HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-131 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 06-131
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
PLANNED PARK LAND ACREAGE, RESIDENTIAL LAND
VALUES, AND AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CALCULATING LAND DEDICATION AND IN-
LIEU FEE REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 16.32
OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
A. RECITALS.
(i) Chapter 16.32 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes a formula to calculate required park land dedication and in-lieu
fees for subdivisions, based on the following components: planned park
acreage per 1,000 residents; average residential densities based on
Federal Census data;,arld the fair market value of park land per acre, all as
determined by Resolution of the City Council in accordance with
Government Code Section 66477.
(ii) The City Council has heretofore caused a comprehensive study to be
conducted In order to determine the component values referred to in Recital
(i), above.
(iii) On April 19, 2006, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
concerning the planned park acreage per 1000 residents, residential
densities and fair market values established herein.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution, are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby approves and adopts that certain study
dated January 16, 2006, and conducted by TischlerBise
Consultants ("the Study"), including all determinations set forth
therein. A full, true and correct copy the Study is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated by reference herein. All
determinations, values and densities hereinafter established are
based upon the Study.
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 2 of 28
SECTION 3: Utilizing the procedures in Government Code Section 66477(a)(2),
the City Council hereby finds that the City of Rancho Cucamonga
has an existing ratio of 3.17 acres of park land for each 1000 city
residents. The public interest, convenience, health, welfare and
safety require that 3.17 acres of park land for each 1000 new
subdivision residents be devoted to neighborhood and community
park and recreational purposes. Based upon the foregoing, the
City Council hereby adopts 3.17 acres of park land property
("planned park land acreage') as the standard for calculation of
park land dedication and in-lieu fee requirements pursuant to
Chapter 16.32 of Title 16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code.
SECTION 4: The City Council hereby establishes the average cost per acre to
acquire park land by land use designation, in Rancho
Cucamonga, for the purpose of implementing Chapter 16.32 of the
Municipal Code as follows:
Zoning Value
District er Acre
Very Low Residential $ 400,000
Low Residential $ 450,000
The City utilizes these two zoning district types based upon a
determination that all future park sites will be located within these
residential areas. Utilizing said figures, the City Council hereby
establishes the average cost of land suitable for park land as
$425,000 per acre.
SECTION 5: The City Council hereby establishes, based on 2000 Federal
Census data, the average residential density by dwelling type for
the purpose of implementing Chapter 16.32 of the Municipal
Code, as follows:
Type of Dwelling Avg Pop
per DU
Single-Family Detached 3.29
Single-Family Attached 2.38
Duplex 2.74
Multiple 3-4 2.72
Multiple 5-9 1.90
Multiple 10+ 2.07
Mobile Home 2.00
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility 1.00
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 3 of 28
SECTION 6: The planned park acreage, average cost per acre to acquire park
land, and average residential density as determined by this
Resolution shall apply to subdivisions of 51 lots or greater. The
terms of payment and procedures are outlined in Section
16.32.030 of Chapter 16.32 of Title 16 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code. The planned park acreage, land values, and
densities established in this Resolution supersede and replace
any such prior determinations.
SECTION 7: In accordance with Government Code Section 66477(a)(2)(A)(5),
the City Council hereby finds that the amount and location of land
to be dedicated and/or the fees to be paid by application of the
values established herein, in conjunction with the formulas
established in Chapter 16.32 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park
and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of each affected
subdivision.
SECTION 8: This Resolution shall not take effect until Ordinance No. 759
becomes operative.
SECTION 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
please see the following page
for formal adoption,certification and signatures
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 4 of 28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1g1 day of April 2006.
AYES: Alexander, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: Gutierrez
ABSTAINED: None
William J. Alex and , Mayor
ATTEST:
L
ebra J. AtCMC, City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting
of said City Council held on the 1 gch day of April 2006.
Executed this 20`h day of April 2006, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
L —�'
¢i
ebra J. A(!/n6, CIVIC, City Clerk
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 5 of 28
ATTACHMENT"A"
Park Impact Fee Study
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California
January 16, 2006
Prepared by:
TschlerOse
Fiscal,Emnomfl.&Planning C.n,Wtam,
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 6 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Table of Contents
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................................2
ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................................3
LEGALFRAMEWORK.............................................................................................................. 3
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY.............................................. 6
Parks........................................................................................................................................................8
STUDYAREA................................................................................................................................ 8
DEMAND VARIABLE AND METHODOLOGY...............................................................8
PARKLAND—MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS...........................................................................:.10
Parkland(Major Sub&vitioas)—LOS Aw#si............................................................................................................10
Parkland(Major Sub&oisiow)—Coit Ana§sir............................................................................................................13
PARKAMENITIES....................................................................................................................14
Park Amenities(Minor Sub&outons andNon-fub&ninon Projeetr)—LOS Anal#sir..................................................14
Park Amenikes(Minor Subdioisiow andNon-Sub&vision Peojerk)—Cort Anaysis...................................................15
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES..............................................................................................16
Remational Fakbties(MinorSubGbisions and Non-mbdwiron prvjerk)—LOSAnalysir...........................................16
Runakond Faeibkei(Minor Subdebiuon,and Non-subanwan pryera)—CnstAna&is.............................._............17
PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE..................................................................................................... 17
PARK IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE...............................................................................19
Appendix 1: Implementation and Administration.................................................................................21
ADOPTION.................................................................................................................................21
ADMINISIRATION..................................................................................................................21
2
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 7 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Executive Summary
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has retained TischlerBise to prepare this study to update the
City's Park Impact Fees. This report documents the data, methodology, and results of the
fee study. Impact fees are one-time payments used to fund system improvements needed to
accommodate development. As documented in this report, the methods used to calculate
impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees,
including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution,and the California
Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., including the Quimby Act
(Government Code Section 66477).
LEGAL F AM .WORK
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions,including impact
fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for
public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the
imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation,
provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply
with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially
advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the
protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not
detrimental to the quality of essential public services.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees,although other rulings on
other types of exactions (e.g. land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most
important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency
imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the
exaction and the interest being protected (See Nollan P. California Coastal Commiition, 1987).
In a more recent case (Dolan u. City of Tigard, OR, 1994),the Court ruled that an exaction also
must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan
decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than
for monetary exactions such as impact fees. Constitutional issues related to impact fees will
be discussed in more detail below.
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local
governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police
power is the source of authority for a wide range of regulations, including the authority to
impose impact fees on development to pay for infrastructure and capital facilities. Some
impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without
voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA, which was added by Proposition 13 in 1978.
That objection is valid only if the fees exceed the cost of providing capital facilities needed
to serve new development. If that were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of the
U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added by
Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some "property-related fees," but
exempt"the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development."
The Mitigation Fee Act. California's impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600
during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added
several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time
the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled
3
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 8 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
the "Mitigation Fee Act." Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report
are from the Government Code.
The Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be
charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public
services and community arnetdties." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the
Mitigation Fee Act,other provisions of the Government Code(see Section 65913.8)prohibit
the use of impact fees for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently,the fees calculated
in this report are based on capital costs only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term "mitigation fee" except in its official title.
Nor does it use the more common term"impact fee." The Act simply uses the:word "fee,"
which is defined as "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, ... that is
charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development
project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to
the development project ...... To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses
the widely-accepted term "impact fee," which should be understood to mean "fee" as
defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing
impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the
collection and expenditure of fees, and require annual reports and periodic re-evaluation of
impact fee programs. "Those administrative requirements are discussed in the
Implementation Chapter of this report. Certain fees or charges related to development are
exempted from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Among them are fees in lieu of
park land dedication as authorized by the Quimby Act (Section 66477), fees collected
pursuant to a reimbursement agreement or developer agreement, and fees for processing
development applications.
Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or
imposing impact fees,must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee;and,
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed;and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project. (Applies only upon imposition of fees.)
Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The
specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund the constmetion of certain
capital improvements identified in this report. Those improvements are needed to tnitigate
the impacts of additional development in the City, and thereby prevent deterioration in
public services that would result from additional development if impact fee revenues were
4
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 9 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
not available to fund such improvements. Findings with respect to the purpose of a fee
should state the purpose of the fees as financing development-related public facilities in a
broad category,such as street improvements or water supply system improvements.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to finance
public facilities,those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used
for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a
Specific Plan, or in other public document. Impact fees calculated in this study are based on
specific capital facilities identified in this report. We recommend that this report be
designated as the public document identifying the use of the fees.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that,
for fees subject to its provisions,a 'reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is
imposed;and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed.
These three reasonable relationship requirements as defined in the statute are closely related
to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of
state courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the
standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U. S.
Constitution, we prefer a formulation that recognizes three elements: "impact or need"
"benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the
fust two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by
the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case.
The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the rational
nexus standard used by many courts. Of course, the higher standard controls. We will use
the nexus terminology in this report for two reasons: because it is more concise and
descriptive, and also to signify that the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study
are intended to satisfy the more demanding constitutional standard. Individual elements of
the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Im act. All new development in a community creates additional
demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of
facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand,the quality or availability of public
_ services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the
cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a
consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the
principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the
developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees.
In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of
quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific
facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all information
needed to demonstrate this element of the nexus.
Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee
revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the
5
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 10 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,20)6
fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by
the fees must serve the development paying the fees. Nothing in the U.S.Constitution or
California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available excluJitell
to development paying the fees.
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation
Fees Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or refunded.
All of those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact
fees they are required to pay. Thus,an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural
as well as substantive issues.
Demonstrating Pmportlonality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the
impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case
(although the relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically
necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures
used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate
impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development In this study, the
demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of
development. For example, the need for road improvements is measured by die number of
vehicle trips generated by development.
In calculating impact fees,costs for development-related facilities are allocated in proportion
to the service needs created by different types and quantities of development. The following
section describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees in ways
that meet the proportionality standard.
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. It is important to note that impact fees calculated
using the cost recovery method (described below) may be used to pay for existing facilities,
provided that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the
capacity to do so. In other words,such fees must satisfy the same nexus requirements as any
other impact fee.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a
particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements
for the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a
particular situation, and to some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate
facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps:
determining the cost of development-related capital improvements, and allocating those
costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of
impact fees .can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in
defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following
paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods
can be applied.
Plan-Based Impact Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a
specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements
6
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 11 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
are identified by a facility plan and the development is identified by a land use plan. In this
method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per
unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand
per unit of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area) in each category
to arrive at a cost per unit of development.
The plan-based method is often the most workable approach where actual service usage is
difficult to measure (as is the case with administrative facilities), or does not directly drive the
need for added facilities (as is the case with fire stations). It is also useful for facilities, such
as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand. This method is
relatively inflexible in the sense that it is based on the relationship between a particular
facility plan and a particular land use plan. If either plan changes significantly, the fees
should be recalculated.
Cost Recovery Impact Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is
that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of
facilities from which new growth will benefit. To calculate an impact fee using the cost
recovery approach, facility cost is divided by ultimate number of demand units the facility
will serve.
Incremental Expansion Impact Fee Calculation. The incremental expansion method
documents the current level-of-service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both
quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard such as square
feet per capita or park acres per capita. The level-of-service standards are determined in a
manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance
companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, Rancho Cucamonga will not use
the funds for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, the City will use the
impact fee revenue to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate
new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities
that will be expanded in regular increments,with LOS standards based on current conditions
in the community. In this study, the incremental expansion method is used for all
components of the parks and recreation impact fee.
All costs in the impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation
rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual
evaluation and update of impact fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction
costs by means of an index like the one published by Engineering News Record (ENR).
This index could be applied against the calculated impact fees. If cost estimates change
significantly,the fees should be recalculated.
7
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 12 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
Parks
This chapter presents the methodology used to update the 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga
Park Impact Fees. Based on discussions with City staff, major subdivisions of more than 50
parcels will be assessed a parkland in-lieu fee and minor subdivisions of 50 cr less parcels
will be assessed a park improvement impact fee.
The parkland in-lieu fee is governed by the State's Quimby Act.When acquiring parkland as
a condition of development approval, the Act allows the City to require either dedication of
land or payment of in-lieu fees based on the value of the land. The Act applies to
subdivisions of more than 50 parcels.Smaller projects (50 parcels or less)will be assessed the
park improvement impact fee,which includes park amenities and recreational facilities.
STUDY AREA
The study area for this update is the City of Rancho Cucamonga.As the City's parks all have
attributes that serve the City as a whole, impact fees are calculated on a citywide basis. The
City's existing and planned parks are well distributed throughout the City and it is assumed
that future parks will be sited so that all existing and new city residents will have reasonable
access to City parks.
DEMAND VARi .F AND M THODO O Y
The demand for parks is considered a function of population. In 2003, the California
Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit estimated population for the City of
Rancho Cucamonga at 146,700, a 15% increase from the 2000 Census. In 2005, the State
estimates a population of 161,830, an increase of 10%since 2003.As shown in Figures 1 and
2, all park capital costs are allocated to residential development only and standards are
shown on a per capita basis.
Figure 1:Parkland In-Lieu Fee Methodology Chart
Residential Development
Persons Per Housing Unit
multiplied by
Parkland Capital Cost Per Petson
8
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 13 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Figure 2: Park Improvement Impact Fee Methodology Chart
Residential Development
Persons Per Housing Unit
multiplied by
Capital Cost Per Person
Park Amenities
Cost Per Person
Recreational Facilities
Cost Per Person
The incremental expansion, or standards-based, methodology is used to calculate this fee.
The incremental expansion method documents the current level-of-service (LOS) for the
selected public facilities,based on current service standards such as park acres per capita or
recreational facility square feet per capita.
Persons per housing unit is used to differentiate the demand for parks by type of housing.
Figure 3 illustrates persons per housing unit in Rancho Cucamonga by housing type as
reported in the 2000 Census. For nursing/assisted living facilities, this figure is not available
through the Census. When calculating the impact fees,TischlerBise conservatively estimates
one person per nursing/assisted living facility room or unit.
9
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 14 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study- January 16,2006
Figure 3: Persons Per Housing Unit in Rancho Cucamonga
Combined Renterand Droner
Unite inPersons Vacant Total Pers
rson:
stromne eons Households t: �UNts Flea units 1
Household Hill=t
1 demched(SFD) %,2631 28,6621 3.36 62 29'a 129
1 attached(SFA) 6,037 2,444 1 2.9 ;»g
2 M91 229 1 2.83 1 23 274
34 4,25 1,532 2.78 r 272
5_9 9,711 2,321 2.03 16 290
10-19 2,921 1,334 2.19 11
202
20-09 771 297 243 3 33 215
5D+ 6,210 2820 2.20 1 Z ;,Oq
Mobile Home(MH) 2,705 ],317 205
Other 39 M 1.95 2 1%
Total SP35ample DaG 124,509 4%976 3.04 1,253 I2.95
SR IMI'mcent Data 124,117 4%863 92,134
2.97% Vacancy Ram
2000 Penume Per Housing Unit by Honing Type
Persom Households PPPVac_ent Total PPHV lise unit Mie
Flse Ur_b He,Um
Engle Family Detached 96,263 28,662 3.36 624 29,286 329 69%
Single Family Attached 6,037 2,449 2.47 99 2,538 238 6%
Duple* 649 229 2.0 8 237 274 1%
Multiple 3-4 4,252 1,532 278 29 1,561 zn 4%
Multiple 5-9 4,711 2,321 203 161
2,482 1.90 6%
Multiple 1M 9ps3 4,951 221 299 4,750 207 11%
Mobile Home 2,705 1,317 205 38 1,355 2.00 3%
other 39 20 1.95 0 2D 195 0%
TOTALL.Gnmp Quarters 124509
42,209 295 100X
Group Quarters 3,626
Sample Difference (113) (95)
TOFAL 128,135
moo U.S..neer
p RKLAND-MAJOR SURD VISIO T (MORE THAN 50 PARCELS)
The Quimby Act provides that a City may require residential subdividers to dedicate land for
future parks or to pay fees in lieu of dedication. The Acts states that requirements for land
dedication or in-heu fees are to be based on a population ratio of 3.0 to 5.0 acres per
thousand added residents, depending on the existing ratio.
The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this in-lieu fee. The first step
of calculating the incremental expansion methodology measures the current level-of-service
(LOS) being provided to existing development. The second step involves determining the
cost per person to provide this LOS.
Parkland(Major Subditirions)-LOS Analyri.r
Figure 4 lists the City of Rancho Cucamonga's community, neighborhood and undeveloped
parkland, totaling 405 acres. The Quimby Act requires that the level-of-service calculation
be based on the City's population from the most recent Census. Therefore the 2000 Census
population of 127,743 is used. Since residential development creates 100% of the demand
for parkland, the residential proportionate share factor is 100%. To calculate the current
parkland LOS, the total park acreage of 405 acres is multiplied by a residential demand of
10
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 15 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
100%.That number, 405, is divided by the 2000 Census population of 127,743. This results
in 3.17 acres parkland per 1,000 persons or .00317 acre per person. According to the
Quimby Act, the City is authorized to base its dedication/in-lieu fee requirement on this
ratio,as it does not exceed five acres per thousand residents.
11
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 16 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Figure 4: Parkland LOS Standards
11 of Acquisition Acquisition
Park acres CosUArre' Cost
Community Parks
Etiwanda Creek Park 12 $425,000 $5,100,000
Heritage Community Park 40 $425,000 $17,000,000
Red Hill Community Park 44 $425,000 $18,700,000
Sports Complex 42 $425,000 $17,850,000
Central Park 20 $475,000 $8,300,000
Neighborhood Parks
Bear Gulch Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Beryl Park East 10 $425,000 $4,250,000
Beryl Park West 10 $425,000 $4250,000
Church Street Park 6.5 $425,000 $2,762,500
Coyote Canyon Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Day Creek Park 11 $425,000 $4,675,000
Ellena Park 5 S425000 $2,125,000
Golden Oak Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Hermosa Park 10 $425,000 $4,750,000
Kenyon Park 6.5 $425,000 $2,762,500
La Mission Park-Ralph M.Lewis 8 $425,000 $3,400,000
Lions Park 1.5 $425,000 $637500
Milliken Park 10 $425,000 $4,250,000
Old Town Park 5 $475,000 $2,125,000
Spruce Ave.Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Victoria Grove Park 6.5 $425,000 $2,762,500
Vintage Park 6.5 $425,000 $2,762,500
West Greenway Park 5 $175,000 $2,125,000
Windrows Park 8 $425,000 $3,400,000
Mountain View Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Victoria Arbors Park 8 $475,000 $3,400,000
Undeveloped Parkland
Central Park 83 $475,000 $35,275,000
Etiwanda Creek Park 16 $425,000 $6,800,000
South Etiwanda 5.5 $425,000 $2,337500
TOTAL 405 $172,125,000
12
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 17 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Proportionate Share
Residential 100%
Demand Units
Population(2000) 127,743
LOS
Acres per person .00317
Acres per 1,000 persons 3.17
*Source:City of Rambo Cucamonga,bared on study conducted by J. Wilhum Muryby and Associates
Parkland(Major SubdinirionrJ—Cort Analyrix
The City estimates it costs $425,000 to acquire an acre of residential land for parkland. This
estimate is based on an August 1, 2005 appraisal study conducted by J. William Murphy and
Associates expressly for this purpose. The study presents an estimated value per acre for
undeveloped land in each of the City's residential land use zones.The City anticipates that in
the future it will acquire land in the areas zoned "very low" and `low" density. Therefore,
the midpoint of these two appraisal values is wed - $425,000 C very low" density had an
estimated value of$400,000 and "low" density a value of$450,000). Using this figure, the
total acquisition cost is $172,125,000 for 405 acres (405 acres x $425,000 = $172,125,000).
As shown in Figure 5, the total cost per person to provide additional parkland for new
residential development is $1,347.43. This is calculated by multiplying the current LOS of
.00317 acre per person by$425,000 per acre(00317 x$425,000= $1,347.43).
13
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 18 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Figure 5: Parkland Cost Standards (Subdivisions)
Level of Service
Acres per person .00317
Acres per 1,000 persons 3.17
Cost Factor
Cost per acre $425,000
Cost
Per Person $1,347.43
PARK AMENITIES (MINOR SUBDIVISIONS OF 50 OR LESS
PARCELS.AND NON-SUBDIVSION PROJECTS)
The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the park amenities component
of the Parks Improvement Impact Fee. The first step of calculating the incremental
expansion methodology measures the current level-of-service (LOS) being provided to
existing development. The second step involves determining the cost per person to provide
this LOS.
Park Ameniker(Minor Subdivisions and Non-Subdivision PmjeetrJ—LOSAnalysis
Figure 6 summarizes the acreage for the City's two developed park categories--community
and neighborhood — and provides the City's estimated cost per acre for park amenities.
Undeveloped park land is not included in this section as no amenities are provided on these
sites. The City estimates a cost of$400,000/acre for its prototype community park, which
typically include restroom facilities, play area/tot lot, exercise/jogging course, group picnic
shelter, 2 full basketball courts, 3 lighted ballfields and on-site parking. The City estimates a
cost of $300,000 an acre for neighborhood parks that typically include restrooms, 160'
unlighted ballfield, play area/tot lot, exercise/jogging course, 1 full basketball court, picnic
shelter with tables and barbeque grills and on-site parking. As neighborhoodparks offer
amenities that are accessed by residents throughout the City,particularly for ballfields, these
parks are considered as serving the entire City. Of the City's developed park acreage,
community and neighborhood parks represent 158 and 142.50 acres,respectively.
Since residential development creates 100% of the demand for park amenities, a residential
proportionate share factor of 100% is used. To calculate the current park amenities LOS,
300.50 developed acres is multiplied by 100% residential demand. That number, 300.50, is
divided by 161,830 persons.This results in .00186 developed acres per person.
14
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 19 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Figure 6: Park Amenities LOS Standards
Acres Unit Total
replacement replacement
Park Type cost* cost
Community Park 158.00 $400,000 $63,200,000
Neighborhood Park 142.50 $300,000 $42,750,000
TOTAL 300.50 $105,950,000
Proportionate Share
Residential 100%
Demand Units 2005
Population 161,830
LOS
Developed acres per person .00186
*Sourre:GO of Rancho Cucamonga
Park Amenities(Minor Subdivirions and Nan-Subdivision Projects)—Cort Analyst
As shown in Figure 6, the City estimates the current inventory of park amenities to have a
total replacement value of$105,950,000. As shown in Figure 7, this results in an average
amenity cost of$352,579 per acre ($105,950,000 / 300.5 acres = $352,579 per acre). The
cost per person is calculated by multiplying the current LOS of.00186 developed acres per
person by the amenity cost of$352,579 per acre which results in a cost factor of$654.70 per
person.
Figure 7: Park Amenities Cost Standards
Level of Service
Developed acres per person .00186
Cost Factor
Cost of amenities/acre $352,579
Cost
Per Person $654.70
15
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 20 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,20G6
REC RATION i FACILITIES ITIES (Myron SUBDIVISIONS OF 50 OR
LESS PARCEL AND NQN-SU DIVS10N PROD CI )
The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the recreational facilities
component of the Park Improvement Impact Fee. The City will use the impact fees to
provide new/expanded facilities of a similar type. The fust step of calculating the
incremental expansion methodology measures the current level-of-service (LOS) being
provided to existing development. The second step involves determining the cost per
person to provide this LOS. -
Reemational Facilities(Minor Subdivisions and Nan-mbdt'virion projects)—IAS Ana!yris
Figure 8 lists the City's recreational facilities. As residential development creates 100% of
the demand for recreational facilities, a residential proportionate share factor of 100% is
used. To calculate the current recreational facilities LOS, 167,895 square feet of recreational
facility space is multiplied by 100%residential demand. That number, 167,895,is divided by
161,830 persons.This results in 1.037 square feet per person.
Figure 8: Recreational Facilities LOS Standards
Facility" Square Replacement Cost Replacement
Feet Per Sq.FL* Cost*
Lions West Community Center 101228 $439 $4,487,223
Lions East Community Center 12,000 $439 $5,261,634
RC Family Sports Center 34,000 $439 $14,916,464
Central Park Community Center 57,000 $371 $21,172,650
Heritage Park Equestrian Center 3,045 $439 $1,335,901
Victoria Gardens Cultural Center 73,850 $506 $37368100
TOTAL 167,895
874,793,132
Proportionate Share
Residential 100%
Demand Units
Population 161,830
LOS
Square feet per person 1.037
*Sounr:City of Ramcbe Cucamonga
**Neighborbood Center/orated at 9791 Avow Highway(Former Senior Center)Aar not been included in the 4a of"makonat
faabtiex pending jurtherpahg dermonr on use andf,nt disposition of this facilit,to be determined by the City Caanm[
16
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 21 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Recreational Facilities (Minor Subdivisions and Non-subdivision projects)—Cost Analysis
As shown in Figure 8, the City estimates its recreational facilities have a total replacement
value of$74,793,132 or an average replacement cost of$445.48/square foot.' The cost per
person is shown in Figure 9 and is calculated by multiplying the current LOS of 1.037 square
feet per person by the average cost per square foot of$445.48 which results in a cost factor
of$462.17 per person.
Figure 9: Recreational Facilities Cost Standards
Level of Service
Square feet per person 1.037
Cost Factor
Cost Per Square Foot $445.48
Cost
Per Person $462.17
PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEESO(F R MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS)
Figure 10 provides a summary of the level of service and cost factors used to calculate the
Parkland In-Lieu Fee for subdivisions of more than 50 parcels.This component of the fee is
assessed on new development when the City opts to require payment in-lieu of land
dedication.
Per Quimby Act requirements, the level of service standard is based on the ratio of current
parkland acreage to the 2000 Census population for the City. This results in 3.17 acres of
parkland per 1,000 persons. Figure 10 shows the capital cost for parkland for subdivisions is
$1,347 per person. Persons per housing unit (or per room for nursing/assisted living
facilities) are multiplied by the capital cost. Using single family housing units as an example,
3.29 persons per housing unit is multiplied by the cost per person. This results in a parkland
in-lieu fee of$4,429 for a single family detached housing unit(3.29 persons per housing unit
X $1,347 capital cost per person = $4,429). This calculation is repeated for the remaining
housing categories.
'Replacement cost per square foot for the recently-constructed Central Park Community Center(May 2005)
and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center(currently under construction)are current construction costs plus
15%for design and construction management.Replacement costs for the other facilities are an estimate based
on the average construction cost pet square foot for the new Central Park and Victoria Gardens Facilities,or
$381.50(($323+$440)/2=$381.50).Fifteen percent is added to this figure to account for design and
construction management,resulting in an estimated replacement cost of$438.72 for the Lions West and Lions
East Community Centers,the RC Family Sports Center and the Heritage Park Equestrian Centex.
17
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 22 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
Figure 10: Parkland In-Lieu Level of Service and Cost Summary (Major Subdivisions)
Standards:
Persons Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached 3,29
Single Family Attached 2.38
Duplex 2.74
Multiple 3-4 2.72
Multiple 5-9 1.90
Multiple 10+ 2.07
Mobile Home 2.00
Persons Per Room
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility 1.00
Leael Of Service
Park Acreage per 1,000 People 3.17
Park Land Cost per Acre $425,000
Park Land Cost per Person $1,347
Capital Cost Per Person $1,347
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $4,429
Single Family Attached $3,205
Duplex
$3,690
Multiple 34
$3,670
Multiple 5-9
$2,558
Multiple 10+
$2,795
Mobile Home $2,690
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility(per room) $1,347
18
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 23 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Pak Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
PARK IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE (MINOR SUBDIVISIONS
AND NON-SUBDIVISION PROJECTS)
Figure 11 provide a summary of the level-of-service and cost factors used to calculate the
Park Improvement Impact Fee for minor subdivisions and non-subdivision projects. This
fee includes capital costs for recreational facilities and park amenities. As the Quimby Act
does not apply to minor subdivisions of 50 parcels or less, the level of service standard is
developed using the 2005 estimated population for the City. Figure 10 shows the capital cost
for park improvements of$1,117 per person. Of this, $462 is for recreational facilities and
$655 for park amenities. Persons per housing unit (or per room or unit for nursing/assisted
living facilities) are multiplied by the capital cost. Using single family housing units as an
example,3.29 persons per housing unit is multiplied by the cost per person. This results in a
park improvement impact fee of $3,671 for a single family detached housing unit (3.29
persons per housing unit x $1,117 capital cost per person = $3,671). This calculation is
repeated for the remaining housing categories.
19
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 24 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamon Clifo
ga, ainto Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Figure 11:Parkland Improvement Impact Fee Level of Service and Cost Summary
(Minor Subdivisions and Non-subdivision projects)
Persons Per Housing Unit Standards:
Single Family Detached 3.29
Single Family Attached 2.38
Duplex
Multiple 3-4 2'74
Multiple 5-9 2.72
Multiple 10+ 1.90
Mobile Home 2'07
Persons Per Roam 2.00
Ntusmg/Assisted Living Facility 1.00
Level Of Service
Recreational Facilities Cost per Person ]$462Pazk Amenities Cost per Person Capital Cost Per Person ,
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $3,671
Single Family Attached 57
$2,6
Duplex $3,657
Multiple 3-4 $3 042
Multiple 5-9 $2,120
Multiple 10+ $2,317
Mobile Home
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility(per room) $2,230117$11,,117117
Developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide
system improvements that have been included in the fee calculation schedule. Project
improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not
eligible for credits against impact fees.
20
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 25 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Append'oc 1: Implementation and Administration
This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of a
impact fee program based on this study,and for the interpretation and application of impact
fees recommended herein. Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of
fees imposed as a condition of development approval are found in the Mitigation Fee Act
(Government Code Sections 66000 et req.).
ADOPTION
The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or
resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Typically,it is desirable that specific
fee schedules be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. Procedures for adoption
of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act,including notice and public hearing requirements,
are specified in Government Code Section 66016. Such fees do not become effective until
60 days after final action by the Governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees
subject to the Mitigation Fee Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code
Section 66001 and discussed in Section 1 of this report summarized below.
ADMINISTRATION
Several requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections
66000 el seq.) address the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and
accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the
following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act,when the City imposes an impact
fee upon a specific development project,it must make findings to
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee;and
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on
which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the
fee is imposed;and
C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost
attributable to the development project.
Most of those findings would normally be based on an impact fee study, and this study is
intended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use
of the fee (2., above) may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or
other public document. This study is intended to serve as a public document identifying the
use of the fees.
21
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 26 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park lmpact Fee Study— January 16,2006
In addition, Section 66006,as amended by SB 1693,provides that a local agency,at the time
it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project,..... shall identify
the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." For each type of fee calculated
in this report, the improvements to be funded by the impact fees are identified.
Consequently, this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute. The
City Attorney should be consulted as to the specific method of notification to be provided.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment
of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs fust. However, "utility service fees" (not
defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development
Project of more than one dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for
individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final
inspection of the first dwelling unit completed.
An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to
reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made,.or for improvements or facilities for
which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction
schedule or plan for the improvement. These restrictions on the time of collection do not
apply to non-residential development.
Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all
facilities at the time budding permits are issued,and builders often find it convenient to pay
the fees at that time. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building
permits, Section 66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a
contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the
fees are paid.
Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a
condition of project approval,to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees
have been,or will be,charged,the impact fee imposed on that development project, for that
type of facility, should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or
improvements. If the reimbursement would exceed the amount of the fee to be paid by the
development for that type of facility, the City may wish to negotiate a reimbursement
agreement with the developer.
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or
intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the
portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities,as measured
by the demand variables used in this study. Since residential service demand i; normally
estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling
unit typically would not be subject to an impact fee if it does not increase the number of
dwelling units in the structure. If a dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact
fee would be charged for the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for
other types of development.
Earmarldng of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited with
other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to
22
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 27 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency,except
for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee
was collected. Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account
and used for the same purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the
improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g.,
street improvements). We are not aware of any city that has interpreted that language to
mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. As a practical matter, that would
make it exceedingly difficult to accumulate enough funds to construct any improvements
ftmded by impact fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for
impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, traffic signals, or park improvements),
but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach.
Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once each year,
within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the
public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee
revenues:
1. The amount of the fee;
2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
3. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
4. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the
amount of the expenditures on each improvement,including the percentage of the
cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
5. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence,if the City determines sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
6. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund,
including interest rates,repayment dates,and a description of the improvement on
which the transfer or loan will be expended;
7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001,
paragraphs (e)and(f).
That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public
meeting,but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public.
Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of Government Code amendments
contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or
commit the fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the
money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed that requirement in
material ways.
Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the fust deposit of any
impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five
23
Resolution No. 06-131
Page 28 of 28
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
Yeats thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue
that remains unexpended,whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put,
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which
it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of
incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete
financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or
fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If
such findings are not made as required by Section 66001,the local agency must refund the
moneys in the account or fund. Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been
collected to complete an incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be
used,it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which
construction of the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply
with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to
procedures specified in the statute.
Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is
not included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time
involved in applying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee revenues and
expenditures,preparing required annual reports, updating the fees, and preparing forms and
public information handouts. We recommend that those costs be included in user fees
charged to applicants for processing development applications.
Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local
agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan most
be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public
hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since
impact fee calculations in this study include costs for future facilities to be funded by impact
fees, we believe it is to the City's advantage to use this report as the public document in
which the use of impact fees is identified. In that event, we believe the City would not be
required to update its CIP annually to satisfy Section 66002.
Indexing of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in
current dollars. Fees should be adjusted.annually to account for construction cost escalation.
The Engineering Nemr Record Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing
the cost of yet to be constructed projects. It is desirable that the ordinance or resolution
establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation.
Updates of This Study. Generally, impact fees should be reviewed and updated about
every five years, unless significant changes in land use or facility plans make it necessary to
update the fees more often.
24