Covina City Council
March 19, 2024

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 13

RETAIL MARKET HISTORY

CITY OF COVINA
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF Total Vacant Percent
% Total
Net Absorption
SF Total
NNN Rent
Overall
2022 YTD 4,215,123 198,039 4.7% 40,346 $21.79
2021 4,212,637 235,899 5.6% (97,497) $19.42
2020 4,231,620 157,385 3.7% (12,154) $17.17
2019 4,235,872 149,483 3.5% 17,460 $18.02
2018 4,259,867 190,938 4.5% (86,724) $15.48
2017 4,368,042 212,389 4.9% 78,470 $15.87
2016 4,368,042 290,859 6.7% 43,037 $17.00
2015 4,368,042 333,896 7.6% 102,796 $14.57
2014 4,368,042 436,692 10.0% (69,483) $15.19
2013 4,368,042 367,209 8.4% 62,070 $15.86
2012 4,323,042 384,279 8.9% (84,060) $15.90
2011 4,309,005 286,182 6.6% (80,582) $15.63
2010 4,310,744 207,339 4.8% 11,862 $16.22
2009 4,200,445 108,902 2.6% (25,608) $16.99
2008 4,200,445 83,294 2.0% 101,726 $18.55
Source: CoStar (Accessed July 2022)
Note: Costar defines Triple Net (NNN) as “a lease where the tenant is responsible for all expenses associated with their proportional share of occupancy of the building, except long-lived structural components and management charges.” 0%
5%
10%
15%
2022 YTD
20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021 Vacancy Rate
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2022 YTD
20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021 NNN Rent

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 14

OFFICE MARKET HISTORY

CITY OF COVINA
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF Total Vacant Percent
% Total
Net Absorption
SF Total
Gross Rent
Overall
2022 YTD 2,018,816 63,582 3.1% 11,444 $23.16
2021 2,018,816 75,026 3.7% 12,056 $24.12
2020 2,023,336 91,602 4.5% (42,460) $24.26
2019 2,023,336 49,142 2.4% 53,427 $22.05
2018 2,023,336 102,569 5.1% (6,668) $19.55
2017 2,023,336 95,901 4.7% (27,736) $20.32
2016 2,023,336 68,165 3.4% 35,138 $19.79
2015 2,023,336 103,303 5.1% 47,471 $18.95
2014 2,023,336 150,774 7.5% (25,053) $18.66
2013 2,036,137 138,522 6.8% 54,364 $16.93
2012 2,036,137 192,886 9.5% 35,954 $18.16
2011 2,057,954 250,657 12.2% (13,908) $18.19
2010 2,057,954 236,749 11.5% (37,365) $18.68
2009 2,057,954 199,384 9.7% (62,893) $20.30
2008 2,057,954 136,491 6.6% 15,310 $22.50
Source: CoStar (Accessed July 2022)
Note: Costar defines Full Service / Gross Rent as “a rental rate that includes normal building standard services which are provided and paid by the landlord.”
0%
5%
10%
15%
2022 YTD
20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021 Vacancy Rate
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
2022 YTD
20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021 Gross Rent

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 15

MULTIFAMILY MARKET HISTORY

CITY OF COVINA
Year Inventory Units Vacant Units Vacancy Percent Net Absorption (Units)
Asking Rent
(Unit/Mo.)
2021 5,148 75 1.5% 14 $1,795
2020 5,138 79 1.5% 63 $1,756
2019 5,138 142 2.8% 62 $1,666
2018 5,119 184 3.6% 4 $1,633
2017 5,119 188 3.7% (15) $1,587
2016 5,119 173 3.4% 47 $1,520
2015 5,114 216 4.2% (22) $1,463
2014 5,106 186 3.6% 16 $1,403
2013 5,106 201 3.9% - $1,306
2012 5,106 201 3.9% 25 $1,262
2011 5,106 226 4.4% 17 $1,234
2010 5,106 243 4.8% (13) $1,217
2009 5,106 231 4.5% 26 $1,192
2008 5,106 257 5.0% (10) $1,199
2007 5,106 246 4.8% (58) $1,290
Source: CoStar (Accessed July 2022)
Note: Costar defines Asking Rent as “average monthly amount the lessor is asking for in order to lease their building/space/land.” Analytic filters exclude senior / student / military / corporation / vacation housing / co-ops; limit search to buildings with 5+ units; and Market / Market Affordable rent types.
0%
5%
10%
15%
2022 YTD
20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021 Vacancy Rate
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
2022
YTD
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Asking Rent

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 16
Source: ESRI BAO Online, CoStar
Notes: CoStar defines a Proposed Project as “land considered for a particular future use or a building that has been announced for future development. The project is not expected to start construction in the next 12 months. Typically, Building Permits have not been issued.

COVINA

CASMCP STUDY AREA

RECENT / UPCOMING

CONSTRUCTION
According to CoStar property data, the
Study Area includes a number of recent
development projects, as well as a few
projects that are under construction or
proposed (not necessarily entitled).

Private sector development is often
centered along the Citrus Ave, San
Bernardino Rd, and Badillo St corridors.

Apartments
12 units
(proposed)
Industrial
Warehouse
85,200 SF
(2019)
Hotel
68 Rooms
(proposed)
Apartments
10 units
(2022)
Office
10,100 SF
(under construction)
Retail
9,200 SF
(2020)
Note: Map not to scale
Retail / Residential
(under construction)
Retail
14,000 SF
(proposed)

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 17
Source: ESRI BAO Online, SCAG, City of Covina
COVINA

CASMCP STUDY AREA

COMMERCIAL/RETAIL

POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SCAG’s Housing Element Parcel Tool
(HELPR) identifies commercial/retail sites
that have a ratio of improvement value
to land assessed value less than 1.0,
indicating non-vacant sites that may have
realistic infill development potential.

Several parcels along the Citrus Ave and
San Bernardino Road corridors meet
these criteria.

The Transit Oriented Development
Opportunity Sites were identified in the
project’s RFP as locations with
development potential.

Note: Map not to scale
SCAG Lower-valued
/ potential infill
TOD Opportunity
Sites

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 18
Source: ESRI BAO Online, SCAG
COVINA

CASMCP STUDY AREA

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE

FINANCING DISTRICT
The City is currently evaluating the
potential use of an Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District, a tax
increment financing tool to fund public
infrastructure that can help catalyze
private investment. (Bus service would
not typically fall into that category)
The EIFD focus area is centered around
the Town Center Specific Plan area and
southerly along the Citrus Avenue
mixed-use corridor.

Note: Map not to scale
INSERT EIFD Map

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 19
Source: CoStar
Note: Market rent data CoStar’s estimate of market rents for the area based on activity in the region, actual rents may vary; Upcoming SF includes properties identified by CoStar as Under Construction, Final Planning, or Proposed Commercial Real Estate Summary
2022 Q2 Retail Office Multifamily
Inventory 1,042,100 SF 286,200 SF 297 Units
Buildings 150 39 6
Inventory
Change Since
2017
+ 17,200 SF - + 10 Units
Vacancy 1.4% 3.7% 1.3%
Market Rent* $25.79 $25.74 $1,175
Upcoming 40,000 SF - 12 Units
The Citrus Ave Corridor is characterized by 1 million SF of retail buildings / shopping centers, a downtown area with a performing arts center and surrounding restaurants / businesses, and almost 300 residential units.

Recent Market Activity
• 4,400 SF retail building at 1118 N Citrus Ave, built in 2020 • 6,450 SF storefront retail space at 445-495 N Citrus Ave, built in 2020 • 6,367 SF freestanding retail at 435-445 N Citrus Ave, built in 2020 • 10-unit apartment building at 135 E Badillo St, built in 2022, with 3,100 SF of ground floor retail
• 40,000 SF retail / residential building proposed at 137 W San Bernardino • 12-unit apartment building at 155 E San Bernardino Road, expected to be delivered in August 2023.

There are many potential areas for future development particularly in areas near Covina Station area and areas at the south end of the corridor.

CITRUS AVENUE CORRIDOR

OVERVIEW

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 20 Source: CoStar, ESRI BAO Online

CITRUS AVENUE CORRIDOR
MAP
Arrow Hwy
Covina Blvd
Citrus Ave
Rowland St
Badillo St
554 N Citrus Ave

0.43 AC Site
155 E San Bernardino Rd

0.51 AC Site
345 Citrus Ave

2.05 AC Site
Metrolink
Station
Transit
Center
Citrus Ave
Downtown Retail
& Office Cluster
Multifamily

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 21
Commercial Real Estate Summary
2022 Q2 Retail Office MF Industrial
Inventory 530,900 SF 168,800
SF 384 Units 461,600 SF
Properties 98 34 37 55
Inventory Change
Since 2017 -11,200 SF 0 0 0
Vacancy 3.0% 0% 2.0% 2.8%
Market Rent* $26.27 $28.20 $1,528 $17.37
Upcoming SF* 40,000 0 12 0
The San Bernardino Road Corridor is characterized by significant retail buildings, medical office near the medical center, retail shops / restaurants near the intersection with Citrus Ave, and almost 400 residential units, as well as automotive and light industrial properties.

Recent Market Activity
• 6,450 SF storefront retail space at 445-495 N Citrus Ave, built in 2020
• 6,367 SF freestanding retail at 435-445 N Citrus Ave, built in 2020 • A proposed 40,000 SF storefront retail / residential building at 137 W San Bernardino Road
• A proposed 12-unit apartment building at 155 E San Bernardino Road, expected to be delivered in August 2023.

There are many potential areas for future development particularly in areas near intersections with Citrus Ave and the mixed-industrial area bear the Metrolink Station.

SAN BERNARDINO ROAD CORRIDOR

OVERVIEW
Source: CoStar
Note: Market rent data CoStar’s estimate of market rents for the area based on activity in the region, actual rents may vary; Upcoming SF includes properties identified by CoStar as Under Construction, Final Planning, or Proposed

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 22 Source: CoStar, ESRI BAO Online

SAN BERNARDINO ROAD CORRIDOR
MAP
Citrus Ave
Azusa Ave
Grand Ave
237 W San Bernardino Rd

0.26 AC Site
554 N Citrus Rd Rd

0.43 AC Site
155 E San Bernardino Rd

0.51 AC Site
Metrolink
Station
Downtown Retail
& Office Cluster
Medical Center
Cluster
Multifamily

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 23
Commercial Real Estate Summary
2022 Q2 Retail Office Multifamily
Inventory 327,800 SF 400,000 SF 518 Units
Properties 51 63 70
Inventory
Change Since
2017
- -4,500 SF +10 Units
Vacancy 0.8% 2.1% 3.6%
Market Rent* $24.77 $27,59 $1,595
Upcoming
SF* 10,100 SF
The Badillo Street Corridor is characterized by small retail buildings, small medical office buildings (particularly around the medical center area), and single-family neighborhoods, and low-rise / garden style apartment buildings.

Recent Market Activity
• 10-unit apartment building at 135 E Badillo St, built in 2022, with 3,100 SF of ground floor retail
• 10,100 SF+ office building is under construction at 304 W Badillo St There are many potential areas for future development particularly in areas near intersections with Citrus Ave and Azusa Ave.

BADILLO STREET CORRIDOR

OVERVIEW
Source: CoStar
Note: Market rent data CoStar’s estimate of market rents for the area based on activity in the region, actual rents may vary; Upcoming SF includes properties identified by CoStar as Under Construction, Final Planning, or Proposed

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 24 Source: CoStar, ESRI BAO Online

BADILLO STREET CORRIDOR
MAP
Citrus Ave
Azusa Ave
Grand Ave
Multifamily
Medical Center
Cluster
Downtown Retail
& Office Cluster

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 25

CASE STUDY REVIEW

TRANSIT / ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The addition of bike lanes / pedestrian areas in commercial corridors is sometimes met with apprehension from local businesses, who are concerned about negative economic impacts due to the loss of parking in front of their businesses.

However, in a variety of case studies from other cities, pedestrian and bike improvements have been analyzed to understand their economic impact – in most cases, these studies tend to show either a neutral or positive impact on the vitality of retail businesses on streets impacted by road diets.

Key findings include:
 Bicyclists and pedestrians can be a sizable portion of a businesses’ clientele in a downtown area; while their pertrip spending can be lower than that of customers who drive, they tend to make a larger number of trips  Merchants in downtown areas tend to over-estimate the percentage of their customers who come via car and underestimate the percentage who bike or walk, thus over-estimating the impact of lost parking  Non-drivers can spend a long amount of time in a downtown area, likely leading to greater spending within the downtown district (and additional spending at locations other than their primary destination)

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 26

CASE STUDY REVIEW
Portland State University – Economic and Business Impacts of Mobility Improvements Researchers used a variety of analytic approaches and data sources to estimate the economic impacts of bicycle and street improvements in seven corridors across four cities – Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; Minneapolis, MN; and Memphis, TN). The analysis observed some mixed results, but generally found that street improvements have either positive impacts on corridor economic and business performance or nonsignificant impacts.

York Avenue Road Diet – Los Angeles
In 2006, the City of Los Angeles put 1.1 miles of York Boulevard (between Eagle Rock Blvd and Avenue 52) on a road diet – narrowing the street from four mixed-use travel lanes to two mixed-use travel lanes, a turn lane, and bicycle lanes.

According to a study conducted in 2011/2012:
 85% of merchants felt new bike lanes did not hurt their businesses, while a similarly high percentage of customers felt the bike lanes were important roadway additions
 Businesses and customers alike seem to prefer slower vehicle speeds or feel that speed is unimportant  Businesses assumed that ~60-70% of their customers arrived by car, only 15-30% customers surveyed arrived by car  Analysis found that the road diet had little impact on property sales, values sales tax collections, and business formation

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 27

CASE STUDY REVIEW
UC Davis – Bicyclists as Consumers
Scholars from UC Davis published a study in 2014 that analyzed the differences in shopping behavior between bicyclists and motorists in downtown Davis. The study found that cyclists made more frequent shopping trips than customers traveling by car, and also found that cyclists spent slightly more on their purchases than motorists. The study also found that people who biked downtown were more loyal customers to the downtown area – they spent a larger share of their total spending downtown than drivers did.

Toronto – Economic Impacts of Removing Parking for Bike Lanes A series of economic impact studies were conducted by The Centre for Active Transportation on bike lane corridors in Toronto between 2009 and 2017. The studies found that a large majority of visitors to the study areas arrive by active transportation (bicycle or walking), and that merchants tended to overestimate the percentage of their customers who arrived by car. The studies also found that visitors who used active transportation visited more often and spent more money compared to customers who drove to the area, presumably to purchase a specific item.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 28

CASE STUDY REVIEW
Institute for Transportation & Development Policy – Economic Case for Cycling A 2022 report by researchers at the ITDP notes that more trips by bicycles benefit individuals, businesses and cities, and that more demand for bicycles spurs jobs and economic opportunities. The report notes that  Bicycles have a much lower cost for purchase / operation / maintenance than private cars  Reducing vehicle trips minimizes costs to society such as congestion, air pollution / green house gas emissions  High quality cycling infrastructure can raise property values / municipal revenues  Improving access by bicycle to commercial areas can result in higher retail sales  Bicycle infrastructure can facilitate bicycle tourism and recreational opportunities  Mobility infrastructure can also support private investment in shared micromobility services (such as bikeshare / e-scooter)  Cycling infrastructure can be used for local goods delivery while reducing pollution / congestion Smart Growth America – Complete Streets Project Outcomes A 2015 report from Smart Growth America notes that Complete Streets projects can be a vital part of an economic development strategy, playing a key role in downtown revitalization efforts. The report’s economic analysis assessed business impacts on 22 commercial areas. Overall, the Complete Streets projects were found to be supportive of employment, new businesses, and higher property values, and the report notes that some cities observed higher retail sales along the improved corridors.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 29

CASE STUDY REVIEW
Sources and Links
Liu, Jenny H. and Shi, Wei. Understanding Economic and Business Impacts of Street Improvements for Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility – A Multicity Multiapproach Exploration. NITC-RR-1031/1161. Portland, OR: Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC), 2020.

Link: https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/NITC-RR-1031- 1161_Understanding_Economic_and_Business_Impacts_of_Street_Improvements_for_Bicycle_and_Pedestrian_Mobility.pdf McCormick, Cullen. “York Boulevard: The Economics of a Road Diet.” Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA Link:
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/yorkblvd_mccormick.pdf
Popovich, Natalie, and Susan L. Handy. "Bicyclists as consumers: Mode choice and spending behavior in downtown Davis, California." Transportation research record 2468, no. 1 (2014): 47-54.Link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/NataliePopovich/publication/276803953_Bicyclists_as_Consumers/links/5661cee208ae4931cd5bcd20/Bicyclists-as-Consumers.pdf Information about the Toronto studies can be found on the Centre for Active Transportation’s website here: https://www.tcat.ca/resources/bloor-streeteconomic-impact-studies/ Making the Economic Case for Cycling, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. June 2022. Report and other information can be found here:
https://www.itdp.org/publication/economics-of-cycling/
Safer Streets, Stronger Economies – Complete Streets Project Outcomes From Across the Country. National Complete Streets Coalition and Smart Growth America, March 2015. Link: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/safer-streets-stronger-economies.pdf

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 30
CASE STUDY – IMPACT OF CLOSING STREETS TO VEHICLES &

MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS

VENTURA / SANTA BARBARA / CULVER CITY
Jan –
June
Visits
State St -
Santa
Barbara
Culver Blvd -
Culver City
Main St -
Ventura
2017 1,646,775 1,153,117 542,161
2018 1,629,856 995,014 477,641
2019 1,601,678 938,047 483,486
2020 922,756 671,107 295,176
2021 1,011,654 763,463 326,118
2022 1,361,256 970,388 457,067
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
January - June Visits
State St - Santa Barbara
Culver Blvd - Culver City
Main St - Ventura
Avg / Median Dwell Time
Jan –
June
Visits
State St -
Santa
Barbara
Culver Blvd -
Culver City
Main St -
Ventura
2017 NA NA NA
2018 NA NA NA
2019 79 / 65 81 / 60 104 / 74
2020 72 / 58 68 / 47 95 / 67
2021 70 / 56 62 / 42 117 / 77
2022 75 / 59 68 / 49 111 / 78
As a response to the COVID-19
pandemic, the cities of Santa Barbara and
Ventura have each closed a portion of
their downtown districts to vehicular
traffic, increasing pedestrian access and
outdoor dining spaces. The City of Culver
City also made mobility changes during
this time period, adding a dedicated bus
lane and bike lanes to several downtown
corridors.

Using PlacerAI data, Kosmont found that
closure of major downtown streets has
resulted in visitation levels and length of
visits generally in-line with, and in some
cases exceeding, pre-COVID patterns.

Source: Placer.ai
Note: Visit data filtered for visits from visitors with homes located within 5 miles of downtown areas to exclude tourism effects.

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Miguel Núñez
Fehr & Peers
From: Narasimha Murthy, PhD, TE
Date: August 18, 2022
Subject: Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area)
Technical Memorandum

1. Introduction
The major project objective is to investigate the study area, and the feasibility for developing Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plans (ASMCP) in the City of Covina (City). The city is in Los Angeles County, California; estimated at 22 miles (35 km) east of downtown Los Angeles, in the San Gabriel Valley. The current population is 51,268 according to the 2020 census.

A small stretch of the Interstate 10 freeway is to the south of the city. The city is served by Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway) to the north, Interstate 605 (San Gabriel River Freeway) to the west, State Route 57 (Orange Freeway) to the east, and Interstate 10 to the south. The Metrolink San Bernardino Line passes through the city just north of the downtown area and Foothill Transit Center (Transit Center) is north of San Bernardino Avenue.

The City has a total area of seven (7) square miles (18 sq km); City of West Covina borders the City on both the south and west side. City of Irwindale is to the west, as well as the unincorporated County area of Vincent, and the City of Baldwin Park. Cities of Azusa and Glendora are to the north, the unincorporated County area of Charter Oak to the northeast, City of San Dimas to the east, the unincorporated County area of Ramona, and the City of Pomona to the southeast.

The city has grown in the past 50 years and has basic infrastructure built across the city, including roads, transportation, water, and electricity (energy). The city has public buildings, private offices, schools ranging from elementary to college, medical centers, and big box commercial stores such as Home Depot, Costco, Walmart, and IKEA. In addition, it has the Covina Metrolink station and Covina Transit Center.

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

2 1.1 Project Study Area
The study area for this project is shown in Figure 1(bordered in black), Arrow Highway to the north, Grand Avenue to the east, Azusa Avenue to the west, and the I-10 freeway to the south (close to Workman Avenue). The estimated total study area is three (3) square miles (approximately 1.5 miles east-west and

2.0 miles north-south). Figure 1 shows the Covina Metrolink Station and the Covina Transit Center along Citrus Avenue to the north of San Bernardino Road. Citrus Avenue passes through the middle of the study area. Figure 2 shows the north-south and east-west oriented street network in the study area with the existing right-of-way (R/W).

The major north-south oriented arterials are Azusa Avenue, Hollenbeck Avenue, Citrus Avenue, Barranca Avenue, 1st Avenue, 2nd Avenue, and Grand Avenue. The major east-west oriented arterials are Arrow Highway, Covina Boulevard, Cypress Street, San Bernardino Road, Badillo Street, Rowland Avenue, College Street, Cienega Avenue, and Workman Street.

There are local minor north-south and east-west streets that form the entire roadway network in the study area connecting businesses, schools, and residential areas within the city.

The City’s downtown area in Figure 1 (smaller circle area) is between Badillo Street to the south, College Street to the north, 2nd Avenue to the east, and 3rd Street to the west. The downtown area has restaurants, shops, cinemas, and attractions within the small area. In the downtown area the travel lanes are reduced from two (2) to one (1), parking restrictions with additional pedestrian safety signs are provided.

The downtown area remains busy during both weekdays and weekends. Figures 3 and 4 shows the typical Covina downtown area with parking on both sides of the road with one (1) through lane. Citrus Avenue from north to south has varying posted speeds of 40, 35, and 25 miles per hour (mph) from south to north in different sections of the road. The speed limit in the downtown area is 25 mph.

The existing right-of-way (R/W) for the major north-south and east-west streets are provided in Figure 2.

The R/W for the major arterials ranges between 80 and 50 feet. Most of the roads are on level terrain and the grades are not greater than 5 percent. The major roads have a posted speed of 40 miles per hour (MPH), except in the downtown area. The intersection of major north-south and east-west streets have been signalized (most have protected left turns and yield phase depending on the volume of traffic at the intersection). The following section provides the brief roadway characteristics of the major roads.

North-South Major Streets
Azusa Avenue (Highway 39) is a major road with 80 feet R/W and forms the western limit of the study area. This major north-south street has two-way turning lanes (TWTL), left turn pockets (LTP), medians, right turn pocket (RTP0 and it has 2 lanes in each direction. It connects the I-10 to the south and SR 210 freeway to the north. The street has commercial establishments and less residential units. There two (2) High Schools to the north of San Bernardino Road
Hollenbeck Avenue has 60 feet R/W. It has bike lane with two (2) lanes in each direction between AR/W Highway and Covina Blvd. To the north of Cypress Street, it is mostly commercial, whereas to the south of Cypress it is residential. There is a school in the corner of Rowland Street and Hollenbeck Avenue and a Baseball Park to the north of Covina Blvd.

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

3 Citrus Avenue has 80 feet R/W, and it is in the center of the study area. The downtown area is located to the north of Badillo Street to San Bernardino Road along Citrus Avenue. The downtown area posted speed is 25 MPH. The two (2) travel lanes are reduced to one (1) travel lane, the intersections in this section are clearly marked with different tiles, including mid-block pedestrian crossings. Additional roadside parking is provided by removing a through lane for travel, which assists in reducing auto speed. To the north of E Front Street there are single family residential units up to Cypress Street on both sides. But Citrus Avenue is mostly commercial with limited bike lane to the south between Covina Blvd and E Front Street.
2 nd Avenue starts at E Front Street and ends at E Rowland Street. An important north-south street with 80 feet R/W. Majority of the roadway is residential, except between Navilla Place to Rowland Street it is commercial.

Barranca Avenue has 60 feet R/W and to the north of Covina Blvd mixed commercial use. To the south up to Rowland Avenue mostly residential.

Grand Avenue forms the eastern limit of the study area. Like Azuza Avenue it provides access to both I10 and SR 210 freeways. From Rowland Avenue to San Bernardino Road, it is mostly residential with 2 lanes in each direction. To the north of San Bernardino Road, it is mixed commercial and residential.

East-West Streets
Arrow Highway is a major arterial with 2 lanes in each direction with 80 feet R/W. The arterial mixed use of commercial and residential units between Azuza Avenue and Grand Avenue. Arrow Highway is the northern limit of the study area. Like Azusa Avenue and Grand Avenue, it has left and right turn pockets at major intersections and acts as a major thoroughfare for the region.

Covina Blvd has 60 feet R/W, and it has bike lanes between Hollenbeck Avenue and Citrus Avenue with mostly residential units. At the intersection of Covina Blvd and Citrus Avenue is the Covina Transit Center.

It has two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets at major intersections with median.

Cypress Avenue has 60 feet R/W with two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and median.

Mostly residential units along Cypress Avenue between N Cornwell Avenue to Grand Avenue.

San Bernardino Street has 60 feet R/W with 2 lanes in each direction with mixed residential units and commercial use. Between Azusa Avenue and 3rd Street majority land use is residential. From 3rd Street to Grand Avenue, it is commercial plus light industrial areas.

Badillo Street has 80 feet R/W with two lanes in each direction. It is a major arterial with left and right turn pockets and medians. It has bike lane throughout between Azusa Avenue and Grand Avenue, except between 2nd and 4th streets. Badillo Steet is mostly mixed residential and commercial use.

Puente Street has 50 feet R/W with two lanes in each direction with single family residential units with schools and park, limited commercial use along the arterial.

Rowland Avenue forms the southern limit of the study area, and it has 70 feet R/W with two lanes in each direction with mixed residential and commercial use.

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

4 Figure 1 Existing Land Use and Project Study Area

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

5 Figure 2 Project Study Area – Major Roadway Network

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

6 Figure 3 Downtown Covina - North of Badillo Street
Figure 4 Downtown Covina – Intersections & Pedestrian Crosswalk

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

7 2. Infrastructure and Transportation System
Currently, cities are fraught with infrastructure challenges, whether it is short- or long-term, building new infrastructure, or maintaining it. The recent trend of declining tax revenues and transportation funds makes it difficult for local governments to maintain basic services, let alone plan for future infrastructure needs.

This study is targeted towards providing active transportation options and establishing a multimodal connectivity plan for the City by using the existing infrastructure and adding the necessary elements for travel and safety.

2.1 Study Area – Existing Infrastructure Status
The entire study area was surveyed by driving through the roadway network both north-south and eastwest streets. During the field survey, notes were made on important road elements such as signalization, bikeways, left turn pockets, school zones, pedestrian signs, major and minor shopping centers and strips, cinemas, downtown area, and any other road elements of importance. Also, photos were taken at important roadways and intersections for further analysis as needed for the study.

2.1.1 Existing Conditions
Majority of the streets in the study area have mixed commercial and residential (single family homes to apartments) activities and there are streets exclusively with single and multi-family housing. There are residential units near educational institutions, such as elementary and high schools, located close to these residential areas. This provides the students to travel (walk/bike) to the schools from the nearby residences.

In the study area, there are major north-south and east-west streets that serve the traffic needs as shown in Figure 2. The major north-south oriented arterials are Azusa Avenue, Hollenbeck Avenue, Citrus Avenue, Barranca Avenue, 1st Avenue, 2nd Avenue, and Grand Avenue. The major east-west oriented arterials are Arrow Highway, Covina Boulevard, Cypress Street, San Bernardino Road, Badillo Street, Rowland Avenue, College Street, Cienega Avenue, and Workman Street.

The majority of the major intersections in the study area have adequate left turn pockets and the major intersections are signalized depending on the volume of traffic at the intersections. All the major roads have 40 mph as posted speed, with exceptions along Citrus Avenue near the downtown area and near school zones having reduced speeds (25 mph). The minor intersections intersecting the major roads have stop sign control. In addition, near school zones, proper signage indicating pedestrian crossing, and bikeway lanes are marked for the safety of road users.

The right-of-way (R/W) ranges between 80 feet and 50 feet for all the major north-south and east-west roads as shown in Figure 2. At major intersections with high volumes the right turn pockets are provided.

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

8 Grand Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and Azusa Avenue have direct access to freeways (I-10 to the south and SR-210 to the north). The remaining north-south and east-west roads have indirect access to freeways using the major connectors. The downtown area described in Section 1 and shown in Figures 1, 3 and 4 has reduced speed of 25 mph for a limited distance north of Badillo Street and reduced number of through lanes from two lanes (2) to one (1), which provide more parking in the downtown area and also assists to reduce auto speeds.

In the downtown area, well-marked pedestrian crossings with different road surface color (tiles are used) for visibility and pedestrian signs as shown in Figure 4. This arrangement also provides advanced notice to drivers entering the downtown area and clearly differentiates other areas within the study area, such as school zones. Most of the intersections in the study area meet the required 4' or wider and most observed intersections have curb ramps and truncated domes at all corners. Some of the major arterials allow curbside parking as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Roadside Parking – San Bernardino Road

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

9 3. Major Transportation Centers
The Southern Pacific Railroad and the Metrolink San Bernardino Line pass through the city just north of the downtown area. The Covina Transit Center is served by both local and express bus lines and is located at the Citrus Avenue and Covina Boulevard intersection, as shown in Figure 6. The Transit Center in Covina has 360 estimated parking spaces. From the Covina Transit Center, bus connections are available to the Cities of Azusa, Glendora, and Walnut.

The Covina Metrolink station is located three-quarter of a mile to the south of the Covina Transit Center.

It located at 600 N Citrus Avenue to the east between Front Street and Edna Place as shown in Figure 7.

The station serves the San Bernardino line of Metrolink connecting Downtown Los Angeles (west) and Downtown San Bernardino (east), passing through Downtown Pomona. There are an estimated 1000 parking spaces in a parking lot and parking structure located close to the station with a daily fee.

3.1.1 Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
One of the project tasks is to identify a suitable location for the development of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) site. The City has provided twelve (12) suitable TOD sites, one must be identified as the most suitable site as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 6 Covina Transit Center

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

10 SB 743 (Steinberg, 2013) updates the way transportation impacts are measured in California for new development projects, making sure facilities are built to allow Californians more options to drive less. TOD integrates the building of housing, retail, office, and public space together focused on transit stations (both bus and rail). This infill of development allows people within comfortable walking distance, usually within a quarter mile, of a public trail transit station to reduce automobile dependence for local and work trips.

In addition, the attraction of an accessible transit system increases the land use value in the area, commuter’s health risks are reduced, and provides additional active transportation activities to the community [1,2]. The selection of suitable site factors needs to be considered and evaluated such as the location, proximity to transit centers, economic feasibility (land value and taxes), size, share of commercial and residential (usually apartments), and availability of land.

The significant benefits of building adjacent to rail transit stations through TODs has been proven worldwide with regards of strengthening local economic conditions, increase of transit ridership, improved social and health benefits, increase of land-values and real estate, while creating a more sustainable community [3]. _____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Potential Health Implications and Health Cost Reductions of Transit-Induced Physical Activity I.N. Sener, Richard J. Lee and Zachary Elgart. Journal of Transportation Health, June 2016 pp133- 140.

2. https://doi.org/10.46830/wripn.20.00082; Synergizing Land Value Capture and Transit-Oriented Development: A Study of Bengaluru Metro.

3. Measuring the success of transit-oriented development; JL Renne, C Curtis, and Luca Bartolini - Transit Oriented Development, 2016 - taylorfrancis.com
Figure 7 Access to Metrolink Station, Covina

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

11 Figure 8 Transit Oriented Development Sites Identified

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

12 4. Existing Active Transportation
Active transportation is described modes of travel such as walking, cycling, in-line skating, and skateboarding using roadway and sidewalk surfaces. It is also combined with other modes of travel such as buses and trains. Currently, there are bike lanes marked on City streets.

The identified streets with bike lanes are Citrus Avenue, Badillo Street, 2nd Street, Hollenbeck Avenue, and Covina Boulevard. Only Badillo Street has bike lane from Azusa Avenue to Grand Avenue (with a gap between 2nd and 4th Avenue), while the remaining streets are only partially marked for a bike lane. Figures 9,10 11 and 12 shows typical bike lanes, road markings, and signs in the study area.

Adding more bike lanes to selected road networks helps to encourage bike riding and increases access to destinations by bike. In addition, health risks are reduced [1]. The selection of additional active transportation facilities such as bike lanes will require evaluation of the streets, safety, and accessibility to attractions such as schools and commercial places

4.1.1 Selection of Bike Lane Route
The safety of both pedestrians and bike riders needs to be considered in designing the Active transportation within the focused study streets in Figure 13. The development of Bike Lane Type (I, II, III, and IV) selection primarily depends on the traffic volume and operating speed characteristics of the roadway, which are often implied by their functional classification (arterial, collector, local) within various land use contexts of the city. The minimal allowable width of a bike lane is 5 feet from the face of a curb or guardrail to the bike lane stripe. The overall safety of all road users should be paramount in selecting and designing the bike facilities.

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

13 Figure 9 Bike Lane on Citrus Avenue North of Cypress Street Figure 10 Advance Bike Lane Sign (for Badillo Street)

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

14 Figure 11 Bike Lane on Badillo Street (East of Hollenbeck) with Parking Figure 12 Bike Lane, Parking and Pedestrian Crossing – 2 nd Avenue

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

15 Figure 13 Active Streets Focused Area

Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (ASCMP) Existing Conditions Infrastructure (Study Area) Technical Memorandum

16 5. Summary
A site visit was conducted to evaluate the existing infrastructure in the study area for the purpose of developing potential active transportation improvements and identifying a potential TOD site. The entire study area road network was traveled to understand the existing transportation infrastructure such as major and minor arterials, freeway access, major and minor land use developments (schools, commercial, and public buildings), transit centers (rail and bus), and safety aspects of roadway design and development.

Existing maps, City-provided data, and aerial imagery were also evaluated.

The existing bike lanes are well-marked. By increasing access to use bikes on appropriately selected road networks in the study area, the city will help encourage commuters to use multimodal transportation.

Overall safety of all road users should be paramount in selecting and designing bike lane routes.

City of Covina
Equity Outcomes
Covina Ac�ve Streets and Mul�modal
Connec�vity Plan
City of Covina
Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.

Final
January 23, 2024

Equity Outcomes 2
Final January 23, 2024

INTRODUCTION
The Covina Ac�ve Streets & Mul�modal Connec�vity Plan (Plan) seeks to further regional and local sustainability through improving the ac�ve transporta�on network. An exis�ng condi�ons analysis was conducted by Fehr&Peers and MIG for the study area where current condi�ons and data related to transporta�on – crosswalks, intersec�ons, collisions, facili�es, ameni�es, access, and ridership – were analyzed along with condi�ons related to the public realm to provide context. The exis�ng condi�ons analysis also included an Equity Study which used data and community input to iden�fy areas with barriers and challenges that create vulnerabili�es for the community. Input from the community’s habits, concerns, and experiences were gathered using a digital survey tool and community engagement.

The Equity Study u�lized data from CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Healthy Places Index 3.0, and UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement Project to examine inequi�es within the study area. • CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CES): Scores are composed of twenty-one indicators represen�ng the product of pollu�on burdens and popula�on characteris�cs, to produce an overall CES score for each census tract. A percen�le ranking for a census tract above seventy-five means that the census tract is in the top 25% of all CalEnviroScreen scores statewide. • Healthy Places Index 3.0 (HPI): Scores are composed of twenty-three community characteris�cs to quan�fy various factors that shape health. These scores can be used to iden�fy health inequi�es by comparing the well-being and health of communi�es. • UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement Project: Analyzes a set of criteria that would make it difficult for a household to afford changes in housing costs in the event of increased development. These communi�es vulnerable to displacement are referred to as sensi�ve communi�es.

The team analyzed the data from these three sources to assess what challenges each census tract experienced and whether specific areas experienced more inequi�es than others. This assessment also highlights individual burdens or characteris�cs that impact areas which do not experience as many challenges.

Data from CalEnviroScreen 4.0 designates census tract 4062.00 as a disadvantaged community. A�er reviewing all three data tools, census tracts 4061.02 and 4037.22 also experience mul�ple inequi�es.

These three census tracts will be referred to as Equity Areas.

PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY
Community input was a necessary part of the Equity Study process to hear directly from community members. A digital survey tool was used to learn about the community’s ideas to realize ac�ve streets in Covina and to gather informa�on to inform the Equity Study. The survey was launched [Month/Year] and closed [Month/Year]. Due to a low number of responses, the survey reopened in [Month/Year]. The responses gathered from the digital survey tool are from a self-selec�ng, and non-random sample. These results are reflec�ve of the experiences of those who filled out the survey, and were used to iden�fy geographies, challenges, and concerns.

Equity is the fair distribu�on and alloca�on of resources, that considers the barriers and challenges in accessing these benefits. The Built Environment and Health by the Preven�on Ins�tute states,

3 Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan “Environmental factors contribute to dispropor�onately high incidences of nega�ve health outcomes in low-income communi�es which are o�en also beset with structural and ins�tu�onal inequi�es.” Inequitable distribu�on of resources and physical infrastructure in Covina are factors that contribute to nega�ve health outcomes in this community.

The Equity Outcomes report builds on the data examined in the Equity Study to determine areas and neighborhoods where inequi�es could be addressed through improvements proposed in the Covina Ac�ve Streets & Mul�modal Connec�vity Plan.

DEFINITIONS
The following terminology will be used to ensure consistency and provide clarity in reviewing the data described in this document.
• Disadvantaged Communi�es (DAC) – as per Cal EnviroScreen 4.0, communi�es dispropor�onately burdened by mul�ple sources of pollu�on and with popula�on characteris�cs that make them more sensi�ve to pollu�on.
• Indicators – as per Cal EnviroScreen 4.0, measures of environmental condi�ons or health and vulnerability factors.
• Characteris�cs – as per Cal EnviroScreen 4.0 and Healthy Places Index, quali�es that iden�fy features of communi�es or popula�ons.
• Sensi�ve Communi�es – as per UC Berkeley’s Displacement Project, communi�es vulnerable to displacement.
• Equity Areas – for the purposes of this assessment, areas with barriers and challenges that create vulnerabili�es for popula�ons.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Of the 45 combined indicators and characteris�cs – 21 indicators and characteris�cs used by CES, 23 used by HPI, and 1 used by UC Berkeley – 26 are defined in Figure 1. All indicators and characteris�cs are important when assessing the degree to which a community experiences nega�ve impacts. This Plan informs the strategies to improve the local ac�ve transporta�on network, therefore this assessment will focus on the indicators and characteris�cs that demonstrate the opportunity for healthy outcomes through the proposed projects.

Figure 1: Legend for Table 1: Data Indicators and Characteristics Toxic releases from facili�es Low percentage of 3–4-year-olds in school PM2.5 concentra�ons in the air Low percentage of 15–17-year-olds in school Traffic impacts – pollu�on and emissions
Low percentage of popula�on over the age of
25 with a bachelor’s degree or higher
Diesel par�culate mater emissions Low comple�on rate of 2020 census Drinking water contaminants
Low percentage of households with access to
an automobile

Equity Outcomes 4
Final January 23, 2024
Ozone concentra�ons in the air
Low percentage of people living within a halfmile of a park, beach, or open space Poten�al risk for lead exposure in children living
in low-income communi�es with older housing
Low percentage of land with tree canopy in
rela�on to popula�on
High rate of emergency department visits for
asthma
Low percentage of people who own their
home
Limited English-speaking households
Households with poor quality plumbing and
basic kitchen facili�es
High unemployment for popula�ons eligible for
work force
Low-income homeowners who pay more than
50% of their income on housing
Low-income households burdened by housing
costs
Low-income renters who pay more than 50%
of their income on housing
People earning less than 200% of the federal
poverty level
Households with more than 1 occupant per
room
Low average income
Households that would have difficul�es
affording changes in housing costs
Table 1 provides a visual summary of the indicators and characteris�cs used by CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Healthy Places Index 3.0, and UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement Project. Each icon shown represents an indicator or characteris�c that is nega�vely impac�ng the listed census tract leading to poor environmental condi�ons and health outcomes in Covina. Census tracts 4062.00, 4061.02, and 4037.22, demonstrate the greatest benefit for healthy outcomes that can be addressed through the proposed projects (also see Map 1 and Map 2 in the Appendix). These census tracts are shown in red in Table 1 and are being considered Equity Areas because of the opportuni�es for posi�ve or healthy outcomes from the following nega�ve impacts:
• Diesel par�culate mater emissions
• High rate of emergency department visits for asthma
• Low average income
• Low percentage of 3–4-year-olds in school
• Low percentage of popula�on over the age of 25 with a bachelor’s degree or higher Table 1: Data Indicators and Characteristics
Tracts CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Healthy Places Index 3.0 UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project
4036.00
4037.21

5 Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan 4037.22

4038.01

4058.00
4059.00
4060.00
4061.01
4061.02

4062.00

EQUITY OUTCOMES
In addi�on to looking at transporta�on ameni�es and resources for the Covina Ac�ve Streets & Mul�modal Connec�vity Plan, the fair distribu�on of community resources and services, parks and open space, and streetscape or public realm improvements are also being considered in the neighborhoods that experience dispropor�onate impacts, as per the data from the exis�ng condi�ons analysis.

Exploring these categories iden�fies barriers and challenges the community experiences. Addressing these barriers and challenges by improving access can lead to beter health outcomes and improved

Equity Outcomes 6
Final January 23, 2024
quality of life for Covina, and more specifically people who live in the census tracts that are most burdened.

According to Parks and Public Health in Los Angeles County: A Cities and Communities Report, “Ci�es and communi�es with less park space per capita on average had higher rates of premature mortality from cardiovascular disease and diabetes, higher prevalence of childhood obesity, and greater economic hardship compared with ci�es and communi�es with more park space per capita.” Those who have access to infrastructure and ameni�es that promote ac�ve lifestyles experience beter outcomes than those who do not have access. Further, parks serve as central loca�ons for “enrollment in health and social services, youth development programs, employment events/job fairs, and nutri�on assistance programs”, places where community members gather to address health and social issues in their communi�es and can increase access to fresh produce. Parks provide more than just greenspace; they facilitate access to vital community resources and can help connect residents who otherwise would need to travel longer distances to access these resources.

The exis�ng condi�ons analysis for Covina reveals tree canopy, ozone, and par�culate mater 2.5 as issues across the en�re City. Further, Catalyst California links the impacts from climate change on air quality and temperatures to worsening condi�ons for low-income Black and Brown communi�es, emphasizing the importance of green open space that can be strategically used to promote climate resiliency (“LA County Park Equity Groups Fight to Turn Park-Poor Communi�es ‘Red to Green’”).

Numerous studies support the idea that increasing ac�vity by providing necessary infrastructure and ameni�es and encouraging safer environments help mi�gate some of the citywide inequi�es.

Respondents’ a�tude in the survey reflects behavior that is willing to be more ac�ve if needs are met and supported.

Interven�ons and improvements in the three Equity Areas can greatly improve health – mental and physical -, environmental condi�ons and even economic condi�ons by increasing access and connec�vity through the recommenda�ons.

SURVEY FEEDBACK
When asked “What type of walker describes you best?” over half of the survey responses indicated “I walk for some trips; I would walk more but have concerns (e.g., comfort, convenience, safety, distance to des�na�on)”. Respondents are willing to adopt more ac�ve lifestyles but the current condi�ons they experience do not support their needs. Further, opportuni�es to facilitate accessibility for people with disabili�es and people who use mobility aids could improve their experience as they move through the public realm leading to equitable outcomes for everyone.

Feedback received from the survey supports and reflects the findings from the exis�ng condi�ons analysis. Survey respondents suggested the following improvements which would help address their concerns:

Comfort – improvements address feeling of uneasiness and maintains peace of mind related to physical conditions resulting in positive experiences.

7 Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan • Increase shade by plan�ng shade and street trees
• Reduce vehicle speeds
• Improve condi�on of sidewalks, address missing sidewalks, and maintain unobstructed clear paths
• Incorporate consistent access to trash receptacles
• Improve access to bicycle ameni�es
• Provide transit shelters with shade, sufficient ligh�ng, and sea�ng that accommodates people of all sizes
Convenience – improvements prioritize pedestrians and active transportation by providing simple alternatives that are preferred.
• Increase connec�vity networks for pedestrians
• Priori�ze pedestrian experience in public realm
Safety – improvements that help protect pedestrians and offer peace of mind. Some challenges related to safety go beyond physical barriers and need to be addressed at the social policy level. • Increase visibility through street ligh�ng
• Improve pedestrian crossings and crosswalks
• Reduce vehicle speeds
• Provide secure bicycle ameni�es
• Implement designated protected bike lanes and paths
Distance to destinations – improvements that increase active transportation connectivity networks to areas of interest.
• Examples based on community input include:
o Downtown
o Library
o Post Office
o Fire Sta�on
o Police Sta�on
o Parks
o Grocery Stores
o Bank
The results from en�re survey can be found in the summary of community engagement in the Covina Ac�ve Streets & Mul�modal Connec�vity Plan.

INTERVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
The recommenda�ons proposed for the Covina Ac�ve Streets & Mul�modal Connec�vity Plan address concerns and barriers highlighted during the Equity Study. These recommenda�ons increase access to greenspace, improve connec�vity, make the pedestrian experience in the public realm more enjoyable, encourage the use of ac�ve transporta�on, facilitate climate resiliency, and make the City safer – for everyone.

The Covina Ac�ve Streets & Mul�modal Connec�vity Plan can address barriers and improve quality of life for Equity Areas. The Plan includes design interven�ons and proposes addressing barriers by implemen�ng projects that include:

Equity Outcomes 8
Final January 23, 2024
• Sidewalk Zone Ameni�es
o Ligh�ng
o Street furniture
o Bicycle racks
o Transit shelter
o paving
• Physical Expansions
o Sidewalk
o Treelet
o Curb extension
• Green Infrastructure
o Street trees
o Bioswales
o Permeable paving
• Curb space Management
o EV charging
o On-street parking
o Service loading
o Pick-up / Drop-off
o Micro mobility parking

CONCLUSION
Addressing the inequi�es iden�fied in the Equity Areas can bridge gaps that would result in greater outcomes not just for the en�re City but especially for those in these communi�es who live these experiences. In order to improve the ac�ve transporta�on network and further regional and local sustainability, community resources and services, parks and open space, and streetscape or public realm improvements must be fairly distributed and barriers to access these benefits need to be addressed. The implementa�on of strategies and interven�ons included in the Covina Ac�ve Streets & Mul�modal Connec�vity Plan will bring Covina one step closer to achieving more equitable outcomes.

9 Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan Appendix
Map 1: Study Area Census Tracts

Equity Outcomes 10
Final January 23, 2024
Map 2: Equity Indicators (CES 4.0 and HPI) by Census Tract

El Segundo, CA
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com

CITY OF COVINA
CASMCP TASK 4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
August 2023

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 2
Per Covina’s Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (“CASMCP”) contract, Kosmont was tasked with providing the Fehr & Peers team with Economic Development (“ED”) and Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) market and case study research.

The research identified development recommendations for the City to consider that build off the expected increase in pedestrian and cyclist mobility throughout the downtown area / Metrolink station. ED studies have increasingly focused on more pedestrian friendly districts to revitalize downtown areas that were seeing a significant loss of customers as e-commerce growth beginning in 2010 significantly cannibalized small brick and mortar stores. Covid-19 impact accelerated the loss of local shopping visits. While some appointment-oriented service businesses find loss of on street parking to be problematic, food/beverage, entertainment and gift shop uses benefit from spontaneous visits as pedestrians explore the downtown.

Research found that Active Street Improvements provide significant socio-economic benefits, including increasing low-income household accessibility to vital commercial services. Ease of non-auto access will also encourage more and longer visits to downtown dining and entertainment venues.

TASK 4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW

KOSMONT COMPANIES |
3 CASMCP STUDY
AREA &

DOWNTOWN
AREA
Covina Core
The research focuses on the “Covina
Core” area at the center of the
CASMCP Study Area, defined as the
area within a 15-minute walk of the
intersection of Citrus Ave. & San
Bernardino Rd. This Covina Core area
includes the Metrolink Station,
commercial properties oriented along
Citrus Ave. and other commercial
corridors, the Emanate Health InterCommunity Hospital and surrounding medical offices, Covina City Hall and
other civic institutions, a renovated
Performing Arts Center, and
residential neighborhoods.

CASMCP Study Area

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 4 Source: ESRI, CoStar
The Covina Core is home to a population of ~11,100, with an average household income of ~$100,000. The Covina Core has ~2.5 million SF of commercial space in addition to ~1,300 multi-family residential units.

In general, downtown areas not easily accessed from regional freeways are best suited to accommodate a subset of retail activity, serving the residents of the area and visitors to the businesses.

Commercial uses in the Covina Core include:
• Restaurants, including national quick-service brands, local independent restaurants, and bars / pubs
• Personal / professional services
• Small-format grocery / convenience stores
• Small local shops - antique stores, hobby shops, bookstores, and music stores • Healthcare, including the hospital and ~343,000 SF of medical office and other healthcare uses
• Industrial properties, including older properties near the rail line, with ~60% of industrial space small warehouse / distribution and ~25% showroom / service • Covina Center for the Performing Arts, a historic theater with ~140 seats

COVINA CORE OVERVIEW
Covina Core Properties Building SF
Multifamily 142 1,299,600
Retail 175 1,007,700
Office 108 625,000
Industrial / Flex 60 609,700
Health Care 6 222,500
Other 11 101,100
Covina
Core
CASMCP
Study Area
Covina
City
Population 11,100 30,800 51,300
Households 3,800 10,300 16,900
Median Age 36.2 36.2 37.1
% Bachelors 26.7% 26.1% 28.9%
% Hispanic 61.5% 60.7% 59.0%
Median HH Income $79,200 $76,900 $84,600
Average HH Income $100,400 $97,600 $109,300

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 5

COVINA CORE
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES Covina Core
Covina Core Properties Bldg SF
Multi-family Residential 142 1,299,600
Office 108 625,000
Medical Office 52 302,800
Other Office 56 322,200
Health Care 6 222,500
Hospital 1 182,300
Other Health Care 5 40,100
Retail / Entertainment 176 1,034,200
Storefront Retail Bldgs 57 304,300
Freestanding Retail Bldgs 28 214,500
General Retail 8 64,600
Automotive 52 316,400
Restaurant / Fast Food 23 77,900
Theater / Concert Hall 1 26,500
Bank 4 20,800
Drug / Convenience 3 9,200
Industrial / Flex 60 609.700
Warehouse / Distribution 26 372,300
Service 17 87,200
Manufacturing 11 77,100
Showroom 5 69,100
Multifamily Residential
Retail
Office
Health Care
Industrial / Flex
Source: CoStar

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 6

COVINA CORE RESIDENT EXPENDITURES
15-Minute Walk Area Avg. Amount per HH Total Amount
Food Away from Home $4,222 $15,984,000
Alcoholic Beverages $712 $2,697,000
Health and Personal Care Products $1,017 $3,850,000
Smoking Products $330 $1,250,000
Housekeeping Supplies $774 $2,930,000
Apparel and Services $2,338 $8,851,000
Computers, Hardware, and Accessories $209 $791,000
Household Furnishings: Furniture $641 $2,427,000
Household Furnishings: Appliances $415 $1,571,000
Household Furnishings: Other Categories $365 $1,384,000 Entertainment / Recreation: Fees & Admission $849 $3,216,000 Entertainment / Recreation: Pets $700 $2,650,000
Entertainment / Recreation: Audio / Video
(Select Categories) $288 $1,088,000
Entertainment / Recreation: Toys / Games / Crafts
/ Hobbies / Photo Equip / Reading $273 $1,034,000
Residents in the Covina Core, within a 15-
minute walk of the intersection of Citrus
Ave. & San Bernardino Rd. are estimated
to spend ~$13,000 per household on key
downtown retail goods and services
categories annually, or around ~$50 million
in purchasing power.

Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 7

COVINA CORE VISITATION TRENDS
According to mobile data analytics
platform Placer.ai, the Covina Core
area sees ~700,000 – 900,000
monthly visits from people that live
outside of the Core area, with
~75-80% of those visitors spending
at least 30 minutes in the Covina
Core.
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1/1/20174/1/20177/1/2017
10/1/2017
1/1/20184/1/20187/1/2018
10/1/2018
1/1/20194/1/20197/1/2019
10/1/2019
1/1/20204/1/20207/1/2020
10/1/2020
1/1/20214/1/20217/1/2021
10/1/2021
1/1/20224/1/20227/1/2022
10/1/2022
1/1/2023
Monthly Visits to Downtown Covina Area
Source: Placer.ai

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 8

POPULAR COVINA CORE VISITOR DESTINATIONS
Location
% of Downtown-area
Residents who visit
location
% of Covina Residents
who Visit Location
Shopping Centers
Covina Towne Center* 41% 35%
Palm Center 23% 23%
Windsor Center 11% 0%
Groceries / Essentials
Baja Ranch Market* 21% 16%
CVS* 16% 13%
7-Eleven 7% 3%
Location
% of Downtown-area
Residents who visit
location
% of Covina Residents
who Visit Location
Shopping / Services
Eiffel Nails 10% 8%
Color Me Mine* 10% 7%
Century Nails 6% 3%
Citrus Car Wash 6% 5%
Covina Tobacco Inc. 5% 3%
Citrus Jeweler 4% 5%
Covina Animal Hospital 3% 2%
Other Locations
Emanate Health InterCommunity Hospital* 29% 23%
Covina Park* 27% 19%
Covina District Stadium* 20% 18%
Kelby Park 5% 5%
Covina Center for the
Performing Arts 2% 2%
Covina Animal Hospital 3% 2%
According to mobile data analytics platform Placer.ai, the following locations within the Covina Core are among the more popular locations for residents of the Core area and residents of the City of Covina. A star (*) denotes
locations that also see a larger percentage of visits from out-of-towners.

Source: Placer.ai

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 9

POPULAR COVINA CORE VISITOR DESTINATIONS
Location
% of Downtown-area
Residents who visit
location
% of Covina Residents
who Visit Location
Quick Service Restaurants
Starbucks* 21% 13%
Covina Burger* 14% 11%
Little Caesars Pizza 12% 13%
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen* 11% 9%
Jack in the Box 11% 8%
Del Taco 10% 8%
P & G Super Burger 8% 6%
Capri Deli* 7% 5%
Alfredo's 6% 0%
Rad Coffee* 6% 6%
Yum Yum Donuts 6% 2%
Red Devil Pizza 5% 5%
Pizza Hut 5% 4%
Boba Tea Lounge* 4% 6%
Location
% of Downtown-area
Residents who visit
location
% of Covina Residents
who Visit Location
Restaurants / Bars
Ola Restobar* 12% 10%
Bread & Barley* 9% 9%
CityGrill Covina 7% 7%
Edna Vees Public House* 7% 6%
Bishamon Japanese
Restaurant 7% 0%
The Rendezvous 7% 3%
Artist Pizzeria 5% 5%
Domestic BBQ 5% 4%
El Matador 5% 0%
The Rude Dog Bar &
Grill 2% 1%
Chatterbox 1% 0%
Lincoln House 1% 2%
Source: Placer.ai; * denotes locations that also see a larger percentage of visits from out-of-towners.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 10

RETAIL NEAR METROLINK / HEAVY RAIL STATIONS
¡ Development near Metrolink and Metrorail stations typically includes a mix of residential and commercial properties, often aiming for TOD that provide a blend of homes, businesses, and services in a relatively dense and walkable area. However, many stations have no development due to lack of municipal planning. ¡ Retail development found near Metrolink stations generally falls in the following categories:
¡ Small-scale Retail: Convenience stores and quick-serve dining provide consumers with basic necessities. ¡ Neighborhood-serving Retail: Includes smaller retail properties that meet the needs of the residents and transit patrons, such as specialty grocery stores, pharmacies, cafes, and restaurants. ¡ Entertainment & Dining: Includes full-service restaurants, bars, entertainment venues, and nightclubs that are generally found in higher foot-traffic areas and draw both local residents, as well as visitors from the surrounding area ¡ Regional-serving Retail: Includes larger-scale retail developments that draw customers from the wider region

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 11
Main Street El Monte near the Metrolink Station is home to:
• Local restaurants (El Huarache De Dona Chela, Golden Ox Burgers, Progress on Main, NORMS, Little Pan, Lorena’s), • Small independent clothing retailers (Railcar Fine Goods, Sucasa, Botas Guadalajara),
• Jewelry stores (David’s Jewelers, Q Jewelry),
• Hobby / craft / gift stores (Musica Latina, Valley Craft LA, H&S Sewing)
Nearby land uses include new multifamily apartment buildings & SF residential neighborhoods.

CASE STUDY - METROLINK RAIL STATIONS
Ramona Blvd Baldwin Park near the Metrolink Station is home to:
• Civic Uses (City Hall, police station,
• Local restaurants (Nissi, Lucky Star Burgers, Via Mar, Taco Nazo, Taqueria El Atacor, Golden Panda Buffet) • Park Plaza on Maine Shopping Center (Superior Grocers, CVS Pharmacy, O’Reilly Auto,shops / restaurants)
• Local Retailers (Urban X, Broken Horn Saddlery, La Gueras Boutique)
Other local land uses include single family and multifamily residential neighborhoods.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 12

DOWNTOWN COVINA PARKING
¡ A 2018 Parking Study & Management Plan prepared by Nelson Nygaard for the Covina Town Center Specific Plan identified over 4,400 parking spaces - 1,520 on-street parking, 1,405 public off-street parking in public lots / structures, and ~1,390 spaces in off-street private lots. ¡ The Study notes that utilization averaged ~52%, with greater levels of occupancy in off-street spaces (likely due to longer time limits, indicating a high use for employee parking). Utilization exceeded 85% in the Town Center core area in Citrus Ave between College and Badillo streets. ¡ The Study parking demand models showed a parking surplus of ~1,400 spaces based on existing land uses. Demand models that included future development still showed an excess of ~700 spaces on weekdays and ~380 spaces on weekends.
¡ While parking issues are common in downtown areas – suggesting issues are more a matter of parking space distribution, pricing, accessibility, and wayfinding.
¡ This also suggests that some of the area dedicated to parking in the downtown Covina area could be utilized with more commercial outdoor uses without heavily impacting the availability of parking.

Source: Nelson Nygaard – Town Center Specific Plan, Parking Study and Management Plan

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 13

OFF-STREET

PARKING AREAS
Name Spaces
A Downtown Parking Structure 120
B Metrolink Parking Structure 665
C Metrolink Station Lot 155
D Lot 1 39
E Lot 3 107
F Lot 4 115
G Lot 5 14
H Lot 6 28
I Lot 7 95
J Lot 8 36
K Lot 9 31
L Lot 10 (leased to Bank of America)
B
C
D
E
L
F G
A
H I
J
K
Citrus Ave
San Bernardino Rd
Badillo St
The downtown area has a number of publicly- and
privately-owned paved parking lots located near the major commercial corridors. Surface parking are dead-zones for pedestrian activity and strategies that
allow some of these parking areas to be re-used as
parklets / outdoor dining / other uses can help bring
new and vibrant activity to the downtown.

Publicly-owned
property
Privately-owned
property
Source: Nelson Nygaard – Town Center Specific
Plan, Parking Study and Management Plan

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 14
Source: ESRI BAO Online, SCAG, City of Covina
COVINA

CASMCP STUDY AREA

COMMERCIAL/RETAIL

POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SCAG’s Housing Element Parcel Tool
(HELPR) identifies commercial/retail sites
that have a ratio of improvement value
to land assessed value less than 1.0,
indicating non-vacant sites that have
realistic infill development potential.

The Transit Oriented Development
Opportunity Sites were identified in the
project’s RFP as locations with
development potential.

Note: Map not to scale
SCAG Lower-valued
/ potential infill
TOD Opportunity
Sites
Citrus Ave
San Bernardino Rd
Badillo St

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 15

WALK DISTANCE

FROM COVINA

PARKING

STRUCTURES
Walking distances from the Metrolink
and downtown parking structures covers
much of the downtown Covina area. The
map at right shows the 5-minute walking
distance boundary from the parking
structures. This suggests the downtown
area is well-served by these facilities.

Note: Maps not to scale
Citrus Ave

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 16

REACTIVATING UNDERUTILIZED PARKING
Generally speaking, cities and property owners are exploring new uses and programming that reactivates underutilized parking space, parking lots, and parking structures:
• Temporary reuses for special events such as outdoor movie screenings, block parties, farmers markets, and craft fairs • Short-term reuses such as parklets that allow for extra outdoor seating for dining, music performance spaces, gardens, waiting areas, or retail display tables
• Semi-permanent reuses such as converting parking garage roofs into “people decks” that provide spaces for people to gather / relax / socialize, and façade revisions that reactivate the sides of structures that face the street (enlivening the pedestrian experience in the area with micro-retail and art) Some parking structures set up
temporary movie screenings on their
roofdecks – converting underutilized
parking into fun events with chairs,
lights, turf, & restaurant partners.

One proposal for a city-owned
parking structure in downtown San
Jose aimed to convert the roof into a “people deck” community space.

Parklets have
become a popular
way to convert
street parking
spaces and other
paved areas into
outdoor dining
areas, miniature
parks / gardens,
and other vibrant
uses that
encourage visits.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 17

TRANSIT / ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The CASMCP Market Study Task 2 completed by Kosmont in November 2022, provided a number of case studies that explored the economic impacts of active transportation improvements. The summary provided below highlights the way cities most recently have developed ED strategies improving pedestrian activity in a downtown area, improving vibrancy and business activity, as e-commerce and Covid-19 trends dramatically changed personal shopping habits.

The addition of bike lanes / pedestrian areas in commercial corridors is sometimes met with apprehension from local businesses, who are concerned about negative economic impacts due to the loss of parking in front of their businesses. However, in a variety of case studies from other cities, pedestrian and bike improvements have been analyzed to understand their economic impact – in most cases, these studies tend to show either a neutral or positive impact on the vitality of retail businesses on streets impacted by road diets.

Key findings include:
¡ Bicyclists and pedestrians can be a sizable portion of a businesses’ clientele in a downtown area; while their per-trip spending can be lower than that of customers who drive, they tend to make a larger number of trips ¡ Merchants in downtown areas tend to over-estimate the percentage of their customers who come via car and underestimate the percentage who bike or walk, thus over-estimating the impact of lost parking ¡ Non-drivers can spend a long amount of time in a downtown area, likely leading to greater spending within the downtown district (and additional spending at locations other than their primary destination)

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 18

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & PLACEMAKING
Programming downtown areas via the use
of micro-districts can encourage nodes of
focused business activity that promote
collaboration and innovation – such as
areas focused on arts / entertainment,
hospitality, office, health / wellness, and
dining / restaurants.

While downtown areas should still aim to
integrate many different uses in
mixed/blended-use districts, micro-districts
that place emphasis on particular themes
can help business clusters to thrive and
improve the overall downtown experience.
¡ Entertainment / Arts Districts: Focused on cultural and recreational amenities, such as theaters, music venues, art galleries, and experiential activities. These districts can attract residents and tourists and create a vibrant and lively urban environment. Districts can focus on supporting the development of new facilities / venues / restaurants to revitalize the area and attract new visitors.
¡ Medical Districts : Focused on health / wellness uses such as hospitals, medical office buildings, fitness centers / gyms, healthy restaurants, specialty care services, and urgent care facilities. Other uses – such as residential / hotel and restaurant / entertainment – can create a more vibrant and dynamic district. These districts provide vital services for community members, as well as attracting activity from nearby communities seeking care. ¡ Restaurant Districts: Focused on restaurants, bars, cafes, and food-related amenities as well as entertainment. These districts can create a vibrant and lively urban environment that is desirable to residents, workers, visitors, and tourists.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 19

PLACEMAKING THROUGH DISTRICT EVENTS
Murals in downtown
Providence, RI add
character and highlight
local artists and themes.

Events like the CicLAvia bike / walk fairs in
Los Angeles and the Mission Inn Festival of
Lights in Riverside, CA are memorable and
engaging activations of public spaces.

Distinctive signs –
such as the neon signs in Fillmore and
the Star Theatre in
Oceanside – can give
an area a distinctive sense of place.

The Temecula Valley Hospital is a 140-bed acute
care facility that anchors a growing district of
other medical centers, offices, and clinics – as
well as medical training programs at the High
Desert Medical College and California State
University of San Marcos @ Temecula. This
medical district is also situated near other uses such as retail shopping centers, driving economic activity in the area.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 20
PEDESTRIANCENTRIC AREAS

IN DOWNTOWN
Pedestrian-oriented design and public
spaces help activate downtown districts
through vibrant / engaging activity.

Even before Covid-19 pandemic,
increasing the amount of public space
dedicated to pedestrians became popular,
with many cities allowing parking spaces,
sidewalks, and roadways to be used for
commercial activity.

Many cities have found these changes have
contributed to more vibrant and
enjoyable commercial districts and have
found ways to make some of these
changes permanent.

Components of Successful Pedestrian-Oriented Downtown Areas Anchors Nearby anchor institutions help drive foot traffic throughout the day, such as universities, transit hubs, office/financial core, or medical centers.

Variety of
Uses and
Services
Downtowns need a vibrant mix of active uses: retail, residential, & commercial; late-night services (bars & restaurants, movie theater) to attract crowds all day; convenience-related businesses, unique shopping experiences, entertainment attractions, programming/public events; balance of chains & independents, retail & restaurants, indoor & outdoor.

Amenities Attractive landscaping (parklets, gardens, fountains, monuments), public art, outdoor dining, public tables / chairs, stages, artists, and vendors Programming Festivals, concerts, sports, food trucks, performers drive vibrancy and create a sense of place and destination
Accessibility,
Walkability,
and Visibility
Centralized parking allows convenient access to visitors; successful pedestrianoriented downtown areas need to be easily reachable and accessible, with numerous entrances, cross-streets, nearby parking, public transit. They should also incorporate walkable neighborhood structures, amenities, and visible interest.

Visibility of the pedestrian areas should not be overly blocked by buildings or landscaping.

Management
Coordinated activities can ensure area management / maintenance; dedicated agency/business improvement district to oversee maintenance, security, planning, programming, retail mix, etc.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 21
Best Practices – Creating Pedestrian Areas
Step 1 Car
Dependency
Ensure that there are nearby parking
alternatives with proper wayfinding. Reliance
on cars can be hard to assess without testing
the concept temporarily.

Step 2
Pedestrian
Mall Concept
Testing
Start by closing streets for a few days (a
holiday; a regular weekend day; a whole
weekend, etc), treating each as a test..

Step 3 Temporary
Closure
First use temporary materials: barricades,
epoxy gravel, potted plants, small trees,
movable tables and chairs.

Step 4 Adding
Permanence
If it works well, can shift to permanent plants
/ trees / fixtures. Focus on programming.

Partner with key institutions, strategically
locate equipment needed for targeted
activities. Resist adding immovable barriers.

While downtown Covina is not suited for full
pedestrian mall street closures, some temporary
closure concepts and other pedestrian-oriented
changes may be strategies that can activate the
downtown area.

This would include closing portions of side streets for special events (weekend block parties, farmers
markets, outdoor festivals), building parklets,
encouraging outdoor dining on sidewalks / patios /
parking areas.

Partial closures and events are a good way to test
concepts, assess conditions, clarify goals, and build
community support for further changes.

Source: Walkable City Rules, Jeff Speck

IMPLEMENTING TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN MALLS

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 22

PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS

CASE STUDIES
During the COVID-19 pandemic, San Rafael
initiated a “Streetary” program that expanded outdoor dining in the downtown area into street parklets. Due to the program’s popularity, in
December 2022, the City decided to continue
the program, instituting design / development
standards and fees and opening up the program
to all dining establishments in the City.

The City also runs Dining Under the Lights block
parties on Thursday / Fridays that temporarily
close a portion of the main street (4th Street), allowing restaurants to set up larger outdoor dining areas, bands to play on stages, and retailers
/ vendors to set up outdoor displays.

Ventura closed five blocks of Main Street in downtown
Ventura during the pandemic as part of its Main Street
Moves program to create a pedestrian-friendly area with outdoor dining and patios. The city provides free parking as well as expanded bike parking In April 2022, the City Council voted to extend the closure through June 2024 while the City explores the possibility of making the changes permanent.

El Segundo, CA
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com

CITY OF COVINA
CASMCP TASK 4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
August 2023

City of Covina
Engagement Summary
Covina Active Streets and Multimodal
Connectivity Plan
City of Covina
Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.

Final
January 23, 2024

Engagement Summary 2
Final January 23, 2024
Introduction
The project team conducted three rounds of outreach over the development of the Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (CASMCP) to ensure that the plan reflected the community’s wants and needs. Each round of engagement included online engagement, pop up opportunities, and formal public meetings. All engagement activities were conducted in English and Spanish. Underserved and disadvantaged areas of the city (identified through the equity assessment) also received targeted outreach to provide maximum and appropriate engagement opportunities for difficult-to-reach populations.

Outreach
Round #1 – Groundtruthing Existing Conditions, August 2022 – October 2022 The purpose of the first round of engagement was to introduce the project to the public and gather initial feedback on challenges and opportunities for walking, biking, and transit. There was a total of four events held during this round, which included:
• August 23, 2022: Project Workshop at Covina Planning Commission • August 26, 2022: Pop-Up at Covina Farmers Market
• October 4, 2022: Pop-Up at National Night Out
• April 11, 2023: Project Update at Covina Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission Round #2 – Understanding Community Priorities, May – June 2023 The second round of engagement focused on understanding what improvements were of most need and priority to community members. Active SGV, a local community-based organization, was brought on as a partner to help reach a wider and inclusive audience, such as those with limited English proficiency and diverse cultural backgrounds. The events during this phase were more interactive and included a community bike ride and walking tour to provide an on-the-field survey of key transportation barriers. A working group session was also conducted with parents and educators from the Covina-Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). The project team identified the CVUSD as a key stakeholder as it is the only school district with the study area’s boundaries. Each of these events occurred in or near the equity priority areas identified through the equity analysis.
• May 6, 2023: Community Bike Ride and Feedback Session led by ActiveSGV (Held in Downtown Covina, which is located within Equity Priority Area #3) • May 11, 2023: Parents & Educators Working Session with Covina-Valley Unified School District and ActiveSGV (CVUSD office located between Equity Priority #3 and #5) • May 21, 2023: Community Walk and Feedback Session (Held in Downtown Covina, which is located within Equity Priority Area #3)
• June 13, 2023: Project Update at Covina Planning Commission Survey Tool – Web-Based and Print Mobility and Access Questionnaire, August 2022 – October 2022 and May 2023
The survey served as a tool to hear more from the community about how they move about the study area. It provided the project team with insights into existing mobility patterns and preferences. The

3 Covina Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan survey was live during the first and second rounds of engagement. The survey was provided in English and Spanish. Copies of a paper version of the survey were also made available to public facilities and community partners.

Round #3 – Confirming Community Priorities, September - October 2023 The third round of community workshops focused on confirming the consensus of the plan recommendations and discovering the communities' priority for projects. • September 30, 2023: Pop-Up at Sacred Heart Annual Festival (School located in Equity Priority Area #4)
• October 13, 2023: Pop-Up at Thunderfest Car Show and Music Festival Attachments
The following pages include exhibits that reflect all the engagement activities held during the course of the project. These include:
• Poster Board Comments from Round #1
• Community Bike Ride, Walking Tour, and CVUSD Working Session Key Takeaways • Walking Tour Summary
• Poster Board Comments from Round #3
• Survey Methodology and High Level Takeaways

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
E n g a g e m e n t
Round 2 Bike
Audit
Led by ActiveSGV on Saturday, May 7th 60+ cyclists joined a 10-mile ride around the study area and to the Gold Line station.

Riders of all ages joined the ride.

Extensive feedback was collected after the ride on what improvements participants would like to see.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
E n g a g e m e n t
Round 2 Bike
Audit
“More lighting needed. Dangerous
Crossing uncontrolled intersections
especially at dusk “
“[Shade] very limited, more tree
canopy needed”
“Will bike ride more if it was safer to do
so”
“Less potholes. Fix the streets”
“[Cars drive] fast on Citrus”
“More controlled intersection all
around parks”
“Class 1 or 2 bike lanes north/south”

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
E n g a g e m e n t
Round 2 Walk
Audit
Walk Audit on Sunday, May 21st Eight participants and children walked Downtown Covina The project team introduced participants to the
project, key terms, and collected feedback from
their experiences.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
E n g a g e m e n t
Round 2 Walk
Audit

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
E n g a g e m e n t
Round 2 School
District
Meeting
Held on May 11th, 2023
Facilitated by ActiveSGV and
Fehr & Peers
12 parents and staff in
attendance
Key Themes/Desires:
• Shade and bus stop amenities
• Crosswalk enhancements
• Education and enforcement strategies
targeting poor driver compliance with
yielding and turn restrictions
• Enhance the streetscape
• Traffic calming, lighting, and other
measures so people feel more comfortable
walking/taking transit

1 Covina ASMCP
Walk Audit Approach and Format
Introduction
The walk audit was designed to engage the
community in the second round of the Covina Active
Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan. The walk
audit took place on Sunday, May 21 from 9am12:30pm. The route took place through Downtown Covina, along 2nd Avenue, Badillo Street, Citrus
Avenue, and Front Street (see Figure 1). In total eight community members participated in the event.

Members of the project team that attended the event
include:

City of Covina
Daniella Andrade
Fehr & Peers
Melody Wu
MIG, Inc.

Esmeralda García
Jackie Martinez
Sara Perez Rojas
Approach
The Covina Public Library served as the starting and ending point of the walk audit. Prior to the start of the walk audit, the MIG team gave a presentation informing participants about the day’s agenda, project background, walk audit purpose, and instructions on how to perform the walk audit. Participants were also given a guide booklet to record what they observed during the Figure 1: Walk Audit Route

2 walk. Esmeralda García, Jackie Martinez, and Sara Perez Rojas of MIG served as facilitators that guided participants through the walk audit.

After the orientation, participants broke up into one large group and walked the route. Stops were made at previously identified locations which served to expose participants to certain conditions such as narrow sidewalks, fast-moving vehicles, and unsafe crosswalks. Facilitated conversations were held at each stop to encourage participants to reflect on what they were experiencing at that moment. Participants were also encouraged to rank the stops on a scale of 1-5 (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) based on how poorly or adequately certain criteria were present along the route. The following is a list of criteria that they were asked to rank:

Safety

1. There is a presence of highly transparent ground floors, windows, and entries

2. Sidewalks are smooth and without cracks, vegetation is trimmed, etc.

3. There is enough separation between pedestrians and traffic through ample sidewalks width, landscaping, and street furniture.

4. Drivers yield to pedestrians and traffic is slowed via narrow roadways, striping, no turn on red lights, etc.

5. There is clear safety signage, such as yield and stop signs.

Aesthetics

1. Public realm is interesting and captivating with unique characteristics and landmarks

2. Consistent landscaping that provides ample shade and is well maintained.

3. There are varied and sufficient pedestrian amenities that are well maintained and inviting.

4. There is a lack of unpleasant smells, blank walls, vacant lots, trash, and fences Accessibility

1. Sidewalks are large enough for pedestrians to move comfortably in opposing directions.

2. Sidewalk quality is consistent.

3. Signalized intersections allow ample time to cross, frequently allow pedestrians to cross and are a reasonable distance.

4. Signage provides clear directional and locational information.

5. Curbs and curb ramps are present at all crossings.

After the walk audit concluded, a facilitated discussion was held at the library to debrief on participants’ overall thoughts and experiences. Comments from this discussion were captured on a wall graphic.

3 Participant Feedback
The following provides an overview of the comments received at each stop and a summary of some overall themes that arose from the conversations with participants.

Stop #1: Badillo St/2nd Ave
Overall Ranking and Key Takeaways:

Safety: 2.4
Aesthetics: 2.8
Accessibility: 2.6
Participants noted that intersections lacked highly visible crosswalks and/or not enough phasing time was dedicated to allow pedestrians to cross the street safely and comfortably. They also noted that the lack of landscaping and shade trees negatively impacted the overall aesthetics of the area. Another significant attribute of the area was the alley adjacent to the Wells Fargo. Participants remarked that the alley is heavily used and somewhat difficult to navigate because of a lack of clear sightlines between alley, parking lots, and main arterials.

Comments:

Shade
• Need more shade on 2nd Ave
• Not enough trees on 2nd
• Dead trees
• Need more trees
• Need more shade
• Post Office need landscaping, no trees
• Citrus has more shade
Crosswalk Improvements
• Add a flashing beacon – 2
nd Avenue / Library
• Conditions at 31 flavors intersection are poor
• Unsafe corner at College and 2nd Ave
• Short signal to walk across Badillo
• Blind corner
• Corners not handicap accessible
• Very quick light cross over Badillo St
• Maybe add some sort of signal control at the crosswalk to the library • Not enough time to cross the other way from one side of 2nd Ave to the other • Crosswalk time could be longer
• Basking Robin’s needs more space for pedestrians at intersection

4 Vehicle Speed and Traffic
• 2nd/Italia issues with safety speed
• No signal or entrance/exit at Post Office (alley)
• Very high traffic (alley)
• Stop sign inside/hidden (alley)
• High traffic alley
• Alley behind Post Office is hard to see when exiting
Public Realm
• The post office is unsightly
• Sidewalks need to be smoother
• Citrus is slow, library needs something better especially to the library • No eyes on streets unless at during church hours
• McIntyre has done a good job “gentrifying”
Stop #2: Citrus Ave/College St
Overall Ranking and Key Takeaways:

Safety: 3.8
Aesthetics: 4.2
Accessibility: 4.2
Participants loved the aesthetic of downtown and many noted how the brick façade of buildings and decorative pavers along sidewalks contributed to an overall pleasant walking experience. They also pointed out certain elements that contributed to a safer environment such as high visibility/marked crosswalks, wider sidewalks, and the presence of more pedestrian amenities. They also felt that parking helped create a barrier between pedestrians and the street, which made them feel safer walking.

Participants mentioned that the transition between 2nd and Citrus Avenue along Badillo Street was a bit harsh and did not contribute to an overall cohesive look and feel with the surrounding area. Many also noted motorists tend to make unsafe turn movements at the corner of Badillo and Citrus. They mentioned motorists tend to either use the turn lanes to move straight through the intersection or attempt to merge onto the through lane from the turn lanes.

Comments:

Architectural Style and Aesthetics
• Pavers, nice brick, and lighting are pleasant
• Liked aesthetics of downtown, brick, wider sidewalks, slower traffic, trees, more trash cans • Brick in breezeway should be extended to southside
• Love the brick on the buildings

5 • Relief to get to downtown area
• Very welcoming
• Brick paths makes it more pleasant for pedestrians
• Bars across make it confusing as to when to access
Pedestrian Amenities
• Benches in breezeways is nice
• More places to sit in alleyways
• Pedestrian amenities in breezeway
Road Safety
• Merging on Badillo is difficult
• RRFBs at crossings are good at slowing down traffic because drivers are scared they can hit something
• Need tactile warning devices
• Audio pedestrian signals are helpful
• Dangerous corner at Badillo/Citrus because drivers tend to go straight through the intersection onto Badillo from turning lanes on Badillo
• Speed limit not visible
• Dangerous corner at Badillo/Citrus need left turn signals • Feel more protected with parked cars that provide a sort of barrier • Corner (Badillo/Citrus) is dangerous, need more cohesive transition/change in aesthetic/safety • More clear distances for pedestrian crossing
Branding and Identity
• Good signage
• Downtown is beautiful
• New signage looks great
• Has a great vibe
• Nice signage for bus
• Welcoming sidewalk and pavers
• Downtown is very welcoming
Stop #3: Citrus Ave/Geneva Pl
Overall Ranking and Key Takeaways:

Safety: 2.5
Aesthetics: 2.3
Accessibility: 2.8

6 Participants generally felt the area was unsafe and unwelcoming due to harsh transitions in sidewalk width and vacant buildings. They felt that sidewalks narrowed too abruptly or were closed off to pedestrians without enough warning. The original walk audit route had participants walk along the west side of Citrus Avenue and cross at Front Street to reach the next stop. However, the group had to take an unexpected detour due to a sidewalk closure north of Geneva Place. Participants mentioned that the sidewalk had been closed for what they felt was a significant amount of time and indicated some frustration that the sidewalk had not yet re-opened. They also noted a need for more direct pedestrian paths between the Metrolink parking structure and station. Existing crosswalks were not the most convenient or comfortable to use because participants mentioned that they must wait a long time for their turn to cross.

Comments:

Safety and Security
• Felt dangerous
• Unwelcoming
• Need more sidewalks north of Geneva Pl
• Covina Metrolink Garage – catalytic converter stolen, people jaywalking on north leg because of no crosswalk or crossing on train tracks, need a more direct path from garage to Metrolink (traffic signals take minutes between each phasing)
Adjacent Land Uses
• Building front (west side of Citrus) is unsightly
• Doors of adjacent buildings drop at street, seems dangerous • Corner at Howards retail store is not feels uncomfortable and unsafe (corner just south of Geneva Pl)
Pedestrian Access
• Unable to use sidewalk due to closure
• Change in width of sidewalk is confusing
• Pedestrian flashing lights not visible on Grand. Would be more reassuring if pedestrians could see when they are on.
• Citrus/San Bernardino transition in crossings/sidewalk is difficult to navigate • Sidewalk closed near Geneva Pl had to find an alternative route Other
• Metrolink area not welcoming as other examples (Downtown Pasadena) • Dangerous transition going southbound towards San Bernardino Rd. Vehicles are forced to turn right on the street before
• No signage for Foothill Transit stops on Front Street • Parking regulations not clear

7 Stop #4: Covina Station
Overall Ranking and Key Takeaways:

Safety: 2.5
Aesthetics: 2.5
Accessibility: 2.8
Some participants noted that the actual station felt welcoming, but that the surrounding area did not.

Others mentioned that even with some security features such as lighting and a security guard booth, the station still felt unsafe due to a general lack of “eyes on the street.” Many noted that the station felt disconnected from downtown and was not well integrated like other stations in Southern California. One participant brought up that the Claremont Station was more welcoming and easier to access/navigate because of how well-integrated it was into the downtown area. Others noted that there was also a lack of wayfinding signage to navigate the station, points of interest, and find connections to local bus routes.

Comments:

Transit Connections and Wayfinding Signage
• Parking structure access is poor to station and doesn’t serve downtown street • No bus stop signage
• Not easy to find/see Foothill Transit signage
• Parking structure far away, needs more signage
Safety and Security
• Jaywalking is prevalent due to lack of crosswalks
• Station lacks lighting, feels unsafe even with security guard • Green barriers near the tracks are a bit confusing to figure out Land Use and Aesthetics
• Buildings are not cohesive
• Salmon colored building is an eyesore
• The station is nice, but the surrounding area feels unsafe and unwelcoming Stop #5: Front St/Park Ave
Overall Ranking and Key Takeaways:

Safety: 2.6
Aesthetics: 2
Accessibility: 2.8
Participants noted that the area was hostile towards pedestrians because of a lack of shade trees and heat reflecting off the surrounding buildings. They also noted the bus stop was not welcoming and not very comfortable to access, especially for people with disabilities due to the narrow sidewalk and lack of

8 transit amenities. During the walk audit, the participants experienced a person in a wheelchair boarding off a bus and having trouble navigating the sidewalk due to the narrow width. Participants were also unsure if Front Street needed a makeover because it appeared to be very clearly designated for industrial uses. However, they did note that Front Street did not complement the adjacent station area.

They noted that visitors unfamiliar with the area and who are traveling by train might be confused about how to reach Downtown due to the lack of design and land use cohesion between Front Street and Citrus Avenue.

Comments:

Traffic Safety
• Crosswalk could be helpful on Front/2nd
• Cars go fast, but sidewalks feel safe
• Cars speeding by and traffic is mostly cut through. Front Street does not have high traffic volume • Bus stop is very narrow and hard to navigate for people with mobility devices • Prefer to walk down San Bernardino than Front
• Was not aware there was a bike lane on Front St
• No marked crosswalk on 2nd and Front
• Campfire brewery – love the environment they created
Adjacent Land Uses
• Mercedes service building reflects heat onto pedestrians • Gets hot because of heat reflecting from buildings
• Very industrial
• Prioritize finishing Citrus rather than de-industrializing Front St Built Environment
• No trees
• Too hot
• Dangerous sidewalk
• Unwelcoming
• Street is clean but not welcoming
• Really hot to walk
• Needs more trees for shade
• Unwelcoming to pedestrian, no shade
• Tree maintenance
• There’s a bus stop but no trees
• Signage that captivates is needed to inform pedestrians they can walk along Front Street (especially if it were to redevelop)

9 Stop #6: 2
nd Ave/San Bernardino Ave
Overall Ranking and Key Takeaways:

Safety: 3
Aesthetics: 2
Accessibility: 3.25
Participants noted a lack of interesting land uses or destinations. They noted that vehicle speeds are extremely fast along San Bernardino Avenue and that the light to cross San Bernardino Avenue along 2nd Avenue was extremely short, which augmented the lack of pedestrian safety. They felt relief from the shade trees along 2nd Avenue after having traveled along Front Street.

Comments:

Points of interest
• Front Street is ignored, not welcoming
• Signage for museum is not very visible
• Sidewalk at car shop not friendly to pedestrians nor easy to navigate • Police station adds a sense of safety but overall the area does not feel safe • No storefronts to access on 2nd Ave
• No destinations available
Traffic Safety
• Very high-speed vehicles
• Short pedestrian light change
• Pedestrian crossing signal is too short on San Bernardino • Westbound right lane coming up to 2nd should be right turn only • Intersections feel scary because there is not enough time to cross • Some take 2nd Ave as a shortcut to avoid downtown
Public Realm
• Shady trees provide relief
• No trash cans available
• Paved sidewalks, street trees are nice
• Eastside sidewalk not as nice as westside
• Feel changes going toward downtown
• Trees and shade cool the area and they’re nice and stark contrast from Front Street

10 Debrief Discussion
At the end of the walking route participants re-grouped at the library for a debrief discussion on what they experienced during their walk. Their comments were captured on a wall graphic as shown on Figure

2. The wall graphic also provides some high level key takeaways.

Figure 2: Wall Graphic Comments

What conditions keep you from using active transportation options to get downtown? Survey Responses Active Transportation Habits – Downtown Covina 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Distance Weather Physical conditions Transportation
conditions
Social conditions Lack of bike
infrastructure
Poor or no transit
service/amenities
I haven’t
considered it
I like to drive I already use active
transportation
options
Other - Write In

Concentrations of
seating availability at
never and always, with
some fairly even
distribution in the
occasionally available
category.

Most of survey
respondents indicated
there is not adequate
shade at a majority of
transit stops.

Adequate lighting is
fairly evenly distributed
from never to always.

When waiting for transit, how often do you have….?
Place to
Sit
Shade
Adequate
Lighting
Never Occasionally Always
Equity Availability of Amenities According to Survey Respondents Page 716 of 823 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Bus (Foothill Transit) Rail (Metro Gold Line) Train (Metrolink) None of the above Metrolink is slightly
preferred over buses and
Metro Light Rail (Gold
Line).

What are the other transit
modes people use to get
around the City?
What type of transit do you use to get around the City? Equity Alternative Transportation Habits of Survey Respondents Page 717 of 823 What improvements would you like to see for pedestrians, bikers, and public transit users? Survey Responses Active Transportation Opportunities
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20

RESOLUTION NO. 2024- 001 PC

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

COVINA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF COVINA ADOPT THE COVINA ACTIVE STREETS AND MULTI -

MODAL CONNECTIVITY PLAN, AND MAKE A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CEQA SECTION 21080.0
WHEREAS, in December 2021, the California Department of Transportation Caltrans"), awarded the City of Covina a grant under the " Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program" to develop the Covina Active Streets and Multi -Modal Connectivity Plan CASMCP"); and,
WHEREAS, the goal of the grant program is to support Caltrans' sMission to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California' s economy and livability; and,
WHEREAS, the CASMCP supports the Caltrans mission, and also builds upon the City of Covina' sexisting planning framework, including the General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Covina Town Center Specific Plan, providing a set of feasible recommendations with clear steps to implementation for first/ last mile needs, and active transportation in Covina; and, WHEREAS, there were numerous community -focused outreach meetings, including a bike ride, school feedback session, walking tour feedback session, several pop- up locations, and online engagement to incorporate civic engagement throughout the lifespan of the project; and, WHEREAS, the CASMCP proposes priority pedestrian areas, identifies equity areas, recommends additional and improved networks for pedestrian, cyclist, and roller travel, and prioritizes projects in disadvantaged areas; and,
WHEREAS, SB 922, until January 1, 2030, accelerates the approval of sustainable, climate -friendly bicycle and pedestrian projects by exempting them from CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the CASMCP is an active transportation plan covered by CEQA Section 21080.; and,.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report presented on February 13, 2024, concerning the CASMCP.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COVINA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed CASMCP and find and determine that the adoption of the CASMCP is exempt from review under CEQA and qualifies for a Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.0 because the CASMCP is an " active transportation plan" developed by the City that promotes and encourages people to choose walking, bicycling, or rolling through the creation of safe, comfortable, connected, and accessible walking, bicycling, or rolling networks, and encourages alternatives to single -occupancy vehicle trips.

ATTACHMENT D
SECTION 2. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission of the City of Covina, all written and oral evidence presented was considered and reviewed, and the Planning Commission finds that the CASMCP is consistent with and furthers the General Plan and Covina Town Center Specific Plan for reasons, including but not limited those below:

The CASMCP will promote public health, safety, and welfare, and will leave the General Plan an integrated and internally consistent statement of policies, including but not limited to those mentioned below:

Circulation Element; Policy Area 1 — Maintenance and improvement ofpublic rights of way and related infrastructure to accommodate growth.

16. Monitor and, where administratively and financially possible, consider expanding the City' s bikeways and related facilities in appropriate areas, such as near or linking schools, parks, and major commercial activities and employment centers, .forfunctional as well as recreational uses, in a manner that best meets local conditions and needs. ( Source: City of Covina General Plan, pg. B- 31)
Natural Resources and Open Space Element ; Policy Area 1— Water Resources and Air Quality p. Encourage and support the use of mass transit, wherever possible, and work with transit operators to provide the best, most efficient service for local businesses to reduce vehicular travel and air pollution. (Source: City ofCovina General Plan. pg. D- 30) q. Encourage the continuation of and improvement of local transportation programs.

Source: City of Covina General Plan, pg. D- 31)
r. Encourage bikeways, where feasible, to provide an alternative mode oftransportation.

Source: City ofCovina General Plan, pg. D- 31)
Furthermore, the CASMC is consistent with the Covina Town Center Specific Plan. The CASMCP includes as an objective to increase connectivity to the Town Center and incorporates actions from the Covina Town Center Specific Plan to connect the Metrolink to the Town Center and to capitalize on alley connections to increase accessibility and walkability between the Town Center and adjacent districts.

SECTION 3. Planning Commission Recommendation. After giving full consideration to all evidence presented at the February 13, 2024 Joint Planning Commission and Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission Meeting, and in consideration of the findings stated in above, the Planning Commission of the City of Covina does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Covina adopt proposed Covina Active Streets and Multi -Modal Connectivity Plan.

SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the members of the Planning Commission of Covina on this 13th day of February 2024

DAN MCMEEKIN, CHAIR

CITY OF COVINA PLANNING COMMISSION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Covina at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February 2024, by the following vote of the Planning Commission:

AYES: RICHARDSON, ZERMENO, CONNORS, RODRIGUEZ, MCMEEKIN NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

LANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY

ATTACHMENT E

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COVINA PLANNING

COMMISSION
Date:

Location:

February 13, 2024, 7:00 PM
125 E. College Street, Covina, California
Council Chamber of City Hall
_________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair McMeekin called the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission to order.

2. ROLL/CALL
Planning Commission
Commissioners Present: Richardson, Zermeno, Connors, Rodriguez, McMeekin Commissioners Absent: None
Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission
Commissioners Present: Lopez, Tillman, Florez, Flores
Commissioners Absent: None.

Staff Present: Management Analyst Andrade, Planning Manager Lugo, Management Analyst Cortez, Community Development Director Lee, Public Works Director Bullington, City Engineer/Deputy Director of Public Work Fajardo, Legal Counsel Heinselman
Participants Attendees: Natalie Chyba (Fehr & Peers), Miguel Nunez (Fehr & Peers)

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair McMeekin led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.

5. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Connors welcomed the members of the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission.

Chair Flores of the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity for a joint meeting.

There were no other comments from either commission.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. CC1. Approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2023 Commissioner Zermeno made a motion and Commissioner Richardson seconded to approve the minutes of December 12, 2023
The motion carried by a vote of 4-0 as follows:

AYES: RICHARDSON, ZERMENO, CONNORS, RODRIGUEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MCMEEKIN
ABSTAIN: NONE

8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.

10. CONTINUED BUSINESS

1. CB1. Consideration of and Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan”.

Management Analyst Andrade presented the Staff Report
Consultant Chyba, of Fehr & Peers, presented the Draft Covina Active Streets and Multi Modal Connectivity Plan
Commissioner Richardson thanked the presenters for conducting additional outreach per feedback from the Planning Commission at an earlier meeting.

Commissioner Zermeno referred to page 23 of the agenda packet, regarding Objective #2, and asked if lighting is included with regard to safety, and regarding

3 the goal of three hundred trees if that would require additional money and if it is more of a wish list.

Consultant Chyba confirmed, yes concerning the safety question. Concerning the question about the goal to plant 300 trees, Consultant Chyba clarified that some of the trees are earmarked in the Capital Improvements Project list, and others may be installed as they are requested or as other opportunities arise that are not included as one of the corridor projects.

Commissioner Zermeno responded that shade and tree canopy in pedestrian walkways are needed in the community.

Commissioner Zermeno called out one of the public responses from the survey mentioning that there is not enough bike parking and mentioned that, since the city is aiming to create more pedestrian and bike-friendly streets, there can be negotiations with new developers to approve projects with conditions requiring a developer to install bike parking, and also inquired if this plan would be considered to be nominated for a local award.

Consultant Chyba thanked Commissioner Zermeno for the recommendation to nominate the project.

Commissioner Connors inquired whether the city will be looking for grant funding instead of using General Funding for these projects.

Management Analyst Andrade responded, yes, that the Consultant identified 18 possible grant funding sources that can be used to fund the identified projects.

Chair McMeekin inquired regarding the speed reduction survey, if there is a contemplation of how extensive street surveys need to be.

Consultant Chyba responded that AB 43, is making it easier for jurisdictions to deviate from the 85th percentile.

Chair McMeekin further inquired if speed survey locations were identified in the plan.

Consultant Chyba responded that the Draft Plan did not go into that much detail, but that other jurisdictions use their Local Roadway Safety Plan or other safety plans to identify high-injury networks and use that as a starting point to justify deviating from the 85th percentile.

Chair McMeekin inquired if there were any safety corridors identified in the plan.

Consultant Chyba responded, no.

Chair McMeekin also inquired about implementing parking maximums mentioned in the plan and asked what major transit stops are in Covina.

Consultant Chyba clarified that a Major Transit Station is defined as a rail station such as the Covina Metrolink Train Station, or any location that is intersective to bust stops that have 15-minute or greater headways such as the Covina Foothill

4 Transit Center, or a larger intersection, and that these areas are identified on a map in the Draft Plan.

Chair McMeekin inquired if we have about three or four.

Consultant Chyba responded yes, maybe a couple more.

Chair McMeekin inquired if the data on page 18 of the Draft Plan, stating that 19% of commutes in the study area are 15 minutes or less, can be broken down further.

Consultant Chyba responded that Kosmont (Economic Development sub consultant) broke down commutes, origins, and destinations in the Existing Conditions Report, included in the Appendix, and added that in Covina, there are just about the same number of persons coming into Covina to work and those leaving Covina to work.

Chair McMeekin provided an example related to their personal experience, such as having a local commute and preparing children to get ready for school, and inquired if the commute date could be broken down further in terms of people who might consider biking to the office.

Consultant Chyba responded that this type of data can be broken down further through location-based services data such as street light, which was not part of the scope for this project, and that the consultant team prepared a higher-level assessment of travel patterns in the study area, which does talk about major destinations and other pertinent information within the Existing Conditions report.

Chair McMeekin then referred to page 301 of the Agenda Packet, referring to the Equity Outcomes Appendix, and inquired what parts of the city was being referred to on the exhibit.

Consultant Chyba clarified that they are referring to census tracts.

Chair McMeekin commented that it is ambiguous and if the consultant can clarify those areas.

Consultant Chyba responded that they would get in touch with the Sub consultant who prepared this appendix to insert a map identifying the areas discussed.

There were no further questions from the Planning Commission.

Chair Flores from the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission opened the floor for their Commissioners to ask Questions.

Commissioner Lopez commented that everything looks good, but that funding can be a problem. Commissioner Lopez also commented that parking is also a concern.

Commissioner Tillman inquired if Covina does not get any grants if the General Fund would be affected.

5 Consultant Chyba responded that there is a ton of grant money available right now in different grant cycles, which are outlined in the plan as sources that the city can leverage, however, other cities do at times choose to fund implementation through local sources.

Commissioner Florez inquired if, in any of the interviews with the public, if the public was made aware of the existing process to request lights and speed-calming technologies from the City.

Consultant Chyba responded no.

Commissioner Florez inquired if the grant funding sources recommendations include any related to AB 617 or the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Chair McMeekin asked for clarification on AB 617.

Commissioner Florez responded that AB 617 is the bill that directs the office of community air protection within the California Air Resources Board, and it provides an avenue for priority populations in disadvantaged communities to access funds related to greening and reducing climate impacts.

Transportation and Mobility Advisory Chair Lopes added that it is focused on Environmental Justice Communities
Consultant Chyba responded that they focused on summarizing grants that primarily fund green infrastructure but allow for transportation infrastructure funding as well, and from a greening perspective, highlighted California Urban Greening Program, Green California, Prop 1 Stormwater Program, and Sustainable Communities, and other regional grants.

Commissioner Florez inquired if Federal Grants were also considered.

Consultant Chyba confirmed, yes.

Commissioner Florez referred to work locations and inquired if traffic pattern data was pre or post-pandemic.

Consultant Chyba responded pre-pandemic, as post-pandemic data was not yet made available.

Chair Florez mentioned that noise mitigation was mentioned in the Draft Plan, however, there was no mention of noise mitigation directly related to the Metrolink Train.

Consultant Chyba responded that any reference to noise mitigation is in reference to how CalEnviro Screen considers noise mitigation, and mentioned that they consider freeways and traffic but is not sure if it considers trains.

Chair Florez commented that they did not see anything referring to a north-south connection, specifically between the Metro Train Station and Gold Line (in Azusa)

6 Consultant Chyba responded that they organized a community bike ride which included the Azusa Gold Line station as part of the route, and that they have recommended facilities that connect to Arrow Highway but not north of there.

Chair Florez mentioned that they did not see any reference in the Draft Plan that provided a roadmap for future technologies to ease congestion, and reduce greenhouse gas, and asked if there is a piece that discusses technological modernization to control traffic flow city-wide.

Consultant Chyba responded that the plan does discuss emerging signal technologies in the Toolbox, but there is no specific discussion about the introduction of AI (Artificial Intelligence) into the plan largely because the focus is Active Transportation, however, Fehr & Peers is looking into project green light and how to incorporate that date source into their work and considering safety and climate impacts. Consultant Chyba also mentioned about incorporating the connection to the Gold line within the Objectives section of the plan.

Chair Flores inquired, that, if federal funds are acquired if the city can be challenged or CEQA exemption be in jeopardy.

Community Development Director Lee clarified that if the city acquires a federal grant, staff would acquire a consultant that specializes in NEPA preparation.

Legal Counsel Heinselman clarified that the proposed CEQA exemption covers this plan only, and any other project if pursued would require appropriate further CEQA review.

Chair McMeekin opened the item for public comments.

Jeannette Aragon, Covina Resident, mentioned that the live across from the Eastland Shopping Center and commented that they are concerned due to the pedestrian crossing located there due to cars speeding, and would like a stop sign added there to minimize the speed of the vehicles.

Planning Commission Chair McMeekin inquired if Jeannette was requesting to put a stop sign on Workman, and where on Workman.

Jeannette Aragon responded that there is an existing pedestrian crosswalk, with no stop sign.

Chair Florez of the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission responded that this item was actually on the agenda at the most recent Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission meeting, and requested that the City Engineer briefly respond to the question on the matter.

City Engineer Fajardo commented that the item was presented to the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission for recommendation of approval to the City Council, and that the item will be presented to the City Council at the next available City Council meeting.

7 There were no other public comments.

Chair McMeekin closed the public comment period.

Chair McMeekin entertained a motion to adopt Resolution 2024-001 PC as recommended by staff.

Planning Commission Action
Motion made by: Commissioner Zermeno
Motion Seconded by: Commissioner Richardson
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0
AYES: RICHARDSON, ZERMENO, CONNORS, RODRIGUEZ, MCMEEKIN NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-001 PC, recommending that the City Council adopt the Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan and find the project exempt from CEQA.

Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission Motion
Motion made by: Commissioner Tillman
Motion Seconded by: Commissioner Lopez
The motion carried by a vote of 4-0
AYES: LOPEZ, FLOREZ, TILLMAN, FLORES
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
The Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission approved a vote by minute action, recommending that the City Council adopt the Covina Active Streets and Multi Modal Connectivity Plan and find the project exempt from CEQA.

11. NEW BUSINESS
None.

12. GENERAL MATTERS

8 None.

13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM.
_________________________
Planning Commission Secretary

San Gabriel Valley Examiner
709 E. Route 66 Ste. A
Glendora, CA 91740
626-852-3374
City of Covina
Attn: City Clerk
124 E. College St.

Covina, CA 91723

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(201 5.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
I am over the age of eighteen years, I am not
a party to the above-entitled matter. I am the
principal clerk of the Publisher of the San
Gabriel Valley Examiner, an adjudicated
newspaper of general circulation printed and
published weekly in the City of Glendora,
County of Los Angeles. The San Gabriel Valley
Examiner has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of
the County of Los Angeles, State of California,
under the date of July 19, 1999, case Number
KS 005341. The notice, of which the annexed
is a true printed copy, has been published in
each regular and entitled issue of said
newspaper and not any supplement thereof on
the following dates to wit:

March 7, 2024
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in the City of Glendora, Los Angeles
County, California
On this 7th day of March 2024.

Signature

CITY OF COVINA

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Covina will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING in the City Hall Council Chambers, 125 East College Street, Covina, on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, or as soon as possible thereafter, to consider the Adoption of the Covina Active Streets and MultiModal Connectivity Plan.

All interested citizens are invited to attend the public hearing. Any person may submit written comments to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, prior to, or at the time of, the hearing.

The Final Draft Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan is available to view online at https://covinaca.gov/city-departments/community-development/public-notice/ If you challenge the decision on the proposed plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence submitted to the City Clerk or to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Further information may be obtained from the City of Covina Community Development Department at (626) 384-5445.

Pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act, the City of Covina will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special accommodations, please contact the Planning Division at (626) 384-5450, at least five (5) days in advance of this hearing.

California Environmental Quality Act Findings. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has analyzed the proposed Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan “Plan” and determined that the proposed Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 14, § 1500 et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Section 21080.20. CEQA Section 21080.20 exempts active transportation plans from CEQA. The proposed Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan is a plan developed by the City of Covina that is meant to promote and encourage people to take alternative travel options to single-occupancy vehicle trips through increasing safety, comfort, and connectivity of pedestrian, cyclist, and public transportation within the identified study area. It is therefore an active transportation plan exempt from CEQA.

BRIAN K. LEE, AICP

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTE: ACCESS TO THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER IS FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TWO-STORY CITY HALL BUILDING VIATHE COURTYARD.

Publish in the San Gabriel Valley Examiner on March 7, 2024. #CC01

ATTACHMENT F

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CB 1
Meeting: March 19, 2024
Title: Development Impact Fee Report
Presented by: Daniella Andrade, Management Analyst
Brian K. Lee, Director of Community Development
Recommendation: Review the Development Impact Fee Study/Report prepared by NBS Government Finance Group and provide direction to City staff regarding the following:

1. Consider introducing a nominal administrative fee to prepare future studies;

2. Direct staff to formally prepare the item for adoption at a future duly noticed City Council Public Hearing; and

3. Direct Staff to evaluate options to reduce Development Impact Fees for affordable housing units and return as a separate item for City Council consideration.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000, et seq.) a city may collect from an applicant, as a condition of development approval, development impact fees on the basis that additional development generates additional need for public facilities and services, including but not limited to police, parkland, community centers, fire department services, and streets/traffic signals. Development Impact Fees are restricted-use funds that cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies.

The City first adopted a Development Impact Fee (DIF) Schedule in 2005 imposing impact fees on new residential and commercial development under the authority of the California Mitigation Fee Act. Recent legislation, including but not limited to AB 68 (2019, Ting. Land Use: accessory dwelling units) and AB 602 (2021, Grayson.

Development Impact Fees: Fee Nexus Study) prompted city staff to revisit the City’s existing Development Impact Fee schedule and in doing so update the fee schedule. The City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with NBS Government Finance Group in April 2022 to prepare a Development Impact Fee Study.

The Final Draft Study has been prepared and reviewed by city staff, and staff is now requesting that the City Council consider the proposed amended fee schedule and other considerations related to the collection of Development Impact Fees.

No formal action is requested at this time. Staff is requesting a discussion regarding the nexus study and direction from the City Council to return the item at a duly noticed public hearing.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Recent changes in state law prompted staff to revisit the City’s Development Impact Fee, including compliance with ADU-related regulations. For example, both ADU regulations and AB 602 require that Development Impact Fees be charged proportionately to unit size, and not by the unit type. “Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (f)(3)(a).) ADU
“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 in the development…. a local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in 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 development.” (Gov. Code, § 66016.5, subd. (a)(5)(a).)
The Covina DIF Schedule currently categorizes residential development as Multi-Family or Single Family, regardless of unit size, resulting in two fee options. This categorization was typical of Development Impact Fee Studies until AB 602 in 2021, which requires that development impact fee studies conducted after January 1, 2022, be calculated on a housing project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units in the development. The Nexus Study (Attachment A) proposes to comply with this regulation by categorizing residential units by unit size in terms of square feet, resulting in five (5) tiers (see Table 1).

Table 1. Residential Development Comparison
Existing Residential Development Unit
Categories
Proposed Residential Development Unit
Categories
Multi-Family Residential less than 600 SF
Single-Family Residential >600-800 SF
>800-1,200 SF
>1,200-1,900 SF
>1,900-2,300 SF
>2,300 SF
Additional requirements under AB 602 include but are not limited to:
 The study must 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 necessary  If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
 Nexus studies must be updated every 8 years, from the period beginning January 1, 2022.

More information regarding recent legislation can be found in Attachment A. Consultant NBS Government Finance Group (“NBS”) utilized a standard-based method to prepare the nexus study for all existing impact fee categories. This method assesses the city’s existing Level of Service (“LOS”) and the level of service that would need to be maintained as the residential and service population grows, and demand for facilities and services grows in the City. Below is a summary of the methods used for each impact fee category under the Standardbased method and nexus findings as prepared by NBS.

Park Land Acquisition; Park Improvement
Applicable only to residential developments without subdivision. A residential development project proposing subdivisions is subject to Quimby, and Parkland development impact fees are not applied in those cases.

Method used (S-2,S-3)
o Fees based on the City’s existing ratio of parkland to population (acres per capita) and estimated cost per acre for parkland (cost per capita). Banna Park was used in the calculation.  Land cost per capita x cost per acre for Banna Park Site.

Nexus Findings (3-7)
o Purpose: Mitigate the impact of new residential development on the need for parks in Covina o Use: provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new residential development in the City. Fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. o Reasonable relationship (use of fee & the development type on which it is imposed): used to provide additional parks or park improvements to serve the needs of the added population associated with new residential development.

o Reasonable Relationship (need for facilities and type of development on which the fee is imposed):

New development increases the need for parks to maintain existing LOS. Without additional park space, an increase in population associated with new development would result in a reduction in LOS provided to Covina residents.
o Reasonable relationship (proposed fee & the cost attributable to new development): Impact fees calculated in this chapter depend on the estimated increase in population per unit type. Fees are based on the average population per unit type, thus, fees charged to a new development project reflect the impact of that project on the need for parks in the city.

Community/Recreation Centers
Applicable only to residential development
Method Used (S-3)
o Fees calculated in the study are based on the City’s existing LOS, defined as the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost of existing community and recreation center facilities.  Cost per capita x population per unit
Nexus Findings (4-4)
o Purpose: mitigate the impact of new residential development on the need for community /recreation facilities.
o Use: provide additional community/recreation facilities to mitigate the impacts of new residential development. May be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund to another. o Reasonable Relationship (use of the fee & development on which it is imposed): provide additional community/recreation facilities to serve additional population associated with new residential development.
o Reasonable Relationship (need for facilities & development on which it is imposed): new development increases the need for community/recreation facilities to maintain the existing LOS.

Without additional facilities, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the LOS provided by the City. o Reasonable Relationship (amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project): the fees for this category depend on the estimated increase in population per unit (residential development). Fees are based on the average population per unit type, thus, fees charged to a new development project reflect the impact of that project on the need for parks in the city.

Library
Library impact fees only apply to residential development.

Method Used (S-4)
o Fees based on the City’s existing LOS, defined as the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost of existing library facilities and materials (cost per capita)  Cost per capita x population per unit
Nexus Findings (5-5)
oPurpose: mitigate the impact of new residential development on the need for library facilities in Covina. o Use: Provide additional library facilities/materials to mitigate the impacts of new residential development in Covina.
oReasonable Relationship (use of the fee & development on which it is imposed): will be used to provide additional library facilities/materials to serve the needs of the additional population associated with new residential development in the City.
oReasonable Relationship (need for facilities & development on which it is imposed): new development increases the need for libraries to maintain the existing LOS. Without additional library facilities/materials, the increase in population with new residential development would result in a reduction in the LOS provided to all Covina residents.
oReasonable Relationship (amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project):
the amount of this fee depends on the estimated increase in population per unit (residential). The fees per

unit are based on the estimated average population per unit, thus, the fee reflects the impact of a project on the need for libraries in the City.

General Government Facilities
Applicable to residential and non-residential development Method Used (S-4)
oFees based on the City’s existing LOS, defined as the relationship between the existing service population and the replacement cost of existing facilities (cost per capita of service population).  Cost per capita of service population x service population per unit Nexus Findings (6-6)
oPurpose: to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for general government facilities in Covina.
o Use: provide additional general governmental facilities to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. May also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee or account to another. oReasonable Relationship (use of the fee & development on which it is imposed): will be used to provide additional general governmental facilities, vehicles, and equipment to serve the needs of new development in Covina.
oReasonable Relationship (need for facilities & development on which it is imposed):
oReasonable Relationship (amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project): the amount of the fee depends on the estimated increase in service population per unit (residential or per 1,000 SF for non-residential types), thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for general governmental facilities in the City.

Police Department Facilities
Applicable to residential and non-residential development Methods Used (S-4)
oFees based on the City’s existing LOS, defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing Police Department facilities, vehicles, and equipment, and the number of calls for service per year received by the department (cost per call for service per year)  Cost per call x number of calls per unit per year
Nexus Findings (7-5, 7-6)
oPurpose: to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for Police facilities in Covina. o Use: to provide additional or improved Police facilities, and additional vehicles and equipment to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. May also be used for temporary loans from one impact fund to another.
oReasonable Relationship (use of the fee & development on which it is imposed): Provide additional or improved Police facilities, and additional vehicles/equipment to serve the needs of new development. oReasonable Relationship (need for facilities & development on which it is imposed): new development increased the need for Police facilities to maintain the existing LOS. Without additional/improved Police facilities, the increase in demand associated with the new development would result in a reduction in the LOS provided to all development in the City.
oReasonable Relationship (amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project): the amount of fees imposed depends on the number of calls for service per unit (residential unit or per 1,000 SF non-residential) per year. Fees are based on the estimated number of calls per unit per year, thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for Police facilities in the City.

Fire Protection Facilities
Applicable to residential and non-residential development Methods Used (S-4,S-5)

o Fees based on existing LOS, defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing facilities and the number of calls for service per year. o Does not include firefighting apparatus/vehicles which are provided through the county.  Cost per call x number of calls per unit per year
Nexus Findings (8-5, 8-6)
o Purpose: to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for Fire Department Facilities. o Use: to provide additional or improved Fire Department facilities to mitigate the impacts of new development facilities in Covina.
o Reasonable Relationship (use of the fee & development on which it is imposed): Provide additional or improved Fire Department facilities to serve the needs of new development in Covina.
o Reasonable Relationship (need for facilities & development on which it is imposed): New development increases the need for Fire Department facilities to maintain LOS. Without additional or improved Fire Department facilities, the increase in demand associated with new development would result in a reduction in LOS provided to all development in the City. o Reasonable Relationship (amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project): The amount of the fee depends on the number of calls for service per unit per year associated with the new development category. Fees are based on the estimated number of estimated calls as noted above associated with a development type thus, the fee charged to a new development reflects the impact of that project on the need for Fire Department facilities in Covina.

Street Improvements and Traffic Signals
Applicable to residential and non-residential development Method Used (S-5)
o Fess based on existing LOS, defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing arterial and collector streets and traffic signals and the number of peak hour vehicle trips per day generated by existing development in the City.
 Cos per peak hour trip x number of peak hour trips per unit Nexus Findings (5-5)
o Purpose: to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for streets and traffic signal facilities. o Use: to provide street improvements and traffic signals to mitigate the impacts of new development on Covina’s street system. May also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund to another. o Reasonable Relationship (use of the fee & development on which it is imposed): will be used to provide street improvements and traffic signals to mitigate the impacts of new development in Covina. o Reasonable Relationship (need for facilities & development on which it is imposed): new development generates additional vehicle traffic that increases the need for street capacity and traffic signals to maintain the existing level of service. Without additional street improvements and traffic signals, the increase in demand associated with new development would result in a reduction LOS to all development in the City.
o Reasonable Relationship (amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project): the amount of the fee depends on the number of peak hour trips generated by each development category. The fees are based on the estimated number of peak hour trips per unit (residential unit type or per 1,000 SF of nonresidential development), thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for street improvements and traffic signals in the City.

Tables 2 and 3 below show the existing and proposed Development Impact Fees, respectively. Note that under AB 602, DIF must be charged proportionately to Unit size. As a result, development impact fees are tiered based on unit sizes. Certain impact fees are reduced as a result of the study due to LOS calculations, but all DIF totals are proposed to increase at a minimum of 12%.

Table 2. Existing Development Impact Fee Schedule
Park Impact Fees Traffic Impact Fees
Development
Type Per unit ParkLand
Park
Imprv
Com/Rec
Centers Library GeneralGov’t Police Fire Streets Traffic Signals Total Multi-Family Dwelling
Unit
$3,457 $692 $610 $498 $794 $737 $353 $1,748 $119 $9,008 Single-Family Dwelling
Unit
$4,483 $897 $792 $646 $1,028 $956 $458 $2,185 $149 $11,594 Commercial 1,000 SF $192 $177 $85 $5,428 $371 $6,253
Office 1,000 SF $255 $237 $113 $4,789 $327 $5,721
Industrial 1,000 SF $128 $118 $57 $1,750 $120 $2,173
Table 3. Proposed Development Impact Fee changes.

Development Per Unit Park
Land
Park
Imprv
Com/
Rec
Centers
Library Gen
Gov
Polic
e
Fire Streets Traffic
Signals Total
Existing
Fees
(2005)
Residential
< 600 SF
Dwelling
unit $1,231
-64%
$820
19%
$316
-48%
$432
-13%
$388
-51%
$349
-52%
$160
-54%
$5,702
228%
$659
455%
$10,057
12%
$9,008
Multi
Family
$10,117*
Residential
600-800 SF
unit $1,661
-52%
$1,107
61%
$427
-30%
$583
18%
$524
-34%
$369
-50%
$231
-34%
$7,257
318%
$838
607%
$12,998
45%
$13,076*
$9,008
Multi
Family
Residential
>800-1,200 SF
unit $2,769
-19%
$1,846
168%
$712
17%
$971
96%
$874
11%
$389
-47%
$302
-14%
$9,072
422%
$1,048
784%
$17,982
101%
$18,090*
$11,594
SingleFamily
Residential
>1,200-1,900
SF
unit $4,368
-2%
$2,912
227%
$1,12
4 43%
$1,533
139%
$1,378
35%
$409
-57%
$373
-18%
$11,01
5 407%
$1,272
757%
$24,385
112%
$24,531*
$11,594
SingleFamily
Residential
>1,900-2,300
unit $5,845
31%
$3,896
337%
$1,50
3 91%
$2,051
219%
$1,844
80%
$429
-55%
$445
-2%
$12,83
0 491%
$1,482
898%
$30,325
163%
$30,507*
$11,594
SingleFamily
Residential
>2,300
unit $7,075
59%
$4,717
429%
$1,82
0 131%
$2,482
287%
$2,233
118%
$449
-53%
$516
13%
$14,25
5 556%
$1,646
1009%
$35,390
205%
$35,405*
$11,594
SingleFamily
Commercial 1,000
SF
$862
352%
$1,9
83 1027
%
$498
489%
$29,62
5 449%
$3,422
827%
$36,390
485%
$36,608*
$6,253
per 1,000
SF
Office 1,000
SF
$629
148%
$160
-32%
$178
58%
$14,90
3 213%
$1,721
429%
$17,591
209%
$17,697*
$5,721
per 1,000
SF
Industrial 1,000
SF
$229
80%
$83
-29%
$124
$120%
$5,313
205%
$614
416%
$6,364
195%
$6,402*
$2,173
per 1,000
SF
Other
developments
not defined
$388 x
#
employ
ees X

0.54 $401
per
call
per
year
$1,778
per call
per
year
$12,959
per
peak
hour
trip
$1,497
per peak
hour trip
* = The proposed fee if an administrative fee of 0.6% is applied Items for Consideration and Next Steps:

1. Consider the introduction of a 0.6% administrative fee.

Table 2 illustrates what the total DIF fee per unit would look like if a 0.6% administrative fee were introduced.

An administrative charge may offset the regular preparation of DIF reports, which under AB 602 should be updated every eight (8) years. Staff would recommend that if this fee is supported by the council, the 0.6% be collected in a separate restricted fund and account for tracking purposes and not co-mingle funding since this would only be for a specific use.

2. Direct staff to formally prepare the Final Draft Report for a duly noticed Public Hearing, to include the aforementioned considerations, and any additional considerations brought up by the City Council.

3. Consider the option to introduce development incentives through the reduction of DIFs when affordable housing is proposed.

As a separate item, staff can evaluate options to consider the reduction of DIFs for affordable housing units, such as Senior Housing, Student and skilled Nurse Units, or other strategies such as providing a tiered incentive approach to developments that will dedicate a percentage of units to affordable housing. This concept would require further research and can be returned to the City Council as a separate item.

FISCAL IMPACT:

At this time, this action has no fiscal impact. However, the proposed Development Impact Fees in the report are estimated to generate $29.89 Million (The majority in impact fees for streets and traffic signals at $18.85 Million) in restricted funding that can be used towards Capital Improvement Projects directly related to the impact on additional development (additional residential and service population) in the city, by 2040. It is important to note here that any capital improvement projects utilizing development impact fees that also serve the existing population, must also include other funding sources.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

This item is exempt within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential to result in a physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Daniella Andrade
Management Analyst

Final Report
Development Impact Fee Study
Final Report
March 14, 2024
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516

ATTACHMENT A

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... S-1 Organization of the Report .................................................................................................................... S-1 Development Data ................................................................................................................................. S-2 Impact Fee Analysis ................................................................................................................................ S-2 Use of the Fees ....................................................................................................................................... S-5 Impact Fee Summary ............................................................................................................................. S-5 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. S-8 Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees .......................................................................................................... 1-1 Recent Legislation .................................................................................................................................. 1-5 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology .................................................................................................... 1-7 Facilities Addressed in this Study ........................................................................................................... 1-8 Chapter 2. Development Data ......................................................................................................... 2-1 Study Area and Time Frame ................................................................................................................... 2-1 Development Types ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 Residential Development and Population ............................................................................................. 2-2 Units of Development ............................................................................................................................ 2-3 Demand Variables .................................................................................................................................. 2-3 Demand Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Existing and Future Development .......................................................................................................... 2-8 Growth Potential .................................................................................................................................. 2-10 Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements .................................................................................. 3-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Existing Parks and Existing Level of Service ........................................................................................... 3-2 Cost Per Capita ....................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 3-4 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 3-5 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 3-6

Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Centers ................................................................................ 4-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service ...................................................................................... 4-1 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 4-2 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4-3 Chapter 5. Libraries ......................................................................................................................... 5-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service ...................................................................................... 5-1 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 5-2 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 5-3 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 5-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 5-4 Chapter 6. General Government Facilities ........................................................................................ 6-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service ...................................................................................... 6-1 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 6-4 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 6-5 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 6-5 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 6-5 Chapter 7. Police Department Facilities ........................................................................................... 7-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service ...................................................................................... 7-2

Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 7-4 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 7-5 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 7-5 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 7-5 Chapter 8. Fire Protection Facilities ................................................................................................. 8-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service ...................................................................................... 8-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 8-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 8-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 8-5 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 8-5 Chapter 9. Street Improvements and Traffic Signals ......................................................................... 9-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service ...................................................................................... 9-1 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 9-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 9-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 9-5 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 9-5 Chapter 10. Implementation ......................................................................................................... 10-1 Adoption .............................................................................................................................................. 10-1 Administration ..................................................................................................................................... 10-2 Requirements Imposed by AB 602 ....................................................................................................... 10-6 Training and Public Information .......................................................................................................... 10-7 Recovery of Administrative Costs ........................................................................................................ 10-8 Appendices
Fee Comparison Appendix A

City of Covina Page S-1
Development Impact Fee Study
March 14, 2024
Executive Summary
The City of Covina retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on several types of City capital facilities and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees, and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees.

Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in this report.

Chapters 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are listed by chapter below:

Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Center Facilities
Chapter 5. Library Facilities and Materials
Chapter 6. General Government Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Chapter 7. Police Department Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Chapter 8. Fire Department Facilities
Chapter 9 Street Improvements and Traffic Signals
Chapter 10 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact fees, including suggested findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Appendix A to this report provides a comparison of Covina’s existing and proposed impact fees to the cities of Claremont, Glendora, Monterey Park, San Dimas, San Gabriel and West Covina.

The purpose of the comparison is to provide a sense of the regional and/or comparable pricing for impact fees, and to use that information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments. It should be noted that comparison to other agencies do not provide information about the cost recovery policies or procedures followed in relation to their impact fees. A “market-based” decision to price services below the maximum impact fee calculation, is the same as making a decision to subsidize that service. Survey efforts are sometimes also non-conclusive for certain fee categories and development types because of varied terminology and approaches to calculating impact fees.

City of Covina Page S-2
Development Impact Fee Study
March 14, 2024
Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Covina and a forecast of future development. Covina is a largely built-out city and new development mostly involves infill or intensification and redevelopment, so forecasting future development involves considerable uncertainty. This study includes a forecast of future residential development, but no forecast of future non-residential development. It is important to note that the methods used to calculate impact fees in this report do not depend on forecasts of future development.

Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit, service population per unit, police and fire calls per unit and peak hour vehicle trips per unit that are used in the impact fee calculations.

It is important to note that because of provisions of AB 602 that were incorporated into California law effective in 2022, impact fee categories for residential development in this study are defined in terms of unit size categories, broken down by square footage. Prior to the adoption of AB 602 it was common practice to base residential impact fees on unit type categories (e.g., single-family or multi-family units).

Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a separate chapter. In each case, the relationship, or nexus, between development and the need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional development on facility needs to be quantified.

The impact fees are based only on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operations.

Another change brought about by AB 602 is that all of the impact fees calculated in this report are based on the existing level of service, so that the impact fees are set at the level needed to maintain that level of service as additional development occurs. The existing levels of service for the facility types addressed in this report are defined in Chapters 3 through 9 and are discussed in the brief chapter-by-chapter summaries below. Impact fees calculated in this report are shown on page S-5 of this Executive Summary.

The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for each of the facility types addressed in this study.

Park Land and Park Improvements. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for park land acquisition and park improvements. The cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment is included in the park improvement impact fees.

Impact Fees for Park Land Acquisition. The impact fees for park land acquisition calculated in Chapter 3 apply only to residential development that does not involve a subdivision or parcel map. The City has an existing ordinance (Chapter 16.28 of the Covina Municipal Code) that

City of Covina Page S-3
Development Impact Fee Study
March 14, 2024
requires developers of residential subdivisions to dedicate land for parks or to pay fees in lieu of dedication, as authorized by the Quimby Act. In-lieu fees that would be charged under that chapter may be different from the park impact fees calculated in this report for two reasons: (1) the Quimby Act allows park land dedication requirements and in-lieu fees to be based on a standard of 3.0 acres per thousand residents, while the Mitigation Fee Act requires impact fees to be based on the existing ratio of park acres to population which is lower in Covina; and, (2) the in lieu fees under Chapter 16.28 are based on the fair market value of the land being developed, whereas the park land impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on a standardized cost per acre.

The park land impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing ratio of park land to population (acres per capita), and the land cost per acre used in those calculations is based on the estimated cost per acre for park land. The cost per capita for park land acquisition is calculated as the existing acres per capita multiplied by the cost per acre for the Banna Park site. To calculate impact fees, the land cost per capita is multiplied by population per unit for each type of residential development to get an impact fee per unit by development type. Impact fees for park land acquisition do not apply to non-residential development.

Impact Fees for Park Land Improvements. The park improvement impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing ratio of park land to population (acres per capita) and the estimated cost per acre for park improvements. The cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment is incorporated into the park improvement impact fees, but that component represents less than 1% of those fees.

The cost per capita for park improvements is calculated as the existing acres per capita multiplied by the estimated cost per acre for park improvements based on the improvement costs for Banna Park. Then the cost per capita is multiplied by population per unit for each type of residential development to get an impact fee per unit by development type. Impact fees for park improvements do not apply to non-residential development.

The impact fees calculated in this report for park land and park improvements are shown in Table S.1 on page S-5.

Community and Recreation Center Facilities. Chapter 4 of this report calculates impact fees for community and recreation center facilities including the aquatic center, other community and recreation centers and the Parks and Recreation Department office.

The impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service for these facilities which is defined as the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost of existing community and recreation center facilities. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita. The impact fees for community and recreation center facilities are calculated as the cost per capita multiplied by the population per unit for each type of residential development. The impact fees for community and recreation center facilities do not apply to non-residential development.

City of Covina Page S-4
Development Impact Fee Study
March 14, 2024
The impact fees calculated in this report for community and recreation center facilities are shown in Table S.1 on page S-5.

Library Facilities and Materials. Chapter 5 of this report calculates impact fees for library facilities and materials.

The Library impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service which is defined as the relationship between the existing population and the replacement cost of existing Library facilities and materials. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita. The impact fees are calculated as the cost per capita multiplied by the population per unit for each type of residential development. The impact fees for Library facilities and materials do not apply to non-residential development.

The impact fees for Library facilities and Library materials are calculated separately in Chapter 5, but they are shown as a combined fee in Table S.1 on page S-5.

General Government Facilities. Chapter 6 of this report calculates impact fees for general government facilities including City Hall, the City Yard facilities and the Civic Center Parking Structure. Those impact fees also include the cost of vehicles and equipment assigned to general government departments, most of which belong to Public Works.

The impact fees are based on the City’s existing level of service for these facilities which is defined as the relationship between the existing service population and the replacement cost of the existing facilities. That relationship is stated as a cost per capita of service population. The impact fees for general government facilities are calculated as the cost per capita of service population multiplied by the service population per unit for each type of development. The impact fees for community and recreation center apply to both residential and non-residential development.

The impact fees calculated in this report for general government facilities are shown in Table S.1 on page S-5.

Police Department Facilities. Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for Police Department facilities and vehicles based on the existing level of service in the City. The existing level of service is defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing Police Department facilities, vehicles and equipment and the number of calls for service per year received by the Department.

That relationship is stated as a cost per call for service per year.

As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Police Department calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development. The impact fee per unit for each type of development is calculated by multiplying the cost per call and the number of calls per unit per year for each type of development. Police impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.

The impact fees calculated in this report for Police Department facilities are shown in Table S.1 on page S-5.

Fire Department Facilities. Chapter 8 calculates impact fees for Covina’s Fire Department facilities, based on the existing level of service in the City. The cost of firefighting apparatus and

City of Covina Page S-5
Development Impact Fee Study
March 14, 2024
vehicles used by the department are not included in the impact fee calculations because the Los Angeles County Fire Department provides those assets under its contract with the City. The existing level of service is defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing Fire Department capital facilities and the number of calls for service per year received by the Fire Department. That relationship is stated as a cost per call for service per year.

As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Fire Department calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development. The impact fee per unit for each type of development is calculated by multiplying the cost per call by the number of calls per unit per year for each type of development. Fire protection impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.

The impact fees calculated in this report for Fire Department facilities are shown in Table S.1 below.

Street Improvements and Traffic Signals. Chapter 9 calculates impact fees for street improvements and traffic signals based on the existing level of service in the City. The existing level of service is defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of existing arterial and collector streets and traffic signals and the number of peak hour vehicle trips per day generated by existing development in the City. That relationship is stated as a cost per peak hour trip. The impact fee per unit for each type of development is calculated by multiplying the cost per peak hour trip by the number of peak hour trips per unit for each type of development. Those impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.

Impact fees for street improvements and traffic signals are calculated separately and are shown in Table S.1 below.

Use of the Fees
Revenue from impact fees calculated in this report will be used in accordance with the City of Covina Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). That plan will be considered and adopted concurrently with consideration and adoption of the impact fees calculated in this report.

Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 on the next page summarizes the impact fees calculated in this report. This study calculates impact fees for the Public/Quasi-Public development category so that the impact of that development is accounted for in the fee calculations. However, those fees are not shown in the following tables because the City lacks authority to impose those fees on public schools or on projects constructed by other governmental entities.

For development projects that do not fit well into one of the development type categories defined in this study, Table S.1 shows how impact fees can tailored to the actual impact of such projects using inputs such as number of employees, police calls per year, fire calls per year, and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips per weekday.

City of Covina Page S-6
Development Impact Fee Study
March 14, 2024
Trip data can be found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual titled Trip Generation, which is commonly used by transportation planners and traffic engineers. The other inputs to the model must be estimated from project-specific data. Employees per unit can best be provided by the applicant. Police and fire calls per unit per year can be estimated by using call data for existing projects of a similar nature in the City. This study used a spreadsheet listing all police and fire calls for service for a one-year period, and when those calls are sorted by address it is relatively easy to determine the number of calls per year to the addresses of existing facilities.

Then, the number of calls per year can be divided by the number of units (KSF) at an address to get calls per unit per year, which can then be multiplied by the number of units in the project.

Table S.2 shows the proposed impact fees from Table S.1 with the addition of a 0.6% administrative fee. That percentage is intended to cover the cost of preparing a $50,000 impact fee update study every eight years as required by the Mitigation Fee Act, and is calculated by dividing the average annual study costs (50,000 / 8 = $6,250) by the average annual revenue ($29,827,038 / 30 years = $994,235). The annual revenue number assumes the revenue projected in this report is received over 30 years. The administrative fee percentage is calculated as $6,250 / $994,235 = 0.006 or 0.6%.

As part of the process of adopting the impact fees, the City Council can decide whether or not to add the administrative fee to the impact fees so that impact fee revenue can be used to pay for future impact fee studies.

Table S.1: Summary of Proposed Impact Fees
Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Land
Park
Imprv
Com/Rec
Centers Library
General
Gov't Police Fire Streets
Traffic
Signals Total
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $ 1,231 $ 820 $ 316 $ 432 $ 387 $ 349 $ 160 $ 5,702 $ 659 $ 10,056 Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $ 1,661 $1,107 $ 427 $ 583 $ 523 $ 369 $ 231 $ 7,257 $ 838 $ 12,997 Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $ 2,769 $1,846 $ 712 $ 971 $ 871 $ 389 $ 302 $ 9,072 $ 1,048 $ 17,979 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $ 4,368 $2,912 $ 1,124 $1,533 $ 1,374 $ 409 $ 373 $11,015 $ 1,272 $ 24,381 Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $ 5,845 $3,896 $ 1,503 $2,051 $ 1,839 $ 429 $ 445 $12,830 $ 1,482 $ 30,319 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $ 7,075 $4,717 $ 1,820 $2,482 $ 2,226 $ 449 $ 516 $14,255 $ 1,646 $ 35,187 Commercial KSF $ 859 $1,983 $ 498 $29,625 $ 3,422 $ 36,387 Office KSF $ 627 $ 160 $ 178 $14,903 $ 1,721 $ 17,589
Industrial KSF $ 228 $ 83 $ 124 $ 5,313 $ 614 $ 6,363
Other development that does not fit any of the categories above $388 X No.
of Empl. X

0.54 $401
per call
per Year
$1,778
per call
per year
$12,959
per peak
hour trip
$1,497
per peak
hour trip
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area

City of Covina Page S-7
Development Impact Fee Study
March 14, 2024
Table S.3 shows the City’s existing impact fees. Those impact fees were adopted in 2005 and have not been increased since that time. Because of the differences between the residential development categories used in this study and those used for the City’s existing fees, the impact fees shown in Table S.3 for the three smallest unit size categories are the existing multi-family unit impact fees, and the impact fees shown for the three largest unit size categories are the existing single-family unit impact fees.

Also, while the resolution adopting the City’s existing impact fees combined the impact fees for park land, park improvements and recreation facilities into a single fee and the impact fees for street improvements and traffic signals into a single fee, Table S.3 breaks those fees out as they were originally calculated in a 2005 study. These impact fees have not been updated since they were adopted in November 2005.

Table S.4 shows the difference between the existing impact fees in Table S.3 and the proposed impact fees including the administrative fee in Table S.2. Numbers in parentheses indicate that the proposed fees are lower than the existing fees.

Table S.2: Summary of Proposed Impact Fees including a 0.6% Administrative Charge Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Land
Park
Imprv
Com/Rec
Centers Library
General
Gov't Police Fire Streets
Traffic
Signals Total
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $ 1,238 $ 825 $ 318 $ 434 $ 389 $ 351 $ 161 $ 5,736 $ 663 $ 10,116 Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $ 1,671 $1,114 $ 430 $ 586 $ 526 $ 371 $ 233 $ 7,301 $ 843 $ 13,075 Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $ 2,785 $1,857 $ 716 $ 977 $ 876 $ 391 $ 304 $ 9,126 $ 1,054 $ 18,087 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU 4,394$ 2,930$ 1,130$ 1,542$ 1,383$ 411$ 376$ 11,082$ 1,280$ 24,527$ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $ 5,880 $3,920 $ 1,512 $2,063 $ 1,850 $ 432 $ 447 $12,907 $ 1,491 $ 30,501 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $ 7,118 $4,745 $ 1,831 $2,497 $ 2,239 $ 452 $ 519 $14,341 $ 1,656 $ 35,398 Commercial KSF $ 865 $1,995 $ 501 $29,803 $ 3,442 $ 36,606 Office KSF $ 631 $ 161 $ 179 $14,993 $ 1,732 $ 17,695
Industrial KSF 230$ 83$ 125$ 5,345 $ 617$ 6,401$
Other development that does not fit any of the categories above $390 X No.
of Empl. X

0.54 $403
per call
per Year
$1,789
per call
per year
$13,037
per peak
hour trip
$1,506
per peak
hour trip
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area Table S.3: Summary of Existing Impact Fees
Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Land
Park
Imprv
Com/Rec
Centers Library
General
Gov't Police Fire Streets
Traffic
Signals Total
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $ 3,457 $ 692 $ 610 $ 498 $ 794 $ 737 $ 353 $ 1,748 $ 119 $ 9,008 Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $ 3,457 $ 692 $ 610 $ 498 $ 794 $ 737 $ 353 $ 1,748 $ 119 $ 9,008 Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $ 3,457 $ 692 $ 610 $ 498 $ 794 $ 737 $ 353 $ 1,748 $ 119 $ 9,008 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $ 4,483 $ 897 $ 792 $ 646 $1,028 $ 956 $ 458 $ 2,185 $ 149 $ 11,594 Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $ 4,483 $ 897 $ 792 $ 646 $1,028 $ 956 $ 458 $ 2,185 $ 149 $ 11,594 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $ 4,483 $ 897 $ 792 $ 646 $1,028 $ 956 $ 458 $ 2,185 $ 149 $ 11,594 Commercial KSF $ 192 $ 177 $ 85 $ 5,428 $ 371 $ 6,253
Office KSF $ 255 $ 237 $ 113 $ 4,789 $ 327 $ 5,721
Industrial KSF $ 128 $ 118 $ 57 $ 1,750 $ 120 $ 2,173
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area

City of Covina Page S-8
Development Impact Fee Study
March 14, 2024
Interpreting the figures in Table S.4 is complicated by the fact that the development types used for the City’s existing impact fees are different from those used in the current study. So, for example, the proposed park land impact fees are substantially lower than the existing fees for the smaller unit sizes and substantially higher for the larger unit sizes. While that pattern is reflected in some form for all the impact fees, certain fees are mostly lower than the existing fees while others are higher across the board. In particular, the impact fees for street improvements are much higher than the existing fees.

Table S.5 shows the percentage difference between the existing fees in Table S.3 and the proposed impact fees in Table S.2.

Projected Revenue
Overall, the projected revenue for all impact fees calculated in this study totals $29.8 million, of which $18.85 million would be generated by impact fees for streets and traffic signals. That revenue is projected only for residential development, because it was not possible to forecast future non-residential development for this study.

Table S.4: Difference Between Existing Impact Fees and Proposed Impact Fees Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Land
Park
Imprv
Com/Rec
Centers Library
General
Gov't Police Fire Streets
Traffic
Signals Total
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $(2,219) $ 133 $ (292) $ (64) $ (405) $ (386) $ (192) $ 3,989 $ 543 $ 1,108 Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $(1,786) $ 422 $ (180) $ 88 $ (268) $ (366) $ (120) $ 5,553 $ 724 $ 4,067 Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $ (672) $1,165 $ 106 $ 479 $ 82 $ (346) $ (49) $ 7,378 $ 935 $ 9,079 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $ (89) $2,033 $ 338 $ 896 $ 355 $ (545) $ (82) $ 8,897 $ 1,131 $ 12,933 Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $ 1,397 $3,023 $ 720 $1,417 $ 822 $ (524) $ (11) $10,722 $ 1,341 $ 18,907 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $ 2,635 $3,848 $ 1,039 $1,851 $ 1,211 $ (504) $ 61 $12,156 $ 1,507 $ 23,804 Commercial KSF $ 673 $1,818 $ 416 $24,375 $ 3,071 $ 30,353 Office KSF $ 376 $ (76) $ 66 $10,204 $ 1,404 $ 11,974
Industrial KSF $ 102 $ (35) $ 68 $ 3,595 $ 498 $ 4,228
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area Table S.5: Percentage Difference Between Existing and Proposed Impact Fees Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Land
Park
Imprv
Com/Rec
Centers Library
General
Gov't Police Fire Streets
Traffic
Signals Total
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU -64% 19% -48% -13% -51% -52% -54% 228% 455% 12% Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU -52% 61% -30% 18% -34% -50% -34% 318% 607% 45% Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU -19% 168% 17% 96% 11% -47% -14% 422% 784% 101% Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU -2% 227% 43% 139% 35% -57% -18% 407% 757% 112% Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 31% 337% 91% 219% 80% -55% -2% 491% 898% 163% Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 59% 429% 131% 287% 118% -53% 13% 556% 1009% 205% Commercial KSF 352% 1027% 489% 449% 827% 485%
Office KSF 148% -32% 58% 213% 429% 209%
Industrial KSF 80% -29% 120% 205% 416% 195%
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area

City of Covina Page 1-1
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the City of Covina and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees.

The methods used to calculate impact fees and in-lieu fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000- 66025.

Legal Framework for Impact Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice.

U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution.

In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).

Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St.

Johns Water Management District (2013), state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue. The California Supreme Court has held that the heightened scrutiny required by Nollan and Dolan does not apply to development fees that are generally applicable to a broad class of property owners through legislation (see the opinion in the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, case of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado).

For purposes of this study, we assume that the key distinction between the heightened scrutiny of Nollan and Dolan, and the “reasonable relationship” requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (discussed below) is that legislatively adopted impact fees do not require an

City of Covina Page 1-2
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
“individualized determination” as to the nature and extent of the impacts of a particular development project and the proportionality of the fees. Otherwise, we consider the reasonable relationship requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act to be generally consistent with the broad nexus standard enunciated in various federal and state impact fee decisions.

Defining “Nexus.” While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees, that term can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees.

Need or Impact. Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees.

All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate.

Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.

The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus.

Benefit. Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.

Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended in a timely manner or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus.

Proportionality. Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.

City of Covina Page 1-3
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees charged to a project exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve the project.

In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act.

Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees are exempt from those requirements.

The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time, the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for ongoing maintenance or operating costs.

Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report.

Required Findings. Section 66001 (a) requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

City of Covina Page 1-4
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023

3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed

4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed In addition, Section 66001 (b) requires that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Legal experts have opined that the requirements of Section 66001 (a) apply when impact fees are based on a legislatively adopted fee schedule, while the requirements of Section 66001 (b) apply when impact fees are based on an administratively imposed (ad hoc) assessment. 1 The requirements outlined above are discussed in more detail below.

Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund acquisition or construction of certain capital assets that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows.

This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development.

Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001(a)(2), if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. Section 66002 (b) requires that if a capital improvement plan is used to identify the facilities, it must be updated annually.

However, a new provision in Section 66016.5, which was added by AB 602 in 2021, requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee study. That requirement applies to impact fee studies adopted after January 1, 2022. “Large jurisdiction” means a county of 250,000 or more or any city within that county. The statute does not provide any detail about what must be included in the capital improvement plan or how it should relate to the impact fee study. That new requirement is inconsistent with the original language of Section 66001(a)(2), so it is unclear whether the annual update requirement in Section 66002(b) applies.
1 See “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Council, Abbott and Kindermann and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson, presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference

City of Covina Page 1-5
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:

1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;

2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and,

3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Technically, as best we can determine, the third requirement in that list pertains only to “ad hoc” fees that are not part of a legislatively adopted fee schedule. However, it is reasonable to assume that all three are part of a complete “nexus” or “reasonable relationship” framework as discussed earlier and impact fees calculated in this report are based on a proportional allocation of eligible costs to various types of development.

Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).

Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities,…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).

That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely understood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies.

However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus.

Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California since 2019 to facilitate development of affordable housing bear on the implementation of impact fees calculated in this study. Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed since 2019.

SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Amendments to existing law contained in SB 330 prohibit the imposition of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a

City of Covina Page 1-6
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
preliminary application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees and in-lieu fees, except when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationary adjustments to the fee or exaction.

AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting. AB 1483 requires that a city, county or special district must post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.

SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units. SB 13 prohibits the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet and provides that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.

Existing law requires a water or sewer connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the accessory dwelling unit’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. SB 13 revises the basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge to either the accessory dwelling unit’s square feet or the number of its drainage fixture units.

AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act. AB 602, which was passed and signed in 2021, adds section 65940.1 to the Planning and Land Use Law requiring cities, counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of fees, exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.

AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new requirements for impact fees that go into effect in 2022, including:
 A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.
 If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
 Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
 All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.  Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022.
 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 in the

City of Covina Page 1-7
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in 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.
 Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.

Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the type of facility being addressed. To some extent those methods are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.

Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development represented by some attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development.

Plan-Based or Improvements-Driven Method. Plan-based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development. The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan, while the development is identified in a land use plan that forecasts potential development by type and quantity.

Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the service demand created by each type of development. To calculate plan-based impact fees, it is necessary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of new development.

With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by total units of additional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand (e.g. a cost per capita for parks). Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by factors representing the demand per unit of development (e.g. population per unit) to arrive at a cost per unit of development.

This method is somewhat inflexible in that it is based on the relationship between a specific facility plan and a specific land use plan. If either plan changes significantly the fees will have to be recalculated.

Capacity-Based or Consumption-Driven Method. This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system. It can be applied to any type of development, provided the capacity required to serve each increment of development can be estimated and the facility has capacity available to serve the development.

City of Covina Page 1-8
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Since the cost per unit of demand does not depend on the particular type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans.

In this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. Capacity-based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system component is divided by the capacity of that component to derive a unit cost. However, a similar analysis can be applied to other types of facilities. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non-residential building area), the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical unit of development in each of several land use categories.

Standard-Based or Incremental Expansion Method. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard can be established as a matter of policy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing development in the study area.

Using the standard-based method, costs are defined on a generic unit-cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.

Park in-lieu and impact fees are commonly calculated this way. The level of service standard for parks is typically stated in terms of acres of parks per thousand residents. A cost-per-acre for park land or park improvements can usually be estimated without knowing the exact size or location of a particular park. The ratio of park acreage to population and the cost per acre for parks is used to calculate a cost per capita. The cost per capita can then be converted into a cost per unit of development based on the average population per dwelling unit for various types of residential development.

Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
 Park Land and Park Improvements
 Recreation Facilities
 Library
 General Government Facilities
 Police Facilities
 Fire Facilities
 Streets and Traffic Signals
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter

3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis.

City of Covina Page 2-1
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Chapter 2. Development Data
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and allocate the cost of capital facilities among various types of development.

Land use and development data in this chapter are based on information from the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community Survey (ACS), the California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit, the City of Covina Community Development Department and other sources as noted in this chapter.

Study Area and Time Frame
The study area for this study is the area within the current boundaries of the City of Covina. No specific timeframe for future development is defined in this study because the City is largely built out and there is considerable uncertainty about the timing of future redevelopment and infill development in Covina. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this report do not depend on the timing of future development. However, those impact fees are based on current facility costs and should be adjusted periodically to keep pace with changes in those costs.

Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this study are listed below.

Traditionally, impact fees for residential development are based on unit types such as singlefamily, multi-family and mobile home units. However, AB 602, enacted in 2021, added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code. That section requires that, “[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.” It further states that “[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.” Consequently, the residential development categories used in this study are based on unit size rather than the type of unit. The list of development categories used in this study is shown below.

Residential: < 600 Sq. Ft.

Residential: 600 – 800 Sq. Ft.

Residential: > 800 – 1,200 Sq. Ft.

Residential: > 1,200 – 1,900 Sq. Ft.

Residential: > 1,900 – 2,300 Sq. Ft.

Residential: > 2,300 Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Office
Industrial
Public Facilities

City of Covina Page 2-2
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Residential. The residential development categories used in this study are based on unit size and do not distinguish by unit type (e.g., single-family or multi-family).

Commercial. The Commercial category includes all types of commercial uses described in the Land Use Element of the Covina General Plan other than development limited to administrative and professional office uses.

Office. The Office category includes only development that is limited to administrative and professional office uses.

Industrial. The Industrial category includes industrial uses described in the Land Use Element of the Covina General Plan.

Public/Quasi-Public Facilities. This category includes government buildings and other public or quasi-public facilities, parks and public schools. In many cases, the City may lack authority to charge impact fees to development in this category or, in the case of City facilities, it would be impractical to do so. Consequently, Some other types of development, such as hospitals, churches and private schools are also covered by this category. Those developments are not legally exempt from impact fees, but those development types may not fit well into any of the defined development types in the impact fee schedules in this report. Impact fees for specific projects that do not fit any of the development types defined in this study can be calculated on an individual basis using information shown in the bottom rows in Tables S.1 and S.2.

Residential Development and Population
The chart at right shows the
California Department of Finance
(DOF) official January 1
population estimates for Covina
for the years from 2012 through
2022, except for 2020 which
shows the 2020 Census count.

It is evident from this chart that
DOF estimates from 2013 to
2019, which showed a flat
population during that period,
underestimated growth in
Covina. The sudden jump in
population for 2020 is based on the 2020 Census count. It is unclear why DOF estimates for 2021 and 2022 are lower than the 2020 Census population. Overall, the chart shows that Covina’s population has grown by around 2,000 from 2012 to 2022. That is a 4.2% increase or about 0.4% per year.

City of Covina Page 2-3
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Units of Development
In this study, quantities of existing and planned development are measured in terms of certain units of development. Those units are discussed below.

Dwelling Units. Residential development is measured in terms of dwelling units (DUs).

Building Area. Non-residential development in this study is measured in terms of building area in thousands of square feet, denoted as KSF.

Demand Variables
In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development such as population, vehicle trips or police department calls for service are used in those formulas to reflect the impact of different types and amounts of development on the demand for specific public services and the facilities that support those services.

Those attributes are referred to in this study as “demand variables.” Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with that demand.

For example, the service standard for parks in a community is typically defined as a ratio of park acreage to population. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain the desired standard. Logically, then, population is an appropriate yardstick or demand variable for measuring the impacts of development on the need for additional parks.

Each demand variable has a specific value for each type of development. Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.” For example, each of the residential unit size categories used in this study is associated with a specific population per unit Specific demand variables used in this study are discussed below. The values of demand factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.1 on page 2-5.

Population. Resident population is used in this study as a measure of the impact of development on facilities like parks, recreation facilities and libraries that are intended to serve residents of the City. Resident population is tied only to residential development, so it is not useful in measuring demand from non-residential development.

Service Population. Because population alone only represents demand created by residential development, it is not useful in measuring the impacts of development on facilities like City Hall and the City Yard facilities that experience demand from both residential and non-residential development. In this study, a variable called service population is used for that purpose.

Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of Covina and employees of businesses in the City. Resident population is included to represent the impacts of residential development. Employees are included to represent the impacts of non-residential uses, such as commercial, office and industrial development.

City of Covina Page 2-4
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Because the impact of one new resident is not necessarily the same as the impact of one new employee, various components of the service population are weighted to reflect their relative impacts on demand for certain types of facilities.

Service population is intended to approximate the number of people creating a demand for service on an average day. It is difficult to estimate that number precisely for several reasons.

Some residents work in the City, some residents commute to work outside the City, and some residents don’t work at paid jobs. In addition, non-residents may be present in the City for work, shopping, recreation, or any number of other reasons.

In this study, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0. Our estimate of the average number of hours per week that residents spend in the City is based in part on an analysis of Census Bureau data on how many residents work in the city, how many commute to work outside the City. We assume the average resident spends eight hours a week outside the City for activities like shopping and recreation.

American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2020 (the most recent available year) show that 67% of Covina residents between ages 16 and 64 are employed. ACS data also indicate that about 73% of employed residents work outside the City.

Assuming that out-commuters spend 47.5 hours a week (9.5 hours per day) outside the City for work and commuting, and that all residents spend an average of eight hours a week outside the City for shopping and recreation leads us to the conclusion that out-commuters spend an average of 112.5 (168 – 47.5 - 8 = 112.5) hours per week in the City. Assuming that other residents spend 160 (168 – 8 = 160) hours per week in the City, the weighted average of hours per week in the City for all residents is 141.7. Dividing that number by 168 hours per week gives us a weight of

0.843 for all residents (population) of the City.

Service population weights for employees associated with different types of development are based on estimates of the number of hours per week businesses of a certain type are in operation. This study assumes that retail and service commercial businesses operate 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (84 hours). For professional offices, industrial uses and public facilities, that number is estimated to be 45 hours (9 hours a day, 5 days a week). The weights assigned to employees of businesses associated with various types of non-residential development are based on the hours per week of operation divided by 168 total hours per week. The hours per week for each development type, as well as the weighting factor for each type of development are shown in Exhibit 2A below.

Those weights are intended to allow a balanced allocation of costs among non-residential development types. However, in our estimation those base weights would understate the overall impact of non-residential development on the City’s daytime population. So, in consultation with City staff, we have applied a factor of 1.7 to all non-residential service population weights, which brings the non-residential share of existing service population to 22.7% of the total. That percentage is an indicator of how facility costs will be shared between residential and nonresidential development in the impact fee analysis.

City of Covina Page 2-5
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Finally, for simplicity, all of the service population weights are normalized by dividing them by the residential base weight of 0.843 so that the normalized weight for residents equals 1.0 (0.843 / 0.843 = 1.0) and weights for the non-residential components of service population are increased proportionately. The service population weights used in this study are shown in Exhibit 2A.

Service population per unit factors based on the normalized service population weights and the number of employees per unit are shown in Table 2.1.

Police and Fire Calls for Service. The impact of development on the City’s police and fire facilities is measured by the number of calls for service per unit per year for each development type. Those calls-for-service-per-unit factors are calculated using a random sample of 2021 calls for service to determine the distribution of calls by development type. Then the number of 2021 calls for each type of development is divided by the number of existing units for that type of development to arrive at factors representing calls per unit per year. For additional detail, see Chapter 7 (Police) and Chapter 8 (Fire).

Note on Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Recent amendments to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet. It also establishes the following requirement for impact fees imposed on ADUs of 750 square feet or more:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” Although it is not spelled out in Section 65852.2, we think it is obvious that when calculating ADU impact fees in cases where the primary unit is a single-family detached unit, the starting point for the proportionality calculation is the fee that applies to the single-family unit.

Exhibit 2A: Service Population Weights
Development Avg Hrs Total Hrs BaseSvc Pop Scaling Scaled Svc Normalized Type per Wk per Week Weight 1Factor 2 Pop Weight 3Svc Pop Wt 4 Residential 141.7 168.0 0.843 1.00 0.843 1.000
Commercial 84.0 168.0 0.500 1.70 0.850 1.008
Office 45.0 168.0 0.268 1.70 0.455 0.540
Industrial 45.0 168.0 0.268 1.70 0.455 0.540
Public Facilities 45.0 168.0 0.268 1.70 0.455 0.540
1 Base service population weight = average hours per week / total hours per week 2 Scaling factor is used to bring non-residential service population into alignment with non-residential demand for City services; see text for further discussion 3 Scaled service population weight = base service population weight X scaling factor 4 Service population weight normalized to residential service population weight = scaled service population weight / residential service population weight

City of Covina Page 2-6
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
The law also allows for ADUs on lots or parcels where the primary units are multi-family units. There are two potential complications for ADUs in multi-family complexes. The first is that the existing units in a multi-family complex may be of different sizes, which makes it more difficult to determine what square footage should be used for the primary unit when calculating the proportional fee for an ADU. The second is that the ADU may be similar in size to the existing units, which means that proportional impact fees for any ADU larger than 750 square feet would not benefit from a significant reduction in impact fees. The City would have to establish a policy as to the primary unit square footage that would apply for ADUs in multi-family projects. One possibility would be to use the average size of existing units in the complex.

Another would be to base the primary unit square footage on the largest unit in the complex, which would have the effect of reducing the ADU impact fee.

The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees would be:

Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet) One thing that becomes obvious in that formula is that, for an ADU of a particular size, a larger primary unit results in lower impact fees for the ADU. For example, if the ADU is 1,000 square feet and the primary unit is 2,000 square feet, the proportional impact fee for the ADU would be 50% of the impact fee that would apply to the primary unit. But if the primary unit is 1,200 square feet, the impact fee for the same-sized ADU would be 83.33% of the primary unit fee.

It seems likely that discrepancy is an unintended consequence of language in Section 65852.2 that was not thoroughly considered before adoption. It is also worth noting that impact fee studies adopted after July 1, 2022, must comply with a provision of AB 602 that requires impact fees for all types of residential units to be proportionate to the square footage of a unit. Impact fees based on square footage for primary units will tend to reduce the inequity created by the proportionality language of Section 65852.2 because the fees that apply to a smaller primary unit would be less than the fees that apply to a larger primary unit.

In cases where primary units are permitted within multi-family complexes, the same formula would apply, but since existing units may be of different sizes, the City will have to adopt a policy to determine how the primary unit size will be determined. Two possibilities are discussed earlier in this section.

Demand Factors
Exhibit 2B shows how population-per-unit factors were estimated for residential unit size categories used in this study. The Census Bureau and Department of Finance collect data on population per unit, by unit type (e.g., single-family or multi-family) rather than by unit size.

Consequently, we must estimate the population per unit for unit size categories.

Exhibit 2B shows the population per unit factors for the unit size categories used in this study.

Those factors were estimated by NBS using data on the distribution of units by number of bedrooms from the American Community Survey (ACS) and were checked against ACS data on the distribution of household sizes in Covina. The estimated population per unit for each category

City of Covina Page 2-7
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
is adjusted so that, (1) the population per unit increases with unit size, and (2) the average population per unit and total population remain approximately the same as for the original data.

The population and number of units in this data set are slightly different from the 2022 numbers shown in Table 2.2, but those differences are not significant for this purpose.

Table 2.1 shows the demand factors used for each type of development defined in this study.

Those factors include the population-per-unit factors from Exhibit 2B as well as employees per unit, service population per unit, peak hour trips per unit per day and police and fire calls per unit per year.

It should be noted that it is not possible to get data on specific rates of peak hour trips or police and fire calls per unit for each residential unit size category shown in Table 2.1. We have used the rates for single-family and multi-family residential units to establish the limits of the range of rates shown in Table 2.1 for residential uses. Then we set the rates for individual categories within that range so that they increase from the smallest to the largest units.

Exhibit 2B: Population per Unit by Unit Size
Unit Size No. of No. of % of Est Pop Population
in Sq Ft 1
Bedrooms Units 2Units per Unit 3
by Unit Size 4
<600 0 368 2.3% 1.00 368
600-800 1 2,186 13.7% 1.35 2,951
>800 - 1,200 2 4,133 26.0% 2.25 9,299
>1,200 - 1,900 3 6,149 38.6% 3.55 21,829
>1,900 - 2,300 4 2,828 17.8% 4.75 13,433
>2,300 5+ 256 1.6% 5.75 1,472
Total/Average 15,920 100.0% 3.10 49,352
1 Estimated square-feet-per-unit ranges based on number of bedrooms 2 Distribution of units by number of bedrooms from American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041, 2020 5-Year Estimates
3 Estimated population per unit used in this study
4 Population by unit size = number of units X estimated population per unit

City of Covina Page 2-8
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.2 through 2.4 on the following pages present data on existing and future development in Covina. Data from those tables will be used throughout this report. Table 2.2 on the next page shows existing development as of January 2023.

It is important to note that in Tables 2.2 through 2.4, all residential development is grouped into a single category. Because of recent changes in state law, this study is required to calculate impact fees for unit-size categories rather than for unit types, but we do not have data that would allow us to break out existing and future development into unit-size categories. Nevertheless, impact fees for all types of facilities will be calculated throughout this report for each residential unit size category.

Table 2.1: Demand Factors
Development Unit Pop per Empl per Svc Pop Pk Hr Trips Police Calls Fire Calls Type 1Type 2Unit 3Unit 4per Unit 5per Unit 6per Unit 7per Unit 8 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.87 0.09
Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU 1.35 1.35 0.56 0.92 0.13 Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU 2.25 2.25 0.70 0.97 0.17 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU 3.55 3.55 0.85 1.02 0.21 Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 4.75 4.75 0.99 1.07 0.25 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 5.75 5.75 1.10 1.12 0.29 Commercial KSF 2.20 2.22 2.29 4.95 0.28
Office KSF 3.00 1.62 1.15 0.40 0.10
Industrial KSF 1.10 0.59 0.41 0.21 0.07
Public/Quasi-Public Facilities KSF 3.00 1.62 1.15 2.33 0.42 1 The square-feet-per-unit ranges shown in this table for residential development include all types of residential development including single-family, multi-family and mobile homes 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 3 See Exhibit 2B
4 Employees per unit estimated by NBS based on a 2001 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) study of employment densities in the region 5 Service population per unit; see Exhibit 2A
6 Peak hour trips per unit from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual Trip Generation , 11th edition
7 Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2021 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 7 8 Fire Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2021 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 8

City of Covina Page 2-9
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Table 2.3 on the next page presents a forecast of future residential development in the City based on analysis by the Covina Community Development Department. No forecast of future nonresidential development is included here because the City is mostly built out and there is no way to forecast the conversion of existing non-residential development to new uses over time with any certainty. It is important to note that the future development numbers are not used in the impact fee calculations in this report. They are only used to project potential revenue from those impact fees.

Table 2.2: Existing Development January 1, 2023 - City of Covina Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service Peak Hr Police Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1Units 2lation 3yees
4 Pop 5Trips 6per Year 7per Year 8
All Residential DU 18,183 51,695 51,695 14,546 18,713 3,522 Commercial KSF 2,850 6,270 6,327 6,515 14,097 788
Office KSF 3,647 10,940 5,908 4,194 1,454 365
Industrial KSF 3,359 3,695 1,982 1,377 695 235
Public/Quasi-Public Facilities KSF 596 1,723 966 685 1,391 250 Totals 51,695 22,628 66,878 27,318 36,350 5,160
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 2 Number of existing residential units based on the January 2022 CA Department of Finance E-5 report + additional units under construction provided by the Covina Community Development Department; existing non-residential units based on analysis by NBS of the 2022 ESRI Business Summary for Covina with additional 2022 units under construction provided by the Covina Community Development Department 3 Existing household population from 2022 CA Department of Finance E-5 report + added population for 2022 units under construction
4 Existing employees = existing units X employees per unit from Table 2.1 5 Existing service population = existing units X service population per unit from Table 2.1 6 Existing peak hour trips per day = existing units per peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 7 Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2021 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 7
8 Fire Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2021 calls for service; discussion in text and in Chapter 8

City of Covina Page 2-10
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Table 2.4 shows the total of existing development plus projected future development. As noted above, Table 2.4 does not reflect any future non-residential development beyond 2023.

Growth Potential
The numbers in Table 2.4 represent an increase of about 8% in Covina’s population based on projected future development. That population growth is projected to result in a 5-6% increase in peak hour trips and police and fire calls per year. Again, those numbers do not reflect any increase that may result from future non-residential development.

Table 2.3: Projected Future Development - City of Covina Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service Peak Hr Police Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1Units 2lation 3yees
4 Pop 5Trips 6per Year 7per Year 8
All Residential DU 1,863 4,192 4,192 1,304 1,807 317
Commercial KSF
Office KSF
Industrial KSF
Public/Quasi-Public Facilities KSF
Totals 4,192 0 4,192 1,304 1,807 317
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 2 Added units based on Covina Community Development Department analysis of development potential in the recently adopted mixed use and affordable housing overlay districts 3 Added population = added residential units X population per dwelling unit for 800-1,200 square foot units from Table 2.1
4 Added employees = added non-residential units X employees per unit from Table 2.1 5 Added service population = added units X service population per unit from Table 2.1 6 Added peak hour trips = added units X peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 7 Added police calls per year = added units X police calls per unit per year from Table 2.1 8 Added fire calls per year = added units X fire calls per unit per year from Table 2.1 Table 2.4: Existing Development Plus Future Development - City of Covina Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service Peak Hr Police Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1Units 2lation 3yees
4 Pop 5Trips 6per Year 7per Year 8
All Residential DU 20,046 55,887 55,887 15,850 20,520 3,839 Commercial KSF 2,850 6,270 6,327 6,515 14,097 788
Office KSF 3,647 10,940 5,908 4,194 1,454 365
Industrial KSF 3,359 3,695 1,982 1,377 695 235
Public/Quasi-Public Facilities KSF 596 1,723 966 685 1,391 250 Totals 55,887 22,628 71,070 28,622 38,157 5,477
Note: The figures shown in Table 2.4 represent the sum of the corresponding figures from Tables 2.2 and 2.3

City of Covina Page 2-11
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
The fees calculated in subsequent chapters of this report are intended to pay for the capital facilities needed to serve the additional demand created by future development.

All of the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost to maintain the existing level of service for various types of facilities, so that the amount of future development does not affect the impact fee calculations. Future development numbers are used only to project revenue from the impact fees.

City of Covina Page 3-1
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements
This chapter calculates impact fees for park land acquisition, park improvements, and park maintenance vehicles and equipment.

As authorized by the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), Chapter 16.28 of the Covina Municipal Code requires that residential subdivisions dedicate land for parks or pay a fee in-lieu of dedication. That chapter contains formulas for determining the amount of land to be dedicated and the amount of any fees to be paid in-lieu of dedication.

However, those requirements apply only to projects that involve a subdivision or parcel map. The park land impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to residential development that is exempt from the provision of Chapter 16.28 because it does not involve a subdivision or parcel map.

The park improvement impact fees calculated in this chapter, which include the cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment, are intended to apply to all residential development in the City, in addition to any in-lieu fees or impact fees for park land acquisition.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1.

Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. All of the impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the City’s existing level of service (LOS) as defined in the section titled Existing Parks and Existing Level of Service, below. Impact fees calculated in that manner are intended to provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply Citywide.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for parks in this chapter is population. Population is used here because the need for parks is almost universally defined in terms of the relationship between population and acres of parks.

Impact fees calculated in this chapter for different categories of residential development vary depending on the estimated average population per unit for each unit-size category. The population per unit factors used to calculate park impact fees are from Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Because population growth is driven by new residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.

City of Covina Page 3-2
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Existing Parks and Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 3.2, below, so there is no level-of-service issue in the calculation of impact fees in this chapter with respect to Section 66016.5.

Table 3.1 lists the City’s existing parks and shows both City-owned acres and improved acres of parks. In this case, all of the City owned park acreage is improved.

Table 3.2 calculates the City’s existing level of service in terms of acres of improved park land per capita and per 1,000 population.

Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park Park City-Owned Improved
Name Type Park Acres Park Acres
Covina Park Community 11.15 11.15
Wingate Park Community 17.00 17.00
Hollenbeck Park Community 13.15 13.15
Heritage Plaza Park Community 1.75 1.75
Sunkist Park Community 5.90 5.90
Banna Park Neighborhood 1.97 1.97
Cougar Park Community 1.00 1.00
Edna Park Neighborhood 1.48 1.48
Jobe's Glen at Jalapa Park Community 2.00 2.00
Total 55.40 55.40
Source: City of Covina Parks and Recreation Department
Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service
Total Improved
Park Acres 1
Existing
Population 2
Improved Acres
per Capita 3
Improved Acres
per 1,000 4

55.40 51,695 0.00107 1.07
1 See Table 3.1
2 See Table 2.2
3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population 4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000

City of Covina Page 3-3
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Existing Park Maintenance Equipment. Table 3.3 lists the City’s existing park maintenance equipment and the replacement cost for each item. The cost of park maintenance equipment will be incorporated into the impact fees for park improvements. Replacement cost is used here to reflect the cost of acquiring the additional equipment that will be needed to maintain additional parks needed to serve new development.

Cost Per Capita
Table 3.4 calculates a cost per capita for both park land acquisition and park improvements based on the existing ratio of park acres per capita from Table 3.2 and the estimated cost per acre of park land and park improvements in Covina. The cost per capita for park improvements also includes the cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment.

As noted previously, the park land impact fees calculated here apply only to residential development projects that are exempt from the park land dedication or in-lieu fee requirements of Covina Municipal Code Chapter 16.28 because they do not involve a subdivision or parcel map.

The two types of fees for park land acquisition may differ in amount because the Quimby Act allows in-lieu fees for park land acquisition to be based on at least 3.0 acre per 1,000 population, which exceeds the existing level of service used to calculate park land impact fees in this chapter.

Table 3.3: Existing Park Maintenance Vehicles & Equipment Description
Model
Year
Replacement
Cost 1
Small Trailer 1963 12,000.00$
2003 GMC 2500HD PU 2003 45,000.00$
2004 Toro GM4000 4WD Mower 2004 72,000.00$
2007 GMC 2500HD Classic Sierra 2007 45,000.00$
2014 Ford F250 Super Duty w/ Tommy Lift 2014 45,000.00 $ 2015 Ford F250 Super Duty 2015 45,000.00$
Eagle 40H Lift 2001 65,000.00$
2002 Genie GS-2032 Scissor Lift 2002 39,000.00$
Total 368,000.00$
1 Replacement cost estimated by the City of Covina Public Works Department

City of Covina Page 3-4
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Impact Fees per Unit
Impact Fees per Unit - Park Land Acquisition for Non-Subdivision Projects. Table 3.5 calculates impact fees per unit by residential unit-size category for park land acquisition. Those fees are based on the per-capita cost from Table 3.4 and population per dwelling unit factors from Table

2.1. These fees would apply only to residential development not involving a subdivision.

Impact Fees per Unit - Park Improvements. Table 3.6 calculates impact fees per unit by residential unit-size category for park improvements. These fees incorporate the cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment. They are calculated using the combined per-capita cost for park improvements and park maintenance equipment from Table 3.4 and the population per unit factors from Table 2.1.

Table 3.4: Cost per Capita - Park Land and Park Improvements Fee Type
Acres per
Capita 1
Cost per
Acre2
Cost per
Capita3
Park Land Acquisition 0.00107 1,150,000$ 1,230.50$
Park Improvements 0.00107 766,643$ 820.31$
1 See Table 3.2
2 Park land acquisition cost based on the actual cost for Banna Park; park improvement cost per acre based on the actual cost for Banna Park ($760,000 per acre) plus the average cost per acre for park maintenance vehicles and equipment shown in Table 3.3
3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
Table 3.5: Park Land Impact Fees per Unit (Non-Subdivision Projects) Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per DU 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $1,230.50 1.00 1,230.50$
Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $1,230.50 1.35 1,661.18 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $1,230.50 2.25 2,768.63$ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $1,230.50 3.55 4,368.28$ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $1,230.50 4.75 5,844.88$ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $1,230.50 5.75 7,075.38$ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.4
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit

City of Covina Page 3-5
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Projected Revenue
The impact fees per unit in the two previous tables are based on residential unit size in square feet. Although Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 shows a forecast of total future residential units to 2040, it is not possible to forecast the number of units in each unit-size category. Consequently, potential revenue from impact fees calculated in this chapter is estimated based on the population added by new development and the cost per capita for park land acquisition and park improvements.

Projected Revenue – Park Land Impact Fees. Projecting revenue from park land impact fees is further complicated by the fact that we have no way of knowing how much future residential development will be in subdivisions, which are subject to Quimby Act park land in-lieu fees rather than the park land impact fees calculated in this chapter. Keeping in mind that individually owned multi-family units such as condominiums involve a subdivision, while apartment projects do not, the revenue projection for park land impact fees in Table 3.7 assumes that 25% of future residential units (25% of the added population shown in Table 2.3) will be subject to the park land impact fees calculated in this chapter.

This study does not address park land in-lieu fees, and it would not be possible to project revenue from those fees in any event because the Chapter 16.28 of the Covina Municipal Code requires that they be calculated case-by-case using the fair market value of the land being developed in a particular project.

Table 3.6: Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per DU 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $820.31 1.00 820.31$
Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $820.31 1.35 1,107.42$
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $820.31 2.25 1,845.69$ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $820.31 3.55 2,912.09$ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $820.31 4.75 3,896.46$ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $820.31 5.75 4,716.77$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.4; includes combined cost per capita for park improvements and park maintenance vehicles and equipment;
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit

City of Covina Page 3-6
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Projected Revenue – Park Improvement Impact Fees. Table 3.8 calculates projected revenue for the park improvement impact fees, using the cost per capita from Table 3.4 and the added population from Table 2.3.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of park land and park improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
Table 3.7: Projected Revenue from Park Land Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1
Population 2Revenue 3
All Residential $1,230.50 1,048 1,289,564$
Total 1,289,564$
1 See Table 3.4
2 Added population from Table 2.3 X 0.25
3 Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population Table 3.8: Projected Revenue from Park Improvement Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1
Population 2Revenue 3
All Residential $820.31 4,192 3,438,524$
Total 3,438,524$
1 See Table 3.4
2 See Table 2.3
3 Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population

City of Covina Page 3-7
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new residential development on the need for parks in Covina.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks or park improvements to mitigate the impacts of new residential development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks or park improvements to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Covina.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the need for parks to maintain the existing level of service as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional park space and improvements, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the impact fees for park land and park improvements calculated in this chapter depend on the estimated increase in population per unit associated with residential development unit-size category. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each unit-size category are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in Covina. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City.

City of Covina Page 4-1
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Centers
This chapter calculates impact fees for community and recreation center facilities.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1.

Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. All of the impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the City’s existing level of service (LOS) as defined in the section titled Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service, below. Impact fees calculated in that manner are intended to provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new residential development in the City.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a particular type of capital facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for community and recreation center facilities in this chapter is population. Population is used here because the need for community and recreation center facilities is commonly defined on the basis of the population to be served.

Impact fees calculated in this chapter for different categories of residential development vary depending on the estimated average population per unit for each category. The population per unit factors used to calculate impact fees for community and recreation center facilities are from Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Because population growth is driven by new residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.

Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 4.2 on the next page, so there is no level-of-service issue in the calculation of impact fees in this chapter with respect to Section 66016.5.

In this chapter, the existing level of service for community and recreation center facilities is based on the relationship between the City’s existing population and the replacement cost of existing community and recreation center facilities. Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing community and recreation center facilities with building replacement cost and the replacement cost of furniture,

City of Covina Page 4-2
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
fixtures and equipment (FF&E). The impact fee cost basis for each facility is the sum of the building replacement cost and the replacement cost of FF&E. No land value is included in Table

4.1 because all of the facilities listed in that table are located in City parks.

Table 4.2 calculates the City’s existing level of service as a cost per capita based on the City’s existing population and the impact fee cost basis from Table 4.1.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.3 calculates impact fees per unit by residential development type for community and recreation center facilities. Those fees are based on the per-capita cost from Table 4.2 and population per dwelling unit factors from Table 2.1. These fees would apply only to residential development.

Table 4.1: Existing Community and Recreation Center Facilities Constr Building Bldg Repl FF&E Repl Impact Fee
Facility Location Date Sq Ft 1
Cost 2 Cost 3 Cost Basis 4
Aquatic Center Buildings Covina Park 1962 7,457 1,687,610$ 24,632$ 1,712,242$ Aquatic Center Pools/Equipt Covina Park 1962 N/A 1,400,000$ 1,400,000$ Recreation Hall Covina Park 1930 3,758 973,784$ 35,189$ 1,008,973$ Community Center Cougar Park 2015 1,500 1,485,000$ 15,600$ 1,500,600$ Parks & Recreation Ofc Hollenbeck Park 2000 3,091 790,200$ 100,562$ 890,762$ Senior & Community Center Sunkist Park 2019 10,000 9,750,000$ 98,500$ 9,848,500$ Total 16,361,077$
1 Building square feet from the City's insured property schedule or the Covina Parks and Recreation Dept. 2 Building replacement cost from the City's insured property schedule or the Covina Parks and Recr. Dept. 3 Replacement cost of furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) based on the personal property cost from the City's insured property schedule or the Covina Parks and Recreation Department 4 Impact fee cost basis = building replacement cost + furniture, fixtures and equipment replacement cost Table 4.2: Cost per Capita - Community & Rec Center Facilities Impact Fee
Cost Basis 1
Existing
Population 2
Cost per
Capita 3
$16,361,077 51,695 $316.49
1 See Table 4.1
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population

City of Covina Page 4-3
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Projected Revenue
The impact fees per unit in the previous table is based on residential unit size in square feet.

Although Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 shows a forecast of total future residential units to 2040, it is not possible to forecast the number of units in each unit-size category. Consequently, potential revenue from impact fees calculated in this chapter is estimated based on the population added by new development and the cost per capita for park land acquisition and park improvements.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of community and recreation center facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Table 4.3: Community and Recreation Facilities Impact Fees per Unit Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $316.49 1.00 316.49$
Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $316.49 1.35 427.26$
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $316.49 2.25 712.11 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $316.49 3.55 1,123.55$ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $316.49 4.75 1,503.34$ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $316.49 5.75 1,819.83$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 4.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - Community/Rec Facilities Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1
Population 2Revenue 3
All Residential $316.49 4,192 1,326,657$
Total 1,326,657$
1 See Table 4.2
2 See Table 2.3
3 Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population

City of Covina Page 4-4
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new residential development on the need for community and recreation center facilities in Covina.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional community and recreation center facilities to mitigate the impacts of new residential development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional community and recreation center facilities to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Covina.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the need for community and recreation center facilities to maintain the existing level of service as described earlier in this chapter.

Without additional facilities, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the impact fees for community and recreation center facilities calculated in this chapter depends on the estimated increase in population per unit associated with each category of residential development. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in Covina. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for community and recreation center facilities in the City.

City of Covina Page 5-1
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Chapter 5. Libraries
This chapter calculates impact fees for library facilities and materials.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1.

Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. All of the impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the City’s existing level of service (LOS) as defined in the section titled Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service, below. Impact fees calculated in that manner are intended to provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new residential development in the City.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a particular type of capital facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for libraries in this chapter is population. Population is used here because the need for libraries is commonly defined on the basis of the population to be served.

Impact fees calculated in this chapter for different categories of residential development vary depending on the estimated average population per unit for each category. The population per unit factors used to calculate impact fees for libraries are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Because population growth is driven by new residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.

Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 5.2 on the next page, so there is no level-of-service issue in the calculation of impact fees in this chapter with respect to Section 66016.5.

In this chapter, the existing level of service for library facilities and materials is based on the relationship between the City’s existing population and the replacement cost of existing facilities and materials. Table 5.1 lists the City’s existing library assets. The library building is shown with the building replacement cost and the replacement cost of furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E). The impact fee cost basis is the sum of the building replacement cost and the

City of Covina Page 5-2
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
replacement cost of FF&E. The replacement cost of library materials (books and other items) is also shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.2 calculates the City’s existing level of service as a cost per capita for both library facilities and library materials. The cost per capita for each component is based on the City’s existing population and the impact fee cost basis from Table 5.1.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 5.3 calculates impact fees per unit by residential development type for library facilities.

Those fees are based on the per-capita cost from Table 5.2 and population per dwelling unit factors from Table 2.1. These fees would apply only to residential development.

Table 5.1: Existing Library Facilities and Materials
Constr Building Bldg Repl Site Site FF&E Repl Impact Fee Facility Date Sq Ft 1
Cost 2 Acres 3Value 4Cost 5 Cost Basis 6
Existing Library Building 1963 23,000 10,350,000$ 0.95 1,092,500$ 4,224,356$ 15,666,856$ Existing Library Materials (102,645 Items @ average cost of $62.95) 6,461,503$ 6,461,503$ Library Impact Fee Fund Balance 188,509$
Total 22,316,868$
1 Existing building square feet from the City's insured property schedule 2 Building replacement cost from the City's insured property schedule 3 Site acreage estimated by NBS
4 Site value based on $1,150,000 per acre
5 Replacement cost of furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) based on the personal property value from the City's insured property schedule; cost of library materials from the Covina Library Services Department 6 Impact fee cost basis = building replacement cost + site value + FF&E replacement cost; impact fee fund balance provided by the City of Covina Finance Department Table 5.2: Existing Level of Service
Cost
Component
Impact Fee
Cost Basis 1
Existing
Population 2
Cost per
Capita 3
Library Facilities 15,800,320$ 51,695 305.65
Library Materials 6,516,548$ 51,695 126.06
Total 22,316,868$ 51,695 431.70
1 See Table 5.1; a prorata share of the impact fee fund balance is added to the impact fee cost basis for each cost component based on the percentage of the total cost of library facilities and materials
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population

City of Covina Page 5-3
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Table 5.4 calculates impact fees per unit by residential development type for library materials.

Those fees are based on the per-capita cost from Table 5.2 and population per dwelling unit factors from Table 2.1. These fees would apply only to residential development.

Projected Revenue
The impact fees per unit in the previous table is based on residential unit size in square feet.

Although Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 shows a forecast of total future residential units to 2040, it is not possible to forecast the number of units in each unit-size category. Consequently, potential revenue from impact fees calculated in this chapter is estimated based on the population added by new development and the cost per capita for library facilities and materials.

Projected Revenue – Library Facilities. Table 5.5 calculates projected revenue for the library facilities impact fees, using the cost per capita from Table 5.2 and the added population from Table 2.3.

Table 5.3: Library Facilities Impact Fees per Unit
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $305.65 1.00 305.65$
Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $305.65 1.35 412.62$
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $305.65 2.25 687.70 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $305.65 3.55 1,085.04$ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $305.65 4.75 1,451.81$ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $305.65 5.75 1,757.46$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 5.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Table 5.4: Library Materials Impact Fees per Unit
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per Unit 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $126.06 1.00 126.06$
Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $126.06 1.35 170.18$
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $126.06 2.25 283.63 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $126.06 3.55 447.50$ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $126.06 4.75 598.77$ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $126.06 5.75 724.83$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 5.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit

City of Covina Page 5-4
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Projected Revenue – Library Materials. Table 5.6 calculates projected revenue for the library materials impact fees, using the cost per capita from Table 5.2 and the added population from Table 2.3.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of library facilities and library materials. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Table 5.5: Projected Revenue - Library Facilities Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1
Population 2Revenue 3
All Residential $305.65 4,192 1,281,188$
Total 1,281,188$
1 See Table 5.2
2 See Table 2.3
3 Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population Table 5.6: Projected Revenue - Library Materials Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1
Population 2Revenue 3
All Residential $126.06 4,192 528,402$
Total 528,402$
1 See Table 5.2
2 See Table 2.3
3 Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population

City of Covina Page 5-5
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new residential development on the need for library facilities and materials in Covina.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional library facilities and library materials to mitigate the impacts of new residential development in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional library facilities and library materials to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Covina.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the need for libraries to maintain the existing level of service as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional library facilities and materials, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the impact fees for library facilities and library materials calculated in this chapter depends on the estimated increase in population per unit associated with each category of residential development. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in Covina. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for libraries in the City.

City of Covina Page 6-1
Development Impact Fee Study
July 7, 2023
Chapter 6. General Government Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for general government facilities, including City Hall and City Yard facilities as well as vehicles and equipment used by general government departments.

Where the term general government facilities is used in this chapter, it should be understood to include general government vehicles and equipment.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1.

Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. All of the impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the City’s existing level of service (LOS) as defined in the section titled Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service, below. Impact fees calculated in that manner are intended to provide the funding needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a particular type of capital facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for general government facilities in this chapter is service population. As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is a composite variable that includes resident population (representing residential development) and employees of businesses in the City (representing non-residential development). The resident and employee components are weighted differently in the overall service population. See Chapter 2 for more on the weighting of those components.

Impact fees calculated in this chapter for different categories of development vary depending on the estimated service population per unit for each category. The service population per unit factors used to calculate impact fees for general government facilities are from Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Existing Facilities and Existing Level of Service
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 6.3 on page 6-4, so there is no level-of-service issue in the calculation of impact fees in this chapter with respect to Section 66016.5.