Agenda packet, regular meeting — Rancho Cucamonga City Council, May 7, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100
Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIP Broker Date PriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration
Corporate Note
1,445.39 1,450.13 111,281.83 101.17 01/07/30RBC Capi 110,000.00 63743HFX5NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/07/2025 4.950% 02/07/2030

4.69 4.22
3,264.03 3,301.50 251,871.50 100.75 01/07/30UBSS 250,000.00 713448GB8PEPSICO INC (CALLABLE) DTD 02/07/2025 4.600% 02/07/2030

4.43 4.26
2,362.23 2,346.00 303,267.00 101.09 01/24/30TD Secur 300,000.00 427866BL1HERSHEY COMPANY (CALLABLE) DTD 02/24/2025 4.750% 02/24/2030

4.48 4.29
815.15 816.64 145,660.04 100.46 02/01/30BOFAML 145,000.00 571676AY1MARS INC (CALLABLE) DTD 03/12/2025 4.800% 03/01/2030

4.68 4.30
78,697.81 4.43 25,432.12 13,056,233.91 13,100,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 2.30 Certificate of Deposit
(3,021.83)(3,021.83) 241,978.17 98.77 NEW ACC 245,000.00 58404DHQ7MEDALLION BANK UTAH DTD 07/30/2020 0.550% 07/30/2025

4.35 0.32
8,168.40 8,168.40 408,168.40 102.04 WellsFar 400,000.00 63873QP65NATIXIS NY BRANCH DTD 09/20/2023 5.610% 09/18/2026

4.10 1.38
3,173.61 3,173.61 593,173.61 100.54 CRAG 590,000.00 22536DWD6CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY DTD 02/05/2024 4.760% 02/01/2027

4.39 1.76
8,320.18 4.29 8,320.18 1,243,320.18 1,235,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 1.35 Bank Note
12,067.56 12,355.87 886,830.87 101.35 07/07/26BOFAML 875,000.00 94988J6D4WELLS FARGO BANK NA (CALLABLE) DTD 08/09/2023 5.450% 08/07/2026

4.41 1.23
12,355.87 4.41 12,067.56 886,830.87 875,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 1.23 Asset-Backed Security
(12.04)(11.44) 3,570.09 99.66 BOFAML 3,582.28 43815GAC3HAROT 2021-4 A3 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026

15.65 0.09
(2.52)(2.48) 1,361.60 99.81 WellsFar 1,364.14 92868KAC7VALET 2021-1 A3 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026

4.52 0.06
(129.65)(128.90) 29,538.95 99.56 BOFAML 29,668.99 448977AD0HART 2022-A A3 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026

4.46 0.20
Account 73340100 Page 24PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.

Page 109 ends

For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100
Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIP Broker Date PriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration
Asset-Backed Security
(46.16)(45.65) 8,767.05 99.47 BNPPSA 8,813.47 380146AC4GMCAR 2022-1 A3 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026

4.50 0.16
582.40 589.60 383,584.90 100.15 JPMorgan 383,025.30 43813YAB8HAROT 2024-3 A2 DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027

4.60 0.48

67.83 69.76 69,046.39 100.09 MIZU 68,982.03 98164RAB2WOART 2024-A A2A DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027

4.63 0.24
1,340.84 1,348.32 121,323.96 101.10 MIZU 120,000.00 65480MAD5NAROT 2023-B A3 DTD 10/25/2023 5.930% 03/15/2028

4.73 0.88
2,771.07 3,072.60 402,197.60 100.55 SUMITR 400,000.00 02582JJZ4AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028

4.39 1.07
4,677.68 7,134.11 515,173.56 100.03 SUMITR 515,000.00 14041NGD7COMET 2023-A1 A DTD 05/24/2023 4.420% 05/15/2028

4.44 1.07
3,128.82 3,292.11 517,829.41 100.55 SUMITR 515,000.00 02582JJZ4AMXCA 2023-1 A DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028

4.39 1.07
4,277.83 5,030.51 652,897.70 100.45 SUMITR 650,000.00 05522RDG0BACCT 2023-A1 A1 DTD 06/16/2023 4.790% 05/15/2028

4.41 1.07
4,115.55 4,013.91 629,306.88 100.69 SUMITR 625,000.00 254683CZ6DCENT 2023-A2 A DTD 06/28/2023 4.930% 06/15/2028

4.37 1.15
909.63 913.36 75,900.15 101.20 JPMorgan 75,000.00 438123AC5HAROT 2023-4 A3 DTD 11/08/2023 5.670% 06/21/2028

4.61 1.08
1,704.02 1,570.25 355,630.80 101.61 WellsFar 350,000.00 50117DAC0KCOT 2024-2A A3 DTD 06/25/2024 5.260% 11/15/2028

4.46 1.88
1,913.28 1,913.42 241,913.28 100.80 MUFG 240,000.00 89237QAD2TAOT 2024-C A3 DTD 07/30/2024 4.880% 03/15/2029

4.40 1.55
215.99 217.84 200,203.20 100.10 Barclays 200,000.00 448976AD2HART 2024-C A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.410% 05/15/2029

4.39 1.88
6,789.34 6,795.05 506,767.00 101.35 BOFAML 500,000.00 05522RDJ4BACCT 2024-A1 A DTD 06/13/2024 4.930% 05/15/2029

4.34 1.97
1,436.66 1,511.81 499,441.50 99.89 BOFAML 500,000.00 43816DAC9HAROT 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/24/2024 4.330% 05/15/2029

4.43 1.71
2,746.48 2,748.75 347,733.09 100.79 Citigrou 345,000.00 02589BAE0AMXCA 2024-3 A DTD 07/23/2024 4.650% 07/15/2029

4.33 2.13
183.97 186.82 160,156.00 100.10 MIZU 160,000.00 38014AAD3GMCAR 2024-4 A3 DTD 10/16/2024 4.400% 08/16/2029

4.38 1.90
Account 73340100 Page 25PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.

Page 110 ends

For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Fair Market Value & Analytics CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100
Value On Cost Amort CostCUSIP Broker Date PriceDated Date/Coupon/Maturity Par at Mkt Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/LNext Call MarketSecurity Type/Description YTMEffective Duration
Asset-Backed Security
966.29 967.12 375,954.37 100.25 Barclays 375,000.00 92868MAD1VALET 2025-1 A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.500% 08/20/2029

4.42 2.18
1,293.31 1,294.91 296,265.85 100.43 WellsFar 295,000.00 096924AD7BMWOT 2025-A A3 DTD 02/12/2025 4.560% 09/25/2029

4.41 2.02
(170.56)(166.99) 279,791.40 99.93 WellsFar 280,000.00 92970QAE5WFCIT 2024-A2 A DTD 10/24/2024 4.290% 10/15/2029

4.33 2.37
1,088.07 1,089.36 456,045.13 100.23 SGAS 455,000.00 34535KAD0FORDO 2025-A A3 DTD 03/25/2025 4.450% 10/15/2029

4.38 2.16
2,316.40 2,319.21 267,262.84 100.85 SGAS 265,000.00 58773DAD6MBART 2025-1 A3 DTD 01/23/2025 4.780% 12/17/2029

4.40 2.18
217.26 161.75 455,142.19 100.03 BOFAML 455,000.00 92348KDY6VZMT 2025-3 A1A DTD 03/31/2025 4.510% 03/20/2030

4.57 2.36
45,885.11 4.43 42,381.79 7,852,804.89 7,815,436.20 Security Type Sub-Total 1.58 65,490,697.60 64,440,260.74 702,394.54 124,422.45 4.16 Managed Account Sub-Total 2.45 Total Investments $64,802,277.14
$362,016.40
$64,440,260.74
Accrued Interest
Securities Sub-Total $65,490,697.60 $702,394.54 $124,422.45 4.16% 2.45 Account 73340100 Page 26PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.

Page 111 ends

For the Month Ending March 31, 2025Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIS - 73340100
Transaction Type
Trade CUSIPSecurity DescriptionSettle Par Proceeds
Principal Accrued
Interest Total Cost
Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale
Amort Cost Method
BUY
03/05/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 01/31/2023 3.500% 01/31/2030
91282CGJ4 (960,221.09) (3,142.75) (963,363.84) 985,000.00 03/03/25 03/05/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028
91282CGT2 (519,093.75) (8,156.25) (527,250.00) 525,000.00 03/03/25 03/12/25 MARS INC (CALLABLE)
DTD 03/12/2025 4.800% 03/01/2030
571676AY1 (144,843.40) 0.00 (144,843.40) 145,000.00 03/05/25 03/20/25 FHMS K537 A2
DTD 03/01/2025 4.430% 02/01/2030
3137HKPF5 (359,996.04) (841.70) (360,837.74) 360,000.00 03/11/25 03/25/25 VALET 2025-1 A3
DTD 03/25/2025 4.500% 08/20/2029
92868MAD1 (374,987.25) 0.00 (374,987.25) 375,000.00 03/18/25 03/25/25 FORDO 2025-A A3
DTD 03/25/2025 4.450% 10/15/2029
34535KAD0 (454,955.77) 0.00 (454,955.77) 455,000.00 03/18/25 03/31/25 VZMT 2025-3 A1A
DTD 03/31/2025 4.510% 03/20/2030
92348KDY6 (454,980.44) 0.00 (454,980.44) 455,000.00 03/25/25 (12,140.70) (3,281,218.44)(3,269,077.74) 3,300,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total

INTEREST
03/25/25 FHMS K520 A2
DTD 04/01/2024 5.180% 03/01/2029
3137HCKV3 0.00 1,295.00 1,295.00 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K530 A2
DTD 11/01/2024 4.792% 09/01/2029
3137HHJL6 0.00 2,376.03 2,376.03 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K514 A2
DTD 02/01/2024 4.572% 12/01/2028
3137HBLV4 0.00 1,104.90 1,104.90 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K527 A2
DTD 08/01/2024 4.618% 07/01/2029
3137HFF59 0.00 1,635.54 1,635.54 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K506 A2
DTD 09/01/2023 4.650% 08/01/2028
3137HAMH6 0.00 2,325.00 2,325.00 03/01/25
03/25/25 FNA 2023-M6 A2
DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028
3136BQDE6 0.00 1,997.14 1,997.14 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K505 A2
DTD 07/01/2023 4.819% 06/01/2028
3137HACX2 0.00 2,409.50 2,409.50 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K510 A2
DTD 11/01/2023 5.069% 10/01/2028
3137HB3D4 0.00 929.32 929.32 03/01/25
Account 73340100 Page 27PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.

Page 112 ends

INTEREST
03/25/25 FHMS K067 A2
DTD 09/01/2017 3.194% 07/01/2027
3137FAWS3 0.00 931.58 931.58 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K062 A2
DTD 02/01/2017 3.413% 12/01/2026
3137BUX60 0.00 881.69 881.69 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K526 A2
DTD 08/01/2024 4.543% 07/01/2029
3137HDXL9 0.00 2,082.21 2,082.21 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS KJ46 A1
DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028
3137HAD45 0.00 2,380.09 2,380.09 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K529 A2
DTD 10/01/2024 4.791% 09/01/2029
3137HH6C0 0.00 1,437.30 1,437.30 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K509 A2
DTD 10/01/2023 4.850% 09/01/2028
3137HAST4 0.00 1,818.75 1,818.75 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K508 A2
DTD 10/01/2023 4.740% 08/01/2028
3137HAQ74 0.00 2,172.50 2,172.50 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K511 A2
DTD 12/01/2023 4.860% 10/01/2028
3137HB3G7 0.00 1,296.00 1,296.00 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS K528 A2
DTD 09/01/2024 4.508% 07/01/2029
3137HFNZ4 0.00 807.68 807.68 03/01/25
03/02/25 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP (CALLABLE)
DTD 03/02/2021 1.267% 03/02/2027
89788MAD4 0.00 1,742.13 1,742.13 03/02/25
03/03/25 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP (CALLABLE)
DTD 03/03/2022 2.450% 03/03/2027
808513BY0 0.00 3,675.00 3,675.00 03/03/25
03/04/25 MONEY MARKET FUND
DTD 01/01/2010 0.000% --
MONEY0002 0.00 22.56 22.56 03/04/25
03/09/25 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE
DTD 09/09/2021 1.300% 09/09/2026
02665WDZ1 0.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 03/09/25
03/15/25 BACCT 2023-A1 A1
DTD 06/16/2023 4.790% 05/15/2028
05522RDG0 0.00 2,594.58 2,594.58 03/15/25
03/15/25 KCOT 2024-2A A3
DTD 06/25/2024 5.260% 11/15/2028
50117DAC0 0.00 1,534.17 1,534.17 03/15/25
03/15/25 DCENT 2023-A2 A
DTD 06/28/2023 4.930% 06/15/2028
254683CZ6 0.00 2,567.71 2,567.71 03/15/25
03/15/25 HART 2022-A A3
DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026
448977AD0 0.00 66.80 66.80 03/15/25
Account 73340100 Page 28PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.

Page 113 ends

INTEREST
03/15/25 NAROT 2023-B A3
DTD 10/25/2023 5.930% 03/15/2028
65480MAD5 0.00 593.00 593.00 03/15/25
03/15/25 AMXCA 2023-1 A
DTD 06/14/2023 4.870% 05/15/2028
02582JJZ4 0.00 3,713.38 3,713.38 03/15/25
03/15/25 HAROT 2024-4 A3
DTD 10/24/2024 4.330% 05/15/2029
43816DAC9 0.00 1,804.17 1,804.17 03/15/25
03/15/25 HART 2024-C A3
DTD 10/16/2024 4.410% 05/15/2029
448976AD2 0.00 735.00 735.00 03/15/25
03/15/25 WOART 2024-A A2A
DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027
98164RAB2 0.00 336.50 336.50 03/15/25
03/15/25 COMET 2023-A1 A
DTD 05/24/2023 4.420% 05/15/2028
14041NGD7 0.00 1,896.92 1,896.92 03/15/25
03/15/25 BACCT 2024-A1 A
DTD 06/13/2024 4.930% 05/15/2029
05522RDJ4 0.00 2,054.17 2,054.17 03/15/25
03/15/25 AMXCA 2024-3 A
DTD 07/23/2024 4.650% 07/15/2029
02589BAE0 0.00 1,336.88 1,336.88 03/15/25
03/15/25 MBART 2025-1 A3
DTD 01/23/2025 4.780% 12/17/2029
58773DAD6 0.00 1,055.58 1,055.58 03/15/25
03/15/25 WFCIT 2024-A2 A
DTD 10/24/2024 4.290% 10/15/2029
92970QAE5 0.00 1,001.00 1,001.00 03/15/25
03/15/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 03/15/2024 4.250% 03/15/2027
91282CKE0 0.00 9,031.25 9,031.25 03/15/25
03/15/25 TAOT 2024-C A3
DTD 07/30/2024 4.880% 03/15/2029
89237QAD2 0.00 976.00 976.00 03/15/25
03/16/25 GMCAR 2024-4 A3
DTD 10/16/2024 4.400% 08/16/2029
38014AAD3 0.00 586.67 586.67 03/16/25
03/16/25 GMCAR 2022-1 A3
DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026
380146AC4 0.00 11.74 11.74 03/16/25
03/20/25 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP
DTD 09/20/2022 4.550% 09/20/2027
89236TKJ3 0.00 10,237.50 10,237.50 03/20/25
03/20/25 VALET 2021-1 A3
DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026
92868KAC7 0.00 4.17 4.17 03/20/25
03/21/25 HAROT 2023-4 A3
DTD 11/08/2023 5.670% 06/21/2028
438123AC5 0.00 354.38 354.38 03/21/25
Account 73340100 Page 29PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.

Page 114 ends

INTEREST
03/21/25 HAROT 2024-3 A2
DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027
43813YAB8 0.00 1,609.63 1,609.63 03/21/25
03/21/25 HAROT 2021-4 A3
DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026
43815GAC3 0.00 4.35 4.35 03/21/25
03/25/25 BMWOT 2025-A A3
DTD 02/12/2025 4.560% 09/25/2029
096924AD7 0.00 1,606.77 1,606.77 03/25/25
03/29/25 CITIBANK NA (CALLABLE)
DTD 09/29/2023 5.803% 09/29/2028
17325FBB3 0.00 16,683.63 16,683.63 03/29/25
03/30/25 MEDALLION BANK UTAH
DTD 07/30/2020 0.550% 07/30/2025
58404DHQ7 0.00 110.75 110.75 03/30/25
03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 09/30/2021 0.875% 09/30/2026
91282CCZ2 0.00 6,562.50 6,562.50 03/31/25
03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 09/30/2022 4.125% 09/30/2027
91282CFM8 0.00 33,000.00 33,000.00 03/31/25
03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 09/30/2022 3.875% 09/30/2029
91282CFL0 0.00 12,109.38 12,109.38 03/31/25
03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 10/02/2023 4.625% 09/30/2028
91282CJA0 0.00 22,662.50 22,662.50 03/31/25
03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 03/31/2023 3.625% 03/31/2028
91282CGT2 0.00 9,515.63 9,515.63 03/31/25
03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 09/30/2020 0.375% 09/30/2027
91282CAL5 0.00 562.50 562.50 03/31/25
03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 03/31/2022 2.375% 03/31/2029
91282CEE7 0.00 14,250.00 14,250.00 03/31/25
03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 03/31/2021 1.250% 03/31/2028
91282CBS9 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 03/31/25
200,789.13 200,789.13 0.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total

PAYDOWNS
03/25/25 FNA 2023-M6 A2
DTD 07/01/2023 4.182% 07/01/2028
3136BQDE6 4.13 0.00 4.13 0.15 0.11 4.13 03/01/25
03/25/25 FHMS KJ46 A1
DTD 07/01/2023 4.777% 06/01/2028
3137HAD45 749.55 0.00 749.55 0.02 0.01 749.55 03/01/25 Account 73340100 Page 30PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.

Page 115 ends

PAYDOWNS
03/15/25 WOART 2024-A A2A
DTD 02/14/2024 5.050% 04/15/2027
98164RAB2 10,977.36 0.00 10,977.36 0.86 0.56 10,977.36 03/15/25 03/15/25 HART 2022-A A3
DTD 03/16/2022 2.220% 10/15/2026
448977AD0 6,440.93 0.00 6,440.93 0.24 0.08 6,440.93 03/15/25 03/16/25 GMCAR 2022-1 A3
DTD 01/19/2022 1.260% 11/16/2026
380146AC4 2,369.65 0.00 2,369.65 0.21 0.07 2,369.65 03/16/25 03/20/25 VALET 2021-1 A3
DTD 12/13/2021 1.020% 06/22/2026
92868KAC7 3,540.74 0.00 3,540.74 0.14 0.04 3,540.74 03/20/25 03/21/25 HAROT 2024-3 A2
DTD 08/21/2024 4.890% 02/22/2027
43813YAB8 11,974.70 0.00 11,974.70 0.93 0.72 11,974.70 03/21/25 03/21/25 HAROT 2021-4 A3
DTD 11/24/2021 0.880% 01/21/2026
43815GAC3 2,355.64 0.00 2,355.64 0.50 0.10 2,355.64 03/21/25

0.00 1.69 3.05 38,412.70 38,412.70 38,412.70 Transaction Type Sub-Total SELL
03/05/25 INTL BK RECON & DEVELOP
(CALLABLE)
DTD 02/10/2021 0.650% 02/10/2026
459058JS3 965,990.00 451.39 966,441.39 (25,000.00) (32,228.21) FIFO 1,000,000.00 03/03/25 03/05/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 04/30/2021 1.250% 04/30/2028
91282CBZ3 459,218.75 2,158.15 461,376.90 15,156.25 (4,801.35) FIFO 500,000.00 03/03/25 03/07/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 02/28/2019 2.500% 02/28/2026
9128286F2 147,708.98 71.33 147,780.31 (591.80) (1,852.43) FIFO 150,000.00 03/06/25 03/14/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 04/17/2023 3.750% 04/15/2026
91282CGV7 49,830.08 772.66 50,602.74 755.86 325.41 FIFO 50,000.00 03/12/25 03/17/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 02/28/2019 2.500% 02/28/2026
9128286F2 344,722.66 404.21 345,126.87 (1,312.50) (4,282.56) FIFO 350,000.00 03/14/25 03/20/25 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE)
DTD 03/23/2016 3.300% 04/01/2026
46625HQW3 336,222.60 5,267.17 341,489.77 (37,362.60) (9,483.23) FIFO 340,000.00 03/19/25 03/20/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 06/30/2021 1.250% 06/30/2028
91282CCH2 45,742.19 136.40 45,878.59 2,802.74 723.66 FIFO 50,000.00 03/19/25 03/25/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027
912828X88 289,921.88 2,558.70 292,480.58 902.35 (5,106.67) FIFO 300,000.00 03/24/25 03/31/25 US TREASURY N/B
DTD 05/15/2017 2.375% 05/15/2027
912828X88 145,001.96 1,338.40 146,340.36 492.19 (2,531.41) FIFO 150,000.00 03/26/25 Account 73340100 Page 31PFM Asset Management, a division of U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc.

Page 116 ends

Page 117 ends

DATE:May 7, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Community Programs Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director
Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC, Deputy Director of City Clerk Services Jasmin Oriel, CMC, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Consideration to Cancel and Reschedule the September 17, 2025 Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority, and City Council to September 16, 2025. (CITY/FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council cancel and reschedule the September 17, 2025 Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority, and City Council to September 16, 2025.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council serves as the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Financing Authority. Its Regular Meetings are held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month.

ANALYSIS:

Due to a State of the County event, staff recommends the City Council cancel and reschedule the September 17, 2025, Regular Meetings to September 16, 2025.

The City Clerk Services Department will provide the appropriate legal notifications of changes.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

This item maintains organizational efficiency and planning to help advance the quality of life for the community through inclusive decision-making.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page 118 ends

DATE:May 7, 2025
TO:President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager
Cheryl Combs, Procurement Business Partner
SUBJECT:Consideration to Declare Surplus for Retired VHF Mobile Radio That Have Been Deemed No Longer Needed, Obsolete, or Unusable as Surplus. (FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Fire Board of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District declare the list of VHF Mobile Radio detailed in the Analysis section that have been deemed no longer needed, obsolete, or unusable as surplus.

BACKGROUND:

Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 3.08.150, the Procurement Manager shall have the authority, granted by the City Council, to request the disposal of City items that have been deemed as obsolete and unsuitable for City use. Methods for disposing of surplus are to exchange for or trade in on new supplies, transfer to another department, or offer for sale on a competitive bid basis. After a reasonable effort, and if no bids have been received, Procurement may dispose of surplus for the highest scrap value. The City may sell surplus property to any other governmental agency at a fair market value without any other bids or donate surplus property to any agency or entity which is exempt from federal income tax, with the approval of City Council.

ANALYSIS:

The items to be considered for surplus at this time were submitted by Fire Protection District.

Proposed surplus items include retired VHF Mobile Radio deemed no longer needed, obsolete, or unusable. Staff recommends Council approve the disposal of these VHF Mobile Radio through auction or best method as determined by the Procurement Manager.

VHF Mobile Radio
RCF Tag # Make - Model Serial #
22631 DMH5992X VHF Mobile 1027075
N/A DMH5992X VHF Mobile 1109067
22659 DMH5992X VHF Mobile 1027042
N/A DMH5992R VHF Mobile 1112172
N/A DMH5992R VHF Mobile 1112196
N/A DMH5992R VHF Mobile 1112178

Page 119 ends

Page 2 ends

2 8
0 3
RCF Tag # Make - Model Serial #
22496 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713056
3379 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 535090
22402 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 325012
22488 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713027
22493 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 150045
22487 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713021
22485 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 703058
22486 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 703060
3380 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 602027
22500 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713063
N/A GMH5992X VHF Mobile 832072
22494 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 150182
22502 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713070
22427 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 635401
22494 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713046
22509 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 750085
2636 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 132162
22426 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 635040
3381 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 602016
22660 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 1040166
22492 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713036
N/A GMH5992X VHF Mobile 150181
22491 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 713035
22489 GMH5992X VHF Mobile 7131028
22370 EMV4990A VHF Mobile 219179
22338 EMH5992X VHF Mobile 13151
N/A D43MJA7DASCK 800 Mobile 428FNQ4750
21781 D51MJA97A3AK 800 Mobile 356AUG0561
FISCAL IMPACT:

As of April 16, 2025, FY 2024/25 surplus has accumulated $115,167.31 in sales through the Public Surplus Auction Site.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

Reusing and recycling items supports the City Council’s Core Value of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page 120 ends

2 8
0 7
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

INITIATED BY:

SUBJECT:

May 7, 2025
Mayor and Members of the City Council
John R. Gillison, City Manager
Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager
Hector Velazquez, Procurement Business Partner
Consideration for the Transfer of Title for One (1) 2025 Honda Pioneer 1000 Side-by-Side, Procured from Huntington Beach Honda, to Facilitate the Vehicles Used by San Bernardino County for Police Department Services. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council authorize the transfer of one (1) 2025 Honda Pioneer 1000 to facilitate the vehicles used by San Bernardino County for Police Department Services.

BACKGROUND:

On December 14, 2023, the City Council approved the acceptance of grant revenue in the amount of $33,045.00, awarded by the Office of Emergency Services (FY 22 Homeland Security Grant) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and authorized appropriation in Account 701380-7007 to procure one (1) side-by-side vehicle for the purpose of response to a catastrophic incident.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department provided the Procurement Division with specifications for the side-by-side vehicle. The Procurement Division prepared and posted RFQ #000473 to Planet Bids, there were one hundred twenty-eight (128) notified bidders, twelve (12) prospective bidders, and three (3) responses were received. The lowest most responsive bidder was Huntington Beach Honda, of Huntington Beach, California, in the amount of $28,710.68, to be funded from Account F380 (Homeland Security Grant) CC 701 (Police) SC 7007 (Capital Outlay-Vehicles).

ANALYSIS:

The request to transfer the one (1) side-by-side vehicle to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for liability requirements will alleviate the City from liability while the vehicle is in use under ownership with the County of San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department. At the end of its service life, the vehicle will be transferred from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department back to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for proper surplus disposition.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No financial impact is anticipated.

Page 121 ends

Page 2 ends

2 8
0 7
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

Authorizing the transfer of ownership to the County of San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department supports the City Council’s Core Value of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page 122 ends

DATE: May 7, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Neil Plummer, Public Works Services Director Andy Miller, Facilities Superintendent
Lisa O'Brien, Public Works Business Manager
Paige Eberle, Management Analyst ll
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Contract with Mukai Construction for the Quakes Stadium Bowl Emergency Waterproofing in the Amount of $427,220. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Confirm and ratify the City Manager’s declaration that an emergency existed requiring the immediate repair of the Quakes Stadium Bowl (Seating Area) water leaks to prevent any additional facility water damage and bypass the formal bidding process.

2. Authorize and approve the City Manager’s prior approval of the execution of a contract with Mukai Construction for emergency services to provide waterproofing for the Quakes Stadium Bowl.

3. Authorize the expenditure of $427,220.

4. Appropriate $427,220 from General Fund (F001) fund balance.

5. Approve transfer of $175,000 to PID-2168-030 Quakes Stadium Upgrades F030.

BACKGROUND:

During the Stadium Modernization with Rancho Baseball LLC, it was found that the interior areas beneath the stadium seating at Quakes Stadium had widespread moisture intrusion in the locker rooms, restrooms, utility and storage rooms, kitchen, and hallways, evidenced by efflorescent staining, calcium deposits, and rust. This moisture is primarily traced to multiple exterior structural deficiencies, including deteriorated and cracked caulking seals at concrete control joints, compromised expansion joint systems, and poorly installed or deteriorated flashing systems, particularly at stairways and walkways. Additionally, damaged pedestrian coatings and spalling concrete contribute to water entry. These issues are exacerbated by routine cleaning with large volumes of water, which penetrates through faulty joints and seals, leading to the current interior leakage.

ANALYSIS:

The work was authorized by the City Manager due to the exigent circumstances. Facilities staff partnered with Rancho Baseball LLC to find a contractor that had the capacity to make the repairs required for this emergency project in a timely manner before Opening Day on April 4. Mukai Construction Inc. was recommended for quotes on various solutions to waterproof the Quakes

Page 123 ends

Page 2 ends

2 8
1 1
Stadium Bowl. The bowl was repaired with a combination of sealing the horizontal joints in the decking, sealing all deck to wall transitions, recoating walkway and stair surfaces and the installation of new horizontal joint expansion joints to reconstruct the damaged areas and to return the bowl to a safe and secure condition. The repairs will ensure the new locker rooms located directly under the bowl remain dry and safe for the incoming players.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Construction Costs for the emergency project are as follows:

Expenditures Amount
First Draw at start of work $ 175,000
Second draw at 60% completion $ 175,000
Final Payment upon completion $ 77,220
Total Construction Costs $427,220
This project was not included in the FY 2024/25 budget. Therefore, an appropriation in the amount of $427,220 is required to be funded as follows:

Account Fund Description Amount
F001 CC701 SC2106 General Fund Emergency
Waterproofing $427,220
Total Project Funding: $427,220
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the City Council’s core value of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all by ensuring City facilities are properly maintained.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page 124 ends

Staff recommends that the City Council enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Z&K Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $409,400, plus a 10% contingency for Construction Management and Inspection services for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project (Project).

BACKGROUND:

Heritage Park (Park), located in the northwestern portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is a center of recreational activity and is uniquely divided into two sections by the Demens Creek Channel. Large numbers of people of all ages visit the park annually as it has multiple recreational areas, including a playground, baseball fields, soccer fields, and a dedicated equestrian arena and facility, which is connected to the area’s existing equestrian trail network. The equestrian center area of the Park, because of its size and accessibility to horse trailers as well as a dedicated restroom and community center, also serves as a staging area for emergency response during fire or flooding incidents occurring in the foothills. A Vicinity Map illustrating the location of the Project is included in Attachment 1.

In 2019, a bridge report and structural evaluation was conducted for the three (3) bridges that serve as the main access point over the Demens Creek Channel to the Equestrian Center and Emergency Staging Area of the Park. The evaluation confirmed that all three (3) bridges needed replacement, and after evaluating options, it was determined that the best course of action would be to demolish all three (3) of the existing bridges and replace them with a single bridge structure.

At the present time, those bridges can no longer support the weight of emergency equipment.

The Demens Creek Channel is owned and maintained by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFD). The City has worked extensively over the past four years with SBCFD and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to obtain the necessary permits to begin construction. In August and November 2024, the City received permits from the Army Corps and SBCFD, respectively, granting the City permission to enter their right of way and construct the Project.

Page 125 ends

Page 2 ends

2 7
9 6
On April 16, 2025, the City Council awarded and executed a construction contract with CT&T Concrete Paving Inc. for the Project. The construction phase for this project is expected to start in May 2025.

ANALYSIS:

This Project will construct a new single bridge that will be approximately 50’ wide and span approximately 21’ across the Demens Creek Channel. The new bridge will provide separated areas and pathways for pedestrians, equestrians, and vehicles. In addition, ADA access to the bridge will be maintained with the construction of new pathways, lighting will be upgraded to current City standards, and new landscaping and vegetation will be installed. Once complete, the bridge will provide a critically improved connection to the equestrian center.

In February 2025, a Request for Proposal (RFP) #24/25-010 was released for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Project. In total, thirteen (13) qualified proposal responses were received. The proposal responses were evaluated and rated in accordance with the criteria specified in the RFP.

Z&K Consultants, Inc. received the highest overall score from the evaluation committee, clearly demonstrating a strong understanding of the Project scope of services, potential construction challenges, and the sensitive nature of the community impacts. The scope of work includes, but is not limited to, pre-construction services, daily monitoring and inspection, reviewing contractor submittals, overseeing construction administration activities, materials testing, and overseeing construction close-out. A copy of the Professional Services Agreement is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Anticipated costs for Construction Management and Inspection Services are estimated as follows:

Task Amount
Construction Management and Inspection Services* $409,400 Contingency $40,940
Total with Contingency $450,340
* CM&I Services are approximately 25% of the base construction contract.

A total of $2,400,000 was budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Budget for this Project consisting of funds from the Citywide Infrastructure Improvement Fund (198) and the Fire Capital Projects Fund (288). An additional $750,000 was awarded from San Bernardino County through the County Board Discretionary Fund Priorities Program. Following design, preconstruction and construction expenses, the remaining budget available for the Project is $1,196,540, see the table below for the expenses breakdown:

Expenses Amount
Preconstruction Expenses $48,520
Construction Contract $1,655,100
Construction Contract Contingency (15%) $248,270
Bid Noticing Advertisement $1,570
Total Expenses to Date (Fiscal Year 2024/25) $1,953,460 Amended Budget $3,150,000
Remaining Budget $1,196,540

Page 126 ends

Page 3 ends

2 7
9 6
From this available budget, funds will be allocated for this contract as identified under the Capital Improvement Project account number listed below:

Account No. Funding Source Description Amount
F198 CC303 SC7004
PID1963-198
Citywide
Infrastructure
Improvement
Construction
Management and
Inspection Services for
the Heritage Park
Bridge Replacement
Project
$225,170
F288 CC501 SC7004
PID1963-288
Fire Capital Projects Construction
Management and
Inspection Services for
the Heritage Park
Bridge Replacement
Project
$225,170
Total $450,340
Excess funds from the budgeted amount for this Project will be returned to the fund balances for their associated funds at the end of the fiscal year and will be available for use on future projects.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the City Council’s core values by ensuring the construction of high-quality public improvements that promote success as a world class community.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map

Page 127 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

HERITAGE PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

Page 128 ends

DATE: May 7, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services / City Engineer Trina Valdez, Utilities Operations Supervisor
SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment No. 15 to the Agreement with Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085) in the Amount of $295,000 for High Voltage Electrical Support and Related Infrastructure. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 15 authorizing an increase in the amount of $295,000 to the Agreement with Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085).

BACKGROUND:

In 2019, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. entered into an Agreement (CO19-085) to provide installation, operation, maintenance and emergency support for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) electrical infrastructure and distribution systems.

ANALYSIS:

During this Fiscal Year, RCMU has had numerous small projects that required high voltage electrical support from Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. including cable and transformer removal, a transformer installation, and a pad mounted transformer relocation that will include a planned service outage requiring crews to be on-site during the outage. The improvements and support will be paid for by the owner or developer of the various projects.

Additionally, RCMU has experienced multiple unplanned outages in its service area that has required additional hours and expenses to locate and make the necessary repairs to restore service. A transformer was also found to be leaking oil and needed to be replaced. The outages and additional support have utilized the 2024/25 approved budget for Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. and additional funds are needed to cover these expenses and for the remainder of the fiscal year.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds from the Municipal Utlity Fund (Fund 705) in the amount of $295,000 is available in account number F705CC304SC2106 of the Fiscal Year 2024/25 approved budget. No additional appropriations are required at this time.

Page 129 ends

Page 2 ends

2 7
9 7
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring the construction and maintenance of high-quality public improvements that promote a world class community.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page 130 ends

DATE: May 7, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services / City Engineer Trina Valdez, Utilities Operations Supervisor
SUBJECT: Consideration of an Approval of Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement with Henkels & McCoy, Inc. (CO19-148) and Amendment No. 16 to the Agreement with Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085) in the Amount of $780,600, Plus a 10% Contingency and an Authorization to Appropriate $858,660 for the Municipal Utility Connector Replacement Project. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Municipal Utility Connector Replacement Project (Project);

2. Award and authorize the execution of an amendment to the existing agreement with Henkels & McCoy, Inc. (CO19-148) and Pacific Utility Installation, Inc. (CO19-085) in the total amount of $780,600;

3. Authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $78,060; and

4. Authorize an appropriation in the amount of $858,660 for the Municipal Utility Connector Replacement.

BACKGROUND:

Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility’s (RCMU) distribution system was initially installed in 2003 to serve the Victoria Garden’s Regional Mall property and surrounding commercial projects from Rochester Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard. The initial three 12KV feeder circuits were commissioned in 2004 and the distribution system continued to expand from 2005 through 2010 when a new fourth feeder circuit extension was added to serve City facilities and additional commercial development projects along Haven Avenue.

Over the past twenty years, RCMU’s distribution system has been very reliable with very few issues on its main feeder systems. During the past several months, RCMU has experienced three separate unplanned outages on three of its main feeder circuits. The cause of each feeder outage was found to be 600 Amp connectors that failed. When this type of outage occurs and with over 100 connectors on the three main feeder circuits, it is difficult to quickly locate where the problem is in the circuit. The length of the outage can be four to five hours from when the outage is initially reported to when the problem is found and then repaired.

Page 131 ends

Page 2 ends

2 8
1 4
It was determined that with the first three 12 KV circuits being installed at the same time and the 600 Amp connectors depreciating at the same rate, it would be crucial to begin a strategic replacement plan of the connectors to minimize potential future outages. The replacement plan would be completed in phases and replace connections beginning with the oldest underground circuits first. The replacement work will take place in underground manholes, vaults and at pad mounted switches. This project will also allow the opportunity while the equipment is being accessed to install fault indicators at the pad mounted switches which will take the next steps in developing an outage notification system resulting in faster response times when an outage occurs.

ANALYSIS:

With the complexity of the work and the urgency to complete a portion of the connector replacement before the summer temperatures arrive to avoid further service disruptions and costly after-hours repairs, staff determined a joint effort between two (2) of the three (3) pre- qualified vendors would meet the needs of the City. It should further be noted that this is specialty repair work that our pre-qualified vendors would already perform during emergency outages. In order to proactively prevent such outages, staff obtained a quote from both vendors and determined the quote to be deemed as reasonable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Expenditures for this work has not been included in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Adopted Budget, therefore, an appropriation is needed in the following amount:

Account No. Funding Source Description Amount
F708CC304SC7002 RCMU Capital Replacement
Fund (Fund 708)
Capital Outlay – Equipment and
Furnishings
$858,660
The current fund balance for Fund 708 has sufficient funds to cover the requested appropriation.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring the construction and maintenance of high-quality public improvements that promote a world class community.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page 132 ends

DATE: May 7, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Sarine K. Hazarshahian, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Allocating Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Program Funds for Fiscal Year 2025/26. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-012) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution to allocate Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Program funds for Fiscal Year 2025/26 for the completion of the projects listed in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Major Projects Program.

BACKGROUND:

On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 creating the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program in order to address deferred maintenance on the State highway and local street and road systems. Funds made available by the program are required to be utilized for basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, and on critical safety projects. Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program in a fiscal year, the City must submit a list of proposed projects to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), and the funding must be allocated by resolution.

ANALYSIS:

The guidelines and regulations for obtaining funds from the program have been previously amended by the CTC requiring local agencies to adopt their project list by resolution; submission of a project list adopted through City budget is no longer acceptable. The CTC has announced the deadline of July 1, 2025 for local agencies to submit their adopted project list by resolution for the upcoming fiscal year.

On that basis, staff recommends the following projects which are planned for consideration in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Major Projects Program for funding from the RMRA Fund (F179):

1. Highland Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation – Sapphire Street to Carnelian Avenue and Amethyst Avenue to Archibald Avenue

2. Vineyard Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation – Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard and the Cucamonga Creek Channel Crossing to 8th Street

Page 133 ends

Page 2 ends

2 7
9 5
FISCAL IMPACT:

Revenue for the RMRA is currently estimated to be $4,571,840 in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Budget.

Staff will continue to monitor revenue estimates and receipts to ensure adequate funding will be available to cover budgeted project costs and will adjust the planned improvements listed above accordingly.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This project reflects the City Council's core values by enhancing community safety and well-being while driving continuous improvement through the development of high-quality public infrastructure.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2025-012

Page 134 ends

Resolution No. 2025-012 - Page 1 of 3
5 5
9 0
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-012

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE PROJECTS

FOR THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF ROAD

MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA) FUNDS
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statues of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; WHEREAS, SB1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project's completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $4,571,840 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2025/26 from SB1; and
WHEREAS, this is the nineth year in which the City is receiving SB1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB1; and
WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community's priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate two (2) major arterial roadways in the City this year and similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2022 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City's streets and roads are at lower risk and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will maintain our streets and roads in a good condition; and WHEREAS, the SB1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 135 ends

Resolution No. 2025-012 - Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following list of proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2025/26 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project 1:

Highland Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation – Sapphire Street to Carnelian Avenue and Amethyst Avenue to Archibald Avenue (PID 2104)
This project includes cold planing, localized asphalt removal and replacement, crack sealing, asphalt rubber hot mix overlay, ADA ramp upgrades, utility adjustments and thermoplastic pavement striping for approximately 0.80 mile of roadway. The estimated useful life of this roadway is 20 years and construction is anticipated to start in March 2026.

Project 2:

Vineyard Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation – Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard and the Cucamonga Creek Channel Crossing to 8th Street (PID 2196):

This project includes cold planing, localized asphalt removal and replacement, crack sealing, asphalt rubber hot mix overlay, ADA ramp upgrades, utility adjustments and thermoplastic pavement striping for approximately 1.25 miles of roadway. The estimated useful life of this roadway is 20 years and construction is anticipated to start in March 2026.

Page 136 ends

Resolution No. 2025-012 - Page 3 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 07th day of May 2025.

Page 137 ends

DATE: May 7, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer
Romeo M. David, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolutions Declaring Portions of City-Owned Properties Located North of Foothill Boulevard Approximately 725 Feet East of Grove Avenue, Exempt Surplus Land and Not Necessary for the City’s Use Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B), Finding that Such Declaration is Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Making Related Findings. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-015 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2025-016) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolutions declaring portions of City-Owned properties (Properties) located north of Foothill Boulevard approximately 725 feet east of Grove Avenue, described as a portion of Lot 6 and Lot 10 of Tract 2521 (Assessor Parcel No.’s 207-112-005 and -024), exempt surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B), finding that such declaration is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and making related findings.

BACKGROUND:

The City recently completed the West Foothill Boulevard Street Improvements Project (Project), which was a transformational project at the Westerly gateway to the City. The Project served as a major step in transforming Foothill Boulevard, from Grove Avenue to San Bernardino Road, to a vibrant mixed used corridor, as identified in PlanRC, that would build upon the great historic resources in the area such as the Red Hill community, the Pacific Electric Trail, and existing restaurants that have served residents and visitors to the area for decades. The Project modified the design of the street improvements to better align them with the community’s vision as articulated in PlanRC and to better serve the residents, visitors, and businesses in the area by providing facilities for all users of the street, vehicles, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

A key element of the Project was the realignment of Red Hill Country Club Drive approximately 400 feet to the east and the construction of a traffic signal to provide for better and safer intersection operation. The City acquired three privately-owned properties several years ago in anticipation of the Project in order to use a portions of the properties for the new Red Hill Country Club Drive alignment. On February 19, 2025 the City Council accepted the Project as complete and approved the resolution dedicating a portion of these properties for public use as a public

Page 138 ends

Page 2 ends

2 8
0 5
street. The remaining portions of these Properties are no longer required for City use as the Project is complete and the new public street has been constructed.

The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the owner in fee simple of certain real Properties described as a portion of Lot 6 and Lot 10 of Tract 2521 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as filed in Book 36 pages 37 through 38, and as shown on the Record of Survey on File in Book 71, Page 74 Records of San Bernardino, California (APN 207- 112-005 and -024). Both Properties are located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive. APN 207-112-005 measures approximately 7,409 square feet (0.170 acres) and APN 207-112-024 measures approximately 7,366 square feet (0.169 acres). A Vicinity Map illustrating the location of the Properties is included as attachment 1.

Under the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Sections 54220-54234 (“Act”), surplus land is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is surplus and not necessary for the City’s use. The Act provides that land shall be declared either surplus land or exempt surplus land before the City may take action to dispose of it.

Under the Act, land is necessary for the City’s use if the land is being used or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the City Council, for City work or operations. The Act specifies that the City’s use does not include commercial or industrial uses, and land that is disposed of for the purpose of investment or generation of revenue is not necessary for the City’s use.

ANALYSIS:

The subject Properties are not currently being used by the City for agency work or operations, nor are the Properties land that the City plans to use for agency work or operations pursuant to any written plan. Staff evaluated the Properties for their potential to be used as a utility site, watershed property, for conservation purposes, demonstration, exhibition, and other purposes described in Section 104 of the Surplus Land Act guidelines and determined that the Properties are not suitable for the City’s use. Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) and 54221(f)(2) provides that “exempt surplus land” means surplus land that is less than one-half acre in size and not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low- and moderate-income housing purposes. In addition, exempt surplus land is land that does not meet any of the conditions described in paragraph (2) of Government Code Section 54221(f) (e.g., land in a coastal zone).

The Properties are not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open space or low- and moderate-income housing properties. Further, the properties do not meet any of the conditions described in paragraph (2) of Government Code Section 54221(f). Staff is therefore recommending that the City Council declare that the subject Properties are exempt surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use.

The Act requires that a local agency that determines that property is exempt surplus property, support such a determination with written findings and provide a copy of the written determination to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Following adoption of the subject Resolutions, staff will submit the appropriate documentation to HCD for review. The City cannot engage in property negotiations until the resolutions and supporting documentation are approved by City Council and HCD.

Page 139 ends

Page 3 ends

2 8
0 5
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAILTY ACT (CEQA):

Staff has recommended that the City Council find that it can be seen with certainty that the declaration of exempt surplus land has no likelihood of causing a significant negative effect on the environment. This finding is premised on the fact that no project or physical changes are proposed for the Properties and this declaration is merely an administrative procedure before the City may dispose of the Properties. Based upon these findings, the attached Resolutions contain a determination of the City Council that the Resolutions are exempt from the application of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This action is in keeping with the Council’s vision to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant City, by setting the stage for appropriate, high-quality reuse of these properties in the future.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 - Resolution No. 2025-015
Attachment 3 - Resolution No. 2025-016

Page 140 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

" WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ”
APN 207-112-005 and APN 207-112-024
8214 Foothill Boulevard and 8211 Red Hill Country Club Drive

NOT TO SCALE

Location site

Location Site

Page 141 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA DECLARING PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(f)(1)(B) THAT CERTAIN

REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY LOCATED NORTH OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 725 FEET EAST
OF GROVE AVENUE DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 6 OF
TRACT 2521 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (APN
207-112-005) IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND AND NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE CITY’S USE, FINDING THAT SUCH

DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,

AND MAKING RELATED FINDINGS

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City) is the owner in fee simple of a certain parcel of real property located north of Foothill Boulevard approximately 725 feet East of Grove Avenue described as a portion of Lot 6 of Tract 2521 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California as filed in Book 36, pages 37 through 38, and as shown on the Record of Survey on file in Book 71, Page 74 Records of San Bernardino, California (APN 207-112-005) and described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part of hereof (the “Parcel”); and

WHEREAS, under Section 54221(b) of the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Sections 54220-54234 (the “Act”), surplus land is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is surplus and not necessary for the City’s use. The Act provides that land must be declared either surplus land or exempt surplus land before the City may take any action to dispose of it consistent with the City’s policies or procedures; and

WHEREAS, under the Act, land is necessary for the City’s use if the land is being used, or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the City Council, for City work or operations; and

WHEREAS, the Parcel is approximately 7,409 square feet (0.170 acres), and located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive. The City acquired the Parcel in order to use a portion for right-of-way purposes as part of the City’s West Foothill Project, which made various improvements to Foothill Boulevard, including a new street connection to Red Hill Country Club Drive adjacent to the Parcel; and

WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the Parcel for its potential to be used for other City municipal use or operations and has determined that the Parcel is not suitable for the City’s use because (1) the West Foothill Project construction is complete and the portion of the Parcel needed for right-of-way has already been used; (2) the small size of the parcel renders it unusable for any City operations; and (3) the Parcel lacks any improvements that are needed by the City for future use or operations; and Attachment 2

Page 142 ends

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) provides that “exempt surplus land” means surplus land that is less than one-half acre in size and not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low and moderate income housing purposes; and

WHEREAS, the Parcel is less than one-half acre in area and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low and moderate income housing purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to declare that the Parcel is exempt surplus land pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) and not necessary for the City’s use; and

WHEREAS , the Act provides that the City may dispose of property declared exempt surplus land without further regard to the requirements of the Act, except for the requirement to notify the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) at least 30 days prior to disposition of the property.

WHEREAS, the Parcel is not: (1) within the coastal zone; (2) adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System; (3) listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places; or (4) within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Government Code Section 66905.5.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

Section 2. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54221(b), the City Council hereby declares that the Parcel is exempt surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use.

Section 3. The Parcel constitutes exempt surplus land pursuant to an independent statutory exemption under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) which would support this determination on its own.

Section 4. The City Council has reviewed this Resolution with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). The City Council hereby finds that the City Council’s designation of the Parcel as exempt surplus land does not have the potential for creating a significant negative effect on the environment and therefore the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from further review under CEQA because it is not a project as defined in Section 150060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Page 143 ends

Section 5. Staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to HCD in the form and manner required by HCD at least 30 days prior to the disposition of the Parcel.

Section 6. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to do all things which he may deem necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, and any such actions previously taken are hereby ratified and confirmed.

Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of _________, 2025.

_____________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
I, KIM SEVY, 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 ____ day of ________, 2025.

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:
__________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk

Page 144 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 09 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

REMAINDER PARCEL:

LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 2521, ON FILE IN BOOK 36, PAGES 37 THROUGH 38,

INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY , CALIFORNIA, AND AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOOK 71, PAGE 74, RECORDS OF

SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE

ALLEY ADJACENT TO SAID LOT, WHICH WAS V ACATED BY THE CITY RESOLUTION NO. 83-130 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83-225182;

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE NORTH 30° 27’ 20” EAST 10.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEAST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE; THENCE NORTH 59° 04’ 42” WEST 36.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 42° 41’ 15” WEST 24.60 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND THE POINT OF TERMINUS.

CONTAINING 7,409 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.170 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.

PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION.

01/27/2025
SCOTT T. BENNETT DATE

Page 145 ends

Land Surveyors Civil Engineers GIS8885 Haven Avenue, Suite 100Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730Phone: (909) 989-9789 Fax: (909) 989-9660STATE:COUNTY:CITY:FILE NAME:SHEET:OF JOB REF. NO.:DATE:SURVEYED BY:SURVEY DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:

REMAINDER PARCELPORTION OF LOT 6 PER MB 36/37-38RANCHO CUCAMONGASAN BERNARDINOCAN/AN/AM. BONILLAM. GRUGINSKIS. BENNETT2024-6211101/27/20252024-621_V-EXH 04_Lot 6 Remainder.dwg SCALE: 1"=30'30'15'0'15'30'
50'LC FOOTHILL BOULEVARDP.O.B.P.O.C.S'LY CORNER LOT 6 LEGEND:

MAP REFERENCE:

P.O.B.ABBREVIATIONS:

REMAINDER PARCEL AREA:

P.O.C.

EXHIBIT "B"
P.O.T.

P.O.T.

Page 146 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA DECLARING PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(f)(1)(B) THAT CERTAIN

REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY LOCATED NORTH OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 725 FEET EAST
OF GROVE AVENUE DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 10
OF TRACT 2521 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (APN
207-112-024) IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND AND NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE CITY’S USE, FINDING THAT SUCH

DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,

AND MAKING RELATED FINDINGS

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City) is the owner in fee simple of a certain parcel of real property located north of Foothill Boulevard approximately 725 feet East of Grove Avenue described as a portion of Lot 10 of Tract 2521 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California as filed in Book 36, pages 37 through 38, and as shown on the Record of Survey on file in Book 71, Page 74 Records of San Bernardino, California (APN 207-112-024) and described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part of hereof (the “Parcel”); and

WHEREAS, the Parcel is approximately 7,366 square feet (0.169 acres), and located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive. The City acquired the Parcel in order to use a portion for right-of-way purposes as part of the City’s West Foothill Project, which made various improvements to Foothill Boulevard, including a new street connection to Red Hill Country Club Drive adjacent to the Parcel; and

Page 147 ends

WHEREAS, the Parcel is less than one-half acre in area and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open-space or low and moderate income housing purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to declare that the Parcel is exempt surplus land pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B) and not necessary for the City’s use; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

Section 2. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54221(b), the City Council hereby declares that the Parcel is exempt surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use.

Section 3. The Parcel constitutes exempt surplus land pursuant an independent statutory exemption under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(B, which would support this determination on its own.

Page 148 ends

Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of _________, 2025.

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:
__________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk

Page 149 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

REMAINDER PARCEL:

LOT 10 OF TRACT NO. 2521, ON FILE IN BOOK 36, PAGES 37 THROUGH 38,

INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY , CALIFORNIA AND AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOOK 71, PAGE 74, RECORDS OF

SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE ALLEY ADJACENT TO SAID LOT 10, WHICH WAS V ACATED BY THE CITY RESOLUTION NO. 83-130 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1983, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83- 225182;

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WESTERLY OF THE LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE OF THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 7 OF SAID TRACT NO. 2521 AND THE CENTERLINE OF SAID V ACATED ALLEY, 20 FEET WIDE, LYING 10 FEET ON EACH SIDE, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 2521, ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGET CURVE TO THE LEFT HA VING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET AND FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 56° 34’ 07” EAST;
THENCE ALONG SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT 46.69 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26° 45’ 01” TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT HA VING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET AND FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 83° 19’ 48” WEST;
THENCE 40.78 FEET ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51° 55’ 28” TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, BEING 40 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 2521, AND THE POINT OF TERMINUS.

Page 150 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

CONTAINING 7,366 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.169 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.

PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION.

____________________________________ 01/27/2025 SCOTT T. BENNETT DATE

Page 151 ends

20'20'40'
SCALE: 1"=40'40'20'0'20'40'
P.O.B.

LC FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
LC
50'

COUNTRYCLUBDRIVE
Land Surveyors Civil Engineers GIS8885 Haven Avenue, Suite 100Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730Phone: (909) 989-9789 Fax: (909) 989-9660STATE:COUNTY:CITY:FILE NAME:SHEET:OF JOB REF. NO.:DATE:SURVEYED BY:SURVEY DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:

REMAINDER PARCELPORTION OF LOT 10 PER MB 36/37-38RANCHO CUCAMONGASAN BERNARDINOCAN/AN/AM. BONILLAM. GRUGINSKIS. BENNETT2024-6211201/27/20252024-621_V-EXH 02_Lot 10 Remainder.dwg EXHIBIT "B"
P.O.T.HILLRED

Page 152 ends

REMAINDER PARCELPORTION OF LOT 10 PER MB 36/37-38RANCHO CUCAMONGASAN BERNARDINOCAN/AN/AM. BONILLAM. GRUGINSKIS. BENNETT2024-6212201/27/20252024-621_V-EXH 02_Lot 10 Remainder.dwg CURVE TABLECURVE #LENGTHRADIUSDELTA
EXHIBIT "B"
LEGEND:

MAP REFERENCE:

P.O.B.ABBREVIATIONS:

REMAINDER PARCEL AREA:

P.O.T.

Page 153 ends

DATE:May 7, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager
Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety Services Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer

SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:

ORDINANCE NO. 1038

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.80 TO THE RANCHO

CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FIRE IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL
AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.68 TO

REMOVE REFERENCES TO QUIMBY ACT IN LIEU FEES, AND

MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1038.

BACKGROUND:

The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of April 16, 2025. Votes at first reading: AYES: Kennedy, Hutchison, Scott, Stickler, Michael.

ANALYSIS:

Please refer to the April 16, 2025, City Council staff report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Please refer to the April 16, 2025, City Council staff report.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

Please refer to the April 16, 2025, City Council staff report.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance No. 1038 (Fire DIF Program and Park Impact Fee) Attachment 2 – Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038 (Fire Impact Fee - Chapter 3.80) Attachment 3 – Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 1038 (Park Impact Fee)

Page 154 ends

Ordinance No. 1038 - Page 1 of 4
5 6
1 7
ORDINANCE NO. 1038

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.80 TO THE RANCHO

CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FIRE IMPACTS OF

RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING
CHAPTER 3.68 TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO QUIMBY ACT

IN LIEU FEES, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF

EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
I. Recitals.

A. The Mitigation Fee Act contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding the public facilities necessary to serve that new development.

B. The City desires to update existing impact fees and expand the categories of fees that the City seeks to impose on new development to more fully and appropriately fund the costs associated with increased demand for certain public facilities throughout the City.

C. Rancho Cucamonga has a park impact fee, authorized by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (“RCMC”) Chapter 3.68. Chapter 3.68 contains outdated references to an in-lieu fee for land dedications for subdivisions, which are authorized under the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) but not imposed by the City, see RCMC 16.28.020 and Chapter 16.32. The City therefore desires to remove the references to Quimby Act in lieu fees in Chapter 3.68. This change is an administrative clean up and in no way impacts the authorized park facilities development impact fee.

D. Rancho Cucamonga does not have an existing fire impact fee. The City therefore desires to establish an impact fee for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) to all development in the City.

E. NBS Government Finance Group has prepared the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Impact Fee Nexus Study dated February 20, 2025 (“NBS Nexus Study”). The NBS Nexus Study covers the Park Impact Fees, Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, Animal Center Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee, and a new Fire Impact Fee. A copy of the NBS Nexus Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection.

F. The NBS Nexus Study identifies the purpose of the Fire Impact Fee, the use to which the Fire Impact fee will be put, demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed and provides how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 155 ends

Ordinance No. 1038 - Page 2 of 4
5 6
1 7
G. The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting this Ordinance, and a notice of public hearing on the development impact fees was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased fees.

H. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at the April 2, 2025, Regular Council meeting to consider the NBS Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and establishment of updated development impact fees, including establishment of the fire impact fee.

I. The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the NBS Nexus Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Ordinance contain substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the development impact fee established herein.

J. The City Council has reviewed and considered the fire impact fee established herein and finds that the fee will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and business development in the City.

II. Findings.

A. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part I, of this Ordinance, are true and correct.

B. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This action is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3) as it has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an adoption of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project, and said fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or activities, each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with CEQA when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b)(1)). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a “project” under CEQA.

Therefore, approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4); and, even if considered a “project” under CEQA, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the fees and/or charges may have a significant effect on the environment.

C. The City Council by separate Resolution No. 1038 adopted the NBS Nexus Fee Study, and the findings contained therein with respect to the adoption of a Fire Impact Fee which are included below. As provided on pages 8-11 to 8-12 of the NBS Nexus Study:
i. Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development in the City on the need for facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD).

Page 156 ends

Ordinance No. 1038 - Page 3 of 4
5 6
1 7
ii. Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development in the City on the need for those facilities. iii. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to serve the added demand for fire protection and other emergency services associated with new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
iv. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development in the City increases the demand for fire protection and other emergency services provided by the Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Without additional facilities, apparatus and equipment, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively impact the ability of RCFPD the to provide services efficiently and effectively to all development in the City. v. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project. The fees per square foot for residential development and the fees per unit of non-residential development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year associated with that type of development in the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the overall need for facilities, apparatus and equipment used by RCFPD to serve development in the City.

D. The City Council by separate Resolution No. 1038 adopted the fee amount for the Fire Impact Fee, as supported by the NBS Nexus Study, in accordance with proposed Municipal Code section 3.80.050.

III. Ordinance.

The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 3.80 is hereby added to Title 3 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.

SECTION 2. Chapter 3.68 of Title 3 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to remove references to in lieu fees or land dedication requirements for certain residential subdivisions authorized by the Quimby Act but not imposed by the City and to make other revisions to read as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto.

SECTION 3. All impact fees within the City shall be charged in accordance with applicable law in effect at the time the fee is imposed. As of the time of this ordinance’s adoption, an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or less shall not be charged development impact fees by the City.

Page 157 ends

Ordinance No. 1038 - Page 4 of 4
5 6
1 7
SECTION 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take other actions on behalf of City, which are not expressly and specifically reserved for the City Council, to implement and effectuate this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to codify this ordinance in a manner which best reflects the legislative intent of the City Council in enacting this ordinance.

The City Clerk is directed to resolve any numbering conflicts accordingly.

SECTION 5. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance for any reason be held 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. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published or posted as required by law.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2025. _____________________________________
L. Dennis Michael
Mayor
I, KIM SEVY, 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 _______________, 2025, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ______ day of ______________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk

Page 158 ends

Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038
CHAPTER 3.80

FIRE IMPACT FEE
§ 3.80.010. Purpose.

The city council finds that the purpose of the Fire Impact Fee hereby enacted is to prevent new residential and commercial/industrial development from reducing the quality and availability of public services provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential and business development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of fire assets, including facilities, apparatus and equipment provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) in the city. The city finds:

A. Fire services, facilities and equipment are needed to serve future development in the city.

B. Fire services serve the entire residential and business population.

C. The need to expand the existing fleet of fire vehicles and equipment will be necessary as the population continues to grow.

D. These fees apply to all residential and business development.

E. Revenue from the impact fees may be used to expand the availability of fire assets in the city through the acquisition or improvement of real property; or the acquisition, construction or expansion of buildings, furnishings, equipment or any of these.

F. New residential and business development within the city imposes a burden on the existing fire facilities by adding additional population.

G. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment is calls for service per year.

H. As set forth in the Study, fire impact fees paid by new development are based on the system plan method because fire protection and emergency response are provided by an integrated system of assets and the best time to assess the overall relationship between development and service demand is at the point when all of the assets and all of the development will be in place.

I. Since assisted living facilities are allowed in some residential zoning districts with a conditional use permit; and residents of those facilities do make use of fire services, impact fees will apply to new development of these types of facilities.

J. The cost per capita will be applied to future population to compute impact fees per unit.

K. Impact fees for other specialized development types should be calculated in the same way, if the need arises.

L. The fee established by this chapter is in addition to any other fees or charges or taxes that are required by law as a condition of development.

M. The period of greater than 10 days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available to the public, and to developers and their representative, indicating the cost or estimated cost of the infrastructure to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and means of spending these costs.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 159 ends

Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038
§ 3.80.020. Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings set forth below:
“Business Development” means all Non-Residential Development subject to the fee, as further described and set forth in the Study.
"Businesses" includes all commercial/industrial, hotel/motel, and office units. "City/service area" means the entire city.
"Dwelling unit" includes each single-family dwelling, each unit of an apartment, duplex dwelling group or multiple dwelling structure or condominium or planned residential development as a separate habitat for one or more persons or each mobilehome space designed to contain a mobilehome trailer on a semi-permanent or permanent basis. "Equipment/material" includes all necessary materials that are required for the proper operation of the facility for which this fee is imposed as defined in the study. "Facilities" means those fire facilities, land, improvements, or infrastructure of RCFD located in the city.
"Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor. "Residential development" includes all buildings or dwelling units constructed for the first time on open land or when existing structures are remodeled and added to or otherwise altered to increase the number of dwelling units.
"Study" means the current development impact fee study on file in the city's engineering services department that supports the fee resolution adopted pursuant to section 3.80.050. § 3.80.030. Establishment and administration of Fire Impact Fees.

The city council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the need for facilities of development projects on which they are imposed and established a fire impact fee upon business and residential development.
§ 3.80.040. Payment.

The fee imposed by this chapter shall be due and payable no sooner than issuance of building permits and no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit(s) subject to the fee. No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued until the development fee has been paid in full. The amount of the fee shall be calculated at the time the fee is paid, based upon the rate then in effect.
§ 3.80.050. Fees.

The fees imposed by this chapter shall be set by resolution of the city council. § 3.80.060. Fee exemptions.

In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. § 3.80.070. Use of fees.

Page 160 ends

Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1038
The city council finds that there is established a fire impact fee fund where all sums collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited. All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in this fund. All fire impact fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be forwarded to the RCFD by the city no less than on an annual basis. All fees so forwarded shall be deposited in a restricted account of the RCFD and all moneys deposited in such account together with any interest earned thereon shall be used only for the purposes of providing additional facilities, apparatus and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development in the city on the need for those facilities.
§ 3.80.080. Severability.

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end, the provisions of this chapter are severable.

Page 161 ends

Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 1038
11231-0001\3061663v5.doc
CHAPTER 3.68

PARK IMPACT FEES
§ 3.68.010. Purpose.

The city council finds that the purpose of the Park Impact Fees hereby enacted is to prevent new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services provided to residents of the city by requiring new residential to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of park and recreation assets in the city. The city finds:

A. The need for two types of development fees for parks: Fees for park land acquisition and fees for park improvement.

B. The need for fees to serve future development in the city without placing a burden on existing resources.

C. The general plan has been adopted containing specific policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities.

D. The demand factor for each type of residential development is the average population per unit for that type because the need for parks in a community is almost always based on population.

E. The total acreage of improved city-owned park land will be used to determine the existing level of service for purposes of calculating impact fees for park land acquisition and park improvements.

F. Impact fees for other specialized development types should be calculated in the same way, if the need arises.

G. The period of greater than ten days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available to the public, and to developers and their representative, indicating the cost or estimated cost of the infrastructure to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and means of spending these costs.
§ 3.68.020. Definitions.
"City/service area" means the entire city.
"Dwelling unit" includes each single-family dwelling, each unit of an apartment, duplex dwelling group or multiple dwelling structure or condominium or planned residential development as a separate habitat for one or more persons or each mobilehome space designed to contain a mobilehome trailer on a semi-permanent or permanent basis. "Facilities" means those park and recreation facilities, land, improvements, or infrastructure located in the city.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 162 ends

-2-
11231-0001\3061663v5.doc
"Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor. "Residential development" includes all dwelling units constructed for the first time on open land or when existing structures are remodeled and added to or otherwise altered to increase the number of dwelling units.
"Study" means the current development impact fee study on file in the city's engineering services department that supports the fee resolution adopted pursuant to section 3.68.050. § 3.68.030. Establishment and administration of Park Impact Fees.

The city council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the need for facilities of development projects on which they are imposed.

A. The finance director shall establish park improvement impact fee and park land acquisition impact fee funds, (collectively "Park Impact Fees"). All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in this fund and shall be expended to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.

B. A fee is imposed in the amounts set forth in this chapter and shall be applicable to every dwelling unit as defined in section 3.68.020 constructed in the city after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter and shall be known as the Park Impact Fee. § 3.68.040. Payment.

The fees imposed by this chapter shall be set by resolution of the city council. § 3.68.060. Fee exemptions.

In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. § 3.68.070. Use of fees.

The city council finds that there is established a Park Fund where all sums collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited and shall be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City as set forth in the Study Those public facilities and other assets are identified in the Study.

Page 163 ends

-3-
11231-0001\3061663v5.doc
§ 3.68.080. Severability.

Page 164 ends

DATE:May 7, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Erika Lewis-Huntley, Management Analyst III SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:

ORDINANCE NO. 1039

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.84 TO TITLE 10 OF THE

RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE

OF BICYCLES AND E-CONVEYANCES IN PUBLIC AREAS
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1039.

BACKGROUND:

The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of April 16, 2025.

Votes at first reading: AYES: Kennedy, Hutchison, Scott, Stickler, Michael.

ANALYSIS:

Please refer to the April 16, 2025 City Council staff report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Please refer to the April 16, 2025 City Council staff report.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

Please refer to the April 16, 2025 City Council staff report.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 1039

Page 165 ends

Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. 1039

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.84 TO TITLE 10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA

MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-

CONVEYANCES IN PUBLIC AREAS
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) is committed to ensuring the public health, safety, and welfare of all its residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of fostering sustainable transportation options while maintaining public safety and accessibility for all users of public spaces; and WHEREAS, bicycles and e-conveyances (electric bicycles, scooters, and similar devices) have become increasingly popular modes of transportation and recreation within the City; and WHEREAS, the use of bicycles and e-conveyances in public spaces presents both benefits and challenges, including safety concerns for riders, pedestrians, and motorists; and WHEREAS, the City has observed a significant increase in traffic incidents involving e- conveyance users and motor vehicles with their increasing popularity, often due to higher speeds and unsafe riding practices; and
WHEREAS, the public has expressed concerns regarding the unsafe operation of e- conveyances, including reckless riding behaviors that pose risks to riders, pedestrians, drivers, and others in public spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City aims to promote the safe use of bicycles and e-conveyances by implementing regulations that align with state law and best practices in transportation safety; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to educating its residents and visitors on the safe operation of bicycles and e-conveyances to prevent accidents and other traffic hazards and promote responsible use of these transportation modes; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that providing clear guidelines for the operation of bicycles and e-conveyances in public spaces will improve the quality of life for all residents and visitors.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: Chapter 10.84 is hereby added to Title 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 166 ends

Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 2 of 7
“Chapter 10.84 – REGULATING THE USE OF BICYCLES AND E-CONVEYANCES

10.84.010 – Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth in this section:
“Bicycle” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 231, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Bicycle Lane” has the same meaning as defined in Street and Highways Code Section 890.4, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Bicycle Path or Bicycle Trail” has the same meaning as defined in Street and Highways Code Section 890.4 and California Vehicle Code Section 231.5, as the provisions may be amended from time to time.
“E-Conveyance” means any electric bicycle or e-bike, electric scooter, electrically motorized skateboard, or other device that is designed to convey one or more people and is capable of being powered by human propulsion or electric motor propulsion. “Electric Bicycle” or “E-Bike” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 312.5, as it may be amended from time to time, and which, as of the date of the adoption of this section, provides that an “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts, and are categorized under Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3.
“Electrically Motorized Skateboard” has the same meaning as defined in the California Vehicle Code Section 313.5, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 313, as it may be amended from time to time. “Minor” means any person under the age of eighteen.
“Narrow Width Lane” means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
“Off-Highway Motorcycle” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 436, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Pedestrian” has the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 467, as it may be amended from time to time.
"Public area" means any outdoor area, public alley, parkway, public transportation path, roadway,

Page 167 ends

Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 3 of 7
right-of-way, sidewalk, park, trail, paseo, pathway or street that is owned, granted by easement, operated or controlled by the City.
“Unsafe manner” is defined as an act in violation of the City Municipal Code, California Vehicle Code, or any other applicable state or federal law. For purposes of this section, operation of a bicycle or e-conveyance in an “unsafe manner” also includes operating in such a way that constitutes a danger to the operator, passenger, other motorist, other rider, pedestrian, or property. “Vehicle” has the same meaning as in California Vehicle Code Section 670, as it may be amended from time to time.

10.84.020 Operation.

A. No person shall ride a bicycle or e-conveyance in an unsafe manner, as defined under Section 10.84.010, on any publicly owned property, including but not limited to a public street, sidewalk, public right of way, park, bicycle path, trail, or lane, or any other public area open for vehicle or pedestrian travel. Examples of riding in an unsafe manner include, but are not limited to, the following actions:

1. Riding on a public street or bikeway against the flow of traffic.

2. Not yielding to vehicles or pedestrians when required.

3. Operating an e-conveyance in a manner it was not designed for, including carrying passengers when not designed for carrying passengers.

4. Failing to obey posted traffic or other signs.

5. A person under the age of 18 riding without a properly fitted and fastened helmet.

6. Engaging in racing, speed, or stunt contests.

7. Carrying any package, bundle, item or article which prohibits the operator from having full control and forward visibility at all times.

8. Operating a bicycle or e-conveyance at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing taking into account the weather, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and the surface and width of the sidewalk or roadway.

9. Performing any acrobatics, tricks, wheelies, or stunts when pedestrians or moving vehicles are present.

B. Any person operating a bicycle or e-conveyance upon a street at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such a time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:

1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, e-conveyance, or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;

3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, other e-conveyances, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface

Page 168 ends

Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 4 of 7
hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge; or

4. When operating as close as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway on a one-way street.

C. Persons riding or operating bicycles or electric bicycles shall not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

D. Any person operating a bicycle or e-conveyance who is emerging from an alley, driveway, bicycle path, building or otherwise approaching upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area, shall yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians on such sidewalk or sidewalk area, and upon entering a bicycle lane, highway, or street shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles, bicycles, or e-conveyances on the roadway.

E. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance in any City park, except on paved paths or trails that are specifically designated for bicycle or e-conveyance use. The operation of bicycles or e-conveyances is strictly prohibited on dirt, grass, athletic fields, landscaped areas, or any other non-designated surfaces within any City park.

F. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance in any parking lot of any property owned or operated by the City. Within such parking lots, bicycles or e-conveyances must be walked, not ridden.

G. No person shall operate a bicycle or e-conveyance while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while riding.

H. No person shall operate a bicycle or electric bicycle on any sidewalk, except:

1. A person may ride a bicycle or electric bicycle on any area designated as a driveway;

2. Any area designated as a bikeway by the City Council; or

3. To avoid a dangerous situation on the road or an obstacle.

10.84.030Electric Off-Highway Motorcycles.

A. No person shall operate an electric off-highway motorcycle of any model (e.g., Sur-Ron, Talaria, E Ride Pro) on any publicly-owned property, including but not limited to, a public street, sidewalk, public right of way, park, bicycle path or trail, or any other public area open for vehicle or pedestrian travel.

B. Electric off-highway motorcycles are only allowed to be operated in areas specifically designated for off-highway vehicle recreation, or on private property with the express permission of the property owner. Unlike electric bicycles or mopeds, such vehicles are not eligible for highway

Page 169 ends

Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 5 of 7
registration and cannot be retrofitted for on-road use unless originally manufactured and certified for dual-purpose operation.

10.84.040 Equipment.

A. Every bicycle, including electric bicycles, when operated within the City, shall comply with all of the equipment requirements contained in California Vehicle Code Section 21201.

B. Any minor operating or riding as a passenger upon a bicycle or e-conveyance in a public area or any other place open to the public for vehicle and pedestrian travel must wear a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet.

C. Any operator or passenger of a Class 3 electric bicycle, regardless of age, must wear a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21213.

10.84.050 Parking.

No person shall temporarily leave unaccompanied, abandon, or park a bicycle or e-conveyance in a manner that obstructs vehicular traffic, the pedestrian travel way of any sidewalk or pedestrian path, or on public property in violation of any government sign prohibiting parking of bicycles or e- conveyances at a location.

10.84.060 Enforcement.

A. Any person, including a minor, who violates the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to penalties, fines, and enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 1.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.

B. Violations by Minors

1. The parent of any child, and the guardian of any ward, shall not authorize or knowingly permit any minor child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter.

2. In the case of a minor committing a violation under this Chapter, the parent or guardian may be held responsible for the violation and any associated penalties or fines.

3. If the minor’s activities result in damage to public property, the City may, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1714.1, pursue a civil complaint against the minor’s parent(s) or guardian(s) having custody and control of the minor for every tort resulting in property damage.

C.Impoundment

1. In addition to all other available penalties, the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to take immediate possession of and transport a bicycle or e-conveyance for safekeeping to the nearest City facility if an unaccompanied minor is found in violation of any provisions of this Chapter, and the unsafe manner in which the device was operated constitutes an immediate danger

Page 170 ends

Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 6 of 7
to the health and safety of the juvenile operator or to members of the public, thus constituting an exigent circumstance.

2. The impounded device shall be released by the City to the parent or legal guardian of the minor if the individual owns the device.

3. Upon impoundment of any e-conveyance device under this Chapter, the minor shall be issued a receipt. Said receipt shall state the days, business hours, location, and process by which the owner may claim the impounded device within 30 days. The citation receipt shall also explain that unclaimed devices impounded for longer than 30 days will be disposed subject to an opportunity for a pre-disposal hearing or sold at an auction in accordance with laws governing the disposal of abandoned property.

10.84.070 Exemptions.

A. First responders, as defined under California Government Code Section 8562, are exempt from this Chapter while in the performance of their duties.

B. This Chapter is not intended to apply to or otherwise restrict electric personal assistive mobility devices used in a safe manner by physically disabled persons as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.) and section 36.311 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
SECTION 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION 3: CEQA. The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that the regulations for bicycles and e- conveyances will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, this Ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) because the Ordinance is an activity that is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

SECTION 4: Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.

Page 171 ends

Ordinance No. 1039 - Page 7 of 7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2025.

L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kim Sevy, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, 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 16th day of April 2025, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 7th day of May, 2025.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

Executed this 8th day of May 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.

Kim Sevy, City Clerk

Page 172 ends

DATE: May 7, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager-Community Programs Jennifer Hunt Gracia, Community Services Director
Jonathan Hilton, Management Analyst I
Jennelle Markel, Community Services Supervisor
SUBJECT: Consideration of Introduction and First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 1040, an Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Amending Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend the Limitation on Total Value of Prizes Awarded During the Conduct of Bingo Games. This Action is Not Considered a Project Under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and is Therefore Exempt from Further Environmental Review. (ORDINANCE NO. 1040) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the consideration of introduction and first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1040, an Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, amending Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to amend the limitation on total value of prizes awarded during the conduct of bingo games.

BACKGROUND:

Currently, Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code sets a fixed maximum prize limit of $250 per bingo game. This limit is significantly lower than the amount permitted under California Penal Code Section 326.5, which authorizes substantially higher prize values.

Due to the current standing of Municipal Code Section 5.08.100, Rancho Cucamonga-based organizations that operate bingo games face a distinct competitive disadvantage compared to organizations in neighboring jurisdictions, where prize limits are either higher or aligned directly with state guidelines. This competitive imbalance may discourage participants from attending local bingo events, subsequently reducing potential revenues and limiting the growth opportunities of these organizations.

California Penal Code Section 326.5 specifically states: "The total value of prizes awarded during the conduct of any bingo game shall not exceed five hundred dollars ($500) in cash or kind, or both, for each separate game which is held." The current Rancho Cucamonga ordinance restricts prizes to $250 per game, creating a noticeable disparity between local and state regulations. By adopting the state-permitted limit, Rancho Cucamonga will align directly with state law, thereby eliminating this competitive disadvantage.

Page 173 ends

Page 2 ends

2 7
7 0
ANALYSIS:

By updating Rancho Cucamonga’s Municipal Code Section 5.08.100, the City is affording the opportunity for all local bingo operations to match the state-permitted prize levels in an effort to provide the best in local gaming prizes. Resultingly, these organizations can attract and maintain greater participation rates, encouraging both residents and visitors from neighboring communities to engage with Rancho Cucamonga's events.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This ordinance aligns with the City Council's strategic priorities by fostering collaboration among community stakeholders, enhancing respectful engagement with residents and community groups, and supporting proactive planning and decision-making to accommodate the evolving needs of the Rancho Cucamonga community.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 1040

Page 174 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1040

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 5.08.100 OF THE RANCHO

CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE LIMITATION ON

TOTAL VALUE OF PRIZES AWARDED DURING THE CONDUCT OF

BINGO GAMES
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 5.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“Each organization holding a license under this chapter shall conduct bingo games in accordance with the following requirements:

A. No minor shall be allowed to participate in any bingo games; B. The licensee shall conduct bingo games on property as listed on the license application form;
C. All bingo games shall be open to the public, not just to the members of the licensee organization;
D. A bingo game shall be operated and staffed only by members of the licensee organization.

No person shall receive or pay a profit, wage or salary from any bingo game; E. No individual, corporation, partnership or other entity except the licensee organization shall hold a financial interest in the conduct of such bingo game; F. No person who is obviously intoxicated shall be allowed to participate in a bingo game, and no alcoholic beverage shall be allowed to be consumed in the room in which the bingo game is being conducted;
G. No person shall be allowed to participate in a bingo game, unless a person is physically present at the time and place at which the bingo game is being conducted; H. The total value of prizes awarded during the conduct of any bingo games shall not exceed the total value set forth in California Penal Code Section 326.5, in cash or kind, or both, for each separate game which is held.

I. No licensee shall conduct bingo games more than two days per calendar week and more than six hours out of any 24-hour period. No bingo game shall be conducted before 10:00 a.m. nor after 11:59 p.m. of any day.”
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this Ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that the regulations of bingo games will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, this Ordinance falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such

Page 175 ends

5 5
0 1
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk

Page 176 ends

DATE: May 7, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Chris Ellis, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to Create a Residential Permit Parking District on Salerno Place, Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.50. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-013) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2025-013 to establish the “Salerno Place, et al.” residential permit parking district on Salerno Place.

BACKGROUND:

Salerno Place is located within Tract 13442, situated north of Victoria Park Lane between Rochester Avenue and Milliken Avenue. Development of Tract 13442 began in 1987. This street, which consists of 13 single-family homes, is served by residential local streets that intersect with Victoria Park Lane, providing access to the City’s street network. In 1988, development began on Kenyon Park, located on the south side of Kenyon Way between Milliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue.

Parking along Salerno Place is currently restricted (i.e. no parking allowed) on weekdays from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM, and on weekends from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM to help manage parking impacts due to adjacent park activities. The current restrictions, however, are no longer effectively addressing the parking concerns in the area.

ANALYSIS:

In late 2024, residents of Salerno Place contacted staff to express concerns regarding ongoing nuisance activities and repeated violations of existing parking regulations. These violations included illegal on-street parking, littering in the roadway and parkways, blocked mailboxes, and obstructed driveways, all of which raised public safety concerns. According to residents, these violations are primarily associated with individuals participating in activities at Kenyon Park and vehicles driven by individuals from outside the immediate neighborhood. In response, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department was contacted to issue citations and remove vehicles parked in violation of the current restrictions within the proposed permit parking district.

As a response to fully understand that situation, staff completed field assessments of the area and observed that the parking lot serving Kenyon Park typically has ample available spaces, however many drivers choose to park on nearby residential streets, such as Salerno Place, in an effort to be closer to the baseball field.

Page 177 ends

Page 2 ends

2 8
0 4
In addition to the above-mentioned violations, residents have also expressed frustration over their inability to park on the street during the hours of current parking restrictions and would like to have more opportunity to park their vehicles on the street near their homes.

Following the process outlined in Municipal Code section 10.50, a representative of the neighborhood has submitted a petition showing support from 11 of the 13 addresses (2 vacant) on the street, representing 84.6% of the residents, for the creation of a permit parking district on Salerno Place. The proposed parking district aims to ease parking restrictions for residents by allowing them to park on the street at all hours with a valid permit, while implementing stricter limitations for nonresidents by prohibiting on-street parking entirely.

Chapter 10.50.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code requires that the City Council make the following findings prior to adoption of a resolution creating a residential permit parking district:

A. Vehicles, operated by persons whose destinations are outside the proposed parking district, do or may substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of available parking spaces for use of residents within the proposed permit parking district; Vehicles parked within the proposed residential permit parking district have been observed to originate from outside the neighborhood and have consistently interfered with residents’ and their guests’ ability to utilize on-street parking. Many of these vehicles are reportedly owned by individuals who do not reside within the immediate area.

B. The interference by such vehicles occurs at regular and significant daily or weekly intervals;
Significant interference with on-street parking is occurring on a daily basis.

C. That such vehicles being driven or parked in the area of the proposed permit parking district cause or are the source of unreasonable noise, traffic hazards, environmental pollution, parking availability for residents, or devaluation of real property in such proposed district;
Vehicles parked within the proposed residential permit parking district have been reported to regularly obstruct mailboxes and driveways, and to leave trash on roadways, parkways, and private properties.

D. That 75% of the residents within the proposed district desire, agree or request permit parking privileges (unless established by city council action in absence of a petition); The petition requesting the establishment of a residential permit parking district is supported by 11 of the 13 households (2 vacant) within the neighborhood, representing approximately 84.6% of the residents in the proposed district.

E. That no unreasonable displacement of vehicles will result into surrounding residential areas;
Given Kenyon Park's proximity, it is likely that the potentially displaced vehicles belong to individuals visiting the park. Establishing the proposed permit parking district would

Page 178 ends

Page 3 ends

2 8
0 4
encourage non-residents who wish to access Kenyon Park to utilize the designated parking lot that serves the park, rather than relying on nearby residential streets.

F. That no alternative solution, other than the establishment of the permit parking district, is practical.

The area is currently subject to time-based parking restrictions. In collaboration with community members, staff explored alternative approaches, including a complete prohibition of on-street parking. However, ongoing enforcement of parking violations within the proposed permit parking district has proven both costly and ineffective in deterring noncompliance. Based on these findings, the implementation of a residential permit parking district is determined to be the most appropriate and practical solution to address the ongoing issues and minimize impacts on the neighborhood.

Residential permit parking districts have been successfully implemented in other areas of the City and have proven effective in addressing similar concerns. The proposed permit parking district is expected to mitigate the current impacts on the neighborhood and help preserve the community’s quality of life.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of this action is expected to be minimal, limited to the cost of producing parking permits, installing appropriate signage, and administering the permit parking program for an additional 13 residences. The City currently operates several permit parking districts, and this proposed district would follow the same established policies and procedures.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

Creation of the proposed permit parking district addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by establishing programs that maintain the high quality of life in local neighborhoods that promote a world class community.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 – Resolution No. 2025-013

Page 179 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
5 6
0 5

VICINITY MAP

MILLIKEN AVENEUE

ROCHESTER AVENEUE

VICTORIA PARK LANE
KENYON
PARK
Proposed “Salerno
Place” Permit Parking
District

Page 180 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-013

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE
“SALERNO PLACE, ET AL.” PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10.50

OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
A. Recitals

1. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 allows a general law city to establish by resolution a preferential parking program by which there is a designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests.

2. Chapter 10.50 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code permits the establishment of a Permit Parking District in an area in which vehicles operated by persons whose destinations are outside of the proposed Permit Parking District substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of available parking spaces for use by residents.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a map of an area herein referred to as “Salerno Place, et al.”, and also hereinafter referred to as the “Parking District” in which vehicles operated by persons whose destination is outside of the boundaries of the proposed district, substantially and regularly interfering with the use and availability of parking spaces in the Parking District.

4. Substantial evidence has been presented to this Council demonstrating that the persons referred to in Recital 3 above, not only occupy a majority of the parking spaces in the Parking District, but also block access to the Parking District’s residences, disrupt delivery of mail and packages, and deposit trash and litter within the Parking District, and that these activities occur at regular and significant intervals.

5. It is the purpose of this Resolution to establish the Parking District as an area within which parking shall be limited at all times to parking by residents of that Parking District, their guests, and those persons exempt from that limitation pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 10.50.100.

6. Pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 10.50.040, the residents of the proposed Permit Parking District’s petition shall be submitted before the City Council with the City Engineer’s Recommendation and Report which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof.

7. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been satisfied.

B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

Page 181 ends

Resolution No. 2025-013 -Page 2 of 5
5 6
0 6

1. This Council hereby finds that all the facts stated in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct.

2. Based on substantial evidence presented to this City Council including the evidence contained in the staff report, the City Council further finds and determines as follows:

A. Vehicles operated by persons whose destinations are outside of the Parking District as defined in Subsection 10.50.020(A) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of parking spaces for use of residents within the Parking District; B. The interference by the vehicles referred to in Paragraph 2(A) above occurs at regular and significant intervals;
C. The vehicles referred to in Paragraph 2(A) above cause and are the source of unreasonable noise, traffic hazards, and environmental pollution within the Parking District;
D. A petition of the Residents of the proposed Permit Parking District has been received by the City Engineer and said petition was confirmed to have more than 75% of the Residents agree to the establishment of the Permit Parking District.

E. No unreasonable displacement of vehicles operated by persons whose destination is outside of the Parking District will result into surrounding residential areas; and F. No alternative solution, other than the establishment of the Permit Parking District is feasible or practical.

3. Based on the findings set forth in Paragraph 2 above, the Parking District is hereby established as a Permit Parking District pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 10.50 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and parking therein is restricted to those residents and their guests possessing permits issued by the City Engineer or his designee and those exempt pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section

10.50.100.

4. The City Engineer’s Recommendation and Report has been submitted and the City Council accepts and approves said Recommendation and Report inclusive of Cost of Parking Permits.

5. The City Engineer is hereby instructed to immediately cause appropriate signs to be placed and posted within the Parking District indicating the parking limitations established by this Resolution and to implement and administer the permit process specified in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Sections 10.50.070 and 10.50.080.

6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Page 182 ends

Resolution No. 2025-013 -Page 3 of 5
5 6
0 6

EXHIBIT A
“Salerno Place, et al.” Permit Parking District
The proposed district includes the houses fronting Salerno Place and shall restrict parking on both sides of these streets North of Sorrento Road to vehicles with valid permits or exemptions as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.

Page 183 ends

Residential Parking Permit Program Page 1
Updated: 1/12/2017
Resolution No. 2025-013 -Page 4 of 5

PERMIT PARKING DISTRICTS

PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT PROGRAM
The Parking Permit District Program is governed by Section 10.50, “Permit Parking Districts” of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and allows residents of a Permit Parking District special permits that exempt them and their guests from certain on-street parking restrictions.

REQUESTING A PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT
Requests for creation of a Permit Parking District may be made by submitting a petition signed by at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the residents (one vote per address) within the boundaries of the proposed district (as designated in the petition) to the Engineering Services Department. All requests will be reviewed for conformance with program requirements defined in Section 10.50, “Permit Parking Districts” of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code including the following required findings:
•Vehicles, operated by persons whose destinations are outside the proposed parking district, do or may substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of available parking spaces for use of residents within the proposed permit parking district;
•The interference by commuter vehicles occurs at regular and significant daily or weekly intervals; •That such vehicles being driven or parked in the area of the proposed permit parking district cause or are the source of unreasonable noise, traffic hazards, environmental pollution, parking availability for residents, or devaluation of real property in such proposed district; •That 75 percent of the residents within the proposed district desire, agree or request permit parking privileges (unless established by city council action in absence of a petition); •That no unreasonable displacement of commuter vehicles will result into surrounding residential areas; •That no alternative solution, other than the establishment of the permit parking district, is feasible or practical.

Upon completion of this review, City staff will inform applicants of their findings. Requests that meet program requirements will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council may establish the requested Permit Parking District by adoption of a resolution.

LIMITATIONS
A parking permit does not exempt a vehicle from Section 10.44.130, "Storage of Vehicles upon Streets", of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. According to Section 10.44.130, a vehicle may not park in the same parking space on a public street for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours.

As well, parking permits do not exempt a vehicle from Section 10.64.030 "Parking Restriction", of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. According to Section 10.64.030, it is unlawful for any person to park or store any house car, trailer, camp trailer, trailer coach, camper, or boat upon any public street or highway or alley within the City for longer than one hour between the hours of 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM on any day.

EXHIBIT B
Engineer’s Recommendations

Page 184 ends

Residential Parking Permit Program Page 2
Updated: 1/12/2017
Resolution No. 2025-013 -Page 5 of 5

TYPES OF PERMITS AND PROPER DISPLAY
The City currently issues a mirror-hanger style permit which shall be hung from the inside rear view mirror, visible from the front of the vehicle. Temporary guest parking permits are to be placed on the dashboard with the printed side visible from the front of the vehicle.

OBTAINING PARKING PERMITS
Residents living within the boundaries of an established Permit Parking District may apply for parking permits.

Proof of residency less than 30 days old is required upon application for permits. A maximum of five (5) parking permits may be issued to residents of a single dwelling unit. Requests for more than five (5) parking permits per address are subject to review by the City Engineer.

Parking permits may be obtained in person Monday through Thursday, 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 or by mailing a copy of your information to the Engineering Services Department at the address listed below.

Residents must provide proof of residency less than 30 days old in one of the following forms (originals will be reviewed for proof of residency and returned to the requestor):
•Current utility bill, bank statement, credit card bill, or other bill statement that was sent through the mail on a monthly billing cycle
•Rental/lease agreement signed within the last 30 days
•Proof of property ownership, tax bill or new escrow papers

EXPIRATION
Parking permits are valid for a period of up to five (5) years. Parking permits currently being issued will expire on July 31, 2025.

COSTS
•Parking Permit $10 for the first vehicle plus $2 for each additional vehicle (maximum of 5) when
registered all at the same time.
•Replacement of lost, stolen, or damaged permits $10 each •Temporary Guest Parking Permit Free
The cost listed for parking permits is based on the cost of materials and staff time to manage the program and for keeping records. Costs are subject to change.

TEMPORARY GUEST PARKING PERMITS
Residents living within the boundaries of an established Permit Parking District may apply for Temporary Guest Parking Permits which are valid for one day. If a resident desire more than fifty (50) Temporary Guest Parking Permits for a special event, the resident may apply for a special event permit that will temporarily suspend the need for visitors to display a parking permit. Staff may require that the resident fulfill special conditions, such as notifying neighbors of the special event, and covering the permit parking district regulation signs.

FINE FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS
•Fine per violation $50 (Fines are subject to change)

PROGRAM CONTACT INFORMATION
City of Rancho Cucamonga / Engineering Services Department P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 477-2700

Page 185 ends

SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-014, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study for the Transportation Impact Fee, Adopting a Capital Improvement Program as Part of the Nexus Study, Establishing the Fee Amount, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-014) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the noticed public hearing to receive comments and testimony from the public on the items being considered;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-014 adopting nexus study and capital improvement program and approving the impact fee for the updated Transportation Development Impact Fee Program including findings in support thereof.

BACKGROUND:

Impact fees are charges that local governments impose on developers to offset the impacts and cost of new development on public services and infrastructure, such as roads, schools, parks, and emergency services. These fees aim to ensure that growth supports itself financially, rather than placing a burden on existing residents and taxpayers. In recent years, California has faced a housing shortage, driven by high demand and limited supply. To address this crisis, the state has sought to regulate the fees associated with development, ensuring that they are applied in a way that supports housing development and balances infrastructure needs.

One key regulation addressing development fees is the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025), which governs how local governments can charge developers impact or mitigation fees to address the effects of new developments on public infrastructure and services.

The Mitigation Fee Act has recently been updated with Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), which in part addresses the application of impact fees on housing projects.

Page 186 ends

Page 2 ends

2 8
1 0
The most recent update to the City’s Transportation Development Impact Fees (DIFs) was adopted by Council on December 2, 2020. Construction costs have experienced significant increases from December 2020 to the present, driven by several factors including supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, inflation, and rising prices for materials. Construction inflation has typically outpaced general inflation, with industry-specific inflation in the construction sector often reaching 5 -10% annually. The rising cost of inflation has significant implications for the City's ability to fund and expand the public infrastructure and facilities required to support growth driven by new development. This update is recommended to ensure that the DIFs continue to reflect current costs, are properly apportioned, and meet current legal requirements, so that the City can effectively meet the demands of future growth.

This staff report provides an overview of the legal and procedural background for the establishment and implementation of Development Impact Fees, specifically in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025) as most recently amended by Assembly Bill 602, 2019 (AB 602). It outlines the required procedures, methodology, and guidelines for adopting impact fees to mitigate the effects of new development on public infrastructure and services. The goal is to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the costs for public facilities and services that are necessitated by the development, without placing an undue burden on existing residents or taxpayers.

DIFs are charges levied on new development projects to fund the construction or expansion of public infrastructure and facilities needed to support the growth generated by the development.

Included in the current DIFs are Park Impact Fees, Community and Recreation Impact Fees, Library Impact Fees, Animal Center Impact Fees, Police Impact Fees, and Citywide Transportation Impact Fees which ensures that new development and redevelopment projects will pay their “fair share” towards new and expanded infrastructure and facilities that mitigate the impacts caused by this growth.

Mitigation Fee Act: The Mitigation Fee Act provides the legal framework for the imposition of development fees in California. It requires that fees imposed on new development must be reasonably related to the impact caused by the development, and the fee must not exceed the cost of the public facilities or services required to serve the development. AB 602 modified the Mitigation Fee Act to enhance transparency and accountability in the process of collecting and expending development impact fees. AB 602 requires that agencies provide clear and detailed accounting of fees collected and ensure the use of funds aligns with the purpose for which they were intended.

The Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the following key provisions regarding the establishment and collection of development impact fees:
•Nexus Requirement: The imposition of development impact fees must demonstrate a clear nexus between the proposed fee and the public infrastructure, or services needed to support the development. In other words, there must be a reasonable connection between the fee charged and the impacts of the new development on public facilities. •Proportionality: The fees must be proportional to the impact caused by the development.

This means the fee cannot exceed the fair share of the cost of providing necessary infrastructure or services that the development necessitates.

Page 187 ends

Page 3 ends

2 8
1 0
•Fee Transparency: The public must be notified of any proposed fees, and a detailed report on the fees must be provided that explains the methodology used to calculate the fees, including the specific improvements that the fees are intended to fund. •Accountability: Fees collected must be used solely for the purpose for which they were collected and must be expended in a timely manner. Unspent fees must be returned to the developers or held in a separate interest-bearing account.

The Mitigation Fee Act also requires agencies to follow other requirements, including:
•Annual Reporting: Local agencies that collect development impact fees are required to provide an annual report to the public detailing the amounts of fees collected, how the fees have been spent, and the status of any projects funded by the fees. •Five-Year Spending Requirement: Fees must generally be spent within five years of being collected, or the developer is entitled to a refund. This requirement aims to ensure that collected fees are used in a timely manner to address the impacts of development. •Fee Transparency: Agencies must now provide a clear, itemized accounting of the fee amounts collected and the projects funded, making the process more transparent for developers, the public, and other stakeholders.

The process for establishing DIFs involves several steps, including data collection, analysis, and stakeholder engagement. A typical methodology for setting up development impact fees includes the following steps:
•Assess the Impact: Analyze the types and scale of infrastructure and services needed to serve new development, based on projected growth and land use patterns. •Consult with Relevant Departments: Coordinate with public agencies, including transportation, parks, water, and education departments, to assess facility and service needs.
•Nexus Analysis: A Nexus Study is typically required to determine the appropriate amount of the impact fee. The study should demonstrate a clear connection between the new development and the infrastructure, or services required to support it. •Proportionality: The study should also demonstrate that the fees are proportional to the level of service that the new development will require. •Fee Calculation: The fee level is determined based on the estimated cost of infrastructure improvements and the number of new residents or employees that will be generated by the development. Various methodologies can be used, such as:
oLevel of Services Method: Charges developers for the actual costs of providing facilities or services.
oPlan-based Method: Calculates fees based on an adopted capital improvement plan or facility master plan.
oSystem-based Method: Calculates the fees associated with the Fire Development Impact Fee.
•Public Review: The public must be given an opportunity to review the proposed fees.

This includes a public hearing where stakeholders can provide input. •Adoption of Fees: After the public hearing, the governing body (e.g., City Council) may adopt the fees.
•Annual Reporting: An annual report is required to show the fees collected, how the fees have been spent, and the progress of the related capital projects.

Page 188 ends

Page 4 ends

2 8
1 0
•Timely Expenditure: Fees must be expended within five years of collection unless a project is delayed for a valid reason.

In order to ensure that newly established or updated fees are in alignment with the Mitigation Fee Act, the City contracted with Fehr & Peers, consulting firms with extensive experience in the preparation of nexus studies to prepare the attached nexus study.

ANALYSIS:

The DIF Program is designed around key projects and improvements outlined in the City’s General Plan. With the enactment of new State laws and updates to existing regulations, the General Plan has undergone revisions to align with these changes. Notably, these updates include provisions to accommodate more than 10,000 new residential units mandated by the State of California over the next eight years, reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in accordance with State targets, and implement new infrastructure to accommodate new development. These revisions directly affect the City’s DIFs.

As a result of these updates, the City’s approach to levying fees has evolved, particularly in response to the new requirements of AB 602, which became effective on January 1, 2022. This legislation mandates that impact fees levied on housing development projects be calculated based on square footage for future units rather than the prior standard of per dwelling unit. A nexus study must evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by square footage or provide justification for why square footage is not relevant in this context, if it does not appropriately reflect the relationship between the fee, facility demand, and residential land use.

Additionally, AB 602 requires that, effective July 1, 2022, large jurisdictions adopting a nexus study must also adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the study. To comply with this requirement, the City has prepared an amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan, which is integrated into the Major Projects Program. This amendment has been included in the attached resolution for consideration as part of the process to establish fees under the DIF Program.

In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. Paragraph (a)(2) of that section requires that, after January 1, 2022, the level of service used to calculate impact fees in a nexus study must be compared with the existing level of service, and if the proposed new level of service is higher than the existing level of service, an explanation must be included Because the level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the same as the existing level of service, no explanation is required to satisfy the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(2). It should be noted that many projects in the proposed program are not evaluated based on level of service but rather are evaluated against appropriate metrics such as population growth.

Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan projects significant growth by 2040, with an anticipated future population of approximately 344,835 residents and 110,948 jobs at buildout (Table 9). Such growth is reasonably expected to elevate the demand for transportation infrastructure, increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and necessitating enhancements to maintain current service levels. The General Plan outlines a vision for a layered circulation network that accommodates various transportation modes (vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit) across the city.

To support this vision, strategic investments in infrastructure are essential to prevent congestion and ensure safe, efficient mobility.

Page 189 ends

Page 5 ends

2 8
1 0
Given the projected growth, the City must expand its transportation network proportionally. The General Plan highlights the need for maintaining a LOS D or better for its roadways. Failure to expand infrastructure to meet the additional demands from growth could degrade the service levels of facilities, leading to congestion, safety concerns, and a diminished quality of life for all who rely on the transportation system. Furthermore, this growth exacerbates safety risks by increasing potential conflicts at intersections, pedestrian crossings, and other high-use areas.

Consequently, safety improvements – such as intersection enhancements, protected non- motorized facilities, and modernized traffic controls – are essential to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system while accommodating new development.

As outlined in the General Plan and supported by transportation planning principles, developments generate varying impacts on transportation networks. Therefore, the DIF must differentiate this relationship by aligning fees assessed with the projected impacts of each type of future development.

Page 190 ends

Page 6 ends

2 8
1 0
Table 9 – Land Use Growth
General
Plan
Existing
Year
(2018)
Current
Condition
(2024)1
General
Plan
Buildout
Year (2040)
Chan
ge
(2024-
2040)
Residents 176,274 191,987 233,887 41,980
Single Family
Dwelling Units
(SFDU)
37,921 38,997 41,865 2,868
Multifamily Dwelling
Units (MFDU) 22,874 28,803 44,615 15,812
Employment 89,717 95,507 110,948 15,441
Total
Service
Populatio
n
265,991 287,494 344,835 57,341
1 2024 estimate developed by assuming linear growth between the general plan buildout and the existing conditions of the general plan (e.g. linear growth between 2018 and 2040).

In addition to the changes required by AB602 such as levying fees for residential DIFs on a per square foot basis, the Transportation DIF Nexus Study recognizes that the impact on the transportation system from development will be different across the city and that a geographic approach to analyzing impacts, infrastructure needs, and cost distribution is prudent to ensure that the impacts caused by any project are roughly proportional to the projects proposed to mitigate those impacts. To that end, several geographic areas were established to ensure that new development was burdened based on proportion of the program anticipated to benefit development within a specific area. This approach, known as a zone-based fee program, was identified as the most appropriate way to implement a fee program for the city.

This study utilized a “band approach or zonal approach” whereby the city was divided into three bands, with a northern, central, and southern zone incorporated into the fee program. The zones were identified based on their predominant east-west travel patterns within the City and the region as identified in the countywide transportation model (SBTAM) and as reported in the SBCTA Travel Trends Community Profile for Rancho Cucamonga prepared by Fehr & Peers in August 2022. Further, the boundaries of the zones align with the travel-sheds of the major east-west travel corridors of SR-210 and Foothill Boulevard. The zones have been identified as shown in the graphic below and are bound as follows:
•North Zone – North of 19 th Street from the west City Limits to Haven Avenue and north of SR-210 from Haven Avenue to I-15.
•Central Zone - South of the North Zone and north of Foothill Boulevard. •South Zone – South of Foothill Boulevard

Page 191 ends

Page 7 ends

2 8
1 0
Zonal Approach – North, Central and South Zones
The establishment of this Zonal Approach is used to identify improvements and accounts for the interaction of trips between the established zones based on the County’s traffic model. Further, the study identifies the total cost for projects in each zone and the total project cost burden shown in Table 16 of the Fehr & Peers Transportation Nexus Study below:

Table 16 – Total Cost of Improvements By Zone
Contributions
Sub-
area
Project costs North Central South
North $27,302,057 $20,400,379 $4,340,113 $2,561,566
Central $67,221,794 $4,590,764 $52,705,425 $9,925,606
South $228,621,926 $10,614,904 $40,891,246 $177,115,776 Applying the zone-specific contributions to the estimated development potential (total new trips) within the respective zones results in the following costs per trip and per EDU (Equivalent Dwelling Unit) associated with the DIF Program as illustrated in Table 17 of the Fehr & Peers Transportation Nexus Study below:

Page 192 ends

Page 8 ends

2 8
1 0
Table 17 – Cost per Trip and Cost per EDU
Sub-area ID Total New
Trips
Total
Contributions
Cost per
Trip
Cost per
EDU
- DIF Balance
North 25,034 $35,606,046 $1,422 $13,412 $10,122
Central 51,314 $97,936,783 $1,909 $17,998 $14,708
South 107,085 $189,602,948 $1,771 $16,697 $13,406
Applying the estimated cost per EDU to each land use category, a maximum fee per unit of land use is calculated. Please note that per AB 602 requirements and assessments within this Study, impact fees for proposed residential projects must be assessed proportionally by square feet, adjusted by their relationship to the average size of Single-Family Residential comparable units.

Developments near high-quality transit generally produce fewer vehicle trips due to the availability of transit options, which encourages a shift away from car usage. As such, AB 2533 was passed which requires lower impact fees to be assessed in areas where development is close to high quality transit. This bill was codified in Government Code section 66005.1.

Multifamily development (Close to Rail) trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) were utilized to estimate the reductions appropriate for development meeting the requirements of the legislation. Please note that, by using ITE rates to develop this adjustment, low-rise multifamily units near high quality transit see a fee reduction of approximately 30% compared to the same development that is not near high quality transit. However, for mid-rise multifamily units, ITE rates show an increase in vehicle trip making for development near transit.

To simplify the fee program, a 30% reduction is applied for all residential land use meeting the AB 2533 requirements.

Based on the maximum calculated fees from Table 18 and the zonal approach a developer will be able to determine the DIF Program cost for the project based on the location, size, and land use for the project please see the example calculations for a single-family development and a commercial office space development below.

Page 193 ends

Page 9 ends

2 8
1 0
Table 18 – Maximum Fee Calculation
Land Use Unit EDU
Maximum Fee Per Land Use Category
by Zone
North Zone Central Zone South Zone
DU – 2,500 SF (100%) 1.00 $10,122 $14,708 $13,406
Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee
collection)
$4.05 $5.88 $5.36Single Family –
Detached*
If located in a high-quality transit
area**
$2.84 $4.12 $3.75
DU – 1,700 SF (100%) 0.76 $7,728 $11,230 $10,236
Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee
collection)
$4.55 $6.61 $6.02Single Family –
Attached*
If located in a high-quality transit
area**
$3.19 $4.63 $4.21
DU – 1,700 SF (100%) 0.71 $7,235 $10,512 $9,582
Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee
collection)
$4.26 $6.18 $5.64Multifamil
y – (Low-
Rise)*
If located in a high-quality transit
area**
$2.98 $4.33 $3.95
DU – 1,700 SF (100%) 0.48 $4,873 $7,081 $6,454
Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee
collection)
$2.87 $4.17 $3.80Multifamil
y – (Mid-
Rise)*
If located in a high-quality transit
area**
$2.01 $2.92 $2.66
Senior Housing Bed 0.46 $4,626 $6,722 $6,127
Nursing/
Congregate
Care
Bed 0.23 $2,372 $3,447 $3,142
Commercial/Ret
ail**
KSF 2.75 $19,466 $28,284 $25,782
Office/Business
Park
KSF 1.15 $11,636 $16,907 $15,411
Industrial KSF 0.52 $5,227 $7,596 $6,924
Warehouse KSF 0.68 $6,913 $10,044 $9,156
Hotel/Motel Room 0.85 $8,576 $12,462 $11,359
Elementary
School
Stu 0.24 $2,437 $3,540 $3,227
Day Care Stu 0.43 $4,390 $6,379 $5,815
Self-Storage KSF 0.15 $1,556 $2,262 $2,061
Service Station** Pump 12.77 $90,471 $131,457 $119,826

Page 194 ends

Page 10 ends

2 8
1 0
* For Single Family Residential Units (Detached or Attached), proposed square footage of projects above or below the average size (2,500 square feet for detached, 1,700 square feet for attached and multi-family), shall be responsible for a proportional increase or decrease to the impact fees assessed. (See table and examples for application of fees in the following sections)
** See text description related to 30% reduction for land use in a high-quality transit area that was derived using ITE rates for low- rise multifamily units away from and proximate to transit.

Same reduction applied to service station and commercial/retail categories to account for pass-by trips.

Steps to Calculate Transporation Impact Fees:

Step 1- Determine Project Descripion and Land Use Quantities In this step, the development project is clearly defined by identifying the land use type and its scale. The description should include:

Project type: Residential (single-family or multi-family), commercial, industrial, or mixed-use.

Land use categories: For example, residential units (number and size of Single-Family Units, Multifamily Units, etc.), office space (square feet), or retail space (square feet).

Project size: Specify the quantity in units of the chosen land use category. For residential projects, this will be the number and size of dwelling units (DU). For non-residential projects, this could be square feet (KSF)of office or retail space, or other relevant measures.

Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees
Once the land use quantities are identified, the next step is to apply the appropriate transportation impact fee rates.

Locate the fee schedule: Use the pre-determined transportation impact fee schedule (Table 18) that outlines the fee rates for different land use categories, such as single-family residential, multifamily, commercial, or industrial.

Calculate the total fee: Multiply the number of proposed quantities of land use by the corresponding transportation impact fee rate.

Example Calculation
Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities Example: A proposed development includes 100 single-family detached homes averaging 2,000 sq. ft. (200,000 sq. ft.) and 40,000 square feet of office space in the North Zone. \

Page 195 ends

Page 11 ends

2 8
1 0
Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees
Example: If the fee for a single-family detached home is $4.05 per sq. ft., the fee for 200,000 sq. ft. would be:
200,000 sq. ft. × $4.05/sq. ft. = $810,000
Example: If the fee for office space is $11,636 per 1,000 square feet, the fee for 40,000 square feet of office space would be:
40 KSF × $11,636 /KSF = $465,440
Summing up the total fees: After calculating the fees for each land use type, the total transportation impact fee for the project is obtained by adding the individual fees, or $1,275,440.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is an essential metric for assessing transportation impact, especially regarding environmental sustainability and public health. It is now the required metric under California's CEQA and contributes significantly to the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan aims to reduce VMT as a core component of its sustainability goals, aligning with state policies to reduce GHG emissions.

The completion of projects in the DIF list will increase bike lane mileage per capita, while reducing the number of trail, sidewalk, and road lane miles per capita. Expanding bike lanes is part of the city's strategy to promote active transportation and reduce car dependency, improving air quality and lowering GHG emissions. This aligns with the city's objectives to develop a connected, safe biking environment, enhance access to schools, parks, and transit hubs, and offer an alternative to car travel.

The DIF-funded projects are designed not only to accommodate growth but also to manage and reduce VMT. While roadway improvements are necessary, they are balanced with VMT-reducing investments, such as multimodal network enhancements. This strategy ensures that while the city can grow and remain connected, the overall environmental impact remains minimal, with a projected 0.1% reduction in citywide VMT by 2040 which is illustrated in Table 12 of the Fehr & Peers Transportation Nexus Study below:

Page 196 ends

Page 12 ends

2 8
1 0
Table 12 – Effects of DIF Projects on Citywide VMT
General
Plan
Buildout
(2040)
Percent
Change
from
Buildout
Citywide VMT 10,730,168
VMT Induced by Capacity Increasing Projects 94,795 0.96% VMT Reduced by Other DIF Projects -105,476 -0.98%
Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation 10,719,486
Net Change in Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation -10,682 -0.1% Administrative Fee:

The City is required to implement the fee program according to various administrative, accounting, reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified in the Government Code. These responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and often include retaining outside advisory services. The City proposes to include a fee to allow for reasonable cost recovery for these administrative costs and proposes a fee of two and one-half percent (2.5%) which is in line with representative implementation costs including as specified in the “Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Communication:

The City met the requirements of Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(7) by publishing and sending notice to interested parties 30 days prior to the adoption of the impact fee nexus (30 days prior to the advertised hearing). The City published and sent notice thirty-four (34) days prior to the advertised hearing. The City also made a copy of the Nexus Studies available on the City’s website and a hard copy available at the City Clerk’s office thirty-four (34) days prior to the advertised public hearing. The Public Hearing Notice was advertised twice ten (10) days in advance and at least five (5) days between those dates in the local newspaper. The City met with BIA (Building Industry Association) and other interested parties twice before the previous advertised hearing once in November of 2024 and once in December of 2024 and has had conversations with BIA and interested parties prior to the advertised public hearing date for April 2, 2025. The City has received letters with questions and comments from DVBA (Desert Valley Builders Association), BIA, DPFG (Development Planning & Finance Group) and LLG (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers) and have provided responses to the questions and comments which have been attached to the Staff Report as Attachment 5. In added, the City Council continued the public hearing initially scheduled for April 2, 2025, to April 16, 2025, for the Non- Transportation Nexus Study, which was approved on April 16,2025 to go into effect on July 1, 2025, and a continued hearing on May 7, 2025, for the Transportation Nexus Study, in order to provide for further communication with interested stakeholders on the fees. Since the continuation of the hearing, staff has met with members and staff of the BIA at least once per week to collaborate on information sharing and adjustments to the nexus study in preparation for the May 7, 2025 hearing.

Page 197 ends

Page 13 ends

2 8
1 0
Implementation:

During last minute discussions with the Building Industry Association (BIA) prior to the April 16, 2025 hearing on the Non-Transportation fees, concerns were expressed about the prepayment of development impact fees prior to increases taking effect, as well as ensuring a level of certainty for projects with already completed applications. Existing state law, known as SB 330, already provides a process for housing developers to freeze fees at the time of application submittal. The City follows existing state law in this regard with no local changes or additions. The City is also proposing that if approved by the City Council, the proposed Development Impact Fee changes outlined in this report would take effect on July 7, 2025, which meets the timeline required under the Mitigation Fee Act. Fee changes which take effect at the start of a new fiscal year, as are planned in this case, are often easier to notice, apply and update systems.

The BIA expressed concerns that existing deemed complete applications in process, should be allowed several years to finish entitlement and move to permits, during which their fees would be grandfathered. The City, however, did not calculate this type of extended multiple year freeze into the Nexus Study and has significant concerns that this could undermine the validity of the Nexus Study calculations. A second issue the BIA expressed concern about was the deadline for deemed complete applications as the BIA was requesting a deadline 30 days after the ordinance takes effect. The City has similar concerns with a rush of applications intended to beat the deadline that could result in thousands of units coming in under the old fees, also undermining the validity of the Nexus Study calculations. In response to the BIA concerns, the City is recommending the following:
oDevelopers with applications submitted prior to close of business on April 16, 2025, and are subsequently deemed complete, may elect to proceed forward under the new or old Development Impact Fee Program.
▪Proceeding forward under the old development impact fee program will be permitted so long as entitlements are received and building permits are pulled prior to July 1, 2026.
▪Proceeding forward under the new development impact fee program, and the payment of fees at the initial rates, prior to issuance of a building permit, will require completion of plans to the point of knowing actual square footages. Otherwise, the option always exists to pay the fees in effect at time of permit issuance or time of certificate of occupancy, however long that might take.
oThe City finds the adjustments noted above should not create a significant deviation in the nexus study such that further adjustments would be needed.

Page 198 ends

Page 14 ends

2 8
1 0
Actions to Update the DIFs:

To implement the updated DIF program as proposed, the City Council must:
1) Adopt the Nexus Studies
2) Adopt the CIP
3) Establish the DIF fee amounts
Items 1, 2, and 3 above are included in Resolution No. 2025-014, which is included as attachment 2,3 & 4.

Staff therefore recommends that the City Council: Adopt A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies, Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating and Establishing the Fee Amounts for the City’s Transportation Development Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL
The Project (approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified in the Resolution and Ordinance), was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified will not have a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans, or the adoption of new or updated development impact fees.

Furthermore, the Capital Improvement Program is a prioritizing and funding allocation program and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No physical activity will occur until all required environmental review is conducted at the time the physical improvements prioritized in the Capital Improvement Program are undertaken at a future unspecified date. Therefore, the approval of the Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, and adoption of the development impact fees does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Project approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4).

Also, approval of the Capital Improvement Plans associated with the Nexus Studies, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

Page 199 ends

Page 15 ends

2 8
1 0
FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impacts of DIFs on the City’s finances are associated with both increased revenues and expenses. Administrative expenses will be incurred as City staff collect fees and manage the use and application of fee revenues. The City is proposing a two and one-half percent (2.5%) Administrative Fee to cover these costs.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the City Council’s vision for building upon our past successes to create a world class community by ensuring that the means are available to continue the City’s growth and success.

Page 200 ends

Page 16 ends

2 8
1 0
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1:

Proposed Resolution No. 2025-014 (DIF Program Fee Update) Attachment 2:

Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2025-014 Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Attachment 3:

Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2025-014 Proposed MPP (CIP) Amendment for DIF Program Attachment 4:

Exhibit C to Resolution No. 2025-014 Proposed Transportation DIF Fee Schedule Attachment 5:

Comment Response Memorandum on Transportation Nexus Study Attachment 6:

Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (DVBA- Transportation) Attachment 7:

Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (BIA)
Attachment 8:

Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (DPFG- Transportation) Attachment 9:

Attachment to Comment Response Memorandum (LLG- Transportation)

Page 201 ends

Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 1 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-014

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY FOR THE

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE, ADOPTING A CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AS PART OF THE NEXUS

STUDY, ESTABLISHING THE FEE AMOUNT, AND

MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER
CEQA
A Recitals.

1. The Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code 66000 et seq., permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding public facilities necessary to serve that new development.

2. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.28 (“City-Wide System Fees for Transportation”) established the City’s current development impact fee program for Transportation Development Impact Fees.

3. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code provisions establish the program and the requirements for imposition of development impact fees on development projects, as supported by nexus studies, and in Section 3.28.020 provides that the City Council shall, by resolution, impose the specific amount of development impact fees that will be levied on new development in the City for each category of fee.

4. The City Council now desires to update the Transportation Development Impact Fee on new development to fund the costs associated with the increased demand for such public facilities throughout the City.

5. Fehr & Peers has prepared the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study dated Aril 30, 2025, included as Exhibit A (“F&P Nexus Study”).

The F&P Nexus Study covers the Transportation Development Impact Fee.

6. The F&P Nexus Study identifies the purpose of the fee and the use of the fee, and demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use, the type of development projects where the fee will be imposed, provides how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee, and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development. In addition, the F&P Nexus Study identifies capital projects necessary to meet the goals, programs and objectives within the City’s General Plan.

7. The F&P Nexus Study provides the documentation, detail, and other ATTACHMENT 1

Page 202 ends

Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 2 of 10
information required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adoption and imposition of the Transportation Development Impact Fee. Furthermore, the F&P Nexus Study describes the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fee is to be imposed, lists specific public improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of the development impact fee, describes the estimated cost of providing the improvements and facilities, describes the reasonable relationship between the development impact fee and the various types of new development, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the law with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fee.

8. The facts and evidence presented to the City Council have established that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new facilities or improvements and the impacts of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged, also that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s uses and the type of development for which the fee is imposed.

9. The City is required to implement the fee program according to various administrative, accounting, reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified in the Government Code. These responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and often include retaining outside advisory services. The City proposes to include a fee to allow for reasonable cost recovery for these administrative costs and proposes a fee of two and one-half percent (2.5%) which is in line with representative implementation costs, including as specified and studied in the “Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility Calculation Templates in fulfillment of AB 602” prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

10. The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and fee specified in this Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the development impact fee was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased fees.

11. The City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing at the April 2, 2025 regular City Council meeting, at which time testimony was presented. Thereafter, the City Council continued the public hearing to the City Council’s regular meeting of May 7, 2025.

12. The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the F&P Nexus Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution, contains substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the development impact fee established herein.

Page 203 ends

Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 3 of 10

13. The City Council has reviewed and considered the development impact fee established herein, and finds that the fee will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional transportation capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and non-residential development in the City.

B. Resolution.

The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts a n d r e c i t a l s set forth in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein as a material part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The approval of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan associated with the F&P Nexus Study, and the adoption of the development impact fees specified in this Resolution, was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

The City Council finds that approval of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, and the adoption of the development impact fee specified in this Resolution will not have a significant impact on the environment and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actions involve the adoption of development impact fees and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan, or the adoption of new or updated development impact fees. Furthermore, the Capital Improvement Program is a prioritizing and funding allocation program and cannot and does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No physical activity will occur until all required environmental review is conducted at the time the physical improvements prioritized in the Capital Improvement Program are undertaken at a future unspecified date. Therefore, the approval of the F&P Nexus Study, Capital Improvement Plan associated with the F&P Nexus Study, and adoption of the development impact fee does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Resolution approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects and equipment necessary to maintain service within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4). Also, approval of the Capital Improvement Plan associated with the F&P Nexus Study, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because the Plan is not a “project” as defined by CEQA, but involves the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

SECTION 3. Approval of the F&P Nexus Study and Mitigation Fee Act Findings.

The City Council hereby approves the F&P Nexus Fee Study, and the findings contained therein which the City Council finds, pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 3.28.020, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development fee is imposed, list the Nexus Improvement Program and its components specifying the public

Page 204 ends

Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 4 of 10
improvements to be financed, describe the estimated cost of the facilities, and describe the reasonable relationship between this fee and the various types of new developments.

A copy of the F&P Nexus Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection. With respect to development impact fee for transportation facilities, the F&P Nexus Study explains (1) the purpose of the impact fee; (2) the use of the impact fee; (3) the reasonable relationship between the use of the impact fee and the development type on which it is imposed; (4) the reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and the type of development between the need for the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and (5) the reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and facility cost attributable to the applicable development project. The City Council agrees with the findings set forth in the F&P Nexus Study and adopts them as their own as if set forth in full here.

SECTION 4. Adoption of a Capital Improvement Program. The City Council hereby adopts the amendments to the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Major Projects Program which contains the City’s Capital Improvement Program as shown in the attached listing included as Exhibit B to this Resolution and as a part of the F&P Nexus Study.

SECTION 5. Establishing the Amount of Development Impact Fees. The City Council hereby adopts the development impact fee amounts for the Transportation Impact Fee in accordance with the Amendments to the Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. The Master Fee Schedule shall be amended to contain the fees and amounts identified therein. The City Council is not readopting or revising the existing fees not identified in this Resolution or analyzed in the F&P Nexus Study; all such fees and charges remain in place at the current amount.

SECTION 6. Adoption of Methodology for Calculation, Adjustment, and Collection of Development Impact Fees. The City Council adopts the methodology set forth in the F&P Nexus Study for calculating and collecting the development impact fees adopted herein. The amount of the development impact fees shall be adjusted annually in July of each calendar year beginning in 2026, using the Caltrans Construction Cost Index for the Transportation Impact Fee for the twelve-month period ending in May, or a similar published index if the Caltrans Construction Cost Index is no longer available. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make such annual adjustments to certain fees based on an inflationary factors effective July 1 of each year.

SECTION 7. Timing of Payment. All development fees shall be paid when required by the applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and in accordance with Government Code section 66007.

SECTION 8. Effective Date of Development Impact Fees. The development impact fee established by Section 5 of this Resolution shall be effective on the later of: (i) the sixtieth (60th) day following the adoption of this Resolution or (ii) July 7, 2025.

SECTION 9. Elective Delayed Effective Date for Development Impact Fee on Housing Development Projects. Notwithstanding Section 8 above, a housing development project that is the subject of an application for a land use entitlement

Page 205 ends

Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 5 of 10
submitted prior to 5 P.M. on April 16, 2025, and that has been deemed complete or is subsequently deemed complete, may elect to be subject to either: (i) the development impact fee and rates in effect as of April 16, 2025 (“Old DIF Program”); (ii) the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the effective date provided in Section 8 (“New DIF Program”); or (iii) the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the time the fee is paid (or as otherwise provided for under applicable state law). For purposes of this Section 9, a “housing development project” shall have the same meaning as currently provided under Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).

In order for a housing development project to qualify under the Old DIF Program, the land use entitlement(s) that is the subject of the timely application must be approved and a building permit to construct the associated housing development project must be issued prior to July 1, 2026. Thereafter, the housing development project shall be subject to the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the time the fee is paid.

In order for a housing development project to qualify under the New DIF Program prior to the issuance of a building permit, the land use entitlement(s) that is the subject of the timely application must be approved and complete development plans must be submitted to the City for plan check showing the square footages of all units prior to July 1, 2026. Thereafter, the housing development project shall be subject to the development impact fee and rates in effect as of the time the fee is paid.

The City hereby finds the adjustments noted above will not create a significant deviation in the F&P Nexus Study such that further adjustments would be needed. Any shortfall in funding for improvements identified in the Nexus Study will be paid for by third party sources, such as grant funding or the General Fund.

SECTION 10. Administration Fee. The City shall include an Administration Fee in the not to exceed amount of two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the total project cost for the management of the development impact fee program.

SECTION 11. Fee Credit. A credit against the amount of the impact fees for a project shall be granted as an offset to the total amount of the project’s impact fees if the project actually constructs any improvement listed in Exhibit C and/or the developer dedicates associated land. Such credit is equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined in Exhibit C, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the impact fees are calculated.”
SECTION 12. No Changes to Other City Fees. Nothing in this Resolution shall repeal, amend or supersede any other City imposed fees except for the amount of specific type and category of development impact fee addressed in the F&P Nexus Study and expressly established by this Resolution.

SECTION 13. Severance Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Resolution shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this

Page 206 ends

Resolution No. 2025-014 - Page 6 of 10
Resolution, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions of this Resolution be declared invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION 14. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Page 207 ends

11231-0001\3098298v3.doc
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May 2025
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, KIM SEVY, 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 7th day of May 2025.

Executed this ___ day of_______, 2025 at Rancho Cucamonga, California _________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk

Page 208 ends

11231-0001\3098298v3.doc

EXHIBIT A

F&P NEXUS STUDY

Page 209 ends

11231-0001\3098298v3.doc

EXHIBIT B

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Page 210 ends

-10-
11231-0001\3098298v3.doc

EXHIBIT C

AMENDMENTS TO MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Page 211 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
Transportation
Development Impact
Fee (DIF) Program
Nexus Study
Prepared for:

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Updated April 30, 2025
OC22-0937.01

Page 212 ends

Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 1 What is the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)?...................................................................1 Who pays the DIF?.......................................................................................................................................................................1 How is the DIF calculated? .......................................................................................................................................................1 How are fees assessed?.............................................................................................................................................................2 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 3 Nexus Study Scope......................................................................................................................................................................3 Regulatory Context......................................................................................................................................................................3 California Government Code...........................................................................................................................................3 California Assembly Bill 602 ............................................................................................................................................4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)...........................................................................................................5 Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF).....................................................................................5 Other DIF Considerations.................................................................................................................................................5 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................................................6 Data Collection .....................................................................................................................................................................6 Cost Estimation.....................................................................................................................................................................7 Maximum Allowable Fee...................................................................................................................................................8 Other Considerations.........................................................................................................................................................8 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................................................................9 Fee Structure and Development................................................................................................ 10 Purpose of Impact Fee Program..........................................................................................................................................10 Existing Service Population and Transportation Facilities.................................................................................11 Development Trends........................................................................................................................................................11 Infrastructure Improvements.................................................................................................................................................14 Facility Standards...............................................................................................................................................................14 Infrastructure Changes ....................................................................................................................................................15 Transportation Project List and Estimated Costs ..................................................................................................16 Cost Estimating Assumptions.......................................................................................................................................16 Existing Deficiencies .........................................................................................................................................................17 Nexus Analysis............................................................................................................................. 20 Need................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Benefits...........................................................................................................................................................................................21

Page 213 ends

Cost Allocation............................................................................................................................................................................24 Total Program Costs .................................................................................................................................................................26 Maximum Fee Calculation......................................................................................................................................................27 Fee Implementation.................................................................................................................... 31 Steps to Calculate Transportation Impact Fees .............................................................................................................31 Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities ................................................................31 Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees............................................................................................................31 Example Calculation..................................................................................................................................................................32 Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities ................................................................32 Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees............................................................................................................32 Program Administration..........................................................................................................................................................32 Program Administration..................................................................................................................................................32 Program Update.................................................................................................................................................................33 Program Reporting ...........................................................................................................................................................33 Unique Land Use Categories.........................................................................................................................................34 Refund Provisions..............................................................................................................................................................34 Grievances ............................................................................................................................................................................34 Appendices................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix A – Resolution No. 20-122.................................................................................................................................37 Appendix B – Completed DIF Projects List (Resolution No. 20-122).....................................................................38 Appendix C...................................................................................................................................................................................41 DIF Cost Estimates and Soft Cost Assumptions.............................................................................................................41 DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates.....................................................................................................................50 Appendix D...................................................................................................................................................................................59 General Plan Level Of Service Assessment and Forecasting.....................................................................................59

Page 214 ends

List of Tables
Table 1 – Unit Cost Estimates1 ........................................................................................................................................................7 Table 2 – Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Table 3 – Development Trends.................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4 - Trips Between Zones..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 5 – Existing Transportation Facilities per Service Population.............................................................................. 15 Table 6 – Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population Growth .................................................................... 15 Table 7 – Development Impact Fee Project Improvements............................................................................................. 16 Table 8 – Cost Adjustments for Deficient Roadway Facilities.......................................................................................... 19 Table 9 – Land Use Growth............................................................................................................................................................ 21 Table 10 – Facility Needs to Maintain Existing Facility Standards ................................................................................. 22 Table 11 – Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections....................................................................................................................... 23 Table 12 – Effects of DIF Projects on Citywide VMT............................................................................................................ 24 Table 13 – Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and Cost per Square Foot Estimates ................................................... 25 Table 14 – DIF Program Cost Total............................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 15 – Cost per Trip Citywide............................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 16 – Total Cost of Improvements By Zone ................................................................................................................. 28 Table 17 – Cost per Trip and Cost per EDU ............................................................................................................................ 28 Table 18 – Maximum Fee Calculation ....................................................................................................................................... 30

Page 215 ends

Executive Summary
What is the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)? The Transportation Development Impact Fee Program (“DIF”) is a type of development impact fee created to address the impacts of new residents and workers utilizing transportation-related infrastructure, such as roads, intersections, bridges, as well as facilities that serve transit, pedestrians and/or non-motorized vehicles (e.g., trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.). The fee is established such that new development and redevelopment projects will pay their “fair share” towards new and expanded transportation infrastructure and facilities that mitigate the impacts caused by this growth.

Who pays the DIF?
Development impact fees are paid for by applicants of land use development and redevelopment projects including, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, and industrial uses.

How is the DIF calculated?
The Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) is calculated based on this Nexus Study prepared per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Fees established herein follow the fundamental legal tenets of having an essential nexus (relationship), and being roughly proportional, to the impacts which the fee is designed to mitigate. The relationship is drawn between transportation related impacts of future development and the necessary transportation infrastructure improvements, such as roadway expansion and non-motorized transportation facilities, identified to support the increased demand. The costs associated with the identified improvements are then proportionally related to future development quantified by the magnitude of anticipated impacts. As the DIF is a type of development impact fee

Page 216 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
program, it is designed to account for the impacts of future developments and does not address existing deficiencies. Specifically, fee programs cannot charge for new development to fix existing deficiencies and, as such, this study needs to identify whether there are existing deficiencies on the system and ensure that the cost to fix those deficiencies is not burdened onto future development. This is typically evaluated related to roadway capacity where a segment or intersection may not be operating at the city’s defined acceptable threshold. In this instance, the full cost of the improvement cannot be burdened onto new development (although new development can be burdened with their “fair share” of the cost of the improvement).

How are fees assessed?
The DIF fees are assessed based on the anticipated impact of new developments on the transportation infrastructure, calculated using the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) method as land use from the City’s General Plan only includes estimated growth in number of units, not in sq. ft., for residential uses.

Assessed fees are proportional to the development's estimated increase to transportation demand, with different land use categories, such as residential, commercial, and industrial, assigned appropriate rates based on their impact. The fee assessment process involves identifying the project’s land use, calculating the number in units of a particular land use category, and applying fees based on the calculated maximum allowable fee and adopted fee schedule. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A), residential DIF fees, although initially estimated using EDUs, are then converted to a per square foot fee basis rather than a per dwelling unit basis.
2

Page 217 ends

Introduction
Nexus Study Scope
This Transportation Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (“Nexus Study” or “Study”) provides the technical documentation to support the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s (“City”) update of the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) program by defining the relevant geographic boundaries, the types of development projects to which the fee is imposed, and the types of transportation infrastructure to be funded by the fee program. Since its inception in 1991, the City’s DIF has worked continuously to fund infrastructure improvements throughout the City to support its growth. By updating the DIF with current growth estimates, changes to infrastructure needs, recent infrastructure costs, and the associated fee basis this Study re-evaluates the service standards of existing transportation facilities, the need for planned facilities to maintain a consistent standard of transportation service and determine a justifiable cost per unit of demand by future developments.

The Nexus Study provides the basis for the City to collect fees consistent with the California Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/Government Code 66000 et seq.). This analysis also demonstrates that the fees established have a reasonable relationship based on the needs, benefits, and proportionality to the impacts which the fee is designed to mitigate.

Regulatory Context
California Government Code
The California Government Code §§ 66000-66025, often referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act, governs how local governments can impose development impact fees. This legislation ensures that such fees are both legally defensible and equitable. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt an ordinance that

Page 218 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
enables the fee and defines the program structure. The fee may be updated periodically when supported by a technical analysis and approved by City Council.

In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project1, Government Code §§ 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:



Identify the purpose of the fee.

Identify how the fee is to be used.

Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee established and type of development project for which the fee is imposed.


Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed.

Demonstrate the relationship between the fee and the cost of the public facility.

Once the DIF is adopted, this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains will be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City to ensure impact fee accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over time, the fee program will need to be updated.

California Assembly Bill 602
Effective January 1, 2022, AB 602 requires that impact fees levied on residential development must be calculated such that they are proportional to the square footage of future units. A nexus study must evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by residential square feet or document why the use of residential square feet is not relevant as it would not appropriately reflect the relationship between the fee, facility demand, and residential land use.

Effective July 1, 2022, AB 602 also mandates that large jurisdictions2 adopting a nexus study shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study. At the time of this Study’s development, the residential population within the County of San Bernardino is approximately 2.18 million3 and thus, a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is required as a part of this Study. The City of Rancho Cucamonga updates and publishes the Capital Improvement Program as part of the annual citywide budgeting procedure, and the latest documentation can be found on the City’s website. Further, the City has prepared a draft amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan (as incorporated into the Major Project's Program) to be 1 Development includes any land use activity that involves construction of residential, commercial, industrial, office, or other non-residential improvements which requires the issuance of a building permit. Such improvements are generally expected to create additional impacts to the City’s transportation infrastructure once completed through additional travel demand associated with the proposed use. 2 As defined in Section 53559.1 of the Health and Safety Code, “Large jurisdiction” means a county with a population of more than 250,000, or any city within that county.
3 United States Census Bureau, 2023 ACS 1-Year Estimate 4

Page 219 ends

considered as part of the establishment of fees under the DIF program. The amendment is available for review under separate cover.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Impact considerations by CEQA are not applicable to fee programs, since such programs are government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to specific projects that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment and therefore not “projects” which would be subject to CEQA4. However, necessary environmental documents shall be prepared prior to the construction phase of capital improvement projects, funding by the DIF or otherwise, unless such projects are otherwise determined to be exempt from CEQA.

Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)
On April 18, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 445 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging citywide transportation development fees. The ordinance modified the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC) to describe the purpose, basis, limited-use, and mechanism for future adjustments of the fee program. Subsequently, the City adopted Resolution No. 91-092 and established the definition of “Development Projects” subject to the fee program, methodology to calculate the cost per “Equivalent Dwelling Unit” (fee schedule), use of the collected fees, the process by which fees are assessed and updated, and a list of programmed projects and associated costs. Over the decades, the fee program has been periodically updated to account for increased costs based on engineering and construction cost adjustment factors.

The most recent iteration of the adopted fee program was adjusted in 2020 by Resolution No. 20-122 (Appendix A – Resolution No. 20-122). Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) as amended by AB 602 requires local agencies adopting increases to existing DIF program fees review the assumptions in the prior study as part of a new nexus study. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 20-122, the City approved a General Plan update that set forth a renewed vision for the community including anticipated development patterns, population growth estimates, and transportation needs. Further, since that time, construction costs have increased dramatically for public improvements. This study has reviewed the prior assumptions and incorporated currently available data and assumptions as more appropriate to the analysis considered in this study.

Other DIF Considerations
Existing State law provides that certain types of projects, largely involving housing, are exempt from or receive a reduced or vested development impact fees (exceptions). These exceptions include, for example, a prohibition on impact fees for accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or less and vested impact fees for qualifying housing development projects subject to a preliminary application under the Housing 4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)
DIF Nexus Study 5

Page 220 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Accountability Act, SB 330. Such exceptions may change over time. As a Pro Housing jurisdiction, the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the importance of providing more housing and affordable housing for all income levels. To that end, the city supports current State law in this regard and intends to comply with future changes in this area.

This nexus study anticipated all future development in the city without considering the potential applicability of any exceptions to the impact fees applied to such development. This is because, among other reasons, it is not possible to determine whether any particular project will qualify for an exception and then to what extent. It is speculative to forecast that a certain amount of development expected in the city will be attributable to projects that qualify for exceptions. To be sure, the value of any potential exception was not re-allocated or re-distributed to other development projects. Therefore, no project will subsidize any lost revenue caused by a project that qualifies for an exception, and any shortfalls in funding for exempt or reduced fee projects will be made up through grants or other local discretionary funding sources.

Further, the City has long recognized that for some development projects there is mutual benefit for the developer to construct public improvements that are part of the impact fee program’s list of capital projects. In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and other laws, the developer may be eligible for a credit against the amount of the relevant impact fee for the cost of the improvement when the development impact fee is calculated. To ensure the sustainability and equity of the program, such credits are equal to the estimated value of the improvements and/or dedicated land as outlined in the nexus study, as adjusted and in effect as of the date the fees are calculated.

Finally, the City seeks to defray the cost of construction for public infrastructure through alternative means such as grant programs. The City proactively pursues grants and other funding mechanisms; however, the City does not have the ability to guarantee a certain percentage of grant awards toward projects within this DIF program. In order to ensure that new development funds its fair share of the improvements in this program, applicable grant awards will be first used to offset the appropriate project cost share attributable to existing development and then remaining grant awards (if any) will be used to offset the cost borne by the fee program unless the grant award is specifically made to offset new development costs. Should new development costs be offset by grant or other funding mechanisms, such offset will be accounted for in the next major update to this nexus study.

Methodology
Data Collection
This Study utilized data from various citywide planning documents, including the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (Plan RC), City of Rancho Cucamonga Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC), City of Rancho Cucamonga ADA Transition Masterplan, historic fee programs, Capital Improvement Program 6

Page 221 ends

(CIP) cost estimates and records, and publicly available United States Census Data and American Community Survey (ACS) Estimates.

Cost Estimation
The cost estimation for transportation infrastructure improvements in Rancho Cucamonga is based on the most recent and relevant project cost estimates and records. For each type of infrastructure – such as roadway lane miles, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and trail facilities, the cost per unit of improvement is determined by referencing recent costs and adjusting for factors such as construction materials, labor, environmental compliance, and project-specific contingencies. Basic unit cost estimates applicable to multiple facilities are listed in the table below.

These unit costs are then applied to the quantity of infrastructure needed to support future development, stipulated on the anticipated growth in demand. To ensure that the fee program remains responsive to changing economic conditions, cost estimates are indexed to industry standards (e.g. Caltrans Contract Cost Index). This ensures that projected costs account for inflation and other future economic factors.

Table 1 – Unit Cost Estimates1
Facility Type
Roadway Widening (Full Section)2
Bridge Widening3
Unit
Lane Mile
Square Feet
Each
Cost per Unit
$1,325,000
$250
Intersection Improvement – New Traffic Signal2
Intersection Improvement – Traffic Signal Modification2 Intersection Improvement – Roundabout5
Multi-Use Trail4
$750,000
$50,000Each
Each $1,500,000
$1,000,000
$300,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$30
Mile
Class II Bike Lane4 Mile
Class III Bike Route4 Mile
Class IV Separated Bikeway2
Sidewalk4
Mile
Square Feet
$10,000,000
$50,000,000 for
Foothill/Haven Complete
Street Improvements
Corridor Active Transportation Improvements2 Mile

1. This table contains unit cost estimates before adjustments to develop project cost estimates in Appendix C. Specifically, engineering and environmental documentation are typically 10%-30% of the construction cost of the facility. For more complex projects, the City directed specific “soft cost” assumptions that were more reflective of the potential challenges to deliver those projects. The soft cost assumptions are presented in the appendix and the total project cost estimates, including construction materials, labor, environmental compliance, and project specific contingencies (soft costs) are utilized in the DIF

2. City of Rancho Cucamonga 24/25 CIP estimates (2024)

3. Caltrans Comparative Bridge Costs (2019)

4. City of Rancho Cucamonga Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC) (2023)

5. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672 & 1043 (FHWA, 2010, 2023) DIF Nexus Study 7

Page 222 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
As described in the table above, the unit costs are utilized to develop a construction cost estimate for the facility, but these costs do not reflect “soft costs” associated with project delivery. Soft costs typically include environmental assessment and mitigation, engineering for the facility, and any contingencies needed to deliver the project. Contingencies relate to other factors not included in the assessment, like unknown utility conflicts or the need to acquire right-of-way for facility implementation. Soft costs are typically 10%-50% of the construction cost of a facility. Some improvements include a higher soft cost if right-of-way acquisition were needed or there is a greater degree of uncertainty in the costs to deliver the facility as exemplified by soft costs on recent City projects. The facility cost estimates and the soft cost assumptions are provided in Appendix C.

Maximum Allowable Fee
The maximum allowable fee is calculated by the following steps.

1. Identify total program costs – cost for improvements plus cost for implementation

2. Account for known funding (current fund balance) and fee credits (amount to be subtracted from fund balance due to outstanding obligations such as improvement reimbursement programs discussed in later sections of this Study)

3. Account for existing deficiencies

4. Account for administrative fees

5. Determine proportional allocation of cost to new development Other Considerations
 Developmental growth can fluctuate. By accounting for growth between 2024 and 2040, the updated fee program and maximum fee consider only the remaining growth through buildout of the General Plan with a planning horizon of 2040.
 While the Study establishes a justified fee based on proportional costs of infrastructure improvements for new development, the City Council retains the authority to adopt transportation impact fees lower than the maximum allowable amounts calculated in the Nexus Study. This flexibility allows the Council to balance the need for infrastructure funding with considerations such as encouraging development or addressing affordability concerns, while still maintaining compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act.  The fee program is designed specifically to address transportation infrastructure needs generated by new development and does not cover the cost of remedying existing deficiencies in the system. Under the California Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees can only be used to fund improvements proportionate to the impacts of future development. As a result, any existing deficiencies, such as under-capacity roads or outdated infrastructure, must be addressed through alternative funding sources.
8

Page 223 ends

Summary of Findings
The findings of this Study support the implementation of a transportation development impact fee program through the following steps,





Identify the purpose of the fee
Account for existing population and projected growth
Determine the appropriate facility standards
Provide cost estimates of necessary improvements
Demonstrate the need, benefit, and fair share responsibility of the public facilities Transportation related development impact fees will be assessed per unit of land use proposed in the amount no more than the Maximum Fee Calculations provided at the end of this Study.

DIF Nexus Study 9

Page 224 ends

Fee Structure and Development
Purpose of Impact Fee Program
An impact fee program is often utilized to ensure that new developments contribute to the cost of public infrastructure that are proportional to the additional demand created by the development projects. As cities grow, new residential, commercial, and industrial projects increase the burden on the existing transportation networks. Without an impact fee program, the financial burden of accommodating this growth would fall disproportionately on existing residents, who would be forced to subsidize the infrastructure needs caused by new development.

In the last decade, Rancho Cucamonga experienced significant growth, with the residential population increasing by approximately 9,800 and a similar rise in the number of employees5. As projected growth continues, the City's General Plan lays out a comprehensive vision that relies on well-maintained and effective infrastructure. The impact fee program is essential to securing sufficient funding for new and expanded facilities that support the City's long-term operational goals and maintain the desired quality of service for all residents and businesses.
5 Number of residents grew between 2010 and 2020 from an estimate of 165,000 to 176,000, number of employments increased from 80,700 to 89,400. ACS 5-year Estimates.

Page 225 ends

Existing Service Population and Transportation Facilities The City of Rancho Cucamonga serves an existing population of approximately 176,274 residents and 89,717 employees, with a population density of around 3,790 residents per square mile. This diverse and growing population places significant demands on the city's infrastructure, public services, and amenities.

To support an estimated 10 million vehicle miles traveled per day, the City maintains approximately 1,152 lane miles of roadway, 31 miles of mixed-use trails, 107 miles of bicycle facilities, 102 miles of sidewalk and pedestrian facilities, and over 200 traffic signals across the 46.5 square mile jurisdiction.

Throughout recent years, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has undergone various types of citywide planning efforts. The studies associated with the plan development process are referenced to provide a fundamental description of the City’s existing conditions and inventory of its transportation infrastructure.

Table 2 – Existing Facilities
Source
Plan RC
Unit
Lane Mile
Mile
Quantity
1,152.2

30.7 Roadway
Trails Connect RC
Bike Lane
Sidewalk Facilities
Connect RC Mile 106.8
ADA Transition Masterplan Mile 102.0
Besides roadways, trails, bike lanes, and sidewalks, there exists a wide range and variety of transportation facilities that serve the Rancho Cucamonga population. Some aspects of such improvements are difficult to measure tangibly, such as safety, comfort, equity, and access to the system; but are all crucial to the viability of an effective transportation system. Infrastructure such as the traffic management systems, access to regional transit systems, and an overall transportation to support active and healthy mobility are all crucial elements of a system to foster sustainable development.

Development Trends
What types of existing and new development are occurring, and are there geographic differences that might affect the need for facilities and associated fees charged to certain types of development in an area?
Land use growth and new development require the support of transportation infrastructure. It is imperative to estimate the amount of new development expected to take place within the planning horizon, and the additional transportation facilities that would be required, to prevent overburdening the existing service population (residents and employment) with the cost of new improvements. According to the City’s General Plan, the number of residential units are anticipated to grow by 3,944 Single Family Residential (SFR) units (SFDU), and 21,741 Multifamily units (MFDU), leading to an estimated increase of 57,613 residents by buildout of the General Plan. The number of employees is also expected to grow across various industries including retail, education, office, and construction amongst the highest growing sectors.

DIF Nexus Study 11

Page 226 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Table 3 – Development Trends
General Plan Existing General Plan Buildout Change % ChangeYear (2018) Year (2040) Residents 176,274 233,887 57,613
21,231

32.7%

23.7%Employees 89,717 110,948
Total Service Population
(Residents + Employees) 265,991 344,835 78,844 29.6%
Although development projects will take place in specific parcels across the city, the city’s transportation network is designed to serve all areas. However, improvements in a specific area tend to benefit development within that area more than development in a different area of the city. To that end, and to ensure that there is a localized nexus between new development and improvements needed to serve that new development, several geographies were reviewed to ensure that the local areas were burdened the most for local benefits. This approach, known as a zone-based fee program, was identified as the most appropriate way to implement a fee program for the city.

This study utilized a “band approach” whereby the city was divided into three bands, with a northern, central, and southern zone incorporated into the fee program.

The zones were identified based on their predominant east-west travel patterns within the City and the region. Further, the boundaries of the zones align with the travel-sheds of the major east-west travel corridors of SR-210 and Foothill Boulevard. The zones have been identified as shown in the graphic below and are bound as follows:
 North Zone - North of 19th Street from the west City Limits to Haven Avenue and north of SR-210 from Haven Avenue to I-15


Central Zone - South of the North Zone and north of Foothill Boulevard South Zone - South of Foothill Boulevard
12

Page 227 ends

Zonal Approach – North, Central and South Zones
Utilizing this approach assisted in understanding where new trips were being generated in addition to how trips generated from one zone were attributed to other zones of the city. Table 4 summarizes the trip interactions between the zones as estimated by the city’s General Plan travel demand model. In this instance, 74.7% of the total cost of projects in the north band of the city are the responsibility of local development projects, and development in other parts of the city are responsible for their fair share contribution to trip making in that north band zone.

The General Plan forecasting used the San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (SBTAM) for the assessment, which, at the time the General Plan was completed, was the state-of-the-practice tool available for estimating travel patterns and traffic volumes associated with changes to land use and the transportation network within the County. By utilizing the travel demand model developed for the City’s General Plan update, this approach ensures that the assumptions that informed the General Plan update are integrated into the fee program analysis.

Table 4 - Trips Between Zones
To\From
North
North Central South Total
100%
100%
100%

74.7% 15.9% 9.4%
Central
South

6.8%

4.6%

78.4%

17.9%

14.8%

77.5%
DIF Nexus Study 13

Page 228 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Infrastructure Improvements
Facility Standards
Establishing an appropriate facility standard is crucial for ensuring that the future inventory of transportation infrastructure in Rancho Cucamonga meets the demands of new development while aligning with the city's long-term goals. The following standards are derived from the City's adopted policies and standards.

Complete Streets Standards – The General Plan emphasizes the creation of Complete Streets, designed to safely and efficiently accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders.

Paired with the recently adopted Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC), multimodal elements such as mixed-use trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit accommodations will be integrated as a critical component of the transportation network. This ensures that new developments contribute their fair share to a transportation system that is inclusive and accessible to all residents by mitigating increased demand for mobility generated by new development within the City. The General Plan identifies a desire for the City to investigate and set service levels by travel mode in the future based on the modal priority on the street. Although this multi-modal level of service approach has not yet been implemented, the General Plan sets clear expectations related to implementing complete streets and prioritizing non-automotive modes of travel. Furthermore, the General Plan has set specific standards related to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets which rely on a reduction in vehicles miles of travel (VMT). This Study utilizes VMT reduction as a potential nexus; but it also looks to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are delivered to residents at a rate consistent with that currently provided (e.g. maintaining mileage of bicycle or pedestrian facilities per capita). As previously noted, new development accounts for 29.6% of the population and employment growth in the city (the remainder are existing residents). As such, complete streets improvements that assist the city in achieving its GHG reduction targets can only be funded at

29.6% of the total cost for those improvements through the DIF program (grants and other funding will be required to achieve full funding of these projects).

Roadway Capacity and Quality – Maintaining efficient traffic flow and safety is a priority in the General Plan, especially on automobile priority streets. To address this, facility standards will include minimum levels of service (LOS) for roadways (LOS D, or V/C of 0.9), ensuring that necessary improvements are included to handle the increased traffic generated by new developments. This standard ensures that the road infrastructure remains functional and safe as the city grows. The following information related to roadway facilities supports and helps to validate the rough proportionality of the program and how it relates to new development.
14

Page 229 ends

Table 5 – Existing Transportation Facilities per Service Population Facility Unit
Lane Mile
Mile
Quantity/1,000 Service Population
Roadway
Trails

4.33 0.12

0.40 0.38
Bike Lane Mile
Sidewalk Facilities Mile
In addition to multimodal and roadway capacity considerations, the City’s General Plan also emphasizes the need to maintain an effective transit infrastructure, enhance safety and accessibility of the transportation system, and promote scalable and sustainable growth, all of which are supported by projects to transform the city according to the layered circulation network approach.

Infrastructure Changes
By utilizing previously collected fees, the City has delivered various infrastructure projects including expansion of bridges, roadways, freeway interchanges, and traffic signal improvement projects. A list of completed projects that are removed from the previously adopted DIF program is provided in Appendix B, which totals roughly $137,400,000 of infrastructure improvements in 2020 dollars.

Based on the change in service population between existing year and General Plan buildout year, a proportional increase of transportation infrastructure would be required to maintain a consistent standard of transportation services. The projected need for transportation facilities is calculated in proportion to the amount of growth in service population anticipated over the planning horizon of the General Plan.

Table 6 – Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population Growth % Change in Total Facility NeedUnit
Lane Mile
Mile
NotesDemand by 2040
Provided for informational purposes, as LOS
is the metric used for establishing this need.Roadway 29.6% 1,493.7 This metric and/or VMT reduction can be
used for establishing this need.Trails 29.6%

29.6%

39.8 138.5
132.2
This metric and/or VMT reduction can be
used for establishing this need.Bike Lane
Sidewalk Facilities
Mile
This metric and/or VMT reduction can be
used for establishing this need.Mile
As noted in Table 6, roadway improvements are identified based on the City’s need to maintain LOS per the City’s General Plan policies. Some of the key improvements have been identified to assist with this as noted below (the full list is presented in Appendix C):
 Traffic Signals – The fee program includes new traffic signals and improvements for traffic signal communications to improve the efficiency of the traffic signal system. These improvements help with throughput and improve LOS for all corridors they are implemented in.

DIF Nexus Study 15

Page 230 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
 Roundabouts – For several locations, roundabouts have been identified as the preferred improvements to achieve the City’s LOS goals. In many cases, roundabouts reduce crash frequency and crash severity while improving traffic operations to meet the City’s LOS targets.

This is consistent with General Plan Policy MA-2.3 related to street design where the City implements innovative designs to, “…maximize efficiency and safety in the city…. Possible tools include roundabouts…”
 Etiwanda Grade Separation – The proposed grade separation of the railroad tracks at Etiwanda has been planned by the City for years. Additionally, it is identified in General Plan Policy MA-4.5 which states, “Support the construction of grade separations of roadways and trails from rail lines.” This grade separation is needed to support the continuation of land use growth and associated traffic impacts, especially in the Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ), to maintain LOS goals in the area. This also will improve goods movement and redundancy in the system such that mobility can be maintained if a train is stuck on the track for some unknown reason at the Etiwanda Grade Separation.

Transportation Project List and Estimated Costs
List of DIF projects and associated cost estimates are provided in Appendix C. Project cost estimates are calculated by multiplying the quantity of the planned improvement and the estimated cost per unit of facility expansion. Please note that completion of all identified projects would not lead to a greater ratio of miles or lane miles of facility per person in the City compared to what the City currently provides for its residents.

Table 7 – Development Impact Fee Project Improvements
Unit
Lane Mile
Mile
DIF Project List
Roadway 13.8

4.5Trails
Bike Lane
Sidewalk Facilities
Mile 34.8

1.8Mile
Comparison of the programmed improvements in the DIF project list (Table 7) to the “total facility need by 2040” (Table 6) demonstrates that the city’s planned development is infill in nature and consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. Additionally, the new facilities delivered by this fee program meet the requirement for rough proportionality as the number of miles of facility per person being delivered by the fee program is far less than that currently served by the city and its infrastructure for roadways, trails, and sidewalk facilities. The only increase in service levels associated with this program is an increase in planned bike lane miles.

Cost Estimating Assumptions
Cost estimates for transportation improvements are referenced from the latest available and relevant cost records. The cost to construct each unit of improvement is calculated as an average of project costs with 16

Page 231 ends

similar scopes and adjusting for forecasted future costs of environmental procedures, engineering design, and contingency. Future updates to the Fee Program should also index costs to an industry standard (typically the Caltrans Construction Contract Cost Index) and adjust the fee schedule annually to ensure that the program maintains consistency with what actual costs are to deliver the program accordingly.

Existing Deficiencies
Existing deficiencies refer to the gaps or inadequacies in current infrastructure or facilities that prevent them from meeting the desired service levels or standards. In the context of capacity-based projects, such as roadway widening, identifying and accounting for existing deficiencies is critical because these projects are often intended to enhance the ability of the infrastructure to accommodate current and future traffic volumes; or, in more simplistic terms, new development cannot pay to fix existing deficiencies.

While future development should not be burdened with addressing existing deficiencies in infrastructure, it is important to recognize that new growth proportionally contributes to the increased demand for expanded or improved facilities. When a new development is proposed, it will increase the existing levels of demand for transportation facilities. Therefore, it is reasonable and equitable to require new development to contribute its fair share towards the costs of infrastructure improvements that are necessitated by this growth.

In the case of roadway widening or other capacity-based projects, while existing deficiencies may have been present before new development, the additional traffic generated by future growth exacerbates these deficiencies and creates a direct need for expansion. Thus, applying impact fees proportional to the new development is justified because the fees are not addressing pre-existing deficiencies, but rather the incremental impact that the new development imposes on the infrastructure system based on the proportion of growth to existing population and infrastructure level of service.

Without new development, the need for such infrastructure improvements would not arise, or would arise at a much later time. Impact fees serve as a mechanism to ensure that new growth is financially responsible for the additional demands it places on public facilities, aligning with the principles and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, which emphasizes the importance of a fair and proportionate allocation of infrastructure costs.

In simpler terms, this fee program applies two simple tests as it relates to roadway infrastructure needs:
 “But For” Argument – But for new development, the improvement would not be required.

This typically applies to facilities that operate acceptably today but need widening in the future to serve future development. Alternatively, this could be applied to new roadway connections that are required to access new development. In these types of cases, since new development drives 100% of the need for the infrastructure, 100% of the cost of that infrastructure is included in the fee estimate.

DIF Nexus Study 17

Page 232 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
 “Fair Share” Argument – For facilities that are currently deficient, new development is only responsible for paying their “fair share” toward the improvement.

In this case, the increased demand by new development is divided by the total future demand on the roadway to identify what that fair share would be.

The expansion of roadways is typically justified by the need to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow, thereby directly responding to the deficiencies in capacity that limit the effectiveness of the existing road network. However, this approach is less applicable to other types of projects, such as multi-modal improvements, which focus on enhancing infrastructure for various modes of transportation – like pedestrian pathways, bicycle lanes, and public transit facilities – rather than increasing capacity for a single mode. Multi-modal improvements are designed to create a more integrated and balanced transportation network, often emphasizing safety, accessibility, and sustainability rather than solely addressing capacity deficiencies. Therefore, while existing deficiencies might drive roadway widening projects, they do not similarly affect the calculations for multi-modal improvements, which are generally aimed at improving the overall quality and functionality of the transportation system (including reducing VMT and GHG) rather than expanding its capacity. Table 8 details roadways facilities within the DIF projects with operational deficiencies as defined in the General Plan, and the associated share of costs proportional to future developments. All other roadway improvements not described within Table 8 currently operate at acceptable LOS, and which degrade to unacceptable levels with the inclusion of future development6.

Information related to LOS on city streets was developed as part of the City’s General Plan Update and is presented in Appendix D.

For complete streets facilities, there is not specific “existing deficiency” as achieving the city’s GHG reduction targets is outlined for the city as a whole. As such, new development can only be responsible for its fair share (as a percentage of total service population) of those improvements. For all the complete streets projects, new development is assumed to be responsible for 29.6% of the project cost which corresponds to the new development as compared to the future population of the city. 6 Including the Etiwanda Grade Separation (EGS) project, which will expand the existing 2-lane roadway to 4 lanes (currently operating at a V/C of 0.88 but degrades to a V/C of 1.32 after accounting for growth from future development). Final project cost estimate includes a 40% reduction in anticipation of future grant funding. 18

Page 233 ends

Table 8 – Cost Adjustments for Deficient Roadway Facilities7 Project
ID
Existing Volume Growth Future Volume Future
Share
Adjusted
Cost**
Cost
Difference***Cost Estimate V/C* (2024 to 2040) (2040)
36,940
47,410
43,020
20,810
19,930
S 6
S 8
$1,800,000
$292,500
$1,987,500
$795,000
$292,500

1.52 1.04

1.08 0.99

0.95 11,916 32.3%

28.6%

20.7%

13.5%

13.5%
$580,700
$83,700
$1,219,300
$208,80013,566
S 9 8,926 $412,400
$107,500
$39,600
$1,575,100
$687,500S 10
S 11
2,812
2,693 $252,900
Subtotal $3,943,600
* Rancho Cucamonga has adopted a LOS D (V/C = 0.9) as the standard service standard, with exceptions to roadways and intersections where vehicle travel is not the priority, such as Foothill Blvd (Plan RC MA-2.8). Existing deficiency data obtained from the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2019 (excel spreadsheet) and the future roadway needs documented in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Traffic Volumes memo prepared by Fehr & Peers, January 18, 2022.
** All figures rounded to nearest $100
*** Cost not allowed into the fee program as it is due to existing deficiencies. 7 Refer to Appendix C – DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimate for description of each project in this table.

DIF Nexus Study 19

Page 234 ends

Nexus Analysis
Need
The Nexus Analysis, in alignment with the California Mitigation Fee Act, as amended including by AB 602 (2021), must establish a clear and proportional relationship between new development and the demand for public infrastructure. This section focuses on demonstrating the direct link between anticipated growth within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the necessity for transportation infrastructure improvements.

By doing so, it ensures that the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) comply with the essential nexus and rough proportionality standards mandated by relevant legal precedents such as Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. Through the use of travel demand modeling8 and empirical demographic data, evaluation of the General Plan has also thoroughly demonstrated the causal relationship between new development and transportation impacts.

Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan projects significant growth by 2040, with an anticipated future population of approximately 344,835 residents and 110,948 jobs at buildout (Table 9). Such growth is reasonably expected to elevate the demand for transportation infrastructure, increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and necessitating enhancements to maintain current service levels. The General Plan outlines a vision for a layered circulation network that accommodates various transportation modes 8 San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (SBTAM)

Page 235 ends

(vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit) across the city. To support this vision, strategic investments in infrastructure are essential to prevent congestion and ensure safe, efficient mobility.

Given the projected growth, the City must expand its transportation network proportionally. The General Plan highlights the need for maintaining a LOS D or better for its roadways. Failure to expand infrastructure to meet the additional demands from growth could degrade the service levels of facilities, leading to congestion, safety concerns, and a diminished quality of life for all who rely on the transportation system. Furthermore, this growth exacerbates safety risks by increasing potential conflicts at intersections, pedestrian crossings, and other high-use areas. Consequently, safety improvements – such as intersection enhancements, protected non-motorized facilities, and modernized traffic controls – are essential to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system while accommodating new development.

Table 9 – Land Use Growth
General Plan
Existing Year
(2018)
Current Condition
(2024)1
General Plan
Buildout Year
(2040)
Change
(2024-2040)
Residents 176,274
37,921
191,987
38,997
233,887
41,865
41,980
2,868Single Family Dwelling
Units (SFDU)
Multifamily Dwelling
Units (MFDU) 22,874
89,717
28,803
95,507
44,615
110,948
344,835
15,812
15,441
57,341
Employment
Total Service
Population 265,991 287,494
1 2024 estimate developed by assuming linear growth between the general plan buildout and the existing conditions of the general plan (e.g. linear growth between 2018 and 2040).

Benefits
The transportation infrastructure projects identified in the Nexus Study are essential to support the anticipated growth. These include roadway expansions, intersection improvements, and the development of multimodal transportation options such as bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. Each project is carefully selected to address specific infrastructure needs that will arise from increases in service population and to maintain a consistent and acceptable level of transportation services.

DIF Nexus Study 21

Page 236 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Table 10 – Facility Needs to Maintain Existing Facility Standards Quantity/1,000
Service
Population4
% Change
from Existing
Standards5
Existing
(2018)1
Total Facility
Need by 20402 of DIF Projects3
ImplementationUnit
Roadway
Trails
Lane Mile
Mile
1,152.2

30.7 1,493.7

39.8 1,166.0

35.2 3.38

0.10 0.41
-21.9%
-11.6%

2.2%Bike Lane Mile 106.8 138.5 141.6
Sidewalk
Facilities Mile 102.0 132.2 103.8 0.30 -21.5%
Notes:
1 See Table 2 – Existing Facilities.
2 See Table 6 – Projected Facility Need Based on Service Population. 3 Existing plus DIF identified projects.
4 Calculation summarizing existing plus DIF projects divided by the service population. 5 % change between rate after DIF projects and the existing rate (e.g. what facilities are increasing or decreasing service levels).

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a critical measure of transportation impact, particularly concerning environmental sustainability and public health. VMT is the new CEQA metric required in the State, and it is the primary contributor to GHG emissions in the City. The City of Rancho Cucamonga’s General Plan prioritizes the reduction of VMT as a key component of its sustainability goals, aligning with state policies such as those mandated under CEQA and desires to reduce GHG emissions.

Completion of planned projects within the DIF project list will increase the total bike lane mile per capita, while decreasing the same measure of trails, sidewalk, and lane miles of roadway.

Increasing bikeway facilities aligns with the City’s objectives to promote active transportation and reduce dependency on automobiles, thus improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions. The General Plan specifically highlights the need to expand low-stress bike infrastructure, such as Class II bike lanes and protected Class IV bikeways, to create a more connected, comfortable, and safe biking environment. The Connect RC Plan similarly emphasizes the role of expanding bikeways in improving access to schools, parks, and transit hubs, providing a viable alternative to car travel for short to medium distances.

Enhanced bikeway networks will not only facilitate active transportation but also contribute directly to the City’s GHG emission reduction strategy. As such, the increased number of bike-lane miles per capita (compared to the existing condition) is consistent with goals and policies in Plan RC, Connect RC, and the Climate Action Plan.

Reducing roadways per capita aligns with the City’s sustainability and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. Plan RC and Climate Action Plan emphasize a shift towards reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by promoting compact, walkable communities and enhancing active transportation networks. One of the most effective strategies to meet the State’s GHG reduction targets is to reduce dependence on automobiles. By decreasing roadway per capita, the City would reduce the number of lanes dedicated to cars and facilitate alternative modes of transportation (which compete for the same existing City-owned right of way).
22

Page 237 ends

Although maintaining trails is crucial for recreation and mobility, most of the City's trail system has already been largely built out. Major facilities such as the Pacific Electric Trail and Cucamonga Creek Trail have already been established and integrated into the City's mobility framework. Thus, a reduction in ratio of trail miles per capita does not reflect a lack of commitment to their benefits but recognizes the completion of the foundational network. The focus within the planning horizon is on maintenance and improving accessibility, safety, and connectivity, rather than expanding trail mileage.

The majority of City's planned developments are expected at infill areas, where existing pedestrian infrastructures are already in place. The General Plan identifies that about 76% of the city streets already have sidewalks, particularly in more developed areas. The City’s policies emphasize that future infill development should focus on improving and enhancing existing pedestrian networks rather than constructing new sidewalk infrastructures, where further large-scale sidewalk expansion may not be necessary.

Overall, the changes to the quantity of facilities per capita align with the City’s long-term objectives to provide a sustainable, safe, and productive transportation system.

Table 11 – Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections
Linear Projection
(2024)1
General Plan Buildout
(2040)
Growth
(2024-2040)Existing (2018)
Total Population
Households
Employment
VMT
176,274
60,795
191,987
67,063
233,887
83,776
41,900
16,713
15,441
621,348
89,717 95,507 110,948
9,875,814 10,108,820 10,730,168
VMT/Service
Population 37.13 35.16 31.12 -6.01
Note:
1 2024 estimate developed by assuming linear growth between the general plan buildout and the existing conditions of the general plan (e.g. linear growth between 2018 and 2040).

The DIF-funded projects are not only designed to accommodate growth but also to manage and reduce VMT. While roadway expansions are necessary to prevent congestion and improve connectivity, they can inadvertently lead to induced travel, where improved traffic flow encourages additional vehicle use. To mitigate the effects of induced travel, the City’s strategy includes investments in VMT-reducing projects, such as enhancements to the multimodal transportation network.

The strategic combination of roadway improvements and VMT-reducing projects ensures that the City can accommodate growth and maintain service levels but does not do so at the cost of increased VMT and the associated negative environmental impacts. This balanced approach aligns with the General Plan’s goal to reduce overall VMT, thereby supporting the City’s commitment to sustainability and enhancing the quality of life for its residents.

DIF Nexus Study 23

Page 238 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Implementation of DIF projects would result in the following changes to Citywide VMT from accounting for increase in roadway lane miles9, bike lane miles, and pedestrian network miles. Ultimately, the increase in VMT from expanded infrastructure would be fully offset by the construction of the program's VMT reducing projects with a de minimus overall improvement of citywide VMT of 0.1%.

Table 12 – Effects of DIF Projects on Citywide VMT
General Plan
Buildout (2040)
Percent Change
from Buildout
Citywide VMT 10,730,168
94,795VMT Induced by Capacity Increasing Projects
VMT Reduced by Other DIF Projects
Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation
Net Change in Citywide VMT with DIF Implementation

0.96%
-105,476
10,719,486
-10,682
-0.98%
-0.1%
Cost Allocation
AB 602 mandates that development impact fees for residential units be calculated based on square footage rather than the traditional per-unit metric unless a local agency makes the finding that includes an explanation of why such a metric is not appropriate, that an alternative basis of calculation is reasonably related, and that other policies in the fee structure supports smaller developments.

The principle of proportionality underlies the requirement that fees imposed on new developments must be proportionate to the impact those developments have on public facilities. For single-family residential units, a correlation exists between the size of the dwelling and its impact on transportation and other infrastructure. Larger homes typically house more residents, generate more vehicle trips, and thus have a greater impact on local infrastructure. Meanwhile, the correlation between multifamily units and increased transportation demand has been found to be associated more closely with the number of units, rather than the size of each unit10 based on recent studies completed in the Inland Empire.

Although a case can be made to charge multifamily housing using a per unit fee consistent with other research completed in the Inland Empire, to adhere to the proportionality basis mandated by AB 602, calculation for fees assessed by land use category should differentiate the methodologies for single-family and multifamily residential units and the fee should be normalized to reflect sq. ft. of the unit.

To accomplish all of this, and to crosswalk general plan land use designations from households into trip generation and sq. ft. estimates, Fehr & Peers normalized the proposed land use and the impact fee into a term known as Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). Correlating an EDU to the average single-family home, 9 https://travelcalculator.ncst.ucdavis.edu/
10 WRCOG Residential Trip Generation Study (2023)
24

Page 239 ends

then converting trips into EDU helps establish the impact fee schedule based on units of measurement for estimating trip generation in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. This is especially important as it helps with converting General Plan growth into trips that can be used in the fee calculation. For example, the General Plan identifies employment for non-residential uses (and utilizes a standard conversion for employees to sq. ft.), but the inputs for residential uses are number of households. As such, using the EDU as a representation for households assists with identifying the fee tied to other land uses described within the DIF program.

According to building permit records provided by the city, the average size of single-family residential (SFR) development projects is roughly 2,500 square feet. For SFR units, a ratio of the proposed development compared to the average size identified (2,500 for Detached units, 1,700 for Attached units and for Multifamily units) should be applied in calculation of fees to be assessed. To be consistent with AB 602 requirements, we have utilized the average unit size identified above to calculate the fee per dwelling unit equivalent, then proportionally developed a per square foot cost to be charged for new development.

Table 13 – Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and Cost per Square Foot Estimates Average Size of
Dwelling Units
(SF) **
Daily Trip Pass-By Equivalent Dwelling
Unit (EDU)Land Use Unit Rate Reduction
Single Family - Detached
Single Family - Attached
Multifamily - Attached (Low-Rise)
Multifamily - Attached (Mid-Rise)
Senior Housing
DU
DU

9.43 7.2
- 1.0

0.8 0.7

0.5 0.5

0.2 2.7*

1.1 0.5

0.7 0.8

0.2 0.4

0.2 12.8*
2,500
1,700-
DU 6.74

4.54 4.31

2.21 37.01

10.84 4.87

6.44 7.99

2.27 4.09

1.45 172.01
-
1,700
DU -
Bed
Bed
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
Room
Stu
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nursing/Congregate Care
Commercial/Retail*
Office/Business Park
Industrial
-
-30%
-
-
Warehouse -
Hotel/Motel -
Elementary School
Day Care
-
Stu -
-Self-Storage KSF
PumpService Station* -30%
* 30% average reduction applied to retail and service station uses to account for likelihood of pass-by and divert trips ** City of Rancho Cucamonga (2024).

DIF Nexus Study 25

Page 240 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Total Program Costs
Total costs of the DIF program are calculated by the following steps, each ensuring that the fees collected are appropriately aligned with the costs incurred by new development impacts.

1. Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The total cost of expansion and improvement projects is $327,090,000 as provided in Appendix C.

2. Account for Known Funding (Balance) and Fee Credits (Obligations). The balance remaining in the current DIF program is $64,000,00011. This balance is subtracted from the estimated costs to complete improvement projects and to account for unspent dollars towards future projects.

Improvement reimbursement programs allow developers to recover costs for constructing public infrastructure that exceeds the immediate needs of their project and benefits the broader community. Such reimbursement programs typically involve formal reimbursement agreements which the City would be obligated to fulfill, outstanding obligations should be accounted for and subtracted from the remaining balance. At the time of this Study, there are no known reimbursement obligations.

3. Account for Existing Deficiencies. All facilities where capacity-related improvement projects are identified are first evaluated to determine if they adequately serve the City’s current service population. Where the level of service is below acceptable standards (LOS D per the City’s General Plan), only a proportional amount of the total project costs is to be funded by future development. Deductions to account for existing deficiencies are in the amount of $3,943,600.

The table below describes the total program cost.
11 DIF Fund Balance as of June 2024
26

Page 241 ends

Table 14 – DIF Program Cost Total
Program Element Total Cost
$327,090,000DIF Program Project Contributions (Appendix C) DIF Account Balance (June 2024)
Adjustments for Existing Deficiencies (Table 8)
Program Total
- $64,000,000
- $3,943,600
$259,146,400
Maximum Fee Calculation12
What is the maximum justified fee by land use type based on the prior steps that can be charged to new development, with the fee on residential land use levied per building square foot unless an alternative method is justified?
Per the evaluation of travel demand forecasts during the development of the City’s General Plan, future development generate a total of 183,433 new daily trips. Table 15 demonstrates (for informational purposes only) the estimated cost per trip, and per EDU, without the zone approach. 12 Government Code §§ 66005.1 (a) – If housing development satisfies all of the following characteristics, then a transportation fee, or the portion of the fee relating to vehicular traffic impacts, must be set at a rate that reflects a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such housing developments in comparison to housing developments without these characteristics, unless the local agency adopts specific findings:
• The housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length.
• Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one-half mile of the housing development.
• The housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero-to-two-bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more-bedroom units, whichever is less.

DIF Nexus Study 27

Page 242 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Table 15 – Cost per Trip Citywide
(for comparative review only)
Costs
Total New Trips
Total Program cost
Cost per Trip
183,433
$259,146,400
$1,413
Cost per EDU* $13,322
* Provided for the City as a whole for comparative purposes. Since the cost per EDU is dependent on the zone the project is in, it changes per zone.

Applying the band zonal approach to the identified improvements and accounting for the interaction of trips between those zones (Table 4), this study identifies the total costs for projects within each zone and the total project cost burden as shown in Table 16 below:

Table 16 – Total Cost of Improvements By Zone
Contributions
Sub-area Project costs
North Central South
North
Central
South
$27,302,057 $20,400,379
$4,590,764
$10,614,904
$4,340,113
$52,705,425
$40,891,246
$2,561,566
$9,925,606
$177,115,776
$67,221,794
$228,621,926
Applying the zone-specific contributions to the estimated development potential (total new trips) within the respective zones results in the following costs per trip and per EDU associated with this impact fee program (Table 17):

Table 17 – Cost per Trip and Cost per EDU
Sub-area ID Total New Trips Total Contributions Cost per Trip Cost per EDU - DIF Balance $10,12225,034
51,314
107,085
$35,606,046
$97,936,783
$189,602,948
$1,422
$1,909
$1,771
$13,412North
Central
South
$17,998
$16,697
$14,708
$13,406
Applying the estimated cost per EDU to each land use category, a maximum fee per unit of land use is calculated. Please note that per AB 602 requirements and assessments within this Study, impact fees for proposed Single-Family Residential projects should be assessed by size (square feet), adjusted by their relationship to the average size of Single-Family Residential units. 28

Page 243 ends

Developments near quality transit generally produce fewer vehicle trips due to the availability of transit options, which encourages a shift away from car usage. As such, AB 2533 was passed which requires lower impact fees to be assessed in areas where development is close to high quality transit. This bill was codified in Government Code section 66005.1.

DIF Nexus Study 29

Page 244 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Table 18 – Maximum Fee Calculation
Maximum Fee Per Land Use Category by Zone
Land Use Unit EDU
North Zone Central Zone South Zone
DU – 2,500 SF (100%) 1.00 $10,122
$4.05
$14,708
$5.88
$13,406
$5.36Single Family –
Detached* Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection)
If located in a high-quality transit area** $2.84 $4.12 $3.75 DU – 1,700 SF (100%) 0.76 $7,728
$4.55
$11,230
$6.61
$10,236
$6.02Single Family –
Attached* Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection)
If located in a high-quality transit area** $3.19 $4.63 $4.21 DU – 1,700 SF (100%) 0.71 $7,235 $10,512 $9,582
Multifamily –
(Low-Rise) Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection) $4.26 $2.98
$4,873
$2.87
$2.01
$4,626
$6.18
$4.33
$7,081
$4.17
$2.92
$6,722
$5.64
$3.95
$6,454
$3.80
$2.66
$6,127
If located in a high-quality transit area**
DU – 1,700 SF (100%) 0.48
Multifamily –
(Mid-Rise) Sq. Ft. (to be used for fee collection)
If located in a high-quality transit area**
Senior Housing Bed
Bed

0.46 0.23Nursing/
Congregate Care $2,372 $3,447 $3,142
Commercial/Retail**
Office/Business Park
Industrial
KSF
KSF

2.75 1.15

0.52 0.68

0.85 0.24

0.43 0.15

12.77 $19,466
$11,636
$5,227
$6,913
$8,576
$2,437
$4,390
$1,556
$90,471
$28,284
$16,907
$7,596
$25,782
$15,411
$6,924KSF
Warehouse KSF $10,044
$12,462
$3,540
$9,156
Hotel/Motel Room
Stu
$11,359
$3,227Elementary School
Day Care Stu $6,379 $5,815
Self-Storage KSF $2,262 $2,061
Service Station** Pump $131,457 $119,826
* For Single Family Residential Units (Detached or Attached), proposed square footage of projects above or below the average size (2,500 square feet for detached, 1,700 square feet for attached and multi-family), shall be responsible for a proportional increase or decrease to the impact fees assessed. (See table and examples for application of fees in the following sections) ** See text description related to 30% reduction for land use in a high-quality transit area that was derived using ITE rates for low- rise multifamily units away from and proximate to transit. Same reduction applied to service station and commercial/retail categories to account for pass-by trips.
30

Page 245 ends

Fee Implementation
Steps to Calculate Transportation Impact Fees
Step 1 – Determine Project Description and Land Use Quantities In this step, the development project is clearly defined by identifying the land use type and its scale. The description should include:

Project type: Residential (single-family or multi-family), commercial, industrial, or mixed-use.

Land use categories: For example, residential units (number and size of Single-Family Units, Multifamily Units, etc.), office space (square feet), or retail space (square feet).

Project size: Specify the quantity in units of the chosen land use category. For residential projects, this will be the number and size of dwelling units (DU). For non-residential projects, this could be square feet (KSF) of office or retail space, or other relevant measures.

Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees
Once the land use quantities are identified, the next step is to apply the appropriate transportation impact fee rates.

Page 246 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study
Calculate the total fee: Multiply the number of proposed quantities of land use by the corresponding transportation impact fee rate.

Step 2 – Apply Transportation Impact Fees
Example: If the fee for a single-family detached home is $4.05 per sq. ft., the fee for 200,000 sq. ft. would be:
200,000 sq. ft. × $4.05/sq. ft. = $810,000
Example: If the fee for office space is $11,636 per 1,000 square feet, the fee for 40,000 square feet of office space would be:
40 KSF × $11,636/KSF = $465,440
Summing up the total fees: After calculating the fees for each land use type, the total transportation impact fee for the project is obtained by adding the individual fees, or $1,275,440.

Program Administration
This section outlines the procedures for administering and reporting on the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Transportation Impact Fee (DIF) program. It includes guidelines for program administration, updates, regular reporting, and how to address land uses that are not explicitly described within the land use categories of the fee structure. The requirements and procedures for refunds and filing of grievances in settling disputes regarding fee assessment are also detailed.

Program Administration
The City will be responsible for the overall administration and ongoing management of the DIF program.

This involves maintaining accurate records of fee collection, project funding, and program adjustments.

Key Administrative Responsibilities:


Fee Collection: Ensure that all development projects subject to the DIF program pay the appropriate fees based on the approved fee schedule.

Fund Allocation: Manage and allocate collected fees toward transportation infrastructure improvements that are directly related to growth.
32

Page 247 ends

 Monitoring and Adjustments: Regularly monitor the need for fee adjustments, including indexing fees to account for inflation or changes in construction costs.

To maintain the program’s financial sustainability and relevance, the City will apply an annual adjustment to the DIF, reflecting changes in construction costs. Adjustments should be based on an established construction cost index, such as the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Construction Contract Cost Index, to ensure fees align with current market conditions.

Program Update
In compliance with AB 602, the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Transportation Impact Fee Program requires periodic updates and reviews to ensure its alignment with current development patterns, infrastructure needs, and legal standards.



Review the Fee Program every five (5) years per Government Code §§ 66001.

Update the Nexus Study every eight (8) years per AB 602 Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if there are any other substantial changes/updates to the Mitigation Fee Act
 Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study due to major changes in the policies/assumptions due to a General Plan Update or other citywide planning effort. 


Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if the City changes its development impact criteria.

Update the Fee Program and/or Nexus Study if the construction costs change significantly.

Annually update the Fee Program to reflect inflation and other factors that affect the costs of projects in the fee program.

The City must adopt or update a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as part of the Nexus Study. The CIP outlines the infrastructure projects that will be funded by the collected impact fees, ensuring transparency and planning consistency. The City of Rancho Cucamonga publishes the Capital Improvement Program as part of the annual budgeting procedures, and the latest available information can be found on the City’s website under the Financial Reports section.13 Further the City has prepared an amendment to the Major Project Program (which includes the Capital Improvement Program) which will be considered for approval as part of the DIF Program update. A copy of the Major Project Program amendment is available under separate cover.

Program Reporting
Government Code §§ 65940.1 requires that the City maintains the following items (and posts on their website):
 A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by the DIF. 13 https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/budget
DIF Nexus Study 33

Page 248 ends

City of Rancho Cucamonga
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program
Nexus Study



All zoning ordinances and development standards adopted by the City showing the information, which shall specify the zoning, design, and development standards that apply to each parcel.

A list that specifies the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project.

The current and five previous annual fee reports or the current and five previous annual financial reports, fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent, conducted by that City, on or after January 1, 2018.

Unique Land Use Categories
In cases where a proposed development does not fit neatly into the predefined land use categories within the DIF program, the City will apply a methodology that ensures the fee is proportional to the anticipated impact of the development on transportation infrastructure.

Impact Assessment: For new or uncommon land uses, the project must submit a traffic impact assessment to determine the projected vehicle trips, or other relevant metrics (e.g., Vehicle Miles Traveled, VMT), generated by the proposed development.

Trip Generation Data: The City will reference the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual to estimate the transportation demand of the new land use. If no specific trip generation data is available for the proposed land use, the City will use a comparable category from the manual as a proxy.

Custom Fee Calculation: Once the anticipated transportation demand is assessed, the City will calculate a custom fee based on the closest comparable land use category in the DIF schedule, adjusted for any unique characteristics of the development.

Refund Provisions
Under California Government Code §§ 66001(d) and (e), the City of Rancho Cucamonga must refund any unexpended development impact fees, along with accrued interest, if not used or committed within five years of collection. Refunds are issued to the current record owners on a pro-rata basis, determined using the last equalized assessment roll. If administrative costs of processing the refund exceed the refund amount, the City may, after a public hearing, allocate the funds to a related public improvement serving the original development. Additionally, the City must make specific findings every five years regarding the purpose, relationship, and anticipated use of unspent fees, ensuring transparency and accountability in fee management.

Grievances
California Government Code §§ 66000-66025 requires legal avenues that are available to contest the fees associated with this update. This is further described in the city’s Municipal Code section 3.28.050 which states that, “A developer of any project subject to the fee described in section 3.28.020 [city-wide transportation development fees] may apply to the city council for a reduction or adjustment to that fee, 34

Page 249 ends

Rancho Cucamonga City CouncilMay 7, 2025

Rancho Cucamonga City Council
May 7, 2025