Mr. John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Director
December 3, 2024
2644/031455-0010
21501875.7 a12/03/24
the calculations of fees for “park improvements” as to those acres. ( Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 290, 300.) See also, Section 15, below.
This is not “substantial evidence” sufficient to support any kind of legislative fee - enactment action by the City Council. To the contrary, the text of the Study reveals that the proposed “costs per capita” are not supported by an adopted CIP , and are not shown to be based on more accurate, independent, verifiable sources.
14. The Proposed Land Acquisition Fees Were Improperly Calculated by Erroneously Excluding Impacts and Demands of New Non-Residential Development.
The City currently imposes fees on new development pursuant to Ch. 3.68 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC), which states that the City enacted “Park In -Lieu/Park Impact Fees” to require “new residential and commercial development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of park and recreation assets in the City.” (RCMC § 3.68.010(a).) Despite the City Council’s manifest intention that both residential and commercial development should contribute to the costs of acquiring additional park land and facilities, this Nexus Study declares (at p. -1) to the contrary, i.e., that its proposed new park impact fees “apply only to residential development.” This Study thus stands in defiance of the City’s own Municipal Code.
Growth of the City’s “service population” – including increased employment, whether City residents or not – also contributes to increased demands upon park and recreation facilities . A nexus study should estimate the demand for public facilities “based on the relevant ‘service population’” as explained in the NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATE. It is common for park fee nexus studies under AB 1600 to recognize that the demand for parks and rec facilities is driven by non-resident users as well as the residential population, and comes from non-residents (businesses and visitors, etc)(id.). It is common therefore to factor - in such anticipated growth of future employee population, usually at a fraction of a full time resident, in the “service population” (residents + employees) in calculating and apportioning the costs of acquiring new parks . T here is no evidentiary support for the unfounded assumption in this Study that employment growth in the City will not contribute any increased need for parks or recreation facilities The Study should be corrected to properly reflect allocation of an appropriate portion of future facility costs to demands created by non-residential growth.
The Nexus Study should be corrected to include some fractional and proportional allocation of the reasonable costs of acquiring additional unimproved park land to increased demands attributable to increased employment growth in the City. Such an allocation of costs to other land uses, e.g., commercial, industrial, e ducational, institutional, etc., would also result in a more equitable sharing, and reduction, of the appropriate fees on new residential development.
Mr. John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Director
December 3, 2024
2644/031455-0010
21501875.7 a12/03/24
B. INVALID FEES FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS:
Most of the comments and objections to the proposed fees for park land acquisition are similarly applicable to the proposed new fees for “park improvements.” There are also several distinct and critical grounds for objection to the calculations of the proposed “park improvement” fees in the NBS Nexus Study, including (without limitation) the following:
15. Fees for “Park Improvements” Are Improperly Duplicative of Fees for “Improved Park Land” Acquisition.
The NBS Nexus Study asserts (p. S-2, and p. 3-1) that its proposed fees for the acquisition of additional park land are based on “the City’s existing ratio of improved park land to population....” It is therefore apparent that the costs of providing eligible “improvements” to the additional acres of park land are already factored -in and included in the estimated costs of acquiring those additional acres of “improved park land.” Fees cannot be justified by the estimated costs of providing improvements to park land that is considered to already be “improved” at the time it is to be acquired. California courts prohibit and invalidate “duplicative” fees. See, e.g., Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 290 [affirming the invalidation of the City’s entire set of “park fees” on new development because of deficient “nexus study” justification]; Home Builders Ass’n v. City of Lemoore, supra.
16. The Nexus Study Wrongly Includes the Costs of Acquiring “Added Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment” In Its Calculation of Park Improvement Fees.
The Nexus Study admits (p. 3 -4) that it included the purported “replacement costs of existing [but unidentified] park maintenance vehicles and equipment” in its efforts to justify fees for “park improvements.” This too was erroneous as a matter of law.
That inclusion of unidentified “replacement costs” for unidentified vehicles and equipment is inconsistent with the limited authority to impose fees to fund “public facilities” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act, at Government Code § 66000(d). Nothing in the Fee Act authorizes the imposition of development fees to pay for lawnmowers or other “maintenance vehicles.” To the contrary, Government Code § 65913.8 expressly prohibits the use of development fees to fund “operations or maintenance” (subject to inapplicable exceptions).
The assertion in the Nexus Study is also inconsistent with the Municipal Code. See, RCMC § 3.68.020, defining “facilities” as “land, improvements, or infrastructure located in the city.” Not vehicles or equipment.
Moreover, the Nexus Study asserts (in footnote 2 to Table 3.4) that its estimates for the costs of “park improvements” was based on “improvement costs for a recently completed 4.4 acre
Mr. John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Director
December 3, 2024
2644/031455-0010
21501875.7 a12/03/24
dog park.” Even if costs for maintenance vehicles and unspecified equipment were somehow allowed to be the basis for charging development fees, there is no mention anywhere in the Nexus Study of any evidence of the “replacement costs” of such vehicles and equipment. And such replacement costs would need to be reduced to reflect appropriate depreciation.
Since there is no way to tell what portion of the “park improvement costs” were wrongly inflated by the improper inclusion of the purported “replacement costs” of these maintenance items, the proposed fees for “park improvements” must be completely voided and recalculated.
17. Failure to Account for “Credits” for Private Improvements:
The Nexus Study should m ake provision for giving reasonable and equitable credits or offsets to builders who include privately-owned, but publicly-beneficial, open space or recreational improvements in their proposed developments.
Such credits for the value of private recreational improvements are of course required by the Quimby Act, where a subdivider dedicates land and provides “recreational improvements” to the dedicated land , the City must provide a credit for the value of those improvements and any equipment located on the dedicated land. The Quimby Act further provides that subdividers of common interest developments may be “eligible” for possible credits for the value of private open space included within common interest developments, which is a reasonable recognition that such open space helps reduce demands for, and impacts on, publicly -owned open space. (E. .g Boatworks LLC v. City of Alameda, supra.)
C. INVALID FEES FOR COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES:
The NBS Nexus Study (at Chapter 4) purports to justify the calculation and imposition of development fees to fund additional “community and recreation center facilities,” as provided by Ch. 3.52 of the RCMC. The Stud y asserts (p. 4 -1) that this component of the proposed new development fees is based on the relationship between the City’s existing population and “the replacement cost of the existing community center and recreation center facilities.” As in the case of the Study’s discussion of Park Land and Park Improvement Fees (above), the Study claims to be based on the dubious “existing inventory” approach. Accordingly, the objections detailed in the foregoing Sections (A) and (B) of this letter are equally applicable to this proposed fee, and are incorporated by reference.
18. Failure to provide substantial evidence as to “replacement cost” of existing community recreation facilities.
The NBS Nexus Study merely references to the 2020 “NBS Nexus Study” as the basis for its unfounded estimates as to the “replacement costs” of the subject facilities. That is not
Mr. John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Director
December 3, 2024
2644/031455-0010
21501875.7 a12/03/24
substantial evidence to support the calculation of the new fees. The City’s 2023/2024 CIP does not support the cost estimates used in this Nexus Study.
In 2020, NBS “valued” the City’s Community Center facilities at $102,870,000 – based on unverified cost estimates in an older 2014 nexus study. Now, just four years later, NBS asserts that the “replacement cost” of the same six facilities has increased by more than 30%, to $134,875,000. The 2020 Nexus Study projected that these fees would need to generate $12,000,000 in revenue to maintain the alleged LOS; now this Nexus Study incredibly claims that fees need to raise more than $29,000,000 to maintain the “existing inventory.”
19. Even if “replacement costs” were properly based on qualified expert evidence or other substantial evidence of costs, the Nexus Study fails to account for depreciation of the existing facilities.
If it may be shown to be “reasonable” to assume that the costs of replacing the City’s existing facilities at current construction costs meets the constitutional nexus and proportionality requirements, then the Nexus Study must also take the depreciated condition of the City’s existing facilities, and the depreciated value of those facilities, rather than “new” condition costs. Boe v.
City of Seattle (1965) 401 P.2d 648, 66 Wn.2d 152.)
D. INVALID FEES FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES:
The NBS Nexus Study (at Chapter 5) purports to justify the calculation and imposition of development fees to fund additional “library facilities and materials.” The Study states that these Library fees are governed by Ch. 3.56 of the RCMC.
20. Failure to provide substantial evidence as to “replacement cost” of existing library facilities and materials.
The NBS Nexus Study merely references to the 2020 “NBS Nexus Study” as the basis for its unfounded estimates as to the “replacement costs” of the subject facilities and materials. That is not substantial evidence to support the calculation of the new fees. The City’s 2023/2024 CIP does not support the cost estimates used in this Nexus Study.
The 2020 Nexus Study asserted that the average replacement cost per item of the existing library materials was $25.00. The new Nexus Study now asserts – incredibly and without verified sources of competent evidence – that the costs of those materials has more than doubled in just four years, to $54.71 per item.
Mr. John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Director
December 3, 2024
2644/031455-0010
21501875.7 a12/03/24
21. Library “furnishings” and “materials” may not be financed by development impact fees.
While “library facilities” may be considered as public facilities that may be financed by development impact fees, there is no legal authority for the inclusion of the costs of “furnishings” or “materials” (books and electronic materials) in the calculation of such development fees.
E. INVALID FEES FOR FIRE FACILITIES:
This new 2024 NBS Nexus Study (Chapter8) now proposes to justify the creation and imposition of new “fire impact fees” at rates up to and exceeding $1,000 per dwelling unit, and proposing to generate more than $20,000,000 in new fee revenue.
22. There is no legal authority for the proposed Fire Impact Fees.
The Study does not claim that the City has adopted any existing Ordinance that purports to authorize the creation or imposition of such a “fire impact fee.” The Study admits that the City does not have an existing fire impact fee. The Study admits that fire protection services are in fact provided by a distinct public agency, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (“District”). It further admits (p.8 -1), properly, that “fire districts are prohibited by California law from imposing impact fees of their own.” (Health & Safety Code 13916.)
It therefore appears that the City, or the District, now propose to do “indirectly” that which the District is prohibited from doing directly, i.e., imposing a fire impact fee on new residential development. Such a scheme would be unlawful.
“The City cannot do indirectly what it could not do directly.” (City of Garden Grove v.
Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4 th 355, 379.) See also, National Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo , 602 U.S. 175, 201 (2024): “Bantam Books [v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67] stands for the principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.”
23. The City cannot lawfully imposed fees on developments within the City and then transfer the proceeds to another distinct agency, at least in the absence of a Joint Powers Agreement.
The City seeks to impose these fees on new development located within the City Limits, but intends to transfer these fees, at least in part, to pay for fire facilities and services to be planned, provided, and operated by a distinct District. It is questionable if the City has the legal authority
Mr. John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Director
December 3, 2024
2644/031455-0010
21501875.7 a12/03/24
to do so. (See, City of Dublin v. County of Alameda (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 264 [holding that the County could not impose its fees within City limits to fund County facilities.] ‘A municipal corporation has generally no extraterritorial powers of regulation. It may not exercise its governmental functions beyond its corporate boundaries. [Citations.]’ ( City of Oakland v. Brock (1937) 8 Cal.2d 639, 641 …. (Amaral v.
Cintas Corp. (2008) 163 CA4th 1157, 1175.)
24. The proposed “fire impact fees” would be deemed to be an unconstitutional “special tax” established without the voter approval required by the California Constitution. “No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.” (Calif. Const., Art. XIII D, § 6 (b) (5) [added by Proposition 218 in 1996].) This constitutional prohibition applies to the proposed Police Impact Fees as well as to the Fire Impact Fees , to the extent that it appears that the fees may be improperly used to fund services and non -capital vehicles and equipment , as distinct from facilities.
As explained by the Ninth Circuit in Novato Fire Prot. Dist. v. United States (1999) 181 F.3d 1135, 1139:
[F]ire protection was a core government service, and that, consequently, the attempts by a municipality to charge for this and other such services were invalid....
Otherwise “virtually all of what are now considered taxes could be transmitted into user fees by the simple expedient of dividing what are generally accepted as taxes into constituent parts, e.g., a police fee. ” (Id.) Accordingly, we hold that the fees charged to the United States by the District for fir e protection and emergency medical services clearly constituted an impermissible tax.
Following voter approval of Proposition 26 (2010), purported “fees” and other charges enacted by cities are now presumed to be in the nature of “taxes” subject to substantive requirements as well as the need for voter approval, subject to a few exceptions – and “[t]he local government bears the burden of establishing the excep tions. (Cal. Const. art. XIII C § 1, subd. (e).)” (Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara (2017) 3 Cal.5th 260.) The substantive constitutional burdens on the City to demonstrate the justification for its fees are even more stringent. As the Court of Appeal explained: “The local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [1] a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, [2] that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and [3] that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a
Mr. John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Director
December 3, 2024
2644/031455-0010
21501875.7 a12/03/24
fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (Schmeer v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1326.)
25. The Nexus Study improperly uses “calls for service” as it “demand variable” in attempting to justify the Fire Impact Fees and the Police Impact Fees.
There is no legal authority for use of “calls for service” as a component of calculating a level of service in the context of a development fee nexus study. To the limited extent that an “existing inventory” approach may be appropriate in calculating an i mpact fee, the LOS is calculated by reference to the ratio of existing facilities per population. There is no legal or logical basis for purporting to justify the Fire Impact Fees (and the Police Fees) based on anticipated changes in the number of “calls for service” rather than changes in the service population.
DEMAND FOR ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF NEW FEES ON HOUSING FEASIBILITY As stated in the new Nexus Study Template (p. 23), “Once a nexus has been established, … localities should consider the ability of residential development and land to absorb the added cost of new or increased impact fees in addition to other development costs so that impact fees do not inhibit housing production.” The dramatic, and unreasonable, increases in the existing DIF and the proposed creation of new “fire impact fees” at the proposed rates will indeed inhibit housing production in the City.
The new fee proposals would create new “governmental constraints” on efforts to provide more affordable multi-family residential development, in direct conflict with the City’s obligations under State Housing Law and the policies asserted in the current Housing Element. The City must immediately conduct an objective analysis of the very severe – if not devasting – impacts of these fee proposals on the economic feasibility of providing housing in the City before taking action on the proposed new fees.
CONCLUSION
The preliminary comments and objections summarized in this letter should be considered a starting point for further discussions of any proposed new development fees. The City should provide a n effective interactive process to solicit and include input from the community and development stakeholders on the proposed new DIF, before bringing the final proposal to the Council. BIA and its members would be pleased to be included in that process.
The City should require its consultant to revisit the Nexus Study and to make the substantial corrections and revisions that are necessary before it may be considered a legally -sufficient and
Mr. John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Director
December 3, 2024
2644/031455-0010
21501875.7 a12/03/24
compliant basis for the City to move forward in evaluating proposed new development fees for impacts actually attributable to new development. We welcome any questions from, or discussions with, the City Staff or the consultants in this regard.
Thank you for your consideration of the points and issues raised by our letter.
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
David P. Lanferman
cc: BIA of So. California
Memorandum
To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter
From: Peter Piller
Date: December 2, 2024
Subject: High Level Review of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Impact Fee Study (Non-Transportation DIF)
CC: Nick Belshe
Carlos,
Per your request, we have prepared this memo summarizing our findings and results of our high- level review of the November 1 , 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“DIF Study”) prepared by NBS (“NBS”) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of the review of the DIF Study is to verify and confirm the assumptions and calculations used in the study, and to make comments as necessary. The primary tasks for our high- level review of the study include the following:
• Confirm mathematical accuracy of schedules in the DIF Study. • Identify initial issues and comments within the DIF Study. • Prepare initial bullet point findings and present to BIA and stakeholders.
The observations and results of the tasks performed, and findings are outlined below.
1. The existing Impact Fee Fund Balance and Site Values are being added to each facilities list.
o Can it be guaranteed that those revenues will only be used to construct additional facilities, and won’t be put towards the rehabilitation, renovation, or replacement of an existing facility.
o Will all existing facilities continue to be used for their current purposes? If any existing facilities are going to be shut down/replaced by new future facilities, the replacement cost for the existing facility should not be included in the fee calculation.
2. The study uses the Fehr & Peers Transportation DIF Study for residential development projections and the “Conservative Scenario” projections from Strategic Economics for non-residential development projections.
o Why not use the non-residential development projections from the 2040 General Plan Buildout projections in the City’s Climate Action Plan which contains data that is consistent with the residential figures used in the Fehr & Peers Transportation DIF Study?
3. Some of the improved park acreages seem to be overstated. A few examples, but not all, are included below:
o Central Park appears to only be 28.3 improved acres. The study shows 39.4. See E
xhibit A attached.
o H eritage Community Park appears to only be 29.1
improved acres. The study
shows 40.
See Exhibit B attached.
o Church Street Park appears to only be 4.57 improved acres. The study shows 6.5.
S
ee Exhibit C attached.
o Day Creek Park appears to only be 10 improved acres. The study shows 24. S ee
Exhibit D attached.
o E
xhibit E, attached, contains a review of all parks in the study and their respective acreages.
o Additionally, the City owns approximately 88 acres of unimproved park land.
Assuming the current 0.00192 acres per 1,000 persons is accurate (which as discussed above does not appear to be true) there will need to be an additional 80 acres of improved park land to maintain existing standards. Why does the City need to acquire another 80 acres of park land when they already own 88 acres of unimproved park land?
o Lastly, are the costs assumed for land acquisition and park improvements reasonable? Can source data be provided for these cost assumptions? Some of the other jurisdictions we have reviewed fee studies for have values much lower than the ones used in the study and the City’s 2020 impact fee study used $525,000 for land acquisition and $500,000 for improvements.
4. General questions and comments:
o While land value is excluded in the Community and Recreation Centers fee calculation for the Heritage Park Equestrian Center and the Lewis/Brulte Community/Sr. Center (because it is included in the Park Fee section), the replacement cost is included. Is there any overlap between this replacement cost and the improved park costs for these two facilities?
(
i.e. does the replacement
cost include any of the costs associated with the park improvement cost of $989,000 per acre? Can source data be provided for these cost assumptions as it appears they are based on 2014 estimates from the City, escalated for cost inflation?
o Additionally, how will credits for each of the fee types be determined if a project provides a park, recreational facility, constructs a fire station, etc. if there are no facility lists?
5. Home sizes seem to be understated or population per household in each category seems skewed.
o Data we have compiled of only single family homes in the City shows 10,202 units at or above 2,300 SF (3,150 SF on average). The study states there are only 4,841 units at or above 2,300 SF and that figure includes residential land uses outside of just single family.
o Additionally, with the average persons per household in the City being 2.75, if there are over twice as many 2,300+ SF units as stated in the study, it leads us to believe that assuming 4.4 persons per household for 2,300+ SF units and the other ranges is an overstatement.
o Does the City have data showing the average size of residential units in the City? The square footage ranges in the study don’t seem to align with the typical unit sizes seen in the City. Other studies we have reviewed for other cities have used this data to convert fees to a per square foot fee, so it seems this is something the City could obtain.
6. To provide reasoning for not using a per square foot fee, the nexus study states on page 2- 2 “Such a fee structure results in impact fees that are necessarily five times as high for a 3,000 square-foot single-family unit as for a 600 square apartment. That type of fee structure is justified only if the actual impact of a 3,000 square-foot unit is five times greater than the impact of a 600 square-foot unit.”
o This same logic can be applied to the methodology used in the nexus study. The nexus study results in impact fees that are 4.4 times higher for a 2,300 square foot home as for a 600 square foot home. The nexus study also results in impact fees that are 4.4 times higher for a 3,500 square foot home as for a 600 square foot home. This type of fee structure can only be justified if the actual impact of a 2,300 square foot home and a 3,500 square foot home are 4.4 times the impact of a 600 square foot home.
o The study effectively assumes that a 1,201 SF home will have approximately 1.5 times the impact of a 1,199 SF home, a 1,901 SF home will have approximately
1.30 times the impact of an 1,899 SF home, and a 2,301 SF home will have approximately 1.26 times the impact of a 2,299 SF home. o In addition to this potential flaw, the nexus study also arbitrarily assigns persons per household factors to each range of home square footage. There are multiple combinations of persons per household factors for each square footage range that can keep the total population and average persons per household at 173,319 and
2.75, respectively. What is to say the combination used in the nexus study is any more accurate than a different combination?
7. Table S.3 within the study misleadingly states that the fee increase for a unit in the three largest square footage ranges will be between $3,078 and $12,750 per unit (23% to 96% increase). This is due to the study comparing the existing single family fees to the proposed fees for these square footage ranges. What the study fails to detail is if a
condominium or townhome is developed within these square footage ranges, the actual increase in fees will be between $7,240 and $16,912 per unit (79% to 186% increase).
Exhibit A
Central Park Improved Acreage
Exhibit B
Heritage Community Park Improved Acreage
23.02 AC
0.45 AC
29.10 AC Total
Exhibit C
Church Street Park Improved Acreage
© 2024 LightBox. All rights reserved. 1
170 feet
1.7 AC
2.87 AC
4.57 AC Total
Exhibit D
Day Creek Park Improved Acreage
© 2024 LightBox. All rights reserved. 1
172 feet
8.17 AC
1.83 AC
10 AC
Total
Exhibit E
Review of Park Acreage Table
Per DPFG's review of Landvision & County GIS
Park
Name
Total
Acres 1
Improved
Acres
Park
Name
Total
Acres
2 Improved
Acres 2
Difference in Total
Acres
Difference in
Improved Acres
Community Parks Community Parks
Central Park 103.0 39.4 Central Park 100.5 28.3 -2.5 -11.1 Etiwanda Creek Park 33.5 12.0 Etiwanda Creek Park 18.2 12.3 -15.3 0.3 Heritage Community Park 40.0 40.0 Heritage Community Park 34.1 29.1 -5.9 -10.9 Red Hill Community Park 44.0 44.0 Red Hill Community Park 44.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 Epicenter Adult Sports Complex 42.0 42.0 Epicenter Adult Sports Complex 38.0 38.0 -4.0 -4.0 Subtotal Community Parks 262.5 177.4 Subtotal Community Parks 234.8 151.7 -27.7 -25.7 Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood Parks
Bear Gulch Park 5.0 5.0 Bear Gulch Park 4.4 4.4 -0.6 -0.6 Beryl Park East 10.0 10.0 Beryl Park East 10.1 10.1 0.1 0.1 Beryl Park West 10.0 10.0 Beryl Park West 9.1 9.1 -0.9 -0.9 Church Street Park 6.5 6.5 Church Street Park 4.6 4.6 -1.9 -1.9 Coyote Canyon Park 5.0 5.0 Coyote Canyon Park 4.5 4.5 -0.5 -0.5 Day Creek Park 24.0 24.0 Day Creek Park 10.0 10.0 -14.0 -14.0 Ellena Park 6.5 6.5 Ellena Park 6.0 6.0 -0.5 -0.5
Garcia Park 5.5 5.5 Garcia Park 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0
Golden Oak Park 9.0 9.0 Golden Oak Park 5.0 5.0 -4.0 -4.0 Hermosa Park 10.0 10.0 Hermosa Park 9.6 9.6 -0.4 -0.4
Kenyon Park 6.5 6.5 Kenyon Park 7.8 7.8 1.3 1.3
Legacy Park 3.7 3.7 Legacy Park 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0
Lions Park 1.5 1.5 Lions Park 2.7 2.7 1.2 1.2
Los Amigos Park 3.3 3.3 Los Amigos Park 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 Milliken Park 10.0 10.0 Milliken Park 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain View Park 5.0 5.0 Mountain View Park 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Old Town Park 5.0 5.0 Old Town Park 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
Olive Grove Park 7.9 7.9 Olive Grove Park 7.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 Ralph M. Lewis Park 9.5 9.5 Ralph M. Lewis Park 6.8 6.8 -2.7 -2.7 Rancho Summit Park 6.9 6.9 Rancho Summit Park 6.7 6.7 -0.2 -0.2 Spruce Avenue Park 5.0 5.0 Spruce Avenue Park 3.9 3.9 -1.1 -1.1 Tapia Park (Long Term Lease) 3.3 0.0 Tapia Park (Long Term Lease) 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Victoria Arbors Park 9.1 9.1 Victoria Arbors Park 9.9 8.1 0.8 -1.0 Victoria Groves Park 6.5 6.5 Victoria Groves Park 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 Vintage Park 6.5 6.5 Vintage Park 7.0 7.0 0.5 0.5
West Greenway Park 5.0 5.0 West Greenway Park 6.4 6.4 1.4 1.4 Windrows Park 8.0 8.0 Windrows Park 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0
Subtotal Neighborhood Parks 194.2 190.9 Subtotal Neighborhood Parks 172.7 167.6 -21.5 -23.4 Total 456.7 368.3 Total 407.4 319.3 -49.3 -49.0
Table 3.1: Existing Parks
1 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department 2 Source: Landvision and County of San Bernardino GIS.
Memorandum
To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter
From: Peter Piller
Date: December 2, 2024
Subject: High Level Review of the Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Study
CC: Nick Belshe
Carlos,
Per your request, we have prepared this memo summarizing our findings and results of our high- level review of the October 23, 2024 Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Transportation DIF Study”) prepared by Fehr & Peers for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of the review of the Transportation DIF Study is to verify and confirm the assumptions and calculations used in the study, and to make comments as necessary. The primary tasks for our high-level review of the study include the following:
• Confirm mathematical accuracy of schedules in the Transportation DIF Study. • Identify initial issues and comments within the Transportation DIF Study. • Prepare initial bullet point findings and present to BIA and stakeholders.
The observations and results of the tasks performed, and findings are outlined below.
1. Allocating costs as done in Table 14 (above) incorrectly assumes that an increase in 1 resident is equal to the impact of an increase in service population by 1.
Using generic persons per
household factors or employees per 1,000 square feet and converting the trips per unit or trips per 1,000 square feet factors to trips per resident or employee, on average, the impact to trips for one employee is 2-3 times as high as the impact of one resident (see below table on next page). Costs should instead be allocated proportionately between residential and non-
residential development based on total trips generated by land use at buildout. The City’s Climate Action Plan seems to have data consistent with the growth assumptions in the study and has information on future non-residential development that could be utilized. When evaluating trip generation using this data, it seems residential development will be responsible for approximately 48% to 51% of new trips through 2040.
2. H ow can it be justified that for an approximately 16.6% increase in service population, approximately 99.1% of the $837,678,600 in program costs are allocated to new development (when excluding DIF Account Balance) or approximately 91.6% of the $844,529,000 in program costs are allocated to new development (when including DIF Account Balance)? As existing development will also benefit from these projects, shouldn't they be allocated a portion of the net program costs based on share of trips at buildout?
Table 13 – DIF Program Cost Total
Program El ement Total C ost
DIF Project C osts 844,529,000$
DIF Accounty Balance (J une 2024) (64,000,000)$
Adjustments for E xisting Deficiencies (6,850,400)$
Program S ubtotal 773,678,600$
Admi n Fee (2.5%) 19,341,965$
Program Total 793,020,565$
3. How is the need for certain projects justified, and how can it be reasonably established that there is a nexus between the proposed projects and the impacts of new development? o T
he City’s Resolution 2020-122 contained approximately $278 million in transportation projects that were needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. The Transportation study states that $137,400,000 of the facilities have been completed.
Where did the additional approximately $700 million in program costs come from? The majority of program costs are for “multi-modal” and “active transportation” enhancement projects that seem to simply push the goals and vision of the City, as opposed to increasing capacity and mitigating the impacts of new development. o As an example, the Etiwanda Ave Grade Separation Project ($185,000,000) is located in the very southeastern corner of the City. Not only is it unlikely any residents living west of the I-15 will be travelling there,
but it is also unlikely the project is necessary to
mitigate the impacts caused by new development. Are there any traffic studies evaluating the impact of trips created by new development to this location?
o Another example is the Foothill Boulevard Active Transportation Transformation. How is the impact of new development creating the need for reduced road lanes, sidewalks, trails, and increased bike lanes? This project would result in the opposite of reduced congestion and increased capacity, and it seems like this would only make circulation throughout the City worse.
o Although the City recently
adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”), it doesn’t
appear the projects or costs in the Transportation study are based on the CIP.
4. O
utside of the Existing DIF Account Balance, were any other sources of funds such as grants or state funding used to offset the program costs?
12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G2
From: Gillison, John <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 11:36 AM
To: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Cc: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <[email protected]>; Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo- [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Public Hearing Notice - December 4, 2024 City Council Meeting
Carlos
Acknowledging receipt only. Until we have reviewed with legal and our consultants I have no further response. Once we get thru the letters I will reach out about a meeting.
John
On Dec 3, 2024, at 1:51 PM, Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
Good afternoon John,
Per our discussion and as referenced in the attached cover letter please see the attached legal analysis of the NBS DIF study. We have also updated our previous analysis of the Fehr and Peers transportation fee study and NBS DIF study in separate memos prepared by DPFG – both submitted on November 19 with our previous legal analysis. We highlighted the memo updates in blue to help clarify our new comments. Please advise on your schedule availability to meet with your consultant team at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Carlos
12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G2
From: Michael Manning <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 3:08 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter for City Council Meeting - 12/4/24
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
Hello,
Please find attached a letter we would like submitted to City Council this evening regarding Resolution 2024-104 / Ordinance No. 1034.
We are unable to attend this evening and would like to submit this letter as comment to the proposed resolution.
Thank you,
Michael Manning
Project Manager
MANNINGHOMES
20151 SW Birch Street, Ste. 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
P (949) 250-4200 | M (949) 322-8283
[email protected]
facebook | instagram | recent news | website
NEW BRIDGE HOMES ATTACHED AGENDA PACKET FOR REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2024 TO EMAIL.
DATE: December 4, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Deputy Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1035, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Chapter
17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend Nonconforming Use Provisions Concerning the Discontinuance of Nonconforming Uses. This Project is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. (ORDINANCE NO. 1035) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission and Staff recommend the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1035 to be read by title only and waive further reading, to amend Chapter 17.62 concerning the discontinuance of nonconforming uses.
BACKGROUND:
In July 2021 the City Council adopted an amendment to the Development Code that revised industrial land use standards through an interactive outreach with our industrial development partners. As part of these amendments, the land use table was updated to reflect our desire for a more diverse industrial sector, creating some nonconforming uses. We have worked diligently with our industrial stakeholders to address nonconforming uses on a case-by-case basis; however, a long-term solution is desired by all parties.
ANALYSIS:
The industrial code amendments adopted in 2021 modified the City’s land use table, making some industrial uses previously permitted by right required to now obtain discretionary approvals (i.e. minor or conditional use permit) or making some uses in certain zones no longer permitted (i.e. truck storage). When a use on a site is no longer permitted or conditionally permitted, it becomes a nonconforming use, subject to the nonconforming provisions of the code. Under the current nonconforming use provisions, found at Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code, “[a] use lawfully occupying a structure or a site that does not conform with the use regulations or the site area regulations for the district in which the use is located shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use and may be continued,” unless the use is enlarged, extended, or discontinued. This provision allows existing uses to continue to operate as legal nonconforming uses, even if they would otherwise be required to obtain a minor or conditional use permit or would not be permitted in that zone.
2 6
2 6
If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 180 days, then the use ceases to be legal nonconforming and must comply with the provisions of the code. The proposed amendment would extend the period of discontinued use before a legal nonconforming use is terminated for industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses, as shown on the allowed land use table (17.30.030-1) and defined in Chapter 17.32 (Allowed Land Use Definitions) of the Development Code. Based on input from brokers, developers, and property owners, these uses are unique in that the time to secure a tenant in buildings intended for such uses can require up to a year. City staff has not heard this concern from the owners of properties operating other types of uses. The intent of the proposed amendment is to avoid the unintended consequence of a property owner losing the protection of a legal nonconforming status while they are actively seeking a new tenant to operate such a legal nonconforming use.
On November 13, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the amendment at an advertised public hearing. A summary of the discussion is included in the draft meeting minutes (Attachment 1, item D5). Overall, the Commission was supportive of providing some additional flexibility for industrial property owners and users, while encouraging adaptation to the vision outlined in the General Plan and Economic Development Strategy. One letter was received by an industrial property owner requesting that the nonconforming use provisions be further extended to two years. The Commission appreciated their comments but felt two years was too long. The Commission adopted a resolution recommending Council approval of the proposed amendment (Attachment 2).
The proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment, revising the requirements related to the discontinuance of nonconforming uses, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment is an administrative process of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a 1/8 th page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on November 21, 2024. Because the amendment is citywide, no individual noticing is required, however, we did notify industrial stakeholders that have been part of our discussions on extending the nonconforming use provisions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The project supports the Council’s core value of working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff and all stakeholders through thoughtful conversation and mutually agreeable solutions to complex problems.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Draft), November 13, 2024 Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution 2024-037
Attachment 3 – Ordinance No. 1035
HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024
Draft
Historic P reservation Commission
and
Planning Commission Agenda
November 13, 2024
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular Joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on November 13, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A.
Roll Call
P
lanning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
S
taff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Bond Mendez, Associate Planner; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Lupe Biggs, Executive Assistant; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B.
Public Communications
Ch
airman Morales opened the public communications.
H
earing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.
C.
Consent Calendar
C1.
Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2024.
M
otion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp. Motion carried 5- 0 approved the minutes as presented.
D.
Public Hearings
D1
. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES – A request to subdivide a 43,428 square foot lot into four parcels, for a site located in the Low (L) residential district at 6808 Hermosa Avenue; APN: 1076-081-02 (Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20808). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15315; Minor Land Division’s.
A
ssociate Planner Tabe van der Zwaag presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chai
rman Morales opened the public hearing.
ATTACHMENT 1
HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024
Draft
Project Manager Shen was in attendance and available to answer questions.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated the wall issue is in the special condition. He said t he project with 4 lots is appropriate for this specific site.
Commissioner Daniels asked staff if there is a concern over a private drive vs. a cul -de-sac on the lot.
Associate Planner van der Zwaag answered that t he Engineering and Planning department reviewed it and they felt since it is such a small subdivision, it does not make sense to put a large cul-de-sac at the end of the street, which would cut into the farthest lot. He said this way the applicant will maintain the street rather than the city in the future.
Vice Chairman Boling commented that he appreciates the applicant coming in with an infill project like this. He said there are not too many parcels similar left in the city, so seeing additional housing units potentially come online is a plus for the city.
Chairman Morales stated this is a good redevelopment of this lot. He said it will improve the neighborhood and add more affordable housing to our community.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2024-034, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20808. Motion carried 5-0.
D2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – FORE PROPERTY - A request to consolidate six (6) parcels into one (1) parcel totaling approximately 9.15 acres of land within the Traditional Town Center General Plan Designation and Center 1 (CE1) Zone, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue; APNs: 0207-011-35, -36, -41, -43, -44, and -45. This item is consistent with the City’s General Plan and certified Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) pursuant to CEQA Section 15183(c) Compliance Memorandum (SUBTT20863; Related file: Design Review DRC2022-00379).
Assistant Planner Sophia Serafin presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant Finger was present to answer questions.
Commissioner Daniels asked why the commercial was not carved out for a second parcel. Why was this one parcel for the entire project.
Applicant Finger answered that it has always been designed to be one project as mixed use. It was the desire of the city to have the commercial as part of the residential. He said at this stage they did not have any intention to sell it off individually. They intend to keep it as one project.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Chairman Morales stated the proposed map has been reviewed by both the Engineering and Planning departments and found it to be consistent with all the relevant standards and mapping regulations. He expressed his support.
HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024
Draft
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2024-033, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20863. Motion carried 5-0.
D3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request for site plan and architectural review of 75 multi-family units located on approximately 3.18 acres of land within Planning Area N -12 in the Core Living (CL) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00360). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project.
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura stated that staff is requesting a continuance on this item to December 11
th, 2024, due to questions for the applicant and additional time is required to complete.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales announced this item will remain open to December 11th, 2024, HPC/PC meeting.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz. Motion carried 5-0.
D4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP.- A request for site plan and architectural review of 84 multi-family units located on approximately 3.4 acres of land within Planning Area N-14 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th St reet, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209- 272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00331). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project.
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura stated that staff is requesting a continuance on this item to December 11
th, 2024, due to questions for the applicant and additional time is required to complete.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales announced this item will remain open to December 11th, 2024, HPC/PC meeting.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried 5-0.
HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024
Draft
D5. Consideration to amend Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend Nonconforming Use Provisions C oncerning the Discontinuance of Nonconforming Uses. This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action.
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Commissioner Daniels asked staff to explain the nuances of the types of industrial development.
He said there are a lot of different industrial uses but is there something we are discussing a nonconforming for.
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura provided examples on warehouse uses.
Commissioner Daniels asked the type of building we are talking about is the very large warehousing buildings.
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura replied that our industrial code impacted buildings of a wide variety of sizes.
Vice Chairman Boling stated the timing on when this will become effective. He said if there are any properties that would be subject to 180- day vacancy period, he asked would they then get the remainder of their 180 and then 185+ tacked onto their current 180 that they are already experiencing, or will 1-year start when the new ordinance becomes effective.
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura answered we have yet to find a user in that position.
Vice Chairman Boling mentioned because this was publicly noticed, we did receive one correspondence, it appears those in the industry are aware of this potential change and there are no properties we are aware of that would fall within that time period.
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed.
Assistant City Attorney Young mentioned the ordinance is not written to be retroactive and once it goes into effect, it starts from that point going forward.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp mentioned the real issue is the timeline. He wondered at what point some of the existing nonconforming industrial would change to meet the new vision in the General Plan.
He is comfortable with 1-year rather than 2-years, which is extreme, regarding the letter from the public. He recommends we do not go past that.
Commissioner Daniels stated the purpose of the nonconforming use is to potentially phase that use out. He said he is comfortable with the 180 days and really does not have a problem with the longer time period for this specific use. He wonders if we are giving them a special license that the other nonconforming uses are not getting. He asked about the uses that have been made nonconforming they can become conforming by getting a conditional use permit.
HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024
Draft
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura answered not all can become conforming by getting a conditional use permit. She said if they are no longer permitted in that zone, they are phased out.
She also mentioned that industrial land uses received a fair degree of change during the industrial code update and the General Plan update, more than most commercial uses.
Vice Chairman Boling commented that staff has been tasked a difficult and delicate situation where they are trying to balance the needs or concerns of some of our business constituents that have invested millions of dollars recently in building within our city that then generates tax revenue, property tax revenue, jobs and employment and trying balance that against a recent change in direction vision of the City Council as they adopted the update to the General Plan. He said t he 1 -year extension seems to be a reasonable striking a balance between those two diametrically opposed in some cases instances . While he understands the need for insuring ultimately Council’s vision of development in the future moves forward and that non -conforming uses ultimately wither away, this seems to be a reasonable balance to help protect that investment of millions of dollars in construction and development that occurred within the last 5, 10 years.
Chairman Morales stated that 1-year is adequate to do what they have to do, and 2-years would be too long.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2024-037 recommending Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021- 00170 to the City Council for approval. Motion carried 5-0.
E. Director Announcements
Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura announced there will be no meeting on November 27 th,
returning on December 11th.
F. Commission Announcements - None
G. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjoin the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning and Economic Development
Department
Approved:
ATTACHMENT 2
Ordinance – Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION
17.62.040 OF CHAPTER 17.62 OF ARTICLE IV OF
TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, CONCERNING
THE DISCONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USES,
AND FINDING AN EXEMPTION FROM CEQA UNDER
SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
The C
ity Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”) , has prepared a Munici pal C ode A
mendment, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as “the amendment”.
B. The City is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California.
C. As shown in Exhibit A to this Ordinance, the amendment proposes to amend Section 17.62.040 of Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 of the Municipal Code concerning the discontinuance of nonconforming uses.
D. On the November 13 , 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing with respect to the amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted Resolution No. 2024-__ recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said amendment.
E. On [month] [ day], 2024 , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the amendment and concluded said hearing on that date.
F. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, this Council hereby finds and concludes that the changes proposed to Section 17.62.040 ( Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use ) in the amendment are consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan’s goals, policies and implementation programs. Pursuant to Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code “may be approved only when the City Council finds that the amendment[s] are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” The proposed amendment is consistent with the following General Plan Land Use goals and policies:
• Land Use Goal LC-3: A fiscally sound and sustainable City. • Land Use Policy
LC-3.10: Encourage businesses and development that will support and/or enhance the operations of existing businesses when complimentary to the General Plan Vision while discouraging new development and businesses that will have detrimental impacts to existing businesses and development.
ATTACHMENT 3
Ordinance – Page 2 of 4
This Ordinance would extend the period of discontinued use before a legal nonconforming use is terminated for industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses from 180 days to 365 days. Many of these uses have become non -conforming uses throughout the City as the City has amended its Development Code and General Plan to better conform to the needs of residents and businesses, including the development of more housing to meet the City’s regional housing needs. Based on input from brokers, developers, and property owners, these uses are unique in that the period of time to secure a tenant in buildings intended for such uses can require up to a year. City staff has not heard this concern from the owners of properties operating other types of uses. The City Council intends to avoid the unintended consequence of an owner of property formerly zoned for industrial, manufacturing, or processing uses losi ng the protection of a legal nonconforming status while it is actively seeking a new tenant to operate such a legal non - conforming use.
SECTION 3. CEQA. The proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment, revising the requirements related to the discontinuance of nonconforming uses , will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment is an administrative process of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning the proposed amendment and the proposed CEQA determination, and based on its own independent judgment, finds that the amendment set forth in this Ordinance is not subject to, or exempt from, the requirements of the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends Section 17. 62.040 ( Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use) of Chapter 17.62 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures ) of Article IV (Site Development Provisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 5. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. Enforcement. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.
SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
Ordinance – Page 3 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of __________, 2024.
_____________________________________
Dennis Michael
Mayor
I, JANICE REYNOLDS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the __ __ day of ______________, 2024, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____ day of ______________, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk
Ordinance – Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Amendments to Title 17, Article IV (Site Development Provisions), Chapter 17.62 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures)
Amended Section:
• Section 17.62.040 (Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use)
17.62.040 Discontinuation of nonconforming use.
Whenever a nonconforming use has been replaced by a conforming use or has been discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days or more, the nonconforming use shall not be reestablished, and the use of the building/structure or property thereafter shall conform with the current regulations for the district in which it is located, provided that this section shall not apply t o nonconforming dwelling units. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the period of continuous discontinued use shall be extended to 365 days or more for industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses, as those uses are defined in section 17.32.020 of chapter 17.32 of this code.
12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G3
From: Bob Close <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 4:12 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Nonconforming Use Code Amendment
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
Item G3 on the 12/4/2024 City Council meeting proposes extending the nonconforming period from 6 months to 1 year. We acquired the building at 10808 6th Street in 2022, and the City indicated in a zoning compliance letter that “the future zoning for this property eix expected to remain Neo-Industrial District” immediately before we closed. We appreciates the City’s right to change the land use and zoning, but this change has several unintended consequences that could decrease the quality of the future tenants of the building. See attached letter sent prior to the Planning Commission meeting in November. We would appreciate it if any of the Council members could contact us to briefly discuss this issue. Thanks.
Bob Close
Director, Development and Construction
Bridge Logistics Properties
1501 Quail Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Cell: 954-882-8793
Email: [email protected]
BridgeBLP.com
Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer: The information attached and/or herein (the “Materials”) transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Materials do not constitute a solicitation to purchase any firm managed assets or securities. We reserve the right to monitor and review the content of email communications sent to or received by email addresses of Bridge Investment Group Holdings LLC or its affiliates. Emails sent to or from an email address of Bridge Investment Group Holdings LLC or any of its affiliates may be stored in accordance with regulatory requirements. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the materials from any computer.
Your Personal Data: We may collect and process information about you that may be subject to data protection laws. For more information about how we use and disclose your personal data, how we protect your information, our legal basis to use your information, your rights and who you can contact, please refer to: https://www.bridgeig.com/privacy.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G3
From: Gillison, John <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 6:47 PM
To: Bob Close <[email protected]>
Cc: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <[email protected]>; Troyan, Linda <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: 10808 6th Street
Importance: High
Bob
Acknowledging receipt of your email and the attachment.
Patricia is our Deputy City Clerk and Linda is our City Clerk and they are copied here so they can arrange for copies to be present at each City Councilmember’s seat before the Council meeting on Wednesday evening.
Nick is our City Attorney and I am copying him so he is aware your letter will become part of the packet and that you will be attending Wed night to comment on the item and ask for additional relief.
John R. Gillison
City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2020 All American City
I value your work life boundaries.
Please do not feel pressure to respond to this message outside of working hours.
From: Bob Close <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 4:17 PM
To: Gillison, John <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 10808 6th Street
I intend to attend on Wednesday. How do I get the letter included for the meeting? I thought it was automatic from PC, but it doesn’t look like it is part or the package (but it is mentioned in the staff report). Thanks.
Bob Close
Director, Development and Construction
Bridge Logistics Properties
1501 Quail Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Cell: 954-882-8793
Email: [email protected]
BridgeBLP.com
From: Bob Close
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 2:33 PM
To: Gillison, John <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 10808 6th Street
Can you please call me to discuss this issue. I know it is going to Council on Thursday. It is physically impossible to actually build what is required in the new code on our site, given the requirement for different types of buildings and a maximum building size of <20,000 SF. The 2 year period of to release the nonconforming use vastly improves the situation with our building. Thanks.
Bob Close
Director, Development and Construction
Bridge Logistics Properties
1501 Quail Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Cell: 954-882-8793
Email: [email protected]
BridgeBLP.com
50586742.1/200483.0004
November 12, 2024
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Attn: Jennifer Nakamura
Deputy Director of Planning
In 2022, the zoning of our building at 10808 6
th Street was changed from Neo-Industrial to Mixed Employment 2 (ME2). We appreciate that Item D5, consideration to amend Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend Nonconforming Use Provisions Concerning the Discontinuance, is currently on the November 13, 2024 Planning Commission agenda. Based on our interpretation, this proposed Code Amendment will extend the time for maintaining the right to nonconforming use from 180 days to one year of discontinuation. Unfortunately, that amount of time is not adequate and a minimum two year right to maintain the nonconforming use is absolutely critical for this Code Amendment to have the intended effect.
As previously discussed, the zoning and land changes enacted in 2022 have several unintended consequences that contradict the City’s goals. A major goal of the 2022 land use change was to limit pure warehouse and trucking uses in favor of higher employment tenants, but this code change will have the opposite effect:
• Tenants with a higher employment base for manufacturing or heavier office use are less common. It often takes a year or longer to lease a space to higher employment use and then 6-8 months to plan, design, permit and build the office space or manufacturing infrastructure within the building. With only a year of discontinuation allowed, we will be forced to lease the building quickly to a pure warehouse tenant to preserve our nonconforming rights.
• Uses with higher office and employment opportunities require more capital than typical warehouses. With the zoning change in 2022, our building is nonconforming which is considered riskier by lenders and other capital sources. The main issue is that the nonconforming right is extinguished within currently 6 months (or 1 year with the proposed change) while this is not an issue to lenders or other capital sources if the time period is extended to at least 2 years. The additional time allows us to fund the improvements required to land the most desirable tenants (to us and the City).
We closed on this building in 2022 after being reassured by the City in a zoning verification letter that “the future zoning for this property is expected to remain Neo-Industrial (NI) District”. The change we are requesting is minor and does not alter the land use changes initiated in 2022. This minor change of extending the discontinuation period to 2 years allows us to take the time and invest the required capital to attract the most desirable tenants to the City.
Sincerely,
Bob Close
Director- Development and Construction
Bridge Logistic Properties
Cell: (954) 882-8793
Email:
[email protected]
DATE:December 4, 2024
TO:President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Fire Chief
Augie Barreda, Deputy Fire Chief
Ty Harris, Deputy Fire Chief
Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager
Mackenzie Rojer, Fire Data Analyst
SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve the Implementation of Medic Squad 178. (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Fire Board approve the implementation of Medic Squad 178.
BACKGROUND:
On December 5, 2023, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors awarded Contract No. 23-1282 for ground ambulance medical transportation services to CONFIRE and its private subcontractor-partner Priority Ambulance, for an initial term beginning October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2029, with an option to extend the contract for a second five-year term. Services required as part of the contact include Advanced Life Support, Basic Life Support, ground ambulance services, and Interfacility and Critical Care Transport services to 11 Exclusive Operating Areas within the County.
As a result of the County awarding the ambulance contract to CONFIRE, several member and contract agencies (Ontario, Chino Valley, Rancho Cucamonga, and San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD)) are required to support the system by implementing at least one ambulance within their jurisdictions. Per the RFP and the contractual agreement with Priority Ambulance, the ambulances shall be staffed on a 24/7/365.
On December 20, 2023, the Fire Board authorized an amendment to the Fiscal Year 23-24 Budget to provide for the hiring of six firefighters to staff an ambulance. On January 17, 2024, the Fire Board authorized the purchase of two Type-1 Ambulances utilizing Sourcewell Cooperative Agreement No. 11092, awarded to Wheeled Coach. Both of these actions took place in order to meet the requirements of the County of San Bernardino contract for ground ambulance medical transportation services.
On February 27, 2024, American Medical Response (AMR) filed a lawsuit challenging the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors’ decision to award the ambulance transportation contract to CONFIRE. On July 9, 2024, AMR then filed an injunction requesting a stay of the execution of the ambulance transportation contract pending the outcome of the lawsuit. On September 12, 2024, a judge granted the requested injunction, subsequently delaying the scheduled implementation of the ambulance contract on October 1, 2024.
2 6
3 2
ANALYSIS:
In order to meet the staffing requirements of the County ambulance contract, the Fire District hired six firefighters and began a Fire Academy in March 2024. At the conclusion of the Fire Academy in May 2024, the Fire District temporarily placed Medic Squad 178 into service at newly opened Fire Station 178 while awaiting the commencement of the ambulance contract. The primary objective of Medic Squad 178 was to respond to low-acuity calls in order to increase the availability of the Fire District’s other all-risk apparatus for higher level critical incidents that necessitate a Medic Engine or Medic Truck response. Low-acuity calls are for non-urgent illnesses or injuries that are less severe and do not pose an immediate danger to the patient.
However, Medic Squad 178 is staffed with a firefighter paramedic capable of performing advanced life-saving actions if a patient’s condition changes upon arrival.
Medic Squad 178 Impact
Once placed in service, the Fire District began collecting data on Medic Squad 178’s responses in order to determine if the primary objective was being met.
From June 1 to October 31, 2024, Medic Squad 178 absorbed 1,417-unit responses, which is
13.51% of the Fire District’s total unit responses. Combined, Fire Station 178 (consisting of both Medic Engine 178 and Medic Squad 178) absorbed 26.41% of the Fire District’s unit responses.
Of the 1,417 dispatches of Medic Squad 178, 80.95% were independent and did not require an additional Fire District apparatus. Whereas 19.05% of the time, Medic Squad 178 was the secondary apparatus to another Rancho Cucamonga Fire District apparatus, serving as a force multiplier. On average, Medic Squad 178 was dispatched to nine incidents per day with a minimum of 3 incidents and a maximum of 19 incidents per day. Medic Squad 178 was primarily dispatched to emergency medical incidents 76.08% of the time, followed by good intent calls at
14.82%.
2 6
3 2
During the same timeframe of June 1 to October 31, 2024, the Fire District was dispatched to 1,840 low-acuity incidents (17.14% of total incidents). Of these responses, Medic Squad 178 absorbed 63.12%, responding to 1,157 of the low-acuity incidents. These low-acuity calls are incidents that the Fire District’s Medic Engines and Medic Trucks would have responded to previously. As a result, Medic Squad 178 increased the availability of the Fire District’s all-risk emergency apparatus for critical emergencies, which has enhanced Fire District’s call handling efficiency and improved the Fire District’s emergency response plan.
Recommendation
While the original intent had been for the temporary deployment of Medic Squad 178 until the commencement of the ambulance contract, it is uncertain when or if that contract will move forward. As detailed above, the deployment of Medic Squad 178 to low-acuity calls has increased the availability of the Fire District’s all-risk emergency apparatus to incident types that are critical in nature, subsequently providing an enhanced level of service to the community. Therefore, staff recommends the continued deployment of Medic Squad 178 to enhance the concentration levels of resources to the community.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Due to the anticipated implementation of the County ambulance contract, the staffing for Medic Squad 178 is already accounted for in the current Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget (F281 CC508).
The total annual expense is $1,307,970. However, since the Fire District is not staffing an ambulance as part of the County ambulance contract, this expense will not be offset by revenue.
The annual revenue for the ambulance contract was estimated at $1,408,700.
The Fire District purchased two ambulances in order to meet the requirements of the County ambulance contract. These ambulances will be used by Medic Squad 178. If the County ambulance contract moves forward, the Fire District will need to purchase a new squad unit and equipment. Any additional expenses will be examined during the preparation of the budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
2 6
3 2
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item brings together portions of the Council’s vision and core value by providing a sustainable City and promoting a safe and healthy community for all. This is accomplished by implementing Medic Squad 178 in order to enhance the level of service provided to the community and increase the availability of the Fire District’s all-risk emergency apparatus for critical emergencies.
ATTACHMENTS:
None