Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-040 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 07-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 05-167, REVISING CITY-WIDE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF RECITALS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 445 in March, 1991 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging city-wide transportation development fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore adopted Resolution No. 05-167, establishing city-wide transportation fees as authorized by Ordinance No. 445; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Division is responsible for reviewing the continued need for the described capital improvements, and revising the cost estimates and fees when appropriate; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2007, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the fee revision adopted herein, and WHEREAS, the revised cost estimates and fee calculations applicable to the fee revision herein were available for public inspection and review fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing, and WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the Development Mitigation Program approved by the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that project costs and fees, including transportation development fees, be updated annually; and WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), in its role as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Bernardino County, has reasonably determined a Cost Escalation Factor for certain development fees including transportation development fees, in the amount of 12.9%, per the Caltrans Construction Items Index, as appropriate for the calendar year 2004-2005. All studies and calculations utilized by SANBAG in making said determination are hereby incorporated by reference herein, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find as follows: (a) The purpose of the fee revision herein is to finance transportation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by new development; and Resolution No. 07-040 Page 2 of 12 (b) The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance only the public facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. 05- 167 (referred to as "Exhibit 'A"' herein), which is hereby incorporated by reference herein; 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) The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and the transportation development fees reasonably calculated to be generated by new development will not exceed the total of these costs; and (f) There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the revised fee and the type of development for which the fee is charged; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find and resolve as follows: 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals, above, are true and correct. 2. Payment of fee. The revised Transportation Development Fee shall be paid upon issuance of any building permit. The City Engineer shall determine the amount of the fee based upon the size and type of development. 3. Revised Transportation Development Fee. Section 3 of Resolution No. 05-167 is hereby amended by increasing the Transportation Development Fee set forth in said section, by the amount of the SANBAG approved Cost Escalation Factor of 12.9%, from $3,658 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (as defined in Resolution No. 05-167) to $4,130 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit. 4. Use of Fee: The revised Transportation Development Fee shall be solely used to pay for the public facilities described in Exhibit "A", or for reimbursing the City for developments' 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". Resolution No. 07-040 Page 3 of 12 5. Fee Review: The Engineering Division 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 of the various types of development pending or anticipated and for which this revised 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. 6. Except as revised herein, all provisions of Resolution No. 05-167 including, but not limited to, provisions relating to fees, fee calculations and studies, definitions and provisions, shall remain in full force and effect. Exhibits "B" and "C" to Resolution No. 05-167 are hereby amended consistent with the fee revisions herein. 7. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days following passage by the City Council. 8. Any judicial action proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Resolution shall be brought within 120 days of its adoption. 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. 07-040 Page 4 of 12 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7`" day of February 2007. AYES: Gutierrez, Kurth, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None 0 L Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: ebra J. Os, CMC, 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 7t" day of February 2007. Executed this 8`" day of February 2007, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. P L40, � Debra J. A a s, C C, City Clerk Resolution No. 07-040 Page 5 of 12 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRANSPORTATION FEE PROGRAM PROJECTS AND PROJECT COSTS March 21. 2005 Freewav Interchanges: Base Line Road at I-15 Freewav, widen NB and SB on-ramps = $200.000 (Total project cost = $950.000, Caltrans funds = $750,000.) Foothill Boulevard at I-15 Freeway, widen NB and SB on-ramps = $650,000 (Total project cost = $1.4 million, Caltrans funds =$750,000.) Rest Half of Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway Interchange = $10;560;000 (Assuming the east half is built by the City of Fontana) (Total construction cost = $16 million. ROW purchased by City RDA. 100% City of RC, New Development fair share percentage=66%) Arrow Route at I-15 Freeway Interchange = $15.080.000 (Total construction cost=$29 million, ROW purchased by City RDA. New Development fair share percentage= 52%) Total = $26,490.000 Railroad Grade Separations and Crossings: Haven Avenue at Metrolink Crossing $1,782,000 (Total Project Cost= $15,910,000, New Dev. Fair Share = 11%) 6'h Street, improve RXR crossing gates, west of Lucas Ranch= $300.000 6'h Street, install new RXR crossing gates, east of Santa Anita= $300,000 Hellman Ave. upgrade existing RXR crossing gates at 81h = $300.000 Total = $2,682.000 Bridges: 6'h at Cucamonga Creek Channel (50% RC, 50% Ontario)_ $250,000 91h at Cucamonga Creek Channel (widen) _ $250.000 Arrow Route at Etiwanda Ditch (widen existing bridge) _ $500;000 Banyan Street at Etiwanda Creek Channel (new) _ $1.000.000 Hellman at Cucamonga Creek Channel (50% RC, 50% Ontario) _ $500.000 Resolution No. 07-040 Page 6 of 12 Whitman Avenue at Etiwanda Ditch (new) _ $500;000 Wilson Avenue at Day Creek Channel (new) _ $1;000.000 Wilson .Avenue at Etiwanda Creek Channel (new)= S2.000.000 Total = $6.000_.000 Streets: 6`h Street, Santa Anita to Etiwanda (backbone only) _. '000 If $387.000 Arrow Route; Grove to Baker. widen 2 to 4 lanes = 1,800 If $877;000 Arrow Route, widen south side 500 ft east of I-15 to 1,300 ft east-- 8001f 5687;000 Banvan, Etiwanda to East, north side only = 1,500 If 5569,000 Banyan Street, East Ave to Wardman/Bulloch (new alignment) = 4,500 If $5,278,000 Base Line Road, Etiwanda to I-15 Fwy, north side 2 to 3 lanes, = 400 If $331,000 Cherry Avenue, west side only, Wilson to I-15 Fwy. = 2,6001f $561,000 Church Street. Archibald to Haven, widen 2 to 4 lanes = 2.500 if $1,020,000 , East Ave, I-15 to Victoria, various bottlenecks = 600 if $355,000 East Ave, Fire Station to Wilson, (new) = 1.300 If $797,000 East Ave, Wilson Avenue to North Rim Way(new) 500 If $139,000 Etiwanda Ave., 6th to Arrow Route, widen 2 to 4 lanes, _ . 3,000 If $2.864,000 Etiwanda Ave, Miller to 850 ft north of Miller, widen east side = 850 If 5205.000 Etiwanda Ave, Banyan to Wilson, curb and gutter east side only = 2.500 If $949,000 Etiwanda Ave. existing northern terminus to North Rim Way (new) 500 If $189;000 Foothill Blvd. Vinevard to Hellman, widen 4 to 6 lanes = NA $200,000 Foothill Blvd., Hellman to 700 ft east (north side only) = 2,700 if 5225:000 Foothill Blvd at Archibald, widen intersection= LS 54.371.000 Foothill Blvd., Archibald to Hermosa (4 to 6 lanes) = NA S 1,266.000 Resolution No. 07-040 Page 7 of 12 Grove Avenue, 81h to Tapia Via, widen east side 1 to 2 lanes = 2,000 If $644,000 Grove Avenue, SanBem to Foothill, widen east side 1 to 2 lanes = 470 If $404.000 Haven Avenue, Base Line to I-210 Fvy, west side only = 5,000 If $6,000,000 Crest Road (collector), Day Creek to East (new) 5,200 If $878,000 Miller Avenue, Etiwanda to East, widen 2 to 4 lanes = 2,700 If $1,323,000 Milliken Ave, 51h St to 700 ft south of 51h,West side only = 700 If $194,000 Victoria St, east PL of EHS to I-15 FNy, improve both shoulders =400 if $195,000 Vintage Drive, Etiwanda.Avenue to 1300 ft west(new) = 1.300 If $256,000 Wilson Avenue, Milliken to Day Creek Blvd, new. = 6,500 If $4,000,000 Wilson Avenue, Etiwanda Ave to East Avenue, (backbone only= 2,700 If $311,000 Wilson Avenue, East Avenue to Wardman/Bulloch, new = 4,000 If . $3,155,000 Young's Canyon, Cherry Ave. to Wardman/Bulloch, new= 6,300 If $8.162.000 Total = $46,792;000. Summary• Freeway Interchanees = $26,490,000 Railroad Crossinas = $2,682,000 Bridges = $6,000,000 Streets = $46.792.000 Traffic signals, (56 each at$140,000) _ $7,840,000 Signal Interconnect System = $4.517.000 Total = $94,321,000 Funds currently in Transportation Development Fee Account= -$20.000.000 Sub-Total = $74,321,000 Administration Fee (15%) _ $11.148.000 Total = $85.469.000 Resolution No. 07-040 Page 8 of 12 EXHIBIT "B" TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES Updated: December, 2006 Land Use Fee Single Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU $4,130 per unit Multi-family Dwelling Unit (MFDU) $2,478 per unit Apartment $2,478 per unit Senior Housing- Attached (Apartments or Condos) $826 per bedroom Congregate Care Facility $826 per bed Commercial Shopping Center $6,195 per 1000 sf Industrial Park $2,478 per 1000 sf Warehouse $2,065 per 1000 sf Office/Business Park $4,956 per 1000 sf Hotel/Motel $3,303 per room Self Storage $82 per storage unit Day Care $1,032 per student Convenience Store with Gas Pumps $20,649 per gas pump Resolution No. 07-040 �XnIb1T " c.- Page 9of12 San Bernardino Associated Governments i SANBAG 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd FI, San Bernardino, CA 92410 Phone: (909) 884-8276 Fax: (909) 885-4407 Web: www.sanbag.ca.gov *San Bernardino County Transportation Commission *San Bernardino County Transportation Authority -San Bernardino County Conaestion Management Agency .Service Authority for Freewav Emergencies Minute Action AGENDA ITEM: 27 Date: July 5, 2006 Subject: Development Mitigation Program Cost Escalation Factor Recommendation:* Adopt the rolling 5-year average of the Caltrans Construction Items Index (12.9% for calendar year 2004-2005) as the cost escalation factor for the San Bernardino County Development Mitigation Program Background: One of the requirements of the Development Mitigation Program approved by the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in November 2005 is an annual update of Nexus Study project costs and fair share development contributions to these projects. This is accomplished by CMA adoption of an escalation factor to be applied uniformly by each affected jurisdiction so that development contributions keep pace with cost increases and so that no jurisdiction's,development mitigation program is advantaged or disadvantaged by the choice of escalation factor. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan Technical Advisory Committee (CTP TAC) suggested CMA approval of these factors by the end of each fiscal year so that they are available to jurisdictions for all or most of the subsequent fiscal year. At the May 2006 Plans and Programs Committee (PPC) meeting, staff presented the Caltrans Construction Items Index to be used as the escalation factor for the Development Mitigation Program. This recommendation was made after an analysis of six escalation indices. The six escalation indices that were considered in making the recommendation are included as Attachment 1 to this agenda item. Staff recommended use of the Caltrans California Construction Items Index as the Mayor Rothschild believes there are discrepancies with the 5- Approved year rolling plan and requested this item be deferred a month Board of Directors for further review and input by the cities. Staff indicated this item has been reviewed by the cities and reflects their input. Date: Jul,5.2006 Supervisor Hansberger also expressed concern, however, he voted in favor stating there will need to be regular monitoring Moved.. Christman Second. Nuaimi and updating if necessary. . In Favor. 23 Opposed. 0 Abstained, 0 Witnessed, BRD0607A-RPG.doc Attachments:PPC0605A 1-RPG,PPC0606A2-RPG,PPC0606A3-RPG Resolution No. 07-040 Page 10 of 12 Board Agenda Item July 5. 2006 Page 2 of 4 escalation factor for the Development Mitigation Program because it is the only escalation index that is specific to the unique characteristics of the California transportation construction industry. The most current annual rate of cost escalation in the Index is 24.10%, representing escalation from the end of calendar year 2004 to the end of calendar year 2005. At the May 2006 PPC meeting this item was tabled and asked to be brought back before the committee again in,June for two reasons. First, additional discussion of this item was seen to be needed from an expanded group of CTP TAC representatives. Second, the additional time was seen to provide opportunity for local jurisdictions to compile and present either contradictory or corroboratory evidence to be considered when determining the appropriate escalation factor to be used for the Development Mitigation Program. Following the May 2006 PPC meeting, staff sent out a letter to public works directors and planning directors from each of the member jurisdictions notifying them of the June CTP TAC meeting at which this item would be further discussed. The letter asked each of the representatives to bring with them additional information to be considered when determining an escalation factor to be used in the Development Mitigation Program. Included with the letter was all of the supplemental material presented at the May 2006 PPC Meeting. This letter was also sent electronically to the entire CTP TAC mailing list. The issue of which cost escalation index to be used was again discussed at the June 12 CTP TAC meeting. Both High Desert and San Bernardino Valley jurisdictions were well-represented, and the Building Industry Association (BIA) and the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) had representatives present as well. The only jurisdiction to bring additional information to be considered was the City of Victorville. Their information was based on an independent analysis of their local development mitigation program that occurred in March 2006. In Victorville's staff recommendation, they advocated using the Caltrans Construction Items Index for interchanges and grade separation projects and using a separate analysis of items typically used for the construction of arterials roadways for their arterial projects. Both components of Victorville's independent analysis indicate that 24% is the appropriate escalation factor to use. This corroborates the material that was provided to SANBAG in May by the City of Ontario contained in this agenda item as Attachment 2. After additional review of the escalation factor and an expanded opportunity for technical input into the choice of the escalation factor, staff again recommends using the Caltrans Construction Items Index as the basis for escalating the costs and amounts of fair share development contribution contained within the Nexus Study. Recommendation of the Caltrans Construction Items Index, to be used as BRD0607A-RPG.doc Attachments:PPC0605AI-RPG,PPC0605A2-RPG 06020305 Resolution No. 07-040 Page 11 of 12 Board Agenda Item July 5, 2006 Page 3 of 4 the escalation factor for the Development Mitigation Program, is based on the best technical data. However, the choice of an index on which to base cost escalation is only one component of a more complex policy decision. The second component of the policy decision is determining how to implement a cost escalation of this magnitude. Staff recommends using a rolling 5-year average of the index as the basis for escalating the project costs and levels of fair share development contribution in the Nexus Study. Use of a 5-year rolling average would provide local jurisdictions insulation from the volatility of an annualized escalation factor. In addition, use of a 5-year average ensures that spikes in cost escalation are smoothed out, allowing escalation to be absorbed over several years. The trade- off, however, is that using a 5-year rolling average also dampens the downward trends in cost escalation as well. Consequently, in years with minimal increases or decreases in construction costs, jurisdictions would still be required to implement the 5-year rolling average as a cost escalation factor. For example,the rolling average might require 8% escalation, while actual cost increases for a calendar year may be only I or 2%. The 5-year rolling average being recommended for adoption as the escalation factor for the Development Mitigation Program for calendar year 2004-2005 is 12.9%. Each year, as new cost escalation information becomes available from Caltrans, the 5-year rolling average will be updated. This escalation factor would be applied to all regional arterial, railroad grade separation, and interchange projects listed in the Nexus Study, and provide the basis for adjustments to the regional portion of fees listed in local development mitigation programs. The choice of an escalation factor for local projects not included in the Nexus Study is outside SANBAG's purview. The Development Mitigation Program requires that jurisdictions adopt this escalation factor by resolution to maintain conformance with the program (ref. Appendix J of the Congestion Management Program). Development contributions need to account for the escalation in costs if funding is to have any chance of keeping pace with the need for transportation improvements. Many jurisdictions, however, are currently in the process of preparing and adopting compliant development mitigation programs, some for the first time. Consequently, staff recommends that jurisdictions be granted flexibility in meeting the requirements of the Development Mitigation Programs. Staff recommends allowing jurisdictions to pursue one of three options. The options are as follows: 13RD0607A-RPG.doc Attachments:PPC0605A1-RPG,PPC0605A2-RPG 06020305 Resolution No. 07-040 Page 12 of 12 Board Auenda Item July 5, 2006 Page 4 of 4 1. Adopt the escalation factor into their local development mitigation programs and provide a copy of the resolution to SANBAG by November 2006. 2. In 2007, adopt both this year's and next year's escalation factors into their local development mitigation programs and provide a copy of the resolution to SANBAG by November 2007. Local jurisdictions choosing to pursue this option would need to provide a letter to SANBAG noting this decision by November 2006. 3. If a jurisdiction has not yet adopted their local development mitigation program, use the revised Tables 7 and 8 (see Attachment 3), which includes the proposed escalation factor, as their revised development mitigation program and provide a copy of the development mitigation program to SANBAG for determination of compliance, consistent with Appendix J of the Congestion Management Program, by November 2006. Finally,jurisdictions that have revised their costs upward from those contained in the current Board adopted Nexus Study in preparation of their local development mitigation program would be credited with that amount of cost escalation. For local jurisdictions with revised project costs contained in their development mitigation program that meet or exceed the amounts contained in the revised Tables 7 and 8, contained in Attachment 3, no additional action would be required by SANBAG. Local jurisdictions that have adjusted their costs in an amount less than the amounts contained in Attachment 3 would be required to adopt the balance of the escalation factor by ordinance, consistent with the options provided in this agenda item. Financial Impact: There is no financial impact to the CMA for this item. All staff activities are consistent with the adopted Budget. Reviewed By: Due to lack of a quorum at the Plans and Programs Committee on June 21, 2006, this item has not received previous policy committee review. It is being presented directly to the Board of Directors for discussion. Responsible Staff. Tv Schuiling, Director of Planning and Programming BRD0607A-RPG.doc Attachments: PPC0605A1-RPG,PPC0605A2-RPG 06020305