HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-014 - Resolution RESOLUTION NO.2025-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE, ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM AS PART OF THE NEXUS STUDY, ESTABLISHING
THE FEE AMOUNT, 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 Chapter 3.28 ("City-Wide System Fees for
Transportation")established the City's current development impact fee program for Transportation
Development Impact Fees.
3. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code provisions establish the program and the
requirements for imposition of development impact fees on development projects, as supported
by nexus studies, and in Section 3.28.020 provides 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.
4. The City Council now desires to update the Transportation Development Impact Fee
on new development to fund the costs associated with the increased demand for such public
facilities throughout the City.
5. Fehr & Peers has prepared the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)
Program Nexus Study dated Aril 30, 2025, included as Exhibit A("F&P Nexus Study"). The F&P
Nexus Study covers the Transportation Development Impact Fee.
6. The F&P Nexus Study identifies the purpose of the fee and the use of the fee, and
demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the 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 the fee, and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to
the development. In addition, the F&P Nexus Study identifies capital projects necessary to meet
the goals, programs and objectives within the City's General Plan.
7. The F&P 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
Transportation Development Impact Fee. Furthermore, the F&P Nexus Study describes the
benefit and impact area on which the development impact fee is to be imposed, lists specific public
improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of the development impact fee,
describes the estimated cost of providing the improvements and facilities, describes the
reasonable relationship between the development impact fee and the various types of new
Resolution No. 2025-014— Page 1 of 6
development, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the law with regard to the imposition
and collection of development impact fee.
8. 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 fee's uses and the type of development for which the fee is imposed.
9. 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.
10. The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the
Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and fee
specified in this Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the development impact fee 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.
11. 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 May 7, 2025.
12. The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the F&P 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, contains substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection
of the development impact fee established herein.
13. The City Council has reviewed and considered the development impact fee
established herein, and finds that the fee will mitigate some of the impacts associated with
additional transportation 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 a n d
re c i t a I s set forth in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein as a
material part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The approval of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan
associated with the F&P Nexus Study, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified
Resolution No. 2025-014— Page 2 of 6
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 F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and the adoption of the development
impact fee 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 F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, 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 F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan associated with the F&P Nexus Study, and
adoption of the development impact fee 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 associated with the F&P Nexus Study, 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 F&P Nexus Study and Mitigation Fee Act Findings. The City
Council hereby approves the F&P Nexus Fee Study, and the findings contained therein which the
City Council finds, pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 3.28.020, describe
the benefit and impact area on which the development fee is imposed, list the Nexus Improvement
Program and its components specifying the public improvements to be financed, describe the
estimated cost of the facilities, and describe the reasonable relationship between this fee and the
various types of new developments. A copy of the F&P 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 fee for transportation facilities, the F&P Nexus Study explains (1)the purpose
of the impact fee; (2) the use of the impact fee; (3) the reasonable relationship between the use
of the 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 the 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 F&P 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 and as a part of the F&P Nexus Study.
SECTION 5. Establishing the Amount of Development Impact Fees. The City Council
hereby adopts the development impact fee amounts for the Transportation Impact Fee in
accordance with the Amendments to the Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit C and
Resolution No. 2025-014— Page 3 of 6
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 F&P Nexus Study; 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 F&P 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 Caltrans Construction Cost Index for the Transportation Impact Fee for the
twelve-month period ending in May, or a similar published index if the Caltrans Construction Cost
Index is 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. The development 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 Resolution or(ii) July 7, 2025.
SECTION 9. Elective Delayed Effective Date for Development Impact Fee 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 fee and rates in effect as of April 16, 2025 ("Old DIF
Program"); (ii) the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the effective date provided in
Section 8 ("New DIF Program"); or (iii) the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the
time the fee is 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 fee
and rates in effect as of the time the fee is paid.
In order for a housing development project to qualify 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 fee and rates in effect as of the
time the fee is paid.
The City hereby finds the adjustments noted above will not create a significant deviation in
the F&P 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.
Resolution No. 2025-014— Page 4 of 6
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. Fee Credit. A credit against the amount of the impact fees for a project shall
be granted as an offset to the total amount of the project's impact fees if the project actually
constructs any improvement listed in Exhibit C and/or the developer dedicates associated land.
Such credit is equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined
in Exhibit C, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the impact fees are calculated."
SECTION 12. 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 F&P Nexus Study and expressly established
by this Resolution.
SECTION 13. Severance Clause. 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 14. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2025-014— Page 5 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2025.
L. nnis i hael, Mayor
ATTEST:
evy, City Cle k
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 7' day of May,
2025.
AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Stickler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Executed this 8m day of May, 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
'4J/—'
It4�eA,416-9, /4z
e"m Sevy, City C
Resolution No. 2025-014— Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT A
F&P NEXUS STUDY
Exhibit "A"
•
Transportation
Development ,,c., ,Ot
Fee (DIF) Prol
Nexus Study.
Prepared for:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Updated April 30, 2025
OC22-0937.01
F E H R/� P E E R S Final Revision
Pursuant to City Council
Public Hearing on 5/7/2025
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................... 1
What is the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee(DIF)?...................................................................1
Whopays the DIF?.......................................................................................................................................................................1
Howis the DIF calculated?.......................................................................................................................................................1
Howare fees assessed?..............................................................................:..............................................................................2
Introduction.......................................................................................................:........................... 3
NexusStudy Scope......................................................................................................................................................................3
RegulatoryContext......................................................................................................................................................................3
CaliforniaGovernment Code...........................................................................................................................................3
CaliforniaAssembly Bill 602............................................................................................................................................4
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)...........................................................................................................5
Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF).....................................................................................5
OtherDIF Considerations.................................................................................................................................................5
Methodology.................................................................................................................................................................................6
DataCollection.....................................................................................................................................................................6
CostEstimation.....................................................................................................................................................................7
MaximumAllowable Fee...................................................................................................................................................8
OtherConsiderations.........................................................................................................................................................8
Summaryof Findings..................................................................................................................................................................9
Fee Structure and Development................................................................................................ 10
Purposeof Impact Fee Program.............................................................................................:............................................10
Existing Service Population and Transportation Facilities.................................................................................11
DevelopmentTrends........................................................................................................................................................11
InfrastructureImprovements.................................................................................................................................................14
FacilityStandards...............................................................................................................................................................14
InfrastructureChanges....................................................................................................................................................15
Transportation Project List and Estimated Costs..................................................................................................16
CostEstimating Assumptions.......................................................................................................................................16
ExistingDeficiencies.........................................................................................................................................................17
NexusAnalysis.............................................................................................................................20
Need................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Benefits...........................................................................................................................................................................................21
CostAllocation............................................................................................................................................................................24
TotalProgram Costs.................................................................................................................................................................26
MaximumFee Calculation......................................................................................................................................................27
FeeImplementation....................................................................................................................30
Steps to Calculate Transportation Impact Fees.............................................................................................................30
Step 1 —Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities................................................................30
Step 2—Apply Transportation Impact Fees............................................................................................................30
ExampleCalculation..................................................................................................................................................................31
Step 1 — Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities................................................................31
Step 2—Apply Transportation Impact Fees............................................................................................................31
ProgramAdministration..........................................................................................................................................................31
ProgramAdministration..................................................................................................................................................31
ProgramUpdate.................................................................................................................................................................32
ProgramReporting...........................................................................................................................................................32
UniqueLand Use Categories.........................................................................................................................................33
RefundProvisions..............................................................................................................................................................33
Grievances............................................................................................................................................................................33
Appendices...................................................................................................................................35
AppendixA—Resolution No.20-122.................................................................................................................................36
Appendix B—Completed DIF Projects List (Resolution No. 20-122).....................................................................37
AppendixC...................................................................................................................................................................................40
DIF Cost Estimates and Soft Cost Assumptions.............................................................................................................40
DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates.....................................................................................................................50
AppendixD...................................................................................................................................................................................60
General Plan Level Of Service Assessment and Forecasting.....................................................................................60
List of Tables
Table1 —Unit Cost Estimates' ........................................................................................................................................................7
Table2—Existing Facilities............................................................................................................................................................11
Table3—Development Trends....................................................................................................................................................12
Table4-Trips Between Zones.....................................................................................................................................................13
Table 5—Existing Transportation Facilities per Service Population..............................................................................15
Table 6—Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population Growth....................................................................15
Table 7—Development Impact Fee Project Improvements.............................................................................................16
Table 8—Cost Adjustments for Deficient Roadway Facilities..........................................................................................19
Table9—Land Use Growth............................................................................................................................................................21
Table 10—Facility Needs to Maintain Existing Facility Standards.................................................................................22
Table 11 —Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections.......................................................................................................................23
Table 12—Effects of DIF Projects on Citywide VMT............................................................................................................24
Table 13—Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU) and Cost per Square Foot Estimates...................................................25
Table14—DIF Program Cost Total.............................................................................................................................................26
Table15—Cost per Trip Citywide...............................................................................................................................................27
Table 16—Total Cost of Improvements By Zone.................................................................................................................27
Table 17—Cost per Trip and Cost per EDU............................................................................................................................28
Table 18—Maximum Fee Calculation.......................................................................................................................................29
! _ b. _ _ )
s:.
1 c
l 4
Executive St.,i=,i �
What is the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF ?
The Transportation Development Impact Fee Program ("DIF") is a type of development impact fee created
to address the impacts of new residents and workers utilizing transportation-related infrastructure,such
as roads, intersections, bridges, as well as facilities that serve transit, pedestrians and/or non-motorized
vehicles (e.g.,trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.).The fee is established such that new development and
redevelopment projects will pay their"fair share"towards new and expanded transportation infrastructure
and facilities that mitigate the impacts caused by this growth.
Who pays the DIF?
Development impact fees are paid for by applicants of land use development and redevelopment projects
including, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, and industrial uses.
How is the DIF calculated?
The Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) is calculated based on this Nexus Study
prepared per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Fees established herein follow the fundamental
legal tenets of having an essential nexus(relationship), and being roughly proportional,to the impacts
which the fee is designed to mitigate.The relationship is drawn between transportation related impacts of
future development and the necessary transportation infrastructure improvements, such as roadway
expansion and non-motorized transportation facilities, identified to support the increased demand.The
costs associated with the identified improvements are then proportionally related to future development
quantified by the magnitude of anticipated impacts.As the DIF is a type of development impact fee
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Prograrn
Nexus Study
program, it is designed to account for the impacts of future developments and does not address existing
deficiencies. Specifically,fee programs cannot charge for new development to fix existing deficiencies and,
as such,this study needs to identify whether there are existing deficiencies on the system and ensure that
the cost to fix those deficiencies is not burdened onto future development.This is typically evaluated
related to roadway capacity where a segment or intersection may not be operating at the city's defined
acceptable threshold. In this instance,the full cost of the improvement cannot be burdened onto new
development(although new development can be burdened with their"fair share' of the cost of the
improvement).
How are fees assessed?
The DIF fees are assessed based on the anticipated impact of new developments on the transportation
infrastructure, calculated using the Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU) method as land use from the City's
General Plan only includes estimated growth in number of units, not in sq.ft.,for residential uses.
Assessed fees are proportional to the development's estimated increase to transportation demand,with
different land use categories,such as residential, commercial,and industrial, assigned appropriate rates
based on their impact.The fee assessment process involves identifying the project's land use, calculating
the number in units of a particular land use category, and applying fees based on the calculated maximum
allowable fee and adopted fee schedule. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A),
residential DIF fees, although initially estimated using EDUs, are then converted to a per square foot fee
basis rather than a per dwelling unit basis.
r�
`se r .sw.
,
v-.
j
t >.
Al
Introduction
Nexus Study Scope
This Transportation Impact Fee Program Nexus Study("Nexus Study" or"Study") provides the technical
documentation to support the City of Rancho Cucamonga's ("City") update of the Citywide Transportation
Development Impact Fee (DIF) program by defining the relevant geographic boundaries,the types of
development projects to which the fee is imposed, and the types of transportation infrastructure to be
funded by the fee program. Since its inception in 1991,the City's DIF has worked continuously to fund
infrastructure improvements throughout the City to support its growth. By updating the DIF with current
growth estimates, changes to infrastructure needs, recent infrastructure costs, and the associated fee basis
this Study re-evaluates the service standards of existing transportation facilities,the need for planned
facilities to maintain a consistent standard of transportation service and determine a justifiable cost per
unit of demand by future developments.
The Nexus Study provides the basis for the City to collect fees consistent with the California Mitigation
Fee Act(AB 1600/Government Code 66000 et seq.).This analysis also demonstrates that the fees
established have a reasonable relationship based on the needs, benefits, and proportionality to the
impacts which the fee is designed to mitigate.
Regulatory Context
California Government Code
The California Government Code §§ 66000-66025,often referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act, governs
how local governments can impose development impact fees.This legislation ensures that such fees are
both legally defensible and equitable.The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt an ordinance that
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
enables the fee and defines the program structure.The fee may be updated periodically when supported
by a technical analysis and approved by City Council.
In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project',
Government Code §§ 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee established and type of
development project for which the fee is imposed.
• Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for
which the fee is imposed.
• Demonstrate the relationship between the fee and the cost of the public facility.
Once the DIF is adopted,this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains will be maintained
and reviewed periodically by the City to ensure impact fee accuracy and to enable the adequate
programming of funding sources.To the extent that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and
development potential changes over time,the fee program will need to be updated.
California Assembly Bill 602
Effective January 1, 2022,AB 602 requires that impact fees levied on residential development must be
calculated such that they are proportional to the square footage of future units.A nexus study must
evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by residential square feet or
document why the use of residential square feet is not relevant as it would not appropriately reflect the
relationship between the fee,facility demand, and residential land use.
Effective July 1, 2022,AB 602 also mandates that large jurisdictions2 adopting a nexus study shall adopt a
capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.At the time of this Study's development,the
residential population within the County of San Bernardino is approximately 2.18 million and thus, a
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is required as a part of this Study.The City of Rancho Cucamonga updates
and publishes the Capital Improvement Program as part of the annual citywide budgeting procedure, and
the latest documentation can be found on the City's website. Further,the City has prepared a draft
amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan (as incorporated into the Major Project's Program)to be
' Development includes any land use activity that involves construction of residential,commercial, industrial,office,or
other non-residential improvements which requires the issuance of a building permit.Such improvements are
generally expected to create additional impacts to the City's transportation infrastructure once completed through
additional travel demand associated with the proposed use.
As defined in Section 53559.1 of the Health and Safety Code, "Large jurisdiction"means a county with a population
of more than 250,000,or any city within that county.
United States Census Bureau,2023 ACS 1-Year Estimate
r�
4 ,�
considered as part of the establishment of fees under the DIF program.The amendment is available for
review under separate cover.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Impact considerations by CEQA are not applicable to fee programs,since such programs are government
funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to specific projects that may result in a
potentially significant physical impact on the environment and therefore not"projects"which would be
subject to CEQA4. However, necessary environmental documents shall be prepared prior to the
construction phase of capital improvement projects,funding by the DIF or otherwise, unless such projects
are otherwise determined to be exempt from CEQA.
Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)
On April 18, 1991,the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No.445 creating
and establishing the authority for imposing and charging citywide transportation development fees.The
ordinance modified the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC)to describe the purpose, basis,
limited-use, and mechanism for future adjustments of the fee program. Subsequently,the City adopted
Resolution No. 91-092 and established the definition of"Development Projects" subject to the fee
program, methodology to calculate the cost per"Equivalent Dwelling Unit" (fee schedule), use of the
collected fees,the process by which fees are assessed and updated, and a list of programmed projects
and associated costs. Over the decades,the fee program has been periodically updated to account for
increased costs based on engineering and construction cost adjustment factors.
The most recent iteration of the adopted fee program was adjusted in 2020 by Resolution No.20-122
(Appendix A—Resolution No. 20-122).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. 20-122,the City approved
a General Plan update that set forth a renewed vision for the community including anticipated
development patterns, population growth estimates, and transportation 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.
Other DIF Considerations
Existing State law provides that certain types of projects, largely involving housing, are exempt from or
receive a 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
4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)
DIF Nexus Study 5
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
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 potential
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 projects 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 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 when the development impact fee is calculated.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
cost 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.
Methodology
Data Collection
This Study utilized data from various citywide planning documents, including the Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan (Plan RC), City of Rancho Cucamonga Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC), City of
Rancho Cucamonga ADA Transition Masterplan, historic fee programs, Capital Improvement Program
6 ,�
(CIP) cost estimates and records,and publicly available United States Census Data and American
Community Survey(ACS) Estimates.
Cost Estimation
The cost estimation for transportation infrastructure improvements in Rancho Cucamonga is based on the
most recent and relevant project cost estimates and records. For each type of infrastructure—such as
roadway lane miles, bicycle lanes,sidewalks, and trail facilities,the cost per unit of improvement is
determined by referencing recent costs and adjusting for factors such as construction materials, labor,
environmental compliance,and project-specific contingencies. Basic unit cost estimates applicable to
multiple facilities are listed in the table below.
These unit costs are then applied to the quantity of infrastructure needed to support future development,
stipulated on the anticipated growth in demand.To ensure that the fee program remains responsive to
changing economic conditions, cost estimates are indexed to industry standards (e.g. Caltrans Contract
Cost Index).This ensures that projected costs account for inflation and other future economic factors.
Table 1 -Unit Cost Estimates'
Facility Type Unit Cost per Unit
Roadway Widening (Full Section)z j Lane Mile $1,325,000
Bridge Widening3 i Square Feet $250
Intersection Improvement—New Traffic Signa12 Each $750 000
1 _..
Intersection Improvement Traffic Signal Modificationz I Each $50 000
Intersection Improvement—Roundabouts Each $1 500,000
Multi-Use Trai14 ! Mile $1 000,000
____ •_______i __---- ._.--- __ . _.__--------
Class II Bike Lane4 Mile $300,000
Class III Bike Routea Mile $100,000
Class IV Separated Bikeway2 i Mile $1,000,000
---------- -----------
Sidewalk4 j Square Feet $30
_ . _-----— . _.---- — . -. .-..
i $10,000,000
f $50,000,000 for
Corridor Active Transportation Improvementsz i Mile I
Foothill/Haven Complete
j Street Improvements
1. This table contains unit cost estimates before adjustments to develop project cost estimates in Appendix C.Specifically,
engineering and environmental documentation are typically 10%-50%of the construction cost of the facility. For more
complex projects,the City directed specific"soft cost'assumptions that were more reflective of the potential challenges to
deliver those projects. The soft cost assumptions are presented in the appendix and the total project cost estimates,
including construction materials,labor,environmental compliance,and project specific contingencies(soft costs)are
utilized in the DIF
2. City of Rancho Cucamonga 24/25 CIP estimates(2024)
3. Caltrans Comparative Bridge Costs(2019)
4. City of Rancho Cucamonga Active Transportation Plan(Connect RC)(2023)
5. National Cooperative Highway Research Program(NCHRP)Report 672&1043(FHWA,2010,2023)
DIF Nexus Study 7
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
As described in the table above,the unit costs are utilized to develop a construction cost estimate for the
facility, but these costs do not reflect"soft costs"associated with project delivery. Soft costs typically
include environmental assessment and mitigation, engineering for the facility, and any contingencies
needed to deliver the project. Contingencies relate to other factors not included in the assessment, like
unknown utility conflicts or the need to acquire right-of-way for facility implementation. Soft costs are
typically 10%-50% of the construction cost of a facility. Some improvements include a higher soft cost if
right-of-way acquisition were needed or there is a greater degree of uncertainty in the costs to deliver the
facility as exemplified by soft costs on recent City projects.The facility cost estimates and the soft cost
assumptions are provided in Appendix C.
Maximum Allowable Fee
The maximum allowable fee is calculated by the following steps.
1. Identify total program costs—cost for improvements plus cost for implementation
2. Account for known funding (current fund balance) and fee credits(amount to be subtracted from
fund balance due to outstanding obligations such as improvement reimbursement programs
discussed in later sections of this Study)
3. Account for existing deficiencies
4. Account for administrative fees
5. Determine proportional allocation of cost to new development
Other Considerations
• Developmental growth can fluctuate. By accounting for growth between 2024 and 2040,the
updated fee program and maximum fee consider only the remaining growth through buildout of
the General Plan with a planning horizon of 2040.
• While the Study establishes a justified fee based on proportional costs of infrastructure
improvements for new development,the City Council retains the authority to adopt
transportation impact fees lower than the maximum allowable amounts calculated in the Nexus
Study.This flexibility allows the Council to balance the need for infrastructure funding with
considerations such as encouraging development or addressing affordability concerns,while still
maintaining compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act.
• The fee program is designed specifically to address transportation infrastructure needs generated
by new development and does not cover the cost of remedying existing deficiencies in the
system. Under the California Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees can only be used to fund
improvements proportionate to the impacts of future development.As a result, any existing
deficiencies, such as under-capacity roads or outdated infrastructure, must be addressed through
alternative funding sources.
r�
r�
Summary of Findings
The findings of this Study support the implementation of a transportation development impact fee
program through the following steps,
• Identify the purpose of the fee
• Account for existing population and projected growth
• Determine the appropriate facility standards
• Provide cost estimates of necessary improvements
• Demonstrate the need, benefit, and fair share responsibility of the public facilities
Transportation related development impact fees will be assessed per unit of land use proposed in the
amount no more than the Maximum Fee Calculations provided at the end of this Study.
DIF Nexus Study 9
W '
Y'
y f
'q
r a M
1 '
r}
Fee Structure and Development
Purpose of Impact Fee Program
An impact fee program is often utilized to ensure that new developments contribute to the cost of public
infrastructure that are proportional to the additional demand created by the development projects.As
cities grow, new residential,commercial, and industrial projects increase the burden on the existing
transportation networks.Without an impact fee program,the financial burden of accommodating this
growth would fall disproportionately on existing residents,who would be forced to subsidize the
infrastructure needs caused by new development.
In the last decade, Rancho Cucamonga experienced significant growth,with the residential population
increasing by approximately 9,800 and a similar rise in the number of employees'.As projected growth
continues,the City's General Plan lays out a comprehensive vision that relies on well-maintained and
effective infrastructure.The impact fee program is essential to securing sufficient funding for new and
expanded facilities that support the City's long-term operational goals and maintain the desired quality of
service for all residents and businesses.
s Number of residents grew between 2010 and 2020 from an estimate of 165,000 to 176,000, number of employments
increased from 80,700 to 89,400.ACS 5-year Estimates.
Existing Service Population and Transportation Facilities
The City of Rancho Cucamonga serves an existing population of approximately 176,274 residents and
89,717 employees,with a population density of around 3,790 residents per square mile.This diverse and
growing population places significant demands on the city's infrastructure, public services, and amenities.
To support an estimated 10 million vehicle miles traveled per day,the City maintains approximately 1,152
lane miles of roadway, 31 miles of mixed-use trails, 107 miles of bicycle facilities, 102 miles of sidewalk
and pedestrian facilities, and over 200 traffic signals across the 46.5 square mile jurisdiction.
Throughout recent years,the City of Rancho Cucamonga has undergone various types of citywide
planning efforts.The studies associated with the plan development process are referenced to provide a
fundamental description of the City's existing conditions and inventory of its transportation infrastructure.
Table 2— Existing Facilities
Source Unit
Roadway Plan RC Lane Mile 1,152.2
Trails Connect RC Mile 30.7
Bike Lane Connect RC Mile ! 106.8
Sidewalk Facilities ( ADA Transition Masterplan 1 Mile ! 102.0
Besides roadways,trails, bike lanes,and sidewalks,there exists a wide range and variety of transportation
facilities that serve the Rancho Cucamonga population. Some aspects of such improvements are difficult
to measure tangibly,such as safety, comfort, equity, and access to the system; but are all crucial to the
viability of an effective transportation system. Infrastructure such as the traffic management systems,
access to regional transit systems, and an overall transportation to support active and healthy mobility are
all crucial elements of a system to foster sustainable development.
Development Trends
What types of existing and new development are occurring,and are there geographic differences
that might affect the need for facilities and associated fees charged to certain types of
development in an area?
Land use growth and new development require the support of transportation infrastructure. It is
imperative to estimate the amount of new development expected to take place within the planning
horizon,and the additional transportation facilities that would be required,to prevent overburdening the
existing service population (residents and employment) with the cost of new improvements.According to
the City's General Plan,the number of residential units are anticipated to grow by 3,944 Single Family
Residential (SFR) units (SFDU), and 21,741 Multifamily units (MFDU); leading to an estimated increase of
57,613 residents by buildout of the General Plan.The number of employees is also expected to grow
across various industries including retail,education,office, and construction amongst the highest growing
sectors.
DIF Nexus Study 11
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Prograrn
Nexus Study
Table 3- Development Trends
GeneralPlan Existing General Plan Buildout
Change %Change
0.0
Residents 176,274 233,887 57,613 1 32.7%
Employees 89,717 ( 110,948 j 21,231 1 23.7%
__._.---
Total Service Population i t I
(Residents+ Employees)
265,991 i 344,835 78,844 ± 29.6%
Although development projects will take place in specific parcels across the city,the city's transportation
network is designed to serve all areas. However, improvements in a specific area tend to benefit
development within that area more than development in a different area of the city.To that end, and to
ensure that there is a localized nexus between new development and improvements needed to serve that
new development,several geographies were reviewed to ensure that the local areas were burdened the
most for local benefits.This approach, known as a zone-based fee program,was identified as the most
appropriate way to implement a fee program for the city.
This study utilized a "band approach"whereby the city was divided into three bands,with a northern,
central, and southern zone incorporated into the fee program.
The zones were identified based on their predominant east-west travel patterns within the City and the
region. Further,the boundaries of the zones align with the travel-sheds of the major east-west travel
corridors of SR-210 and Foothill Boulevard.The zones have been identified as shown in the graphic below
and are bound as follows:
• North Zone- North of 19th Street from the west City Limits to Haven Avenue and north of SR-210
from Haven Avenue to 1-15
• Central Zone- South of the North Zone and north of Foothill Boulevard
• South Zone-South of Foothill Boulevard
r�
12 ,�
Zonal Approach-North, Central and South Zones
^ 1
n;...,. r'4:. � .. � ��� BRCNTWOOD 11.. � r ;•r�
t
lit,
4
�
�.. fx C ter ."q uu` `; 'C
ERWaHDk qtr "r
i E9},. I!a ALTA 10A1A C r0{ Y to 11 .�"> pgPnxT "�.._.L.i.L frAAN
t � tb;5'FxOH7
i�`N
r 1 aVar "" c t
c� 5,i� Pr� iC Er xEsrEHD rri� 1
sxx
4
NUti
. "{ �' I HnRrtH 9...vm❑ramrto� �Iser � Kr
fi^" ' �GUCAtkOHOk +.kr qp
ik V (j i Y SOUb OCNESTER I @ b r S
tf z 3
c
t. ..� `tea} is r„r a1<i A +' .g�
rcx.._a,t .F.$.... a 'd6 ..-.:�i...._........J 'T—,4..�a _oA �..._..._.,._� ...nt�,.�i C .....�.�.a. ._�...e•.,a.W;a;i
Utilizing this approach assisted in understanding where new trips were being generated in addition to
how trips generated from one zone were attributed to other zones of the city.Table 4 summarizes the
trip interactions between the zones as estimated by the city's General Plan travel demand model. In this
instance, 74.7% of the total cost of projects in the north band of the city are the responsibility of local
development projects,and development in other parts of the city are responsible for their fairshare
contribution to trip making in that north band zone.
The General Plan forecasting used the San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (SBTAM) for the
assessment,which, at the time the General Plan was completed,was the state-of-the-practice tool
available for estimating travel patterns and traffic volumes associated with changes to land use and the
transportation network within the County. By utilizing the travel demand model developed for the City's
General Plan update,this approach ensures that the assumptions that informed the General Plan update
are integrated into the fee program analysis.
Table 4 - Trips Between Zones
To\From North Ceiltral South Total
North i 74.7% i 15.9% 4.4% 100%
Central 6.8% 78.4% 14.8% 100%
South 4.6% 17.9% 77.5% i 100%
DIF Nexus Study 13
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Prograrn
Nexus Study
Infrastructure Improvements
Facility Standards
Establishing an appropriate facility standard is crucial for ensuring that the future inventory of
transportation infrastructure in Rancho Cucamonga meets the demands of new development while
aligning with the city's long-term goals.The following standards are derived from the City's adopted
policies and standards.
Complete Streets Standards—The General Plan emphasizes the creation of Complete Streets,designed to
safely and efficiently accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists,and transit riders.
Paired with the recently adopted Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC), multimodal elements such as
mixed-use trails, bike lanes,sidewalks,and transit accommodations will be integrated as a critical
component of the transportation network.This ensures that new developments contribute their fair share
to a transportation system that is inclusive and accessible to all residents by mitigating increased demand
for mobility generated by new development within the City.The General Plan identifies a desire for the
City to investigate and set service levels by travel mode in the future based on the modal priority on the
street.Although this multi-modal level of service approach has not yet been implemented,the General
Plan sets clear expectations related to implementing complete streets and prioritizing non-automotive
modes of travel. Furthermore,the General Plan has set specific standards related to greenhouse gas
(GHG) reduction targets which rely on a reduction in vehicles miles of travel (VMT).This Study utilizes VMT
reduction as a potential nexus; but it also looks to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are
delivered to residents at a rate consistent with that currently provided (e.g. maintaining mileage of bicycle
or pedestrian facilities per capita).As previously noted, new development accounts for 29.6% of the
population and employment growth in the city(the remainder are existing residents).As such, complete
streets improvements that assist the city in achieving its GHG reduction targets can only be funded at
29.6% of the total cost for those improvements through the DIF program (grants and other funding will
be required to achieve full funding of these projects).
Roadway Capacity and Quality—Maintaining efficient traffic flow and safety is a priority in the General
Plan, especially on automobile priority streets.To address this,facility standards will include minimum
levels of service (LOS) for roadways (LOS D, or V/C of 0.9), ensuring that necessary improvements are
included to handle the increased traffic generated by new developments.This standard ensures that the
road infrastructure remains functional and safe as the city grows.The following information related to
roadway facilities supports and helps to validate the rough proportionality of the program and how it
relates to new development.
14 �y
Table S —Existing Transportation Facilities per Service Population
Facility Unit a00 Service Population
Roadway Lane Mile 1 4.33
Trails Mile 0.12
Bike Lane Mile 0.40
Sidewalk Facilities J ��. v_ _wMile. '.w..._v._ 0.38
In addition to multimodal and roadway capacity considerations,the City's General Plan also emphasizes
the need to maintain an effective transit infrastructure, enhance safety and accessibility of the
transportation system, and promote scalable and sustainable growth, all of which are supported by
projects to transform the city according to the layered circulation network approach.
Infrastructure Changes
By utilizing previously collected fees,the City has delivered various infrastructure projects including
expansion of bridges, roadways,freeway interchanges,and traffic signal improvement projects.A list of
completed projects that are removed from the previously adopted DIF program is provided in Appendix
B,which totals roughly$137,400,000 of infrastructure improvements in 2020 dollars.
Based on the change in service population between existing year and General Plan buildout year, a
proportional increase of transportation infrastructure would be required to maintain a consistent standard
of transportation services.The projected need for transportation facilities is calculated in proportion to the
amount of growth in service population anticipated over the planning horizon of the General Plan.
Table 6—Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population Growth
Demand by 2040
} ! `Provided for informational purposes,as LOS
Roadway ! Lane Mile 29.6% 1,493.7 I is the metric used for establishing this need.
jThis metric and/or VMT reduction can be
Trails Mile t 29.6% 39.8 used for establishing this need.
'This metric and/or VMT reduction can be
Bike Lane I Mile 29.6/°° 138.5
(, ;used for establishing this need.
;
This metric and/or VMT reduction can be
Sidewalk Facilities Mile 29.6% 132.2
used for establishing this need.
As noted in Table 6, roadway improvements are identified based on the City's need to maintain LOS per
the City's General Plan policies. Some of the key improvements have been identified to assist with this as
noted below(the full list is presented in Appendix Q:
Traffic Signals—The fee program includes new traffic signals and improvements for traffic signal
communications to improve the efficiency of the traffic signal system.These improvements help
with throughput and improve LOS for all corridors they are implemented in.
DIF Nexus Study 15
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
• Roundabouts—For several locations, roundabouts have been identified as the preferred
improvements to achieve the City's LOS goals. In many cases, roundabouts reduce crash
frequency and crash severity while improving traffic operations to meet the City's LOS targets.
This is consistent with General Plan Policy MA-2.3 related to street design where the City
implements innovative designs to, "...maximize efficiency and safety in the city.... Possible tools
include roundabouts..."
• Etiwanda Grade Separation—The proposed grade separation of the railroad tracks at Etiwanda
has been planned by the City for years.Additionally, it is identified in General Plan Policy MA-4.5
which states, "Support the construction of grade separations of roadways and trails from rail lines."
This grade separation is needed to support the continuation of land use growth and associated
traffic impacts, especially in the Southeast Industrial Quadrant(SEIQ),to maintain LOS goals in the
area.This also will improve goods movement and redundancy in the system such that mobility
can be maintained if a train is stuck on the track for some unknown reason at the Etiwanda Grade
Separation.
Transportation Project List and Estimated Costs
List of DIF projects and associated cost estimates are provided in Appendix C. Project cost estimates are
calculated by multiplying the quantity of the planned improvement and the estimated cost per unit of
facility expansion. Please note that completion of all identified projects would not lead to a greater ratio
of miles or lane miles of facility per person in the City compared to what the City currently provides for its
residents.
Table 7— Development Impact Fee Project Improvements
Unit DIF Project List 1!Lane Mile 13.8
Trails Mile 4.5
Bike Lane Mile 34.8
Sidewalk Facilities Mile 1.8
Comparison of the programmed improvements in the DIF project list(Table 7) to the"Total Facility Need
by 2040" (Table 6) demonstrates that the city's planned development is infill in nature and consistent with
the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan.Additionally,the new facilities delivered by this fee
program meet the requirement for rough proportionality as the number of miles of facility per person
being delivered by the fee program is far less than that currently served by the city and its infrastructure
for roadways,trails, and sidewalk facilities.The only increase in service levels associated with this program
is an increase in planned bike lane miles.
Cost Estimating Assumptions
Cost estimates for transportation improvements are referenced from the latest available and relevant cost
records.The cost to construct each unit of improvement is calculated as an average of project costs with
r�
16 ,�
similar scopes and adjusting for forecasted future costs of environmental procedures, engineering design,
and contingency. Future updates to the Fee Program should also index costs to an industry standard
(typically the Caltrans Construction Contract Cost Index) and adjust the fee schedule annually to ensure
that the program maintains consistency with what actual costs are to deliver the program accordingly.
Existing Deficiencies
Existing deficiencies refer to the gaps or inadequacies in current infrastructure or facilities that prevent
them from meeting the desired service levels or standards. In the context of capacity-based projects,such
as roadway widening, identifying and accounting for existing deficiencies is critical because these projects
are often intended to enhance the ability of the infrastructure to accommodate current and future traffic
volumes; or, in more simplistic terms, new development cannot pay to fix existing deficiencies.
While future development should not be burdened with addressing existing deficiencies in infrastructure,
it is important to recognize that new growth proportionally contributes to the increased demand for
expanded or improved facilities.When a new development is proposed, it will increase the existing levels
of demand for transportation facilities.Therefore, it is reasonable and equitable to require new
development to contribute its fair share towards the costs of infrastructure improvements that are
necessitated by this growth.
In the case of roadway widening or other capacity-based projects,while existing deficiencies may have
been present before new development,the additional traffic generated by future growth exacerbates
these deficiencies and creates a direct need for expansion.Thus, applying impact fees proportional to the
new development is justified because the fees are not addressing pre-existing deficiencies, but rather the
incremental impact that the new development imposes on the infrastructure system based on the
proportion of growth to existing population and infrastructure level of service.
Without new development,the need for such infrastructure improvements would not arise, or would arise
at a much later time. Impact fees serve as a mechanism to ensure that new growth is financially
responsible for the additional demands it places on public facilities, aligning with the principles and
policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan,which emphasizes the importance of a fair and
proportionate allocation of infrastructure costs.
In simpler terms,this fee program applies two simple tests as it relates to roadway infrastructure needs:
• "But For"Argument—But for new development,the improvement would not be required.
This typically applies to facilities that operate acceptably today but need widening in the future to
serve future development.Alternatively,this could be applied to new roadway connections that
are required to access new development. In these types of cases,since new development drives
100% of the need for the infrastructure, 100%of the cost of that infrastructure is included in the
fee estimate.
DIF Nexus Study 17
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Prograrn
Nexus Study
• "Fair Share"Argument—For facilities that are currently deficient, new development is only
responsible for paying their"fair share"toward the improvement.
In this case,the increased demand by new development is divided by the total future demand on
the roadway to identify what that fair share would be.
The expansion of roadways is typically justified by the need to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow,
thereby directly responding to the deficiencies in capacity that limit the effectiveness of the existing road
network. However,this approach is less applicable to other types of projects, such as multi-modal
improvements,which focus on enhancing infrastructure for various modes of transportation—like
pedestrian pathways, bicycle lanes, and public transit facilities—rather than increasing capacity for a single
mode. Multi-modal improvements are designed to create a more integrated and balanced transportation
network, often emphasizing safety, accessibility, and sustainability rather than solely addressing capacity
deficiencies.Therefore,while existing deficiencies might drive roadway widening projects,they do not
similarly affect the calculations for multi-modal improvements,which are generally aimed at improving
the overall quality and functionality of the transportation system (including reducing VMT and GHG)
rather than expanding its capacity.Table 8 details roadways facilities within the DIF projects with
operational deficiencies as defined in the General Plan, and the associated share of costs proportional to
future developments.All other roadway improvements not described within Table 8 currently operate at
acceptable LOS,and which degrade to unacceptable levels with the inclusion of future development'.
Information related to LOS on city streets was developed as part of the City's General Plan Update and is
presented in Appendix D.
For complete streets facilities,there is not specific"existing deficiency" as achieving the city's GHG
reduction targets is outlined for the city as a whole.As such, new development can only be responsible
for its fair share (as a percentage of total service population) of those improvements. For all the complete
streets projects, new development is assumed to be responsible for 29.6% of the project cost which
corresponds to the new development as compared to the future population of the city.
Including the Etiwanda Grade Separation(EGS) project,which will expand the existing 2-lane roadway to 4 lanes
(currently operating at a V/C of 0.88 but degrades to a V/C of 1.32 after accounting for growth from future
development).Final project cost estimate includes a 40%reduction in anticipation of future grant funding.
r�
18 ®�,
Table 8-Cost Adjustments for Deficient Roadway Facilities'
Project Cost Estimate Existing Volume Growth Future Volume Future Adjusted :Cost
S 6 $1,800,000 1 1.52 i 11,916 36,940 i 32.3% 1 $580,700 E $1,219,300
--- -- --- ----- -
S 8 $292,500'• 1.04 13,566 47,410 i 28.6% $83 700 $208 800
-- _ i _. ---- _..__..
S9 $1,987500j 1.08 8,926 43,020 E_. 20.7% -- $412,4001 $1575,100
f _ _....._..
S 10 $795,000 f 0.99 , 2,812 # 20,810 i 13.5% j $107,500 E $687,500
Sill j $292,5001 0.95 i 2,693 i 19,930 13.5% $39,600 i $252 900
-- ----- --
---------- - - - -------- - -- - - ---- — - - - ---- -- - - -f — - - —-
Subtotal f $3,943,600
*Rancho Cucamonga has adopted a LOS D(V/C=0.9)as the standard service standard,with exceptions to roadways and
intersections where vehicle travel is not the priority,such as Foothill Blvd(Plan RC MA-2.8). Existing deficiency data obtained from
the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan prepared by Fehr&Peers in 2019(excel spreadsheet)and the future roadway needs
documented in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Traffic Volumes memo prepared by Fehr&Peers,January 18,
2022.
**All figures rounded to nearest$100
***Cost not allowed into the fee program as it is due to existing deficiencies.
7 Refer to Appendix C-DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimate for description of each project in this table.
DIF Nexus Study 19
`A
ft
v
nn �
:o u
r
Nexus Analysis
Need
The Nexus Analysis, in alignment with the California Mitigation Fee Act, as amended including by AB 602
(2021), must establish a clear and proportional relationship between new development and the demand
for public infrastructure.This section focuses on demonstrating the direct link between anticipated growth
within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the necessity for transportation infrastructure improvements.
By doing so, it ensures that the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF) comply with the essential nexus and
rough proportionality standards mandated by relevant legal precedents such as Nollan v.California
Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard.Through the use of travel demand modeling$and
empirical demographic data, evaluation of the General Plan has also thoroughly demonstrated the causal
relationship between new development and transportation impacts.
Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan projects significant growth by 2040,with an anticipated future
population of approximately 344,835 residents and 110,948 jobs at buildout (Table 9). Such growth is
reasonably expected to elevate the demand for transportation infrastructure, increasing Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT), and necessitating enhancements to maintain current service levels.The General Plan
outlines a vision for a layered circulation network that accommodates various transportation modes
$San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model(SBTAM)
(vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,and public transit) across the city.To support this vision,strategic
investments in infrastructure are essential to prevent congestion and ensure safe, efficient mobility.
Given the projected growth,the City must expand its transportation network proportionally.The General
Plan highlights the need for maintaining a LOS D or better for its roadways. Failure to expand
infrastructure to meet the additional demands from growth could degrade the service levels of facilities,
leading to congestion,safety concerns,and a diminished quality of life for all who rely on the
transportation system. Furthermore,this growth exacerbates safety risks by increasing potential conflicts
at intersections, pedestrian crossings, and other high-use areas. Consequently, safety improvements—
such as intersection enhancements, protected non-motorized facilities, and modernized traffic controls—
are essential to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system while accommodating new
development.
As outlined in the General Plan and supported by transportation planning principles, developments
generate varying impacts on transportation networks.Therefore,the DIF must differentiate this
relationship by aligning fees assessed with the projected impacts of each type of future development.
Table 9- Land Use Growth
,General Plan Current:Condition General Plan Change
(20181) 040
Residents 1 176,274 191,987 ; 233,887 41980
Single Family Dwelling41,865 2,868
Units(SFDU) ' 37,921 38,997
Multifamily Dwelling i
Units(MFDU) 22,874 28,803 44,615 15,812
Employment i 89,717 95,507 , 110,948 15 441
Total Service 265,991 287,494 344,835 57,341
Population
2024 estimate developed by assuming linear growth between the general plan buildout and the existing conditions of the
general plan(e.g.linear growth between 2018 and 2040).
Benefits
The transportation infrastructure projects identified in the Nexus Study are essential to support the
anticipated growth.These include roadway expansions, intersection improvements, and the development
of multimodal transportation options such as bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. Each project is carefully
selected to address specific infrastructure needs that will arise from increases in service population and to
maintain a consistent and acceptable level of transportation services.
DIF Nexus Study 21
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Table 10— Facility Needs to Maintain Existing Facility Standards
Existing Total,Facility Implementation • 00e . -
Unit (2018)1 Need by 20402 of DIF ProjeCtS3 Service from Existing '
Population' Standardss
Roadway ; Lane Mile f 1,152.2 1,493.7 1,166.0 j 3.38 i 21.9%
Trails Mile i 30.7 I 39.8 35.2 0.10 i -11.6%
Bike Lane Mile 106.8 138.5 141.6 i 0.41 2.2%
-- - _ -
Sidewalk Mile i 102.0 ; 132.2 ! 103.8 0.30 i -21.5%
Facilities
Notes:
See Table 2-Existing Facilities.
Z See Table 6-Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population.
3 Existing plus DIF identified projects.
°Calculation summarizing existing plus DIF projects divided by the service population.
5%change between rate after DIF projects and the existing rate(e.g.what facilities are increasing or decreasing service levels).
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a critical measure of transportation impact, particularly concerning
environmental sustainability and public health.VMT is the new CEQA metric required in the State, and it is
the primary contributor to GHG emissions in the City.The City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan
prioritizes the reduction of VMT as a key component of its sustainability goals, aligning with state policies
such as those mandated under CEQA and desires to reduce GHG emissions.
Completion of planned projects within the DIF project list will increase the total bike lane mile per capita,
while decreasing the same measure of trails,sidewalk, and lane miles of roadway.
Increasing bikeway facilities aligns with the City's objectives to promote active transportation and reduce
dependency on automobiles,thus improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions.The General Plan
specifically highlights the need to expand low-stress bike infrastructure, such as Class II bike lanes and
protected Class IV bikeways,to create a more connected, comfortable, and safe biking environment.The
Connect RC Plan similarly emphasizes the role of expanding bikeways in improving access to schools,
parks,and transit hubs, providing a viable alternative to car travel for short to medium distances.
Enhanced bikeway networks will not only facilitate active transportation but also contribute directly to the
City's GHG emission reduction strategy.As such,the increased number of bike-lane miles per capita
(compared to the existing condition) is consistent with goals and policies in Plan RC, Connect RC, and the
Climate Action Plan.
Reducing roadways per capita aligns with the City's sustainability and greenhouse gas(GHG) reduction
goals. Plan RC and Climate Action Plan emphasize a shift towards reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
by promoting compact,walkable communities and enhancing active transportation networks. One of the
most effective strategies to meet the State's GHG reduction targets is to reduce dependence on
automobiles. By decreasing roadway per capita,the City would reduce the number of lanes dedicated to
cars and facilitate alternative modes of transportation (which compete for the same existing City-owned
right of way).
r�
22 ��
Although maintaining trails is crucial for recreation and mobility, most of the City's trail system has already
been largely built out. Major facilities such as the Pacific Electric Trail and Cucamonga Creek Trail have
already been established and integrated into the City's mobility framework.Thus, a reduction in ratio of
trail miles per capita does not reflect a lack of commitment to their benefits but recognizes the
completion of the foundational network.The focus within the planning horizon is on maintenance and
improving accessibility,safety, and connectivity, rather than expanding trail mileage.
The majority of City's planned developments are expected at infill areas,where existing pedestrian
infrastructures are already in place.The General Plan identifies that about 76%of the city streets already
have sidewalks, particularly in more developed areas.The City's policies emphasize that future infill
development should focus on improving and enhancing existing pedestrian networks rather than
constructing new sidewalk infrastructures,where further large-scale sidewalk expansion may not be
necessary.
Overall,the changes to the quantity of facilities per capita align with the City's long-term objectives to
provide a sustainable, safe, and productive transportation system.
Table 11 —Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections
Linear Projection General Plan Buildout Growth'
Total Population i 176,274 191,987 233,887 41,900
Households 60,795 ! 67,063 83,776 16,713
Jr-
Employment 89,717 95,507 ( 110,948 15,441
VMT _ 9,875,814„- - 10,108,820 - _i 10,730,168 621,348
VMT/Service 37.13 35.16 31.12 -6.01
Population
Note:
'2024 estimate developed by assuming linear growth between the general plan buildout and the existing conditions of the
general plan(e.g.linear growth between 2018 and 2040).
The DIF-funded projects are not only designed to accommodate growth but also to manage and reduce
VMT.While roadway expansions are necessary to prevent congestion and improve connectivity,they can
inadvertently lead to induced travel,where improved traffic flow encourages additional vehicle use.To
mitigate the effects of induced travel,the City's strategy includes investments in VMT-reducing projects,
such as enhancements to the multimodal transportation network.
The strategic combination of roadway improvements and VMT-reducing projects ensures that the City can
accommodate growth and maintain service levels but does not do so at the cost of increased VMT and
the associated negative environmental impacts.This balanced approach aligns with the General Plan's
goal to reduce overall VMT,thereby supporting the City's commitment to sustainability and enhancing
the quality of life for its residents.
DIF Nexus Study 23
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Prograrn
Nexus Study
Implementation of DIF projects would result in the following changes to Citywide VMT from accounting
for increase in roadway lane miles9, bike lane miles,and pedestrian network miles. Ultimately,the increase
in VMT from expanded infrastructure would be fully offset by the construction of the program's VMT
reducing projects with a de minimus overall improvement of citywide VMT of 0.1%.
Table 12— Effects of DIF Projects on Citywide VMT
General Plan Percent Change
i3uildout
Citywide VMT 10,730,168
--- - - --- - --.._ -----------
VMT Induced by Capacity Increasing Projects 94,795 0.96%
VMT Reduced by Other DIF Projects -105,476 -0.98%
- ._..__.-. . -- -- ---- ---------
Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation 10,719,486
_ ._.. __ _.
Net Change in Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation -10,682 0.1%
Cost Allocation
AB 602 mandates that development impact fees for residential units be calculated based on square
footage rather than the traditional per-unit metric unless a local agency makes the finding that includes
an explanation of why such a metric is not appropriate,that an alternative basis of calculation is
reasonably related, and that other policies in the fee structure supports smaller developments.
The principle of proportionality underlies the requirement that fees imposed on new developments must
be proportionate to the impact those developments have on public facilities. For single-family residential
units,a correlation exists between the size of the dwelling and its impact on transportation and other
infrastructure. Larger homes typically house more residents, generate more vehicle trips, and thus have a
greater impact on local infrastructure. Meanwhile,the correlation between multifamily units and increased
transportation demand has been found to be associated more closely with the number of units, rather
than the size of each unitt0 based on recent studies completed in the Inland Empire.
Although a case can be made to charge multifamily housing using a per unit fee consistent with other
research completed in the Inland Empire,to adhere to the proportionality basis mandated by AB 602,
calculation for fees assessed by land use category should differentiate the methodologies for single-family
and multifamily residential units and the fee should be normalized to reflect sq.ft. of the unit.
To accomplish all of this, and to crosswalk general plan land use designations from households into trip
generation and sq.ft. estimates, Fehr& Peers normalized the proposed land use and the impact fee into a
term known as Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU). Correlating an EDU to the average single-family home,
9 https://travelcalculator.ncst.ucdavis.edu/
70 WRCOG Residential Trip Generation Study(2023)
r�
24 ,�
then converting trips into EDU helps establish the impact fee schedule based on units of measurement for
estimating trip generation in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manua(.This
is especially important as it helps with converting General Plan growth into trips that can be used in the
fee calculation. For example,the General Plan identifies employment for non-residential uses (and utilizes
a standard conversion for employees to sq.ft.), but the inputs for residential uses are number of
households.As such, using the EDU as a representation for households assists with identifying the fee tied
to other land uses described within the DIF program.
According to building permit records provided by the city,the average size of single-family residential
(SFR) development projects is roughly 2,500 square feet. For SFR units,a ratio of the proposed
development compared to the average size identified (2,500 for Detached units, 1,700 for Attached units
and for Multifamily units) should be applied in calculation of fees to be assessed.To be consistent with AB
602 requirements,we have utilized the average unit size identified above to calculate the fee per dwelling
unit equivalent,then proportionally developed a per square foot cost to be charged for new development.
Table 13—Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and Cost per Square Foot Estimates
Daily
Land Use 'Unit Dwelling Units
Rate Reduction 'Unit(EDU)
Single Family- Detached i DU 9.43 I - i 1.0 ; 2,500
Single Family-Attached DU 7.2 - 0.8 1,700
Multifamily-Attached (Low-Rise) DU ' 6.74 0.7 1,700
_.
- _
Multifamily Attached (Mid Rise) DU 4.54 0.5
Senior Housing Bed 4.31 0.5 -
- - --- - - -
Nursing/Congregate Care Bed ? 2.21 - j 0.2 I -
Commercial/Retail* KSF 37.01 30% , 2.7*
t
Office/Business Park KSF 10.84
Industrial KSF 4.87 0.5 -
Warehouse KSF -
6.44 t - 0.7 ,
Hotel/Motel i Room ! 7.99 ' f- - 0.8 -
Elementary School Stu ? 2.27 - i 0.2
Day Care Stu t 4.09 1 I 0.4 -
Self-Storage KSF 1.45 - 0.2 -
_...__ .._ ......... 1
Service Station* Pump J 172.01 1 -30% 12.8* -
*30%average reduction applied to retail and service station uses to account for likelihood of pass-by and divert trips
**City of Rancho Cucamonga(2024).
DIF Nexus Study 25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Prograrn
Nexus Study
Total Program Costs
Total costs of the DIF program are calculated by the following steps, each ensuring that the fees collected
are appropriately aligned with the costs incurred by new development impacts.
1. Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements.The total cost of expansion and
improvement projects is $327,090,000 as provided in Appendix C.
2. Account for Known Funding (Balance)and Fee Credits(Obligations).The balance remaining
in the current DIF program is$64,000,000".This balance is subtracted from the estimated costs
to complete improvement projects and to account for unspent dollars towards future projects.
Improvement reimbursement programs allow developers to recover costs for constructing public
infrastructure that exceeds the immediate needs of their project and benefits the broader
community. Such reimbursement programs typically involve formal reimbursement agreements
which the City would be obligated to fulfill, outstanding obligations should be accounted for and
subtracted from the remaining balance.At the time of this Study,there are no known
reimbursement obligations.
3. Account for Existing Deficiencies.All facilities where capacity-related improvement projects are
identified are first evaluated to determine if they adequately serve the City's current service
population.Where the level of service is below acceptable standards (LOS D per the City's General
Plan), only a proportional amount of the total project costs is to be funded by future
development. Deductions to account for existing deficiencies are in the amount of$3,943,600.
The table below describes the total program cost.
Table 14—DIF Program Cost Total
Program
DIF Program Project Contributions(Appendix C) $327,090,000
DIF Account Balance(June 2024) -$64,000,000
Adjustments for Existing Deficiencies(Table 8) i -$3,943,600
Program Total E $259,146,400
DIF Fund Balance as of June 2024
r�
26 ,�
Maximum Fee Calculation
What is the maximum justified fee by land use type based on the prior steps that can be charged to
new development,with the fee on residential land use levied per building square foot unless an
alternative method is justified?
Per the evaluation of travel demand forecasts during the development of the City's General Plan,future
development generate a total of 183,433 new daily trips.Table 15 demonstrates (for informational
purposes only)the estimated cost per trip, and per EDU,without the zone approach.
Table 15 —Cost per Trip Citywide
(for comparative review only)
Costs
Total New Trips 183,433
Total Program cost $259,146,400
Cost per Trip $1,413
Cost per EDU* $13,322
*Provided for the City as a whole for comparative purposes. Since the
cost per EDU is dependent on the zone the project is in,it changes per
zone.
Applying the band zonal approach to the identified improvements and accounting for the interaction of
trips between those zones (Table 4),this study identifies the total costs for projects within each zone and
the total project cost burden as shown in Table 16 below:
Table 16—Total Cost of Improvements By Zone
Contributions
Sub-area Project costs
North 'Central South
North $27,302,057 s $20,400,379( $4,340,113 1 $2,561,566
Central ? $67,221,7941 $4,590,7641 $52,705,425 i $9,925,606
South $228,621,9261 $10,614,9041 $40,891,24611 $177,115,776
Applying the zone-specific contributions to the estimated development potential (total new trips)within
the respective zones results in the following costs per trip and per EDU associated with this impact fee
program (Table 17):
DIF Nexus Study 27
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Table 17-Cost per Trip and Cost per EDU
Sub-area ID Total New Trips Total Cohtributions Cost per Trip Cost per EDU DIF Balance mi�
North 4 25,034 $35,606046f $14221 $13,4121 $10,122
Central 51,314 $97,936,783 j $1,909 i $17,998 1 $14,708
South 107,085 i $189,602,948! $1,771 $16,6971 $13,406
_._�- ----o._........,.'.__..._...ez .....A,.n.a.�,'....�a,-.,.A.o.,.o.-__.�..,....,m�., F ._...,..._.. .a.",;..._r_r...y_.n.-w,.-_..o....v.._.._._....,_..r.....,..,.........�..c,....�
Applying the estimated cost per EDU to each land use category, a maximum fee per unit of land use is
calculated. Please note that per AB 602 requirements and assessments within this Study, impact fees
for proposed Single-Family Residential projects should be assessed by size(square feet),adjusted
by their relationship to the average size of Single-Family Residential units.
Developments near quality transit generally produce fewer vehicle trips due to the availability of transit
options,which encourages a shift away from car usage.As such,AB 2553 was passed which requires lower
impact fees to be assessed in areas where development is close to high quality transit. This bill was
codified in Government Code section 66005.1.
Multifamily development(Close to Rail)trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (111n
Edition)were utilized to estimate the reductions appropriate for development meeting the requirements
of the legislation. Please note that, by using ITE rates to develop this adjustment, low-rise multifamily
units near high quality transit see a fee reduction of approximately 30% compared to the same
development that is not near high quality transit. However,for mid-rise multifamily units, ITE rates show
an increase in vehicle trip making for development near transit.To simplify the fee program, a 30%
reduction is applied for all residential land use meeting the AB 2553 requirements.
r�
28 ,�
Table 18-Maximum Fee Calculation
Maximum Fee Per Land Use Category by Zone
Land Use Unit EDU
North Zone Central Zone South Zone
DU 2,500 SF(100%) 1.00 ( $10,122 $14,708 $13 406
Single Family,-
1
Detached* Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection); $4.05 j $5.88 i $5 36
- - -
tIf located in a high-quality transit area** $2.84 $4.12 $3.75
DU-1,700 SF(100%) 0.76 j J$7,728 $11,230 I $10,236
Single Family- i
Attached* Sq Ft (to be used for fee collection) $4.55 ! $6 61 $6 02
If located in a high-quality transit area**' $3.19 $4.63 $4.21
+ DU 1,700 SF(100%) E 0 7-1 $7,235 ; $10,512 $9,582
Multifamily-
(Low-Rise) I Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) $4.26 $6.18 I $5.64
I_._ __-_._. . -___.,_._._-- _
If located in a high--quality transit area**! $2.98 j $4.33 $3 95
} DU-1,700 SF(100%) i 0.48 i $4,873 $7,081 $6,454
Multifamily-
(Mid-Rise) I Sq.Ft. (to be used for fee collection), $2.87 i $4.17 $3.80
If located in a hig h-quality transit area $2.01 $2.92 $2.66
Senior Housing Bed 0 46 1 $4 626 $6 722 $6 127
9 I
Nursin / Bed 0.23 $2,372 i $3,447 $3,142
Congregate Care I
Commercial/Retail**! KSF j 2.75 1 $19,466 $28,284 $25 782
-__._._._---_ -.l-_... __._._._....__._._._. _-__
Office/Business Park, KSF 1.15 1 $11,636 ; $16,907 $15,411
Industrial KSF i 0.52 $5 227 $7,596 $6,924
Warehouse KSF 0.68 ! $6,913 $10,044 $9,156
i
Hotel/Motel Room 0.85 I $8 576 j $12,462 $11 359
Elementary School Stu 0.24 1, $2,437 $3,540 $3 227
.Day Care Stu ; 0.43 $4,390 $6 379 $5 815
Self-Storage KSF i 0.15 $1,556 j $2,262 j $2,061
Service Station** Pump - 12.77Yi $90,471 vY ryLL$131,_457 N $119,826 -�
*For Single Family Residential Units(Detached or Attached),proposed square footage of projects above or below the average size
(2,500 square feet for detached,1,700 square feet for attached and multi-family),shall be responsible for a proportional increase or
decrease to the impact fees assessed.(See table and examples for application of fees in the following sections)
**See text description related to 30%reduction for land use in a high-quality transit area that was derived using ITE rates for low-
rise multifamily units away from and proximate to transit. Same reduction applied to service station and commercial/retail
categories to account for pass-by trips.
DIF Nexus Study 29
## f
eo
t
� r
1 , '
..� r
s
r,
5 `
Fee Implementation
Steps to Calculate Transportation Impact Fees
Step 1 —Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities
In this step,the development project is clearly defined by identifying the land use type and its scale.The
description should include:
Project type: Residential (single-family or multi-family), commercial, industrial, or mixed-use.
Land use categories: For example, residential units (number and size of Single-Family Units, Multifamily
Units, etc.), office space (square feet), or retail space(square feet).
Project size: Specify the quantity in units of the chosen land use category. For residential projects,this will
be the number and size of dwelling units(DU). For non-residential projects,this could be square feet(KSF)
of office or retail space, or other relevant measures.
Step 2—Apply Transportation Impact Fees
Once the land use quantities are identified,the next step is to apply the appropriate transportation impact
fee rates.
Locate the fee schedule: Use the pre-determined transportation impact fee schedule (Table 18)that
outlines the fee rates for different land use categories, such as single-family residential, multifamily,
commercial,or industrial.
Calculate the total fee: Multiply the number of proposed quantities of land use by the corresponding
transportation impact fee rate.
Example Calculation
Step 1 —Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities
Example:A proposed development includes 100 single-family detached homes averaging 2,000 sq.ft.
(200,000 sq.ft.) and 40,000 square feet of office space in the North Zone.
Step 2—Apply Transportation Impact Fees
Example: If the fee for a single-family detached home is $4.05 per sq.ft.,the fee for 200,000 sq.ft.would
be:
200,000 sq.ft. x $4.05/sq.ft. = $810,000
Example: If the fee for office space is $11,635.63 per 1,000 square feet,the fee for 40,000 square feet of
office space would be:
40 KSF x $11,635.63/KSF = $465,440
Summing up the total fees:After calculating the fees for each land use type,the total transportation
impact fee for the project is obtained by adding the individual fees, or$1,275,440.
Program Administration
This section outlines the procedures for administering and reporting on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
Transportation Impact Fee(DIF) program. It includes guidelines for program administration, updates,
regular reporting, and how to address land uses that are not explicitly described within the land use
categories of the fee structure.The requirements and procedures for refunds and filing of grievances in
settling disputes regarding fee assessment are also detailed.
Program Administration
The City will be responsible for the overall administration and ongoing management of the DIF program.
This involves maintaining accurate records of fee collection, project funding, and program adjustments.
Key Administrative Responsibilities:
• Fee Collection: Ensure that all development projects subject to the DIF program pay the
appropriate fees based on the approved fee schedule.
• Fund Allocation: Manage and allocate collected fees toward transportation infrastructure
improvements that are directly related to growth.
DIF Nexus Study 31
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
• Monitoring and Adjustments: Regularly monitor the need for fee adjustments, including indexing
fees to account for inflation or changes in construction costs.
To maintain the program's financial sustainability and relevance,the City will apply an annual adjustment
to the DIF, reflecting changes in construction costs.Adjustments should be based on an established
construction cost index,such as the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Construction
Contract Cost Index,to ensure fees align with current market conditions.
Program Update
In compliance with AB 602,the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Transportation Impact Fee Program requires
periodic updates and reviews to ensure its alignment with current development patterns, infrastructure
needs,and legal standards.
• Review the Fee Program every five (5)years per Government Code H 66001.
• Update the Nexus Study every eight (8)years per AB 602
• Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if there are any other substantial changes/updates
to the Mitigation Fee Act
• Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study due to major changes in the policies/assumptions
due to a General Plan Update or other citywide planning effort.
• Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if the City changes its development impact criteria.
• Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if the construction costs change significantly.
• Annually update the Fee Program to reflect inflation and other factors that affect the costs of
projects in the fee program.
The City must adopt or update a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as part of the Nexus Study.The CIP
outlines the infrastructure projects that will be funded by the collected impact fees, ensuring transparency
and planning consistency.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 the Financial Reports section.12 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.
Program Reporting
Government Code H 65940.1 requires that the City maintains the following items (and posts on their
website):
• A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by the DIF.
https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/budget
r�
32 ,�
• All zoning ordinances and development standards adopted by the City showing the information,
which shall specify the zoning, design, and development standards that apply to each parcel.
• A list that specifies the information that will be required from any applicant for a development
project.
• The current and five previous annual fee reports or the current and five previous annual financial
reports,fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent,conducted by that City, on or
after January 1, 2018.
Unique Land Use Categories
In cases where a proposed development does not fit neatly into the predefined land use categories within
the DIF program,the City will apply a methodology that ensures the fee is proportional to the anticipated
impact of the development on transportation infrastructure.
Impact Assessment: For new or uncommon land uses,the project must submit a traffic impact
assessment to determine the projected vehicle trips, or other relevant metrics(e.g.,Vehicle Miles Traveled,
VMT), generated by the proposed development.
Trip Generation Data:The City will reference the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual to estimate the transportation demand of the new land use. If no
specific trip generation data is available for the proposed land use,the City will use a comparable
category from the manual as a proxy.
Custom Fee Calculation: Once the anticipated transportation demand is assessed,the City will calculate a
custom fee based on the closest comparable land use category in the DIF schedule, adjusted for any
unique characteristics of the development.
Refund Provisions
Under California Government Code §§ 66001(d) and (e) the City of Rancho Cucamonga must refund any
unexpended development impact fees, along with accrued interest,if not used or committed within five
years of collection. Refunds are issued to the current record owners on a pro-rata basis, determined using
the last equalized assessment roll. If administrative costs of processing the refund exceed the refund
amount,the City may, after a public hearing, allocate the funds to a related public improvement serving
the original development.Additionally,the City must make specific findings every five years regarding the
purpose, relationship, and anticipated use of unspent fees, ensuring transparency and accountability in
fee management.
Grievances
California Government Code §§66000-66025 requires legal avenues that are available to contest the fees
associated with this update. This is further described in the city's Municipal Code section 3.28.050 which
states that, "A developer of any project subject to the fee described in section 3.28.020 [city-wide
transportation development fees] may apply to the city council for a reduction or adjustment to that fee,
DIF Nexus Study 33
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Prograrn
Nexus Study
or a waiver of that fee, based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the
traffic impacts of that development and either the amount or the fee charged or the type of facilities to be
financed." This avenue is open to anyone disputing the transportation impact fee and generally would be
facilitated by the following key considerations that are required by the Government Code:
Fee Challenges and Protest Procedures
Under Government Code §66020, developers or property owners who disagree with the amount or
validity of an imposed fee must follow a specific protest procedure.To preserve their right to challenge
the fee:
• The developer must submit a written notice of protest to the City at the time of fee payment or
within 90 days after the fee imposition.
• The protest must clearly outline the grounds for dispute, such as the lack of nexus between the
fee and the development's impact or disagreement with the fee calculation method.
Failure to file a protest within this period waives the right to legally challenge the fee in the future. This is
consistent with the Municipal Code as noted above.
Public Hearing for Disputes
If the dispute is not resolved at the local level,the developer has the right to seek judicial review.To
initiate this process:
• A lawsuit challenging the fee must be filed within 180 days of the fee being imposed or from the
final decision issued by the City after the grievance process.
• Judicial review focuses on whether the fee complies with the Mitigation Fee Act, particularly the
essential nexus and rough proportionality tests established in case law(e.g., Nollan v.California
Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard).
34 ��
Appendices
FEHR� PEERS
Appendix A- Resolution No. 20-122
FEHR� PEERS
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-122
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-005, REVISING CITYWIDE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (DIF) FOR
ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
A. RECITALS:
1. On April 18, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted
Ordinance No. 445 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging city-wide
transportation development fees.
2. On February 19, 2020,the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted,
Resolution No. 2020-005, establishing city-wide transportation fees as authorized by Ordinance
No. 445.
3. The Engineering Services Department is responsible for reviewing the continued need
for described capital improvements and revising the cost estimates and fees when appropriate.
4. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) requires that
project costs and fees, including Transportation Development Fees (DIF), be updated biennially.
5. The increase for this year is calculated at 4.4%; this is based on the California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Price Index for Construction Items, from 4th Quarter
2019 to 31 Quarter 2020. The overall effective increase will be 4.45%, which includes the
administration fee to manage the DIF program.
6. On December 2,2020,the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing concerning the fee revision adopted herein. The revised cost
estimates and fee calculations applicable to the fee revision were available for public inspection
and review ten (10)days prior to this public hearing.
7. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
HEREBY RESOLVES,
1. The facts set forth in the Recitals, above, are true and correct.
2. The City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds as follows:
a. The purpose of the fee revision is to finance transportation improvements needed
to mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by new development; and
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 1 of 14
b. The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance only the
public facilities described or identified in Exhibit"A", attached hereto; and
c. The construction of the described or identified public facilities is consistent with the
Circulation Element of the City's General Plan; and
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public
facilities, and the mitigation of traffic impacts associated with new development; and
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee shown in Exhibit
"B", and the type of development for which the fee is charged; and
f. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable cost estimates for
constructing these facilities, and the transportation development fees expected to be generated
by new development will not exceed the total of these costs.
3. DEFINITIONS:
1. "Development projects" shall mean construction of residential, commercial,
industrial, office, or other non-residential improvements, or the addition of floor
space to existing improvements. A "development project" includes any project
involving the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction.
2. "Exempted development"shall mean a floor space addition to an existing residential
building, and the following types of uses: public schools, colleges, libraries,
churches, parks, county jail, or sports complex.
3. "Equivalent dwelling unit"or"EDU", is used to convert all types of land uses into an
equivalent unit that enables Nexus fees to be tabulated as dollars per EDU. One
residential single family detached housing is equal to one EDU.
4. Payment of Fee: The revised Transportation Development Fee shall be paid
per Chapter 3.28 City-Wide System Fee for Transportation Development subsection 3.28.020
Fees established of the RCMC.The City Engineer, or their designee, shall calculate and determine
the amount of the fee based upon the rate then in effect at the time of payment.
5. Fee Schedule: The amount of the revised Transportation
Development Fee was determined to be $12,708 per EDU. The calculations used to make this
determination are shown in the attached Exhibit"C".
6. EDU/Land Use Equivalent Schedule: The calculation of EDU for each land
use is based on the trip generation rates shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition.
The EDU for each identified land use type is as follows:
Land Use Type r 5 E
y ' '-
DU
Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 1.0 EDU
Residential - Multiple Family Attached Unit 0.6 EDU
Apartment or Condominium -Attached Unit 0.6 EDU
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 2 of 14
Senior Housing Attached Unit(Condo or Apartment)— Per Bedroom 0.2 EDU
Nursing/ Congregate Care- Per Bed 0.2 EDU
Commercial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.5 EDU
Office/ Business Park- Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.2 EDU
Industrial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.6 EDU
Warehouse- Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.5 EDU
Hotel /Motel -Per Room 6.8 EDU
Day Care- Per Student 0.25 EDU
Self-Storage-Per Unit 0.02 EDU
Service Station - Per Pump 5.0 EDU
7. Use of Fee: The Transportation Development Fee shall be solely used to pay
for the public facilities described in Exhibit"A", or for reimbursing the City for development's fair
share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City, or to reimburse other
developers who have constructed public facilities described in Exhibit"A".
8. Administration Fee: The City shall include an Administration Fee in the amount
of 15% of the total project cost for the management of the Transportation Fee Program.
9. Fee Review: The Engineering Services Department shall review the estimated
cost of the described capital improvements, the continued need for these improvements, and the
reasonable relationship between such need and the traffic impacts for the various types of
development pending or anticipated and for which the fee is charged. The City Engineer shall
report the findings to the City Council at a noticed public hearing, and recommend any adjustment
to this fee or other action as may be needed.
10. Effective Date: This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption, provided
that the fees as herein amended shall not be imposed by the City until 60 days from the date of
the public hearing.
11. Judicial Challenge: Any judicial action proceeding to appeal, review, set aside,
void, or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days of its adoption.
12. Certification: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 3 of 14
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2"d day of December 2020.
IEje nis ichael, M yor
ATTEST:
J ice C. Reynolds, City CI rk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 2"d day of
December 2020.
AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Spagnolo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Executed this 3rd day of December, 2020, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
J �iceC. Reynolds, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 5 of 14
Exhibit"A"
Transportation Fee Program Projects & Project Costs
F00 xw � ..._ s x aN o kr x�G Stll a @r f�.a.�,..,,..:.g�*v�`�.:."r.,.u'" .KJ,r" w ,�.fa�.,,K+.,x,.� fix.�1.'�rs✓:..�..«"=��,t�'3...a '��un,�,5'e3m.�ao,�zs-,,,.N�".'�.�IA..n�'..�� �z.
F1 Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway-Widen NB & SB On-Ramps $987,800
F2 Foothill Boulevard at 1-15 Freeway-Widen NB & SB On-Ramps $1,532,353
F3 Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway- Interchange Improvements $22,866,732
F4 Arrow Route at 1-15 Freeway- Interchange $56,995,197
F5 Grove Avenue/4th Street at 1-10 Freeway- Interchange $6,240,350
Improvements
Total: $88,622,432
f""n"r sya, `rc.�"�"' ',2'r�i iai>,i+�"'3'i�• ,<.>M.t,.,,, "`-1 ""'.+>r � _^�-sz- z`t:m-. -."' -' -v.^,- --.r-�--- i,� --n---r
C
�Ra�/road Crade�,S�arationsanarass��rSf� ,�
.��-3�' .g��{ ic3'�✓r ,-� ' ft"'. az�r-.-r� 4'^ rT �._, a -„� �'.�'"",-e : ...�e-z -e=§.. '"���.r,�"
P1 OJ@Cf 3 s 3� rysSC $ ? t Es�#i x
t�nate�•� 5
R1 Haven Avenue at Metrolink Crossing - Grade Separation $15,032,310,
R2 6th Street W/O Lucas Ranch Road - Improve RXR Crossing Gates $1,220,335
R3 6th Street E/O Santa Anita Avenue - Install new RXR Crossing Gates $1,220,335
R4 Hellman Avenue at 8th Street- Upgrade Existing RXR Crossing Gates $1,974,552
Total. $19,447,532
G"_�-^s'£` "vim-��Tf^>..p^2*^'^^...IrN ':r".�---•' ,_.f Y .„�r.f y, v✓ m. � T��,., rcrn�..-�.y; �"�}'_ j l� "Y,�.' .�,.
JJ sw
�-
�
B1 6th Street at Cucamonga Creek Channel -Widen Existing Bridge $2,842,826
B2 9th Street at Cucamonga Creek Channel -Widen Existing Bridge $1,347,916
B3 Arrow Route at Etiwanda Ditch -Widen Existing Bridge $1,322,954
B4 Banyan Street at Etiwanda Creek Channel - Bridge $1,506,004
B5 Hellman Avenue at Cucamonga Creek Channel -Widen Existing $8,601,976
Bridge
B6 Whitram Avenue at Etiwanda Ditch - Bridge $1,658,546
B7 Wilson Avenue at Day Creek Channel- Bridge $1,707,082
B8 Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Creek Channel - Bridge $2,874,721
Total: $21,862,026
Resolution No. 2020-122 Page 6 of 14
` � te i-k-`�,'„
4 MN AM
S1 6th Street- Santa Anta Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue - Backbone $923,572
S2 Arrow Route- Grove Avenue to Baker Avenue-Widen 2 to 4 Lanes $1,867,945
S3 Arrow Route- 500' E/O 1-15 Freeway to 1,300' E/O 1-15 Freeway- $1,550,380
Widen South Side
S4 Banyan Street- Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue -Widen North Side $1,368,717
S5 Banyan Street- East Avenue to Wardman Bullock Road - New $11,286,713
Alignment
S6 Base Line Road - Etiwanda Avenue to 1-15 Freeway-Widen North $1,363,170
Side 2 to 3 Lanes
S7 Cherry Avenue-Wilson Avenue to 1-15 Freeway-Widen West Side $1,651,613
S8 Church Street-Archibald Avenue to Haven Avenue -Widen 2 to 4 $1,769,486
Lanes
S9 East Avenue- 1-15 to Victoria Street-Various Bottlenecks $1,131,583
S10 East Avenue - Fire Station to Wilson - New $1,795,834
S11 East Avenue-Wilson Avenue to North Rim Way- New $607,394
S12 Etiwanda Avenue -6th Street to Arrow Route-Widen 2 to 4 Lanes $5,720,321
S13 Etiwanda Avenue -Miller Avenue to 850' N/O Miller Avenue-Widen $391,062
East Side
S14' Etiwanda Avenue - Banyan Street to Wilson Avenue - Curb and $1,288,286
Gutter East Side Only
S15 Etiwanda Avenue - Existing Northern Terminus to North Rim Way- $728,041
New
S16 Foothill Boulevard -Vineyard Avenue to Hellman Avenue -Widen 4 to $1,669,640
6 Lanes
S17 Foothill Boulevard - Hellman Avenue to 700' E/O Hellman Avenue - $2,676,417
Widen North Side Only
9S18 Foothill Boulevard at Archibald Avenue -Widen Intersection $10,046,964
S19 Foothill Boulevard -Archibald Avenue to Hermosa Avenue -Widen 4 $2,716,632
to 6 Lanes
S20 Grove Avenue - 8th Street to Tapia Via-Widen 1 to 2 Lanes East $1,489,364
Side Only
S21 Grove Avenue - San Bernardino Road to Foothill Boulevard -Widen 1 $916,638
to 2 Lanes East Side Only
S22 Haven Avenue- Base Line Road to 1-210 Freeway-Widen West Side $17,109,653
Only
S23 Lower Crest Road - Day Creek Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue- $2,227,112
New
S24 Miller Avenue- Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue-Widen 2 to 4 $3,364,242
Lanes
S25 Milliken Avenue -5th Street to 700' S/O 5th Street-Widen West Side $422,957
Only
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 7 of 14
S26 Victoria Street- East Property Line of Etiwanda High School to 1-15 $407,703
Freeway- Improve Both Shoulders
S27 Vintage Drive- Etiwanda Avenue to 1,300'W/O Etiwanda Avenue- $1,192,600
New
S28 Wilson Avenue- Milliken Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard - New $9,463,144
S29 Wilson Avenue- Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue - Backbone Only $783 511
S30 Wilson Avenue- East'Avenue to Wardman Bullock Road - New $8,320,467
S31 Youngs Canyon - Cherry Avenue to Wardman Bullock- New $13,035,398
Total. $109,286,556
� ' �$ems.,-.tea �3 .rr`""��'�"�""'.c-, "h•` Jai�'�'! ..�
T-WRIWAgna/sEa
i,��'Y '" �-- —'r .. ,max
�-. .k.,"-4' xF..r.
rRIN
iES�1117at@F
T1 4th Street at Richmond Place w $485,361v
T2 4th Street at Utica Avenue $485,361
T3 6th Street at Buffalo Avenue $485,361
T4 6th Street at Cleveland Avenue $485,361
T5 6th Street at Etiwanda Avenue $485,361
T6 6th Street at Hellman Avenue $485,361
T7 6th Street at Pittsburgh Avenue $485,361
T8 6th Street at Rochester Avenue $485,361
T9 6th Street at Santa Anita Avenue $485,361
T10 6th Street at Utica Avenue $485,361
T11 Archibald Avenue at Banyan Street $485,361
T12 Archibald Avenue at San Bernardino Road $485,361
T13 Archibald Avenue at Victoria Street $485,361
T14 Archibald Avenue at Wilson Avenue $485,361
T15 Arrow Route at Center Avenue $485,361
T16 Banyan Street at Rochester Avenue $486,361
T17 Banyan Street at Wardman Bullock Road $485,361
T18 Base Line Road at San Carmela Court $485,361
T19 Base Line Road at Shelby Place $485,361
T20 Carnelian Street at Banyan Street $485,361
T21 Carnelian Street at Wilson Avenue $486,361
T22 Cherry Avenue at Youngs Canyon Road $485,361
T23 Church Street at Elm Avenue (West) $485,361
T24 Church Street at Mayten Avenue $485,361
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 8 of 14
T25 Church Street at Ramona Avenue $485,361
T26 Church Street at Terra Vista Parkway $485,361
T27 Civic Center Drive at Red Oak Street $485,361
T28 Ridgeline Place at Wilson Avenue $485,361
T29 Day Creek Boulevard at Madrigal Place $485,361
T30 Day Creek Boulevard at Wilson Avenue $485,361
T31 East Avenue at Miller Avenue $485,361
T32 East Avenue at Highland Avenue $485,361
T33 Etiwanda Avenue at Garcia Drive $486,361
T34 Etiwanda Avenue at Whittram Avenue $485,361
T35 Foothill Boulevard at Cornwall Court $485,361
T36 Foothill Boulevard at East Avenue $485,361
T37 Foothill Boulevard at Malachite Avenue $485,361
T38 Haven Avenue at Trademark Street $485,361
T39 Haven Avenue at Valencia Avenue $485,361
T40 Haven Avenue at Wilson Avenue $485,361
T41 Hellman Avenue at 8th Street $485,361
T42 Hermosa Avenue at Church Street $485,361
T43 Milliken Avenue at 5th Street $485,361
T44 Milliken Avenue at Wilson Avenue $485,361
T45 Rochester Avenue at Jersey Boulevard $485,361
T46 Spruce Avenue at Elm Avenue $485,361
T47 Spruce Avenue at Mountain View Drive $485,361
T48 Spruce Avenue at Red Oak Street $485,361
T49 Terra Vista Parkway at Spruce Avenue $485,361
T50 Terra Vista Parkway at Town Center Drive $485,361
T51 Town Center Drive at Elm Avenue $485,361
T52 Wilson Avenue at East Avenue $485,361
T53 Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue $485,361
T54 Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue (West) $485,361
T55 Wilson Avenue at San Sevaine Road $485,361
T56 Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road $485,361
T57 Wilson Avenue at Canistel Avenue $485,361
T58 4th Street at Golden Lock Road - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T59 Archibald Avenue at Banyan Street- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
Resolution No.'2020-122 - Page 9 of 14
T60 Arrow Route at Etiwanda Avenue- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $69,337
T61 Arrow Route at Red Oak Street- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T62 Arrow Route at White Oak Street- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T63 Banyan Street at East Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T64 Base Line Road at Mountain View Drive- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T65 Base Line Road at Spruce Avenue- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T66 Base Line Road at Valencia Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T67 Day Creek Boulevard at Silverberry Street- Left Turn Phasing $34,669
Upgrade
T68 Day Creek Boulevard at Sugar Gum Street- Left Turn Phasing $34,669
Upgrade
T69 Day Creek Boulevard at Victoria Park Lane - Left Turn Phasing $34,669
Upgrade
T70 Milliken Avenue at Millenium Court- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T71 Milliken Avenue at Mountain View Drive- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T72 Milliken Avenue at Terra Vista Parkway- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T73 Milliken Avenue at Victoria Park Lane- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
T74 Milliken Avenue at Vintage Drive- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $34,669
Total: $28,289,587
SH Signal Interconnect System $10,677,932
Total: $10,677,932
r y ,` , y;''^.,+':F' ✓._ ys-v,csrn} sv° 'Cs rs"! ''S G '.=-wxc ` "r! '.?'' `� sa '
-w]
}+. �Ex3u.,u4.a��,h`n,...�*`,� r,�..,�,.,..P�..._n� ". .a E',,.,r.','.. �,�-�,;E''',�✓��..d��.�;'..,�,. �„�� r�� frr�.�°.5�'�.r;,w_ �.�ar�.-a
Freeway Interchanges $88,622,432
Railroad Grade Separations and Crossings $19,447,532
Bridges $21,862,026
Streets $109,286,556
Traffic Signals $28,289,587
Signal Interconnect System $10,677,932
Total: $278,186,065
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 10 of 14
-
*
�
p ,: z n.:rrr ,�^�'. ,,,,,,, ,p- x�'-� ,a''"'�,.< z'"r" �,�f.,-e s� �.� .e� s.sK y a x y�'"�, f�"�'.}✓ a'�"T�„°,s_;� � �, F �, � . �� � 3 � � �,� � Estimate
Item.
A.t.
Program Total $278,186,065
Less Fund Balance as of 2005 -$20,000,000
Sub-Total $258,186,065
Administration Fee (15%) $38,727,910
Total: $296,913,974
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 11 of 14
EXHIBIT"B"
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES
Land�Use�'WYII"e' ,�"' �, �"'iY -�1FrFa,....-a- '�n4�f� 1 � r^c-"�� ,, ✓,.,^ �'�`';�-'�` ,�h � r-aE� �'�
Residential - Single Family Detached Unit $12,708
Residential - Multiple Family Attached Unit $7,625
Apartment or Condominium -Attached Unit $7,625
Senior Housing Attached Unit(Condo or Apartment)— Per Bedroom $2,542
Nursing/Congregate Care - Per Bed $2,542
Commercial - Per 1,000 Square Feet $19,062
Office/ Business Park- Per 1,000 Square Feet $15,250
Industrial - Per 1,000 Square Feet $7,625
Warehouse- Per 1,000 Square Feet $6,354
Hotel / Motel - Per Room $10,166
Day Care- Per Student $3,177
Self-Storage- Per Unit $254
Service Station - Per Pump $63,540
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 12 of 14
EXHIBIT "C"
TRANSPORTATION FEE PROGRAM CALCULATIONS
��
Vacant°Lantl;as ofFeruary 2005 _ $, h _ 5W,
0,
Vacant Residential Property = 950 acres
Single Family Dwelling Units (SFDU) = 5,363 units
Multi-Family Dwelling Units (MFDU) = 5,248 units
Vacant Industrial Property= 719 acres = 31,319,640 square feet
Assuming that the average floor area ratio for General Industrial is 0.5 then the future
square footage of industrial development is 31,319,640 square feet x 0.5 = 15,659,820
square feet.
Vacant Commercial Property= 334 acres = 14,549,040 square feet
Assuming that the average floor area ratio for General Commercial is 0.25, then the
future square footage of commercial development is 14,549,040 square feet x 0.25 =
3,637,260 square feet.
Different types of land uses have different traffic trip generation rates. In order for nexus fees to
be tabulated for each type of land use, the "Equivalent Dwelling Units" or EDU for each type of
land use must first be determined. The calculation of a particular land use type's EDU is based
on the traffic trip generation rate for that land use from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Per City
Resolution No. 91-092, the EDU for various land uses was determined to be as follows:
" 5
Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 1.0 EDU
Residential - Multiple Family Attached Unit 0.6 EDU
Apartment or Condominium -Attached Unit 0.6 EDU
Senior Housing Attached Unit(Condo or Apartment)— Per Bedroom 0.2 EDU
Nursing /Congregate Care - Per Bed 0.2 EDU
Commercial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.5 EDU
Office/ Business Park- Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.2 EDU
Industrial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.6 EDU
Warehouse- Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.5 EDU
Hotel /Motel -Per Room 0.8 EDU
Day Care- Per Student 0.25 EDU
Self-Storage- Per Unit 0.02 EDU
Service Station - Per Pump 5.0 EDU
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 13 of 14
l�F �...�--6. <z -'.°'•`-`a-d"`5"` ..e, +w -
�T.otal�Futur��E//ulvalen Dwel�n ��Un�Ys�// D(11 � i� ��� ��,�f� ,
s. g "4$"� "�'`a Yf; t v ,� rvh .a mxST'' o r
La dI�set "a fit �sof EDULandUse4F,a,utureEqu� alert
r< ' 'a'ri 'r a f f swM
,a d ,�rt
Single-Family 5,363 Units 1.00 5,363
Dwelling Unit
Multi-Family Dwelling 5,248 Units 0.60 3,149
Unit
Industrial Park(per 15,659,820 Square 0.60 9,396
1,000 SF) Feet
Commercial (per 3,637,260 Square 1.50 5,455
1,000 SF) Feet
Total Future EDU 23,363
CalctrCateCosen'rgnralent Dvvellrg 11 ►t� ED :- .:. ti: �. _
lte[flry tT _ :..s 3 gFees sLi Ag�Kw5 v �u
Total Cost of Projects $219,199,343
Total Future EDU as of February 2005 23,363
Cost per EDU $9,382
Ca Air oat►o D � 7e pmet FeesbyancUse 5 .xz �, R
Item Yr f x y ,3 z RiRR
r Mks� �� xS a ?ArFE Q� G Ci 3 xf
f EDU3•W - Fees.,
�.- r 7F
F K e
Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 1.0 EDU $12,708
Residential - Multiple Family Attached Unit 0.6 EDU $7,625
Apartment or Condominium -Attached Unit 0.6 EDU $7,625
Senior Housing Attached Unit(Condo or Apartment)— Per Bedroom 0.2 EDU $2,542
Nursing/ Congregate Care- Per Bed 0.2 EDU $2,542
Commercial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.5 EDU $19,062
Office/ Business Park- Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.2 EDU $15,250
Industrial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.6 EDU $7,625
Warehouse- Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.5 EDU $6,354
Hotel/Motel - Per Room 0.8 EDU $10,166
Day Care- Per Student 0.25 EDU $3,177
Self-Storage - Per Unit 0.02 EDU $254
Service Station - Per Pump 5.0 EDU $63,540
Resolution No. 2020-122 - Page 14 of 14
Appendix B - Completed DIF Projects List (Resolution No. 20-122)
project ID Project
Freeway Interchanges 1 I Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway-Widen NB&SB On-Ramps
Freeway Interchanges 1 2 1 Foothill Boulevard at 1-15 Freeway Widen NB&SB On-Ramps
Freeway Interchanges 3 Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway Interchange Improvements
Railroad Grade Separations Haven Avenue at Metrolink Crossing Grade Separation
and Crossings
Railroad Grade Separations 4 I Hellman Avenue at 8th Street-Upgrade Existing RXR Crossing Gates
and Crossings
Bridges i 4 i Banyan Street at Etiwanda Creek Channel- Bridge
Bridges 8 Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Creek Channel-Bridge
---------
Streets 4 Banyan Street- Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue Widen North Side
Streets 5 Banyan Street- East Avenue to Wardman Bullock Road - New Alignment
Streets j 10 East Avenue-Fire Station to Wilson-New
Streets 22 y Haven Avenue-Base Line Road to 1 210 Freeway-Widen West Side Only
Streets ` 25 ' Milliken Avenue-5th Street to 700'S/O 5th Street-Widen West Side Only
i
Victoria Street- East Property Line of Etiwanda High School to 1-15 Freeway-
Streets i 26 Improve Both Shoulders
i
Streets i 27 Vintage Drive- Etiwanda Avenue to 1,300'W/O Etiwanda Avenue- New
Streets i 30 i Wilson Avenue- East Avenue to Wardman Bullock Road- New
Traffic Signal Improvements; 1 4th Street at Richmond Place
Traffic Signal Improvements! 2 4th Street at Utica Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements 3 6th Street at Buffalo Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvemeents 4 6th Street at Cleveland Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements 6 i 6th Street at Hellman Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements; 8 6th Street at Rochester Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements 1 10 6th Street at Utica Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements 11 Archibald Avenue at Banyan Street
Traffic Signal Improvements; 12 ! Archibald Avenue at San Bernardino Road
Traffic Signal Improvements� 15 Arrow Route at Center Avenue
FEHR,�PEERS
Traffic Signal Improvements y 17 Banyan Street at Wardman Bullock Road
Traffic Signal Improvements, 18 Base Line Road at San Carmela Court
------- -- ---- - ---- --- - - --- --- --- - ---------
Traffic Signal Improvements 19 i Base Line Road at Shelby Place
Traffic Signal Improvements i 20 1 Carnelian Street at Banyan Street
Traffic Signal Improvements 21 Carnelian Street at Wilson Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements! 23 j Church Street at Elm Avenue(West)
Traffic Signal Improvements! 24 Church Street at Mayten Avenue
_ _ ----..__ .___._m_-__ _ ._,_... 1__.__...
i
Traffic Signal Improvements; 26 Church Street at Terra Vista Parkway
Traffic Signal Improvements' 29 i Day Creek Boulevard at Madrigal Place
Traffic Signal Improvements J 30 F Day Creek Boulevard at Wilson Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements!, 31 ; East Avenue at Miller Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements! 33 Etiwanda Avenue at Garcia Drive
- -- - --- -'-- -- -- -- - - -- - - -- - - - ------------
Traffic Signal Improvements j 34 j Etiwanda Avenue at Whittram Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements 35 1 Foothill Boulevard at Cornwall Court
Traffic Signal Improvements! 36 Foothill Boulevard at East Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements 38 Haven Avenue at Trademark Street
Traffic Signal Improvements 1 39 Haven Avenue at Valencia Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements; 40 j Haven Avenue at Wilson Avenue
-- - ----- --- -- -- - - ----- -
Traffic Signal Improvements! 41 Hellman Avenue at 8th Street
Traffic Signal Improvements; 42 Hermosa Avenue at Church Street
Traffic Signal Improvements i 43 i Milliken Avenue at 5th Street
Traffic Signal Improvements' 45 Rochester Avenue at Jersey Boulevard
- - J- - --- ----
i
Traffic Signal Improvements; 46 Spruce Avenue at Elm Avenue
t
Traffic Signal Improvements! 55 1 Wilson Avenue at San Sevaine Road
Traffic Signal Improvements 56 ' Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road
Traffic Signal Improvements! 57 Wilson Avenue at Canistel Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvements 60 Arrow Route at Etiwanda Avenue- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements; 61 ! Arrow Route at Red Oak Street-Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements 62 Arrow Route at White Oak Street- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements I 63 Banyan Street at East Avenue- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements; 64 s Base Line Road at Mountain View Drive-Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
_
Traffic Signal Improvements 65 Base Line Road at Spruce Avenue- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements 66 Base Line Road at Valencia Avenue Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
FEHRI�PEERS
Traffic Signal Improvements! 67 I Day Creek Boulevard at Silverberry Street-Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements! 68 Day Creek Boulevard at Sugar Gum Street Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
.. ----- ____.__. __._._._ .._._. .. _ _____.____
Traffic Signal Improvements! 69 Day Creek Boulevard at Victoria Park Lane Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements 70 ; Milliken Avenue at Millenwm Court- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements 71 Milliken Avenue at Mountain View Drive- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements 72 1 Milliken Avenue at Terra Vista Parkway- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic P
Signal Improvements i 73 Milliken Avenue at Victoria Park Lane-Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
Traffic Signal Improvements( 74 j Milliken Avenue at Vintage Drive- Left Turn Phasing Upgrade
FEHR,�PEERS
Appendix C
DIF Cost Estimates and Soft Cost Assumptions
Adjustment for,
Project D• Quantity*
Project ID Name/Location Location (Mile or Lane Mile) Construction Cost Environmental& Fee'Pro gram
Estimate; Contingency(soft
Grove Avenue/4th
F 1 Street at Interchange _ $10,000,000 20% I $12,000,000
improvement
1-10 Freeway I
-------------------------
-_
R 1 6th Street E/O Santa : RXR crossing ° j
Anita Avenue improvement $3,719,000 0% i $3,719,000
Widen existing
6th Street at
B 1 Cucamonga Creek bridge or use prefab 750000 50%! _ ! $3, ,
g bridge adjacent to $5,625,000
Channel
existing structure
___.__-_.-- _--
-- -- -
B 2 Arrow Route at Widen existing
Etiwanda Ditch bridge $5,062,500 50% $7,593,750
Whittram Avenue at
B 3 'Construct new Bridge; - $3,750,000 50% $5,625,000
Etiwanda Ditch
B 4 Wilson Avenue at Construct new bride - $2,600,000 50%
Day Creek Channel g $3,900,000
-
Arrow Route Grove
S 1 Complete Streets 1.00 I $3,000,000 50% $4,500,000
Ave to Baker Ave
_.__----. _._-_-.- __.._.___.---------- _ -___-__. __ __ _
Widen west side of
Cherry Avenue Cherry Ave from S 2 roadway widening Wilson Ave to 0.30 $450,000 50% $675,000
Channel
i
Church Street From Ramona Ave to'
S 3 0.75 $561,750 50% $842,625
buffered bike lanes Haven Ave
FEHR,� PEERS
quantity* Adjustment for
Project Engineering,, -ost
Project Description/
Project s Name/Location Location (Mile or Lane Mile) mental& . .ram
Estimate Contingenc (soft
East Avenue roadway Widen from 1-15 to
S 4 widening north of I- Victoria Street at - $1,325,000 50% $1,987,500
15 bottleneck locations
East Avenue Wilson Avenue to °
S 5 extension north of 1.00 i $1,325,000 50% $1,987,500
North Rim Way- New j
Wilson Ave
Etiwanda Avenue Widen 2 to 4 lanes ! {
S 6 roadway widening from Arrow Rte to 0.30 $1,200,000 50% $1,800,000
south of Arrow Rte Whittram Ave
Widen east side of
Etiwanda Avenue Etiwanda Ave from ! o
S 7 roadwaywidening 1.00 ; $240,000 50% $360,000
g Miller Ave to 850'
i north of Miller Ave north of Miller Ave
--- --- -
- --.. - - - ___..--- -
Foothill Boulevard- Widen north side of
Hellman Avenue to Foothill Blvd from ` °
S 8** 700' E/O Hellman Hellman Ave to 700' 0.30 I $195,000 50% $292,500
i I
Avenue east of Hellman Ave I '
Foothill Boulevard - Widen 4 to 6 lanes
S 9** Archibald Avenue to from Archibald Ave 1.00 I $1,325,000 50% $1,987,500
Hermosa Avenue to Hermosa Ave
Widen east side of '
Grove Avenue Grove Ave from 1 to
S 10** i roadway widening 0.30 $530,000 50% $795,000
north of 9th St 2 lanes between 9th
i St and Tapia Via Dr ! i
Widen east side of I
Grove Avenue Grove Ave from 1 to
S 11** roadway widening 2 lanes between San 1.00 i $195,000 50% $292,500
south of Foothill Blvd! Bernardino Rd and '
f I
Foothill Blvd
FEHR,�PEERS
ProgramAdjustment for
Project Description/ Ctuantit,'Y* Project Engineering, Total Facility Cost in
Project ID, Construction Cost Environmental
Name/Location Location (Milo or Lane Mile) Fee
Estimate Contingency(soft
Wilson Avenue Wilson Ave extension
S 12 extension west of from Milliken Ave to 0.30 $2,650,000 50% $3,975,000
Day Creek Blvd Day Creek Blvd
--- -__.�_.___
Wilson Avenue
Wilson Ave extension
extension east of
Etiwanda Ave 'from Etiwanda Ave to; 1.00 $1,325,000 50% $1,987,500
(Backbone Only) East Ave
_... -
INT 1 6th Street at New Traffic Signal - $750,000 10% $825,000
Pittsburgh Avenue ;
6th Street at Santa
INT 2 New Traffic Signal - $750,000 10% $825,000
Anita Avenue
INT 3 ; Archibald Avenue at New Traffic Signal - $750,000 10% $825,000
Victoria Street
Banyan Street at
INT 4 1 Roundabout - $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
Rochester Avenue
-.._____--------.
INT 5 Church Street at Roundabout - $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
Ramona Avenue
Civic Center Drive at
INT 6 Red Oak Street Roundabout - $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
INT 7 Ridgeline Place at Roundabout - i °
Wilson Avenue $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
East Avenue at '
INT 8 Roundabout - $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
Highland Avenue
-----------------
Foothill Boulevard at i
INT 9 New Traffic Signal ' - $750,000 10% i $825,000
Malachite Avenue
Milliken Avenue at
INT 10 Roundabout - $1,500,000 i 50% $2,250,000
i Wilson Avenue
FEHR,� PEERS
Adjustment for
Project Project lEn.gine6ring,
st in:
D- • °
ProgramName/Location Location (Mile-cirl-ane Mile) Estimate Contingency(soft Feer
INT 11 Spruce Avenue at Roundabout - j $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
Mountain View Drive
INT 12 Spruce Avenue at Roundabout - $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
Red Oak Street
Terra Vista Parkway ° f
INT 13 Roundabout $1,500,000 50% I $2,250,000
at Spruce Avenue
---------------------
Terra Vista Parkway ° $2,250,000
INT 14 at Town Center Drive! Roundabout $1,500,000 50%
__.
INT 15 Town Center Drive at Roundabout - j $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
Elm Avenue
INT 16 Wilson Avenue at Roundabout - j $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
East Avenue
_-
INT 17 Wilson Avenue at Roundabout - $1,500,000 50% $2,250,000
i Etiwanda Avenue ! -
4th Street at Golden ' Traffic signal `
INT 18 Oak Road-Left Turn - i $50,000 ! 10% $55,000
Phasing Upgrade
modification
__._.. _ __ _____.__...__._ _----___ __--__ • --_.._.l._...______.__._ ..-- _._--__..__. _____.-__..__ __._.____..._.__.___.
_____
Archibald Avenue at
INT 19 Banyan Street-Left t Traffic signal _ $50,000 10% $55,000
Turn Phasing modification
Upgrade
__--_-__..
Citywide traffic signal
INT 20 Signal Interconnect communication $_ 30,000,000 50% $45,000,000
System
improvements
___-._---
___. _.._. ._._--------------------
Cucamonga Creek I
Channel from Base 50% $948,750
T 1 Trail improvements 1.1 $632,500
Line Road to Foothill
Boulevard
FEHR,�PEERS
Adjustment for
•
ProjectD• Quantity*
Name/Location Location (Mile orLane Mile) Construction Cost Environmental& Fee Program
Estimate Contingency(soft
Cucamonga Creek
T 2 Channel at Base Line Trail crossing
Road
improvements $750,000 10% $825,000
Cucamonga Creek
T 3 Channel at Foothill Trail crossing _ ! °
Boulevard
improvements $750,000 10% $825,000
_Cucamonga ' .... --.._
' a Creek
Trail crossing
T 4 Channel at Arrow $750,000 10%
improvements $825,000
Route 1
_ __._.._ __-- _ __..__._.____- _._-_ - ---..___ ._ _____.__--_---.- ,-__ _. __..--__-_. ___ __._-------------------
Cucamonga Creek Trail crossing
T 5 Channel at 9th Street, improvements - f $75,000 50% $112,500
T 6 Cucamonga Creek Trail crossing
Channel at 6th Street: improvements ; $750,000 10% $825,000
T 7 Deer Creek Channel Trail crossing -- s -- - - --___
at Foothill Boulevard improvements $750,000 10% $825,000
T 8 Deer Creek Channel Trail crossing _ $750,000 10% $825,000
at Arrow Route improvements
T 9 Deer Creek Channel Trail crossing I
at 6th Street improvements $750,000 10% $825 000
- - - -_ ----- -- ---- - --- - - - --- -= _ -------- - - ----_ ----- - ---------------- ----_ _ _----------
Day Creek Channel at: Trail crossing
T 10 i
Victoria Park Lane improvements - $75,000 50% $112,500
----------:... --- -
- Victoria
Day Creek Channel ati Trail crossing ! i
T 11 Base Line Road improvements - $750,000 j 10% $825,000
-----------
Archibald _Archibald Avenue Base Line Rd to See Connect RC App.
Buffered Bike Lanes ' ! B. Cost Estimates
CRH 4 and Ped Foothill Blvd,Arrow 1.50 $690,000 Include Soft Costs $690,000
Rte to 7th St
Enhancements i I I For These Items i
FEHRt PEERS
ProgramAdjustment for
Project Description/ Quantity* Project Engineeeing, Total Facility Cost in,
Project ID Construction Cost. Environmental& Fee
Name/Locatibn tocation (Mile,orLone Mile), Estimate Contingency(soft
CRH 5 San Bernardino Road Vineyard Ave to _ ? $122,000 $122,000
Stripe Shoulders Archibald Ave
Church Street pepper St to Ramona
CRH 6 Buffered Bike Lanes 1.10 $486,000 $486,000
and Stripe Shoulders
Ave
Hermosa Avenue i
Base Line Rd to $741,000
CRH 11 Buffered Bike Lane 1 Foothill Blvd ! 1.00 $741,000
and New Sidewalks
CRH 14 Feron Boulevard Ped Archibald Ave to _ ; $191,000 $191,000
Enhancements Hermosa Ave
Banyan Street Ped Deer Creek Channel
E 1 ? Enhancements and ; to Wardman Bullock 3.70 i $3,853,000 $3,853,000
Buffered Lanes Rd
Day Creek Boulevard
E 2 Buffered Bike Lanes % Etiwanda Ave to SR- i 2 20 I $1,144,000 $1,144,000
and Ped 210 WB Ramp
Enhancements
Etiwanda Avenue j
Bike Route and Ped SR-210 to Banyan St,
E q Saddleridge Dr to 0.50 $274,000 $274,000
Crossing Victoria St
Enhancements
Day Creek Blvd to
Wilson Avenue Etiwanda Ave,
E 5 Buffered Bike Lane `Wardman Bullock Rd 1.70 $1,017,000 $1,017,000
4 and Ped Crossing •to Cherry Ave,Wilson
Enhancements Ave at Bluegrass Ave
__- --- _.---_----- _. .__.---._..______.__ ... __.. __. ____ _..._------------_ __----.
E 6 Victoria Street Ped f East Ave and 1-15 - $69,000 $69,000
Enhancements
FEHR� PEERS
Adjustment for
Project Description/ Qtjahtity* Project Erigineering, Total'Facility Cost in
Project ID Construction Cast Environmental&
Name/Location Location (Mile or Lane Mile) Estimate ;Contingency(soft Fee Program
costs)
East Avenue Buffered
E 7 Bike Lane and New Banyan St to Philly Dr:i 0.40 $1,328,000 $1,328,000
Sidewalks
--------------4;------------ ---------------------!
Base Line Road Ped
Wanona PI to Shelby
PI
E 8 and Bike 0.27 $486,000 $486,000
Enhancements
----------- -------------- --------------------
Coyote Dr and
Duncaster Place Ped Duncaster PI,
E 9 i
000
Enhancements Stoneview Rd and $258, $258,000
Duncaster PI
---------------------------------
Etiwanda Creek
E 10 Channel Multi-Use PE Trail to Victoria St 1.80 i $987,000 $987,000
Trail
Summit
E 11 intermediate/ Etiwanda Creek
1.90 $42,000 $42,000
Etiwanda Creek Park Parking Lot
Connection
-------------- -----------..............
---- -
Terra Vista Parkway -------
Terra Vista Pkwy to
CNE I Ped/Bike 1.90 $1,443,000 $1,443,000
Enhancements Hampton PI
Spruce Avenue Ped Spruce Ave at Terra
CNE 2 Enhancements ;Vista Pkwy,Mountain' $589,000 $589,000
View Dr,Elm Ave
------------- ------ --------
Base Line Road
CNE 8 f Buffered Bike Lane Haven Ave to
3.00 $1,461,000 $1,461,000
and Deer Creek Trail Etiwanda Ave i
Crossing
FEHR� PEERS
Adjustment for
Project •- Quantity*
Project •. Name/Location Location (Mile or Lane Mile) Construction Cost Environmental& Fee Program
Estimate Contingency(soft
Elm Avenue Crossing
CNE 9 Enhancements and Spruce Ave to _ $49,000 $49,000
Sidewalk at Coyote Church St j
Canyon Elementary ! j
_-___ _
CNE 10 Church Street Mayten Ave to I-15 1.80 I $856,000 $856,000
Buffered Bike Lanes
Day Creek Boulevard I Highland Ave to i
CNE 11 1.90 $688,000 I $688,000
Buffered Bike Lanes Foothill Blvd
----------------- __._.__.._. .__._ -__ . . __._._____ .____. _._.---.-- . -_ -------- _._.._ _._-----
CNE 13 Lark Drive New Lark Dr at Rochester $76,000 $76,000
Crosswalks Ave,Matera PI
Miller Avenue
Buffered Bike Lanes, j
CNE 14 Sidewalks and Ped 1-15 to East Ave 0.50 $444,000 $444,000
Enhancements
- -
Garcia Dr from
Dolcetto Place and Etiwanda Ave to
CNE 15 Garcia Drive Buffered Dolcetto PI,Colcetto " 0.60 $212,000 ! $212,000
Bike Lanes PI from Miller Ave to
Garcia Dr I
Spruce Avenue and
CSS 2 Red Oak Street Foothill Blvd to 1.00 $3,637,000 $3,637,000
Ped/Bike Arrow Rte
Enhancements
_----_____._._______.
6th St Cucamonga
CRH 15 ; Creek Channel to Bicycle Corridor 1.58
Improvements $1,027,000 20% $1,232,400
I Haven Ave I
Jersey Blvd Haven I Bicycle Corridor
CCS 3 Ave to Rochester Ave Improvements 0.55 $357,500 20% j $429,000
FEHR, 'PEERS
Quantity*
Project, Engineering,
Projecti Adjustment for Project Description/Name/Location
Program
Estimate Contingency(soft
Foothill Blvd highway;
to city center $22,250,000
DTRC 1 boulevard Rochester to ECL - ; $17,800,000 25%
transformation
Da Creek Channel _
DTRC 5 Trail and Park Drive. New signalized
(Foothill Blvd) crossing $750,000 10% $825,000
crossing I
DTRC 6 Day Creek Channel 8th St to Future
Trail Etiwanda Heights ; 3.4 I $3,700,000 30% $4,810,000
- -- -� CC 1 -�- Foothill Blvd AT � _ Haven Ave to - - ��-- �-�� -- --$87,500,000� $109�- �— 25% � �
transformation Rochester Ave 3 ' 00 7 50
Haven Ave AT
CC 1.1 Foothill Blvd to 7th St - i $62,500,000 25% $78,125,000
transformation
Church St buffered Haven Ave to Mayten
CC 2 Ave(east of Mayten 1.43 $929,500 20% $1,115,400
bike lanes
in Connect RC)
___ .___------ ._ -----------------
Arrow Rte buffered ; Hermosa Ave to $1,739,400
bike lanes Rochester Ave 2.23 CC 2.1 $1,449,500 20%
Hermosa Ave CC 2.2 buffered bike lanes 'Foothill Blvd to 6th St: 1.52 $988,000 20% $1,185,600
--- --------
Devon St terminus to
CC 3 Devon St extension Civic Center Dr 0.30 $397,500 50% ' $596,250
� t
terminus
Rochester Ave
HART 2 ;Foothill Blvd to 6th St 1.32 $858,000 20% $1,029,600
buffered bike lanes _L_.__. __.__---_ ._ -----_t------ -----------!--__.-
'Azusa Ct terminus to i
HART 3 Azusa Ct extension 1.46 $1,934,500 50% $2,901,750
Acacia St terminus
FEHR� PEERS
Quantity* Adjustment for
Project Description[
in Cost Environmental&
• '
Fee Program
Name/Loca.tion Location (Mile or Lane%Mile) Estimate Contingency(soft
1
Milliken Ave to ! 0 88 $1,166,000 50% $1,749,000
HART 4 7th St extension Haven Ave
1_ -- --- - -- - _ - --- - -- - - - -
Class IV bicycle
RH 6 Foothill Blvd from corridor and $15,300,000 25% $19,125,000
Haven Ave to WCL complete streets
i
improvements ; __..____.______--____.___
Archibald AT
CTC 1 transformation with f 7th St to 4th St - $7,500,000 25% $9,375,000
buffered bike lanes
CTC 6 9th St extension Archibald Ave and 0 74 $980,500 50% $1,470,750
(roadway) Hermosa Ave
SEIQ 2 Arrow Rte buffered Rochester Ave to 1.25 i $812,500 20% $975,000
bike lanes Etiwanda Ave
SEIQ 2.2 6th St buffered bike Spur line to Etiwanda 0.72 $468,000 20% $561,600
lanes Ave
Whittram Ave Etiwanda Ave to
SEIQ 3 1.46 $9,869,000 50% $14,803,500
extension Rochester Ave
-------------
Etiwanda Grade SIEQ 6 $119,875,000 23% i $147,675,000
Separation(EGS)
1. Includes costs for 1-15 undercrossing
FEHR/� PEERS
DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates
DevelopmentProject New
eDevelopment
Project ID Description/Location Contribution
Name/Location (Mile or Lane Mile) Estimate Contribution
(Percentage)
Amount
Grove Avenue/4th
F 1 Street at 1Interchange -
1-10 Freeway
improvement ; $12,000,000 100.0% $12,000,000
__-_---..--_-_ ___ _.__- -.__ _. - ----_-__ -- _----- -.--_----__._.. _
R 1 6th Street E/O Santa ` RXR crossing -
Anita Avenue improvement $3,719,000 100.0% $3,719,000
Widen existingbridge
6th Street at ge
'
or use prefab bridge
B 1 Cucamonga Creek - $5,625,000 100.0% $5,625,000
Channel adjacent to existing
structure
- _------ -- - - ------ _------------------------
B 2 Arrow Route at Widen existing bridge - ; $7,593,750 100.0%
Etiwanda Ditch $7,593,750
i
B 3 Whittram Avenue at Construct new Bridge $5,625,000 100.0%
Etiwanda Ditch g ; $5,625,000
---- . ._. _____.._ ____.._.-__ ._--__.___----_---- ._._.--- -.___-_._-..____--___.__ _
Wilson Avenue at $3,900,000
B 4 f Day Creek Channel ; Construct new bridge ; - $3,900,000 100.0%
_-.__ ;_- __.
Arrow Route Grove I
S 1 Complete Streets 1.00 $4,500,000 29.6% $1,332,000
Ave to Baker Ave
Widen west side of
Cherry Avenue S 2 Cherry Ave from 0.30 $675,000 100.0% $675,000
roadway widening Wilson Ave to Channel'
Church Street From Ramona Ave to ' $249,417
S 3 0.75 $842,625 29.6%
buffered bike lanes Haven Ave
------------------.------------------- .. . ___.---_ ---___._ ___ ____ — -___.__
East Avenue roadway! Widen from 1-15 to
S 4 i widening north of I- Victoria Street at - $1,987,500 100.0% $1,987,500
15 bottleneck locations
FEHR,� PEERS
Future
New Development
DevelopmentProject DescriPtion/Location Quantity* Total Project Cost Contribution
Project 1:1) Name/Location (Mile or;Lane Mile) Estimate (Percentage) Contribution
Amount
East Avenue I
Wilson Avenue to
S 5 extension north of 1.00 $1,987,500 100.0% $1,987,500
Wilson Ave
_-- -_--__-- . North Rim Way New --_-___ __.
Etiwanda Avenue Widen 2 to 4 lanes
S 6** roadway widening from Arrow Rte to 0.30 $1,800,000 100.0% $1,800,000
south of Arrow Rte Whittram Ave
Widen east side of
Etiwanda Avenue Etiwanda Ave from ' o
S 7 roadwaywidening1.00 I $360,000 100.0% $360,000
Miller Ave to 850'
north of Miller Ave j
north of Miller Ave - ............ _.. - _.-------.
Foothill Boulevard- Widen north side of ;
S 8** Hellman Avenue to Foothill Blvd from 0.30 $292,500 100.0% $292,500
700'E/O Hellman Hellman Ave to 700'
Avenue east of Hellman Ave ,
Foothill Boulevard- Widen 4 to 6 lanes
S 9** ` Archibald Avenue to from Archibald Ave to 1.00- i $1,987,500 100.0% $1,987,500
Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Ave
_
.-._._.... r __..
-_ _____
------------
Widen east side of
Grove Avenue Grove Ave from 1 to 2
S 10** roadway widening lanes between 9th St 0.30 i $795,000 100.0% $795,000
north of 9th St and Tapia Via Dr
------- - ._ -- _ - - t _. -- -- - ------ . . --------------
Widen east side of
Grove Avenue Grove Ave from 1 to 2
S 11** roadway widening ! lanes between San 1.00 $292,500 100.0% $292,500
south of Foothill Blvd. Bernardino Rd and
Foothill Blvd
Wilson Avenue Wilson Ave extension ! j
S 12 extension west of from Milliken Ave to 0.30 $3,975,000 ! 100.0% ; $3,975,000
Day Creek Blvd Day Creek Blvd
FEHR,�PEERS
New Development Future
Prqject]D project Description/Location Quantity* Total Project Cost Contribution Development
Name/Location (Mile or,!.Ane Mile) Estimate (Percentage) Contribution
Amount
Wilson Avenue
Wilson Ave extension
extension east of
S 13 from Etiwanda Ave to 1.00 $1,987,500 100.0% $1,987,500
Etiwancla Ave
(Backbone Only) East Ave
6th Street at
INT 1 New Traffic Signal $825,000 100.0% $825,000
Pittsburgh Avenue
6th Street at Santa
INT 2 ; New Traffic Signal $825,000 100.0% $825,000
Anita Avenue
---------------------------
Archibald Avenue at
INT 3 New Traffic Signal $825,000 100.0% $825,000
Victoria Street
Banyan Street at
INT4 Roundabout $2,250,000 100.0%
Rochester Avenue $2,250,000
--------------- ----------------- ------- ------ ----------------
Church Street at
INT 5 Roundabout $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000
Ramona Avenue
Civic Center Drive at
INT 6 Roundabout
Red Oak Street $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000
--------------
Ridgeline Place at 1
INT 7 Roundabout $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000
Wilson Avenue
------------------ ------ ------ ------- ---------
East Avenue at
INT 8 Roundabout $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000
Highland Avenue
------------------- -------- -------
Foothill Boulevard at
INT 9 New Traffic Signal $825,000 100.0% $825,000
Malachite Avenue
----------
Milliken Avenue at
INT10 Roundabout 100.0% $2,250,000
Wilson Avenue $2,250,000
----------
Spruce Avenue at
INT 11 Roundabout $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000
Mountain View Drive
--------------- -------
Spruce Avenue at
INT12 Red Oak Street Roundabout $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000
FEHR� PEERS
Future
NOW Development
Project Quaritity:k Total Project Cost
Description/LocationProject ID
. ..
Name/Location (Mile or Lane Mile) Estimate (Percentage) Contribution
Amount
i I
INT 13 Terra Vista Parkway Roundabout - $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000
at Spruce Avenue
INT 14 Terra Vista Parkway Roundabout - $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000
at Town Center Drive
_ - -- ----- - -— -
-T-
INT 15 ;Town Center Drive at? Roundabout - i $2,250,000 100.0% I $2,250,000
Elm Avenue
_______--
Wilson Avenue at $2,250,000
INT 16 Roundabout - $2,250,000 100.0%
East Avenue
____
_ --_ _..___ -- ______ __ ._..___-------
Wilson Avenue at °
INT 17 Roundabout - $2,250,000 100.0% r $2,250,000
Etiwanda Avenue i
4th Street at Golden i
Traffic signal $55,000 29.6% $16,280
INT 18 Oak Road -Left Turn modification
Phasing Upgrade
Archibald Avenue at
i
Banyan Street- Left Traffic signal $55,000 29.6% $16,280
INT 19 Turn Phasing modification
P9 !
U rade
Citywide traffic signal
Signal Interconnect 100.0% $45,000,000
INT 20 communication - ! $45,000,000
System ;
improvements j
— ----- - - - — -- -- _ — -- -- ---- --- ---- --
Cucamonga Creek
T 1 Channel from Base Trail improvements 1.1 $948,750 29.6% $280,830
Line Road to Foothill `, i
j Boulevard
! Cucamonga Creek
Trail crossing $825,000 29.6% $244,200
T 2 ' Channel at Base Line
improvements
Road
Cucamonga Creek Trail crossing ; °
T 3 Channel at Foothill - $825,000 29.6/° $244,200
Boulevard
improvements j
. _ ,..-..r.v�,��t�,#.n:P�.. .__.r_n..__r_>�-_ .��-�,.�,..-�,K__n___„-yzrx-Y .F.r�,m_��.�-z.�..�-,�...�.�.�.� <_�.�•�e...-�..- ,.v, ..u_�_.__ -_-_ry__,�, ..,,�a..-�,,�-.�,,�n��-�.�.
FEHR,� PEERS
New Development
Project • Development
r beName/Location (Mile or Lane;Mile) Estimate scription/Lcication Contribution
(Percentage)
Cucamonga Creek
T 4 Channel at Arrow Trail crossing _ $825,000 29.6%
Route
improvements $244,200
T 5 Cucamonga Creek Trail crossing ! "
Channel at 9th Street; improvements $112,500 29.6% i $33,300
T 6 Cucamonga Creek Trail crossing $825,000 29.6% $244,200
Channel at 6th Street improvements
Deer Creek Channel Trail crossing i °
T 7 - $825,000 29.6/° $244,200
at Foothill Boulevard improvements
T 8 Deer Creek Channel i Trail crossing _ i $g25,000 29.6% $244,200
at Arrow Route improvements
_--_--------------------.____ -_ -------------_-______-.---
T 9 Deer Creek Channel Trail crossing I - °
at 6th Street improvements $825,000 29.6/° i $244,200
_ _ _ __- _
T 10 !Day Creek Channel at Trail crossing -
$112,500 29.6% $33,300
Victoria Park Lane improvements i-__.___-.___._ ..__.._
T 11 Day Creek Channel at: Trail crossing $244,200
Base Line Road improvements
Archibald Avenue
Buffered Bike Lanes ' Base Line Rd to
CRH 4 and Ped Foothill Blvd,Arrow 1.50 $690,000 29.6% $204,240
Enhancements Rte to 7th St
CRH 5 ;San Bernardino Road Vineyard Ave to °
Stripe Shoulders Archibald Ave $122,000 29.6/° $36,112
Church Street
Pepper St to Ramona
CRH 6 Buffered Bike Lanes Ave 1.10 ; $486,000 29.6% $143,856
and Stripe Shoulders ;
Hermosa Avenue
Base Line Rd to
CRH 11 Buffered Bike Lane 1.00 $741,000 29.6% $219,336
and New Sidewalks
Foothill Blvd I
FEHR, ' PEERS
DevelopmentNew
Project Description/Location • Development
Contribution
Project ID Name/Location (Mile or Lane,Mile) Estimate (Percentage) Contribution
Amount
i Feron Boulevard Ped Archibald Ave to i $191,000 29.6% $56,536
CRH 14 Enhancements Hermosa Ave
-- - --- - - _...........- ----- - - ..__ -
Banyan Street Ped Deer Creek Channel to
E 1 ; Enhancements and Wardman Bullock Rd 3.70 ; $3,853,000 29.6% $1,140,488
Buffered Lanes
--------
Day Creek Boulevard
E 2 Buffered Bike Lanes Etiwanda Ave to SR- i 2.20 $1,144,000 29.6% $338,624
and Ped 210 WB Ramp
Enhancements
Etiwanda Avenue SR-210 to Banyan St,
E 4 Bike Route and Ped Saddleridge Dr to 0.50 $274,000 29.6% $81,104
Crossing Victoria St
Enhancements
Wilson Avenue
Day Creek Blvd to i
Buffered Bike Lane Etiwanda Ave,
E S and Ped Crossing Wardman Bullock Rd 1.70 $1,017,000 29.6% $301,032
to Cherry Ave,Wilson j
Enhancements Ave at Bluegrass Ave
E 6 Victoria Street Ped East Ave and 1-15 - j $69,000 29.6% $20,424
Enhancements
East Avenue Buffered
E 7 Bike Lane and New Banyan St to Philly Dr 0.40 ' $1,328,000 29.6% $393,088
Sidewalks
Base Line Road Ped Wanona PI to Shelby °
E 8 and Bike PI 0.27 $486,000 29.6/o i $143,856
Enhancements
Coyote Dr and
Duncaster Place Ped Duncaster PI, $76,368
E 9 i - $258,000 29.6%
Enhancements Stoneview Rd and
Duncaster PI
FEHR/� PEERS
New DevProject Quantity* elopment
• Development
Project ! !escri ptio n/Lo cation (Mile or Lane Mile) Estimate Contribution C6fitri-bUtion
(Percentage)
Etiwanda Creek
E 10 Channel Multi-Use PE Trail to Victoria St 1.80 I $987,000 29.6% $292,152
Trail
-___-
Summit
E 11 Intermediate/ Etiwanda Creek 1.90 $42,000 29.6% $12,432
Etiwanda Creek Park ` Parking Lot
Connection
Terra Vista Parkway
Terra Vista Pkwy to
CNE 1 Ped/Bike 1.90 $1,443,000 29.6% $427,128.0
Enhancements Hampton PI
Spruce Avenue Ped Spruce Ave at Terra �__�.
CNE 2 Vista Pkwy, Mountain - $589,000 29.6% $174,344
Enhancements
View Dr,Elm Ave
....... - -----
Base Line Road
CNE 8 Buffered Bike Lane Haven Ave to
3.00 $1,461,000 29.6% $432,456
and Deer Creek Trail Etiwanda Ave
Crossing
,Elm Avenue Crossing
CNE 9 Enhancements and Spruce Ave to Church ! I
Sidewalk at Coyote St $49,000 29.6% $14,504
Canyon Elementary
Church Street I
CNE 10 Mayten Ave to 1-15 1.80 $856,000 29.6% $253,376
Buffered Bike Lanes
Day Creek Boulevard Highland Ave to
CNE 11 Buffered Bike Lanes Foothill Blvd 1.90 $688,000 29.6% $203,648
-____. ._ .. .__.._--.-_.-_---_-_____._. _.._. _. _---._-_ ._. _. _
Lark Drive New Lark Dr at Rochester
CNE 13 ! Crosswalks Ave;Matera PI - $76,000 29.6% $22,496
FEHR� PEERS
Development
Project Suaritity* T6talPiroject Cost Development
ProjectDescription/LocationName/Location (Mile or Lane Mile) Estimate Contribution
Amount
Miller Avenue j
Buffered Bike Lanes,
CNE 14 Sidewalks and Ped 1-15 to East Ave 0.50 $444,000 29.6% $131,424
f
Enhancements 1
.___-------- _____._..___ _
Garcia Dr from
Dolcetto Place and Etiwanda Ave to
CNE 15 Garcia Drive Buffered! Dolcetto PI,Colcetto 0.60 j $212,000 29.6% $62,752
Bike Lanes PI from Miller Ave to
Garcia Dr
Spruce Avenue and
CSS 2 Red Oak Street Foothill Blvd to Arrow ' 1.00 $3,637,000 29.6% $1,076,552
Ped/Bike Rte
Enhancements
---------------------
6th St Cucamonga Bicycle Corridor °
CRH 15 Creek Channel to 1.58 $1,232,400 29.6/° $364,790
Haven Ave Improvements 5
CCS 3 Jersey Blvd Haven Bicycle Corridor 0.55 $429,000 29.6% $126,984
Ave to Rochester Ave Improvements
Foothill Blvd highway;
DTRC 1 i to city center Rochester to ECL - i $22,250,000 29.6% r $6,586,000
boulevard
transformation
Day Creek Channel
DTRC 5 Trail and Park Drive New signalized _ $825,000 29.6% $244,200
(Foothill Blvd) crossing
crossing
i
Day Creek Channel 8th St to Future i ° $1,423,760
DTRC 6 3.4 $4,810,000 29.6/°
Trail ; Etiwanda Heights
1
Foothill Blvd AT Haven Ave to
CC 1 _ $109,375,000 29.6% $32,375,000
transformation Rochester Ave j
FEHRJf PEERS
New
Future
Project • .. Developrnent
• Description/Location . -
Haven Ave AT CC 1.1 transformation Foothill Blvd to 7th St - $78,125,000 29.6% $23,125,000
_ _
Church St buffered__ Haven Ave to Mayten_.____________._ ___._--------
.
CC 2 bike lanes Ave(east of Mayten in 1.43 $1,115,400 29.6% $330,158
Connect RC)
CC 2.1 Arrow Rte buffered Hermosa Ave to 2.23 $1,739,400 29.6% $514,862
bike lanes r Rochester Ave
Hermosa Ave CC 2.2 buffered bike lanes Foothill Blvd to 6th St 1.52 $1,185,600 29.6% $350,937
-----------------
_._ ... . __..... _.._._.
Devon St terminus to
CC 3 Devon St extension Civic Center Dr 0.30 $596,250 100.0% $596,250
terminus
HART 2 Rochester Ave Foothill Blvd to 6th St 1.32 $1,029,600 29.6% $304,761
buffered bike lanes
_ _ _ __ _____ ,._____. __ _____________-__ __ ___ --------------- ________ __
HART 3 1 Azusa Ct extension : Azusa Ct terminus to 1.46 $2,901,750 100.0% $2,901,750
Acacia St terminus
HART 4 7th St extension Milliken Ave to Haven �� ��
Ave 0.88 ( $1,749,000 100.0% $1,749,000
Foothill Blvd from Class IV bicycle
RH 6 i corridor and complete' - $19,125,000 29.6% $5,661,000
Haven Ave to WCL
streets improvements
Archibald AT
CTC 1 transformation with 7th St to 4th St - $9,375,000 29.6% ( $2,775,000
buffered bike lanes
- - .
9th St extension Archibald Ave and - _ _____
CTC 6 0.74 $1,470,750 { 100.0% $1,470,750
(roadway) Hermosa Ave i
Arrow Rte buffered Rochester Ave to
SEIQ 2 1.25 $975,00029.6%° �$288,600 �
bike lanes Etiwanda Ave
FEHR� PEERS
Development
Quantity* ProjectDevelopment
Project,I r rscriptionILdcation (Mil' Estimate Contribution Contributi I on.
-
SEIQ 2.2 6th St buffered bike ' Spur line to Etiwanda 0.72 ; $561,600 29.6% I $166,233
lanes Ave
` Whittram Ave Etiwanda Ave to 0
SEIQ 3 1.46 $14,803,500 100.0% $14,803,500
extension Rochester Ave
SIEQ 6 Etiwanda Grade _ $147,675,000 60.0%*** $88,605,000
Separation(EGS) ' -----.__
Total Program Costs:
$587,872,000 $327,090,000
*Quantity ofimproved facilities in miles,or lane miles for roadways.
**Program Contribution cost shown for this project is the amount before deduction for deficiencies calculated and shown in Table 8 and deducted from DIF Program Contribution
in Table 14.
***Final project cost contribution by future development reduced by 40%in anticipation of future grant funding opportunities.
FEHR,� PEERS
Appendix D
General Plan Level of Service Assessment and Forecasting
FEHR/� PEERS
FEHR PEERS
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
Date: May 7, 2021
To: Jason Welday, City of Rancho Cucamonga
From: Jason Pack, P.E.
Delia Votsch,P.E.
Subject: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Roadway Level of Service
OC21-0776
As part of the ongoing City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update,Fehr&Peers has prepared roadway
segment forecasts and have calculated the Level of Service (LOS) for those roadway segments. This
memorandum presents those forecasts and LOS results. This information is integrated in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report air quality and noise analyses, however, is summarized here for City staff.
Roadway capacities used to evaluate roadway segments were developed in consultation with the City of
Rancho Cucamonga staff, referencing HCM 6th edition.
Table 1: Roadway Level of Service Criteria
�Roa��waype LOS C LOS D LOS E
2-1-ane Collector 10,000 13,000 15,000
2-1-ane Arterial 9,700 17,600 18,700
2-1-ane Freeway 28,800 35,700 40,100
4-1-ane Collector 18,000 20,200 23,200
4-1-ane Arterial,Undivided 17,500 27,400 28,900
4-Lane Arterial Bicycle Corridor
4-1-ane Arterial,Divided 19,200 35,400 37,400
6-1-ane Arterial,Divided 27,100 53,200 56,000
6-1-ane Arterial, Divided 27,100 . 53,200 56,000
4-1-ane Freeway 59,500 72,800 81,400
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 61h Edition(Transportation Research Board,2077),Fehr&Peers,2027.
101 Pacifica I Suite 300 1 Irvine,CA 92618 (949) 308-6300 1 Fax(949) 859-3209
www.fehrandpeers.com
Jason Welday
May 7, 2021
Page 2 of 9
The roadway typologies presented in the Mobility Element of the proposed General Plan Update align with
the roadway capacities presented in Table 1 as follows:
Freeways,which are under thejuridiction of and operated by Caltrans, provide for interregional travel by
automobile.They have high vehicle speeds and can provide access for transit vehicles(athough automobiles
are prioritized). Bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited on freeways. Freeways in Rancho Cucamonga
include SR-210 and 1-15. Freeways have the roadway capacities of 2-Lane Freeway and 4-Lane Freeway
Arterials provide for all modes of travel,but they acknowledge that the arterial is a primary link in the City's
vehicular transportation system. Oftentimes four to six lanes are provided with raised medians and higher
vehicle speeds are anticipated. Arterials have the roadway capacities of 2-Lane Arterial, 4-Lane Arterial
Undivided,4-Lane Arterial Divided,6-Lane Arterial Divided and 8-Lane Arterial Divided. Undivided arterials
have no median (raised or striped),while divided arterials have a center median.
Transit corridors, including light rail (LRT), streetcar, and bus rapid transit (BRT), promote economic
development around high-quality transit service while fostering a pedestrian scale in which walking, and
biking actively complement public transit.Transit corridors have the roadway capacities of 4-Lane Arterial
Divided, 6-Lane Arterial Divided and 8-Lane Arterial Divided.
Collectors are intended to connect neighborhoods together.They should provide accessibility for bicycles,
pedestrians, and vehicles; however, speeds should be managed to ensure that all modes safely travel
together.These corridors can substantially vary in terms of width. For example,Church Street is a four-lane
roadway and would include bicycle lanes as well as raised medians. In contrast, segments such as Banyan
Street, are similar to local streets with smaller rights-of-way. These narrower streets would have Class III
'sharrows' as well as street furniture in some areas to encourage pedestrian activity. Collectors have the
roadway capacites of 2-Lane Collector and 4-Lane Collector.
Bicycle Corridors provide the main bicycle network for the City. Specifically, vehicle speeds should be
managed to travel at 35 miles per hour or less and bicycle infrastructure should be maximized.This would
typically include buffered bicycle lanes or separated bicycle lanes (otherwise known as a cycle track or Class
IV bicycle facility) on the roadway(or,at a minimum,seven-foot bicycle lanes). Separation can be provided
by plastic bollards, raised medians, and/or planters. Raised landscaped medians may also be included in
some areas to further encourage slower speeds. Bicycle corridors have the roadway capacites of 2-Lane
Collector and 4-Lane Collector.
Future year forecasts representing the buildout of the General Plan Update in 2040 were prepared for the
EIR using the SBTAM model. Level of service with the buildout of the proposed General Plan Update are
presented below in Table 2.
Jason Welday
May 7,2021
Page 3 of 9
Table 2:General Plan Roadway Level of Service
Existing General Plan Existiing General Plan
Roadway Segment
Typology Typology Lanes ADT V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS
1. Wilson Ave from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Arterial Arterial 4 4,740 0.16 A 4 7,520 0.26 A
2. Wilson Ave from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave - Arterial Arterial 4 5,190 0.18 A 4 8,660 .' 0.30 A
3. Wilson Ave from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial 2 7,860 0A2 A 2 11,770 0.63 B
4. Wilson Ave from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial 4 2,090 0.07 A 4 3,030 0.10 A
5. Wilson Ave from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits Arterial Arterial -- -- -- -- 4 12,730 0.44 A
6. Banyan St from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Collector Collector 2 3,470 0.23 A 2 3,870 0.26 A
7. Banyan St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Collector Collector 2 3,900 0.26 A 2 4,050 0.27 A
8. Banyan St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Collector Collector 2 9,690 0.65 B 2 12,480 0.83 D
9. Banyan St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Collector Collector 2 10,530 0.70 B 2 12,340 0.82 D
10. Banyan St from Etiwanda Ave to Wardman Bollock Rd Collector Collector 2 8,210 0.55 A 2 10,550 0.70 B
11. 19th St from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 17,050 0.59 A 4 21,260 0.73 C
12. 19th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 15,630 0.54 A 4 19,700 0.68 B
13. Base Line Rd from Carnelian St to Archibald Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 22,550 0.78 C 4 26,700 0.92 E
14. Base Line Rd from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Arterial 4 21,140 '0.73 C 4 25,330 0.88 D
15. Base Line Rd from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial 6 25,150 0.45 A 6 33,440 0.60 A
16. Base Line Rd from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial 6 22,780 0.41 A 6 35,570 0.64 B
17. Church St west of Archibald Ave Collector Bicycle Corridor 2 5,370 0.36 A 2 6,520 0.43 A
Jason Welday
May 7,2021
Page 4 of 9
Roadway Segment
Existing. General Plan Existing General Plan
3 Typology I Typo ogy Lanes ADT `; V/C i05 Lanes ADT V/C LOS
18. Church St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 2 9,060 0.48 A 2 13,810 0.92 E
19. Church St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 16,730 0.45 A 4 22,740 0.79 C
20. Church.St from Milliken Ave to Day.Creek Blvd Arterial Bicycle Corridor. 4 19,240 0.51 A 4 24,310 , ' 0:85 D.'
21. Church St from Day Creek Blvd to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 14,520 0.50 A 4 20,020 0.69 B
22. Church St from Etiwanda Ave to East Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 9,780 - 0.26 A 4 12,670 0.44 A
23. Foothill Blvd from City Limits to Carnelian St/Vineyard Arterial Transit Corridor 6 32,820 0.59 A 6 39,400 0.70 B
Ave
24. Foothill Blvd from Carnelian St/Vineyard Ave to Archibald Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 4_ 31,300 0.84 D 6 47,410 0.85 D
25. Foothill Blvd from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 4 32,420 0.87 D 6 43,020 0.77 C
26. Foothill Blvd from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 6 38'140 0.68 B 6 47,010 0.84 D
27. Foothill Blvd from Milliken Ave to Day Creek Blvd Arterial Transit Corridor 6 37,330 0.67 B 6 51,820 0.93 E
28. Foothill Blvd from Day Creek Blvd to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 6 45,190 0.81 C 6 56,580- 1.01 F
29. Foothill Blvd from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits Arterial Transit Corridor 4 34,430 0.92 E 4 39,570 1.06 F
30. Arrow Rte from City Limits to Vineyard Ave Arterial Arterial 4 19,710 0.68 B 4 25,250 - 0.68 B
31. Arrow Rte from Vineyard Ave to Archibald Ave Arterial Arterial 4 22,570 0.78 C 4 26,850 0.72 C
32. Arrow Rte'from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Arterial 4 26,340 0.91 E 4 ,35,500 0.95 E
33. Arrow Rte from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial 4 24,300 0.84 D 4 31,520 0.84 D
Jason Welday
May 7,2021
Page 5 of 9
Roadway Segment
Existing General Plan Existing General Plan
Typology Typology Lanes ADT' V/C LOS Lanes ADT V/C LOS
Varies
34. Arrow Rte from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial from 4 to 25,000 1.34 F 4 35,670 0.95 E
2
35. Arrow Rte from Etiwanda Ave to City Limits Arterial Arterial 3 20,140 1.08 F 4 30,410 0.81 D
Varies
36, 6th St from City Limits to Archibald Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor from 4 to 10,940 0.59 A 4 13,640 ` 0.47 A
2
Varies
37. 6th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor from 4 to 15,080 0.81 C 4 19,190 0.66 8
3
38. 6th St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Bicycle°Corridor 4 14,860 0.40 A 4 22,000 0.76 C
39. 6th St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 13,870 0.37 A 4 18,590 0.64 B
Varies
40. 4th St from Archibald Ave to Haven Ave Arterial Arterial from 6 to 17,780 0.48 A 4 23,270 0.62 B
5
41. 4th St from Haven Ave to Milliken Ave Arterial Arterial 7 26,570 0.47 A 6 36,960 0.66 B
Varies
42. 4th St from Milliken Ave to Etiwanda Ave Arterial Arterial from 6 to 32,760 0.88 D 6 36,810 0.65 ' B
4 < i
43. Vineyard Ave from City Limits to Arrow Rte Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 25,820 0.89 D 4 31,350 1.08 F
44. Vineyard Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 25,160 ,' 0.87 D 4 31,440 1.09 F
45. Vineyard Ave/Carnelian St from Foothill Blvd to Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 29,200 1.01 F 4 33,330 1.15 F
Base Line Rd
Jason Welday
May 7,2021
Page 6 of 9
Existing General Plan Existm General Plan
�r
" L
Roadway Segment
Typology Typology Lanes LADTT . V/C LOS Lanes ADT ,V/C LOS
46. Carnelian St from Base Line Rd to 19th St Arterial Bicycle Corridor 4 24,790 0.86 D 4 28,060 0.97 E
Varies
47. Carnelian St from 19th St to Wilson Ave Collector Collector from 4 to 24,260 1.62 F 4 24,400 1.05 F
2
48. `Archibald Ave from 4th St to 6th Sf, Arterial Arterial 4 33,530, 1.16 F 4 41,990 1.45 F
49. Archibald Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Arterial 4 29,870 1.03 F 4 37,010 1.28 F
50. Archibald Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Arterial 4 24,830 0.86 D 4 .31,910 1.10 •, F
51. Archibald Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial 4 25,830 0.89 D 4 30,130 1.04 F
52. Archibald Ave from Base Line Rd to 19th St Arterial Arterial 4 23,140 0.80 C 4` 25,070 0.87 D
53. Archibald Ave from 19th St to Wilson Ave Arterial Arterial 4 13,080 0.45 A 4 73,190 a46 A
54. Haven Ave from 4th St to 6th Si Arterial Transit Corridor 6 48,250 0.86 D 6 561660_ 1.01 F
SS. Haven Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Transit Corridor 6 47,260 0.84 D 6 59,790 1.07 F
56. Haven Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Transit Corridor 6 37,950 0.68 B 6 44,730 0.80 C
57. Haven Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Transit Corridor 6 33,630 0.60 A 6 38,950 0.70 B
58. Haven Ave from Base Line Rd to 19th St Arterial Transit Corridor 6 33,640 0.60 A 6 38,890 0.69 B
59. Haven Ave from 19th St to Wilson Ave Arterial Transit Corridor 6 36,080 0.64 B 6 38,230 0.68 B
60. Milliken Ave from 4th Stto 6th St Arterial Arterial 6 38,480 0.69 B 6 50,800 0.91 D
61. Milliken Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Arterial 6 36,330 0.65 B 6 41,420 0.74 C
Jason Welday
May 7,2021
Page 7 of 9
Existing General Plan
Existing General Plan
Roadway5egginent _ ��,
Typology Typology
uF.
Lanes` ADT V/C LOt Lanes ADT V/G CQS
Varies
62. Milliken Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Arterial from 7 to 30,370 0.54 A 6 38,950 0.70 B
6
Varies
63. Milliken Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial from 7 to 24,310 0.43 A 6 34,360 0.61 B
6
Varies
64. Milliken Ave from Base Line Rd to Wilson Ave Arterial Arterial from 6 to 17,150 0.46 A 4 20,810 0.56 A
2
Varies
65. Day Creek Blvd from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial from 7 to 21,030 0.38 A 4 25,190 0.67 B
6
Varies
66. Day Creek Blvd from Base Line Rd to Banyan St Arterial Arterial from 6 to 21,500 0.57 A 4 26,510 0.71 B
4
67. Etiwanda Ave from 4th St to 6th St Arterial Arterial 4 31,410 1.09 F 4 45,550 1.58 F
Varies
68. Etiwanda Ave from 6th St to Arrow Rte Arterial Arterial from 4 to 22,790 1.22 F 4 36,940 1.28 F
2
69. Etiwanda Ave from Arrow Rte to Foothill Blvd Arterial Arterial 4 22,580 0.78 C 4 31,530 1.09 F
- Varies
70. Etiwanda Ave from Foothill Blvd to Base Line Rd Arterial Arterial from 4 to 11,720 ., 0.63 B 4 22,790 0.79 C
2
71. Etiwanda Ave from Base Line Rd to Wilson Ave Collector Collector . . 2 7,340 0.49 A 2 11,400 0.76 C
Jason Welday
May 7,2021
Page 8 of 9
Roadway Segment
Foisting General Plan Existing General Plan
Typology Typology ;;Lanes ADT EV/C] LOS Lanes ADT Vi /C
Source. Highway Capacity Manual 61h Edition(transportation Research Board,201 Fehr&Peers,2021.
Notes:
1. Roadways operating above capacity at LOS F are shown in bold.
2. Roadways with varying number of lanes across a segment are shown with the V/C ratio and LOS reflecting the capacity at the narrowest point of the roadway.
3. Roadways with an odd number of lanes are shown with the V/C ratio and LOS reflecting the capacity at the closest capacity.For example,roadways with 3 lanes are
shown as having the capacity of a 2-lane roadway of that classification.
4. Italics indicates roadways where lane reductions could be considered.
Jason Welday
May 7,2021
Page 9 of 9
Roadway segments projected to have 20,000 ADT or less and are 4 lanes would be considered good
candidates to consider for future road diets.Candidates for road diets would be:
Wilson Avenue between Carnelian Street and Haven Avenue,and between Milliken Avenue and City
Limits (note:Wilson Avenue is 2 lanes between Haven Avenue and Milliken Avenue).
Church Street from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue
6th Street from City limits to Haven Avenue
Archibald Avenue from 19th Street to Wilson Avenue
If you have any questions, please contact us at 949-308-6300.
EXHIBIT B
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Exhibit "B"
FY2024/25 Major Projects
Program Supplemental Project
Listing
Activities
During Estimated Expenditures
Project Plan Period ' FY2024/25 FY2025126 FY2026/27 FY2027128 FY2028/29 FY2029130
Transportation Im pact Fee 124)
6th Street at BNSF Spur Crossing D, C $46,600 $302,500 $165,000 $403,500
Adv Traffic Mgmt System- Phase 2 D, C $9,754,260
Adv Traffic Mgmt System Program D, C $500,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Etiwanda East Side Widening D, C $1,370,000
Etiwanda Creek Bridges Project D, C $1,200,000 $12,000,000
Whittram Extension -W/O Etiwanda DEV $15,000,000
Wilson & Day Creek Channel Bridge DEV $4,300,000
Wilson Extension W/O-Day Creek Blvd DEV $4,500,000
Totals $9,800,860 $3,372,500 $17,165,000 $14,203,500 $5,000,000 $20,000,000
EXHIBIT C
AMENDMENTS TO MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Exhibit "C"
Transportation-North Zone
Impact Fee Admin.Fee Total Impact
Development Type Unit (Nexus Study) 2.5% Fee
Residential,Single Family Detached SF $4.05 $0.101 $4.151
Residential,Single Family Detached-HQTA SF $2.84 $0.071 $2.911
Residential,Single Family Attached SF $4.55 $0.114 $4.664
Residential,Single Family Attached-HQTA SF $3.19 $0.080 $3.270
Residential,Multi-Family(Low-Rise) SF $4.26 $0.107 $4.367
Residential,Multi-Family(Low-Rise)-HQTA SF $2.98 $0.075 $3.055
Residential,Multi-Family(Mid-Rise) SF $2.87 $0.072 $2.942
Residential,Multi-Family(Mid-Rise)-HQTA SF $2.01 $0.050 $2.060
Senior Housing Bed $4,626.00 $115.650 $4,741.650
Nursing/Congregate Care Bed $2,372.00 $59.300 $2,431.300
Commercial/Retail KSF $19,466.00 $486.650 $19,952.650
Office/Business Park KSF $11,636.00 $290.900 $11,926.900
Industrial KSF $5,227.00 $130.675 $5,357.675
Warehouse KSF $6,913.00 $172.825 $7,085.825
Hotel/Motel Room $8,576.00 $214.400 $8,790.400
Elementary School Student $2,437.00 $60.925 $2,497.925
Day Care Student $4,390.00 $109.750 $4,499.750
Self-Storage KSF $1,556.00 $38.900 $1,594.900
Service Station Pump $90,471.00 $2,261.775 $92,732.775
Notes
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 31 st 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.
HQTA-High Quality Transit Area
Exhibit "C"
Transportation-Central Zone
Impact Fee Admin.Fee Total Impact
Development Type Unit (Nexus Study) 2.5% Fee
Residential,Single Family Detached SF $5.88 $0.147 $6.027
Residential,Single Family Detached-HQTA SF $4.12 $0.103 $4.223
Residential,Single Family Attached SF $6.61 $0.165 $6.775
Residential,Single Family Attached-HQTA SF $4.63 $0.116 $4.746
Residential,Multi-Family(Low-Rise) SF $6.18 $0.155 $6.335
Residential,Multi-Family(Low-Rise)-HQTA SF $4.33 $0.108 $4.438
Residential,Multi-Family(Mid-Rise) SF $4.17 $0.104 $4.274
Residential,Multi-Family(Mid-Rise)-HQTA SF $2.92 $0.073 $2.993
Senior Housing Bed $6,722.00 $168.050 $6,890.050
Nursing/Congregate Care Bed $3,447.00 $86.175 $3,533.175
Commercial/Retail KSF $28,284.00 $707.100 $28,991.100
Office/Business Park KSF $16,907.00 $422.675 $17,329.675
Industrial KSF $7,596.00 $189.900 $7,785.900
Warehouse KSF $10,044.00 $251.100 $10,295.100
Hotel/Motel Room $12,462.00 $311.550 $12,773.550
Elementary School Student $3,540.00 $88.500 $3,628.500
Day Care Student $6,379.00 $159.475 $6,538.475
Self-Storage KSF $2,262.00 $56.550 $2,318.550
Service Station Pump $131,457.00 $3,286.425 $134,743.425
Notes
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 31 st 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.
HQTA-High Quality Transit Area
Exhibit "C"
Transportation-South Zone
Impact Fee Admin.Fee Total Impact
Development Type Unit (Nexus Study) 2.5% Fee
Residential,Single Family Detached SF $5.36 $0.134 $5.494
Residential,Single Family Detached-HQTA SF $3.75 $0.094 $3.844
Residential,Single Family Attached SF $6.02 $0.151 $6.171
Residential,Single Family Attached-HQTA SF $4.21 $0.105 $4.315
Residential,Multi-Family(Low-Rise) SF $5.64 $0.141 $5.781
Residential,Multi-Family(Low-Rise)-HQTA SF $3.95 $0.099 $4.049
Residential,Multi-Family(Mid-Rise) SF $3.80 $0.095 $3.895
Residential,Multi-Family(Mid-Rise)-HQTA SF $2.66 $0.067 $2.727
Senior Housing Bed $6,127.00 $153.175 $6,280.175
Nursing/Congregate Care Bed $3,142.00 $78.550 $3,220.550
Commercial/Retail KSF $25,782.00 $644.550 $26,426.550
Office/Business Park KSF $15,411.00 $385.275 $15,796.275
Industrial KSF $6,924.00 $173.100 $7,097.100
Warehouse KSF $9,156.00 $228.900 $9,384.900
HoteUMotel Room $11,359.00 $283.975 $11,642.975
Elementary School Student $3,227.00 $80.675 $3,307.675
Day Care Student $5,815.00 $145.375 $5,960.375
Self-Storage KSF $2,061.00 $51.525 $2,112.525
Service Station Pump $119,826.00 $2,995.650 $122,821.650
Notes
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 31 st 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.
HQTA-High Quality Transit Area
y