HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/04/16- Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 1
Mayor
L. Dennis Michael
Mayor Pro Tem
Lynne B. Kennedy
Members of the City
Council:
Ryan A. Hutchison
Kristine D. Scott
Ashley Stickler
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
April 16, 2025
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY- SUCCESSOR AGENCY –
PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR MEETINGS
TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. It is the intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the
concurrence of the City Council. Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be found
at https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/city-council-agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Services Department
at 909-774-2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV-3). For City Council Rules of Decorum refer to
Resolution No. 2023-086.
Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after distribution of the
agenda packet will be made available in the City Clerk Services Department during normal business hours at City Hall
located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be posted on
the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/city-council-agendas.
CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.
TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM
ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy
Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler
A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS
D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION
D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ROBERT NEIUBER, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR, PETER CASTRO, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, MATT BURRIS,
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JEVIN KAYE, FINANCE
DIRECTOR; PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274
AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. (CITY)
E. RECESS
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 2
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy
Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler
A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS
B1. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Rancho Cucamonga’s 2024 Volunteers and Proclamation
Declaring the Week of April 20-26, 2025 as National Volunteer Week.
B2. Presentation of a Proclamation to San Bernardino County Children’s Network Declaring April 2025 as Child
Abuse Prevention Month.
B3. Recognition of Rancho Cucamonga Edison Scholar David Kwon from Los Osos High School who was Awarded
a $50,000 College Scholarship from Southern California Edison (SCE).
C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing
Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any
item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits us from addressing any issue not on the
Agenda. Testimony may be received and referred to staff or scheduled for a future meeting.
Comments are to be limited to three (3) minutes per individual. All communications are to be addressed
directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members
of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please
refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, disorderly or boisterous conduct that disturbs,
disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. For more information, refer to the City
Council Rules of Decorum and Order (Resolution No. 2023-086) located in the back of the Council
Chambers.
The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the
business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic
contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these
business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the
agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period
may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed.
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 3
CONSENT CALENDARS:
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon
without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion.
Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and
Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with
the City Council consent calendar.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of April 2, 2025 and Special Meeting of April 8,
2025.
D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $2,290,220.99 and City
and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in
the Total Amount of $7,300,824.37 Dated March 26, 2025, Through April 6, 2025. (CITY/FIRE)
D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern
California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $37,750.31 Dated March 26, 2025, Through April 6, 2025.
(CITY/FIRE)
D4. Consideration to Declare Surplus for Vehicle, Retired Computer, Monitors, Laptops, iPhones, and iPads,
Deemed No Longer Needed, Obsolete or Unusable as Surplus. (CITY)
D5. Consideration to Schedule a Public Hearing for Placement of Liens and Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts.
(CITY)
D6. Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for the Creation of
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Suggested Routes Maps in the Amount of $159,000, Including a 5%
Contingency. (CITY)
D7. Consideration of an Appropriation from Fund 174 (Gas Tax R&T7360) in the Amount of $360,000, Award of a
Professional Services Agreement with Roadway Asset Services in the Amount of $195,190 for Consulting
Services for Preparation of a Pavement Management Plan, and Authorization for the City Engineer to Approve
the Use of an Additional $164,780 for Optional Services and Contingency as Deemed Necessary. This Project
is Exempt From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Government Code
Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (CITY)
D8. Consideration of a Contract with UPSCO for Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) Maintenance Services in an
Amount Not to Exceed $20,000 in FY24/25 and $220,000 Over Seven Years. (CITY)
D9. Consideration to Award a Contract with CT&T Concrete Paving Inc., in the Amount of $1,655,100, Plus a 15%
Contingency for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project. Consideration to Accept Award in the Amount
of $750,000 from San Bernardino County through the County Board Discretionary Fund Priorities Program, and
to Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $750,000. This Project is Exempt From the Requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.
(CITY)
D10. Consideration of a Contract with American Asphalt South, Inc. in the Amount of $349,400 Plus a 10%
Contingency for Construction and Construction Management and Inspection Services, for the Fiscal Year
2024/25 Local Slurry Seal Pavement Rehabilitation Project. This Project is Exempt from the Requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities. (CITY)
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 4
D11. Consideration to Accept All Improvements as Complete, File the Notice of Completion and Authorize Release of
Retention for the RCMU Electric Vehicle Charging Station Hub. This Project is Exempt from All Appropriate
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review as
Required by the Department of Energy and CEQA Guidelines. (CITY)
E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION
F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S)
F1. Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1039, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading,
Adding Chapter 10.84 to Title 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Regulating the Use of Bicycles
and E-Conveyances in Public Areas. (ORDINANCE NO. 1039) (CITY)
G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT
G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho
Cucamonga, California, Approving the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study for the Community and
Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park Impact
Fees and Fire Impact Fee , Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Study, Updating and
Establishing the Fee Amounts for Such Development Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption
Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1038,
to Be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, An Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adding
Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire
Impacts of Residential and Business Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to Quimby
Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010)
(ORDINANCE NO. 1038) (CITY)
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S)
H1. Presentation on the California Cross Connection Control Policy Handbook and Implications for Residential Fire
Sprinkler Systems. (Verbal Report) (CITY)
H2. PathwaysRC – A Plan to Develop Pathways to Public Service. (CITY)
H3. Consideration of a Contract With Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., in the Amount of $7,647,890, Plus a 10%
Contingency for the Advanced Traffic Management System Phase II Project and Authorization of an
Appropriation in the Amount of $831,930. This Project is Exempt From the Requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (CITY)
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
I1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
(Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.)
I2. INTERAGENCY UPDATES
(Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.)
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 5
J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS
K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
L. ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty
of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per
Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website.
LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC
CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's
office at (909) 774-2023. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
*DRAFT*
April 2, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency,
Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes
City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 1 of 6
April 2, 2025
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY,
PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a Closed Session on Wednesday, April 2,
2025, in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.
Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and
Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Absent: Council Member Ashley Stickler.
Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli,
City Attorney; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development, Julie
Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Community Programs and Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager of
Administrative Services.
A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS
D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION
D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ROBERT NEIUBER, SENIOR HUMAN
RESOURCES DIRECTOR, PETER CASTRO, DEPUTY CITY
MANAGER/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY
MANAGER/ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JEVIN KAYE,
FINANCE DIRECTOR; PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. (CITY)
D2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 0229-012-08-
0000 COMMONLY KNOWN AS ADDRESS 8434 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES MATT MARQUEZ, DIRECTOR OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
AND RICHARD LEE, REPRESENTING CBRE GROUP, INC., REGARDING PRICE AND
TERMS. (CITY)
E. RECESS
The closed session recessed at 6:27 p.m.
Page 6
*DRAFT*
April 2, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency,
Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes
City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 2 of 6
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency,
Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were
held on April 2, 2025, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L.
Dennis Michael. Absent: Council Member Ashley Stickler.
Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; and Linda A. Troyan,
MMC, City Clerk Services Director.
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy led the Pledge of Allegiance.
A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS
B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to OneLegacy Declaring the Month of April 2025 as Donate
Life Month.
Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council recognized the month of April 2025 as Donate Life
Month and presented a Proclamation to OneLegacy Ambassadors: Cheryl Machan and Donna Hansen.
C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Erika Hernandez, spoke about a recent shooting incident in her neighborhood near Carleton P. Lightfoot
Elementary School and shared public safety concerns regarding burglaries in homes along the Pacific
Electric Trail.
Michelle Reinhart, spoke of the dangers of smoking, vaping and how secondhand exposure to both
smoke and vape aerosols poses health risks for the community. She advocated for smoke free policies
and stronger regulations in the City.
Michael Reinhart, spoke about underage Vape and Tobacco sales and shared public health concerns.
In response to public comment, City Manager Gillison thanked the speakers for their advocacy efforts and
concerns on the topic. Mr. Gillison referred speakers to Healthy RC staff and noted the city’s General
Plan has a policy regarding smoking and vaping.
Page 7
*DRAFT*
April 2, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency,
Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes
City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 3 of 6
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Scott announced that she will need to abstain on item D3, due to a potential conflict of
interest as her employer is Southern California Gas Company.
D1. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of March 19,
2025.
D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of
$2,389,108.47 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks
Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,770,492.59 Dated
March 10, 2025, Through March 25, 2025. (CITY/FIRE)
D3. Consideration to Approve Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to
Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $330.23 Dated March 10, 2025,
Through March 25, 2025. (FIRE)
D4. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of February 28, 2025
for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
(CITY/FIRE)
D5. Consideration of Amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services Agreement with On
Duty Health, PLLC for Health and Fitness Assessments in the Amount of $32,790 Annually.
(FIRE)
D6. Consideration to Approve a Four-Year Agreement with Sidepath Inc. in the Amount of
$620,760 for Network Equipment License and Support. (CITY/FIRE)
D7. Consideration of the Cooperative Purchase of One (1) PB Loader B-6 Asphalt Patcher via
the Sourcewell Contract Number 080521-PBL from Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. in the
Amount of $441,243.88. (CITY)
D8. Consideration to Approve an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities for
Public Improvements, to Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Related Public
Improvements, and to Approve a Resolution Ordering the Annexation into Landscape
Maintenance District No. 7 Related to Case No. DRC2020-00438, Located on the
Southeast Corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street (Project). The Project Has Been
Determined by Staff to Be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-011) (CITY)
MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to approve
Consent Calendar agenda items D1 through D8 with Council Member/Board Member Scott abstaining on
item D3. Motion carried 4-0-1. Absent: Council Member Stickler.
Page 8
*DRAFT*
April 2, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency,
Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes
City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 4 of 6
E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION
E1. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:
ORDINANCE NO. 1037
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING
CHAPTER 9.38 TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR
INTERFERENCE WITH THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY INCLUDING PUBLIC
ACCESS
MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to waive full
reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1037 by title only.
Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director, read the title of Ordinance No. 1037.
VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott , seconded by Council Member
Hutchison, to waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1037 by title only. Motion carried 4-0-1.
Absent: Council Member Stickler.
F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S)
None.
G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT
G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010, A Resolution of the City
Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus
Studies, Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating
and Establishing the Fee Amounts for the City’s Development Impact Fees, and Making a
Determination of Exemption Under CEQA and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance
No. 1038, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, An Ordinance of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business
Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees,
and Making a Determination of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act.
(RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010 ) (ORDINANCE NO. 1038 ) (CITY)
City Manager Gillison introduced item G1 and informed staff met with representatives of the Building
Industry of America (BIA) and several developers actively working in the City. He noted the BIA and the
developers have asked for clarifying information related to the proposed adjustments to the
Transportation Development Impact Fee schedule, the Non-Transportation Development Impact Fees,
and Nexus Studies. He stated that in order to fully address these questions, staff is recommending that
the public hearing for the Non-Transportation Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study be continued
to April 16, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. and that the Transportation Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study be
continued to May 7, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. Lastly, Mr. Gillison informed three (3) letters were received: one
(1) by the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA) and two (2) by the Building Industry Association of
Southern California, Inc. Copies of the correspondence received were provided to the City Council and
were available for the public to review and on the City’s website.
Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing.
Page 9
*DRAFT*
April 2, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency,
Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes
City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 5 of 6
Bret Ilich, Building Industry Association of Southern California, spoke in support of continuing the public
hearing to allow the City and stakeholders such as the Building Industry Association of Southern
California sufficient time to discuss the item.
MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, to continue the public
hearing on the Non-Transportation Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study to April 16, 2025, at 7:00
p.m. and the Transportation Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study to May 7, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in
Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Motion carried 4-0-1.
Absent: Council Member Stickler.
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S)
H1. Consideration to Receive and File the Midyear Financial Update for the Fiscal Year
2024/25 and Approve Various Appropriations and Related Actions. (CITY/FIRE)
City Manager Gillison introduced Rick Flinchum, Finance Manager, who gave the Staff Report along
with a Power Point presentation for item H1.
City Manager Gillison spoke about the substantial financial impact and expenses associated with the
January 2025 Wind Event. He highlighted items to monitor in the upcoming months including revenue
from property taxes, tourism, discretionary spending and travel as it is a significant part of the city’s
economy.
Mayor Michael thanked staff for the comprehensive presentation.
MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to receive and
file the Midyear Financial Update for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and Approve Various Appropriations and
Related Actions. Motion carried 4-0-1. Absent: Council Member Stickler.
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
I1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Hutchison announced the City Council attended the Grand Opening of the Sanctity Hotel
earlier that day and noted it is the first luxury boutique hotel in the Inland Empire offering panoramic
mountain views and exquisite dining at Durango Cocina & Rooftop Bar.
I2. INTERAGENCY UPDATES
Mayor Michael reported his attendance earlier that day as a Board Member of the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority (SBCTA). He informed Executive Director, Dr. Raymond Wolfe, announced his
retirement after 12 years of dedicated service and that the Board of Directors took action earlier that day
to approve the appointment of Carrie Schindler, Deputy Executive Director, to the position of Executive
Director.
J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS
City Attorney Ghirelli noted that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session held earlier
that evening.
Page 10
*DRAFT*
April 2, 2025 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency,
Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes
City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 6 of 6
K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
None.
L. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Michael adjourned the Council Meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Approved:
Linda A. Troyan, MMC
City Clerk Services Director
Page 11
*DRAFT*
April 8, 2025 | City Council Special Meeting Minutes
City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 1 of 1
April 8, 2025
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
The City Council held a Special Meeting Workshop on Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at the Black Box Theater, 12505
Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at
8:05 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Present were Council Members Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy,
and Mayor L. Dennis Michael.
Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager; Matt Burris, Deputy City
Manager of Community Development, Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Community Programs and Peter
Castro, Deputy City Manager of Administrative Services.
A. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
No public communications.
B. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
B1. Annual City Council Review and Development of New Goals, Team Building Workshop and Related
Legislative Matters. (CITY)
The meeting recessed at 11:20 p.m. for lunch; reconvened at 12:55 p.m. All Members were present.
C. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 2:25 p.m.
Approved:
Linda A. Troyan, MMC
City Clerk Services Director
Page 12
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor
SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the
Total Amount of $2,290,220.99 and City and Fire District Weekly Check
Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas
Company) in the Total Amount of $7,300,824.37 Dated March 26, 2025,
Through April 6, 2025. (CITY/FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment
of demands as presented. Bi-weekly payroll is $1,297,705.78 and $992,515.21 for the City and
the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $6,490,770.55 and
$810,053.82 for the City and the Fire District, respectively.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
ANALYSIS:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register
Page 13
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 1 of 15
Company: City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Payment Date On or After: 03/26/2025
Payment Date On or Before: 04/06/2025
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Westbound
Communications Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451153 03/26/2025 Westbound
Communications Inc
16,506.66 0 16,506.66
Supplier Payment: Only Cremations
For Pets Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451120 03/26/2025 Only Cremations For Pets
Inc
1,252.00 0 1,252.00
Supplier Payment: Omnium Circus:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451119 03/26/2025 Omnium Circus 32,000.00 0 32,000.00
Supplier Payment: Scl: 03/26/2025 Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451130 03/26/2025 Scl 0 2,641.65 2,641.65
Supplier Payment: Airgas Usa Llc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451058 03/26/2025 Airgas Usa Llc 334.71 0 334.71
Supplier Payment: Consolidated
Electrical Distr Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Consolidated Electrical
Distr Inc
609.17 0 609.17
Supplier Payment: Best Outdoor
Power Inland Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Best Outdoor Power Inland
Llc
902.75 0 902.75
Supplier Payment: Cintas
Corporation: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451074 03/26/2025 Cintas Corporation 1,151.90 0 1,151.90
Supplier Payment: Cal Quest
Investigations: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451071 03/26/2025 Cal Quest Investigations 3,277.91 0 3,277.91
Supplier Payment: Daniels Tire
Service: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451084 03/26/2025 Daniels Tire Service 0 4,530.96 4,530.96
Supplier Payment: Pedrag V. Pecic:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Pedrag V. Pecic 3,000.00 0 3,000.00
Supplier Payment: Bishop Company:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451064 03/26/2025 Bishop Company 694.87 0 694.87
Supplier Payment: ADP, Inc.:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451055 03/26/2025 ADP, Inc.613.20 0 613.20
Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Napa Auto Parts 686.65 0 686.65
Supplier Payment: Rio Hondo
Community College District:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451126 03/26/2025 Rio Hondo Community
College District
118.55 0 118.55
Supplier Payment: Adapt Consulting
Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451053 03/26/2025 Adapt Consulting Inc 1,114.10 0 1,114.10
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 14
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 2 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Holliday Rock Co
Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451098 03/26/2025 Holliday Rock Co Inc 196.11 0 196.11
Supplier Payment: Carrot-Top
Industries Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451072 03/26/2025 Carrot-Top Industries Inc 541.28 0 541.28
Supplier Payment: Sovic Creative:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Sovic Creative 4,500.00 0 4,500.00
Supplier Payment: Enko Systems
Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451087 03/26/2025 Enko Systems Inc 488.06 0 488.06
Supplier Payment: Odp Business
Solutions Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451118 03/26/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 1,170.10 0 1,170.10
Supplier Payment: Fehr & Peers:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Fehr & Peers 29,128.00 0 29,128.00
Supplier Payment: Toro Towing:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451139 03/26/2025 Toro Towing 1,200.00 0 1,200.00
Supplier Payment: Brinks
Incorporated: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Brinks Incorporated 2,806.11 0 2,806.11
Supplier Payment: Babcock
Laboratories Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451063 03/26/2025 Babcock Laboratories Inc 654.70 0 654.70
Supplier Payment: Collins & Collins
Llp: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451078 03/26/2025 Collins & Collins Llp 1,114.49 0 1,114.49
Supplier Payment: Fuel Serv:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451094 03/26/2025 Fuel Serv 4,657.72 0 4,657.72
Supplier Payment: Gentry General
Engineering Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Gentry General
Engineering Inc
1,490.76 0 1,490.76
Supplier Payment: Aufbau
Corporation: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Aufbau Corporation 27,695.00 0 27,695.00
Supplier Payment: Executive Detail
Services: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451088 03/26/2025 Executive Detail Services 0 770.00 770.00
Supplier Payment: Rdo Equipment
Company: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Rdo Equipment Company 4,161.69 0 4,161.69
Supplier Payment: Lilburn
Corporation: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451105 03/26/2025 Lilburn Corporation 1,315.50 0 1,315.50
Supplier Payment: Citrus Motors
Ontario Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451077 03/26/2025 Citrus Motors Ontario Inc 751.18 0 751.18
Supplier Payment: Intervet Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451101 03/26/2025 Intervet Inc 2,693.75 0 2,693.75
Supplier Payment: Wilson & Bell
Auto Service: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451156 03/26/2025 Wilson & Bell Auto Service 7,336.10 0 7,336.10
Supplier Payment: Dance Terrific:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451083 03/26/2025 Dance Terrific 369.60 0 369.60
Supplier Payment: Read The Books:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451125 03/26/2025 Read The Books 1,070.00 0 1,070.00
Page 15
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 3 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Transtech
Engineers Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451142 03/26/2025 Transtech Engineers Inc 7,711.00 0 7,711.00
Supplier Payment: Social Vocational
Services: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451135 03/26/2025 Social Vocational Services 4,232.25 0 4,232.25
Supplier Payment: Merrimac
Petroleum Inc: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
03/26/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 0 8,676.92 8,676.92
Supplier Payment: Imperial County
Office Of Education: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451100 03/26/2025 Imperial County Office Of
Education
5,258.74 0 5,258.74
Supplier Payment: Jorry Keith:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Jorry Keith 105.00 0 105.00
Supplier Payment: San Bernardino
County: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 San Bernardino County 160.00 0 160.00
Supplier Payment: West Coast
Arborists Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451154 03/26/2025 West Coast Arborists Inc 74,981.70 0 74,981.70
Supplier Payment: Yunex Llc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Yunex Llc 7,872.40 0 7,872.40
Supplier Payment: Corodata Media
Storage Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451079 03/26/2025 Corodata Media Storage
Inc
90.10 0 90.10
Supplier Payment: Mediwaste
Disposal Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451108 03/26/2025 Mediwaste Disposal Llc 40.25 0 40.25
Supplier Payment: Pfm Asset
Management Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Pfm Asset Management
Llc
18,496.49 0 18,496.49
Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary
Supply: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451152 03/26/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 3,509.62 0 3,509.62
Supplier Payment: Odp Business
Solutions Llc: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451117 03/26/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 0 66.76 66.76
Supplier Payment: Crafco Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Crafco Inc 1,051.43 0 1,051.43
Supplier Payment: Adobe Animal
Hospital: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451054 03/26/2025 Adobe Animal Hospital 500.00 0 500.00
Supplier Payment: Bound Tree
Medical Llc: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451066 03/26/2025 Bound Tree Medical Llc 0 2,146.08 2,146.08
Supplier Payment: Mariposa
Landscapes Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 209,653.45 0 209,653.45
Supplier Payment: Crown Pointe
Investigations Llc: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451081 03/26/2025 Crown Pointe
Investigations Llc
0 26,000.00 26,000.00
Supplier Payment: California State
Controller: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451068 03/26/2025 California State Controller 4,784.74 0 4,784.74
Page 16
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 4 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Unity Courier
Service Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451144 03/26/2025 Unity Courier Service Inc 662.02 0 662.02
Supplier Payment: Marjani Builders,
INC.: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Marjani Builders, INC.143,497.50 0 143,497.50
Supplier Payment: Kola-Fm:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451102 03/26/2025 Kola-Fm 1,500.00 0 1,500.00
Supplier Payment: Merrimac
Petroleum Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 37,635.05 0 37,635.05
Supplier Payment: Siteone
Landscape Supply Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451132 03/26/2025 Siteone Landscape Supply
Llc
829.38 0 829.38
Supplier Payment: O S T S Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451122 03/26/2025 O S T S Inc 2,745.00 0 2,745.00
Supplier Payment: Able Building
Maintenance: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451051 03/26/2025 Able Building Maintenance 4,818.00 0 4,818.00
Supplier Payment: Autolift Services
Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451062 03/26/2025 Autolift Services Inc 2,178.43 0 2,178.43
Supplier Payment: Covetrus North
America: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451080 03/26/2025 Covetrus North America 520.46 0 520.46
Supplier Payment: Ontario Spay &
Neuter Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451121 03/26/2025 Ontario Spay & Neuter Inc 2,900.00 0 2,900.00
Supplier Payment: Virtual Project
Manager Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451149 03/26/2025 Virtual Project Manager Llc 500.00 0 500.00
Supplier Payment: Factory Motor
Parts: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451090 03/26/2025 Factory Motor Parts 0 1,052.65 1,052.65
Supplier Payment: Data Ticket Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Data Ticket Inc 3,278.18 0 3,278.18
Supplier Payment: Marisa Maverhan-
Lane: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451107 03/26/2025 Marisa Maverhan-Lane 4,200.00 0 4,200.00
Supplier Payment: Allstar Fire
Equipment Inc: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
03/26/2025 Allstar Fire Equipment Inc 0 24,741.56 24,741.56
Supplier Payment: Leighton
Consulting Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451103 03/26/2025 Leighton Consulting Inc 19,796.50 0 19,796.50
Supplier Payment: Abound Food
Care: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451052 03/26/2025 Abound Food Care 3,278.35 0 3,278.35
Supplier Payment: Underground
Service Alert/Sc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451143 03/26/2025 Underground Service
Alert/Sc
150.60 0 150.60
Supplier Payment: First Aid 2000:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451092 03/26/2025 First Aid 2000 3,462.27 0 3,462.27
Supplier Payment: Dunn-Edwards
Corporation: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Dunn-Edwards Corporation 501.43 0 501.43
Page 17
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 5 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Fire Apparatus
Solutions: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451091 03/26/2025 Fire Apparatus Solutions 0 3,790.28 3,790.28
Supplier Payment: Henry Schein Inc:
03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451097 03/26/2025 Henry Schein Inc 0 996.45 996.45
Supplier Payment: Vortex Industries
Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451151 03/26/2025 Vortex Industries Llc 825.00 0 825.00
Supplier Payment: Lozano Smith Llp:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451106 03/26/2025 Lozano Smith Llp 585.00 0 585.00
Supplier Payment: Torti Gallas &
Partners Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451140 03/26/2025 Torti Gallas & Partners Inc 343.75 0 343.75
Supplier Payment: Nbs: 03/26/2025 City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451114 03/26/2025 Nbs 5,130.00 0 5,130.00
Supplier Payment: Richards Watson
& Gershon: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Richards Watson &
Gershon
1,600.00 0 1,600.00
Supplier Payment: Advanced
Chemical Transport Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451056 03/26/2025 Advanced Chemical
Transport Inc
868.50 0 868.50
Supplier Payment: Zumar Industries
Inc.: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451157 03/26/2025 Zumar Industries Inc.2,333.11 0 2,333.11
Supplier Payment: Paymentus
Corporation: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Paymentus Corporation 1,384.00 0 1,384.00
Supplier Payment: Humane Society
Of San Bernardino Valley:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451099 03/26/2025 Humane Society Of San
Bernardino Valley
200.00 0 200.00
Supplier Payment: Cobra
Professionals, INC.: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
03/26/2025 Cobra Professionals, INC.0 166.90 166.90
Supplier Payment: Mesa Energy
Systems Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451109 03/26/2025 Mesa Energy Systems Inc 21,774.34 0 21,774.34
Supplier Payment: Towill Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451141 03/26/2025 Towill Inc 9,345.00 0 9,345.00
Supplier Payment: Experian:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451089 03/26/2025 Experian 50.00 0 50.00
Supplier Payment: Universal Fleet
Supply: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451145 03/26/2025 Universal Fleet Supply 0 84.01 84.01
Supplier Payment: Southern
California Edison: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451136 03/26/2025 Southern California Edison 6,782.17 0 6,782.17
Supplier Payment: Ccs Orange
County Janitorial Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451073 03/26/2025 Ccs Orange County
Janitorial Inc
370.58 0 370.58
Supplier Payment: Demco Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451085 03/26/2025 Demco Inc 187.68 0 187.68
Page 18
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 6 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Archibald Pet
Hospital: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451061 03/26/2025 Archibald Pet Hospital 800.00 0 800.00
Supplier Payment: Brodart Co:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451067 03/26/2025 Brodart Co 29,539.76 0 29,539.76
Supplier Payment: Scott Mcleod
Plumbing Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451131 03/26/2025 Scott Mcleod Plumbing Inc 7,753.34 0 7,753.34
Supplier Payment: Bordin Semmer
Llp: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451065 03/26/2025 Bordin Semmer Llp 890.00 0 890.00
Supplier Payment: Willdan Group:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451155 03/26/2025 Willdan Group 1,311.21 0 1,311.21
Supplier Payment: The Sign Shop:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451137 03/26/2025 The Sign Shop 32.33 0 32.33
Supplier Payment: Tirehub Llc:
03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451138 03/26/2025 Tirehub Llc 0 878.82 878.82
Supplier Payment: Verizon Wireless -
La: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451147 03/26/2025 Verizon Wireless - La 8,771.78 0 8,771.78
Supplier Payment: Rancho Smog
Center: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451124 03/26/2025 Rancho Smog Center 49.95 0 49.95
Supplier Payment: MNS Engineers,
Inc.: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451111 03/26/2025 MNS Engineers, Inc.15,437.50 0 15,437.50
Supplier Payment: Cobra
Professionals, INC.: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Cobra Professionals, INC.423.20 0 423.20
Supplier Payment: Life-Assist Inc:
03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
03/26/2025 Life-Assist Inc 0 2,775.43 2,775.43
Supplier Payment: Nv5 Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451116 03/26/2025 Nv5 Inc 7,546.30 0 7,546.30
Supplier Payment: General Code Llc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451095 03/26/2025 General Code Llc 636.00 0 636.00
Supplier Payment: Motive Energy
Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451112 03/26/2025 Motive Energy Llc 541.92 0 541.92
Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal
Health: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451113 03/26/2025 Mwi Animal Health 1,132.02 0 1,132.02
Supplier Payment: Advantage
Sealing Systems Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451057 03/26/2025 Advantage Sealing
Systems Inc
496.30 0 496.30
Supplier Payment: Calif Underground
Fac Safe Excavation Board:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451069 03/26/2025 Calif Underground Fac
Safe Excavation Board
56.32 0 56.32
Supplier Payment: Civic Solutions
Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Civic Solutions Inc 16,058.75 0 16,058.75
Supplier Payment: Anderson'S
Playschool: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Anderson'S Playschool 6,075.00 0 6,075.00
Page 19
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 7 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Mc Avoy &
Markham Engineering and Sales CO:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Mc Avoy & Markham
Engineering and Sales CO
1,712.90 0 1,712.90
Supplier Payment: San Bernardino
County: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451129 03/26/2025 San Bernardino County 15,835.84 0 15,835.84
Supplier Payment: Dependable
Break Room Solutions Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451086 03/26/2025 Dependable Break Room
Solutions Inc
58.90 0 58.90
Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm:
03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451093 03/26/2025 Frontier Comm 0 1,951.94 1,951.94
Supplier Payment: Midwest
Veterinary Supply Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451110 03/26/2025 Midwest Veterinary Supply
Inc
962.77 0 962.77
Supplier Payment: Graybar Electric
Company Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Graybar Electric Company
Inc
1,061.36 0 1,061.36
Supplier Payment: Champion Fire
Systems Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Champion Fire Systems
Inc
7,297.34 0 7,297.34
Supplier Payment: Grainger:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451096 03/26/2025 Grainger 2,795.03 0 2,795.03
Supplier Payment: Ruben'S Auto
Collision Center Inc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451127 03/26/2025 Ruben'S Auto Collision
Center Inc
2,411.98 0 2,411.98
Supplier Payment: Pro Spray
Equipment: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451123 03/26/2025 Pro Spray Equipment 1,143.94 0 1,143.94
Supplier Payment: Life On a Lens
Media, LLC: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451104 03/26/2025 Life On a Lens Media, LLC 500.00 0 500.00
Supplier Payment: Nick Barbieri
Trucking Llc: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451115 03/26/2025 Nick Barbieri Trucking Llc 1,278.41 0 1,278.41
Supplier Payment: Circlepoint:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451076 03/26/2025 Circlepoint 1,200.00 0 1,200.00
Supplier Payment: Cintas
Corporation: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451075 03/26/2025 Cintas Corporation 0 117.72 117.72
Supplier Payment: Diamond
Environmental Services: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Diamond Environmental
Services
814.85 0 814.85
Supplier Payment: Calamp Wireless
Networks Corp: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Calamp Wireless Networks
Corp
250.00 0 250.00
Supplier Payment: Aquabio
Environmental Technologies Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451060 03/26/2025 Aquabio Environmental
Technologies Inc
1,742.94 0 1,742.94
Supplier Payment: Johnny Allen
Tennis Academy: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Johnny Allen Tennis
Academy
1,675.20 0 1,675.20
Supplier Payment: Victoria Animal
Hospital: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451148 03/26/2025 Victoria Animal Hospital 200.00 0 200.00
Page 20
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 8 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Cal Poly Pomona:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451070 03/26/2025 Cal Poly Pomona 6,825.00 0 6,825.00
Supplier Payment: D & K Concrete
Company: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451082 03/26/2025 D & K Concrete Company 1,605.48 0 1,605.48
Supplier Payment: Vista Paint:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451150 03/26/2025 Vista Paint 1,569.55 0 1,569.55
Supplier Payment: Apx Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451059 03/26/2025 Apx Inc 2,437.93 0 2,437.93
Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/26/2025 Psa Print Group 378.00 0 378.00
Supplier Payment: Safe Software Inc:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451128 03/26/2025 Safe Software Inc 3,480.00 0 3,480.00
Supplier Payment: Verizon:
03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451146 03/26/2025 Verizon 57.44 0 57.44
Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal
Health: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451199 03/27/2025 Mwi Animal Health 1,260.37 0 1,260.37
Supplier Payment: Richards Watson
& Gershon: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 Richards Watson &
Gershon
24,220.60 0 24,220.60
Supplier Payment: Ewing Irrigation
Products Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451187 03/27/2025 Ewing Irrigation Products
Inc
1,560.59 0 1,560.59
Supplier Payment: Airgas Usa Llc:
03/27/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451178 03/27/2025 Airgas Usa Llc 0 443.59 443.59
Supplier Payment: Merakai LLC:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451195 03/27/2025 Merakai LLC 8,160.13 0 8,160.13
Supplier Payment: Occupational
Health Centers Of Ca: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451200 03/27/2025 Occupational Health
Centers Of Ca
1,372.00 0 1,372.00
Supplier Payment: Globalstar Usa:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451189 03/27/2025 Globalstar Usa 182.15 0 182.15
Supplier Payment: Dudek:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451185 03/27/2025 Dudek 3,012.50 0 3,012.50
Supplier Payment: Elecnor Belco
Electric Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 Elecnor Belco Electric Inc 39,220.75 0 39,220.75
Supplier Payment: Data Ticket Inc:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 Data Ticket Inc 200.00 0 200.00
Supplier Payment: Hdl Software Llc:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451191 03/27/2025 Hdl Software Llc 20,217.36 0 20,217.36
Supplier Payment: Abc Locksmiths
Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 Abc Locksmiths Inc 123.65 0 123.65
Supplier Payment: Mrc Smart
Technology Solutions: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451197 03/27/2025 Mrc Smart Technology
Solutions
1,233.74 0 1,233.74
Supplier Payment: Transtech
Engineers Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451207 03/27/2025 Transtech Engineers Inc 554.00 0 554.00
Page 21
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 9 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Midwest
Veterinary Supply Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451196 03/27/2025 Midwest Veterinary Supply
Inc
538.40 0 538.40
Supplier Payment: Golden State Risk
Management Authority: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 Golden State Risk
Management Authority
117,959.00 0 117,959.00
Supplier Payment: Mary Mcgrath
Architects: 03/27/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
03/27/2025 Mary Mcgrath Architects 0 70,969.10 70,969.10
Supplier Payment: Ph&S Products
Llc: 03/27/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451202 03/27/2025 Ph&S Products Llc 0 4,950.00 4,950.00
Supplier Payment: Mariposa
Landscapes Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 69,289.46 0 69,289.46
Supplier Payment: Grainger:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451190 03/27/2025 Grainger 773.72 0 773.72
Supplier Payment: Dunn-Edwards
Corporation: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 Dunn-Edwards Corporation 124.71 0 124.71
Supplier Payment: Antelope
Expansion 3B Llc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451179 03/27/2025 Antelope Expansion 3B Llc 17,860.96 0 17,860.96
Supplier Payment: DBH Rancho
Cucamonga, LLC: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451182 03/27/2025 DBH Rancho Cucamonga,
LLC
15,700.00 0 15,700.00
Supplier Payment: Dependable
Break Room Solutions Inc:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451184 03/27/2025 Dependable Break Room
Solutions Inc
58.72 0 58.72
Supplier Payment: Ferguson
Enterprises Llc #1350: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451188 03/27/2025 Ferguson Enterprises Llc
#1350
887.39 0 887.39
Supplier Payment: Life-Assist Inc:
03/27/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
03/27/2025 Life-Assist Inc 0 1,695.17 1,695.17
Supplier Payment: Department Of
Justice: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451183 03/27/2025 Department Of Justice 2,240.00 0 2,240.00
Supplier Payment: Mcfadden-Dale
Hardware: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451194 03/27/2025 Mcfadden-Dale Hardware 199.99 0 199.99
Supplier Payment: Vulcan Materials
Company: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451208 03/27/2025 Vulcan Materials Company 177.78 0 177.78
Supplier Payment: Bound Tree
Medical Llc: 03/27/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451180 03/27/2025 Bound Tree Medical Llc 0 910.22 910.22
Supplier Payment: Scott Mcleod
Plumbing Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451205 03/27/2025 Scott Mcleod Plumbing Inc 12,270.00 0 12,270.00
Supplier Payment: San Bernardino
County Transportation Authority:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451204 03/27/2025 San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority
56,441.00 0 56,441.00
Page 22
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 10 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Stotz Equipment:
03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451206 03/27/2025 Stotz Equipment 351.70 0 351.70
Supplier Payment: Best Outdoor
Power Inland Llc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 Best Outdoor Power Inland
Llc
81.85 0 81.85
Supplier Payment: Holliday Rock Co
Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451193 03/27/2025 Holliday Rock Co Inc 2,336.02 0 2,336.02
Supplier Payment: Henry Schein Inc:
03/27/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451192 03/27/2025 Henry Schein Inc 0 1,202.38 1,202.38
Supplier Payment: EN Engineering,
LLC: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451186 03/27/2025 EN Engineering, LLC 30,150.03 0 30,150.03
Supplier Payment: Cintas
Corporation: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451181 03/27/2025 Cintas Corporation 3,247.71 0 3,247.71
Supplier Payment: San Bernardino
County Sheriff'S Dept: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
03/27/2025 San Bernardino County
Sheriff'S Dept
4,260,140.00 0 4,260,140.00
Supplier Payment: Mr T'S Towing
Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451198 03/27/2025 Mr T'S Towing Inc 330.00 0 330.00
Supplier Payment: Rainbow Bolt &
Supply Inc: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451203 03/27/2025 Rainbow Bolt & Supply Inc 1,226.42 0 1,226.42
Supplier Payment: Pape Material
Handling: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451201 03/27/2025 Pape Material Handling 86.87 0 86.87
Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary
Supply: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451209 03/27/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 790.35 0 790.35
Supplier Payment: Zumar Industries
Inc.: 03/27/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451210 03/27/2025 Zumar Industries Inc.825.76 0 825.76
Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm:
04/01/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451217 04/01/2025 Frontier Comm 0 697.61 697.61
Supplier Payment: Amg & Associates
Inc: 04/01/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
04/01/2025 Amg & Associates Inc 0 347,714.92 347,714.92
Supplier Payment: C V W D:
04/01/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451215 04/01/2025 C V W D 16,880.88 0 16,880.88
Supplier Payment: Southern
California Edison: 04/01/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451218 04/01/2025 Southern California Edison 1,936.31 0 1,936.31
Supplier Payment: C V W D:
04/01/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451214 04/01/2025 C V W D 0 52.26 52.26
Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm:
04/01/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451216 04/01/2025 Frontier Comm 3,454.70 0 3,454.70
Supplier Payment: South Coast
Aqmd: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451266 04/02/2025 South Coast Aqmd 0 165.96 165.96
Page 23
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 11 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Sovic Creative:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Sovic Creative 1,500.00 0 1,500.00
Supplier Payment: Western Systems
Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451277 04/02/2025 Western Systems Inc 1,969.95 0 1,969.95
Supplier Payment: Winzer
Corporation: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451279 04/02/2025 Winzer Corporation 0 402.27 402.27
Supplier Payment: Gentry General
Engineering Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Gentry General
Engineering Inc
8,247.93 0 8,247.93
Supplier Payment: League Of
California Cities: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451242 04/02/2025 League Of California Cities 700.00 0 700.00
Supplier Payment: Merrimac
Petroleum Inc: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
04/02/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 0 9,408.71 9,408.71
Supplier Payment: Southern
California Edison: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451268 04/02/2025 Southern California Edison 16,724.01 0 16,724.01
Supplier Payment: Velocity Truck
Centers: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451274 04/02/2025 Velocity Truck Centers 1,031.03 0 1,031.03
Supplier Payment: Confire Jpa:
04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
04/02/2025 Confire Jpa 0 272,966.75 272,966.75
Supplier Payment: 6 Inch Media,
LLC: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 6 Inch Media, LLC 5,000.00 0 5,000.00
Supplier Payment: Ferguson
Enterprises Llc #1350: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451235 04/02/2025 Ferguson Enterprises Llc
#1350
669.90 0 669.90
Supplier Payment: Teamcalifornia
Economic Development: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451271 04/02/2025 Teamcalifornia Economic
Development
3,300.00 0 3,300.00
Supplier Payment: Mr T'S Towing
Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451248 04/02/2025 Mr T'S Towing Inc 330.00 0 330.00
Supplier Payment: Abc Locksmiths
Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Abc Locksmiths Inc 382.33 0 382.33
Supplier Payment: Southern
California Edison: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451267 04/02/2025 Southern California Edison 0 4,190.64 4,190.64
Supplier Payment: Delta Dental
Insurance Company: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Delta Dental Insurance
Company
1,836.06 0 1,836.06
Supplier Payment: Palmer
Consulting: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Palmer Consulting 9,030.00 0 9,030.00
Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory
Printing Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451239 04/02/2025 Graphics Factory Printing
Inc
245.67 0 245.67
Supplier Payment: Wilson & Bell
Auto Service: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451278 04/02/2025 Wilson & Bell Auto Service 160.00 0 160.00
Page 24
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 12 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Alliance Laundry
Systems: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451221 04/02/2025 Alliance Laundry Systems 0 234.00 234.00
Supplier Payment: San Gabriel
Valley Water Company: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451261 04/02/2025 San Gabriel Valley Water
Company
18,739.35 0 18,739.35
Supplier Payment: Siteone
Landscape Supply Llc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451263 04/02/2025 Siteone Landscape Supply
Llc
1,640.30 0 1,640.30
Supplier Payment: California Library
Association: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451226 04/02/2025 California Library
Association
1,250.00 0 1,250.00
Supplier Payment: Boot Barn Inc:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451224 04/02/2025 Boot Barn Inc 1,293.99 0 1,293.99
Supplier Payment: Golden Oaks Vet
Hospital: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451237 04/02/2025 Golden Oaks Vet Hospital 400.00 0 400.00
Supplier Payment: Spectrum Reach,
LLC: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451270 04/02/2025 Spectrum Reach, LLC 594.10 0 594.10
Supplier Payment: National Cng &
Fleet Service: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451249 04/02/2025 National Cng & Fleet
Service
325.00 0 325.00
Supplier Payment: Liebert Cassidy
Whitmore: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451243 04/02/2025 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 12,943.00 0 12,943.00
Supplier Payment: Department Of
Justice: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451232 04/02/2025 Department Of Justice 1,537.00 0 1,537.00
Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Napa Auto Parts 576.57 0 576.57
Supplier Payment: K-K
Woodworking: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451241 04/02/2025 K-K Woodworking 43.05 0 43.05
Supplier Payment: Burrtec Waste
Industries Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451225 04/02/2025 Burrtec Waste Industries
Inc
29,880.00 0 29,880.00
Supplier Payment: Minuteman Press:
04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451247 04/02/2025 Minuteman Press 0 164.74 164.74
Supplier Payment: C V W D:
04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451231 04/02/2025 C V W D 0 364.71 364.71
Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary
Supply: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451276 04/02/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 265.93 0 265.93
Supplier Payment: Cheyne Ellett:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451228 04/02/2025 Cheyne Ellett 750.00 0 750.00
Supplier Payment: Richards Watson
& Gershon: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Richards Watson &
Gershon
23,319.58 0 23,319.58
Supplier Payment: Auto & Rv
Specialists Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451222 04/02/2025 Auto & Rv Specialists Inc 120.69 0 120.69
Page 25
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 13 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Citrus Motors
Ontario Inc: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451229 04/02/2025 Citrus Motors Ontario Inc 0 325.86 325.86
Supplier Payment: Grainger:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451238 04/02/2025 Grainger 112.73 0 112.73
Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Psa Print Group 291.44 0 291.44
Supplier Payment: Backflow Parts
Usa: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451223 04/02/2025 Backflow Parts Usa 749.27 0 749.27
Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group:
04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
04/02/2025 Psa Print Group 0 107.88 107.88
Supplier Payment: Nick Barbieri
Trucking Llc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451251 04/02/2025 Nick Barbieri Trucking Llc 1,278.41 0 1,278.41
Supplier Payment: Little Bear
Productions: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451244 04/02/2025 Little Bear Productions 645.00 0 645.00
Supplier Payment: Airgas Usa Llc:
04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451220 04/02/2025 Airgas Usa Llc 0 487.33 487.33
Supplier Payment: Data Ticket Inc:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Data Ticket Inc 1,390.72 0 1,390.72
Supplier Payment: Occupational
Health Centers Of Ca: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451252 04/02/2025 Occupational Health
Centers Of Ca
9,416.00 0 9,416.00
Supplier Payment: Rancho Smog
Center: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451258 04/02/2025 Rancho Smog Center 199.80 0 199.80
Supplier Payment: Quadient Inc:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451256 04/02/2025 Quadient Inc 128.60 0 128.60
Supplier Payment: Sharon Ott:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Sharon Ott 936.00 0 936.00
Supplier Payment: The Sign Shop:
04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451272 04/02/2025 The Sign Shop 0 969.75 969.75
Supplier Payment: Mcmaster-Carr
Supply Company: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451245 04/02/2025 Mcmaster-Carr Supply
Company
0 42.15 42.15
Supplier Payment: Gentry Brothers
Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Gentry Brothers Inc 348,578.22 0 348,578.22
Supplier Payment: New Urban Realty
Advisors: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451250 04/02/2025 New Urban Realty
Advisors
5,183.59 0 5,183.59
Supplier Payment: 49Er
Communications Inc: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451219 04/02/2025 49Er Communications Inc 0 179.35 179.35
Page 26
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 14 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Dawson
Productions Llc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Dawson Productions Llc 5,600.00 0 5,600.00
Supplier Payment: Graybar Electric
Company Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Graybar Electric Company
Inc
783.36 0 783.36
Supplier Payment: Champion Fire
Systems Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Champion Fire Systems
Inc
1,690.00 0 1,690.00
Supplier Payment: Odp Business
Solutions Llc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451253 04/02/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 988.28 0 988.28
Supplier Payment: Pre-Paid Legal
Services Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451254 04/02/2025 Pre-Paid Legal Services
Inc
191.54 0 191.54
Supplier Payment: Enko Systems
Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451233 04/02/2025 Enko Systems Inc 1,537.50 0 1,537.50
Supplier Payment: Inland Overhead
Door Company: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451240 04/02/2025 Inland Overhead Door
Company
9,935.00 0 9,935.00
Supplier Payment: Delta Dental Of
California: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Delta Dental Of California 44,600.13 0 44,600.13
Supplier Payment: CSG Consultants,
Inc.: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451230 04/02/2025 CSG Consultants, Inc.15,055.00 0 15,055.00
Supplier Payment: Rancho
Cucamonga Town Square:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451257 04/02/2025 Rancho Cucamonga Town
Square
40,496.54 0 40,496.54
Supplier Payment: Mesa Energy
Systems Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451246 04/02/2025 Mesa Energy Systems Inc 4,029.03 0 4,029.03
Supplier Payment: Factory Motor
Parts: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451234 04/02/2025 Factory Motor Parts 0 802.77 802.77
Supplier Payment: Richards Watson
& Gershon: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
04/02/2025 Richards Watson &
Gershon
0 1,628.40 1,628.40
Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm:
04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451236 04/02/2025 Frontier Comm 0 498.17 498.17
Supplier Payment: Merrimac
Petroleum Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 4,532.24 0 4,532.24
Supplier Payment: Prime Glass:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451255 04/02/2025 Prime Glass 361.38 0 361.38
Supplier Payment: Red Wing
Business Advantage Account:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451259 04/02/2025 Red Wing Business
Advantage Account
352.50 0 352.50
Supplier Payment: Aufbau
Corporation: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
04/02/2025 Aufbau Corporation 0 5,110.00 5,110.00
Page 27
Council Meeting Check Register - without
SoCal Gas
07:54 AM
04/07/2025
Page 15 of 15
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
Payment Amount for
Reporting Transaction
Supplier Payment: Velocity Truck
Centers: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451275 04/02/2025 Velocity Truck Centers 0 119.59 119.59
Supplier Payment: Carissa Hugo:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451227 04/02/2025 Carissa Hugo 750.00 0 750.00
Supplier Payment: Safety-Kleen
Systems Inc: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451260 04/02/2025 Safety-Kleen Systems Inc 0 571.34 571.34
Supplier Payment: Uline: 04/02/2025 City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451273 04/02/2025 Uline 354.95 0 354.95
Supplier Payment: Mariposa
Landscapes Inc: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/02/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 10,686.04 0 10,686.04
Supplier Payment: Shred Pros:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451262 04/02/2025 Shred Pros 195.00 0 195.00
Supplier Payment: Southern
California Edison - Remit-To: RCMU:
04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451269 04/02/2025 Southern California Edison 470.96 0 470.96
Supplier Payment: C V W D:
04/03/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection District
451306 04/03/2025 C V W D 0 1,290.07 1,290.07
Supplier Payment: C V W D:
04/03/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451305 04/03/2025 C V W D 182,060.12 0 182,060.12
Supplier Payment: Sharon Ott:
04/03/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/03/2025 Sharon Ott 1,100.40 0 1,100.40
Supplier Payment: Stephanie
Contreras: 04/03/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
04/03/2025 Stephanie Contreras 479.16 0 479.16
6,490,770.55 810,053.82 7,300,824.37
Page 28
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor
SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers
for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total
Amount of $37,750.31 Dated March 26, 2025, Through April 6, 2025.
(CITY/FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment
of demands as presented. Weekly check register amounts are $33,489.70 and $4,260.61 for the
City and the Fire District, respectively.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
ANALYSIS:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register
Page 29
Council Meeting Check Register - SoCal Gas 07:59 AM
04/07/2025
Page 1 of 1
Company: City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Payment Date On or After: 03/26/2025
Payment Date On or Before: 04/06/2025
Supplier Payment Company Check
Number Check Date Supplier
Name
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection
District
Payment Amount
for Reporting
Transaction
Supplier Payment: Socal
Gas: 03/26/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection
District
451134 03/26/2025 Socal Gas 0 3,795.59 3,795.59
Supplier Payment: Socal
Gas: 03/26/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451133 03/26/2025 Socal Gas 28,403.78 0 28,403.78
Supplier Payment: Socal
Gas: 04/02/2025
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
451265 04/02/2025 Socal Gas 5,085.92 0 5,085.92
Supplier Payment: Socal
Gas: 04/02/2025
Rancho
Cucamonga Fire
Protection
District
451264 04/02/2025 Socal Gas 0 465.02 465.02
33,489.70 4,260.61 37,750.31
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 30
2
7
7
6
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
INITIATED BY:
SUBJECT:
April 16, 2025
Mayor and Members of the City Council
John R. Gillison, City Manager
Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services
Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager
Cheryl Combs, Procurement Business Partner
Consideration to Declare Surplus for Vehicle, Retired Computer, Monitors,
Laptops, iPhones, and iPads, Deemed No Longer Needed, Obsolete or
Unusable as Surplus. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council declare the vehicle and the list of retired computers,
monitors, laptops, iPhones, and iPads detailed in the Analysis section that have been deemed
no longer needed, obsolete, or unusable surplus.
BACKGROUND:
Per the City's Municipal Code Section 3.08.150, the Procurement Manager shall have the
authority, granted by the City Council, to request to dispose of City items that have been deemed
as obsolete and unsuitable for City use. Methods for disposing of surplus are to exchange for
or trade in on new supplies, transfer to another department, or offer for sale on a competitive
bid basis. After a reasonable effort, and if no bids have been received, Procurement may dispose
of surplus for the highest scrap value. The City may sell surplus property to any other
governmental agency at a fair market value without any other bids or donate surplus property to
any agency or entity which is exempt from federal income tax, with the approval of City Council.
ANALYSIS:
The items to be considered for surplus at this time were submitted by the “DoIT”
Department of Innovation & Technology and the Public Works Department. Proposed surplus
items include a vehicle, retired computers, monitors, laptops, iPhones, and iPads deemed no
longer needed, obsolete or unusable. Staff recommends Council approve the disposal of these
items through auction or best method as determined by the Procurement Manager.
F/A No.MFG. Description Model Serial No.
Computer Equipment
1680 Xerox Printer 3615 A2T196372
6234 Xerox Printer 3615 A2T196370
1685 Hp Printer P2015DN CNBJR63133
5372 Xerox Printer 3615 A2T196357
Page 31
Page 2
2
7
7
6
F/A No.MFG. Description Model Serial No.
N/A Xerox Printer 3550 VMA574564
N/A Lenovo Monitor 9419-HC2 VLY2078
7181 Lenovo Tower P520c 1S30BYS4SN00MJ0A70H3
N/A Lenovo Monitor 9419-HC2 VLY1405
5752 MSI All in One AW-NE238H MSAA75F9S0102864
1693 HP Monitor W2082A CNC503NPLR
1713 HP Monitor P201 6CM42829GW
N/S Lenovo Monitor 9419-HC2 VLY1403
N/A Lenovo Monitor 9419-HC2 VLY2087
5753 MSI All in One AW-NE238H MSAA75F9S0102871
1366 HP Monitor P201 3CQ3422LZZ
1021 DELL Monitor U2412MB CN0YMYH17426159T1NVS
NA Hp Printer CP5225 CNGCL6703J
NA Hp Printer P4015X CNDY259715
4854 HP Tower PRO6300 MXL330086X
1536 APPLE IMAC IMAC W89092MN0TF
3520 APPLE IMAC IMAC YM9243QC0TF
NA HITI Printer S420 S1NI0A14500005
NA SONY Projector VPLFX51 13245
4879 HP Tower PRO6300 MXL33008BQ
4889 HP Tower PRO6300 MXL330085B
7156 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ0A4AVK
6427 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ075NH9
6793 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ08Q596
7065 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ0A4ATN
6662 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ08B5DY
6633 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ07RFA9
6388 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ06MR0S
6916 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ0910H0
7211 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ0A4AVF
6890 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ09EE3D
6950 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ0A4AXR
6753 Lenovo Tiny M920q MJ08Q5A4
NA eMachines Tower el1850 PTNBK02012050003B29600
NA Datacard Printer PX10 CQUH03611
6188 Intel PC NUC6155YK G6SY70100BF2
6192 Intel PC NUC6155YK G6SY70100BMT
6190 Intel PC NUC6155YK G6SY70100BF9
6824 Lenovo Tiny M920 MJ098LE2
1657 HP Monitor P201 3CQ3422LZC
7348 HP Laptop 3165NGW CND7030G9J
7841 HP Laptop 3165NGW CND7030CZR
Page 32
Page 3
2
7
7
6
F/A No.MFG. Description Model Serial No.
7239 HP Laptop 3165NGW CND7030DJC
7347 HP Laptop 3165NGW CND7030GBP
7349 HP Laptop 3165NGW CND7030FMQ
7360 HP Laptop 3165NGW CND7030FKS
4683 ASUS All in One AIO D9PTBX020087
NA Ingenico Credit card printer IPP320 15309PP81810287
NA Ingenico Credit card printer IPP320 15310PP81811491
NA Ingenico Credit card printer IPP320 15309PP81810287
NA Ingenico Credit card printer IPP320 15127PP81458673
NA Ingenico Credit card printer IPP320 15310PP81811372
NA Ingenico Credit card printer IPP320 15310PP81811499
4871 Lenovo Monitor 9417HC2 VLLX808
1648 Tatung Monitor TS17R-M01 S09098470023
4685 ASUS All in One AOI D9PTBX020091
7742 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089060
7730 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089140
7740 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089173
7743 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089139
7748 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089311
7732 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31088999
7745 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31088959
7736 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089242
7746 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31088933
7734 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089285
7733 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31088958
7739 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089366
7731 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089175
7747 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31088970
7744 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089171
7741 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089172
7793 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31089241
7737 TMOBILE MIFI T9 PTL31088931
1214 HP Monitor P201 3CQ352018V
1368 HP Monitor P201 3CQ3422LZR
1660 HP Monitor P201 3CQ3422LZP
6404 APPLE IPAD A1893 DMPW530YJF8M
NA APPLE IPAD A1822 GCHV710ZHLF9
NA APPLE IPAD A1822 GCHV75MHLF9
IS00922 EPSON Printer M244A MXFF340476
NA SHORETEL Phone IP40G 105809FW16454DEB04
Page 33
Page 4
2
7
7
6
F/A No.MFG. Description Model Serial No.
7690 ACER LAPTOP R841T NXAA5AA0041171AF247600
VEHICLE
UNIT # Year - Make - Model VIN #
1593 2000 Ford F-350 1FDWF36F5YED68707
FISCAL IMPACT:
As of March 25, 2025, Fiscal year 2024/25, surplus has accumulated $115,382.31 in sales
through the Public Surplus auction site.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
Reusing and recycling items supports the City Council's Core Value of promoting and enhancing
a safe and healthy community for all.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 34
2
7
6
9
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Neil Plummer, Director of Public Works Services
Linda Ceballos, Environmental Programs Manager
SUBJECT:Consideration to Schedule a Public Hearing for Placement of Liens and
Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council to schedule a public hearing for the placement of special
assessments/liens for delinquent solid waste accounts to take place on May 21, 2025, during the
regularly scheduled council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Per Section 8.17.170 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the requirements are
established for mandatory payment for residential, commercial and industrial solid waste
collection service. As a result, the municipal code requires all occupied properties within the City
to maintain weekly solid waste collection service provided by the existing franchise waste hauler,
or comply with the requirements of the self-haul permit program administered by City staff. This
section of the code allows fees that are delinquent for more than 60 days to become special
assessments against the respective parcels of land, resulting in liens on the property for the
amount of the delinquent fee, plus administrative charges.
ANALYSIS:
Upon approval to schedule the public hearing, the public hearing notices will be mailed out to
property owners with delinquent solid waste accounts that accrued from January 1, 2024 to
December 31, 2024. Notices will be sent via first class mail no less than 10 days prior to the public
hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City will receive revenue in the form of a franchise fee when the delinquent accounts are paid
through the County of San Bernardino property tax collection process.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item is in line with Council Core Values, in ensuring all residential, commercial, and industrial
property owners are receiving mandatory trash service to ensure a healthy and safe community
for all.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 35
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Justine Garcia, Deputy Director of Engineering Services
Clarence de Guzman, Management Analyst II
Matthew Murphy, CivicSpark Fellow
SUBJECT:Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with Mark Thomas
& Company, Inc. for the Creation of Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Suggested Routes Maps in the Amount of $159,000, Including a 5%
Contingency. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Approve and authorize the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Mark
Thomas & Company, Inc. for the completion of the Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Suggested Routes Maps in the amount of $ $151,270; and
2. Authorize a 5% contingency in the amount of $7,570 to be released by the Director of
Engineering Services as necessary for the completion of the project.
BACKGROUND:
In Fall 2024, the City was awarded a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program Grant from the
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). Its objectives included creating and updating walk, ride,
and roll maps for the 31 public elementary and middle schools in Rancho Cucamonga. As part of
the City’s participation in the National Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) to enhance student
safety and promote active transportation, maps were created in 2008 and 2016 with similar
parameters. This Project aims to update these materials and provide digital maps that identify
safer routes for walking, bicycling, or rolling to schools.
Promoting safe walking, biking, and rolling with user-friendly maps advances the goals of PlanRC,
by reinforcing the City's commitment to ensuring safety for all travel modes throughout the
community. Indeed, the impacts of these strategies extend far beyond roadway safety alone.
Fewer vehicles on the road translate to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved air
quality conditions, increased physical activity leads to reduced rates of obesity and chronic
diseases. Students are better prepared to learn when they engage in meaningful physical activity
before school, fostering lifelong healthy habits. A better understanding of how to facilitate safer
active modes of travel further reduces dependence on automobiles for short-range trips within the
city and effectively promotes active transportation.
Page 36
Page 2
2
7
8
5
ANALYSIS:
The proposed grant project will continue to rejuvenate the Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS)
by providing each school with a useful tool to facilitate safe walking, biking, and rolling.
In March 2025, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released for consultant services for the
completion of the Safe Routes to School Suggested Routes Maps. In total, three (3) qualified
proposal responses were evaluated and rated in accordance with the criteria specified in the RFP.
Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. was selected based on their previous experience with similar
projects, their understanding of the project, clear approach, transparent timeline, and innovative
solutions. This includes a preconfigured digital mapping tool that is focused and engaging,
designed for seamless use on both web and mobile devices.
The scope of work to be performed includes the development of physical 2D maps as well as a
digital tool, to ensure the maps are accessible and useful to a contemporary user. Each map will
reflect local conditions and community input to ensure relevance and usability. Mark Thomas &
Company, Inc. will also ensure education and training is provided for City staff to be able to easily
update maps and the digital tool, as future changes to the road network are implemented in
accordance with the City’s General Plan (Plan RC) and implementation of Connect RC.
A copy of the Professional Services Agreement is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The estimated cost for the proposed contract is $159,000. The City is eligible for grant
reimbursement for 100% of the contract costs from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program
Grant from the California OTS. No matching contributions are required at this time. Appropriations
to receive and expend the grant funds were approved by City Council on September 17, 2024, in
the amount of $200,000. A portion of those appropriated grant funds will cover the costs of the
contract award to Mark Thomas. The rest of the appropriated grant funds have either already
been in use or will continue to be expended for the remaining scope of work as outlined in the
City’s grant award agreement with OTS.
The City will be reimbursed from grant funds when invoices for eligible expenses are submitted
to the grant administrator throughout the duration of the grant period.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This Project addresses the City Council’s core value of promoting and enhancing a safe and
healthy community for all, as well as intentionally embracing and anticipating our future. It also
incorporates working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all
stakeholders.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Scope of Work
Page 37
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES MAPSCity of Rancho Cucamonga MARK THOMASPage 26
delivering the project and to quickly secure guidance and direction on project elements to deliver the project consistent with the proposed schedule. The meetings will be concise, organized, and led by the Mark Thomas PM. Participation in the monthly PM status meetings is anticipated to include the City of Rancho Cucamonga designated PM and additional team members will be invited to the status meetings as needed to review the status of deliverables and solicit Client direction.
Additional focus meetings with City staff may be needed to review key items and deliverables. We assume up to four (4) focus meetings in addition to the PM status meetings.
TASK 1 DELIVERABLES:
»Organize and Lead Project Kick-Off Meeting (materialsand action notes for 1 meeting)
»Schedule (draft and final)
»Progress Report and Invoices (assume monthly)
»PM Status Meetings (assume monthly agenda andnotes)
»Focus Meetings (assume four meetings)
TASK 2. EXISTING
CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
TASK 2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
The Mark Thomas teal will conduct a literature review of applicable local SRTS and active transportation plans to utilize for the Project. Plans for review are anticipated to include the following:
3.9 PROPOSAL RESPONSE
SCOPE OF WORK
Following a Notice-to-Proceed (NTP), Mark Thomas will initiate and advance the Project utilizing the following outline of tasks.
TASK 1. PROJECT
MANAGEMENT AND
COORDINATION
TASK 1.1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Mark Thomas Project Manager (PM), Stephen Decker, will communicate directly with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s PM and manage the internal project team for project delivery. Project management will include delivery of monthly progress reports and invoices for review and approval by the client. The progress reports will include:
1.Work during reporting period
2.Work anticipated during next reporting period
3.Project challenges and solutions
4.Status of project schedule
TASK 1.2. PROJECT KICK-OFF MEETING
We will organize and facilitate a virtual project kick-off meeting with City staff to discuss the project background, goals, key milestones, approach to delivery, involved agency partners, and key stakeholders for involvement. The kick-off meeting provides an opportunity to hear the City’s project vision, goals, objectives, potential challenges, and important deadlines. The kick-off meeting will be held within two (2) weeks of the notice-to-proceed (NTP) agreement. We will identify key project outcomes to ensure that expectations and deliverables are well-defined for project success. The Mark Thomas Team will listen to the discussion to determine how best to serve the City.
TASK 1.3. MONTHLY PROJECT
MANAGMENT MEETINGS
Throughout the duration of the project, we will host monthly PM status meetings via a Mark Thomas-provided videoconference link. The videoconference is recommended to allow for a screenshare opportunity where meeting notes are recorded in real-time to document discussion, provides accountability, and establish clear action items. The frequency of PM status meetings is intended to maintain a conversational approach to
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 38
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES MAPSCity of Rancho Cucamonga MARK THOMASPage 27
• Connect Rancho Cucamonga (2023)
• Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (2021)
• Existing Rancho Cucamonga Suggested Safe Routes to School Maps (2007 and 2017)
• Regional Safe Routes to School Plan Phase II, Volume II – City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (2017)
• Active Transportation Plan, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (2022)
TASK 2.2. DATA REQUEST DOCUMENT
In order to obtain the necessary data within a timeline that advances the project document, our team will draft a Data Request Document. The Data Request Document will outline the project data sets, data set owners, request process, timeline, and data delivery checklist. The data requests will be executed through a Data Request Memorandum developed by the Mark Thomas team for submission to the City following the project kick-off..
TASK 2.3. SITE VISITS
As needed, Mark Thomas will conduct site visits to supplement the literature review for schools without existing maps and schools within the four areas designated by the States Environmentally Disadvantaged Communities to ensure equitable developed suggested routes south of Foothill Boulevard. Including schools in census tracks include 21.10, 21.07, 21.05, and 13.11. Mark Thomas will use the Site Visit to develop GIS datasets by inventorying missing pathways and corridors, (i.e. side paths, local roadways, etc). See task 5.1 below for more information.
TASK 2 DELIVERABLES:
»Literature Review (technical memorandum)
»Site Visits (over 2-3 day)
»Data Request Document
TASK 3. COMMUNITY
OUTREACH AND
ENGAGEMENT
Mark Thomas will gather feedback and engage students, families, school district officials, community-based organizations, first responders, regional and local stakeholders, and City departments to gain input to refine and adjust recommended routes to schools.
Our team has a demonstrated history of developing multi-faceted outreach strategies by utilizing traditional grassroots methods, innovative tools and technology, and the development of strategic partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs) and other key stakeholders. Our layered outreach approach seeks to meet stakeholders where they are while providing a variety of methods for engagement.
TASK 3.1 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN
We will develop a Public Engagement Plan (PEP) that outlines the planned effort for engaging the public, school representatives, disadvantaged and underserved community members, businesses, Parent Teacher Associations, community-based organizations, and other local and regional stakeholders. We will use input from the kick-off meeting to refine and tailor the proposed outreach scope and will prepare a detailed and organized PEP. The PEP will discuss goals and objectives, focused audiences, communications and outreach tools, proposed activities and timelines, language translation, and roles and responsibilities.
Strategies in this PEP will include a variety of traditional and digital notification efforts to inform and engage the public, particularly disadvantaged and underserved communities in the study area. In addition to describing the strategic vision and a detailed schedule, the PEP will identify:
• Focus audiences and tailored notification tactics, including equity approach.
• Digital outreach and engagement tools and platforms and methods of making them more accessible to the public.
• Strategies to engaging historically underrepresented stakeholders, including Spanish speakers.
• Goals for public input and review process.
Page 39
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES MAPSCity of Rancho Cucamonga MARK THOMASPage 28
TASK 3.2. COLLATERAL MATERIALS
We will develop and produce collateral materials for the project. This includes project fact sheets, meeting flyers, display boards, and meeting presentations. We will provide English and Spanish translation of a select number of materials as needed. Materials can include lawn signs and banners soliciting input on the online map.
TASK 3.3. VIRTUAL COMMUNITY
WORKSHOPS
To increase awareness and provide opportunities for public input, we will coordinate up to two virtual (2) public meetings. The meetings will be virtual to allow broad citywide engagement and participation. We will work with all four school districts to share district-wide notifications, and we will target notification efforts in prioritized study areas south of Foothill Boulevard to ensure equitable resource distribution.
We have developed a draft approach to meeting content as follows:
• Meeting #1 will present the existing 2007 and 2017 suggested routes to schools maps and gather participants initial feedback, include their lived experiences and any infrastructure or traffic pattern changes since the routes were created.
• Meeting #2 will present and gather participant feedback on a mock suggested safe routes to school. We will gather feedback on the users experience navigating the web interface, and how to improve the platform for ease and function. Each meeting will utilize project communications tools to offer an engaging and immersive experience, as requested. Meeting formats can include small group discussions, polling and surveying.
We will lead the coordination and support of the public meetings including coordination of meeting times, virtual platforms. Simultaneous Spanish interpretations can be provided, as requested. Meeting materials may also be translated and provided, as needed. All meetings will be held during the evening hours to accommodate working individuals. Following each meeting, our team will send out a meeting summary capturing the number of participants, key stakeholders and key issues and common themes raised by meeting attendees. Comments received at meetings will be recorded and input into a Meeting Comment Log.
TASK 3.4. POP-UP TABLING AT
COMMUNITY EVENTS
In addition, our team recommends hosting up to four (4) pop-up tabling events, prioritizing the States
Environmentally Disadvantaged Communities, leading up to the public meetings. The pop-up events will serve to increase project awareness, particularly among diverse communities and provide in-person opportunities to talk with stakeholders and further solicit input. At the first two pop-up tabling events, we will display the existing 2007 and 2017 suggested route to school maps to gather feedback, similar to the virtual workshops. At the last two pop-ups, we will display the updated suggested routes to schools. We will work with the City to identify the best locations or existing school events for pop-up attendance or key destinations near schools and high pedestrian volume.
Logistics and support for the events will include site selection, equipment needed, comment cards, photography, and English and Spanish collateral materials, along with post-event documentation.
TASK 3.5. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
Upon completion of the public engagement activities, we will prepare an Engagement Summary memorandum that details the project-related engagement activities including a summary of comments received. The report will outline outreach strategies conducted to establish clarity about the process and illustrate community input. The Engagement Summary memorandum will also include appendices with meeting collateral, materials, and additional supporting documents.
TASK 3 DELIVERABLES:
»Public Engagement Plan (draft and final)
»Collateral Materials
»Virtual Community Workshops and Materials (assume 2 meetings)
»Pop-Up Tabling Event Attendance (assume 4 pop-ups/event attendance)
»Engagement Summary Memorandum (draft and final)
Page 40
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES MAPSCity of Rancho Cucamonga MARK THOMASPage 29
TASK 4. UPDATE EXISTING
SUGGESTED SAFE ROUTES
TO SCHOOL
Utilizing literature review, field conditions analysis, and public input, Mark Thomas will update walking, biking, and rolling routes for students and families traveling to and from schools.
TASK 4.1. DEVELOP ROUTE CRITERIA
Based on priorities identified by the City, Mark Thomas will utilize criteria to refine the suggested routes. Criteria for use will include but is not limited to:
• Traffic volume (as available)
• Traffic calming features
• Intersection crossings
• Facility types (street adjacent sidewalks, off-street trails, park pathways, etc.)
• Street lighting (as available)
• Availability of bike facilities and sidewalks
• Distance to school
Mark Thomas will utilize the route criteria list to update the currently available suggested routes to schools.
TASK 4 DELIVERABLES:
»Suggested Route Criteria List (draft and final)
TASK 5. DIGITIZED
SUGGESTED SAFE ROUTES
TO SCHOOL
TASK 5.1. GIS DATASETS
Mark Thomas will develop GIS datasets to expand the identified sidewalks or possible routes. Mark Thomas will expand the routes network based on site visits conducted by staff. The current GIS data set excludes some sidewalks, paths, local and collector roadways. Mark Thomas anticipates adding these facilities in GIS to create additional accessible, and efficient suggested safe routes to school.
TASK 5.2. ONLINE SUGGESTED SRTS
PLATFORM
Mark Thomas will design and develop a dedicated interactive online tool utilizing Esri’s ArcGIS software that allows users to view their current location, isolate the suggested safe routes to the intended school destination, and filter the routes based upon mode. We propose the following tabs and content to include upon website launch:
• Pop-up Window: Summary of purpose and how to use the tool. The window will require user to click the “I’ve read” check box before closing the pop-up window to use the platform.
• Legend: Host clear visualization of important infrastructure elements, such as crosswalks, bicycle facilities, controlled intersections, schools, and more.
• Crash Data: Heat map of historically high crash rates (most recent 5 years of available and comprehensive data from TIMS).
• GIS-based Map: The map will host the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s roadways, routes, trails, parks, and ability to isolate schools.
• Suggested Routes: The Suggested SRTS routes for each school enrollment area will be highlighted upon selection.
• Walk/Roll Time: Estimated travel times will be highlighted via colored polygons and displayed on the legend.
• School Details: Interactive GIS-based map illustrating access points into the school. Schools can be organized by school district or school level, and can be selected through a drop-down menu.
• Additional FAQ: List additional frequently asked questions as needed.
• Funding: Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) logo and narrative detailing the project’s funding source.
• Contact: a dedicated project email will be listed to
Page 41
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES MAPSCity of Rancho Cucamonga MARK THOMASPage 30
collect feedback and comments. The tab will also feature a comment box and name of the City Point of Contact.
We anticipate refinement of the list of items included above based on input from City staff.
The digital platform will be compatible with smartphone mobile devices for on-the-go user access. The platform interface will include instinctive SRTS and active transportation infrastructure icon elements to provide clear visuals of what users can expect on their routes, including crosswalks, bike facilities, traffic signals, and more.
TASK 5.3. DEVELOP BACKEND SYSTEM
Mark Thomas will develop the online platform with easy updates and maintenance in mind, to ensure the tool remains relevant and accurate. Future platform managers will be able to easily update the map as new infrastructure projects or updates are implemented over time.
TASK 5.4. NEW AND UPDATED DATA
INTEGRATION PROCESS
Mark Thomas will create a list of key events or data the City can monitor for updates. Data that might trigger updates might include:
• Annual crash data updates (local data and statewide systems including SWITRS and TIMS crash data)
• Attendance boundaries changes
• Local Capital Improvement Projects and development updates
• Unforeseen events such as unexpected manmade or natural disasters
TASK 5.5. TRAINING AND MAINTENANCE
MANUAL
Mark Thomas will develop an SRTS Platform Training Manual for internal City staff use. The Manual will equip
City staff to manage, maintain, and troubleshoot the tool, over time. The Manual will include but is not limited to a suggested maintenance schedule, how to update school and regional changes and map collaboration permissions.
TASK 5.6. PLATFORM COMPLETION AND
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
Upon completion of the platform, Mark Thomas will transfer ownership of the application, supporting map, and feature datasets to an ArcGIS Online account under the City’s ArcGIS Online organization.
TASK 5 DELIVERABLES:
»Online Platform Interface (draft and final)
»Training and Maintenance Manual (draft and final and response tracking database)
TASK 6. SUMMARY REPORT
Mark Thomas will prepare a report to summarize the literature review analysis, a community engagement plan and outreach summary, an explanation of recommended route criteria, and a digital tool maintenance plan.
TASK 6.1. DRAFT REPORT
Mark Thomas will develop a draft report for City staff’s review.
TASK 6.2. FINAL REPORT
Mark Thomas will update the draft report based on the City’s review, to develop the final report.
TASK 6.3. PRESENTATION MATERIALS
Mark Thomas will assist City staff in preparing a high-level presentation of the project process, analysis, findings, and website for presentation to the City Council.
TASK 6 DELIVERABLES:
»Summary Report (draft and final)
»Prepare Presentation Materials (presentations)
ASSUMPTIONS
We assume the following items:
• The Client will share the 2007 and 2017 static map and raw files for the Consultant to use as a starting point for updated suggested routes, site conditions, and community input.
Page 42
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer
Sarine Hazarshahian, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT:Consideration of an Appropriation from Fund 174 (Gas Tax R&T7360) in
the Amount of $360,000, Award of a Professional Services Agreement
with Roadway Asset Services in the Amount of $195,190 for Consulting
Services for Preparation of a Pavement Management Plan, and
Authorization for the City Engineer to Approve the Use of an Additional
$164,780 for Optional Services and Contingency as Deemed Necessary.
This Project is Exempt From the Requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Government Code Section 15301
– Existing Facilities. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize an appropriation from Fund 174 (Gas Tax R&T7360) to Account No. F174 |
CC307 | SC2106, in the amount of $360,000;
2. Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Roadway Asset Services in the base
amount of $195,190, for the development of the Pavement Management Plan (PMP); and
3. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the use of up to $164,780 for Optional Services
and Contingency as deemed necessary throughout the project.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Pavement Management Program is one of the most significant investments in the City’s
roadway infrastructure. Each year, the Engineering Services Department relies on the most up-
to-date Pavement Management Plan (PMP) to understand pavement conditions, plan for projects,
and provide effective management of the City’s largest asset, its roadway pavement
infrastructure. Over time, due to vehicle wear and tear, environmental elements such as sun and
rain, and other factors, the pavement condition on any given roadway will deteriorate. If
maintained regularly, either with a slurry seal or pavement overlays, the life of the roadway can
be prolonged, avoiding the need for full roadway reconstruction, which can prove to be several
orders of magnitude more costly. The PMP, which is ideally updated every five (5) years, allows
staff to appropriately plan projects to prolong the life of our roadway pavement. The City’s current
PMP was last updated on March 6, 2019.
Page 43
Page 2
2
7
6
5
The planned update of the PMP includes a survey of the existing pavement condition of all City
roadways, comprehensive pavement analysis with multi-year maintenance and rehabilitation
recommendations based on various budget scenarios, and access to a web-based pavement
management system that can be updated by City staff. The program would also include
deterioration curves that forecast the degradation of the pavement condition and the cost of
deferring maintenance. With this information, the City can plan and budget maintenance projects
over multiple years.
ANALYSIS:
In August 2024, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was released for Consulting Services for the
update of the “Pavement and Asset Management Program”. In total, eight (8) qualified proposal
responses were evaluated and rated in accordance with the criteria specified in the RFP.
Roadway Asset Services was selected based on their advanced pavement data collection
technologies and plan to provide deliverables clearly and efficiently.
The scope of work to be performed consists of, conducting a field survey of the pavement
condition of approximately 497 centerline miles of City maintained roads, compiling a
comprehensive pavement analysis with multi-year maintenance and rehabilitation
recommendations based on various budget scenarios, and two (2) years of access to a web-
based pavement management system software that can be updated by City staff.
Optional services will include an additional three years of access to the web-based pavement
management system software and re-collection of data and program update in Fiscal Year
2027/28. This extended software subscription would allow City staff to run additional budget
scenarios in the later years of this cycle of the PMP and will allow for the tracking of completed
road maintenance projects to keep the pavement inventory current. In addition, the re-collection
of data along major arterials will confirm if pavement degradation is in line with the original
degradation forecasts and, if needed, will adjust the recommendations for future projects within
the remaining three years of the PMP cycle. Both optional services are intended to best plan for
and utilize City capital investment funds. Given the nature of this project, staff is suggesting a
phased approach to the work with the base scope of work beginning immediately and providing
the City Engineer with the authority to release the remaining optional work as deemed appropriate
and in the best interest of the City.
A copy of the Professional Services Agreement is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Anticipated costs for the development of the PMP are estimated as follows:
Task Amount
Pavement Management Plan $195,190
Optional Services
Software License (Additional Three Years)$60,000
Plan Update and Recollection 2027/2028 $72,050
Subtotal Costs with Optional Services $327,240
Contingency $32,730
Total with Optional Services and Contingency $359,970
The cost for this project was unknown at the time of annual budget preparation and was therefore
not included in the annual budget recommendation for FY2024/25. Staff is recommending that
funding in the amount of $360,000 be appropriated for the project from Fund 174, Gas Tax
Page 44
Page 3
2
7
6
5
R&T736, to cover the contract costs as described above.
Account No.Funding Source Description Amount
F174 CC307 SC2106 Gas Tax R&T7360
(Fund 174)
Pavement Management
Plan
$360,000
Total Project Funding $360,000
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This project meets our City Council core values by its relentless pursuit of improvement through
the use of technology and innovative solutions to develop projects and provide high-quality public
infrastructure.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Scope of Work and Fee Breakdown
Page 45
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 1
Scope of Work
City of Rancho Cucamonga: Pavement & Asset Management Program
Section I: Scope of Work Description
Roadway Asset Services, LLC (CONSULTANT) understands that the City of Rancho Cucamonga (CLIENT)
requests the performance of Pavement and Right-of-Way Asset (ROW) Data Collection and Reporting
services to assess the existing condition of all existing public roadway pavements within the City’s
boundaries.
Base Scope of Work: PMP Inventory: The project will be completed by conducting a field survey of the
pavement conditions on all CLIENT maintained roads in accordance with a modified version of the ASTM
Standard D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Surveys.”
The PCI based pavement condition and right-of-way asset image survey is to be conducted on approximately
497 centerline miles (646 survey miles accounting for two-directional testing on arterial, collector, and
industrial roads) of roadways within the City limits, on each street segment which is typically block-to-block
and tagged with a unique GIS ID on the feature-class layer. The project includes the adoption of the City’s
existing street centerline layer. CONSULTANT will proceed with driving arterial roads in two directions and
local roadways in a single direction. The test miles are driven by the Roadway Asset Collection (RAC) vehicle
and rated for pavement condition on CLIENT owned roads. A comprehensive pavement analysis with multi-
year maintenance and rehabilitation recommendations and budget scenarios is to be delivered in a Final
Report. CONSULTANT is to implement the BOSSTM pavement management system. For the first year
(including the initial report is delivered by approximately January 2026) of the agreement, CONSULTANT
will provide the Gold level of service and analysis support to the CLIENT. Upon acceptance of the final report
and software operating parameters, CLIENT will have access to BOSSTM WEB and the RAS support program
package for the software.
Optional Services: CONSULTANT has separated years 3 through 5 of BOSSTM WEB licenses for the CLIENT to
elect to continue that service on an annual basis beginning in year 3. There is also an option for a pavement
condition assessment in 2027/2028 of the major roadways should the City elect to update the PCI data and
update deterioration models.
The CONSULTANT (Roadway Asset Services, LLC) shall provide the following services to the CLIENT (City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California):
Task 1: Project Initiation & Project Management
At the outset of the project, CONSULTANT will work in conjunction with CLIENT staff to review the CLIENT’s
existing GIS centerline files and pavement inventory for use in this project. After an initial review,
CONSULTANT will conduct a kickoff meeting with CLIENT to discuss the GIS files, deliverable formats,
biweekly progress meetings, and additional data needed by CONSULTANT. During the kickoff meeting,
CONSULTANT will also present the methodology for the pavement condition assessment and
comprehensive ROW asset survey, review with CLIENT the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan,
introduce key personnel, review equipment, and revise the schedule. Project communication protocol,
documentation, accounting methodologies, and data format will be confirmed during the meeting.
Task 1 Deliverables:
1. CONSULTANT will attend the virtual project kick-off meeting.
2. CONSULTANT will coordinate and management schedule, scope and costs.
3. CONSULTANT to coordinate recurring status meetings on a bi-weekly basis.
Attachment 1
Page 46
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
Task 2: Field Setup, Centerline Identification & GPS Network Creation
Centerline Identification & Field Setup
CONSULTANT will review the CLIENT’s existing GIS centerline and perform an
audit of the data to ensure that all roads requiring data collection are
surveyed. CONSULTANT will use the existing centerline data and create a
pavement database on the centerline layer. Each road segment record in the
centerline layer will have a corresponding record in the pavement database.
In addition, CONSULTANT will work with the CLIENT to maintain the unique
identifier of each road segment in the road network so that the pavement
database can maintain a link to the GIS data. The result will be a clean GIS
centerline ready for consumption of additional layers and attribution related
to the pavement condition surveys and asset inventories.
At the completion of the GIS audit, CONSULTANT will deliver a .pdf and ArcGIS
file geodatabase collection map that ensures arterial and collector roadways are two pass tested and that
local roads are single pass tested.
GPS Network Creation
CONSULTANT will consume the final GIS centerline’s to be adopted for the pavement condition surveys as
it will serve as the foundation for routing and CLIENT road ownership. The centerline data will be loaded to
the RAC van field routing application in preparation of the surveys. The mobile mapping application will be
utilized to track the centerline segments surveyed and eventually link the XY coordinates of each automated
sample collected.
Task 2 Deliverables:
1. CONSULTANT will develop the road centerline file and GIS data to finalize the extent of the survey.
2. CONSULTANT will initiate field setup, routing, and GIS integration into the RAC vehicle.
Task 3: Collect Roadway Network
The CONSULTANT will collect roadway data and images on 680 survey miles using a Roadway Asset
Collection (RAC) vehicle or identical equipment from a strategic business partner. The CONSULTANT retains
a fleet of 4 RAC vehicles and may lease additional equipment if necessary to meet timeline objectives.
The CONSULTANT team consists of a driver and operator who will systematically drive the automated data
collection vehicle on the road segment listings provided by the CLIENT. The CONSULTANT will collect
pavement data with two passes on arterial, collector, and industrial roadways while single pass testing the
local roadways. CONSULTANT proposes to use its collection vehicle line scan camera with laser illumination
and right-of-way cameras to capture pavement and ROW images to be used during the pavement rating
process. Unpaved roads will not be surveyed.
CONSULTANT will record imagery for deliverables and identify all requested right-of-way (ROW) assets by
collecting images at 20-ft maximum intervals with an automated data collection survey vehicle equipped
with a Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS-2) for automated pavement data acquisition, panoramic
camera system for capturing right-of-way imagery, and a laser profiler which includes at minimum two-line
lasers for capturing roughness and ride data. CONSULTANT will perform data field collection on paved roads
using a state-of-the-art Roadway Asset Collection (RAC) vehicle with the following systems mounted:
• Right-of-way georeferenced images with: Forward, Left, Right, and spherical images.
• LCMS-2 pavement 2D/3D imaging.
Attachment 1
Page 47
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 3
• Longitudinal profile with 2-line lasers (left and right wheel paths)
• Distance measuring instrument (DMI) with an accuracy of +/- 0.1%.
• Differentially corrected GPS (DGPS) with an accuracy of +/- 2 feet.
• Applanix POS/LV 220 to compensate for difficult GPS conditions in urban environments.
• The RAC vehicle collects pavement and ROW images, IMU, DMI and profiler data concurrently.
A RAS automated data collection vehicle
The International Roughness Index (IRI) will be collected using a class 1 road surface profiler. The road
surface profiler meets all ASTM E-950 standards for evaluating the smoothness of pavement.
CONSULTANT will process the LCMS-2 and panoramic imagery to deliver to the CLIENT via an external hard
drive with image hyperlinks included in the pavement database (.csv).
Example imagery from RAC camera system
Task 3 Deliverable:
1. CONSULTANT will complete field testing on all paved roadways.
Attachment 1
Page 48
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 4
Task 4: Pavement Condition Index (PCI): ASTM D6433 Distress Processing
ASTM D6433 Distress Processing
CONSULTANT will evaluate the PCI
survey results in accordance with ASTM
D6433. CONSULTANT will conduct a
100% linear survey on all CLIENT
maintained roadways driven and
evaluate those sample images using an
analysis program called RoadTRIPTM
(Technical Rating Intelligence Program).
The program was designed around
automated inspection techniques
utilizing a modified ASTM D6433
pavement distress rating protocol that
includes the following distresses:
alligator cracking, longitudinal cracking,
transverse cracking, block cracking,
rutting, weathering/raveling, potholes,
and patching. Experienced pavement
engineers will review the resultant output for accuracy and make any corrections that may be needed. The
Road TRIPTM software allows the pavement and right of way imagery to be synchronized and the distress
data to be displayed geospatially to provide another layer of QA.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The CONSULTANT will perform quality assurance and quality control on all data collected.
CONSULTANT has a proven Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) procedure for all mobile data
collection projects. CONSULTANT QC procedures begin with the RAC vehicles’ collection process.
The technician will check each camera’s exposure rate, image quality, GPS, and IMU operation to ensure
the data collection system is recording the image and that the GPS location is within the stated project
tolerance. Each collection day’s calibration collection will be documented in the collection logbook. The
collection logbook also contains information such as date, location, technician and drivers name, any issue
that developed during the collection day and DMI calibration runs.
During image collection, the technician reviews the images collected on-screen as they are collected and
any issue with image clarity requires the collection run to end and the image quality issue to be resolved.
Once resolved, the collection run begins from the beginning for the road segment collected. The technician
also monitors GPS reception during collection. If GPS reception is lost (measured using PDOP – positional
dilution of precision), the technician stops the collection and resolves the GPS reception issue. Collection
begins again once the GPS reception issue is resolved. All issues resulting in the collection run being stopped
will be recorded in the collection logbook along with the resolution.
With a completed collection drive delivered to CONSULTANT offices, images are post processed and
provided to the image QC Officer who will perform quality control checks on each delivery provided. The
QC Officer will visually review the collection routes for image quality. All collection runs that are considered
of low quality will be marked for recollection before the data collection vehicle(s) is allowed to leave the
project site. Additionally, CONSULTANT will provide independent quality checks via field verification to
confirm accuracy of automated data collection.
Attachment 1
Page 49
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
Task 4 Deliverables:
1. CONSULTANT will deliver all views camera system and a single view of the LCMS-2 downward
pavement imagery.
Task 5: RAS Verification & Pilot Review
CONSULTANT will work with the CLIENT to identify and setup a pilot of approximately 10 miles of roadway
so that initial sample data can be collected, processed, and verified. CONSULTANT will collect data within
pilot project area, process the data and review the result with the CLIENT. If any corrective action is
identified during the data validation, such corrections will be applied to the data processing algorithms prior
to final PCI calculations. CONSULTANT will work with the CLIENT to review and verify that the data is ready
to proceed. This task is to be completed on-site or virtually depending upon the availability of key staff.
Task 5 Deliverables:
1. CONSULTANT will schedule and conduct virtual/on-site field validation with CLIENT staff.
2. CONSULTANT will process data for the pilot area (approx. 10-miles) and data validation meeting.
3. CONSULTANT will make any necessary modifications to processing algorithms.
Task 6: Pavement Widths Verifications
The CONSULTANT will use aerial imagery and the images from the RAC camera system to capture the width
of pavement for each street segment to compare with any existing database information. CONSULTATNT
will capture multiple widths for each pavement segment, including noticeable width changes (including turn
lanes) to ensure an acceptable average width per segment is acquired for budgetary modeling purposes.
Task 6 Deliverables:
1. CONSULTANT will deliver the width measurements as an attribute of the final dataset.
Task 7: Delivery of Inventory Data and PowerBI Portal
The CONSULTANT will package all of the pavement management data into an updated File Geodatabase, a
MS PowerBI QC portal, and ArcGIS Online (AGOL) PCI maps for the CLIENT to access. The data included in
the deliverable will include; individual pavement distress quantities, densities and deduct values for each
segment, PCI for each segment, linked forward-view imagery in the PowerBI portal, and all imagery
delivered via a portable hard drive.
Task 7 Deliverables:
1. CONSULTANT will deliver a final GIS file geodatabase containing collected pavement data
(containing the Type, Severity and Extent of distresses along the road segment as defined by the
ASTM D6433 methodology), distresses, and PCI value for each roadway segment.
2. CONSULTANT to host a PowerBI portal as a QC tool with access to segment-level data and forward-
view imagery.
a. The QC portal will be hosted by RAS and the term of the license to this portal will last
through the duration of the contract. This data is static and will not change with any updates
to the BOSS WEBTM system.
Attachment 1
Page 50
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 6
Task 8: Pavement Analysis, Budget Scenarios & Report
CONSULTANT will develop, configure and set up the pavement analysis operating parameters within our
Budget Optimization Street Selector (BOSSTM) application. CONSULTANT will configure the software with
maintenance and rehabilitation activities, PCI trigger points, costs, reset PCI values, completed
rehabilitation work since the survey, planned work, existing budgets, pavement deterioration curve
development/assignment, and inflation priorities. CONSULTANT will assist the CLIENT with determining the
right treatment (prescription) at the right time by reviewing the CLIENT’s existing maintenance and
rehabiliation strategies and recommending others that may be a good fit. The scope will include running at
least 10 profile budget runs to establish the budget model trend and showcasing at least 5 budget scenarios
for the 5-year pavement analysis.
We propose to provide these services to develop
a 5-year maintenance plan that is financially
optimized and prioritized to meet the needs of
the CLIENT. BOSS™ is a cloud based application
with powerful pavement management algorithms
behind it that export the results of the pavement
analysis to a user friendly interface such as
Microsoft Power BI (single user log-in supplied
and hosted by RAS for the duration of the license
of BOSS WEBTM), Excel Spreadsheets, and
PowerPoint files. All of the results are integrated
with the CLIENT’s existing GIS and supplied to the
CLIENT as a File Geodatabase for consumption and storage.
While the CONSULTANT will define the scenarios to be run with the CLIENT, at a minimum the following
questions should be answered with the budgetary scenarios:
• What is the resultant network PCI at my current funding level?
• What budget is required to maintain my existing network PCI?
• What budget is required to achieve a desired network PCI?
• What budget is required to control the growth in backlog?
COSULTANT will provide the CLIENT a final executive
report including study objectives, background
information, methodology, work history of completed
maintenance and rehabilitation, inventory of all roads,
current pavement conditions for each street function
classification, and network PCI and IRI. In addition, the
CLIENT will receive statistical charts, graphs, and area
maps illustrating all PCI results, pavement type, the
overall road quality, and findings from the pavement
evaluation.
Task 8 Deliverables:
1. The final pavement and analysis results will be delivered as a File Geodatabase that is ready to be
consumed within the CLIENT’s GIS environment.
2. A final report will be drafted that summarizes the results of the data collection survey and
budetary models performed as a part of the pavement analysis.
3. Initial analysis parameters will be imported to the CLIENT’s BOSS WEBTM system.
Attachment 1
Page 51
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
Task 9: BOSS WEBTM Configuration, Deployment & Training
Access to the software grants the CLIENT the ability to add segments to
the inventory, edit attributes, modify management section sizes
(projects), program completed work, program planned work, modify the
customized deterioration curves, re-assign appropriate curves, modify an
unlimited number of maintenance and rehabilitation activities, modify priority parameters, run customized
budgetary models, and view scenario results. In addition, the BOSS WEB™ software can be linked to update
the CLIENT’s GIS via an ArcGIS Online End Point.
Configuration of BOSS WEBTM
The CONSULTANT’S approach to the implementation, hosting, and training for the sofftware includes the
following CLIENT engagements during the configuration process.
• Deterioration Curves – forecasting pavement conditions requires a detailed set of pavement
deterioration curves for each roadway traffic classification and pavement material type, as
designated by the pavement management system. The CONSULTANT will develop the deterioration
curves to ensure they reflect realistic degradation rates for the CLIENT.
• Maintenance & Rehabilitation Setup – to ensure the results of the budget model runs meet the
CLIENT’S expectations, the CONSULTANT will discuss the CLIENT’S current Maintenance and
Rehabilitation setup within the pavement analysis setup. This will include activity set up, PCI
trigger points, and PCI reset scores.
Attachment 1
Page 52
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 8
• Project development – the BOSS WEBTM functionality includes the ability to stitch segments
(block’s) together to form a project, also known as a “management section”. The CONSULTANT will
work with the CLIENT to review the initial model results and begin “stitching” segments together to
form logical projects that best meet the needs of the CLIENT.
• Financial Optimization & Prioritization Logic – BOSS WEBTM is designed to run analyses using sound
engineering and economic logic to prioritize which street candidates are selected throughout the
multi-year plan. While most pavement management programs will prioritize by roadway traffic and
condition, BOSS WEBTM takes it a step further and introduces financial optimization into candidate
selection through the use of a “Need Year” analysis that identifies each segment’s cost of deferral.
Understanding the “Cost of Segment Deferral” allows the analysis to maximize the CLIENT’S limited
funds in the best manner possible.
Attachment 1
Page 53
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
BOSS WEBTM Training Program
Functional Training
RAS will conduct BOSS WEB™ training through a series of remote sessions for users of the pavement
management application. Software training will be deliberately executed in shorter web sessions that cover
a specific area of study within the software. While the training agenda will be developed and approved by
City staff toward the end of the project, topics such as the following can be expected:
1. Software overview, user interface, and administration constraints
2. Principles of pavement management
a. How to modify deterioration curves, pavement types, functional classifications,
deterioration curves, management sections, treatment groups, selection priorities,
visualizations, and inventory attributes.
3. Understanding the pavement condition indices and how BOSS uses them (PCI, RI, SI, and OCI)
4. Network inventory database management such as adding new streets and modifying
management sections.
5. How to update the system with the work the City has completed and check to ensure the City is
getting the PCI impact that was programmed
6. How to generate custom budget scenario reports and export the data from BOSS
7. How to maintain the database and what to look for within the BOSS system
8. Other topics and more detail will be added to this agenda when developed by RAS and reviewed
by City staff.
Tasks 9a-9e: BOSS WEBTM Hosting & Annual Support
Structure
The BOSS WEBTM application leverages an Azure hosted application.
Authentication
User Authentication shall be username / password and include self-service reset options such as email reset
and / or one time passcode.
Authorization
The application shall include a user, user group and module security model to manage user access to the
features of the application.
Standard Map Functionality
• All maps in the application shall have the option of adding ESRI base maps. Examples include, but
are not limited to:
o Imagery
o Streets
o Light gray canvas
o Dark gray canvas
• All maps in the application shall have the option of adding ESRI AGOL reference layers outside of
the CLIENT AGOL environment.
• Zoom, Pan, Select, Information Window
• Table of Contents, Customizable symbology.
• Hyperlinks to images hosted at a url.
Attachment 1
Page 54
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 10
Annual Support Program
The BOSS WEB™ license includes a supplemental support package. The included Client Success Package
includes access to one of the CONSULTANT’s analysis mentors whom the CLIENT can call when they forget
how to access and perform tasks within the system. The CONSULTANT’s mentor provides further guidance,
feedback, and training to ensure the ultimate success of the CLIENT’s staff who is operating the BOSS WEB™
software. As a part of the BOSS WEB™ license subscription, CLIENT staff automatically receive a Client
Success Package with up to 20 hours of support supplied on a use it or lose it basis. Additional Support
Packages can be provided to the CLIENT on an annual basis if additional support or consulting services are
required.
Task 9 Deliverables:
1. BOSS WEBTM – Full configuration conducted in Year 1 at the conclusion of the CONSULTANT’s
pavement management report process.
2. BOSS WEBTM – Go-Live
3. Training to be condcted over a series of web meetings to configure the system.
4. Support to be provided to the CLIENT with an annual maximum of 20 hours through the duration
of the software license agreement.
Attachment 1
Page 55
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 11
Section II – Scope of Services Budget
The CONSULTANT fee structure for this assignment can be found below with the compiled tasks to illustrate
the full scope of this project. The CONSULTANT fees are based on the proposed scope of work.
Assumptions:
• CONSULTANT to consume CLIENT GIS centerline for developing survey mileage.
• Arterial, Collector & Industrial roadways will be surveyed once in each direction and the local
roadways will be surveyed in a single direction.
• Roads are to be surveyed when free of debris and standing water at temperatures between 40 and
90 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Bill monthly, lump sum based on percent complete for each task item. Fees are inclusive of labor
and expenses.
Optional: BOSS WEBTM Annual License for Years 3-5
The following table includes the annual license fees for years 3 through 5 for BOSSTM WEB.
Task Description Units Unit Cost Fee
Item 1: PMP Inventory, Reporting, 1st Year BOSS TM Software
1 Project Initiation and Project Management [Lump Sum]1 $6,320.00 $6,320.00
2 Field Setup, Centerline Identification & GPS Network Creation [Lump Sum]1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
3 Collect Roadway Network [Test-Miles]646 $100.00 $64,600.00
4 Pavement Condition Index (PCI): ASTM D6433 Distress Processing [T-Miles]646 $40.00 $25,840.00
5 RAS Verification & Pilot Review [Lump Sum]1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
6 Pavement Widths Verification [Lane-Mi]993 $10.00 $9,930.00
7 Delivery of Inventory Data and PowerBI Portal [Lump Sum]1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
8 Pavement Analysis, Budget Scenarios & Report [Lump Sum]1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
9 BOSS™ WEB Configuration, Deployment, & Training (Year 1 Only) [Lump Sum]1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Annual BOSS License Fees
9-a BOSSTM WEB: Year 1 (2026 Annual Support, Maintenance & License) 1 $17,500.00 $17,500.00
9-b BOSSTM WEB: Year 2 (2027 Annual Support, Maintenance & License) 1 $17,500.00 $17,500.00
$195,190.00
Rancho Cucamonga
RFP #24/25-006 Pavement and Asset Management Program
Item 1 - PMP Inventory and Software Sub-Total:
Optional: BOSSTM WEB Years 3-5
Task Description Units Unit Cost Fee
10 BOSSTM WEB: Year 3 (2028 Annual Support, Maintenance & License)1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
11 BOSSTM WEB: Year 4 (2029 Annual Support, Maintenance & License)1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
12 BOSSTM WEB: Year 5 (2030 Annual Support, Maintenance & License)1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
$60,000.00Optional: BOSSTM WEB Years 3-5 Sub-Total:
Attachment 1
Page 56
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 12
Optional: 2027/2028 Re-survey of Major Roads
The following table includes the tasks and fee associated with a partial network survey to update the PCI
data and import the data to the City’s BOSS WEBTM software mid-cycle. This set of tasks also includes staff
time to update the deterioration curves and import the updated PCI data.
This partial network PCI update and import to BOSS WEBTM would require approximately 4 to 5 months to
complete from issuance of NTP.
Project Total for All Services
Should the City elect to conduct the base scope of work and all optional services, the total 5-year project
fee is reflected below.
Optional 2027/2028 PCI Update of Major Roads
Task Description Units Unit Cost Fee
13 Setup and Mobilization 1 $5,500.00 $5,500.00
14 Collect Roadway Network [Test-Miles]364 $112.00 $40,768.00
15 Pavement Condition Index (PCI): ASTM D6433 Distress Processing [T-Miles]364 $45.00 $16,380.00
16 Staff Consulting Hours: Sr. Pavement Consultant (Hours)16 $275.00 $4,400.00
17 PCI Data Import to BOSSTM WEB 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
$72,048.002027/2028 PCI Update of Major Roads Sub-Total:
5- Year Project (Base SOW & Options) Total:$327,238.00
Attachment 1
Page 57
Attachment A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 13
Section III – Scope of Services Schedule & Timeline
CONSULTANT to assign staff and resources to perform the tasks associated with this scope of work to meet
the timeline presented below.
Annual Service Milestones
From the projected timeline above, the recurring annual license will be schedule for renewal at the
approximate dates.
Milestone Time from NTP Estimated Milestone
Final Report & BOSS WEBTM Go-Live Approx. 9-Months January 2026
Year 1 License BOSS WEBTM Approx. 9-Months January 2026
Year 2 Renewal BOSS WEBTM Approx. 21-Months January 2027
Year 3 Renewal BOSS WEBTM Approx. 33-Months January 2028
Year 4 Renewal BOSS WEBTM Approx. 45-Months January 2029
Year 5 Renewal BOSS WEBTM Approx. 57-Months January 2030
Task Description / Milestone Days
1 Project Initiation and Project Management 7
2 Field Setup, Centerline Identification & GPS Network Creation 14 H
3a Roadway Asset Collection (RAC) Vehicle Mobilization/Calibration 2 H
3b Collect Roadway Network 27 H
4 Pavement Condition Index (PCI): ASTM D6433 Distress Processing 90
5 RAS Verification & Pilot Review 2
6 Pavement Widths Verification 50 H
7 Delivery of Inventory Data and PowerBI Portal 2
8a Pavement Analysis, Budget Scenarios & Report 50
8b City Review of Draft Report & Final PCI Data 15
8c Delivery of Final Report 7
9 BOSS WEBTM Configuration, Deployment & Training 60 H
10 to 12 ROW Asset Inventory Development 100
PM Scheduled Project Status Meetings 10
PM Presentations: Work Group & Council 2
CRITICAL PATH COMPONENTS Prep/GIS Database Work Field Work Client Reviews/Meetings
Extraction/Evaluation/QC Work Final Deliverable
Oct Nov
Project Month
Sept DecMayJunJulAug Jan
Attachment 1
Page 58
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Neil Plummer, Public Works Services Director
Andy Miller, Facilities Superintendent
Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager
Paige Eberle, Management Analyst I
SUBJECT:Consideration of a Contract with UPSCO for Uninterrupted Power Supply
(UPS) Maintenance Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $20,000 in
FY24/25 and $220,000 Over Seven Years. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council award and authorize the execution of a Professional Services
Agreement (PSA) with UPSCO to provide Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) maintenance
services effective through June 30, 2030, with an option to renew in one (1) year increments up
to a total of (2) additional years, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 annually and $250,000 over
the duration of the contract.
BACKGROUND:
The Public Works Services Department (PWSD) and the Procurement Division routinely issue
requests for proposals to ensure vendor services remain competitive. Public Works staff drafted
a detailed scope of work to solicit bids for maintenance services for uninterrupted power supply
within all City facilities. Previously, a contract was obtained through an open market bid process
with a not to exceed limit of $25,000 for as-needed services. Typically, these services were utilized
in an on-call capacity however, due to increasing costs and a need for continual routine
maintenance, Public Works solicited bids through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to
increase the spending limit and provide the appropriate level of service. This will assist the Public
Works Department in reducing costly repairs and extend the useful life of our equipment through
a routine, preventative maintenance program.
PWSD provided the scope of work to the Procurement Division to prepare a formal Request for
Proposal (RFP). The Procurement Division prepared and posted RFP #24/25-018 to the City’s
automated procurement system. 686 vendors were notified of the solicitation, 40 prospective
vendors downloaded or viewed the bid package, and 3 vendors response was received.
ANALYSIS:
An Evaluation Committee consisting of City staff conducted a thorough analysis of the RFP
responses and scored and ranked the responsive proposals in accordance with the criteria
specified in the RFP. The outcome of the evaluation process determined UPSCO to be the most
responsive vendor providing the best value while meeting the scope of services and specifications
Page 59
Page 2
2
7
8
4
required. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council award a contract to UPSCO through June
30, 2030, and an option to renew in one (1) year increments for a total of two (2) additional years
in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for the remainder of FY 24/25 and $250,000 over the duration
of the contract, contingent upon approval of future budgets.
If approved, a copy of the executed contract will be on file in the City Clerk’s Office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This contract price is within various operations and contract services accounts in the adopted FY
2024/2025 budget and will be adjusted as necessary contingent upon future budgets.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses City Council’s core values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy
community for all by ensuring City are properly maintained by intentionally embracing and
anticipating the future.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 60
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer
Krystal Lai, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT:Consideration to Award a Contract with CT&T Concrete Paving Inc., in
the Amount of $1,655,100, Plus a 15% Contingency for the Heritage Park
Bridge Replacement Project. Consideration to Accept Award in the
Amount of $750,000 from San Bernardino County through the County
Board Discretionary Fund Priorities Program, and to Authorize an
Appropriation in the Amount of $750,000. This Project is Exempt From
the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.
(CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project
(Project), on file with the City Engineer;
2. Accept the bids received for the Project;
3. Award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $ $1,655,100 to the
lowest responsive bidder CT&T Concrete Paving Inc., for the total bid amount;
4. Authorize the expenditure of a 15% contingency for the construction contract, in the
amount of $248,270;
5. Accept award in the amount of $750,000 from San Bernardino County through the County
Board Discretionary Fund Priorities Program; and
6. Authorize an appropriation of revenues and expenditures, both in the amount of $750,000
from the Infrastructure Fund (Fund 198).
BACKGROUND:
Heritage Park (Park), located in the northwestern portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is a
center of recreational activity and is uniquely divided into two sections by the Demens Creek
Channel. Large numbers of people of all ages visit the park annually as it has multiple recreational
areas, including a playground, baseball fields, soccer fields, and a dedicated equestrian arena
Page 61
Page 2
2
7
8
1
and facility, which is connected to the area’s existing equestrian trail network. The equestrian
center area of the Park, because of its size and accessibility to horse trailers as well as a
dedicated restroom and community center, also serves as a staging area for emergency response
during fire or flooding incidents occurring in the foothills. A Vicinity Map illustrating the location of
the Project is included in Attachment 1.
In 2019, a bridge report and structural evaluation was conducted for the three (3) bridges that
serve as the main access point over the Demens Creek Channel to the Equestrian Center and
Emergency Staging Area of the Park. The evaluation confirmed that all three (3) bridges needed
replacement, and after evaluating options, it was determined that the best course of action would
be to demolish all three (3) of the existing bridges and replace them with a single bridge structure.
At the present time, those bridges can no longer support the weight of emergency equipment.
The Demens Creek Channel is owned and maintained by the San Bernardino County Flood
Control District (SBCFD). The City has worked extensively over the past four years with SBCFD
and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to obtain the necessary permits to begin
construction. In August and November 2024, the City received permits from the Army Corps and
SBCFD, respectively, granting the City permission to enter their right of way and construct the
Project.
In October 2024, the City worked with County Supervisor Jesse Armendarez’s office to provide
background on the need for the Project, Project scope, and funding status. It was determined that
the Project was suitable for an allocation from the Board of Supervisors Discretionary Fund, filling
a funding gap that was created due to higher than anticipated cost estimates. In December 2024,
the City received $750,000 from San Bernardino County through the County Board Discretionary
Fund Priorities Program, providing for the safety, health, emergency, recreational, and social
service needs of county residents.
ANALYSIS:
This Project will construct a new single bridge that will be approximately 50’ wide and span
approximately 21’ across the Demens Creek Channel. The new bridge will provide separated
areas and pathways for pedestrians, equestrians, and vehicles. In addition, ADA access to the
bridge will be maintained with the construction of new pathways, lighting will be upgraded to
current City standards, and new landscaping and vegetation will be installed. Once complete, the
bridge will provide a critically improved connection to the equestrian center.
The Project’s plans and specifications were completed in early February 2024, and the Notice
Inviting Bids was released to the general contracting community and was published in the Daily
Bulletin Newspaper on March 4 and March 11, 2025. The City Clerk’s office and Procurement
Department facilitated the formal solicitation for bidding on the project.
On April 1, 2025, 14 construction bids were received on PlanetBids, and two (2) bidders were
considered as nonresponsive bidders. The Engineer’s estimate for the project was $2,500,000.
The apparent lowest responsive bid, was determined to be CT&T Concrete Paving Inc., in the
amount of $1,655,100. A full bid summary is included as Attachment 1.
Engineering staff has reviewed all bids received and found all to be complete and in accordance
with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the
required background investigation and finds the lowest responsive bidder, CT&T Concrete Paving
Inc., meets the requirements of the bid documents.
Page 62
Page 3
2
7
8
1
Given the multitude of active uses in Heritage Park, staff is coordinating with user groups to
communicate construction timing and activities with a goal of minimizing impacts where possible
while meeting permitting and constructability requirements for the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Staff has determined that the Project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 “Existing Facilities” subsection
(c), Class 1. A Notice of Exemption was filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for San
Bernardino County on September 23, 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Anticipated construction costs are estimated to be as follows:
Expenditure Category Amount
Construction Contract $1,655,100
Construction Contract Contingency (15%) $248,270
Bid Noticing Advertisement $1,570
Estimated Construction Costs $1,904,940
Due to the complex nature of the Project, in February 2025, the City invited qualified consultants
to submit a proposal response for Request for Proposals (RFP) for Construction Management
and Inspection Services for the Project. Once a final consultant is selected, a separate staff report,
likely in May 2025, will be prepared to present these recommendations to City Council for
consideration.
Additionally, because the scope of the project includes the removal of three existing bridges and
limited information could be collected on these bridges, staff is recommending a Construction
Contract Contingency of 15%.
A total of $2,400,000 was budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Budget for this Project, consisting
of funds from the Citywide Infrastructure Improvement Fund (198) and the Fire Capital Projects
Fund (288). Following design and preconstruction expenses, the remaining budget available for
the Project is $2,351,480. From this available budget, funds will be allocated for this project as
identified under the Capital Improvement Project Account numbers listed below:
Account Number Funding Source Description Amount
F198 CC303 SC7004
PID1963-198
Citywide
Infrastructure
Improvement
Heritage Park Bridge
Replacement Project
$577,470
F288 CC501 SC7004
PID1963-288
Fire Capital Projects Heritage Park Bridge
Replacement Project
$577,470
Total $1,154,940
An additional $750,000 was awarded from San Bernardino County through the County Board
Discretionary Fund Priorities Program. Additional appropriations are needed in the following
accounts to these funds for the project:
Page 63
Page 4
2
7
8
1
Account Number Funding Source Description Amount
F198 CC303 RC5102
PID1963-198
San Bernardino
County Board
Discretionary Fund
Priorities Program
County Discretionary
Fund Revenue
$750,000
F198 CC303 SC7004
PID1963-198
Citywide
Infrastructure
Improvement
County Discretionary
Fund Expenditure
$750,000
The remaining budgeted funds will be used for award of the construction management and
inspection contract (under a future City Council item) and any excess funds will be returned to
fund balances for their associated funds at the end of the fiscal year and will be available for use
on future projects.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The Project addresses the City Council Goal of Enhancing Premier Community Status by
ensuring existing community tail facilities are safe to access and use.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 – Bid Summary
Page 64
ATTACHMENT 1
HERITAGE PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Page 65
ATTACHMENT 2
BID SUMMARY: BID DATE: _____04/01/2025______APPARENT LOW BIDDER NONRESPONSIVE 2 3 4 5 NONRESPONSIVE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING CORP
LOS ANGELES ENGINEERING,
INC.
RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.
BEADOR CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.
GENTRY GENERAL
ENGINEERING, INC.
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY
GOLDEN SUN ENTERPRISE,
INC.
POWER ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTIONHERITAGE PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE CT&T CONCRETE PAVING, INC.KEC ENGINEERING DEARK E&C, INC.LEONIDA BUILDERS, INC.MCM CONSTRUCTION, INC GRIFFITH COMPANY
BASE BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT
COST
BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT
COST
BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
1
LS Mobilization $251,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$35,000.00
$50,000.00
$330.00
$251,000.00 $102,887.75 $102,887.75
$53,261.50
$30,414.74
$9,450.00
$40,405.00
$18,145.00
$31,540.00
$3,820.00
$17,825.00
$29,500.00
$51.00
$40,405.00 $190,000.00 $190,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $160,000.00
$15,000.00 $40,000.00
$20,000.00 $44,000.00
$160,000.00 $100,000.00
$40,000.00 $36,000.00
$44,000.00 $12,000.00
$19,200.00 $12,000.00
$24,000.00 $60,000.00
$30,000.00 $100,000.00
$100,000.00 $222,000.00
$36,000.00 $50,000.00
$12,000.00 $30,000.00
$222,000.00 $70,000.00
$50,000.00 $12,000.00
$30,000.00 $15,000.00
$70,000.00 $20,300.00
$12,000.00 $62,100.00
$15,000.00 $168,000.00
$20,300.00 $180,000.00
$62,100.00 $10,830.65
$180,000.00 $245,987.00
$10,830.65 $10,000.00
$9,500.00 $20,000.00
$245,987.00 $255,000.00
$10,000.00 $35,000.00
$20,000.00 $70,000.00
$255,000.00 $39,245.00
$35,000.00 $63,777.00
$70,000.00 $17,324.00
$39,245.00 $276,900.00
$63,777.00 $30,300.00
$17,324.00 $27,800.00
$276,900.00
$30,300.00
$27,800.00
$38,040.00
$30,700.00
$46,200.00
$11,610.00
$41,412.00
$7,850.00
LS Temporary Water Pollution Control
LS Site Control and Construction Signing
EA ADA Accommodations for Equestrian Center
LS Clearing and Grubbing
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$12,000.00
$35,000.00
$50,000.00
$29,700.00
$126,000.00
$30,000.00
$127,500.00
$2,730.00
$53,261.50
$30,414.74
$1,575.00
$10,463.65
$41,868.11
$106.54
$18,145.00
$31,540.00
$22,920.00
$17,825.00
$29,500.00
$4,590.00
$25,000.00
$7,500.00
$4,400.00
$25,000.00
$45,500.00
$120.00
$25,000.00
$7,500.00
$15,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
$54,172.50
$75,000.00
$100.00
1 $168,000.00
$13,800.00
$9,500.00
$3,500.006$26,400.00
$25,000.00
$45,500.00
$10,800.00
$67,200.00
$7,500.00
$18,000.00 $3,200.00 $72,000.00 $6,500.00 $39,000.00 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,300.00 $21,000.00 $2,500.00 $15,000.00 $3,700.00 $22,200.00 $1,880.00 $11,280.00 $6,340.00
1 $10,463.65
$41,868.11
$9,588.60
$54,172.50 $24,000.00
$75,000.00 $30,000.00
$60,000.00 $50,000.00
$100,000.00 $50,949.00
$50,000.00 $68,000.00
$50,949.00 $75,000.00
$68,000.00 $20,300.00
$75,000.00 $74,600.00
$20,300.00 $135,719.00
$74,600.00 $142,000.00
$135,719.00 $100,000.00
$142,000.00 $200,000.00
$100,000.00 $50,000.00
$200,000.00 $70,000.00
$50,000.00 $13,464.00
$70,000.00 $61,409.00
$13,464.00 $30,700.00
$61,409.00 $46,200.001LS Demolition
90
420
50
510
21
21
458
20
55
132
56
100
CY (F) Structural Excavation (BRIDGE)
CY (F) Structural Excavation (RETAINING WALLS)
CY (F) Structural Backfill (BRIDGE)
$9,000.00
$31,500.00
$5,750.00
$75.00
$75.00
$6,750.00
$31,500.00
$10,000.00
$102,000.00
$4,200.00
$300.00
$300.00
$300.00
$300.00
$240.00
$240.00
$600.00
$400.00
$400.00
$400.00
$400.00
$400.00
$1.20
$27,000.00
$126,000.00
$15,000.00
$153,000.00
$5,040.00
$175.00
$115.00
$370.00
$115.00
$210.00
$210.00
$350.00
$2,660.00
$2,200.00
$2,450.00
$1,400.00
$165.00
$1.85
$15,750.00
$48,300.00
$18,500.00
$58,650.00
$4,410.00
$400.00
$200.00
$500.00
$200.00
$250.00
$250.00
$455.00
$6,000.00
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$20.00
$36,000.00
$84,000.00
$25,000.00
$102,000.00
$5,250.00
$385.00
$363.00
$347.00
$347.00
$145.00
$145.00
$556.00
$1,100.00
$1,200.00
$1,100.00
$1,200.00
$172.00
$3.50
$34,650.00
$152,460.00
$17,350.00
$176,970.00
$3,045.00
$30.00
$45.00
$2,700.00
$18,900.00
$11,250.00
$35,700.00
$2,415.00
$1,000.00
$200.00
$200.00
$100.00
$200.00
$200.00
$800.00
$800.00
$800.00
$800.00
$800.00
$800.00
$3.00
$90,000.00
$84,000.00
$10,000.00
$51,000.00
$4,200.00
$125.00
$165.00
$400.00
$235.00
$55.00
$11,250.00
$69,300.00
$20,000.00
$119,850.00
$1,155.00
$176.00
$153.00
$287.00
$150.00
$98.00
$15,840.00
$64,260.00
$14,350.00
$76,500.00
$2,058.00
$129.00
$98.60$300.00 $177.49 $74,545.80
$9,123.50
$66.75 $28,035.00
$2,900.00
$160.00 $75.00
$600.00 $182.47 $58.00 $150.00 $115.00 $200.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
$350.00
$2,500.00
$4,000.00
$2,500.00
$2,000.00
$30.00
$225.00
$70.00
$157.00
$46.00CY (F) Structural Backfill (RETAINING WALLS)
LF (F) 2-inch Galvanized Steel Pipe (Future Utility) (Bridge)
LF (F) 2-inch Galvanized Steel Pipe (Telephone) (Bridge)
LF 24" Cast-in-drilled hole Concrete Piling
CY (F) Structural Concrete, Bridge
$250.00 $110.22 $56,212.20
$3,192.00
$57.00 $29,070.00
$6,153.00
$130.00 $66,300.00
$3,255.00
$55.00 $28,050.00
$4,200.00
$23,460.00
$12,390.00
$12,390.00
$297,700.00
$35,200.00
$223,245.00
$322,080.00
$109,200.00
$21,000.00
$84,825.00
$43,200.00
$25,000.00
$50,000.00
$25,000.00
$40,902.00
$7,605.00
$130.00 $152.00 $293.00 $155.00 $200.00 $115.00
$115.00
$330.00
$4,100.00
$3,500.00
$3,200.00
$2,540.00
$5.00
$590.00
$590.00
$650.00
$1,760.00
$4,059.00
$2,440.00
$1,950.00
$210.00
$1.95
$130.00 $2,730.00 $152.00 $3,192.00 $293.00 $6,153.00 $155.00 $3,255.00 $200.00 $4,200.00 $4,200.00 $5,040.00 $4,410.00 $5,250.00 $3,045.00 $2,415.00 $4,200.00 $55.00 $1,155.00 $98.00 $2,058.00
$600.00 $274,800.00
$140,000.00
$220,000.00
$264,000.00
$78,400.00
$11,000.00
$152,250.00
$48,000.00
$13,000.00
$13,000.00
$13,000.00
$25,500.00
$7,020.00
$384.92 $176,293.36
$40,028.00
$95,438.20
$150,754.56
$52,138.80
$14,910.00
$50,025.00
$33,280.00
$23,985.26
$17,991.16
$17,991.16
$26,775.00
$4,709.25
$680.00 $311,440.00
$23,860.00
$132,330.00
$210,276.00
$88,256.00
$1,140.00
$540.00 $247,320.00
$31,000.00
$134,750.00
$211,200.00
$56,000.00
$2,500.00
$350.00 $160,300.00
$30,000.00
$137,500.00
$277,200.00
$49,280.00
$2,000.00
$160,300.00
$50,000.00
$220,000.00
$330,000.00
$112,000.00
$3,000.00
$274,800.00
$8,000.00
$160,300.00
$53,200.00
$121,000.00
$323,400.00
$78,400.00
$16,500.00
$80,475.00
$41,600.00
$208,390.00
$120,000.00
$220,000.00
$396,000.00
$168,000.00
$2,000.00
$254,648.00
$22,000.00
$66,000.00
$145,200.00
$67,200.00
$17,200.00
$152,250.00
$89,600.00
$151,140.00
$82,000.00
$192,500.00
$422,400.00
$142,240.00
$500.00
$366,400.00
$16,000.00
$44,000.00
$105,600.00
$44,800.00
$80,000.00
$130,500.00
$48,000.00
$450.00
$1,900.00
$4,000.00
$1,350.00
$1,500.00
$65.00
$206,100.00
$38,000.00
$220,000.00
$178,200.00
$84,000.00
$6,500.00
$740.00
$3,513.00
$4,706.00
$2,220.00
$3,258.00
$57.00
$338,920.00
$70,260.00
$258,830.00
$293,040.00
$182,448.00
$5,700.00
$7,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,400.00
$110.00
$2,001.40
$1,735.24
$1,142.08
$931.05
$1,193.00
$2,406.00
$1,593.00
$1,576.00
$11.40
$1,550.00
$2,450.00
$1,600.00
$1,000.00
$25.00
$1,500.00
$2,500.00
$2,100.00
$880.00
CY (F) Structural Concrete, Bridge (Polymer Fiber)
CY (F) Structural Concrete, Retaining Wall
CY (F) Structural Concrete, Approach Slab, (Type N Modified)
CY Type A Joint Seal (MR 1/2")
$22,000.00
$52,800.00
$22,400.00
$40,000.00
$52,200.00
$19,200.00
$149.10 $20.00
19 43,500
20 16,000
LB (F) Bar reinforcing steel (Bridge)$3.50 $1.15 $1.49 $64,815.00
$43,360.00
$27,880.00
$40,442.00
$28,355.00
$34,782.00
$6,123.00
$1.75 $76,125.00
$40,000.00
$25,000.00
$45,000.00
$25,000.00
$30,804.00
$5,616.00
$1.90 $82,650.00
$43,200.00
$1.50 $65,250.00
$35,200.00
$0.50 $21,750.00
$8,000.00
$1.10 $47,850.00
$32,000.00
$2.00 $87,000.00
$40,000.00
$2.00 $87,000.00
$48,000.00LB (F) Bar Reinforcing Steel (Retaining Wall)
LS (F) Bridge Removal, Location A
$3.00 $2.08 $2.71 $2.50 $2.70 $2.20 $1.20 $2.60 $0.50 $5.60 $2.00 $3.00 $2.50 $3.00 $2.70
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
1
$13,000.00
$13,000.00
$13,000.00
$250.00
$23,985.26
$17,991.16
$17,991.16
$262.50
$27,880.00
$40,442.00
$28,355.00
$341.00
$25,000.00
$45,000.00
$25,000.00
$302.00
$16,000.00
$30,000.00
$20,000.00
$410.00
$16,000.00 $50,000.00
$30,000.00 $50,000.00
$20,000.00 $50,000.00
$50,000.00 $72,000.00
$50,000.00 $96,000.00
$50,000.00 $72,000.00
$72,000.00 $12,500.00
$96,000.00 $40,000.00
$72,000.00 $12,000.00
$12,500.00 $30,000.00
$40,000.00 $30,000.00
$12,000.00 $30,000.00
$30,000.00 $16,500.00
$30,000.00 $19,500.00
$30,000.00 $16,000.00
$16,500.00 $19,460.00
$19,500.00 $12,360.00
$16,000.00 $13,260.00
$19,460.00 $50,000.00
$12,360.00 $50,000.00
$13,260.00 $50,000.00
$50,000.00 $45,000.00
$50,000.00 $90,000.00
$50,000.00 $55,000.00
$45,000.00 $17,406.00
$90,000.00 $50,650.00
$55,000.00 $22,991.00
$17,406.00 $25,000.00
$50,650.00 $50,000.00
$22,991.00 $25,000.00
LS (F) Bridge Removal, Location B
1 LS (F) Bridge Removal, Location C
102
39
63
60
LF Chain link railing (Type 7)$41,820.00
$7,800.00
$34,650.00
$13,800.00
$270.00
$125.00
$465.00
$128.00
$27,540.00
$4,875.00
$29,295.00
$7,680.00
$300.00
$300.00
$360.00
$360.00
$30,600.00
$11,700.00
$22,680.00
$21,600.00
$36,000.00
$590.00
$280.00
$60,180.00
$10,920.00
$69,300.00
$63,000.00
$5,500.00
$400.00
$250.00
$600.00
$600.00
$4,000.00
$40,800.00
$9,750.00
$37,800.00
$36,000.00
$650.00
$290.00
$66,300.00
$11,310.00
$78,120.00
$72,000.00
$250.00
$115.00
$430.00
$117.80
$25,500.00
$4,485.00
$27,090.00
$7,068.00
$300.00
$300.00
$300.00
$300.00
$30,600.00
$11,700.00
$18,900.00
$18,000.00
$300.00
$135.00
$450.00
$125.00
$30,600.00
$5,265.00
$28,350.00
$7,500.00
$371.00
$187.00
$637.00
$184.00
$37,842.00
$7,293.00
$40,131.00
$11,040.00
$401.00
$195.00
$541.00
$233.00
LF (F) Cable railing $180.00 $120.75 $157.00 $144.00 $200.00
LF (F) Chain Link Railing Type 6.$250.00 $15,750.00
$10,800.00
$10,000.00
$451.50 $28,444.50
$7,421.40
$586.00 $36,918.00
$9,660.00
$474.00 $29,862.00
$8,040.00
$550.00 $1,100.00
$1,050.00
$5,500.00
$1,240.00
$1,200.00
$34,083.00
$13,980.00
$55,600.00
LF (F) Chain link fencing on top of Demens Creek Channel
(F) Miscellaneous Metal (Base Plate and incidentals to support Chain link fencing on
LS
$180.00 $123.69 $161.00 $134.00 $230.00
$10,000.00 $11,304.00 $11,304.00 $12,836.00 $12,836.00 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $36,000.00 $4,000.00 $35,600.00 $35,600.00 $13,435.00 $13,435.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $24,075.00 $24,075.00 $55,600.00281top of Demens Creek Channel)
29
30
31
32
33
34
42
21
21
1
LF (F) Concrete Barrier - TYPE 732SW (MOD)
LF (F) Concrete barrier - TYPE 836 (MOD)
LF (F) Concrete barrier -TYPE 842 (MOD)
LS (F) Earthwork
$700.00
$500.00
$29,400.00
$10,500.00
$12,600.00
$144,000.00
$12,180.00
$45,000.00
$25,000.00
$536.80
$573.89
$22,545.60
$12,051.69
$12,640.32
$45,101.00
$10,879.35
$67,215.17
$35,619.00
$604.00
$538.00
$25,368.00
$11,298.00
$11,970.00
$650.00
$650.00
$650.00
$27,300.00
$13,650.00
$13,650.00
$610.00
$500.00
$800.00
$25,620.00
$10,500.00
$16,800.00
$750.00
$450.00
$750.00
$31,500.00
$9,450.00
$15,750.00
$360.00
$360.00
$360.00
$15,120.00
$7,560.00
$7,560.00
$580.00
$580.00
$580.00
$24,360.00
$12,180.00
$12,180.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$42,000.00
$21,000.00
$21,000.00
$524.00
$410.00
$571.00
$22,008.00
$8,610.00
$11,991.00
$672.00
$800.00
$483.00
$28,224.00
$16,800.00
$10,143.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$21,000.00
$10,500.00
$10,500.00
$650.00
$425.00
$500.00
$27,300.00
$8,925.00
$10,500.00
$724.00
$417.00
$771.00
$30,408.00
$8,757.00
$16,191.00
$750.00
$490.00
$500.00
$31,500.00
$10,290.00
$10,500.00
$94,200.00
$38,454.00
$135,500.00
$18,700.00
$600.00 $601.92 $570.00
$144,000.00
$140.00
$45,101.00
$125.05
$69,832.00
$222.00
$69,832.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $202,000.00 $202,000.00 $50,000.00
$19,140.00 $120.00
$50,000.00 $130,000.00
$10,440.00 $300.00
$80,000.00 $36,000.00
$130,000.00 $30,000.00
$26,100.00 $300.00
$30,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $32,000.00
$26,100.00 $283.00
$32,000.00 $162,000.00
$24,621.00 $372.00
$162,000.00 $100,000.00
$32,364.00 $100.00
$100,000.00 $140,000.00
$8,700.00 $265.00
$140,000.00 $32,985.00
$23,055.00 $929.00
$32,985.00 $94,200.00
$80,823.00 $442.0087UARE YAMinor concrete - 6 -inch thick concrete sidewalk/slope $19,314.00
$83,322.00
$22,075.00
$175.00
$35,000.00
$7,000.00
$15,225.00
$35,000.00
$7,000.00
$220.00
$75,000.00
$20,000.00
$26,100.00
$45,000.00
$300.00
1 LS Stairway, handrails and all incidentals $45,000.00
$25,000.00
$67,215.17
$35,619.00
$83,322.00
$22,075.00
$75,000.00 $80,000.00
$20,000.00 $12,000.00
$36,000.00 $45,000.00
$2,400.00 $40,000.00
$6,000.00 $6,000.00 $35,000.00
$15,000.00 $18,500.00
$35,000.00 $70,000.00
$18,500.00 $16,200.00
$70,000.00 $30,000.00
$16,200.00 $21,000.00
$30,000.00 $100,000.00
$21,000.00 $16,000.00
$100,000.00 $97,044.00
$16,000.00 $13,472.00
$97,044.00 $135,500.00
$13,472.00 $18,700.006-inch diameter removable bollards, including foundations - total of six (6) bollards at $12,000.00 $2,400.00 $40,000.00 $15,000.00351LStwo separate locations - three (3) bollards at EA location
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
95 TONS 4-inch thick asphaltic concrete pavement $180.00
$250.00
$12.00
$17,100.00
$14,750.00
$16,920.00
$5,760.00
$12,600.00
$300.00
$284.02
$199.00
$16.90
$26,981.90
$11,741.00
$23,829.00
$12,011.40
$8,085.00
$900.00
$379.00
$161.00
$23.00
$36,005.00
$9,499.00
$32,430.00
$13,500.00
$10,500.00
$2,671.00
$8,604.00
$14,175.00
$9,900.00
$7,454.00
$5,571.00
$322.00
$225.00
$22.00
$30,590.00
$13,275.00
$31,020.00
$12,600.00
$10,990.00
$6,600.00
$5,050.00
$5,796.00
$5,720.00
$13,600.00
$4,620.00
$175.00
$220.00
$16.00
$16,625.00
$12,980.00
$22,560.00
$9,000.00
$16,100.00
$900.00
$280.00
$150.00
$9.00
$26,600.00
$8,850.00
$12,690.00
$7,200.00
$8,260.00
$1,500.00
$6,000.00
$9,450.00
$6,600.00
$333.60
$240.00
$21.60
$31,692.00
$14,160.00
$30,456.00
$17,280.00
$4,200.00
$360.00
$350.00
$240.00
$16.00
$33,250.00
$14,160.00
$22,560.00
$18,360.00
$19,600.00
$2,300.00
$8,000.00
$5,040.00
$3,520.00
$8,500.00
$5,400.00
$300.00
$100.00
$10.00
$28,500.00
$5,900.00
$14,100.00
$8,100.00
$7,000.00
$6,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,300.00
$4,400.00
$437.00
$336.00
$11.00
$41,515.00
$19,824.00
$15,510.00
$9,720.00
$20,860.00
$2,400.00
$5,600.00
$9,166.50
$6,402.00
$14,600.00
$5,100.00
$445.00
$385.00
$36.00
$42,275.00
$22,715.00
$50,760.00
$22,500.00
$7,700.00
$820.00
$400.00
$150.00
$30.00
$38,000.00
$8,850.00
$42,300.00
$27,000.00
$21,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,150.00
$2,200.00
$400.00
$200.00
$18.00
$38,000.00
$11,800.00
$25,380.00
$8,100.00
$10,500.00
$900.00
$404.00
$262.00
$26.00
$38,380.00
$15,458.00
$36,660.00
$30,600.00
$11,200.00
$991.00
$279.00
$323.00
$22.20
$26,505.00
$19,057.00
$31,302.00
$17,550.00
$16,310.00
$933.00
59
1,410
180
70
CY 5 -inch thick crushed aggregate base
SF 4-inch thick concrete pavement
LF A1-8 curb per City of Rancho Cucamonga Standard Plan 104
LF PVC 2-rail fence per City of Rancho Cucamonga Standard Plan 1010-A
LS Addition of caps to the ends of the existing horizontal PVC fence
EA Traffic rated pull boxes and all incidentals
$32.00 $66.73 $75.00 $70.00 $50.00 $40.00 $96.00 $102.00
$280.00
$2,300.00
$4,000.00
$80.00
$45.00 $54.00 $125.00
$110.00
$820.00
$2,940.00
$148.00
$148.00
$5,000.00
$1,269.00
$150.00
$300.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$50.00
$45.00 $170.00
$160.00
$991.00
$4,273.00
$215.00
$215.00
$97.50
$180.00
$300.00
$1,200.00
$130.00
$130.00
$10,000.00
$750.00
$115.50
$900.00
$3,087.00
$7.35
$150.00
$2,671.00
$4,302.00
$225.00
$225.00
$7,454.00
$1,857.00
$157.00
$6,600.00
$2,525.00
$92.00
$230.00
$900.00
$4,000.00
$90.00
$118.00
$1,500.00
$3,000.00
$150.00
$150.00
$5,500.00
$1,500.00
$60.00 $100.00
$6,000.00
$2,000.00
$100.00
$100.00
$4,000.00
$1,000.00
$298.00
$2,400.00
$2,800.00
$145.50
$145.50
$150.00
$900.00
$2,500.00
$35.00
$233.00
$933.00
$2,710.00
$231.00
$83.00
1 $360.00
$1,200.00
$60.00
2 $2,400.00
$8,190.00
$5,720.00
$10,000.00
$2,250.00
$6,174.00
$463.05
$8,000.00
$5,670.00
$3,960.00
$8,400.00
$4,800.00
$2,400.00
$3,780.00
$2,640.00
$36,000.00
$7,200.00
$5,880.00
$9,324.00
$6,512.00
$5,000.00
$3,807.00
$5,000.00
$2,205.00
$2,200.00
$8,546.00
$13,545.00
$9,460.00
$5,420.00
$14,553.00
$3,652.00
$11,800.00
$5,100.00
63 LF 2-inch Plastic Pipe (Schedule 80) (Future Utility) (Bridge)
LF 2-inch Plastic Pipe (Schedule 80) (Telephone) (Bridge)
LS Telephone Line Realignment
44 $12.60 $554.40 $130.00
$13,600.00
$1,540.00
$90.00 $60.00 $80.00 $50.00 $50.00
1 $12,983.25
$1,470.00
$12,983.25
$4,410.00
$8,400.00
$1,600.00
$5,500.00 $36,000.00 $8,500.00
$1,800.00
$4,000.00 $14,600.00 $5,000.00
$1,500.00
$5,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $16,821.00 $16,821.00 $11,800.00
Street light handhole/ pullbox per City of Rancho Cucamonga Standard Plan 413 -$4,500.00 $2,400.00 $3,000.00 $1,700.00 $4,500.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,844.00 $5,532.00 $1,700.0046
47
48
3
1
1
EA Caltrans Standard Size 5 by Brooks.
EA Pull Box (Telephone)$750.00 $750.00 $3,837.75
$4,790.32
$3,837.75
$4,790.32
$1,603.00 $1,603.00 $1,612.00
$3,900.00
$1,612.00
$3,900.00
$1,600.00
$5,500.00
$1,600.00
$5,500.00
$1,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,800.00
$9,600.00
$1,800.00
$9,600.00
$1,600.00
$8,250.00
$1,600.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,750.00
$7,700.00
$1,750.00
$7,700.00
$1,075.00
$9,250.00
$1,075.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,750.00
$2,500.00
$1,750.00
$2,500.00
$1,564.00
$1,443.00
$1,564.00
$1,443.00
$1,750.00
$6,240.00
$1,750.00
$6,240.00Curb ramp per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A -Case F, including the detectable $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $11,615.00 $11,615.00 $8,250.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $9,250.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00LSwarning surface
49
50
1 LS Relocation of double gate - includes footings for the end posts
SF Decomposed Granite Paving, 4" Thick Stabilized
$15,000.00
$10.00
$15,000.00
$3,300.00
$12,000.00
$7,577.49
$7.88
$7,577.49
$2,600.40
$3,990.00
$9,375.00
$10.50
$9,375.00
$3,465.00
$4,440.00
$7,000.00
$10.00
$7,000.00
$3,300.00
$11,000.00
$17,000.00
$11.00
$17,000.00
$3,630.00
$3,300.00
$7,500.00
$8.00
$7,500.00
$2,640.00
$6,000.00
$9.60
$6,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00
$2,739.00
$3,300.00
$3,000.00
$25.00
$3,000.00 $24,500.00 $24,500.00
$1,386.00
$3,500.00
$6,880.00
$3.50
$6,880.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
$6,600.00
$10,000.00
$9,000.00
$10.00
$9,000.00
$3,300.00
$3,500.00
$4,313.00
$6.00
$4,313.00 $17,300.00 $17,300.00
$9,042.00
$3,590.00
330 $3,168.00 $8.30 $8,250.00
$5,000.00
$4.20 $1,155.00 $20.00 $1,980.00
$8,793.00
$27.40
Pavement makings and striping - Removal and replacement - Includes red curb $12,000.00 $3,990.00 $4,440.00 $11,000.00 $3,300.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $3,300.00 $5,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,500.00 $8,793.00 $3,590.0051
52
53
1
1
3
LS painting
LS Traffic signs and signage - See project specifications $35,000.00
$12,000.00
$35,000.00
$36,000.00
$6,683.25 $6,683.25 $9,415.00 $9,415.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,150.00 $7,150.00 $6,000.00
$8,000.00
$6,000.00 $9,800.00 $9,800.00 $6,365.00
$9,200.00
$6,365.00 $10,000.00
$27,600.00 $10,000.00
$10,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $11,859.00
$48,000.00 $13,369.00
$11,859.00 $9,950.00 $9,950.00
Lights - Includes light foundation, light post, luminaire, conduits and wiring serving $16,054.50 $48,163.50 $13,461.00 $40,383.00 $16,820.00 $50,460.00 $14,500.00 $43,500.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $24,000.00 $72,000.00 $14,000.00 $42,000.00 $24,000.00 $18,000.00 $54,000.00 $30,000.00 $16,000.00 $40,107.00 $18,100.00 $54,300.00EAthe light - See Project Specifications
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
2
3
EA Landscape Boulder - 24" to 30"$400.00
$525.00
$600.00
$400.00
$1,000.00
$11.00
$800.00
$1,575.00
$1,800.00
$1,200.00
$1,000.00
$10,098.00
$735.00
$367.50
$446.25
$735.00
$931.35
$1,935.15
$16.91
$735.00
$1,338.75
$2,205.00
$2,794.05
$1,935.15
$15,523.38
$888.72
$481.00
$584.00
$962.00
$1,219.00
$2,533.00
$22.00
$962.00
$1,752.00
$2,886.00
$3,657.00
$2,533.00
$20,196.00
$1,155.00
$1,722.00
$2,730.00
$2,720.00
$8,217.00
$16,800.00
$13,603.00
$8,356.00
$10,309.00
$7,567.00
$350.00
$165.00
$314.00
$770.00
$1,189.00
$17.60
$700.00
$495.00
$700.00
$760.00
$820.00
$1,000.00
$1,800.00
$25.00
$1,400.00
$2,280.00
$2,460.00
$3,000.00
$1,800.00
$22,950.00
$1,050.00
$640.00
$380.00
$460.00
$760.00
$960.00
$2,000.00
$17.00
$760.00
$1,380.00
$2,280.00
$2,880.00
$2,000.00
$15,606.00
$903.00
$420.00
$510.00
$840.00
$1,065.00
$2,200.00
$18.00
$840.00
$1,530.00
$2,520.00
$3,195.00
$2,200.00
$16,524.00
$945.00
$385.00
$475.00
$770.00
$990.00
$2,090.00
$18.00
$770.00
$1,425.00
$2,310.00
$2,970.00
$2,090.00
$16,524.00
$987.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
$100.00
$1,600.00
$3,000.00
$3,600.00
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$91,800.00
$2,520.00
$1,040.00
$10,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,150.00
$37,800.00
$30,500.00
$11,489.50
$3,000.00
$8,050.00
$440.00
$181.00
$345.00
$850.00
$1,300.00
$19.00
$880.00
$543.00
$360.00
$150.00
$285.00
$700.00
$1,081.00
$16.00
$720.00
$450.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$15.00
$600.00
$1,200.00
$1,500.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
$13,770.00
$525.00
$450.00
$550.00
$920.00
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$20.00
$900.00
$1,650.00
$2,760.00
$3,000.00
$1,500.00
$18,360.00
$1,050.00
$1,600.00
$1,200.00
$2,600.00
$7,885.00
$16,800.00
$24,400.00
$16,712.00
$10,000.00
$28,980.00
$662.00
$311.00
$507.00
$1,110.00
$1,849.00
$24.00
$1,324.00
$933.00
$1,320.00
$1,640.00
$2,190.00
$1,860.00
$2,850.00
$21.90
$2,640.00
$4,920.00
$6,570.00
$5,580.00
$2,850.00
$20,104.20
$1,150.80
$2,632.00
$2,960.00
$1,708.00
$4,548.40
$23,016.00
$46,421.00
$9,191.60
$9,320.00
$17,066.00
EA Landscape Boulder - 30" to 36"
3 EA Landscape Boulder - 36" to 48"$942.00 $1,035.00
$2,550.00
$1,300.00
$17,442.00
$1,018.50
$1,744.00
$969.00
$855.00 $1,521.00
$3,330.00
$1,849.00
$22,032.00
$1,491.00
$2,368.00
$1,441.00
$3,184.00
$6,308.00
$14,280.00
$27,999.00
$20,890.00
$6,674.00
$15,134.00
3 EA 24" Box Tree $2,310.00
$1,189.00
$16,156.80
$924.00
$2,100.00
$1,081.00
$14,688.00
$840.00
1 EA 36" Box Tree
918
21
8
EA 1 Gallon Shrub
EA 5 Gallon Shrub $35.00 $42.32 $55.00 $44.00 $50.00 $43.00 $45.00 $47.00 $120.00 $48.50 $40.00 $25.00 $50.00 $71.00 $54.80
EA 15 Gallon Shrub $120.00
$550.00
$250.00
$70.00
$960.00 $164.43
$1,990.80
$519.75
$75.60
$1,315.44
$1,990.80
$2,079.00
$6,274.80
$12,616.80
$20,329.47
$5,932.76
$8,452.50
$13,127.94
$215.25
$2,730.00
$680.00
$99.00
$200.00
$10,000.00
$550.00
$52.00
$1,600.00
$10,000.00
$2,200.00
$4,316.00
$10,920.00
$23,180.00
$12,534.00
$5,000.00
$36,225.00
$80.00 $170.00
$2,200.00
$535.00
$78.00
$1,360.00
$2,200.00
$2,140.00
$6,474.00
$13,020.00
$12,505.00
$6,267.00
$10,000.00
$14,490.00
$185.00
$230.00
$550.00
$80.00
$1,480.00
$230.00
$180.00
$2,200.00
$550.00
$80.00
$1,440.00 $130.00 $218.00
$969.00
$606.00
$60.00
$180.00
$800.00
$500.00
$50.00
$1,440.00
$800.00
$50.00 $400.00 $200.00
$1,200.00
$650.00
$95.00
$296.00
$1,441.00
$796.00
$76.00
$329.00
$2,960.00
$427.00
$54.80
1 EA Remote Control Valve - 2" in Valve Box
EA Quick Coupler Valve in Valve Box - 1"
EA Pop-Up-Spray Head
$550.00 $1,000.00
$500.00
$65.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$5,395.00
$4,200.00
$21,350.00
$7,311.50
$2,200.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00
$500.00
$150.00
$20.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$12,450.00
$16,800.00
$18,300.00
$10,445.00
4 $1,000.00
$5,810.00
$4,200.00
$4,270.00
$10,445.00
$3,000.00
$24,150.00
$2,200.00
$6,640.00
$13,440.00
$14,640.00
$6,267.00
$8,000.00
$38,640.00
$2,200.00
$6,640.00
$13,440.00
$27,450.00
$6,267.00
$8,250.00
$10,948.00
$1,000.00
$50.00
$2,424.00
$4,980.00
$11,256.00
$22,875.00
$16,712.00
$4,600.00
$35,098.00
$2,000.00
$4,150.00
$9,240.00
$35,563.00
$12,534.00
$3,830.00
$378.35
83
840
61
4,178
1
LF Lateral PVC Pipe (3/4" to 2-1/2")
LF Keystone Gravity Retaining Wall
SF 3" Shredded Mulch - Hand Placed
LS 90 Day Landscape Maintenance Period
Subdrain per Caltrans Standard Plan B9-6, Detail C - Footing (MOD) - with 4" slotted
LF plastic pipe. Includes geocomposite drain, filter fabric, slotted plastic pipe, treated
permeable base, and all incidentals
$5.00 $15.02 $20.00 $13.00 $5.00 $15.50 $16.00 $16.00 $45.00 $13.40 $11.00 $20.00 $17.00 $27.40
$70.00 $333.27
$1.42
$223.00
$2.00
$380.00
$3.00
$350.00
$1.75
$205.00
$1.50
$240.00
$1.50
$450.00
$1.50
$500.00
$2.75
$375.00
$4.00
$583.00
$3.00
$300.00
$2.50
$400.00
$4.00
$459.00
$5.00
$761.00
$2.20$2.50
$3,000.00
$150.00
$8,452.50
$81.54
$10,309.00
$47.00
$5,000.00
$225.00
$7,500.00
$22.00
$7,500.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00
$240.00
$8,250.00
$68.00
$3,000.00
$50.00
$4,600.00
$218.00
$3,830.00
$2.35
$5,000.00
$100.00
$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,674.00
$94.00
$9,320.00
$106.00$3,542.00 $90.00 $16,100.00 $180.00
69 161
70
71
104
36
LF 4" plastic pipe underdrain - includes sweeps and fittings
LF 3" plastic pipe underdrain - includes sweeps and fittings
$45.00
$35.00
$4,680.00
$1,260.00
$34.17 $3,553.68
$6,482.88
$64.00 $6,656.00
$4,266.00
$65.00 $6,760.00
$4,320.00
$25.00
$24.00
$2,600.00
$864.00
$150.00
$150.00
$15,600.00
$5,400.00
$60.00
$48.00
$6,240.00
$1,728.00
$79.00 $8,216.00
$3,780.00
$40.00
$38.00
$4,160.00
$1,368.00
$138.00
$129.00
$14,352.00
$4,644.00
$80.00 $8,320.00 $100.00
$100.00
$10,400.00
$3,600.00
$150.00
$200.00
$15,600.00
$7,200.00
$73.00
$46.00
$7,592.00
$1,656.00
$123.00
$175.00
$12,792.00
$6,300.00$180.08 $118.50 $120.00 $105.00 $304.00 $10,944.00
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT:$2,545,433.00 $1,655,093.46 $1,899,580.00 $2,048,156.80 $2,080,000.00 $2,175,685.00 $2,189,795.00 $2,275,700.00 $2,412,717.50 $2,426,534.00 $2,444,000.00 $2,464,777.00 $2,550,037.00 $2,554,129.00 $2,720,940.00
Page 66
Page 1 of 2
REVISION:
On April 1, 2025, bids were opened for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project (Project).
A total of 14 construction bids were received on PlanetBids, the City’s electronic bidding software,
but two (2) bidders were considered nonresponsive bidders. City staff determined the apparent
lowest responsive bidder to be CT&T Concrete Paving Inc. (CT&T), in the amount of $1,655,100.
On April 15, 2025, the City Clerk’s Office received a bid protest letter from Wright Construction
Engineering Corp. (Protester). The letter claimed that the bid package submitted by the CT&T
should be deemed nonresponsive due to a lack of required experience and a failure to list
mandatory subcontractors. The Protestor alleges that the three projects provided by the CT&T on
the bid forms are not similar work to the Project and therefore do not demonstrate CT&T’s ability
to successfully perform the Contract. The Protestor also alleges that CT&T failed to list a
subcontractor for land surveying and that CT&T does not hold a California Land Surveyors
License, thereby rendering them unqualified to perform the contract. The protest letter is included
as Attachment 1.
CT&T provide a formal response to the protest letter indicating that they have completed multiple
projects of similar size and scope and included examples of these projects. CT&T clarified that
they contracted On-Point Land Surveying, Inc., a firm with Licensed Land Surveyors on staff, for
the surveying portion of the Project. However, the portion of the survey work does not exceed
0.5% and therefore they were not required to list them as a Subcontractor on the bid forms per
the Instruction to Bidders. The response letter is included as Attachment 2.
Engineering staff has reviewed both the protest letter and the response letter. Staff have
determined that the bid package submitted by CT&T is responsive and in accordance with the bid
requirements, with any irregularities being inconsequential. CT&T is therefore still the apparent
lowest responsive bidder for the Project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Receive and file this Memorandum and item D9 of the Consent Calendar, waive any minor
irregularities,
2. Approve the plans and specifications for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project
(Project), on file with the City Engineer;
DATE: April 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer
Krystal Lai, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Bid Protest Letter from Wright Construction Engineering Corp. and Response
Letter from CT&T Concrete Paving Inc. for the Heritage Park Bridge
Replacment Project. (CITY)
MEMORANDUM
Engineering Services Department
Staff Report Memo: 4/16/2025 Item D9 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
Page 67
Page 2 of 2
3. Accept the bids received for the Project;
4. Award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $ $1,655,100 to the
lowest responsive bidder CT&T Concrete Paving Inc., for the total bid amount;
5. Authorize the expenditure of a 15% contingency for the construction contract, in the
amount of $248,270;
6. Accept award in the amount of $750,000 from San Bernardino County through the County
Board Discretionary Fund Priorities Program; and
7. Authorize an appropriation of revenues and expenditures, both in the amount of $750,000
from the Infrastructure Fund (Fund 198).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Protest Letter from Wright Construction Engineering Corp.
Attachment 2 – Response Letter from CT&T Concrete Paving Inc.
Page 68
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
April 16th, 2025
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Heritage Bridge Replacement Project
Subject: Response to Formal Bid Protest
To Whom It May Concern:
Introduction
This letter serves as CT&T Concrete Paving Inc.’s (CT&T) response to a protest of award letter
submitted by Wright Construction Engineering Corp. on April 15
th, 2025. In this letter we will
address the following claims made by Wright Construction Engineering Corp: (1) CT&T fails to
meet the minimum qualifications and lacks the required experience to perform the job; (2) CT&T
failed to list a subcontractor for a key component of the project.
1. CT&T Fails to Meet the Minimum Qualifications
Wright Construction Engineering Corp. posits that the three recently completed projects listed by
CT&T Concrete Paving Inc. fail to meet and/or match the scope of work that was specified
within the contract documents. Section H (Competency of Bidders) of the Instructions to Bidders
for the Heritage Bridge Replacement Project states that:
“The bidder shall be licensed under the provisions of Chapter 9, Division 3, of the Business and
Professions Code of the State of California to do the type of work contemplated in the contract
and shall be skilled and regularly engaged in the general class or type of work called for under
this contract.”
In response to this, CT&T listed three recently completed projects, over $1,000,000 that required
a Class A (General Engineering) contractor’s license. The scopes of work on the aforementioned
projects demonstrate CT&T Concrete Paving’s ability to complete General Engineering work in
the public sector on a larger scale. CT&T Concrete Paving Inc. has performed General
Engineering work in both the public and private sector for various agencies. Please see additional
references highlighting CT&T Concrete Paving’s ability to perform work of a similar nature:
a. City of Cathedral City (2019)
i. CV Link –White Water Bike Path, Project No. 7015
324 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., PMB275
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Office (909) 629-8000 Fax (909) 629-8001
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 74
ii. Construction of a 3.5 Mile Bike Trail with 3 Underpass Bridge Structures
iii. Contact: Bill Simmons, PE (760)770-0360
b. Orange County Public Works Department (2023)
i. Olive Heights Sidewalk Gap Closure, Agreement No. MA-080-22011013
ii. Construction of sidewalk and structural retaining wall to improve
accessibility in an unincorpated community in the County of Orange
iii. Contact: Teddy Kamarzarian, PE (714) 955-0315
c. 2021 Laguna Beach Mixed Use Project
i. 1369 Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA
ii. Construction of 14,000 SF Structural Concrete Podium Deck
iii. Contact: Jaik Choi, PE (949) 951-2522
2. CT&T Failed to List Mandatory Subcontractors
To clarify, CT&T intends to subcontract On-Point Land Surveying, Inc. (LS 8133) for the
surveying portion of the project, specifically for the survey control, walls, and bridge abutments
as required by the project requirements. The portion of the work does not exceed the 0.5% of the
bid amount. CT&T Concrete Paving Inc. has included in their budget a contingency amount if
additional surveying is required throughout the course of construction.
3. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, CT&T maintains their status as a responsive bidder. CT&T
Concrete Paving Inc. trusts the City of Rancho Cucamonga to perform its due diligence on each
contractor who has submitted a bid for the above referenced project. We appreciate your time
and attention to this matter.
Jose Carvajal
President
CT&T Concrete Paving Inc.
CC: Jackie Carvajal, Officer
Jose Carvajal
Page 75
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Vishal Lad, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT:Consideration of a Contract with American Asphalt South, Inc. in the
Amount of $349,400 Plus a 10% Contingency for Construction and
Construction Management and Inspection Services, for the Fiscal Year
2024/25 Local Slurry Seal Pavement Rehabilitation Project. This Project
is Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Local Slurry Seal
Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project) on file with the City Engineer;
2. Accept the bids received for the Project;
3. Award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $349,400 to the lowest
responsive bidder, American Asphalt South, Inc., for the total bid amount;
4. Authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency for the construction contract, totaling
$34,490;
BACKGROUND:
The City employs a method called slurry seal to restore asphalt pavement with minor cracking.
Slurry seal involves applying a mixture of water, asphalt emulsion, aggregate, and additives to
the existing pavement surface. This process creates a new protective layer that helps seal cracks
and restore the road's durability, reducing the need for costly repairs in the future. Slurry seal is a
cost-effective solution that extends the lifespan of the pavement, with a typical life expectancy of
five to eight years.
Engineering staff used its Pavement Management System (PMS) to determine the list of
neighborhood streets to be resurfaced. PMS is a planning tool that analyzes existing pavement
conditions and identifies good, fair, and poor conditions. A vicinity map illustrating the various
neighborhood streets scheduled this fiscal year for slurry seal is included as Attachment 1.
Page 76
Page 2
2
7
7
7
ANALYSIS:
The scope of work for the Project includes weed control, routing and crack sealing, application of
slurry seal, protection of existing manholes and valves, thermoplastic restriping, and installation
of pavement markings. The contract documents specify 40 working days for construction
completion.
The Notice Inviting Bids was released to the general contracting community and published in the
Daily Bulletin Newspaper on March 18 and March 25, 2025. The City Clerk’s office facilitated the
formal solicitation for bids. On April 1, 2025, the City Clerk’s office received four (4) construction
bids. The Engineer’s estimate for the project was $460,000. The apparent lowest bidder,
American Asphalt South, Inc., submitted a bid of $349,400. A full bid summary is provided in
Attachment 2.
Engineering staff has reviewed all bids and found them to be complete and in compliance with
the bid requirements, with any irregularities deemed inconsequential. Staff has completed the
required background checks and confirmed that the lowest responsive bidder, American Asphalt
South, Inc., meets all bid document requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Staff has determined that the Project is categorically Exempt under Section 15301, “Existing
Facilities,” subsection (c), Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Anticipated construction costs are estimated to be as follows:
A total of $4,655,000 has been budgeted in Fiscal Year 2024/25 from the Gas Tax R&T7360
(Fund 174) and Measure I (Fund 177) for the Local Street Paving Program. Of this amount,
$448,372 will be allocated for this Project, with the remaining funds designated for other local
street paving initiatives.
Funding for this Project is available under the Capital Improvement Project Account Number listed
below:
Account No.Funding Source Description Amount
F177 CC303 SC 7004;
PID2195-177
Measure I Fund (177)Local Street Rehab $448,372
Expenditure Category Amount
Construction Contract $349,400
Construction Contract Contingency (10%)$34,940
Construction Inspection Services $42,120
Construction Inspection Contingency (10%)$4,215
Construction Materials Testing $16,075
Bid Noticing Advertisement $1,622
Estimated Construction Costs $ 448,372
Page 77
Page 3
2
7
7
7
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This project reflects the City Council's core values by enhancing community safety and well-being
while driving continuous improvement through the development of high-quality public
infrastructure.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 – Bid Summary
Page 78
ATTACHMENT 1
PROJECT# 800-2025-02
FY 2024/25 LOCAL SLURRY SEAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATIONS
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Project Site
He
r
m
o
s
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Page 79
ATTACHMENT 2
BID SUMMARY - BID DATE: April 01, 2025 APPARENT LOW BIDDER
AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH, DOUG MARTIN CONTRACTING
2 3 4
ROY ALLAN SLURRY SEAL,FY24-25 LOCAL SLURRY SEAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATIONS PROJECT ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE PAVEMENT COATINGS CO.INC.CO., INC.INC.
BASE BID
NO
UNIT BID
AMOUNT
21,000.00
387,500.00
UNIT BID UNIT
COST
2,980.00
2.18
27,225.00
5,500.00
BID
AMOUNT
2,980.00
UNIT
COST
5,000.00
1.93
29,000.00
41,700.00
BID
AMOUNT
5,000.00 $12,750.00
299,150.00 $2.09
UNIT
COST
BID
AMOUNT
12,750.00
323,950.00
QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST
21,000.00
2.50
COST
12,500.00
1.88
AMOUNT
12,500.00
291,400.00
1
2
1 LS Mobilization $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$155,000 SY Slurry Seal Type II, Emulsion Aggregate Slurry (EAS)337,900.00
Removal of Existing Striping and Pavement markers and Installation of3
4
1
1
LS
LS Traffic Control
$
$
30,500.00
21,000.00
$
$
30,500.00 $
$
30,500.00
15,000.00
$
$
30,500.00 $
$
$
$
27,225.00 $
$
$
$
29,000.00 $24,939.00 $
$
24,939.00Thermoplastic striping and pavement marker
21,000.00 15,000.00 5,500.00 41,700.00 $17,250.00 17,250.00
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT:$460,000.00 $349,400.00 $373,605.00 $374,850.00 $378,889.00
Page 80
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director
Deborah Allen, Management Analyst I
SUBJECT:Consideration to Accept All Improvements as Complete, File the
Notice of Completion and Authorize Release of Retention for the
RCMU Electric Vehicle Charging Station Hub. This Project is
Exempt from All Appropriate National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review
as Required by the Department of Energy and CEQA Guidelines.
(CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1) Accept the RCMU Electric Vehicle Charging Station Hub, Contract No. 2019-085,
Amendment 15 (Project), as complete;
2) Approve the final contract amount of $299,819; and
3) Authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion for the Project.
BACKGROUND:
On October 15, 2024, the City Council awarded a contract to Pacific Utility Installation (PUI)
in the amount of $272,563 plus 10% contingency in the amount of $27,256 to address
unforeseen construction-related incidentals. The scope of the work included installation of a
transformer and switchgear, extending high-voltage conduit lines, connecting four high-
powered ChargePoint electric vehicle charging stations with power modules and power
banks, pouring concrete equipment pads, placing electrical cabling and substructure work,
building an accessible ramp, replacing sidewalk sections, removing shrubs, installing 6’
bollards, and commissioning the new equipment.
The installation of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, located at 8309 Rochester
Avenue, is vital to meet the demand and need for transportation electrification. This project
helps reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, creating a reliable and accessible network
of infrastructure that encourages the ownership or leasing of EVs in the Southern California
region. Staff intends to offset the equipment costs with various funding sources, including the
California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP), the Department of Energy’s
Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant Funding (EECBG) and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC).
Page 81
Page 2
2
7
8
6
Upon approval of project acceptance, the City Engineer will process approvals of all
documents for recordation by the City Clerk.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Project included minor exterior modifications to extend high-voltage conduit runs to install
a transformer, switchgear, and four (4) EV charging stations at an existing City facility parking
lot. Staff determined that the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Section 15301 exemption includes the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing,
licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical
equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that
existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination.”
Additionally, Staff determined that the Project is exempt from all appropriate National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review as required by the Department of Energy as
part of the EECBG funding award.
ANALYSIS:
The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The net increase in the total cost
of the Project is covered by allotted contingency and is a result of one (1) Change Order,
including the final balancing statement, which is summarized below:
Change Order No.1: Install additional conduit runs, repair high-voltage infrastructure
damage, add wheel stops, and expand asphalt restoration. These tasks are within the
contingency for the project. The change in the contract cost due to this change order is an
increase of $27,256.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A total of $299,819 was budgeted in the adopted Fiscal Year 2024/25 Budget for the project
construction, consisting of funds from Capital Projects-Municipal Utility Fund (Fund 705) to
fund this Project. The total funds for this project were identified under Capital Improvement
Account No. in the amounts listed below:
Account No.Funding Source Description Amount
F705 CC304 7000
SC7009; PID2095-705
Capital Projects-
Municipal Utility
Fund (705) / Capital
Projects
RCMU Electric
Vehicle Charging
Station Hub
$299,819
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring the construction and
maintenance of high-quality public improvements that promote a world class community.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Page 82
ATTACHMENT 1
RCMU ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATION HUB
AT RC SPORTS CENTER
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Project Site
Page 76
Page 83
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Erika Lewis-Huntley, Management Analyst III
SUBJECT:Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1039, to be Read by
Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Adding Chapter 10.84 to Title 10
of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Regulating the Use of
Bicycles and E-Conveyances in Public Areas. (ORDINANCE NO. 1039)
(CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1039 to be read by title
only and waive further reading, adding Chapter 10.84 to Title 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code Regulating the Use of Bicycles and E-Conveyances in Public Areas.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Rancho Cucamonga, like many cities throughout California and the country, has
experienced a significant rise in the use of electric bicycles (e-bikes) and other electric
conveyances (e-conveyances), such as electric scooters and skateboards, on city streets,
sidewalks, and other public places. While these devices provide sustainable and accessible
transportation alternatives, they have also led to an increase in safety concerns—particularly
around their operation in public areas where they may conflict with vehicles and pedestrians.
In recent months, community members have increasingly expressed concern regarding unsafe
behaviors associated with e-conveyance use. These behaviors include riding at excessive
speeds, performing stunts or wheelies in active traffic, ignoring traffic signals and signs, riding
without helmets, and carrying multiple riders on a single device. These actions increase the
potential for collisions and injuries and have raised significant public safety concerns. National
data reinforces these community concerns and local trends. According to the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), injuries associated with e-bikes, e-scooters, and similar
devices have increased by more than 20% each year. From 2017 to 2022, the CPSC reported
233 related fatalities nationwide, underscoring the urgency for cities to adopt regulations that help
mitigate risk and protect all users of public spaces. In addition to safety concerns, the City has
observed damage to public property, particularly in parks and open spaces where e-conveyance
users ride over grass, landscaped areas, and pedestrian paths. These activities not only pose
risks to pedestrians but also increase maintenance costs and negatively impact the overall
experience for other park users.
In response to these challenges, the City is exploring strategies to balance the benefits of e-
conveyances with the need to ensure safety, accessibility, and the preservation of public property.
Page 84
Page 2
2
7
8
0
The proposed ordinance is a proactive step toward addressing these issues through clear
regulations, which are part of the City’s comprehensive approach to enhancing safety and
supporting the quality of life for all residents.
ANALYSIS:
In California, e-bikes are regulated under the California Vehicle Code (CVC) as conventional
bicycles and must obey most all of the same regulations as non-motorized bicycles. E-bikes are
defined by the CVC as bicycles with an electric motor of less than 750 watts and fully operable
pedals. There are three classes of e-bikes codified in section 312.5 of the CVC:
•Class 1: Pedal-assist only, with motor assistance up to 20 mph
•Class 2: Pedal-assist and includes a throttle, with motorized assistance up to 20 mph
•Class 3: Pedal-assist only, with motor assistance up to 28 mph (all operators must be at
least 16 years old, must wear a safety helmet, and must not transport passengers)
It is important to distinguish these devices from electric “off-highway motorcycles,” which are
becoming increasingly common. Despite their off-road-only classification, they are frequently
mistaken for standard e-bikes, complicating enforcement and increasing risk. Electric off-highway
motorcycles (e.g., Sur-ron, Talaria, E Ride Pro) are not classified as e-bikes because they do not
have operable pedals and often exceed power limits outlined in the California Vehicle Code. As
such, they are not street legal and may be subject to impoundment and citation if operated on any
publicly-owned property, including but not limited to a public street, sidewalk, public right of way,
park, bicycle path or trail, or any other public area open for vehicle or pedestrian travel. They are
only permitted in areas designated for off-highway vehicle recreation or on private property with
the owner's permission. These vehicles are not eligible for highway registration and cannot be
modified for on-road use unless they were originally manufactured and certified for dual-purpose
operation.
The California Vehicle Code provides express authority to cities to enact ordinances regulating
time, place and manner of bicycles and e-conveyances for the purpose of assuring the safety of
pedestrians, including persons with disabilities and others using sidewalks, bike paths, pathways,
trails, bike lanes, streets, roads, and highways. The proposed ordinance includes the following
key provisions designed to enhance public safety and address concerns related to the use of
bicycles and e-conveyances on public property:
•Prohibits riding a bicycle or e-conveyance in an unsafe manner on any publicly-owned
property.
•Defines “unsafe manner” to include violations of state or local traffic laws, as well as
behaviors that endanger the operator, passenger, motorists, other riders, pedestrians, or
public property. Examples of unsafe behavior includes as riding against traffic, disobeying
signs, carrying passengers on single-rider devices, racing, performing stunts or wheelies,
or operating without proper control.
•Prohibits the use of handheld wireless devices while riding unless operating hands-free
and voice-activated devices.
•Restricts riding areas, including prohibiting use on sidewalks (with limited exceptions),
parks (except on designated paths), landscaped areas, fields, and in City-owned parking
lots.
•Clarifies rules for off-highway electric motorcycles (e.g., Sur-Ron, Talaria), which are not
street legal and are prohibited on all public property unless in a designated off-highway
vehicle area.
Page 85
Page 3
2
7
8
0
•Reinforces helmet requirements, including state-mandated helmet use for operators under
18 years old and all operators and passengers of Class 3 e-bikes, regardless of age.
•Reaffirms requirements to always yield to pedestrians when emerging from an alley,
driveway, bicycle path, building or otherwise approaching upon a sidewalk or sidewalk
area.
•Requires riders to ride in single file, and not more than two abreast except on paths or
parts of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
•Requires all bicycles and e-conveyances to comply with equipment standards outlined in
CVC Section 21201.
•Prohibits parking bicycles and e-conveyances in a manner that obstructs pedestrian
pathways or violates posted parking regulations.
•Outlines enforcement protocols, including penalties and fines, and allows for the
impoundment of devices operated by minors in a dangerous manner.
•Holds parents or guardians accountable for violations committed by minors, including
potential civil liability for property damage.
These provisions aim to promote responsible use, enhance public safety, reduce property
damage, and preserve equitable access to public spaces for all community members.
The proposed ordinance is part of a broader, proactive strategy that includes infrastructure
improvements to ensure all users can safely share public spaces. The City has made substantial
and ongoing investments in its bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to support safe riding and
encourage active transportation. In recent years, the City has completed several key projects,
including protected bike lanes, shared-use trails, and a cycle track to expand its network of safe
paths for cyclists and pedestrians. The City’s long-range transportation plan, Connect RC,
outlines more than 50 proposed bike and pedestrian infrastructure improvements throughout the
city. This plan was developed with extensive community input and reflects the City’s commitment
to improving safety and connectivity across the transportation network. Several of these
improvements are already being implemented, with more to follow as funding is secured.
The City is also committed to education and outreach efforts. In 2024, the City received a
$200,000 California Office of Traffic Safety grant to expand bike safety programming, including
safety equipment giveaways and the development of Safe Routes to School mapping resources.
The City has also launched a range of citywide safety campaigns, including the "Look, Look, Look"
campaign across digital billboards, social media, and print, to promote awareness among drivers
and riders alike. Additionally, in partnership with the Rancho Cucamonga Police and Fire
Departments, the City has produced safety videos and hosted bike rodeos for children and
families in schools and neighborhoods. Further, the City’s Connect RC Bicycle Subcommittee
actively organizes and participates in local bike rides, community outreach efforts, and citywide
events to promote bicycle safety, increase ridership, and encourage public input on active
transportation planning.
Overall, the proposed ordinance is part of a comprehensive strategy to promote the safe shared
use of public areas. It is aligned with a broader vision that seeks not only to regulate and enforce,
but also to educate and empower residents to travel safely. Enforcement will be paired with
education and awareness campaigns to help both riders and drivers better understand the rules
and responsibilities of operating bicycles and e-conveyances within the community. These
combined efforts address safety concerns through effective regulation while fostering a safe and
active transportation environment for all.
Page 86
Page 4
2
7
8
0
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact related to the adoption of this ordinance
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This ordinance helps realize the City Council’s core values of “Providing and nurturing a high
quality of life for all” and “Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all” by
regulating the use of bicycles and e-conveyances to ensure community safety in public areas.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 1039
Page 87
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 1 of 7
5
5
8
5
ORDINANCE NO. 1039
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING CHAPTER 10.84 TO TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-
CONVEYANCES IN PUBLIC AREAS
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) is committed to ensuring the public
health, safety, and welfare of all its residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of fostering sustainable transportation
options while maintaining public safety and accessibility for all users of public spaces; and
WHEREAS, bicycles and e-conveyances (electric bicycles, scooters, and similar devices)
have become increasingly popular modes of transportation and recreation within the City; and
WHEREAS, the use of bicycles and e-conveyances in public spaces presents both benefits
and challenges, including safety concerns for riders, pedestrians, and motorists; and
WHEREAS, the City has observed a significant increase in traffic incidents involving e-
conveyance users and motor vehicles with their increasing popularity, often due to higher speeds
and unsafe riding practices; and
WHEREAS, the public has expressed concerns regarding the unsafe operation of e-
conveyances, including reckless riding behaviors that pose risks to riders, pedestrians, drivers, and
others in public spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City aims to promote the safe use of bicycles and e-conveyances by
implementing regulations that align with state law and best practices in transportation safety; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to educating its residents and visitors on the safe
operation of bicycles and e-conveyances to prevent accidents and other traffic hazards and promote
responsible use of these transportation modes; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that providing clear guidelines for the operation of bicycles
and e-conveyances in public spaces will improve the quality of life for all residents and visitors.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 10.84 is hereby added to Title 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code to read as follows:
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 88
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 2 of 7
5
5
8
5
“Chapter 10.84 – REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-CONVEYANCES
10.84.010 – Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set
forth in this section:
“Bicycle” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 231, as it may be
amended from time to time.
“Bicycle Lane” has the same meaning as defined in Street and Highways Code Section 890.4, as it
may be amended from time to time.
“Bicycle Path or Bicycle Trail” has the same meaning as defined in Street and Highways Code
Section 890.4 and California Vehicle Code Section 231.5, as the provisions may be amended from
time to time.
“E-Conveyance” means any electric bicycle or e-bike, electric scooter, electrically motorized
skateboard, or other device that is designed to convey one or more people and is capable of being
powered by human propulsion or electric motor propulsion.
“Electric Bicycle” or “E-Bike” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section
312.5, as it may be amended from time to time, and which, as of the date of the adoption of this
section, provides that an “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an
electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts, and are categorized under Class 1, Class 2, and
Class 3.
“Electrically Motorized Skateboard” has the same meaning as defined in the California Vehicle Code
Section 313.5, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle
Code Section 313, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Minor” means any person under the age of eighteen.
“Narrow Width Lane” means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side
by side within the lane.
“Off-Highway Motorcycle” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 436,
as it may be amended from time to time.
“Pedestrian” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 467, as it may be
amended from time to time.
"Public area" means any outdoor area, public alley, parkway, public transportation path, roadway,
Page 89
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 3 of 7
5
5
8
5
right-of-way, sidewalk, park, trail, paseo, pathway or street that is owned, granted by easement,
operated or controlled by the City.
“Unsafe manner” is defined as an act in violation of the City Municipal Code, California Vehicle
Code, or any other applicable state or federal law. For purposes of this section, operation of a
bicycle or e-conveyance in an “unsafe manner” also includes operating in such a way that
constitutes a danger to the operator, passenger, other motorist, other rider, pedestrian, or property.
“Vehicle” has the same meaning as in California Vehicle Code Section 670, as it may be amended
from time to time.
10.84.020 Operation.
A.No person shall ride a bicycle or e-conveyance in an unsafe manner, as defined under
Section 10.84.010, on any publicly owned property, including but not limited to a public street,
sidewalk, public right of way, park, bicycle path, trail, or lane, or any other public area open
for vehicle or pedestrian travel. Examples of riding in an unsafe manner include, but are not
limited to, the following actions:
1. Riding on a public street or bikeway against the flow of traffic.
2. Not yielding to vehicles or pedestrians when required.
3. Operating an e-conveyance in a manner it was not designed for, including carrying
passengers when not designed for carrying passengers.
4. Failing to obey posted traffic or other signs.
5. A person under the age of 18 riding without a properly fitted and fastened helmet.
6. Engaging in racing, speed, or stunt contests.
7. Carrying any package, bundle, item or article which prohibits the operator from having
full control and forward visibility at all times.
8. Operating a bicycle or e-conveyance at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent
under the conditions then existing taking into account the weather, pedestrian and
vehicular traffic, and the surface and width of the sidewalk or roadway.
9. Performing any acrobatics, tricks, wheelies, or stunts when pedestrians or moving
vehicles are present.
B.Any person operating a bicycle or e-conveyance upon a street at a speed less than
the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such a time shall ride as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following
situations:
1.When overtaking and passing another bicycle, e-conveyance, or vehicle proceeding
in the same direction;
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including, but not limited to, fixed or
moving objects, vehicles, other e-conveyances, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface
Page 90
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 4 of 7
5
5
8
5
hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb
or edge; or
4. When operating as close as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway on
a one-way street.
C. Persons riding or operating bicycles or electric bicycles shall not ride more than two abreast,
except on paths or parts of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
D. Any person operating a bicycle or e-conveyance who is emerging from an alley, driveway,
bicycle path, building or otherwise approaching upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area, shall yield the
right-of-way to all pedestrians on such sidewalk or sidewalk area, and upon entering a bicycle
lane, highway, or street shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles, bicycles, or e-conveyances
on the roadway.
E. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance in any City park, except on paved paths or
trails that are specifically designated for bicycle or e-conveyance use. The operation of bicycles
or e-conveyances is strictly prohibited on dirt, grass, athletic fields, landscaped areas, or any
other non-designated surfaces within any City park.
F. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance in any parking lot of any property owned or
operated by the City. Within such parking lots, bicycles or e-conveyances must be walked, not
ridden.
G. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance while holding and operating a handheld
wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless
telephone or electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured
to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while riding.
H. No person shall operate a bicycle or electric bicycle on any sidewalk, except:
1. A person may ride a bicycle or electric bicycle on any area designated as a
driveway;
2. Any area designated as a bikeway by the City Council; or
3. To avoid a dangerous situation on the road or an obstacle.
10.84.030 Electric Off-Highway Motorcycles.
A. No person shall operate an electric off-highway motorcycle of any model (e.g., Sur-Ron,
Talaria, E Ride Pro) on any publicly-owned property, including but not limited to, a public street,
sidewalk, public right of way, park, bicycle path or trail, or any other public area open for vehicle or
pedestrian travel.
B. Electric off-highway motorcycles are only allowed to be operated in areas specifically
designated for off-highway vehicle recreation, or on private property with the express permission of
the property owner. Unlike electric bicycles or mopeds, such vehicles are not eligible for highway
Page 91
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 5 of 7
5
5
8
5
registration and cannot be retrofitted for on-road use unless originally manufactured and certified
for dual-purpose operation.
10.84.040 Equipment.
A.Every bicycle, including electric bicycles, when operated within the City, shall comply with all
of the equipment requirements contained in California Vehicle Code Section 21201.
B.Any minor operating or riding as a passenger upon a bicycle or e-conveyance in a public area
or any other place open to the public for vehicle and pedestrian travel must wear a properly fitted and
fastened bicycle helmet.
C.Any operator or passenger of a Class 3 electric bicycle, regardless of age, must wear a
properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21213.
1 0 .84.050 Parking.
No person shall temporarily leave unaccompanied, abandon, or park a bicycle or e-conveyance in
a manner that obstructs vehicular traffic, the pedestrian travel way of any sidewalk or pedestrian
path, or on public property in violation of any government sign prohibiting parking of bicycles or e-
conveyances at a location.
10.84.060 Enforcement.
A. Any person, including a minor, who violates the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to
penalties, fines, and enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 1.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code.
B. Violations by Minors
1. The parent of any child, and the guardian of any ward, shall not authorize or knowingly
permit any minor child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter.
2.In the case of a minor committing a violation under this Chapter, the parent or guardian
may be held responsible for the violation and any associated penalties or fines.
3.If the minor’s activities result in damage to public property, the City may, pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 1714.1, pursue a civil complaint against the minor’s parent(s) or
guardian(s) having custody and control of the minor for every tort resulting in property damage.
C.Impoundment
1.In addition to all other available penalties, the Enforcement Officer shall have the
authority to take immediate possession of and transport a bicycle or e-conveyance for safekeeping to
the nearest City facility if an unaccompanied minor is found in violation of any provisions of this
Chapter, and the unsafe manner in which the device was operated constitutes an immediate danger
Page 92
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 6 of 7
5
5
8
5
to the health and safety of the juvenile operator or to members of the public, thus constituting an
exigent circumstance.
2.The impounded device shall be released by the City to the parent or legal guardian of
the minor if the individual owns the device.
3.Upon impoundment of any e-conveyance device under this Chapter, the minor shall
be issued a receipt. Said receipt shall state the days, business hours, location, and process by which
the owner may claim the impounded device within 30 days. The citation receipt shall also explain that
unclaimed devices impounded for longer than 30 days will be disposed subject to an opportunity for
a pre-disposal hearing or sold at an auction in accordance with laws governing the disposal of
abandoned property.
1 0 .84.070 Exemptions.
A. First responders, as defined under California Government Code Section 8562, are exempt
from this Chapter while in the performance of their duties.
B. This Chapter is not intended to apply to or otherwise restrict electric personal assistive
mobility devices used in a safe manner by physically disabled persons as defined under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.) and section 36.311 of Title 28 of
the Code of Federal Regulations.”
SECTION 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and
effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have
adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 3: CEQA. The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that the regulations for bicycles and e-
conveyances will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment. In addition, this Ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15060(c)(3) because the Ordinance is an activity that is not a project as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
SECTION 4: Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
Page 93
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 7 of 7
5
5
8
5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2025.
_____________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16th day of April 2025, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 7th day of May, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Executed this 8th day of May 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
____________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
Page 94
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. 1039
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING CHAPTER 10.84 TO TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-
CONVEYANCES IN PUBLIC AREAS
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) is committed to ensuring the public
health, safety, and welfare of all its residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of fostering sustainable transportation
options while maintaining public safety and accessibility for all users of public spaces; and
WHEREAS, bicycles and e-conveyances (electric bicycles, scooters, and similar devices)
have become increasingly popular modes of transportation and recreation within the City; and
WHEREAS, the use of bicycles and e-conveyances in public spaces presents both benefits
and challenges, including safety concerns for riders, pedestrians, and motorists; and
WHEREAS, the City has observed a significant increase in traffic incidents involving e-
conveyance users and motor vehicles with their increasing popularity, often due to higher speeds
and unsafe riding practices; and
WHEREAS, the public has expressed concerns regarding the unsafe operation of e-
conveyances, including reckless riding behaviors that pose risks to riders, pedestrians, drivers, and
others in public spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City aims to promote the safe use of bicycles and e-conveyances by
implementing regulations that align with state law and best practices in transportation safety; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to educating its residents and visitors on the safe
operation of bicycles and e-conveyances to prevent accidents and other traffic hazards and promote
responsible use of these transportation modes; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that providing clear guidelines for the operation of bicycles
and e-conveyances in public spaces will improve the quality of life for all residents and visitors.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 10.84 is hereby added to Title 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code to read as follows:
ATTACHMENT 1
2025-04-16 – REGULAR MEETING – ITEM F1 – ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Page 95
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 2 of 7
“Chapter 10.84 – REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-CONVEYANCES
10.84.010 – Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set
forth in this section:
“Bicycle” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 231, as it may be
amended from time to time.
“Bicycle Lane” has the same meaning as defined in Street and Highways Code Section 890.4, as it
may be amended from time to time.
“Bicycle Path or Bicycle Trail” has the same meaning as defined in Street and Highways Code
Section 890.4 and California Vehicle Code Section 231.5, as the provisions may be amended from
time to time.
“E-Conveyance” means any electric bicycle or e-bike, electric scooter, electrically motorized
skateboard, or other device that is designed to convey one or more people and is capable of being
powered by human propulsion or electric motor propulsion.
“Electric Bicycle” or “E-Bike” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section
312.5, as it may be amended from time to time, and which, as of the date of the adoption of this
section, provides that an “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an
electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts, and are categorized under Class 1, Class 2, and
Class 3.
“Electrically Motorized Skateboard” has the same meaning as defined in the California Vehicle Code
Section 313.5, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle
Code Section 313, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Minor” means any person under the age of eighteen.
“Narrow Width Lane” means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side
by side within the lane.
“Off-Highway Motorcycle” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 436,
as it may be amended from time to time.
“Pedestrian” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 467, as it may be
amended from time to time.
"Public area" means any outdoor area, public alley, parkway, public transportation path, roadway,
Page 96
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 3 of 7
right-of-way, sidewalk, park, trail, paseo, pathway or street that is owned, granted by easement,
operated or controlled by the City.
“Unsafe manner” is defined as an act in violation of the City Municipal Code, California Vehicle
Code, or any other applicable state or federal law. For purposes of this section, operation of a
bicycle or e-conveyance in an “unsafe manner” also includes operating in such a way that
constitutes a danger to the operator, passenger, other motorist, other rider, pedestrian, or property.
“Vehicle” has the same meaning as in California Vehicle Code Section 670, as it may be amended
from time to time.
10.84.020 Operation.
A. No person shall ride a bicycle or e-conveyance in an unsafe manner, as defined under
Section 10.84.010, on any publicly owned property, including but not limited to a public street,
sidewalk, public right of way, park, bicycle path, trail, or lane, or any other public area open
for vehicle or pedestrian travel. Examples of riding in an unsafe manner include, but are not
limited to, the following actions:
1. Riding on a public street or bikeway against the flow of traffic.
2. Not yielding to vehicles or pedestrians when required.
3. Operating an e-conveyance in a manner it was not designed for, including carrying
passengers when not designed for carrying passengers.
4. Failing to obey posted traffic or other signs.
5. A person under the age of 18 riding without a properly fitted and fastened helmet.
6. Engaging in racing, speed, or stunt contests.
7. Carrying any package, bundle, item or article which prohibits the operator from having
full control and forward visibility at all times.
8. Operating a bicycle or e-conveyance at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent
under the conditions then existing taking into account the weather, pedestrian and
vehicular traffic, and the surface and width of the sidewalk or roadway.
9. Performing any acrobatics, tricks, wheelies, or stunts when pedestrians or moving
vehicles are present.
B. Any person operating a bicycle or e-conveyance upon a street at a speed less than
the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such a time shall ride as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following
situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, e-conveyance, or vehicle proceeding
in the same direction;
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including, but not limited to, fixed or
moving objects, vehicles, other e-conveyances, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface
Page 97
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 4 of 7
hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb
or edge; or
4. When operating as close as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway on
a one-way street.
C. Persons riding or operating bicycles or electric bicycles shall not ride more than two abreast,
except on paths or parts of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
D. Any person operating a bicycle or e-conveyance who is emerging from an alley, driveway,
bicycle path, building or otherwise approaching upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area, shall yield the
right-of-way to all pedestrians on such sidewalk or sidewalk area, and upon entering a bicycle
lane, highway, or street shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles, bicycles, or e-conveyances
on the roadway.
E. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance in any City park, except on paved paths or
trails that are specifically designated for bicycle or e-conveyance use. The operation of bicycles
or e-conveyances is strictly prohibited on dirt, grass, athletic fields, landscaped areas, or any
other non-designated surfaces within any City park.
F. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance in any parking lot of any property owned or
operated by the City. Within such parking lots, bicycles or e-conveyances must be walked, not
ridden.
G. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance while holding and operating a handheld
wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless
telephone or electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured
to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while riding.
H. No person shall operate a bicycle or electric bicycle on any sidewalk, except:
1. A person may ride a bicycle or electric bicycle on any area designated as a
driveway;
2. Any area designated as a bikeway by the City Council; or
3. To avoid a dangerous situation on the road or an obstacle.
10.84.030 Electric Off-Highway Motorcycles.
A. No person shall operate an electric off-highway motorcycle of any model (e.g., Sur-Ron,
Talaria, E Ride Pro) on any publicly-owned property, including but not limited to, a public street,
sidewalk, public right of way, park, bicycle path or trail, or any other public area open for vehicle or
pedestrian travel.
B. Electric off-highway motorcycles are only allowed to be operated in areas specifically
designated for off-highway vehicle recreation, or on private property with the express permission of
the property owner. Unlike electric bicycles or mopeds, such vehicles are not eligible for highway
Page 98
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 5 of 7
registration and cannot be retrofitted for on-road use unless originally manufactured and certified
for dual-purpose operation.
10.84.040 Equipment.
A. Every bicycle, including electric bicycles, when operated within the City, shall comply with all
of the equipment requirements contained in California Vehicle Code Section 21201.
B. Any minor operating or riding as a passenger upon a bicycle or e-conveyance in a public area
or any other place open to the public for vehicle and pedestrian travel must wear a properly fitted and
fastened bicycle helmet.
C. Any operator or passenger of a Class 3 electric bicycle, regardless of age, must wear a
properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21213.
10.84.0 5 0 Parking.
No person shall temporarily leave unaccompanied, abandon, or park a bicycle or e-conveyance in
a manner that obstructs vehicular traffic, the pedestrian travel way of any sidewalk or pedestrian
path, or on public property in violation of any government sign prohibiting parking of bicycles or e-
conveyances at a location.
10.84.060 Enforcement.
A. Any person, including a minor, who violates the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to
penalties, fines, and enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 1.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code.
B. Violations by Minors
1. The parent of any child, and the guardian of any ward, shall not authorize or knowingly
permit any minor child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter.
2. In the case of a minor committing a violation under this Chapter, the parent or guardian
may be held responsible for the violation and any associated penalties or fines.
3. If the minor’s activities result in damage to public property, the City may, pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 1714.1, pursue a civil complaint against the minor’s parent(s) or
guardian(s) having custody and control of the minor for every tort resulting in property damage.
C. Impoundment
1. In addition to all other available penalties, the Enforcement Officer shall have the
authority to take immediate possession of and transport a bicycle or e-conveyance for safekeeping to
the nearest City facility if an unaccompanied minor is found in violation of any provisions of this
Chapter, and the unsafe manner in which the device was operated constitutes an immediate danger
Page 99
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 6 of 7
to the health and safety of the juvenile operator or to members of the public , thus constituting an
exigent circumstance.
2. The impounded device shall be released by the City to the parent or legal guardian of
the minor if the individual owns the device.
3. Upon impoundment of any e-conveyance device under this Chapter, the minor shall
be issued a receipt. Said receipt shall state the days, business hours, location, and process by which
the owner may claim the impounded device within 30 days. The citation receipt shall also explain that
unclaimed devices impounded for longer than 30 days will be disposed subject to an opportunity for
a pre-disposal hearing or sold at an auction in accordance with laws governing the disposal of
abandoned property.
10.84.0 7 0 Exemptions.
A. First responders, as defined under California Government Code Section 8562, are exempt
from this Chapter while in the performance of their duties.
B. This Chapter is not intended to apply to or otherwise restrict electric personal assistive
mobility devices used in a safe manner by physically disabled persons as defined under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.) and section 36.311 of Title 28 of
the Code of Federal Regulations.”
SECTION 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and
effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have
adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 3: CEQA. The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that the regulations for bicycles and e-
conveyances will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment. In addition, this Ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15060(c)(3) because the Ordinance is an activity that is not a project as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
SECTION 4: Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
Page 100
Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 7 of 7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2025.
_____________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16th day of April 2025, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 7th day of May, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Executed this 8th day of May 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
____________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
Page 101
F1. Ordinance No. 1039
Regulating the Use of Bicycles
and E-Conveyances in Public Areas
April 16, 2025
Background
•Significant rise in electric bikes (e-bikes) and
other electric conveyances (e-conveyances)
in public places.
•Increase in community safety concerns.
•Unsafe riding behaviors – excessive speeds,
performing stunts or wheelies in active
traffic, ignoring traffic signals and signs,
riding without helmets, carrying multiple
riders on a single device.
Background
•Increase in collisions, injuries, and fatalities
nationwide.
•Increase in property damage and
maintenance costs.
•Many cities have already adopted
ordinances regulating e-conveyances.
•City is taking a proactive step to promote
safe use of e-conveyances.
E -Bikes
•Regulated under California Vehicle Code (CVC).
•Defined as a bicycle with an electric motor of less than 750 watts
and fully operable pedals.
Off-Highway Motorcycles
-Frequently mistaken for standard e-bikes
-Examples include Sur-Ron, Talaria, E Ride Pros
-Do not have operable pedals and often exceed
power limits
-They are NOT street legal
-Subject to impoundment and citation if
operated on any publicly-owned property
-Permitted in areas designated for off-highway
vehicle recreation or private property
Key Provisions
The proposed ordinance includes the following provisions designed to
enhance public safety :
•Prohibits riding a bicycle or e-conveyance in an unsafe manner on
any publicly-owned property.
•Defines “unsafe manner” to include violations of state or local traffic
laws, as well as behaviors that endanger the operator, passenger,
motorists, other riders, pedestrians, or public property. Examples of
unsafe behavior includes riding against traffic, disobeying signs,
carrying passengers on single-rider devices, racing, performing
stunts or wheelies, or operating without proper control.
•Prohibits the use of handheld wireless devices while riding unless
operating hands-free and voice-activated devices.
Key Provisions (Cont’d)
•Restricts riding areas, including prohibiting use on sidewalks (with
limited exceptions), parks (except on designated paths), landscaped
areas, fields, and in City-owned parking lots.
•Clarifies rules for off-highway electric motorcycles (e.g., Sur-Ron,
Talaria), which are not street legal and are prohibited on all public
property unless in a designated off-highway vehicle area.
•Reinforces helmet requirements, including state-mandated helmet
use for operators under 18 years old and all operators and
passengers of Class 3 e-bikes, regardless of age.
•Reaffirms requirements to always yield to pedestrians when
emerging from an alley, driveway, bicycle path, building or
otherwise approaching upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area.
Key Provisions (Cont’d)
•Requires riders to ride in single file, and not more than two abreast
except on paths or parts of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of
bicycles.
•Requires all bicycles and e-conveyances to comply with equipment
standards outlined in CVC Section 21201.
•Prohibits parking bicycles and e-conveyances in a manner that
obstructs pedestrian pathways or violates posted parking regulations.
•Outlines enforcement protocols, including penalties and fines, and
allows for the impoundment of devices operated by minors in a
dangerous manner.
•Holds parents or guardians accountable for violations committed by
minors, including potential civil liability for property damage.
Im plem entation
•Pro-active and multi-faceted approach.
•Ongoing investments in bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure, including protected
bike lanes, shared use trails, and cycle track.
•Connect RC Long-Range Transportation Plan
includes over 50 proposed bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure improvements
throughout the city.
Im plem entation
•Commitment to education and outreach efforts
•Longstanding Safe Routes to School Program
•Awarded Office of Traffic Safety grant to expand
bicycle safety programming
•Citywide safety campaigns and public service
announcements
•Bicycle Rodeos, community events, local bike
rides
•Enforcement paired with community education
and awareness
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council approve staff’s recommendation and
introduce Ordinance No. 1039 as amended by title only and waive further
readings, adding Chapter 10.84 to Title 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code Regulating the Use of Bicycles and E-Conveyances in Public
Areas.
Questions
?
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager
Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety Services
Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
SUBJECT:Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010,
A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
Approving the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study for the Community
and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center
Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee ,
Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Study,
Updating and Establishing the Fee Amounts for Such Development
Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Consideration of First Reading of
Ordinance No. 1038, to Be Read by Title Only and Waive Further
Reading, An Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adding
Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a
Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business
Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to Quimby
Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the
CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010) (ORDINANCE NO. 1038) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Reopen the noticed public hearing to receive comments and testimony from the public on
the proposed impact fees and nexus study for the Community and Recreation Center
Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park
Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-010 adopting the nexus study for the Community and
Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police
Impact Fee, Park Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee, adopting capital improvement
programs as part of the nexus study, and approving the updated Development Impact Fee
amounts, including findings in support thereof; and
3. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No.1038, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of
Residential and Business Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References
Page 102
Page 2
1
4
8
5
to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act
BACKGROUND:
Impact fees are charges that local governments impose on developers to offset the impacts and
cost of new development on public services and infrastructure, such as roads, schools, parks,
and emergency services. These fees aim to ensure that growth supports itself financially, rather
than placing a burden on existing residents and taxpayers. In recent years, California has faced
a housing shortage, driven by high demand and limited supply. To address this crisis, the state
has sought to regulate the fees associated with development, ensuring that they are applied in a
way that supports housing development and balances infrastructure needs.
One key regulation addressing development fees is the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code
Sections 66000-66025), which governs how local governments can charge developers impact or
mitigation fees to address the effects of new developments on public infrastructure and services.
The Mitigation Fee Act has recently been updated with Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), which in
part addresses the application of impact fees on housing development projects.
The most recent update to the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIFs) was adopted by Council
on December 2, 2020. Construction costs have experienced significant increases from December
2020 to the present, driven by several factors including supply chain disruptions, labor shortages,
inflation, and rising prices for materials, among other things. Construction inflation has typically
outpaced general inflation, with industry-specific inflation in the construction sector often reaching
5 -10% annually. The rising cost of inflation has significant implications for the City's ability to fund
and expand the public infrastructure and facilities required to support growth driven by new
development. In order to ensure that the DIFs continue to reflect current costs, are properly
apportioned, and meet current legal requirements, to ensure the City can effectively meet the
demands of future growth.
This staff report provides an overview of the legal and procedural background for the
establishment and implementation of Development Impact Fees, specifically in accordance with
the Mitigation Fee Act as amended. It outlines the required procedures, methodology, and
guidelines for adopting impact fees to mitigate the effects of new development on public
infrastructure and services. The goal is to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the
costs for public facilities and services that are necessitated by the development, without placing
an undue burden on existing residents or taxpayers.
DIFs are charges levied on new development projects to fund the construction or expansion of
public infrastructure and facilities needed to support the growth generated by the development.
Included in the current DIFs are Park Impact Fees, Community and Recreation Impact Fees,
Library Impact Fees, Animal Center Impact Fees, and Police Impact Fees which ensures that new
development and redevelopment projects will pay their “fair share” towards new and expanded
infrastructure and facilities that mitigate the impacts caused by this growth. Further, given the
impact of new development on fire and emergency response facilities, a Fire Impact Fee has been
developed for consideration by the City Council. The City also has a Transportation Impact Fee,
which will be considered by the City Council at its May 7th meeting.
Page 103
Page 3
1
4
8
5
Mitigation Fee Act: The Mitigation Fee Act provides the legal framework for the imposition of
development fees in California. It requires that fees imposed on new development must be
reasonably related to the impact caused by the development. AB 602 modified the Mitigation Fee
Act to enhance transparency and accountability in the process of collecting and expending
development impact fees. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that agencies provide clear and
detailed accounting of fees collected and ensure the use of funds aligns with the purpose for
which they were intended.
The Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the following key provisions regarding the establishment and
collection of development impact fees:
•Nexus Requirement: The imposition of development impact fees must demonstrate a
clear nexus between the proposed fee and the public infrastructure, or services needed
to support the development. In other words, there must be a reasonable connection
between the fee charged and the impacts of the new development on public facilities.
•Proportionality: The fees must be proportional to the impact caused by the development.
This means the fee cannot exceed the fair share of the cost of providing necessary
infrastructure or services that the development necessitates.
•Fee Transparency: The public must be notified of any proposed fees, and a detailed
report on the fees must be provided that explains the methodology used to calculate the
fees, including the specific improvements that the fees are intended to fund.
•Accountability: Fees collected must be used solely for the purpose for which they were
collected and must be expended in a timely manner. After certain periods of time, unspent
fees may need be returned to the developers or held in a separate interest-bearing
account.
The Mitigation Fee Act also requires agencies to follow other requirements including:
•Annual Reporting: Local agencies that collect development impact fees are required to
provide an annual report to the public detailing the amounts of fees collected, how the fees
have been spent, and the status of any projects funded by the fees.
•Five-Year Accounting Requirement: Every five years, the City must make certain
findings regarding the fees, including the expected dates when the funds will be spent,
and progress made on constructing the funded infrastructure. This requirement aims to
ensure that collected fees are used in a timely manner to address the impacts of
development.
•Fee Transparency: Agencies must now provide a clear, itemized accounting of the fee
amounts collected and the projects funded, making the process more transparent for
developers, the public, and other stakeholders. An annual report is required to show the
fees collected, how the fees have been spent, and the progress of the related capital
projects.
The process for establishing DIFs involves several steps, including data collection, analysis, and
stakeholder engagement. A typical methodology for setting up development impact fees includes
the following steps:
•Assess the Impact: Analyze the types and scale of infrastructure and services needed
to serve new development, based on projected growth and land use patterns.
•Consult with Relevant Departments: Coordinate with public agencies, including
transportation, parks, water, and education departments, to assess facility and service
Page 104
Page 4
1
4
8
5
needs.
•Nexus Analysis: A Nexus Study is typically required to determine the appropriate amount
of the impact fee. The study should demonstrate a clear connection between the new
development and the infrastructure, or services required to support it.
•Proportionality: The study should also demonstrate that the fees are proportional to the
level of service that the new development will require.
•Fee Calculation: The fee level is determined based on the estimated cost of
infrastructure improvements and the number of new residents or employees that will be
generated by the development. Various methodologies can be used, such as:
o Level of Services Method: Charges developers for the actual costs of providing
facilities or services.
o Plan-based Method: Calculates fees based on an adopted capital improvement
plan or facility master plan.
o System-based Method: Calculates the fees associated with the Fire
Development Impact Fee.
•Public Review: The public must be given an opportunity to review the proposed fees.
This includes a public hearing where stakeholders can provide input.
•Adoption of Fees: After the public hearing, the governing body (e.g., City Council) may
adopt the fees.
In order to ensure that newly established or updated fees are in alignment with the Mitigation Fee
Act, the City contracted with NBS, a consulting firm with extensive experience in the preparation
of nexus studies, to prepare the attached nexus study.
On April 2, 2025, the City Council opened the duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed
non-transportation impact fees, as well as the proposed transportation impact fee. The City
Council continued the public hearing as the non-transportation impact fees described herein to
the April 16, 2025, City Council meeting and continued the public hearing as to the transportation
impact fees to the May 7, 2025, meeting.
ANALYSIS:
The DIF Program is designed around key projects and improvements outlined in the City’s
General Plan. With the enactment of new State laws and updates to existing regulations, the
General Plan has undergone revisions to align with these changes. Notably, these updates
include provisions to accommodate more than 10,000 new residential units mandated by the State
of California and implement new infrastructure to accommodate new development. These
revisions directly affect the City’s DIFs.
As a result of these updates, the City’s approach to levying fees has evolved, particularly in
response to the new requirements of AB 602, which became effective on January 1, 2022. This
legislation mandates that impact fees levied on residential development be calculated based on
square footage for future units rather than the prior standard of per dwelling unit. A nexus study
must evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by square
footage or provide justification for why square footage is not relevant in this context, if it does not
appropriately reflect the relationship between the fee, facility demand, and residential land use.
Additionally, AB 602 requires that, effective July 1, 2022, large jurisdictions adopting a nexus
study must also adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the study. To comply with this
Page 105
Page 5
1
4
8
5
requirement, the City has prepared an amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan, which is
integrated into the Major Projects Program. This amendment has been included in the attached
resolution for consideration as part of the process to establish fees under the DIF Program.
To comply with the requirements of AB 602 the Non-Transportation Nexus Study utilized an
existing level of service approach while calculating the Park Impact Fees. Chapter 3.68 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code established and governs impact fees for park land
acquisition and park improvements. The City follows the General Plan standard for parkland and
as a result the City does not use the Quimby Act.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2) of that
section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate impact fees in
a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the proposed new level
of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be included Because
the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same as the existing level
of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee and the Park Improvement Impact Fee
The following tables reflect the City’s existing park acreage, existing level of service for park land
and improve land, the cost per capita of existing park maintenance equipment, cost per capita for
park land acquisition and improvements all of which are incorporated into the calculation which
creates the Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee per Square Foot and the Park Improvement Impact
Fee per Square Foot.
Page 106
Page 6
1
4
8
5
Page 107
Page 7
1
4
8
5
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.2 calculates existing levels of service in terms of acres per capita and acres per 1,000
population for total City-owned Park land and for improved park land.
Table 3.3 calculates the costs per capita for park maintenance vehicles and equipment based on
the replacement cost of existing park maintenance vehicles and equipment divided by the existing
population of the City. That cost per capita is added to the cost per capita for park improvements
in Table 3.6 where the per-capita costs are converted into a cost per unit of development.
Cost Per Capita
Table 3.4 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition and for park improvements using
the existing level of service in acres per capita and the cost-per-acre estimates for park land
acquisition and park improvements.
Page 108
Page 8
1
4
8
5
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 3.5 shows the calculation of park land acquisition impact fees per square foot for single-
family and multi-family residential development. It should be noted that this fee was reduced from
the prior version of the nexus study issued for public comment. The lower impact fee reflects a
“credit” against existing unimproved land owned by the City and planned for park uses within the
City.
Page 109
Page 9
1
4
8
5
Table 3.6 shows the calculation of impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family
residential development for park improvements.
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee.
Existing Facilities
Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing community and recreation centers with their estimated
replacement cost. Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of
Page 110
Page 10
1
4
8
5
constructing additional facilities to serve future development.
Cost per Capita
Table 4.2 calculates the replacement cost per capita for community and recreation center facilities
using the impact fee cost basis from Table 4.1 and the existing population.
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate community and
recreation center impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square-feet-per-unit factors to
get impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of community and recreation center impact fees per square foot
for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Page 111
Page 11
1
4
8
5
Library Impact Fee
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the Library
Impact Fee.
Existing Facilities
Table 5.1 lists the City’s existing libraries with their estimated replacement cost. Replacement
cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing additional facilities to serve
future development. Cost for library furniture fixtures and equipment, and the contents of the
museum at the Biane Library are listed separately.
Page 112
Page 12
1
4
8
5
This analysis also includes the cost of library materials (books and electronic media). Table 5.2
shows the estimated replacement cost of the library system’s existing materials.
Cost per Capita
Table 5.3 calculates the replacement cost per capita for library facilities and materials using the
impact fee cost basis for library facilities from Table 5.1, and the impact fee cost basis for existing
library materials from Table 5.2, both divided by the City’s existing population.
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 5.3 is used to calculate library impact fees
per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees per square foot
for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 5.4 shows the calculation of library impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-
family residential development.
Page 113
Page 13
1
4
8
5
Animal Center Impact Fee
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for animal center facilities.
Consequently, the level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees is the existing
relationship between the City’s population and the replacement cost of existing animal center
facilities, vehicles and equipment, stated as a cost per capita.
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the Animal
Center Impact Fee.
Existing Facilities
Table 6.1 shows the estimated replacement cost for the City’s existing Animal Center and the
value of a 1.92-acre site the City has acquired to expand that facility. Table 6.1 also shows a
credit for the current balance in the City’s Animal Center impact fee fund which is available to
increase the existing level of service.
Page 114
Page 14
1
4
8
5
Table 6.2 lists the Animal Services Department’s existing vehicles and equipment with
replacement costs.
Page 115
Page 15
1
4
8
5
Cost per Capita
Table 6.3 calculates the cost per capita for Animal Center facilities, vehicles and equipment using
the impact fee cost basis from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and the City’s existing residential population
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 6.3 is used to calculate animal center
impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees per
square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 6.4 shows the calculation of animal center impact fees per square foot for single-family and
multi-family residential development.
Police Impact Fee
The Police Impact Fee is calculated for police facilities needed to serve future development in the
City. Chapter 3.64 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code establishes and governs the police
impact fee. The City’s primary police facility is the Public Safety Building at the Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center. The other existing City-owned police facility is a satellite police station
co-located with Fire Station 172 on San Bernardino Road in the western portion of the City. The
Page 116
Page 16
1
4
8
5
department also has a substation in a leased space in the Victoria Gardens shopping mall and is
planning to construct a permanent substation in that area in the future.
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the Police
Impact Fee.
Existing Facilities
Table 7.1 lists the City’s existing police facilities with their estimated replacement cost.
Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing additional
facilities to serve future development.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 7.2 calculates the facility cost per call for service for police facilities using the impact fee
cost basis from Table 7.1 and the number of existing calls for service.
Page 117
Page 17
1
4
8
5
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 7.2 is multiplied by calls per unit factors to calculate
police impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study The residential
impact fees per unit are then divided by square feet-per-unit factors to get impact fees per square
foot for residential.
The cost per call from Table 7.2 can also be used to customize impact fees for any non-residential
project that does not reasonably fit within one of the development types identified in this report.
Such a customized fee would be based on the estimated number of police calls per year for the
project, multiplied by the cost per call from Table 7.2. The number of police calls per year for a
specific type of development project can be estimated by reviewing call records for similar existing
projects in the City.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 7.3 shows the calculation of police impact fees per square foot for residential development
and per unit for non-residential development.
Page 118
Page 18
1
4
8
5
Fire Impact Fee
Rancho Cucamonga does not have an existing fire impact fee. This section calculates impact fees
for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District) to all development in the City.
The boundary of RCFPD encompasses the entire City as well as a small area to the north of the
City that is planned to remain within the unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County.
Fire districts lack authority to impose impact fees on their own. Impact fees calculated in this
section will be adopted and imposed by the City and revenue from the impact fees will be used to
support RCFPD to pay for additional capital facilities and other capital assets serving new
development in the City. These impact fees will apply only to the portion of RCFPD that is within
the City.
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the Fire
Impact Fee.
Level of Service
The most important single factor in defining level of service for fire protection and emergency
medical services agencies is response time to emergency calls. The 2024 Comprehensive Master
Plan for RCFPD states that RCFPD’s first due unit currently arrives within 9 minutes and 45
seconds, 90% of the time. The Master Plan makes recommendations to improve total response
time, including reducing call processing time. The addition of one fire station will help RCFPD
maintain and possibly improve its response time performance as future development occurs.
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
At present, RCFPD operates eight fire stations as well as an administrative facility, an all-risk
training center (ARTC) and a shop facility. RCFPD is planning to construct one additional fire
station and has acquired property on 8th Street as a site for that station.
Table 8.1 lists RCFPD’s existing and planned fire stations as well as the administrative and
training center buildings and the shop facility. Stations 171 through 178 currently exist. Station
179 is planned for future construction.
Page 119
Page 19
1
4
8
5
The impact fee cost basis in the right-hand column of Table 8.1 includes the depreciated
replacement cost for existing buildings plus the estimated site value for each building. Where
multiple buildings are located on one site, the land cost is shown for the first building. For future
Station 179, the cost shown is estimated based on recent construction costs.
Table 8.2 lists RCFPD’s existing firefighting apparatus and other vehicles and equipment. Costs
for all vehicles and equipment shown in the far-right column of Table 8.2 are depreciated
replacement costs based on the useful life shown in that table. Vehicles and equipment are
assumed to have a residual value of at least 15% of replacement cost, regardless of age. Assets
with a value of less than $10,000 have been omitted from Table 8.2.
Page 120
Page 20
1
4
8
5
Page 121
Page 21
1
4
8
5
Table 8.3 shows the cost of future apparatus and equipment needed to serve the City in 2040,
including one Type I engine that will be needed for future Fire Station 179. The estimated cost of
that engine is based on the current cost of similar equipment. Also shown in that table is the cost
of personal protective equipment for nine firefighters that will be needed to staff Station 179.
Table 8.4 summarizes the costs from the preceding three tables.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 8.5 calculates the cost per call for service for RCFPD facilities, apparatus and equipment
using the total impact fee cost basis from Table 8.4 and the projected number of calls for service
per year in 2040. In Table 8.5, the combined cost of existing and planned facilities, apparatus,
vehicles and equipment is divided by total 2040 calls to both existing and future development
served by RCFPD.
Page 122
Page 22
1
4
8
5
The number of calls for service per year shown for 2040 includes calls in the area served by
RCFPD outside of the City, so that the cost of serving development in that area is not included in
the cost per call for impact fees charged by the City. The impact fees calculated in this section
are designed to recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of all RCFPD’s
existing and planned facilities, apparatus and equipment our to 2040. In the next section, the cost
per call is multiplied by calls per unit factors to calculate impact fees per unit. Then for residential
development, the impact fee per unit is divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees
per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
The cost per call for service per year in Table 8.5 can also be used to calculate customized impact
fees for development of non-residential development projects that do not fit within the categories
of development defined in this study. Customized impact fees can be calculated using the cost
per call for service per year from Table 8.5 multiplied by the estimated number of calls per year
that will be generated by a specific project.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 8.6 shows the calculation of fire impact fees per square foot for residential development
and per unit for non-residential development.
Page 123
Page 23
1
4
8
5
Fee Adjustment to Avoid Overcollection
The fees shown in Table 8.6 project revenue that exceeds the estimated cost of future assets
shown in Table 8.4 by around 3%. To avoid the potential for overcollection, the impact fees from
Table 8.6 are reduced by 3.1% in Table 8.7.
Page 124
Page 24
1
4
8
5
In order to be in alignment with the requirements of AB 602, the Non-Transportation Nexus Study
changed its method of fee levy from the DU (dwelling unit) approach to a square foot approach.
The change is illustrated in Tables S.1 and S.3 of the NBS Non-Transportation Nexus Study
below:
Page 125
Page 25
1
4
8
5
Administrative Fee:
The City is required to implement the fee program according to various administrative, accounting,
reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified in the Government Code. These
responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and often include retaining outside advisory
services. The City proposes to include a fee to allow for reasonable cost recovery for these
administrative costs and proposes a fee of two and one-half percent (2.5%) which is in line with
representative implementation costs including as specified in the “Nexus Study and Residential
Feasibility Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” prepared by the Terner Center for
Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Communication:
The City met the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(7) by publishing and
sending notice to interested parties 30 days prior to the adoption of the impact fee nexus (30 days
prior to the advertised hearing). The City published and sent notice thirty- four (34) days prior to
the advertised hearing. The City also made a copy of the Nexus Studies available on the City’s
website and a hard copy available at the City Clerk’s office thirty-four (34) days prior to the
advertised public hearing. The Public Hearing Notice was advertised twice ten (10) days in
advance and at least five (5) days between those dates in the local newspaper. The City met with
BIA (Building Industry Association) and other interested parties twice before the previous
advertised hearing once in November of 2024 and once in December of 2024 and has had
conversations with BIA and interested parties prior to the advertised public hearing date for April
2, 2025. The City has received letters with questions and comments from DVBA (Desert Valley
Builders Association), BIA, DPFG (Development Planning & Finance Group) and LLG (Linscott,
Law & Greenspan, Engineers) and have provided responses to the questions and comments
which have been attached to the Staff Report as Attachment 8. In added, the City Council
continued the public hearing initially scheduled for April 2, 2025, to April 16, 2025 for the Non-
Transportation Nexus Study and May 7, 2025, for the Transportation Nexus Study, in order to
provide for further communication with interested stakeholders on the fees.
Implementation
During last minute discussions with the Building Industry Association (BIA) concerns were
expressed about the prepayment of development impact fees prior to increases taking effect, as
well as ensuring a level of certainty for projects with already completed applications. Existing
state law, known as SB 330, already provides a process for housing developers to freeze fees at
the time of application submittal. The City follows existing state law in this regard with no local
changes or additions. The City is also proposing that if approved by the City Council, the
proposed Development Impact Fee changes outlined in this report would take effect on July 1,
2025, which is more time than would otherwise be required under the Mitigation Fee Act. In
practical experience, however, the City has found the fee changes which take effect at the start
of a new fiscal year are often easier to notice, apply and update systems.
The BIA expressed concerns that existing deemed complete applications in process, should be
allowed several years to finish entitlement and move to permits, during which their fees would be
grandfathered. The City, however, did not calculate this type of extended multiple year freeze
into the Nexus Study and has significant concerns that this could undermine the validity of the
Nexus Study calculations. A second issue the BIA expressed concern about was the deadline
Page 126
Page 26
1
4
8
5
for deemed complete applications as the BIA was requesting a deadline 30 days after the
ordinance takes effect. The City has similar concerns with a rush of applications intended to beat
the deadline that could result in thousands of units coming in under the old fees, also undermining
the validity of the Nexus Study calculations. In response to the BIA concerns, the City is
recommending the following:
- Developers with applications submitted prior to close of business on April 16, 2025,
and are subsequently deemed complete, may elect to proceed forward under the
new or old Development Impact Fee Program.
▪Proceeding forward under the old development impact fee program will be
permitted so long as entitlements are received and building permits are
pulled prior to July 1, 2026.
▪Proceeding forward under the new development impact fee program, and
the payment of fees at the initial rates, prior to issuance of a building permit,
will require completion of plans to the point of knowing actual square
footages. Otherwise, the option always exists to pay the fees in effect at
time of permit issuance or time of certificate of occupancy, however long
that might take.
- The City finds the adjustments noted above should not create a significant
deviation in the nexus study such that further adjustments would be needed.
An updated draft resolution will be included and available at the City Council meeting on April 16,
2025.
Actions to Update the DIFs:
To implement the updated DIF program as proposed, the City Council must:
1) Adopt the Nexus Studies
2) Adopt the CIP
3) Establish the DIF fee amounts
4) Add Chapter 3.80 to the Code to add the Fire Impact Fee
5) Amend Chapter 3.68 of the code to update the Park Impact Fees
Items 1, 2, and 3 above are included in Resolution No. 2025-010, which is included as attachment
4. Items 4 and 5 above are included in Ordinance No.1038, which is included as attachment 1.
Staff therefore recommends that the City Council: (1) Adopt A Resolution of the City Council of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies, Adopting
Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating and Establishing the Fee
Amounts for the City’s Development Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption
Under CEQA and (2) Introduce Ordinance No.1038, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further
Reading, An Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of
Residential and Business Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to
Page 127
Page 27
1
4
8
5
Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Project (approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans associated with the
Nexus Studies, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified in the Resolution and
Ordinance), was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Approval of the Nexus
Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified
will not have a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of
development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of the Nexus
Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, or the adoption of new or updated development impact fees.
Furthermore, the Capital Improvement Program is a prioritizing and funding allocation program
and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No
physical activity will occur until all required environmental review is conducted at the time the
physical improvements prioritized in the Capital Improvement Program are undertaken at a future
unspecified date. Therefore, the approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans
associated with the Nexus Studies, and adoption of the development impact fees does not have
the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this
Project approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining
funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing service
areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4).
Also, approval of the Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, is exempt
from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because
the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves the creation of government funding
mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any
specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts of DIFs on the City’s finances are associated with both increased revenues
and expenses. Administrative expenses will be incurred as City staff collect fees and manage the
use and application of fee revenues. The City is proposing a two and one-half percent (2.5%)
Administrative Fee to cover these costs.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council’s vision for building upon our past successes to create a
world class community by ensuring that the means are available to continue the City’s growth and
success.
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 128
Page 28
1
4
8
5
Attachment 1 Proposed Ordinance No.1038 (Fire DIF Program and Park Impact Fee Revision)
Attachment 2 Exhibit A to Ordinance No.1038 (Fire Impact Fee – Chapter 3.80)
Attachment 3 Exhibit B to Ordinance No.1038 (Park Impact Fee Revision)
Attachment 4 Proposed Resolution No. 2025-010 (DIF Program Fee Update)
Attachment 5 Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2025-010 (NBS Nexus Study)
Attachment 6 Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2025-010 (Capital Improvement Plans for Non-
Transportation)
Attachment 7 Exhibit C to Resolution No. 2025-010 (Amendments to Non-Transportation Master
Fee Schedule)
Attachment 8 Comment Response Memorandum for Comments on Non-Transportation Nexus
Study
Attachment 9 Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (DVBA – Non-Transportation)
Attachment 10 Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (BIA)
Attachment 11 Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (DPFG – Non-Transportation)
Page 129
Ordinance Establishing Fire Impact Fee as RCMC Ch 3.80 and Amending RCMC Ch 3.68
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 1038
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
ADDING CHAPTER 3.80 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE FOR FIRE IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.68 TO REMOVE
REFERENCES TO QUIMBY ACT IN LIEU FEES, AND MAKING
A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
I. Recitals.
A. The Mitigation Fee Act contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits the
City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding the
public facilities necessary to serve that new development.
B. The City desires to update existing impact fees and expand the categories of fees
that the City seeks to impose on new development to more fully and appropriately fund the costs
associated with increased demand for certain public facilities throughout the City.
C. Rancho Cucamonga has a park impact fee, authorized by Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code (“RCMC”) Chapter 3.68. Chapter 3.68 contains outdated references to an in-lieu
fee for land dedications for subdivisions, which are authorized under the Quimby Act (Government
Code Section 66477) but not imposed by the City, see RCMC 16.28.020 and Chapter 16.32. The
City therefore desires to remove the references to Quimby Act in lieu fees in Chapter 3.68. This
change is an administrative clean up and in no way impacts the authorized park facilities
development impact fee.
D. Rancho Cucamonga does not have an existing fire impact fee. The City therefore
desires to establish an impact fee for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus
and equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) to all
development in the City.
E. NBS Government Finance Group has prepared the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study dated February 20, 2025 (“NBS Nexus Study”). The NBS
Nexus Study covers the Park Impact Fees, Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee,
Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, and a new Fire Impact Fee. A
copy of the NBS Nexus Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City
business hours for public inspection.
F. The NBS Nexus Study identifies the purpose of the Fire Impact Fee, the use to
which the Fire Impact fee will be put, demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee’s
use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed and provides how there
is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or
portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
Page 130
Ordinance Establishing Fire Impact Fee as RCMC Ch 3.80 and Amending RCMC Ch 3.68
Page 2 of 4
G. The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and
the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting this Ordinance, and a notice of public hearing on the
development impact fees was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written
request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased fees.
H. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at the April 2, 2025, Regular
Council meeting to consider the NBS Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and establishment
of updated development impact fees, including establishment of the fire impact fee.
I. The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the NBS
Nexus Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written
correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the
adoption of this Ordinance contain substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection
of the development impact fee established herein.
J. The City Council has reviewed and considered the fire impact fee established
herein and finds that the fee will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital
and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and business development in the City.
II. Findings.
A. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part I, of this Ordinance, are true and correct.
B. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This action is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3) as it has no potential for physical effects on the
environment because it involves an adoption of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City,
does not commit the City to any specific project, and said fees and/or charges are applicable to
future development projects and/or activities, each of which future projects and/or activities will
be fully evaluated in full compliance with CEQA when sufficient physical details regarding said
projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (see CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15004(b)(1)). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of
government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project
which may cause significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a “project” under CEQA.
Therefore, approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4); and, even if considered a “project” under CEQA, is
exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the fees and/or charges may have
a significant effect on the environment.
C. The City Council by separate Resolution No. 1038 adopted the NBS Nexus Fee
Study, and the findings contained therein with respect to the adoption of a Fire Impact Fee which
are included below. As provided on pages 8-11 to 8-12 of the NBS Nexus Study:
i. Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this
chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development in the City on the
need for facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD).
Page 131
Ordinance Establishing Fire Impact Fee as RCMC Ch 3.80 and Amending RCMC Ch 3.68
Page 3 of 4
ii. Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to
provide additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to mitigate the
impact of new development in the City on the need for those facilities.
iii. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the
Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in
this chapter will be used to provide additional facilities, apparatus and
equipment to serve the added demand for fire protection and other
emergency services associated with new development in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
iv. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type
of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development in the
City increases the demand for fire protection and other emergency services
provided by the Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Without additional
facilities, apparatus and equipment, the increase in demand associated
with new development would negatively impact the ability of RCFPD the to
provide services efficiently and effectively to all development in the City.
v. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility
Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact
fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls
for service associated with that project. The fees per square foot for
residential development and the fees per unit of non-residential
development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are
based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year associated with
that type of development in the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact
of that project on the overall need for facilities, apparatus and equipment
used by RCFPD to serve development in the City.
D. The City Council by separate Resolution No. 1038 adopted the fee amount for the
Fire Impact Fee, as supported by the NBS Nexus Study, in accordance with proposed Municipal
Code section 3.80.050.
III. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3.80 is hereby added to Title 3 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 2. Chapter 3.68 of Title 3 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code is hereby amended to remove references to in lieu fees or land dedication
requirements for certain residential subdivisions authorized by the Quimby Act but not imposed
by the City and to make other revisions to read as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
SECTION 3. All impact fees within the City shall be charged in accordance with
applicable law in effect at the time the fee is imposed. As of the time of this ordinance’s adoption,
an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation
to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or
less shall not be charged development impact fees by the City.
Page 132
Ordinance Establishing Fire Impact Fee as RCMC Ch 3.80 and Amending RCMC Ch 3.68
Page 4 of 4
SECTION 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take other actions
on behalf of City, which are not expressly and specifically reserved for the City Council, to
implement and effectuate this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to codify this ordinance in a
manner which best reflects the legislative intent of the City Council in enacting this ordinance.
The City Clerk is directed to resolve any numbering conflicts accordingly.
SECTION 5. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance for any reason be held invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its
adoption and shall be published or posted as required by law.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause
it to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2025.
_____________________________________
L. Dennis Michael
Mayor
I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held on the _____ day of _______________, 2025, and was finally passed at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of
______________, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk
Page 133
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038
CHAPTER 3.80
FIRE IMPACT FEE
§ 3.80.010. Purpose.
The city council finds that the purpose of the Fire Impact Fee hereby enacted is to prevent new
residential and commercial/industrial development from reducing the quality and availability of
public services provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential and business
development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of fire assets, including
facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
(RCFPD) in the city. The city finds:
A. Fire services, facilities and equipment are needed to serve future development in the city.
B. Fire services serve the entire residential and business population.
C. The need to expand the existing fleet of fire vehicles and equipment will be necessary as the
population continues to grow.
D. These fees apply to all residential and business development.
E. Revenue from the impact fees may be used to expand the availability of fire assets in the city
through the acquisition or improvement of real property; or the acquisition, construction or
expansion of buildings, furnishings, equipment or any of these.
F. New residential and business development within the city imposes a burden on the existing
fire facilities by adding additional population.
G. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for fire protection and emergency
response facilities, apparatus and equipment is calls for service per year.
H. As set forth in the Study, fire impact fees paid by new development are based on the system
plan method because fire protection and emergency response are provided by an integrated
system of assets and the best time to assess the overall relationship between development
and service demand is at the point when all of the assets and all of the development will be in
place.
I. Since assisted living facilities are allowed in some residential zoning districts with a
conditional use permit; and residents of those facilities do make use of fire services, impact
fees will apply to new development of these types of facilities.
J. The cost per capita will be applied to future population to compute impact fees per unit.
K. Impact fees for other specialized development types should be calculated in the same way, if
the need arises.
L. The fee established by this chapter is in addition to any other fees or charges or taxes that are
required by law as a condition of development.
M. The period of greater than 10 days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available to
the public, and to developers and their representative, indicating the cost or estimated cost of
the infrastructure to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and means of spending these
costs.
Page 134
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038
§ 3.80.020. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings set forth below:
“Business Development” means all Non-Residential Development subject to the fee, as further
described and set forth in the Study.
"Businesses" includes all commercial/industrial, hotel/motel, and office units.
"City/service area" means the entire city.
"Dwelling unit" includes each single-family dwelling, each unit of an apartment, duplex dwelling
group or multiple dwelling structure or condominium or planned residential development as a
separate habitat for one or more persons or each mobilehome space designed to contain a
mobilehome trailer on a semi-permanent or permanent basis.
"Equipment/material" includes all necessary materials that are required for the proper operation
of the facility for which this fee is imposed as defined in the study.
"Facilities" means those fire facilities, land, improvements, or infrastructure of RCFD located in
the city.
"Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or
through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor.
"Residential development" includes all buildings or dwelling units constructed for the first time
on open land or when existing structures are remodeled and added to or otherwise altered to
increase the number of dwelling units.
"Study" means the current development impact fee study on file in the city's engineering services
department that supports the fee resolution adopted pursuant to section 3.80.050.
§ 3.80.030. Establishment and administration of Fire Impact Fees.
The city council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the
need for facilities of development projects on which they are imposed and established a fire
impact fee upon business and residential development.
§ 3.80.040. Payment.
The fee imposed by this chapter shall be due and payable no sooner than issuance of building
permits and no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit(s) subject to
the fee. No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued until the
development fee has been paid in full. The amount of the fee shall be calculated at the time the
fee is paid, based upon the rate then in effect.
§ 3.80.050. Fees.
The fees imposed by this chapter shall be set by resolution of the city council.
§ 3.80.060. Fee exemptions.
In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact
fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.
§ 3.80.070. Use of fees.
Page 135
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038
The city council finds that there is established a fire impact fee fund where all sums collected
pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited. All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be
deposited in this fund. All fire impact fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be forwarded
to the RCFD by the city no less than on an annual basis. All fees so forwarded shall be deposited
in a restricted account of the RCFD and all moneys deposited in such account together with any
interest earned thereon shall be used only for the purposes of providing additional facilities,
apparatus and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development in the city on the need for
those facilities.
§ 3.80.080. Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this chapter which can be given effect
without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end, the provisions of this chapter are
severable.
Page 136
Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 1038
11231-0001\3061663v5.doc
CHAPTER 3.68
PARK IMPACT FEES
§ 3.68.010. Purpose.
The city council finds that the purpose of the Park Impact Fees hereby enacted is to prevent new
residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services provided to
residents of the city by requiring new residential to contribute to the cost of expanding the
availability of park and recreation assets in the city. The city finds:
A. The need for two types of development fees for parks: Fees for park land acquisition and fees
for park improvement.
B. The need for fees to serve future development in the city without placing a burden on existing
resources.
C. The general plan has been adopted containing specific policies and standards for parks and
recreation facilities.
D. The demand factor for each type of residential development is the average population per
unit for that type because the need for parks in a community is almost always based on
population.
E. The total acreage of improved city-owned park land will be used to determine the existing
level of service for purposes of calculating impact fees for park land acquisition and park
improvements.
F. Impact fees for other specialized development types should be calculated in the same way,
if the need arises.
G. The period of greater than ten days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available
to the public, and to developers and their representative, indicating the cost or estimated cost
of the infrastructure to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and means of spending
these costs.
§ 3.68.020. Definitions.
"City/service area" means the entire city.
"Dwelling unit" includes each single-family dwelling, each unit of an apartment, duplex dwelling
group or multiple dwelling structure or condominium or planned residential development as a
separate habitat for one or more persons or each mobilehome space designed to contain a
mobilehome trailer on a semi-permanent or permanent basis.
"Facilities" means those park and recreation facilities, land, improvements, or infrastructure
located in the city.
Page 137
-2-
11231-0001\3061663v5.doc
"Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or
through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor.
"Residential development" includes all dwelling units constructed for the first time on open land
or when existing structures are remodeled and added to or otherwise altered to increase the number
of dwelling units.
"Study" means the current development impact fee study on file in the city's engineering services
department that supports the fee resolution adopted pursuant to section 3.68.050.
§ 3.68.030. Establishment and administration of Park Impact Fees.
The city council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the
need for facilities of development projects on which they are imposed.
A. The finance director shall establish park improvement impact fee and park land acquisition
impact fee funds, (collectively "Park Impact Fees"). All fees collected pursuant to this
chapter shall be deposited in this fund and shall be expended to provide additional parks to
mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.
B. A fee is imposed in the amounts set forth in this chapter and shall be applicable to every
dwelling unit as defined in section 3.68.020 constructed in the city after the effective date of
the ordinance codified in this chapter and shall be known as the Park Impact Fee.
§ 3.68.040. Payment.
The fee imposed by this chapter shall be due and payable no sooner than issuance of building
permits and no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit(s) subject to
the fee. No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued until the
development fee has been paid in full. The amount of the fee shall be calculated at the time the fee
is paid, based upon the rate then in effect.
§ 3.68.050. Fees.
The fees imposed by this chapter shall be set by resolution of the city council.
§ 3.68.060. Fee exemptions.
In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact
fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.
§ 3.68.070. Use of fees.
The city council finds that there is established a Park Fund where all sums collected pursuant to
this chapter shall be deposited and shall be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts
of new development in the City as set forth in the Study Those public facilities and other assets
are identified in the Study.
Page 138
-3-
11231-0001\3061663v5.doc
§ 3.68.080. Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this chapter which can be given effect
without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end, the provisions of this chapter are
severable.
Page 139
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 1 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY FOR THE
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION CENTER IMPACT FEE,
LIBRARY IMPACT FEE, ANIMAL CENTER IMPACT FEE,
POLICE IMPACT FEE, PARK IMPACT FEES AND FIRE
IMPACT FEE, ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM AS PART OF THE NEXUS STUDY, UPDATING
AND ESTABLISHING THE FEE AMOUNTS FOR SUCH
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND MAKING A
DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA
A Recitals.
1.The Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits
the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of
funding public facilities necessary to serve that new development.
2.Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapters 3.28 (“City-Wide System Fees
for Transportation”) (referred to herein as the “Transportation Development Impact Fee”),
3.52 (“Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee”), Chapter 3.56 (“Library Impact
Fee”), Chapter 3.60 (“Animal Center Impact Fee”), 3.64 (“Police Impact Fee”), and 3.68
(“Park Impact Fees”) established the City’s current development impact fee program.
3.The City Council now desires to update the foregoing impact fees on new
development to fund the costs associated with the increased demand for such public
facilities throughout the City.
4.The City Council further desires to establish an impact fee on new development
to fund the cost of fire protection facilities within the City and utilized by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
5.Proposed Ordinance No. ___, once effective, will add Chapter 3.80 (“Fire
Impact Fee”) to the Municipal Code to establish a Fire Impact Fee.
6.These existing and proposed Municipal Code provisions will establish the
program and the requirements for imposition of development impact fees on development
projects, as supported by nexus studies, and provide that the City Council shall, by
resolution, impose the specific amount of development impact fees that will be levied on
new development in the City for each category of fee.
Page 140
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 2 of 10
7.NBS Government Finance Group has prepared the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study dated February 20, 2025, included as Exhibit A
(“NBS Nexus Study”). The NBS Nexus Study covers the Park Impact Fees, Community
and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police
Impact Fee, and proposed Fire Impact Fee.
8.The NBS Nexus Study identifies the purpose of each fee and the use of each
fee, and demonstrates a reasonable relationship between each fee’s use, the type of
development projects where the fee will be imposed, provides how there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of each fee, and the cost of the public facility or portion
of the public facility attributable to the development. In addition, the Nexus Study identifies
capital projects necessary to meet the goals, programs and objectives within the City’s
General Plan.
9.The Nexus Study provides the documentation, detail, and other information
required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adoption and imposition of the
development impact fees for (1) park, (2) community and recreation center, (3) library, (4)
animal center, (5) police, and (6) fire facilities. Furthermore, the Nexus Study describes
the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fees are to be imposed,
lists specific public improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of
the development impact fees, describes the estimated cost of providing the improvements
and facilities, describes the reasonable relationship between the development impact fees
and the various types of new development, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of
the law with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fees.
10.The facts and evidence presented to the City Council have established that
there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new facilities or improvements
and the impacts of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged, also that
there is a reasonable relationship between the fees’ uses and the type of development for
which the fees are imposed.
11. There is a reasonable relationship between the development and improvement
of parks and residential development that does not involve the subdivision of land for
which the fee is imposed, because the additional parks and improvements will improve
and expand the City’s Park system and thus reduce the risk that the City’s increasing
population will overuse or overcrowd the City’s parks.
Page 141
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 3 of 10
12.The City is required to implement the fee program according to various
administrative, accounting, reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified
in the Government Code. These responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and
often include retaining outside advisory services. The City proposes to include a fee to
allow for reasonable cost recovery for these administrative costs and proposes a fee of
two and one-half percent (2.5%) which is in line with representative implementation costs,
including as specified and studied in the “Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility
Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” prepared by the Terner Center for Housing
Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
13.The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law
and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement
Plans, and fees specified in this Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the
development impact fees was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed
a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased
fees.
14.The City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing at the April 2, 2025,
regular City Council meeting, at which time testimony was presented. Thereafter, the City
Council continued the public hearing to the City Council’s regular meeting of April 16,
2025, as to the non-transportation impact fees described herein. The City Council re-
opened the duly notice public hearing at the April 16, 2025, regular City Council meeting
and took further testimony, and closed the public hearing as to the non-transportation
fees.
15.The City Council continued the item with respect to the F&P Nexus Study and
the Transportation Development Impact Fee to its May 7, 2025, meeting, and took action
to approve the NBS Nexus Study and the park, community and recreation center, library,
animal center, police, and fire facilities impact fees.
16.Fehr & Peers has prepared the Transportation Development Impact Fee
Program Nexus Study dated February 11, 2025; The F&P Nexus Study covers the
Transportation Development Impact Fee. It will be considered at the May 7, 2025,
continued public hearing.
17.The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the NBS
Nexus Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written
correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to
the adoption of this Resolution held on April 2, 2025, contains substantial evidence to
support the imposition and collection of the development impact fees established herein.
18.The City Council has reviewed and considered the development impact fees
established herein, and finds that the fees will mitigate some of the impacts associated
Page 142
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 4 of 10
with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and non-
residential development in the City.
B. Resolution.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the
facts and recitals set forth in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct and
incorporated as a material part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement
Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, and the adoption of the development impact
fees specified in this Resolution, was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
The City Council finds that approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans,
and the adoption of the development impact fees specified in this Resolution will not have
a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of
development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of
the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, or the adoption of new or updated
development impact fees. Furthermore, the Capital Improvement Program is a prioritizing
and funding allocation program and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. No physical activity will occur until all required
environmental review is conducted at the time the physical improvements prioritized in the
Capital Improvement Program are undertaken at a future unspecified date. Therefore,
the approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus
Studies, and adoption of the development impact fees does not have the potential for
causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Resolution
approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining
funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing
service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
15273(a)(4). Also, approval of the Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus
Studies, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378(b)(4) because the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves
the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that
do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially
significant physical impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Approval of the NBS Nexus Study and Mitigation Fee Act Findings.
The City Council hereby approves the NBS Nexus Fee Study, and the findings contained
therein. The NBS Nexus Study shall constitute the current “Study” for each respective fee
pursuant to Chapters 3.52, 3.56, 3.60, 3.64, 3.68, and the proposed Chapter 3.80 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. A copy of the NBS Nexus Study shall be on file with
the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection. With
respect to development impact fees for (1) park, (2) community and recreation center, (3)
Page 143
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 5 of 10
library, (4) animal center, (5) police, and (6) fire facilities, the NBS Nexus Study explains
(1) the purpose of each impact fee; (2) the use of each impact fee; (3) the reasonable
relationship between the use of each impact fee and the development type on which it is
imposed; (4) the reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and the type
of development between the need for the type of development on which each fee is
imposed; and (5) the reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and facility
cost attributable to the applicable development project. The City Council agrees with the
findings set forth in the NBS Nexus Study and adopts them as their own as if set forth in
full here.
SECTION 4. Adoption of a Capital Improvement Program. The City Council hereby
adopts the amendments to the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Major Projects Program which
contains the City’s Capital Improvement Program as shown in the attached listing included
as Exhibit B to this Resolution as a part of the Nexus Studies.
SECTION 5. Establishing the Amount of Development Impact Fees. The City
Council hereby adopts the development impact fee amounts for the Park Impact Fees,
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact
Fee, Police Impact Fee, and Fire Impact Fee in accordance with the Amendments to the
Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this
reference. The Master Fee Schedule shall be amended to contain the fees and amounts
identified therein. The City Council is not readopting or revising the existing fees not
identified in this Resolution or analyzed in the Nexus Studies; all such fees and charges
remain in place at the current amount.
SECTION 6. Adoption of Methodology for Calculation, Adjustment, and Collection
of Development Impact Fees. The City Council adopts the methodology set forth in the
NBS Nexus Study for calculating and collecting the development impact fees adopted
herein. The amount of the development impact fees shall be adjusted annually in July of
each calendar year beginning in 2026, using the Construction Cost Index (CCI), for the
Park Impact Fees, the Building Cost Index (BCI) for the Community and Recreation
Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee,
and Fire Impact Fee for the Los Angeles Region both as reported by Engineering News
Record (ENR) for the twelve-month period ending in May, or a similar published index if
the BCI, CCI, or Caltrans Construction Cost Indexes are no longer available. The City
Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make such annual
adjustments to certain fees based on an inflationary factors effective July 1 of each year.
SECTION 7. Timing of Payment. All development fees shall be paid when required
by the applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and in
accordance with Government Code section 66007.
SECTION 8. Effective Date of Development Impact Fees. Except for the Fire Impact
Fee, the development impact fees established by Section 5 of this Resolution shall be
effective on the later of: (i) the sixtieth (60th) day following the adoption of this Resolution
or (ii) July 1, 2025. The Fire Impact Fee established by Section 5 of this Resolution shall
be effective on the later of: (i) the sixtieth (60th) day following the adoption of this
Page 144
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 6 of 10
Resolution, (ii) the effective date of proposed Ordinance No. 1038, an ordinance adding
Chapter 3.80 (“Fire Impact Fee”) to the Municipal Code and establishing the City’s
program and requirements for the imposition of a fire development impact fees on
development projects, or (iii) July 1, 2025.
SECTION 9. Administration Fee. The City shall include an Administration Fee in
the not to exceed amount of two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the total project cost for
the management of the development impact fee program.
SECTION 10. No Changes to Other City Fees. Nothing in this Resolution shall
repeal, amend or supersede any other City imposed fees except for the amount of specific
type and category of development impact fee addressed in the Nexus Studies and
expressly established by this Resolution.
SECTION 11. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Resolution shall nonetheless remain in full force
and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution, irrespective of the fact
that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions of
this Resolution be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Page 145
11231-0001\3092816v2.doc
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2025
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, KIM SEVY, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of
said City Council held on the 2nd day of April 2025.
Executed this ___ day of_______, 2025 at Rancho Cucamonga, California
_________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
Page 146
11231-0001\3092816v2.doc
EXHIBIT A
NBS NEXUS STUDY
Page 147
11231-0001\3092816v2.doc
EXHIBIT B
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Page 148
-10-
11231-0001\3092816v2.doc
EXHIBIT C
AMENDMENTS TO MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Page 149
Development Impact Fee Study
Revised Final Draft Report
Page 150
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ S-1
Organization of the Report............................................................................................... S-1
Development Data ............................................................................................................ S1
Impact Fee Analysis .......................................................................................................... S-2
Impact Fee Summary ........................................................................................................ S-5
Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Legal Framework for Impact Fees .................................................................................... 1-1
Recent Legislation ............................................................................................................ 1-6
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 1-8
Alternative Funding Sources ............................................................................................ 1-9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ........................................................... 1-9
Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions ............................................................................... 1-10
Review of Assumptions As Required by Gov’t Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) .................. 1-11
Facilities Addressed in this Study ................................................................................... 1-11
Chapter 2. Development Data ............................................................................................. 2-1
Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
Time Frame ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
Development Types .......................................................................................................... 2-1
Demand Variables ............................................................................................................ 2-3
Demand Factors ............................................................................................................... 2-5
Existing and Future Development .................................................................................... 2-5
Chapter 3. Park Impact Fees ................................................................................................ 3-1
Page 151
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 3-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 3-2
Existing Parks .................................................................................................................... 3-2
Existing Level of Service ................................................................................................... 3-4
Cost Per Capita ................................................................................................................. 3-5
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 3-6
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 3-7
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 3-8
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 3-8
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee ................................................... 4-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 4-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 4-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 4-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 4-2
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 4-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 4-3
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 4-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 4-3
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 4-4
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 4-4
Chapter 5. Library Impact Fee ............................................................................................. 5-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5-1
Page 152
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 5-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 5-1
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 5-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 5-3
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 5-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 5-4
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 5-4
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 5-4
Chapter 6. Animal Center Impact Fee .................................................................................. 6-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 6-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 6-1
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 6-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 6-3
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 6-4
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 6-4
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 6-5
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 6-5
Chapter 7. Police Impact Fee ............................................................................................... 7-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 7-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 7-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 7-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 7-2
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 7-2
Page 153
Cost per Call for Service ................................................................................................... 7-2
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential) .................... 7-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 7-4
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 7-5
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 7-6
Chapter 8. Fire Impact Fee .................................................................................................. 8-1
Fire Protection District Law of 1987 ................................................................................. 8-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 8-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 8-2
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 8-2
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment................................................................................ 8-3
Cost per Call for Service ................................................................................................... 8-6
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential) .................... 8-7
Fee Adjustment to Avoid Overcollection ......................................................................... 8-8
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 8-9
Updating the Fees .......................................................................................................... 8-11
Nexus Summary .............................................................................................................. 8-11
Chapter 9. Implementation ................................................................................................. 9-1
Adoption ........................................................................................................................... 9-1
Administration .................................................................................................................. 9-1
Requirements Imposed by AB 602 ................................................................................... 9-6
Training and Public Information ..................................................................................... 9-97
Recovery of Study Costs ..................................................................................................... -7
Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. A-1
Page 154
Appendix B ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. B-1
Appendix C-1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… C-1 -1
Appendix C-2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… C-2 -1
Page 155
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-1
Development Impact Fee Study
March 27, 2025
Executive Summary
The City of Rancho Cucamonga retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this
study to analyze the impacts of new development on several types of capital facilities and
to calculate impact fees based on that analysis.
The methods used in this study are consistent with those outlined in the Impact Fee Nexus
Study Templates prepared for the California Department of Housing and Community
Development by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley in fulfillment
of AB 602. Those methods are designed to satisfy the legal requirements of the U. S.
Constitution, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et
seq.).
Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing
and imposing such fees, and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees.
Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in this report.
Chapters 3 through 8 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities
and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are
listed by chapter below:
Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Facilities
Chapter 5. Library Facilities and Materials
Chapter 6. Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Chapter 7. Police Department Facilities
Chapter 8. RCFPD Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
Chapter 9 summarizes requirements for adopting and implementing impact fees.
Appendix A to this report contains data from the CoStar real estate database that
supports the estimated cost per acre for land used throughout this report. Appendix B
contains a detailed inventory of park maintenance vehicles and equipment supporting
replacement cost estimates shown in Table 3.3 in Chapter 3. Appendix C contains maps
of the City’s existing parks supporting the total park acreage and improved park acreage
estimates shown in Table 3.1 in Chapter 3.
Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Rancho
Cucamonga and a forecast of future development in terms of units of development,
population, police department calls for service per year and Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Page 156
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-2
Development Impact Fee Study
March 27, 2025
Protection District (RCFPD) calls for service per year for each type of development defined
in this study.
Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit and police and
fire calls per unit per year. Those factors are used to represent the impact of new
development in the impact fee calculations.
It is important to note that because of amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act contained
in AB 602 (2021) that were incorporated into California law effective in 2022, residential
impact fees must be calculated proportionately to the square footage of the pr oposed
units. Impact fees for residential development in this study are calculated as impact fees
per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. Prior to the adoption of
AB 602 it was common practice to calculate residential impact fees on a per-unit basis for
single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a
separate chapter. In each case, the relationship, or nexus, between development and the
need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional
development on facility needs to be quantified.
The impact fees are based only on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets
needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used
to pay for maintenance or operations.
Impact fees calculated in this report are shown later in this Executive Summary.
The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for
each of the facility types addressed in this study.
Park Land and Park Improvements. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for
park land acquisition and park improvements. The cost of park maintenance vehicles and
equipment is included in the park improvement impact fees.
Impact Fees for Park Land Acquisition. The impact fees for park land acquisition calculated
in Chapter 3 apply only to residential development and are based on the existing level of
service which is defined in this report as the existing ratio of improved park acres to
population in the City.
The park land impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing ratio of
improved park land to population in acres per capita, and the land cost per acre used in
those calculations is based on the estimated cost per acre to acquire additional park land
in the City. Those factors are used to calculate a cost per capita, which is multiplied by the
population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development to get a
park land impact fee per unit for each type of residential development. Those impact fees
per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit to get impact fees per square foot
Page 157
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-3
Development Impact Fee Study
March 27, 2025
for single-family and multi-family residential development. Impact fees for park land do
not apply to non-residential development.
The City does not require dedication of park land or payment of fees in lieu of dedication
pursuant to the Quimby Act. Park land acquisition is funded, in part, through development
impact fees imposed on residential development.
Impact Fees for Park Improvements. The park improvement impact fees calculated in
Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing ratio of improved park land to population in
acres per capita, and the estimated cost per acre for park improvements. The cost of park
maintenance vehicles and equipment is incorporated into the park improvement impact
fees, but the vehicles and equipment component represents less than 0.5% of those fees.
Park improvement impact fees per unit and per square foot for single-family and multi-
family residential development are calculated in the same manner as for the park land
impact fees.
The impact fees calculated in this report for park land and park improvements are shown
in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Community and Recreation Center Facilities. Chapter 4 of this report calculates impact
fees for community and recreation centers.
The impact fees for community and recreation center facilities are based on the City’s
existing level of service for these facilities, which is defined as the relationship between
the existing population and the replacement cost of existing community and r ecreation
center facilities. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita. The impact fees per unit
for community and recreation center facilities are calculated as the cost per capita
multiplied by the population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential
development. Those impact fees per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit
to get an impact fee per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. The
impact fees for community and recreation center facilities do not apply to non-residential
development.
The impact fees calculated in this report for community and recreation center facilities
are shown in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Library Facilities and Materials. Chapter 5 of this report calculates impact fees for library
facilities and materials.
The library impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service which is defined as
the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost of existing
library facilities and materials. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita. Impact fees
per unit of development are calculated as the cost per capita multiplied by the population
per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development. Those impact fees per
unit are divided by the average square feet per unit to get an impact fee per square foot
for single-family and multi-family development. The impact fees for library facilities and
materials do not apply to non-residential development.
Page 158
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-4
Development Impact Fee Study
March 27, 2025
The impact fees for Library facilities and Library materials are calculated separately in
Chapter 5, but they are shown as a combined fee in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment. Chapter 6 of this report calculates
impact fees for animal center facilities, vehicles and equipment.
The impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service for these facilities which
is defined as the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost
of the existing facilities, vehicles and equipment. That relationship is stated as a cost per
capita. The impact fees per unit for the animal center are calculated as the cost per
capita multiplied by the population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential
development. Those impact fees per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit
to get an impact fee per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. The
impact fees for the animal center apply only to residential development.
The impact fees calculated in this report for animal center facilities are shown in Table
S.1 on page S-5.
Police Department Facilities. Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for Police Department
facilities based on the existing level of service in the City. The existing level of service is
defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing Police Department
facilities and the number of calls for service per year received by the Department. That
relationship is stated as a cost per call for service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Police Department calls for service
for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by
each type of development defined in this study. The impact fee per unit for each type of
development is calculated by multiplying the cost per call for service and the number of
calls per unit per year. For residential development, the cost per unit for single-family and
multi-family residential development is divided by the average square feet per unit to get
an impact fee per square foot. Police impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new
development in the City.
The impact fees calculated in this report for Police Department facilities are shown in
Table S.1 on page S-5 for residential development and in Table S.2 on page S-6 for non-
residential development.
Fire Department Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment. Fire protection and emergency
response services for the City of Rancho Cucamonga are provided by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). Chapter 8 calculates fire impact fees for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, which occupies a large part of the RCFPD service area.
By law, fire districts are prohibited from imposing impact fees on their own, but they are
allowed to receive funds from other entities for any legitimate purpose. So, the City can
impose fire impact fees on new development in the City and provide the revenue from
those fees to RCFPD to pay for capital facilities, apparatus and equipment needed to
mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.
Page 159
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-5
Development Impact Fee Study
March 27, 2025
Unlike the other impact fees calculated in this study which are based on the existing level
of service for the relevant facilities, the fire impact fees in Chapter 8 are calculated using
the system plan method. That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the
cost of both existing and future RCFPD assets serving the City are allocated to both
existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected
out to 2040.
The impact of development on RCFPD facilities, apparatus and equipment is represented
in this study by the number of calls for service per year generated by development in the
City. As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of RCFPD calls for service for a
full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different
types of development.
A cost per call for service year is calculated by dividing estimated 2040 asset costs by the
projected number of calls for service per year generated by development in the City in
2040. Then, an impact fee per unit is calculated by multiplying that cost pe r call by the
number of calls for service per unit per year generated by each category of development
defined in this study. The impact fee per unit for single-family and multi-family
residential development is divided by the average square feet per unit to get an impact
fee per square foot.
The impact fees calculated in this report for Fire Department facilities are shown in
Table S.1, below for residential development and Table S.2 on the next page for non-
residential development.
Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 summarizes the residential impact fees calculated in this report, which are all
shown as impact fees per square foot.
Table S.2 shows the non-residential impact fees calculated in this report, which are
calculated on a per-unit basis.
Table S.1: Summary of Residential Impact Fees per Square Foot Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Residential, Single Family SF 1.04$ 2.25$ 0.85$ 0.42$ 0.09$ 0.15$ 0.38$ 5.18$
Residential, Multi-Family SF 1.20$ 2.61$ 0.99$ 0.49$ 0.10$ 0.19$ 0.42$ 6.00$
1 SF = 1 gross square foot of building area
Page 160
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-6
Development Impact Fee Study
March 27, 2025
Table S.3 shows the City’s existing impact fees.
Because the proposed residential impact fees shown in Table S.1 are calculated on a per -
square-foot basis in response to amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act, they cannot be
compared to the City’s existing residential impact fees, which are charged on a per-unit
basis. However, non-residential impact fees are still calculated on a per-unit basis, so it is
possible to compare the existing and proposed non-residential impact fees. Table S.4
shows the difference between the existing non-residential impact fees in Table S.3 and
the proposed non-residential impact fees from Table S.2. Numbers in parentheses
indicate that the proposed fees are lower than the existing fees.
This study proposes eliminating many of the existing impact fees for Senior/Assisted
Living Facilities on the grounds that residents of Senior/Assisted Living facilities have
limited access to some types of facilities addressed in this study. That is why most of the
Table S.2: Summary of Non-Residential Impact Fees per Unit Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Senior/Assisted Living Bed 893$ 14,397$ 15,290$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,010$ 1,175$ 2,185$
Hotel/Motel Room 64$ 585$ 649$
Office KSF 239$ 621$ 860$
Industrial KSF 66$ 89$ 155$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
Table S.3: Existing Impact Fees From City of Rancho Cucamonga 2024 Fee Schedule
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Residential, Single Family DU 4,744$ 4,583$ 2,481$ 891$ 169$ 376$ 0$ 13,244$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 3,239$ 3,129$ 1,693$ 608$ 116$ 297$ 0$ 9,082$
Senior/Assisted Living Bed 1,576$ 1,523$ 825$ 296$ 56$ 136$ 0$ 4,412$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,184$ 0$ 1,184$
Hotel/Motel Room 182$ 0$ 182$
Office KSF 371$ 0$ 371$
Industrial KSF 54$ 0$ 54$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
Table S.4: Difference Between Existing Non-Residential Impact Fees and Impact Fees Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Senior/Assisted Living Bed (1,576)$ (1,523)$ (825)$ (296)$ (56)$ 757$ 14,397$ 10,878$
Commercial/Retail KSF (174)$ 1,175$ 1,001$
Hotel/Motel Room (118)$ 585$ 467$
Office KSF (132)$ 621$ 489$
Industrial KSF 12$ 89$ 101$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
Page 161
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-7
Development Impact Fee Study
March 27, 2025
fees for that category show a negative change in Table S.4. At the same time, the
proposed creation of an impact fee for RCFPD results in a large increase overall for impact
fees on the Senior/Assisted Living category.
Page 162
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for certain
capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City)
and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District) and to calculate
impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and
methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees.
The City has previously enacted impact fees for the City facilities addressed in this report.
The purpose of this study is to update those fees to reflect current costs and conditions
in the City. See Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapters 3.52 (Community and
Recreation Center Impact Fee), 3.56 (Library Impact Fee), 3.60 (Animal Center Impact
Fee), 3.64, (Police Impact Fee), and 3.68 (Park In-lieu/Impact Fees). The impact fee
calculated in this study for Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District facilities, apparatus
and equipment would be a new fee.
The impact fees calculated in this report satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees,
including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California
Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025.
Legal Framework for Impact Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general
overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice.
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact
fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for
public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the
imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation,
provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A
regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property
rights protected by the Constitution.
In two cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a
government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition
of development approval or imposes exactions as a condition of approval on a
development project, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such
exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,
1987) and make an “individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly
proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).
In April 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that even legislatively adopted impact fees
are subject to Nollan and Dolan.
Page 163
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Defining “Nexus.” The nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees can be thought
of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically
included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan
v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable
relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition
of impact fees.
1. Need or Impact. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a
development project subject to those fees will create a need for the facilities to be funded
by the impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on
some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not
increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for
the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of
development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related
to the development project subject to the fees.
The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used
only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are
imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms
of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for
public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of
the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nex us.
2. Benefit. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a development project
subject to those fees will benefit from the facilities funded by the impact fees. With
respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by
impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit
relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and
expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing
in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee
revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the
Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended in a
timely manner or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that
developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time,
procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the
benefit element of the nexus.
3. Proportionality. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that the amount
of those fees is proportional to the impact created by development project s subject to
the fees. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development -
related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated
in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of
development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to
allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.
Page 164
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local
governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police
power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees
on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are
special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. Impact fees
calculated in this report do not exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve new
development and, thus, are not special taxes requiring voter approval pursuant to Article
XIIIA.
Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996,
require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of
fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees are exempt
from those requirements.
The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600
during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added
several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time ,
the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially
titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this
report are from the Government Code.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact
fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public
improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not
specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act both case law and statute (see
Government Code Section 65913.8) clarify that impact fees may not be used to pay for
ongoing maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report
are based on the cost of capital assets only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title.
Nor does it use the common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which
is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged
by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project
for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the
development project ….”
To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely accepted term
“impact fee” which should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee
Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing
impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the
collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluation
of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the
implementation chapter of this report.
Page 165
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Required Findings. Section 66001 (a) requires that an agency establishing, increasing or
imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee
and the development type on which it is imposed
4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
In addition, Section 66001 (b) requires that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of
approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine
how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed.
The requirements outlined above are discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public
health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific
purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund acquisition or construction of certain
capital assets that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development
on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows.
This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should
define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to
serve additional development.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001(a)(2), if a fee is used to
finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement pl an
may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a
General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents . Section 66002 (b) requires
that if a capital improvement plan is used to identify the facilities, it must be updated
annually.
However, a new provision in Section 66016.5(a)(6), which was added by AB 602 in 2021,
requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee
study. That requirement applies to impact fee nexus studies adopted after Janu ary 1,
2022. “Large jurisdiction” means a county of 250,000 or more or any city within that
county. The statute does not provide any detail about what must be included in the capital
improvement plan or how it should relate to the impact fee study. That new requirement
appears to override the original language of Section 66001(a)(2), so that a capital
improvement plan (CIP) is no longer optional. A CIP is now required for all new impact fee
nexus studies adopted by large jurisdictions. The annual update requirement remains in
effect.
Page 166
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
The City of Rancho Cucamonga publishes the Capital Improvement Program as part of the
annual budgeting procedures, and the latest available information can be found on the
City’s website under Financial Reports. Further, the City has prepared an amendment to
the Major Project Program (which includes the Capital Improvement Program) which will
be considered for approval as part of the DIF Program update. A copy of the Major Project
Program amendment is available under separate cover.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that,
for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated
between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is
imposed; and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
on which the fee is imposed.
Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the
Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see
Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section
66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby
Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).
Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by
AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing
deficiencies in public facilities…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as
stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v.
City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).
Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the
increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in
order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2)
achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis
added.)
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing
facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development
and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used
to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. As a
practical matter, such fees are difficult to implement unless the fees are needed to repay
outstanding debt related to the facilities in question.
Page 167
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California since 2019 to facilitate development
of affordable housing bear on the implementation of impact fees calculated in this study.
Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed since 2019.
SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. SB 330 (amended and clarified in 2021 by SB 8)
contained a variety of amendments designed to promote affordable housing. Among
them was a provision in Government Code Section 65589.5 that prohibits the imposition
of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a preliminary
application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees except
when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationary
adjustments to the fee or exaction. These provisions will remain in effect until January 1,
2030.
AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting (2019). AB 1483 added Section
65490.1 to the Government Code, and requires that a city, county or special district must
post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus
studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.
SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units (2019). SB 13 amended Government Code Section
65852.2 to prohibit the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
smaller than 750 square feet and to require that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet
or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The
proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more
must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.
Existing law requires a water or sewer connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory
dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the
accessory dwelling unit’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. SB 13 revises the
basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge to either the accessory dwelling
unit’s square feet or the number of its drainage fixture units.
AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act
(2021). AB 602 adds Section 65940.1 to the Planning and Land Use Law requiring cities,
counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of fees,
exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus
studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.
AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new
requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022, including:
▪ A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify
the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service
is appropriate.
Page 168
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
▪ If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall
review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and
evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
▪ Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must
adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
▪ All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30
days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that
requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the
hearing.
▪ Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period
beginning on January 1, 2022.
▪ A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a
housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed
units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this
requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local
agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the
development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a
reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.
▪ Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development
project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply
with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to
consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.
AB 516 – Amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act (2023). AB 516, which took effect on
January 1, 2024, amends Government Code Section 66006 to add certain requirements
to the annual reports mandated by that section. Specifically, Section 66006 now requires
that:
▪ Annual reports indicate whether construction on public improvements identified
in previous annual reports began on the approximate date shown in the previous
annual report; and,
▪ If a project failed to start construction on schedule, the annual report must explain
the reason for the delay and provide a revised approximate date when
construction will begin.
AB 516 also amends Section 66023 to provide that when a person requests an audit of a
fee or charge levied by a local agency, that audit may address when revenue generated
by that fee or charge is scheduled to be expended, and when the public improvement t o
be funded by that fee or charge is scheduled to be completed. Prior to this amendment,
the only stated purpose of such an audit was to determine whether such a fee or charge
Page 169
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility
or service provided by the local agency.
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are designed to comply with all
of the legal requirements discussed earlier in this chapter. Any one of several legitimate
methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends
primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the type of
facility being addressed. To some extent those methods are interchangeable, because
they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by de velopment.
Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all
methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify
the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost a llocation
formula, the impact of development is represented by some attribute of development
such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by
different types and amounts of development.
Although it is not mandatory, this study adopts the nomenclature used in the Impact Fee
Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC
Berkeley to describe impact fee calculation methods. Those templates were prepared for
The California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section
50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code and are cited in AB 602.
Planned Facility Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development will pay for the planned expansion of facilities at the future standard
attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the cost of
planned facilities is divided by the amount of demand that will be created by new
development. The impact fees depend on the cost of planned future facilities and a plan
for future development, so the fees should be recalculated if facility plans or development
plans change.
Existing Inventory Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve
existing development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing
facilities is divided by the amount of demand associated with existing development. This
method allows impact fees to be calculated without a list of planned facilities, but such a
list is required by AB 602 as part of a Capital Improvement Plan that must be adopted
with any new impact fee nexus study. This approach can be used to calculate impact fees
for many types of public facilities but is usually not appropriate for facilities such as
transportation improvements or water, wastewater or drainage systems where
improvement needs must be determined by engineering analysis.
System Plan Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the
future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of
Page 170
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-9
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the
combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
This approach is especially appropriate for impact fees for fire protection and EMS
facilities because new facilities must be planned to integrate geographically with existing
facilities.
Alternative Funding Sources
The Terner Center impact fee templates recommend that an impact fee study discuss the
availability of alternative funding sources for facilities addressed in the study and whether
there are existing deficiencies for which other funding is needed. This stud y has not
identified existing deficiencies with respect to the existing level of service standard used
as the basis for impact fee calculations for all impact fees except those for RCFPD.
However, for several types of facilities including libraries and the animal center, there is
a perceived need in the City to provide a level of service higher than the existing level.
This study has not identified alternative funding sources that could be used to elevate the
level of service in the City above the level currently provided. Should such funding become
available, it could be used for that purpose or, given the many uncertainties regarding the
course of future development and the actual cost of future facilities, such funding could
be used to cover unanticipated costs of needed facilities. In the event that the City should
acquire funding specifically earmarked for facilities identified in the Capital Improvement
Program for impact fee funding, it may be appropriate to modify the impact fee
calculations to take account of that funding.
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
SB 477, enacted in 2024, relocated and consolidated California’s ADU laws into a new
Government Code Chapter (Chapter 13, Division 1, Title 7). Recent amendments to ADU
law provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet
and establish the following requirement for impact fees imposed on ADUs of 750 square
feet or more:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or
more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the
primary dwelling unit.”
The proportionality requirement depends on the square footage of both the primary unit
and the ADU, which necessitates that impact fees for ADUs be calculated on a case-by-
case basis. Consequently, this report does not calculate a schedule of impact fees f or
ADUs. The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees is:
Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet)
Page 171
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-10
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions
Existing State law provides that certain types of projects, largely involving housing, are
exempt from or receive reduced or vested development impact fees (exceptions). These
exceptions include, for example, a prohibition on impact fees for accessory dwelling units
of 750 square feet or less and vested impact fees for qualifying housing development
projects subject to a preliminary application under the Housing Accountability Act, SB
330. Such exceptions may change over time. As a Pro Housing jurisdiction, the City of
Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the importance of providing more housing and affordable
housing for all income levels. To that end, the City supports current State law in this
regard and intends to comply with future changes in this area.
This nexus study anticipated all future development in the City without considering the
potential applicability of any exceptions to the impact fees applied to such
development. This is because, among other reasons, it is not possible to determine
whether any particular project will qualify for an exception and then to what extent. It is
speculative to forecast that a certain amount of development expected in the City will be
attributable to projects that qualify for exceptions. To be sure, the value of any po tential
exception was not re-allocated or re-distributed to other development
projects. Therefore, no project will subsidize any lost revenue caused by a project that
qualifies for an exception, and any shortfalls in funding for exempt or reduced fee proj ects
will be made up through grants or other local discretionary funding sources.
Further, the City has long recognized that for some development projects there is mutual
benefit for the developer to construct public improvements or dedicate land that are part
of the impact fee program’s list of capital projects. In accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and other laws, the developer may
be eligible for a credit against the amount of the relevant impact fee for the cost of the
improvement or value of the land dedicated when the development impact fee is
calculated. In order to ensure the sustainability and equity of the program, such credits
are equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined
in the nexus study, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the fees are calculated.
Finally, the City seeks to defray the cost of construction for public infrastructure through
alternative means such as grant programs. The City proactively pursues grants and other
funding mechanisms; however, the City does not have the ability to guarantee a certain
percentage of grant awards toward projects within this DIF program. In order to ensure
that new development funds its fair share of the improvements in this program,
applicable grant awards will be first used to offset the appropriate project c ost share
attributable to existing development and then remaining grant awards (if any) will be
used to offset the cost borne by the fee program unless the grant award is specifically
made to offset new development costs. Should new development costs be offset by grant
or other funding mechanisms, such offset will be accounted for in the next major update
to this nexus study.
Page 172
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-11
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Review of Assumptions As Required by Gov’t Code Section 66016.5(a)(4)
The most recent iteration of the adopted fee programs for Park Land and Park
Improvements, Community and Recreation Facilities, Library Facilities and Materials,
Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment, and Police Facilities Impact Fees were
adjusted in 2020 by Resolution No. 20-121 (Appendix XX – Resolution No. 20-121).
Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) as amended by AB 602 requires local agencies
adopting increases to existing DIF program fees review the assumptions in the prior study
as part of a new nexus study. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 20-121, the City
approved a General Plan update that set forth a renewed vision for the community
including anticipated development patterns, population growth estimates, and public
infrastructure, facilities, materials, and equipment needs. Further, since that time,
construction costs have increased dramatically for public improvements. This study has
reviewed the prior assumptions and incorporated currently available data and
assumptions as more appropriate to the analysis considered in this study.
Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
▪ Park Land and Park Improvements
▪ Community and Recreation Center Facilities
▪ Library Facilities and Materials
▪ Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with
Chapter 3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact
fee analysis.
Page 173
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 2. Development Data
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to
calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this
chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate
the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various
types of new development.
Study Area
The study area for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) in this study is the planning area
defined in the City’s current General Plan which was adopted in 2021. That area
encompasses both the existing City and the small Sphere of Influence (SOI) along the
northern edge of the City above the Alta Loma neighborhood. Impact fees for City
facilities are calculated in Chapters 3 through 7 of this report.
The study area for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District)
impact fees is the entire area within the boundaries of the District, which includes the
entire City and its SOI, as well as an area north of the City that is currently unincorporated
and is not planned for annexation to the City. All of RCFPD’s capital assets are located
within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, but a very small percentage of the calls for service
originating within the district boundaries come from the portion of RCFPD outside the
City. The RCFPD impact fees are calculated using all of the calls for service within the
District so that the cost of serving the area outside the City is not averaged into the RCFPD
impact fees charged within the City. Impact fees for RCFPD facilities, apparatus and
equipment are calculated in Chapter 8 of this report.
Time Frame
Planned future development in this study is forecasted out to 2040. However, the
methods used to calculate impact fees in this study do not depend on the timing of future
development.
Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this report are discussed
below. Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied based on actual
land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. For mixed use
development projects, impact fees should be applied to each type of development within
the project, consistent with the number of units of development of each type within the
project.
Residential Development. Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) which was added
to the Mitigation Fee Act by AB 602 in 2021 contains the following requirement:
“A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing
development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the
Page 174
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage
of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method
to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed
by the development”
This study calculates impact fees per square foot for two types of residential development
using average square-feet-per-unit numbers provided by the City:
• Single-family Residential Units
• Multi-family-Residential Units (including all attached dwelling units)
Senior/Assisted Living Facilities. While senior living and assisted living facilities, including
rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities have some of the characteristics of residential
uses, their impact characteristics can be substantially different from most residential
development, with less impact on transportation and parks and recreation facilities and
greater impact on emergency medical services. Consequently senior/assisted living
facilities are treated as a separate category in this study and are not considered a form of
housing development subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5.
Development in this category is measured in terms of beds, which is intended as a proxy
for the number of occupants of a facility.
Non-Residential Development. Non-residential development types used in this study are:
▪ Commercial/Retail
▪ Hotel/Motel
▪ Office
▪ Industrial
The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied to development
projects, or portions of projects, based on the actual type of development being
constructed. Except for the Hotel/Motel category, which is measured in terms of guest
rooms, the non-residential development types listed above are measured in terms of
gross leasable floor area in thousands of square feet (KSF).
In the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code), allowable
uses are grouped into broad categories. In general, those categories correspond
reasonably well with the development types listed above, except that in the Development
Code, hotels and other lodging uses are included in a category called Service and Office
Uses whereas this study breaks out hotels and motels as a separate category.
In cases where a proposed development project does not fit reasonably well into one of
the development types defined in this study, the City has the option to calculate an impact
fee that is tailored to that specific use. See the sub-section on Other Types of
Development, below.
Public Facilities, Public Schools and Parks. In addition to the development types listed
above, the development tables presented later in this chapter include public
Page 175
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
(government) facilities, public schools and parks. The City does not impose impact fees
on those uses, either because of legal constraints or because it would be imposing the
fees on itself, which serves no purpose. However, those uses do create measurable
impacts on some services, including law enforcement and fire protection/emergency
medical services, and they are included in the impact fee analysis so that the impacts
associated with those exempt uses can be distinguished from demand associated with
fee-paying development types.
Other types of Development. The development types for which impact fees are
calculated in this study will encompass most new development in the City, but there may
be some development projects that don’t fit very well within any of the established fee
categories. In such cases, it is possible for City staff to calculate a customized impact fee
at the time a project is approved.
For example, to calculate a customized police impact fee, it would be necessary to
estimate the number of police calls for service per year that will be generated by the
project, based on the number of calls generated by similar existing uses in the City. Then,
that number would be multiplied by the cost per call calculated in this study to arrive at
the police impact fee for the project. Customized impact fees for other facility types could
be calculated in a similar manner.
Demand Variables
To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must
be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development
(for example, added population) are used as “demand variables” in those formulas to
represent the impact of different types of development on various types of facilities.
Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service demand
created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with
that demand.
For example, the need for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of the
relationship between population and acres of parks. As population grows, more parks are
needed to maintain that relationship. Logically, then, the increase in population r elated
to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick, or demand variable, for use
in measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks.
Demand variables have specific values for each type of development defined in this study.
Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.” So, if the demand variable used to
calculate impact fees for a particular type of facility is added population, the demand
factor for a specific category of residential development would be the population per
dwelling unit for that category.
Demand variables used in this study are discussed below. Specific demand factors can be
found in Table 2.2.
Page 176
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Population. Population is used in this study as the demand variable for parks, libraries,
community and recreation centers and the animal center. The need for those facilities is
driven largely by the added population associated with residential development. They are
not impacted substantially by non-residential development. The specific population per
unit factors used in this study are shown in Table 2.1.
Police Department Calls for Service. Demand for police services is impacted by both
residential and non-residential development in the City. In this study, the number of
police calls for service per unit per year is used to represent the demand for police services
by various types of development. The calls-for-service factors used in this study are based
on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all calls for service received by the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024.
During that period, the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department logged about 80,000 calls.
A random sample of 648 calls was classified by development type based on address or
location. Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development were
excluded from the analysis. The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of
development defined in this study was applied to the total number of 2023 calls to get
the number of calls generated by each type of development for the year. The nu mber of
calls associated with each type of development was divided by the number of existing
units for that type of development to arrive at the average number of calls per unit per
year for that type of development.
RCFPD Calls for Service per Year. Demand for fire protection, emergency medical
response and other services provided in the City by RCFPD is impacted by both residential
and non-residential development. In this study, the number of calls for service per unit
per year to RCFPD is used to represent the demand for fire protection and emergency
response services by various types of development in the City. The calls-for-service factors
used in this study are based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all 2023 calls for
service to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
In 2023, RCFPD logged about 18,600 calls for service. As part of this study, NBS analyzed
a random sample of 700 of those calls and classified them by development type based on
address. Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development we re
excluded from the analysis.
The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of development defined in this
study was applied to the total number of 2023 calls to get the full number of calls
generated by that type of development for the year. Then, the number of calls per y ear
was divided by the number of existing units for each type of development to arrive at the
average number of calls per unit per year. Fire calls-per-unit-per-year factors used in this
study are shown in Table 2.2, below.
Page 177
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Demand Factors
Table 2.1 shows the values of demand factors by development type used in this study.
Factors for population per unit and Police Department calls for service per unit per year
are for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Factors for Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District calls for service per unit per year are for the area within the boundaries of the
District. Calls from development within the City make up an estimated 99.6% of all calls
generated within RCFPD.
Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.2 through 2.4, beginning on the next page, present summaries of existing and
future development by development type in Rancho Cucamonga. The figures for units,
population and police department calls for service shown in those tables are for the City
only. The RCFPD calls for service shown in those tables are for the entire District, but
development in the City accounts for more than 99% of those calls.
The portion of RCFPD outside the City is small and development in that area is constrained
by topography. The only difference in existing and future development between the City
and the District is that the District has an estimated 348 more existing resid ential units
than the number of existing residential units in the City. The number of units does not
Table 2.1: Demand Factors Used in This Study
Development Dev Population RCPD Calls RCFPD Calls
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 0.717 0.185
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 0.617 0.139
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 1.738 2.829
Commercial/Retail KSF 1.966 0.231
Hotel/Motel Rooms 0.125 0.115
Office KSF 0.465 0.122
Industrial KSF 0.129 0.017
Public Facilities KSF 0.954 0.476
Public Schools Students 0.118 0.015
Parks Acres 3.474 0.213
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Population per unit based on American Community Survey Tables 25032 and 25033, 2022
one-year estimates
3 Estimated average Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis
of a random sample of calls for service for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024;
see discussion in text
4 Estimated average Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District calls for service per unit per
year based on analysis of a random sample of 2023 calls for service by NBS; see discussion
in text
Page 178
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
enter directly into the impact fee calculations. Those 348 additional residential units are
not shown in these tables but are included in the calculation of impact fees for RCFPD.
Table 2.2 shows estimated existing development as of January 1, 2024, in terms of units,
population, police department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.3 shows projected new development to 2040, in terms of units, population, police
department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.2: Existing Development - January, 2024
Development Dev Existing Existing Existing Existing
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls 3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 38,997 122,821 27,980 7,152
Residential, Multi-Family DU 28,803 69,166 17,773 4,013
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 709 1,232 2,006
Commercial/Retail KSF 8,412 16,542 1,942
Hotel/Motel Rooms 1,410 176 162
Office KSF 5,300 2,464 647
Industrial KSF 40,805 5,279 712
Public Facilities KSF 1,292 1,232 615
Public Schools Students 32,732 3,871 485
Parks Acres 456 1,584 97
Total 191,987 78,133 17,831
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Existing residential units and population based on travel demand model data provided by
Fehr & Peers; non-residential units provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department
3 Existing RCPD calls for service per year based on analysis of calls for service to the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024
4 Existing RCFPD calls for service per year based on analysis of 2023 calls for service
to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Page 179
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 2.4 shows projected total development in 2040 in terms of units, population, police
department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.3: Projected New Development to 2040
Development Dev Added Added Added Added
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls 3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 2,868 8,750 6,278 531
Residential, Multi-Family DU 15,812 33,150 20,455 2,203
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 138 240 391
Commercial/Retail KSF 700 1,377 162
Hotel/Motel Rooms 275 34 32
Office KSF 2,000 930 244
Industrial KSF 5,800 750 101
Public Facilities KSF 252 240 120
Public Schools Students 6,383 755 95
Parks Acres 89 309 19
Total 41,900 31,369 3,897
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Added residential units and population based on travel demand model data provided by Fehr
& Peers, added non-residential units based on conservative scenario projections by Strategic
Economics; see Appendix 5.14-1 to the General Plan DEIR
3 Added RCPD calls = added units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.2; average residential
calls per unit per year based on the rate for >1,200 - 1,900 square foot units
4 Added RCFPD calls = added units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.2; average residential
calls per unit per year based on the rate for >1,200 - 1,900 square foot units
Page 180
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 2.4: Projected Total Development in 2040
Development Dev 2040 2040 2040 2040
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 41,865 123,370 34,258 7,683
Residential, Multi-Family DU 44,615 110,517 38,228 6,216
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 847 1,472 2,397
Commercial/Retail KSF 9,112 17,919 2,104
Hotel/Motel Rooms 1,685 210 194
Office KSF 7,300 3,394 891
Industrial KSF 46,605 6,029 813
Public Facilities KSF 1,544 1,472 735
Public Schools Students 39,115 4,626 580
Parks Acres 545 1,893 116
Total 233,887 109,502 21,728
Note: The figures in Table 2.5 represent the sum of the corresponding figures in Table 2.3
and Table 2.4
Page 181
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Chapter 3. Park Impact Fees
This chapter calculates impact fees for park land acquisition and for park improvements.
Chapter 3.68 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code established and governs impact
fees for park land acquisition and park improvements. The City does not require park land
dedication or payment of fees in lieu of dedication pursuant to the Quimby Act
(Government Code Section 66477). The Quimby Act would allow park land dedication and
in-lieu fee requirements to be based on 3.0 acres per 1,000 population, which is a
substantially higher standard than the existing level of service used to calculate park land
impact fees in this study.
At present, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has five community parks and 26
neighborhood parks. The City owns about 399 acres of land designated for park use, of
which about 346 acres are currently developed as parks. The park impact fees calculated
in this chapter are based on the relationship between the City’s existing ratio of improved
park acres to population. However, later in this chapter, unimproved, City-owned park
land is credited against the amount of park land needed to serve future residential
development at the existing level of service. The result is a substantial reduction in the
amount of the park land impact fees applied to new development.
Service Area
All park impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that level of service as the
City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate park impact fees in this chapter is population.
Population is used here because in Rancho Cucamonga, as in most cities, the need for
parks is defined in terms of the relationship between park acreage and population.
Because added population is associated with residential development, the impact fees
calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
The impact fees for each type of residential development depend on the average
population per dwelling unit for that type of development. The individual population -per-
unit factors used to calculate the park impact fees are from Table 2.2 in Chapter 2. See
the discussion of population per unit in Chapter 2.
Page 182
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Level of Service
The level-of-service standard used to calculate park impact fees is based on the
relationship between the City’s existing park acreage and its existing population.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no expla nation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Parks
Table 3.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing parks and shows both total acres and
improved acres of park land. For the parks listed in Table 3.1, there are four parks for
which the total acres exceed the improved acres, indicating that there is unimproved land
available within those parks. Two of those parks, Central Park and Etiwanda Community
Park, have a total of 46.61 acres of unimproved land available. Later, in Table 3.4, that
unimproved land is credited against the acreage needed to serve future residential
development at the current level of service in terms of improved acres per thousand
population.
Of the other two parks shown as having available, unimproved park land, Don Tuburcio
Tapia Park is on land that is owned by the Cucamonga Valley Water District, not the City,
and is subject to lease rights that allow for the District’s ongoing use of the property.
Therefore, the availability of this land for future park purposes remains uncertain, and
the 4.34 acres shown as unimproved land is not credited to future development. The 911
Park has park improvements currently under construction, so 1.4 acres shown as
unimproved land for that park is also not credited to future development.
Page 183
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park Total Improved
Name Acres 1 Acres 4
Community Parks
Central Park 74.45 35.84
Etiwanda Creek Community Park 22.48 14.48
Heritage Community Park 34.02 34.02
Red Hill Community Park 44.20 44.20
Epicenter Adult Sports Complex 48.90 48.90
Subtotal Community Parks 224.05 177.44
Neighborhood Parks
Bear Gulch Park 4.56 4.56
Beryl Park East 10.10 10.10
Beryl Park West 8.72 8.72
Church Street Park 7.00 7.00
Coyote Canyon Park 4.74 4.74
Day Creek Park 9.98 9.98
Don Tuburcio Tapia Park (Long Term Lease)4.34 0.00
Ellena Park 6.04 6.04
Garcia Park 5.55 5.55
Golden Oak Park 4.99 4.99
Hermosa Park 9.57 9.57
Kenyon Park 7.82 7.82
Legacy Park 3.76 3.76
Lions Park 2.50 2.50
Los Amigos Park 3.36 3.36
Milliken Park 8.40 8.40
Mountain View Park 5.03 5.03
Old Town Park 5.01 5.01
Olive Grove Park 7.38 7.38
Ralph M. Lewis Park 8.03 8.03
Rancho Summit Park 6.71 6.71
Spruce Avenue Park 3.89 3.89
Victoria Arbors Park 7.75 7.75
Victoria Groves Park 6.02 6.02
Vintage Park 8.02 8.02
West Greenway Park 6.10 6.10
Windrows Park 8.01 8.01
9/11 Park 1.40 0.00
Subtotal Neighborhood Parks 174.78 169.04
Total 398.83 346.48
1 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga; park acreage numbers revised
February 2025; see maps of individual parks in Appendix C
Page 184
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.2 calculates existing levels of service in terms of acres per capita and acres per
1,000 population for total City-owned park land and for improved park land.
The level-of-service standard for parks contained in the 2021 Rancho Cucamonga General
Plan, in terms of a ratio of acres to population, is five acres per 1,000 residents for
neighborhood parks (see Table OS-2 in the General Plan).
In 2019, the California Court of Appeal in Boatworks, LLC vs. City of Alameda held that
parks not currently open to the public may not be used in calculating the existing level of
service for purposes of establishing park impact fees. Impact fees calculated in this
chapter are based on the existing level of service in terms of improved park acres per
1,000 population. Only park acreage that is improved and open to the public is counted
in establishing the existing level of service for both park land acquisition and park
improvement impact fees in this study.
In the following pages, the existing level of service is converted into a cost per capita for
park land acquisition and park improvements using the existing level of service in acres
per capita multiplied by the estimated cost per acre for park land acquis ition and park
improvements.
There is one additional cost component included in the park improvement impact fees.
That is the capital cost of added park maintenance vehicles and equipment. Table 3.3
calculates the costs per capita for park maintenance vehicles and equipment based on
the replacement cost of existing park maintenance vehicles and equipment divided by the
existing population of the City. That cost per capita is added to the cost per capita for park
improvements in Table 3.6 where the per-capita costs are converted into a cost per unit
of development.
Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service - Total/Improved Park Land
Existing Existing Acres per Acres per
Component Acres 1 Population 2 Capita 3 1,000 4
Total Park Land 398.83 191,987 0.00208 2.08
Improved Park Land 346.48 191,987 0.00180 1.80
1 See Table 3.1
2 Existing residential population; see Table 2.2
3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population
4 Acres per 1,000 residents = acres per capita X 1,000
Page 185
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Cost Per Capita
Table 3.4 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition and for park
improvements using the existing level of service in acres per capita and the cost -per-acre
estimates for park land acquisition and park improvements. In both cases, the acres-per-
capita standard is based on the existing level of service discussed previously in this
chapter.
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 3.4 are used to calculate impact fees
per unit, which are then divided by square-feet-per-unit factors to get impact fees per
Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Existing Park Maintenance Equipment
Total Existing Cost per
Cost 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$1,450,620 191,987 $7.56
1 See Appendix B for a detailed listing of existing park maintenance
vehicles and equipment
2 Existing population; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita = total cost / existing population
Table 3.4: Cost per Capita - Park Land Acquisition and Park Improvements
Cost Acres per Cost per Cost per
Component Capita 1 Acre 2 Capita 3
Park Land Acquisition 0.0018 1,176,197$ 2,117.15$
Park Land Acquisition-Adjusted 4 0.0007 1,176,197$ 823.34$
Park Improvements 0.0018 850,000$ 1,530.00$
1 Acres per capita for both park land acquisition and park improvements is
based on the existing level of service for improved park land; see Table 3.2
2 Cost per acre for land acquisition based on recent sales data from the CoStar
real estate database; see Appendix A for detailed data; cost per acre for park
improvements is based on improvement costs, adjusted for specialized im-
provement or typical improvements that were omitted, with an adjustment for
inflation, for a recently completed 4.9 acre dog park
3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
4 Park land acres per capita is adjusted to credit future development for 46.61
acres (0.0011 acres per capita) of City-owned, unimproved park land in Central
Park and Etiwanda Community Park; that adjustment reduces the total park land
to be funded by park land impact fees from 75.42 acres to 29.33 acres; the adjus-
ted cost per capita is used in Table 3.5 to calculate impact fees for park land
acquisition
Page 186
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development for park land
acquisition and park improvements.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 3.5 shows the calculation of park land impact fees per square foot for single-family
and multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for single-
family and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Table 3.6 shows the calculation of impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-
family residential development for park improvements. The cost of park maintenance
vehicles and equipment is incorporated into the park improvement impact fees but
amounts to less than 0.5% of those fees.
Table 3.5: Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee per Square Foot
Development Unit Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Type 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 823.34$ 2,593.51$ 2,500 1.04$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 823.34$ 2,041.88$ 1,700 1.20$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 See Table 3.4
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Table 3.6: Park Improvement Impact Fee per Square Foot (Incl. Maintenance Equipment)
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 $1,537.56 4,843.30$ 2,500 1.94$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 $1,537.56 3,813.14$ 1,700 2.24$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Includes cost per capita for park improvements from Table 3.4 and cost per capita for park
maintenance vehicles and equipment from Table 3.3
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 187
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-7
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 3.7 projects revenue from park land impact fees using the park land impact fees per
square foot from Table 3.5, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 3.8 projects revenue from park improvement impact fees using the park land impact
fees per square foot from Table 3.6, the average square feet per unit for each type of
residential development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection
assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 3.7: Projected Revenue - Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 1.04$ 2,500 2,868 7,456,800$
Residential, Multi-Family 1.20$ 1,700 15,812 32,256,480$
Total 39,713,280$
1 See Table 3.5
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Table 3.8: Projected Revenue - Park Improvement Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 1.94$ 2,500 2,868 13,909,800$
Residential, Multi-Family 2.24$ 1,700 15,812 60,212,096$
Total 74,121,896$
1 Impact fee (cost) per capita; see Table 3.6
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Page 188
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-8
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated cost of park
land acquisition and park improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed
annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) or the California Construction Cost Index. See
the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate
the impact of new development on the need for parks in Rancho Cucamonga and to
prevent a reduction in the level of service provided to residents of the City as a result of
new development.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. Specific projects and costs
to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement
Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional parks to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential
development in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the need for
Page 189
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-9
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
parks to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without
additional parks, the increase in population associated with new residential development
would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the park impact fees charged
to a residential development project will depend on the unit types and square footage
associated with that project. The fees per square foot calculated in this chapter for each
type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit
and square footage per unit for that type of development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus,
the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need
for parks in the City.
Page 190
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for community and recreation centers needed to serve
future development in the City. Chapter 3.52 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a number of existing community and recreation
centers as well as the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, which is included in this category.
The Paul A. Biane Library, which is a part of the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, is
addressed separately in Chapter 5, Libraries.
The community and recreation center impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on
the relationship between the City’s existing population and the replacement cost of
Rancho Cucamonga’s existing community center and recreation center facilities.
Service Area
The community and recreation center impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that level of service as the
City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate impact fees for community and recreation centers is population. Since
population is associated with residential development, these impact fees will apply only
to residential development.
Population is used as the demand variable for these fees because the need for community
and recreation centers is normally defined in terms of the size of the population to be
served. Added population is used in this chapter to measure the impact of new
development on the need for community and recreation center facilities.
Average population per unit is estimated for each category of residential development
defined in this study. Individual population -per-unit factors for each category of
residential development are shown in Table 2.2 in Chapter 2.
Page 191
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for community and recreation
centers. Since some existing facilities such as the Lewis Family Playhouse at the Victoria
Gardens Cultural Center are one-of-a-kind, a ratio of facility square footage to population
would not reflect differences in cost for different types of facilities. Consequently, the
level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing
relationship between the City’s population and the replacement cost of existing
community and recreation centers, stated as a cost per capita. See th e Cost per Capita
section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing community and recreation centers with their estimated
replacement cost. Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of
constructing additional facilities to serve future development.
Table 4.1: Existing Community and Recreation Centers Estimated Replacement Cost
Facility Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Name Acres 1 Value 2 Sq. Feet 3 Repl Cost 4 Cost Basis 5
RC Family Resource Center 1.80 2,117,155$ 11,800 6,926,502$ 9,043,657$
RC Sports Center 1.47 1,729,010$ 32,000 18,783,734$ 20,512,744$
Lion's Center West 0.24 282,287$ 11,400 6,691,705$ 6,973,993$
Lion's Center East 0.37 435,193$ 11,384 6,682,313$ 7,117,506$
Lewis/Brulte Community/Sr. Ctr.Located in Central Park 57,000 33,458,527$ 33,458,527$
Heritage Park Equestrian Center Located in Heritage Park 3,045 1,787,390$ 1,787,390$
Victoria Gardens Cultural Center 1.80 2,117,155$ 67,584 49,005,658$ 51,122,812$
Total 6,680,799$ 194,213 123,335,829$ 130,016,628$
1 Site Acres provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department
2 Existing site value = site acres X estimated land value of $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
3 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department
4 Building replacement cost based on estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024 using
the California Construction Cost Index
5 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
Page 192
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cost per Capita
Table 4.2 calculates the replacement cost per capita for community and recreation center
facilities using the impact fee cost basis from Table 4.1 and the existing population from
Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate community and
recreation center impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square -feet-per-unit
factors to get impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential
development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of community and recreation center impact fees per
square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development. The average
square feet per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development were
provided by the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 4.4 projects revenue from the community and recreation center impact fees using
the impact fees per square foot from Table 4.3, the average square feet per unit for each
Table 4.2: Community and Rec Centers - Existing Level of Service
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$130,016,628 191,987 $677.22
1 See Table 4.1
2 Existing population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
Table 4.3: Community and Recreation Centers - Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 $677.22 2,133.23$ 2,500 0.85$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 $677.22 1,679.50$ 1,700 0.99$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Cost per capita; see Table 4.2
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 193
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
type of residential development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This
projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all
future private development will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of
reasons, some future development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the
section on Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for community and recreation center facilities. We recommend that
the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) or the Department of General Services
California Construction Cost Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing
of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - Community/Rec Center Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.85$ 2,500 2,868 6,094,500$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.99$ 1,700 15,812 26,611,596$
Total 32,706,096$
1 See Table 4.3
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Page 194
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of community and recreation center assets in the
city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
community and recreation centers to mitigate the impact of new development on the
need for those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these
impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional community and recreation center facilities to mitigate the impact of added
population associated with new residential development on the need for community and
recreation centers in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for community and recreation center facilities to maintain the existing level of
service as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional community and recreation
center facilities, the increase in population associated with new residential development
would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the Ci ty.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The community and recreation center impact
fees calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the added population
associated with various categories of residential development in the City. The fees per
square foot of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential
development are based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage
per unit for each type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee
charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for
community and recreation center facilities in the City.
Page 195
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 5. Library Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for library facilities and materials needed to serve
future development in the City. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has two existing libraries:
the Paul A. Biane Library located in the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the Archibald
Library on Archibald Avenue. Chapter 3.56 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the Library Impact Fee.
Service Area
The library impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate the library impact fee is population.
Population is used as the demand variable for these fees because the need for libraries is
normally defined in terms of the size of the population to be served. Added population is
used in this chapter to measure the impact of new development on the need f or library
facilities.
Because population per dwelling unit varies by development category, the average
population per unit is estimated for each category of residential development defined in
this study. Those individual population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.2 in Chapter
2.
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for libraries. The level-of-
service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing relationship
between the City’s population and the replacement cost of library facilities and materials
stated as a cost per capita. See the Cost per Capita section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
Page 196
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 5.1 lists the City’s existing libraries with their estimated replacement cost.
Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing
additional facilities to serve future development. Cost for library furniture fixture s and
equipment, and the contents of the museum at the Biane Library are listed separately.
This analysis also includes the cost of library materials (books and electronic media). Table
5.2 shows the estimated replacement cost of the library system’s existing materials.
Table 5.1: Existing Library Facilities
Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Facility Acres Value 1 Sq. Feet 2 Repl Cost 3 Cost Basis 4
Paul A. Biane Library 1.35 1,587,866$ 38,912 26,298,402$ 27,886,268$
Museum Contents at Biane Library 3,500,000$
Archibald Library 1.67 1,964,249$ 22,500 11,964,272$ 13,928,521$
Library Furniture, Fixtures, Equipt.4,100,000$
Library Kiosk (RC Resource Center)199 220,000$ 220,000$
Library Kiosk (Fire Station 178)199 220,000$ 220,000$
Total 3,552,115$ 61,810 38,702,674$ 49,854,789$
1 Site value based on $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
2 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Library Services Department
3 Building replacement cost based on the estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024
using the California Construction Cost Index
4 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
Table 5.2: Existing Library Materials
Number Avg Cost Impact Fee
of Items 1 per Item 2 Cost Basis 3
269,559 $54.71 $14,747,573
1 Number of items provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Library
Services Department
2 Cost per item estimated by the Library Services Department
3 Impact fee cost basis = cost of existing library materials = number of
items X average cost per item
Page 197
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cost per Capita
Table 5.3 calculates the replacement cost per capita for library facilities and materials
using the impact fee cost basis for library facilities from Table 5.1, and the impact fee cost
basis for existing library materials from Table 5.2, both divided by the City’s existing
population from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 5.3 is used to calculate library
impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact
fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 5.4 shows the calculation of library impact fees per square foot for single-family and
multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for single-family
and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Table 5.3: Library Facilities and Materials - Cost per Capita
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Component Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
Library Facilities 49,854,789$ 191,987 259.68$
Library Materials 14,747,573$ 191,987 76.82$
Total 64,602,362$ 191,987 336.49$
1 See Tables 5.1 and 5.2
2 Existing population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
Table 5.4: Library Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Dev Cost per Population Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 336.49$ 3.15 1,059.96$ 2,500 0.42$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 336.49$ 2.48 834.51$ 1,700 0.49$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 Cost per capita; see Table 5.3
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 198
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 5.5 projects revenue from the library impact fees using the impact fees per square
foot from Table 5.4, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for library facilities and materials. We recommend that the fees be
reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering
News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) or the Department of General Services California
Construction Cost Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
Table 5.5: Projected Revenue - Library Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.42$ 2,500 2,868 3,011,400$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.49$ 1,700 15,812 13,171,396$
Total 16,182,796$
1 See Table 5.4
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Page 199
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of library and cultural center assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
library facilities and materials to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for
those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees
can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional library facilities and materials to mitigate the impact of added population
associated with new residential development on the need for library services in Rancho
Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for libraries to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this
chapter. Without additional library facilities and materials, the increase in population
associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of
service provided to all residents of the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The library impact fees calculated in this
chapter are proportional to the impact of the added population associated with various
categories of residential development in the City. The fees per square foot of
development calculated in this chapter for each category of residential development are
based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage per unit for each
type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee charged to a
development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for library facilities
and materials in the City.
Page 200
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 6. Animal Center Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for additional animal center facilities, vehicles and
equipment needed to serve future development in the City. Chapter 3.60 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code establishes and governs the animal center impact fee.
The City’s existing Animal Center is already over capacity and additional space will be
needed to serve the growing demand imposed by future development. It should be noted
that the impact fees calculated in this chapter will only maintain the existing level of
service provided by the Animal Center and will not remedy any existing deficiencies in
Animal Center facilities.
Service Area
The animal center impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Demand Variable
It is reasonable to assume that the demand for Animal Center facilities depends on the
number of pets kept by City residents, in which case the need for animal center facilities
is reasonably related to population of the City. Consequently, added populati on will be
used to represent the impact of development on the need for additional Animal Center
facilities.
Because added population is a function of new residential development, the fees
calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development .
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for animal center facilities.
Consequently, the level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter
is the existing relationship between the City’s population and the replaceme nt cost of
existing animal center facilities, vehicles and equipment, stated as a cost per capita. See
the Cost per Capita section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
Page 201
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 6.1 shows the estimated replacement cost for the City’s existing Animal Center and
the value of a 1.92-acre site the City has acquired to expand that facility. Table 6.1 also
shows a credit for the current balance in the City’s Animal Center impact fee fund which
is available to increase the existing level of service.
Table 6.2 lists the Animal Services Department’s existing vehicles and equipment with
replacement costs.
Table 6.1: Existing Animal Center Replacement Cost
Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Facility Acres Value 1 Sq. Feet 2 Repl Cost 3 Cost Basis 4
Existing Animal Center 1.60 $1,881,915 12,148 8,305,256$ 10,187,171$
Animal Center Expansion Site 1.92 $2,258,298 2,258,298$
Total 4,140,213$ 12,148 8,305,256$ 12,445,469$
1 Existing site value = site acres X $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
2 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Animal Services Department
3 Building replacement cost based on estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated
to 2024 using the California Construction Cost Index
4 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
Page 202
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cost per Capita
Table 6.3 calculates the cost per capita for Animal Center facilities, vehicles and
equipment using the impact fee cost basis from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and the City’s existing
residential population from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 6.3 is used to calculate animal
center impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get
impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Table 6.2: Animal Center Vehicles and Equipment
Impact Fee
Manufacturer Type Description Cost Basis 1
Ford F-250 Pickup Truck 110,000$
Ford F-250 Pickup Truck 110,000$
Ford Ranger Pickup Truck 40,000$
Saturn UT 30,000$
Chevrolet SV Cargo Van 55,000$
Chevrolet Cargo Van 55,000$
Maverick Horse Trailer 15,000$
Midmark Dental X-Ray Machine 22,970$
Midmark Mobile Dental Machine 12,792$
VMS Plus Anesthesia Machine (2)7,274$
VMS Anesthesia Machine (2)6,738$
LED Procedure Light - Dual 7,851$
LED Procedure Light - Single (4)15,704$
LED Procedure Light - Mobile 3,926$
Cuattro DR X-Ray Machine 52,000$
Sound Imaging Ultrasound Machine 20,000$
Total 564,255$
1 Impact fee cost basis = replacement cost; replacement cost estimated by
the Animal Services Department
Table 6.3: Animal Shelter Facilities and Equipment - Cost per Capita
Cost Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Component Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
Facilities 12,445,469$ 191,987 64.82$
Vehicles & Equipment 564,255$ 191,987 2.94$
Total 13,009,724$ 191,987 67.76$
1 See Tables 6.1 and 6.2
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
Page 203
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 6.4 shows the calculation of animal center impact fees per square foot for single -
family and multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for
single-family and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 6.5 projects revenue from the animal center impact fees using the impact fees per
square foot from Table 6.4, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 6.4: Animal Shelter - Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 67.76$ 213.46$ 2,500 0.09$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 67.76$ 168.05$ 1,700 0.10$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Cost per capita; see Table 6.3
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Table 6.5: Projected Revenue - Animal Center Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.09$ 2,500 2,868 645,300$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.10$ 1,700 15,812 2,688,040$
Total 3,333,340$
1 See Table 6.4
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Page 204
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement
costs for animal center facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted
annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building
Cost Index (BCI) or the General Services Department’s California Construction Cost Index.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of animal center assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
animal center facilities and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development on the
need for those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these
impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional animal center facilities and equipment to mitigate the impact of added
Page 205
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
population associated with new residential development on the need for animal center
facilities in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for animal center facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described
earlier in this chapter. Without additional animal center facilities, additional residential
development would further overburden the existing animal center.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. This study assumes that the need for animal
center facilities in the City is impacted by increasing population. The amounts of the
animal center impact fees calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the
added population associated with various categories of residential development in the
City. The fees per square foot calculated in this chapter for each type of residential
development are based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage
per unit for that type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee
charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for
animal center facilities in the City.
Page 206
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 7. Police Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for police facilities needed to serve future
development in the City. Chapter 3.64 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the police impact fee.
The City’s primary police facility is the Public Safety Building at the Rancho Cucamonga
Civic Center. The other existing City-owned police facility is a satellite police station co-
located with Fire Station 172 on San Bernardino Road in the western portion of the City.
The department also has a substation in a leased space in the Victoria Gardens shopping
mall and is planning to construct a permanent substation in that area in the future.
Service Area
The police impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of
facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for police facilities is calls for
service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of approximately 80,000 calls for
service logged by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from
May 2023 to May 2024 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by
each type of development defined in this study. Table 2.2 in Chapter 2 shows the calls -
per-unit-per-year factors derived from that analysis. Those factors are used to calculate
impact fees per unit later in this chapter. For a more detailed discussion of how calls for
service were analyzed, see Chapter 2.
One of the findings from the calls-for-service analysis is that 8.4% of police calls for service
in Rancho Cucamonga during the relevant period were generated by public facilities,
public schools and parks. The police facility costs associated with those calls are not
allocated to new private development in this study.
Page 207
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for police facilities. The level
of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service, which
is defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of police facilities shown in
Table 7.1 and the number of police calls for service per year received in the one -year
period from May 2023 to May 2024.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no expl anation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 7.1 lists the City’s existing police facilities with their estimated replacement cost.
Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing
additional facilities to serve future development.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 7.2 calculates the facility cost per call for service for police facilities using the impact
fee cost basis from Table 7.1 and the number of existing calls for service from Table 2.3
in Chapter 2.
Table 7.1: Existing Police Facilities
Facility Building Impact Fee
Name Square Feet 1 Cost Basis 2
Civic Center Public Safety Building 30,500 30,454,510$
Police Department Structure Parking - 62 spaces 2,759,000$
San Bernardino Road Satellite Station 5,673 6,934,243$
Total 36,173 40,147,754$
1 Building square feet provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department
2 Impact fee cost basis for Public Safety Building and Satellite Station = estimated
building replacement cost from 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024 using
the California Construction Cost Index; impact fee cost basis for Police Dept
structure parking based on current estimated construction cost of $44,500 per
space for structure parking
Page 208
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 7.2 is multiplied by calls per unit factors
to calculate police impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study
The residential impact fees per unit are then divided by square feet-per-unit factors to
get impact fees per square foot for residential.
The cost per call from Table 7.2 can also be used to customize impact fees for any non-
residential project that does not reasonably fit within one of the development types
identified in this report. Such a customized fee would be based on the estimated number
of police calls per year for the project, multiplied by the cost per call from Table 7.2. The
number of police calls per year for a specific type of development project can be
estimated by reviewing call records for similar existing projects in the City.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 7.3 shows the calculation of police impact fees per square foot for residential
development and per unit for non-residential development.
Table 7.2: Facility Cost per Call for Service per Year
Impact Fee Existing Calls Cost per Call
Cost Basis 1 for Service 2 for Service 3
$40,147,754 78,133 $513.84
1 See Table 7.1
2 See Table 2.3
3 Cost per call for service per year = impact fee cost share / existing
calls for service
Page 209
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the police impact fees is projected separately for residential and
non-residential development because residential impact fees are per square foot and
non-residential impact fees are per unit. These projections assume that future
development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development will
be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future development
may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee Credits and
Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 7.4 shows the projected revenue to 2040 from the residential police impact fees
calculated in this chapter.
Table 7.3: Police Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Development Cost per Call Calls Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 for Service 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $513.84 0.717 368.67$ 2,500 0.15$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $513.84 0.617 317.07$ 1,700 0.19$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $513.84 1.738 892.88$
Commercial/Retail KSF $513.84 1.966 1,010.46$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $513.84 0.125 64.14$
Office KSF $513.84 0.465 238.89$
Industrial KSF $513.84 0.129 66.48$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation for one patient or resident
2 Cost per call for service per year; see Table 7.2
3 See Table 2.1 and the discussion of calls for service in Chapter 2
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot (residential) = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 210
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 7.5 shows the projected revenue to 2040 from the non-residential police impact.
fees calculated in this chapter.
The combined impact fee revenue from Tables 7.4 and 7.5 equals $7,894,510. Specific
projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for police facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and
adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record
Table 7.4: Projected Revenue - Police Impact Fees (Residential)
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.15$ 2,500 2,868 1,075,500$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.19$ 1,700 15,812 5,107,276$
Total 6,182,776$
1 See Table 7.3
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Table 7.5: Projected Revenue - Police Impact Fees (Non-Residential)
Development Dev Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 892.88$ 138 123,445$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,010.46$ 700 707,320$
Hotel/Motel Rooom 64.14$ 275 17,635$
Office KSF 238.89$ 2,000 477,773$
Industrial KSF 66.48$ 5,800 385,561$
Total 1,711,734$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of
building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommmodation for one
patient or resident
2 Impact fee per unit of development; see Table 7.3
3 Future units; see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units
Page 211
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Building Cost Index or the General Services Department California Construction Cost
Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential and commercial/industrial development from reducing the quality and
availability of public services provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential
and business development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of police
assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
police facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities
in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in
the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional police facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for
police facilities in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the demand for
law enforcement services, which impacts the need for police facilities to maintain the
existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional police
facilities, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively
Page 212
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
impact the ability of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department to provide services
efficiently and effectively to all development in the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the police impact fees
calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the increased demand for law
enforcement services associated with various types of development in the City. The fees
per square foot for residential development and the fees per unit for non-residential
development calculated in this chapter for each category of development are based on
the estimated number of calls for service per unit per year for each category of
development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee charged to a development project
reflects the impact of that project on the need for police facilities in the City.
Page 213
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 8. Fire Impact Fee
Rancho Cucamonga does not have an existing fire impact fee. This chapter calculates
impact fees for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and
equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District)
to all development in the City. The boundary of RCFPD encompasses the entire City as
well as a small area to the north of the City that is planned to remain within the
unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County.
As discussed in the next section, fire districts are prohibited by California law from
imposing impact fees on their own. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be adopted
and imposed by the City and revenue from the impact fees will be transferred to RCFPD
to pay for additional capital facilities and other capital assets serving new development in
the City. These impact fees will apply only to the portion of RCFPD that is within the City.
Fire Protection District Law of 1987
California Health and Safety Code Section 13916, which is part of the Fire Protection
District Law of 1987, states: “A (fire protection) district board shall not charge a fee on
new construction or development for the construction of public improvements or
facilities or the acquisition of equipment.” However, although a district itself may not
charge such fees, Health and Safety Code Section 13898 provides that a district may
accept revenue from any federal, state, regional, or local agency or from any pers on for
any lawful purpose of the district. That section allows the City to transfer impact fee
revenue to RCFPD to pay for facilities, apparatus and equipment needed to serve the City.
Service Area
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1.
With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share
of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new
development.
To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of
planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing
development and planned development. (As discussed in the next section, demand for
services provided by RCFPD is represented by calls for service per year.) This method
ensures that costs for all existing and future RCFPD facilities, apparatus and equipment
are allocated to all existing and future development, so that impact fees charged to future
development will pay for future development’s proportionate share of the overall cost of
those assets. With the system plan method, we depreciate the replacement cost of
existing assets because new development is effectively buying in to those assets. With
Page 214
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
the existing inventory method used elsewhere in this report, replacement costs for
existing assets are not depreciated because they represent the cost to acquire additional
assets needed to serve additional development.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of capital
facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for fire protection and
emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment in this report is calls for service
per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of all calls for service logged by
RCFPD in 2023 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by each type
of development defined in this study. Chapter 2 discusses that analysis and Table 2.2 in
Chapter 2 shows the calls-per-unit-per-year factors derived from that analysis. Those
factors are used to calculate impact fees per unit later in this chapter.
Level of Service
The most important single factor in defining level of service for fire protection and
emergency medical services agencies is response time to emergency calls. The 2024
Comprehensive Master Plan for RCFPD states that RCFPD’s first due unit currently arrives
within 9 minutes and 45 seconds, 90% of the time. The Master Plan makes
recommendations to improve total response time, including reducing call processing
time. The addition of one fire station will help RCFPD maintain and possibly improve its
response time performance as future development occurs.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section
requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used in an impact fee study must
be compared with the existing level of service. If new impact fees are based on a level of
service that exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
For other types of impact fees calculated in this study, impact fee calculations are based
on the cost of maintaining the existing level of service using the existing inventory method
discussed in Chapter 1. That approach can be used for fire impact fees, but we believe the
system plan method, discussed above and in Chapter 1, is more appropriate because
geography and fire station location are so critical to response time across a fire agency’s
service area.
Fire protection and emergency response are provided by an integrated system of assets
and the best time to assess the overall relationship between development and service
demand is at the point when all of the assets and all of the development will be in p lace,
which is what the system plan method is designed to do.
Page 215
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
At present, RCFPD operates eight fire stations as well as an administrative facility, an all -
risk training center (ARTC) and a shop facility. RCFPD is planning to construct one
additional fire station and has acquired property on 8th Street as a site for that station.
Table 8.1 lists RCFPD’s existing and planned fire stations as well as the administrative and
training center buildings and the shop facility. Stations 171 through 178 currently exist.
Station 179 is planned for future construction.
The impact fee cost basis in the right-hand column of Table 8.1 includes the depreciated
replacement cost for existing buildings plus the estimated site value for each building.
Where multiple buildings are located on one site, the land cost is shown for t he first
building. For future Station 179, the cost shown is estimated based on recent construction
costs.
Table 8.2 on the next page lists RCFPD’s existing firefighting apparatus and other vehicles
and equipment. Costs for all vehicles and equipment shown in the far-right column of
Table 8.2 are depreciated replacement costs based on the useful life shown in that table.
Table 8.1: Existing and Future Fire Stations
Constr Bldg Site Building Useful Land Depreciated Impact Fee
Facility Location Date Sq Ft Acres Repl Cost 1 Life 2 Cost 3 Bldg Cost 4 Cost Basis 5
Station 171 Amethyst St 1974 4,480 0.99 644,687$ 50 1,164,435$ 0$ 1,164,435$
Admin Bldg Amethyst St 1977 2,754 Included 1,755,420$ 50 105,325$ 105,325$
Station 172 San B'dino Rd 2020 13,341 2.90 14,053,099$ 50 2,728,777$ 12,928,851$ 15,657,628$
Station 173 Firehouse Ct 2005 12,000 2.36 6,823,656$ 50 2,775,825$ 4,230,666$ 7,006,491$
Storage Bldg Firehouse Ct 2005 2,500 Included 234,078$ 50 145,129$ 145,129$
Station 174 Jersey Blvd 1992 17,000 6.14 8,984,714$ 50 7,221,850$ 3,234,497$ 10,456,347$
Shop/Garage Jersey Blvd 2001 14,304 Included 6,306,495$ 50 3,405,507$ 3,405,507$
Trng Ctr Bldg A Jersey Blvd 2016 7,000 Included 3,588,740$ 50 3,014,542$ 3,014,542$
Trng Ctr Bldg B Jersey Blvd 2016 1,900 Included 1,180,251$ 50 991,411$ 991,411$
Trng Ctr Bldg C Jersey Blvd 2016 2,455 Included 1,064,350$ 50 894,054$ 894,054$
Trng Ctr Bldg D Jersey Blvd 2016 15,415 Included 4,006,318$ 50 3,365,307$ 3,365,307$
Trng Ctr Bldg E Jersey Blvd 2016 3,064 Included 894,974$ 50 751,779$ 751,779$
Trng Ctr Bldg I Jersey Blvd 2016 1,300 Included 1,422,959$ 50 1,195,286$ 1,195,286$
Station 175 Banyan St 1992 13,000 3.05 7,304,058$ 50 3,587,401$ 2,629,461$ 6,216,862$
Station 176 East Av 2003 9,594 1.07 4,297,952$ 50 1,258,531$ 2,492,812$ 3,751,343$
Station 177 Rancho St 2012 6,000 1.23 4,025,220$ 50 1,446,722$ 3,059,167$ 4,505,890$
Station 178 Town Ctr Dr 2023 12,176 3.80 16,389,052$ 50 4,469,549$ 16,061,271$ 20,530,820$
Station 179 8th St Future 13,000 0.94 15,600,000$ 50 1,105,625$ 15,600,000$ 16,705,625$
Total 98,576,024$ 25,758,714$ 74,105,065 99,863,779$
1 Estimated replacement cost for existing buildings other than Station 178 are based on 2020 estimates, escalated by 38% to
2024 costs based on the California Construction Cost Index; cost for Station 178 is actual 2023 construction cost; cost for
future Station 179 based on $1,200 per square foot, which is below the actual cost of the two most recently constructed fire
stations; estimated costs include construction soft costs, utilities, site development, and furniture, fixtures and equipment
2 Estimated useful life of buildings in years
3 Estimated land value for existing fire stations or land cost for future fire stations = $1,176,197 per acre
4 Depreciated building replacement cost for existing stations using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the
asset; no depreciation applies to future buiding costs
5 Facility replacement cost = depreciated building replacement cost or new building cost + estimated land cost or value
Page 216
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Vehicles and equipment are assumed to have a residual value of at least 15% of
replacement cost, regardless of age. Assets with a value of less than $10,000 have been
omitted from Table 8.2.
Page 217
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.2: Existing Fire Apparatus and Vehicles
Model Useful Unit Repl Depr Unit Total Depr
Quantity Year Description Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Repl Cost 2 Repl Cost 3
2 2013 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
2 2003 Type 1 Engine (KME Excel)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
1 2017 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 360,000$ 360,000$
1 2008 KME Severe Duty Predator 10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
2 2005 Type 1 Engine (KME Excel)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
1 2018 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$
1 2010 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
1 2006 Type 1 Engine (KME Predator)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
1 2020 Type 1 Engine (Rosenbauer)10 1,200,000$ 720,000$ 720,000$
1 2023 Type 1 Engine (Rosenbauer Electric)10 2,200,000$ 1,980,000$ 1,980,000$
1 2006 Type 3 Engine (West Mark)10 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2008 Type 3 Engine 10 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2014 Type 3 Engine 10 150,000$ 22,500$ 22,500$
1 2020 Type 6 Engine 10 150,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2002 KME Aerial Ladder Truck--Tiller 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2008 KME Aerial Ladder Truck 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2015 Rosenbauer Aerial Ladder Truck 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2022 Rosenbauer Heavy Rescue Unit 10 1,650,000$ 1,320,000$ 1,320,000$
1 2006 KME Hazmat Unit 10 1,650,000$ 247,500$ 247,500$
1 2003 KME Water Tender 10 550,000$ 82,500$ 82,500$
3 2012 Dodge Ram 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 49,500$
1 2019 Dodge Ram 4WD V8 Hemi 7 200,000$ 57,143$ 57,143$
1 2024 Dodge Ram 4WD V8 Hemi 7 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
1 2015 Ford F-450 Super Duty Stake Bed 7 120,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$
1 2008 Ford F-350 Medic Squad 10 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
3 2019 Chevy Bolt EV 7 35,000$ 10,000$ 30,000$
3 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 15,750$
4 2012 Ford Escape Hybrid 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 21,000$
1 2023 Ford Lightning 7 110,000$ 94,286$ 94,286$
2 2009 Saturn Vue 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 10,500$
2 2020 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 15,000$ 30,000$
2 2023 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 30,000$ 60,000$
1 2024 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$
2 2016 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2018 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
1 2017 Ford F-350 7 200,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
1 2019 Ford F-350 7 200,000$ 57,143$ 57,143$
2 2016 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2018 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2008 Chevy F-2500 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
1 2012 Chevy 3/4 Ton Suburban 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2005 GMC Yukon 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2002 Dodge Ram 2500 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2004 GMC 7500 Series w/ Equipment 7 200,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
1 2008 Ford E-350 Van 7 75,000$ 11,250$ 11,250$
1 2021 Ford Transit-250 Van 7 110,000$ 62,857$ 62,857$
2 2020 Nissan NV200 Van 7 30,000$ 12,857$ 25,714$
1 2012 Ford 1-Ton 4x4 Long Bed 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2006 Freightliner Ambulance 10 480,000$ 72,000$ 72,000$
1 2024 Polaris ATV 10 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$
1 2001 Mitsubishi Forklift 10 65,000$ 9,750$ 9,750$
1 2011 JLG Telehandler 10 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
1 2013 Griddle Trailer 10 75,000$ 11,250$ 11,250$
1 2020 Progressive Trailer 10 25,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
Total 29,085,000$ 8,652,286$ 9,417,143$
1 Replacement cost provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District
2 Depreciated replacement cost using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the asset; minimum
depreciated value = 15% of replacement cost
3 Total depreciated replacement cost = depreciated unit replacement cost X number of units
Page 218
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.3 shows the cost of future apparatus and equipment needed to serve the City in
2040, including one Type I engine that will be needed for future Fire Station 179. The
estimated cost of that engine is based on the current cost of similar equipment. Also
shown in that table is the cost of personal protective equipment for nine firefighters that
will be needed to staff Station 179.
Table 8.4 summarizes the costs from the preceding three tables.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 8.5 calculates the cost per call for service for RCFPD facilities, apparatus and
equipment using the total impact fee cost basis from Table 8.4 and the projected number
of calls for service per year in 2040. In Table 8.5, the combined cost of existin g and
planned facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment is divided by total 2040 calls to both
existing and future development served by RCFPD.
Table 8.3: Future Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment
No. of Cost Total New
Description Units per Unit 1 Equipt Cost
New Type 1 Engine (Station 179)1 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$
Personal Protective Equipment 2 9 9,153$ 82,377$
Total 1,282,377$
1 Cost per unit provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District
2 Personal protective equipment for future added firefighters; estimated cost
includes uniforms and personal protective equipment for fire suppression,
wild land firefighting and tactical response
Table 8.4: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing and Future Assets
Impact Fee
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Fire Stations 83,158,154$
Future Fire Station 16,705,625$
Existing - Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment 9,417,143$
Future - Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment 1,282,377$
Total 110,563,299$
1 See Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3
Page 219
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
The number of calls for service per year shown for 2040 includes calls in the area served
by RCFPD outside of the City, so that the cost of serving development in that area is not
included in the cost per call for impact fees charged by the City. The impact fees calculated
in this chapter are designed to recover new development’s proportionate share of the
cost of all of RCFPD’s existing and planned facilities, apparatus and equipment our to
2040. In the next section, the cost per call is multiplied by calls per unit factors to calculate
impact fees per unit. Then for residential development, the impact fee per unit is divided
by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees per square foot for single -family and
multi-family residential development.
The cost per call for service per year in Table 8.5 can also be used to calculate customized
impact fees for development of non-residential development projects that do not fit
within the categories of development defined in this study. Customized impact fees can
be calculated using the cost per call for service per year from Table 8.5 multiplied by the
estimated number of calls per year that will be generated by a specific project.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 8.6 shows the calculation of fire impact fees per square foot for residential
development and per unit for non-residential development.
Table 8.5: Cost per Call for Service
Total Impact Fee 2040 Calls for Cost per Call for
Cost Basis 1 Service per Year 2 Service per Year 3
$110,563,299 21,728 $5,088.58
1 See Table 8.4
2 Projected 2040 calls for service for the District; see Table 2.4
3 Cost per call for service per year = total impact fee cost basis / 2040 calls
for service per year
Page 220
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Fee Adjustment to Avoid Overcollection
If the fees shown in Table 8.6 are used to project potential revenue from the RCFPD
impact fees, the result is that projected revenue exceeds the estimated cost of future
assets shown in Table 8.4 by around 3%. To avoid the potential for overcollection, the
impact fees from Table 8.6 are reduced by 3.1% in Table 8.7. The adjusted impact fees
from Table 8.7 are then used to project revenue in the next section and are also shown in
Table S.1 in the Executive Summary.
Table 8.6: RCFPD Impact Fees per Unit and per Square Foot (Residential)
Development Cost per Calls Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Call 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $5,088.58 0.185 941.39$ 2,500 0.38$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $5,088.58 0.139 708.97$ 1,700 0.42$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $5,088.58 2.829 14,397.31$
Commercial/Retail KSF $5,088.58 0.231 1,174.76$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $5,088.58 0.115 584.65$
Office KSF $5,088.58 0.122 621.19$
Industrial KSF $5,088.58 0.017 88.79$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; room = guest room or suite;
Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Cost per call for service per year; see Table 8.5
3 Calls for service per unit per year; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot (residential) = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 221
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-9
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the fire impact fees is projected separately for residential and
non-residential development because residential impact fees are per square foot and
non-residential impact fees are per unit. These projections assume that future
development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development will
be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future development
may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee Credits and
Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 8.8 shows the projected revenue to 2040 based on the adjusted residential impact
fees per square foot from Table 8.7.
Table 8.7: RCFPD Impact Fees per Unit and per Square Foot Adjusted to Avoid Overcollection
Development Adj Cost Calls Adj Impact Avg Sq Ft Adj Impact
Type Units 1 per Call 2 per Unit 3 Fee per Unit 4 per Unit 5 Fee per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $4,930.83 0.185 912.20$ 2,500 0.36$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $4,930.83 0.139 686.99$ 1,700 0.40$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $4,930.83 2.829 13,950.99$
Commercial/Retail KSF $4,930.83 0.231 1,138.34$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $4,930.83 0.115 566.52$
Office KSF $4,930.83 0.122 601.93$
Industrial KSF $4,930.83 0.017 86.04$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; room = guest room or suite;
Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Adjusted cost per call for service per year is reduced by 3.1% from Table 8.6
3 Calls for service per unit per year; see Table 2.1
4 Adjusted impact fee per unit = adjusted cost per call for service X calls for service per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Adjusted mpact fee per square foot (residential) = adjusted impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 222
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-10
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.9 shows the projected revenue to 2040 based on the adjusted non-residential
impact fees per unit from Table 8.7
The sum of the projected revenues from both residential and non-residential impact fees
in the preceding tables is $17,917,643. The estimated cost of future facilities, apparatus
and equipment shown in Table 8.4 is $17,988,002, so the projected revenue based on the
adjusted impact fees shown in Table 8.7 is about 0.4% less than the estimated cost of
future assets. Additional information is shown in the City’s capital improvement plan.
Table 8.8: Projected Revenue - RCFPD Impact Fees (Residential)
Development Adj Impact Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type Fee per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.36$ 2,500 2,868 2,581,200$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.40$ 1,700 15,812 10,752,160$
Total 13,333,360$
1 Adjusted impact fee per square foot; see Table 8.7
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = adjusted impact fee per square foot X average square
feet per unit X added units
Table 8.9 Projected Revenue - RCFPD Non-Residential Impact Fees
Development Dev Adj Impact Future Projected
Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 13,950.99$ 138 1,928,794$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,138.34$ 700 796,840$
Hotel/Motel Room 566.52$ 275 155,765$
Office KSF 601.93$ 2,000 1,203,868$
Industrial KSF 86.04$ 5,800 499,017$
Total 4,584,283$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of
building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single
resident or patient
2 Adjusted impact fee per unit of development; see Table 8.7
3 Future units; see Table 2.4
4 Projected revenue = adjsuted impact fee per unit X future units
Page 223
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-11
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for fire district facilities, apparatus and vehicles. We recommend that
the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index or the California Construction Cost Index.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate
the impact of new development in the City on the need for facilities, apparatus and
equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD).
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
facilities, apparatus and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development in the
City on the need for those facilities.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to serve the added demand for fire
protection and other emergency services associated with new development in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development in the City increases the
demand for fire protection and other emergency services provided by the Rancho
Page 224
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-12
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Without additional facilities, apparatus and
equipment, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively
impact the ability of RCFPD the to provide services efficiently and effectively to all
development in the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact fees charged to
a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that
project. The fees per square foot for residential development and the fees per unit of
non-residential development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are
based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year associated with that type of
development in the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Thus, the fee charged to
a development project reflects the impact of that project on the overall need for facilities,
apparatus and equipment used by RCFPD to serve development in the City.
Page 225
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 9. Implementation
This chapter of the report summarizes requirements for adoption and administration of
impact fees, calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not
intended as legal advice.
Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a
condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act
(Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
Adoption
Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and
public-hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and
66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a,
which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10 -
day notice period. However, Section 66016.5 added by AB 602 in 2021 requires that
impact fee nexus studies be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30-day notice.
Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do
not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.
Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain
findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Chapter 1 of
this report.
A nexus summary for each impact fee calculated in this report can be found in individual
chapters of this report and those nexus summaries may be used to support the findings
required by Section 66001.
Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates
procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and
accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following
paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Notices and Statute of Limitations. Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the
time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall
identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required
notification could refer to the capital improvement plan that must now be adopted with
each new impact fee nexus study.
Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, shall
provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90 -day
period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest
imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to
subsequent legal challenge.
Page 226
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an
impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, as amended by SB 937 in 2024, provides that, with
some exceptions, a local agency shall not require payment of impact fees by developers
of residential development projects prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy, or first temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first . That
provision does not apply if construction of the residential development does not begin
within five years of the date upon which the building permit is issued.
An exception that allows utility service fees to be collected when an application for service
is received, is now limited to the cost of “connection activities.”
Local agencies may require payment of fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
under certain conditions, including if the fees are to reimburse the agency for
expenditures previously made, unless the project reserves at least 49% of residential units
for occupancy by lower income households. For such projects, the local agency may
require posting of a performance bond or letter of credit from a federally insured
depository institution to guarantee payment when the fees are eligible for collectio n.
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits , Sections
66007 (d) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a
contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the
fees are paid. The local agency may not charge interest or other fees on any amounts
deferred pursuant to Section 66007.
If a residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may
determine whether the fees or charges described shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each
dwelling when it receives its certificate of occupancy, on a pro rata basis when a certain
percentage of the dwellings have received their certi ficate of occupancy, or on a lump-
sum basis when all the dwellings in the development receive their certificate of
occupancy.
Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non -
residential development.
Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be
deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or
fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of
the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the
purpose for which the fee was collected .” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest
earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same
purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the
improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g.,
street improvements).
Page 227
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
We are not aware of any municipality that has interpreted that language to mean that
funds must be segregated by individual projects. As a practical matter, that approach
would be unworkable because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be
constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to
maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e.,
streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.
Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development
project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such
project must be exempted from the fees.
If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or
infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used
to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly to meet the
requirement that there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee
and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is
imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the
development on relevant public facilities.
In some cases, an agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would
otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or
economic development. Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the
governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects . So,
the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other
than impact fees.
Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a
condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for
which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted
so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by
the development.
In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or
improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers and
may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted . Excess
contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements .
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or
intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to
the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City
facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.
Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the
close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following
information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;
Page 228
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
2. The amount of the fee;
3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and
the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or
fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the
improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001,
paragraphs (e) and (f).
The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled
public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public , per
Section 66006 (b) (2).
Five-Year Findings and Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The
Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to
expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a
continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 ,
adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement
in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of
any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and
every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for
any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the
purpose for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete
financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be
used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to
complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the
appropriate account or fund.
Page 229
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If
such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be
required to refund the moneys in the account or fund , per Section 66001 (d).
Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete
financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it
must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which
construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the
agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the
account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).
For a useful discussion of the foregoing requirements, see “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-
Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Counsel,
Abbott and Kindermann, and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson,
presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference.
Audit Requests. Section 66023 provides that any person may request an audit to
determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount
reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility, as defined in Section
66000, or service provided by the local agency. The legislative body of the local agency
may retain an independent auditor to conduct the audit but is not required to conduct an
audit if an audit has been performed for the same fee within the previous 12 mon ths.
The agency shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit only if the person who
requests the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the local agency’s
reasonable estimate of the cost of the independent audit. At the conclusion of the audit,
the local agency shall reimburse unused sums, if any, or the requesting person shall pay
the local agency the excess of the actual cost of the audit over the amount that was
deposited.
However, if the local agency fails to comply with the annual report requirement of Section
66006 following the establishment, increase or imposition of a fee, but requires payment
of that fee in connection with the approval of a development project for thr ee
consecutive years, the agency shall not require a deposit for the independent audit and
shall pay the cost of the audit.
Indexing of In-Lieu/Impact Fees. In-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this report are
based on current costs and should be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the
cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by those fees. That adjustment
is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other
relevant capital assets. For construction costs, the General Services Department’s
California Cost Index is a useful reference, as is the Engineering News Record Building Cost
Index (BCI). Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs
should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices. Costs for vehicles and other
assets may be updated based on vendor information.
Page 230
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Requirements Imposed by AB 602
In 2021, the California Legislature passed AB 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB
602 creates some new requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022. The
new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose
the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements
applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that
information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability
requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water
and sewer utility connection
b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning,
design and development standards that apply to each parcel
c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a
development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540
d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code
Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent
conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes
3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount of fees and exactions
associated with the project for which the certificate is issued. That information must
be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year.
4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted.
5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each
public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new
level of service is appropriate
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review
the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the
amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing
development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of
the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square
footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a
valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the
Page 231
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this
requirement if the agency makes certain findings outlined in the statute.
8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code
(counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital
improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-day's notice, and the
local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to
begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.
Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and
training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining
them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting
rationale.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public
regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such
as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees
should be made clear.
Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for
projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the
expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified
in the impact fee nexus study in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to
show that funds have been properly expended.
Recovery of Study Costs
The City Council will establish an administrative fee in order to recover City costs of
administering the impact fee program.
Page 232
Appendix A Page 1 of 1
Appendix A
Land Sales Data from CoStar Real Estate Database (2019-2024)
Page 233
Appendix B Page 1 of 3
Appendix B
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Page 234
Appendix B Page 2 of 3
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Page 235
Appendix B Page 3 of 3
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Page 236
Appendix C-1 Page 1 of 34
Appendix C-1
All City Parks Maps
Page 237
9/11 Memorial Park
0 0.0250.0125
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /0.00 acres
1.40 acres
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
WA
T
E
R
B
U
R
Y
P
L
NEW ENGLAND DR
D
I
C
K
E
N
S
C
T
RH
O
D
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
C
T
ME
R
R
I
M
A
C
K
P
L
CONGRESS DR
DECLARATION DR
T
E
R
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
E
A
S
T
Mountain View Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /5.03 acres
0.00 acres
Page 256
HUMBOLT
AVE
24TH ST
MAIN ST
HE
R
M
O
S
A
A
V
E
Old Town Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /5.01 acres
0.00 acres
Page 257
PIN
E
C
O
N
E
W
A
Y
DOVE
CANY
O
N
WAY
RO
S
E
W
A
Y
BAN
Y
A
N
S
T
PA
R
K
M
E
A
D
O
W
P
L
HOPPE DR
ST
E
P
H
E
N
S
P
L
W
E
S
T
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y
YOUNGS
CANYON RD
Olive Grove Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /7.38 acres
0.00 acres
Page 258
RO
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
JACK BENNY DR
VI
C
T
O
R
Y
D
R
STADIUM PARKWAY
ARROW RTE
R.C. Adult Sports Complex
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /48.90 acres
0.00 acres
Page 259
ST
A
N
I
S
L
A
U
S
P
L
AMARILLO
S
T
BASE LINE RD
FAIRMONT WAY
CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
P
L
HI
N
S
D
A
L
E
PL
BE
L
P
I
N
E
P
L
D
R
E
W
C
T
MERCED
CT
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
P
L
CLO
V
E
R
CT
WH
E
A
T
O
N
CT
LA VINE ST
N
O
V
A
C
T
BEA
L
C
T
B
I
O
L
A
P
L
SP
R
I
N
G
M
I
L
L
P
L
CH
I
C
A
G
O
CT
MI
L
L
I
K
E
N
A
V
E
WO
O
D
B
U
R
Y
CT
ST
E
R
L
I
N
G
C
T
MANC
H
E
S
T
E
R
ST
DE
L
MA
R
C
T
SH
E
R
B
R
O
O
K
E
PL
BI
R
K
D
A
L
E
PL
RO
X
B
U
R
Y
P
L
BAYLOR ST
MUIRFIELD DR GL
E
N
V
I
E
W
P
L
CA
S
C
A
D
E
C
T
TU
L
A
R
E
P
L
NORTHVIE
W
D
R
FORDHAM CT DA
V
E
N
P
O
R
T
C
T
A
R
M
S
T
R
O
N
G
P
L
GR
E
E
N
B
R
I
A
R
P
L
GLENOAKS DR
SINCLA
I
R
S
T
WILDWOOD DR BERWICK DR
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
CENTRAL PARK
Central Park
0 0.20.1
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /35.84 acres
64.54 acres
Page 260
3
8.248 ac
1
4.204 ac
4
9.175 ac 7
10.907 ac
8
4.292 ac 9
2.437 ac
12
5.227 ac
11
3.506
ac
6
15.276 ac
2
3.911 ac
5
3.494 ac
10
29.468 ac
Central Park Survey Data
The total acreage of Central park is 100.39 acreas. Within the 65.54 unimproved acres, there is
25.94 acres that is for non-public park facilities and is therefore not included in the total acreage.
The breakdown is as follows:
Lot 3 at 8.248 ac with an estimate of about hal going to parking. The result is that 4.124 ac is
removed.
Lots 11(3.506 ac) and 12 (5.227 ac) for the grape vineyards total 8.731 ac removed
Lot 2 used for a maintenance facility and some drainage areas is 3.911 ac.
Lastly we have the adventure facility at 9.175 ac in lot 4.
25.941 aces is subtracted from Central Park as it is for non-public facilities.
Page 261
CHURCH ST
E
L
M
A
V
E
Ralph M. Lewis Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.03 acres
0.00 acres
Page 262
R
O
B
I
N
S
O
N
G
W
A
Y
SAN
THO
M
A
S
C
T
K
I
T
T
Y
H
A
W
K
W
A
Y
PARKV
I
E
W
W
A
Y
SOLEDAD WAY
Rancho Summit Park
0 0.040.02
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.71 acres
0.00 acres
Page 263
CALLE FELIZ
BE
R
Y
L
S
T
VIVERO ST
BASE LINE RD
ANADA CT
CALLE DEL PRADO
AV
I
L
A
AV
E
CHURCH
ST
GA
R
N
E
T
ST
YEW ST
A
R
R
O
Y
O
V
I
S
T
A
A
V
E
RI
O
D
E
L
S
O
L
P
L
BAJADO
CT
A
N
T
I
G
U
A
P
L
IRONWOOD ST
N
A
P
A
C
T
SU
N
S
T
O
N
E
A
V
E
PEP
P
E
R
ST
CANDLEWOOD ST
AZU
R
I
T
E
A
V
E
AR
R
O
Y
O
V
I
S
T
A
A
V
E
ZI
R
C
O
N
A
V
E
CANDLEWOOD
ST
CALUMA CT
AG
A
T
E
S
T
BALSA ST
GA
R
N
E
T
S
T
CALLE DEL PRADO
ALDER ST
E
L
A
R
C
O
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
A
V
E
ZI
R
C
O
N
A
V
E
CA
R
N
E
L
I
A
N
S
T
BALSA ST
Red Hill Community Park
0 0.20.1
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /44.20 acres
0.00 acres
Page 264
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
COUNTRYVIEW DR
NORFOLK DR
ELM AVE
C
A
R
D
I
F
F
P
L
ELM AVEN
U
E
W
E
S
T
Spruce Ave Park
0 0.040.02
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /3.89 acres
0.00 acres
Page 265
AR
B
O
R
L
N
LONG MEADOW DR
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
P
A
R
K
L
N
S
O
N
O
M
A
C
R
E
E
K
C
T
LE
E
D
S
P
L
READING
D
R
NOTTINGHA
M
D
R
B
L
Y
T
H
E
P
L
VINTN
E
R
D
R
KE
N
W
O
O
D
P
L
Victoria Arbors Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /7.75 acres
0.00 acres
Page 266
Y
O
R
K
P
L
F
I
S
K
C
T
GR
A
Y
S
O
N
P
L
CHARLESTON ST
FAIRMONT WAY
Victoria Groves Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.02 acres
0.00 acres
Vintage Park
Page 267
LUCER
A
DR
TRAPANI DR
TO
L
E
N
T
I
N
O
D
R
FORLI DR
MILANO DR
B
E
N
E
V
E
N
T
O
P
L
K
E
N
Y
O
N
W
A
Y
VICTO
R
I
A
PARK L
N
Vintage Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.02 acres
0.00 acres
Page 268
ALTA LOMA DR
SOMERS
E
T
D
R
SOMERSET DR
OP
A
L
S
T
EM
E
R
A
L
D
S
T
SU
N
S
T
O
N
E
A
V
E
SA
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
A
V
E
I 210 FWY
I 210 OFRP
West Beryl Park
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.72 acres
0.00 acres
Page 269
COUNTRYVIEW D
R
B
A
S
T
I
A
C
T
S
A
R
Z
A
N
A
P
L
CORSICA C
T
AMIATA DR
FA
I
R
H
A
V
E
N
P
L
DA
N
N
E
R
C
T
M
O
N
T
E
C
I
T
O
C
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
C
R
E
S
T
C
T
P
A
L
A
C
I
O
C
T
LINA
R
O
R
D
West Greenway Park
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.10 acres
0.00 acres
Page 270
LO
T
U
S
CT
PL
U
M
W
A
Y
T
I
P
U
P
L
VERBENA
C
T
NO
R
T
H
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
WI
N
D
R
O
W
S
L
O
O
P
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
PA
R
K
L
N
Windrows Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.01 acres
0.00 acres
Page 271
Appendix C-2 Page 1 of 18
Appendix C-2
CO 2024-193 CP Lease Agreement
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Exhibit B
FY2024/25 Major Projects Program
Supplemental Project Listing
Activities
During Estimated Expenditures
Project Plan Period FY2024/25 FY2025/26 FY2026/27 FY2027/28 FY2028/29 FY2029/30
Animal Center Impact Fee (125)
Animal Center Kennel Project
Animal Center Play Yard Project
D, C
D, C
$200,000
$200,000
$100,000
$100,000Totals
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee (113)
Joint Use Public Facility (in The Resort)D, C
Totals
$11,220,000
$11,220,000
Fire Impact Fee (XXX)
Amethyst Station 171 Rebuild & Expansion D, C
Totals
$9,684,000
$9,684,000
Library Impact Fee (123)
West Side Library Expansion
Joint Use Public Facility (in The Resort)
D, C
D, C
$1,800,000
$1,800,000
$5,232,500
$5,232,500
$2,040,000
$2,040,000Totals
Park Improvement Impact Fee (119)
Don Tiburcio Tapia Park
Etiwanda Creek Park - Phase 2
Etiwanda Area Park Improvements
Civic Center Area Park Land Purchase
D, C
D, C
D, C
D
$300,000
$1,000,000
$9,600,000
$3,700,000
$12,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$16,700,000Totals$10,900,000
Park Land Impact Fee (111)
Etiwanda Area Park Land Purchase
Civic Center Area Park Land Purchase
R/W
R/W
Totals
$11,200,000
$11,200,000
$14,000,000
$14,000,000
Page 291
Exhibit B
FY2024/25 Major Projects Program
Supplemental Project Listing
Activities
During
Plan Period FY2024/25
Estimated Expenditures
FY2026/27 FY2027/28ProjectFY2025/26 FY2028/29 FY2029/30
Police Impact Fee (127)
EOC Relocation - New Building
Joint Use Public Facility (in The Resort)
D, C
D, C
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$3,740,000
$3,740,000Totals
Page 292
Exhibit "C"
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.026 $1.066
Residential, Multi-Family SF $1.20 $0.03 $1.23
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $2.25 $0.056 $2.306
Residential, Multi-Family SF $2.61 $0.065 $2.675
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.88 $0.022 $0.902
Residential, Multi-Family SF $1.02 $0.026 $1.046
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.44 $0.011 $0.451
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.50 $0.013 $0.513
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.09 $0.002 $0.092
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.10 $0.003 $0.103
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.15 $0.004 $0.154
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.19 $0.005 $0.195
Senior/Assisted Living Bed $893.00 $22.325 $915.325
Commercial/Retail KSF $1,010.00 $25.250 $1,035.250
Hotel/Motel Room $64.00 $1.600 $65.600
Office KSF $239.00 $5.975 $244.975
Industrial KSF $66.00 $1.650 $67.650
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Park Land Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Park Improvements Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Community and Recreation Center Facilities Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Library Facilities and Materials Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Police Department Facilities Impact Fee
$1.04
Page 293
Exhibit "C"
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.38 $0.010 $0.390
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.42 $0.011 $0.431
Senior/Assisted Living Bed $14,397.00 $359.925 $14,756.925
Commercial/Retail KSF $1,175.00 $29.375 $1,204.375
Hotel/Motel Room $585.00 $14.625 $599.625
Office KSF $621.00 $15.525 $636.525
Industrial KSF $89.00 $2.225 $91.225
Note
RCFPD Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Fees established by this resolution shall be adjusted annually, commencing on July 1,
2026, and each year thereafter, without further action of the City Council according to the
percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los
Angeles Area, for the 12-month period ending on December 31st of the immediately
preceding year. If the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los
Angeles Area is discontinued, the replacement index in use and accepted as the industry
and business standard for Souther California, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be
used.
Page 294
Page 1 of 6
On Thursday February 27, 2025, the City released drafts of the nexus studies prepared by NBS
(Non-Transportation DIFs) and Fehr & Peers (Transportation DIF), proposed fee schedules for
each DIF program, and the proposed Major Projects Program (CIP) amendment for the DIF
programs as part of the 2025 Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program update process. In addition
to statutory noticing in the Daily Bulletin, parties that had requested notification of fee updates
were notified of the availability of the released drafts.
The City has received letters from the following interested parties:
•Desert Valley Builders Association dated (Non-Transportation) March 13, 2025 (DVBA-
NT)
•Desert Valley Builders Association (Transportation) dated March 13, 2025 (DVBA-T)
•Building Industry Association of Southern California dated March 17, 2025 (BIA)
•Development Planning & Finance Group (Non-Transportation) dated March 17, 2025
(DFPG-NT)
•Development Planning & Finance Group (Transportation) dated March 17, 2025
(DPFG-T)
•LLG Engineers dated March 17, 2025 (LLG)
The comment letters designated DPFG-NT, DPFT-T, and LLG were submitted on behalf of the
BIA. This memorandum provides a response to the comments and questions raised in these
letters. Since several topics overlap between the comment letters, staff has grouped comments
into categories to aid in providing a clear and concise response.
Non-Transportation
Request for Annual Nexus Study and Public Hearing Prior to Indexed Increases (DVBA-
NT)
The commentor states that “a fee study update, summary, and staff report should be provided
prior to the public hearing to adopt the [annual indexed] fee increase” to show that the increased
fee will not exceed the cost to provide infrastructure through the program. Staff has evaluated this
request and determined that preparation and adoption of an annual nexus study is not required
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:John R. Gillison, City Manager
FROM:Matthew R. Burris, Deputy City Manager – Community Development
BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety
SUBJECT:2025 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM UPDATE
COMMENT LETTERS FROM BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA; DESERT VALLEY BUILDERS ASSOCIATION;
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND FINANCE GROUP; AND LLG
ENGINEERS
MEMORANDUM
Community Development
Page 295
Page 2 of 6
by the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA), as modified by AB 602. The MFA requires the preparation and
adoption of updated nexus studies at least every 8 years and permits indexed increases that are
included with the program and fee approvals. Further, annual preparation and adoption of nexus
studies would consume limited staff and financial resources resulting in increased program
administration costs not required by State law.
Request to Eliminate Park Land Acquisition DIF Based on Existing Unimproved Park
Land Inventory (BIA; DPFG-NT)
The commentor states that the City’s current unimproved Park Land Inventory is sufficient to serve
future park land needs based on the anticipated number of units to be developed. Staff has
performed an extensive analysis of the City’s existing park land inventory to determine the existing
level of service based on improved park land area and to determine the current inventory of
unimproved park land in inventory. Following receipt of this comment, staff further evaluated its
inventory of improved and unimproved land to verify the acreage needed to serve future
development. As a result of this evaluation, and to address this comment’s request, the following
revisions have been made:
1) Of the 23.59 acres of unimproved land at Etiwanda Creek Park, 8 acres are intended for future
park improvement. The remaining 15.59 acres are needed for on-site mitigation and are not
available for future park use. Therefore, 15.59 acres have been deducted from the total available
acres at Etiwanda Creek. The remaining 8 acres of land available for future park use have been
deducted from the amount of park acres needed to maintain the existing level of service.
2) The 9/11 Memorial Park is under construction and is expected to be completed this summer.
Therefore, this 1.4-acre park will be treated as improved parkland and is deducted from the
amount of park acres needed to maintain the existing level of service.
3) As noted in the comment below, 26 acres of land within the boundary of Central Park that are
not intended for improved park purposes have already been removed from the inventory of total
parkland acreage. The remaining 38.61 acres of unimproved land at Central Park is deducted
from the amount of park acres needed to maintain the existing level of service.
Based on the foregoing revisions, a total of 46.61 acres of available parkland has been deducted
from the amount of park acres needed to maintain the existing level of service. The park
acquisition fee will be revised accordingly to account for the City’s existing inventory of land that
is planned for future park use.
Request to Include 26 Acres of Land at Central Park Designated as “Non-Public” in the
Existing Unimproved Park Land Inventory (BIA; DPFG-NT)
The commentor states that the exclusion of approximately 26 acres of land within the boundary
of Central Park from the Existing Park Land Inventory is arbitrary as the “land was dedicated for
public purposes”. The commentor also suggests that since the vineyard lease of approximately 9
acres is not permanent, the leased land should be considered in the existing land inventory. Staff
reviewed the history surrounding the acquisition of Central Park as well as the latest Central Park
Master Plan in preparation of the inventory. It should be noted that the land for Central Park was
purchased by the City using discretionary funds, and not Park Development funds, and is
restricted to both “public park purposes or ancillary commercial purposes.” Further, the sale of
the property anticipated the inclusion of some uses not necessarily considered park uses. The
purchase and gift agreement by which the City acquired the land indicated that the land would be
Page 296
Page 3 of 6
used for park and other ancillary commercial uses. The existing improvements and the Central
Park Master Plan include uses such as the City’s Senior and Community Center and land set
aside for non-park uses such as the recent viticulture lease and public private partnerships that
provide public services and benefits other than park infrastructure. In fact, since the beginning,
the Central Park Master Plans have consistently included some public, but non-traditional park
uses. With respect to the vineyard lease, the Central Park Master Plan has designated this area
(and the boundary was subsequently determined by a survey of the existing vines) for viticulture
purposes with a goal of perpetuating the City’s viticulture heritage for future generations (Central
Park Master Plan, 2018, p. 47). Thus, it is not anticipated to revert to park use during the life of
the DIF Program. Ultimately, the land excluded from the inventory consists of various non-park
uses and thus has been correctly excluded from the land available for future park development.
However, it should be noted that 38.61 acres of land within Central Park remains available and
planned for park uses and has been deducted from the amount of land needed to maintain the
existing level of service.
Request to Deduct $26M of Existing DIF Fund Balance from Non-Transportation DIF
Program Costs (BIA)
Citing the Transportation Nexus Study prepared by F&P, the commentor states that the existing
fund balance for the Non-Transportation DIFs should account for a deduction of $26M from the
program costs. Staff has reviewed this request and notes a fundamental difference between the
Transportation and Non-Transportation DIF programs. There are several methods to evaluate
and determine the costs of facilities for Nexus Studies. The Transportation DIF Program is based
on a list of infrastructure improvements identified to address impacts of new development. Many
of these projects were included in the last program nexus study and remain incomplete or in
process. The fund balance credit provided in the Fehr & Peers nexus study represents prior
development’s share of these improvements. In contrast, the Non-Transportation DIF Program is
based on maintenance of the existing level of service which by definition limits the fees collected
to the share of the need for future infrastructure improvements attributable to new development
and thus providing the requested credit would utilize fees collected from prior development to
inappropriately subsidize future development, or in essence, receive double credit.
Request to Provide Documentation of Park Improvement Cost Estimate (BIA; DPFG-NT)
The commentor questions the validity of the cost for park improvements of $989,000 included in
the NBS nexus study for the Park Improvement DIF. This per acre estimate is based on the cost
for construction of the Central Park Dog Park, the City’s latest and most local park project. Bids
for this project were received in mid-2022 and the park was completed in late 2023. Although
the original amount to construct the Dog Park was 989,000, as reflected in the NBS Nexus
Study, the City updated the estimate after further review. Underground utilities which were
oversized to accommodate subsequent development were removed from the park estimate
resulting in a reduced construction cost of $750,000. A public restroom for which bids were
received but never utilized due to funding limitations was included resulting in an increase to
$820,000. The cost included in the nexus study was then escalated to account for subsequent
increases in construction costs since bids were received, resulting in a final cost of $850,000.
Even after these adjustments, the City’s reliance on the actual Dog Park construction cost
reflects a conservative approach to estimating the cost of park improvements. Importantly, the
Dog Park does not include ancillary structures typical of a park facility including playgrounds,
play equipment with shade shelters, concession stands, basketball courts, additional sports
lighting and storage buildings. Therefore, the actual cost for park improvements in the future,
Page 297
Page 4 of 6
will likely be higher than estimated in the nexus study when these structures need to be
included and are accounted for in future projects. With the recent tariffs, builders are seeing
further increases in lumber, steel, aluminum, copper and other materials used in park
construction. Those costs are unlikely to go down in the future. Further, NBS has noted that
they have observed costs approaching $1M per acre not unusual in recent years.
Request to Reduce the Community Center DIF Program Cost by the Value of 1.75 Acres
of Land and $11M in Funding for the Joint Use Public Facility (BIA; DPFG-NT)
The commentor references a Development Agreement (DA) requirement for the developer of The
Resort to dedicate 1.75 acres and up to $11M toward construction of the Joint Use Public Facility
(JUPF) in The Resort. They request that the value of this land and funding be deducted from the
program cost for the Community Center DIF. Staff has reviewed the requested reduction and
disagrees that the future dedication and funding must be included in the nexus study based on
the contingent nature of the dedication and because the $11M in funding is paid for with Police,
Library, and Community and Recreation Center DIFs. The DA requires the developer to dedicate
the land for the JUPF and pay a differential cost of construction of the facility up to $11M (adjusted
upward annually based on inflation), less amounts paid to the City as Police, Library, and
Community and Recreation Center DIFs, upon the issuance of the 2,000th building permit for The
Resort along with construction of a minimum amount of non-residential square footage in The
Resort South Mixed Use Zone. Further, the City is required to track the amount of DIFs (Park,
Community & Recreation Center, Police, Library DIFs) within two zones within and surrounding
The Resort as a reduction for the final amount owed by the developer. The 2,000th building permit
has not been requested or issued, the non-residential space has not been constructed, and it is
unknown if this threshold will ever be reached or what amount beyond the fees collected to that
point will be required to supplement the payment. Further, the terms of the DA are a negotiated
agreement specific to the development within The Resort with consideration to be received by
both parties and were not delineated for and should not be considered as a contribution directly
to the DIF Programs. Finally, an argument could be made that if the land and an estimated
contribution beyond collected fees at the time of the 2,000th building permit were to be considered
in the nexus study, it would likely result in an increase in the level of service for each affected
program (as it would necessarily need to be considered as an existing condition for inclusion).
Thus, a two-party agreement would result in an inappropriate increase in fees to be assessed to
all future development.
Request for Clarity on the Process for Determining Credits for Facilities Provided by
Development (DPFG-NT)
The commentor has requested clarity on the process by which the City would provide credits
against Non-Transportation DIFs assessed on development where facilities are included as part
of the associated project since these programs do not include a list of projects. The nexus study
prepared by NBS recognizes the potential for this scenario and provides the following:
Further, the City has long recognized that for some development projects there is
mutual benefit for the developer to construct public improvements or dedicate land
that are part of the impact fee program’s list of capital projects. In accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and other
laws, the developer may be eligible for a credit against the amount of the relevant
impact fee for the cost of the improvement or value of the land dedicated when the
development impact fee is calculated. In order to ensure the sustainability and
equity of the program, such credits are equal to the estimated value of the
Page 298
Page 5 of 6
improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined in the nexus study, as adjusted
and in effect as of the date the fees are calculated. (NBS, 2025, p. 1-10)
The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code provides that in the event that a development project is
found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be
exempted from the fees. Further, for the Park Impact Fees, the proposed ordinance provides that
in the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact
fees are charged or in the event that a development project provides park land and/or
improvements that would otherwise be procured by Park Impact Fees, such project must be
exempted in whole or in part from the fees. Thus, if a project provides facilities that offset the
impact of the project, the City will provide a credit against/ exemption from DIF fees owed relative
to the extent of facilities provided or contributed.
As part of the typical development entitlement process, conditions of approval are developed.
Conditions of approval that require a developer to provide public infrastructure improvements or
land dedication that furthers the goals of the various Non-Transportation DIF Programs as
determined by the City Engineer, the condition will include a right for credit or reimbursement (as
appropriate) at the ratio of the estimated program cost for the infrastructure or land acquisition as
listed in the most recent nexus study (including indexed increases) in place at the time the fees
are paid or infrastructure permits are issued. Should the developer disagree with a determination
of the City Engineer, the developer may request review by the City Manager prior to the end of
the appeal period for the affected entitlements for consideration to modify the condition as
appropriate under the authority granted to the City Planner in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code Section 17.14.100.
Request for Clarity on a Potential Overlap Between the Park Improvement and
Community & Recreation Center DIFs (DPFG-NT)
The comments suggests that an overlap may be present when considering the estimated
$989,000 per acre park improvement cost. Staff has confirmed that no overlap is present. As
mentioned above, the per acre estimated cost for improvement of park land is based on the recent
development of the Central Park Dog Park Project which did not include the cost of the land
purchase that took place in the 1980s. Further, the cost estimate did not include ancillary
structures typical of a park facility including restrooms, concession stands, and storage buildings.
Therefore, in addition to the determination of no overlap, the actual cost for park improvements
will likely be higher than estimated in the nexus study when these structures need to be included
and are accounted for in future projects.
Request to Reduce the Fire Impact DIF Program Cost Using Funding from the EIFD
(DPFG-NT)
The commentor is requesting that the program cost for the Fire Impact DIF be reduced based on
funding generated through the City’s Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). The EIFD
was formed in 2022 to provide enhanced infrastructure needed to serve future residents and
businesses in the central area of the City. Potential priority projects for funding including parking
infrastructure and related improvements between Haven Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard along
the Foothill Corridor along with Transportation Connectivity Improvements linking Cucamonga
Station and Haven / Arrow focus area. Based on the funding plan adopted for the EIFD,
infrastructure included under the proposed DIFs would be ineligible to be funded from the district’s
proceeds as the funding is set aside solely for specific transit and parking related infrastructure.
Page 299
Page 6 of 6
Further, an evaluation funding capacity for the EIFD indicates that expansion of the planned list
of eligible projects is infeasible to cover the requested offset of DIF Program costs.
ATTACHMENTS
Desert Valley Builders Association (Non-Transportation) dated March 13, 2025
Desert Valley Builders Association (Transportation) dated March 25, 2025Building Industry
Association of Southern California dated March 17, 2025
Development Planning & Finance Group (Non-Transportation) dated March 17, 2025
Development Planning & Finance Group (Transportation) dated March 17, 2025
LLG Engineers dated March 17, 2025.
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
NBS Non-Transportation DIF Study
1. Based on the projected number of new residential units in the NBS study, a total of 75 acres of park
land is required. According to Table 3.1 of the NBS study, the City has 68 acres, potentially 94 acres
(see # 5 below) of undeveloped park land in inventory, yet the NBS study proposes the city charge new
development $102,000,000 in fees to acquire 75 acres of new park land. Please explain why the new
park land is required when the City has sufficient undeveloped park land in inventory to fully satisfy the
park land requirements for new development.
2. The February 2025 NBS study arbitrarily removed 26 unimproved acres from inventory at Central Park
citing the land was for non-public purposes. We believe these acres should be included in inventory as
Central Park was dedicated to the City for public purposes.
3. As of June 2023, the City had over $26,000,000 of non-transportation development impact fee funds
on hand. The Fehr & Peers study deducted the transportation funds on hand from the proposed
transportation improvements, NBS did not. Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (4) requires a
municipality to evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee. Please explain why the
non-transportation funds on hand are not being considered as a reduction when calculating the
proposed fees.
4. The cost per acre ($989,000) of improving the dog park at central park was used to calculate the park
improvement fees. This cost is far in excess of the typical improvements for a public park, potentially
by as much as $350,000 per acre resulting in the park land improvement fee to potentially overstated
by $26,250,000. Please provide reasonable evidence supporting the proposed cost of future park
development.
5. The Resort project will be contributing 1.75 acres of land plus $11,000,000 to the City for construction
of a Joint Use Public Facility. The total value of the contribution is approximately $13,100,000. Should
the Community and Recreation Center Fee not be reduced by a like amount?
Page 303
Fehr & Peers Transportation DIF Study
1. Before implementing a new development fee (AB 602) Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (1)
requires a municipality to prepare and adopt a nexus study. Section 66016.5 (a) (2) requires the nexus
study to identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of
service and explain of why the new level of service is appropriate. Based on our review of the Fehr &
Peers study, it appears these requirements have not been met. Please explain.
2. Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (6) requires a large municipality adopt a Capital Improvement
Plan as part of the nexus study. The City ’s Major Projects Program (CIP) does not include a majority of
the improvements proposed in the Fehr & Peers study. The Fehr & Peers study references the City has
prepared a draft amendment to the CIP. Please provide a copy of the proposed CIP amendment which
includes all of the projects in the Fehr & Peers study.
3. The Fehr & Peers study uses Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to calculate the impacts of new
development. VMT is not recognized as an appropriate metric in the context of an impact fee analysis,
only for greenhouse gas and other environmental impacts. Please explain reliance on VMT as an
appropriate metric for the transportation fee study.
4. A new concept in the February 11, 2025, Fehr & Peers report is the zonal approach to assessing fees
based on estimated trip interactions between zones. This novel approach creates an unfair burden on
the central and south zones with fees that are 58% higher than the north zone. Residential
development in the central and south zones are being allocated a disproportionate 78% share of the
cost of improvements to the industrial area east of Interstate 15 without any corresponding benefit. We
do not concur with this approach.
5. The total project cost estimates in Appendix C of the Fehr & Peers study are not consistent with Table 1
of the study, the City’s Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC) and the City’s Major Projects Plan.
Please explain why the project cost estimates in Appendix C, used to calculate the Transportation Fees
have been substantially inflated over the referenced documents.
Page 304
6. In 2022 the City hired Kosmont to form an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“EIFD”) with the
expectation the City would raise over $255,000,000 over the life of the EIFD. The stated purpose of the
EIFD is to fund, among other things, the cost of bridges, streets, parking facilities, parks and
recreational facilities, sidewalks, streetscape improvements and bicycle lanes identified in the General
Plan. The Kosmont report specifically identified the Foothill Corridor and the Cucamonga Station,
Haven / Arrow focus area as potential priority projects at a cost of up to $100,000,000. Please explain
why the future EIFD funds have not been taken into consideration when calculating the proposed
transportation fees.
7. The City’s Connect RC, Active Transportation Plan (ATP) targets multiple regional, state and federal
funding sources to address the financial needs of the projects identified in the ATP, yet none of these
outside funding sources were considered in determining the proposed Transportation Fee. Please
explain why these funding sources were not considered in calculating the proposed transportation fee.
8. In 2018 the City proposed the Etiwanda Grade Separation project to Etiwanda to invest in infrastructure
specifically for the promotion and marketability of the industrial sector of the City. Etiwanda Avenue, at
the site of the proposed Etiwanda Grade Separation currently operates at a level of service “F” per the
City’s Project Baseline Agreement with the California Department of Transportation. This area of the
City is known for vehicular collisions with trains and multiple traffic fatalities. The City has applied for
and has been awarded significant SB1-TCEP construction funding ($60,000,000 or more) for the project.
Interstate 15 separates the project from residential areas of the city, yet the Fehr & Peers study
proposes new residential development pay for the majority of the cost of the proposed improvement
without any direct benefit. Please explain why the Etiwanda Grade Separation project is proposed to be
included in the Transportation DIF and disproportionately assessed to residential development when it
has historically been excluded?
9. The Signal Interconnect System in the Fehr & Peers Study is proposed to be allocated 100% to new
development. In addition, the cost of the signal interconnect system was increased over 600% from
$10.6 MM to $75.0 MM. Please explain the justification for the cost increase and allocating 100% to
new development when the Signal Interconnect System has community wide benefits for existing
residents and businesses.
10. The Fehr & Peers study limits the fee reduction for housing developments located within one-half mile
of a transit priority area to multi-family (low-rise) and multi-family (mid-rise) units. Government Code
Section 66005.1 applies to a “Housing Development”, not specific types of units, thus all housing
developments meeting the criteria of Section 66005.1 shall be eligible for a fee reduction based on
automobile trip generation rates. Request the Fehr & Peers study be revised accordingly.
Page 305
Page 1 of 2
Memorandum
To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter
From: Peter Piller
Date: March 17, 2025
Subject: High Level Review of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Impact Fee
Study (Non-Transportation DIF)
CC: Nick Belshe
Carlos,
Per your request, we have prepared this memo summarizing our findings and results of our high-
level review of the February 20, 2025, Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Revised DIF
Study”) prepared by NBS (“NBS”) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of
the review of the Revised DIF Study is to verify and confirm the assumptions and calculations
used in the study, and to make comments as necessary. The primary tasks for our high-level
review of the study include the following:
• Confirm mathematical accuracy of schedules in the Revised DIF Study.
• Identify initial issues and comments within the Revised DIF Study.
• Prepare initial bullet point findings and present to BIA and stakeholders.
The observations and results of the tasks performed, and findings are outlined below.
1. DPFG has reviewed the mathematical calculations in the Revised DIF Study along with
the changes made by the City and NBS in response to the comments originally provided.
While many of the comments were addressed, there are still some outstanding concerns.
A few examples of the changes are:
o Fees are now converted to a per square foot amount assuming an average single
family home of 2,500 SF and an average multifamily home of 1,700 SF.
o Total improved park acreage was reduced by approximately 22 acres. We have
confirmed that the new park acreage estimates are reasonable.
o Existing Impact Fee Fund Balances have been removed from the fee calculation.
o Cost of Land Acquisition has been reduced from $1,333,000 per acre to
$1,176,197 per acre.
The outstanding concerns are detailed on the following page:
Page 306
Page 2 of 2
2. General questions and comments:
o How will credits for each of the fee types be determined if a project provides a
park, recreational facility, public safety facility, etc. if there are no facility lists?
o Is there any overlap between the Park Improvements cost of $989,000 per acre
and the Replacement Cost assumed in the Recreation Centers Fee? For example,
the Heritage Park Equestrian Center and Lewis/Brulte Community/Sr. Center are
included in both, and while land value is excluded in the Recreational Center Fee
calculation, the replacement cost is not. This was a prior comment that didn’t
seem to be addressed in the Revised DIF Study.
o Additionally, is the $989,000 per acre in Park Improvement cost realistic? Based
on conversations with builders, this amount is higher than actual costs for a
typical park.
o Should the approximately 68 acres of unimproved park land be taken into
consideration to reduce the required acres of park land that needs to be acquired?
This would result in approximately $79.9 million in park land that does not need
to be acquired.
o The study excludes approximately 26 unimproved acres of Central Park and states
that this land is for non-public facilities. However, approximately 4 acres of this
land is for a future parking lot, of which acreage for parking lots was included in
all the other parks. Additionally, approximately 9 acres were removed for land
that is being leased out by the City for a Vineyard. Since this lease isn’t
permanent, should this acreage be included?
o It is our understanding that Lewis Management Corp. will be donating 1.75 acres
of land and $11,000,000 to the City for community and recreation center
facilities. Should this be accounted for in the study to reduce the amount of
revenues required by new development?
o Will the City’s EIFD be funding any of the fire facilities anticipated to be funded
through the DIF program? Should there be a reduction/adjustment for anticipated
EIFD funding?
Page 307
DATE: April 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager
Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety Services
Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010,
A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
Approving the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study for the Community
and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center
Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee ,
Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Study,
Updating and Establishing the Fee Amounts for Such Development
Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Consideration of First Reading of
Ordinance No. 1038, to Be Read by Title Only and Waive Further
Reading, An Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adding
Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a
Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business
Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to Quimby
Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the
CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010) (ORDINANCE NO. 1038) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Reopen the noticed public hearing to receive comments and testimony from the public on
the proposed impact fees and nexus study for the Community and Recreation Center
Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park
Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee;
2.Adopt Resolution No. 2025-010 adopting the nexus study for the Community and
Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police
Impact Fee, Park Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee, adopting capital improvement
programs as part of the nexus study, and approving the updated Development Impact Fee
amounts, including findings in support thereof; and
3.Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No.1038, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of
Residential and Business Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References
2025-04-16- Additional Material - Updated Staff Report/Resolution/Exhibits - Item G1
Page 308
Page 2
to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND:
Impact fees are charges that local governments impose on developers to offset the impacts and
cost of new development on public services and infrastructure, such as roads, schools, parks,
and emergency services. These fees aim to ensure that growth supports itself financially, rather
than placing a burden on existing residents and taxpayers. In recent years, California has faced
a housing shortage, driven by high demand and limited supply. To address this crisis, the state
has sought to regulate the fees associated with development, ensuring that they are applied in a
way that supports housing development and balances infrastructure needs.
One key regulation addressing development fees is the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code
Sections 66000-66025), which governs how local governments can charge developers impact or
mitigation fees to address the effects of new developments on public infrastructure and services.
The Mitigation Fee Act has recently been updated with Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), which in
part addresses the application of impact fees on housing development projects.
The most recent update to the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIFs) was adopted by Council
on December 2, 2020. Construction costs have experienced significant increases from December
2020 to the present, driven by several factors including supply chain disruptions, labor shortages,
inflation, and rising prices for materials, among other things. Construction inflation has typically
outpaced general inflation, with industry-specific inflation in the construction sector often reaching
5 -10% annually. The rising cost of inflation has significant implications for the City's ability to fund
and expand the public infrastructure and facilities required to support growth driven by new
development. In order to ensure that the DIFs continue to reflect current costs, are properly
apportioned, and meet current legal requirements, to ensure the City can effectively meet the
demands of future growth.
This staff report provides an overview of the legal and procedural background for the
establishment and implementation of Development Impact Fees, specifically in accordance with
the Mitigation Fee Act as amended. It outlines the required procedures, methodology, and
guidelines for adopting impact fees to mitigate the effects of new development on public
infrastructure and services. The goal is to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the
costs for public facilities and services that are necessitated by the development, without placing
an undue burden on existing residents or taxpayers.
DIFs are charges levied on new development projects to fund the construction or expansion of
public infrastructure and facilities needed to support the growth generated by the development.
Included in the current DIFs are Park Impact Fees, Community and Recreation Impact Fees,
Library Impact Fees, Animal Center Impact Fees, and Police Impact Fees which ensures that new
development and redevelopment projects will pay their “fair share” towards new and expanded
infrastructure and facilities that mitigate the impacts caused by this growth. Further, given the
impact of new development on fire and emergency response facilities, a Fire Impact Fee has been
developed for consideration by the City Council. The City also has a Transportation Impact Fee,
which will be considered by the City Council at its May 7th meeting.
Mitigation Fee Act: The Mitigation Fee Act provides the legal framework for the imposition of
development fees in California. It requires that fees imposed on new development must be
reasonably related to the impact caused by the development. AB 602 modified the Mitigation Fee
Page 309
Page 3
Act to enhance transparency and accountability in the process of collecting and expending
development impact fees. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that agencies provide clear and
detailed accounting of fees collected and ensure the use of funds aligns with the purpose for
which they were intended.
The Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the following key provisions regarding the establishment and
collection of development impact fees:
• Nexus Requirement: The imposition of development impact fees must demonstrate a
clear nexus between the proposed fee and the public infrastructure, or services needed
to support the development. In other words, there must be a reasonable connection
between the fee charged and the impacts of the new development on public facilities.
• Proportionality: The fees must be proportional to the impact caused by the development.
This means the fee cannot exceed the fair share of the cost of providing necessary
infrastructure or services that the development necessitates.
• Fee Transparency: The public must be notified of any proposed fees, and a detailed
report on the fees must be provided that explains the methodology used to calculate the
fees, including the specific improvements that the fees are intended to fund.
• Accountability: Fees collected must be used solely for the purpose for which they were
collected and must be expended in a timely manner. After certain periods of time, unspent
fees may need be returned to the developers or held in a separate interest-bearing
account.
The Mitigation Fee Act also requires agencies to follow other requirements including:
• Annual Reporting: Local agencies that collect development impact fees are required to
provide an annual report to the public detailing the amounts of fees collected, how the fees
have been spent, and the status of any projects funded by the fees.
• Five-Year Accounting Requirement: Every five years, the City must make certain
findings regarding the fees, including the expected dates when the funds will be spent,
and progress made on constructing the funded infrastructure. This requirement aims to
ensure that collected fees are used in a timely manner to address the impacts of
development.
• Fee Transparency: Agencies must now provide a clear, itemized accounting of the fee
amounts collected and the projects funded, making the process more transparent for
developers, the public, and other stakeholders. An annual report is required to show the
fees collected, how the fees have been spent, and the progress of the related capital
projects.
The process for establishing DIFs involves several steps, including data collection, analysis, and
stakeholder engagement. A typical methodology for setting up development impact fees includes
the following steps:
• Assess the Impact: Analyze the types and scale of infrastructure and services needed
to serve new development, based on projected growth and land use patterns.
• Consult with Relevant Departments: Coordinate with public agencies, including
transportation, parks, water, and education departments, to assess facility and service
needs.
Page 310
Page 4
• Nexus Analysis: A Nexus Study is typically required to determine the appropriate amount
of the impact fee. The study should demonstrate a clear connection between the new
development and the infrastructure, or services required to support it.
• Proportionality: The study should also demonstrate that the fees are proportional to the
level of service that the new development will require.
• Fee Calculation: The fee level is determined based on the estimated cost of
infrastructure improvements and the number of new residents or employees that will be
generated by the development. Various methodologies can be used, such as:
o Level of Services Method: Charges developers for the actual costs of providing
facilities or services.
o Plan-based Method: Calculates fees based on an adopted capital improvement
plan or facility master plan.
o System-based Method: Calculates the fees associated with the Fire
Development Impact Fee.
• Public Review: The public must be given an opportunity to review the proposed fees.
This includes a public hearing where stakeholders can provide input.
• Adoption of Fees: After the public hearing, the governing body (e.g., City Council) may
adopt the fees.
In order to ensure that newly established or updated fees are in alignment with the Mitigation Fee
Act, the City contracted with NBS, a consulting firm with extensive experience in the preparation
of nexus studies, to prepare the attached nexus study.
On April 2, 2025, the City Council opened the duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed
non-transportation impact fees, as well as the proposed transportation impact fee. The City
Council continued the public hearing as the non-transportation impact fees described herein to
the April 16, 2025, City Council meeting and continued the public hearing as to the transportation
impact fees to the May 7, 2025, meeting.
ANALYSIS:
The DIF Program is designed around key projects and improvements outlined in the City’s
General Plan. With the enactment of new State laws and updates to existing regulations, the
General Plan has undergone revisions to align with these changes. Notably, these updates
include provisions to accommodate more than 10,000 new residential units mandated by the State
of California and implement new infrastructure to accommodate new development. These
revisions directly affect the City’s DIFs.
As a result of these updates, the City’s approach to levying fees has evolved, particularly in
response to the new requirements of AB 602, which became effective on January 1, 2022. This
legislation mandates that impact fees levied on residential development be calculated based on
square footage for future units rather than the prior standard of per dwelling unit. A nexus study
must evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by square
footage or provide justification for why square footage is not relevant in this context, if it does not
appropriately reflect the relationship between the fee, facility demand, and residential land use.
Additionally, AB 602 requires that, effective July 1, 2022, large jurisdictions adopting a nexus
study must also adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the study. To comply with this
requirement, the City has prepared an amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan, which is
Page 311
Page 5
integrated into the Major Projects Program. This amendment has been included in the attached
resolution for consideration as part of the process to establish fees under the DIF Program.
To comply with the requirements of AB 602 the Non-Transportation Nexus Study utilized an
existing level of service approach while calculating the Park Impact Fees. Chapter 3.68 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code established and governs impact fees for park land
acquisition and park improvements. The City follows the General Plan standard for parkland and
as a result the City does not use the Quimby Act.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2) of that
section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate impact fees in
a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the proposed new level
of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be included Because
the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same as the existing level
of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee and the Park Improvement Impact Fee
The following tables reflect the City’s existing park acreage, existing level of service for park land
and improve land, the cost per capita of existing park maintenance equipment, cost per capita for
park land acquisition and improvements all of which are incorporated into the calculation which
creates the Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee per Square Foot and the Park Improvement Impact
Fee per Square Foot.
Page 312
Page 6
Page 313
Page 7
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.2 calculates existing levels of service in terms of acres per capita and acres per 1,000
population for total City-owned Park land and for improved park land.
Table 3.3 calculates the costs per capita for park maintenance vehicles and equipment based on
the replacement cost of existing park maintenance vehicles and equipment divided by the existing
population of the City. That cost per capita is added to the cost per capita for park improvements
in Table 3.6 where the per-capita costs are converted into a cost per unit of development.
Cost Per Capita
Table 3.4 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition and for park improvements using
the existing level of service in acres per capita and the cost-per-acre estimates for park land
acquisition and park improvements.
Page 314
Page 8
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 3.5 shows the calculation of park land acquisition impact fees per square foot for single-
family and multi-family residential development. It should be noted that this fee was reduced from
the prior version of the nexus study issued for public comment. The lower impact fee reflects a
“credit” against existing unimproved land owned by the City and planned for park uses within the
City.
Page 315
Page 9
Table 3.6 shows the calculation of impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family
residential development for park improvements.
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee.
Existing Facilities
Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing community and recreation centers with their estimated
replacement cost. Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of
Page 316
Page 10
constructing additional facilities to serve future development.
Cost per Capita
Table 4.2 calculates the replacement cost per capita for community and recreation center facilities
using the impact fee cost basis from Table 4.1 and the existing population.
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate community and
recreation center impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square-feet-per-unit factors to
get impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of community and recreation center impact fees per square foot
for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Page 317
Page 11
Library Impact Fee
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the Library
Impact Fee.
Existing Facilities
Table 5.1 lists the City’s existing libraries with their estimated replacement cost. Replacement
cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing additional facilities to serve
future development. Cost for library furniture fixtures and equipment, and the contents of the
museum at the Biane Library are listed separately.
Page 318
Page 12
This analysis also includes the cost of library materials (books and electronic media). Table 5.2
shows the estimated replacement cost of the library system’s existing materials.
Cost per Capita
Table 5.3 calculates the replacement cost per capita for library facilities and materials using the
impact fee cost basis for library facilities from Table 5.1, and the impact fee cost basis for existing
library materials from Table 5.2, both divided by the City’s existing population.
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 5.3 is used to calculate library impact fees
per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees per square foot
for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 5.4 shows the calculation of library impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-
family residential development.
Page 319
Page 13
Animal Center Impact Fee
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for animal center facilities.
Consequently, the level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees is the existing
relationship between the City’s population and the replacement cost of existing animal center
facilities, vehicles and equipment, stated as a cost per capita.
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the Animal
Center Impact Fee.
Existing Facilities
Table 6.1 shows the estimated replacement cost for the City’s existing Animal Center and the
value of a 1.92-acre site the City has acquired to expand that facility. Table 6.1 also shows a
credit for the current balance in the City’s Animal Center impact fee fund which is available to
increase the existing level of service.
Page 320
Page 14
Table 6.2 lists the Animal Services Department’s existing vehicles and equipment with
replacement costs.
Page 321
Page 15
Cost per Capita
Table 6.3 calculates the cost per capita for Animal Center facilities, vehicles and equipment using
the impact fee cost basis from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and the City’s existing residential population
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 6.3 is used to calculate animal center
impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees per
square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 6.4 shows the calculation of animal center impact fees per square foot for single-family and
multi-family residential development.
Police Impact Fee
The Police Impact Fee is calculated for police facilities needed to serve future development in the
City. Chapter 3.64 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code establishes and governs the police
impact fee. The City’s primary police facility is the Public Safety Building at the Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center. The other existing City-owned police facility is a satellite police station
co-located with Fire Station 172 on San Bernardino Road in the western portion of the City. The
Page 322
Page 16
department also has a substation in a leased space in the Victoria Gardens shopping mall and is
planning to construct a permanent substation in that area in the future.
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the Police
Impact Fee.
Existing Facilities
Table 7.1 lists the City’s existing police facilities with their estimated replacement cost.
Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing additional
facilities to serve future development.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 7.2 calculates the facility cost per call for service for police facilities using the impact fee
cost basis from Table 7.1 and the number of existing calls for service.
Page 323
Page 17
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 7.2 is multiplied by calls per unit factors to calculate
police impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study The residential
impact fees per unit are then divided by square feet-per-unit factors to get impact fees per square
foot for residential.
The cost per call from Table 7.2 can also be used to customize impact fees for any non-residential
project that does not reasonably fit within one of the development types identified in this report.
Such a customized fee would be based on the estimated number of police calls per year for the
project, multiplied by the cost per call from Table 7.2. The number of police calls per year for a
specific type of development project can be estimated by reviewing call records for similar existing
projects in the City.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 7.3 shows the calculation of police impact fees per square foot for residential development
and per unit for non-residential development.
Page 324
Page 18
Fire Impact Fee
Rancho Cucamonga does not have an existing fire impact fee. This section calculates impact fees
for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District) to all development in the City.
The boundary of RCFPD encompasses the entire City as well as a small area to the north of the
City that is planned to remain within the unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County.
Fire districts lack authority to impose impact fees on their own. Impact fees calculated in this
section will be adopted and imposed by the City and revenue from the impact fees will be used to
support RCFPD to pay for additional capital facilities and other capital assets serving new
development in the City. These impact fees will apply only to the portion of RCFPD that is within
the City.
To comply with Section 66016.5 of the Mitigation Fee Act the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the
proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be
included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same
as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section
66016.5(a)(2). This existing level of service approach was utilized in the calculation for the Fire
Impact Fee.
Level of Service
The most important single factor in defining level of service for fire protection and emergency
medical services agencies is response time to emergency calls. The 2024 Comprehensive Master
Plan for RCFPD states that RCFPD’s first due unit currently arrives within 9 minutes and 45
seconds, 90% of the time. The Master Plan makes recommendations to improve total response
time, including reducing call processing time. The addition of one fire station will help RCFPD
maintain and possibly improve its response time performance as future development occurs.
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
At present, RCFPD operates eight fire stations as well as an administrative facility, an all-risk
training center (ARTC) and a shop facility. RCFPD is planning to construct one additional fire
station and has acquired property on 8th Street as a site for that station.
Table 8.1 lists RCFPD’s existing and planned fire stations as well as the administrative and
training center buildings and the shop facility. Stations 171 through 178 currently exist. Station
179 is planned for future construction.
Page 325
Page 19
The impact fee cost basis in the right-hand column of Table 8.1 includes the depreciated
replacement cost for existing buildings plus the estimated site value for each building. Where
multiple buildings are located on one site, the land cost is shown for t he first building. For future
Station 179, the cost shown is estimated based on recent construction costs.
Table 8.2 lists RCFPD’s existing firefighting apparatus and other vehicles and equipment. Costs
for all vehicles and equipment shown in the far-right column of Table 8.2 are depreciated
replacement costs based on the useful life shown in that table. Vehicles and equipment are
assumed to have a residual value of at least 15% of replacement cost, regardless of age. Assets
with a value of less than $10,000 have been omitted from Table 8.2.
Page 326
Page 20
Page 327
Page 21
Table 8.3 shows the cost of future apparatus and equipment needed to serve the City in 2040,
including one Type I engine that will be needed for future Fire Station 179. The estimated cost of
that engine is based on the current cost of similar equipment. Also shown in that table is the cost
of personal protective equipment for nine firefighters that will be needed to staff Station 179.
Table 8.4 summarizes the costs from the preceding three tables.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 8.5 calculates the cost per call for service for RCFPD facilities, apparatus and equipment
using the total impact fee cost basis from Table 8.4 and the projected number of calls for service
per year in 2040. In Table 8.5, the combined cost of existing and planned facilities, apparatus,
vehicles and equipment is divided by total 2040 calls to both existing and future development
served by RCFPD.
Page 328
Page 22
The number of calls for service per year shown for 2040 includes calls in the area served by
RCFPD outside of the City, so that the cost of serving development in that area is not included in
the cost per call for impact fees charged by the City. The impact fees calculated in this section
are designed to recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of all RCFPD’s
existing and planned facilities, apparatus and equipment our to 2040. In the next section, the cost
per call is multiplied by calls per unit factors to calculate impact fees per unit. Then for residential
development, the impact fee per unit is divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees
per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
The cost per call for service per year in Table 8.5 can also be used to calculate customized impact
fees for development of non-residential development projects that do not fit within the categories
of development defined in this study. Customized impact fees can be calculated using the cost
per call for service per year from Table 8.5 multiplied by the estimated number of calls per year
that will be generated by a specific project.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 8.6 shows the calculation of fire impact fees per square foot for residential development
and per unit for non-residential development.
Page 329
Page 23
Fee Adjustment to Avoid Overcollection
The fees shown in Table 8.6 project revenue that exceeds the estimated cost of future assets
shown in Table 8.4 by around 3%. To avoid the potential for overcollection, the impact fees from
Table 8.6 are reduced by 3.1% in Table 8.7.
Page 330
Page 24
In order to be in alignment with the requirements of AB 602, the Non-Transportation Nexus Study
changed its method of fee levy from the DU (dwelling unit) approach to a square foot approach.
The change is illustrated in Tables S.1 and S.3 of the NBS Non-Transportation Nexus Study
below:
Page 331
Page 25
Administrative Fee:
The City is required to implement the fee program according to various administrative, accounting,
reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified in the Government Code. These
responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and oft en include retaining outside advisory
services. The City proposes to include a fee to allow for reasonable cost recovery for these
administrative costs and proposes a fee of two and one-half percent (2.5%) which is in line with
representative implementation costs including as specified in the “Nexus Study and Residential
Feasibility Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” prepared by the Terner Center for
Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Communication:
The City met the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(7) by publishing and
sending notice to interested parties 30 days prior to the adoption of the impact fee nexus (30 days
prior to the advertised hearing). The City published and sent notice thirty- four (34) days prior to
the advertised hearing. The City also made a copy of the Nexus Studies available on the City’s
website and a hard copy available at the City Clerk’s office thirty-four (34) days prior to the
advertised public hearing. The Public Hearing Notice was advertised twice ten (10) days in
advance and at least five (5) days between those dates in the local newspaper. The City met with
BIA (Building Industry Association) and other interested parties twice before the previous
advertised hearing once in November of 2024 and once in December of 2024 and has had
conversations with BIA and interested parties prior to the advertised public hearing date for April
2, 2025. The City has received letters with questions and comments from DVBA (Desert Valley
Builders Association), BIA, DPFG (Development Planning & Finance Group) and LLG (Linscott,
Law & Greenspan, Engineers) and have provided responses to the questions and comments
which have been attached to the Staff Report as Attachment 8. In added, the City Council
continued the public hearing initially scheduled for April 2, 2025, to April 16, 2025 for the Non-
Transportation Nexus Study and May 7, 2025, for the Transportation Nexus Study, in order to
provide for further communication with interested stakeholders on the fees.
Implementation
During last minute discussions with the Building Industry Association (BIA) concerns were
expressed about the prepayment of development impact fees prior to increases taking effect, as
well as ensuring a level of certainty for projects with already completed applications. Existing
state law, known as SB 330, already provides a process for housing developers to freeze fees at
the time of application submittal. The City follows existing state law in this regard with no local
changes or additions. The City is also proposing that if approved by the City Council, the
proposed Development Impact Fee changes outlined in this report would take effect on July 1,
2025, which is more time than would otherwise be required under the Mitigation Fee Act. In
practical experience, however, the City has found the fee changes which take effect at the start
of a new fiscal year are often easier to notice, apply and update systems.
Page 332
Page 26
The BIA expressed concerns that existing deemed complete applications in process, should be
allowed several years to finish entitlement and move to permits, during which their fees would be
grandfathered. The City, however, did not calculate this type of extended multiple year freeze
into the Nexus Study and has significant concerns that this could undermine the validity of the
Nexus Study calculations. A second issue the BIA expressed concern about was the deadline
for deemed complete applications as the BIA was requesting a deadline 30 days after the
ordinance takes effect. The City has similar concerns with a rush of applications intended to beat
the deadline that could result in thousands of units coming in under the old fees, also undermining
the validity of the Nexus Study calculations. In response to the BIA concerns, the City is
recommending the following:
- Developers with applications submitted prior to close of business on April 16, 2025,
and are subsequently deemed complete, may elect to proceed forward under the
new or old Development Impact Fee Program.
▪ Proceeding forward under the old development impact fee program will be
permitted so long as entitlements are received and building permits are
pulled prior to July 1, 2026.
▪ Proceeding forward under the new development impact fee program, and
the payment of fees at the initial rates, prior to issuance of a building permit,
will require completion of plans to the point of knowing actual square
footages. Otherwise, the option always exists to pay the fees in effect at
time of permit issuance or time of certificate of occupancy, however long
that might take.
- The City finds the adjustments noted above should not create a significant
deviation in the nexus study such that further adjustments would be needed.
An updated draft resolution will be included and available at the City Council meeting on April 16,
2025.
Actions to Update the DIFs:
To implement the updated DIF program as proposed, the City Council must:
1) Adopt the Nexus Studies
2) Adopt the CIP
3) Establish the DIF fee amounts
4) Add Chapter 3.80 to the Code to add the Fire Impact Fee
5) Amend Chapter 3.68 of the code to update the Park Impact Fees
Items 1, 2, and 3 above are included in Resolution No. 2025-010, which is included as attachment
4. Items 4 and 5 above are included in Ordinance No.1038, which is included as attachment 1.
Staff therefore recommends that the City Council: (1) Adopt A Resolution of the City Council of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies, Adopting
Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating and Establishing the Fee
Amounts for the City’s Development Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption
Page 333
Page 27
Under CEQA and (2) Introduce Ordinance No.1038, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further
Reading, An Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of
Residential and Business Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to
Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Project (approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans associated with the
Nexus Studies, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified in the Resolution and
Ordinance), was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Approval of the Nexus
Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified
will not have a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of
development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of the Nexus
Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, or the adoption of new or updated development impact fees.
Furthermore, the Capital Improvement Program is a prioritizing and funding allocation program
and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No
physical activity will occur until all required environmental review is conducted at the time the
physical improvements prioritized in the Capital Improvement Program are undertaken at a future
unspecified date. Therefore, the approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans
associated with the Nexus Studies, and adoption of the development impact fees does not have
the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, th e adoption of this
Project approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining
funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing service
areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4).
Also, approval of the Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, is exempt
from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because
the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves the creation of government funding
mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any
specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts of DIFs on the City’s finances are associated with both increased revenues
and expenses. Administrative expenses will be incurred as City staff collect fees and manage the
use and application of fee revenues. The City is proposing a two and one-half percent (2.5%)
Administrative Fee to cover these costs.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council’s vision for building upon our past successes to create a
world class community by ensuring that the means are available to continue the City’s growth and
success.
Page 334
Page 28
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 Proposed Ordinance No.1038 (Fire DIF Program and Park Impact Fee Revision)
Attachment 2 Exhibit A to Ordinance No.1038 (Fire Impact Fee – Chapter 3.80)
Attachment 3 Exhibit B to Ordinance No.1038 (Park Impact Fee Revision)
Attachment 4 Proposed Resolution No. 2025-010 (DIF Program Fee Update)
Attachment 5 Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2025-010 (NBS Nexus Study)
Attachment 6 Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2025-010 (Capital Improvement Plans for Non-
Transportation)
Attachment 7 Exhibit C to Resolution No. 2025-010 (Amendments to Non-Transportation Master
Fee Schedule)
Attachment 8 Comment Response Memorandum for Comments on Non-Transportation Nexus
Study
Attachment 9 Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (DVBA – Non-Transportation)
Attachment 10 Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (BIA)
Attachment 11 Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (DPFG – Non-Transportation)
Page 335
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 1 of 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY FOR THE
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION CENTER IMPACT FEE,
LIBRARY IMPACT FEE, ANIMAL CENTER IMPACT FEE,
POLICE IMPACT FEE, PARK IMPACT FEES AND FIRE
IMPACT FEE, ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM AS PART OF THE NEXUS STUDY, UPDATING
AND ESTABLISHING THE FEE AMOUNTS FOR SUCH
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND MAKING A
DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA
A Recitals.
1. The Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits
the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of
funding public facilities necessary to serve that new development.
2. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapters 3.28 (“City-Wide System Fees
for Transportation”) (referred to herein as the “Transportation Development Impact Fee”),
3.52 (“Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee”), Chapter 3.56 (“Library Impact
Fee”), Chapter 3.60 (“Animal Center Impact Fee”), 3.64 (“Police Impact Fee”), and 3.68
(“Park Impact Fees”) established the City’s current development impact fee program.
3. The City Council now desires to update the foregoing impact fees on new
development to fund the costs associated with the increased demand for such public
facilities throughout the City.
4. The City Council further desires to establish an impact fee on new development
to fund the cost of fire protection facilities within the City and utilized by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
5. Proposed Ordinance No. 1038, once effective, will add Chapter 3.80 (“Fire
Impact Fee”) to the Municipal Code to establish a Fire Impact Fee.
6. These existing and proposed Municipal Code provisions will establish the
program and the requirements for imposition of development impact fees on development
projects, as supported by nexus studies, and provide that the City Council shall, by
resolution, impose the specific amount of development impact fees that will be levied on
new development in the City for each category of fee.
Page 336
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 2 of 11
7. NBS Government Finance Group has prepared the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study dated February 20, 2025, included as Exhibit A
(“NBS Nexus Study”). The NBS Nexus Study covers the Park Impact Fees, Community
and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police
Impact Fee, and proposed Fire Impact Fee.
8. The NBS Nexus Study identifies the purpose of each fee and the use of each
fee, and demonstrates a reasonable relationship between each fee’s use, the type of
development projects where the fee will be imposed, provides how there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of each fee, and the cost of the public facility or portion
of the public facility attributable to the development. In addition, the Nexus Study identifies
capital projects necessary to meet the goals, programs and objectives within the City’s
General Plan.
9. The Nexus Study provides the documentation, detail, and other information
required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adoption and imposition of the
development impact fees for (1) park, (2) community and recreation center, (3) library, (4)
animal center, (5) police, and (6) fire facilities. Furthermore, the Nexus Study describes
the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fees are to be imposed,
lists specific public improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of
the development impact fees, describes the estimated cost of providing the improvements
and facilities, describes the reasonable relationship between the development impact fees
and the various types of new development, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of
the law with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fees.
10. The facts and evidence presented to the City Council have established that
there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new facilities or improvements
and the impacts of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged, also that
there is a reasonable relationship between the fees’ uses and the type of development for
which the fees are imposed.
11. There is a reasonable relationship between the development and improvement
of parks and residential development that does not involve the subdivision of land for
which the fee is imposed, because the additional parks and improvements will improve
and expand the City’s Park system and thus reduce the risk that the City’s increasing
population will overuse or overcrowd the City’s parks.
Page 337
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 3 of 11
12. The City is required to implement the fee program according to various
administrative, accounting, reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified
in the Government Code. These responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and
often include retaining outside advisory services. The City proposes to include a fee to
allow for reasonable cost recovery for these administrative costs and proposes a fee of
two and one-half percent (2.5%) which is in line with representative implementation costs,
including as specified and studied in the “Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility
Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” prepared by the Terner Center for Housing
Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
13. The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law
and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement
Plans, and fees specified in this Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the
development impact fees was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed
a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased
fees.
14. The City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing at the April 2, 2025
regular City Council meeting, at which time testimony was presented. Thereafter, the City
Council continued the public hearing to the City Council’s regular meeting of April 16,
2025 as to the non-transportation impact fees described herein. The City Council re-
opened the duly notice public hearing at the April 16, 2025 regular City Council meeting
and took further testimony, and closed the public hearing as to the non-transportation
fees.
15. The City Council continued the item with respect to the F&P Nexus Study and
the Transportation Development Impact Fee to its May 7, 2025 meeting, and took action
to approve the NBS Nexus Study and the park, community and recreation center, library,
animal center, police, and fire facilities impact fees.
16. Fehr & Peers has prepared the Transportation Development Impact Fee
Program Nexus Study dated February 11, 2025, The F&P Nexus Study covers the
Transportation Development Impact Fee. It will be considered at the May 7, 2025
continued public hearing.
17. The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the NBS
Nexus Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written
correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to
the adoption of this Resolution held on April 2, 2025, contains substantial evidence to
support the imposition and collection of the development impact fees established herein.
18. The City Council has reviewed and considered the development impact fees
established herein, and finds that the fees will mitigate some of the impacts associated
Page 338
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 4 of 11
with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and non -
residential development in the City.
B. Resolution.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the
facts and recitals set forth in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct and
incorporated as a material part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement
Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, and the adoption of the development impact
fees specified in this Resolution, was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
The City Council finds that approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans,
and the adoption of the development impact fees specified in this Resolution will not have
a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of
development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of
the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, or the adoption of new or updated
development impact fees. Furthermore, the Capital Improvement Program is a prioritizing
and funding allocation program and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. No physical activity will occur until all required
environmental review is conducted at the time the physical improvements prioritized in the
Capital Improvement Program are undertaken at a future unspecified date. Therefore ,
the approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plan s associated with the Nexus
Studies, and adoption of the development impact fees does not have the potential for
causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Resolution
approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining
funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing
service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
15273(a)(4). Also, approval of the Capital Improvement Plan s associated with the Nexus
Studies, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378(b)(4) because the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves
the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that
do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a pot entially
significant physical impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Approval of the NBS Nexus Study and Mitigation Fee Act Findings.
The City Council hereby approves the NBS Nexus Fee Study, and the findings contained
therein. The NBS Nexus Study shall constitute the current “Study” for each respective fee
pursuant to Chapters 3.52, 3.56, 3.60, 3.64, 3.68, and the proposed Chapter 3.80 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. A copy of the NBS Nexus Study shall be on file with
the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection. With
respect to development impact fees for (1) park, (2) community and recreation center, (3)
Page 339
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 5 of 11
library, (4) animal center, (5) police, and (6) fire facilities, the NBS Nexus Study explains
(1) the purpose of each impact fee; (2) the use of each impact fee; (3) the reasonable
relationship between the use of each impact fee and the development type on which it is
imposed; (4) the reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and the type
of development between the need for the type of development on which each fee is
imposed; and (5) the reasonable relationship between the amount of the f ee and facility
cost attributable to the applicable development project. The City Council agrees with the
findings set forth in the NBS Nexus Study and adopts them as their o wn as if set forth in
full here.
SECTION 4. Adoption of a Capital Improvement Program. The City Council hereby
adopts the amendments to the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Major Projects Program which
contains the City’s Capital Improvement Program as shown in the attached listing included
as Exhibit B to this Resolution as a part of the Nexus Studies.
SECTION 5. Establishing the Amount of Development Impact Fees. The City
Council hereby adopts the development impact fee amounts for the Park Impact Fees,
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact
Fee, Police Impact Fee, and Fire Impact Fee in accordance with the Amendments to the
Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this
reference. The Master Fee Schedule shall be amended to contain the fees and amounts
identified therein. The City Council is not readopting or revising the existing fees not
identified in this Resolution or analyzed in the Nexus Studies; all such fees and charges
remain in place at the current amount.
SECTION 6. Adoption of Methodology for Calculation, Adjustment, and Collection
of Development Impact Fees. The City Council adopts the methodology set forth in the
NBS Nexus Study for calculating and collecting the development impact fees adopted
herein. The amount of the development impact fees shall be adjusted annually in July of
each calendar year beginning in 2026, using the Construction Cost Index (CCI), for the
Park Impact Fees, the Building Cost Index (BCI) for the Community and Recreation
Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee,
and Fire Impact Fee for the Los Angeles Region both as reported by Engineering News
Record (ENR) for the twelve-month period ending in May, or a similar published index if
the BCI, CCI, or Caltrans Construction Cost Indexes are no longer available. The City
Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make such annual
adjustments to certain fees based on an inflationary factors effective July 1 of each year.
SECTION 7. Timing of Payment. All development fees shall be paid when required
by the applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and in
accordance with Government Code section 66007.
SECTION 8. Effective Date of Development Impact Fees. Except for the Fire Impact
Fee, the development impact fees established by Section 5 of this Resolution shall be
effective on the later of: (i) the sixtieth (60th) day following the adoption of this Resolution
or (ii) July 1, 2025. The Fire Impact Fee established by Section 5 of this Resolution shall
be effective on the later of: (i) the sixtieth (60th) day following the adoption of this
Page 340
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 6 of 11
Resolution, (ii) the effective date of proposed Ordinance No. 1038, an ordinance adding
Chapter 3.80 (“Fire Impact Fee”) to the Municipal Code and establishing the City’s
program and requirements for the imposition of a fire development impact fees on
development projects, or (iii) July 1, 2025.
SECTION 9. Delayed Effective Date for Development Impact Fees on Housing
Development Projects. Notwithstanding Section 8 above, a housing development project
that is the subject of an application for a land use entitlement submitted prior to 5 P.M. on
April 16, 2025, and that has been deemed complete or is subsequently deemed complete,
may elect to be subject to either: (i) the development impact fees and rates in effect as of
April 16, 2025 (“Old DIF Program”); (ii) the development impact fees and rates in effect
as of the effective date provided in Section 8 (“New DIF Program”); or (iii) the development
impact fees and rates in effect as of the time the fee s are paid (or as otherwise provided
for under applicable state law). For purposes of this Section 9, a “housing development
project” shall have the same meaning as currently provided under Government Code
Section 65589.5(h)(2).
In order for a housing development project to qualify under the Old DIF Program, the
land use entitlement(s) that is the subject of the timely application must be approved and
a building permit to construct the associated housing development project must be issued
prior to July 1, 2026. Thereafter, the housing development project shall be subject to the
development impact fees and rates in effect as of the time the fees are paid.
In order for a housing development project to qua lify under the New DIF Program
prior to the issuance of a building permit, the land use entitlement(s) that is the subject of
the timely application must be approved and complete development plans must be
submitted to the City for plan check showing the square footages of all units prior to July
1, 2026. Thereafter, the housing development project shall be subject to the development
impact fees and rates in effect as of the time the fees are paid.
- The City hereby finds the adjustments noted above will not create a significant
deviation in the NBS Nexus Study such that further adjustments would be needed. Any
shortfall in funding for improvements identified in the Nexus Study will be paid for by third
party sources, such as grant funding or the General Fund.
SECTION 10. Administration Fee. The City shall include an Administration Fee in
the not to exceed amount of two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the total project cost for
the management of the development impact fee program.
SECTION 11. No Changes to Other City Fees. Nothing in this Resolution shall
repeal, amend or supersede any other City imposed fees except for the amount of specific
type and category of development impact fee addressed in the Nexus Studies and
expressly established by this Resolution.
SECTION 12. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Resolution shall nonetheless remain in full forc e
and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section,
Page 341
Resolution No. 2025-010 - Page 7 of 11
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution, irrespective of the fact
that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions of
this Resolution be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Page 342
11231-0001\3092816v3.doc
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2025
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, KIM SEVY, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of
said City Council held on the 16thnd day of April 2025.
Executed this ___ day of_______, 2025 at Rancho Cucamonga, California
_________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
Page 343
11231-0001\3092816v3.doc
EXHIBIT A
NBS NEXUS STUDY
Page 344
11231-0001\3092816v3.doc
EXHIBIT B
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Page 345
-11-
11231-0001\3092816v3.doc
EXHIBIT C
AMENDMENTS TO MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Page 346
Development Impact Fee Study
Revised Final Draft Report
April 10, 2025
Page 347
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ S-1
Organization of the Report............................................................................................... S-1
Development Data ............................................................................................................ S1
Impact Fee Analysis .......................................................................................................... S-2
Impact Fee Summary ........................................................................................................ S-5
Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Legal Framework for Impact Fees .................................................................................... 1-1
Recent Legislation ............................................................................................................ 1-6
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 1-8
Alternative Funding Sources ............................................................................................ 1-9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ........................................................... 1-9
Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions ............................................................................... 1-10
Review of Assumptions As Required by Gov’t Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) .................. 1-11
Facilities Addressed in this Study ................................................................................... 1-11
Chapter 2. Development Data ............................................................................................. 2-1
Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
Time Frame ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
Development Types .......................................................................................................... 2-1
Demand Variables ............................................................................................................ 2-3
Demand Factors ............................................................................................................... 2-5
Existing and Future Development .................................................................................... 2-5
Chapter 3. Park Impact Fees ................................................................................................ 3-1
Page 348
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 3-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 3-2
Existing Parks .................................................................................................................... 3-2
Existing Level of Service ................................................................................................... 3-4
Cost Per Capita ................................................................................................................. 3-5
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 3-6
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 3-7
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 3-8
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 3-8
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee ................................................... 4-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 4-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 4-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 4-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 4-2
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 4-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 4-3
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 4-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 4-3
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 4-4
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 4-4
Chapter 5. Library Impact Fee ............................................................................................. 5-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5-1
Page 349
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 5-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 5-1
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 5-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 5-3
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 5-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 5-4
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 5-4
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 5-4
Chapter 6. Animal Center Impact Fee .................................................................................. 6-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 6-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 6-1
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 6-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 6-3
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 6-4
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 6-4
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 6-5
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 6-5
Chapter 7. Police Impact Fee ............................................................................................... 7-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 7-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 7-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 7-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 7-2
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 7-2
Page 350
Cost per Call for Service ................................................................................................... 7-2
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential) .................... 7-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 7-4
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 7-5
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 7-6
Chapter 8. Fire Impact Fee .................................................................................................. 8-1
Fire Protection District Law of 1987 ................................................................................. 8-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 8-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 8-2
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 8-2
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment................................................................................ 8-3
Cost per Call for Service ................................................................................................... 8-6
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential) .................... 8-7
Fee Adjustment to Avoid Overcollection ......................................................................... 8-8
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 8-9
Updating the Fees .......................................................................................................... 8-11
Nexus Summary .............................................................................................................. 8-11
Chapter 9. Implementation ................................................................................................. 9-1
Adoption ........................................................................................................................... 9-1
Administration .................................................................................................................. 9-1
Requirements Imposed by AB 602 ................................................................................... 9-6
Training and Public Information ..................................................................................... 9-97
Recovery of Study Costs ..................................................................................................... -7
Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. A-1
Page 351
Appendix B ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. B-1
Appendix C-1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… C-1 -1
Appendix C-2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… C-2 -1
Page 352
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Executive Summary
The City of Rancho Cucamonga retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this
study to analyze the impacts of new development on several types of capital facilities and
to calculate impact fees based on that analysis.
The methods used in this study are consistent with those outlined in the Impact Fee Nexus
Study Templates prepared for the California Department of Housing and Community
Development by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley in fulfillment
of AB 602. Those methods are designed to satisfy the legal requirements of the U. S.
Constitution, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et
seq.).
Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing
and imposing such fees, and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees.
Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in this report.
Chapters 3 through 8 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities
and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are
listed by chapter below:
Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Facilities
Chapter 5. Library Facilities and Materials
Chapter 6. Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Chapter 7. Police Department Facilities
Chapter 8. RCFPD Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
Chapter 9 summarizes requirements for adopting and implementing impact fees.
Appendix A to this report contains data from the CoStar real estate database that
supports the estimated cost per acre for land used throughout this report. Appendix B
contains a detailed inventory of park maintenance vehicles and equipment supporting
replacement cost estimates shown in Table 3.3 in Chapter 3. Appendix C contains maps
of the City’s existing parks supporting the total park acreage and improved park acreage
estimates shown in Table 3.1 in Chapter 3.
Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Rancho
Cucamonga and a forecast of future development in terms of units of development,
population, police department calls for service per year and Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Page 353
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Protection District (RCFPD) calls for service per year for each type of development defined
in this study.
Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit and police and
fire calls per unit per year. Those factors are used to represent the impact of new
development in the impact fee calculations.
It is important to note that because of amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act contained
in AB 602 (2021) that were incorporated into California law effective in 2022, residential
impact fees must be calculated proportionately to the square footage of the pr oposed
units. Impact fees for residential development in this study are calculated as impact fees
per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. Prior to the adoption of
AB 602 it was common practice to calculate residential impact fees on a per-unit basis for
single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a
separate chapter. In each case, the relationship, or nexus, between development and the
need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional
development on facility needs to be quantified.
The impact fees are based only on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets
needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used
to pay for maintenance or operations.
Impact fees calculated in this report are shown later in this Executive Summary.
The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for
each of the facility types addressed in this study.
Park Land and Park Improvements. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for
park land acquisition and park improvements. The cost of park maintenance vehicles and
equipment is included in the park improvement impact fees.
Impact Fees for Park Land Acquisition. The impact fees for park land acquisition calculated
in Chapter 3 apply only to residential development and are based on the existing level of
service which is defined in this report as the existing ratio of improved park acres to
population in the City.
The park land impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing ratio of
improved park land to population in acres per capita, and the land cost per acre used in
those calculations is based on the estimated cost per acre to acquire additional park land
in the City. Those factors are used to calculate a cost per capita, which is multiplied by the
population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development to get a
park land impact fee per unit for each type of residential development. Those impact fees
per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit to get impact fees per square foot
Page 354
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
for single-family and multi-family residential development. Impact fees for park land do
not apply to non-residential development.
The City does not require dedication of park land or payment of fees in lieu of dedication
pursuant to the Quimby Act. Park land acquisition is funded, in part, through development
impact fees imposed on residential development.
Impact Fees for Park Improvements. The park improvement impact fees calculated in
Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing ratio of improved park land to population in
acres per capita, and the estimated cost per acre for park improvements. The cost of park
maintenance vehicles and equipment is incorporated into the park improvement impact
fees, but the vehicles and equipment component represents less than 0.5% of those fees.
Park improvement impact fees per unit and per square foot for single-family and multi-
family residential development are calculated in the same manner as for the park land
impact fees.
The impact fees calculated in this report for park land and park improvements are shown
in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Community and Recreation Center Facilities. Chapter 4 of this report calculates impact
fees for community and recreation centers.
The impact fees for community and recreation center facilities are based on the City’s
existing level of service for these facilities, which is defined as the relationship between
the existing population and the replacement cost of existing community and r ecreation
center facilities. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita. The impact fees per unit
for community and recreation center facilities are calculated as the cost per capita
multiplied by the population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential
development. Those impact fees per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit
to get an impact fee per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. The
impact fees for community and recreation center facilities do not apply to non-residential
development.
The impact fees calculated in this report for community and recreation center facilities
are shown in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Library Facilities and Materials. Chapter 5 of this report calculates impact fees for library
facilities and materials.
The library impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service which is defined as
the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost of existing
library facilities and materials. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita. Impact fees
per unit of development are calculated as the cost per capita multiplied by the population
per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development. Those impact fees per
unit are divided by the average square feet per unit to get an impact fee per square foot
for single-family and multi-family development. The impact fees for library facilities and
materials do not apply to non-residential development.
Page 355
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
The impact fees for Library facilities and Library materials are calculated separately in
Chapter 5, but they are shown as a combined fee in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment. Chapter 6 of this report calculates
impact fees for animal center facilities, vehicles and equipment.
The impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service for these facilities which
is defined as the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost
of the existing facilities, vehicles and equipment. That relationship is stated as a cost per
capita. The impact fees per unit for the animal center are calculated as the cost per
capita multiplied by the population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential
development. Those impact fees per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit
to get an impact fee per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. The
impact fees for the animal center apply only to residential development.
The impact fees calculated in this report for animal center facilities are shown in Table
S.1 on page S-5.
Police Department Facilities. Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for Police Department
facilities based on the existing level of service in the City. The existing level of service is
defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing Police Department
facilities and the number of calls for service per year received by the Department. That
relationship is stated as a cost per call for service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Police Department calls for service
for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by
each type of development defined in this study. The impact fee per unit for each type of
development is calculated by multiplying the cost per call for service and the number of
calls per unit per year. For residential development, the cost per unit for single-family and
multi-family residential development is divided by the average square feet per unit to get
an impact fee per square foot. Police impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new
development in the City.
The impact fees calculated in this report for Police Department facilities are shown in
Table S.1 on page S-5 for residential development and in Table S.2 on page S-6 for non-
residential development.
Fire Department Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment. Fire protection and emergency
response services for the City of Rancho Cucamonga are provided by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). Chapter 8 calculates fire impact fees for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, which occupies a large part of the RCFPD service area.
By law, fire districts are prohibited from imposing impact fees on their own, but they are
allowed to receive funds from other entities for any legitimate purpose. So, the City can
impose fire impact fees on new development in the City and provide the reve nue from
those fees to RCFPD to pay for capital facilities, apparatus and equipment needed to
mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.
Page 356
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Unlike the other impact fees calculated in this study which are based on the existing level
of service for the relevant facilities, the fire impact fees in Chapter 8 are calculated using
the system plan method. That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the
cost of both existing and future RCFPD assets serving the City are allocated to both
existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected
out to 2040.
The impact of development on RCFPD facilities, apparatus and equipment is represented
in this study by the number of calls for service per year generated by development in the
City. As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of RCFPD calls for service for a
full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different
types of development.
A cost per call for service year is calculated by dividing estimated 2040 asset costs by the
projected number of calls for service per year generated by development in the City in
2040. Then, an impact fee per unit is calculated by multiplying that cost pe r call by the
number of calls for service per unit per year generated by each category of development
defined in this study. The impact fee per unit for single-family and multi-family
residential development is divided by the average square feet per unit to get an impact
fee per square foot.
The impact fees calculated in this report for Fire Department facilities are shown in
Table S.1, below for residential development and Table S.2 on the next page for non-
residential development.
Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 summarizes the residential impact fees calculated in this report, which are all
shown as impact fees per square foot.
Table S.2 shows the non-residential impact fees calculated in this report, which are
calculated on a per-unit basis.
Table S.1: Summary of Residential Impact Fees per Square Foot Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Residential, Single Family SF 1.04$ 1.94$ 0.85$ 0.42$ 0.09$ 0.15$ 0.38$ 4.87$
Residential, Multi-Family SF 1.20$ 2.24$ 0.99$ 0.49$ 0.10$ 0.19$ 0.42$ 5.63$
1 SF = 1 gross square foot of building area
Page 357
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Table S.3 shows the City’s existing impact fees.
Because the proposed residential impact fees shown in Table S.1 are calculated on a per -
square-foot basis in response to amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act, they cannot be
compared to the City’s existing residential impact fees, which are charged on a pe r-unit
basis. However, non-residential impact fees are still calculated on a per-unit basis, so it is
possible to compare the existing and proposed non-residential impact fees. Table S.4
shows the difference between the existing non-residential impact fees in Table S.3 and
the proposed non-residential impact fees from Table S.2. Numbers in parentheses
indicate that the proposed fees are lower than the existing fees.
This study proposes eliminating many of the existing impact fees for Senior/Assisted
Living Facilities on the grounds that residents of Senior/Assisted Living facilities have
limited access to some types of facilities addressed in this study. That is why most of the
Table S.2: Summary of Non-Residential Impact Fees per Unit Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Senior/Assisted Living Bed 893$ 14,397$ 15,290$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,010$ 1,175$ 2,185$
Hotel/Motel Room 64$ 585$ 649$
Office KSF 239$ 621$ 860$
Industrial KSF 66$ 89$ 155$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
Table S.3: Existing Impact Fees From City of Rancho Cucamonga 2024 Fee Schedule
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Residential, Single Family DU 4,744$ 4,583$ 2,481$ 891$ 169$ 376$ 0$ 13,244$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 3,239$ 3,129$ 1,693$ 608$ 116$ 297$ 0$ 9,082$
Senior/Assisted Living Bed 1,576$ 1,523$ 825$ 296$ 56$ 136$ 0$ 4,412$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,184$ 0$ 1,184$
Hotel/Motel Room 182$ 0$ 182$
Office KSF 371$ 0$ 371$
Industrial KSF 54$ 0$ 54$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
Table S.4: Difference Between Existing Non-Residential Impact Fees and Impact Fees Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Senior/Assisted Living Bed (1,576)$ (1,523)$ (825)$ (296)$ (56)$ 757$ 14,397$ 10,878$
Commercial/Retail KSF (174)$ 1,175$ 1,001$
Hotel/Motel Room (118)$ 585$ 467$
Office KSF (132)$ 621$ 489$
Industrial KSF 12$ 89$ 101$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
Page 358
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-7
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
fees for that category show a negative change in Table S.4. At the same time, the
proposed creation of an impact fee for RCFPD results in a large increase overall for impact
fees on the Senior/Assisted Living category.
Page 359
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for certain
capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City)
and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District) and to calculate
impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and
methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees.
The City has previously enacted impact fees for the City facilities addressed in this report.
The purpose of this study is to update those fees to reflect current costs and conditions
in the City. See Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapters 3.52 (Community and
Recreation Center Impact Fee), 3.56 (Library Impact Fee), 3.60 (Animal Center Impact
Fee), 3.64, (Police Impact Fee), and 3.68 (Park In-lieu/Impact Fees). The impact fee
calculated in this study for Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District facilities, apparatus
and equipment would be a new fee.
The impact fees calculated in this report satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees,
including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California
Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025.
Legal Framework for Impact Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general
overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice.
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact
fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for
public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the
imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation,
provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A
regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property
rights protected by the Constitution.
In two cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a
government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition
of development approval or imposes exactions as a condition of approval on a
development project, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such
exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,
1987) and make an “individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly
proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).
In April 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that even legislatively adopted impact fees
are subject to Nollan and Dolan.
Page 360
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Defining “Nexus.” The nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees can be thought
of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically
included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan
v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable
relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition
of impact fees.
1. Need or Impact. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a
development project subject to those fees will create a need for the facilities to be funded
by the impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on
some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not
increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for
the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of
development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related
to the development project subject to the fees.
The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used
only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are
imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms
of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for
public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of
the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nex us.
2. Benefit. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a development project
subject to those fees will benefit from the facilities funded by the impact fees. With
respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by
impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit
relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and
expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing
in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee
revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the
Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended in a
timely manner or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that
developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time,
procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the
benefit element of the nexus.
3. Proportionality. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that the amount
of those fees is proportional to the impact created by development project s subject to
the fees. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development -
related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated
in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of
development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to
allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.
Page 361
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local
governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police
power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees
on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are
special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. Impact fees
calculated in this report do not exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve new
development and, thus, are not special taxes requiring voter approval pursuant to Article
XIIIA.
Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996,
require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of
fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees are exempt
from those requirements.
The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600
during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added
several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time ,
the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially
titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this
report are from the Government Code.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact
fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public
improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not
specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act both case law and statute (see
Government Code Section 65913.8) clarify that impact fees may not be used to pay for
ongoing maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report
are based on the cost of capital assets only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title.
Nor does it use the common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which
is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged
by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project
for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the
development project ….”
To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely accepted term
“impact fee” which should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee
Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing
impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the
collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluation
of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the
implementation chapter of this report.
Page 362
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Required Findings. Section 66001 (a) requires that an agency establishing, increasing or
imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee
and the development type on which it is imposed
4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
In addition, Section 66001 (b) requires that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of
approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine
how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed.
The requirements outlined above are discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public
health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific
purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund acquisition or construction of certain
capital assets that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development
on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows.
This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should
define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to
serve additional development.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001(a)(2), if a fee is used to
finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement pl an
may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a
General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents . Section 66002 (b) requires
that if a capital improvement plan is used to identify the facilities, it must be updated
annually.
However, a new provision in Section 66016.5(a)(6), which was added by AB 602 in 2021,
requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee
study. That requirement applies to impact fee nexus studies adopted after Janu ary 1,
2022. “Large jurisdiction” means a county of 250,000 or more or any city within that
county. The statute does not provide any detail about what must be included in the capital
improvement plan or how it should relate to the impact fee study. That new requirement
appears to override the original language of Section 66001(a)(2), so that a capital
improvement plan (CIP) is no longer optional. A CIP is now required for all new impact fee
nexus studies adopted by large jurisdictions. The annual update requirement remains in
effect.
Page 363
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
The City of Rancho Cucamonga publishes the Capital Improvement Program as part of the
annual budgeting procedures, and the latest available information can be found on the
City’s website under Financial Reports. Further, the City has prepared an amendment to
the Major Project Program (which includes the Capital Improvement Program) which will
be considered for approval as part of the DIF Program update. A copy of the Major Project
Program amendment is available under separate cover.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that,
for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated
between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is
imposed; and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
on which the fee is imposed.
Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the
Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see
Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section
66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby
Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).
Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by
AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing
deficiencies in public facilities…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as
stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v.
City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).
Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the
increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in
order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2)
achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis
added.)
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing
facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development
and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used
to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. As a
practical matter, such fees are difficult to implement unless the fees are needed to repay
outstanding debt related to the facilities in question.
Page 364
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California since 2019 to facilitate development
of affordable housing bear on the implementation of impact fees calculated in this study.
Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed since 2019.
SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. SB 330 (amended and clarified in 2021 by SB 8)
contained a variety of amendments designed to promote affordable housing. Among
them was a provision in Government Code Section 65589.5 that prohibits the imposition
of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a preliminary
application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees except
when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationar y
adjustments to the fee or exaction. These provisions will remain in effect until January 1,
2030.
AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting (2019). AB 1483 added Section
65490.1 to the Government Code, and requires that a city, county or special district must
post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus
studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.
SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units (2019). SB 13 amended Government Code Section
65852.2 to prohibit the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
smaller than 750 square feet and to require that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet
or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The
proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more
must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.
Existing law requires a water or sewer connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory
dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the
accessory dwelling unit’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. SB 13 revises the
basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge to either the accessory dwelling
unit’s square feet or the number of its drainage fixture units.
AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act
(2021). AB 602 adds Section 65940.1 to the Planning and Land Use Law requiring cities,
counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of fees,
exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus
studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.
AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new
requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022, including:
▪ A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify
the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service
is appropriate.
Page 365
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
▪ If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall
review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and
evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
▪ Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must
adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
▪ All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30
days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that
requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the
hearing.
▪ Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period
beginning on January 1, 2022.
▪ A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a
housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed
units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this
requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local
agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the
development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a
reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.
▪ Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development
project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply
with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to
consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.
AB 516 – Amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act (2023). AB 516, which took effect on
January 1, 2024, amends Government Code Section 66006 to add certain requirements
to the annual reports mandated by that section. Specifically, Section 66006 now requires
that:
▪ Annual reports indicate whether construction on public improvements identified
in previous annual reports began on the approximate date shown in the previous
annual report; and,
▪ If a project failed to start construction on schedule, the annual report must explain
the reason for the delay and provide a revised approximate date when
construction will begin.
AB 516 also amends Section 66023 to provide that when a person requests an audit of a
fee or charge levied by a local agency, that audit may address when revenue generated
by that fee or charge is scheduled to be expended, and when the public improvement t o
be funded by that fee or charge is scheduled to be completed. Prior to this amendment,
the only stated purpose of such an audit was to determine whether such a fee or charge
Page 366
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility
or service provided by the local agency.
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are designed to comply with all
of the legal requirements discussed earlier in this chapter. Any one of several legitimate
methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends
primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the type of
facility being addressed. To some extent those methods are interchangeable, because
they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by de velopment.
Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all
methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify
the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost a llocation
formula, the impact of development is represented by some attribute of development
such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by
different types and amounts of development.
Although it is not mandatory, this study adopts the nomenclature used in the Impact Fee
Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC
Berkeley to describe impact fee calculation methods. Those templates were prepared for
The California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section
50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code and are cited in AB 602.
Planned Facility Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development will pay for the planned expansion of facilities at the future standard
attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the cost of
planned facilities is divided by the amount of demand that will be created by new
development. The impact fees depend on the cost of planned future facilities and a plan
for future development, so the fees should be recalculated if facility plans or development
plans change.
Existing Inventory Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve
existing development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing
facilities is divided by the amount of demand associated with existing development. This
method allows impact fees to be calculated without a list of planned facilities, but such a
list is required by AB 602 as part of a Capital Improvement Plan that must be adopted
with any new impact fee nexus study. This approach can be used to calculate impact fees
for many types of public facilities but is usually not appropriate for facilities such as
transportation improvements or water, wastewater or drainage systems where
improvement needs must be determined by engineering analysis.
System Plan Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the
future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of
Page 367
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-9
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the
combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
This approach is especially appropriate for impact fees for fire protection and EMS
facilities because new facilities must be planned to integrate geographically with existing
facilities.
Alternative Funding Sources
The Terner Center impact fee templates recommend that an impact fee study discuss the
availability of alternative funding sources for facilities addressed in the study and whether
there are existing deficiencies for which other funding is needed. This stud y has not
identified existing deficiencies with respect to the existing level of service standard used
as the basis for impact fee calculations for all impact fees except those for RCFPD.
However, for several types of facilities including libraries and the animal center, there is
a perceived need in the City to provide a level of service higher than the existing level.
This study has not identified alternative funding sources that could be used to elevate the
level of service in the City above the level currently provided. Should such funding become
available, it could be used for that purpose or, given the many uncertainties regarding the
course of future development and the actual cost of future facilities, such funding could
be used to cover unanticipated costs of needed facilities. In the event that the City should
acquire funding specifically earmarked for facilities identified in the Capital Improvement
Program for impact fee funding, it may be appropriate to modify the impact fee
calculations to take account of that funding.
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
SB 477, enacted in 2024, relocated and consolidated California’s ADU laws into a new
Government Code Chapter (Chapter 13, Division 1, Title 7). Recent amendments to ADU
law provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet
and establish the following requirement for impact fees imposed on ADUs of 750 square
feet or more:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or
more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the
primary dwelling unit.”
The proportionality requirement depends on the square footage of both the primary unit
and the ADU, which necessitates that impact fees for ADUs be calculated on a case-by-
case basis. Consequently, this report does not calculate a schedule of impact fees f or
ADUs. The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees is:
Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet)
Page 368
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-10
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions
Existing State law provides that certain types of projects, largely involving housing, are
exempt from or receive reduced or vested development impact fees (exceptions). These
exceptions include, for example, a prohibition on impact fees for accessory dwelling units
of 750 square feet or less and vested impact fees for qualifying housing development
projects subject to a preliminary application under the Housing Accountability Act, SB
330. Such exceptions may change over time. As a Pro Housing jurisdiction, the City of
Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the importance of providing more housing and affordable
housing for all income levels. To that end, the City supports current State law in this
regard and intends to comply with future changes in this area.
This nexus study anticipated all future development in the City without considering the
potential applicability of any exceptions to the impact fees applied to such
development. This is because, among other reasons, it is not possible to determine
whether any particular project will qualify for an exception and then to what extent. It is
speculative to forecast that a certain amount of development expected in the City will be
attributable to projects that qualify for exceptions. To be sure, the value of any po tential
exception was not re-allocated or re-distributed to other development
projects. Therefore, no project will subsidize any lost revenue caused by a project that
qualifies for an exception, and any shortfalls in funding for exempt or reduced fee proj ects
will be made up through grants or other local discretionary funding sources.
Further, the City has long recognized that for some development projects there is mutual
benefit for the developer to construct public improvements or dedicate land that are part
of the impact fee program’s list of capital projects. In accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and other laws, the developer may
be eligible for a credit against the amount of the relevant impact fee for the cost of the
improvement or value of the land dedicated when the development impact fee is
calculated. In order to ensure the sustainability and equity of the program, such credits
are equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined
in the nexus study, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the fees are calculated.
Finally, the City seeks to defray the cost of construction for public infrastructure through
alternative means such as grant programs. The City proactively pursues grants and other
funding mechanisms; however, the City does not have the ability to guarantee a certain
percentage of grant awards toward projects within this DIF program. In order to ensure
that new development funds its fair share of the improvements in this program,
applicable grant awards will be first used to offset the appropriate project c ost share
attributable to existing development and then remaining grant awards (if any) will be
used to offset the cost borne by the fee program unless the grant award is specifically
made to offset new development costs. Should new development costs be offset by grant
or other funding mechanisms, such offset will be accounted for in the next major update
to this nexus study.
Page 369
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-11
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Review of Assumptions As Required by Gov’t Code Section 66016.5(a)(4)
The most recent iteration of the adopted fee programs for Park Land and Park
Improvements, Community and Recreation Facilities, Library Facilities and Materials,
Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment, and Police Facilities Impact Fees were
adjusted in 2020 by Resolution No. 20-121 (Appendix XX – Resolution No. 20-121).
Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) as amended by AB 602 requires local agencies
adopting increases to existing DIF program fees review the assumptions in the prior study
as part of a new nexus study. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 20-121, the City
approved a General Plan update that set forth a renewed vision for the community
including anticipated development patterns, population growth estimates, and public
infrastructure, facilities, materials, and equipment needs. Further, since that time,
construction costs have increased dramatically for public improvements. This study has
reviewed the prior assumptions and incorporated currently available data and
assumptions as more appropriate to the analysis considered in this study.
Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
▪ Park Land and Park Improvements
▪ Community and Recreation Center Facilities
▪ Library Facilities and Materials
▪ Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with
Chapter 3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact
fee analysis.
Page 370
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 2. Development Data
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to
calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this
chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate
the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various
types of new development.
Study Area
The study area for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) in this study is the planning area
defined in the City’s current General Plan which was adopted in 2021. That area
encompasses both the existing City and the small Sphere of Influence (SOI) along the
northern edge of the City above the Alta Loma neighborhood. Impact fees for City
facilities are calculated in Chapters 3 through 7 of this report.
The study area for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District)
impact fees is the entire area within the boundaries of the District, which includes the
entire City and its SOI, as well as an area north of the City that is currently unincorporated
and is not planned for annexation to the City. All of RCFPD’s capital assets are located
within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, but a very small percentage of the calls for service
originating within the district boundaries come from the portion of RCFPD outside the
City. The RCFPD impact fees are calculated using all of the calls for service within the
District so that the cost of serving the area outside the City is not averaged into the RCFPD
impact fees charged within the City. Impact fees for RCFPD facilities, apparatus and
equipment are calculated in Chapter 8 of this report.
Time Frame
Planned future development in this study is forecasted out to 2040. However, the
methods used to calculate impact fees in this study do not depend on the timing of future
development.
Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this report are discussed
below. Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied based on actual
land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. For mixed use
development projects, impact fees should be applied to each type of development within
the project, consistent with the number of units of development of each type within the
project.
Residential Development. Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) which was added
to the Mitigation Fee Act by AB 602 in 2021 contains the following requirement:
“A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing
development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the
Page 371
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage
of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method
to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed
by the development”
This study calculates impact fees per square foot for two types of residential development
using average square-feet-per-unit numbers provided by the City:
• Single-family Residential Units
• Multi-family-Residential Units (including all attached dwelling units)
Senior/Assisted Living Facilities. While senior living and assisted living facilities, including
rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities have some of the characteristics of residential
uses, their impact characteristics can be substantially different from most residential
development, with less impact on transportation and parks and recreation facilities and
greater impact on emergency medical services. Consequently senior/assisted living
facilities are treated as a separate category in this study and are not considered a form of
housing development subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5.
Development in this category is measured in terms of beds, which is intended as a proxy
for the number of occupants of a facility.
Non-Residential Development. Non-residential development types used in this study are:
▪ Commercial/Retail
▪ Hotel/Motel
▪ Office
▪ Industrial
The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied to development
projects, or portions of projects, based on the actual type of development being
constructed. Except for the Hotel/Motel category, which is measured in terms of guest
rooms, the non-residential development types listed above are measured in terms of
gross leasable floor area in thousands of square feet (KSF).
In the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code), allowable
uses are grouped into broad categories. In general, those categories correspond
reasonably well with the development types listed above, except that in the Development
Code, hotels and other lodging uses are included in a category called Service and Office
Uses whereas this study breaks out hotels and motels as a separate category.
In cases where a proposed development project does not fit reasonably well into one of
the development types defined in this study, the City has the option to calculate an impact
fee that is tailored to that specific use. See the sub-section on Other Types of
Development, below.
Public Facilities, Public Schools and Parks. In addition to the development types listed
above, the development tables presented later in this chapter include public
Page 372
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
(government) facilities, public schools and parks. The City does not impose impact fees
on those uses, either because of legal constraints or because it would be imposing the
fees on itself, which serves no purpose. However, those uses do create measurable
impacts on some services, including law enforcement and fire protection/emergency
medical services, and they are included in the impact fee analysis so that the impacts
associated with those exempt uses can be distinguished from demand associated with
fee-paying development types.
Other types of Development. The development types for which impact fees are
calculated in this study will encompass most new development in the City, but there may
be some development projects that don’t fit very well within any of the established fee
categories. In such cases, it is possible for City staff to calculate a customized impact fee
at the time a project is approved.
For example, to calculate a customized police impact fee, it would be necessary to
estimate the number of police calls for service per year that will be generated by the
project, based on the number of calls generated by similar existing uses in the City. Then,
that number would be multiplied by the cost per call calculated in this study to arrive at
the police impact fee for the project. Customized impact fees for other facility types could
be calculated in a similar manner.
Demand Variables
To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must
be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development
(for example, added population) are used as “demand variables” in those formulas to
represent the impact of different types of development on various types of facilities.
Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service demand
created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with
that demand.
For example, the need for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of the
relationship between population and acres of parks. As population grows, more parks are
needed to maintain that relationship. Logically, then, the increase in population r elated
to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick, or demand variable, for use
in measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks.
Demand variables have specific values for each type of development defined in this study.
Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.” So, if the demand variable used to
calculate impact fees for a particular type of facility is added population, the demand
factor for a specific category of residential development would be the population per
dwelling unit for that category.
Demand variables used in this study are discussed below. Specific demand factors can be
found in Table 2.2.
Page 373
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Population. Population is used in this study as the demand variable for parks, libraries,
community and recreation centers and the animal center. The need for those facilities is
driven largely by the added population associated with residential development. They are
not impacted substantially by non-residential development. The specific population per
unit factors used in this study are shown in Table 2.1.
Police Department Calls for Service. Demand for police services is impacted by both
residential and non-residential development in the City. In this study, the number of
police calls for service per unit per year is used to represent the demand for police services
by various types of development. The calls-for-service factors used in this study are based
on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all calls for service received by the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024.
During that period, the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department logged about 80,000 calls.
A random sample of 648 calls was classified by development type based on address or
location. Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development were
excluded from the analysis. The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of
development defined in this study was applied to the total number of 2023 calls to get
the number of calls generated by each type of development for the year. The nu mber of
calls associated with each type of development was divided by the number of existing
units for that type of development to arrive at the average number of calls per unit per
year for that type of development.
RCFPD Calls for Service per Year. Demand for fire protection, emergency medical
response and other services provided in the City by RCFPD is impacted by both residential
and non-residential development. In this study, the number of calls for service per unit
per year to RCFPD is used to represent the demand for fire protection and emergency
response services by various types of development in the City. The calls-for-service factors
used in this study are based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all 20 23 calls for
service to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
In 2023, RCFPD logged about 18,600 calls for service. As part of this study, NBS analyzed
a random sample of 700 of those calls and classified them by development type based on
address. Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development we re
excluded from the analysis.
The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of development defined in this
study was applied to the total number of 2023 calls to get the full number of calls
generated by that type of development for the year. Then, the number of calls per y ear
was divided by the number of existing units for each type of development to arrive at the
average number of calls per unit per year. Fire calls-per-unit-per-year factors used in this
study are shown in Table 2.2, below.
Page 374
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Demand Factors
Table 2.1 shows the values of demand factors by development type used in this study.
Factors for population per unit and Police Department calls for service per unit per year
are for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Factors for Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District calls for service per unit per year are for the area within the boundaries of the
District. Calls from development within the City make up an estimated 99.6% of all calls
generated within RCFPD.
Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.2 through 2.4, beginning on the next page, present summaries of existing and
future development by development type in Rancho Cucamonga. The figures for units,
population and police department calls for service shown in those tables are for the City
only. The RCFPD calls for service shown in those tables are for the entire District, but
development in the City accounts for more than 99% of those calls.
The portion of RCFPD outside the City is small and development in that area is constrained
by topography. The only difference in existing and future development between the City
and the District is that the District has an estimated 348 more existing resid ential units
than the number of existing residential units in the City. The number of units does not
Table 2.1: Demand Factors Used in This Study
Development Dev Population RCPD Calls RCFPD Calls
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 0.717 0.185
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 0.617 0.139
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 1.738 2.829
Commercial/Retail KSF 1.966 0.231
Hotel/Motel Rooms 0.125 0.115
Office KSF 0.465 0.122
Industrial KSF 0.129 0.017
Public Facilities KSF 0.954 0.476
Public Schools Students 0.118 0.015
Parks Acres 3.474 0.213
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Population per unit based on American Community Survey Tables 25032 and 25033, 2022
one-year estimates
3 Estimated average Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis
of a random sample of calls for service for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024;
see discussion in text
4 Estimated average Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District calls for service per unit per
year based on analysis of a random sample of 2023 calls for service by NBS; see discussion
in text
Page 375
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
enter directly into the impact fee calculations. Those 348 additional residential units are
not shown in these tables but are included in the calculation of impact fees for RCFPD.
Table 2.2 shows estimated existing development as of January 1, 2024, in terms of units,
population, police department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.3 shows projected new development to 2040, in terms of units, population, police
department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.2: Existing Development - January, 2024
Development Dev Existing Existing Existing Existing
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls 3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 38,997 122,821 27,980 7,152
Residential, Multi-Family DU 28,803 69,166 17,773 4,013
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 709 1,232 2,006
Commercial/Retail KSF 8,412 16,542 1,942
Hotel/Motel Rooms 1,410 176 162
Office KSF 5,300 2,464 647
Industrial KSF 40,805 5,279 712
Public Facilities KSF 1,292 1,232 615
Public Schools Students 32,732 3,871 485
Parks Acres 456 1,584 97
Total 191,987 78,133 17,831
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Existing residential units and population based on travel demand model data provided by
Fehr & Peers; non-residential units provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department
3 Existing RCPD calls for service per year based on analysis of calls for service to the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024
4 Existing RCFPD calls for service per year based on analysis of 2023 calls for service
to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Page 376
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 2.4 shows projected total development in 2040 in terms of units, population, police
department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.3: Projected New Development to 2040
Development Dev Added Added Added Added
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls 3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 2,868 8,750 6,278 531
Residential, Multi-Family DU 15,812 33,150 20,455 2,203
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 138 240 391
Commercial/Retail KSF 700 1,377 162
Hotel/Motel Rooms 275 34 32
Office KSF 2,000 930 244
Industrial KSF 5,800 750 101
Public Facilities KSF 252 240 120
Public Schools Students 6,383 755 95
Parks Acres 89 309 19
Total 41,900 31,369 3,897
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Added residential units and population based on travel demand model data provided by Fehr
& Peers, added non-residential units based on conservative scenario projections by Strategic
Economics; see Appendix 5.14-1 to the General Plan DEIR
3 Added RCPD calls = added units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.2; average residential
calls per unit per year based on the rate for >1,200 - 1,900 square foot units
4 Added RCFPD calls = added units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.2; average residential
calls per unit per year based on the rate for >1,200 - 1,900 square foot units
Page 377
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 2.4: Projected Total Development in 2040
Development Dev 2040 2040 2040 2040
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 41,865 123,370 34,258 7,683
Residential, Multi-Family DU 44,615 110,517 38,228 6,216
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 847 1,472 2,397
Commercial/Retail KSF 9,112 17,919 2,104
Hotel/Motel Rooms 1,685 210 194
Office KSF 7,300 3,394 891
Industrial KSF 46,605 6,029 813
Public Facilities KSF 1,544 1,472 735
Public Schools Students 39,115 4,626 580
Parks Acres 545 1,893 116
Total 233,887 109,502 21,728
Note: The figures in Table 2.5 represent the sum of the corresponding figures in Table 2.3
and Table 2.4
Page 378
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Chapter 3. Park Impact Fees
This chapter calculates impact fees for park land acquisition and for park improvements.
Chapter 3.68 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code established and governs impact
fees for park land acquisition and park improvements. The City does not require park land
dedication or payment of fees in lieu of dedication pursuant to the Quimby Act
(Government Code Section 66477). The Quimby Act would allow park land dedication and
in-lieu fee requirements to be based on 3.0 acres per 1,000 population, which is a
substantially higher standard than the existing level of service used to calculate park land
impact fees in this study.
At present, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has five community parks and 26
neighborhood parks. The City owns about 399 acres of land designated for park use, of
which about 346 acres are currently developed as parks. The park impact fees calculated
in this chapter are based on the relationship between the City’s existing ratio of improved
park acres to population. However, later in this chapter, unimproved, City-owned park
land is credited against the amount of park land needed to serve future residential
development at the existing level of service. The result is a substantial reduction in the
amount of the park land impact fees applied to new development.
Service Area
All park impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that level of service as the
City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate park impact fees in this chapter is population.
Population is used here because in Rancho Cucamonga, as in most cities, the need for
parks is defined in terms of the relationship between park acreage and population.
Because added population is associated with residential development, the impact fees
calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
The impact fees for each type of residential development depend on the average
population per dwelling unit for that type of development. The individual population -per-
unit factors used to calculate the park impact fees are from Table 2.2 in Chapter 2. See
the discussion of population per unit in Chapter 2.
Page 379
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Level of Service
The level-of-service standard used to calculate park impact fees is based on the
relationship between the City’s existing park acreage and its existing population.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no expla nation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Parks
Table 3.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing parks and shows both total acres and
improved acres of park land. For the parks listed in Table 3.1, there are four parks for
which the total acres exceed the improved acres, indicating that there is unimproved land
available within those parks. Two of those parks, Central Park and Etiwanda Community
Park, have a total of 46.61 acres of unimproved land available. Later, in Table 3.4, that
unimproved land is credited against the acreage needed to serve future residential
development at the current level of service in terms of improved acres per thousand
population.
Of the other two parks shown as having available, unimproved park land, Don Tuburcio
Tapia Park is on land that is owned by the Cucamonga Valley Water District, not the City,
and is subject to lease rights that allow for the District’s ongoing use of the property.
Therefore, the availability of this land for future park purposes remains uncertain, and
the 4.34 acres shown as unimproved land is not credited to future development. The 911
Park has park improvements currently under construction, so 1.4 acres shown as
unimproved land for that park is also not credited to future development.
Page 380
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park Total Improved
Name Acres 1 Acres 4
Community Parks
Central Park 74.45 35.84
Etiwanda Creek Community Park 22.48 14.48
Heritage Community Park 34.02 34.02
Red Hill Community Park 44.20 44.20
Epicenter Adult Sports Complex 48.90 48.90
Subtotal Community Parks 224.05 177.44
Neighborhood Parks
Bear Gulch Park 4.56 4.56
Beryl Park East 10.10 10.10
Beryl Park West 8.72 8.72
Church Street Park 7.00 7.00
Coyote Canyon Park 4.74 4.74
Day Creek Park 9.98 9.98
Don Tuburcio Tapia Park (Long Term Lease)4.34 0.00
Ellena Park 6.04 6.04
Garcia Park 5.55 5.55
Golden Oak Park 4.99 4.99
Hermosa Park 9.57 9.57
Kenyon Park 7.82 7.82
Legacy Park 3.76 3.76
Lions Park 2.50 2.50
Los Amigos Park 3.36 3.36
Milliken Park 8.40 8.40
Mountain View Park 5.03 5.03
Old Town Park 5.01 5.01
Olive Grove Park 7.38 7.38
Ralph M. Lewis Park 8.03 8.03
Rancho Summit Park 6.71 6.71
Spruce Avenue Park 3.89 3.89
Victoria Arbors Park 7.75 7.75
Victoria Groves Park 6.02 6.02
Vintage Park 8.02 8.02
West Greenway Park 6.10 6.10
Windrows Park 8.01 8.01
9/11 Park 1.40 0.00
Subtotal Neighborhood Parks 174.78 169.04
Total 398.83 346.48
1 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga; park acreage numbers revised
February 2025; see maps of individual parks in Appendix C
Page 381
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.2 calculates existing levels of service in terms of acres per capita and acres per
1,000 population for total City-owned park land and for improved park land.
The level-of-service standard for parks contained in the 2021 Rancho Cucamonga General
Plan, in terms of a ratio of acres to population, is five acres per 1,000 residents for
neighborhood parks (see Table OS-2 in the General Plan).
In 2019, the California Court of Appeal in Boatworks, LLC vs. City of Alameda held that
parks not currently open to the public may not be used in calculating the existing level of
service for purposes of establishing park impact fees. Impact fees calculated in this
chapter are based on the existing level of service in terms of improved park acres per
1,000 population. Only park acreage that is improved and open to the public is counted
in establishing the existing level of service for both park land acquisition and park
improvement impact fees in this study.
In the following pages, the existing level of service is converted into a cost per capita for
park land acquisition and park improvements using the existing level of service in acres
per capita multiplied by the estimated cost per acre for park land acquis ition and park
improvements.
There is one additional cost component included in the park improvement impact fees.
That is the capital cost of added park maintenance vehicles and equipment. Table 3.3
calculates the costs per capita for park maintenance vehicles and equipment based on
the replacement cost of existing park maintenance vehicles and equipment divided by the
existing population of the City. That cost per capita is added to the cost per capita for park
improvements in Table 3.6 where the per-capita costs are converted into a cost per unit
of development.
Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service - Total/Improved Park Land
Existing Existing Acres per Acres per
Component Acres 1 Population 2 Capita 3 1,000 4
Total Park Land 398.83 191,987 0.00208 2.08
Improved Park Land 346.48 191,987 0.00180 1.80
1 See Table 3.1
2 Existing residential population; see Table 2.2
3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population
4 Acres per 1,000 residents = acres per capita X 1,000
Page 382
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Cost Per Capita
Table 3.4 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition and for park
improvements using the existing level of service in acres per capita and the cost -per-acre
estimates for park land acquisition and park improvements. In both cases, the acres-per-
capita standard is based on the existing level of service discussed previously in this
chapter.
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 3.4 are used to calculate impact fees
per unit, which are then divided by square-feet-per-unit factors to get impact fees per
Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Existing Park Maintenance Equipment
Total Existing Cost per
Cost 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$1,450,620 191,987 $7.56
1 See Appendix B for a detailed listing of existing park maintenance
vehicles and equipment
2 Existing population; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita = total cost / existing population
Table 3.4: Cost per Capita - Park Land Acquisition and Park Improvements
Cost Acres per Cost per Cost per
Component Capita 1 Acre 2 Capita 3
Park Land Acquisition 0.0018 1,176,197$ 2,117.15$
Park Land Acquisition-Adjusted 4 0.0007 1,176,197$ 823.34$
Park Improvements 0.0018 850,000$ 1,530.00$
1 Acres per capita for both park land acquisition and park improvements is
based on the existing level of service for improved park land; see Table 3.2
2 Cost per acre for land acquisition based on recent sales data from the CoStar
real estate database; see Appendix A for detailed data; cost per acre for park
improvements is based on improvement costs, adjusted for specialized im-
provement or typical improvements that were omitted, with an adjustment for
inflation, for a recently completed 4.9 acre dog park
3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
4 Park land acres per capita is adjusted to credit future development for 46.61
acres (0.0011 acres per capita) of City-owned, unimproved park land in Central
Park and Etiwanda Community Park; that adjustment reduces the total park land
to be funded by park land impact fees from 75.42 acres to 29.33 acres; the adjus-
ted cost per capita is used in Table 3.5 to calculate impact fees for park land
acquisition
Page 383
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development for park land
acquisition and park improvements.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 3.5 shows the calculation of park land impact fees per square foot for single-family
and multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for single-
family and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Table 3.6 shows the calculation of impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-
family residential development for park improvements. The cost of park maintenance
vehicles and equipment is incorporated into the park improvement impact fees but
amounts to less than 0.5% of those fees.
Table 3.5: Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee per Square Foot
Development Unit Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Type 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 823.34$ 2,593.51$ 2,500 1.04$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 823.34$ 2,041.88$ 1,700 1.20$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 See Table 3.4
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Table 3.6: Park Improvement Impact Fee per Square Foot (Incl. Maintenance Equipment)
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 $1,537.56 4,843.30$ 2,500 1.94$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 $1,537.56 3,813.14$ 1,700 2.24$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Includes cost per capita for park improvements from Table 3.4 and cost per capita for park
maintenance vehicles and equipment from Table 3.3
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 384
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-7
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 3.7 projects revenue from park land impact fees using the park land impact fees per
square foot from Table 3.5, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 3.8 projects revenue from park improvement impact fees using the park land impact
fees per square foot from Table 3.6, the average square feet per unit for each type of
residential development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection
assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 3.7: Projected Revenue - Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 1.04$ 2,500 2,868 7,456,800$
Residential, Multi-Family 1.20$ 1,700 15,812 32,256,480$
Total 39,713,280$
1 See Table 3.5
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Table 3.8: Projected Revenue - Park Improvement Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 1.94$ 2,500 2,868 13,909,800$
Residential, Multi-Family 2.24$ 1,700 15,812 60,212,096$
Total 74,121,896$
1 Impact fee (cost) per capita; see Table 3.6
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Page 385
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-8
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated cost of park
land acquisition and park improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed
annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) or the California Construction Cost Index. See
the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate
the impact of new development on the need for parks in Rancho Cucamonga and to
prevent a reduction in the level of service provided to residents of the City as a result of
new development.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. Specific projects and costs
to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement
Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional parks to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential
development in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the need for
Page 386
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-9
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
parks to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without
additional parks, the increase in population associated with new residential development
would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the park impact fees charged
to a residential development project will depend on the unit types and square footage
associated with that project. The fees per square foot calculated in this chapter for each
type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit
and square footage per unit for that type of development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus,
the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need
for parks in the City.
Page 387
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for community and recreation centers needed to serve
future development in the City. Chapter 3.52 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a number of existing community and recreation
centers as well as the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, which is included in this category.
The Paul A. Biane Library, which is a part of the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, is
addressed separately in Chapter 5, Libraries.
The community and recreation center impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on
the relationship between the City’s existing population and the replacement cost of
Rancho Cucamonga’s existing community center and recreation center facilities.
Service Area
The community and recreation center impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that level of service as the
City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate impact fees for community and recreation centers is population. Since
population is associated with residential development, these impact fees will apply only
to residential development.
Population is used as the demand variable for these fees because the need for community
and recreation centers is normally defined in terms of the size of the population to be
served. Added population is used in this chapter to measure the impact of new
development on the need for community and recreation center facilities.
Average population per unit is estimated for each category of residential development
defined in this study. Individual population -per-unit factors for each category of
residential development are shown in Table 2.2 in Chapter 2.
Page 388
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for community and recreation
centers. Since some existing facilities such as the Lewis Family Playhouse at the Victoria
Gardens Cultural Center are one-of-a-kind, a ratio of facility square footage to population
would not reflect differences in cost for different types of facilities. Consequently, the
level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing
relationship between the City’s population and the replaceme nt cost of existing
community and recreation centers, stated as a cost per capita. See the Cost per Capita
section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no expl anation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing community and recreation centers with their estimated
replacement cost. Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of
constructing additional facilities to serve future development.
Table 4.1: Existing Community and Recreation Centers Estimated Replacement Cost
Facility Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Name Acres 1 Value 2 Sq. Feet 3 Repl Cost 4 Cost Basis 5
RC Family Resource Center 1.80 2,117,155$ 11,800 6,926,502$ 9,043,657$
RC Sports Center 1.47 1,729,010$ 32,000 18,783,734$ 20,512,744$
Lion's Center West 0.24 282,287$ 11,400 6,691,705$ 6,973,993$
Lion's Center East 0.37 435,193$ 11,384 6,682,313$ 7,117,506$
Lewis/Brulte Community/Sr. Ctr.Located in Central Park 57,000 33,458,527$ 33,458,527$
Heritage Park Equestrian Center Located in Heritage Park 3,045 1,787,390$ 1,787,390$
Victoria Gardens Cultural Center 1.80 2,117,155$ 67,584 49,005,658$ 51,122,812$
Total 6,680,799$ 194,213 123,335,829$ 130,016,628$
1 Site Acres provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department
2 Existing site value = site acres X estimated land value of $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
3 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department
4 Building replacement cost based on estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024 using
the California Construction Cost Index
5 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
Page 389
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cost per Capita
Table 4.2 calculates the replacement cost per capita for community and recreation center
facilities using the impact fee cost basis from Table 4.1 and the existing population from
Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate community and
recreation center impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square -feet-per-unit
factors to get impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential
development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of community and recreation center impact fees per
square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development. The average
square feet per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development were
provided by the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 4.4 projects revenue from the community and recreation center impact fees using
the impact fees per square foot from Table 4.3, the average square feet per unit for each
Table 4.2: Community and Rec Centers - Existing Level of Service
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$130,016,628 191,987 $677.22
1 See Table 4.1
2 Existing population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
Table 4.3: Community and Recreation Centers - Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 $677.22 2,133.23$ 2,500 0.85$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 $677.22 1,679.50$ 1,700 0.99$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Cost per capita; see Table 4.2
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 390
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
type of residential development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This
projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all
future private development will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of
reasons, some future development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the
section on Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for community and recreation center facilities. We recommend that
the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) or the Department of General Services
California Construction Cost Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing
of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - Community/Rec Center Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.85$ 2,500 2,868 6,094,500$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.99$ 1,700 15,812 26,611,596$
Total 32,706,096$
1 See Table 4.3
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Page 391
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of community and recreation center assets in the
city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
community and recreation centers to mitigate the impact of new development on the
need for those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these
impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional community and recreation center facilities to mitigate the impact of added
population associated with new residential development on the need for community and
recreation centers in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for community and recreation center facilities to maintain the existing level of
service as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional community and recreation
center facilities, the increase in population associated with new residential development
would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the Ci ty.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The community and recreation center impact
fees calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the added population
associated with various categories of residential development in the City. The fees per
square foot of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential
development are based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage
per unit for each type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee
charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for
community and recreation center facilities in the City.
Page 392
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 5. Library Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for library facilities and materials needed to serve
future development in the City. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has two existing libraries:
the Paul A. Biane Library located in the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the Archibald
Library on Archibald Avenue. Chapter 3.56 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the Library Impact Fee.
Service Area
The library impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate the library impact fee is population.
Population is used as the demand variable for these fees because the need for libraries is
normally defined in terms of the size of the population to be served. Added population is
used in this chapter to measure the impact of new development on the need f or library
facilities.
Because population per dwelling unit varies by development category, the average
population per unit is estimated for each category of residential development defined in
this study. Those individual population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.2 in Chapter
2.
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for libraries. The level-of-
service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing relationship
between the City’s population and the replacement cost of library facilities and materials
stated as a cost per capita. See the Cost per Capita section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
Page 393
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 5.1 lists the City’s existing libraries with their estimated replacement cost.
Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing
additional facilities to serve future development. Cost for library furniture fixture s and
equipment, and the contents of the museum at the Biane Library are listed separately.
This analysis also includes the cost of library materials (books and electronic media). Table
5.2 shows the estimated replacement cost of the library system’s existing materials.
Table 5.1: Existing Library Facilities
Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Facility Acres Value 1 Sq. Feet 2 Repl Cost 3 Cost Basis 4
Paul A. Biane Library 1.35 1,587,866$ 38,912 26,298,402$ 27,886,268$
Museum Contents at Biane Library 3,500,000$
Archibald Library 1.67 1,964,249$ 22,500 11,964,272$ 13,928,521$
Library Furniture, Fixtures, Equipt.4,100,000$
Library Kiosk (RC Resource Center)199 220,000$ 220,000$
Library Kiosk (Fire Station 178)199 220,000$ 220,000$
Total 3,552,115$ 61,810 38,702,674$ 49,854,789$
1 Site value based on $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
2 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Library Services Department
3 Building replacement cost based on the estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024
using the California Construction Cost Index
4 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
Table 5.2: Existing Library Materials
Number Avg Cost Impact Fee
of Items 1 per Item 2 Cost Basis 3
269,559 $54.71 $14,747,573
1 Number of items provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Library
Services Department
2 Cost per item estimated by the Library Services Department
3 Impact fee cost basis = cost of existing library materials = number of
items X average cost per item
Page 394
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cost per Capita
Table 5.3 calculates the replacement cost per capita for library facilities and materials
using the impact fee cost basis for library facilities from Table 5.1, and the impact fee cost
basis for existing library materials from Table 5.2, both divided by the City’s existing
population from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 5.3 is used to calculate library
impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact
fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 5.4 shows the calculation of library impact fees per square foot for single-family and
multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for single-family
and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Table 5.3: Library Facilities and Materials - Cost per Capita
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Component Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
Library Facilities 49,854,789$ 191,987 259.68$
Library Materials 14,747,573$ 191,987 76.82$
Total 64,602,362$ 191,987 336.49$
1 See Tables 5.1 and 5.2
2 Existing population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
Table 5.4: Library Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Dev Cost per Population Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 336.49$ 3.15 1,059.96$ 2,500 0.42$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 336.49$ 2.48 834.51$ 1,700 0.49$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 Cost per capita; see Table 5.3
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 395
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 5.5 projects revenue from the library impact fees using the impact fees per square
foot from Table 5.4, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for library facilities and materials. We recommend that the fees be
reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering
News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) or the Department of General Services California
Construction Cost Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
Table 5.5: Projected Revenue - Library Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.42$ 2,500 2,868 3,011,400$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.49$ 1,700 15,812 13,171,396$
Total 16,182,796$
1 See Table 5.4
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Page 396
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of library and cultural center assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
library facilities and materials to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for
those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees
can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional library facilities and materials to mitigate the impact of added population
associated with new residential development on the need for library services in Rancho
Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for libraries to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this
chapter. Without additional library facilities and materials, the increase in population
associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of
service provided to all residents of the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The library impact fees calculated in this
chapter are proportional to the impact of the added population associated with various
categories of residential development in the City. The fees per square foot of
development calculated in this chapter for each category of residential development are
based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage per unit for each
type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee charged to a
development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for library facilities
and materials in the City.
Page 397
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 6. Animal Center Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for additional animal center facilities, vehicles and
equipment needed to serve future development in the City. Chapter 3.60 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code establishes and governs the animal center impact fee.
The City’s existing Animal Center is already over capacity and additional space will be
needed to serve the growing demand imposed by future development. It should be noted
that the impact fees calculated in this chapter will only maintain the existing level of
service provided by the Animal Center and will not remedy any existing deficiencies in
Animal Center facilities.
Service Area
The animal center impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Demand Variable
It is reasonable to assume that the demand for Animal Center facilities depends on the
number of pets kept by City residents, in which case the need for animal center facilities
is reasonably related to population of the City. Consequently, added populati on will be
used to represent the impact of development on the need for additional Animal Center
facilities.
Because added population is a function of new residential development, the fees
calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development .
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for animal center facilities.
Consequently, the level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter
is the existing relationship between the City’s population and the replaceme nt cost of
existing animal center facilities, vehicles and equipment, stated as a cost per capita. See
the Cost per Capita section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
Page 398
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 6.1 shows the estimated replacement cost for the City’s existing Animal Center and
the value of a 1.92-acre site the City has acquired to expand that facility. Table 6.1 also
shows a credit for the current balance in the City’s Animal Center impact fee fund which
is available to increase the existing level of service.
Table 6.2 lists the Animal Services Department’s existing vehicles and equipment with
replacement costs.
Table 6.1: Existing Animal Center Replacement Cost
Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Facility Acres Value 1 Sq. Feet 2 Repl Cost 3 Cost Basis 4
Existing Animal Center 1.60 $1,881,915 12,148 8,305,256$ 10,187,171$
Animal Center Expansion Site 1.92 $2,258,298 2,258,298$
Total 4,140,213$ 12,148 8,305,256$ 12,445,469$
1 Existing site value = site acres X $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
2 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Animal Services Department
3 Building replacement cost based on estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated
to 2024 using the California Construction Cost Index
4 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
Page 399
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cost per Capita
Table 6.3 calculates the cost per capita for Animal Center facilities, vehicles and
equipment using the impact fee cost basis from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and the City’s existing
residential population from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 6.3 is used to calculate animal
center impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get
impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Table 6.2: Animal Center Vehicles and Equipment
Impact Fee
Manufacturer Type Description Cost Basis 1
Ford F-250 Pickup Truck 110,000$
Ford F-250 Pickup Truck 110,000$
Ford Ranger Pickup Truck 40,000$
Saturn UT 30,000$
Chevrolet SV Cargo Van 55,000$
Chevrolet Cargo Van 55,000$
Maverick Horse Trailer 15,000$
Midmark Dental X-Ray Machine 22,970$
Midmark Mobile Dental Machine 12,792$
VMS Plus Anesthesia Machine (2)7,274$
VMS Anesthesia Machine (2)6,738$
LED Procedure Light - Dual 7,851$
LED Procedure Light - Single (4)15,704$
LED Procedure Light - Mobile 3,926$
Cuattro DR X-Ray Machine 52,000$
Sound Imaging Ultrasound Machine 20,000$
Total 564,255$
1 Impact fee cost basis = replacement cost; replacement cost estimated by
the Animal Services Department
Table 6.3: Animal Shelter Facilities and Equipment - Cost per Capita
Cost Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Component Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
Facilities 12,445,469$ 191,987 64.82$
Vehicles & Equipment 564,255$ 191,987 2.94$
Total 13,009,724$ 191,987 67.76$
1 See Tables 6.1 and 6.2
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
Page 400
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 6.4 shows the calculation of animal center impact fees per square foot for single -
family and multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for
single-family and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 6.5 projects revenue from the animal center impact fees using the impact fees per
square foot from Table 6.4, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 6.4: Animal Shelter - Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 67.76$ 213.46$ 2,500 0.09$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 67.76$ 168.05$ 1,700 0.10$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Cost per capita; see Table 6.3
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Table 6.5: Projected Revenue - Animal Center Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.09$ 2,500 2,868 645,300$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.10$ 1,700 15,812 2,688,040$
Total 3,333,340$
1 See Table 6.4
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Page 401
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement
costs for animal center facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted
annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building
Cost Index (BCI) or the General Services Department’s California Construction Cost Index.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of animal center assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
animal center facilities and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development on the
need for those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these
impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional animal center facilities and equipment to mitigate the impact of added
Page 402
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
population associated with new residential development on the need for animal center
facilities in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for animal center facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described
earlier in this chapter. Without additional animal center facilities, additional residential
development would further overburden the existing animal center.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. This study assumes that the need for animal
center facilities in the City is impacted by increasing population. The amounts of the
animal center impact fees calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the
added population associated with various categories of residential development in the
City. The fees per square foot calculated in this chapter for each type of residential
development are based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage
per unit for that type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee
charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for
animal center facilities in the City.
Page 403
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 7. Police Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for police facilities needed to serve future
development in the City. Chapter 3.64 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the police impact fee.
The City’s primary police facility is the Public Safety Building at the Rancho Cucamonga
Civic Center. The other existing City-owned police facility is a satellite police station co-
located with Fire Station 172 on San Bernardino Road in the western portion of the City.
The department also has a substation in a leased space in the Victoria Gardens shopping
mall and is planning to construct a permanent substation in that area in the future.
Service Area
The police impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of
facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for police facilities is calls for
service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of approximately 80,000 calls for
service logged by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from
May 2023 to May 2024 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by
each type of development defined in this study. Table 2.2 in Chapter 2 shows the calls -
per-unit-per-year factors derived from that analysis. Those factors are used to calculate
impact fees per unit later in this chapter. For a more detailed discussion of how calls for
service were analyzed, see Chapter 2.
One of the findings from the calls-for-service analysis is that 8.4% of police calls for service
in Rancho Cucamonga during the relevant period were generated by public facilities,
public schools and parks. The police facility costs associated with those calls are not
allocated to new private development in this study.
Page 404
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for police facilities. The level
of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service, which
is defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of police facilities shown in
Table 7.1 and the number of police calls for service per year received in the one -year
period from May 2023 to May 2024.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no expl anation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 7.1 lists the City’s existing police facilities with their estimated replacement cost.
Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing
additional facilities to serve future development.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 7.2 calculates the facility cost per call for service for police facilities using the impact
fee cost basis from Table 7.1 and the number of existing calls for service from Table 2.3
in Chapter 2.
Table 7.1: Existing Police Facilities
Facility Building Impact Fee
Name Square Feet 1 Cost Basis 2
Civic Center Public Safety Building 30,500 30,454,510$
Police Department Structure Parking - 62 spaces 2,759,000$
San Bernardino Road Satellite Station 5,673 6,934,243$
Total 36,173 40,147,754$
1 Building square feet provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department
2 Impact fee cost basis for Public Safety Building and Satellite Station = estimated
building replacement cost from 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024 using
the California Construction Cost Index; impact fee cost basis for Police Dept
structure parking based on current estimated construction cost of $44,500 per
space for structure parking
Page 405
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 7.2 is multiplied by calls per unit factors
to calculate police impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study
The residential impact fees per unit are then divided by square feet-per-unit factors to
get impact fees per square foot for residential.
The cost per call from Table 7.2 can also be used to customize impact fees for any non-
residential project that does not reasonably fit within one of the development types
identified in this report. Such a customized fee would be based on the estimated number
of police calls per year for the project, multiplied by the cost per call from Table 7.2. The
number of police calls per year for a specific type of development project can be
estimated by reviewing call records for similar existing projects in the City.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 7.3 shows the calculation of police impact fees per square foot for residential
development and per unit for non-residential development.
Table 7.2: Facility Cost per Call for Service per Year
Impact Fee Existing Calls Cost per Call
Cost Basis 1 for Service 2 for Service 3
$40,147,754 78,133 $513.84
1 See Table 7.1
2 See Table 2.3
3 Cost per call for service per year = impact fee cost share / existing
calls for service
Page 406
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the police impact fees is projected separately for residential and
non-residential development because residential impact fees are per square foot and
non-residential impact fees are per unit. These projections assume that future
development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development will
be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future development
may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee Credits and
Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 7.4 shows the projected revenue to 2040 from the residential police impact fees
calculated in this chapter.
Table 7.3: Police Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Development Cost per Call Calls Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 for Service 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $513.84 0.717 368.67$ 2,500 0.15$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $513.84 0.617 317.07$ 1,700 0.19$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $513.84 1.738 892.88$
Commercial/Retail KSF $513.84 1.966 1,010.46$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $513.84 0.125 64.14$
Office KSF $513.84 0.465 238.89$
Industrial KSF $513.84 0.129 66.48$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation for one patient or resident
2 Cost per call for service per year; see Table 7.2
3 See Table 2.1 and the discussion of calls for service in Chapter 2
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot (residential) = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 407
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 7.5 shows the projected revenue to 2040 from the non-residential police impact.
fees calculated in this chapter.
The combined impact fee revenue from Tables 7.4 and 7.5 equals $7,894,510. Specific
projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for police facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and
adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record
Table 7.4: Projected Revenue - Police Impact Fees (Residential)
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.15$ 2,500 2,868 1,075,500$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.19$ 1,700 15,812 5,107,276$
Total 6,182,776$
1 See Table 7.3
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Table 7.5: Projected Revenue - Police Impact Fees (Non-Residential)
Development Dev Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 892.88$ 138 123,445$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,010.46$ 700 707,320$
Hotel/Motel Rooom 64.14$ 275 17,635$
Office KSF 238.89$ 2,000 477,773$
Industrial KSF 66.48$ 5,800 385,561$
Total 1,711,734$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of
building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommmodation for one
patient or resident
2 Impact fee per unit of development; see Table 7.3
3 Future units; see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units
Page 408
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Building Cost Index or the General Services Department California Construction Cost
Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential and commercial/industrial development from reducing the quality and
availability of public services provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential
and business development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of police
assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
police facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities
in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in
the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional police facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for
police facilities in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the demand for
law enforcement services, which impacts the need for police facilities to maintain the
existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional police
facilities, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively
Page 409
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
impact the ability of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department to provide services
efficiently and effectively to all development in the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the police impact fees
calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the increased demand for law
enforcement services associated with various types of development in the City. The fees
per square foot for residential development and the fees per unit for non-residential
development calculated in this chapter for each category of development are based on
the estimated number of calls for service per unit per year for each category of
development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee charged to a development project
reflects the impact of that project on the need for police facilities in the City.
Page 410
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 8. Fire Impact Fee
Rancho Cucamonga does not have an existing fire impact fee. This chapter calculates
impact fees for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and
equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District)
to all development in the City. The boundary of RCFPD encompasses the entire City as
well as a small area to the north of the City that is planned to remain within the
unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County.
As discussed in the next section, fire districts are prohibited by California law from
imposing impact fees on their own. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be adopted
and imposed by the City and revenue from the impact fees will be transferred to RCFPD
to pay for additional capital facilities and other capital assets serving new development in
the City. These impact fees will apply only to the portion of RCFPD that is within the City.
Fire Protection District Law of 1987
California Health and Safety Code Section 13916, which is part of the Fire Protection
District Law of 1987, states: “A (fire protection) district board shall not charge a fee on
new construction or development for the construction of public improvements or
facilities or the acquisition of equipment.” However, although a district itself may not
charge such fees, Health and Safety Code Section 13898 provides that a district may
accept revenue from any federal, state, regional, or local agency or from any pers on for
any lawful purpose of the district. That section allows the City to transfer impact fee
revenue to RCFPD to pay for facilities, apparatus and equipment needed to serve the City.
Service Area
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1.
With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share
of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new
development.
To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of
planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing
development and planned development. (As discussed in the next section, demand for
services provided by RCFPD is represented by calls for service per year.) This method
ensures that costs for all existing and future RCFPD facilities, apparatus and equipment
are allocated to all existing and future development, so that impact fees charged to future
development will pay for future development’s proportionate share of the overall cost of
those assets. With the system plan method, we depreciate the replacement cost of
existing assets because new development is effectively buying in to those assets. With
Page 411
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
the existing inventory method used elsewhere in this report, replacement costs for
existing assets are not depreciated because they represent the cost to acquire additional
assets needed to serve additional development.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of capital
facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for fire protection and
emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment in this report is calls for service
per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of all calls for service logged by
RCFPD in 2023 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by each type
of development defined in this study. Chapter 2 discusses that analysis and Table 2.2 in
Chapter 2 shows the calls-per-unit-per-year factors derived from that analysis. Those
factors are used to calculate impact fees per unit later in this chapter.
Level of Service
The most important single factor in defining level of service for fire protection and
emergency medical services agencies is response time to emergency calls. The 2024
Comprehensive Master Plan for RCFPD states that RCFPD’s first due unit currently arrives
within 9 minutes and 45 seconds, 90% of the time. The Master Plan makes
recommendations to improve total response time, including reducing call processing
time. The addition of one fire station will help RCFPD maintain and possibly improve its
response time performance as future development occurs.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section
requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used in an impact fee study must
be compared with the existing level of service. If new impact fees are based on a level of
service that exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
For other types of impact fees calculated in this study, impact fee calculations are based
on the cost of maintaining the existing level of service using the existing inventory method
discussed in Chapter 1. That approach can be used for fire impact fees, but we believe the
system plan method, discussed above and in Chapter 1, is more appropriate because
geography and fire station location are so critical to response time across a fire agency’s
service area.
Fire protection and emergency response are provided by an integrated system of assets
and the best time to assess the overall relationship between development and service
demand is at the point when all of the assets and all of the development will be in p lace,
which is what the system plan method is designed to do.
Page 412
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
At present, RCFPD operates eight fire stations as well as an administrative facility, an all -
risk training center (ARTC) and a shop facility. RCFPD is planning to construct one
additional fire station and has acquired property on 8th Street as a site for that station.
Table 8.1 lists RCFPD’s existing and planned fire stations as well as the administrative and
training center buildings and the shop facility. Stations 171 through 178 currently exist.
Station 179 is planned for future construction.
The impact fee cost basis in the right-hand column of Table 8.1 includes the depreciated
replacement cost for existing buildings plus the estimated site value for each building.
Where multiple buildings are located on one site, the land cost is shown for t he first
building. For future Station 179, the cost shown is estimated based on recent construction
costs.
Table 8.2 on the next page lists RCFPD’s existing firefighting apparatus and other vehicles
and equipment. Costs for all vehicles and equipment shown in the far-right column of
Table 8.2 are depreciated replacement costs based on the useful life shown in that table.
Table 8.1: Existing and Future Fire Stations
Constr Bldg Site Building Useful Land Depreciated Impact Fee
Facility Location Date Sq Ft Acres Repl Cost 1 Life 2 Cost 3 Bldg Cost 4 Cost Basis 5
Station 171 Amethyst St 1974 4,480 0.99 644,687$ 50 1,164,435$ 0$ 1,164,435$
Admin Bldg Amethyst St 1977 2,754 Included 1,755,420$ 50 105,325$ 105,325$
Station 172 San B'dino Rd 2020 13,341 2.90 14,053,099$ 50 2,728,777$ 12,928,851$ 15,657,628$
Station 173 Firehouse Ct 2005 12,000 2.36 6,823,656$ 50 2,775,825$ 4,230,666$ 7,006,491$
Storage Bldg Firehouse Ct 2005 2,500 Included 234,078$ 50 145,129$ 145,129$
Station 174 Jersey Blvd 1992 17,000 6.14 8,984,714$ 50 7,221,850$ 3,234,497$ 10,456,347$
Shop/Garage Jersey Blvd 2001 14,304 Included 6,306,495$ 50 3,405,507$ 3,405,507$
Trng Ctr Bldg A Jersey Blvd 2016 7,000 Included 3,588,740$ 50 3,014,542$ 3,014,542$
Trng Ctr Bldg B Jersey Blvd 2016 1,900 Included 1,180,251$ 50 991,411$ 991,411$
Trng Ctr Bldg C Jersey Blvd 2016 2,455 Included 1,064,350$ 50 894,054$ 894,054$
Trng Ctr Bldg D Jersey Blvd 2016 15,415 Included 4,006,318$ 50 3,365,307$ 3,365,307$
Trng Ctr Bldg E Jersey Blvd 2016 3,064 Included 894,974$ 50 751,779$ 751,779$
Trng Ctr Bldg I Jersey Blvd 2016 1,300 Included 1,422,959$ 50 1,195,286$ 1,195,286$
Station 175 Banyan St 1992 13,000 3.05 7,304,058$ 50 3,587,401$ 2,629,461$ 6,216,862$
Station 176 East Av 2003 9,594 1.07 4,297,952$ 50 1,258,531$ 2,492,812$ 3,751,343$
Station 177 Rancho St 2012 6,000 1.23 4,025,220$ 50 1,446,722$ 3,059,167$ 4,505,890$
Station 178 Town Ctr Dr 2023 12,176 3.80 16,389,052$ 50 4,469,549$ 16,061,271$ 20,530,820$
Station 179 8th St Future 13,000 0.94 15,600,000$ 50 1,105,625$ 15,600,000$ 16,705,625$
Total 98,576,024$ 25,758,714$ 74,105,065 99,863,779$
1 Estimated replacement cost for existing buildings other than Station 178 are based on 2020 estimates, escalated by 38% to
2024 costs based on the California Construction Cost Index; cost for Station 178 is actual 2023 construction cost; cost for
future Station 179 based on $1,200 per square foot, which is below the actual cost of the two most recently constructed fire
stations; estimated costs include construction soft costs, utilities, site development, and furniture, fixtures and equipment
2 Estimated useful life of buildings in years
3 Estimated land value for existing fire stations or land cost for future fire stations = $1,176,197 per acre
4 Depreciated building replacement cost for existing stations using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the
asset; no depreciation applies to future buiding costs
5 Facility replacement cost = depreciated building replacement cost or new building cost + estimated land cost or value
Page 413
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Vehicles and equipment are assumed to have a residual value of at least 15% of
replacement cost, regardless of age. Assets with a value of less than $10,000 have been
omitted from Table 8.2.
Page 414
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.2: Existing Fire Apparatus and Vehicles
Model Useful Unit Repl Depr Unit Total Depr
Quantity Year Description Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Repl Cost 2 Repl Cost 3
2 2013 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
2 2003 Type 1 Engine (KME Excel)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
1 2017 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 360,000$ 360,000$
1 2008 KME Severe Duty Predator 10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
2 2005 Type 1 Engine (KME Excel)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
1 2018 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$
1 2010 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
1 2006 Type 1 Engine (KME Predator)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
1 2020 Type 1 Engine (Rosenbauer)10 1,200,000$ 720,000$ 720,000$
1 2023 Type 1 Engine (Rosenbauer Electric)10 2,200,000$ 1,980,000$ 1,980,000$
1 2006 Type 3 Engine (West Mark)10 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2008 Type 3 Engine 10 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2014 Type 3 Engine 10 150,000$ 22,500$ 22,500$
1 2020 Type 6 Engine 10 150,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2002 KME Aerial Ladder Truck--Tiller 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2008 KME Aerial Ladder Truck 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2015 Rosenbauer Aerial Ladder Truck 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2022 Rosenbauer Heavy Rescue Unit 10 1,650,000$ 1,320,000$ 1,320,000$
1 2006 KME Hazmat Unit 10 1,650,000$ 247,500$ 247,500$
1 2003 KME Water Tender 10 550,000$ 82,500$ 82,500$
3 2012 Dodge Ram 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 49,500$
1 2019 Dodge Ram 4WD V8 Hemi 7 200,000$ 57,143$ 57,143$
1 2024 Dodge Ram 4WD V8 Hemi 7 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
1 2015 Ford F-450 Super Duty Stake Bed 7 120,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$
1 2008 Ford F-350 Medic Squad 10 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
3 2019 Chevy Bolt EV 7 35,000$ 10,000$ 30,000$
3 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 15,750$
4 2012 Ford Escape Hybrid 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 21,000$
1 2023 Ford Lightning 7 110,000$ 94,286$ 94,286$
2 2009 Saturn Vue 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 10,500$
2 2020 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 15,000$ 30,000$
2 2023 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 30,000$ 60,000$
1 2024 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$
2 2016 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2018 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
1 2017 Ford F-350 7 200,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
1 2019 Ford F-350 7 200,000$ 57,143$ 57,143$
2 2016 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2018 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2008 Chevy F-2500 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
1 2012 Chevy 3/4 Ton Suburban 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2005 GMC Yukon 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2002 Dodge Ram 2500 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2004 GMC 7500 Series w/ Equipment 7 200,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
1 2008 Ford E-350 Van 7 75,000$ 11,250$ 11,250$
1 2021 Ford Transit-250 Van 7 110,000$ 62,857$ 62,857$
2 2020 Nissan NV200 Van 7 30,000$ 12,857$ 25,714$
1 2012 Ford 1-Ton 4x4 Long Bed 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2006 Freightliner Ambulance 10 480,000$ 72,000$ 72,000$
1 2024 Polaris ATV 10 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$
1 2001 Mitsubishi Forklift 10 65,000$ 9,750$ 9,750$
1 2011 JLG Telehandler 10 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
1 2013 Griddle Trailer 10 75,000$ 11,250$ 11,250$
1 2020 Progressive Trailer 10 25,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
Total 29,085,000$ 8,652,286$ 9,417,143$
1 Replacement cost provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District
2 Depreciated replacement cost using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the asset; minimum
depreciated value = 15% of replacement cost
3 Total depreciated replacement cost = depreciated unit replacement cost X number of units
Page 415
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.3 shows the cost of future apparatus and equipment needed to serve the City in
2040, including one Type I engine that will be needed for future Fire Station 179. The
estimated cost of that engine is based on the current cost of similar equipment. Also
shown in that table is the cost of personal protective equipment for nine firefighters that
will be needed to staff Station 179.
Table 8.4 summarizes the costs from the preceding three tables.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 8.5 calculates the cost per call for service for RCFPD facilities, apparatus and
equipment using the total impact fee cost basis from Table 8.4 and the projected number
of calls for service per year in 2040. In Table 8.5, the combined cost of existin g and
planned facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment is divided by total 2040 calls to both
existing and future development served by RCFPD.
Table 8.3: Future Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment
No. of Cost Total New
Description Units per Unit 1 Equipt Cost
New Type 1 Engine (Station 179)1 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$
Personal Protective Equipment 2 9 9,153$ 82,377$
Total 1,282,377$
1 Cost per unit provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District
2 Personal protective equipment for future added firefighters; estimated cost
includes uniforms and personal protective equipment for fire suppression,
wild land firefighting and tactical response
Table 8.4: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing and Future Assets
Impact Fee
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Fire Stations 83,158,154$
Future Fire Station 16,705,625$
Existing - Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment 9,417,143$
Future - Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment 1,282,377$
Total 110,563,299$
1 See Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3
Page 416
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
The number of calls for service per year shown for 2040 includes calls in the area served
by RCFPD outside of the City, so that the cost of serving development in that area is not
included in the cost per call for impact fees charged by the City. The impact fees calculated
in this chapter are designed to recover new development’s proportionate share of the
cost of all of RCFPD’s existing and planned facilities, apparatus and equipment our to
2040. In the next section, the cost per call is multiplied by calls per unit factors to calculate
impact fees per unit. Then for residential development, the impact fee per unit is divided
by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees per square foot for single -family and
multi-family residential development.
The cost per call for service per year in Table 8.5 can also be used to calculate customized
impact fees for development of non-residential development projects that do not fit
within the categories of development defined in this study. Customized impact fees can
be calculated using the cost per call for service per year from Table 8.5 multiplied by the
estimated number of calls per year that will be generated by a specific project.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 8.6 shows the calculation of fire impact fees per square foot for residential
development and per unit for non-residential development.
Table 8.5: Cost per Call for Service
Total Impact Fee 2040 Calls for Cost per Call for
Cost Basis 1 Service per Year 2 Service per Year 3
$110,563,299 21,728 $5,088.58
1 See Table 8.4
2 Projected 2040 calls for service for the District; see Table 2.4
3 Cost per call for service per year = total impact fee cost basis / 2040 calls
for service per year
Page 417
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Fee Adjustment to Avoid Overcollection
If the fees shown in Table 8.6 are used to project potential revenue from the RCFPD
impact fees, the result is that projected revenue exceeds the estimated cost of future
assets shown in Table 8.4 by around 3%. To avoid the potential for overcollection, th e
impact fees from Table 8.6 are reduced by 3.1% in Table 8.7. The adjusted impact fees
from Table 8.7 are then used to project revenue in the next section and are also shown in
Table S.1 in the Executive Summary.
Table 8.6: RCFPD Impact Fees per Unit and per Square Foot (Residential)
Development Cost per Calls Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Call 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $5,088.58 0.185 941.39$ 2,500 0.38$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $5,088.58 0.139 708.97$ 1,700 0.42$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $5,088.58 2.829 14,397.31$
Commercial/Retail KSF $5,088.58 0.231 1,174.76$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $5,088.58 0.115 584.65$
Office KSF $5,088.58 0.122 621.19$
Industrial KSF $5,088.58 0.017 88.79$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; room = guest room or suite;
Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Cost per call for service per year; see Table 8.5
3 Calls for service per unit per year; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot (residential) = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 418
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-9
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the fire impact fees is projected separately for residential and
non-residential development because residential impact fees are per square foot and
non-residential impact fees are per unit. These projections assume that future
development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development will
be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future development
may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee Credits and
Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 8.8 shows the projected revenue to 2040 based on the adjusted residential impact
fees per square foot from Table 8.7.
Table 8.7: RCFPD Impact Fees per Unit and per Square Foot Adjusted to Avoid Overcollection
Development Adj Cost Calls Adj Impact Avg Sq Ft Adj Impact
Type Units 1 per Call 2 per Unit 3 Fee per Unit 4 per Unit 5 Fee per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $4,930.83 0.185 912.20$ 2,500 0.36$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $4,930.83 0.139 686.99$ 1,700 0.40$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $4,930.83 2.829 13,950.99$
Commercial/Retail KSF $4,930.83 0.231 1,138.34$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $4,930.83 0.115 566.52$
Office KSF $4,930.83 0.122 601.93$
Industrial KSF $4,930.83 0.017 86.04$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; room = guest room or suite;
Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Adjusted cost per call for service per year is reduced by 3.1% from Table 8.6
3 Calls for service per unit per year; see Table 2.1
4 Adjusted impact fee per unit = adjusted cost per call for service X calls for service per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Adjusted mpact fee per square foot (residential) = adjusted impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Page 419
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-10
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.9 shows the projected revenue to 2040 based on the adjusted non-residential
impact fees per unit from Table 8.7
The sum of the projected revenues from both residential and non-residential impact fees
in the preceding tables is $17,917,643. The estimated cost of future facilities, apparatus
and equipment shown in Table 8.4 is $17,988,002, so the projected revenue based on the
adjusted impact fees shown in Table 8.7 is about 0.4% less than the estimated cost of
future assets. Additional information is shown in the City’s capital improvement plan.
Table 8.8: Projected Revenue - RCFPD Impact Fees (Residential)
Development Adj Impact Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type Fee per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.36$ 2,500 2,868 2,581,200$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.40$ 1,700 15,812 10,752,160$
Total 13,333,360$
1 Adjusted impact fee per square foot; see Table 8.7
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = adjusted impact fee per square foot X average square
feet per unit X added units
Table 8.9 Projected Revenue - RCFPD Non-Residential Impact Fees
Development Dev Adj Impact Future Projected
Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 13,950.99$ 138 1,928,794$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,138.34$ 700 796,840$
Hotel/Motel Room 566.52$ 275 155,765$
Office KSF 601.93$ 2,000 1,203,868$
Industrial KSF 86.04$ 5,800 499,017$
Total 4,584,283$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of
building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single
resident or patient
2 Adjusted impact fee per unit of development; see Table 8.7
3 Future units; see Table 2.4
4 Projected revenue = adjsuted impact fee per unit X future units
Page 420
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-11
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for fire district facilities, apparatus and vehicles. We recommend that
the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index or the California Construction Cost Index.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate
the impact of new development in the City on the need for facilities, apparatus and
equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD).
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
facilities, apparatus and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development in the
City on the need for those facilities.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to serve the added demand for fire
protection and other emergency services associated with new development in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development in the City increases the
demand for fire protection and other emergency services provided by the Rancho
Page 421
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-12
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Without additional facilities, apparatus and
equipment, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively
impact the ability of RCFPD the to provide services efficiently and effectively to all
development in the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact fees charged to
a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that
project. The fees per square foot for residential development and the fees per unit of
non-residential development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are
based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year associated with that type of
development in the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Thus, the fee charged to
a development project reflects the impact of that project on the overall need for facilities,
apparatus and equipment used by RCFPD to serve development in the City.
Page 422
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 9. Implementation
This chapter of the report summarizes requirements for adoption and administration of
impact fees, calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not
intended as legal advice.
Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a
condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act
(Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
Adoption
Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and
public-hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and
66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a,
which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10 -
day notice period. However, Section 66016.5 added by AB 602 in 2021 requires that
impact fee nexus studies be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30-day notice.
Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do
not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.
Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain
findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Chapter 1 of
this report.
A nexus summary for each impact fee calculated in this report can be found in individual
chapters of this report and those nexus summaries may be used to support the findings
required by Section 66001.
Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates
procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and
accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following
paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Notices and Statute of Limitations. Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the
time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall
identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required
notification could refer to the capital improvement plan that must now be adopted with
each new impact fee nexus study.
Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, shall
provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90 -day
period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest
imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to
subsequent legal challenge.
Page 423
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an
impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, as amended by SB 937 in 2024, provides that, with
some exceptions, a local agency shall not require payment of impact fees by developers
of residential development projects prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy, or first temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first . That
provision does not apply if construction of the residential development does not begin
within five years of the date upon which the building permit is issued.
An exception that allows utility service fees to be collected when an application for service
is received, is now limited to the cost of “connection activities.”
Local agencies may require payment of fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
under certain conditions, including if the fees are to reimburse the agency for
expenditures previously made, unless the project reserves at least 49% of residential units
for occupancy by lower income households. For such projects, the local agency may
require posting of a performance bond or letter of credit from a federally insured
depository institution to guarantee payment when the fees are eligible for collectio n.
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits , Sections
66007 (d) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a
contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the
fees are paid. The local agency may not charge interest or other fees on any amounts
deferred pursuant to Section 66007.
If a residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may
determine whether the fees or charges described shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each
dwelling when it receives its certificate of occupancy, on a pro rata basis when a certain
percentage of the dwellings have received their certi ficate of occupancy, or on a lump-
sum basis when all the dwellings in the development receive their certificate of
occupancy.
Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non -
residential development.
Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be
deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or
fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of
the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the
purpose for which the fee was collected .” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest
earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same
purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the
improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g.,
street improvements).
Page 424
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
We are not aware of any municipality that has interpreted that language to mean that
funds must be segregated by individual projects. As a practical matter, that approach
would be unworkable because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be
constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to
maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e.,
streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.
Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development
project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such
project must be exempted from the fees.
If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or
infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used
to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly to meet the
requirement that there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee
and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is
imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the
development on relevant public facilities.
In some cases, an agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would
otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or
economic development. Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the
governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects . So,
the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other
than impact fees.
Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a
condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for
which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted
so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by
the development.
In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or
improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers and
may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted . Excess
contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements .
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or
intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to
the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City
facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.
Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the
close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following
information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;
Page 425
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
2. The amount of the fee;
3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and
the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or
fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the
improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001,
paragraphs (e) and (f).
The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled
public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public , per
Section 66006 (b) (2).
Five-Year Findings and Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The
Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to
expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a
continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 ,
adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement
in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of
any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and
every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for
any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the
purpose for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete
financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be
used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to
complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the
appropriate account or fund.
Page 426
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If
such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be
required to refund the moneys in the account or fund , per Section 66001 (d).
Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete
financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it
must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which
construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the
agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the
account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).
For a useful discussion of the foregoing requirements, see “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-
Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Counsel,
Abbott and Kindermann, and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson,
presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference.
Audit Requests. Section 66023 provides that any person may request an audit to
determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount
reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility, as defined in Section
66000, or service provided by the local agency. The legislative body of the local agency
may retain an independent auditor to conduct the audit but is not required to conduct an
audit if an audit has been performed for the same fee within the previous 12 mon ths.
The agency shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit only if the person who
requests the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the local agency’s
reasonable estimate of the cost of the independent audit. At the conclusion of the audit,
the local agency shall reimburse unused sums, if any, or the requesting person shall pay
the local agency the excess of the actual cost of the audit over the amount that was
deposited.
However, if the local agency fails to comply with the annual report requirement of Section
66006 following the establishment, increase or imposition of a fee, but requires payment
of that fee in connection with the approval of a development project for thr ee
consecutive years, the agency shall not require a deposit for the independent audit and
shall pay the cost of the audit.
Indexing of In-Lieu/Impact Fees. In-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this report are
based on current costs and should be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the
cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by those fees. That adjustment
is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other
relevant capital assets. For construction costs, the General Services Department’s
California Cost Index is a useful reference, as is the Engineering News Record Building Cost
Index (BCI). Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs
should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices. Costs for vehicles and other
assets may be updated based on vendor information.
Page 427
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Requirements Imposed by AB 602
In 2021, the California Legislature passed AB 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB
602 creates some new requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022. The
new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose
the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements
applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that
information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability
requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water
and sewer utility connection
b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning,
design and development standards that apply to each parcel
c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a
development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540
d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code
Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent
conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes
3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount of fees and exactions
associated with the project for which the certificate is issued. That information must
be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year.
4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted.
5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each
public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new
level of service is appropriate
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review
the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the
amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing
development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of
the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square
footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a
valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the
Page 428
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this
requirement if the agency makes certain findings outlined in the statute.
8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code
(counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital
improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-day's notice, and the
local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to
begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.
Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and
training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining
them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting
rationale.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public
regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such
as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees
should be made clear.
Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for
projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the
expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified
in the impact fee nexus study in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to
show that funds have been properly expended.
Recovery of Study Costs
The City Council will establish an administrative fee in order to recover City costs of
administering the impact fee program.
Page 429
Appendix A Page 1 of 1
Appendix A
Land Sales Data from CoStar Real Estate Database (2019-2024)
Page 430
Appendix B Page 1 of 3
Appendix B
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Page 431
Appendix B Page 2 of 3
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Page 432
Appendix B Page 3 of 3
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Page 433
Appendix C-1 Page 1 of 34
Appendix C-1
All City Parks Maps
Page 434
9/11 Memorial Park
0 0.0250.0125
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /0.00 acres
1.40 acres
Page 435
Page 436
Page 437
Page 438
Page 439
Page 440
Page 441
Page 442
Page 443
Page 444
Page 445
Page 446
Page 447
Page 448
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
Page 452
WA
T
E
R
B
U
R
Y
P
L
NEW ENGLAND DR
D
I
C
K
E
N
S
C
T
RH
O
D
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
C
T
ME
R
R
I
M
A
C
K
P
L
CONGRESS DR
DECLARATION DR
T
E
R
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
E
A
S
T
Mountain View Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /5.03 acres
0.00 acres
Page 453
HUMBOLT
AVE
24TH ST
MAIN ST
HE
R
M
O
S
A
A
V
E
Old Town Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /5.01 acres
0.00 acres
Page 454
PIN
E
C
O
N
E
W
A
Y
DOVE
CANY
O
N
WAY
RO
S
E
W
A
Y
BAN
Y
A
N
S
T
PA
R
K
M
E
A
D
O
W
P
L
HOPPE DR
ST
E
P
H
E
N
S
P
L
W
E
S
T
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y
YOUNGS
CANYON RD
Olive Grove Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /7.38 acres
0.00 acres
Page 455
RO
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
JACK BENNY DR
VI
C
T
O
R
Y
D
R
STADIUM PARKWAY
ARROW RTE
R.C. Adult Sports Complex
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /48.90 acres
0.00 acres
Page 456
ST
A
N
I
S
L
A
U
S
P
L
AMARILLO
S
T
BASE LINE RD
FAIRMONT WAY
CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
P
L
HI
N
S
D
A
L
E
PL
BE
L
P
I
N
E
P
L
D
R
E
W
C
T
MERCED
CT
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
P
L
CLO
V
E
R
CT
WH
E
A
T
O
N
CT
LA VINE ST
N
O
V
A
C
T
BEA
L
C
T
B
I
O
L
A
P
L
SP
R
I
N
G
M
I
L
L
P
L
CH
I
C
A
G
O
CT
MI
L
L
I
K
E
N
A
V
E
WO
O
D
B
U
R
Y
CT
ST
E
R
L
I
N
G
C
T
MANC
H
E
S
T
E
R
ST
DE
L
MA
R
C
T
SH
E
R
B
R
O
O
K
E
PL
BI
R
K
D
A
L
E
PL
RO
X
B
U
R
Y
P
L
BAYLOR ST
MUIRFIELD DR GL
E
N
V
I
E
W
P
L
CA
S
C
A
D
E
C
T
TU
L
A
R
E
P
L
NORTHVIE
W
D
R
FORDHAM CT DA
V
E
N
P
O
R
T
C
T
A
R
M
S
T
R
O
N
G
P
L
GR
E
E
N
B
R
I
A
R
P
L
GLENOAKS DR
SINCLA
I
R
S
T
WILDWOOD DR BERWICK DR
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
CENTRAL PARK
Central Park
0 0.20.1
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /35.84 acres
64.54 acres
Page 457
3
8.248 ac
1
4.204 ac
4
9.175 ac 7
10.907 ac
8
4.292 ac 9
2.437 ac
12
5.227 ac
11
3.506
ac
6
15.276 ac
2
3.911 ac
5
3.494 ac
10
29.468 ac
Central Park Survey Data
The total acreage of Central park is 100.39 acreas. Within the 65.54 unimproved acres, there is
25.94 acres that is for non-public park facilities and is therefore not included in the total acreage.
The breakdown is as follows:
Lot 3 at 8.248 ac with an estimate of about hal going to parking. The result is that 4.124 ac is
removed.
Lots 11(3.506 ac) and 12 (5.227 ac) for the grape vineyards total 8.731 ac removed
Lot 2 used for a maintenance facility and some drainage areas is 3.911 ac.
Lastly we have the adventure facility at 9.175 ac in lot 4.
25.941 aces is subtracted from Central Park as it is for non-public facilities.
Page 458
CHURCH ST
E
L
M
A
V
E
Ralph M. Lewis Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.03 acres
0.00 acres
Page 459
R
O
B
I
N
S
O
N
G
W
A
Y
SAN
THO
M
A
S
C
T
K
I
T
T
Y
H
A
W
K
W
A
Y
PARKV
I
E
W
W
A
Y
SOLEDAD WAY
Rancho Summit Park
0 0.040.02
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.71 acres
0.00 acres
Page 460
CALLE FELIZ
BE
R
Y
L
S
T
VIVERO ST
BASE LINE RD
ANADA CT
CALLE DEL PRADO
AV
I
L
A
AV
E
CHURCH
ST
GA
R
N
E
T
ST
YEW ST
A
R
R
O
Y
O
V
I
S
T
A
A
V
E
RI
O
D
E
L
S
O
L
P
L
BAJADO
CT
A
N
T
I
G
U
A
P
L
IRONWOOD ST
N
A
P
A
C
T
SU
N
S
T
O
N
E
A
V
E
PEP
P
E
R
ST
CANDLEWOOD ST
AZU
R
I
T
E
A
V
E
AR
R
O
Y
O
V
I
S
T
A
A
V
E
ZI
R
C
O
N
A
V
E
CANDLEWOOD
ST
CALUMA CT
AG
A
T
E
S
T
BALSA ST
GA
R
N
E
T
S
T
CALLE DEL PRADO
ALDER ST
E
L
A
R
C
O
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
A
V
E
ZI
R
C
O
N
A
V
E
CA
R
N
E
L
I
A
N
S
T
BALSA ST
Red Hill Community Park
0 0.20.1
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /44.20 acres
0.00 acres
Page 461
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
COUNTRYVIEW DR
NORFOLK DR
ELM AVE
C
A
R
D
I
F
F
P
L
ELM AVEN
U
E
W
E
S
T
Spruce Ave Park
0 0.040.02
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /3.89 acres
0.00 acres
Page 462
AR
B
O
R
L
N
LONG MEADOW DR
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
P
A
R
K
L
N
S
O
N
O
M
A
C
R
E
E
K
C
T
LE
E
D
S
P
L
READING
D
R
NOTTINGHA
M
D
R
B
L
Y
T
H
E
P
L
VINTN
E
R
D
R
KE
N
W
O
O
D
P
L
Victoria Arbors Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /7.75 acres
0.00 acres
Page 463
Y
O
R
K
P
L
F
I
S
K
C
T
GR
A
Y
S
O
N
P
L
CHARLESTON ST
FAIRMONT WAY
Victoria Groves Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.02 acres
0.00 acres
Vintage Park
Page 464
LUCER
A
DR
TRAPANI DR
TO
L
E
N
T
I
N
O
D
R
FORLI DR
MILANO DR
B
E
N
E
V
E
N
T
O
P
L
K
E
N
Y
O
N
W
A
Y
VICTO
R
I
A
PARK L
N
Vintage Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.02 acres
0.00 acres
Page 465
ALTA LOMA DR
SOMERS
E
T
D
R
SOMERSET DR
OP
A
L
S
T
EM
E
R
A
L
D
S
T
SU
N
S
T
O
N
E
A
V
E
SA
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
A
V
E
I 210 FWY
I 210 OFRP
West Beryl Park
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.72 acres
0.00 acres
Page 466
COUNTRYVIEW D
R
B
A
S
T
I
A
C
T
S
A
R
Z
A
N
A
P
L
CORSICA C
T
AMIATA DR
FA
I
R
H
A
V
E
N
P
L
DA
N
N
E
R
C
T
M
O
N
T
E
C
I
T
O
C
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
C
R
E
S
T
C
T
P
A
L
A
C
I
O
C
T
LINA
R
O
R
D
West Greenway Park
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.10 acres
0.00 acres
Page 467
LO
T
U
S
CT
PL
U
M
W
A
Y
T
I
P
U
P
L
VERBENA
C
T
NO
R
T
H
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
WI
N
D
R
O
W
S
L
O
O
P
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
PA
R
K
L
N
Windrows Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.01 acres
0.00 acres
Page 468
Appendix C-2 Page 1 of 18
Appendix C-2
CO 2024-193 CP Lease Agreement
Page 469
Page 470
Page 471
Page 472
Page 473
Page 474
Page 475
Page 476
Page 477
Page 478
Page 479
Page 480
Page 481
Page 482
Page 483
Page 484
Page 485
Page 486
Page 487
Exhibit "C"
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.026 $1.066
Residential, Multi-Family SF $1.20 $0.030 $1.230
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $1.94 $0.049 $1.989
Residential, Multi-Family SF $2.24 $0.056 $2.296
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.85 $0.021 $0.871
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.99 $0.025 $1.015
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.42 $0.011 $0.431
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.49 $0.012 $0.502
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.09 $0.002 $0.092
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.10 $0.003 $0.103
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.15 $0.004 $0.154
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.19 $0.005 $0.195
Senior/Assisted Living Bed $892.88 $22.322 $915.202
Commercial/Retail KSF $1,010.46 $25.261 $1,035.721
Hotel/Motel Room $64.14 $1.603 $65.743
Office KSF $238.89 $5.972 $244.862
Industrial KSF $66.48 $ 1.662 $68.142
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Park Land Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Park Improvements Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Community and Recreation Center Facilities Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Library Facilities and Materials Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Police Department Facilities Impact Fee
$1.04
Page 488
Exhibit "C"
Admin. Fee
2.5%
Residential, Single Family SF $0.36 $0.009 $ 0.369
Residential, Multi-Family SF $0.40 $0.010 $0.410
Senior/Assisted Living Bed $13,950.99 $348.775 $14,299.765
Commercial/Retail KSF $1,138.34 $28.459 $1166.799
Hotel/Motel Room $566.52 $14.163 $580.683
Office KSF $601.93 $15.048 $616.978
Industrial KSF $86.04 $2.151 $88.191
RCFPD Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment Impact Fee
Development Type Unit
Impact Fee
(Nexus Study)
Total Impact
Fee
Note
Fees established by this resolution shall be adjusted annually, commencing on July 1,
2026, and each year thereafter, without further action of the City Council according to the
percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los
Angeles Area, for the 12-month period ending on December 31st of the immediately
preceding year. If the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los
Angeles Area is discontinued, the replacement index in use and accepted as the industry
and business standard for Souther California, as determined by the City Engineer, shall
be used.
Units of development; DU= dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation for one patient or resident.
Page 489
2025-04-16 – Regular City Council Meeting – Correspondence Received for Item G1
Dear City Council and/or Staff Representative:
We received a copy of the revised NBS Development Impact Fee Study dated April 10, 2025. Since we received the
impact fee study and the rest of the agenda package over the weekend, we have not had time to fully digest the Study
or the staff recommendations.
That being stated, upon my cursory review of the report and the staff recommendations, there appears to be a
disconnect between the recommended RCFPD fee in the body of NBS study and the fee set forth in Exhibit “C” (The
fee schedule) of the draft approving Resolution and the Study’s summary. Secs. 8.6 and 8.7 of the NBS Study
recommend that the fee should be $0.36 (SFD) and $0.40 (Multifamily) to offset the calculated overcollection, yet
Exhibit “C” to the resolution and Table S-1 Summary of the NBS Study show the higher overcollection amounts set
forth in the study ($0.38-SFD and $0.42-multifamily).
We would request a continuance of these new DIF fees (Item G1) to be able to have a reasonable opportunity to
adequately review the materials (205 pages of information provided). The new proposed fees do not go into effect
until July so I think a 2-week continuance would not create any issues. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
Rob
J. Robert Meserve
General Counsel
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, CA 92660
P: (949) 344-2704
F: (949) 344-2702
C: (949) 500-2768
E: rmeserve@newbridgehomes.com
Page 490
NON-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY & FEE UPDATE
PUBLIC HEARING
April 16, 2025, City Council Meeting
Background
January 2020
New Housing
Allocation
December 2020
Most recent update
to the DIFs
February 2022
New General Plan
Adopted
Fall 2023
City initiates
update to the
DIF Program
Fall 2024
BIA objected; City
releases second
updated Nexus
Study
Winter 2023
City releases an
updated Nexus
Study
Early 2025
BIA objected again;
City releases third
updated Nexus Study
2021
AB 602 adopted
and went in effect
January 1, 2022
What is a Development Impact Fee?
Development impact fees provide a fair, transparent mechanism for
mitigating the infrastructure impacts of new growth and
development.
•One-time charge
•Assessed at building permit issuance stage or at
Certificate of Occupancy, per Senate Bill (SB) 330
and Assembly Bill (AB) 602
•Required on development projects within the City
•Funds facilities to serve new development
•Ensures City is able to maintain existing levels of
services
•Adoption of Development Impact Fees are
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines
Growth Projections
Based on the General Plan Update new development will add
over 2,800 Single Family Dwellings and over 15,800 multi
family units by the year 2040 which will increase the City’s
population by 41,900.
Footnote: HCD approved the City’s Housing Element on September 7, 2022
Assembly Bill (AB) 602
AB 602 was passed in September 2021 and went into effect on January 1, 2022.
This law created new requirements for development impact fees in California, it
amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5.
Requires local jurisdictions to make
certain information available on
website:
•Current impact fee schedule
•Nexus studies
•Annual AB1600 reports
•Five-Year AB1600 reports
Technical changes:
•Residential fees should be charged
per square foot, unless findings are
supported that justify another metric
•Large jurisdictions shall adopt a
capital improvement plan as a part of
the nexus study
•Nexus study should identify existing
level of serviceChanges to impact fee adoption
process:
•Prior to adoption of development
fees, an impact fee nexus study needs
to be adopted with 30 days notice
Impact Fee Categories
Park Land
Acquisition
Park Land
Improvements
Community &
Recreation Centers
Library
Animal Center Police Fire
(Proposed New Fee)
Potential Capital Improvement Projects
During the Next Five Years of the DIF Program
•Animal Center
-Kennel Project
-Play Yard Project
•Community and Recreation
Center
-Joint Use Public Facility (in The
Resort)
•Fire
-Amethyst Station 171 Rebuild &
Expansion
•Library
-West Side Library Expansion
-Joint Use Public Facility (in The
Resort)
•Park Improvement
-Etiwanda Creek Park – Phase 2
-Etiwanda Area Park
Improvements
-Civic Center Area Park Land
Purchase
•Park Land
-Etiwanda Area Park Land
Purchase
-Civic Center Area Park Land
Purchase
•Police
-EOC Relocation – New Building
-Joint Use Public Facility (in The
Resort)
Current vs Proposed Fees
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
SFR 2,700 Sq Ft MF 1,600 Sq Ft Unit
Chart Title
2020 DIF 2025 DIF
Implementation
•The City is proposing that if approved by the City Council, the proposed
Development Impact Fee changes would take effect on July 1, 2025.
•Developers with applications submitted prior to close of business on April
16, 2025, and are subsequently deemed complete, may elect to proceed
forward under the new or old Development Impact Fee Program.
•Proceeding forward under the old development impact fee program will
be permitted so long as entitlements are received and building permits
are pulled prior to July 1, 2026.
•Proceeding forward under the new development impact fee program, and
the payment of fees at the initial rates, prior to issuance of a building
permit, will require completion of plans to the point of knowing actual
square footages. Otherwise, the option always exists to pay the fees in
effect at time of permit issuance or time of certificate of occupancy.
Implementation Continued
•The Nexus Study will be required to be updated on an eight (8) year
basis
•The amount of the development impact fees shall be adjusted
annually in July of each calendar year beginning in 2026, using the
Construction Cost Index (CCI), for the Park Impact Fees, the Building
Cost Index (BCI) for the Community and Recreation Center Impact
Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact
Fee, and Fire Impact Fee for the Los Angeles Region both as
reported by Engineering News
•The City Manager is authorized by City Council to make annual
adjustments to certain fees based on inflationary factors effective
July 1 of each year.
Administrative Fee
•The City must follow administrative, accounting, reporting, and
public notice requirements under the Government Code
•These responsibilities require staff time and sometimes external
advisory services
•To recover reasonable administrative costs, the City proposes a
2.5% Administrative Fee
•This proposed fee aligns with the representative implementation
costs outlined in the Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility
Calculation Templates by the Terner Center at UC Berkely, prepared
for California HCD (in fulfillment of AB 602).
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Government Code Sections 66000-66025
•Key findings
-Need: Development ≈ Need for facilities
-Benefit: Development ≈ Use of revenue
-Rough proportionality: Fee amount ≈ Development’s
share of facility costs
•Other findings
-Purpose of fee
-Use of fee revenue
Communication
•The City met the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(7) by
publishing and sending notice to interested parties 30 days prior to the
adoption of the impact fee nexus (30 days prior to the advertised hearing).
•The City has received letters with questions and comments from Desert
Valley Builders Association, Building Industry Association, Development
Planning & Finance Group and Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers and
have provided responses to the questions and comments which have been
published with the staff report as Attachment 8.
•The City Council continued the public hearing initially scheduled for April 2,
2025, to April 16, 2025, for the Non-Transportation Nexus Study and May 7,
2025, for the Transportation Nexus Study, in order to provide for further
communication with interested stakeholders on the fees. Since that time the
City has had multiple meetings and hours of communications with the
interested stakeholders to respond to all comments. This outreach and
discussion is ongoing with respect to the Transportation Nexus Study.
Staff Recommendation
1.Reopen the noticed public hearing to receive comments and testimony
from the public on the proposed impact fees and nexus study for the
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal
Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee;
2.Approve Resolution No. 2025-010 adopting the nexus study for the
Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal
Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, Park Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fee,
adopting capital improvement programs as part of the nexus study, and
approving the updated Development Impact Fee amounts, including
findings in support thereof; and
3.Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No.1038, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact
Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business Development, amending
Chapter 3.68 to remove references to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and making
a determination of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Development Impact Fee Study
Final Report
April 16, 2025
Final and completed Nexus Study
for the Non Transportation Fees.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ S-1
Organization of the Report............................................................................................... S-1
Development Data ............................................................................................................ S1
Impact Fee Analysis .......................................................................................................... S-2
Impact Fee Summary ........................................................................................................ S-5
Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Legal Framework for Impact Fees .................................................................................... 1-1
Recent Legislation ............................................................................................................ 1-6
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 1-8
Alternative Funding Sources ............................................................................................ 1-9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ........................................................... 1-9
Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions ............................................................................... 1-10
Review of Assumptions As Required by Gov’t Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) .................. 1-11
Facilities Addressed in this Study ................................................................................... 1-11
Chapter 2. Development Data ............................................................................................. 2-1
Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
Time Frame ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
Development Types .......................................................................................................... 2-1
Demand Variables ............................................................................................................ 2-3
Demand Factors ............................................................................................................... 2-5
Existing and Future Development .................................................................................... 2-5
Chapter 3. Park Impact Fees ................................................................................................ 3-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 3-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 3-2
Existing Parks .................................................................................................................... 3-2
Existing Level of Service ................................................................................................... 3-4
Cost Per Capita ................................................................................................................. 3-5
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 3-6
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 3-6
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 3-7
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 3-8
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee ................................................... 4-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 4-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 4-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 4-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 4-2
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 4-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 4-3
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 4-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 4-3
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 4-4
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 4-4
Chapter 5. Library Impact Fee ............................................................................................. 5-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 5-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 5-1
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 5-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 5-2
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 5-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 5-3
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 5-4
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 5-4
Chapter 6. Animal Center Impact Fee .................................................................................. 6-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 6-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 6-1
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 6-2
Cost per Capita ................................................................................................................. 6-3
Impact Fees per Square Foot ........................................................................................... 6-4
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 6-4
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 6-5
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 6-5
Chapter 7. Police Impact Fee ............................................................................................... 7-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 7-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 7-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 7-1
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 7-2
Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 7-2
Cost per Call for Service ................................................................................................... 7-2
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential) .................... 7-3
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 7-4
Updating the Fees ............................................................................................................ 7-5
Nexus Summary ................................................................................................................ 7-5
Chapter 8. Fire Impact Fee .................................................................................................. 8-1
Fire Protection District Law of 1987 ................................................................................. 8-1
Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 8-1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8-1
Demand Variable .............................................................................................................. 8-2
Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 8-2
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment................................................................................ 8-3
Cost per Call for Service ................................................................................................... 8-6
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential) .................... 8-7
Fee Adjustment to Avoid Overcollection ......................................................................... 8-8
Projected Revenue ........................................................................................................... 8-9
Updating the Fees .......................................................................................................... 8-10
Nexus Summary .............................................................................................................. 8-11
Chapter 9. Implementation ................................................................................................. 9-1
Adoption ........................................................................................................................... 9-1
Administration .................................................................................................................. 9-1
Requirements Imposed by AB 602 ................................................................................... 9-6
Training and Public Information ....................................................................................... 9-7
Recovery of Study Costs ................................................................................................... 9-7
Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. A-1
Appendix B ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. B-1
Appendix C-1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… C-1 -1
Appendix C-2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… C-2 -1
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 16, 2025
Executive Summary
The City of Rancho Cucamonga retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this
study to analyze the impacts of new development on several types of capital facilities and
to calculate impact fees based on that analysis.
The methods used in this study are consistent with those outlined in the Impact Fee Nexus
Study Templates prepared for the California Department of Housing and Community
Development by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley in fulfillment
of AB 602. Those methods are designed to satisfy the legal requirements of the U. S.
Constitution, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et
seq.).
Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing
and imposing such fees, and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees.
Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in this report.
Chapters 3 through 8 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities
and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are
listed by chapter below:
Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Facilities
Chapter 5. Library Facilities and Materials
Chapter 6. Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Chapter 7. Police Department Facilities
Chapter 8. RCFPD Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
Chapter 9 summarizes requirements for adopting and implementing impact fees.
Appendix A to this report contains data from the CoStar real estate database that
supports the estimated cost per acre for land used throughout this report. Appendix B
contains a detailed inventory of park maintenance vehicles and equipment supporting
replacement cost estimates shown in Table 3.3 in Chapter 3. Appendix C contains maps
of the City’s existing parks supporting the total park acreage and improved park acreage
estimates shown in Table 3.1 in Chapter 3.
Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Rancho
Cucamonga and a forecast of future development in terms of units of development,
population, police department calls for service per year and Rancho Cucamonga Fire
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 16, 2025
Protection District (RCFPD) calls for service per year for each type of development defined
in this study.
Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit and police and
fire calls per unit per year. Those factors are used to represent the impact of new
development in the impact fee calculations.
It is important to note that because of amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act contained
in AB 602 (2021) that were incorporated into California law effective in 2022, residential
impact fees must be calculated proportionately to the square footage of the pr oposed
units. Impact fees for residential development in this study are calculated as impact fees
per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. Prior to the adoption of
AB 602 it was common practice to calculate residential impact fees on a per-unit basis for
single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a
separate chapter. In each case, the relationship, or nexus, between development and the
need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional
development on facility needs to be quantified.
The impact fees are based only on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets
needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used
to pay for maintenance or operations.
Impact fees calculated in this report are shown later in this Executive Summary.
The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for
each of the facility types addressed in this study.
Park Land and Park Improvements. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for
park land acquisition and park improvements. The cost of park maintenance vehicles and
equipment is included in the park improvement impact fees.
Impact Fees for Park Land Acquisition. The impact fees for park land acquisition calculated
in Chapter 3 apply only to residential development and are based on the existing level of
service which is defined in this report as the existing ratio of improved park acres to
population in the City.
The park land impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing ratio of
improved park land to population in acres per capita, and the land cost per acre used in
those calculations is based on the estimated cost per acre to acquire additional park land
in the City. Those factors are used to calculate a cost per capita, which is multiplied by the
population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development to get a
park land impact fee per unit for each type of residential development. Those impact fees
per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit to get impact fees per square foot
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 16, 2025
for single-family and multi-family residential development. Impact fees for park land do
not apply to non-residential development.
The City does not require dedication of park land or payment of fees in lieu of dedication
pursuant to the Quimby Act. Park land acquisition is funded, in part, through development
impact fees imposed on residential development.
Impact Fees for Park Improvements. The park improvement impact fees calculated in
Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing ratio of improved park land to population in
acres per capita, and the estimated cost per acre for park improvements. The cost of park
maintenance vehicles and equipment is incorporated into the park improvement impact
fees, but the vehicles and equipment component represents less than 0.5% of those fees.
Park improvement impact fees per unit and per square foot for single-family and multi-
family residential development are calculated in the same manner as for the park land
impact fees.
The impact fees calculated in this report for park land and park improvements are shown
in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Community and Recreation Center Facilities. Chapter 4 of this report calculates impact
fees for community and recreation centers.
The impact fees for community and recreation center facilities are based on the City’s
existing level of service for these facilities, which is defined as the relationship between
the existing population and the replacement cost of existing community and r ecreation
center facilities. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita. The impact fees per unit
for community and recreation center facilities are calculated as the cost per capita
multiplied by the population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential
development. Those impact fees per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit
to get an impact fee per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. The
impact fees for community and recreation center facilities do not apply to non-residential
development.
The impact fees calculated in this report for community and recreation center facilities
are shown in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Library Facilities and Materials. Chapter 5 of this report calculates impact fees for library
facilities and materials.
The library impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service which is defined as
the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost of existing
library facilities and materials. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita. Impact fees
per unit of development are calculated as the cost per capita multiplied by the population
per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development. Those impact fees per
unit are divided by the average square feet per unit to get an impact fee per square foot
for single-family and multi-family development. The impact fees for library facilities and
materials do not apply to non-residential development.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 16, 2025
The impact fees for Library facilities and Library materials are calculated separately in
Chapter 5, but they are shown as a combined fee in Table S.1 on page S-5.
Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment. Chapter 6 of this report calculates
impact fees for animal center facilities, vehicles and equipment.
The impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service for these facilities which
is defined as the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost
of the existing facilities, vehicles and equipment. That relationship is st ated as a cost per
capita. The impact fees per unit for the animal center are calculated as the cost per capita
multiplied by the population per unit for single-family and multi-family residential
development. Those impact fees per unit are divided by the average square feet per unit
to get an impact fee per square foot for single-family and multi-family development. The
impact fees for the animal center apply only to residential development.
The impact fees calculated in this report for animal center facilities are shown in Table S.1
on page S-5.
Police Department Facilities. Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for Police Department
facilities based on the existing level of service in the City. The existing level of service is
defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing Police Department
facilities and the number of calls for service per year received by the Department. That
relationship is stated as a cost per call for service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Police Department calls for service
for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by
each type of development defined in this study. The impact fee per unit for each type of
development is calculated by multiplying the cost per call for service and the number of
calls per unit per year. For residential development, the cost per unit for single-family and
multi-family residential development is divided by the average square feet per unit to get
an impact fee per square foot. Police impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new
development in the City.
The impact fees calculated in this report for Police Department facilities are shown in
Table S.1 on page S-5 for residential development and in Table S.2 on page S-6 for non-
residential development.
Fire Department Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment. Fire protection and emergency
response services for the City of Rancho Cucamonga are provided by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). Chapter 8 calculates fire impact fees for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, which occupies a large part of the RCFPD service area.
By law, fire districts are prohibited from imposing impact fees on their own, but they are
allowed to receive funds from other entities for any legitimate purpose. So, the City can
impose fire impact fees on new development in the City and provide the reve nue from
those fees to RCFPD to pay for capital facilities, apparatus and equipment needed to
mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 16, 2025
Unlike the other impact fees calculated in this study which are based on the existing level
of service for the relevant facilities, the fire impact fees in Chapter 8 are calculated using
the system plan method. That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the
cost of both existing and future RCFPD assets serving the City are allocated to both
existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected
out to 2040.
The impact of development on RCFPD facilities, apparatus and equipment is represented
in this study by the number of calls for service per year generated by development in the
City. As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of RCFPD calls for service for a
full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different
types of development.
A cost per call for service year is calculated by dividing estimated 2040 asset costs by the
projected number of calls for service per year generated by development in the City in
2040. Then, an impact fee per unit is calculated by multiplying that cost pe r call by the
number of calls for service per unit per year generated by each category of development
defined in this study. The impact fee per unit for single-family and multi-family residential
development is divided by the average square feet per unit to get an impact fee per
square foot.
The impact fees calculated in this report for Fire Department facilities are shown in Table
S.1, below for residential development and Table S.2 on the next page for non-residential
development.
Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 summarizes the residential impact fees calculated in this report, which are all
shown as impact fees per square foot.
Table S.2 shows the non-residential impact fees calculated in this report, which are
calculated on a per-unit basis.
Table S.1: Summary of Residential Impact Fees per Square Foot Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Residential, Single Family SF 1.04$ 1.94$ 0.85$ 0.42$ 0.09$ 0.15$ 0.36$ 4.85$
Residential, Multi-Family SF 1.20$ 2.24$ 0.99$ 0.49$ 0.10$ 0.19$ 0.40$ 5.61$
1 SF = 1 gross square foot of building area
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 16, 2025
Table S.3 shows the City’s existing impact fees.
Because the proposed residential impact fees shown in Table S.1 are calculated on a per -
square-foot basis in response to amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act, they cannot be
compared to the City’s existing residential impact fees, which are charged on a pe r-unit
basis. However, non-residential impact fees are still calculated on a per-unit basis, so it is
possible to compare the existing and proposed non-residential impact fees. Table S.4
shows the difference between the existing non-residential impact fees in Table S.3 and
the proposed non-residential impact fees from Table S.2. Numbers in parentheses
indicate that the proposed fees are lower than the existing fees.
This study proposes eliminating many of the existing impact fees for Senior/Assisted
Living Facilities on the grounds that residents of Senior/Assisted Living facilities have
limited access to some types of facilities addressed in this study. That is why most of the
Table S.2: Summary of Non-Residential Impact Fees per Unit Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Senior/Assisted Living Bed 893$ 13,951$ 14,844$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,010$ 1,138$ 2,149$
Hotel/Motel Room 64$ 567$ 631$
Office KSF 239$ 602$ 841$
Industrial KSF 66$ 86$ 153$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
Table S.3: Existing Impact Fees From City of Rancho Cucamonga 2024 Fee Schedule
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Residential, Single Family DU 4,744$ 4,583$ 2,481$ 891$ 169$ 376$ 0$ 13,244$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 3,239$ 3,129$ 1,693$ 608$ 116$ 297$ 0$ 9,082$
Senior/Assisted Living Bed 1,576$ 1,523$ 825$ 296$ 56$ 136$ 0$ 4,412$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,184$ 0$ 1,184$
Hotel/Motel Room 182$ 0$ 182$
Office KSF 371$ 0$ 371$
Industrial KSF 54$ 0$ 54$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
Table S.4: Difference Between Existing Non-Residential Impact Fees and Impact Fees Calculated in This Study
Development Park Park Comm/Rec Animal
Type Units 1 Land Imprvmts Centers Libraries Center Police RCFPD Total
Senior/Assisted Living Bed (1,576)$ (1,523)$ (825)$ (296)$ (56)$ 757$ 13,951$ 10,432$
Commercial/Retail KSF (174)$ 1,138$ 965$
Hotel/Motel Room (118)$ 567$ 449$
Office KSF (132)$ 602$ 470$
Industrial KSF 12$ 86$ 99$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation
for a single resident or patient
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page S-7
Development Impact Fee Study
April 16, 2025
fees for that category show a negative change in Table S.4. At the same time, the
proposed creation of an impact fee for RCFPD results in a large increase overall for impact
fees on the Senior/Assisted Living category.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for certain
capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City)
and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District) and to calculate
impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and
methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees.
The City has previously enacted impact fees for the City facilities addressed in this report.
The purpose of this study is to update those fees to reflect current costs and conditions
in the City. See Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapters 3.52 (Community and
Recreation Center Impact Fee), 3.56 (Library Impact Fee), 3.60 (Animal Center Impact
Fee), 3.64, (Police Impact Fee), and 3.68 (Park In-lieu/Impact Fees). The impact fee
calculated in this study for Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District facilities, apparatus
and equipment would be a new fee.
The impact fees calculated in this report satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees,
including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California
Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025.
Legal Framework for Impact Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general
overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice.
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact
fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for
public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the
imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation,
provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A
regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property
rights protected by the Constitution.
In two cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a
government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition
of development approval or imposes exactions as a condition of approval on a
development project, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such
exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,
1987) and make an “individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly
proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).
In April 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that even legislatively adopted impact fees
are subject to Nollan and Dolan.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Defining “Nexus.” The nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees can be thought
of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically
included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan
v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable
relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition
of impact fees.
1. Need or Impact. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a
development project subject to those fees will create a need for the facilities to be funded
by the impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on
some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not
increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for
the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of
development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related
to the development project subject to the fees.
The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used
only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are
imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms
of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and t he demand for
public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of
the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus.
2. Benefit. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that a development project
subject to those fees will benefit from the facilities funded by the impact fees. With
respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by
impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit
relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and
expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing
in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee
revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the
Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended in a
timely manner or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that
developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time,
procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the
benefit element of the nexus.
3. Proportionality. An agency imposing impact fees must demonstrate that the amount
of those fees is proportional to the impact created by development project s subject to
the fees. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development -
related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated
in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of
development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to
allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local
governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police
power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees
on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are
special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. Impact fees
calculated in this report do not exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve new
development and, thus, are not special taxes requiring voter approval pursuant to Article
XIIIA.
Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996,
require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of
fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees are exempt
from those requirements.
The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600
during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added
several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time ,
the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially
titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this
report are from the Government Code.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact
fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public
improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not
specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act both case law and statute (see
Government Code Section 65913.8) clarify that impact fees may not be used to pay for
ongoing maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report
are based on the cost of capital assets only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title.
Nor does it use the common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which
is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged
by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project
for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the
development project ….”
To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely accepted term
“impact fee” which should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee
Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing
impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the
collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluation
of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the
implementation chapter of this report.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Required Findings. Section 66001 (a) requires that an agency establishing, increasing or
imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee
and the development type on which it is imposed
4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
In addition, Section 66001 (b) requires that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of
approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine
how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed.
The requirements outlined above are discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public
health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific
purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund acquisition or construction of certain
capital assets that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development
on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows.
This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should
define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to
serve additional development.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001(a)(2), if a fee is used to
finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement pl an
may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a
General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents . Section 66002 (b) requires
that if a capital improvement plan is used to identify the facilities, it must be updated
annually.
However, a new provision in Section 66016.5(a)(6), which was added by AB 602 in 2021,
requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee
study. That requirement applies to impact fee nexus studies adopted after Janu ary 1,
2022. “Large jurisdiction” means a county of 250,000 or more or any city within that
county. The statute does not provide any detail about what must be included in the capital
improvement plan or how it should relate to the impact fee study. That new requirement
appears to override the original language of Section 66001(a)(2), so that a capital
improvement plan (CIP) is no longer optional. A CIP is now required for all new impact fee
nexus studies adopted by large jurisdictions. The annual update requirement remains in
effect.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
The City of Rancho Cucamonga publishes the Capital Improvement Program as part of the
annual budgeting procedures, and the latest available information can be found on the
City’s website under Financial Reports. Further, the City has prepared an amendment to
the Major Project Program (which includes the Capital Improvement Program) which will
be considered for approval as part of the DIF Program update. A copy of the Major Project
Program amendment is available under separate cover.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that,
for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated
between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is
imposed; and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
on which the fee is imposed.
Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the
Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see
Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section
66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby
Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).
Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by
AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing
deficiencies in public facilities…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as
stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v.
City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).
Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the
increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in
order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2)
achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis
added.)
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing
facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development
and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used
to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. As a
practical matter, such fees are difficult to implement unless the fees are needed to repay
outstanding debt related to the facilities in question.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California since 2019 to facilitate development
of affordable housing bear on the implementation of impact fees calculated in this study.
Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed since 2019.
SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. SB 330 (amended and clarified in 2021 by SB 8)
contained a variety of amendments designed to promote affordable housing. Among
them was a provision in Government Code Section 65589.5 that prohibits the imposition
of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a preliminary
application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees except
when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationar y
adjustments to the fee or exaction. These provisions will remain in effect until January 1,
2030.
AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting (2019). AB 1483 added Section
65490.1 to the Government Code, and requires that a city, county or special district must
post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus
studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.
SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units (2019). SB 13 amended Government Code Section
65852.2 to prohibit the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
smaller than 750 square feet and to require that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet
or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The
proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more
must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.
Existing law requires a water or sewer connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory
dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the
accessory dwelling unit’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. SB 13 revises the
basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge to either the accessory dwelling
unit’s square feet or the number of its drainage fixture units.
AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act
(2021). AB 602 adds Section 65940.1 to the Planning and Land Use Law requiring cities,
counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of fees,
exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus
studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.
AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new
requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022, including:
▪ A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify
the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service
is appropriate.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
▪ If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall
review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and
evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
▪ Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must
adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
▪ All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30
days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that
requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the
hearing.
▪ Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period
beginning on January 1, 2022.
▪ A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a
housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed
units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this
requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local
agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the
development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a
reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.
▪ Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development
project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply
with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to
consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.
AB 516 – Amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act (2023). AB 516, which took effect on
January 1, 2024, amends Government Code Section 66006 to add certain requirements
to the annual reports mandated by that section. Specifically, Section 66006 now requires
that:
▪ Annual reports indicate whether construction on public improvements identified
in previous annual reports began on the approximate date shown in the previous
annual report; and,
▪ If a project failed to start construction on schedule, the annual report must explain
the reason for the delay and provide a revised approximate date when
construction will begin.
AB 516 also amends Section 66023 to provide that when a person requests an audit of a
fee or charge levied by a local agency, that audit may address when revenue generated
by that fee or charge is scheduled to be expended, and when the public improvement t o
be funded by that fee or charge is scheduled to be completed. Prior to this amendment,
the only stated purpose of such an audit was to determine whether such a fee or charge
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility
or service provided by the local agency.
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are designed to comply with all
of the legal requirements discussed earlier in this chapter. Any one of several legitimate
methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends
primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the type of
facility being addressed. To some extent those methods are interchangeable, because
they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by de velopment.
Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all
methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify
the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost a llocation
formula, the impact of development is represented by some attribute of development
such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by
different types and amounts of development.
Although it is not mandatory, this study adopts the nomenclature used in the Impact Fee
Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC
Berkeley to describe impact fee calculation methods. Those templates were prepared for
The California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section
50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code and are cited in AB 602.
Planned Facility Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development will pay for the planned expansion of facilities at the future standard
attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the cost of
planned facilities is divided by the amount of demand that will be created by new
development. The impact fees depend on the cost of planned future facilities and a plan
for future development, so the fees should be recalculated if facility plans or development
plans change.
Existing Inventory Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve
existing development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing
facilities is divided by the amount of demand associated with existing development. This
method allows impact fees to be calculated without a list of planned facilities, but such a
list is required by AB 602 as part of a Capital Improvement Plan that must be adopted
with any new impact fee nexus study. This approach can be used to calculate impact fees
for many types of public facilities but is usually not appropriate for facilities such as
transportation improvements or water, wastewater or drainage systems where
improvement needs must be determined by engineering analysis.
System Plan Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new
development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the
future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-9
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the
combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
This approach is especially appropriate for impact fees for fire protection and EMS
facilities because new facilities must be planned to integrate geographically with existing
facilities.
Alternative Funding Sources
The Terner Center impact fee templates recommend that an impact fee study discuss the
availability of alternative funding sources for facilities addressed in the study and whether
there are existing deficiencies for which other funding is needed. This stud y has not
identified existing deficiencies with respect to the existing level of service standard used
as the basis for impact fee calculations for all impact fees except those for RCFPD.
However, for several types of facilities including libraries and the animal center, there is
a perceived need in the City to provide a level of service higher than the existing level.
This study has not identified alternative funding sources that could be used to elevate the
level of service in the City above the level currently provided. Should such funding become
available, it could be used for that purpose or, given the many uncertainties regarding the
course of future development and the actual cost of future facilities, such funding could
be used to cover unanticipated costs of needed facilities. In the event that the City should
acquire funding specifically earmarked for facilities identified in the Capital Improvement
Program for impact fee funding, it may be appropriate to modify the impact fee
calculations to take account of that funding.
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
SB 477, enacted in 2024, relocated and consolidated California’s ADU laws into a new
Government Code Chapter (Chapter 13, Division 1, Title 7). Recent amendments to ADU
law provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet
and establish the following requirement for impact fees imposed on ADUs of 750 square
feet or more:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or
more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the
primary dwelling unit.”
The proportionality requirement depends on the square footage of both the primary unit
and the ADU, which necessitates that impact fees for ADUs be calculated on a case-by-
case basis. Consequently, this report does not calculate a schedule of impact fees f or
ADUs. The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees is:
Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet)
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-10
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions
Existing State law provides that certain types of projects, largely involving housing, are
exempt from or receive reduced or vested development impact fees (exceptions). These
exceptions include, for example, a prohibition on impact fees for accessory dwelling units
of 750 square feet or less and vested impact fees for qualifying housing development
projects subject to a preliminary application under the Housing Accountability Act, SB
330. Such exceptions may change over time. As a Pro Housing jurisdiction, the City of
Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the importance of providing more housing and affordable
housing for all income levels. To that end, the City supports current State law in this
regard and intends to comply with future changes in this area.
This nexus study anticipated all future development in the City without considering the
potential applicability of any exceptions to the impact fees applied to such
development. This is because, among other reasons, it is not possible to determine
whether any particular project will qualify for an exception and then to what extent. It is
speculative to forecast that a certain amount of development expected in the City will be
attributable to projects that qualify for exceptions. To be sure, the value of any po tential
exception was not re-allocated or re-distributed to other development
projects. Therefore, no project will subsidize any lost revenue caused by a project that
qualifies for an exception, and any shortfalls in funding for exempt or reduced fee proj ects
will be made up through grants or other local discretionary funding sources.
Further, the City has long recognized that for some development projects there is mutual
benefit for the developer to construct public improvements or dedicate land that are part
of the impact fee program’s list of capital projects. In accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and other laws, the developer may
be eligible for a credit against the amount of the relevant impact fee for the cost of the
improvement or value of the land dedicated when the development impact fee is
calculated. In order to ensure the sustainability and equity of the program, such credits
are equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined
in the nexus study, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the fees are calculated.
Finally, the City seeks to defray the cost of construction for public infrastructure through
alternative means such as grant programs. The City proactively pursues grants and other
funding mechanisms; however, the City does not have the ability to guarantee a certain
percentage of grant awards toward projects within this DIF program. In order to ensure
that new development funds its fair share of the improvements in this program,
applicable grant awards will be first used to offset the appropriate project c ost share
attributable to existing development and then remaining grant awards (if any) will be
used to offset the cost borne by the fee program unless the grant award is specifically
made to offset new development costs. Should new development costs be offset by grant
or other funding mechanisms, such offset will be accounted for in the next major update
to this nexus study.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1-11
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Review of Assumptions As Required by Gov’t Code Section 66016.5(a)(4)
The most recent iteration of the adopted fee programs for Park Land and Park
Improvements, Community and Recreation Facilities, Library Facilities and Materials,
Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment, and Police Facilities Impact Fees were
adjusted in 2020 by Resolution No. 20-121 (Appendix XX – Resolution No. 20-121).
Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) as amended by AB 602 requires local agencies
adopting increases to existing DIF program fees review the assumptions in the prior study
as part of a new nexus study. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 20-121, the City
approved a General Plan update that set forth a renewed vision for the community
including anticipated development patterns, population growth estimates, and public
infrastructure, facilities, materials, and equipment needs. Further, since that time,
construction costs have increased dramatically for public improvements. This study has
reviewed the prior assumptions and incorporated currently available data and
assumptions as more appropriate to the analysis considered in this study.
Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
▪ Park Land and Park Improvements
▪ Community and Recreation Center Facilities
▪ Library Facilities and Materials
▪ Animal Center Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with
Chapter 3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact
fee analysis.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 2. Development Data
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to
calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this
chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate
the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various
types of new development.
Study Area
The study area for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) in this study is the planning area
defined in the City’s current General Plan which was adopted in 2021. That area
encompasses both the existing City and the small Sphere of Influence (SOI) along the
northern edge of the City above the Alta Loma neighborhood. Impact fees for City
facilities are calculated in Chapters 3 through 7 of this report.
The study area for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District)
impact fees is the entire area within the boundaries of the District, which includes the
entire City and its SOI, as well as an area north of the City that is currently unincorporated
and is not planned for annexation to the City. All of RCFPD’s capital assets are located
within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, but a very small percentage of the calls for service
originating within the district boundaries come from the portion of RCFPD outside the
City. The RCFPD impact fees are calculated using all of the calls for service within the
District so that the cost of serving the area outside the City is not averaged into the RCFPD
impact fees charged within the City. Impact fees for RCFPD facilities, apparatus and
equipment are calculated in Chapter 8 of this report.
Time Frame
Planned future development in this study is forecasted out to 2040. However, the
methods used to calculate impact fees in this study do not depend on the timing of future
development.
Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this report are discussed
below. Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied based on actual
land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. For mixed use
development projects, impact fees should be applied to each type of development within
the project, consistent with the number of units of development of each type within the
project.
Residential Development. Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) which was added
to the Mitigation Fee Act by AB 602 in 2021 contains the following requirement:
“A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing
development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage
of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method
to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed
by the development”
This study calculates impact fees per square foot for two types of residential development
using average square-feet-per-unit numbers provided by the City:
• Single-family Residential Units
• Multi-family-Residential Units (including all attached dwelling units)
Senior/Assisted Living Facilities. While senior living and assisted living facilities, including
rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities have some of the characteristics of residential
uses, their impact characteristics can be substantially different from most residential
development, with less impact on transportation and parks and recreation facilities and
greater impact on emergency medical services. Consequently senior/assisted living
facilities are treated as a separate category in this study and are not considered a form of
housing development subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5.
Development in this category is measured in terms of beds, which is intended as a proxy
for the number of occupants of a facility.
Non-Residential Development. Non-residential development types used in this study are:
▪ Commercial/Retail
▪ Hotel/Motel
▪ Office
▪ Industrial
The impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied to development
projects, or portions of projects, based on the actual type of development being
constructed. Except for the Hotel/Motel category, which is measured in terms of guest
rooms, the non-residential development types listed above are measured in terms of
gross leasable floor area in thousands of square feet (KSF).
In the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code), allowable
uses are grouped into broad categories. In general, those categories correspond
reasonably well with the development types listed above, except that in the Development
Code, hotels and other lodging uses are included in a category called Service and Office
Uses whereas this study breaks out hotels and motels as a separate category.
In cases where a proposed development project does not fit reasonably well into one of
the development types defined in this study, the City has the option to calculate an impact
fee that is tailored to that specific use. See the sub-section on Other Types of
Development, below.
Public Facilities, Public Schools and Parks. In addition to the development types listed
above, the development tables presented later in this chapter include public
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
(government) facilities, public schools and parks. The City does not impose impact fees
on those uses, either because of legal constraints or because it would be imposing the
fees on itself, which serves no purpose. However, those uses do create measurable
impacts on some services, including law enforcement and fire protection/emergency
medical services, and they are included in the impact fee analysis so that the impacts
associated with those exempt uses can be distinguished from demand associated with
fee-paying development types.
Other types of Development. The development types for which impact fees are
calculated in this study will encompass most new development in the City, but there may
be some development projects that don’t fit very well within any of the established fee
categories. In such cases, it is possible for City staff to calculate a customized impact fee
at the time a project is approved.
For example, to calculate a customized police impact fee, it would be necessary to
estimate the number of police calls for service per year that will be generated by the
project, based on the number of calls generated by similar existing uses in the City. Then,
that number would be multiplied by the cost per call calculated in this study to arrive at
the police impact fee for the project. Customized impact fees for other facility types could
be calculated in a similar manner.
Demand Variables
To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must
be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development
(for example, added population) are used as “demand variables” in those formulas to
represent the impact of different types of development on various types of facilities.
Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service demand
created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with
that demand.
For example, the need for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of the
relationship between population and acres of parks. As population grows, more parks are
needed to maintain that relationship. Logically, then, the increase in population r elated
to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick, or demand variable, for use
in measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks.
Demand variables have specific values for each type of development defined in this study.
Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.” So, if the demand variable used to
calculate impact fees for a particular type of facility is added population, the demand
factor for a specific category of residential development would be the population per
dwelling unit for that category.
Demand variables used in this study are discussed below. Specific demand factors can be
found in Table 2.2.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Population. Population is used in this study as the demand variable for parks, libraries,
community and recreation centers and the animal center. The need for those facilities is
driven largely by the added population associated with residential development. They are
not impacted substantially by non-residential development. The specific population per
unit factors used in this study are shown in Table 2.1.
Police Department Calls for Service. Demand for police services is impacted by both
residential and non-residential development in the City. In this study, the number of
police calls for service per unit per year is used to represent the demand for police services
by various types of development. The calls-for-service factors used in this study are based
on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all calls for service received by the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024.
During that period, the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department logged about 80,000 calls.
A random sample of 648 calls was classified by development type based on address or
location. Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development were
excluded from the analysis. The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of
development defined in this study was applied to the total number of 2023 calls to get
the number of calls generated by each type of development for the year. The nu mber of
calls associated with each type of development was divided by the number of existing
units for that type of development to arrive at the average number of calls per unit per
year for that type of development.
RCFPD Calls for Service per Year. Demand for fire protection, emergency medical
response and other services provided in the City by RCFPD is impacted by both residential
and non-residential development. In this study, the number of calls for service per unit
per year to RCFPD is used to represent the demand for fire protection and emergency
response services by various types of development in the City. The calls-for-service factors
used in this study are based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all 2023 calls for
service to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
In 2023, RCFPD logged about 18,600 calls for service. As part of this study, NBS analyzed
a random sample of 700 of those calls and classified them by development type based on
address. Calls that could not be associated with a particular type of development we re
excluded from the analysis.
The percentage of sampled calls associated with each type of development defined in this
study was applied to the total number of 2023 calls to get the full number of calls
generated by that type of development for the year. Then, the number of calls per y ear
was divided by the number of existing units for each type of development to arrive at the
average number of calls per unit per year. Fire calls-per-unit-per-year factors used in this
study are shown in Table 2.2, below.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Demand Factors
Table 2.1 shows the values of demand factors by development type used in this study.
Factors for population per unit and Police Department calls for service per unit per year
are for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Factors for Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District calls for service per unit per year are for the area within the boundaries of the
District. Calls from development within the City make up an estimated 99.6% of all calls
generated within RCFPD.
Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.2 through 2.4, beginning on the next page, present summaries of existing and
future development by development type in Rancho Cucamonga. The figures for units,
population and police department calls for service shown in those tables are for the City
only. The RCFPD calls for service shown in those tables are for the entire District, but
development in the City accounts for more than 99% of those calls.
The portion of RCFPD outside the City is small and development in that area is constrained
by topography. The only difference in existing and future development between the City
and the District is that the District has an estimated 348 more existing resid ential units
than the number of existing residential units in the City. The number of units does not
Table 2.1: Demand Factors Used in This Study
Development Dev Population RCPD Calls RCFPD Calls
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 0.717 0.185
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 0.617 0.139
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 1.738 2.829
Commercial/Retail KSF 1.966 0.231
Hotel/Motel Rooms 0.125 0.115
Office KSF 0.465 0.122
Industrial KSF 0.129 0.017
Public Facilities KSF 0.954 0.476
Public Schools Students 0.118 0.015
Parks Acres 3.474 0.213
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Population per unit based on American Community Survey Tables 25032 and 25033, 2022
one-year estimates
3 Estimated average Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis
of a random sample of calls for service for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024;
see discussion in text
4 Estimated average Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District calls for service per unit per
year based on analysis of a random sample of 2023 calls for service by NBS; see discussion
in text
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
enter directly into the impact fee calculations. Those 348 additional residential units are
not shown in these tables but are included in the calculation of impact fees for RCFPD.
Table 2.2 shows estimated existing development as of January 1, 2024, in terms of units,
population, police department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.3 shows projected new development to 2040, in terms of units, population, police
department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.2: Existing Development - January, 2024
Development Dev Existing Existing Existing Existing
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls 3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 38,997 122,821 27,980 7,152
Residential, Multi-Family DU 28,803 69,166 17,773 4,013
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 709 1,232 2,006
Commercial/Retail KSF 8,412 16,542 1,942
Hotel/Motel Rooms 1,410 176 162
Office KSF 5,300 2,464 647
Industrial KSF 40,805 5,279 712
Public Facilities KSF 1,292 1,232 615
Public Schools Students 32,732 3,871 485
Parks Acres 456 1,584 97
Total 191,987 78,133 17,831
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Existing residential units and population based on travel demand model data provided by
Fehr & Peers; non-residential units provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department
3 Existing RCPD calls for service per year based on analysis of calls for service to the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from May 2023 to May 2024
4 Existing RCFPD calls for service per year based on analysis of 2023 calls for service
to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 2.4 shows projected total development in 2040 in terms of units, population, police
department calls for service and RCFPD calls for service.
Table 2.3: Projected New Development to 2040
Development Dev Added Added Added Added
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls 3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 2,868 8,750 6,278 531
Residential, Multi-Family DU 15,812 33,150 20,455 2,203
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 138 240 391
Commercial/Retail KSF 700 1,377 162
Hotel/Motel Rooms 275 34 32
Office KSF 2,000 930 244
Industrial KSF 5,800 750 101
Public Facilities KSF 252 240 120
Public Schools Students 6,383 755 95
Parks Acres 89 309 19
Total 41,900 31,369 3,897
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = hotel/motel room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Added residential units and population based on travel demand model data provided by Fehr
& Peers, added non-residential units based on conservative scenario projections by Strategic
Economics; see Appendix 5.14-1 to the General Plan DEIR
3 Added RCPD calls = added units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.2; average residential
calls per unit per year based on the rate for >1,200 - 1,900 square foot units
4 Added RCFPD calls = added units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.2; average residential
calls per unit per year based on the rate for >1,200 - 1,900 square foot units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 2.4: Projected Total Development in 2040
Development Dev 2040 2040 2040 2040
Types Units 1 Units 2 Population 2 RCPD Calls3 RCFPD Calls 4
Residential, Single Family DU 41,865 123,370 34,258 7,683
Residential, Multi-Family DU 44,615 110,517 38,228 6,216
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 847 1,472 2,397
Commercial/Retail KSF 9,112 17,919 2,104
Hotel/Motel Rooms 1,685 210 194
Office KSF 7,300 3,394 891
Industrial KSF 46,605 6,029 813
Public Facilities KSF 1,544 1,472 735
Public Schools Students 39,115 4,626 580
Parks Acres 545 1,893 116
Total 233,887 109,502 21,728
Note: The figures in Table 2.5 represent the sum of the corresponding figures in Table 2.3
and Table 2.4
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Chapter 3. Park Impact Fees
This chapter calculates impact fees for park land acquisition and for park improvements.
Chapter 3.68 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code established and governs impact
fees for park land acquisition and park improvements. The City does not require park land
dedication or payment of fees in lieu of dedication pursuant to the Quimby Act
(Government Code Section 66477). The Quimby Act would allow park land dedication and
in-lieu fee requirements to be based on 3.0 acres per 1,000 population, which is a
substantially higher standard than the existing level of service used to calculate park land
impact fees in this study.
At present, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has five community parks and 26
neighborhood parks. The City owns about 399 acres of land designated for park use, of
which about 346 acres are currently developed as parks. The park impact fees calculated
in this chapter are based on the relationship between the City’s existing ratio of improved
park acres to population. However, later in this chapter, unimproved, City-owned park
land is credited against the amount of park land needed to serve future residential
development at the existing level of service. The result is a substantial reduction in the
amount of the park land impact fees applied to new development.
Service Area
All park impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that level of service as the
City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate park impact fees in this chapter is population.
Population is used here because in Rancho Cucamonga, as in most cities, the need for
parks is defined in terms of the relationship between park acreage and population.
Because added population is associated with residential development, the impact fees
calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
The impact fees for each type of residential development depend on the average
population per dwelling unit for that type of development. The individual population -per-
unit factors used to calculate the park impact fees are from Table 2.2 in Chapter 2. See
the discussion of population per unit in Chapter 2.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Level of Service
The level-of-service standard used to calculate park impact fees is based on the
relationship between the City’s existing park acreage and its existing population.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no expla nation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Parks
Table 3.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing parks and shows both total acres and
improved acres of park land. For the parks listed in Table 3.1, there are four parks for
which the total acres exceed the improved acres, indicating that there is unimproved land
available within those parks. Two of those parks, Central Park and Etiwanda Community
Park, have a total of 46.61 acres of unimproved land available. Later, in Table 3.4, that
unimproved land is credited against the acreage needed to serve future residential
development at the current level of service in terms of improved acres per thousand
population.
Of the other two parks shown as having available, unimproved park land, Don Tuburcio
Tapia Park is on land that is owned by the Cucamonga Valley Water District, not the City,
and is subject to lease rights that allow for the District’s ongoing use of the property.
Therefore, the availability of this land for future park purposes remains uncertain, and
the 4.34 acres shown as unimproved land is not credited to future development. The 911
Park has park improvements currently under construction, so 1.4 acres shown as
unimproved land for that park is also not credited to future development.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park Total Improved
Name Acres 1 Acres 4
Community Parks
Central Park 74.45 35.84
Etiwanda Creek Community Park 22.48 14.48
Heritage Community Park 34.02 34.02
Red Hill Community Park 44.20 44.20
Epicenter Adult Sports Complex 48.90 48.90
Subtotal Community Parks 224.05 177.44
Neighborhood Parks
Bear Gulch Park 4.56 4.56
Beryl Park East 10.10 10.10
Beryl Park West 8.72 8.72
Church Street Park 7.00 7.00
Coyote Canyon Park 4.74 4.74
Day Creek Park 9.98 9.98
Don Tuburcio Tapia Park (Long Term Lease)4.34 0.00
Ellena Park 6.04 6.04
Garcia Park 5.55 5.55
Golden Oak Park 4.99 4.99
Hermosa Park 9.57 9.57
Kenyon Park 7.82 7.82
Legacy Park 3.76 3.76
Lions Park 2.50 2.50
Los Amigos Park 3.36 3.36
Milliken Park 8.40 8.40
Mountain View Park 5.03 5.03
Old Town Park 5.01 5.01
Olive Grove Park 7.38 7.38
Ralph M. Lewis Park 8.03 8.03
Rancho Summit Park 6.71 6.71
Spruce Avenue Park 3.89 3.89
Victoria Arbors Park 7.75 7.75
Victoria Groves Park 6.02 6.02
Vintage Park 8.02 8.02
West Greenway Park 6.10 6.10
Windrows Park 8.01 8.01
9/11 Park 1.40 0.00
Subtotal Neighborhood Parks 174.78 169.04
Total 398.83 346.48
1 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga; park acreage numbers revised
February 2025; see maps of individual parks in Appendix C
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.2 calculates existing levels of service in terms of acres per capita and acres per
1,000 population for total City-owned park land and for improved park land.
The level-of-service standard for parks contained in the 2021 Rancho Cucamonga General
Plan, in terms of a ratio of acres to population, is five acres per 1,000 residents for
neighborhood parks (see Table OS-2 in the General Plan).
In 2019, the California Court of Appeal in Boatworks, LLC vs. City of Alameda held that
parks not currently open to the public may not be used in calculating the existing level of
service for purposes of establishing park impact fees. Impact fees calculated in this
chapter are based on the existing level of service in terms of improved park acres per
1,000 population. Only park acreage that is improved and open to the public is counted
in establishing the existing level of service for both park land acquisition and park
improvement impact fees in this study.
In the following pages, the existing level of service is converted into a cost per capita for
park land acquisition and park improvements using the existing level of service in acres
per capita multiplied by the estimated cost per acre for park land acquis ition and park
improvements.
There is one additional cost component included in the park improvement impact fees.
That is the capital cost of added park maintenance vehicles and equipment. Table 3.3
calculates the costs per capita for park maintenance vehicles and equipment based on
the replacement cost of existing park maintenance vehicles and equipment divided by the
existing population of the City. That cost per capita is added to the cost per capita for park
improvements in Table 3.6 where the per-capita costs are converted into a cost per unit
of development.
Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service - Total/Improved Park Land
Existing Existing Acres per Acres per
Component Acres 1 Population 2 Capita 3 1,000 4
Total Park Land 398.83 191,987 0.00208 2.08
Improved Park Land 346.48 191,987 0.00180 1.80
1 See Table 3.1
2 Existing residential population; see Table 2.2
3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population
4 Acres per 1,000 residents = acres per capita X 1,000
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Cost Per Capita
Table 3.4 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition and for park
improvements using the existing level of service in acres per capita and the cost -per-acre
estimates for park land acquisition and park improvements. In both cases, the acres-per-
capita standard is based on the existing level of service discussed previously in this
chapter.
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 3.4 are used to calculate impact fees
per unit, which are then divided by square-feet-per-unit factors to get impact fees per
square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development for park land
acquisition and park improvements.
Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Existing Park Maintenance Equipment
Total Existing Cost per
Cost 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$1,450,620 191,987 $7.56
1 See Appendix B for a detailed listing of existing park maintenance
vehicles and equipment
2 Existing population; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita = total cost / existing population
Table 3.4: Cost per Capita - Park Land Acquisition and Park Improvements
Cost Acres per Cost per Cost per
Component Capita 1 Acre 2 Capita 3
Park Land Acquisition 0.0018 1,176,197$ 2,117.15$
Park Land Acquisition-Adjusted 4 0.0007 1,176,197$ 823.34$
Park Improvements 0.0018 850,000$ 1,530.00$
1 Acres per capita for both park land acquisition and park improvements is
based on the existing level of service for improved park land; see Table 3.2
2 Cost per acre for land acquisition based on recent sales data from the CoStar
real estate database; see Appendix A for detailed data; cost per acre for park
improvements is based on improvement costs, adjusted for specialized im-
provement or typical improvements that were omitted, with an adjustment for
inflation, for a recently completed 4.9 acre dog park
3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
4 Park land acres per capita is adjusted to credit future development for 46.61
acres (0.0011 acres per capita) of City-owned, unimproved park land in Central
Park and Etiwanda Community Park; that adjustment reduces the total park land
to be funded by park land impact fees from 75.42 acres to 29.33 acres; the adjus-
ted cost per capita is used in Table 3.5 to calculate impact fees for park land
acquisition
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 3.5 shows the calculation of park land impact fees per square foot for single-family
and multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for single-
family and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Table 3.6 shows the calculation of impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-
family residential development for park improvements. The cost of park maintenance
vehicles and equipment is incorporated into the park improvement impact fees but
amounts to less than 0.5% of those fees.
Projected Revenue
Table 3.7 projects revenue from park land impact fees using the park land impact fees per
square foot from Table 3.5, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
Table 3.5: Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee per Square Foot
Development Unit Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Type 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 823.34$ 2,593.51$ 2,500 1.04$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 823.34$ 2,041.88$ 1,700 1.20$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 See Table 3.4
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Table 3.6: Park Improvement Impact Fee per Square Foot (Incl. Maintenance Equipment)
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 $1,537.56 4,843.30$ 2,500 1.94$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 $1,537.56 3,813.14$ 1,700 2.24$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Includes cost per capita for park improvements from Table 3.4 and cost per capita for park
maintenance vehicles and equipment from Table 3.3
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-7
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 3.8 projects revenue from park improvement impact fees using the park land impact
fees per square foot from Table 3.6, the average square feet per unit for each type of
residential development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection
assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated cost of park
land acquisition and park improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed
annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) or the California Construction Cost Index. See
the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Table 3.7: Projected Revenue - Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 1.04$ 2,500 2,868 7,456,800$
Residential, Multi-Family 1.20$ 1,700 15,812 32,256,480$
Total 39,713,280$
1 See Table 3.5
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
Table 3.8: Projected Revenue - Park Improvement Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 1.94$ 2,500 2,868 13,909,800$
Residential, Multi-Family 2.24$ 1,700 15,812 60,212,096$
Total 74,121,896$
1 Impact fee (cost) per capita; see Table 3.6
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-8
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate
the impact of new development on the need for parks in Rancho Cucamonga and to
prevent a reduction in the level of service provided to residents of the City as a result of
new development.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. Specific projects and costs
to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement
Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional parks to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential
development in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the need for
parks to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without
additional parks, the increase in population associated with new residential development
would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the park impact fees charged
to a residential development project will depend on the unit types and square footage
associated with that project. The fees per square foot calculated in this chapter for each
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3-9
Development Impact Fee Study
April 10, 2025
type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit
and square footage per unit for that type of development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus,
the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need
for parks in the City.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for community and recreation centers needed to serve
future development in the City. Chapter 3.52 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a number of existing community and recreation
centers as well as the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, which is included in this category.
The Paul A. Biane Library, which is a part of the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center, is
addressed separately in Chapter 5, Libraries.
The community and recreation center impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on
the relationship between the City’s existing population and the replacement cost of
Rancho Cucamonga’s existing community center and recreation center facilities.
Service Area
The community and recreation center impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that level of service as the
City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate impact fees for community and recreation centers is population. Since
population is associated with residential development, these impact fees will apply only
to residential development.
Population is used as the demand variable for these fees because the need for community
and recreation centers is normally defined in terms of the size of the population to be
served. Added population is used in this chapter to measure the impact of new
development on the need for community and recreation center facilities.
Average population per unit is estimated for each category of residential development
defined in this study. Individual population -per-unit factors for each category of
residential development are shown in Table 2.2 in Chapter 2.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for community and recreation
centers. Since some existing facilities such as the Lewis Family Playhouse at the Victoria
Gardens Cultural Center are one-of-a-kind, a ratio of facility square footage to population
would not reflect differences in cost for different types of facilities. Consequently, the
level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing
relationship between the City’s population and the replaceme nt cost of existing
community and recreation centers, stated as a cost per capita. See the Cost per Capita
section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no expl anation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing community and recreation centers with their estimated
replacement cost. Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of
constructing additional facilities to serve future development.
Table 4.1: Existing Community and Recreation Centers Estimated Replacement Cost
Facility Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Name Acres 1 Value 2 Sq. Feet 3 Repl Cost 4 Cost Basis 5
RC Family Resource Center 1.80 2,117,155$ 11,800 6,926,502$ 9,043,657$
RC Sports Center 1.47 1,729,010$ 32,000 18,783,734$ 20,512,744$
Lion's Center West 0.24 282,287$ 11,400 6,691,705$ 6,973,993$
Lion's Center East 0.37 435,193$ 11,384 6,682,313$ 7,117,506$
Lewis/Brulte Community/Sr. Ctr.Located in Central Park 57,000 33,458,527$ 33,458,527$
Heritage Park Equestrian Center Located in Heritage Park 3,045 1,787,390$ 1,787,390$
Victoria Gardens Cultural Center 1.80 2,117,155$ 67,584 49,005,658$ 51,122,812$
Total 6,680,799$ 194,213 123,335,829$ 130,016,628$
1 Site Acres provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department
2 Existing site value = site acres X estimated land value of $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
3 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department
4 Building replacement cost based on estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024 using
the California Construction Cost Index
5 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cost per Capita
Table 4.2 calculates the replacement cost per capita for community and recreation center
facilities using the impact fee cost basis from Table 4.1 and the existing population from
Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate community and
recreation center impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square-feet-per-unit
factors to get impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential
development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of community and recreation center impact fees per
square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development. The average
square feet per unit for single-family and multi-family residential development were
provided by the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 4.4 projects revenue from the community and recreation center impact fees using
the impact fees per square foot from Table 4.3, the average square feet per unit for each
type of residential development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This
Table 4.2: Community and Rec Centers - Existing Level of Service
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$130,016,628 191,987 $677.22
1 See Table 4.1
2 Existing population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
Table 4.3: Community and Recreation Centers - Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 $677.22 2,133.23$ 2,500 0.85$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 $677.22 1,679.50$ 1,700 0.99$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Cost per capita; see Table 4.2
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all
future private development will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of
reasons, some future development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the
section on Impact Fee Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for community and recreation center facilities. We recommend that
the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) or the Department of General Services
California Construction Cost Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing
of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - Community/Rec Center Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.85$ 2,500 2,868 6,094,500$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.99$ 1,700 15,812 26,611,596$
Total 32,706,096$
1 See Table 4.3
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of community and recreation center assets in the
city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
community and recreation centers to mitigate the impact of new development on the
need for those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these
impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional community and recreation center facilities to mitigate the impact of added
population associated with new residential development on the need for community and
recreation centers in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for community and recreation center facilities to maintain the existing level of
service as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional community and recreation
center facilities, the increase in population associated with new residential development
would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the Ci ty.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The community and recreation center impact
fees calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the added population
associated with various categories of residential development in the City. The fees per
square foot of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential
development are based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage
per unit for each type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee
charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for
community and recreation center facilities in the City.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 5. Library Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for library facilities and materials needed to serve
future development in the City. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has two existing libraries:
the Paul A. Biane Library located in the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the Archibald
Library on Archibald Avenue. Chapter 3.56 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the Library Impact Fee.
Service Area
The library impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used
to calculate the library impact fee is population.
Population is used as the demand variable for these fees because the need for libraries is
normally defined in terms of the size of the population to be served. Added population is
used in this chapter to measure the impact of new development on the need f or library
facilities.
Because population per dwelling unit varies by development category, the average
population per unit is estimated for each category of residential development defined in
this study. Those individual population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.2 in Chapter
2.
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for libraries. The level-of-
service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing relationship
between the City’s population and the replacement cost of library facilities and materials
stated as a cost per capita. See the Cost per Capita section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 5.1 lists the City’s existing libraries with their estimated replacement cost.
Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing
additional facilities to serve future development. Cost for library furniture fixture s and
equipment, and the contents of the museum at the Biane Library are listed separately.
This analysis also includes the cost of library materials (books and electronic media). Table
5.2 shows the estimated replacement cost of the library system’s existing materials.
Cost per Capita
Table 5.3 calculates the replacement cost per capita for library facilities and materials
using the impact fee cost basis for library facilities from Table 5.1, and the impact fee cost
Table 5.1: Existing Library Facilities
Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Facility Acres Value 1 Sq. Feet 2 Repl Cost 3 Cost Basis 4
Paul A. Biane Library 1.35 1,587,866$ 38,912 26,298,402$ 27,886,268$
Museum Contents at Biane Library 3,500,000$
Archibald Library 1.67 1,964,249$ 22,500 11,964,272$ 13,928,521$
Library Furniture, Fixtures, Equipt.4,100,000$
Library Kiosk (RC Resource Center)199 220,000$ 220,000$
Library Kiosk (Fire Station 178)199 220,000$ 220,000$
Total 3,552,115$ 61,810 38,702,674$ 49,854,789$
1 Site value based on $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
2 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Library Services Department
3 Building replacement cost based on the estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024
using the California Construction Cost Index
4 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
Table 5.2: Existing Library Materials
Number Avg Cost Impact Fee
of Items 1 per Item 2 Cost Basis 3
269,559 $54.71 $14,747,573
1 Number of items provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Library
Services Department
2 Cost per item estimated by the Library Services Department
3 Impact fee cost basis = cost of existing library materials = number of
items X average cost per item
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
basis for existing library materials from Table 5.2, both divided by the City’s existing
population from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 5.3 is used to calculate library
impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get impact
fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 5.4 shows the calculation of library impact fees per square foot for single-family and
multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for single-family
and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 5.5 projects revenue from the library impact fees using the impact fees per square
foot from Table 5.4, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
Table 5.3: Library Facilities and Materials - Cost per Capita
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Component Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
Library Facilities 49,854,789$ 191,987 259.68$
Library Materials 14,747,573$ 191,987 76.82$
Total 64,602,362$ 191,987 336.49$
1 See Tables 5.1 and 5.2
2 Existing population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
Table 5.4: Library Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Dev Cost per Population Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 336.49$ 3.15 1,059.96$ 2,500 0.42$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 336.49$ 2.48 834.51$ 1,700 0.49$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 Cost per capita; see Table 5.3
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for library facilities and materials. We recommend that the fees be
reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering
News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) or the Department of General Services California
Construction Cost Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
Table 5.5: Projected Revenue - Library Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.42$ 2,500 2,868 3,011,400$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.49$ 1,700 15,812 13,171,396$
Total 16,182,796$
1 See Table 5.4
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of library and cultural center assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
library facilities and materials to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for
those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees
can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional library facilities and materials to mitigate the impact of added population
associated with new residential development on the need for library services in Rancho
Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for libraries to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this
chapter. Without additional library facilities and materials, the increase in population
associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of
service provided to all residents of the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The library impact fees calculated in this
chapter are proportional to the impact of the added population associated with various
categories of residential development in the City. The fees per square foot of
development calculated in this chapter for each category of residential development are
based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage per unit for each
type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee charged to a
development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for library facilities
and materials in the City.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 6. Animal Center Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for additional animal center facilities, vehicles and
equipment needed to serve future development in the City. Chapter 3.60 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code establishes and governs the animal center impact fee.
The City’s existing Animal Center is already over capacity and additional space will be
needed to serve the growing demand imposed by future development. It should be noted
that the impact fees calculated in this chapter will only maintain the existing level of
service provided by the Animal Center and will not remedy any existing deficiencies in
Animal Center facilities.
Service Area
The animal center impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Demand Variable
It is reasonable to assume that the demand for Animal Center facilities depends on the
number of pets kept by City residents, in which case the need for animal center facilities
is reasonably related to population of the City. Consequently, added populati on will be
used to represent the impact of development on the need for additional Animal Center
facilities.
Because added population is a function of new residential development, the fees
calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development .
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for animal center facilities.
Consequently, the level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter
is the existing relationship between the City’s population and the replaceme nt cost of
existing animal center facilities, vehicles and equipment, stated as a cost per capita. See
the Cost per Capita section below.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 6.1 shows the estimated replacement cost for the City’s existing Animal Center and
the value of a 1.92-acre site the City has acquired to expand that facility. Table 6.1 also
shows a credit for the current balance in the City’s Animal Center impact fee fund which
is available to increase the existing level of service.
Table 6.2 lists the Animal Services Department’s existing vehicles and equipment with
replacement costs.
Table 6.1: Existing Animal Center Replacement Cost
Site Site Building Building Impact Fee
Facility Acres Value 1 Sq. Feet 2 Repl Cost 3 Cost Basis 4
Existing Animal Center 1.60 $1,881,915 12,148 8,305,256$ 10,187,171$
Animal Center Expansion Site 1.92 $2,258,298 2,258,298$
Total 4,140,213$ 12,148 8,305,256$ 12,445,469$
1 Existing site value = site acres X $1,176,197 per acre; see Appendix A
2 Building square footage provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Animal Services Department
3 Building replacement cost based on estimated cost in 2020 impact fee study escalated
to 2024 using the California Construction Cost Index
4 Impact fee cost basis = site value + building replacement cost
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Cost per Capita
Table 6.3 calculates the cost per capita for Animal Center facilities, vehicles and
equipment using the impact fee cost basis from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and the City’s existing
residential population from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
In the next section, the total cost per capita from Table 6.3 is used to calculate animal
center impact fees per unit, which are then divided by square feet per unit factors to get
impact fees per square foot for single-family and multi-family residential development.
Table 6.2: Animal Center Vehicles and Equipment
Impact Fee
Manufacturer Type Description Cost Basis 1
Ford F-250 Pickup Truck 110,000$
Ford F-250 Pickup Truck 110,000$
Ford Ranger Pickup Truck 40,000$
Saturn UT 30,000$
Chevrolet SV Cargo Van 55,000$
Chevrolet Cargo Van 55,000$
Maverick Horse Trailer 15,000$
Midmark Dental X-Ray Machine 22,970$
Midmark Mobile Dental Machine 12,792$
VMS Plus Anesthesia Machine (2)7,274$
VMS Anesthesia Machine (2)6,738$
LED Procedure Light - Dual 7,851$
LED Procedure Light - Single (4)15,704$
LED Procedure Light - Mobile 3,926$
Cuattro DR X-Ray Machine 52,000$
Sound Imaging Ultrasound Machine 20,000$
Total 564,255$
1 Impact fee cost basis = replacement cost; replacement cost estimated by
the Animal Services Department
Table 6.3: Animal Shelter Facilities and Equipment - Cost per Capita
Cost Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Component Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
Facilities 12,445,469$ 191,987 64.82$
Vehicles & Equipment 564,255$ 191,987 2.94$
Total 13,009,724$ 191,987 67.76$
1 See Tables 6.1 and 6.2
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Impact Fees per Square Foot
Table 6.4 shows the calculation of animal center impact fees per square foot for single -
family and multi-family residential development. The average square feet per unit for
single-family and multi-family residential development were provided by the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 6.5 projects revenue from the animal center impact fees using the impact fees per
square foot from Table 6.4, the average square feet per unit for each type of residential
development and the added residential units from Table 2.3. This projection assumes that
future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development
will be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future
development may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee
Credits and Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 6.4: Animal Shelter - Impact Fees per Square Foot
Development Population Cost per Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU 3.15 67.76$ 213.46$ 2,500 0.09$
Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.48 67.76$ 168.05$ 1,700 0.10$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 Cost per capita; see Table 6.3
4 Impact fee per unit = population per unit X cost per capita
5 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Table 6.5: Projected Revenue - Animal Center Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.09$ 2,500 2,868 645,300$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.10$ 1,700 15,812 2,688,040$
Total 3,333,340$
1 See Table 6.4
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement
costs for animal center facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted
annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building
Cost Index (BCI) or the General Services Department’s California Construction Cost Index.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in the Nollan and Dolan decisions discussed
in Chapter 1. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those
requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services
provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential development to contribute
to the cost of expanding the availability of animal center assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
animal center facilities and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development on the
need for those facilities in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these
impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional animal center facilities and equipment to mitigate the impact of added
population associated with new residential development on the need for animal center
facilities in Rancho Cucamonga.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the
need for animal center facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described
earlier in this chapter. Without additional animal center facilities, additional residential
development would further overburden the existing animal center.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. This study assumes that the need for animal
center facilities in the City is impacted by increasing population. The amounts of the
animal center impact fees calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the
added population associated with various categories of residential development in the
City. The fees per square foot calculated in this chapter for each type of residential
development are based on the estimated average population per unit and square footage
per unit for that type of residential development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee
charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for
animal center facilities in the City.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 7. Police Impact Fee
This chapter calculates impact fees for police facilities needed to serve future
development in the City. Chapter 3.64 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes and governs the police impact fee.
The City’s primary police facility is the Public Safety Building at the Rancho Cucamonga
Civic Center. The other existing City-owned police facility is a satellite police station co-
located with Fire Station 172 on San Bernardino Road in the western portion of the City.
The department also has a substation in a leased space in the Victoria Gardens shopping
mall and is planning to construct a permanent substation in that area in the future.
Service Area
The police impact fee is intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the existing inventory method discussed in
Chapter 1. With that method, impact fees are based on the existing level of service so that
the impact fees will provide the funding needed to maintain that existing level of service
as the City grows.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of
facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for police facilities is calls for
service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of approximately 80,000 calls for
service logged by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department for a one-year period from
May 2023 to May 2024 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by
each type of development defined in this study. Table 2.2 in Chapter 2 shows the calls -
per-unit-per-year factors derived from that analysis. Those factors are used to calculate
impact fees per unit later in this chapter. For a more detailed discussion of how calls for
service were analyzed, see Chapter 2.
One of the findings from the calls-for-service analysis is that 8.4% of police calls for service
in Rancho Cucamonga during the relevant period were generated by public facilities,
public schools and parks. The police facility costs associated with those calls are not
allocated to new private development in this study.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for police facilities. The level
of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service, which
is defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of police facilities shown in
Table 7.1 and the number of police calls for service per year received in the one -year
period from May 2023 to May 2024.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2)
of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate
impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if
the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an
explanation must be included. Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees
in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no expl anation is required to
satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2).
Existing Facilities
Table 7.1 lists the City’s existing police facilities with their estimated replacement cost.
Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing
additional facilities to serve future development.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 7.2 calculates the facility cost per call for service for police facilities using the impact
fee cost basis from Table 7.1 and the number of existing calls for service from Table 2.3
in Chapter 2.
Table 7.1: Existing Police Facilities
Facility Building Impact Fee
Name Square Feet 1 Cost Basis 2
Civic Center Public Safety Building 30,500 30,454,510$
Police Department Structure Parking - 62 spaces 2,759,000$
San Bernardino Road Satellite Station 5,673 6,934,243$
Total 36,173 40,147,754$
1 Building square feet provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department
2 Impact fee cost basis for Public Safety Building and Satellite Station = estimated
building replacement cost from 2020 impact fee study escalated to 2024 using
the California Construction Cost Index; impact fee cost basis for Police Dept
structure parking based on current estimated construction cost of $44,500 per
space for structure parking
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 7.2 is multiplied by calls per unit factors
to calculate police impact fees per unit for each type of development defined in this study
The residential impact fees per unit are then divided by square feet-per-unit factors to
get impact fees per square foot for residential.
The cost per call from Table 7.2 can also be used to customize impact fees for any non-
residential project that does not reasonably fit within one of the development types
identified in this report. Such a customized fee would be based on the estimated number
of police calls per year for the project, multiplied by the cost per call from Table 7.2. The
number of police calls per year for a specific type of development project can be
estimated by reviewing call records for similar existing projects in the City.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 7.3 shows the calculation of police impact fees per square foot for residential
development and per unit for non-residential development.
Table 7.2: Facility Cost per Call for Service per Year
Impact Fee Existing Calls Cost per Call
Cost Basis 1 for Service 2 for Service 3
$40,147,754 78,133 $513.84
1 See Table 7.1
2 See Table 2.3
3 Cost per call for service per year = impact fee cost share / existing
calls for service
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the police impact fees is projected separately for residential and
non-residential development because residential impact fees are per square foot and
non-residential impact fees are per unit. These projections assume that future
development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development will
be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future development
may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee Credits and
Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 7.4 shows the projected revenue to 2040 from the residential police impact fees
calculated in this chapter.
Table 7.3: Police Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Development Cost per Call Calls Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 for Service 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $513.84 0.717 368.67$ 2,500 0.15$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $513.84 0.617 317.07$ 1,700 0.19$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $513.84 1.738 892.88$
Commercial/Retail KSF $513.84 1.966 1,010.46$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $513.84 0.125 64.14$
Office KSF $513.84 0.465 238.89$
Industrial KSF $513.84 0.129 66.48$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area;
Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation for one patient or resident
2 Cost per call for service per year; see Table 7.2
3 See Table 2.1 and the discussion of calls for service in Chapter 2
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot (residential) = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
Table 7.4: Projected Revenue - Police Impact Fees (Residential)
Development Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.15$ 2,500 2,868 1,075,500$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.19$ 1,700 15,812 5,107,276$
Total 6,182,776$
1 See Table 7.3
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per square foot X average square feet per
unit X added units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 7.5 shows the projected revenue to 2040 from the non-residential police impact.
fees calculated in this chapter.
The combined impact fee revenue from Tables 7.4 and 7.5 equals $7,894,510. Specific
projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for police facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and
adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record
Building Cost Index or the General Services Department California Construction Cost
Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
Table 7.5: Projected Revenue - Police Impact Fees (Non-Residential)
Development Dev Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 892.88$ 138 123,445$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,010.46$ 700 707,320$
Hotel/Motel Rooom 64.14$ 275 17,635$
Office KSF 238.89$ 2,000 477,773$
Industrial KSF 66.48$ 5,800 385,561$
Total 1,711,734$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of
building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommmodation for one
patient or resident
2 Impact fee per unit of development; see Table 7.3
3 Future units; see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to prevent
new residential and commercial/industrial development from reducing the quality and
availability of public services provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential
and business development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of police
assets in the city.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
police facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities
in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in
the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional police facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for
police facilities in Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the demand for
law enforcement services, which impacts the need for police facilities to maintain the
existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional police
facilities, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively
impact the ability of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department to provide services
efficiently and effectively to all development in the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the police impact fees
calculated in this chapter are proportional to the impact of the increased demand for law
enforcement services associated with various types of development in the City. The fees
per square foot for residential development and the fees per unit for non-residential
development calculated in this chapter for each category of development are based on
the estimated number of calls for service per unit per year for each category of
development in Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the fee charged to a development project
reflects the impact of that project on the need for police facilities in the City.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 8. Fire Impact Fee
Rancho Cucamonga does not have an existing fire impact fee. This chapter calculates
impact fees for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and
equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD or District)
to all development in the City. The boundary of RCFPD encompasses the entire City as
well as a small area to the north of the City that is planned to remain within the
unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County.
As discussed in the next section, fire districts are prohibited by California law from
imposing impact fees on their own. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be adopted
and imposed by the City and revenue from the impact fees will be transferred to RCFPD
to pay for additional capital facilities and other capital assets serving new development in
the City. These impact fees will apply only to the portion of RCFPD that is within the City.
Fire Protection District Law of 1987
California Health and Safety Code Section 13916, which is part of the Fire Protection
District Law of 1987, states: “A (fire protection) district board shall not charge a fee on
new construction or development for the construction of public improvements or
facilities or the acquisition of equipment.” However, although a district itself may not
charge such fees, Health and Safety Code Section 13898 provides that a district may
accept revenue from any federal, state, regional, or local agency or from any person for
any lawful purpose of the district. That section allows the City to transfer impact fee
revenue to RCFPD to pay for facilities, apparatus and equipment needed to serve the City.
Service Area
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to the entire City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1.
With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share
of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new
development.
To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of
planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing
development and planned development. (As discussed in the next section, demand for
services provided by RCFPD is represented by calls for service per year.) This method
ensures that costs for all existing and future RCFPD facilities, apparatus and equipment
are allocated to all existing and future development, so that impact fees charged to future
development will pay for future development’s proportionate share of the overall cost of
those assets. With the system plan method, we depreciate the replacement cost of
existing assets because new development is effectively buying in to those assets. With
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
the existing inventory method used elsewhere in this report, replacement costs for
existing assets are not depreciated because they represent the cost to acquire additional
assets needed to serve additional development.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee
calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of capital
facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for fire protection and
emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment in this report is calls for service
per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of all calls for service logged by
RCFPD in 2023 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by each type
of development defined in this study. Chapter 2 discusses that analysis and Table 2.2 in
Chapter 2 shows the calls-per-unit-per-year factors derived from that analysis. Those
factors are used to calculate impact fees per unit later in this chapter.
Level of Service
The most important single factor in defining level of service for fire protection and
emergency medical services agencies is response time to emergency calls. The 2024
Comprehensive Master Plan for RCFPD states that RCFPD’s first due unit currently arrives
within 9 minutes and 45 seconds, 90% of the time. The Master Plan makes
recommendations to improve total response time, including reducing call processing
time. The addition of one fire station will help RCFPD maintain and possibly improve its
response time performance as future development occurs.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section
requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used in an impact fee study must
be compared with the existing level of service. If new impact fees are based on a level of
service that exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
For other types of impact fees calculated in this study, impact fee calculations are based
on the cost of maintaining the existing level of service using the existing inventory method
discussed in Chapter 1. That approach can be used for fire impact fees, but we believe the
system plan method, discussed above and in Chapter 1, is more appropriate because
geography and fire station location are so critical to response time across a fire agency’s
service area.
Fire protection and emergency response are provided by an integrated system of assets
and the best time to assess the overall relationship between development and service
demand is at the point when all of the assets and all of the development will be in p lace,
which is what the system plan method is designed to do.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
At present, RCFPD operates eight fire stations as well as an administrative facility, an all -
risk training center (ARTC) and a shop facility. RCFPD is planning to construct one
additional fire station and has acquired property on 8th Street as a site for that station.
Table 8.1 lists RCFPD’s existing and planned fire stations as well as the administrative and
training center buildings and the shop facility. Stations 171 through 178 currently exist.
Station 179 is planned for future construction.
The impact fee cost basis in the right-hand column of Table 8.1 includes the depreciated
replacement cost for existing buildings plus the estimated site value for each building.
Where multiple buildings are located on one site, the land cost is shown for t he first
building. For future Station 179, the cost shown is estimated based on recent construction
costs.
Table 8.2 on the next page lists RCFPD’s existing firefighting apparatus and other vehicles
and equipment. Costs for all vehicles and equipment shown in the far-right column of
Table 8.2 are depreciated replacement costs based on the useful life shown in that table.
Vehicles and equipment are assumed to have a residual value of at least 15% of
Table 8.1: Existing and Future Fire Stations
Constr Bldg Site Building Useful Land Depreciated Impact Fee
Facility Location Date Sq Ft Acres Repl Cost 1 Life 2 Cost 3 Bldg Cost 4 Cost Basis 5
Station 171 Amethyst St 1974 4,480 0.99 644,687$ 50 1,164,435$ 0$ 1,164,435$
Admin Bldg Amethyst St 1977 2,754 Included 1,755,420$ 50 105,325$ 105,325$
Station 172 San B'dino Rd 2020 13,341 2.90 14,053,099$ 50 2,728,777$ 12,928,851$ 15,657,628$
Station 173 Firehouse Ct 2005 12,000 2.36 6,823,656$ 50 2,775,825$ 4,230,666$ 7,006,491$
Storage Bldg Firehouse Ct 2005 2,500 Included 234,078$ 50 145,129$ 145,129$
Station 174 Jersey Blvd 1992 17,000 6.14 8,984,714$ 50 7,221,850$ 3,234,497$ 10,456,347$
Shop/Garage Jersey Blvd 2001 14,304 Included 6,306,495$ 50 3,405,507$ 3,405,507$
Trng Ctr Bldg A Jersey Blvd 2016 7,000 Included 3,588,740$ 50 3,014,542$ 3,014,542$
Trng Ctr Bldg B Jersey Blvd 2016 1,900 Included 1,180,251$ 50 991,411$ 991,411$
Trng Ctr Bldg C Jersey Blvd 2016 2,455 Included 1,064,350$ 50 894,054$ 894,054$
Trng Ctr Bldg D Jersey Blvd 2016 15,415 Included 4,006,318$ 50 3,365,307$ 3,365,307$
Trng Ctr Bldg E Jersey Blvd 2016 3,064 Included 894,974$ 50 751,779$ 751,779$
Trng Ctr Bldg I Jersey Blvd 2016 1,300 Included 1,422,959$ 50 1,195,286$ 1,195,286$
Station 175 Banyan St 1992 13,000 3.05 7,304,058$ 50 3,587,401$ 2,629,461$ 6,216,862$
Station 176 East Av 2003 9,594 1.07 4,297,952$ 50 1,258,531$ 2,492,812$ 3,751,343$
Station 177 Rancho St 2012 6,000 1.23 4,025,220$ 50 1,446,722$ 3,059,167$ 4,505,890$
Station 178 Town Ctr Dr 2023 12,176 3.80 16,389,052$ 50 4,469,549$ 16,061,271$ 20,530,820$
Station 179 8th St Future 13,000 0.94 15,600,000$ 50 1,105,625$ 15,600,000$ 16,705,625$
Total 98,576,024$ 25,758,714$ 74,105,065 99,863,779$
1 Estimated replacement cost for existing buildings other than Station 178 are based on 2020 estimates, escalated by 38% to
2024 costs based on the California Construction Cost Index; cost for Station 178 is actual 2023 construction cost; cost for
future Station 179 based on $1,200 per square foot, which is below the actual cost of the two most recently constructed fire
stations; estimated costs include construction soft costs, utilities, site development, and furniture, fixtures and equipment
2 Estimated useful life of buildings in years
3 Estimated land value for existing fire stations or land cost for future fire stations = $1,176,197 per acre
4 Depreciated building replacement cost for existing stations using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the
asset; no depreciation applies to future buiding costs
5 Facility replacement cost = depreciated building replacement cost or new building cost + estimated land cost or value
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
replacement cost, regardless of age. Assets with a value of less than $10,000 have been
omitted from Table 8.2.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.2: Existing Fire Apparatus and Vehicles
Model Useful Unit Repl Depr Unit Total Depr
Quantity Year Description Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Repl Cost 2 Repl Cost 3
2 2013 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
2 2003 Type 1 Engine (KME Excel)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
1 2017 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 360,000$ 360,000$
1 2008 KME Severe Duty Predator 10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
2 2005 Type 1 Engine (KME Excel)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 360,000$
1 2018 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$
1 2010 Type 1 Engine (KME)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
1 2006 Type 1 Engine (KME Predator)10 1,200,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
1 2020 Type 1 Engine (Rosenbauer)10 1,200,000$ 720,000$ 720,000$
1 2023 Type 1 Engine (Rosenbauer Electric)10 2,200,000$ 1,980,000$ 1,980,000$
1 2006 Type 3 Engine (West Mark)10 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2008 Type 3 Engine 10 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2014 Type 3 Engine 10 150,000$ 22,500$ 22,500$
1 2020 Type 6 Engine 10 150,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$
1 2002 KME Aerial Ladder Truck--Tiller 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2008 KME Aerial Ladder Truck 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2015 Rosenbauer Aerial Ladder Truck 10 2,350,000$ 352,500$ 352,500$
1 2022 Rosenbauer Heavy Rescue Unit 10 1,650,000$ 1,320,000$ 1,320,000$
1 2006 KME Hazmat Unit 10 1,650,000$ 247,500$ 247,500$
1 2003 KME Water Tender 10 550,000$ 82,500$ 82,500$
3 2012 Dodge Ram 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 49,500$
1 2019 Dodge Ram 4WD V8 Hemi 7 200,000$ 57,143$ 57,143$
1 2024 Dodge Ram 4WD V8 Hemi 7 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
1 2015 Ford F-450 Super Duty Stake Bed 7 120,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$
1 2008 Ford F-350 Medic Squad 10 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
3 2019 Chevy Bolt EV 7 35,000$ 10,000$ 30,000$
3 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 15,750$
4 2012 Ford Escape Hybrid 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 21,000$
1 2023 Ford Lightning 7 110,000$ 94,286$ 94,286$
2 2009 Saturn Vue 7 35,000$ 5,250$ 10,500$
2 2020 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 15,000$ 30,000$
2 2023 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 30,000$ 60,000$
1 2024 Toyota RAV-4 Hybrid 7 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$
2 2016 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2018 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
1 2017 Ford F-350 7 200,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
1 2019 Ford F-350 7 200,000$ 57,143$ 57,143$
2 2016 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2018 Chevy Colorado 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
2 2008 Chevy F-2500 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 33,000$
1 2012 Chevy 3/4 Ton Suburban 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2005 GMC Yukon 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2002 Dodge Ram 2500 4WD 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2004 GMC 7500 Series w/ Equipment 7 200,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
1 2008 Ford E-350 Van 7 75,000$ 11,250$ 11,250$
1 2021 Ford Transit-250 Van 7 110,000$ 62,857$ 62,857$
2 2020 Nissan NV200 Van 7 30,000$ 12,857$ 25,714$
1 2012 Ford 1-Ton 4x4 Long Bed 7 110,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$
1 2006 Freightliner Ambulance 10 480,000$ 72,000$ 72,000$
1 2024 Polaris ATV 10 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$
1 2001 Mitsubishi Forklift 10 65,000$ 9,750$ 9,750$
1 2011 JLG Telehandler 10 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
1 2013 Griddle Trailer 10 75,000$ 11,250$ 11,250$
1 2020 Progressive Trailer 10 25,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
Total 29,085,000$ 8,652,286$ 9,417,143$
1 Replacement cost provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District
2 Depreciated replacement cost using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the asset; minimum
depreciated value = 15% of replacement cost
3 Total depreciated replacement cost = depreciated unit replacement cost X number of units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.3 shows the cost of future apparatus and equipment needed to serve the City in
2040, including one Type I engine that will be needed for future Fire Station 179. The
estimated cost of that engine is based on the current cost of similar equipment. Also
shown in that table is the cost of personal protective equipment for nine firefighters that
will be needed to staff Station 179.
Table 8.4 summarizes the costs from the preceding three tables.
Cost per Call for Service
Table 8.5 calculates the cost per call for service for RCFPD facilities, apparatus and
equipment using the total impact fee cost basis from Table 8.4 and the projected number
of calls for service per year in 2040. In Table 8.5, the combined cost of existin g and
planned facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment is divided by total 2040 calls to both
existing and future development served by RCFPD.
Table 8.3: Future Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment
No. of Cost Total New
Description Units per Unit 1 Equipt Cost
New Type 1 Engine (Station 179)1 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$
Personal Protective Equipment 2 9 9,153$ 82,377$
Total 1,282,377$
1 Cost per unit provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District
2 Personal protective equipment for future added firefighters; estimated cost
includes uniforms and personal protective equipment for fire suppression,
wild land firefighting and tactical response
Table 8.4: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing and Future Assets
Impact Fee
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Fire Stations 83,158,154$
Future Fire Station 16,705,625$
Existing - Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment 9,417,143$
Future - Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment 1,282,377$
Total 110,563,299$
1 See Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
The number of calls for service per year shown for 2040 includes calls in the area served
by RCFPD outside of the City, so that the cost of serving development in that area is not
included in the cost per call for impact fees charged by the City. The impact fees calculated
in this chapter are designed to recover new development’s proportionate share of the
cost of all of RCFPD’s existing and planned facilities, apparatus and equipment our to
2040. In the next section, the cost per call is multiplied by calls per unit factors to calculate
impact fees per unit. Then for residential development, the impact fee per unit is divided
by square feet per unit factors to get impact fees per square foot for single -family and
multi-family residential development.
The cost per call for service per year in Table 8.5 can also be used to calculate customized
impact fees for development of non-residential development projects that do not fit
within the categories of development defined in this study. Customized impact fees can
be calculated using the cost per call for service per year from Table 8.5 multiplied by the
estimated number of calls per year that will be generated by a specific project.
Impact Fees per Square Foot (Residential) and per Unit (Non-Residential)
Table 8.6 shows the calculation of fire impact fees per square foot for residential
development and per unit for non-residential development.
Table 8.5: Cost per Call for Service
Total Impact Fee 2040 Calls for Cost per Call for
Cost Basis 1 Service per Year 2 Service per Year 3
$110,563,299 21,728 $5,088.58
1 See Table 8.4
2 Projected 2040 calls for service for the District; see Table 2.4
3 Cost per call for service per year = total impact fee cost basis / 2040 calls
for service per year
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-8
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Fee Adjustment to Avoid Overcollection
If the fees shown in Table 8.6 are used to project potential revenue from the RCFPD
impact fees, the result is that projected revenue exceeds the estimated cost of future
assets shown in Table 8.4 by around 3%. To avoid the potential for overcollection, th e
impact fees from Table 8.6 are reduced by 3.1% in Table 8.7. The adjusted impact fees
from Table 8.7 are then used to project revenue in the next section and are also shown in
Table S.1 in the Executive Summary.
Table 8.6: RCFPD Impact Fees per Unit and per Square Foot (Residential)
Development Cost per Calls Impact Fee Avg Sq Ft Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Call 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $5,088.58 0.185 941.39$ 2,500 0.38$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $5,088.58 0.139 708.97$ 1,700 0.42$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $5,088.58 2.829 14,397.31$
Commercial/Retail KSF $5,088.58 0.231 1,174.76$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $5,088.58 0.115 584.65$
Office KSF $5,088.58 0.122 621.19$
Industrial KSF $5,088.58 0.017 88.79$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; room = guest room or suite;
Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Cost per call for service per year; see Table 8.5
3 Calls for service per unit per year; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Impact fee per square foot (residential) = impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-9
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the fire impact fees is projected separately for residential and
non-residential development because residential impact fees are per square foot and
non-residential impact fees are per unit. These projections assume that future
development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 and that all future private development will
be subject to impact fees. However, for a variety of reasons, some future development
may not be subject to these impact fees. See the section on Impact Fee Credits and
Exemptions in Chapter 1.
Table 8.8 shows the projected revenue to 2040 based on the adjusted residential impact
fees per square foot from Table 8.7.
Table 8.7: RCFPD Impact Fees per Unit and per Square Foot Adjusted to Avoid Overcollection
Development Adj Cost Calls Adj Impact Avg Sq Ft Adj Impact
Type Units 1 per Call 2 per Unit 3 Fee per Unit 4 per Unit 5 Fee per Sq Ft 6
Residential, Single Family DU $4,930.83 0.185 912.20$ 2,500 0.36$
Residential, Multi-Family DU $4,930.83 0.139 686.99$ 1,700 0.40$
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds $4,930.83 2.829 13,950.99$
Commercial/Retail KSF $4,930.83 0.231 1,138.34$
Hotel/Motel Rooms $4,930.83 0.115 566.52$
Office KSF $4,930.83 0.122 601.93$
Industrial KSF $4,930.83 0.017 86.04$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; room = guest room or suite;
Bed = accommodation for a single resident or patient
2 Adjusted cost per call for service per year is reduced by 3.1% from Table 8.6
3 Calls for service per unit per year; see Table 2.1
4 Adjusted impact fee per unit = adjusted cost per call for service X calls for service per unit
5 Average square feet per residential unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
6 Adjusted mpact fee per square foot (residential) = adjusted impact fee per unit / square feet per unit
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-10
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Table 8.9 shows the projected revenue to 2040 based on the adjusted non-residential
impact fees per unit from Table 8.7
The sum of the projected revenues from both residential and non-residential impact fees
in the preceding tables is $17,917,643. The estimated cost of future facilities, apparatus
and equipment shown in Table 8.4 is $17,988,002, so the projected revenue based on the
adjusted impact fees shown in Table 8.7 is about 0.4% less than the estimated cost of
future assets. Additional information is shown in the City’s capital improvement plan.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated
replacement costs for fire district facilities, apparatus and vehicles. We recommend that
the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the
Table 8.8: Projected Revenue - RCFPD Impact Fees (Residential)
Development Adj Impact Avg Sq Ft Added Projected
Type Fee per Sq Ft 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Single Family 0.36$ 2,500 2,868 2,581,200$
Residential, Multi-Family 0.40$ 1,700 15,812 10,752,160$
Total 13,333,360$
1 Adjusted impact fee per square foot; see Table 8.7
2 Average square feet per unit provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = adjusted impact fee per square foot X average square
feet per unit X added units
Table 8.9 Projected Revenue - RCFPD Non-Residential Impact Fees
Development Dev Adj Impact Future Projected
Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Senior/Assisted Living Facility Beds 13,950.99$ 138 1,928,794$
Commercial/Retail KSF 1,138.34$ 700 796,840$
Hotel/Motel Room 566.52$ 275 155,765$
Office KSF 601.93$ 2,000 1,203,868$
Industrial KSF 86.04$ 5,800 499,017$
Total 4,584,283$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of
building area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation for a single
resident or patient
2 Adjusted impact fee per unit of development; see Table 8.7
3 Future units; see Table 2.4
4 Projected revenue = adjsuted impact fee per unit X future units
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-11
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index or the California Construction Cost Index.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires
an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and
“rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on
impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees”
in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this
chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate
the impact of new development in the City on the need for facilities, apparatus and
equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD).
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional
facilities, apparatus and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development in the
City on the need for those facilities.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on
Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide
additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to serve the added demand for fire
protection and other emergency services associated with new development in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of
Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development in the City increases the
demand for fire protection and other emergency services provided by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Without additional facilities, apparatus and
equipment, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively
impact the ability of RCFPD the to provide services efficiently and effectively to all
development in the City.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8-12
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost
Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact fees charged to
a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that
project. The fees per square foot for residential development and the fees per unit of
non-residential development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are
based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year associated with that type of
development in the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Thus, the fee charged to
a development project reflects the impact of that project on the overall need for facilities,
apparatus and equipment used by RCFPD to serve development in the City.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-1
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Chapter 9. Implementation
This chapter of the report summarizes requirements for adoption and administration of
impact fees, calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not
intended as legal advice.
Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a
condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act
(Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
Adoption
Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and
public-hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and
66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a,
which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10 -
day notice period. However, Section 66016.5 added by AB 602 in 2021 requires that
impact fee nexus studies be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30-day notice.
Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do
not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.
Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain
findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Chapter 1 of
this report.
A nexus summary for each impact fee calculated in this report can be found in individual
chapters of this report and those nexus summaries may be used to support the findings
required by Section 66001.
Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates
procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and
accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following
paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Notices and Statute of Limitations. Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the
time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall
identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required
notification could refer to the capital improvement plan that must now be adopted with
each new impact fee nexus study.
Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, shall
provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90 -day
period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest
imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to
subsequent legal challenge.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-2
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an
impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, as amended by SB 937 in 2024, provides that, with
some exceptions, a local agency shall not require payment of impact fees by developers
of residential development projects prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy, or first temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first . That
provision does not apply if construction of the residential development does not begin
within five years of the date upon which the building permit is issued.
An exception that allows utility service fees to be collected when an application for service
is received, is now limited to the cost of “connection activities.”
Local agencies may require payment of fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
under certain conditions, including if the fees are to reimburse the agency for
expenditures previously made, unless the project reserves at least 49% of residential units
for occupancy by lower income households. For such projects, the local agency may
require posting of a performance bond or letter of credit from a federally insured
depository institution to guarantee payment when the fees are eligible for collectio n.
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits , Sections
66007 (d) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a
contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the
fees are paid. The local agency may not charge interest or other fees on any amounts
deferred pursuant to Section 66007.
If a residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may
determine whether the fees or charges described shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each
dwelling when it receives its certificate of occupancy, on a pro rata basis when a certain
percentage of the dwellings have received their certi ficate of occupancy, or on a lump-
sum basis when all the dwellings in the development receive their certificate of
occupancy.
Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non -
residential development.
Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be
deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or
fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of
the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the
purpose for which the fee was collected .” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest
earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same
purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the
improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g.,
street improvements).
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-3
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
We are not aware of any municipality that has interpreted that language to mean that
funds must be segregated by individual projects. As a practical matter, that approach
would be unworkable because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be
constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to
maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e.,
streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.
Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development
project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such
project must be exempted from the fees.
If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or
infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used
to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly to meet the
requirement that there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee
and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is
imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the
development on relevant public facilities.
In some cases, an agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would
otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or
economic development. Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the
governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects . So,
the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other
than impact fees.
Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a
condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for
which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted
so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by
the development.
In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or
improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers and
may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted . Excess
contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements .
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or
intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to
the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City
facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.
Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the
close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following
information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-4
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
2. The amount of the fee;
3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and
the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or
fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the
improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001,
paragraphs (e) and (f).
The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled
public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public , per
Section 66006 (b) (2).
Five-Year Findings and Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The
Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to
expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a
continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 ,
adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement
in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of
any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and
every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for
any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the
purpose for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete
financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be
used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to
complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the
appropriate account or fund.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-5
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If
such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be
required to refund the moneys in the account or fund , per Section 66001 (d).
Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete
financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it
must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which
construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the
agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the
account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).
For a useful discussion of the foregoing requirements, see “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-
Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Counsel,
Abbott and Kindermann, and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson,
presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference.
Audit Requests. Section 66023 provides that any person may request an audit to
determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount
reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility, as defined in Section
66000, or service provided by the local agency. The legislative body of the local agency
may retain an independent auditor to conduct the audit but is not required to conduct an
audit if an audit has been performed for the same fee within the previous 12 mon ths.
The agency shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit only if the person who
requests the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the local agency’s
reasonable estimate of the cost of the independent audit. At the conclusion of the audit,
the local agency shall reimburse unused sums, if any, or the requesting person shall pay
the local agency the excess of the actual cost of the audit over the amount that was
deposited.
However, if the local agency fails to comply with the annual report requirement of Section
66006 following the establishment, increase or imposition of a fee, but requires payment
of that fee in connection with the approval of a development project for thr ee
consecutive years, the agency shall not require a deposit for the independent audit and
shall pay the cost of the audit.
Indexing of In-Lieu/Impact Fees. In-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this report are
based on current costs and should be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the
cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by those fees. That adjustment
is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other
relevant capital assets. For construction costs, the General Services Department’s
California Cost Index is a useful reference, as is the Engineering News Record Building Cost
Index (BCI). Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs
should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices. Costs for vehicles and other
assets may be updated based on vendor information.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-6
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
Requirements Imposed by AB 602
In 2021, the California Legislature passed AB 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB
602 creates some new requirements for impact fees that went into effect in 2022. The
new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose
the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements
applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that
information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability
requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water
and sewer utility connection
b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning,
design and development standards that apply to each parcel
c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a
development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540
d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code
Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent
conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes
3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount of fees and exactions
associated with the project for which the certificate is issued. That information must
be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year.
4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted.
5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each
public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new
level of service is appropriate
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review
the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the
amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing
development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of
the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square
footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a
valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9-7
Development Impact Fee Study
February 20, 2025
burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this
requirement if the agency makes certain findings outlined in the statute.
8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code
(counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital
improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-day's notice, and the
local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to
begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.
Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and
training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining
them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting
rationale.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public
regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such
as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees
should be made clear.
Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for
projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the
expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified
in the impact fee nexus study in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to
show that funds have been properly expended.
Recovery of Study Costs
The City Council will establish an administrative fee in order to recover City costs of
administering the impact fee program.
Appendix A Page 1 of 1
Appendix A
Land Sales Data from CoStar Real Estate Database (2019-2024)
Appendix B Page 1 of 3
Appendix B
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Appendix B Page 2 of 3
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Appendix B Page 3 of 3
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment
Appendix C-1 Page 1 of 34
Appendix C-1
All City Parks Maps
9/11 Memorial Park
0 0.0250.0125
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /0.00 acres
1.40 acres
WA
T
E
R
B
U
R
Y
P
L
NEW ENGLAND DR
D
I
C
K
E
N
S
C
T
RH
O
D
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
C
T
ME
R
R
I
M
A
C
K
P
L
CONGRESS DR
DECLARATION DR
T
E
R
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
E
A
S
T
Mountain View Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /5.03 acres
0.00 acres
HUMBOLT
AVE
24TH ST
MAIN ST
HE
R
M
O
S
A
A
V
E
Old Town Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /5.01 acres
0.00 acres
PIN
E
C
O
N
E
W
A
Y
DOVE
CANY
O
N
WAY
RO
S
E
W
A
Y
BAN
Y
A
N
S
T
PA
R
K
M
E
A
D
O
W
P
L
HOPPE DR
ST
E
P
H
E
N
S
P
L
W
E
S
T
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y
YOUNGS
CANYON RD
Olive Grove Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /7.38 acres
0.00 acres
RO
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
JACK BENNY DR
VI
C
T
O
R
Y
D
R
STADIUM PARKWAY
ARROW RTE
R.C. Adult Sports Complex
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /48.90 acres
0.00 acres
ST
A
N
I
S
L
A
U
S
P
L
AMARILLO
S
T
BASE LINE RD
FAIRMONT WAY
CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
P
L
HI
N
S
D
A
L
E
PL
BE
L
P
I
N
E
P
L
D
R
E
W
C
T
MERCED
CT
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
P
L
CLO
V
E
R
CT
WH
E
A
T
O
N
CT
LA VINE ST
N
O
V
A
C
T
BEA
L
C
T
B
I
O
L
A
P
L
SP
R
I
N
G
M
I
L
L
P
L
CH
I
C
A
G
O
CT
MI
L
L
I
K
E
N
A
V
E
WO
O
D
B
U
R
Y
CT
ST
E
R
L
I
N
G
C
T
MANC
H
E
S
T
E
R
ST
DE
L
MA
R
C
T
SH
E
R
B
R
O
O
K
E
PL
BI
R
K
D
A
L
E
PL
RO
X
B
U
R
Y
P
L
BAYLOR ST
MUIRFIELD DR GL
E
N
V
I
E
W
P
L
CA
S
C
A
D
E
C
T
TU
L
A
R
E
P
L
NORTHVIE
W
D
R
FORDHAM CT DA
V
E
N
P
O
R
T
C
T
A
R
M
S
T
R
O
N
G
P
L
GR
E
E
N
B
R
I
A
R
P
L
GLENOAKS DR
SINCLA
I
R
S
T
WILDWOOD DR BERWICK DR
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
CENTRAL PARK
Central Park
0 0.20.1
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /35.84 acres
64.54 acres
3
8.248 ac
1
4.204 ac
4
9.175 ac 7
10.907 ac
8
4.292 ac 9
2.437 ac
12
5.227 ac
11
3.506
ac
6
15.276 ac
2
3.911 ac
5
3.494 ac
10
29.468 ac
Central Park Survey Data
The total acreage of Central park is 100.39 acreas. Within the 65.54 unimproved acres, there is
25.94 acres that is for non-public park facilities and is therefore not included in the total acreage.
The breakdown is as follows:
Lot 3 at 8.248 ac with an estimate of about hal going to parking. The result is that 4.124 ac is
removed.
Lots 11(3.506 ac) and 12 (5.227 ac) for the grape vineyards total 8.731 ac removed
Lot 2 used for a maintenance facility and some drainage areas is 3.911 ac.
Lastly we have the adventure facility at 9.175 ac in lot 4.
25.941 aces is subtracted from Central Park as it is for non-public facilities.
CHURCH ST
E
L
M
A
V
E
Ralph M. Lewis Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.03 acres
0.00 acres
R
O
B
I
N
S
O
N
G
W
A
Y
SAN
THO
M
A
S
C
T
K
I
T
T
Y
H
A
W
K
W
A
Y
PARKV
I
E
W
W
A
Y
SOLEDAD WAY
Rancho Summit Park
0 0.040.02
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.71 acres
0.00 acres
CALLE FELIZ
BE
R
Y
L
S
T
VIVERO ST
BASE LINE RD
ANADA CT
CALLE DEL PRADO
AV
I
L
A
AV
E
CHURCH
ST
GA
R
N
E
T
ST
YEW ST
A
R
R
O
Y
O
V
I
S
T
A
A
V
E
RI
O
D
E
L
S
O
L
P
L
BAJADO
CT
A
N
T
I
G
U
A
P
L
IRONWOOD ST
N
A
P
A
C
T
SU
N
S
T
O
N
E
A
V
E
PEP
P
E
R
ST
CANDLEWOOD ST
AZU
R
I
T
E
A
V
E
AR
R
O
Y
O
V
I
S
T
A
A
V
E
ZI
R
C
O
N
A
V
E
CANDLEWOOD
ST
CALUMA CT
AG
A
T
E
S
T
BALSA ST
GA
R
N
E
T
S
T
CALLE DEL PRADO
ALDER ST
E
L
A
R
C
O
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
A
V
E
ZI
R
C
O
N
A
V
E
CA
R
N
E
L
I
A
N
S
T
BALSA ST
Red Hill Community Park
0 0.20.1
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /44.20 acres
0.00 acres
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
COUNTRYVIEW DR
NORFOLK DR
ELM AVE
C
A
R
D
I
F
F
P
L
ELM AVEN
U
E
W
E
S
T
Spruce Ave Park
0 0.040.02
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /3.89 acres
0.00 acres
AR
B
O
R
L
N
LONG MEADOW DR
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
P
A
R
K
L
N
S
O
N
O
M
A
C
R
E
E
K
C
T
LE
E
D
S
P
L
READING
D
R
NOTTINGHA
M
D
R
B
L
Y
T
H
E
P
L
VINTN
E
R
D
R
KE
N
W
O
O
D
P
L
Victoria Arbors Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /7.75 acres
0.00 acres
Y
O
R
K
P
L
F
I
S
K
C
T
GR
A
Y
S
O
N
P
L
CHARLESTON ST
FAIRMONT WAY
Victoria Groves Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.02 acres
0.00 acres
Vintage Park
LUCER
A
DR
TRAPANI DR
TO
L
E
N
T
I
N
O
D
R
FORLI DR
MILANO DR
B
E
N
E
V
E
N
T
O
P
L
K
E
N
Y
O
N
W
A
Y
VICTO
R
I
A
PARK L
N
Vintage Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.02 acres
0.00 acres
ALTA LOMA DR
SOMERS
E
T
D
R
SOMERSET DR
OP
A
L
S
T
EM
E
R
A
L
D
S
T
SU
N
S
T
O
N
E
A
V
E
SA
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
A
V
E
I 210 FWY
I 210 OFRP
West Beryl Park
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.72 acres
0.00 acres
COUNTRYVIEW D
R
B
A
S
T
I
A
C
T
S
A
R
Z
A
N
A
P
L
CORSICA C
T
AMIATA DR
FA
I
R
H
A
V
E
N
P
L
DA
N
N
E
R
C
T
M
O
N
T
E
C
I
T
O
C
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
C
R
E
S
T
C
T
P
A
L
A
C
I
O
C
T
LINA
R
O
R
D
West Greenway Park
0 0.10.05
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /6.10 acres
0.00 acres
LO
T
U
S
CT
PL
U
M
W
A
Y
T
I
P
U
P
L
VERBENA
C
T
NO
R
T
H
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
WI
N
D
R
O
W
S
L
O
O
P
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
PA
R
K
L
N
Windrows Park
0 0.050.025
Miles
Park Improvement Acreage Study
Acerage Type
Improved
Unimproved /8.01 acres
0.00 acres
Appendix C-2 Page 1 of 18
Appendix C-2
CO 2024-193 CP Lease Agreement
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Rick Snawder, Battalion Chief
Nathan Hunt, Deputy Director of Community Services
Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer
Jenifer Phillips, Director of Organizational Development
Matt Marquez, Director of Economic Development
SUBJECT:PathwaysRC – A Plan to Develop Pathways to Public Service. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file a presentation on PathwaysRC, a plan
to develop pathways to public service.
BACKGROUND:
California’s local governments are facing a workforce crisis, with 70% of the state’s cities,
counties, and special districts struggling with recruitment and retention. This issue can lead to
significant vacancies in essential positions and ultimately disrupt services for local community
members and hinder effective planning for the future of many cities. (ILG, 2024)
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is committed to fostering a strong, engaged community by
cultivating local talent and encouraging civic involvement. PathwaysRC is a plan designed to
introduce and inform Rancho Cucamonga residents and others, particularly students from
elementary school through college, about career opportunities within the city and local
government. In September of 2024, a group of city employees began working on PathwaysRC
as part of the Lincoln Vibrant Communities Team Program. This program brings together the
forces of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Claremont Lincoln University in a powerful
program for leaders and teams engaged in addressing public sector challenges. They partner
with organizations to support municipalities in addressing common and complex issues, creating
thriving communities. Participants were tasked with creating a plan to address an issue that, if
resolved, would significantly improve the community. (Claremont Lincoln University, 2024)
The Rancho Cucamonga team selected workforce development as its issue to address and
developed PathwaysRC. Understanding this issue is complex and includes many different
components, the group chose to focus on developing a plan that will help to create pathways to
public service. By choosing a career in public service, people can directly contribute to the growth
and well-being of the local communities they call home, creating a legacy of service and civic
pride. PathwaysRC serves as a starting point for greater workforce development efforts.
Page 491
Page 2
2
7
8
9
ANALYSIS:
In the past decade, Rancho Cucamonga has experienced remarkable growth due to its unique
approach to city building, resulting in an increase in population, employment opportunities, and
business investment. However, approximately 85% of the working population in Rancho
Cucamonga commutes outside the city for employment. Plus, only 33% of the people who work
for the city, are residents of the community. To address the workforce development challenges
faced by local government agencies, including those in Rancho Cucamonga, it is essential to
create new pathways to public service for future generations of local leaders and city builders.
This will help ensure opportunities for local economic development, education, local hiring,
internships, and employment from cradle to career. Over time this will help to increase resident
retention, preserve educational resources and human capital, and promote equitable
opportunities for everyone to thrive.
The City’s General Plan, known as PlanRC, is the vessel for the community’s forward-thinking
approach to city building. PlanRC puts people at the forefront of the city building process and
includes polices addressing issues such as current and future workforce development needs.
One such policy is known as LC-3.7 and states the following:
Develop our Economy. Actively promote and encourage opportunities for local economic
development, education, housing, locally hiring, internships and employment from cradle to
career so as to increase resident retention, improve and grow a strong local economy, achieve
a positive jobs-housing match; retain critical educational resources and human capital, reduce
regional commuting, gas consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and ensure equitable
opportunities for all residents of the City and region to thrive.
The City’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS), adopted in October 2023, builds on the
framework laid out by PlanRC and fortifies linkages to its goals, including fostering growth of local
businesses and workforce. General Plan Policy LC-3.7 heavily influenced workforce development
related goals and action items in the EDS. Included in the EDS are strategies intended to foster
growth of the local workforce by expanding higher education opportunities, cultivating local
innovation, and connecting students, job seekers, and employers with workforce development
opportunities. Just as the EDS was built from the foundation laid by PlanRC, PathwaysRC
continues to build off the workforce development goals, policies, and strategies set forth in
PlanRC and the EDS.
PathwaysRC aims to tackle both the industry wide challenge of public sector workforce shortages
and the local challenge of the perceived limited amount of employment opportunities within the
city. It is intended to build awareness of the diverse career opportunities within local government
and public service. The plan is focused on the following key priorities:
•Provide opportunities for all residents to thrive.
•Provide opportunities for engagement and learning at multiple levels of education.
•Increase resident retention and human capital through workforce development efforts.
•Create opportunities for community members from cradle to career.
•Actively promote and encourage opportunities for greater education and local hiring.
Page 492
Page 3
2
7
8
9
PathwaysRC Programming
PathwaysRC was structured to engage students and young professionals at multiple educational
levels, focusing on developing an ongoing and sustainable community engagement program to
educate future workforce participants, ensuring early exposure to municipal careers and fostering
a deep sense of local commitment. Per the plan, engagement would occur at three different
stages. These stages, along with ideas for initial program elements are displayed below:
1.Elementary & Middle School Program
2.High School Program
3.Early Career Program
Elementary & Middle School Program
Aimed at early engagement to educate children about various careers in public service and local
government. Programming at this level could include the following components:
•School Career Days to share public service careers – coordinate with school districts
within the city to attend (or to continue to attend) career days and share work
experiences.
o Cadence – 4 events/year
•Community Service Events – attend Community events with a booth and interactive
activities to educate and inspire children about careers in public service and local
government.
o Cadence – 2 events/year
•Day in the Life Videos – Produce a series of videos interviewing City Staff about their
jobs including day-to-day responsibilities, their pathway to this type of career, and why
they love public service. Videos could be shown at library events, on social media, and
in other places.
o Cadence – 1 program/year
•Healthy RC Youth Leaders – Middle school students are assigned a capstone project
to solve over the course of the year focusing on different community issues. City staff
and nonprofit individuals lead each team’s capstone project and provide guidance.
o Cadence – 1 event/year
High School Program
Focuses on outlining career paths, offering course credits, and providing guidance on college or
other training opportunities available for students to prepare themselves for careers in the public
sector.
Page 493
Page 4
2
7
8
9
•Pathways to Public Service Day – Students come to City Hall and meet with department
directors and others to learn about their personal pathway into public service. Allow
students the opportunity to meet employees in a smaller group setting and ask questions.
o Cadence – 1 event/year
•Civic Spark Opportunity – Partner with High Schools to offer course credit for Civic
Spark program where students work at City Hall in the afternoon for a semester.
Students would rotate shadowing different departments for a two-week period.
o Cadence – 2 events/year
•Career Fairs – City staff to attend High School Career Fairs to educate students about
different opportunities within the Public Sector and the benefits of public service.
o Cadence – 4 events/year
•Healthy RC Youth Leaders – High school students are assigned a capstone project to
solve over the course of the year focusing on different community issues. City staff and
nonprofit individuals lead each team’s capstone project and provide guidance.
o Cadence – 1 event/year
Early College and Young Professional Development
Focuses on forming one-on-one connections with City staff and people early in their careers to
help paint a picture of careers in the public sector.
•Internships – Offer paid internship programs across various City departments to attract
staff. Internships should be paid where possible to attract quality applicants. Explore
potential grant opportunities to fund program.
o Cadence – Ongoing
•Apprenticeship Network – Partner with community colleges and technical institutes to
offer a one-on-one apprenticeship program. Students are paired with a city employee for
a six-month period to meet and discuss their career path and answer questions.
o Cadence – 1 offering/year
•RC Hiring Fair – City staff to continue to offer and expand annual RC Hiring Fair which
includes over 200+ participants and discuss various job opening opportunities at the city.
o Cadence – Ongoing, 1 event/year
•Community College Connections – Develop & deepen connections with Community
Colleges within the City to participate in their ongoing programs including multiple career
fairs annually, employee training events, and mentorship programs for minorities or first-
generation college students.
o Cadence – Ongoing
Page 494
Page 5
2
7
8
9
Digging Into the Data
The development of PathwaysRC was informed by different surveys conducted as part of other
plans or initiatives, as well as a survey of existing workforce development initiatives. First, data
was analyzed from the city’s Quality of Life Survey conducted between July and December 2023.
That survey was to serve as a catalyst for the creation of innovative programs and targeted
strategies to address health issues and gaps in access to resources within the community. Then,
the development of PlanRC included an extensive community engagement program which aimed
to be inclusive, intentional and equitable. Efforts prioritized determining values and ideas for the
future of the city. Finally, an internal survey was conducted by the team who developed
PathwaysRC. Identifying the available and existing resources provided by the city was deemed
a necessity. There was no specific and comprehensive database regarding workforce
development prior to the work on PathwaysRC. So, the team gathered representatives from
various city departments to gain an inventory of any related existing programs, activities and
events. Thirty-four initiatives were identified, and a Workforce Development Inventory Database
document was developed.
PathwaysRC Is and Is Not
Since its beginning, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has committed to creating a world-class
community. With each decade and each generation, the idea of what makes a world-class
community has evolved, but it remains grounded in the concepts of excellence, opportunity, and
high quality of live. Like the City, PathwaysRC is a plan that will also evolve over time and adapt
to different conditions and challenges. It is a start to a greater workforce development effort.
PathwaysRC Is:
•A vision and guide for the development of future local government leaders.
•A start to and piece of a larger, long-term citywide workforce development
program.
•Aligned with the City’s goals as outlined in the City’s General Plan, known as
PlanRC and the Economic Development Strategy.
•Routinely evolving, as it will need to be further researched, developed, and
updated regularly to remain relevant and provide the greatest impact.
PathwaysRC Is Not:
•A Plan to Overrule All Plans. This plan builds off other plans and initiatives
within the city. It is designed to be collaborative in nature and supportive of
previous and future efforts.
•Complete. Like many of the City’s plans, this plan will continue to constantly
evolve and be responsive to change.
•Perfect. This plan builds off of other City efforts and is a starting point for
greater workforce development efforts citywide.
•A Quick Fix. This work will not happen overnight, but there is a strong
commitment to systemic change.
Page 495
Page 6
2
7
8
9
Next Steps
To begin moving forward with implementation of PathwaysRC, the following next steps were
developed:
•Pathways RC Subcommittee: Develop a workforce development subcommittee
consisting of members of multiple city departments at various levels within the
organization to make the Vision & Goals outlined in PathwaysRC a reality.
•Research: Investigate workforce development programs in other local government
agencies to develop an understanding of best practices to assist with future programming.
Potentially send members from the PathwaysRC Subcommittee to these agencies to learn
more about their programs. This will include cities such as Fort Lauderdale, St. Louis,
Lewisburg, Tempe, and many more.
•Workforce Development Hub Publication: Generate a comprehensive list of existing
and available PathwaysRC programs that community members can register to
participate in, allowing for activity cross promotion, improved accessibility, and resource
identification.
CONCLUSION:
"Pathways RC" represents a strategic investment in the future of Rancho Cucamonga by inspiring
the next generation of public service professionals. By emphasizing the personal and community-
wide benefits of serving one’s hometown, this initiative seeks to instill a profound sense of purpose
and pride in local government careers. Through "Pathways RC," the city can cultivate homegrown
talent, enhance civic engagement, and build a more resilient workforce dedicated to making
Rancho Cucamonga an even greater place to live, work and play. Staff looks forward to Council’s
feedback and support in advancing this important initiative.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is not fiscal impact at this time. As work on implementing PathwaysRC moves forward,
any related budget request will be made as part of the city’s formal budget process.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUES /GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
•Providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all
•Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere
•Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future
•Equitable and prosperity for all
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - PathwaysRC
Page 496
California Cross Connection
Control Policy Handbook
Implications for Fire Sprinkler Systems
Executive Summary
California’s Cross Connection Control Policy Handbook affects
Rancho Cucamonga residential and commercial property owners.
•All Cucamonga Valley Water District
customers require an evaluation and
potential modifications.
•New backflow prevention requirements will
impact some properties.
Our goal is to establish a clear approach to
permitting fire sprinkler system modifications.
All properties must undergo cross -connection risk assessment
Property owners may need to install approved backflow
prevention devices
Annual testing required for backflow prevention assemblies
Property owners must maintain records for three years
CVWD has s ole re s pons ibility for imple me ntation
•10 -year timeline to install approved devices
REGULATORY REQUIRE
•Initial assessments conducted by CVWD
•Potential installation of backflow prevention devices ($800 -
$1,500)
•Annual testing expenses ($75 -$150 per year)
•Possible property modifications:
⚬Excavation for underground installations
⚬Drainage for relief valve discharge
⚬Protective enclosures
•Potential water pressure reductions
Residential Property Own
•Comprehensive risk assessments ($300 -$800)
•Enhanced backflow prevention requirements ($8,000 -$20,000)
•More extensive plumbing modifications may be necessary
•Higher costs for testing and maintenance
Commercial Property Own
Implementation Timeline
NOTIFICATION - CVWD provides notice by July 1, 2025
ASSESSMENT - CVWD assesses all affected properties
INSTALLATION - Ten -year period (July 1, 2024 - July 1, 2034)
COMPLIANCE - Full compliance expected by July 1, 2034
COMPLIANCE
New Installations
• Will be designed to comply with cross
connection control requirements
Existing Conditions
• OPTIONS FOR AFFECTED CUSTOMERS: ⚬Install a backflow prevention device at their meter connection
⚬Install a backflow prevention device at the connection of the fire
sprinkler system
⚬Configure the fire s prinkle r piping to c irc ulate wate r
SUPPORT PROGRAMS
PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGNSPUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
CVWD -MAINTAINED REGISTRY OF CERTIFIED TESTERS
STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS
PRE-APPLICATION
CONSULTATIONS
RESEARCH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS
STANDARDIZED TECHNICAL GUIDELINES
•Compliance with policy handbook is mandatory.
•Implementation approach balances regulatory requirements with
property owner needs
•Support programs will assist during transition
•Clear pathway established for permitting modifications
•Measures enhance water supply protection while maintaining fire
safety
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS?
LINCOLN VIBRANT
COMMUNITIES
LINCOLN VIBRANT
COMMUNITIES
Teams ProgramTeams Program
PATHWAYSRC
Plan created through the Lincoln Vibrant Communities Teams Program in March 2025.
This project is supported by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a non-profit global
thought leader in solving social, environmental, and economic challenges.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 497
DEVELOPED BY
NATHAN HUNT, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPUTY DIRECTOR
MATT MARQUEZ, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MARLENA PEREZ, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
JENIFER PHILLIPS, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPEMENT DIRECTOR
RICK SNAWDER, FIRE MARSHAL
PATHWAYSRC
2
Page 498
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ABOUT THIS PLAN............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
04
09
14
PATHWAYSRC
OUR VISION..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
KNOWING & UNDERSTANDING THE WHY (METHODOLOGY)......................................................................................................................................
VISION & GOALS.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
12
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
20
3
SURVEY KEY FINDINGS (SURVEY AND DATA)...........................................................................................................................................................................
CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................29
31
24
Page 499
Executive Summary
Page 500
Executive Summary
5
California’s local governments are facing a workforce crisis, with
70% of the state’s cities, counties, and special districts struggling
with recruitment and retention. This issue can lead to significant
vacancies in essential positions and ultimately disrupt services
for local community members and hinder effective planning for
the future of many cities. (ILG, 2024)
In the past decade, Rancho Cucamonga has experienced
remarkable growth due to its unique approach to city building,
resulting in an increase in population, employment
opportunities, and business investment. However,
approximately 85% of the working population in Rancho
Cucamonga commutes outside the city for employment. Plus,
only 33% of the people who work for the city, are residents of the
community. To address the challenges faced by local
government agencies, including those in Rancho Cucamonga, it
is essential to create new pathways to public service for future
generations of local leaders and city builders. This will help
ensure opportunities for local economic development,
education, local hiring, internships, and employment from
cradle to career. Doing so will over time help to increase
resident retention, preserve educational resources and human
capital, and promote equitable opportunities for everyone to
thrive.
Problem Statement
Page 501
Executive Summary
6
This plan develops a vision and goals for establishing pathways to public service, through different connections and
programming for the following three groups of individuals:
Elementary and Middle School1.
High School2.
Early Career 3.
Goals were developed to address needs within each individual group and examples include the following:
Group: Elementary and Middle School
Program: School Career Days - Coordinate with school districts within the City for staff to attend career days and
share stories about their work and experience in local government.
Group: High School
Program: Pathways to Public Service Day - Students come to City Hall to meet with department directors to learn
about their personal pathways into public service. Allows students the opportunity to meet employees in a smaller
group setting and ask questions.
Group: Early Career
Program: Apprenticeship Network - Partner with community colleges and technical institutes to offer a one-on-one
apprenticeship program. Students are paired with a City employee for a six month period to meet and discuss their
career path and answer questions.
Proposed Solution
Page 502
Executive Summary
7
Through this plan’s implementation, the City expects to establish greater workforce development related
connections both within and outside of City Hall. New programming will be created to help prepare future local
government leaders for careers in public service, and the City’s workforce development related efforts will be
centralized through the creation of a Workforce Development Subcommittee. Over time, the City anticipates an
increase in the number of residents who choose a career path in local government, and who choose to work
locally.
This City plan recognized the opportunity to address the heavy outbound commute flows and developed
workforce development related policies to help grow the number of people who work and live in Rancho
Cucamonga. This in turn allows for the Economic Development Strategy goals to be addressed, which include:
Grow and Diversify the City’s Economy
Enhance the Quality of Life
Expand Retail, Entertaiment, and Hospitality
Foster Growth of Local Businesses and Workforce
This plan prioritized determining values and ideas for the future of the city and there were many opportunities to
identify visions and collaborations of possible workforce development components that would strengthen and
benefit the community and residents at large.
Value
Page 503
Executive Summary
8
This plan will be a living document and it will be routinely evolving to respond to the needs of community
members and changing demographics. The plan will need to be further researched, developed, and updated
regularly to remain relevant and provide the greatest impact. Anticipated known next steps and action items
identified by this plan include:
Develop a workforce development subcommittee consisting of members of multiple city departments at
various levels within the organization to make the Vision & Goals outlined in PathwaysRC a reality.
Investigate workforce development programs in other local government agencies to develop an
understanding of best practices to assist with future programming. Potentially send members from the
PathwaysRC Subcommittee to these agencies to learn more about their programs. This will includes cities
such as Fort Lauderdale, St. Louis, Lewisburg, Tempe, and many more.
Present PathwaysRC to City Council for feedback and support on the efforts. Council support will be key to
implementing the plan and achieving long-term success.
Generate a comprehensive list of existing and available PathwaysRC programs that community members
can register to participate in, allowing for activity cross promotion, improved accessibility, and resource
identification.
Final Thoughts/Next Steps
Page 504
Our VisionOur Vision
Page 505
Cultivate future
generations of local
government leaders
while improving
quality of life and
opportunities for
residents.
PATHWAYSRC
Page 506
11
Our Vision
The Vision of PathwaysRC is to build a pipeline of future public sector employees by developing a
strategy for workforce development. This plan will outline ways to engage with the future
workforce at all different ages to introduce them to potential careers in public service. This
document identifies goals and strategies that will serve as a road map for City staff and civic
leaders. The success of the PathwaysRC depends on the coordination and communication with
each City department, other public agencies, and partner organizations.
Provide opportunities for all residents to thrive.
Provide opportunities for engagement and learning
at multiple levels of education.
Increase resident retention and human capital
through workforce development efforts.
Create opportunities for community members from
cradle to career.
Actively promote and encourage opportunities for
greater education and local hiring.
Key Priorities
Page 507
About This Plan
Page 508
A vision and guide for the development
of future local government leaders.
A start to and piece of a larger, long-term
citywide workforce development
program.
Aligned with the City’s goals as outlined in
the City’s General Plan, known as PlanRC
and the Economic Development Strategy.
Routinely evolving, as it will need to be
further researched, developed, and
updated regularly to remain relevant and
provide the greatest impact.
This Plan Is This Plan Is Not
13
About This Plan
Since its beginning, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has committed to creating a world-class
community. With each decade and each generation, the idea of what makes a world-class
community has evolved, but it remains grounded in the concepts of excellence, opportunity,
and high quality of live. Like the City, PathwaysRC is a plan that will also evolve over time and
adapt to different conditions and challenges.
A Plan to Overrule All Plans. This plan builds
off other plans and initiatives within the City.
It is designed to be collaborative in nature
and supportive of previous and future efforts.
Complete. Like many of the City’s plans, this
plan will continue to constantly evolve and be
responsive to change.
Perfect. This plan builds off of other City
efforts and is a starting point for greater
workforce development efforts citywide.
A Quick Fix. This work will not happen
overnight, but there is a strong commitment
to systemic change.
Page 509
Knowing & Understanding the Why
(Methodology)
Page 510
The Industry-Wide Challenge: California’s local governments are facing a workforce
crisis, as 70% of the state’s cities, counties, and special districts experience challenges
with recruitment and retention. This can lead to vacancies in crucial positions and
ultimately a disruption of services for local community members. (ILG, 2024)
The Local Challenge: In the last decade, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has
experienced remarkable growth, experiencing increases in population, employment
opportunities, and business investment. Despite these changes, roughly 85% of
Rancho Cucamonga’s working population travel outside city boundaries for work.
PathwaysRC aims to tackle both the industry-wide challenge of the public sector
workforce shortage and the local challenge of a limited perceived employment
opportunities within the city.
Why is PathwaysRC a priority for the City?
15
Knowing the Why
Page 511
Rancho Cucamonga has always been a city of forward thinkers who have never shied
away from a challenge. Today, PlanRC, is the vessel for the community’s forward-
thinking approach. PlanRC puts people at the forefront of the community building
process and includes policies that will help maintain its status as a world-class
community, while also addressing issues such as current and future workforce
development needs. Moving forward, there is a need to cultivate future generations
of local government leaders to continue this forward-thinking approach to city
building.
Vision Statement: Build on our success as a world-class community, to create an
equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.
PlanRC Goal LC-3.7: Actively promote and encourage opportunities for local
economic development, education, housing, locally hiring, internships and
employment from cradle to career so as to increase resident retention, improve and
grow a strong local economy, achieve a positive jobs-housing match; retain critical
educational resources and human capital, reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and ensure equitable opportunities for
all residents of the City and region to thrive.
Alignment with the City’s Vision
16
Understanding the Why
Page 512
The Economic Development Strategy (EDS), adopted in October 2023, builds on the
PlanRC. PlanRC lays out a series of strategies to chart a path towards building a 21st
century world-class community that is grounded in the foundational core values of
health, equity, and stewardship. The vision of PlanRC is to create a city for people – a
city of great neighborhoods, natural open spaces and parks, thriving commercial and
industrial areas, and walkable and active centers and districts, all connected by safe
and comfortable streets.
To meet the vision and core values of PlanRC, five Big Ideas were identified:
Design for People First
Provide Connectivity and Accessibility
Create Destinations
Cultural and Economic Hub of the Inland Empire
Address Environmental Justice
Alignment with the City’s Vision
17
Understanding the Why
Page 513
The EDS fortified linkages with PlanRC ‘s Big Ideas, and includes the following goals:
Goal 1 - Grow & Diversify the City’s Economy
Goal 2 - Enhance the Quality of Life
Goal 3 - Foster Growth of Local Businesses and Workforce
Goal 4 - Expand Retail, Entertainment and Hospitality
The goals and corresponding strategies were designed to address specific economic
development objectives. Within each of the strategies are achievable and
measurable action items designed to serve as a guide for the City over the next five
years. The EDS is meant to be fluid in that it will be reviewed annually to determine if
there is a change in priorities or if resources need to be shifted. During this time, the
City of Rancho Cucamonga will continue working towards its long-range goals and
planning efforts that are the framework of the City’s vision of being a world-class
community, making Rancho Cucamonga a special place to live, work, and thrive.
PlanRC Policy LC- 3.7 heavily influenced workforce development related goals and
action items included in the EDS. The strategy established intentions to foster
growth of the local workforce by expanding higher education opportunities,
cultivating local innovation, and connecting students, job seekers, and employers
with workforce development opportunities. Building and enhancing the City’s
Workforce is identified in the EDS as a key need.
Alignment with the City’s Vision
18
Understanding the Why
Page 514
The data used in the development of this PathwaysRC plan is based up on surveys
that were conducted as part of other plans or initiatives within the City, apart from
the PathwaysRC Survey.
The Quality of Life Survey was conducted between July to December 2023 as part of
the City’s Healthy RC Steering Committee. The purpose of the survey was to serve as
a catalyst to create innovative programs and targeted strategies to address health
issues and gaps in access to resources within the City.
The development of PlanRC in 2021 involved extensive community engagement
which aimed to be inclusive, intentional, and equitable. Efforts prioritized
determining values and ideas for the future of the City and there were many
opportunities for participants to express their visions, collaborate with neighbors, and
explore possible innovations.
PathwaysRC: Survey In the development of this PathwaysRC, a survey was
conducted in 2024 to understand what ongoing workforce development initiatives
were in place at the time of this study.
19
Digging into the Data
Understanding the Why
Page 515
20Survey Key Findings (Survey and Data) Survey Key Findings (Survey and Data)
Page 516
21
Quality of Life Survey Key Findings
The public engagement process for the
City’s Quality of Life Survey was a
collaborative effort between multiple City
departments including Economic
Development, Community Affairs, Healthy
RC, RC Fire District, RC Policy Department,
and DoIt. Information collected from
Rancho Cucamonga community members
was designed to generate innovative
approaches and targeted strategies to
address health issues and gaps in access to
resources within the City, exploring health
equity and wellbeing.
57%
Of residents agree and 13%
disagree that, “There is plenty of
economic opportunity in
Rancho Cucamonga.”
“Economic opportunity is very limited in the
city. There is an imbalance between service
jobs and housing. Most skilled and
professional jobs require a commute out of
the city.”
32%51%
Almost a third of people (32%)
who have fulltime employment
have trouble paying their bills
at least from time to time.
Of renters and 31% of
homeowners in the City are
considered cost-burdened
(spending >30% of income on
rent/home).
45%
Almost half of residents (45%)
employed fulltime report
commuting one hour or more
for work.
Page 517
22
Development of the City’s General Plan included an
analysis of existing conditions. Based on the American
Community Survey (ACS) and Longitudinal Employer
Household Dynamics Origin Destination Statistics,
roughly 15% of Rancho Cucamonga’s working
population lives and works in the City, while the other
85% lives in the City but is employed outside of the City.
There are approximately 82,000 jobs and roughly 56,000
households in Rancho Cucamonga. The City’s jobs to
employed residents ratio is 1.08, which indicates that the
City largely maintains a balance between employed
residents and employees within the City. However,
since only 15% of people both live and work in the City
indicates that the local jobs do not match the skill levels
or salary expectations of residents.
This City recognized the opportunity to address the
heavy outbound commute flows and developed General
Plan workforce development related policies to help
grow the number of people who work and live in
Rancho Cucamonga.
(PlanRC Existing Conditions Report, 2020)
PlanRC Key Findings
Page 518
23
PathwaysRC Survey Key Findings
In exploring the pathways to connect Rancho
Cucamonga residents to career opportunities and
enhance educational activities to develop
professional skills and competencies, identifying
the available and existing resources provided by the
city was deemed a necessity to the workforce
development plan. There was no specific and
comprehensive database regarding this topic prior
to PathwaysRC’s work. PathwaysRC surveyed and
inventoried existing programs, activities, and events
provided by the city related to strategies, initiatives,
and educational activities.
All city departments were contacted to participate
in data collection of existing workforce
development offerings. City departments were
contacted with emails and a meeting was hosted in
September 2024, to generate a list of known
activities, share insights into program impact and
enhancement options, and generate networking
and marketing opportunities to advance the
programs, events, and activities.
The survey resulted in the establishment of a
“Citywide Workforce Development Inventory
Database” document which included details of:
initiative title, age group, description, status, lead
contact, program type, funding source,
performance measures, target population, internal
vs. external, and city goal alignment.
18
City Departments Surveyed
34
Initiatives Identified
Page 519
Vision & Goals
Page 520
25
Vision and Goals
To achieve the Why, a set of Vision and Goals for Pathways RC was developed. The Vision focuses
on developing an ongoing and sustainable community engagement program to educate the
future workforce about pathways to public service. This engagement into divided into three
main categories, or programs, focusing on different age groups.
Elementary and Middle School
Program
Aimed at early enagement to educate children
about potential careers in the public sector.
High School Program
Early Career Program
Targeted engagement towards high schoolers
about potential college paths or certifications and
trainings for careers in the public sector.
Provides working opportunities for students in
college or just entering the workforce.
Specific engagement opportunities for each of these programs are outlined on the following
pages.
Page 521
26
Elementary and Middle School Program
Community Service Events
Focuses on engagement early on in school to bring awareness to careers in the public sector.
Details
Cadence: Two events/year
Implementation Timeline: Fall 2025
Staff to attend community events with a booth
and interactive activities to educate and inspire
children about careers at the City.
Day in the Life Videos
Details
Cadence: One program
Implementation Timeline: Summer 2026
Produce a series of videos interviewing City
Staff on their jobs including day-to-day
responsibilites, their pathway to this career, and
why they love public service. Videos could be
shown at library events or on social media.
School Career Days
Details
Cadence: Four events/year
Implementation Timeline: Fall 2025
Coordinate with school districts within the City
for staff to attend career days and share about
their work at the City.
Healthy RC Youth Leaders
Details
Cadence: Once per year
Implementation Timeline: Already ongoing
Middle school students are assigned a capstone
project to solve over the course of the year
focusing on different community issues. City
staff and nonprofit individuals lead each team’s
capstone project and provide guidance.
Page 522
27
High School Program
Focuses on outlining career paths, offering course credits, and providing guidance on college
or other training available for students to prepare themselves for careers in the public sector.
Pathways to Public Service Day
Details
Cadence: Once per year
Implementation Timeline: Spring 2025
Students come to City Hall and meet with
department directors to learn about their
personal pathway into public service. Allow
students the opportunity to meet employees in
a smaller group setting and ask questions.
Civic Spark Opportunity
Details
Cadence: Twice per year (each semester)
Implementation Timeline: Fall 2026
Partner with High Schools to offer course credit
for Civic Spark program where students work at
City Hall in the afternoon for a semester.
Students would rotate shadowing different
departments for a two week period.
Healthy RC Youth Leaders
Details
Cadence: Once per year
Implementation Timeline: Already ongoing
High school students are assigned a capstone
project to solve over the course of the year
focusing on different community issues. City
staff and nonprofit individuals lead each team’s
capstone project and provide guidance.
Career Fairs
Details
Cadence: Four events per year
Implementation Timeline: Fall 2025
City staff to attend High School Career Fairs to
educate students about different opportunities
within the Public Sector and the benefits of
public service.
Page 523
28
Early Career Program
Focuses on forming one-on-one connections with City staff and people early in their careers to
help paint a picture for careers in the public sector.
Internships
Details
Cadence: Ongoing
Implementation Timeline: Summer 2026
Offer paid internship programs across various
City departments to attract staff. Internships
should be paid where possible to attract quality
applicants. Explore potential grant
opportunities to fund program.
Apprenticeship Network
Details
Cadence: Once per year (six-month program)
Implementation Timeline: Fall 2026
Partner with community colleges and technical
institutes to offer a one-on-one apprenticeship
program. Students are paired with a City
employee for a six month period to meet and
discuss their career path and answer questions.
Community College Connections
Details
Cadence: Ongoing
Implementation Timeline: Spring 2026
Develop connections with Community Colleges
within the City to participate in their ongoing
programs including multiple career fairs
annually, employee training events, and
mentorship programs for minorities or first-
generation college students.
RC Hiring Fair
Details
Cadence: Once per year
Implementation Timeline: Summer 2025
City staff to attend annual RC Hiring Fair which
includes over 200+ participants. Discuss various
job opening opportunities at the City.
Page 524
29Conclusion & Next Steps Conclusion & Next Steps
Page 525
30
Conclusion & Next Steps
Pathways RC Subcommittee: Develop a workforce development subcommittee
consisting of members of multiple city departments at various levels within the
organization to make the Vision & Goals outlined in PathwaysRC a reality.
Research: Investigate workforce development programs in other local government
agencies to develop an understanding of best practices to assist with future
programming. Potentially send members from the PathwaysRC Subcommittee to
these agencies to learn more about their programs. This will include cities such as
Fort Lauderdale, St. Louis, Lewisburg, Tempe, and many more.
Council Support: Present PathwaysRC to City Council for feedback and support on
the efforts. Council support will be key to implementing the plan and achieving long-
term success.
Workforce Development Hub Publication: Generate a comprehensive list of
existing and available PathwaysRC programs that community members can register
to participate in, allowing for activity cross promotion, improved accessibility, and
resource identification.
Page 526
BibliographyBibliography
Page 527
Bibliography
Economic Development Strategy. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2023.
https://cityofrc.prod.acquia-sites.com/sites/default/files/2023-
10/Rancho%20Cucamonga%20Economic%20Development%20Strategy_October%204%202023.
pdf.
Institute for Local Government Launches New Registered Apprenticeship Initiative to Address
Public Sector Workforce Shortages - Institute for Local Government. (2024, November 20).
Institute for Local Government. https://www.ca-ilg.org/post/institute-local-government-
launches-new-registered-apprenticeship-initiative-address-public.
PlanRC. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2020. https://www.cityofrc.us/planrc.
RC Quality of Life Survey. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2023.
https://www.cityofrc.us/news/quality-life-survey.
Page 528
LINCOLN VIBRANT
COMMUNITIES
Teams Program
PATHWAYS RC
DEVELOPED BY
NATHAN HUNT, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPUTY DIRECTOR
MATT MARQUEZ, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MARLENA PEREZ, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
JENIFER PHILLIPS, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RICK SNAWDER, FIRE MARSHAL
PATHWAYS RC
Our Vision
Cultivate future generations of local
government leaders while improving
quality of life and opportunities for
residents.
Our Vision
•Provide opportunities for all residents to thrive .
•Provide opportunities for engagement and learning at multiple levels of
education.
•Increase resident retention and human capital through workforce development
efforts.
•Create opportunities for community members from c radle to career .
•Actively promote and encourage opportunities for greater education and local
hiring .
About This Plan
•A vision and guide
•A start to and a piece of a
larger program
•Aligned with the City’s
goals
•Routinely evolving
This Plan Is This Plan Is Not
About This Plan
•A plan to overrule all plans
•Complete
•Perfect
•A quick fix
Knowing the Why
•The Industry-Wide Challenge
•The Local Challenge
Why is PathwaysRC a priority for the City?
Knowing the Why
Alignment with the City’s Vision
•PlanRC Goal LC-3.7
•Economic Development Strategy⚬Goal 3 - Foster Growth of Local Businesses and Workforce
•Quality of Life Survey⚬45% of residents commute more than an hour⚬51% of renters are cost burdened⚬13% of residents don’t agree there is plenty of economic opportunity
•PlanRC Survey⚬85% of the City’s population work outside of the City
•PathwaysRC Survey⚬18 departments surveyed⚬34 initiatives identified
Digging into the Data
Knowing the Why
Vision & Goals
Vision and Goals
Elementary and Middle School Program
•School career days
•Day-in-the-life videos
•Community Service Events
•Healthy RC Youth Leaders
Vision and Goals
High School Program
•Pathways to Public Service Day
•Career Fairs
•Healthy RC Youth Leaders
Vision and Goals
Early Career Program
•Internships
•Apprenticeship Network
•RC Hiring Fair
•Community College Connections
Next Step s
•Develop a Pathways RC subcommittee
•Research other workforce development programs
•Workforce Development Hub Publication
DATE:April 16, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Alberto Felix, Traffic Engineer
Krystal Lai, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT:Consideration of a Contract With Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., in the
Amount of $7,647,890, Plus a 10% Contingency for the Advanced Traffic
Management System Phase II Project and Authorization of an
Appropriation in the Amount of $831,930. This Project is Exempt From
the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.
(CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Advanced Traffic Management System Phase II
Project (Project), on file with the City Engineer;
2. Accept the bids received for the Project;
3. Award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $7,647,890; to the lowest
responsive bidder, Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., for the total bid amount;
4. Authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency for the construction contract, in the amount
of $764,790; and
5. Authorize an appropriation of expenditures in the amount of $831,930 from the Transportation
Fund (124).
BACKGROUND:
On August 7, 2019, the City Council adopted the Traffic Signal Communications Master Plan to
provide a framework for future design and implementation of a Citywide traffic signal
communication network in a multi-year phased approach. Over the past six (6) years, the
Engineering Services Department, Transportation staff have been working on the Advanced
Traffic Management Systems (ATMS) Program to build out the City’s ATMS to improve the City's
traffic signal system and future deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
On May 18, 2022, the City Council accepted the Phase I Project of the ATMS Program which
included the integration of the traffic signals along Haven Avenue from 4th Street to Wilson
Page 529
Page 2
2
7
7
9
Avenue, Foothill Boulevard from Grove Avenue to East Avenue, and Vineyard Avenue from
Foothill Boulevard to Red Hill Country Club Drive into the City’s Traffic Management Center
(TMC). The implementation of the Project improved signal timing and coordination which resulted
in a reduction in average delay along Haven Avenue of up to 67%, and on Foothill Boulevard of
up to 51%.
On November 1, 2023, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement for design
and construction support services for the ATMS Phase II Project. Design work has been
completed and the Project is ready to move into the construction phase.
ANALYSIS:
The ATMS Phase II Project will improve monitoring, timing, and coordination of the City's traffic
signal system and includes connection of five (5) additional corridors to the City’s TMC:
1. Milliken Avenue from 4th Street to Grizzly Drive;
2. 19th Street from Sapphire Street to Haven Avenue;
3. Arrow Route from Grove Avenue to East Avenue;
4. Rochester Avenue from Base Line Road to Vintage Drive; and
5. Day Creek Blvd from Base Line Road to Wilson Avenue.
The scope of work for the Project includes the installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV)
cameras, video detection systems, fiber optic cable and conduit, communication networking
equipment, and the integration of approximately 61 signals into the City’s Traffic Management
Center located at City Hall. The ATMS Phase II Project will improve monitoring, timing, and
coordination of the City’s traffic signal system and furthers the goals of the City’s Traffic Signal
Communications Master Plan.
The Notice Inviting Bids was released to the general contracting community and was published
in the Daily Bulletin Newspaper on February 11, and February 18, 2025. The City Clerk’s office
facilitated the formal solicitation for bidding the Project.
On April 1, 2025, the City Clerk’s office received three (3) construction bids. A full bid summary is
included as Attachment 2. The Engineer’s estimate for the Project was $8,700,000. The apparent
lowest bid, as determined to be Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., is in the amount of $7,647,890.
Engineering staff has reviewed all bids received and found all to be complete and in accordance
with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the
required background investigation and finds the lowest responsive bidder Elecnor Belco Electric,
Inc. meets the requirements of the bid documents.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Staff has determined that the Project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 “Existing
Facilities” subsection (c), Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Anticipated construction costs are estimated to be as follows:
Expenditure Category Amount
Construction Contract $7,647,890
Construction Contract Contingency (10%)$764,790
Page 530
Page 3
2
7
7
9
Construction Inspection Services $188,760
Construction Inspection Contingency (10%)$18,880
Bid Noticing Advertisement $1,730
Estimated Construction Costs $8,622,050
A total of $9,087,000 was budgeted during the Annual Budget Process for Fiscal Year 2024/25
for the Project from the Transportation Fund (124), Fire Capital Projects Fund (288), Fiber Optic
Network Fund (711), and the Federal Grants Fund (275).
In May 2025, the City awarded a construction contract for the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Major Arterials
Pavement Rehabilitation Project for Milliken Avenue. The scope of this Project consisted of
pavement rehabilitation, accessible curb ramp upgrades, and installation of traffic signal video
detection. Due to the overlapping scope of work, a portion of the work for the ATMS Phase II
Project was advanced with the Milliken Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project therefore,
$296,880 of the originally budgeted amount for ATMS Phase II was shifted and has already been
expended under the Milliken Project.
In addition, a federal earmark in the amount of $1,000,000 was expected to be ready and available
for use on the ATMS Phase II Project, however due to extensive lead times to allocate the federal
funding and the need to keep the Project moving forward, staff worked with federal
representatives to allow for the shifting of the $1,000,000 federal earmark to a future phase of the
AMTS Program. Design work for ATMS Phase III is expected to begin in FY2025/26 with the
construction of the project, estimated to be approximately $5.5 million, slated for FY2026/27.
Following the advanced work, preconstruction expenses, and the shifting of the federal earmark
to a future phase, the remaining budget available for the AMTS Phase II Project under the Capital
Improvement Project account numbers is $7,790,120 as outlined below:
Account No. Funding Source Description Amount
F124 CC303 SC7004
PID2004-124
Transportation Fund (124)ATMS Phase 2 Project $7,628,380
F288 CC303 SC7004
PID2004-288
Fire Capital Projects (288)ATMS Phase 2 Project $80,870
F711 CC303 SC7004
PID2004-711
Fiber Optic Network (711)ATMS Phase 2 Project $80,870
Total $7,790,120
As a result of the reallocation of the federal funding to a future Program phase, a deficit of
$831,930 exists and must be funded to proceed with awarding a construction contract. Staff is
recommending that additional funding be appropriated toward the Project from the Transportation
Fund (124) for construction as shown below:
Account No. Funding Source Description Amount
F124 CC303 SC7004
PID2004-124
Transportation Fund (124)ATMS Phase 2 Project $831,930
Total Appropriation $831,930
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council's Core Values by ensuring the construction of high-quality
public improvements that promote success as a world class community.
Page 531
Page 4
2
7
7
9
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 – Bid Summary
Page 532
ATTACHMENT 1
ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (ATMS) PHASE 2 PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Milliken Avenue from 4th Street to Grizzly Drive
19th Street from Sapphire Street to Haven Avenue
Arrow Route from Grove Avenue to East Avenue
Rochester Avenue from Base Line Road to Vintage Drive
Day Creek Blvd from Base Line Road to Wilson Avenue
Page 533
ATTACHMENT 2
BID SUMMARY: BID DATE: _____04/01/2025______APPARENT LOW BIDDER 2 3
ALFARO COMMUNICATIONS
CONSTRUCTION INC.
CROSSTOWN ELETRICAL & DATA,
INC.ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PHASE II PROJECT ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC.
BASE BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
107,500
9,900
103,500
49,300
47,500
47,500
40,600
70
LF Furnish and Install 288-Strand SMFO Trunk Cable $6.50
$4.00
$1.00
$1.00
$85.00
$698,750.00
$39,600.00
$103,500.00
$49,300.00
$4,037,500.00
$475,000.00
$60,900.00
$665,000.00
$229,500.00
$58,800.00
$91,800.00
$58,000.00
$142,000.00
$182,600.00
$115,200.00
$72,200.00
$200,000.00
$7.00
$2.50
$2.40
$2.40
$72.00
$752,500.00
$24,750.00
$248,400.00
$118,320.00
$3,420,000.00
$472,625.00
$40,600.00
$523,110.00
$207,519.00
$100,940.00
$77,214.00
$104,400.00
$87,614.00
$132,634.00
$144,000.00
$11,400.00
$180,000.00
$4.07
$9.97
$1.20
$1.92
$78.63
$437,525.00
$98,703.00
$124,200.00
$94,656.00
$3,734,925.00
$215,175.00
$48,720.00
$530,285.00
$216,460.32
$80,062.57
$173,874.81
$112,279.88
$370,468.77
$320,819.07
$97,880.00
$62,899.12
$121,550.80
$7.17
$3.53
$0.80
$770,775.00
$34,947.00
$82,800.00
$66,555.00
$7,552,500.00
$240,350.00
$62,930.00
$621,250.00
$201,450.00
$39,200.00
$67,575.00
$106,430.00
$234,655.00
$282,200.00
$137,120.00
$82,745.00
$150,000.00
LF Furnish and Install 12-Strand SMFO Branch Cable
LF Furnish and Install #8 Tracer Wire
LF Furnish and Install #8 Ground Wire
LF Furnish and Install 4" PVC Schedule 80 Conduit
LF Furnish and Install 3-1.35" O.D. Schedule 40 BDPE Innerducts
LF Remove Existing SIC
EA Remove Existing Controller and Replace with New Cobalt Controller
EA Furnish and Install Etherwan Switch
EA Furnish and Install 12-Port Fiber Patch Panel
EA Furnish and Install Splice Closure
EA Fiber/Splicing Terminations (Per Intersection)
EA Furnish and Install No. 6E Pull Box
$1.35
$159.00
$5.06$10.00
$1.50
$9.95
$1.00
$4.53
$1.20 $1.55
$9,500.00
$4,500.00
$1,200.00
$1,800.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,200.00
$3,600.00
$3,800.00
$10,000.00
$7,473.00
$4,069.00
$2,060.00
$1,514.00
$1,800.00
$1,234.00
$1,598.00
$4,500.00
$600.00
$9,000.00
$7,575.50
$4,244.32
$1,633.93
$3,409.31
$1,935.86
$5,217.87
$3,865.29
$3,058.75
$3,310.48
$6,077.54
$8,875.00
$3,950.00
$800.00
$1,325.00
$1,835.00
$3,305.00
$3,400.00
$4,285.00
$4,355.00
$7,500.00
51
49
51
58
71
83
32
19
EA Replace Existing Pull Box with New No. 6E Pull Box
EA Furnish and Install No. N40 Pull Box with Extension
EA Replace Existing Pull Nox with New No. N40 Pull Box with Extenion
Furnish and Install PTZ CCTV Camera (Housing, Assembly, Power Injector, Cabling)17 20 EA
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
11,500
EA Furnish and Install SFP Modules In Network Switch
LF Remove Existing Fiber Optic Cable
LS Remove and Salvage Existing Master Controller At Miliken Ave/Terra Vista Ave
EA Remove and Salvage Existing Wireless Antenna and Mounting
EA Remove and Salvage Existing Network Switch
$1,000.00
$2.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$30,000.00
$2,500.00
$10,000.00
$26,000.00
$23,000.00
$1,500.00
$9,000.00
$1,000.00
$30,000.00
$2,500.00
$420,000.00
$320.00
$1.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$8,320.00
$11,500.00
$1,000.00
$4,500.00
$1,000.00
$22,000.00
$2,500.00
$333,228.00
$374.99
$1.26
$284.38
$505.56
$284.38
$9,749.74
$14,490.00
$284.38
$4,550.04
$568.76
$56,875.00
$3,775.00
$418,215.00
$350.00
$1.65
$850.00
$890.00
$250.00
$9,100.00
$18,975.00
$850.00
$8,010.00
$500.00
$99,500.00
$9,550.00
$436,590.00
1
9
2
1
1
$500.00
LS System Integration an Acceptance Testing $22,000.00
$2,500.00
$7,934.00
$56,875.00
$3,775.00
$9,957.50
$99,500.00
$9,550.00
$10,395.00
EA Furnish and Install 16 Port Expansion Module For Existing Network Switch
Furnish and Install Apex Hybrid Video Detection Camera With Radar Snesor (Housing,25
26
27
42
20
16
EA Assembly, Cabling)
EA Furnish and Install Apex Video Detection Camera (Housing, Assembly, Cabling)
Furnish and Install Iteris Vantage Apex Video Detension Processing Unit in Controller
$9,000.00
$7,500.00
$180,000.00
$120,000.00
$7,054.00
$18,504.00
$141,080.00
$296,064.00
$7,050.00
$18,885.94
$141,000.00
$302,175.04
$9,720.00
$20,880.00
$194,400.00
$334,080.00EACabinet
Furnish and Install CBS-127 (42" x 24" x 14") Cabinet on Existing Traffic Signal Cabinet $3,500.00 $10,500.00 $4,300.00 $12,900.00 $5,313.38 $15,940.14 $5,980.00 $17,940.00283EA
29
30
31
1
1
LS Mobilization
LS Traffic Control
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$400,000.00 $112,770.00 $112,770.00
$55,000.00
$7,647,888.00
$74,000.00
$102,500.00
$74,000.00 $500,000.00
$102,500.00 $120,000.00
$7,984,607.44
$500,000.00
$120,000.00
$12,482,977.00
$200,000.00 $55,000.00
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT:$8,703,150.00
Page 534
ADVANCED TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
PHASE II (ATMS II)
BACKGROUND
August
2019
November
2023
May
2022
Traffic Signal
Master Plan
Adopted
1 3 4
ATMS Phase I
Construction
Accepted
ATMS Phase
II Design
Awarded
ATMS Phase I
Construction
52
June
2020
ATMS Phase I
Construction
Awarded
June
2025
April
2026 2027
Complete
ATMS Phase II
Construction
1 3
Begin
ATMS Phase III
Construction
2
2026
ATMS Phase III
Design
Begin
ATMS Phase II
Construction
1.Milliken Ave from 4th St to Grizzly Dr
2.19th St from Sapphire St to Haven Ave
3.Arrow Rte from Grove Ave to East Ave
4.Rochester Ave from Base Line Rd to Vintage Dr
5.Day Creek Blvd from Base Line Rd to Wilson Ave
CORRIDOR OVERVIEW
PROJECT SCOPE
•61 traffic signals into the Traffic
Management Center (TMC)
•22 Miles of Fiber Optic Cable
•62 Video Detection Cameras Upgrades
•20 Closed Circuit Television Locations
PROJECT BENEFITS
•Improvement on signal timing and
coordination
•Reduction of travel delay
•Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
BID PHASE
•Opened bid on April 1 , 2025
•3 bids received
•Cost range: $7.6M to $12.5M
•Low Bidder : Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc.
BUDGET
•FY2024/25 Annual Budget = $9,087,000
•Scope Completed in Milliken Project = $296,880
•$1M Federal Earmark shifted from Phase II to Phase III
•Available Balance for Phase II = $7,790,120
•Appropriation Needed = $831,930
RECOMMENDATION
•Accept the bids received for the Project;
•Award and authorize the execution of a contract to the lowest responsive bidder,
Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., for the total bid amount;
•Authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency for the construction contract;
•Authorize an appropriation of expenditures from the Transportation Fund (124).
Questions?