Those persons wishing to speak on any item included on the agenda, or on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, are invited fill out and submit to the City Clerk a “Request to Speak” form (name and address optional) which is available at the entrance to the Council Chambers. Additionally, members of the public may submit electronic public comments to [email protected] no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. In your email, please include the meeting date, agenda item you are commenting on, and your comment. All comments received by the deadline will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration before action is taken on the matter and will be entered into the record for the meeting specified in email received.
If you require a reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting per your rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act or for any other reason, please contact the City Clerk ’s Office (909) 334-3306, at least 48 hours prior to the advertised starting time of the meeting.
Any documents produced by the City and distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available in the City Clerk ’s Office during normal business hours at City Hall located at 13220 Central Avenue, Chino. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at www.cityofchino.org.
CHINO CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
13220 CENTRAL AVENUE
CHINO, CA 91710
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2026
STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
6:00 PM
_________________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHINO CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT WILLBE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2026 AT 6:00 PM IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 13220 CENTRAL AVENUE, CHINO, CA.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Eunice M. Ulloa, Mayor Pro Tem Curtis Burton, Council Member Karen C. Comstock, Council Member Christopher Flores, Council Member Marc Lucio.
FLAG SALUTE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council about subjects that do not appear elsewhere on the agenda. Due to Council policy and Brown Act requirements, action will not be taken on any issues not on the Agenda. Ordinance No. 97-08 (Chino Municipal Code Section
2.04.090) limits speakers to no more than five (5) minutes in which to address Council, except as provided under Government Code 54954.3(b)(2). If more than three (3) persons seek to address the same agenda item or the same subject matter, the Mayor shall establish a maximum period of time not to exceed thirty (30) minutes.
1 CHINO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 9, 2026 2
STUDY SESSION
1. Overview of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Nexus Study Update. Receive and file the presentation regarding the DIF Nexus Study Update and discuss and provide feedback to staff on the methodology, infrastructure project lists, and fee calculations included in the Public Review Draft DIF Nexus Study.
Staff Report By: Sylvia Ramos, Contracts & DIF Administrator and Carlos Villarreal, Willdan Financial Services
ADJOURN
The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. (Closed Session no earlier than 4:00 p.m. if necessary) in these Council Chambers.
I, Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk of the City of Chino, hereby declare that on Thursday, June 9, 2026 this agenda was posted on the south window of Chino City Hall and this agenda together with all of the agenda reports and related documents were posted on the City’s website at www.cityofchino.org by myself or under my direction.
_______________________________________
Natalie Gonzaga, City Clerk.
2 MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CHINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 9, 2026
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: HYE JIN LEE, PE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT
..titl e
Overview of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Nexus Study Update. ..end
RECOMMENDATION
1) Receive and file the presentation regarding the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update; and 2) discuss and provide feedback to staff on the methodology, infrastructure project lists, and fee calculations included in the Public Review Draft Development Impact Fee Nexus Study.
..body
FISCAL IMPACT
This agenda item provides an overview of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study to the City Council. Because the item is informational only and no fee adoption or modification is being considered at this time, there are no fiscal impacts associated with this report.
CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES The recommendation detailed above further the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
Responsible Long-Range Planning
3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 9, 2026
TITLE: OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) NEXUS STUDY UPDATE.
PAGE: 2
BACKGROUND
The City's current Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program is supported by nexus studies that establish the relationship between new development, the demand for public facilities and infrastructure, and the fees charged to mitigate those impacts. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5, development impact fee nexus studies must be updated at least once every eight years to ensure fees remain reasonably related to the impacts of new development. The City's last comprehensive update was completed in Fiscal Year 2017-18.
To comply with State law and reflect current growth projections, infrastructure needs, facility costs, and development trends, the City retained Willdan Financial Services to prepare a comprehensive update to the DIF Nexus Study. The updated study evaluates growth -related infrastructure needs and establishes the maximum justifiable fees necessary to fund capital improvements required to serve future development.
The purpose of this Study Session is to provide the City Council with an overview of the proposed methodology, infrastructure project lists, and preliminary fee calculations that will be incorporated into the Public Review Draft Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update.
Following City Council feedback, the Public Review Draft will be published and distributed to the Building Industry Association (BIA), Lewis Management Corporation, interested stakeholders, and agencies included on the City's distribution list for review and comment.
The Public Review Draft will be subject to a 30 -day public review and comment period.
Following the review period, staff will evaluate and respond to comments received and make any necessary revisions to the study. Staff anticipate returning to the City Council on July 21, 2026, to initiate the public hearing process for consideration of the updated DIF Nexus Study.
Consistent with State law, any adopted development impact fee adjustments would become effective 60 days following adoption. Based on the ant icipated schedule, the updated fees are expected to become effective on or about November 1, 2026.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The following is a summary of key proposed topics:
Updates to infrastructure project lists and capital
improvement costs, including transportation, water, sewer, storm drain, parks, public facilities, police, and fire facilities.
Updates to the fee calculation methodology,
including the transition of residential fee calculations from a per -unit basis to a square - footage-based methodology, consistent with current State law requirements. Evaluation of existing fee program balances,
projected revenues, funding gaps, and growth-related infrastructure needs. Updates to construction cost assumptions, land
acquisition values, facility replacement costs, and other economic factors affecting fee calculations.
Updates to the Park DIF Program, including
revisions to the park fee calculation methodology, park development cost assumptions, and corresponding amendments to the City's park fee ordinance. Preparation of a comprehensive Public Review
Draft Nexus Study that will serve as the basis for future public hearings and City Council consideration of updated Development Impact Fees.
Attachment: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Report - Draft 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 9, 2026
TITLE: OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) NEXUS STUDY UPDATE.
PAGE: 3
5 CITY OF CHINO
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS
STUDY UPDATE
DRAFT
JUNE 4, 2026
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
6 This page intentionally left blank.
7 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 4 Background and Study Objectives 4
Facility Standards and Costs 4
Use of Fee Revenues 5
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 5
Other Funding Needed 8
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 9 Public Facilities Financing in California 9
Study Objectives 9
Fee Program Changes 10
Fee Program Maintenance 10
Administrative Costs 10
Study Methodology 10
Types of Facility Standards 11
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 11
Organization of the Report 12
2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 14 Land Use Types 14
Impact Fee Zones 15
Existing and Future Development 15
Occupant Densities 19
3. LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES ................................................. 20 Service Population 20
Facility Inventories and Standards 21
Existing Inventory 21
Planned Facilities 22
Cost Allocation 23
Existing Level of Service 23
Future Level of Service 24
Use of Fee Revenue 25
Fee Schedule 25
4. FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES................................................... 26 Service Population 26
Facility Inventories and Standards 27
Existing Inventory 27
Planned Facilities 28
Cost Allocation 29
Existing Level of Service 29
Future Level of Service 29
Use of Fee Revenue 30
8 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update ii
Non-Fee Funding Required 30
Fee Schedule 31
5. CIRCULATION FACILITIES ........................................................... 32 Trip Demand 32
Trip Growth 33
Project Costs 34
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 38
Smart Growth and VMT Efficient Housing Discounts 38
Fee Schedule 39
6. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES .................................................... 42 Storm Drain Demand 42
EDU Generation by New Development 43
Planned Facilities 44
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 47
Use of Fee Revenue 47
Fee Schedule 47
7. WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES ....................................................... 49 Water Demand 49
EDU Generation by New Development 50
Facility Needs and Costs 51
Cost per EDU 53
Fee Schedule 53
8. SEWER FACILITIES .................................................................... 55 Sewer Demand 55
EDU Generation by New Development 56
Facility Needs and Costs 56
Cost per EDU 58
Fee Schedule 58
9. GENERAL FACILITIES ................................................................. 60 Service Population 60
Existing Inventory 61
Planned Facilities 62
Cost Allocation 62
Existing Level of Service 62
Future Level of Service 63
Use of Fee Revenue 63
Fee Revenue Projection 64
Fee Schedule 64
10. PARK FACILITIES ....................................................................... 66 Service Population 66
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 66
9 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update iii
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 68
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 69
Mitigation Fee Act 69
Quimby Act 69
City of Chino Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 70 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 70
Park Facilities Cost per Capita 71
Use of Fee Revenue 72
Fee Schedule 72
11. MISCELLANEOUS RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES ................................... 75 Service Population 75
Facility Inventories and Standards 75
Existing Inventory 75
Planned Facilities 76
Cost Allocation 76
Existing Level of Service 76
Future Level of Service 77
Use of Fee Revenue 77
Non-Fee Funding Required 77
Fee Schedule 78
12. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 79 Compliance with AB 602 79
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 79
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 80 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 80
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 80
13. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 81 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 81
Inflation Adjustment 81
Reporting Requirements 81
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 81
14. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 82 Purpose of Fee 82
Use of Fee Revenues 82
Benefit Relationship 82
Burden Relationship 83
Proportionality 83
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 84 10 4
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Chino through 2045. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
• Law Enforcement
• Fire Suppression
• Circulation System
• Storm Drainage System
• Water System
• Sewer System
• General Facilities
• Park Infrastructure
• Miscellaneous Residential Amenities
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq . Th is report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees - meaning that the amount of the exaction s must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to demand for facilities from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described below, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit , by land use type . This is described in detail in each chapter and summarized in Chapter 14.
All development impact fee-funded capital projects are programmed through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Facility Standards and Costs
There are several approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.
The system plan approach is bas ed on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned 11 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 5 facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non -impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used for the fire suppression, general facilities and miscellaneous residential amenities fees in this report.
The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified , or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified . Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the law enforcement, circulation, storm drain, water and sewer fees in this report.
The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is to calculate the park fees in this report.
Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis “Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.” 1 Each chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular impact fee category.
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology and equipment.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).
12 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
6 E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule - General City Land Use
Law
Enforcement
Fire
Suppression
Circulation
System
Storm
Drainage
System
Water
System
Sewer
System
General
Facilities
Park
Infrastructure
Residential
Amenities
DIF
Administration
(3%) Total
Residential - per Square Foot
Single Family 0.17$ 0.32$ 3.35$ 0.69$ 0.84$ 0.06$ 0.93$ 6.18$ -$ 0.38$ 12.92$ Multifamily 0.32 0.60 4.48 1.09 0.86 0.11 1.74 11.56 - 0.62 21.38 Residential - per Average Sized Unit1
Single Family 564$ 1,062$ 11,122$ 2,291$ 2,789$ 199$ 3,088$ 20,518$ -$ 1,249$ 42,882$ Multifamily 448 840 6,272 1,526 1,204 154 2,436 16,184 - 872 29,936 Nonresidential
Commercial/Retail 0.54$ 0.45$ 14.49$ 1.85$ 2.51$ 0.12$ 0.59$ -$ -$ 0.62$ 21.17$ Office/Business Park 0.58 0.49 15.57 2.12 2.73 0.13 0.64 - - 0.67 22.93 Industrial 0.17 0.15 6.81 1.39 0.81 0.08 0.19 - - 0.29 9.89 Commercial Lodging Room 128$ 108$ 3,460$ 297$ 612$ 97$ 2,437$ -$ -$ 214$ 7,353$ Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.7, 5.6, 6.6, 7.5, 8.5, 9.7, and 10.8. 1 Fees for the assumed average sized single family unit of 3,320 square feet and multifamily unit of 1,400 square feet are show n for comparison purposes. Fees are charged per square foot of living space.
13 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 7 E.2: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule - The Preserve Land Use
Law
Enforcement
Fire
Suppression
Circulation
System
Storm
Drainage
System
Water
System
Sewer
System
General
Facilities
Park
Infrastructure
Residential
Amenities
DIF
Administration
(3%) Total
Residential
Single Family 0.17$ 0.32$ 5.96$ 1.62$ 1.52$ 0.72$ 0.93$ 7.04$ 0.62$ 0.57$ 19.47$ Multifamily 0.32 0.60 7.96 2.57 1.55 1.39 1.74 13.18 1.17 0.91 31.39 Residential - per Average Sized Unit1
Single Family 564$ 1,062$ 19,787$ 5,378$ 5,046$ 2,390$ 3,088$ 23,373$ 2,058$ 1,882$ 64,630$ Multifamily 448 840 11,144 3,598 2,170 1,946 2,436 18,452 1,638 1,280 43,952 -
Nonresidential
Commercial/Retail 0.54$ 0.45$ 25.75$ 4.35$ 4.55$ 1.46$ 0.59$ -$ -$ 1.13$ 38.82$ Office/Business Park 0.58 0.49 27.67 4.99 4.96 1.63 0.64 - - 1.23 42.19 Industrial 0.17 0.15 12.10 3.27 1.47 0.96 0.19 - - 0.55 18.86 Commercial Lodging Room 128$ 108$ 6,148$ N/A N/A N/A 2,437$ -$ -$ 265$ 9,085$ Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.7, 5.7, 6.6, 7.5, 8.5, 9.7, 10.8, and 11.6. 1 Fees for the assumed average sized single family unit of 3,320 square feet and multifamily unit of 1,400 square feet are show n for comparison purposes. Fees are charged per square foot of living space.
14 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
8 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Chino.
They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E. 2, approximately $ 265.1 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The “ Additional Funding Required ” column shows non -impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.
The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table E.3: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Net Project
Cost1
Development
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Law Enforcement 7,231,312$ 7,231,312$ -$
Fire Suppression 23,359,200 11,170,853 12,188,347 Circulation System 436,506,491 298,636,061 137,870,430 Storm Drainage System 146,161,767 72,254,363 73,907,404 Water System 59,887,254 51,838,897 8,048,357 Sewer System 23,474,715 23,474,715 -
General Facilities 61,199,637 29,450,563 31,749,074 Park Infrastructure 192,730,948 192,730,948 -
Residential Amenities 11,399,662 10,089,644 1,310,018 Total 961,950,986$ 696,877,356$ 265,073,630$
Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.6, 5.3, 5.3,6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 7.3, 7.4, 8.3, 8.4, 9.6, 10.5,10.6 and 11.5. 1 Project cost net of existing fund balances.
15 9
1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Chino. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction -wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Growth Management Action LCC-1.H of the General Plan states , “Continue to use Community Facility Districts, Development Impact Fees (DIFs) and other financing tools to fund and maintain public facility improvements. Transportation System Management Policy INF -3.7 of the General Plan states, “Ensure that new development pays a fair share of costs to provide local and regional transportation improvements and to mitigate cumulative traffic deficiencies and impacts, including through payment of Development Impact Fees.” The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policies stated above.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the 16 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
10 necessary findings required by the Act to demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and the impact fees needed to support that development. The findings demonstrate that the fees are proportional to demand for facilities from new development and are necessary to allow the City to adopt the fee schedules presented in this report.
Chino is forecast to have significant growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2045, which is not assigned to a particular year . This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Chino has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most cur rent available growth forecasts and capital facilities planning documents to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.
Fee Program Changes
Aside from updating assumptions to reflect current conditions, this study makes two notable changes to the City’s current fee program. First, residential impact fees are calculated per square foot by type of unit (single family and multifamily, respectively) to comply with direction from AB 602. Currently residential fees are charged as a flat rate per type of unit. Second, the congestion management program fee is proposed to be discontinued. The City will spend the existing fund balance on an eligible project of regional significance , improvements to the SR 71 and Pine interchange, and discontinue collection of the fee.
Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, building s, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 13.
Administrative Costs
Administration of an impact fee program to comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act imposes costs on the City for capital budgeting, fee adjustments, mandated annual reports and 5 - year reviews of the impact fee program, as well as periodic impact fee update studies and legal review. It is common practice in California for cities to add a small administrative charge to impact fees to cover those costs.
This study uses an assumption of 3% of the maximum justified fee to estimate the administrative costs associated with the fee program , consistent with the last impact fee study . The City has validated this assumption based on the actual costs of administering its impact fee program .
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
17 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
11 1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non -fee funding is required to complete projects.
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value ) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new developmen t.
This is o ften a two -step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method , the planned facilities method , and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:
18 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
12 System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee . This approach is used for the fire suppression, general facilities, and miscellaneous residential amenities fees in this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the law enforcement, circulation, storm drain, water and sewer fees in this report.
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is to calculate the park fees in this report.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2. = $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
19 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
13 Chapters 3 through 11 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
• Law Enforcement
• Fire Suppression
• Circulation System
• Storm Drainage System
• Water System
• Sewer System
• General Facilities
• Park Infrastructure
• Miscellaneous Residential Amenities
Chapter 12 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.
Chapter 13 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 14. 20 14
2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2025 base year and a planning horizon of 2045, which is not assigned a particular year.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2025 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development in 2045 is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.
• Estimates of growth from 2025 through 2045 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population , dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Single Family Residential: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings. Fees are calculated per square foot of living space.
• Multifamily Residential: All attached multifamily dwellings including duplexes and condominiums. Fees are calculated per square foot of living space, excluding common areas and garages.
• Commercial Lodging: Hotel, motel and resort development. Fees charged per lodging room.
• Commercial/Retail: All commercial, retail and educational development. • Office/Business Park : A business park consists of a group of flex -type or incubator one- or two-story buildings served by a common roadway system. The space may include offices, retail and wholesale stores, restaurants, recreational areas and warehousing, manufacturing, light industrial, or scientific research functions.
• Industrial: All manufacturing and other industrial development, warehouse and distribution center development.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a warehousing facility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. 21 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
15 Impact Fee Zones
To ensure the requisite nexus between the fee and the development, in some cases, fees in this study are calculated for different geographies. The law enforcement facilities, fire suppression facilities, and general facilities fees are calculated Citywide because those facilities comprise a network of facilities that provide benefit to anyone in the City regardless of where they are located. However, the circulation facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities and parks facilities fees make a distinction between facilities needed to serve the General City area and the Preserve Specific Plan area of the City. Residential amenities fees are only charged in the Preserve area.
Consequently, growth projections are presented for the entire City , for the General City area and for the Preserve Specific Plan area separately.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Chino, both in 2025 and in 2045 for the entire City, the General City area, and the Preserve Specific Plan area, respectively . The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance . The projection of total dwelling units in 2045 is identified in City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Total dwelling units in 2045 is then used to estimate population in 2045 by multiplying the count of units by the occupant densities of 3. 41 residents per single family unit and 2. 69 residents per multifamily unit, based on data for Chino from the American Community Survey.
Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap Application. The increase in employees is identified in the General Plan EIR.
Equivalent building square feet in 2025 was calculated based on the current employment count and density factors in Table 2.2. Building square feet in 2045 is identified the Preserve Specific Plan, and informed by the projected increase of employees from the General Plan EIR. 22 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
16 Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
Citywide (General City Area + The Preserve)
Increase
2025 2025 - 2045 2045
Residents 1 88,714 29,721 118,435
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 21,889 2,775 24,664
Multifamily 6,999 7,531 14,530
Total Dwelling Units 28,888 10,306 39,194
Employment 3
Commercial/Retail 19,641 2,845 22,486 Office/Business Park 15,232 2,443 17,675 Industrial 18,763 3,695 22,458
Total Employment 53,636 8,983 62,619
Commercial Lodging (Rooms)4 399 428 827 Nonresidential Building Square Feet (000s)5
Commercial/Retail 9,398 1,651 11,049 Office/Business Park 6,681 1,601 8,282 Industrial 27,593 10,522 38,114
Total 43,672 13,774 57,445
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2025; Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Chino 2045 General Plan Update, August, 2025, Table 3-2; The Preserve Specific Plan, 2016, amended 2021, Table 1; US Census OnTheMap, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.4, Willdan Financial Services. 5 Current building square feet (in thousands) estimated based on count of existing jobs and assumptions in Table 2.4; projection based on The Preserve Specific Plan and assumptions in Table 2.4.
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Excludes people living in group quarters. Increase based on projected increase in dw elling units identified in 2045 and occupant density assumptions in Table 2.4. 2 Dw elling Units: Current estimated of dw elling units from DOF. Total units in 2045 identified in General Plan EIR.
3 Current estimates of total jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap application. Projection derived from increase in w orkers identified in General Plan EIR Table 3-2. Assumes current ratio among land uses w ill be maintained.
4 Current commercial lodging room count verified w ith Google maps. Projection based on The Preserve Specific Plan.
Citywide
23 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
17 Table 2.2: Existing and New Development
(General City Area)
Increase
General City Area 2025 2025 - 2045 2045
Residents 1 68,129 13,126 81,255
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 16,821 10 16,831
Multifamily 5,771 4,867 10,638
Subtotal 22,592 4,877 27,469
Employment 3
Commercial/Retail 18,066 1,851 19,917 Office/Business Park 13,937 1,436 15,373 Industrial 17,308 2,003 19,311
Subtotal 49,311 5,290 54,601
Commercial Lodging (Rooms)4 399 - 399 Nonresidential Building Square Feet (000s)5
Commercial/Retail 8,644 886 9,530 Office/Business Park 6,113 630 6,743 Industrial 25,453 2,946 28,399
Subtotal 40,211 4,461 44,671
5 Current building square feet (in thousands) estimated based on count of existing jobs and density assumptions in Table 2.4. Projection based on occupancy density assumptions in Table 2.4 and projected increase in jobs.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2025; Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Chino 2045 General Plan Update, August, 2025, Table 3-2; The Preserve Specific Plan, amended 2021, Table 1; US Census OnTheMap, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.4, Willdan Financial Services. 4 Current commercial lodging room count verified w ith Google maps. Projection based on The Preserve Specific Plan.
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Projection based on dw elling unit forecast from General Plan and occupant density assumptions in Table 2.4.
2 Dw elling Units: Current and projected values derived from DOF, Chino General Plan EIR, The Preserve Specific Plan.
3 Estimates of current and projected jobs derived from the US Census' OnTheMap application, General Plan EIR Preserve Specific Plan using occupancy density assumptions from Table 2.4.
24 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
18 Table 2.3: Existing and New Development (The Preserve) Increase
The Preserve 2025 2025 - 2045 2045
Residents 1 20,585 16,595 37,180
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 5,068 2,765 7,833
Multifamily 1,228 2,664 3,892
Subtotal 6,296 5,429 11,725
Employment 3
Commercial/Retail 1,575 994 2,569 Office/Business Park 1,295 1,007 2,302 Industrial 1,455 1,692 3,147
Subtotal 4,325 3,693 8,018
Commercial Lodging (Rooms)4 - 428 428 Nonresidential Building Square Feet (000s)5
Commercial/Retail 754 765 1,519 Office/Business Park 568 971 1,539 Industrial 2,140 7,576 9,716
Subtotal 3,461 9,313 12,774
5 Current building square feet (in thousands) estimated based on count of existing jobs and assumptions in Table 2.4 and count of existing w orkers. Projection of building square feet derived from the Preserve Specific Plan, Table 1.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2025; Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Chino 2045 General Plan Update, August, 2025, Table 3-2; The Preserve Specific Plan, amended 2021, Table 1; US Census OnTheMap, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.4, Willdan Financial Services. 4 Current commercial lodging room count verified w ith Google maps. Projection based on The Preserve Specific Plan.
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Projection based on dw elling unit forecast from The Preserve Specific Plan and occupant density assumptions in Table 2.4.
2 Dw elling Units: Current and projected values derived from DOF, Chino General Plan EIR, The Preserve Specific Plan.
3 Estimates of current and projected jobs derived from the US Census' OnTheMap application, General Plan EIR Preserve Specific Plan using occupancy density assumptions from Table 2.4.
25 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
19 Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The densities ensure that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand for facilities from various types of development.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot or commercial lodging room ) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.
The average occupant density factor s used in this report are shown in Table 2.4. The residential density factor was calculated using the most recent data from the American Community Survey specifically for the City of Chino. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 1 2th Edition for commercial /retail, office/business park and industrial land uses. The occupancy density factor for commercial lodging was calculated based on local data from a neighboring jurisdiction in San Bernardino County.
Table 2.4: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 3.41 Residents per dwelling unit
Multifamily 2.69 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial Lodging 0.50 Employees per room
Commercial/Retail 2.09 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office/Business Park 2.28 Employees per 1,000 square feet Industrial 0.68 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.
26 20
3. Law Enforcement Facilities
The purpose of the law enforcement facilities impact fee is to fund the law enforcement facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the planned facilities standard of law enforcement facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new law enforcement facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional law enforcement facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
Law enforcement facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers. Table 3.1 shows the current law enforcement facilities service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2045.
To calculate service population for law enforcement facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 1.54 of one resident to reflect the higher per capita need for law enforcement services associated with businesses. The worker weighting factor is based on an analysis of call data response by land use type, which indicated varying levels of demand for law enforcement services between residential and nonresidential land uses. A detailed analysis of call data is presented in the appendix, in Appendix Table A.1.
27 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 21 Table 3.1: Law Enforcement Facilities Service Population A B A x B = C
Land Use Type Persons
Weighting
Factor1
Service
Population
Citywide
Residents
Existing (2025) 88,714 1.00 88,714 New Development 29,721 1.00 29,721 Total (2045) 118,435 118,435
Workers 1
Existing (2025) 53,636 1.54 82,599 New Development 8,983 1.54 13,834 Total (2045) 62,619 96,433
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2025) 171,313
New Development 43,555
Total (2045) 214,868
Sources: Table 2.1, Appendix A.1; Willdan Financial Services. ¹ Workers are w eighted at 1.54 of residents based on an analysis of calls for service w ithin the City in 2025.
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s law enforcement facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
Law enforcement services in the City of Chino are presently based out of two facilities. Table 3.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of law enforcement land, buildings and other capital assets. The unit cost for land is based on an appraisal that the City commissioned in 2025. The appraisal identified differing land values for properties in the General City area and the Preserve.
The General City are cost is used in this chapter, because the existing facilities are located in the General City area. The replacement cost assumption s for buildings and contents were sourced from the City’s insured property schedule.
28 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 22 Table 3.2: Existing Law Enforcement Facilities Inventory Address Quantity Units Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
Land
Police Station 13250 Central Avenue 4.44 acres 840,000$ 3,729,600$ Police Station 5450 Guardian Way 9.43 acres 840,000 7,921,200 Subtotal 13.87 acres 11,650,800$
Buildings
Police Station 13250 Central Avenue 28,976 sq. ft. 368$ 10,676,400$ Police Station 5450 Guardian Way 102,700 sq. ft. 399 40,958,400 Subtotal 131,676 sq. ft. 51,634,800$
Contents
Police Station 13250 Central Avenue 2,241,750$
Police Station 5450 Guardian Way 7,946,400
Subtotal 10,188,150$
Total Law Enforcement Facilities Inventory 73,473,750$
Source: City of Chino; Appraisal Report, City of Chino Parks, Epic Appraisals, LLC, October 3, 2025.
Planned Facilities
Table 3.3 summarizes the planned law enforcement facilities needed to serve the City through 2045. The projects have been sourced from the City’s prior development impact fee study and from the City’s police department. Legacy projects have been adjusted for inflation using the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI) . In total, $9. 9 million of law enforcement facility needs has been identified to serve the City through 2045. 29 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 23 Table 3.3: Planned Law Enforcement Facilities
Project No. Cost
LE-002 Additional Patrol/Investigation/Specialty/Staff Vehicles1 3,724,386$ LE-003 Sworn Officer Assigned Equipment1 915,702
LE-004 Additional Specialty Equipment 1 612,925
LE-005 Computers/Electronics/Communications Equipment 1 1,156,942 LE-007 Crisis Negotiations/Technical Operations Support Vehicle1 396,093 NEW LE-011 Armored Rescue Vehicle 500,000
NEW LE-012 Real-Time Crime Center Modernization, License Plate Readers 1,500,000 NEW LE-013 Unmanned Aerial Systems / Drone First Responder Program 800,000 NEW LE-014 Police Department Substation Tenant Improvements and Facility Outfitting 275,000
Total 9,881,048$
Sources: Engineering New s Record; Development Impact Fee Nexus and Calculation Report For the City of Chino, California; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Costs from 2017 study adjusted for inflation into current dollars using the Engineering New s Record's Construction Cost Index.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.4 expresses the City’s current law enforcement facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
The identified planned facilities represent a lower level of service than currently exists. As such, new development can fully fund the identified planned facilities and will still be paying less than its proportionate share of law enforcement facilities needs. 30 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 24 Table 3.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 73,473,750$
DIF Fund 231 - Existing Balance 2,649,736
Total Value of Existing Facilities 76,123,486$
Existing Service Population 171,313
Cost per Capita 444$
Facility Standard per Resident 444$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 684
¹ Based on a w eighting factor of 1.54.
Sources: City of Chino; Tables 3.1 and 3.2, Willdan Financial Services
Future Level of Service
Table 3.5 shows new development’s cost per capita needed to fully fund the planned facilities.
The level of service indicated by the planned facility is lower than the existing standard. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing the cost of planned facilities by the increase in service population . The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 1.54 to determine the cost per worker.
Table 3.5: Law Enforcement Facilities Planned
Facilities Standard
Cost of Planned Facilities 9,881,048$
Less DIF Fund 231 - Existing Balance 2,649,736
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 7,231,312$
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2045) 43,555
Cost per Capita 166$
Cost Allocation per Resident 166$
Cost Allocation per Worker 1 256
¹ Based on a w eighting factor of 1.54.
Sources: City of Chino; Tables 3.1 and 3.3, Willdan Financial Services.
31 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 25 Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use law enforcement facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of law enforcement facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 3.3.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the maximum justified law enforcement facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit , by type of unit.
Table 3.6: Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Cost Per Sq. Ft. per Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Unit2 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single Family 166$ 3.41 566$ 3,320 0.17$ Multifamily 166 2.69 447 1,400 0.32 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 256$ 0.50 128$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 256$ 2.09 535$ 1,000 0.54$ Office/Business Park 256 2.28 584 1,000 0.58 Industrial 256 0.68 174 1,000 0.17 Sources: Tables 2.4 and 3.5.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City. 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
32 26
4. Fire Suppression Facilities
The purpose of the fire suppression facilities impact fee is to fund the fire suppression facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan facilities standard of fire facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new fire suppression facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional fire suppression facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
Fire suppression facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The service population used to determine the demand for fire facilities includes both residents and workers. Table 4.1 shows the current fire facilities service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2045.
To calculate service population for fire suppression facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.69 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fire services associated with businesses. The 0.69 factor is consistent with the factor used by the City of Chino Hills in its recent nexus study. Both jurisdictions are served by the same fire protection district so it is appropriate to use the factor in this analysis.
33 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 27 Table 4.1: Fire Suppression Facilities Service Population A B A x B = C
Land Use Type Persons
Weighting
Factor1
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2025) 88,714 1.00 88,714
New Development 29,721 1.00 29,721
Total (2045) 118,435 118,435
Workers 1
Existing (2025) 53,636 0.69 37,009
New Development 8,983 0.69 6,198
Total (2045) 62,619 43,207
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2025) 125,723
New Development 35,919
Total (2045) 161,642
Sources: Table 2.1, Appendix A.2; Willdan Financial Services. ¹ Workers are w eighted at 0.69 of residents based on Willdan's recent experience in Chino Hills.
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s fire facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
Table 4.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of fire suppression facilities . Fire protection services are provided from four stations located throughout the City. The unit cost for land is based on an appraisal that the City commissioned in 2025. The appraisal identified differing land values for properties in the General City area and the Preserve. The General City are cost is used in this chapter, because the existing facilities are located in the General City area. The replacement cost assumptions for buildings were sourced from the City’s insured property schedule.
34 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 28 Table 4.2: Existing Fire Suppression Facilities Inventory Address Quantity Units Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
Land
Fire Station #1/Training Center 5092 Schaefer Ave. 3.84 Acres 840,000$ 3,225,600$ Fire Station #3 7550 Kimball St. 1.03 Acres 840,000 865,200 Fire Station #5 12220 Ramona Ave. 0.87 Acres 840,000 730,800 Fire Station #7 5980 Riverside Dr. 1.17 Acres 840,000 982,800 Subtotal - Land 6.91 Acres 5,804,400$
Buildings
Fire Station #1 5092 Schaefer Ave. 13,230 Sq. Ft. 429$ 5,671,050$ Training Building 5092 Schaefer Ave. 6,630 Sq. Ft. 429 2,841,300 Training Tower 5092 Schaefer Ave. 4,000 Sq. Ft. 379 1,516,200 Fire Station #3 7550 Kimball St. 11,667 Sq. Ft. 429 5,003,250 Fire Station #5 12220 Ramona Ave. 8,000 Sq. Ft. 424 3,393,600 Fire Station #7 5980 Riverside Dr. 7,986 Sq. Ft. 298 2,377,200 Subtotal - Buildings 51,513 Sq. Ft. 20,802,600$
Total Value - Fire Suppression Facilities Inventory 26,607,000$ Sources: City of Chino; Appraisal Report, City of Chino Parks, Epic Appraisals, LLC, October 3, 2025.
Planned Facilities
Table 4.3 summarizes the planned facilities needed to serve the City through 2045. The project list is based on the remaining projects from the City’s prior 2017 impact fee study and has been supplemented with revised project needs and costs informed by Chino Valley Fire District staff . In total, $ 23.7 million worth of capacity expanding projects have been identified to serve the City through 2045.
Table 4.3: Planned Fire Suppression Facilities
Project No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
FD-001 Expansion - Fire Station #651 1,160 Sq. Ft. 1,200$ 1,392,000$ FD-002 2nd Company Response Engine for Station #651 1 Engine 1,500,000 1,500,000 FD-003 Land Acquisition for Mid-Preserve Area Station2 0.55 Acres 1,120,000 616,000 FD-003 New Fire Station - Mid-Preserve Area 7,160 Sq. Ft. 1,200 8,592,000 FD-004 Response Engine for Station #69 1 Engine 2,500,000 2,500,000 FD-005 District Tractor Drawn Aerial Truck 1 Truck 2,500,000 2,500,000 FD-007 Mobile Air, Lighting, And Rehabilitation Specialty Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2,500,000 2,500,000 FD-008 Remaining Debt to RDA for Fire Station #1 & Training Center 4,076,791 Total - Planned Fire Suppression Facilities 23,676,791$ 1 In prior DIF study espansion w as projected for Station 67. It has been updated to Station 65 in this revision. 2 Assumes FAR of 0.30.
Source: Chino Valley Fire District; City of Chino; Development Impact Fee Nexus and Calculation Report For the City of Chino, California; Willdan Financial Services.
35 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 29 Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City’s current fire facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 26,607,000$
DIF Fund 232 - Existing Balance 317,591
Total Value of Existing Facilities 26,924,591$
Existing Service Population 125,723
Cost per Capita 214$
Facility Standard per Resident 214$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 148
¹ Based on a w eighting factor of 0.69.
Sources: City of Chino; Tables 4.1 and 4.2, Willdan Financial Services.
Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in fire suppression facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
The cost per worker is calculated by multiplying the cost per resident by the worker weighting factor.
36 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 30 Table 4.5: Fire Suppression Facilities System
Plan Facilities Standard
Replacement Cost of Existing Facilities 26,607,000$
Cost of Planned Facilities 23,676,791
Total System Value (2045) 50,283,791$
Future Service Population (2045) 161,642
Cost per Capita 311$
Cost Allocation per Resident 311$
Cost Allocation per Worker 1 215
¹ Based on a w eighting factor of 0.69.
Sources: City of Chino; Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, Willdan Financial Services.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use fire suppression facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles, apparatus and fire suppression equipment that are part of the system of fire facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3.
Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Chino. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned fire suppression facilities, and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2045. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, $ 12.2 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned fire suppression facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
37 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 31 Table 4.6: Revenue Projection - System Plan Standard Cost per Capita 311$
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2045) 35,919
Fee Revenue 11,170,853$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 23,676,791$
Less Projected Fee Revenue 11,170,853
Less Existing Fund Balance 317,591
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified 12,188,347$
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified fire suppression facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit, by type of unit.
Table 4.7: Fire Suppression Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Cost Per Sq. Ft. per Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Unit2 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single Family 311$ 3.41 1,061$ 3,320 0.32$ Multifamily 311 2.69 837 1,400 0.60 Commercial Lodging
Per Room 215$ 0.50 108$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 215$ 2.09 449$ 1,000 0.45$ Office/Business Park 215 2.28 490 1,000 0.49 Industrial 215 0.68 146 1,000 0.15 Sources: Tables 2.4 and 4.5.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City. 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
38 32
5. Circulation Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for various transportation improvements to accommodate new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new circulation facilities from the projected increase in vehicle trips and the additional facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number trips generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
Trip Demand
The need for traffic improvements is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.
The two types of trip adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:
• Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system.
These adjustments allow for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip purpose and length into account for fee calculation purposes.
Table 5.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Trip rates are based on the latest data available from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). The trip purpose and trip length assumptions are based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The SANDAG is used to supplement the trip generation rates, because the SANDAG surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases available of pass -by trips factors for a wide range of land uses. It should be noted that the projections of current and future trip demand generation in this report are based on data specific to the City. 39 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 33 Table 5.1: Trip Demand Factors
Land Use Type
Pass-by
Trips1
Primary
and
Diverted
Trips
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjust-
ment
Factor3 ITE Category
PM Peak
Hour
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B = 1 - A C
D = B x C
/ Avg. E F = D x E
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 3% 97% 7.9 1.11 Single Family Housing (210) 0.93 1.03 Multifamily 3% 97% 7.9 1.11 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) 0.52 0.58 Commercial Lodging - per room
Per Room 4% 96% 7.6 1.06 Motel (320) 0.30 0.32 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 22% 78% 3.6 0.41 Shopping Center (820) 3.26 1.34 Office 4% 96% 8.8 1.22 General Office (710) 1.18 1.44 Industrial 2% 98% 9.0 1.28 General Light Industrial (110) 0.49 0.63 Sources: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition; San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Percent of total trips. A pass-by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the w ay from an origin to a primary trip destination w ithout a route diversion. Pass-by trips are not considered to add traffic to the road netw ork. Based on SANDAG data. 2 In miles. Based on SANDAG data.
³ The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemw ide average trip length of 6.9 miles.
4 Trips per dw elling unit, commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 building square feet. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the trip rate.
Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2045. Table 5.2 lists the 2025 and 2045 land use assumptions used in this study for the General City area and for the Preserve, respectively . The trip demand factors calculated in Table 5.1 are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet for each area of the City to determine the increase in trips generated by new development.
40 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 34 Table 5.2: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips
Trip
Land Use
Demand
Factor
Units or
1,000 SF Trips
Units or
1,000 SF Trips
Units or
1,000 SF Trips
General City Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.03 16,821 17,326 10 10 16,831 17,336 Multifamily 0.58 5,771 3,347 4,867 2,823 10,638 6,170 Subtotal 22,592 20,673 4,877 2,833 27,469 23,506 Commercial Lodging - per room
Per room 0.32 399 128 - - 399 128 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 1.34 8,644 11,583 885 1,187 9,530 12,770 Office 1.44 6,113 8,803 629 906 6,743 9,709 Industrial 0.63 25,453 16,035 2,945 1,856 28,399 17,891 Subtotal 40,211 36,421 4,460 3,949 44,671 40,370 Total - General City Area 57,222 6,782 64,004
89.4% 10.6% 100%
The Preserve Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.03 5,068 5,220 2,765 2,848 7,833 8,068 Multifamily 0.58 1,228 712 2,664 1,545 3,892 2,257 Subtotal 6,296 5,932 5,429 4,393 11,725 10,325 Commercial Lodging - per room
Per room 0.32 - - 428 137 428 137 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 1.34 754 1,010 765 1,025 1,519 2,035 Office 1.44 568 818 971 1,399 1,539 2,217 Industrial 0.63 2,140 1,348 7,576 4,773 9,716 6,121 Subtotal 3,461 3,176 9,313 7,197 12,774 10,373 Total - The Preserve Area 9,108 11,727 20,835
43.7% 56.3% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.2, 2.3 and 5.1.
2025
Growth -
2025 to 2045 Total - 2045
Project Costs
Cost estimates are summarized in Table 5.3 for the General City Area, in Table 5.4 for the Preserve and were sourced from the City’s existing impact fee program . Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. The net costs are allocated to either the General City or the Preserve . Note that none of the projects are rectifying existing deficiencies, so all project costs can be funded through the impact fees. 41 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 35 Table 5.3: Circulation Facilities Projects and Cost Allocation to New Development (General City) Project No. Description
Total Project
Cost
Projects Located in the General City
TR-004/005 Traffic Control Communications Expansion 834,950$ 0.0% -$ 100.0% 834,950$ 0.0% -$ TR-006 Traffic Signal - Magnolia/Walnut 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - TR-007 Traffic Signal - Monte Vista/Walnut 1,364,063 0.0% - 100.0% 1,364,063 0.0% - TR-013 Signal Interconnect 1,000,000 0.0% - 100.0% 1,000,000 0.0% - TR-014 Traffic Signal - Walnut/Oaks 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - TR-015 Traffic Signal - Chino/Monte Vista 2,000,000 0.0% - 100.0% 2,000,000 0.0% - TR-016 Traffic Signal/ Intersection - Chino/Benson 618,750 0.0% - 100.0% 618,750 0.0% - TR-017 Traffic Signal - Chino/Oaks 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - TR-018 Traffic Signal - Chino/Magnolia 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - TR-019 Traffic Signal - College Park/Parking Lot - East 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - TR-020 Traffic Signal - College Park/Ayala Park - West 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - TR-023 Traffic Signal - El Prado Road/Mountain 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - TR-024 Intersection - El Prado Road/Pine 618,750 0.0% - 42.1% 260,556 57.9% 358,194 TR-028 Intersection & Traffic Signal Improvements - Merrill/Euclid 5,754,869 0.0% - 42.1% 2,423,375 57.9% 3,331,494 TR-029 Pine - El Prado Road to Euclid 8,244,616 64.8% 5,342,511 22.0% 1,813,816 13.2% 1,088,289 TR-030 East End - Philadelphia to Country Road 566,306 0.0% - 100.0% 566,306 0.0% - TR-031 El Prado - Central to Pine 5,170,188 0.5% 27,919 43.5% 2,246,447 56.0% 2,895,822 TR-032 Chino - Pipeline to Euclid 6,597,179 0.0% - 100.0% 6,597,179 0.0% - TR-033 Edison - East 8,095,372 0.0% - 100.0% 8,095,372 0.0% - TR-034 Central - Philadelphia/Walnut 1,843,773 0.0% - 100.0% 1,843,773 0.0% - TR-035 Pine Avenue Connection El Prado Road to SR-71 (Bridge) 148,500,000 95.8% 132,500,000 6.7% 10,000,000 4.0% 6,000,000 TR-036 SR-60 Freeway Interchange Improvements at Ramona 5,830,500 0.0% - 6.0% 349,830 94.0% 5,480,670 TR-038 SR-60 Freeway Interchange Improvements at Mountain 6,842,500 0.0% - 6.0% 410,550 94.0% 6,431,950 TR-039 SR-60 Freeway Interchange Improvements at Euclid 1,322,500 0.0% - 6.0% 79,350 94.0% 1,243,150 TR-040 SR-60 Freeway Interchange Improvements at Grove 333,500 0.0% - 6.0% 20,010 94.0% 313,490 TR-041 SR-60 Freeway Interchange Improvements at Vineyard 2,357,500 0.0% - 6.0% 141,450 94.0% 2,216,050 TR-042 Riverside Drive - South Garey/Euclid 16,560,962 0.0% - 100.0% 16,560,962 0.0% - TR-047 12,400 LF of Secondary Roadway Oaks/Eucalyptus/Mountain 3,058,388 0.0% - 100.0% 3,058,388 0.0% - TR-049 Intersection - Euclid/Riverside 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - TR-050 Intersection - Euclid/Edison 721,875 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 0.0% - NEW Euclid - Chino Ave to Riverside 16,169,830 0.0% - 75.4% 12,192,052 24.6% 3,977,778 Subtotal 250,181,371$ 137,870,430$ 78,974,053$ 33,336,888$ Sources: City of Chino; Proactive Engineering Consultants, April 24, 2026.
Allocation to Other
Funding
Allocation to
General City
Allocation to the
Preserve
42 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 36 Table 5.4: Circulation Facilities Projects and Cost Allocation to New Development (The Preserve) Project No. Description
Total Project
Cost
Projects Located in the Preserve
TR-101 Market Street - West Preserve Loop to Hellman 7,614,404$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 100.0% 7,614,404$ TR-102 Legacy Park - NS Chino-Corona to Hellman 5,969,370 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 5,969,370 TR-103 Bickmore - East Preserve Loop to Hellman 939,785 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 939,785 TR-105 EW Chino-Corona Road - NS Chino-Corona to Hellman 10,441,530 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 10,441,530 TR-109 NS Chino-Corona - Pine/EW Chino/Corona 6,579,925 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 6,579,925 TR-110 East Preserve Loop - Bickmore/Legacy Park 7,995,850 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 7,995,850 TR-111 West Preserve Loop - Pine/Legacy Park 9,198,890 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 9,198,890 TR-115 Mayhew (Sultana) - Bickmore/Kimball 4,983,230 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 4,983,230 TR-116 Mayhew (Sultana) - Bickmore/Pine 4,854,630 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 4,854,630 TR-118 Hellman-Kimball E/W Chino-Corona 8,965,356 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 8,965,356 TR-119 Euclid Avenue Parkway/Median 400,000 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 400,000 TR-121 Kimball - Euclid/Hellman 14,386,147 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 14,386,147 TR-122 Pine - Euclid/Hellman 39,098,100 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 39,098,100 TR-123 Intersection - Pine/Main 721,875 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 TR-130 Intersection - Euclid/Pine 3,492,542 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 3,492,542 TR-133 Intersection - Hellman/Chandler 360,938 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 360,938 TR-134 Intersection - EW Chino-Corona/Main 541,406 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 541,406 TR-137 Traffic Signal - Legacy Park/Main 721,875 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 TR-138 Traffic Signal - Legacy Park/NS Chino-Corona 541,406 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 541,406 TR-141 Traffic Signal - Pine/Rincon Meadows 360,938 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 360,938 TR-142 Traffic Signal - Pine/Mayhew 721,875 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 TR-144 Traffic Signal - Bickmore/Main Street 721,875 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 721,875 TR-147 Traffic Signal - Bickmore/Mayhew 360,938 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 360,938 TR-158 Traffic Signal - Pine/Mill Creek 180,470 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 180,470 Sources: City of Chino; Proactive Engineering Consultants, April 24, 2026.
Allocation to Other
Funding
Allocation to
General City
Allocation to the
Preserve
43 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 37 Table 5.4: Circulation Facilities Projects and Cost Allocation to New Development (The Preserve) Continued Project No. Description
Total Project
Cost
TR-160 Intelligent Transportation System 1,727,116$ 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 1,727,116$ TR-161 Transit System Interim Landscaping 1,370,846 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 1,370,846 TR-162 Gateway Monuments 4,600,000 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 4,600,000 TR-164 Miscellaneous Land Acquisition 6,548,516 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 6,548,516 TR-169 East Preserve Loop - Bickmore to Main 2,710,400 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 2,710,400 TR-170 West Preserve Loop - Pine/Main 4,309,525 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 4,309,525 TR-171 Main Street 9,733,158 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 9,733,158 TR-173 Traffic Signal - Pine/West Preserve Loop 360,938 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 360,938 TR-176 Merrill (South Half) - Euclid/Carpenter 650,000 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 650,000 TR-177 Bickmore - Euclid/East Preserve Loop 6,250,174 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 6,250,174 TR-179 East Preserve Loop (South Half) - Legacy Park/Main 9,365,015 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 9,365,015 TR-181 West Preserve Loop (South Half) - Legacy Park/Main 6,388,360 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 6,388,360 TR-201 Circulation System Master Plan 87,314 0.0% - 75.4% 65,835 24.6% 21,479 ST085 Euclid Avenue - Kimball to Merrill 10,430,439 0.0% - 75.4% 7,864,551 24.6% 2,565,888 ST023 Euclid Avenue - Bickmore to Kimball 6,557,363 0.0% - 75.4% 4,944,252 24.6% 1,613,111 ST023 Euclid Avenue - s/o Pine Avenue 7,283,059 0.0% - 75.4% 5,491,426 24.6% 1,791,633 Developer Balance Remaining 9,561,435 0.0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 9,561,435 Subtotal 218,087,013$ -$ 18,366,064$ 199,720,949$ Total 468,268,384$ 137,870,430$ 97,340,117$ 233,057,837$ Sources: City of Chino; Proactive Engineering Consultants, April 24, 2026.
Allocation to Other
Funding
Allocation to
General City
Allocation to the
Preserve
44 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 38 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per dwelling unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 building square feet) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.
Table 5.5 calculates the cost per trip demand unit for the General City area and for the Preserve by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development from Table 5.3 and 5.4, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 5.2 for each area, respectively. The existing fund balances for each area are netted out of the total cost, so only the unfunded cost of the facilities is driving the fee calculation.
Table 5.5: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Calculation
General City Area
Cost Allocated to New Development A 97,340,117$
DIF Fund 220 (Citywide) - Existing Balance B 24,012,763 Net Cost of Planned Facilities C = A - B 73,327,354$
Growth in Trip Demand (2025 to 2045) D 6,782
Cost per Trip E = C / D 10,812$
The Preserve Area
Cost Allocated to New Development A 233,057,837$
DIF Fund 260 (Preserve) - Existing Balance B 7,749,130
Net Cost of Planned Facilities C = A - B 225,308,707$
Growth in Trip Demand (2025 to 2045) D 11,727
Cost per Trip E = C / D 19,213$
Sources: City of Chino; Willdan Financial Services, Tables 5.2 and 5.3.
Smart Growth and VMT Efficient Housing Discounts
Housing development projects that meet certain smart growth or VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) efficient criteria must be charged a lower impact fee to reflect lower levels of demand for transportation facilities.2
The Smart Growth criteria are:
2 Government Code, section 66005.1
45 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 39 1. 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.
2. The housing development is located within one -half mile from three or more of the following:
a. A supermarket or grocery store.
b. A public park.
c. A community center.
d. A pharmacy or drugstore.
e. A medical clinic or hospital.
f. A public library.
g. A school that maintains a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. h. A licensed childcare facility.
i. A restaurant.
3. The housing development provides no more than one onsite parking space for zero - to two-bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units.
Eligible housing projects that meet the criteria would receive a 15% discount on the transportation impact fees based on Smart Growth Trip Generation Study (SANDAG, June 2010). The average reduction in trip generation from the SANDAG Study was shown to be approximately 15% relative to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) based trip generation factors for housing developments without these characteristics.
As used in this section, "housing development" means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floor space is for residential use.
For the purposes of this section, "transit station" has the meaning set forth in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 65460.1. "Transit station" includes planned transit stations otherwise meeting this definition whose construction is programmed to be completed prior to the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development. Transit headway criteria of 10 minutes or less at a transit hub served by three or more transit service lines is defined as cumulative headway versus individual service line headways.
The applicant/developer will be responsible for conducting the initial analysis of the relationship of the new project to the criteria to consider eligibility for the discount. The City will need to verify accuracy for final determination of project’s eligibility for the discount.
Fee Schedule
Table 5.6 shows the maximum justified circulation fee schedule for the General City area and Table 5.7 shows the fee schedule for the Preserve. The maximum justified fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 5.5. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 5.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit, by type of unit. 46 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 40 Table 5.6: Maximum Justified Circulation System Facilities Fee Schedule (General City)
A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee 1
Sq. Ft. per
Unit2
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
General City Area
Residential
Single Family 10,812$ 1.03 11,136$ 3,320 3.35$ Multifamily 10,812 0.58 6,271 1,400 4.48 Smart Growth Residential3
Single Family 2.85$
Multifamily 3.81
Commercial Lodging - per room
Per room 10,812$ 0.32 3,460$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 10,812$ 1.34 14,488$ 1,000 14.49$ Office/Business Park 10,812 1.44 15,569 1,000 15.57 Industrial 10,812 0.63 6,812 1,000 6.81 3 Discount of 15% for smart grow th and VMT efficient housing projects.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit; and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City.
47 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 41 Table 5.7: Maximum Justified Circulation System Facilities Fee Schedule (The Preserve)
A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee 1
Sq. Ft. per
Unit2
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
The Preserve Area
Residential
Single Family 19,213$ 1.03 19,789$ 3,320 5.96$ Multifamily 19,213 0.58 11,144 1,400 7.96 Smart Growth Residential3
Single Family 5.07$
Multifamily 6.77
Commercial Lodging - per room
Per room 19,213$ 0.32 6,148$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 19,213$ 1.34 25,745$ 1,000 25.75$ Office/Business Park 19,213 1.44 27,667 1,000 27.67 Industrial 19,213 0.63 12,104 1,000 12.10 3 Discount of 15% for smart grow th and VMT efficient housing projects.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit; and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City.
48 42
6. Storm Drainage Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Chino. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development, and a storm drain fee calculated using the planned facilities method approach to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for storm drainage facilities from the projected increase in impervious surface generated by new development and the additional storm drains needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will not pay for more than the storm drain facilities that are needed to accommodate increased demand , and the fees are scaled based on the amount of impervious surface generated by different types of development.
Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 6.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are based on data from San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single -family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the impervious surface generated by each unit of new development.
Table 6.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use Type
DU, Rooms
or KSF
per acre 1
Impervious
Surface
Coefficient
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 8.00 0.74 1.00
Multifamily 13.00 0.81 0.67
Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 73.00 0.85 0.13
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 11.02 0.83 0.81
Office 9.76 0.84 0.93
Industrial 15.18 0.85 0.61
Sources: Development Impact Fee Nexus and Calculation Report for the City of Chino, 2017, ammended 2022, Appendix B (revised); San Bernardino Hydrology Manual (1986).
Williamson and Schmidt, Irvine, CA , Figure C-4.
1 Units per acre for residential, rooms per acre for commercial lodging, or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential.
49 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 43 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 6.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2045 for the General City area and for the Preserve. New development will generate approximately 6,370 new EDUs in the General City area , representing 11.5 percent of total storm drain demand in 2045.
New development will comprise 56.3% of total storm drain demand in the Preserve by 2045.
Table 6.2: Storm Drain Demand Projections
Land Use
EDU
Factor
Units or
1,000 SF EDUs
Units or
1,000 SF EDUs
Units or
1,000 SF EDUs
General City Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 16,821 16,821 10 10 16,831 16,831 Multifamily 0.67 5,771 3,867 4,867 3,260 10,638 7,127 Subtotal 22,592 20,688 4,877 3,270 27,469 23,958 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 0.13 399 52 - - 399 52 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 0.81 8,644 7,002 885 717 9,530 7,719 Office 0.93 6,113 5,685 629 586 6,743 6,271 Industrial 0.61 25,453 15,526 2,945 1,797 28,399 17,323 Subtotal 40,211 28,213 4,460 3,100 44,671 31,313 Total - General City Area 48,953 6,370 55,323
88.5% 11.5% 100%
The Preserve Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 5,068 5,068 2,765 2,765 7,833 7,833 Multifamily 0.67 1,228 823 2,664 1,785 3,892 2,608 Subtotal 6,296 5,891 5,429 4,550 11,725 10,441 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 0.13 - - 428 56 428 56 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 0.81 754 610 765 620 1,519 1,230 Office 0.93 568 528 971 904 1,539 1,432 Industrial 0.61 2,140 1,305 7,576 4,622 9,716 5,927 Subtotal 3,461 2,443 9,313 6,146 12,774 8,589 Total - The Preserve Area 8,334 10,752 19,086
43.7% 56.3% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 6.1.
2025
Growth -
2025 to 2045 Total - 2045
50 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 44 Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 identifies the planned storm drain facilities which drive the fee calculations for the General City area. Table 6.4 identifies the costs which are needed to serve the Preserve. The facilities were identified in the City’s prior nexus study, and costs have been updated to current conditions for use in this analysis by Proactive Engineering Consultants. The allocations to the General City are and the Preserve are consistent with the prior nexus study. Note that the City is currently pursuing a storm drain master plan to identify capacity expanding needs in the General City area.
Table 6.3: Planned Storm Drain Facilities (General City) Project No. Project Titles / Descriptions
Project
Costs
SD-002 Oaks - 600' NO Edison/Edison & Edison-Oaks/Central 1,121,483$ 40.0% 448,593$ 60.0% 672,890$ SD-003 Chino-Oaks/Benson Et Al to Benson-Schaefer/Edison 3,250,000 0.0% - 100.0% 3,250,000 SD-005 Philadelphia-Ramona/Norton, Norton-Francis/Chino SD 1,300,000 0.0% - 100.0% 1,300,000 SD-006 Philadelphia-Bridge/Monte Vista & Monte Vista - Independence/CSB 3,500,000 40.0% 714,442 60.0% 2,100,000 SD-013 Magnolia Avenue - Salem/Chino, Carissa and Salem 690,000 40.0% 276,000 60.0% 414,000 SD-017 Rosemary-Germantown/Chino & Chino Rosemary/Cypress Channel 490,000 0.0% - 100.0% 490,000 SD-018 Fern - 660' SO Edison/Eucalyptus 830,000 0.0% - 100.0% 830,000 SD-019 Mains Adjoining & within College Park (minimum 48") 2,691,572 0.0% - 100.0% 2,691,572 SD-020 Magnolia Avenue Earthen Channel - Edison/Chino Creek 1,559,124 0.0% - 100.0% 1,559,124 SD-022 Schaefer - Ramona to Yorba 2,000,000 0.0% - 100.0% 2,000,000 SD-202 Storm Drainage Master Plan - General City Area 500,000 0.0% - 100.0% 500,000 Total 17,932,179$ 1,439,035$ 15,807,586$
Source: City of Chino; Proactive Engineering Consultants, April 24, 2026.
Allocation to Other
Funding
General City
Allocation
51 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 45 Table 6.4: Planned Storm Drain Facilities (The Preserve) Reach Project Description Cost
Grove Ave (New)
SD138 Grove s/o Merrill 2,440,625$ 0% -$ 100% 2,440,625$ SD139 Grove n/o Merrill 333,438 0% - 100% 333,438 SD140 Grove n/o Merrill 75,625 0% - 100% 75,625 Subtotal - Grove Ave 2,849,688$ -$ 2,849,688$ SD- 102 Line C
SD057 EPL - Bickmore to Pine 491,563$ 0% -$ 100% 491,563$ SD058 Pine Ave e/o EPL 1,168,501 0% - 100% 1,168,501 SD059 Pine Ave w/o Main 1,055,838 0% - 100% 1,055,838 SD060 Pine Ave w/o Main 147,665 0% - 100% 147,665 SD061 Pine Ave e/o WPL 125,318 0% - 100% 125,318 SD062 Pine Ave - Mill CK to WPL 2,813,319 0% - 100% 2,813,319 Pine Ave e/o WPL 80,733 0% - 100% 80,733 SD063 Pine Ave w/o Mill Ck 2,740,416 0% - 100% 2,740,416 SD064 Pine Ave w/o Mill Ck 158,056 0% - 100% 158,056 SD065 Main St n/o Pine 564,314 0% - 100% 564,314 SD066 Main St n/o Pine 239,883 0% - 100% 239,883 SD067 WPL n/o Pine Ave 740,890 0% - 100% 740,890 SD068 Millcreek 318,773 0% - 100% 318,773 Trash Capture Devices 350,000 0% - 100% 350,000 Subtotal - Line C 10,995,269$ -$ 10,995,269$ SD-105 Line F
SD078 EPL s/o Legacy 507,141$ 0% -$ 100% 507,141$ SD079 EPL to CCR 980,161 0% - 100% 980,161 SD080 EPL to CCR 1,067,402 0% - 100% 1,067,402 SD081 CCR east to Mill CK wetlands 614,446 0% - 100% 614,446 SD082 CCR east to Mill CK wetlands 1,237,213 0% - 100% 1,237,213 SD083 Market w/o EPL 286,921 0% - 100% 286,921 SD084 Market e/o EPL 215,834 0% - 100% 215,834 SD085 Main St n/o Legacy Park 493,020 0% - 100% 493,020 SD086 Legacy e/o Main St 218,501 0% - 100% 218,501 SD087 Legacy to EPL 226,497 0% - 100% 226,497 SD088 Legacy to EPL 360,608 0% - 100% 360,608 SD089 Legacy to EPL 365,723 0% - 100% 365,723 SD091 CCR e/o Main 482,742 0% - 100% 482,742 SD092 CCR e/o Main 314,119 0% - 100% 314,119 SD093 CCR e/o mainline 654,844 0% - 100% 654,844 Trash Capture Devices 350,000 0% - 100% 350,000 Subtotal - Line F 8,375,172$ -$ 8,375,172$ Source: City of Chino.
Allocation to General
City Area
Allocation to The
Preserve Area
52 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 46 Table 6.4: Planned Storm Drain Facilities (The Preserve) Continued Reach Project Description Cost
SD-106 Line G
SD094 Market St e/o WPL 493,020$ 0% -$ 100% 493,020$ SD095 WPL - Legacy to Market 374,509 0% - 100% 374,509 SD096 WPL - Legacy to Market 1,423,263 0% - 100% 1,423,263 SD097 WPL s/o Legacy 336,078 0% - 100% 336,078 SD098 Westgate - WPL to CCR 446,566 0% - 100% 446,566 SD099 Westgate - WPL to CCR 1,591,816 0% - 100% 1,591,816 SD100 CCR - Westgate to Mill Ck 386,293 0% - 100% 386,293 SD101 CCR - Westgate to Mill Ck 2,636,948 0% - 100% 2,636,948 SD102 Cucamonga - CCR to outlet 4,189,995 0% - 100% 4,189,995 SD103 Legacy Park e/o Mill Ck 364,128 0% - 100% 364,128 SD104 Mill Ck n/o Legacy Park 56,244 0% - 100% 56,244 SD105 Mill Ck - Legacy Park to CCR 625,859 0% - 100% 625,859 SD106 Mill Ck - Legacy Park to CCR 774,428 0% - 100% 774,428 Trash Capture Devices 350,000 0% - 100% 350,000 Subtotal - Line G 14,049,147$ -$ 14,049,147$ SD-107 Line H
SD005 Basin to Mayhew 874,115$ 0% -$ 100% 874,115$ SD006 Mayhew - Brickmore no. Xxx' 2,070,338 0% - 100% 2,070,338 SD007 Mayhew - Bickmore so. Xxx' 1,495,553 0% - 100% 1,495,553 SD008 Mayhew - Pine Ave no. xxx' 2,903,876 0% - 100% 2,903,876 SD009 Pine Ave e/o Mayhew 2,300,478 0% - 100% 2,300,478 SD011 Kimball east of Mayhew 522,053 0% - 100% 522,053 SD012 Kimball west of Mayhew 504,419 0% - 100% 504,419 SD013 Mayhew - Kimball so. Xxx' 97,983 0% - 100% 97,983 SD014 Mayhew - Kimball so. Xxx' 426,697 0% - 100% 426,697 SD015 Bickmore - e/o Mayhew 1,377,743 0% - 100% 1,377,743 SD016 Pine Ave e/o Mayhew 689,939 0% - 100% 689,939 Trash Capture Devices 350,000 0% - 100% 350,000 Subtotal - Line H 13,613,194$ -$ 13,613,194$ SD-108 Line I
SD001 Merrill Avenue to Kimball 31,381,931$
SD002 Kimball Avenue to Bickmore 16,051,677
SD003 Bickmore Avenue to Pine 17,254,050
SD004 Pine Avenue to Prado Lake 12,745,152
Trash Capture Devices 350,000
Subtotal - SD-1081 77,782,811$ 0% -$ 8% 6,000,000$ SD-109 Line J
SD033 Culvert across Pine Ave 1,150,875$ 0% -$ 100% 1,150,875$ Merrill Ave (New)
SD141 Merrill w/o Grove 127,201$ 0% -$ 100% 127,201$ SD142 Merrill e/o Grove 756,841 0% - 100% 756,841 Subtotal - Merrill Ave 884,042$ -$ 884,042$ Developer Balance Remaining 6,155,186$ 0% -$ 100% 6,155,186$ Total - Storm Drain Facility Projects 135,855,384$ -$ 64,072,573$ 1 Developer contribution for Line I totals $6,000,000 across all reaches.
Source: City of Chino.
Allocation to General
City Area
Allocation to The
Preserve Area
53 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 47 Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
The planned facilities cost per EDU that drives the fee schedule is calculated by dividing the cost of the planned facilities from Table 6.3 by the projected increase in storm drain EDUs identified in Table 6.2 for the General City area and the Preserve, respectively . These costs per EDU drive the fee calculations.
Also listed Table 6.5 are fees per impervious square foot. The cost per EDU is divided by the assumed impervious square feet per EDU to determine the fee per impervious square foot. This fee can be applied to land uses that aren’t reflected in the fee schedule below based on the impervious square footage of the project.
Table 6.5: Cost per EDU
Calculation
General City Area
Cost Allocated to New Development A 15,807,586$
DIF Fund 255 (Citywide) - Existing Balance B 1,255,526
Net Cost of Planned Facilities C = A - B 14,552,060$
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2045) D 6,370
Cost per EDU E = C / D 2,284$
Fee per Impervious Square Foot1 0.57$
The Preserve Area
Cost Allocated to New Development A 64,072,573$
DIF Fund 263 (Preserve) - Existing Balance B 6,370,270
Net Cost of Planned Facilities C = A - B 57,702,303$
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2045) D 10,752
Cost per EDU E = C / D 5,367$
Fee per Impervious Square Foot1 1.33$
Sources: City of Chino; Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, Willdan Financial Services. 1 Assumes 4,029 impervious sqaure feet per EDU, based on the assumptions in Table 6.1.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use storm drain facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of storm drain infrastructure that is part of the system of storm drains serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 6.3 and Table 6.4.
Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 6.6. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 6.5 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 6.1. The fee per average sized dwelling 54 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 48 unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit, by type of unit.
Table 6.6: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Sq. Ft. per
Unit2
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
General City Area
Residential
Single Family 2,284$ 1.00 2,284$ 3,320 0.69$ Multifamily 2,284 0.67 1,530 1,400 1.09 Commercial Lodging - per room
Per room 2,284$ 0.13 297$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 2,284$ 0.81 1,850$ 1,000 1.85$ Office/Business Park 2,284 0.93 2,124 1,000 2.12 Industrial 2,284 0.61 1,393 1,000 1.39 The Preserve Area
Residential
Single Family 5,367$ 1.00 5,367$ 3,320 1.62$ Multifamily 5,367 0.67 3,596 1,400 2.57 Commercial Lodging - per room
Per room 5,367$ 0.13 698$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 5,367$ 0.81 4,347$ 1,000 4.35$ Office/Business Park 5,367 0.93 4,991 1,000 4.99 Industrial 5,367 0.61 3,274 1,000 3.27 Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City. 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
55 49
7. Water System Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water system facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Chino. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for water facilities from the projected increase water flow and the additional water infrastructure needed to provide water service to new development. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of water flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.
Table 7.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City’s 2022 Water Master Plan Update. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a residential dwelling unit , including fire flow needs . Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the water demand generated by each unit of new development.
56 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 50 Table 7.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation 1
KSF per
acre2
Average Flow
Generation
per DU or
1,000 Sq. Ft. 1
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family Unit 580.00 1.00
Multifamily Unit 250.00 0.43
Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 125.00 0.22
Nonresidential
Commercial 7,620 11.02 522.50 0.90
Office 8,710 9.76 570.00 0.98
Industrial 7,840 15.18 170.00 0.29
1 Gallons per day per residential dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor space.
Sources: City of Chino Water Master Plan Update, January, 2022, Tables 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3; Willdan Financial Services.
EDU Generation by New Development
Table 7.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2045 for the General City area and for the Preserve. New development will generate approximately 4,371 new EDUs in the General City area, representing 9.7 percent of total water demand in 2045. New development will comprise 51.3% of total water demand in the Preserve by 2045. 57 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 51 Table 7.2: EDU Generation by New Development
Land Use
EDU
Factor
Units or
1,000 SF EDUs
Units or
1,000 SF EDUs
Units or
1,000 SF EDUs
General City Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 16,821 16,821 10 10 16,831 16,831 Multifamily 0.43 5,771 2,482 4,867 2,092 10,638 4,574 Subtotal 22,592 19,303 4,877 2,102 27,469 21,405 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 0.22 399 88 - - 399 88 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 0.90 8,644 7,780 885 797 9,530 8,577 Office 0.98 6,113 5,991 629 617 6,743 6,608 Industrial 0.29 25,453 7,381 2,945 855 28,399 8,236 Subtotal 40,211 21,152 4,460 2,269 44,671 23,421 Total - General City Area 40,543 4,371 44,914
90.3% 9.7% 100%
The Preserve Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 5,068 5,068 2,765 2,765 7,833 7,833 Multifamily 0.43 1,228 528 2,664 1,146 3,892 1,674 Subtotal 6,296 5,596 5,429 3,911 11,725 9,507 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 0.22 - - 428 94 428 94 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 0.90 754 678 765 689 1,519 1,367 Office 0.98 568 557 971 952 1,539 1,509 Industrial 0.29 2,140 621 7,576 2,197 9,716 2,818 Subtotal 3,461 1,856 9,313 3,838 12,774 5,694 Total - The Preserve Area 7,452 7,843 15,295
48.7% 51.3% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1, 2.3 and 7.1.
2025
Growth -
2025 to 2045 Total - 2045
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 7.3 below, identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. Projects were sourced from the City’s prior nexus study, which have been adjusted for inflation for use in this analysis, and in the City’s 2022 Water Master Plan . The costs for projects in the Preserve have been adjusted to current conditions by Proactive Engineering Consultants for use in this analysis.
Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. The allocation of responsibility to the General City Area and to the Preserve are consistent with the prior nexus study.
58 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 52 Table 7.3: Planned Water Facilities
Project
No. Project Title
Total Project
Cost
WT-006 12" & Greater Potable Water Lines - College Park Area1 3,179,309$ 0% $ - 100.0% 3,179,309$ 0.0% -$ WT-007 College Park 8" Recycled Water Lines 1 1,001,258 0% - 100.0% 1,001,258 0.0% - WT-008 College Park 12" Recycled Water Lines 1 1,140,749 100% 1,140,749 0.0% - 0.0% - WT-009 Pine 12" Recycled Line, Euclid/El Prado 1 898,213 0% - 100.0% 898,213 0.0% - WT-010 Schaefer - Reservoir #7 to Euclid1 2,673,630 0% - 100.0% 2,673,630 0.0% - WT-101 Well No. 16 250,000 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 250,000 WT-101 Well No. 17 (not equipped, City to develop) 2,200,000 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 2,200,000 WT-101 Well No. 20 (does not exist) - Bon View 2,900,000 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 2,900,000 WT-105 24" Zone 890 Pipeline 3,000,000 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 3,000,000 WT-106 18" Potable Line - Chino - Mountain/Bon View 1,341,250 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 1,341,250 WT-107 18" Potable Line - Bon View - Chino/Schaefer 382,800 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 382,800 WT-108 8" Trans./Dist. Pipeline Potable/Recycled 3,810,950 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 3,810,950 WT-109 12" Transmission/Distribution Pipeline Potable and Recylced 9,380,972 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 9,380,972 WT-110 16" & 18" Transmission/Distribution Pipeline Potable and Recylced 1,071,675 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 1,071,675 WT-112 Land Acquisition Within the Preserve 1,500,000 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 1,500,000 WT-113 Well Connection Pipelines (City Project) 3,085,010 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 3,085,010 WT-114 Well Pumping Back-up Power 882,310 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 882,310 WT-121 Mayhew Avenue - Pine / Bickmore (RW061) 330,000 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 330,000 WT-122 NS Chino Corona - Pine / Legacy Park (RW062) 748,000 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 748,000 WT-123 NS Chino Corona - Legacy Park / EW Chino Corona (RW070) 502,425 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 502,425 WT-124 EW Chino Corona - Main / Legacy Park (RW082) 716,100 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 716,100 WT-126 EW Chino Corona - Westgate / Main (RW085) 271,425 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 271,425 WT-130 EW Chino Corona - NS Chino Corona / Westgate (RW100) 296,450 0% - 0.0% - 100.0% 296,450 NEW Reservoir at Eastside Site2 14,184,000 48.7% 6,907,608 0.0% - 51.3% 7,276,392 Developer Balance Remaining 5,643,358 0% - 72.8% 4,106,072 27.2% 1,537,286 61,389,884$ 8,048,357$ 11,858,482$ 41,483,045$
1 Costs from 2017 study adjusted for inflation into current dollars using the Engineering New s Record's Construction Cost Index. 2 Identified in 2022 City of Chino Water Master Plan Update.
Sources: Proactive Engineering Consultants, April 24, 2026; 022 City of Chino Water Master Plan Update; Willdan Financial Services.
Allocation to
General City Area
Allocation to The
Preserve Area
Allocation to Other
Funding Sources
59 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 53 Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development net of existing fund balances , is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU, which drives planned facilities component of the water system facilities fee for each area, respectively. Table 7.4 displays these calculations.
Table 7.4: Cost per EDU
General City Area
Cost Allocated to New Development A 11,858,482$
DIF Fund 253 (Citywide) - Existing Balance B (312,253)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities C = A - B 12,170,735$
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2045) D 4,371
Cost per EDU E = C / D 2,784$
The Preserve Area
Cost Allocated to New Development A 41,483,045$
DIF Fund 261 (Preserve) - Existing Balance B 1,814,883
Net Cost of Planned Facilities C = A - B 39,668,162$
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2045) D 7,843
Cost per EDU E = C / D 5,058$
Sources: City of Chino; Willdan Financial Services, Tables 7.2 and 7.3.
Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for water system facilities is shown in Table 7.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 7.1. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit, by type of unit.
60 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 54 Table 7.5: Maximum Justified Water Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Land Use Type
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Sq. Ft. per
Unit2
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
General City Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 2,784$ 1.00 2,784$ 3,320 0.84$ Multifamily 2,784 0.43 1,197 1,400 0.86 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 2,784$ 0.22 612$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 2,784$ 0.90 2,506$ 1,000 2.51$ Office/Business Park 2,784 0.98 2,728 1,000 2.73 Industrial 2,784 0.29 807 1,000 0.81 The Preserve Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 5,058$ 1.00 5,058$ 3,320 1.52$ Multifamily 5,058 0.43 2,175 1,400 1.55 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 5,058$ 0.22 1,113$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 5,058$ 0.90 4,552$ 1,000 4.55$ Office/Business Park 5,058 0.98 4,957 1,000 4.96 Industrial 5,058 0.29 1,467 1,000 1.47 Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.4.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
61 55
8. Sewer Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Chino. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for sewer facilities from the projected increase in sewer flow and the additional sewer facilities needed to meet those demands . The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased sewer demand provide the basis for calculating the sewer facilities fee. The need for sewer facilities improvements is based on the sewer demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of sewer improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.
Table 8.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates are derived from data from the City’s 2022 Sewer Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the sewer demand generated by each unit of new development.
Table 8.1: Sewer Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation 1
KSF per
acre 2
Average Flow
Generation per
DU, Room or
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential - per dwelling unit
Single Family 224.97 1.00
Multifamily 183.06 0.81
Commercial Lodging - per room 110.00 0.49 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 1,500 11.02 136.12 0.61 Office 1,500 9.76 153.69 0.68 Industrial 1,350 15.18 88.93 0.40 1 Gallons per acre per day.
² 1,000 square feet of building space per acre.
Sources: City of Chino Sew er Master Plan, 2022, Tables 2.7 and 3.2; City of Chino Adopted General Plan, 2025; Development Impact Fee Nexus and Calculation Report for the City of Chino, 2017, amended 2022, table 8-1.
62 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 56 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 8.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2045 for the General City area and for the Preserve. New development will generate approximately 6,098 new EDUs in the General City area, representing 12.9 percent of total sewer demand in 2045. New development will comprise 54.5% of total sewer demand in the Preserve by 2045.
Table 8.2: Sewer Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units
Land Use Type
EDU
Factor
Units or
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units or
1,000 SF EDUs
General City Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 16,821 16,821 10 10 16,831 16,831 Multifamily 0.81 5,771 4,675 4,867 3,942 10,638 8,617 Subtotal 22,592 21,496 4,877 3,952 27,469 25,448 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 0.49 399 196 - - 399 196 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 0.61 8,644 5,273 885 540 9,530 5,813 Office 0.68 6,113 4,157 629 428 6,743 4,585 Industrial 0.40 25,453 10,181 2,945 1,178 28,399 11,359 Subtotal 40,211 19,611 4,460 2,146 44,671 21,757 Total - General City Area 41,303 6,098 47,401
87.1% 12.9% 100%
The Preserve Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 5,068 5,068 2,765 2,765 7,833 7,833 Multifamily 0.81 1,228 995 2,664 2,158 3,892 3,153 Subtotal 6,296 6,063 5,429 4,923 11,725 10,986 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 0.49 - - 428 210 428 210 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 0.61 754 460 765 466 1,519 926 Office 0.68 568 386 971 661 1,539 1,047 Industrial 0.40 2,140 856 7,576 3,030 9,716 3,886 Subtotal 3,461 1,702 9,313 4,157 12,774 5,859 Total - The Preserve Area 7,765 9,290 17,055
45.5% 54.5% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.2, 2.3 and 8.1.
2025
Growth -
2025 to 2045 Total - 2045
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 8.3 identifies the planned sewer facilities to be funded by the fee. The facilities were identified in the City’s prior nexus study, and have been supplemented with two capacity enhancing projects from the City’s Sewer Master Plan. The costs for projects from the prior study have been adjusted to current conditions by Proactive Engineering Consultants for use in this analysis. The allocation of responsibility to the General City Area and to the Preserve are consistent with the prior nexus study.
63 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 57 Table 8.3: Sewer Facilities Allocation to New Development Project
Code Description Cost
SW-000 Preserve Less Than 12" 1,414,698$ 0% - 0% - 100% 1,414,698 SW-001 General City 12" And Greater Sewer Mains 2,360,354 0% - 100% 2,360,354 0% - SW-006 Miscellaneous Up-Sizing's 1,400,000 0% - 100% 1,400,000 0% - PCAP-7 Oaks Ave (North of Edison Ave) Pipeline Upsizing1 522,000 0% - 100% 522,000 0% - PCAP-8 Chino Corona Rd Pipeline Upsizing1 1,422,000 0% - 100% 1,422,000 0% - SW-104 Pine Avenue - West Preserve Loop/Main (Reach Number 8) 519,530 0% - 0% - 100% 519,530 SW-105 Pine Avenue - Main/East Preserve Loop (Reach Number 9) 381,398 0% - 0% - 100% 381,398 SW-106 Pine Avenue- East Preserve/Loop East (Reach Number 10) 371,415 0% - 0% - 100% 371,415 SW-107 West of Hellman - Pine/Bickmore (Reach Number 11) 489,720 0% - 0% - 100% 489,720 SW-108 Main Street - Bickmore/Pine (Reach Number 15) 264,880 0% - 0% - 100% 264,880 SW-110 Bickmore-Main/East Preserve Loop (Reach Number 17) 135,163 0% - 0% - 100% 135,163 SW-111 East Preserve Loop-Bickmore/Pine (Reach Number 18) 184,113 0% - 0% - 100% 184,113 SW-114 NS Chino-Corona - Pine/Legacy (Reach Number 23) 482,556 0% - 0% - 100% 482,556 SW-116 Legacy Park - NS Chino-Corona/WPL (Reach Number 25) 136,978 0% - 0% - 100% 136,978 SW-122 Chino-Corona E/W - Main St to west 325,875 0% - 0% - 100% 325,875 SW-123 SW Extension of West Preserve Loop (Reach Number 32) 345,043 0% - 0% - 100% 345,043 SW-128 West Preserve Loop - 1,330' NO Legacy Park/Legacy Park (37) 526,983 0% - 0% - 100% 526,983 SW-133 Mayhew - Bickmore/1,636' NO Bickmore (Reach Number 42) 670,711 0% - 0% - 100% 670,711 SW-134 Bickmore - Mayhew/ 2,2350' EO Mayhew (Reach Number 43) 325,422 0% - 0% - 100% 325,422 SW-135 Bickmore - Euclid/Mayhew (Reach Number 44 955,350 0% - 0% - 100% 955,350 SW-137 Un-Named EW Street - Euclid/Mayhew (Reach Number 46) 479,325 0% - 0% - 100% 479,325 Developer Balance Remaining 15,367,074 0% - 0% - 100% 15,367,074 Total - Sewage System Facility Projects 29,080,588$ -$ 5,704,354$ 23,376,234$ 1 Identified in 2022 City of Chino Sew er Master Plan Update.
Source: Proactive Engineering Consultants, April 24, 2026; City of Chino Sew er Master Plan Update, 2022; Willdan Financial Services.
Allocation to
General City Area
Allocation to The
Preserve Area
Allocation to Other
Funding Sources
64 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 58 Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development, net of available fund balances, is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU for each area, respectively.
Table 8.4 displays this calculation.
Table 8.4: Cost per EDU
General City Area
Cost Allocated to New Development A 5,704,354$
DIF Fund 254 (Citywide) - Existing Balance B 4,503,458
Net Cost of Planned Facilities C = A - B 1,200,896$
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2045) D 6,098
Cost per EDU E = C / D 197$
The Preserve Area
Cost Allocated to New Development A 23,376,234$
DIF Fund 262 (Preserve) - Existing Balance B 1,102,415
Net Cost of Planned Facilities C = A - B 22,273,819$
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2045) D 9,290
Cost per EDU E = C / D 2,398$
Sources: City of Chino; Willdan Financial Services, T ables 8.2 and 8.3.
Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for sewer facilities is shown in Table 8.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1.
The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit, by type of unit. 65 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 59 Table 8.5: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Land Use Type
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Sq. Ft. per
Unit2
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
General City Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 197$ 1.00 197$ 3,320 0.06$ Multifamily 197 0.81 160 1,400 0.11 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 197$ 0.49 97$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 197$ 0.61 120$ 1,000 0.12$ Office/Business Park 197 0.68 134 1,000 0.13 Industrial 197 0.40 79 1,000 0.08 The Preserve Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 2,398$ 1.00 2,398$ 3,320 0.72$ Multifamily 2,398 0.81 1,942 1,400 1.39 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 2,398$ 0.49 1,175$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 2,398$ 0.61 1,463$ 1,000 1.46$ Office/Business Park 2,398 0.68 1,631 1,000 1.63 Industrial 2,398 0.40 959 1,000 0.96 Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City. 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
66 60
9. General Facilities
The purpose of the general facilities impact fee is to fund the general city facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system standard of general facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new general facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional general facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
General facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.
Table 9.1 shows the existing and future Citywide projected service population for general facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which non-residential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.
67 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 61 Table 9.1: General Facilities Service Population
A B A x B = C
Land Use Type Persons
Weighting
Factor1
Service
Population
Citywide
Residents
Existing (2025) 88,714 1.00 88,714
New Development 29,721 1.00 29,721
Total (2045) 118,435 118,435
Workers 1
Existing (2025) 53,636 0.31 16,627
New Development 8,983 0.31 2,785
Total (2045) 62,619 19,412
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2025) 105,341
New Development 32,506
Total (2045) 137,847
Sources: Table 2.1, Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31).
Existing Inventory
Table 9.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of general facilities . The quantities and replacement cost of owned buildings come from the City’s insured property schedule . The unit cost for land is based on an appraisal that the City commissioned in 2025. The appraisal identified differing land values for properties in the General City area and the Preserve. The General City are cost is used in this chapter, because the existing facilities are located in the General City area. In total, the City owns $60 million worth of general facilities. 68 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 62 Table 9.2: Existing General Facilities Inventory
Address Quantity Units Unit Cost1
Total
Replacement
Cost1
Land
City Hall 13220 Central Ave 6.06 acres 840,000$ 5,090,400$ City Yard 5050 Schaefer Ave 5.23 acres 840,000 4,393,200 City Yard 4th St. and Carter St. 2.00 acres 840,000 1,680,000 Subtotal 13.29 acres $ 11,163,600
Buildings
City Hall 13220 Central Ave. 39,493 sq. ft. 586$ 23,161,950$ Chino Court House (former) 13260 Central Ave. 45,663 sq. ft. 422 19,254,900 Transit Center 83 6th St 635 sq. ft. 161 102,165 Restroom/Storage Building 83 6th St 306 sq. ft. 384 117,390 Public Works Services Center 5050 Schaefer Ave. 3,904 sq. ft. 338 1,318,590 Fleet Building 5050 Schaefer Ave. 3,250 sq. ft. 333 1,083,705 Maintenance Warehouse 5050 Schaefer Ave. 10,100 sq. ft. 282 2,846,235 Shade Shelter #1 5050 Schaefer Ave. 2,800 sq. ft. 112 314,055 Debris Bin Cover 5050 Schaefer Ave. 4,900 sq. ft. 120 590,100 Subtotal 111,051 sq. ft. 48,789,090$
Total 59,952,690$
1 Total replacement cost and unit cost for buildings includes building and contents.
Sources: City of Chino; Insured Property Schedule Statement of Value; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 9.3 summarizes the planned general facilities needed to serve the City. A new public works yard is estimated to cost $65 million.
Table 9.3: Planned General Facilities
Project Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Public Work Yards 60,000 Sq. Ft. 1,083$ 65,000,000$ Source: City of Chino.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 9.4 expresses the City’s current general facilities level of service in terms of the existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
69 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 63 Table 9.4: General Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 59,952,690$
DIF Fund 233 - Existing Balance 3,663,129
Net Value of Existing Facilities 63,615,819$
Existing Service Population 105,341
Cost per Capita 604$
Facility Standard per Resident 604$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 187
¹ Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.2.
Future Level of Service
Table 9.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in general facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the cost per worker.
Table 9.5: General Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 59,952,690$
Cost of Planned Facilities 65,000,000
Total System Value (2045) 124,952,690$
Future Service Population (2045) 137,847
Cost per Capita 906$
Cost Allocation per Resident 906$
Cost Allocation per Worker 1 281
¹ Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use general facilities revenue for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of general facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 9.3.
70 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 64 Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use general facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of general facilities to serve new development. The City plans to acquire the facilities in Table 9.3.
Table 9.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 9.1. The City should program fee revenue to specific projects annually through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue and existing fund balances, $31.7 million in non-fee funding will be needed to fully fund the facilities.
The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the studies. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, and grants.
Table 9.6: Revenue Projection
Cost per Capita 906$
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2045) 32,506
Fee Revenue 29,450,563$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 65,000,000$
Less Projected Fee Revenue 29,450,563
Less Existing Fund Balance 3,800,363
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified 31,749,074$
Sources: Tables 9.1, 9.3 and 9.4.
Fee Schedule
Table 9.7 below, shows the maximum justified impact fees. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit, employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space or employees per room of commercial lodging). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit, by type of unit. 71 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 65 Table 9.7: Maximum Justified General Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Cost Per Sq. Ft. per Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Unit2 Sq. Ft.
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 906$ 3.41 3,089$ 3,320 0.93$ Multifamily 906 2.69 2,437 1,400 1.74 Commercial Lodging - per room
Lodging 906$ 2.69 2,437$ N/A N/A
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial/Retail 281$ 2.09 587$ 1,000 0.59$ Office/Business Park 281 2.28 641 1,000 0.64 Industrial 281 0.68 191 1,000 0.19 Sources: Tables 2.4 and 9.5.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City. 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per commercial lodging room, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
72 66
10. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita. Fee revenue would be used to expand the provision of parks to meet demand from future development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for City parks from the projected increase in residents and the additional parks needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City’s existing ratio of park acres to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit. A fee in-lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act is also included in this chapter.
Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Chino primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 10.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park facilities.
Table 10.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Census (2020) 91,403
Existing (2025) 88,714
New Development 29,721
Total (2045) 118,435
Sources: US Census; Willdan Financial Services, Tables
2.2 and 2.3.
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Chino maintains several park s throughout the city. Table 10.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2025. All facilities are owned by the City . In total, the inventory includes a total of 290.25 acres of City-owned parkland. 73 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 67 Table 10.2: Park Land Inventory
Description
Improved
Acres
Unimproved
Acres
Total
Parkland
Acres
General City Area
City maintained
7th Street Park 0.10 - 0.10
Aguiar Square 1.00 - 1.00
Ayala Park 140.00 - 140.00
Carolyn Owens Centennial Square 0.20 - 0.20 Central Park 2.00 - 2.00
Chino Community Building Park 1.00 - 1.00 Chino Community Garden 0.90 - 0.90 Chino Rancho Park 1.30 - 1.30 Cypress Trails Park 8.60 - 8.60 Heritage Park 10.00 - 10.00
Liberty Park 7.50 - 7.50
McLeod Park 3.50 - 3.50
Monte Vista Park 4.70 - 4.70
Mountain View Park 10.00 - 10.00 Riverside Park 0.25 - 0.25
Sebring Park 0.50 - 0.50
Shady Grove Park 5.50 - 5.50
Villa Park 10.00 - 10.00
Walnut Park 5.50 - 5.50
Subtotal City Maintained Parks 212.55 - 212.55 HOA maintained
Classics Park 1.10 - 1.10
Constellation Park 5.00 - 5.00 Energy Park 0.70 - 0.70
Evergreen Park 0.30 - 0.30
Gallery Park 0.40 - 0.40
Inspiration Park 0.40 - 0.40
Lotus Park 0.70 - 0.70
Olympic Park 5.00 - 5.00
Stueve Family Park 7.00 - 7.00 Symphony Park 0.90 - 0.90
Subtotal - HOA Maintained Parks 21.50 - 21.50 Trails
Equestrian trails - 11.42 11.42
Multi-use trails - 6.72 6.72
Subtotal Trails - 18.14 18.14
Subtotal - General City Area Parks 234.05 18.14 252.19 Source: City of Chino Adopted General Plan, 2025, Table PRC-1.
74 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 68 Table 10.2: Park Land Inventory (Continued)
Description
Improved
Acres
Unimproved
Acres
Total
Parkland
Acres
The Preserve Area
HOA maintained
Discovery Park 3.00 - 3.00
Forest Park 3.00 - 3.00
Founders Park 8.00 - 8.00
Garden Park 3.00 - 3.00
Golden Tree Park 0.30 - 0.30
Harvest Park 0.70 - 0.70
Hidden Hollow Park 0.30 - 0.30 Meridian Park- North 7.00 - 7.00 Meridian Park- South 5.00 - 5.00 Meridian Park- West 1.25 - 1.25 Mulberry Park 0.30 - 0.30
Nature Retreat Park 6.00 - 6.00 Secret Garden Park 0.50 - 0.50 Subtotal - HOA Maintained Parks 38.35 - 38.35 Trails
Equestrian trails - - -
Multi-use trails - 6.72 6.72
Subtotal - Trails - 6.72 6.72
Subtotal - Preserve Area Parks 38.35 6.72 45.07 Total Park Land Inventory 272.40 24.85 297.25 Source: City of Chino Adopted General Plan, 2025, Table PRC-1.
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 10.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Chino. The cost of acquiring a typical acre of parkland in the General City Area and in the Preserve, respectively, was identified in appraisal reports commissioned by the City in 2025. The cost to improve an acre of parkland with typical park amenities was estimated based on the average cost per acre across six local impact fee stud ies completed between 2019 and 2026 . Costs were adjusted into 2026 dollars using the Engineering News Record ’s Construction Cost Index to yield an average cost per acre of $1.2 million for typical park improvements. 75 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 69 Table 10.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
General City Area
Standard Park Improvements 1,165,300$
Land Acquisition 840,000
Total Cost per Acre 2,005,300$
The Preserve
Standard Park Improvements 1,165,300$
Land Acquisition 1,120,000
Total Cost per Acre 2,285,300$
Source: Appraisal Report, City of Chino Parks, Epic Appraisals, LLC, October 3, 2025; Willdan Financial Services.
Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city’s existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act .3 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. 4 In this case, the fees will be set to maintain the City’s existing parkland standard of acres per 1,000 residents.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three -acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).
The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.
3 California Government Code §66477.
4 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report. 76 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 70 The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.
The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund the acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.
The Quimby Act allows use of in -lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.
Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of existing parks.
City of Chino Parkland and Park Facilities Standards
Table 10.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. Once accounting for impact fee fund balances, the City has an existing parkland standard of in excess of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, which is greater than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining a 3.0 acre per 1,000 resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Chino. Fees in-lieu of land dedication for subdivisions are also calculated at the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents.
Table 10.4: Park Standards
Quimby Act1
Mitigation
Fee Act
(Improved
Acres)1
Mitigation
Fee Act
(All Parkland
Acres)1
Park Acreage 297.25 272.40 297.25
Fund Balance Equivalent - 6.66 6.66 Total 297.25 279.06 303.91
Existing Service Population1 91,403 88,714 88,714 Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.25 3.15 3.43 Minimum Quimby Act Standard
(Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.00 3.00 3.00 Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.2.
1 Quimby standard calculated as of the most recent Federal Census. Mitigation Fee Act standard calculated as of 2025.
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 10.5 shows the park improvements needed to accommodate new development at the 3.0 acre per 1,000 resident standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new residential development must fund the improvement of 39.38 park acres in the General City and
49.78 park acres in the Preserve.
77 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 71 Table 10.5: Park Improvements to Accommodate New Development Calculation General City Preserve Entire City
Park Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00 3.00 3.00 Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2045) B 13,126 16,595 29,721 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 39.38 49.78 89.16 Average Cost per Acre D 1,165,300$ 1,165,300$
Total E = C x D 45,889,514$ 58,008,634$
Sources: Tables 10.1, 10.3, and 10.4.
Table 10.6 shows the park land needed to accommodate new development at the 3.0 acre standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon new development must fund the acquisition of 39.38 park acres in the General City and 49.78 park acres in the Preserve .
Table 10.6: Park Land to Accommodate New Development
Calculation Parkland Total
General City Area
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu (Quimby Act) or Land Acquisition (Mitigation Fee Act) Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2045) B 13,126
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 39.38
Average Land Acquisition Cost per Acre D $ 840,000
Total E = C x D $ 33,079,200
The Preserve Area
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu (Quimby Act) or Land Acquisition (Mitigation Fee Act) Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2045) B 16,595
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 49.78
Average Land Acquisition Cost per Acre D $1,120,000
Total E = C x D $ 55,753,600
Sources: Tables 10.1, 10.3, and 10.4.
Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 10.7 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the 3.0-acre standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of three fees:
78 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 72 • A Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential and nonresidential development not occurring in subdivisions. • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.
A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act fee for park improvements.
Table 10.7: Cost per Capita
Land Land Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee Mitigation Fee Impact Fee
General City Area
Parkland Investment (per acre) A 840,000$ 840,000$ 1,165,300$ Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 3.00 3.00 Total Cost per 1,000 capita C = A x B 2,520,000$ 2,520,000$ 3,495,900$ Cost per Resident D = C / 1,000 2,520$ 2,520$ 3,496$ The Preserve Area
Parkland Investment (per acre) A 1,120,000$ 1,120,000$ 1,165,300$ Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 3.00 3.00 Total Cost per 1,000 capita C = A x B 3,360,000$ 3,360,000$ 3,495,900$ Cost per Resident D = C / 1,000 3,360$ 3,360$ 3,496$ Sources: Tables 10.3 and 10.4.
OR AND
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. In addition to land acquisition, Quimby fee revenue can also be used to rehabilitate parks serving the subdivision that paid the fees.
Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per capita basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These cost factors (shown in Table 10.7) are cost per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit, by type of unit.
Table 10.8 shows the maximum justified park fees for the General City area and Table 10.9 shows the fees for the Preserve.
79 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 73 Table 10.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule (General City) General City Area A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Cost Per Base Sq. Ft. per Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Unit2 Sq. Ft.
Quimby Act - Subdivisions
Single Family
Land 2,520$ 3.41 8,593$ 3,320 2.59$
Improvements 3,496 3.41 11,921 3,320 3.59 Total 6,016$ 20,514$ 6.18$
Multifamily
Land 2,520$ 2.69 6,779$ 1,400 4.84$
Improvements 3,496 2.69 9,404 1,400 6.72 Total 6,016$ 16,183$ 11.56$
Mitigation Fee Act - Infill
Single Family
Land 2,520$ 3.41 8,593$ 3,320 2.59$
Improvements 3,496 3.41 11,921 3,320 3.59 Total 6,016$ 20,514$ 6.18$
Multifamily
Land 2,520$ 2.69 6,779$ 1,400 4.84$
Improvements 3,496 2.69 9,404 1,400 6.72 Total 6,016$ 16,183$ 11.56$
Sources: Tables 2.4, 10.7.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City. 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.
80 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 74 Table 10.9: Park Facilities Fee Schedule (The Preserve) The Preserve Area A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Cost Per Base Sq. Ft. per Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Unit2 Sq. Ft.
Quimby Act - Subdivisions
Single Family
Land 3,360$ 3.41 11,458$ 3,320 3.45$
Improvements 3,496 3.41 11,921 3,320 3.59 Total 6,856$ 23,379$ 7.04$
Multifamily
Land 3,360$ 2.69 9,038$ 1,400 6.46$
Improvements 3,496 2.69 9,404 1,400 6.72 Total 6,856$ 18,442$ 13.18$
Mitigation Fee Act - Infill
Single Family
Land 3,360$ 3.41 11,458$ 3,320 3.45$
Improvements 3,496 3.41 11,921 3,320 3.59 Total 6,856$ 23,379$ 7.04$
Multifamily
Land 3,360$ 2.69 9,038$ 1,400 6.46$
Improvements 3,496 2.69 9,404 1,400 6.72 Total 6,856$ 18,442$ 13.18$
Sources: Tables 2.4, 10.7.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.
2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential projects in the City.
81 75
11. Miscellaneous Residential
Amenities
The purpose of the miscellaneous residential amenities impact fee is to fund the miscellaneous residential amenities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of miscellaneous residential amenities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new miscellaneous residential amenities from the projected increase in service population and the additional miscellaneous residential amenities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
Residential amenities primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population.
Table 11.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for miscellaneous residential amenities.
Table 11.1: Residential Amenities
Service Population
Residents - The Preserve
Existing (2025) 20,585
New Development 16,595
Total (2045) 37,180
Sources: Table 2.3, Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s public facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
Table 11.2 summarizes the cost that developers have invested in existing miscellaneous residential amenities in the Preserve. These costs are represented by the request for DIF credits. $8.7 million worth of miscellaneous residential amenities have been built to date. 82 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 76 Table 11.2: Existing Residential Amenities Inventory Approved and Estimated MRA DIF Credits 8,708,744$
Sources: Residential Amenities DIF Credit Reconciliation Through May 31, 2025, City of Chino.
Planned Facilities
Table 11.3 summarizes the planned miscellaneous residential amenities needed to serve the Preserve through 2045. The costs were sourced from the City’s prior study and adjusted for inflation into current dollars.
Table 11.3: Planned Residential Amenities
Description Total Cost
Paseos and other Trails $ 832,955
Perimeter Trail 3,372,964
Landscaping of Southern California Edison Easements 8,350,583 Perimeter Trail Community Core Commons 10,051,658
Total 22,608,160$
Source: City of Chino; ENR CCI; Willdan Financial Services.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 11.4 expresses the City’s current miscellaneous residential amenities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only. Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City’s service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 11.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide public amenities in the Preserve.
83 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 77 Table 11.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 8,708,744$
Fund 265 - Existing Balance 2,499,754
Total 11,208,498$
Existing Service Population 20,585
Cost per Capita 544$
Sources: Tables 11.1 and 11.2.
Future Level of Service
Table 11.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in miscellaneous residential amenities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
Table 11.5: Residential Amenities System Standard
Total System Value (2045) 22,608,160$
Future Service Population (2045) 37,180
Cost per Capita 608$
Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use miscellaneous residential amenities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of miscellaneous residential amenities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table
11.3. Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Chino. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned miscellaneous residential amenities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 11.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through 2045. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue and existing fund balances , approximately $ 1.3 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned miscellaneous residential amenities.
The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned miscellaneous residential amenities . Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
84 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 78 Table 11.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 608$
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2045) 16,595
Fee Revenue 10,089,644$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 13,899,416$
Less Projected Fee Revenue 10,089,644
Less Existing Fund Balance 2,499,754
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified 1,310,018$
Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.3 and 11.4.
Fee Schedule
Table 11.7 shows the maximum justified miscellaneous residential amenities fee schedule, which is only charged within the Preserve . The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit, by type of unit.
Table 11.7: Miscellaneous Residential Amenities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D E = C / D
Cost Per Sq. Ft. per Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Unit2 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single Family 608$ 3.41 2,073$ 3,320 0.62$ Multifamily 608 2.69 1,636 1,400 1.17 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 11.5.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Assumes an average of 3,320 square feet per single family dw elling unit and 1,400 square feet per multifamily dw elling unit in the City of Chino based on an analysis of future residential
85 79
12. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.
Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service
1. For the park fees which are calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service.
The existing level service in terms of acres per 1,000 residents is calculated in Table
10.4. 2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the circulation, sewer facilities, water system, storm drain facilities and law enforcement facility fees. Circulation projects included in these fees met the City’s congestion level of service standards at the time the y were added to the impact fee program. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the LOS does not fall to unacceptable levels . For the law enforcement facility fees, the planned facilities represent a lower level of service than current exists, so new development can fully fund the identified facilities. The sewer , water and storm drain facilities needed to serve new development were identified in the City’s prior nexus study, and master planning documents as necessary to serve new development at an acceptable level of service.
3. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are the fire suppression, general facilities, and miscellaneous residential amenities fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of facilities identified either in the City’s most recent CIP , or the City’s prior development impact fee studies . New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development’s 86 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 80 share of the increased level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increasing the level of service includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Willdan extensively reviewed the City’s prior impact fee studies while conducting this fee analysis.
Notable this study differs from the 2017-18 study in several ways:
1. The base year and planning horizon have been updated to align with the City’s 2045 General Plan and the Preserve Specific Plan.
2. Cost assumptions have been updated to current dollar s either using inflation indices, or new cost estimating from Proactive Engineering Consultants.
3. This study made use of the most current project lists and inventories of existing facilities where relevant.
Table 12.1 displays an accounting of annual revenue collected since 2020 for the impact fees included in this analysis.
Table 12.1: Collected Fee Revenue
Fee Category FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Annual
Average
Law Enforcement 388,600$ 246,390$ 845,428$ 188,974$ 283,460$ 207,422$ 360,046$ Fire Suppression 382,833 166,881 193,424 439,741 578,091 385,549 357,753 General Facilities 136,321 45,875 1,200,739 64,796 88,639 26,004 260,396 Public Use Facilities 1,161,830 533,476 33,601 663,934 1,013,827 544,322 658,498 General City Circulation 799,066 253,383 5,009,558 621,745 879,096 666,620 1,371,578 General City Storm Drainage 137,835 45,165 505,577 54,455 60,075 233,556 172,777 General City Water 246,003 17,355 679,159 93,217 65,072 90,676 198,580 The Preserve Circulation 6,279,966 4,125,263 5,779,422 174,596 1,215,736 203,363 2,963,058 The Preserve Congestion Management Program 3,033,688 189,317 4,304,012 299,090 262,116 599,328 1,447,925 The Preserve Storm Drain 1,558,380 1,323,667 1,750,264 502 1,672,094 1,608,438 1,318,891 The Preserve Water 879,309 959,860 596,327 1,416,557 1,732,492 (219,615) 894,155 The Preserve Sewer 428,616 51,897 134,168 185,963 727,254 439,681 327,930 The Preserve Miscellaneous Residential Amenities 264,877 158,238 - 245,610 275,094 79,112 170,489 General City Parks 1,535,479 492,882 1,553,223 596,828 868,800 1,123,923 1,028,523 The Preserve Parks 2,353,806 1,015,872 - 1,784,468 2,130,984 959,010 1,374,023 Source: City of Chino DIF Annual Report – FY 2024–25, Revised January 28, 2026.
66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City’s current adopted CIP (which the City updates annually) , the City’s prior nexus study, master plans and other relevant documents . Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study. 87 81
13. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. The impact fee nexus study must first be adopted at a public hearing to comply with AB 602. That public hearing must be noticed at least 30 days in advance.
Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.
Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.
Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.
Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five -year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.
The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.
88 82
14. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one -time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025 , establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.
The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees - meaning that the amount of the exaction must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described in the preceding chapters, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters . All statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to serve new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence . Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: law enforcement facilities, fire s uppression facilities, c irculation facilities, st orm drainage facilities, w ater system, s ewer system, g eneral facilities, facilities, park infrastructure and miscellaneous residential amenities.
Benefit Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act). 89 City of Chino Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 83 The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities , infrastructure and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development.
Under the Act , fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.
Burden Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationsh ip to the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non -residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.
For circulation facilities demand standards are based on trip generation by various categories of new development. For storm drainage facilities demand is based on impervious surface generated by development. For sewer and water facilities demand is based on increased wastewater and water flow generated by new development, respectively.
The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.
90 84
Appendix
Category
Calls for
Service 1
Population or
Employees
Calls per
Capita
Residential 1,872 88,714 0.021
Nonresidential 1,741 53,636 0.032
Other2 5,787
Worker Weighting Factor3 1.54
1 Police department calls in 2025.
3 Nonresidential calls per capita / residential calls per capita.
Appendix Table A.1: Law Enforcement Facilities
Worker Weighting Factor
Source: City of Chino.
2 "Other" calls are those that cannot be classified as residential nor nonresidential-serving calls.
91 PIONEER AVEFERN AVE
MAYHEW AVEWEST PRESERVE LOOPFERN AVE
MAIN STWEST PRESERVE LOOP
MAIN ST
WESTGATE ST12"
DW063
DW012
DW040
DW052DW042
DW002
CHINO-CORONA ROAD E/W
12"
12"
8"
MILL CREEK AVE
8"
12"12"
HELLMAN AVECARPENTER AVEREMINGTON AVE
FLIGHT AVEGROVE AVE
DW053
DW102
DW104DW105
HELLMAN AVEEUCLID AVE
STGARDEN
EAST PRESERVE LOOP
8"BOTANY ST
MAYHEW AVE
EUCLID AVE
BICKMORE AVE HUCKBERRY AVEHARVEST WAY
LEGACY PARK ST
12"
VAN VLIET AVE
DW10012"
FLIGHT AVE
DW099
REMINGTON AVEDW103
DW097
DW069 HELLMAN AVE
12"12"
CHANNEL VIEW ST
MILL CREEK AVE (CHINO-CORONA ROAD N/S)
12"
8" 12"12" 12"
MEADOWHOUSE AVE
8"12"
12"
EUCLID AVE
12"
12"12" 12"
8"8"
12"
12"
12"MARKET ST
12"12"12"
12"
12"
12"
12"12"12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
24"
KIMBALL AVE12"
12" 12" 12"12"
12" 12"
DW01612"
DW017
PINE AVENUE12"12" 12"DW01812"8"
8"
DW015
KIMBALL AVE
RINCON MEADOWS AVE8" 8"
12"12" DW035
DW041DW043DW051
DW054DW055DW058DW059
DW061DW062
DW064DW065
DW067
DW068
DW070DW071DW072DW073
DW074DW075
DW083
PINE AVENUEPINE AVENUE
12"ACADEMY STEAST PRESERVE LOOP
AVEPARKDISCOVERY
HELLMAN AVE
12"
12"
12"
12"12"12"
12"
12"12"12"12"12"
12"12"
12"
12"
12"12"12"
12"
12"8" 8"
12"
DW039PARK12"
18"
DW077
8"8"8" 8"8"8" 18"
8"
BICKMORE AVEALPINE MEADOWS AVE
FOREST PARK STFOREST PARK ST
12"12"12"
DW10612"12"12"DW101
DW098
8"8"12"12"12"8"8"
8"
8"
8"8" 18"
12"
16"
16"
12"MERRILL AVE16"
AUTUMN PATH8"
12"
BRIDLEPATH
DW014DW046DW050
DW001
DW034DW045SAN ANTONIO AVE
DW025DW026DW027DW007DW006DW005
DW008
DW003DW004DW020DW021DW022DW029DW037DW020DW022DW023
DW031DW032DW024
DW033DW078DW079DW044DW079DW038DW028DW076DW036DW009DW010DW013DW087DW085DW084 DW086DW019
DW011
DW047DW048DW056DW049DW082DW057
DW107DW080DW088DW060
DW066
LEGENDCITY OF CHINO"THE PRESERVE" - WATER DIF
DW001
REVISED ON 4/23/2026
92 MAYHEW AVEWEST PRESERVE LOOP
MAIN STWEST PRESERVE LOOP
MAIN ST
WESTGATE ST8"
RW061
RW067
RW066
RW060
CHINO-CORONA ROAD E/W
8"
8"
8"
MILL CREEK AVE
8" 30"
HELLMAN AVECARPENTER AVEREMINGTON AVE
FLIGHT AVEGROVE AVE
RW062
RW022
RW053
HELLMAN AVEEUCLID AVE
STGARDEN
BOTANY ST
MAYHEW AVE
EUCLID AVE
BICKMORE AVE
LEGACY PARK ST
8"
VAN VLIET AVE
RW0518"
FLIGHT AVE
RW050
REMINGTON AVE
RW081
HELLMAN AVE
8"
MILL CREEK AVE (CHINO-CORONA ROAD N/S)
12"
8" 30"
EUCLID AVE
8"8"
8"
8" 8"
8"
12"
12"12"
8"KIMBALL AVE
30"
16" 16"
PINE AVENUE
RW005
KIMBALL AVE
RINCON MEADOWS AVERW065RW068RW079RW006RW076
RW075RW101RW104
RW073RW078
RW100
RW070
RW085
RW098RW072
RW097RW069
ACADEMY STEAST PRESERVE LOOP
AVEPARKDISCOVERY
HELLMAN AVE
12"
8"8" 8"PARK8"
8"
8"
ALPINE MEADOWS AVE
FOREST PARK STFOREST PARK ST
RW0548"RW052
8" 8"
8"
8"8"8"
30"
18"
30"
30"30" 8" 8"
18" 8"
8"
18"
8"8"
EAST PRESERVE LOOP
33"
8"
33"8"
30"
12" 24"24"8"
8"
12"
8"8"
30"30"
12"
RW055 24"
RW084
MEADOWHOUSE AVE
RW059
PINE AVENUE
12"12"RW058
30"
8"
8"
8"8"
8"
8"
8"8"
8"RW090
8"
8"RW071
RW105PINE AVENUE
8"BICKMORE AVE
8"MARKET ST
8"
8"
8"
8" 12"RW080RW08212"
12" 8"
30"
33"12"
30"30"30"30"14"14"14"
12"
YEAGER STAPPROACHAVE BRIDLEPATH
MEADOWS VALLEY8"8"
18"18"18"
RW057
8"
12"8"
8"
ABANDONED
ABANDONED
ABANDONED
ABANDONEDCHANNEL VIEW ST
30"
12"
MERRILL AVE
8"
AUTUMN PATH
12"
RW012RW049RW048RW047
RW044RW043
RW045
RW033RW031RW040RW039
8"
RW056
RW041RW086RW038RW032RW021RW020RW018RW011RW017RW015RW014 RW034RW030RW029RW035RW037RW036RW042 RW028RW023RW046
RW014RW009RW013RW010
RW095RW109RW110
RW107RW106RW099
RW087
RW083
RW019
LEGENDCITY OF CHINO"THE PRESERVE" - RECYCLED WATER DIF
RW001
REVISED ON 4/15/2026
93 SEWER LIFTSTATION
PIONEER AVE
FERN AVE
MAYHEW AVEWEST PRESERVE LOOPEUCLID AVEFERN AVE
MAIN STWEST PRESERVE LOOPEAST PRESERVE LOOP
MAIN ST
WESTGATE ST
PINE AVENUE
21"
14"
14"16"20"20"
20"
2-16"
2-16"
2-16"
21"
21" 10"10"
10"
8"
8"
15"
16"
S10S1312"
10"
10"S11
S19S20
10"
15"S25 S26
S33S36
S41S42S43
S46 S48
S51
S49
20"
8"
12" 8"10"
10"
10"8"8"
12"18"
16"
8"
10"16"
8"8"
10"
10"
KIMBALL AVE
10"
10"
12"
15"15" 10"12"
10"
MILL CREEK AVE
8"
8"
8" 8" 8"
HELLMAN AVECARPENTER AVEREMINGTON AVE
FLIGHT AVEGROVE AVE
10"
S58
S59
S60S62
S61
KIMBALL AVEHELLMAN AVEEUCLID AVE
MARKET ST10"
10"8"
8"
STFOREST PARK ST12"PARKGARDEN
EAST PRESERVE LOOPALPINE MEADOWS AVE
8"BOTANY STCHANNEL VIEW ST8"15"
MAYHEW AVE
EUCLID AVE
8"
RINCON MEADOWS AVE
BICKMORE AVE
10"
10"8"
12"
S47S50
S14
HUCKBERRY AVEHARVEST WAY12"12"
LEGACY PARK STACADEMY ST
21"
20"
8"
8"
VAN VLIET AVE
S558"
FLIGHT AVE
S53
8"REMINGTON AVES548"
10"
12"S08S09
MILL CREEK AVE (CHINO-CORONA ROAD N/S)
10"
MEADOWHOUSE AVE
8"
8"S52
S12
8" HELLMAN AVE
8"8"
PINE AVENUE21"
8"8"
CHINO-CORONA ROAD E/W
S71S72
S73
S75S74BICKMORE AVE
MERRILL AVE
S76
S57 S40S39
S57S45
S16S17S18
S57S03
S27S28S29
S30S31S32S34S35
S23S24S22S21
S56
S07S06
S05
S04S04S04
S15
S38 S37
S02
LEGENDCITY OF CHINO"THE PRESERVE" - SEWER DIF
S01
PREPARED ON 3/18/2021
94 MAYHEW AVE
MAIN STWEST PRESERVE LOOP
MAIN ST
WESTGATE ST
MILL CREEK AVE
24"HELLMAN AVECARPENTER AVEREMINGTON AVE
FLIGHT AVEGROVE AVEHELLMAN AVEEUCLID AVE
STGARDEN
MAYHEW AVE
EUCLID AVE LEGACY PARK ST
VAN VLIET AVEFLIGHT AVEREMINGTON AVE
66"
MILL CREEK AVE (CHINO-CORONA ROAD N/S)
42"EUCLID AVE
42"
ACADEMY STEAST PRESERVE LOOP
AVEPARKDISCOVERY
PARK
CUCAMONGA AVE
STREET "B"
FOREST PARK STFOREST PARK ST
42"
60"
EAST PRESERVE LOOP
PINE AVENUE
BICKMORE AVE
MARKET ST84"
BRIDLEPATHMEADOWS VALLEY
MERRILL AVE
SD001
36"
54"54"
WEST PRESERVE LOOP72"72"36"
54"54"54"
42"60"
CHINO-CORONA ROAD E/W78"90"
PINE AVENUE
48"DOUBLE 8' x 6' RCB
TRIPLE 14' x 8' RCB
96"
96"
84"
96"96"
96"
36"
DOUBLE 4' x 14' RCB
24"24"
48"
42"
36"36"
24"
36" 48"
96"HELLMAN AVE
24"60"78"24"24"24"36"72"36"
24"
54"
42"42"42"
84"
LINE D
LINE E
24"36"
LINE E
LINE B
LINE BLINE CLINE H
LINE H
LINE I
LINE I
LINE J
LINE G
LINE GLINE F
LINE FLINE C
48"RINCON MEADOWS AVE
OPENCHANNEL
DIVERSIONSTRUCTURE
DIVERSIONSTRUCTURE
96"
78"72" 36"
48"CHANNEL VIEW ST24"
PRADOLAKE
WATER QUALITY&DETENTIONBASIN
WATER QUALITYBASINDETENTION BASINDETENTIONBASIN
DETENTIONBASIN
HELLMAN AVE
78"
78"72"
36"30"
13.5' x 6' RCB
24"30"
60"
42"36"36"
54"
72"
24"
SD002
SD003
SD012SD011SD013SD014
SD006
SD007
SD008
SD016SD009
SD150
SD015
DOUBLE 8' x 8' RCB
96"
BOTANY ST24"SD018SD01924"SD020
SD022SD023
SD021
SD028SD029
SD032SD033
SD054
SD031
SD055
SD056
30"
MEADOWHOUSE AVE
KIMBALL AVESD025
SD037SD038SD039SD040SD041SD042SD043SD044
SD053SD052SD045SD046
SD051
SD050SD049
SD048SD069ALPINE MEADOWSSD070SD071SD072
SD073
SD057SD067SD058SD059SD060SD062SD063SD064
SD068
SD074SD075SD076SD077
SD078SD079SD080
SD088SD087SD086
SD085
SD091SD092SD093SD081
36"36"
SD083SD084SD094
SD100SD102
SD103SD10436"SD105
SD106SD101
SD122SD123SD124
SD125
SD095SD096
SD097SD098SD099
42"
SD109
SD120
SD121
SD112
SD113
SD114
SD115
SD116
SD117
SD118SD129
SD128
SD110SD111
SD119
SD127
SD126
PINE AVENUE
SD030
48"
60"
96"
SD026SD027
SD034
SD024
60"60"SD005
SD035SD036
SD082
54"48"SD089
84"90"BICKMORE AVE60"48"
60"3'x4' RCB54" 7'x3' RCB
36"36"
66"72"78"
60"60"
36"30"
30"
SD065
DOUBLE 8' x 8' RCB
DOUBLE 8' x 8' RCB
78"90"
96"
SD06154"48"SD066
48"
72" 48"
30"
48"
60"
36"
SD134
SD133
6'x4' RCB
36"48"
72"60"
24"
54"
24"
SD130
SD131SD132
24" SD136
SD136SD136
SD135
SD135
SD137SD137SD137
SD047
90"
12'x4' RCB
42"
120"
24"24"SD142
SD138
GROVE AVE
120"SD140SD139SD141
SD004
STREET "C"STREET "B"
STREET "D"
STREET "A"CUCAMONGA AVE96"LINE GSD102
LEGENDCITY OF CHINO"THE PRESERVE" - STORM DRAIN DIF
SD001
REVISED ON 4/13/2026SEE RIGHT
SEE LEFT
95 MAYHEW AVEWEST PRESERVE LOOP
WEST PRESERVE LOOPWESTGATE ST
MILL CREEK AVE
HELLMAN AVECARPENTER AVE
FLIGHT AVEGROVE AVEHELLMAN AVEEUCLID AVE
STGARDEN
EAST PRESERVE LOOP
EUCLID AVE
BICKMORE AVE
VAN VLIET AVEFLIGHT AVEREMINGTON AVE
HELLMAN AVE
CHANNEL VIEW ST
EUCLID AVE
MARKET ST
KIMBALL AVE
RINCON MEADOWS AVE
ACADEMY STEAST PRESERVE LOOP
AVEPARKDISCOVERY
HELLMAN AVEPARK
BICKMORE AVEALPINE MEADOWS AVE
FOREST PARK STFOREST PARK STBRIDLEPATH
MAYHEW AVE
JOHNSON AVE
MEADOWHOUSE AVE
MERRILL AVE
BOTANY ST83'/40'
66'/40'66'/40'
66'/40'83'/54'
83'/54'83'/54'
83'/54'
94'/60'
94'/60'
94'/60'
83'/54'
83'/54'
83'/54'
94'/60'
94'/60'
75'/40'75'/40'78'/40'78'/40'75'/40'
MILL CREEK AVE (CHINO-CORONA ROAD N/S)
83'/40'
83'/40' 96'/40'
92'/44'
92'/44'
84'/46'
206'/168'
206'/168'
200'/90'
92'/62'
78'/58'
113'/74'
115'/74'
115'/74'
113'/73'
113'/74'
123'/73'107'/66'130'/66'104'/66'104'/66'104'/66'104'/66' 92'/62'
66'/40'
70'/44'123'/73'
104'/66'70'/44'
79'/46' 66'/40'
66'/40'98'/74'66'/40'
PINE AVENUE136'/90'136'/90'136'/90'136'/90'136'/90'136'/90'136'/90'136'/90' 74'/42'74'/42'
70'/44'206'/168'
PINE AVENUE
ST001ST002ST003ST004ST005ST006ST006ST007
ST079
ST027ST030
ST026
ST040
ST050
ST059
ST037
ST069
ST070
ST063
ST028
ST048ST049
ST046
ST047
ST025
ST009
INT016
ST072
ST073
ST074
ST044
ST045
ST016
INT034
INT008
INT019
INT028
INT015
INT038
INT054
INT003
ST008ST010
ST024
ST011ST012ST013ST014ST015
ST021
ST022
ST023
ST029
ST032
ST03376'/46'
ST034ST035ST038ST039
ST041ST042
ST043
ST051 ST052
ST053ST054
ST056 ST057
ST058ST066
ST064
ST083ST065
ST068
ST075
INT048MAIN STINT029
INT027MAIN STINT025INT023INT022
INT013INT014INT010INT009
INT002
INT006INT005
INT021
INT031PINE AVENUE
INT012
INT033
INT011
INT004
INT02479'/46' INT02676'/46'
INT018
INT037
INT032
INT030 INT039INT040INT041INT042
INT044INT046INT047
INT050INT051INT052
INT049
INT007
ST036
INT017INT056
ST061ST062
ST055
68'/42'
70'/47'
74'/44'
LEGACY PARK ST
ST080 ST081ST082
66'/40'
74'/44'
98'/64'98'/64'
130'/66'
CHINO-CORONA ROAD E/WINT053
INT045
INT043
INT020
SULTANACAMPUSBON VIEWCUCAMONGAPARCOWALKERBAKERVINEYARD
CHANDLER ST
94'/46'
ST017
68'/42'ST060
INT001 INT058INT057
KIMBALL AVEST019ST020
ST031INT035
ST071ST067
ST018
ST085
ST084
INT036
LEGENDCITY OF CHINO"THE PRESERVE" - STREET DIF
ST001
PREPARED ON 4/28/2026
76'/46'
INT001
96