1993 CC MIN JAN 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

futt re public i rnp rove. me nts in, -the area. The assessment was for the project's share of 11 based on the calculation of separate impact fees for the three uses incorporated within the proposal; warehousing, display area and retail sales a nd office. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a modification of conditions requesting a revision of the impact fees, in particular, the method used to determine fees, for a possible -fee reduction. The modification was reviewed by the City's Traffic Cornmi-t-tee at which tirne, the impact fee was reduced to $11,300 and the Planniinig Commission) heard the request and approved the recommendation for the fee reduction, Mr. Gabriel said the applicant is nwvv appealing the revised fee to the City Council stating the current method of assessment was riot equitable and that the fee should be reduced to either $6,632 based on the Institution of Tratfic Engineers criteria or $6,115 based on Caltrans. The revision of the fee by the 'Traffic Committee was based on an assessment of warehousing use which v�.till be the prirnary use, of land. The schedule for calculating traffic fees was adopted by the City Council arid staff feels the fees car) only be modified when a new schedule is adopted by the City Council, Staff recommendation is for approval of the resolution to deny the reduction in Traffic Fee; however, if the Council wishes to approve the applicant's request, then approval of the resOlUtlOrl to approve would be in order. Mr. Charles Scheaffer, Foodpro International, Inc. for Fruit Growers Supply Co., addressed the Council and explained its operation and compared it to its other operations in Ontario and Visalia and Yuma, Mr, Scheaffer referred to his letter of December 2, 1992, saying that the initial Traffic Mitigation fee for this project recor(Iffiended was in the. amount of $30,520,00 and upon their appeal this fee was reduced to $11,320 which he felit was still unreasonable. He informed that -the facility would ei-riploy approximately six to eight people and the expected traffic flow \,,vould if-iclude an average of five to six outside, vehicles per day. Further, the traffic to this site would niot irnpact the City of Colton streets since all ingress and egress will be on City of Riverside Streets. Mr. Schaeffer submitted comparisons with three sites: SITE SIZE TRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FEE DC -61-92 2.7 Acres 13 Trips./Day $30,520 $11,320 DC -79-92 46 Acres 75 Trips/Day $900 CAMPBELL 3,0 Acres 40 Trips '/D a y $2,500 Even with the reduced fee, it is far out of line with the other two fees. It is obvious that the fee schedule is not based on traffic flow anid this is not consistent with the City of Colton Ordinance relative to this subject. He requested that the City of Colton traffic fee schedule be revised -to reflect the standard trip generation rates documented by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and Caltrans, Mr. G. W. Singletary, 1733 Massachusetts Ave., Riverside, a developer for Riverside and 4