All three groups
contribute to the maintenance of parks and trails, but their responsibilities include other
City facilities as well.
j The grounds maintenance group includes 1 supervisor and 14 employees. Roughly two-
thirds of the grounds maintenance personnel's time is spent in maintaining parks, with the
remaining time spent maintaining trails, medians, open space, and the corporate facility.
These crews are responsible for maintenance of turf areas, shrub and groundcover planting
areas, irrigation systems, sports courts, trash cans, and graffiti removal. The building
maintenance crew, includes 1 supervisor and 6 employees. These crews are responsible for
the recreational structures within the City, such as recreation centers, swimming pools,
playgrounds, and restrooms. The urban forestry group includes 1 supervisor and
I2 employees. The urban forestry group performs maintenance tasks for the City s street
SC0972930011.AOC117 27
EXEcurnE SUMMARY CRYOFSANTA CURRA ♦ 7NFRASTRLICTUREU*7ER PUN
trees and park trees, such as tree staking, trimming, fertilizing, tree well maintenance, and
pest management. This group also provides emergency services, and responds to service
requests related to the City's trees.
As the City develops new parks and trails, additional personnel will need to be added to
each maintenance group. The following estimates were developed based on workload
records of existing maintenance personnel, and are intended to be used as general planning
guides, rather than as definite predictors of needs.
• The equivalent of one full-time staff person (grounds and building personnel) maintains
5.07 acres of full service park, which could include such facilities as a pool, park
building, basketball court, playground, turf, etc.
• The equivalent of one full-time staff person (grounds and building personnel) maintains
4.47 miles of multi -use trail, which includes repairing potholes, signage, fencing,
landscape, etc.
These guidelines can be used most effectively to estimate personnel needs for individual
projects as they are initiated and constructed. To apply these numbers to the entire acreage
of parkland or miles of trails needed within 10 years would skew information by ignoring
numerous variables such as specific site amenities at each site, future improvements in
maintenance equipment, increased (or decreased) personnel efficiency, and new levels of
management needed by an increased number of personnel.
The annual cost to maintain an acre of park is $7,712 for grounds maintenance. This
maintenance cost figure is based on City maintenance records, and updates the annual cost
of $4,231 per acre identified in the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Master Plan
(1995). The figure of $4,231 was a projection, because actual City records were not available
at the time.that report was developed. The current annual maintenance cost is higher than
projected because of the intensive programming of existing parkland, which requires more
intensive maintenance.
t As additional parks are developed, there will be less intense pressure on existing parkland.
Acres for passive activities in new parks will require less intensive maintenance. These
factors will help reduce the overall cost for annual maintenance. It is important to keep this
in mind when reviewing Table 3-2.
II
' SC0972930WIMOC/17.. 28
Current Maintenance Costs
The total annual budget for the grounds maintenance operations is $853,013. Of this total,
$568,913 is for personnel, and $284,100 is for operations and maintenance. The average
annual cost to the City for each of the 15 grounds maintenance employees is $37,928.
The total annual budget for building maintenance operations is $634,431. Of this total,
$249,031 is for personnel, and $385,400 is for operations and maintenance. The average
annual cost to the City for each of the seven building maintenance employees is $35,576.
The total annual budget for urban forestry operations is $522,590. Of this total, $125,590 is
for personnel, and $397,000 is for operations and maintenance. The average annual cost to
the City for each of the three urban forestry employees is $41,863.
The annual cost to maintain an acre of park is $7,712 for grounds maintenance. This
maintenance cost figure is based on City maintenance records, and updates the annual cost
of $4,231 per acre identified in the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Master Plan
(1995). The figure of $4,231 was a projection, because actual City records were not available
at the time.that report was developed. The current annual maintenance cost is higher than
projected because of the intensive programming of existing parkland, which requires more
intensive maintenance.
t As additional parks are developed, there will be less intense pressure on existing parkland.
Acres for passive activities in new parks will require less intensive maintenance. These
factors will help reduce the overall cost for annual maintenance. It is important to keep this
in mind when reviewing Table 3-2.
II
' SC0972930WIMOC/17.. 28
EXECunyE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CIAniTA ♦ INFRASTRUCTUREMASTER PUN
1
1
The cost to maintain 1 mile of trail per year is $6,012, based on City records. This cost does
not include material costs. According to City staff, the trails are fairly new, and there has
been minimal need for material replacement to this point. This annual maintenance cost is
for "multi -use" trails, which are Class I paved trails, with a parallel separate equestrian
trail.
The projections in Table 3-4 use the length of Class I trails because, in many cases, Class I
trails will have a parallel equestrian trail: In addition, the City does not have a breakdown
of trail costs per trail type. These cost projections should be used as a general guideline
only.
Isco972930011.DOU17 29
TABLE 3-2
Annual Maintenance Costs
tExisting
Parkland
Annual maintenance costs for existing parkland within the City are provided below. Costs to maintain any
1
improvements to existing parks will be covered by this annual cost.
city
76 acres x $7,712. per acre = $ 586,112Jyear (1996)
Future Parkland
Annual maintenance costs for the projected number of parkland acres needed in 10 years are:
city 943 acres x $7,712. per acre = $7,272,416.
1
Planning Areas I, II & III 368 acres x $7,712. per acre = $2,838,016.
Total 1,311 acres $10,110,432/year
In addition to the parkland acreage discussed above, the City has identified 451 acres of
river parks along the Santa Clara River (Table 3-3). The river parks do not meet criteria set
in the City's "Guidelines for Park Dedication," therefore, the acreage for these parks is not
applied towards the 5 acres/ 1,000 standard goal. The City does not have a figure based on
historical records for the cost to maintain open space, but the Draft Resource Allocation
Committee Report estimated that this cost would be $846 per year. That report also estimates
that 60 percent of the river parks would be open space and 40 percent would be developed
parkland.
TABLE M
Maintenance of River Parks
River Parks
Parkland (40% of 451 ac.) 180 acres x $7,712. per acre = $1,388,160
Open Space (60% of 451 ac) 271 acres x $846. Per acre = $ 229,266
Total 451 acres $1,617,426
t
_
1
1
The cost to maintain 1 mile of trail per year is $6,012, based on City records. This cost does
not include material costs. According to City staff, the trails are fairly new, and there has
been minimal need for material replacement to this point. This annual maintenance cost is
for "multi -use" trails, which are Class I paved trails, with a parallel separate equestrian
trail.
The projections in Table 3-4 use the length of Class I trails because, in many cases, Class I
trails will have a parallel equestrian trail: In addition, the City does not have a breakdown
of trail costs per trail type. These cost projections should be used as a general guideline
only.
Isco972930011.DOU17 29
EXECUTNE SULOAARY DRY OF SANTA CLARRA ♦ INFRASTRUCTUREMAVER PLAN
TABLE 3.4
Maintenance of Trails
Existing Trails
city
11.8 miles x $6,012/miletyear=
$70,941tyear
Planning Areas 1, II, & III
0.4 miles x $6,012/mile/year =
$2,405/year
Total
12.2 miles
$73,346/year(1996)
Future Trails (includes existing)
city
29.95. miles x $6,012/mile/year
$180,059
Planning Areas I, II and 111:
19.07 miles x $6,012/mile/year
$114,649
Total
49.02 miles
$294,706
SCO972930011.DOC/17 30
I
4. Sewer System
The Infrastructure Master Plan, Sewer Element, consisted of existing data related to land
use and sewer pipe inventory, development of design flows from land use data, a capacity
analysis of a selected portion of the sanitary sewer system, and recommendations for
improvements to the existing system to meet future capacity needs. The system was
analyzed for peak dry weather flow only. Maximum pipe capacities used were defined by
County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC) requirements.
Information used in this study was collected from the City of Santa Clarita General Plan; the
CSDLAC - Pipeline and Interceptor Data; Los Angeles County Planning Department -
Transportation Area Zone (TAZ) Land Use Data; and the County of Los Angeles,
Department of Public Works (DPW) = Sewer Maps and As -Built Data for Modeled Lines.
Existing data related to the sewer system were obtained and reviewed to acquire an
understanding of the local wastewater system. DPW and CSDLAC sewer maps, as -built
drawings, land use data from outside sources, and planning documents were used to
acquire data for the project.
Design flows for the existing and future conditions were developed from TAZ data
provided by a consultant under contract to the County of Los Angeles, system inventory
data from as -built drawings, and CSDLAC design standards. Peak dry weather flows were
routed through the modeled system using the INTERFLO computerized hydraulic model.
A capacity analysis of the system revealed capacity deficiencies for the existing and future
condition. Recommendations were developed to alleviate the deficiencies and meet future
wastewater conveyance needs. This infrastructure element is intended as a working
document for use by City staff to determine and schedule improvements to the wastewater
collection system. The results of the study may also be used with other programs for setting
priorities for maintenance and capital improvements.
Existing Wastewater Collection System
Wastewater from the City is collected by a system of sewers and transported to CSDLAC
trunk sewers that convey the wastewater to either the District 26 or District 32 wastewater
treatment plants (WTP) located within the City of Santa Clarita. District 26 WTP, Saugus
Water Reclamation Plant, serves only the Saugus, Placenta, and Canyon Country areas.
District 32 WTP, the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant, located within unincorporated
county area, serves both District 26 and the Newhall and Valencia areas. A joint powers
agreement between both districts allows for a connection between the two plants to
accommodate increased demand in the District 26 service area to better serve the valley.
The combined operating capacity of the two plants is currently 19.1 mgd, with a planned
expansion to 28.1 mgd of capacity by the year 2000.
The CSDLAC is currently preparing a facilities plan for the Santa Clarita Valley Joint
Sewerage System through 2015. Based on this plan, the recommended expansions will
increase the combined capacity for the WTPs to 34.1 mgd by the year 2010. The expansion
is bases) on projected population increases within the projected service area.
SC0072930011.DOG77 31
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
�I
�I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CURRA ♦ INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PIAN
The collection system serves a sewered area of approximately 11,210 acres, which is about
40 percent of the total area within the City limits. Some of the sewered area falls outside the
City limits but contributes flow to the City's system. The existing collection system contains
92 individual drainage basins all connecting to the CSDLAC's trunk sewers. Existing non-
sewered areas are typically sewered as development occurs and is approved by the City.
The costs of future sewers in these areas is usually borne by the developer.
There are currently five areas served by septic tanks within the city limits. These areas are:
Sand Canyon Road south of Basin 90; Placerita Canyon Road and Oak Orchard Avenue;
north of Soledad Canyon Road between Honby and Cottonwood; Mint Canyon - Sierra
Highway north of Scherzinger, and the area south of Powell Drive between Wiley Cany6n
and Everett. The Mint Canyon, Placerita Canyon, and Sand Canyon septic tank areas should
have priority, over the others due to documented problems. Septic tank areas with no
current documented problems may be converted to sewered areas in the future as the City
desires or as the need arises. Septic tanks located on private residences are not currently
maintained by the DPW. Typically, individual homeowners contract for septic tank
maintenance services privately. Since these wastewater contributions do not connect to the
collection system, no flows were included in the existing condition capacity analysis for this
Master Plan. However, the City desires to have these areas sewered in the future; therefore,
flows were included in the future condition capacity analysis.
Design Flow Summary
The allocation of existing land use to drainage basins was made in order to develop design
flows for each basin. A previous TAZ study divided the Santa Clarita Valley into zones.
These zones were overlaid onto a map with drainage basins. The percentage of overlap of
each TAZ was recorded for each drainage basin. Land uses from the TAZ data, designated
by residential, commercial and industrial uses, were allocated to the drainage basin based
upon the percentage of overlap recorded. Where future basins drain to existing basins, they
were assigned to the existing basin and included in the future model for the existing basin.
Future drainage basin boundaries were based on the natural topographic slopes in the area.
All areas not currently sewered were divided into drainage basins. These were then
assigned to downstream existing basins. If a future basin did not drain toward an existing
basin, then it was assumed that thesebasinswould require direct connection to the
CSDLAC's sewer system sometime in the future. Future drainage basins may include
portions of the river. River crossings would only be included if proven to be the most
feasible alternative for future sewer locations. Future connections will be located as
development occurs in unsewered areas, which are subject to City approval, and costs are
usually borne by the developer.
The following data was directly input to the computer model and used to analyze the
existing and future system capacities:
• Land use by basin and land use designation
• Peak flow coefficients in gallons-per-day/acres to convert land use to peak flow
• System inventory for each pipe segment along the modeled lines
' SCO972930011.DOC/17 32
IERECUTNE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CURRA• IHFRASTRUCTUREMASTER PTAH
The computer model uses the input data to develop peak flows and route them through the
modeled system.
Table 4-1 provides a summary of the total design flow for existing and build -out conditions.
Capital Improvement Costs
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, approximately $1.2 million dollars should be
set aside for existing City sewer improvements. Pipeline data used in the capacity analysis
should be verified by survey prior to implementing design and construction of sewers to be
sure that the data taken from as -built maps is correct. Table 4-2 itemizes these estimated
sewer improvement costs for the City system.
I
I
ISC0972930011.DOC417 33
TABLE 4.1
Summary of Peak Design Flows
capacity of 34.1 mgd (average flow) of the two wastewater treatment facilities in the area
Residential Commercial Industrial Other•
TOTAL
Scenario (gpd)' (gpd)' (gpd)° (gpd)
Existing 12,006,685 840,492 632,201 476,538
(gpd)
13,955,917
monitored to ensure that the planned wastewater treatment capacity is not exceeded. Based
on the results of the Master Plan hydraulic analysis, which routed flow through the
Buildout 25,401,739 3,239,120 2,273,625 883,074
31,797,558
'
Residential Commercial Industrial Other
TOTAL
(cfs) (cfs) (cis) (cfs)
(cfs)
documented infiltration/inflow problems.
Existing 18.60 1.30 0.98 0.74
21.62
Buildout 39.34 5.02 3.52 1.37
49.25
Residential land uses include mobile homes, multifamily, and single family.
' Commercial land uses include commercial center, commercial office, commercial
shops, hotels,
and medical office.
' Industrial land uses include industrial park and manufacturing/warehouse.
` Other land uses include developed park, hospital, library, golf course, church, utilities,
colleges,
high school, and junior high school.
Capital Improvement Costs
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, approximately $1.2 million dollars should be
set aside for existing City sewer improvements. Pipeline data used in the capacity analysis
should be verified by survey prior to implementing design and construction of sewers to be
sure that the data taken from as -built maps is correct. Table 4-2 itemizes these estimated
sewer improvement costs for the City system.
I
I
ISC0972930011.DOC417 33
Calculated future peak design flows of 31.8 mgd will not exceed the CSDLAC's planned
capacity of 34.1 mgd (average flow) of the two wastewater treatment facilities in the area
by 2010. The City will need to coordinate periodically with the CSDLAC regarding the
capacity required for the sewer system. The population growth of the City should be
monitored to ensure that the planned wastewater treatment capacity is not exceeded. Based
on the results of the Master Plan hydraulic analysis, which routed flow through the
modeled system, most of the replacement pipe diameters recommended for the
improvements are only one to two sizes larger than the existing pipe. The capacity utilized
in most cases is less than 100 percent of the pipe. Using the CSDLAC's design criteria for
sizing pipes provides excess capacity for infiltration/inflow allowances. The City has no
documented infiltration/inflow problems.
Capital Improvement Costs
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, approximately $1.2 million dollars should be
set aside for existing City sewer improvements. Pipeline data used in the capacity analysis
should be verified by survey prior to implementing design and construction of sewers to be
sure that the data taken from as -built maps is correct. Table 4-2 itemizes these estimated
sewer improvement costs for the City system.
I
I
ISC0972930011.DOC417 33
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cm OF SANTA CIARTA ♦ INFWTRUCTURE MASTER PUN
TABLE 4.2
Capital Improvement Costs
Drainage
Upstream
Downstream
Required
Basin
Manhole
Manhole
Length
Diameter
Cost
No.
No.
No.
Street
(Ft.)
(In.)
($)
12
1296.711
1296.712
Valencia Boulevard
71.1
12
16,700
12
1296-712
1296-713
Valencia Boulevard
329.5
12
77,100
12
1296-713
1296-714
Valencia Boulevard
43.5
12
10,200
21
1297-687
1297.779
Orchard Village Road
157.8
16
43,100
21
1297.779
1297.780
Orchard Village Road
370.3
18
101,100
21
1297-780
1297-781
Orchard Village Road
154.6
21
50,700
38
1295.076
1295.080
Bouquet Canyon Road
106.7
21
34,900
39
1295-47
1295-51
Los Manitas Drive
217.2
15
55,200
39
1295-48
1295-47
Los Manitas Drive
624.5
15
158,600
39
1295-52
1295-53
Los Manitas Drive
331.4
15
84,200
39
1295.75
1295-78
Festividad Drive
87.5
18
23,900
45
1296-484
1296.483
Via Princessa
350.0
15
88,900
45
1296-485
1296-484
Via Princessa
208.1
15
52,900
45
1296-486
1296-485
Via Princessa
300.0
15
76,200
45
1296-490
1296-486
Via Princessa
250.0
15
63,500
45
1335-37
1296-490
Via Princessa
431.4
15
109,600
66
1374-283
1374-274
Delight Street
300.0
18
81,900
90
1460-268
1460-267
Oak Spring Canyon Road
175.0
15
76,200
90
1460-140
1460-139
Lost Canyon Road
18.4
21
6,000
Total Cost
$1,211,000
Additional estimated capital costs of $33 million are required sometime in the future to
upgrade areas currently on septic systems with new sewers. These costs can be phased over
time to bring problem areas on-line earlier than areas without problems. The septic tank
areas should be given priority as listed below due to the type of existing problems that have
been encountered. Problems such as inadequate capacity, high ground water, and
overloads from high density residential units have been documented by the City. Detailed
analysis of the septic tank areas based on groundwater contamination; soils, design of septic
systems, etc. was not conducted for this Master Plan. Table 4-3 contains recommendations
for replacing septic tank areas with new sewers, based solely on information provided by
City staff.
SC0972930011.DOC(17 34
IExEcunvE SUMMARY cnYOF SAMA CLARrrA• INFAASTWcwn MASTER PLw
The following recommendations are included only as suggestions for "best management"
procedures to continue the work started in this report. The City could undertake the
following projects related to the sewer system:
• Update the land use data base in coordination with the specific planning areas within
the City and with the County of Los Angeles' Planning Department to provide accurate,
up-to-date land use within the City in a digitized format. This effort will provide the
City with the ability to quickly implement updates to the Infrastructure Master Plan in a
cost-effective manner. Future updates may involve specific areas where detailed land
use information will be required for accurate assessment of infrastructure needs and
Sco972930011.DOrr17 35
TABLE 43
Septic Tank Replacement Priority
Estimate Cost of
Septic Tank Area Priority New Sewers Documented Problem
Sand Canyon 1 50,550 lin. tL High groundwater contributes
$11 million to overload of septic system
Placenta Canyon 2 51,900 lin. ft. System overload due to
$11 million inadequate capacity for
residential and light industrial
users
Soledad Canyon 3 19,900 lin. ft. System overload due to
$4 million inadequate capacity for
residential users
Mint Canyon 4 24,950 lin. ft. High density units are
$5 million overloading septic system
South of Powell Dr. 5 10,400 lin. ft. No documented problems
$2 million
Note: 1 is highest priority and 5 is lowest priority
Maintenance Costs
The City currently contracts through the Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer
Maintenance Districts to maintain the City's sewer system. The County DPW recovers the
cost of maintenance through a tax assessments that are levied on the property owners. The
DPW provides cleaning and repair of the system and maintenance of the sewer maps. The
City has not indicated that they wish to change this practice in the near future.
Septic tanks are maintained privately by individual property owners. In some areas the
'
presence of high groundwater is affecting the operation of the private septic systems.
Replacement costs of existing facilities can only be assessed after a complete condition
assessment of the system, which was not part of this Infrastructure Master Plan. Generally,
replacement occurs after 75 to 100 years of service if systems are properly installed and no
corrosion has taken place. Construction of new sewers should be paid for by developers.
Other Recommendations
The following recommendations are included only as suggestions for "best management"
procedures to continue the work started in this report. The City could undertake the
following projects related to the sewer system:
• Update the land use data base in coordination with the specific planning areas within
the City and with the County of Los Angeles' Planning Department to provide accurate,
up-to-date land use within the City in a digitized format. This effort will provide the
City with the ability to quickly implement updates to the Infrastructure Master Plan in a
cost-effective manner. Future updates may involve specific areas where detailed land
use information will be required for accurate assessment of infrastructure needs and
Sco972930011.DOrr17 35
IEXECUTNE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CLARITA• INFWTRUCTUREA4ASTER PLAN
detailed engineering design. The Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) land use data used in this
Master Planning effort was acceptable for the level of detail needed but was
cumbersome and inconsistent with CSDLAC land use categories.
• Evaluate the areas served by septic tanks to determine the relative priority for providing
sewer service in the future. Specific studies for these areas should be focused on high
ground water areas, soil suitability, potential pollution of underground water supply, or
any problem areas that develop in the future.
I
I
I
u
I
J
I
1
1
Build on the Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for the stormwater system
by adding a component for sewers. Previous work in this area for other nearby cities
has proven the benefit of GLS to track land uses changes and sewer flow changes related
to land use changes, and to allow for rapid evaluation of flow inputs to the sewer
system. Many municipalities have converted their sewer networks to GIS and are
successfully using it for flow analysis, connection permitting, capital improvement
planning, problem resolution and other uses. GIS is capable of integrating the sewer
network with land use, census information, infiltration and inflow and other pertinent
data. Polygon overlay analysis, or the ability to merge two or more area classifications
such as land use and census tracts and extract the resulting information, is a common
GIS analysis function. The results of this kind of polygon overlay analysis can be
transferred to the sewers and wastewater flows accumulated through the system.
IS00972930011.00c117 38
• Evaluate existing connection points to the CSDLAC's interceptor sewers. This project
identified 90 individual connection points, of which 47 are for basins so small that they
were not modeled. These small basins should be evaluated to determine if flows can be
rerouted to existing basins and eliminate costly connections. Much of the existing
system is significantly underutilized resulting in velocities too low for self cleaning,
deposition of solids, and odor problems. Increasing flow in these pipes will improve
'
the overall performance of the system. An additional 24 connections were identified in
the future analysis based on the topographical drainage patterns of the area. The
location of future connection points to the CSDLAC interceptors will depend upon
where development occurs in the drainage basin and will be subject to City planning
approval. No new connections are anticipated to cross the river unless it is proven that
a river crossing is the most feasible alternative.
I
I
I
u
I
J
I
1
1
Build on the Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for the stormwater system
by adding a component for sewers. Previous work in this area for other nearby cities
has proven the benefit of GLS to track land uses changes and sewer flow changes related
to land use changes, and to allow for rapid evaluation of flow inputs to the sewer
system. Many municipalities have converted their sewer networks to GIS and are
successfully using it for flow analysis, connection permitting, capital improvement
planning, problem resolution and other uses. GIS is capable of integrating the sewer
network with land use, census information, infiltration and inflow and other pertinent
data. Polygon overlay analysis, or the ability to merge two or more area classifications
such as land use and census tracts and extract the resulting information, is a common
GIS analysis function. The results of this kind of polygon overlay analysis can be
transferred to the sewers and wastewater flows accumulated through the system.
IS00972930011.00c117 38
I
1 5. Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
I
I
I
[]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
I
In 1990, the City of Santa Clarita requested the consulting firm of Economics Research
Associates (ERA) to prepare a spreadsheet computer model to project the long-term impacts
of the Santa Clarita General Plan then under consideration In 1994, the consulting firm of
Kotin Regan and Mouchly, Inc., now known as Kotin Mouchly Group (KMG), was
commissioned by the City of Santa Clarita to adapt a fiscal impact model previously
developed in connection with the City's General Plan to apply to individual annexation area
projects. A fiscal impact study assesses the ongoing General Fund revenues as well as the
municipal service and infrastructure expenditures incurred by the City as a result of
acquiring new residential and commercial development within its political jurisdiction.
The KMG model was designed to measure the long-term impacts of large-scale projects on
City revenues and expenses using specific development parameters of each project area and
current City population, employment, and budget estimates.
The model forecasts increases in assessed valuation, retail sales, resident population, and
employment to calculate the increases in municipal revenues and expenses attributable to
residential and commercial development. Parks and recreation and public works (local
street and arterial) costs are estimated on_a per -unit -added basis applying the City's average
cost factors. Other City expenditures for general government, police, fire, and community
development are estimated using an average cost per resident and per employee, calculated
from the current City budget data, divided by the current population and employment base
(with 80 percent of the costs attributed to residents).
The primary application of the annexation model to the current Infrastructure Master Plan
is to document the cost of maintenance and expected revenues from the annexation of
property to the City of Santa Clarita. The scope of this analysis includes presenting the
methodology used to measure the impact of three recent annexations by the City on
infrastructure expenditures and revenues. This Executive Summary is excerpted from the
Infrastructure Master Plan Annexation Element prepared by KMG.
Overview of the Model
There are two general techniques for establishing projected municipal service costs in the
estimation of fiscal impact of individual projects, large multi -phased land developments or
specific or general plans. The first technique is known as average analysis and the second
technique is known as marginal analysis. The model developed initially by ERA and then
refined by KMG uses average analysis.. The core of the average analysis process is to
express virtually all of the municipal service costs, and some of the municipal revenues, as
per unit amounts which reflect the average cost or revenue to the City. Some services are
expressed by number of residents served and the related number of City employees
providing the service. Other costs are related to the value of property and are expressed as
a percentage or allocated on a base of property value. Some costs are based on the amount
of area, so .they are allocated per acre. Street and highway costs are a special case, and as
Isco972930011.000/17 37
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF SANTA CIARITA • INFRASTRUCTUREMASTER PLAN
Isuch they are allocated per lane mile. Park costs are another special case and they are
1
I
I
F
I
I
The following assumption factors are employed in each of the City's annexation analyses.
• Current City population base data
• Current City employment base data
• Inflation factors for revenues and costs
• Capitalization rates used to value investment properties
• Monthly rental rates for investment properties
• Current City taxable retail sales base
• Current total linear miles of City -maintained rights-of-way
• Current total acreage of City -maintained parkland
• Current municipal revenue base
• Current municipal service expenditure base
Table 5-1 depicts the model input sheet prepared by the City of Santa Clarita for the
Northbridge annexation in November 1996.
SC0972930011.DOC/17 38
allocated based on the number of acres of parkland.
There are two classes of inputs in the model. One class of inputs describes the particular
characteristics of the project including but not limited to: the acres devoted to each land use;
the contemplated value of the completed improvements measured directly or indirectly
I
from the rent to be charged; the sales tax generation levels for retail development; the hotel
tax generation levels, the number of people residing in the project; and the number of
people working in the project.
'
This project -specific set of inputs is used for two purposes. The first purpose, and the more
narrow one, is to provide an estimate of certain specific classes of public revenue that the
project will generate, specifically sales, property and transient occupancy tax. The second
purpose for which these inputs are used is to generate the number of predicted units to
which municipal service costs and some municipal service revenues are attached. These are
the same units as noted above (e.g., the number of people in residence, the number of in -
city employees, the dollar value, and the number of acres).
The second general set of City inputs describe the municipal operations, population and
employment base from which the per unit (e.g., per capita, per acre, per employee) factors
are generated. These inputs fall into two broad categories. The first category provides an
accurate measure of the number of units present in the City (e.g., the population,
employment base, and number of acres).
The second category consists of inputs which provide a current measure of government
expenditures and revenues in the categories to which the per unit revenues are applied.
These include Public Safety, Public Works, Police and Fire, Library, Parks and Recreation,
as well as a host of other items which collectively represent all of the City's expenditures
and those revenues such as gas tax subventions and transfers from other government
sources, which are based on per capita or other per unit factors.
1
I
I
F
I
I
The following assumption factors are employed in each of the City's annexation analyses.
• Current City population base data
• Current City employment base data
• Inflation factors for revenues and costs
• Capitalization rates used to value investment properties
• Monthly rental rates for investment properties
• Current City taxable retail sales base
• Current total linear miles of City -maintained rights-of-way
• Current total acreage of City -maintained parkland
• Current municipal revenue base
• Current municipal service expenditure base
Table 5-1 depicts the model input sheet prepared by the City of Santa Clarita for the
Northbridge annexation in November 1996.
SC0972930011.DOC/17 38
I
I
1
KRAVCity of Santa Cana Northridge Annexation l l r27r96
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
City Jurisdiction:
Study Identification:
Stenon:
Scenario Description:
Analyst Identlficotiom
Current Calendar Year.
Year of Annexation to City:
DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS
Table 5-1: Analysis Assumptions
Santa Cla ft
Northbridge Annexation
Tax Transfer -.0588431
Second Draft
KOTIN. REGAN & MOUCHLY. INC.
1996
1997
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
ROW of net tO 91033 project aaeoge (Nat exCIUdes R 85%
HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
EMciency Rate: 85%
Average Room Sim (st) 500
Average DOW ROOM Rate $65
Eshnnoted Average Occupancy Rate 70%
Santa Clarho TroM1gent Occupancy Tax Rate 10%
I
Santa Clonto Population as of Jan 1. 195
129,861
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ABSORPTION SCHEDULE
Current Private Employment In Santa CIc
36,206
Star
caerxrx
yr. nems
RESIDENTIAL USES YacrM
EocDsyslaa,
Jn.6hsam
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS
Multi-Famlly, Rental 1
1998
1
Inf. Rae - Sole Prices for New Consfn/ctir
3.0%
Mn411-Family Sale 1
1998
1
Inf. Rate - Taxable Retail Sales
3.0%
MuitFFamly, Seniors 2
1999
1
Inf. Rate - Hotel Room Rates:
3.0%
Single Family High Density 6
2003
2
Inf. Rate - State Subvention Revenues
2.0%
Single Family Medium Density 8
2005
3
Inf, Rate - mist. local fees and tow
2.0%
Single Family Low Density 3
2000
10
Inf. Rae - City Provided Services
3.5%
Single Family Estate 10
2007
3
Int. Rote - Avg. C.P.I. (used for d3countln
3.0%
RETAIL AND RELATED
PROPERTY VALUE ASSUMPTIONS
Local Retail 3
2000
1
Vogue per sf of Improved commerGal ka
$9.00
Community Retell 10
2007
10
Regional Retail 15
2012
1
Conitollzatlon Rotes
Automobile Dealership 1
1998
1
Apartments
10.5%
Service Station 1
1998
1
Retail
Commercial Office
10.0%
9.0%
OFFICE, 81111, PK INDUS. & HOTEL
Business Park
9.0%
Light Industrial
10.5%
Commercial Office 1
1998
5
Business Pak 10
2007
IS
Monthly Rents for Commercial Snace f NNN
per SF 1
Light Industrial 10
2007
15
Hotel 15
2012
1
Local Retail
$1.63
Community Retail
$1.25
CITY STREET AND PARK ASSUMPTIONS
Regional Retail
$I.45
Commercial Office
$1.10
Total Mlles of Public Sheets w/1 Soma Clamor.
258.6
Business Park
$1.00
Acres of City Serviced Park Land w/I Santa Clarlta
400.5
Light Industrial
$0.45
New Park Development (for project ared)
Develop new park acreage every 7P years:
5
Construction Va .a Fier Ink
First year of new park development: (i)
5
Auto Deoletship (sq. ft.)
$55
MUNI. SERVICE EXPENDITURES (Hsed Year 96/97
Budget)
Service Station (sq. ft.)
$75
Hotel (sq. ft.)
$125
Police and Fite Contract Services
$9.677.600
Public works - Streets & Roads
S2001.680
Real Property Annfeciallon Assurnarl
General Governmental Services
City Council
$167,595
Residential pr
resole
88,140
$11$1
Commercial property every 7Cr
10
CityAttCity u
Max. AV escalation for unsold propert
20%
Cm/ Clerk
$328.740
Avg. yeviy residential appreciation rc
3.0%
Personnel
$358.295
Avg. yearly commercial appreciotior
3.0%
Finance Administration
$1,016.415
General Services
$2142.495
TAXABLE SALES ASSUMPTIONS
Computer Services
_
$1.239,925
Parks and Recreation
$7,860.265
Local Retail (per st):
$225
Community Retell (per st).
$185
MISC. MUNI. REVENUES Msed Yea 96/97 Budget)
Regional Retail (per so: -
$250
'
Automobile Dealership (per st):
$1
Business License Tax Revenues
$204.000
Service Station (per st):
$75
Commercial Office (per st):
$1
Moto Vehicle License Fee Revenue
$4,617,300
Business Park (per st):
$15
Off -Highway Moser Venice License Revenue
$1
Ught Industrial (per so:
$5
Highway Users (Gas) Tax Revenue
$2279,440
Moto Vehicle Fines
$265.700
'
Hotel (per hotel guest):
$15
Other Fines Penalties '
$102.465
Franchise Fee Revenues
$3.223.800
TOTAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES FOR CITY:
$1,490,000,000
Parks and Recreation Service Charges
$1.518.250
1
File:
NTHBFiID2.WK4
Tax Transfer -.0588431:
Second Draft
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
I
I
I
I
ExEcunYE SumARY CITY OF SAMA CDMA ♦ INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
Project -Specific Factors
The project -specific factors involved in the analysis consist of property value assumptions
and taxable sales assumptions based on standard physical or land use designations (e.g.,
local retail, community retail, regional retail, commercial office, business park, and light
industrial). Judgement is needed in terms of establishing some of the revenues. In general,
the approach to creating taxable value for commercial and income property is to establish
the rents, the operating expense ratio, and the appropriate capitalization rate. This is how
appraisers and the market determine value. In some cases, rents are not readily
determinable, and estimates of development costs are used in lieu of a rent, expense, and
capitalization approach. Examples of this include hotels, auto dealers, and service stations.
Specific infrastructure elements input to the annexation cost model consist of local streets,
major arterials, and parks. The total miles of public streets within the City of Santa Clarita
is one input factor. Additionally, the model includes acres of city -serviced park land, as
well as acreage of new park development planned for the project area.
General City Factors
The general factors used in the annexation analysis model consist of municipal service
expenditures and miscellaneous municipal revenues. Government function inputs include
police and fire contract services, public works infrastructure, general government services
(e.g., city elected officials, city manager, city attorney, and general services), and parks and
recreation maintenance. Municipal revenues include vehicle license fees, vehicle fines, gas
tax, and parks service charges.
Population and Employment Factors
I Current population and employment estimates are a critical element in the fiscal impact
analysis. These factors are used to determine the current average per unit service costs,
which determine total estimated City service expenditures for the annexation study area.
Table 5-2 indicates the most recent population and employment bases estimated by the
City for three recent annexation areas.
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5-2
Population and Employment Data
Annexation Area Population and Employment Factors
Northbridge 129,900 -population
41,223 -employment
Lockheed -Rye Canyon
Seco Canyon
129,900 -population
41,223 -employment
129,900 -population
41,223 -employment
Current Municipal Expenditure and Revenue Base
Municipal expenditure and revenue base factors are critical to deriving an accurate
assessment of the net fiscal impact of existing and planned development. They should
reflect current levels of spending for city -provided or contracted services such as public
Isco97293OO11.00Cl17 Q
J
I
I
I
I
I
I1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRY OF SPMA CLARITA ♦ INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
safety, general government, recreation, and public works operations and maintenance. On
the revenue side, in addition to property and sales taxes, new residents and employees
contribute business license taxes, motor vehicle license fees, highway user taxes, franchise
fees, parks and recreation service charges, and building permits and fees. All of these
revenue sources are important to the City s General Fund. Table 5-3 shows the current
revenue and expenditure data used in three recent annexations by the City of Santa Clarita.
TABLE 5.3
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE DATA
Annexation Area Revenue and Cost Factors
Northbridge $13.9 million annual revenues
$27.6 million annual costs
Lockheed -Rye Canyon $13.9 million annual revenues
$27.6 million annual costs
Seco Canyon $13.9 million annual revenues
$27.6 million annual costs
Results of Fiscal Impact Analysis
The factors discussed above are then incorporated into an overall cost analysis, which is
projected to full build -out of the annexation area. Table 5-4 indicates updated results of the
City's fiscal impact analysis on three recently annexed areas (all values are indicated in 1996
constant dollars).
TABLE 5.4
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Annexation Area Fiscal Impacts.
Northbridge—Full Build -Out'
Population Growth
Employment Growths
Annual Revenues'
a
8,821
$1,060,000
Annual Costs $1,540,000
Net Fiscal Impact' ($480,000)
Lockheed -Rye Canyon—Full Build -Out
Population Growth
Employment Growths
Annual Revenues
Annual Cost's
12,032
$1,440,000
$920,000
41
Net Fiscal Impact
$520,000
Seco Canyon—Full Build -Out
Population Growth
5,382
Employment Growths
5o
Annual Revenues
$670,000
Annual Costs'
$920,000
Net Fiscal Impact
($250,000)
Assumes City Tax Transfer rate at 5.8%
s New jobs created
' Annual revenues/costs at full build -out (1996 $)
ISC0972930011.DOG77
41
IEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRY OF SANTA CLARRA♦ INFRASTRUCTUREMASTER PLAN
I Recommendations
'
The first and easiest mechanism for ensuring effective maintenance of the model is to create
a clear, consistent identification and a single reference point for the key unit inputs that are
used. Furthermore, whenever a fiscal impact is generated it needs to be updated from its
I
earliest point to the current set of values before the numbers are actually used or compared.
The current set of values in this case consist of the most recent data including population,
employment, and acreage values.
The second and more challenging area of updating the annexation model is to reexamine
each of the government cost centers and measure them in a consistent way to establish the
'
number to be divided by the number of units. This applies whether the number of units is
per capita as in the case of general government, per acre as in the case of park maintenance,
or per lane mile as in the case of public works street maintenance.
The City should also consider establishing an ongoing fiscal monitoring or feedback system
which can provide verification of the fiscal impact projections.
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
ISCO972930011.DOC117 42