The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About91-092 - Resolutions RESOU3I~ON NO. 91-092 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OOUNCIL OF TKE CITY OF RANCHO ~, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CITY-WIDE TRANSPORtA- TION DEVELO~ ~ FOR ~TI. DEVELOPM~I~PS WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCMO L/3CAMDNGA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted Ordinance No. 445 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging city-wide transportation development fees; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Analysis Nexus Procedure study of tb~ traffic impacts of cont~mpla~ future develc~ on existing public facilities in the City, along with an analysis of the ~ for new public and improvements required by new develo~nent ~as conducted, and said study set forth the relationship between new development, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements. The study, entitled "City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Analysis Nexus Procedure Description", was prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., and is dated March 1991; and WHEREAS, this study was available for public inspection and review fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find as follows: A. The purpose of this fee is to finance transportation improvements to reduce the impacts of traffic caused by new development; and B. The system fee collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finanoe only the public facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A", attached hereto; and C. After considering the study and analysis prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., entitled "City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Analysis Nexus Procedure Description", and the testimony received at this public hearing, the Oouncil approves said, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the new development in the City will generate additional traffic impacts within the City and will contribute to the degradation of the City's D. There is a ~ in the City for thoroughfares and bridges which have not bee__n constructed or have been constructed, but for which new development ham not contributed its fair share towards these facility costs and said facilities have been called for in or are consistent with the City's Circulation Element of its General Plan; and E. ~he facts and evidence presented esemhlish that there is a reasoDahle relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the impacts of the types of development described in paragraph 3 belch, for which the corresponding fee is charged, and also there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of develo~m~_nt for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable relationships of nexus are in more detail described in the study referred to above; and Resolution No. 91-092 Page 2 F. The cost estimates set forth in E~hibit "A" are reaso_r~_~le cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total of these costs. NCW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as foll~s: 1. Definitions: (a) "Development projects', shall mean construction of residential improvements, construction of commercial, industrial, office, or other non-residential improvements, or the addition of floor space to existing improvements. "Development project', includes a project involving the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction. (b) "Exempted development" shall mean a residential addition and the following types of uses: public schools and colleges, public library, churches, parks, County jail, sports complex. (c) "Equivalent dwelling unit (~IN3)" converts all land use units used in calculating the nexus fee obligations into an equivalent unit that enables Nexus fees to be t~_~bulated as dollars per ~DU. The fee for a detached, residential housing unit is equal to the fee for an (d) "Nexus improvement program c~onents.,, The improvement program consists of four cc~ponents; City Backbone, Railroad Crossings, Traffic Signals, and Emerge_nc~ Vehicle Preemption. The individual Nexus fee is sub-divided into these cc~ponents. 2. The Transportation Development Fee shall be paid upon issuance of any building permit. The City Engineer shall determine the fee based upon th~ type of develop. 3. Fee Schedule: Fee Per ~IN3 $1,487 4. ~IN3/Tand Use ~quivalents Land Use ~quivalent (De~nt Traffic Factor~_) Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 1.0 Residential - MUltiple Family Attached Unit 0.6 C~m~rcial - per Thousar~ Square Feet (TSF) 1.5 Office/Business Park - TSF 1.2 Industrial - TSF 0.6 Resolution No. 91-092 Page 3 T and Use ~quivalent (Dependent Traffic Factor) ~DU Special Cases: Hotel/Motel - per Roc~ 0.8 Day Care - per Student 0.25 Hospital - per Bed O.9 Nursing/Congregate Care - per Bed 0.2 Theater/Cinema - per Seat 0.15 Service Station - per Pump 5.0 Car W~.~h - attended 8.3 Self-storage - per Unit 0.02 Golf Course only - per Acre 0.65 5. Use of Fee. The fee shall be solely used to pay (1) for the described public facilities to be constructed by the City; (2) for reimbursing the City for the development's fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City; or (3) to reimburse other developers who have constructed public facilities described in Exhibit "A", where those facilities were beyond that needed to mitigate the impacts of the other developers' project and projects. 6. Deposit of Fees. The Transportation Develolm~ent Fee is c~rised of four cc~ponents. The attached Exhibit "A" that shc~s the r~ed thorough- and Bridges, Railroad Crossings, Traffic Signals, and ~mergency Vehicle Preemption. Each fee component shall be deposited into separate City accounts. The fee components are shown in the referenced traffic study and attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 7. Fee Review. On or about November 15, 1991, and each following year, the ~gineering Division shall review the estimated cost of the described capital improvements, the continued need for those improvements and the reasonable relationship between such r~ and the traffic impacts of the various types of development pending or anticipated and for which this fee is charged. The City Engir~_r shall report the findings to the City Council at a noticed public hearing and rec~u,~nd any adjustment to this fee or other action as may be needed. 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days following passage of Ordinance No. 445. 9. Judicial Action to Challenqe this Resolution. Any judicial action ~m~eeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this resolution shall be k~t within 120 days of is adoption. PASS~D, APPrOVeD, and ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1991. ~solution No. 91-092 Page 4 AYES: Alexander, Buquet, Stout, Williams NOES: None ABSf~T: Wright Dennis L. Stout, Mayor uemra J. ~_~_~, City Clerk I, DFRRA J. ADAMS, CITY ~IFRK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of April, 1991. Executed this 18th day of April, 1991 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. 'D~hra J. Ad ,~, City Clerk - EXHluil "A" - $1REETS AND BR[DGES DESCRIPTION COST [O00s) _ DESCRIPTION Milliken improv. (ASTow lO Foolhdl) 1.6~O - Baseline Improv. (D:,y Creek Channel ID ECL) 1.600 Milliken Improv. (SO from 1/4 mi. N/O Wilson Io Uanyon) 1,990 Cherry Impmv. (I-15 Io Wilson) 1,570 Rochester Impmv. (Baseline ID Highl~mt) 2,820 Church Improv. (E/O Milliken Io Rochmtcr) I,$60 Terra Visla Improv. (MI. View Io Church) 740 Church Improv. (Rochcsler Io Day C~cck) 1,380 Viclona Loop Improv. (Day Creek Io Church) 3,590 Church Improv. (Day C~cck ID Ehssanda) I,S 10 Wardman Bullock Iraprov. (Cherry to Wilson) 2,210 Day Cseek hnprov. (l*,ochcs~cr to SR-30) 11,710 Wdson improv. (1/4 mi. EJO C~rnehan to AJ~cthyst) 1.640 · U. asl Impmv. (Foolh,II ID Summit) 470 Wilson Improv. (Deer Creek to Milliken) 1,210 'E.xsl Improv. (Summ,t ID Wilson) 760 Wdson Improv. (Day Creek to ECL) 3.540 I}liwanda Improv. (.'~TOW Io Footh,ll) SOO bib SI. Improv. (Rochester Io 1-15) 120 I~hwanda lin@roy. (l:~xJIhlll Io ilaschnc) 5 lO blh SI. Improv. (I-15 to Etiwanda) 430 Miller Improv. (Ellwanda ID :L~st) Foolhill Improv. (Rochester to 1-15) 2,460 Milliken Improv. (6th St. lo Jeney) 2,0')0 19th St. Improv. (WCL Io Carnelian) 420 19Ih SI. Improv. (Carnelian Io Amethyst) 1.040 ~ . i.~. 191h SI. Improv. (A~chibald Io Iiaven) 514 19Ih SI. Improv. (Haven ID ltighland) 460 O T0tal Cost : $49,530,000 EXHIBIT "A" - RAILROAD CROSSINGS DESCRIPTION COST (n0~) .. DESCRIPTION COST AT & SF RR ~ng Grade Sepa~lmon (al ~chibald) 5.~0 A'F & SI: ER Xing hnpr~. (al Baker) ~0 SP ER ~ng Impr~. (at Grove) 2~ AT & SF RI( Xing Imptov. (al tlcllman) 350 SP ER Xing Improv. SP RR Xing Imply. SP RR ~n& Improv (a~ Oa~line) I~ AT a SF R[~ Xin8 aL Grade Improv, (a~ Ilavcn) 4~ SP RR Xing Improv. (al ~eth~l) 150 A'F a SF RI~ Xing Grade Scpatal~on (al Ilavcn) 5.840 SP RI~ Xing hnprov (.~l Ramona) 2~ A'[ & SF RI~ xmg Grade Sepal.on (al Milliken) 5.840 SP RI{ ~ng Improv. (al ltc~o~) 350 AT & SE RR Xing Improv. (al I{~h~er) 400 SP RR Xing Improv. (al llavcn) 265 A'F · SF I~i~ ~ng Improv. (al EUwanda) 2')0 SP RI~ Xing Improv. (al Day Creek) 2~ 81h SI. - 2 SF Spun (E/O ~ch~bald) 175 SP RR ~ng Impmv (al [?liwanda) 150 8lb SI. SF Spun (W/O Ilaven} 150 SP RR Xing Improv. ~ 8lb SI. SF Spun (WIO R~h~l~r) 150 ~w - SF Spur (WIO Mdlikcn) 290 ~ 9lb SI. SF Spur (~O Grove) ~ 150 h SI. SF Spur (E/O Sanla ~,la) 150 Je~ SF Spur (W/O Milliken) 290 ~h SI. SF Spur (W/O Total Cost = $28,570,000 Resolution No. 91-092 Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" 99. SUMMIT AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD 100. SUMMIT AND EAST 101. HILLSIDE AND ARCHIBALD 102. WILSON AND ARCHIBALD 103. WILSON AND HERMOSA 104. WILSON AND HAVEN 105. DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND WILSON/SUMMIT 106. WILSON/SUMMIT AND ETIWANDA 107. WILSON/SUMMIT AND EAST 108. WARDMAN-BULLOCK AND WILSON/SUMMIT 109. WILSON/SUMMIT AND CHERRY 110. MILLIKEN AND FAIPJ~ONT WAY 111. HAVEN AND VALENCIA 112. HERMOSA AND LOMITA DRIVE 113. AMETHYST AND MONTE VISTA 114. FOURTH AND LUCAS RANCH ROAD 115. FOURTH AND HERMOSA 116. FOURTH AND CENTER AVENUE 117. FOURTH AND UTICA AVENUE 118. FOURTH AND CLEVELAND AVENUE 119. FOURTH AND VINCENT AVENUE 120. FOURTH AND MILLIKEN AVENUE 121. FOURTH AND PITTSBURG AVENUE 122. FOURTH AND BUFFALO AVENUE 123. FOURTH AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD 124. FOURTH AND SANTA ANITA AVENUE 125. FOURTH AND UNNAMED STREET 126. CHURCH/MILLER AND ETIWANDA 127. DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND UNNAMED STREET 128. CARNELIAN AND WILSON 129. MILLIKEN AND WILSON 130. EAST AND BASE LINE ROAD 131. SIXTH AND £TIWANDA 132. CHURCH/MILLER AND UNNAMED STR£ET ESTIMATED = AV£RAGE COST PER TRAFFIC SIGNAL X TOTAL - S18,q60,OOO Resolution No. 91-092 Page 8 EXHIBIT "A" 50. :OOTHILL'AND ELM ~'. FOOTHILL AND ORCHARD 52 FOOTHILL AND ROCHESTER 53. FOOTHILL AND DAY CREEK 54. CHURCH AND MILLIKEN 55. ROCHESTER AND POPLAR 56. DAY CREEK AND VICTORIA PARK LANE 57. CHURCH AND HELLMAN 58. CHURCH AND HERMOSA 59. CHURCH AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY (WEST) 60. CHURCH AND MILLIKEN 61. CHURCH AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY (EAST) 62. CHURCH AND ROCHESTER 63. CHURCH/MILLER AND VICTORIA LOOP 64. MILLER AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD 65. MILLER AND VICTORIA LODP 66. CARNELIAN AND VIVERO 67. ARCHIBALD AND PALO ALTO 68. HERMOSA AND PALO ALTO 69. MILLIKEN AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY 70. DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND UNNAMED STREET 71. BASE LINE ROAD AND CENTER 72. BASE LINE ROAD AHD DAY CREEK BOULEVARD 73. BASE LINE ROAD A~D HANLEY 74. BASE LINE ROAD AND SWANSON 75. BASE LINE ROAD AND PECAN 76. CARNELIAN AND LAVINE/AVALON 77. BERYL AND CIELITO 78. HERMOSA AND VICTORIA 79. MILLIKEN AND VICTORIA PARK LANE 80. NINETEENTH AND JASPER 81. NINETEENTH AND VINEYARD 82. NINETEENTH AND BERYL 83. NINETEENTH AND HELLMAN 84. NINETEENTH AND RAMONA 85. NINETEENTH AND HERMOSA 86. VICTORIA PARK LANE AND MILLIKEN 87. VICTORIA PARK LANE ANO ROCHESTER 88. VICTORIA PARK LANE ANO OAY CREEK BOULEVARO 89. OAY CREEK 80ULEVARO ANO HIGHLAND 90. VICTORIA AND EAST 91. HIGHLAND AND CARNELIAN 92. LEMON AND HERMOSA 93. VINTAGE AND MILLIKEN 94. VINTAGE AND ROCHESTER 95. BANYAN AND CARNELIAN 96. BANYAN AND ARCHIBALD 97. BANYAN AND HAVEN 98. BANYAN AND MILLIKEN Resolution No. 91-092 Page 9 EXHIBIT "A" - THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES - TRAFFIC SIGNALS WARRANTED BY THE YEAR 2010 TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS 1. ARCHIBALD AND CRESCENT CENTER 2. HAVEN AND FIFTH 3. SIXTH AND AMETHYST 4. SIXTH AND LUCAS RANCH ROAD S. SIXTH AND HEFUqOSA 6. SIXTH AND CENTER 7. SIXTH AND UTICA 8. SIXTH AND CLEVELAND 9. SIXTH AND LINCOLN AVENUE 10. SIXTH AND MILLIKEN 11. SIXTH AND PI1-FSBURG 12. SIXTH AND BUFFALO 13. SEVENTH AND HELLMAN 14. SEVENTH AND ARCHIBALD 15. SEVENTH AND HEFU~OSA 16. SEVENTH AND MILLIKEN 17. SIXTH AND ROCHESTER 18. SIXTH AND DAY CREEK/HYSSOP 19. SIXTH AND SANTA ANITA 20. EIGHTH AND BAKER 21. EIGHTH AND HELLMAN 22. EIGHTH AND ARCHIBALD 23. EIGHTH AND HEPJ~OSA 24. EIGHTH AND CENTER 25. EIGHTH AND HAVEN 26. NINTH AND SIERRA MADRE 27. NINTH AND BAKER 28. NINTH AND FLOWER/LION STREET 29. NINTH AND HELLMAN 30. JERSEY AND HERMOSA 31. JERSEY AND CENTER 32. JERSEY AND MILLIKEN 33. ARROW AND BAKER 34. ARROW AND BEAR GULCH PLACE/LEON 35. ARROW AND RAMONA 36. ARROW AND RED OAK STREET 37. ARROW AND MAPLE 38. ARROW AND MILLIKEN 39. ARROW AND UNNAMED STREET 40. ARROW AND ROCHESTER 41. ARROW AND UNNAMED STREET 42. ARROW AND PECAN AVENUE 43. ARCHIBALD AND PLACER STREET/DEVON 44. HERMOSA AND DEVON 45. MILLIKEN AND UNNAMED STREET 46. ROCHESTER AND UNNAMED STREET 47. FOOTHILL AND BAKER 48. HELLI~AN AND SAN BERNARDINO 49. FOOTHILL AND ~NA EXHIBIT "A' - IHOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES - EMERGENCY VEIIICLE PREEMPTION PHASE PROJECT LOCAIION ESTIMA%ED COST 1. Archibald Ave. at Foothill Blvd. Archibald Ave. at San Bernardino Ave. $16,000 1. Amethyst Ave. at l~th St. Amethyst Ave. at Base Line Road ~20,000 1. Haven Aveune $142,000 I Foothill Boulevard $10~,000 1. Others $30,000 2. Base Line Road ~147,000 2. Milliken ~10,000 2. Others $65,000 5. Archibald Aveune ~8~,000 5. Carnelian/Vineyard Avenues $65,000 5. Others $60,000 4. l~th Street ..~ vvv~=,nn~ :0 4. Highland Avenue $16,000 4. Others $55,000 .~ 5. Arrow Highway $25,000 ~ 'O~AL ESTIMATED COS~ ,8~0,000