Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516
Annual Report For: Fiscal Year 2025/26
Benefit Assessment District 2014-2
May 2025
1576
CITY OF EASTVALE
12363 Limonite Ave, Suite 910
Eastvale, CA 91752
Phone: 951-361-0900
CITY COUNCIL
Mike McMinn, Mayor
Jocelyn Yow, Mayor Pro Tem
Todd Rigby, Council Member
Christian Dinco, Council Member
Clint Lorimore, Council Member
CITY STAFF
Mark Orme, City Manager
Erica L. Vega, City Attorney
Amanda Wells, Finance Director/City Treasurer
NBS
Corina Chavez, Analyst
Amanda Welker, Project Manager
Adina McCargo, Client Services Director
1577
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
2. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Reason for Assessment ........................................................................................... 2
2.2 Process for Annual Assessment .............................................................................. 2
2.3 Same or Lesser Assessment .................................................................................... 2
2.4 Fiscal Year 2025/26 Assessment ............................................................................. 2
3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 3
3.1 Description of Improvements ................................................................................. 3
4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS ....................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 ........................................................................ 4
4.2 Definition of Budget Items ...................................................................................... 6
5. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 8
5.1 Legal Considerations ............................................................................................... 8
5.2 Special Benefit ......................................................................................................... 9
5.3 General Benefit ..................................................................................................... 10
5.4 General and Special Benefits Separated ............................................................... 10
5.5 Method of Assessment Spread ............................................................................. 12
6. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 14 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM .................................................................................. A APPENDIX B – ASSESSMENT ROLL .......................................................................................... B
1578
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 1
1. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
On March 26, 2025, the City Council of the City of Eastvale (the “City”), under the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (the “1982 Act”) adopted its Resolution No. 25-13, a Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments and Ordering the Preparation of an Annual Report for Benefit Assessment District No. 2014-2 (the “District”) (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1) for Fiscal Year 2025/26.
The Resolution Initiating Proceedings directed NBS to prepare and file an Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2025/26 pursuant to the requirements of the 1982 Act. The Annual Report presents the plans and specifications for the maintenance and operation of authorized services, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance and operation of the authorized services, an assessment diagram, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance and operation of the authorized services for the referenced fiscal year, assessing the net amount upon all assessable lots and/or parcels in the District in proportion to the special benefit received.
The following assessment is proposed to be authorized in order to pay the estimated costs of administration, maintenance, operation, and servicing of the improvements to be paid by the assessable real property in the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the proposed assessment for the District.
Benefit Assessment District 2014-2
Fiscal Year 2025/26
Maintenance, Operation, and Servicing Costs $7,451.66
Incidental Expenses 3,640.30
Other Costs/Contributions (6,054.47)
Total Net Amount to be Assessed $5,037.49
Total Number of Benefit Points to be Assessed 1,750
Actual Assessment per Benefit Point (1) $2.87
Maximum Allowable Assessment per Benefit $3.46
(1) The unrounded assessment per benefit point is $2.87856. 1579
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 2
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Reason for Assessment
Approval of the assessment covered by this Annual Report will generate the revenue necessary to provide for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements described in this Annual Report.
2.2 Process for Annual Assessment
On an annual basis, a report is prepared which contains a description of the services proposed to be financed, a description of each lot or parcel subject to the assessment, the amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel, and the basis and schedule of assessment.
2.3 Same or Lesser Assessment
If the assessments are to be levied in the same or lesser amounts than the maximum assessment amount approved, the City Clerk will give notice by causing the Resolution of Intention to be published. Any interested person may, prior to the conclusion of the public hearing, file a written protest which shall state all grounds of objection. The protest will contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by the property owner filing the protest. During the course of, or upon conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may order changes in any of the matters provided in the report, including changes in the improvements, any zones within the District, and the proposed diagram for the proposed assessment.
2.4 Fiscal Year 2025/26 Assessment
The Fiscal Year 2025/26 assessments described in this Annual Report are not proposed to exceed the previously approved maximum assessment range formula that was approved at the time the District was formed. No land is proposed to be annexed to the District. There are no proposed new improvements or any substantial changes in existing improvements.
The net amount to be assessed in the District upon all assessable lots or parcels, as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County of Riverside (the “County”) Assessor’s Office, is shown on the Assessment Roll in Appendix B of this report.
1580
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 3
3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The District provides funding for the administration, maintenance, operation, and servicing of various improvements located in District.
3.1 Description of Improvements
The traffic signal to be operated and maintained is at the following location:
Limonite Avenue & Scholar Way
The fossil filters to be managed and maintained are at the following locations:
Seven along Scholar Way between Limonite Avenue and Primrose Road One on 58th Street west of Scholar Way
1581
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 4
4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The estimated costs of administration, maintenance, operation, and servicing the improvements, as described in the Plans and Specifications for the District, are summarized below:
4.1 Benefit Assessment District 2014-2
4.1.1 ANNUAL BUDGET
The estimated costs associated with the District are shown below:
BAD 2014-2 Costs
Estimated
2025/26 Costs
Maintenance, Operation and Servicing Costs
Traffic Signal $5,651.66
Fossil Filters 1,800.00
Subtotal Maintenance, Operation and Servicing Costs $7,451.66 Incidental Expenses
Annual Administration (City) $558.00
Annual Administration (Consultant) 2,869.07
County Collection Fees 213.23
Subtotal Incidental Expenses $3,640.30
Total BAD 2014-2 Costs $11,091.96
General Benefit Contribution ($6,054.47)
Operating Reserve Contribution 0.00
Operating Reserve Collection 0.00
Contribution From Other Sources 0.00
Total Costs to be Assessed $5,037.49
Total Net BAD 2014-2 Assessment (1) $5,037.49
Total BAD 2014-2 Benefit Points to be Assessed 1,750
Actual Assessment per Benefit Point – Fiscal Year 2025/26 (2) $2.87
Maximum Allowable Assessment per Benefit Point –
Fiscal Year 2025/26 $3.46
(1) Actual assessments may be rounded to the nearest even cent in accordance with the requirements of the County for placement on the tax rolls. (2) The unrounded assessment per benefit point is $2.87856. 1582
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 5
4.1.2 OPERATING RESERVE
It is the intent of the City to maintain an Operating Reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing of the improvements prior to December 10 of the fiscal year, or when the City expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the County, whichever is later. The reserve balance information for the District is as follows:
Estimated Fiscal Year Ending 6/30/25 Operating Reserve Cash Balance (1)
$16,504.93
Estimated Operating Expenses – Fiscal Year 2025/26
Estimated Operating Collection – Fiscal Year 2025/26 (11,091.96) 5,037.49 Estimated Fiscal Year Ending 6/30/26 Operating Reserve Cash Balance
$10,450.45
(1) The City will be conducting an internal audit; fund balances will be updated when the reconciliation takes place.
The estimated Fiscal Year ending 6/30/25 Operating Reserve Cash balance is estimated based on the available cash balance, less actual expenses to date, and less estimated expenses through the end of the Fiscal Year.
4.1.3 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT INCREASE
The maximum allowable assessment per Benefit Point listed in the annual budget is the amount which was approved at the time of formation of the District, with the allowable annual increase over the maximum assessment for the previous year. The allowable annual increase is defined as: “the greater of two percent (2.0%) or the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County California Standard Metropolitan Statistical area (“Index”) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. The annual CPI-U adjustment will be based on the increase, if any, in the Index as it stands on March of each year over the base Index for March of 2015.” Previously, the Los Angeles-RiversideOrange County index was made up of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. The BLS split this index into two areas; one that represents Los Angeles and Orange counties (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim) and another that represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario). Beginning with the 2018/19 calculation, the City began using the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario CPI as of March for the purposes of computing annual changes in the assessment rates for the District.
Each year, prior to the assessments being placed on the tax roll, the City will review the cost estimate and determine the amount needed to maintain the improvements for the upcoming fiscal year. The actual assessment per Benefit Point will be based on the estimated costs, available fund balance, and maximum allowable assessment with the goal of maintaining the improvements in a satisfactory and operational condition. The actual assessment amount may be equal to or lower than the maximum allowable assessment; however, it may not exceed the maximum unless the increase is approved by the property owners in accordance with Proposition 218. 1583
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 6
4.2 Definition of Budget Items
The following definitions describe the costs and expenses included in the cost estimate for the District:
4.2.1 MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND SERVICING COSTS
Energy Costs for Streetlights: This item includes the cost of energy provided by the electric utility provider.
Fossil Filters: This item includes the cost of cleaning and furnishing services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of the fossil filters and appurtenances, including repair, replacement, removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste.
Field Inspection/Management: This item includes the cost of inspecting fossil filters, reporting, and compliance with applicable regulations.
Repair/Replacement: This item includes the cost of furnishing services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of the fossil filters and appurtenances, including repair and replacement.
Traffic Signals: This item includes the cost of furnishing services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of traffic signals and appurtenances, including repair and replacement.
4.2.2 INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Annual Administration (City): This item includes the cost to departments and staff of the City for providing the administration, coordination, and management of District services, operation, and expenses. This item also includes management of the annual process including reports, resolutions, and public inquiries.
Annual Administration (Consultant): This item includes the contract fees and allowable expenses for annual administration of the District, including preparation of the Annual Report, preparation of resolutions, submittal of the levy to the County, responding to public inquiries, attendance at various meetings, and delinquency management. The contract fee is subject to a cost-of-living increase annually.
County Collection Fees: This item includes the fees charged by the County to process the levy submittal and collect and distribute funds on behalf of the City.
4.2.3 OPERATING RESERVE AND OTHER SOURCES
Operating Reserve Contribution: This item includes the amount to be credited to the annual assessment. When the Operating Reserve balance is greater than approximately one half of the annual costs, an Operating Reserve Contribution may be credited to the total costs.
Operating Reserve Collection: This item includes the amount to be collected to maintain reserves to enable the City to pay for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements prior to December 10 1584
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 7 of the fiscal year, or whenever the City expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the County, whichever is later. The Operating Reserve collection may continue until such a time the Reserve Fund balance is approximately one half of the annual costs.
Contributions From Other Sources: This item includes any amount contributed to the District from any source of funds other than the annual assessments.
Rounding Adjustment: This item includes any amount necessary to round the actual assessment amount for each parcel to an even cent, as the County requires that the total levy amount submitted be even, so that the amount can be divided into two equal installments on the tax roll. 1585
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 8
5. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
5.1 Legal Considerations
5.1.1 PROPOSITION 218
Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act” was approved by California voters in 1996, which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California State Constitution. The primary results of Proposition 218 were stricter definitions of assessments, special taxes, fees, and charges, and a general mandate for some type of voter approval for any new or increased tax, assessment, or property-related fee. The Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (the “Implementation Act”) was approved July 1, 1997.
The Implementation Act provided direction for procedures throughout the notice, protest, and hearing process. It should be noted that this report has been prepared to be consistent with current practices and the California State Constitution.
Article XIII D, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Article XIII D also provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment.
The net amount to be assessed may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels. Proposition 218 requires the Engineer to separate general benefit from special benefit, where only special benefit is assessed.
5.1.2 1982 ACT
Pursuant to the 1982 Act and Article XIII D, all parcels that have a special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements and services shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entire costs of the maintenance and operation of improvements. The 1982 Act, permits the establishment of assessment districts for the purpose of providing certain public services which include the maintenance and operation costs of drainage, flood control street lighting, and streets.
Section 54711 of the 1982 Act requires that benefit assessments must be related to the benefit to the parcel.
This Section states:
“The amount of the assessment imposed on any parcel of property shall be related to the benefit to the parcel which will be derived from the provision of the service.”
“The annual aggregate amount of the assessment shall not exceed the estimated annual cost of providing the service…”
“The revenue derived from the assessment shall not be used to pay the cost of any service other than the service for which the assessment was levied.” 1586
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 9
5.2 Special Benefit
Pursuant to Article XIII D of the California Constitution, Section 2(i) “Special benefit means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute special benefit.” All parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the services and activities provided shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entire cost of the services and activities.
In accordance with Article XIII D §4(a), “No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.”
The maintenance and servicing of the District improvements (which are described in the Plans and Specifications Section of this report) are for the benefit of the properties in the District, and as such confer a special and direct benefit to parcels in the District, respectively. A description of the special benefit conferred to property in the District has been excerpted from the formation Engineer’s Report and provided below:
5.2.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Traffic signals allow for the orderly flow of traffic for all roadway users and provide for increased safety of vehicles, their passengers and pedestrians. Conversely, a lack of traffic signalization can lead to roadway congestion and decreased safety. When evaluating safety of an intersection, one must look holistically at all system users to evaluate the benefit conveyed. Further, the task of traveling on the roadway system, whether by vehicle, by foot or by bicycle, involves searching for, finding, understanding, and applying the information, as well as reacting to unanticipated information. Once found and understood, the relevance of this information must be evaluated, decisions made and actions taken in response. This activity is cyclical, often occurring many times per second in complex, demanding environments. Traffic signals are one of the many pieces of information that must be processed as a traveler approaches an intersection in the roadway system.
Increased Safety to Motorists: Traffic signals provide for the orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at roadway intersections. While traffic signals cannot eliminate collisions, their installation has been shown to reduce the frequency of right-angle vehicle collisions, left-turn collisions, pedestrian collisions, and head-on collisions. Heavy traffic is interrupted to allow other vehicular traffic to pass through in a safe manner.
Increased Safety to Pedestrians: Traffic signals prioritize movement across and through an intersection. By allowing pedestrians the right-of-way to enter and cross the roadway, traffic signals increase the safety to pedestrians.
Increased Traffic Capacity and Efficiency: Use of properly timed traffic signals that smooth the traffic flow allow for increased vehicle traffic and reduce congestion. Ingress and egress from developments is more timely and efficient when traffic signals are installed. 1587
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 10
5.2.2 FOSSIL FILTER MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE Fossil filters are designed to remove petroleum hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff that enters catch basins. Petroleum hydrocarbons are a primary energy source, utilized as combustible fuel. Petroleum hydrocarbons are also found in their solid form in asphalt used in roadway construction. Petroleum hydrocarbons are pollutants which are required to be removed from stormwater and runoff before they can be released into the environment. Properly operating fossil filtration systems provide the following special benefits to property:
Pretreatment of Local Drainage Stormwater: Fossil filters pretreat stormwater by removing pollutants as the water flows through the filter into the storm sewer system. Vehicles and asphalt are the primary source of pollutants that enter the storm sewer system. In particular, localized vehicular traffic produces the majority of the pollutants that enter each catch basin which are removed by the fossil filters. Since the localized vehicular traffic, associated with local property, produces most of the pollution, the local property receives special benefit from the fossil filtration system by having the pollutants it produces removed from the stormwater runoff near the source of pollution. Cleaner Local Drainage Catch Basins: By managing, maintaining, and servicing the fossil filters, the catch basins are cleared of debris that might cause localized flooding. Catch basins are designed to collect storm water runoff that results from the large amount of impervious area on developed land.
Without clear, functioning catch basins, the stormwater runoff pools and floods local streets and property. Fossil filtration system maintenance confers a special benefit to property by ensuring they are clear of debris so that stormwater runoff can flow freely into the catch basin and not flood local property.
The above-mentioned items affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share. They contribute to a specific enhancement of the properties in the District. Since these improvements were installed and are maintained specifically for the properties in the District; only properties in the District receive a special benefit and are assessed for said maintenance.
5.3 General Benefit
Article XIII D of the California Constitution requires any local agency proposing to increase or impose a special assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” General benefits are defined as those services or improvements which provide a general increase in property values to all property or provide benefits to the health, safety or education of the public. The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that the property owners are not charged with an assessment that pays for general benefits. Thus, a local agency carrying out projects or services that provide both special and general benefits may levy an assessment to pay for the special benefits but must acquire separate funding to pay for those general benefits.
5.4 General and Special Benefits Separated
The amount of general benefit that is conferred from the improvements and activities cannot be funded via benefit assessments. In order to separate only that portion of the budget which is related to special benefits conferred by the improvements and activities, thereby excluding those costs which are associated 1588
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 11 with general benefits related to the improvements and activities, pass through traffic data has been reviewed.
General benefit conferred from the improvements cannot be funded by assessments. In order to separate only that portion of the cost of operating, maintaining, and servicing the improvements which is related to special benefits conferred, thereby excluding those costs which are related to general benefits, pass through traffic data has been analyzed.
The City’s General Plan, adopted on June 13, 2012, indicates that streets within the City generally consist of local roads, secondary and major collectors, arterials and urban arterials. There is a general benefit component associated with traffic signals and fossil filter management along arterial/collector streets roughly equal to the percentage of pass-through trips using those streets (typically 15-25% based on the amount of traffic volume placed on each type of roadway). The following table summarizes the special and general benefit for the various types of roadways based on general industry practice standards:
In order to assess the parcels within the District for the special benefits received from the improvements and activities described in Section 3.1, the general and special benefits must be separated. The general benefit conferred by the improvements and activities is 81.25%. Accordingly, 18.75% of the benefits from the improvements and activities are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein.
Roadway Type Special Benefit General Benefit Comments
Local 98% 2%
Nearly all traffic is generated by local properties;
the exception would be school busses, delivery and
service vans/trucks, meter readers, and turn
around traffic which is generally less than 2%.
Collector 50% 50% Some General Benefit related to thru traffic and overall traffic safety benefits from traffic signals.
Arterial 25% 75% Some General Benefit related to thru traffic and overall traffic safety benefits from traffic signals.
5.4.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The one traffic signal to be operated, maintained, and serviced is located along Limonite Avenue which is an Arterial according to the City of Eastvale General Plan. The intersecting roadway, Scholar Way is also an Arterial. Generally, Arterials would see an estimated 75% of trips attributed to pass through traffic rather than local traffic. The District is located on the west side of Scholar Way north of Limonite Avenue. Local traffic originates from District property, as well as from surrounding property. The additional local traffic from surrounding property not in the District results in a total portion of pass through traffic not related to District property of 81.25%.
5.4.2 FOSSIL FILTER MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE Seven of the fossil filters to be managed, inspected, and maintained are located along Scholar Way which is an Arterial according to the City’s General Plan. There is also one fossil filter on 58th Street which is a Collector. Generally, Arterials would see an estimated 75% of trips attributed to pass through traffic rather than local traffic. The District is located on the west side of Scholar Way north of Limonite Avenue and south 1589
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 12 of 58th Street. Local traffic originates from District property, as well as from surrounding property. The additional local traffic from surrounding property not in the District results in a total portion of pass-through traffic not related to District property of 81.25%.
5.4.3 GENERAL BENEFIT PORTION
The total general benefit conferred as a result of the improvements and activities is 81.25% which is based on the share of pass-through traffic related to traffic signal operation and maintenance and fossil filter management, inspection and maintenance.
5.5 Method of Assessment Spread
Each of the parcels in District are deemed to receive special benefit from the improvements. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements are identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire costs of the maintenance and operation of the improvements.
As outlined above, each of the parcels within the District receives special benefit from the operation, maintenance, and services of the improvements. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it is identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire costs of the operation, maintenance, and services of the improvements. In order to facilitate this analysis, Benefit Points will be assigned based on the following factors:
5.5.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND FOSSIL FILTER MANAGEMENT,
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
Special benefit points are proportionally assigned to all parcels within the District for each of the following special benefits conferred:
Increased Safety to Motorists
Increased Safety to Pedestrians
Increased Traffic Capacity and Efficiency
Pretreatment of Local Drainage Stormwater
Cleaner Local Drainage Catch Basins
Each parcel with a residential county land use code is expected to generate traffic, which must pass through the signalized intersection and by the fossil filters, therefore, each parcel may be assigned one Benefit Point per dwelling unit per benefit. Likewise, each non-residential parcel is expected to generate traffic, which must pass through the signalized intersection and by the fossil filters, therefore each parcel may be assigned one Benefit Point per acre, or portion thereof, per benefit. (e.g. If the parcel acreage is 1.38, the parcel receives 1.38 Benefit Points per benefit.)
The maximum allowable assessment per parcel is the amount which was approved at the time of formation of the District, with the allowable annual increase also approved at the time of formation. A description of the allowable annual increase for the District has been excerpted from the formation Engineer’s Report and provided below:
1590
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 13 Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 – The annual assessment will be adjusted annually by the greater of 2% or the cumulative percentage increase in the CPI-U if any, as it stands as of March of each year over the base index for March of 2015.
The total amount of maintenance, servicing, and incidental costs for maintaining and operating the Improvements is assessed to the individual parcels of real property in the District in proportion to the special benefit received by such parcels of real property. The proposed individual assessments are shown on the Assessment Roll in this report.
1591
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 14
6. APPENDICES
The following Appendices contain Appendix A – Assessment Diagram and Appendix B – Assessment Roll for the District.
1592
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 A APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
The Assessment Diagram for the District is shown on the following pages. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the County Assessor of the County of Riverside, at the time this report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Annual Report.
1593
CITY OF EASTVALE
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2014-2
(TRACTS 32821 & 32821-1)
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, THIS _______ DAY OF ______________, 20__. _______________________________
CITY CLERK
CITY OF EASTVALE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AN ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE ON THE LOTS, PIECES AND PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN ON THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM. THE ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED ON THE _______DAY OF ______________, 20__. THE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT ROLL WERE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE
OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR THE EXACT AMOUNT OF EACH ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST EACH PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN ON THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM.
_______________________________
CITY CLERK
CITY OF EASTVALE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, THIS _______ DAY OF ______________ , 20__.
_______________________________
SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS
CITY OF EASTVALE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FILED THIS _______ DAY OF ______________ , 20__ AT THE HOUR OF _______ O’CLOCK _______ M. IN BOOK , PAGE ______________ OF MAPS OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
_______________________________
COUNTY RECORDER
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
NOTES:
FOR PARTICULARS OF THE LINES AND DIMENSIONS OF ASSESSOR’S PARCELS, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE MAPS OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.
CITY OF EASTVALE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 LIMONITE AVE
58TH ST
SUMNER AVE
FUJI ST
DANCY ST
LARRY DEAN ST
BRIAR ST
VALENCIA ST
REDHAVEN ST
MULAN ST
SHORTHORN DR
CORTLAND ST
LAVONDA ST
SPRINGCREST ST
ELIAS
ST
HAZEL ST
MARYLAND AVE
RED GOLD ST
JARDENE ST HEATHER LEE ST
ASHWELL CT
CALITERRA C
D
T
ELICIOUS
WAY
CLEVELAND AVE
JAMESTOWN AVE
CAROLINAS LN
ANNANDALE PL
COSMOS ST
HEREFORD LN
BAY ST
LONGHORNE DR
BRIDGEWATER DR
PATTISON ST
EARLY CRIMSON ST
WESTCHESTER WAY
SAVANNAH PL
EMPIRE CT
ANNA CT
JIMSON CT
HOLLAND CT
KALY CT
ALEXANDRIAAVE
LYNDSEY ST
MCINTOSH CT
BLUEBELL ST
NOBURY
CT
DORSETT GOLDEN ST
ANJOU ST
RUBY CT
NUFFIELD CT
CHAROLAIS CT
KARA CT
TOM SAWYER
WAY
SALERS C
TA
T
NCY CT
BEVERLY HILLS CT
CLEVELAND AVE
0 0.0375 0.075 0.15 0.225
Miles
Legend
Assessment ID
Traffic Signal
Parcel Lines
District Boundary
Legend
Sheet 1 of 1
1 Assessment ID APN
1 164-030-027
1594
City of Eastvale
2025/26 Annual Report – Benefit Assessment District 2014-2 B APPENDIX B – ASSESSMENT ROLL
The assessment roll is a listing of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2025/26 apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Riverside.
Based on County Assessor’s secured roll data, current assessor’s parcels, including corrected and/or new assessor’s parcels, will be submitted and/or resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The annual assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel(s) shall be determined in accordance with the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Annual Report.
Therefore, if a single assessor’s parcel has a status change in development, other land use change, or subdivides into multiple assessor’s parcels, the assessment amounts applied to each of the new assessor’s parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment amount.
The assessment roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26 is listed on the following pages. 1595
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-711-001 6148 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 $14.38
164-711-002 6152 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-003 6156 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-004 6160 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-005 6134 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-006 6138 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-007 6142 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-008 6146 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-009 6132 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-010 6136 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-011 6140 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-012 6144 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-014 6103 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-015 6109 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-016 6115 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-017 6113 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-018 6107 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-019 6101 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-020 6104 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-021 6110 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-022 6116 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-023 6114 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-024 6108 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-025 6102 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-027 13055 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-711-028 13061 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-711-029 13049 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-711-030 13043 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-711-031 13031 SNAPDRAGON DR 5.0 14.38
164-711-032 13037 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-711-033 13025 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-711-034 13019 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-711-036 6118 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-037 6122 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-038 6126 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-039 6130 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-040 6116 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-041 6120 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-042 6124 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-043 6128 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-044 6102 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 1 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1596
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-711-045 6106 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-046 6110 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-047 6114 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-048 6100 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-049 6104 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-050 6108 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-051 6112 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-053 6121 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-054 6127 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-055 6133 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-056 6131 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-057 6125 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-058 6119 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-711-059 6120 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-060 6126 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-061 6132 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-062 6118 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-063 6124 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-711-064 6130 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-001 6068 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-002 6072 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-003 6076 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-004 6080 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-005 6078 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-006 6074 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-007 6070 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-008 6066 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-009 6052 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-010 6056 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-011 6060 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-012 6064 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-013 6062 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-014 6058 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-015 6054 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-016 6050 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-018 6070 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-019 6076 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-020 6082 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-021 6080 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-022 6074 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-023 6068 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 2 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1597
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-712-025 6050 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-026 6056 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-027 6062 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-028 6060 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-029 6054 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-030 6048 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-031 6055 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-032 6061 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-033 6067 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-034 6065 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-035 6059 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-036 6053 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-038 6034 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-039 6040 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-040 6046 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-041 6044 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-042 6038 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-043 6032 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-044 6037 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-045 6043 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-046 6049 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-047 6047 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-048 6041 SNAPGRAGON WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-049 6035 SNAPDRAGON WAY 5.0 14.38
164-712-051 6036 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-052 6040 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-053 6044 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-054 6048 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-055 6046 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-056 6042 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-057 6038 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-058 6034 SNAPDRAGON ST 5.0 14.38
164-712-059 6020 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-712-060 6024 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-712-061 6028 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-712-062 6032 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-712-063 6030 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-712-064 6026 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-712-065 6022 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-712-066 6018 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-713-001 13103 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 3 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1598
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-713-002 13109 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-713-003 13097 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-713-004 13091 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-713-005 13079 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-713-006 13085 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-713-007 13073 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-713-008 13067 GOLDENROD DR 5.0 14.38
164-713-010 6119 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-011 6125 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-012 6135 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-013 6129 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-014 6139 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-015 6145 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-016 6155 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-017 6149 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-019 6029 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-020 6031 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-021 6039 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-022 6033 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-023 6035 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-024 6041 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-025 6043 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-026 6037 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-028 6069 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-029 6075 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-030 6083 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-031 6077 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-032 6105 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-033 6111 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-034 6115 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-035 6109 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-037 6045 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-038 6051 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-039 6055 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-040 6049 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-041 6053 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-042 6059 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-043 6071 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-713-044 6065 ROSEWOOD WAY 5.0 14.38
164-721-001 5968 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-721-002 5972 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 4 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1599
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-721-003 5976 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-721-004 5980 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-721-005 5978 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-721-006 5974 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-721-007 5970 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-721-008 5966 LIMONIUM LN 5.0 14.38
164-721-009 5952 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-010 5956 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-011 5960 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-012 5964 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-013 5962 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-014 5958 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-015 5954 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-016 5950 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-018 5936 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-019 5940 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-020 5944 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-021 5948 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-022 5946 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-023 5942 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-024 5938 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-025 5934 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-026 5920 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-027 5924 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-028 5928 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-029 5932 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-030 5930 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-031 5926 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-032 5922 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-033 5918 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-035 13068 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-036 13074 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-037 13078 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-038 13072 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-039 13080 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-040 13086 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-041 13090 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-042 13084 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-044 13088 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-045 13094 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-046 13106 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 5 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1600
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-721-047 13100 IRISBEND AVE 5.0 14.38
164-721-049 13105 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-050 13099 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-051 13087 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-052 13093 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-053 13089 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-054 13083 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-055 13079 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-056 13085 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-057 13077 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-058 13071 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-059 13067 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-721-060 13073 SUGARLOAF DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-001 5878 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-002 5882 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-003 5886 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-004 5890 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-005 5888 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-006 5884 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-007 5880 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-008 5876 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-010 5862 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-011 5866 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-012 5870 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-013 5874 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-014 5872 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-015 5868 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-016 5864 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-017 5860 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-019 5846 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-020 5850 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-021 5854 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-022 5858 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-023 5856 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-024 5852 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-025 5848 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-026 5844 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-722-028 13048 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-029 13042 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-030 13038 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-031 13032 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 6 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1601
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-722-032 13010 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-033 13016 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-034 13020 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-035 13026 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-037 13056 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-038 13050 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-039 13046 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-040 13058 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-041 13062 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-042 13068 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-043 13042 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-044 13050 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-045 13058 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-046 13062 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-047 13054 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-048 13046 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-050 13086 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-051 13080 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-052 13076 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-053 13088 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-054 13092 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-055 13098 58TH ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-056 13044 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-057 13052 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-058 13060 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-059 13056 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-060 13048 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-722-061 13038 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-001 5985 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-002 5979 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-003 5973 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-004 5971 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-005 5977 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-006 5983 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-008 13043 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-009 13037 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-010 13035 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-011 13041 BRAMBLE ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-013 5938 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-014 5942 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-015 5946 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 7 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1602
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-723-016 5944 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-017 5940 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-018 5936 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-020 5969 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-021 5963 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-022 5957 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-023 5955 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-024 5961 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-025 5967 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-027 5952 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-028 5958 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-029 5964 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-030 5962 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-031 5956 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-032 5950 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-034 5863 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-035 5859 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-036 5855 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-037 5853 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-038 5857 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-039 5861 GINGER DR 5.0 14.38
164-723-041 5858 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-042 5862 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-043 5866 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-044 5864 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-045 5860 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-046 5856 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-048 5968 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-049 5974 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-050 5980 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-051 5978 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-052 5972 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-723-053 5966 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-001 5855 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-002 5853 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-003 5863 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-004 5861 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-005 5869 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-006 5871 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-007 5879 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-008 5877 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 8 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1603
City of Eastvale
BAD No. 2014 -2 (Tracts 32821 & 32821-1)
Preliminary Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Assessor's Parcel
Number Site Address Total BP Grand Total
164-724-009 5885 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-010 5887 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-012 5921 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-013 5919 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-014 5927 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-015 5929 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-016 5937 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-017 5935 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-018 5943 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-019 5945 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-021 5953 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-022 5951 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-023 5959 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-024 5961 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-025 5969 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-026 5967 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-027 5975 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-028 5977 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-029 5985 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-030 5983 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-031 5991 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
164-724-032 5993 SILVEIRA ST 5.0 14.38
350 Accounts 1,750.0 $5,033.00
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 9 of 9 05/02/2025 04:40:59PM 1604
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City Council/Eastvale Public Financing Authority Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Agenda Item No. 12.2
June 25, 2025
Adop/on of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2025/2026 - 2029/2030
Prepared By:
Jimmy Chung, Public Works Director/ City Engineer
Recommended Action(s)
Staff recommends that the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt a resolu on approving the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2025/2026 - 2029/2030.
Summary
The City of Eastvale's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plan outlines a strategic framework for infrastructure development, including project cost overview, project descrip ons, categories, project status, and project priority, all aimed at enhancing the community's quality of life and addressing its long-term needs. This comprehensive plan ensures transparency, accountability, and effec ve resource alloca on, contribu ng to the successful execu on of the city's capital projects over the specified planning period.
The CIP focuses on addressing cri cal, essen al, and desirable projects across various project categories. These categories encompass a wide range of sectors, including transporta on, parks and recrea on, public safety, City maintenance, u li es, accessibility improvements and public facili es.
Each project has been carefully evaluated and categorized based on its significance and impact on the community. Pursuant to the California Government Code, adop on of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) requires the Planning Commission and City Council to hold public hearings to allow public input and pass a resolu on to adopt the CIP. Staff has no ced for public hearing regarding this item pursuant to California Government Code Sec on 65090 and provided a resolu on for considera on which adopts the Five-Year CIP pursuant to California Government Code Section 66002.
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1605
Background
A=ached is the CIP for City Council considera on on projects proposed for fiscal years 2025/2026 - 2029/2030. Proposed is a list based on the priori es of the City Council of citywide projects including accessibility improvements, roadway safety/traffic improvements, street improvements, citywide maintenance: land, building, facili es, and equipment . Projects are then further categorized into three priori es: Cri cal, Essen al, and Desirable, which was established at the May 14, 2025 City Council meeting.
Accessibility Improvement Projects
This program is dedicated to improving Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessibility through various types of repairs to curbs, gu=ers, and sidewalks throughout the City. The program includes costs to prepare and implement a plan for ADA compliance.
Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements
This program improves roadway safety and traffic through upgrades and improvements to exis ng and/or adding new high-visibility traffic signs, pavement markings, and other geometric improvements (i.e. site distance) or traffic circulation improvements.
Street Improvement
This program is dedicated to improving various streets. Improvements may include widening or capital pavement maintenance.
Citywide Maintenance
This program is dedicated to right-of-way maintenance and repair, including, but not limited to striping, stenciling, repairs to streets and culvert/drainage facili es, storm damage/flood control projects, widening/pavement maintenance of streets (slurry seals/crack seals/pot holes/deep patch), and various assets in the public right of way.
Land, Buildings, Facilities, & Equipment
This program aims to provide safe, clean, well-maintained and func onal facili es in order to allow City departments to effec vely provide services to the community. This program details construc on and capital improvements of City-owned buildings and facili es and offsite improvements to include sidewalk, curb and gutter and pavement.
Environmental
Adop on of the CIP is an administra ve ac vity and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sec ons 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because adop on of the CIP does not commit the City to construct any of the projects included in the CIP and therefore will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements will be determined on a project-byproject basis prior to final approval and construction of each project.
Strategic Plan Action - Priority Level: 1 | Target #: E | Goal #: A The adop on of the City's 5-Year CIP for the 2025-2026 budget cycle will support the development of a Civic Center and support financial planning efforts for newly proposed infrastructure projects. 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1606
Fiscal Impact
The City's infrastructure projects are financed through various funding sources, including SB 1, Gas Tax, SB 132 Road Maintenance and Rehabilita on Account, Measure A, Community Development Block Grant, federal grants, state grants, developer contribu on, fire structural funds, County Flood Control funds, development impact fees, and General Fund.
The budgetary summary for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is part of 2025-2026 Annual Opera ons and Capital Improvement Budget, which will be presented to Council for adop on at the June 25, 2025 City Council meeting.
Prior City Council/Commission Action
On June 18, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly no ced public hearing, at which me it received public tes mony, made findings of General Plan consistency, and recommend City Council approval.
On May 14, 2025, the City Council reviewed and approved a project priority list for the 2025-2026 budget cycle to be included in the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Attachment(s)
Attachment 1 - Resolution Adopting CIP
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A to Resolution - Draft 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Attachment 3 - Proof of Public Hearing Notice
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1607
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 2025/2026 – 2029/2030
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eastvale desires to adopt the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025/2026 through 2029/2030 (“CIP”), as defined below;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a presentation on the proposed CIP at a public meeting held on June 25, 2026 where members of the public had the opportunity to commend on the proposed CIP;
WHEREAS, the proposed CIP is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code, section 66002, the City duly gave public notice of the public hearing of the proposed CIP, a copy of which has been on file with the City Clerk at least 10 calendar days prior to the City Council’s commencement of such public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the CIP as set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EASEMENT CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2025/2026 through 2029/2030, a copy of which is attached hereto as exhibit “A” and made a part hereof by this reference.
SECTION 2. The Capital Improvement Plan may be updated by the City Council from time to time pursuant to California Government Code, section 66002, or as otherwise provided by law.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25 day of June, 2025. __________________________________________
Mike McMinn
Mayor
1608
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________________ __________________________________________ Erica Vega Marc A. Donohue, MMC
City Attorney Government Services Director/City Clerk
1609
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) §
CITY OF EASTVALE )
I, Marc A. Donohue, City Clerk/Communications Director of the City of Eastvale, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 25-XX, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Eastvale, California, at a meeting held on the 25 day of June, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________________
Marc A. Donohue, MMC
Government Services Director/City Clerk
1610
1611
Introduction and Summary .................................................................................................. 4 Program Summary ............................................................................................................... 5 Program Project Detail Sheets ............................................................................................ 9 Appendix A Critical Projects Detail Sheets..............................................................10 Appendix B Essential Projects Detail Sheets .......................................................... 29 Appendix C Desirable Projects Detail Sheets ......................................................... 45 Table 1 - Critical Projects Category Summary ................................................................... 7 Table 2 - Essential Projects Category Summary ............................................................... 7 Table 3 - Desirable Project Category Summary ................................................................. 8
SUMMARY OF TABLES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1612
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FY 2025/2026 through FY 2029/2030
CITY COUNCIL
Michael McMinn, Mayor
Jocelyn Yow, Mayor Pro Tem,
Todd Rigby, Council Member
Christian Dinco, Council Member
Clint Lorimore, Council Member
ADMINISTRATION
Mark Orme, City Manager
Prepared By:
Public Works Department
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Jimmy Chung, P.E.
1613
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 4 The City of Eastvale's Five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) serves as a strategic blueprint for infrastructure planning and investment. It includes detailed project descriptions, cost estimates, project status, prioritization, and categorization — all with the goal of improving quality of life and addressing the City's long-term infrastructure needs.
This comprehensive planning tool ensures transparency, fiscal responsibility, and efficient allocation of resources, thereby supporting the successful delivery of capital projects throughout the five-year planning period.
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is overseen by the Public Works Department and serves as a strategic framework for the planning, design, and construction of various infrastructure projects throughout the City. These include improvements in transportation, drainage, public facilities, and parks. Public Works staff are responsible for managing all phases of CIP projects—from initial planning and design to final construction and project closeout.
CIP addresses a broad range of project types, including critical, essential, and desirable improvements across categories such as transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, maintenance, utilities, accessibility enhancements, and public facilities. Each project is assessed and categorized based on its urgency and anticipated community benefit.
Five-Year Capital improvement Plan (CIP) Annual Update
Each year, as part of the City's budget process, the City Council reviews and adopts a FiveYear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in accordance with California Government Code Section 65403.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090, the adoption of the Five-Year CIP requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council, providing opportunities for community input prior to formal adoption through resolution. At their meeting on June 18, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and determined that the plan conforms to the goals, objectives, and policies of the elements of the General Plan.
Annual Capital Improvement Budget Process
The Annual Capital Improvement Budget (Annual CIP) process usually starts in January or February with the development of the overall City budget. This process identifies all priority
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1614
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 5 operational needs, as well as capital improvement needs. Once the budget is completed, it is recommended for adoption by the City Council prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, which begins in July. City management and the City Council are updated monthly on the status of CIP projects through status reporting and meetings.
FY 2025/2026 Annual Operations and Capital Improvement Budget was adopted by the City Council on June 25, 2025. The budget document provides detailed insights into the financial aspects and funding sources allocated for each project within the Capital Improvement Program. It serves as a valuable resource, outlining the financial considerations and allocations for the specified planning period.
This document presents the City of Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2025/2026 through 2029/2030. The City of Eastvale’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is comprised of thirty-seven (37) projects divided into five categories: Accessibility Improvements Program, Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements, Street Improvements, Citywide Maintenance Program, and Land, Building, Facilities & Equipment. The projects are further categorized into three priorities based on the following order of precedence:
1. Safety Projects
2. Annual projects
3. Funding deadlines
4. Projects with significant progress (more than 50% in design)
5. New projects from Strategic Goal
6. All others
The three priorities are:
Critical Projects:
Critical projects are those that require immediate attention due to safety concerns, regulatory compliance, or their potential to adversely affect the City's infrastructure or services if left unaddressed. These projects are given the highest priority and are crucial for maintaining the integrity and functionality of City of Eastvale's public systems.
Essential Projects:
PROGRAM SUMMARY
1615
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 6 Essential projects are deemed necessary to meet the growing demands of the community and improve the overall quality of life for its residents. These projects aim to enhance existing infrastructure, expand services, and create a more sustainable environment. They play a vital role in ensuring City of Eastvale remains a vibrant and desirable place to live, work, and engage in recreational activities.
Desirable Projects:
Desirable projects, while not as critical or essential, are still significant in enhancing the community's well-being and supporting its long-term vision. These projects focus on various aspects such as aesthetic improvements, public safety improvements, infrastructure maintenance, and transportation advancements. They contribute to the unique identity and character of City of Eastvale, creating a more appealing and engaging environment for residents and visitors.
The Five-Year CIP is summarized as follows:
Priority Category Total number of Projects
Critical 18
Essential 15
Desirable 4
A summary of proposed projects by category for the entire Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is included in Table 1 through Table 3. A program summary by category that includes each project cost estimates is presented in Appendices A through C. 1616
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 7 Table 1 -Critical Projects Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
95024 Parking Structure Critical
95023 Civic Center Site Improvement Critical
95017 Public Works Yard Facility Project Critical
95014 Police Station Critical
95012 Library Critical
95011 City Hall Critical
94014 Beautification Project at Sumner Ave and Bellegrave Ave Critical 94010 Citywide Branding: Entryway and Median Improvements Critical 94006 Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization – Phase 1 Arterials Critical 94005 Miscellaneous Traffic/Pedestrian Safety Critical
94001 Pavement Slurry Seal and Resurfacing Project Critical 93040 Hamner Utility Trench Repair Critical
93039 Median Improvement Project at River Rd, Cantu Galleano Rd, and Archibald Ave
Critical
93037 Limonite Gap Pedestrian Bridge Critical
93034 Hellman Avenue Street Widening Critical
93018 Annual Overlay Critical
92021 Traffic Signal Improvement at Sumner and 68th Critical 92001 Traffic Sign Inventory and Replacement Critical
Table 2 - Essential Projects Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
95022 Citrus Reimagined Project Essential
95020 OCPW Land Use – Passive Park Essential
95019 Santa Ana River Area Passive Park Essential
95016 Fire Medic Squad Replacement Essential
95015 Fire Aerial Ladder Truck Purchase Essential
95013 Fire Station Essential
94011 Smart City Masterplan Essential
94007 Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization – Phase 2 Collectors Essential 94004 Street Maintenance: Pot Holes, Deep Patch, and Crack Seal Essential 93036 Streetlight Installation Project Essential
93027 Schleisman Road Mobility, Safety, and Connectivity Project Essential 92020 Hamner Avenue Beautification Project Essential
92013 Limonite Interchange Gateway Feature Essential
92012 Improvement of Bike Network Connectivity Essential 91010 Citywide Americans with Disabilities Act Improvement Project Essential 1617
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 8 Table 3– Desirable Project Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
92019 SCE Easement Trail Improvement along 68th Street Desirable 92018 Orchard Park to American Heroes Park Trail Desirable 92014 Roadway Vision Desirable
92011 Traffic Signal Battery Backup Systems Desirable
1618
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 9 For each proposed project in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a Project Detail Sheet has been prepared that presents the various project details including:
• Project Title and Location
• Project/CIP No. and Category
• Project Priority Category
• Project Justification
• City Council Goal & Objectives
• Description of Project
• Project Cost Overview
• Review and Comments
PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEETS
1619
CRITICAL PROJECTS
(appendix continues on next page)
10 APPENDIX A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY
PROJECT DETAILS
1620
Parking Structure
95024
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: This project will utilize a design-build approach, and the scope includes the construction of a multi-story parking structure that will serve the Civic Center and the future Downtown area.
Justification or Significance of Improvement:
The new parking structure will support the anticipated increase in parking demand associated with the new Civic Center.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 2,500,000$
Property Acquisition1 2,000,000$
Construction Contracts 29,700,000$
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost 34,200,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments:
1Based on $1,109,639 per acre (from the appraisal done for Lot 14 from DA; but the actual cost will be determined when an appraisal is done) Tentative Schedule:
Design-Build Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
1621
Civic Center Site Improvement
95023
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: An approximately 2.8 acre City Park with an amphitheater and a central hardscape Civic Plaza and associated site work around the three buildings: City Hall, library, and police station.
Justification or Significance of Improvement:
Phase I of the Downtown Eastvale Project includes a City Hall, a library, a police station, arts and cultural spaces, a park and an amphitheater, and an open plaza. The Civic Center will be a community serving and welcoming place, space and destination where people can connect and prosper.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates5
Architect & Eng Serv. 1,843,624$
Property Acquisition1 1,109,808$
Construction Contracts2
26,653,021$
Other Professional Serv.3
785,404$
Other Misc Expenses4 654,843$
Total Cost 31,046,700$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre 2 includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,, 4 Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives
5 Includes project cost estimates for Site Improvements including Park and Plaza
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
1622
Public Works Yard Facility Project
95017
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: 14821 & 14835 Chandler St
Description of Improvements: This project will utilize a design-build approach. The project scope includes the construction of maintenance yard buildings with vehicle/equipment storage area, office spaces, washing bays, and rest areas and the site work.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : The City is lacking appropriate space for storage of equipment, supplies, fleet garage, workshop space, crew break room. The City also needs to be prepared for the increased demand for services once the Civic Center, Civic Park, and Civic Plaza construction begins.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 7,730,272$
1,250,000$
500,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q4 2026
Estimated Completion: Q4 2028
9,480,272$
Annual O&M
1623
Police Station
95014
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target A, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct a new Police Station, approximately 22,021 SF in size, located in the southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The Police Station a two-story building with one level below grade secured parking.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : The new police station would serve as the City’s law enforcement headquarters and will enhance the provision of law enforcement services for the City’s current residents as well as or new development and population as the City continues to grow over future decades..The new police station would also house the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which would serve as a central command-and-control facility for coordinating emergency response and recovery efforts during disasters and major emergencies.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2
3,101,867$
44,843,263$
1,867,234$
Project Cost Overview
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Other Professional Serv.3
Other Misc Expenses4
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre 2 includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,, 4 Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
Annual O&M
54,016,207$
1,912,753$
2,291,090$
Funding
Information:
1624
Library
95012
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Funding
Information:
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan.
Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct an approximately 25,599 SF Library located in the southeast commercial quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The Library is a two-story building featuring book collection areas for all ages, group study rooms, acitivity spaces, offices, and an occupiable terrace.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : The City's existing library is operated by a facility that is shared with a high school. The new facility would be the first true library in the City, which is currently underserved by its existing library facilities. The construction of a new Library is vital to fostering education, equality, community cohesion, and personal development. The library would accommodate a range of public programs and offer expanded access to equipment to increase public access to literacy and digital programs.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2 40,168,002$
1,672,560$
2,778,473$
Project Cost Overview
Annual O&M
49,552,653$
2,856,611$
ssional Serv. Other Profe 2,077,007$
3 Other Misc Expenses4
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre 2 includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,, 4 Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
1625
City Hall
95011
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct an approximately 52,340 SF City Hall located in the southeast commercial quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The City Hall is a three-story building that includes public counter spaces, an outdoor amphitheater, a council chamber that could be converted into a stage for performances, conference rooms, and office spaces.
Justification or Significance of Improvement:
Eastvale was incorporated in 2010, making it a relatively new city. Before incorporation, there was no City Hall in Eastvale. The construction of a new City Hall is essential to support government operations, offer services to the public, encourage civic engagement, and serve as a symbol of local governance.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2 64,395,621$
2,681,377$
4,454,330$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.3
Other Misc Expenses4
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre 2 includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,, 4 Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
Annual O&M
79,605,104$
4,696,329$
3,377,447$
1626
Beautification Project at Sumner Ave and Bellegrave Ave 94014
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 2, Target B, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Project Category:
Location: Southwest corner of Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave and Sumner Ave Description of Improvements: This project will include installation of landscaping and hardscape to beautify the gap that exists at the southwest corner of Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave and Sumner Ave.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Sumner Ave at Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave serves as a key entry point into the city, making it essential to enhance its appearance and create a welcoming atmosphere for both residents and visitors. This improvement will not only elevate the aesthetic appeal but also set a positive tone for all who enter our community.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 650,000$
50,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q1 2026
Estimated Completion: Q3 2026
Annual O&M
700,000$
1627
Citywide Branding: Entryway and Median Improvements
94010
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target B, Goal C
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Citywide Branding efforts including entryway median improvement, monument installation at various locations within the City, and various street beautification projects.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Although this project has been categorized as Essential in previous Five-Year CIP’s, staff has been actively seeking opportunities to implement it in coordination with other improvement efforts, such as the median project at Cantu and River Road. With the acceptance of the Right-of-Way dedication at the corner of Sumner Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue, we are now ready to move forward with the design and installation of the Entryway City Branding Monument, in conjunction with the Beautification Project (Project No. 94014).
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 1,100,000$
110,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q1 2026
Estimated Completion: Q3 2026
Annual O&M
1,210,000$
1628
Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization - Phase 1 Arterials 94006
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Target E, Goal D
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Project Category:
Location: This project will implement traffic signal synchronization along major arterials including Hamner Ave, Archibald Ave, and Schleiman Ave.
Description of Improvements: Install traffic synchronization components and fiber optic line and/or wireless antenna to relay signal per the traffic signal synchronization master plan. Traffic signal synchronization of major corridors will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 includes Hamner Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Schleisman Road and Scholar Way. Phase 2 includes collectors streets including Harrision Ave, Sumner Ave, 65th St, and Citrus St (CIP 94007). This project is for Phase 1, and sycnrhonization on Schleisman Rd will be completed after the intersection of Schleisman Rd and Sumner is improved by a developer.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Synchronizing major corridors throughout the City has remained a high priority. WRCOG’s recent Nexus Study highlighted and included the ITS improvements along these key corridors. Implementing this initiative will significantly enhance traffic flow and reduce travel times, delivering clear benefits to the public.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 5,000,000$
1,000,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q1 2026
Estimated Completion: Q3 2026
Annual O&M
6,000,000$
1629
Miscellaneous Traffic/Pedestrian Safety
94005
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Miscellaneous design and construction to improve traffic safety for year-round traffic/safety needs.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 50,000$
50,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an ongoing annual project.
Annual O&M
100,000$
1630
Pavement Slurry Seal and Resurfacing Project
94001
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
CalRecycle and RMRA (Road Maintenance and Rehalibitation Account) Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Annual program to treat pavement on various residential streets throughout the City with slurry seal. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated each year as needed.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Preventative maintenance is a proactive strategy that helps City manage infrastructure responsibly, ensuring roads remain safe, functional, and cost-effective over time.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 1,000,000$
100,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
1,250,000$
150,000$
1631
Hamner Utility Trench Repair
93040
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: Hamner Ave north of Schleisman Rd in front of Dollar Tree store Description of Improvements: This project will excavate and property backfill the existing trench line over the storm drain line along Hamner Ave in front of Dollar Tree store.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : It is critical to address the settlement issues observed at the project location to ensure roadway safety and structural integrity of the roadway and to ensure its long-term performance.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. -$
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 500,000$
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost 500,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q1 2026
1632
Median Improvement Projects at River Rd, Cantu Galleano Rd, and Archibald Ave 93039
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: River Rd at Baron Dr, Cantu Galleano Rd between Hamner Ave and Goodman Way, and Archibald Ave between Corbin Dr and existing raised median to the north
Description of Improvements: Install landscaped raised median to physically separate opposing traffic streams and help stop vehicles traveling into opposing traffic lanes.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Public Safety Needs to prevent illegal left turns and dangerous driving pattern.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 200,000$
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 2,200,000$
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost 2,400,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q4 2025 (Phase 1: concrete hardscape and raised medians completed in Q2 2025)
1633
Limonite Gap Pedestrian Bridge
93037
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Construction of this project was approved for CPFCDS (Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending) funding through the FY22-23 earmark process. Funding obligation deadline is September 30, 2026.
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
Funding
Information:
Project Category:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
-$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q4 2026
Estimated Completion: Q4 2027
Total Cost 4,781,000$
Other Misc Expenses
Location: Over Cucamonga Creek Channel, approximately 0.1 mil south of Limonite Ave.
Description of Improvements: Design and construct a pedestrian bridge that is roughly 300 ft in length over Cucamonga Creek Channel to close the gap of pedestrian path that will ultimately extend to a 2.5-mile multiuse trail and connect with four parks through a nonmotorized corridor.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 781,000$
500,000$
Construction Contracts 3,500,000$
Other Professional Serv. -$
Property Acquisition
Project Cost Overview
1634
Hellman Avenue Street Widening and Walters Pedestrian Bridge 93034
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Project Category:
Location: Hellman Ave between Chandler St. to Walters St.
Description of Improvements: The project involves widening Hellman Avenue from Walters Street to River Road to eliminate bottlenecks and improve traffic flow. The scope includes conducting a feasibility study, preparing environmental documents, right-of-way easement documents, and PS&E. The project will be completed in two phases: 1) Widening of Hellman Avenue north of Chandler Avenue, including lot grading south of Rondo Elementary School and bridge widening. 2) Widening of Hellman Avenue from Shortham Street to River Road.The feasibility study will determine the most efficient approach for phasing the project.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 8,500,000$
15,000,000$
2,000,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: TBD (pending TUMF construction budget allocation) Estimated Completion: TBD (pending TUMF construction budget allocation) Annual O&M
25,500,000$
1635
Annual Overlay
93018
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Funding
Information:
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Annual asphalt concrete overlay or micro-resurfacing treatment on various streets according to the approved Pavement Management Plan. The contractor for construction will be selected by a bidding procedure.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts
Annual O&M
2,750,000$
150,000$
2,100,000$
500,000$
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
1636
Traffic Signal Improvement at Sumner Ave and 68th St
92021
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal D
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Location: At the intersection of Sumner Ave and 68th St Description of Improvements: Design and install traffic signals at the intersection of Sumner Ave and 68th Street Justification or Significance of Improvement: This project will improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and also allow for future opportunity to synchronize the Sumner Ave corridor. City Council directed the staff to commence the process for signalizing this intersection at April 10, 2024, meeting.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) Cycle 12
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 87,000$
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 634,800$
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost 721,800$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q4 2026
Estimated Completion: Q3 2027
1637
Traffic Sign Inventory and Replacement
92001
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
Project Title:
Project Number:
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: The City of Eastvale owns and maintains approximately 8,210 traffic signs throughout the city. Signs that are missing, weathered, faded, or non-compliant will be replaced. One key compliance measure is retroreflectivity, a standard established to enhance nighttime driving safety. Approximately 2,160 signs have been scanned, with 821 failing to meet retroreflectivity standards. The remaining signs will be scanned while the failed ones are replaced. Additionally, the typical lifecycle of traffic signs is 10 years. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated annually as needed.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Traffic signs are vital sources of infomration that communicate traffic control rules, warnings, and provide the necessary guidance that roadway users need to safetly and efficiently navigate.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 107,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
107,000$
1638
ESSENTIAL PROJECTS
(appendix continues on next page)
29 APPENDIX B
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY
PROJECT DETAILS
1639
Citrus Reimagined Project
95022
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal B
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: 13200 Citrus St., Eastvale CA
Description of Improvements: In consistence with 2040 Eastvale General Plan, this project is envisioning to transform the 22-acre City owned lot into a community gathering hub that include a 15,000 sf indoor aquatic center, a 20,000 sf to 25,000 sf community center, an event center repurposed from an old residential property, an outdoor amphitheater, park spaces, pickleball courts, dog parks, a skate park, picnic areas, and a Sana Ana River education pond and pier.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : This project is consistent with the adopted 2040 Eastvale General Plan. This project will directly benefit the health and wellbeing of the residents and its visitors.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv.1 6,560,000$
Property Acquisition -$
Construction Contracts2 82,000,000$
Other Professional Serv.3 12,300,000$
Other Misc Expenses 4,100,000$
Total Cost 104,960,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments:
1 8% of the total construction cost
2Based on $40/ft for site improvements and $1,000/sf for building construction
3 15% of the total construction cost
4 5% of the total construction cost
1640
OCPW Land Use - Grand Park
95020
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal B
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Area near Hellman Avenue south of Walters St.
Description of Improvements:OCPW owns a floodplain area near Hellman Avenue, south of Walters Street. The city is requesting land use approval from OCPW to develop a passive park on approximately 200-acre lot. The Grand Park will exhibit Conservation Areas, Picnic Areas, Recreation Areas, and a Visitor Center.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Encompassing a variety of restored ecosystems, community spaces and recreation opportunities Eastvale Grand Park will play a role in transforming quality of life for Eastvale residents.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.1
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts2
12,000,000$
150,000,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.3
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
1 8% of the total construction cost
2Based on $750k/acre ($18/sf) from JCSD park fee
3 15% of the total construction cost
4 5% of the total construction cost
Annual O&M
192,000,000$
7,500,000$
22,500,000$
1641
Santa Ana River Area Passive Park
95019
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Annual O&M
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Parcels adjacent to the Santa Ana River
Description of Improvements: Army Corps of Engineer owns many undeveloped parcels near the Santa Ana River. City is requesting land use from Army Corps of Engineer to construct passive park/trail.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts
50,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Total Project Cost Estimates include staff time only.
50,000$
1642
Fire Medic Squad Replacement
95016
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study x In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target A, Goal F
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: N/A
Description of Improvements: Replacement funding for the City's two Fire Medic Units (Ambulances), Ford F-250 trucks with service body modifications, cabinets, etc.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 800,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
800,000$
Annual O&M
1643
Fire Truck Purchase
95015
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study x In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target A, Goal F
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: N/A
Description of Improvements: Purchase of additional fire truck for the new third fire station at Scholar Way and 58th Street to provide more efficient, effective emergency services to the residents. The truck will either be a tractor-drawn or a rear-mount "Quint" style truck (rear-mount style is illustrated below).
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 2,700,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
2,700,000$
1644
Fire Station
95013
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: A design build project to construct a Fire Station located in the southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The project scope includes 12,000 sqaure feet facilitiy and site improvements.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : The Fire Station (to be operated by the Riverside County/CalFIRE) will provide service to the northern portion of the City of Eastvale within proximity to the Downtown Leal Project and also provide immediate response to the commercial retail/industrial/logistics corridor north of Bellegrave, along and across the I-15 Interstate corridor, as well as the residential neighborhoods and commerical retail/industrial along the Limonite cooridor from Hellman to I-15 Interstate.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2 14,763,994$
1,352,650$
1,021,245$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.3
Other Misc Expenses4
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,639 per acre 2Includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency based on the contstruction unit cost per sq ft of the City Hall (95011) 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, and geotech 4 Includes FF&E and AV System
Annual O&M
18,843,368$
952,624$
752,855$
1645
Smart City Masterplan
94011
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 3, Target F, Goal C
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Develop a feasibility study and master plan for Smart City initiatives to support the pursuit of grant opportunities for construction outlined in the master plan. The feasibility study will define the scope of work, including areas of interest for fiber optic infrastructure, public Wi-Fi, and other related components.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 7,000,000$
150,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
7,150,000$
1646
Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization - Phase 2 Collectors 94007
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal D
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Install traffic synchronization components and fiber optic line and/or wireless antenna to relay signal per the traffic signal synchronization master plan. Traffic signal synchronization of major corridors will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 includes Hamner Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Schleisman Road and Scholar Way. Phase 2 includes collectors streets including Harrision Ave, Sumner Ave, 65th St, and Citrus St.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 1,500,000$
500,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
2,000,000$
1647
Street Maintenance: Pot Holes, Deep Patch and Crack Seal 94004
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Annual program to provide pavement preventative treatment on arterial streets by crack sealing, repairing pot holes and deep patching in difficult locations. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated each year as needed. The contractor will be selected by a bidding procedure as needed.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 50,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
50,000$
1648
Streetlight Installation Project
93036
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Project scope includes design and installation of new streetlights to enhance lighting and safety and retofit existing light fixture to LED.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 25,000$
25,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
50,000$
1649
Schleisman Road Mobility, Safety and Connectivity Project 93027
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Schleisman Road between Hamner Avenue and Sumner Avenue Description of Improvements: Design and construction of Schleisman Road between Hamner Avenue and Sumner Avenue to include allinclusive, all ages and abilities Class I trail/pathways in existing roadway to enhance mobility, safety and connectivity.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 10,000,000$
1,000,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Target E, Goal E
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
11,000,000$
1650
Hamner Avenue Beautification Project
92020
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
Location: Hamner Avenue between 65th Street and Schleisman Road Description of Improvements: Design and install landscape median along Hamner Avenue between 65th Street and Schleisman Road to close the gap of landscape median long Hamner Avenue within the City limits.The project is estimated to start after Hamner Avenue Traffic Signal is synchronized (Project #94007).
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 1,800,000$
200,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
2,000,000$
1651
Limonite Interchange Gateway Feature
92013
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target B, Goal C
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
Location: I-15 Limonite Interchange and Limonite Avenue Description of Improvements: Design and construction of an iconic and memorable gateway feature at I-15 Limonite Interchange to brand Eastvale and welcome visitors and residents into the City. See also project# 94010 for Citywide Branding Project as a concurrent project.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 350,000$
85,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
435,000$
1652
Improvement of Bike Network Connectivity
92012
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Location: Scholar Way and Harrison Avenue
Description of Improvements: Design and construction of nearly 5 miles of Class I trails running along Scholar Way and Harrison Avenue, utilizing excess right-of-way rather than impacting vehicle circulation/travel lanes. The project will provide dedicated space for people to bike and walk from northern City limit to the Santa Ana River trail connecting to schools, parks, retail and neighborhoods. The project construction documents have been developed with a budget that is partially funded by ATP. Funding/grant opportunities are to be identified to fund the construction and successfully deliver the project.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 25,000,000$
1,750,000$
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Annual O&M
29,250,000$
2,500,000$
1653
Citywide Americans with Disabilities Act Improvement Project 91010
x Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target D, Goal D
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
Funding
Information:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts
Annual O&M
250,000$
250,000$
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Annual program to provide improvements focusing on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility, including curb ramps, sidewalks and public facilities throughout the City as identified in the Transition Plan that was adopted in 2024. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated each year as needed.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Beyond legal obligations, the City is dedicated to creating a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable environment for all individuals through ADA improvement projects.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
Project Title:
Project Number:
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
1654
DESIRABLE PROJECTS
(appendix continues on next page)
45 APPENDIX C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY
PROJECT DETAILS
1655
SCE Easement Trail Improvement Along 68th Street
92019
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
Location: 68th street between Sumner Avenue and Cedar Creek Rd.
Description of Improvements: Design and install trail improvement on SCE easement along 68th street between Sumner Avenue and Cedar Creek Rd.Pursue grant opportunities to construct. Cost estimate is to be determined until after right-of-way dedication is completed and feasibility study and preliminary concepts have been determined. Measure A will be used as local match to future grant(s).
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts
40,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Total Project Cost Estimates include staff time only.
Annual O&M
40,000$
1656
Orchard Park to American Heroes Park Trail
92018
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
Location: Bellegrave Ave. from Orchard Park to American Heros Description of Improvements: Design and install trail along Bellegrave from Orchard Park to American Heros. Cost estimate is to be determined until the right-of-way acquisition process is completed and feasibility study and preliminary concepts have been determined. City will pursue grant opportunities. General fund is to be used for preliminary feasibility studies. Measure A will be used as local match to future grant(s).
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts
100,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Total Project Cost Estimates include staff time only.
Annual O&M
100,000$
1657
Roadway Vision
92014
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
Project Title:
Project Number:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Conceptual design of trails and/or linear parks within the existing City roadways where there are more than sufficient space to provide safe drive lanes and dedicated space for people to bike and walk. This project includes landscape architectural trail design on all major arterials and collectors. This project will recommence after City completes the design of Improvement of Trail Network Connectivity (Project #92012), Schleisman Trail (Project# 93027), Alternate Drainage Water Quality (Project #93031) and General Plan (Project #94008) to define the City's vision and goal of trails and/or linear parks.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts
15,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Target E, Goal E
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
Total Project Cost Estimates include staff time only.
Annual O&M
15,000$
1658
Traffic Signal Battery Backup Systems
92011
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
Project Title:
Project Number:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Eastvale has approximately 77 traffic signals throughout the City, 56 solely maintained by the City and 21 shared by other jurisdictions. Each Battery cell cost roughly about $250, and depending on the type of the battery backup system, some intersections use 4 battiers, and some use 6 batteries. A complete new system is approximately $7,000. A backup system for signals greatly improve traffic safety during power outages. This is an ongoing project.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : A backup system for signals greatly improve traffic safety during power outages.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 25,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Target E, Goal D
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
25,000$
1659
CC 062525 - CIP FY 25/26 - 29/30 - Page 1 of 1
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
[email protected]
CITY OF EASTVALE
12363 LIMONITE AVE
MIRA LOMA, California 91752
Account Number: 5209843
Ad Order Number: 0011740479
Customer's Reference/PO Number:
Publication: The Press-Enterprise
Publication Dates: 06/15/2025
Total Amount: $299.16
Payment Amount: $0.00
Amount Due: $299.16
Notice ID: rTSPudi3XdrhbxUCkOjx
Invoice Text: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Eastvale City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an adoption of a Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 in conformance with California Government Code Section 66002. Project Description: The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a planning document used by the City to identify capital improvement needs and to coordinate funding and timing of those needs based on City Council’s direction and anticipated funding availability. The CIP includes projects that have been identified as funded, and partially funded for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2025/2026 through 2029/2030 as well as projects anticipated through the build-out of the City. Hearing Date: June 25, 2025, at 6:00 PM (City Council Meeting) Hearing Location: City Council Chamber City of Eastvale 12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite 910 Eastvale, CA 91752 Environmental: Adoption of the resolution is an administrative activity and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements will be determined on a project-byproject basis prior to final approval and construction of each project. Any person may submit written comments prior to the public hearing or may appear in person before the City Council to be heard. Written comments may be mailed to the City of Eastvale City Clerk at Eastvale City Hall, 12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite 910, Eastvale, CA 91752. To be presented to the Council at the meeting, all comments made in writing or via e-mail prior to the public hearing must be submitted and received by the City of Eastvale City Clerk no later than Wednesday, June 25, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. Oral and 1660
CC 062525 - CIP FY 25/26 - 29/30 - Page 1 of 1
The Press-Enterprise
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
CITY OF EASTVALE
12363 LIMONITE AVE , STE 910
MIRA LOMA, California 91752
Publication: The Press-Enterprise
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc: 0011740479
FILE NO. 0011740479
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
I am a citizen of the United States. I
am over the age of eighteen years and
not party to or interested in the aboveentitled matter. I am an authorized representative of THE PRESSENTERPRISE, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily
in the County of Riverside, and which
newspaper has been adjudicated a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of
Riverside, State of California, under
date of April 25, 1952, Case Number
54446, under date of March 29, 1957,
Case Number 65673, under date of
August 25, 1995, Case Number
267864, and under date of September
16, 2013, Case Number RIC 1309013;
that the notice, of which the annexed is
a printed copy, has been published in
said newspaper in accordance with the
instructions of the person(s) requesting
publication, and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:
06/15/2025
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Date: June 15, 2025.
At: Riverside, California
______________________________
Signature
1661
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City Council/Eastvale Public Financing Authority Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Agenda Item No. 12.3
June 25, 2025
Adop0on of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and
Development Impact Fee Schedule
Prepared By:
Amanda Wells, Finance Director/City Treasurer
Recommended Action(s)
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolu$on Adop$ng Development Impact Fees for Park Improvements, Community and Recrea$on Centers, Library, City Hall, Police Sta$on, and Fire Department Facili$es; and Adop$ng a Nexus Study and Capital Improvement Plan to Support the Development Impact Fees; and
2. Introduce the Ordinance en$tled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 110.28 (DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM) AND SECTION 130.20.020 (PARK AND RECREATION FEES AND DEDICATIONS) OF THE EASTVALE MUNICIPAL CODE.
Summary
A development impact fee (DIF) is a monetary exac$on imposed by a local agency on a developer as a condi$on of approval for new development projects within the agency’s borders. The primary policy objec$ve of an impact fee program is to ensure new development pays a fair share toward capital infrastructure associated with growth within the city. The city first established a development impact fee program on April 25, 2012 with the adop$on of Ordinance 2012-02. The development impact fees were adopted a@er a development impact fee nexus study was completed, which calculated and presented fees that enabled the city to expand its inventory of public facili$es, as new development creates increases in service demands. The 2012 study and 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1662
subsequent fee adop$on allowed the city to collect development impact fees for Transporta$on, Fire Facili$es, and Public Facili$es under authority granted by the Mi$ga$on Fee Act (the Act), contained in the California Government Code sec$on 66000. As the study is 13 years old, the city entered into an agreement in September 2023 with NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) to conduct a new nexus study for the city’s development impact fee program. The new study ensures that a viable nexus exists between future development and its propor$onate impact on city infrastructure while considering city growth and infrastructure costs in establishing appropriate fee amounts. Staff from Community Development and Engineering worked in coordina$on with the Finance Department and the City AHorney to provide informa$on to NBS who completed the study.
The study relies on the city's Capital Improvement Plan for informa$on regarding city projects and expected capital costs.
The methods used to calculate impact fees and in-lieu fees in this study are intended to sa$sfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Cons$tu$on, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025).
Background
The Mi$ga$on Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees.
They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collec$on and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evalua$on of impact fee programs. Those administra$ve requirements are discussed in the implementa$on chapter of the aHached report.
The city has annually compiled the required reports and those reports can be found on the city’s website.
Facilities Addressed & Major Changes
Exis$ng impact fees consist of Transporta$on, Fire, and General Public Buildings. Addi$onal information on services associated with these fees are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1: Existing Impact Fee Services Reviewed
Impact Fees Service Area/Description
Transportation
Road improvements at Hellman Cucamonga Creek Bridge, traffic signals citywide
Fire Additional Eastvale Fire Station
General Public Buildings Civic Center and Police Services The new nexus study considered addi$onal infrastructure and services in addi$on to the items listed in Table 1. Addi$onal informa$on regarding services associated with the proposed fees are listed below in Table 2.
Table 2: Final Impact Fee Services
Impact Fees Service Area/Description
Park Improvements Civic Center Park, Grand Park
Recreation Facilities
Community Center, Aquatic Center, Citrus
Reimagined
City Hall City Hall @ Civic Center
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1663
Library Library @ Civic Center
Police Police Station @ Civic Center
Fire Third Fire Station
The major changes incorporated into the fee update include the following:
Including new facilities and cost estimates for each facility New facili$es include Civic Center Park, Grand Park, and Citrus Reimagined (community center and aquatic center)
Upda$ng facili$es included in previous study with current plans and updated project estimates
Updated facilities include Library, City Hall, Police Station, and Fire Station The update to facili$es triggered a change in fee structure, two new fees are proposed (Park Improvement and Community and Recrea$on Centers), Public Facili$es was extended to include libraries and was separated into two fees: Library and City Hall, and Police was also separated from Public Facilities into a separate category Current reserve amounts and DIF balances were utilized to offset project costs Updated service demand for both fire and police services Impact Fee Analysis & Methodology
The study u$lized future development forecasts based on the Eastvale General Plan through 2040.
The analysis for each type of facility addressed in the study is presented in separate chapters. Within each chapter the rela$onship (nexus) between development and the need for a par$cular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of addi$onal development on facility needs to be quan$fied. The impact fees are based on capital costs for facili$es and other capital assets needed to mi$gate the impacts of addi$onal development. Impact fees may only be used to expand city infrastructure and assets and may not be used for maintenance or operating costs.
Any one of several legi$mate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a par$cular method depends primarily on the service characteris$cs of, and planning requirements for, and the type of facility being addressed. To some extent those methods are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in propor$on to the needs created by development. Of the calcula$on methods, this study employed the exis$ng inventory and system plan methods, depending on the par$cular fee being calculated. The exis$ng inventory method calculates fees so that new development will fund expansion of facili$es at the same standard currently used to serve exis$ng development. This method was u$lized for both Park Improvements and Recrea$on Facili$es fees. The system plan method calculates fees so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facili$es at the future standard aHributable to new development. This method was u$lized for Library, City Hall, Police Sta$on, and Fire Department Facilities.
The Mi$ga$on Fee Act requires that findings for the purpose and use of fees and reasonable rela$onships are established between the use of fees and the subsequent need for facili$es and the development on which the fees are imposed. In order to sa$sfy those requirements, the study must ensure that the “ra$onal nexus” and “rough propor$onality” standards are met. For each fee proposed herein, those findings were made. The findings can be found in the aHached report within each chapter dedicated to specific facilities and fees. 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1664
Results of Study
Based upon the results of the study, calcula$ons were completed for updated or new impact fees for Park Improvements, Community and Recrea$on Centers, City Hall, Library, Police Sta$on, and Fire Department Facili$es. Based on the analysis, fees associated with Transporta$on were eliminated, as no unfunded major transporta$on projects expected to be impacted by future development were iden$fied. Propor$onal costs associated with future infrastructure impacts and current funding levels were used to calculate the full cost of the impact fees presented.
The following tables (Table 3, Table 4, & Table 5) show the results of the updated impact fee calculations:
Table 3: Existing DIF Fees (Adopted 2012)
Impact Fee Type
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Commercial Office Industrial
Development Units DU DU KSF KSF KSF
Public Buildings $942 $650 $150 $149 $156
Fire 481 332 132 132 137
Transportation 693 487 1,685 373 352
Total Fees $2,116 $1,469 $1,967 $654 $645
Table 4: Proposed DIF Fees, Non Residential
Impact Fee Type Hotel/Motel
Commercial
Retail
BusinessProfessionalIndustrial/
Industrial Flex
Development Units Room KSF KSF KSF
City Hall Impact Fee $1,497.99 $2,032.71 $1,359.72 $542.52 Police Station Impact Fee 774.94 5,231.64 750.23 115.34 Fire Department Facilities Impact
Fee
517.95 1,294.87 362.56 155.38
Total Fees $2,790.88 $8,559.22 $2,472.51 $813.24
Table 5: Proposed DIF Fees, Residential
Impact Fee Type
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
Development Units DU DU DU DU DU DU
Park Improvement
Impact Fee
$2,557.50 $3,720.00 $5,115.00 $7,207.50 $9,532.50 $12,322.50 Community &
Recreation Centers
Impact Fee
532.36 774.34 1,064.72 1,500.29 1,984.25 2,565.01
City Hall Impact Fee 755.40 1,098.76 1,510.80 2,128.86 2,815.58 3,639.66 Library Impact Fee 639.97 930.87 1,279.95 1,803.56 2,385.36 3,083.51 Police Station Impact
Fee
800.77 891.18 981.59 1,097.83 1,188.24 1,278.65
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1665
Fire Department
Facilities Impact Fee
612.96 674.25 735.55 796.84 858.14 919.43
Total Fees $5,898.96 $8,089.40 $10,687.61 $14,534.88 $18,764.07 $23,808.76 An additional table comparing current fees to proposed fees can be found as attachment 2.
Implementation and Updating Fees
The nexus study must be updated every 8 years, per the Act. However, NBS recommends reviewing the fees annually and adjusted as needed for each category of fees. Staff proposes u$lizing the criteria in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Building Cost Index (BCI) and Construc$on Cost Index (CCI), Los Angeles area for Park Improvements and Community and Recrea$on Centers fees. This will allow the fees to be updated to reflect the most current cost es$mates. The fees may only be adjusted once per fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. No such adjustment shall be made a@er July 1, 2033 without first obtaining City Council approval.
Table 6: Update Schedule
Impact Fee Type Review Period Proposed Adjustment
Park Improvement Annual
ENR Building Cost Index &
Construction Cost Index
Community and Recreation
Centers
Annual
ENR Building Cost Index &
Construction Cost Index
Transportation Fees
The previous nexus study for Transporta$on Fees will be applied to the revenues collected for Transporta$on. Staff will apply the funding to projects iden$fied in the previous nexus study, the Hellman Avenue Cucamonga Creek Bridge and traffic signaliza$on throughout the city. No current or planned DIF eligible transporta$on projects were iden$fied as part of the new nexus study nor within the Capital Improvement Budget, as a result the transporta$on fee was removed from the nexus study and will no longer be assessed.
Final Report
The final report has been modified to incorporate non-substan$ve changes. The changes ensured that the fee naming conven$on is consistent throughout the report and reflects the intent of the fees. Primarily "Park Land and Improvement" was changed to reflect "Park Improvement" because during the study it was determined that park land assessments are unnecessary. This change did not change any calcula$on of the fees, only the naming of the fees. The report was also changed to reflect the new date of June 19, 2025. A clean version of the report is aHached as Exhibit A to the resolu$on under AHachment 1.2. A redline version of the report that shows all the changes made is attached to this staff report as Attachment 1.3.
Quimby Fees
The City's Quimby Ordinance (Sec$on 130.20.020 of the Eastvale Municipal Code) currently provides that when Quimby Fees are to be paid in-lieu of dedica$on of land for park purposes the fee shall be based on either the fair market value of the land or a fixed fee may be established by the city council. The City does not currently have an adopted fixed fee. Through the course of the nexus study the op$on of establishing a fixed fee was considered but ul$mately was decided against.
Quimby Fees will con$nue to be determined based on fair market value. The proposed Ordinance amends the City's Quimby Ordinance, which has not been comprehensively updated since 12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1666
incorporation, to remove obsolete provisions and conform to current State law.
Environmental
Government fiscal ac$vi$es and fee studies are not considered a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required.
Strategic Plan Action - Priority Level: 3 | Target #: C | Goal #: H Ensure revenues align with expenditures.
Ensure that City’s infrastructure keeps pace with development and that developers pay their share.
Fiscal Impact
The recommended update of the Development Impact Fees and the city's Quimby ordinance con$nues to reflect the City Council's strategic direc$on that new development pays its fair share of the costs for infrastructure and that costs of development in the city do not impact exis$ng residents. Adopting the DIF update does not cause a General Fund impact .
The city has a need of approximately $465 million in infrastructure needs. If impact fees are adopted at full cost, new development would contribute $96 million to projects iden$fied in the nexus study as land is developed throughout the city. The remaining $350 million funding gap will be funded through a combina$on of reserves, exis$ng DIF balances, General Fund, grants and regional funding, and debt service. The proposed development impact fee schedule will increase projected revenues within the DIF funds, which will be u$lized towards the projects men$oned in the report. It should be noted that only Park Improvements and Community and Recrea$on Centers will be unfunded after the Civic Center construction bid is awarded later this year.
Table 7: Funding Gap
Impact Fee
Total Infrastructure
Cost
New Development
Contribution via
Impact Fee
Funding Gap
Park Improvement $223,000,000 $39,052,444 $183,947,556
Community & Recreation Centers 40,000,000 7,916,683 32,083,317 City Hall & Library 129,157,757 30,425,047 98,732,710
Police Station 54,016,207 19,020,334 34,995,873
Fire Department Facilities 18,843,368 7,994,717 10,484,651 Total $465,017,332 $96,414,508 $349,759,456
Prior City Council/Commission Action
City Council adopted Ordinance 2012-02 establishing a development impact fee program on April 25, 2012, with a first reading on April 11, 2012. City Council adopted Resolu$on 12-15 adop$ng and levying development impact fees on April 11, 2012. The established DIF program was based on the 2012 nexus study completed by NBS. Development impact fees have not been updated since 2012.
City Council approved the professional services contract with NBS for Development Impact Fee Study Services on September 13, 2023.
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1667
Attachment(s)
Attachment 1 - Resolution: Development Impact Fee
Attachment 1.1 - Exhibit A to Resolution: Final Nexus Study Attachment 1.2 - Final Nexus Study Redline Changes
Attachment 1.3 - Exhibit B to Resolution: 5-Year CIP
Attachment 1.4 - Exhibit C to Resolution: DIF Fee Schedule Attachment 2 - Total Fee Comparison Table
Attachment 3 - Ordinance Amending Chapter 110.28 and Section 130.20.020 Attachment 4 - PowerPoint Presentation
12363 Limonite Avenue | Suite 910 | Eastvale, CA 91752
951.361.0900 | eastvaleca.gov
1668
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS,
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION CENTERS, LIBRARY, CITY HALL, POLICE STATION, AND FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES; AND ADOPTING A NEXUS STUDY AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City is authorized to establish development impact fees to offset the proportionate cost of providing public facilities to serve development projects, and to impose those fees on the owners of those development projects, in accordance the City’s authority under California Constitution Article 11, Section 7, and in accordance with the requirements of the “Mitigation Fee Act” (California Government Code Sections 66000 -66025); and WHEREAS, the City engaged a consultant, NBS Government Finance Group, to prepare a nexus study to evaluate the sufficiency of development impact fees to cover the proportionate cost of impacts from development projects on the City’s public facilities, as well as the proportionate benefit received by development projects from the City’s public facilities, and that nexus study is entitled “City of Eastvale Development Impact Fee Study Final Report” dated June 19, 2025 (hereinafter “Nexus Study,” attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study identifies the bases upon which the City has calculated development impact fees identified as Park Improvements Impact Fee, Community and Recreation Centers Impact Fee, Library Impact Fee, City Hall Impact Fee, Police Station Impact Fee, and Fire Department Facilities Impact Fee (collectively “Development Impact Fees” or “DIF”), in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, particularly Government Code Section 66016.5; and
WHEREAS, concurrently with the preparation of the Nexus Study, the City prepared the Capital Improvement Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” and incorporated herein by reference) to identify the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimated costs for the public facilities to be financed with Development Impact Fees, in compliance with Government Code Section 66002 and 66016.5(a)(6); and
WHEREAS, concurrently with the preparation of the Nexus Study, the City undertook a review of the underlying procedures for implementing development impact fees, and there is a separate staff recommendation for City Council to adopt an ordinance to amend Eastvale Municipal Code Chapter 110.28 and 130.20.020 to establish update procedures for implementing, and upon approval by the City Council, the implementation of the Development Impact Fees will be subject to those procedures ; and WHEREAS, the findings set forth in the Nexus Study for each of the Development Impact Fees 1669
identify the bases for concluding that the proposed Development Impact Fees satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act; those findings are incorporated herein by reference; and, for each Development Impact Fee, those findings: (1) identify the purpose of the fee; (2) identify the use of the fee; (3) 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 public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed, and (c) the amount of the fee and the public facility cost attributable to the development type; and (4) identify and explain any differences between existing levels of services provided by public facilities compared to new levels of service supported by Development Impact Fees (in compliance with Government Code Sections 66001(a) and 66016.5; and WHEREAS, the City has provided required notices of the public hearing at which this Resolution will be considered for adoption by the City Council, in accordance with Government Code Sections 6062a, 66004, 66015, 66016.5(a)(7), and 66018.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EASTVALE DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS. The above recitals are true and correct, are material to the adoption of this Resolution, and are incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. NEXUS STUDY AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. The City Council hereby adopts: (a) the Nexus Study, and (b) the Capital Improvement Plan.
SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The City Council hereby adopts the Development Impact Fees in the amounts for each Development Type as set forth on Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The attached Development Impact Fees include:
(a) Park Improvement Impact Fee;
(b) Community and Recreation Centers Impact Fee;
(c) Library Impact Fee;
(d) City Hall Impact Fee;
(e) Police Station Impact Fee; and
(f) Fire Department Facilities Impact Fee.
SECTION 4. INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or authorized designee, to make adjustments to the amount of Park Improvement Development Impact Fee and Community and Recreation Centers Impact Fee to account for inflationary impacts, provided that: (a) the amount of the adjustment shall be in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Engineering News Record (“ENR”) building cost index (“BCI”) and construction cost index (“CCI”), Los Angeles area; (b) there shall be no more than one adjustment per fiscal year, beginning July 1, 2026; (c) there shall be no such adjustment after July 1, 2033, without obtaining Council approval in 1670
accordance with Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8); (d) each such adjustment shall be approved in writing with an identification and calculation of the particular dollar amounts of each updated fee, and an identification of the effective date of the adjustment; and (e) the updated fees shall be posted on the City’s website.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The Development Impact Fees shall be effective on October 13, 2025, in accordance with Government Code Section 66017.
SECTION 6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The City Council finds that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). This Resolution is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an adoption of Development Impact Fees imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project, and said fees are applicable to future development projects and/or activities, each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with CEQA when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b)(1)). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a "project" under CEQA. Therefore, approval of the Development Impact Fees is not a "project" for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4); and, even if considered a "project" under CEQA, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the Development Impact Fees may have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 2025. __________________________________________
Mike McMinn
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________________ __________________________________________ Erica Vega Marc A. Donohue, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk
1671
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) §
CITY OF EASTVALE )
I, Marc A. Donohue, City Clerk of the City of Eastvale, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 25-XX, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Eastvale, California, at a meeting held on the 25th day of June 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________________
Marc A. Donohue, MMC
City Clerk
1672
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Final Report
June 19, 2025
1673
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... S-1 Organization of the Report .................................................................................................................... S-1 Development Data ................................................................................................................................. S-2 Impact Fee Analysis ................................................................................................................................ S-2 Impact Fee Summary ............................................................................................................................. S-4 Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees .......................................................................................................... 1-1 Recent Legislation .................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology .................................................................................................... 1-7 Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ................................................................................. 1-9 Facilities Addressed in this Study ........................................................................................................... 1-9 Chapter 2. Development Data ......................................................................................................... 2-1 Study Area and Time Frame ................................................................................................................... 2-1 Development Types ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 Population Growth ................................................................................................................................. 2-5 Units of Development ............................................................................................................................ 2-5 Demand Variables .................................................................................................................................. 2-5 Demand Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Existing and Future Development ........................................................................................................ 2-10 Growth Potential .................................................................................................................................. 2-13 Chapter 3. Park Improvements ........................................................................................................ 3-1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 3-2 Existing Level of Service ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit ............................................................................................... 3-4 1674
Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 3-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 3-5 Planned Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 3-5 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-5 Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Centers ................................................................................ 4-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 4-2 Existing Level of Service ......................................................................................................................... 4-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 4-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 4-4 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 4-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Chapter 5. Library ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 Planned Library Facility .......................................................................................................................... 5-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 5-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 5-3 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 5-4 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 5-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 5-4 Chapter 6. City Hall ......................................................................................................................... 6-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 6-1 Planned City Hall .................................................................................................................................... 6-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 6-3 1675
Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 6-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 6-4 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 6-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 6-5 Chapter 7. Police Station ................................................................................................................. 7-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 Planned Police Station ........................................................................................................................... 7-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 7-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 7-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 7-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 7-4 Chapter 8. Fire Department Facilties ................................................................................................ 8-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 8-1 Existing and Planned Fire Department Facilities ................................................................................... 8-3 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 8-5 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 8-6 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 8-8 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 8-8 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 8-8 Chapter 9. Implementation ............................................................................................................. 9-1 Adoption ................................................................................................................................................ 9-1 Administration ....................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Requirements Imposed by AB 602 ......................................................................................................... 9-6 Training and Public Information ............................................................................................................ 9-7 Appendices
Fee Comparison Appendix A
1676
City of Eastvale Page S-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Executive Summary
The City of Eastvale 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.). In particular, this study is intended to address the requirements of an “impact fee nexus study” as set forth in Government Code Section 66016.5.
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 8 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 Improvements
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Centers
Chapter 5. Libraries
Chapter 6. City Hall
Chapter 7. Police Station
Chapter 8. Fire Station
Chapter 9 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 Eastvale’s existing and proposed impact fees to the cities of Chino, Corona, Jurupa Valley, Norco, and Ontario. 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 does 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 deciding 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. 1677
City of Eastvale Page S-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Eastvale and a forecast of future development through 2040. Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit, service population per unit, and police and fire calls 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 ranges. 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 on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used for maintenance or operating costs. Impact fees calculated in this study are intended to recover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of facilities. Costs attributable to existing development must be funded by non-impact fee funds. The City has set aside substantial reserves from the General Fund and, for the new fire station, the Fire Fund to cover those costs.
The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for each of the facility types addressed in this study.
Parks Improvements. Impact fees for park improvements in Chapter 3 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that impact fees for park improvements are based on the existing level of service for those facilities in the City. The impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing level of service in terms of improved park acres per capita of population. The estimated cost per acre for park improvements is used to determine a cost per capita which is then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this report. Because added population is associated with new residential development, the park improvement impact fees apply only to residential development.
Community and Recreation Centers. Impact fees for community and recreation centers in Chapter 4 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that impact fees for community and recreation centers are based on the existing level of service for those facilities in the City. The impact of development on the need for those facilities is represented by the added population associated with new residential development. The 1678
City of Eastvale Page S-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
existing level of service is defined as the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing population.
The cost per capita is converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this report.
Because added population is associated with residential development, impact fees for community and recreation centers apply only to new residential development in the City.
Library. The Library impact fees in Chapter 5 are calculated using the system plan method. That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the cost of the planned new library is allocated to both existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected out to 2040. The library impact fees are based on new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the planned new library at the Civic Center, based on new development’s share of the City’s 2040 population. The relationship between the estimated cost of the library and the forecasted 2040 population 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 defined in this study. Because added population is associated with residential development, the impact fees for the Library apply only to new residential development in the City.
City Hall. The City Hall impact fees in Chapter 6 are calculated using the system plan method.
That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the cost of the planned new City Hall is allocated to both existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected out to 2040. The impact of new development on the need for City Hall is represented by service population, a weighted composite of resident population and employees of businesses in the City. See Chapter 2 for a more detailed discussion of service population.
The City Hall impact fees are based on new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the planned new City Hall based on new development’s share of the City’s 2040 service population.
The relationship between the estimated cost of the new City Hall and the forecasted 2040 service population is stated as a cost per capita of service population. The impact fees are calculated as the cost per capita of service population multiplied by the service population per unit for each type of development defined in this study. The City Hall impact fees apply to all types of new development in the City.
Police Station. The police impact fees in Chapter 7 are calculated using the system plan method.
That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the cost of the planned police station is allocated to both existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected out to 2040. The impact of new development on the need for the police station is represented by calls for service per year to the Police Department. Police station impact fees are based on new development’s proportionate share of the projected number of calls for service per year, which is stated as a cost per call for service.
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 1679
City of Eastvale Page S-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
of development. The impact fees are calculated as the cost per call for service multiplied by the calls per unit per year associated with each type of development defined in this study. The police station impact fees apply to all types of new development in the City.
Fire Station. The fire impact fees in Chapter 8 are calculated using the system plan method. That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the cost of both existing and future Fire Department assets serving the City are allocated to both existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected out to 2040.
The impact of development Fire Department facilities, apparatus and equipment is represented in this study by the number of Fire Department calls for service per year generated by development in the City. As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of fire calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development.
A cost per call for service per year is calculated by dividing estimated 2040 Fire Department asset costs, in current dollars, by the projected number of calls for service per year generated by development in the City in 2040. Then, an impact fee per unit is calculated by multiplying that cost per call by the number of calls for service per year generated by each category of development defined in this study.
Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 shows the impact fees calculated in this report. Blank areas in the table indicate that some impact fees are not calculated for non-residential development.
Table S.2 shows the City’s existing impact fees. Currently, the City charges impact fees for transportation, fire, and general facilities. This study does not address transportation impact Table S.1: Summary of Development Impact Fees per Unit Calculated in This Study Development Park Comm/Rec City
Type Units 1Imprvmts Centers Library Hall Police Fire Total Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU 2,558 532 640 755 801 613 $ 5,899 Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU 3,720 774 931 1,099 891 674 $ 8,089 Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU 5,115 1,065 1,280 1,511 982 736 $ 10,688 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU 7,208 1,500 1,804 2,129 1,098 797 $ 14,535 Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 9,533 1,984 2,385 2,816 1,188 858 $ 18,764 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 12,323 2,565 3,084 3,640 1,279 919 $ 23,809 Hotel/Motel Room 1,498 775 518 $ 2,791
Commercial Retail KSF 2,033 5,232 1,295 $ 8,559
Business-Professional KSF 1,360 750 363 $ 2,473
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 543 115 155 $ 813
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = each separately rentable room with a key 1680
City of Eastvale Page S-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
fees. Specific impact fees are calculated in this study for parks, community and recreation centers, City Hall, the library, the police station and the fire station.
Because there are so many differences between the existing and proposed impact fees, in terms of facility types and development types, it is not practical to provide a table comparing the existing and proposed impact fees.
Table S.2: Existing Impact Fees From City of Eastvale Fee Schedule Development
Type Units 1 General 2 Fire Total
Residential, Multi-Family DU 650 332 $ 982
Residential, Single-Family DU 942 481 $ 1,423
Commercial Retail KSF 150 132 $ 282
Office/Business Park KSF 149 132 $ 281
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 156 137 $ 293
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2
Existing "General" Impact Fee charged by City includes City Hall and Library 1681
City of Eastvale Page 1-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for certain capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the City of Eastvale 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) and the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), where applicable.
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.” Generally, 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 identified the legal standard applied to a government agency when requiring the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposing ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project. 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).
In April 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, that legislatively adopted impact fees must also consider the 5th Amendment limitations to avoid a “taking” of private property. The Court in Sheetz recognized that the “degree of specificity” for a legislatively enacted impact fee on a class of properties may differ from the site-specific individualized determination that is needed when imposing a fee on a particular project. 1682
City of Eastvale Page 1-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
In this study, the methods used to calculate impact fees quantify the impacts of different types of development on various types of facilities based on demand variables that represent the service demand generated by each type of development.
Defining “Nexus.” The nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees 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 public 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. 1683
City of Eastvale Page 1-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. The police power is an important 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, establish procedures public agencies are required to follow for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees that comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act 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 term “impact fee” which 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:
1684
City of Eastvale Page 1-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
1. Identify the purpose of the fee
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
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. 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 of Section 66016.5 is in addition to the existing provisions of Section 66001(a)(2) (which allows a public agency to use a capital improvement plan to identify the use of a fee) and Section 66002(b) (which requires a public agency that relies on a capital improvement plan as a part of a fee justification to update the plan annually).
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:
1685
City of Eastvale Page 1-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
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.
For the third requirement in that list, there are open legal questions regarding the level of detail required for a legislatively adopted fee schedule as compared to an “ad hoc” imposition of a fee on a development project. However, it is reasonable to assume that all three are part of a complete “nexus” or “reasonable relationship” framework. 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. As a practical matter, such fees are difficult to implement unless the fees can be used to repay outstanding debt related to the facilities in question.
1686
City of Eastvale Page 1-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
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 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 went 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.
1687
City of Eastvale Page 1-7
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
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 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.
AB 516 – Amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act. AB 516, which took effect on January 1, 2024, amends Government Code Section 66006 to add certain requirements to the annual reports mandated by that section. Specifically, Section 66006 now requires that:
Annual reports indicate whether construction on public improvements identified in previous annual reports began on the approximate date shown in the previous annual report; and,
If a project failed to start construction on schedule, the annual report must explain the reason for the delay and provide a revised approximate date when construction will begin.
AB 516 also amends Section 66023 to provide that when a person requests an audit of a fee or charge levied by a local agency, that audit may address when revenue generated by that fee or charge is scheduled to be expended, and when the public improvement to be funded by that fee or charge is scheduled to be completed. Prior to this amendment, the only stated purpose of such an audit was to determine whether such a fee or charge exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility or service provided by the local agency.
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are designed to comply with all of the legal requirements discussed earlier in this chapter. 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 1688
City of Eastvale Page 1-8
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
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 is 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.
Although it is not mandatory, this study adopts the nomenclature used in the Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley to describe impact fee calculation methods. Those templates were prepared for The California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code and are cited in AB 602.
Planned Facility Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will pay for the planned expansion of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the cost of planned facilities is divided by the amount of demand that will be created by new development. The impact fees depend on the cost of planned future facilities and a plan for future development, so the fees should be recalculated if facility plans or development plans change.
Existing Inventory Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve existing development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities is divided by the amount of demand associated with existing development. This method allows impact fees to be calculated without a list of planned facilities, but such a list is required by AB 602 as part of a Capital Improvement Plan that must be adopted with any new impact fee nexus study. This approach can be used to calculate impact fees for many types of public facilities but is usually not appropriate for facilities such as transportation improvements or water, wastewater or drainage systems where improvement needs must be determined by engineering analysis.
System Plan Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development. This approach is especially appropriate for impact fees for fire protection and EMS facilities because new facilities must be planned to integrate geographically with existing facilities.
1689
City of Eastvale Page 1-9
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
SB 477, enacted in 2024, relocated and consolidated California’s ADU laws into a new Government Code Chapter (Chapter 13, Division 1, Title 7). As mentioned earlier, recent amendments to ADU law provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet and establish 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.”
Since the impact fees described in this report will be imposed on all residential development projects based on unit size in square feet (using tiered ranges of square footage), the fee imposed on an ADU will be proportionate to the size of any primary unit.
Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Library
General Government Facilities
Police Facilities
Fire Facilities
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. 1690
City of Eastvale Page 2-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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.
Development data presented in this chapter are based on information from the City of Eastvale Community Development Department, the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community Survey (ACS), and the California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit.
Study Area and Time Frame
The study area for this study is the City of Eastvale. The timeframe for this study extends from the present time to 2040. Although the future development projected in this chapter is expected to occur by 2040, the actual timing of development cannot be predicted with certainty. The impact fee calculations in this report do not depend on when development occurs.
Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this study are listed below. Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied based on actual land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. For mixed use development projects, impact fees should be applied to each type of development within the project, consistent with the number of units of development of each type within the project.
Residential Development. Traditionally, impact fees for residential development are based on unit types such as single-family, multi-family and mobile home units. However, Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) which was added to the Mitigation Fee Act by AB 602 in 2021 contains the following requirement:
“A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development”
But that requirement is not absolute. Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) provides that a nexus study is not required to comply with Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
1. An explanation as to why square footage is not the appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
1691
City of Eastvale Page 2-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
2. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden imposed by the development.
3. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees The proportionality requirement in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) is commonly interpreted to mean that impact fees must have a linear relationship to unit square footage. That means the fees must increase by the same amount for every added square foot of unit size. Such a fee structure results in impact fees that are necessarily five times as high for a 3,000 square-foot single-family unit as for a 600 square apartment. That type of fee structure is justified only if the actual impact of a 3,000 square-foot unit is five times greater than the impact of a 600 square-foot unit.
Otherwise, the impact fees could violate the “rough proportionality” requirement set forth in the U. S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. Tigard [512 U. S. 374 (1994)]. The recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado [601 U. S. 267--- (2024)] made clear that Dolan applies to all impact fees, whether they are applied ad hoc or legislatively adopted.
This study uses several attributes of development, including added population, added police calls for service per year and added fire calls for service per year, to represent the impact of new development on different types of City facilities. We use those attributes to represent the demand created by various types of development for public services and the capital facilities and other capital assets needed to support those services.
What we see in analyzing patterns of service demand is that the relationship between unit size and service demand doesn’t conform to a linear model. While the potential for added population may be five times as great for the largest residential units compared with the smallest units, that increase is not linear. In the real world, population per unit does not increase in a tiny increment for each added square foot. It increases in a stairstep fashion, jumping from one person to two persons to three persons per unit and so on.
It is not feasible to get specific data on police and fire calls by unit size, but in our experience, there is typically not a large difference in the average number of police and fire calls-per-unitper-year generated by single-family as opposed to multi-family residential units. So, a fee structure that results in large units paying five times as much as small units would appear disproportionate to the actual demand created by units of different sizes.
This study breaks down residential development into tiered square-feet-per-unit ranges and calculates an impact fee for each range or category. That approach allows impact fees to be graduated by unit size while avoiding the distortions that result from a rigid, fixed fee per square foot approach, and while respecting the need for rough proportionality between the fees and the impact of development as set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we propose that the Eastvale City Council adopt the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) to justify the use of tiered square 1692
City of Eastvale Page 2-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
footage ranges for residential development in this study rather than a fixed fee-per-square-foot approach:
1. A fixed fee-per-square-foot approach is not the appropriate metric to calculate the fees analyzed in this study since it would not reflect the actual impact of different-sized residential units on the facilities addressed in this study and would not meet the rough proportionality standard set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.
2. An alternative basis of calculating the fees, using tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot approach, better reflects the reasonable relationship between the fees charged and the actual burden imposed by the development.
3. Calculating impact fees for tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot still ensures that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees because that approach allows the impact fees to be tailored to the actual impacts created by smaller developments, while protecting larger units from excessive fees.
As discussed above, residential development categories are defined in this study by ranges of unit sizes rather than by unit types (e.g., single-family or multi-family) as is the case for the City’s existing impact fees. Unit-size ranges used to define residential development in this study are listed below.
Residential <600 Square Feet per Unit
Residential >600-800 Square Feet per Unit
Residential >800-1,200 Square Feet per Unit
Residential <1,200-1,900 Square Feet per Unit
Residential >1,900-2,300 Square Feet per Unit
Residential >2,300 Square Feet per Unit
Each of these unit-size ranges is typical of units with a certain number of bedrooms, ranging from studio apartments up to single-family units with five or more bedrooms. 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).
Non-Residential Development. Non-residential development types used in this study are:
Hotel/Motel. This category encompasses hotels, motels and similar lodging uses. Commercial-Retail. This category includes retail commercial and commercial services including restaurants and commercial recreation, but excludes hotels, motels and lodging uses which are included in a separate category.
Business-Professional. This category includes general office uses and research and development facilities.
1693
City of Eastvale Page 2-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Industrial-Industrial Flex. This category includes development designed to accommodate a range of light industrial uses, including warehouses and distribution facilities with office space, light manufacturing and processing and some limited commercial uses. Public Facilities. This category includes government buildings and other public or quasipublic facilities, but excluding public schools which are addressed in a separate category below.
K-12 Schools. This category includes public schools from kindergarten through high school.
Parks. This category includes public parks and other public recreational facilities.
It should be noted that the Public Facilities, K-12 Schools and Parks categories are included in this study to account for the impacts they create on certain types of facilities. However, this study does not actually calculate impact fees for those categories because, in most cases, the City either lacks the authority to impose those fees, or in the case of City facilities, the City would be charging itself. Therefore, the City will be required to rely on general purpose funding sources other than impact fees to fund the costs of those impacts.
Other Development Types. Certain types of development, such as churches, hospitals and private schools, do not fit neatly into any of the categories listed above. Those developments are not legally exempt from impact fees, but no fee is calculated in this study for such uses. Fees for such projects can be calculated on an individual basis by considering factors such as service population or police and fire calls that will be generated by a proposed project and applying those factors to the cost per capita or cost per call shown in each impact fee chapter in this report. 1694
City of Eastvale Page 2-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Population Growth
The chart at right shows the
California Department of
Finance (DOF) official January 1
population estimates for the City
of Eastvale for the years from
2014 through 2024, except for
the 2020 population which is
based on the 2020 Census count.
This chart shows a steady
increase in Eastvale’s population
from 2014 to 2021, averaging
about 2% per year. Since 2021,
estimated population growth
has been slightly negative.
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) and are grouped into unit-size ranges. Residential impact fees vary by unit size.
Building Area. Several types of non-residential development in this study are measured in terms of building area, in thousands of square feet, denoted as KSF.
Rooms. Development in the Hotel/Motel category is measured in terms of rooms, meaning the number of guest rooms or suites. A room is defined as each separately rentable room with a key”
Students. For the K-12 Public Schools category, development is measured in terms of the number of students.
Acres. Public parks and other public recreation facilities are measured in terms of acres.
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 or police and fire 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. 1695
City of Eastvale Page 2-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 are referred to in this report as “demand factors.” For example, whereas the demand variable is “population,” the demand factor for each residential unit size category used in this study is the estimated population per unit for that category.
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 2-8.
Population. Population, which refers to residents of the City, is used as a demand variable to calculate impact fees for facilities like parks that are intended to serve residents of the City.
Resident population is tied to residential development, so this variable reflects no demand from non-residential development.
Service Population. Some types of City facilities are impacted by both residential and nonresidential development so population alone does not represent all of the impacts of development on those facilities. Where the impact of development cannot be measured by specific demand variables such as vehicles trips or police or fire calls for service, a variable called service population is commonly used to represent the impact of development. An example would be general government facilities like City Hall.
Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the City 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.
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 the 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 1696
City of Eastvale Page 2-7
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
on how many residents work in the city and how many commute to work outside the City. In addition, we assume the average resident spends eight hours a week outside the City for activities like shopping and recreation.
Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2022 show that about 60% of Eastvale residents between ages 16 and 64 are employed and that about 77% 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 other residents spend 160 (168 - 8 = 160) hours per week in the City, the weighted average for all residents is 142.2 hours per week in the City. Dividing that number by 168 hours per week gives us a weight of 0.846 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 as well as the weighting factor for each type of development are shown in Exhibit 2A, below. It should be noted that since all students in the K-12 Schools category are assumed to be residents of the City, the non-residential service population weight for that category is zero.
The service population weights shown in Exhibit 2A are intended to allow a balanced allocation of costs among non-residential development types. However, a comparison of the residential and non-residential shares of service population resulting from that allocation indicates that it likely underrepresents the demand created by non-residential development, so a factor of 2.5 is applied to all non-residential service population weights, which brings the non-residential share of service population to 18.9% of total service population.
Finally, for simplicity, all of the service population base weights are normalized by dividing them by residential base weight of 0.846 so that the normalized weight for population equals 1.0 and weight for each of the non-residential components is increased proportionately. The resulting service population weights are shown in Exhibit 2A. Service population per unit factors based on the normalized service population weights and population or employees per unit are shown in Table 2.1.
1697
City of Eastvale Page 2-8
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 by development type. Those callsfor-service-per-unit factors are calculated using a random sample of calls for service for a oneyear period to determine the distribution of calls by development type. Then the number of calls per year for each type of development is divided by the number of existing units for that type of development to arrive at calls-per-unit-per-year factors. In this study, data for police and fire calls for service were for calendar year 2023. The police and fire calls-for-service factors for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.1.
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 California Department of Finance collect data on population per unit, by unit type (single-family, multi-family, mobile home) rather than by unit size. Based on the City’s documentation of findings (summarized above), in response to the California Mitigation Fee Act default standard of calculating fees based on square footage of units in a development, we must estimate the population per unit for each of the unit size categories used in this study.
The population-per-unit factors for the unit size categories used in this study are shown in Exhibit 2B. Those factors were estimated by NBS using data on the distribution of units by number of bedrooms from American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041. The estimated population per unit for each unit-size category is adjusted so that the total population and average population per unit approximately equal the total population and average population per unit from the known data. The results are cross-checked with data on the distribution of household population from ACS Table 25009.
Exhibit 2A: Service Population Weights
Development Avg Hrs Total Hrs Base Svc Pop Scaling Scaled Svc Normalized Type per Wk per Week Weight 1Factor 2 Pop Weight 3Svc Pop Wt 4 Residential 142.0 168.0 0.845 1.00 0.845 1.000 Commercial Retail 84.0 168.0 0.500 2.50 1.250 1.479
Business-Professional 45.0 168.0 0.268 2.50 0.670 0.792 Industrial/Industrial Flex 45.0 168.0 0.268 2.50 0.670 0.792 Public Facilities 45.0 168.0 0.268 2.50 0.670 0.792
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 scaled population weight / residential service population weight 1698
City of Eastvale Page 2-9
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Note that in Exhibit 2B, no units are shown for the two smallest unit size categories. That is because the source data showed no existing units in those unit-size categories. However, a population per unit is estimated for those categories because units in those categories may be constructed in the future.
Factors shown in Table 2.1 are population per unit for residential unit-size categories and employees per unit for various types of non-residential development, as well as service population per unit, and police and fire calls per unit per year for all types of development defined in this study.
Exhibit 2B: Population per Unit by Unit Size
Unit Size No. of No. of % of Est Pop Adjusted
in Sq Ft 1 Bedrms Units 2 Units per Unit 3 Pop 4
<600 0 0 0.0% 1.10 0
600-800 1 0 0.0% 1.60 0
>800 - 1,200 2 2,498 14.1% 2.20 5,495
>1,200 - 1,900 3 3,957 22.3% 3.10 12,268
>1,900 - 2,300 4 7,015 39.5% 4.10 28,760
>2,300 5+ 4,273 24.1% 5.30 22,648
Total/Average 17,743 100.0% 3.90 69,170
1 Estimated square-feet-per-unit ranges based on number of bedrooms 2 Distribution of units by number of bedrooms from American Community Survey Table B25041, 2022 1-Year Estimate 3
Estimated population per unit by NBS 4
Adjusted population = number of units X estimated population per unit 1699
City of Eastvale Page 2-10
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.2 through 2.4 on the following pages present data on existing and future development in Eastvale. Data from those tables will be used throughout this report. Table 2.2 shows estimated existing development as of January 2024.
It is important to note that in Tables 2.2 through 2.4, all residential development is grouped into a single category because it is not possible to estimate the mix of existing or future residential units by unit size.
Table 2.1: Demand Factors
Development Unit Pop per Empl per Svc Pop Police Calls Fire Calls Type 1 Type 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Unit 6 per Unit 7 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU 1.10 1.10 0.620 0.100 Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU 1.60 1.60 0.690 0.110
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU 2.20 2.20 0.760 0.120 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU 3.10 3.10 0.850 0.130 Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 4.10 4.10 0.920 0.140 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 5.30 5.30 0.990 0.150
Hotel/Motel Room 0.98 0.50 2.18 0.600 0.085
Commercial Retail KSF 2.00 2.96 4.051 0.211
Business-Professional KSF 2.50 1.98 0.581 0.059
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 1.00 0.79 0.089 0.025
Public Facilities KSF 2.50 1.98 0.000 0.079
Parks Acres 0.00 0.00 1.933 0.150
Schools Students 0.00 0.00 0.038 0.004
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 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key
3 See Exhibit 2B for residential population per unit; the Hotel/Motel category assumes an average of 1.5 guests per room and 65% occupancy
4 Employees per unit estimated by NBS using data from the ESRI Business Summary and data on existing non-residential development from the City of Eastvale 5 Service population per unit; see Exhibit 2A
6 Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 7 7 Fire Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 8 1700
City of Eastvale Page 2-11
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Table 2.3 on the next page presents a forecast of future development in the City to 2040 based on the Eastvale General Plan Environmental Impact Fee Report and additional information from the Draft 2040 General Plan.
Table 2.2: Existing Development January 1, 2024 - City of Eastvale Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service PD Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1 Units 2lation 3yees 4 Pop 5 per Year 6 per Year 7 All Residential DU 18,413 68,814 68,814 17,095 2,725 Hotel/Motel Room 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial Retail KSF 1,600.0 3,200 4,736 6,481 338
Business-Professional KSF 87.8 220 174 51 123
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 14,400.0 14,400 11,376 1,286 169 Public Facilities KSF 75.6 128 150 0 6
Parks Acres 213.2 0 412 32
Schools Students 14,733 0 566 58
Totals 68,814 17,948 85,250 25,891 3,451
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2 Number of existing residential units based on the January 2024 CA Department of Finance E-5 report; non-residential units based on City of Eastvale data 3
Existing household population from 2024 CA Department of Finance E-5 report 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 7 Police Department calls for service per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 7
8 Fire Department calls for service per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service; discussion in text and in Chapter 8
1701
City of Eastvale Page 2-12
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Table 2.4 shows forecasted total development in the City in 2040.
Table 2.3: Projected Future Development to 2040 - City of Eastvale Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service PD Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1 Units 2lation 3yees 4 Pop 5 per Year 6 per Year 7 All Residential DU 4,173 16,358 16,358 3,338 576 Hotel/Motel Room 450 439 225 982 270 38
Commercial Retail KSF 2,659.3 5,319 7,872 10,772 562
Business-Professional KSF 2,051.9 5,130 4,063 1,192 121 Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 1,483.5 1,484 1,172 132 38 Public Facilities KSF 113.0 283 224 0 9
Parks Acres 49.1 0 0 95 7
Schools Students 3,433 0 0 132 14
Totals 16,797 12,440 30,670 15,931 1,365
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 2 Added units based on Table 2.0-2 of the Eastvale General Plan Environmental Impact Report and additional data from the Draft 2040 General Plan
3 Added population based on Table 2.0-2 of the Eastvale General Plan Environmental Impact Report 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 police calls per year for residential development = added units X the average residential rate of 0.8 police calls per unit per year; added police calls for non=residential development = added units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.1
7 Added fire calls per year = added units X fire calls per unit per year from Table 2.1 Table 2.4: Total 2040 Development - City of Eastvale
Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service PD Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1 Units 2lation 3yees 4 Pop 5 per Year 6 per Year 7 All Residential DU 22,586 85,172 85,172 20,433 3,301 Hotel/Motel Room 450 439 225 982 270 38
Commercial Retail KSF 4,259 8,519 12,608 17,253 900
Business-Professional KSF 2,140 5,349 4,237 1,243 244
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 15,884 15,884 12,548 1,418 207 Public Facilities KSF 189 411 374 0 15
Parks Acres 262 0 0 507 39
Schools Students 18,166 0 0 698 72
Totals 85,611 30,387 115,919 41,822 4,816
Note: The figures shown in Table 2.4 represent the sum of the corresponding figures from Tables 2.2 and 2.3
1702
City of Eastvale Page 2-13
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Growth Potential
The numbers in Table 2.4 represent an increase of approximately 24% in population and 69% in employment between 2024 and 2040. Police and Fire Department calls are projected to increase 62% to 39%, respectively.
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 forecasted in this chapter.
1703
City of Eastvale Page 3-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Chapter 3. Park Improvements
Background
Since the City of Eastvale was incorporated in 2010, two special districts have been responsible for constructing and maintaining parks in the City. Parks in the portion of the City west of Hamner Avenue are provided by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD). In the area east of Hamner Avenue, parks are provided by the Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District (JARPD).
Eastvale’s Municipal Code requires new residential development projects to dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of park land dedication. Until recently, those assets were transferred to the responsible special district, and, since there is no remaining residential development potential in the area served by JARPD, dedicated park land or in-lieu fees were going to JCSD.
However, in May 2022, Eastvale adopted a resolution to designate the City of Eastvale as the public agency eligible to receive park land dedications and in-lieu fees under the Quimby Act and revoke JCSD’s previous designation as a public agency eligible to receive Quimby Act dedications and in-lieu fees. That means the City will be collecting and retaining Quimby Act fees and will be responsible for expending those fees in accordance with the law.
This chapter calculates impact fees for park improvements, which apply only to residential development. Any proposed updates to the park land dedication and in-lieu fees will be made in a separate action brought forward by City staff separate from this report.
Methodology
The method used to calculate park improvement impact fees in this chapter is the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1. Using this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve existing development. For parks, that standard is defined in terms of acres of parks per 1,000 population. See the Level of Service Standard section below for a discussion of the actual standards used to calculate in-lieu fees and impact fees in this chapter.
Service Area
Eastvale’s parks serve all residents of the City and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all residential development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or by a development agreement.
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 park in-lieu fees and impact fees in this chapter is population. 1704
City of Eastvale Page 3-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Population is used for that purpose because the need for parks is typically defined in terms of the relationship between park acreage and population. Since added population is associated with new residential development, the in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
Population per dwelling unit is estimated for each residential unit size category defined in this study. Those population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 and in Table 3.4, below.
Level-of-Service Standard
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the Eastvale General Plan (page 11-6) adopts a standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 population for park land dedication and in-lieu fees to be collected from new residential development. However, that standard exceeds the level that can be justified under the Mitigation Fee Act because it exceeds the existing level of service shown in Table 3.2, below.
In this study, the impact fees for park improvements are based on the existing ratio of 3.1 acres of parks per 1,000 population as shown in Table 3.2.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires that, after January 1, 2022, 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 differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on a level of service that equals the existing level, so there is no conflict with that provision of Section 66016.5.
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing parks and the improved acres for each park. In keeping with the 2019 California Court of Appeal decision in Boatworks LLC v. City of Alameda, only improved park acres are used to determine the existing ratio of park acres to population in this study.
All of the City’s existing parks are owned by either JCSD or JARPD. However, since those parks were constructed for the benefit of City residents, it is reasonable to treat them as City parks for purposes of calculating the existing level of service.
1705
City of Eastvale Page 3-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Table 3.2 calculates the existing level of service for Eastvale’s parks. The existing level of service is shown both per capita, and per 1,000 population.
Table 3.3 shows the cost per capita used to calculate park improvement impact fees in this chapter.
Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service
Existing Improved
Park Acres 1
Existing
Population 2
Improved Acres
per Capita 3
Improved Acres
per 1,000 4
213.17 68,814 0.00310 3.10
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 Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park Improved
Name Agency Park Acres
American Heroes Park JCSD 18.95 Cedar Creek Park JCSD 9.54 Dairyland Park JCSD 9.22 Deer Creek Park JCSD 9.30
Eastvale Community Park JCSD 46.53 Half Moon Park JCSD 5.00 Harada Heritage Park JCSD 30.72
James C. Huber Park JCSD 12.56
McCune Family Park JCSD 11.85
Mountainview Park JCSD 7.87 Orchard Park JCSD 9.84
Providence Ranch Park JCSD 12.79 Riverwalk Park JCSD 13.00 Sendero Park JCSD 11.75
Symphony Park JCSD 2.54 Harmony Park JARPD 0.59
Cambria Park JARPD 0.48
Deleware Greenbelt JARPD 0.29
Moon River Park JARPD 0.35
Total 213.17 Source: Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) and Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JARPD)
1706
City of Eastvale Page 3-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit
Table 3.4 shows the calculation of park improvement impact fees per dwelling unit by unit-size category. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 3.3 and population per dwelling unit factors from Table 2.1. These fees are intended to apply to all residential development in the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 3.5 shows projected revenue from park improvement impact fees. Those revenue projections assume that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2.
These revenue projections are in current dollars.
Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Park Improvements
Fee Type
Acres per
Capita 1 Cost per Acre2 Cost per Capita3 Park Improvements 0.0031 $750,000 $2,325.00 1 See Table 3.2
2 Park improvement cost per acre from the Capital Improvement Plan 3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
Table 3.4: 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 $2,325.00 1.10 2,557.50 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 1.60 3,720.00 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 2.20 5,115.00 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 3.10 7,207.50 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 4.10 9,532.50 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 5.30 12,322.50 $ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2
See Table 3.3
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 1707
City of Eastvale Page 3-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated cost of 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. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Facilities
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The City of Eastvale will develop its first City-owned park as part of the planned Civic Center complex. That park is located in the Downtown West policy area where more than half of all new residential units in Eastvale will be constructed. A substantial number of new residential units are also planned for the nearby Downtown East policy area. The CIP estimates the cost of the Civic Center Park at over $31 million, including the cost of improvements to the Civic Center Plaza.
The City’s CIP also includes Grand Park, a passive park in the southern part of the City planned for approximately 200 acres of flood plan owned by OCPW. That park will include conservation areas, picnic areas, recreation areas and a visitor center. The CIP estimates the cost of Grand Park at $192 million.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on park facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact 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,
Table 3.5: Projected Revenue from Park Improvement Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1 Population 2 Revenue 3 All Residential $2,325.00 16,797 $39,052,444 1 See Table 3.3
2 See Table 2.3
3 Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population 1708
City of Eastvale Page 3-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 19, 2025
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 development on the need for parks in Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
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 to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Eastvale.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the need for parks to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional parks, 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 park improvement impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The impact 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 Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City.
1709
City of Eastvale Page 4-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Centers
This chapter calculates impact fees for community and recreation centers needed to maintain the existing level of service in Eastvale as the City grows. Since the City’s incorporation in 2010, parks and community and recreation centers in most of Eastvale have been provided by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD), which has constructed many parks and several community and recreation centers in the City. The part of the City east of Hamner Avenue is served by the Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District (JARPD) which has constructed only four small pocket parks and no community or recreation centers in Eastvale.
JARPD’s service area within the City is essentially built out with respect to new residential development. All future residential development in the City will occur in the JCSD service area and Eastvale’s City Council has chosen to take over responsibility from JCSD for developing future parks as well as future community and recreation centers in the City.
Methodology
The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1. Using this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve existing development.
In this case, the standard used to calculate impact fees for community and recreation centers is the existing level of service, which is discussed below in the Level-of-Service Standard section.
Service Area
Eastvale’s community and recreation centers serve all residents of the City and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all residential development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 community and recreation centers in this chapter is population.
Population is used for that purpose because the need for community and recreation centers is typically defined in terms of the population to be served. Because added population is associated with new residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
Population per dwelling unit is estimated for each residential unit size category defined in this study. Those population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 and in Table 4.3, below.
1710
City of Eastvale Page 4-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Level-of-Service Standard
Eastvale has not adopted a formal level of service standard for community and recreation centers. The standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service, defined as the replacement cost of existing community and recreation centers per capita of existing population. Replacement cost is used to represent the current dollar cost of additional facilities that will be needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. Although Eastvale’s existing community and recreation centers (see Table 4.1) are owned by JCSD, they were constructed for the benefit of residents of the City using development fees paid by development in Eastvale, so it is reasonable to treat those facilities as existing City assets for purposes of determining the existing level of service in this chapter.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. 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 differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on a level of service which equals the existing level, so there is no conflict with that provision of Section 66016.5.
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.1 lists Eastvale’s existing community and recreation centers with their estimated replacement cost.
Table 4.2 calculates the existing level of service in terms of the cost per capita of existing population for the existing community and recreation centers.
Table 4.1: Existing Community and Recreation Centers
Facility Building Building Site Site Impact Fee
Name Agency Sq Feet 1 Repl Cost 2 Area 1 Value 3 Cost Basis 4 Eastvale Community Ctr JCSD 34,647 17,323,500 $ 4.6 5,060,000 $ 22,383,500 $ Harada Neighborhood Ctr JCSD 5,040 2,520,000 $ In Park 0 $ 2,520,000 $ The Desi House JCSD 7,700 8,400,000 $ 2.3 Included 8,400,000 $ Total 33,303,500 $ 1
Data from Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) and the City of Eastvale 2 Building replacement cost for Eastvale Community Center and Harada Neighborhood Center assumes a cost of $500 per square foot; building replacement cost for the Desi House based on best available costs for acquisition and improvement of the facility 3 Site value for Eastvale Community Center assumes a cost of $1.1 million per acre based on recent appraisals of land at the Civic Center site and a proposed fire station site. 4 Impact fee cost basis = building replacement cost + site value 1711
City of Eastvale Page 4-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate impact fees per dwelling unit for community and recreation centers.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of community and recreation center impact fees per unit of development by residential unit size category. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 4.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1.
Projected Revenue
Table 4.4 projects potential revenue from the community and recreation center impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per capita from Table 4.2 and the added population from Table
2.3. These revenue projections assume that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It is also worth noting that the projected revenue shown in Table 4.4 is in current dollars. As discussed below, we recommend that the fees be adjusted periodically to keep pace with construction costs.
Table 4.2: Existing Level of Service
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$33,303,500 68,814 $483.96
1 See Table 4.1
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = existing facilities cost basis / existing population
Table 4.3: Community and Recreation Center 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 $483.96 1.10 532.36 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 1.60 774.34 $
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 2.20 1,064.72 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 3.10 1,500.29 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 4.10 1,984.25 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 5.30 2,565.01 $ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2
See Table 4.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 1712
City of Eastvale Page 4-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
The projected revenue shown in Table 4.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for community and recreation centers. 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 Building Cost Index (BCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Improvements
Future community and recreation center projects, including a community center and an aquatic center, are shown as part of the Citrus Reimagined project in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Although costs for the aquatic center and the community center are not broken out in detail in the CIP, the combined cost of the two facilities is expected to be $35-$40 million. Those costs would far exceed the impact fee revenue shown in Table 4.4.
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:
Table 4.4: Projected Revenue from Comm/Rec Center Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1 Population 2 Revenue 3 All Residential $483.96 16,358 $7,916,683 Total $7,916,683
1 See Table 4.3
2 See Table 2.3 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population 1713
City of Eastvale Page 4-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 development on the need for additional community and recreation center facilities in Eastvale.
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. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
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 centers to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Eastvale.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added population associated with new residential development will increase the need for community and recreation centers to maintain the existing level of service as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional community and recreation center facilities, that added population 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 community and recreation center impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. 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 Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for community and recreation centers in the City. 1714
City of Eastvale Page 5-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 5. Library
This chapter calculates impact fees for a new library for the City of Eastvale. The City’s existing library is located on the campus of Eleanor Roosevelt High School and is open to the public after 4 p.m. on weekdays and from 10:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. The City is planning a new main library as part of the planned Civic Center development in the Downtown West Specific Plan area.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
Service Area
Eastvale’s library will serve all residents of the City and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all residential development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 the library in this chapter is population.
Population is used for that purpose because the need for libraries is almost universally defined in terms of the population to be served. Because added population is associated with new residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
Population per dwelling unit varies by development type, so the average population per unit is estimated for each residential unit size category defined in this study. Those individual population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Level-of-Service Standard
Eastvale has not adopted a formal level of service standard for libraries, but the City has prepared a plan for a new main library which would serve both existing and future development in Eastvale.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared 1715
City of Eastvale Page 5-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
The library impact fees calculated in this chapter are necessarily based on a level of service higher than the existing level of service. Eastvale was incorporated fairly recently, in 2010, and is still in the process of developing a full complement of public facilities to serve the City. Eastvale has set aside substantial financial reserves for the purpose of constructing the new library (see Table 5.1) and the impact fees calculated in this chapter will recover only future development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new library.
Planned Library Facility
Table 5.1 summarizes the estimated construction costs for the planned library facility. Details regarding the planned library project and project costs are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Table 5.1 also shows the amount of reserves the City has currently set aside to fund the project. Costs shown in Table 5.1 are from the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 5.2 allocates the estimated cost of the new library to the forecasted 2040 population of the City to arrive at an average cost per capita for the entire 2040 population. That approach ensures that costs are allocated equitably to existing and future development on a per-capita basis.
Table 5.1: Planned Library
Cost Estimated
Component Cost 1 Building Construction 47,880,093 $
Land Cost 1,672,560 $
Total 49,552,653 $
Library Capital Reserves on Hand (39,889,986) $
Unfunded Cost 9,662,667 $ 1
Estimated costs from the Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan project detail sheet; library capital reserves provided by the Eastvale Finance Department
1716
City of Eastvale Page 5-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 5.2 is used to calculate library impact fees per dwelling unit for each unit size range.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 5.3 shows the calculation of library impact fees per unit of residential development by unit size category. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 5.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1.
Projected Revenue
Table 5.4 projects potential revenue from the library impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per capita from Table 5.2 and the added population from Table 2.3.
Table 5.2: 2040 Level of Service
Estimated 2040 Cost per
Facility Cost 1 Population 2 Capita 3
49,552,653 85,172 581.80
1 See Table 5.1
2 Residential population only, not including hotel/motel guests; see Table 2.4
3 Square feet per capita = library square footage / 2040 population Table 5.3: Library Impact Fees per Unit
Development Dev Cost per Population Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 1.10 639.97 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 1.60 930.87 $
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 2.20 1,279.95 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 3.10 1,803.56 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 4.10 2,385.36 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 5.30 3,083.51 $ 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 1717
City of Eastvale Page 5-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
New development’s total share of the cost of the new library, to be funded by impact fees calculated in this report, is 19.2% of the facility’s total cost. The projected impact fee revenue shown in Table 5.4 is slightly less than the unfunded balance of $9,662,667 shown in Table 5.1, leaving $145,663 to be funded from the General Fund or other non-impact fee sources.
The projected revenue shown in Table 5.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.
To the extent that projects with development agreements do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for the library. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Improvements
Details regarding the planned library facility and project costs can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The new main library is being planned as part of the City’s Civic Center development project.
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:
Table 5.4: Projected Revenue from Library Impact Fees
Impact Fee Added Projected
per Capita 1 Population 2 Revenue 3
$581.80 16,358 $9,517,004
1 See Table 5.2
2 See Table 2.3 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population 1718
City of Eastvale Page 5-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the main library being planned to serve the City Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay part of the cost of library facilities planned serve new residential development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
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 pay new development’s proportionate share of the cost of library facilities planned to serve Eastvale out to 2040.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added population associated with new residential development will increase the need for library facilities Eastvale, and the new library is being planned to accommodate the needs of both existing and future residents. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the library.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the library impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. 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 Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for library facilities in the City.
1719
City of Eastvale Page 6-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 6. City Hall
This chapter calculates impact fees for a new City Hall for the City of Eastvale. Eastvale’s existing City Hall is located in leased space in a commercial development on Limonite Avenue. The City also houses some departments in a City-owned building on Citrus Street. A new City Hall will be constructed as part of the planned Civic Center complex in the Downtown West Specific Plan area.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
Service Area
Eastvale’s new City Hall will serve all development in the City, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 the City Hall in this chapter is service population.
Service population is used to represent the impact of development on the need for City Hall facilities because that impact is created by both residential development and non-residential development. As explained in Chapter 2, service population is a weighted composite variable that includes both resident population (representing residential development) and employees of businesses in the City (representing non-residential development). Chapter 2 presents a detailed explanation of how the components of service population are weighted.
The service population-per-unit factors used in this analysis are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Level-of-Service Standard
Eastvale has not adopted a formal level of service standard for City Hall facilities, but the City has prepared a plan for a new City Hall as part of the planned Civic Center complex. That facility will serve both existing and future development in Eastvale. The new City Hall facility is shown in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
1720
City of Eastvale Page 6-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. 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 differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
Eastvale was incorporated fairly recently, in 2010. For obvious reasons, prior to incorporation, there was no City Hall in Eastvale. The City has no choice but to establish an acceptable level of service for the City Hall facility over time. At present, City staff are housed in a combination of leased and City-owned buildings. The City has already set aside substantial financial reserves for the purpose of constructing a new City Hall (see Table 6.1). The impact fees calculated in this chapter will recover only future development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new City Hall.
Planned City Hall
Table 6.1 summarizes the estimated costs for the planned City Hall facility, as shown in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. That table also shows the amount of reserves the City has currently set aside to fund the project, as well as the balance in the Public Facilities impact fee fund. Costs shown in Table 6.1 are from the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 6.2 allocates the estimated cost of the new City Hall to the forecasted 2040 service population of the City to arrive at an average cost per capita for the entire 2040 service population. That approach ensures that costs are allocated equitably to existing and future development on a per-capita basis.
Table 6.1: Planned City Hall
Cost Estimated
Component Cost 1 Building Construction 76,923,727 $
Land Cost 2,681,377 $
Total 79,605,104 $
City Hall Capital Reserves on Hand (57,915,015) $
Public Facilities Impact Fee Fund Balance (2/27/25) (552,727) $ Unfunded Cost 21,137,362 $ 1
Estimated costs from the Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan project detail sheet; City Hall capital reserves and Public Facilities impact fee fund balance provided by the Eastvale Finance Department 1721
City of Eastvale Page 6-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 6.2 is used to calculate impact fees per unit of development for the City Hall facility.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 6.3 shows the calculation of City Hall impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 6.2 and service population per unit factors from Table 2.1.
Table 6.2: Buildout Level of Service
Estimated Buildout Service Cost per
Facility Cost 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$79,605,104 115,919 $686.73
1 See Table 6.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / buildout service population
Table 6.3: City Hall Impact Fees per Unit
Development Dev Cost per Service Pop Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 1.10 755.40 $
Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 1.60 1,098.76 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 2.20 1,510.80 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 3.10 2,128.86 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 4.10 2,815.58 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 5.30 3,639.66 $
Hotel/Motel Room $686.73 2.18 1,497.99 $
Commercial Retail KSF $686.73 2.96 2,032.71 $
Business-Professional KSF $686.73 1.98 1,359.72 $
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF $686.73 0.79 542.52 $
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key
2 See Table 6.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 1722
City of Eastvale Page 6-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 6.4 projects potential revenue from the City Hall impact fees. That projection is based on the impact fees per capita from Table 6.2 and the added service population from Table 2.3.
New development’s total share of the cost of the new City Hall, to be funded by impact fees calculated in this report, is 26.5% of the facility’s total cost. The projected revenue shown in Table
6.4 is less than the unfunded balance of $21,137,362 shown in Table 6.1, leaving $229,320 to be funded by the General Fund or other non-impact fee sources.
The projected revenue shown in Table 6.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees that may be set by statute or development agreements for some future projects.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for the City Hall. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Improvements
More details about the proposed City Hall project and projected costs can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The new City Hall is a one-of-a-kind facility being planned as part of the City’s Civic Center complex.
Table 6.4: Projected Revenue from City Hall Impact Fees Impact Fee Added Service Projected
per Capita 1 Population 2 Revenue 3
$686.73 30,446 $20,908,042
1 See Table 6.2
2 See Table 2.3; excludes added service population associated with public facilities 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added service population
1723
City of Eastvale Page 6-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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.
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 recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new City Hall being planned to serve the City Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay part of the cost of a new City Hall being planned serve new development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
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 pay new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new City Hall planned to serve Eastvale out to 2040.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added service population associated with new development will increase the need for City Hall facilities in Eastvale, and the new City Hall is being planned to accommodate the needs of both existing and future development. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the City Hall facility.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the City Hall impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on 1724
City of Eastvale Page 6-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
the estimated average service population per unit for that type of development in Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for City Hall facilities in the City.
1725
City of Eastvale Page 7-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 7. Police Station
This chapter calculates impact fees for a police station for the City of Eastvale. The police station will be constructed as part of the planned Civic Center complex in the Downtown West Specific Plan area. Eastvale contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services and is currently served from a Sheriff’s station in the adjacent city of Jurupa Valley.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
Service Area
Eastvale’s new police station will serve all development in the City, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 the police station in this chapter is Police Department calls for service per year.
Calls for service per year is used to represent the impact of development on the need for police station facilities because it represents a clear relationship between development and the demand for law enforcement services in the City. Calls-for-service-per-unit-per-year factors are shown by development type in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Level-of-Service Standard
Eastvale has not adopted a formal level of service standard for police station facilities, but the City has prepared a plan for a new police station as part of the planned Civic Center complex.
That facility would serve both existing and future development in Eastvale. The new police station is shown in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared 1726
City of Eastvale Page 7-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
As noted above, the City is currently served from a Sheriff’s Department station in Jurupa Valley.
Eastvale was incorporated in 2010 and has not yet constructed its own police station. The City has determined that Eastvale needs its own police facility and has already set aside substantial financial reserves to be used in constructing such a facility.
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are necessarily based on a level of service higher than the existing level of service. That is a consequence of the fact that the City is still in the process of developing a full complement of public facilities since its incorporation in 2010. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will recover only future development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new police station.
Planned Police Station
Table 7.1 summarizes the estimated costs for the planned new police station. Details of the planned police station and project costs can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 7.1 and also shows the amount of reserves the City has currently set aside to fund the project. Costs shown in Table 7.1 are from the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 7.2 allocates the estimated cost of the new police station over the forecasted 2040 police calls for service per year in the City to arrive at an average cost per call. That approach ensures that costs are allocated equitably to existing and future development on a per-call basis.
Table 7.1: Planned Police Station
Cost Estimated
Component Cost 1 Building Construction 52,148,973 $
Land Cost 1,867,234 $
Total 54,016,207 $
Police Station Capital Reserves on Hand (32,195,000) $
Unfunded Cost 21,821,207 $ 1
Estimated costs from the Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan project detail sheet; police station capital reserves provided by the Eastvale Finance Department
1727
City of Eastvale Page 7-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 7.2 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for the police station.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 7.3 shows the calculation of police station impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call from Table 7.2 and police call per unit per year factors from Table 2.1.
Table 7.2: Buildout Level of Service
Estimated Buildout Calls Cost per
Facility Cost 1for Service 2 Call 3
$54,016,207 41,822 $1,291.56
1 See Table 7.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = estimated facility cost / 2040 police calls for service per year
Table 7.3: Police Impact Fees per Unit
Development Dev Cost per Calls for Svc Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.62 800.77 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.69 891.18 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.76 981.59 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.85 1,097.83 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.92 1,188.24 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.99 1,278.65 $ Hotel/Motel Room $1,291.56 0.60 774.94 $
Commercial Retail KSF $1,291.56 4.05 5,231.64 $
Business-Professional KSF $1,291.56 0.58 750.23 $
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF $1,291.56 0.09 115.34 $ 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2
See Table 7.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 1728
City of Eastvale Page 7-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 7.4 projects potential revenue from the police station impact fees. That projection is based on the impact fees per call from Table 7.2 and the added calls for service per year from Table 2.3.
New development’s total share of the cost of the new City, to be funded by impact fees calculated in this report, is 35.2% of the facility’s total cost. The projected revenue shown in Table 7.4 is less than the unfunded balance of $21,821,207 shown in Table 7.1, leaving $2,800,873 to be funded by the General Fund or other non-impact fee sources.
The projected revenue shown in Table 7.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees that may be set by statute or development agreements for some future projects.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for the police station. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
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,
Table 7.4: Projected Revenue from Police Impact Fees
Impact Fee per Added Calls Projected
Call for Service 1for Service 2 Revenue 3
$1,291.56 14,727 $19,020,334
1 See Table 7.2
2 See Table 2.3; excludes calls for service from public facilities, parks and public schools 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per call for service X added calls for service
1729
City of Eastvale Page 7-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new police station being planned to serve the City Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay part of the cost of a new police station being planned to serve all development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
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 pay new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new police station planned to serve Eastvale out to 2040.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added calls for service associated with new development will increase the need for police facilities in Eastvale, and the new police station is being planned to accommodate the needs of both existing and future development. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the police station.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the police station impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project.
The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average police calls per unit per year generated by that type of development in Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for police station facilities in the City. .
1730
City of Eastvale Page 8-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 8. Fire Department Facilties
This chapter calculates impact fees for Fire Department facilities and vehicles for the City of Eastvale. Eastvale contracts with CAL FIRE through the Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection and emergency medical services. CAL FIRE provides staffing and firefighting apparatus while the City is responsible for providing fire stations and some vehicles. There are two existing fire stations in Eastvale, and the City is planning for a third fire station which is expected to start construction within three years.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
Service Area
The Fire Department facilities and vehicles addressed in this chapter will serve all development in the City, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 in this chapter is Fire Department calls for service per year.
Calls for service per year is used to represent the impact of development on the need for Fire Department facilities because it represents the best measure of the demand for fire protection and emergency response services in the City. Calls-for-service-per-unit-per-year factors are shown by development type in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Level-of-Service Standard
The Eastvale Fire Department has not adopted a formal level of service standard for fire stations, but the City has determined that one additional fire station will be needed to serve the City at buildout. The City is setting aside money from the Fire Fund to help pay for construction of that station.
1731
City of Eastvale Page 8-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. 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 differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
Defining a level of service for fire protection and emergency response facilities is more complicated than for other types of facilities. Ultimately, that level of service must be measured primarily in terms of response time to emergency calls for service. And while the number and location of fire stations plays a role in determining response time performance, operational considerations also play a large part. So, for purposes of this study, response time itself cannot be used to establish a level-of-service standard for Fire Department facilities.
In this study, we use Fire Department calls for service as a measure of the service demand created by development. Calls-per-unit-per-year factors are established through analysis of recent call records and those factors vary by development type. The overall level of service is calculated as the cost of Fire Department facilities and vehicles per call for service per year.
However, that level of service changes over time as new development occurs and new facilities are constructed. Planning for an acceptable response time needs to be considered from a longrange perspective. Once a fire station is constructed, it is likely to remain in the same location for decades. Consequently, planners must look toward the ultimate demand pattern in order to locate fire stations efficiently.
It is important to view the fire protection and emergency response resources of a fire department as a whole. Individual fire stations with their apparatus and staff don’t simply serve a designated area. In fact, all the elements of the fire service operate as an integrated system. Many calls for service are handled by the nearest fire station, but it is not uncommon that the resources of the nearest fire station may already be committed when a new call is received. In that case, resources from a different fire station must be deployed.
Furthermore, a single fire station, typically housing one engine company, is not capable of responding effectively to many fire calls. A fire in a single-family house fire may require several engines and other apparatus and at least 15 firefighters. That means a single, relatively small fire in Eastvale could require all available resources of the City’s Fire Department as well as automatic aid or mutual aid from multiple fire stations in nearby communities.
This study takes the view that the fairest way to evaluate the level of service for a Fire Department, when calculating impact fees, is to consider conditions at buildout of the City when the overall plan has been realized. Since the Fire Department’s level of service changes over time, focusing on the level of service at a single point in time prior to buildout can be misleading.
The buildout level of service used to calculate impact fees in this study is higher than the existing level of service, based on the average cost per call for existing development and existing facilities.
However, all development at buildout will benefit from an increased level of service with the addition of a new fire station and the impact fees will cover only new development’s 1732
City of Eastvale Page 8-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
proportionate share of the overall cost. The City has already set aside enough money to pay for the existing community’s share of fire station costs that exceed new development’s proportionate share as reflected by projected calls for service in 2040. For those reasons, we believe the buildout level of service is the most appropriate for use in the impact fee calculations.
The total value of existing and planned fire department assets, as shown in Table 8.4 later in this chapter, is roughly $29.5 million. Based on development projections used in this study, at buildout, new development between 2024 and 2040 will generate about 28% of all 2040 Fire Department calls for service. The projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter is approximately $8 million, which is about 27% of the $29.5 million value of the Fire Department’s existing and future assets (valued in current dollars).
Existing and Planned Fire Department Facilities
Table 8.1 lists the City’s existing Fire Department facilities with their estimated replacement costs, including land.
Table 8.2 summarizes the estimated construction costs for the planned third fire station and also shows the amount of reserves the City has currently set aside to fund the project. The new fire station will be located near the intersection of 58th Street and Scholar Way in the City’s Downtown West policy area.
Table 8.1: Existing Fire Stations
Constr Building Site Bldg Repl Est Land Total
Facility Date Sq Ft 1 Acres 2 Cost 3 Value 4 Repl Cost 5 Fire Station #27 2011 10,025 1.57 3,602,900 $ 1,727,000 $ 5,329,900 $ FS #27 Storage Bldg 2011 576 Included 68,300 $ 0 $ 68,300 $ Fire Station #31 2017 6,500 1.75 3,029,773 $ 1,925,000 $ 4,954,773 $ Total 10,352,973 $ 1 Existing fire station building area from City insured property schedule 2 Site acreage provided by City staff 3 Replacement cost for existing buildings sourced from City insured property schedule 4 Estimated land value of $1,100,000 per acre is consistent with the land value used in the Capital Improvement Plan for the proposed new fire station 5 Total replacement cost = sum of building replacement cost and land value 1733
City of Eastvale Page 8-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Table 8.3 lists the Eastvale Fire Department’s existing vehicles with their current replacement cost.
Table 8.4 summarizes the Fire Department facility and vehicle costs from Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.
Table 8.5 allocates the estimated cost of the existing and planned Fire Department assets to the forecasted 2040 fire calls for service per year in the City to arrive at an average 2040 cost per call.
Table 8.2: Planned Fire Station
Cost Estimated
Component Cost 1 Building Construction 17,490,718 $
Land Cost (1.2 acres) 1,352,650 $
Total 18,843,368 $
Fire Fund Reserves on Hand (10,000,000) $
Fire Impact Fee Fund Balance (2/27/25) (848,507) $
Unfunded Cost 7,994,861 $ 1
Estimated building construction cost and land cost from the Capital Improvement Plan
Table 8.3: Existing Fire Department Vehicles
Model Replacement
Year Make Description Cost 1
2015 Dodge RAM Paramedic Squad 265,300 $
2022 Ford Maverick Pickup 28,000 $
2022 Ford Ranger Pickup 28,000 $
Total 321,300 $
Source: City of Eastvale vehicle schedule
Table 8.4 Existing and Planned Fire Dept. Assets
Cost Total
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Fire Stations 10,352,973 $
Planned Fire Station 18,843,368 $
Existing Fire Department Vehicles 321,300 $
Total Cost 29,517,641 $ 1
See Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3
1734
City of Eastvale Page 8-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
That approach ensures that costs are allocated equitably to existing and future development on a per-call basis.
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 8.5 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for Fire Department facilities and vehicles.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 8.6 shows the calculation of fire impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call from Table 8.5 and calls-per-unit-per-year factors from Table 2.1. The impact fees shown in Table 8.6 would recover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of all Fire Department facilities and vehicles.
Table 8.5: Cost per Call for Service
Total 2040 Calls Cost per Call
Cost Basis1for Service 2for Service 3
$29,517,641 4,816 $6,129.55
1 Total cost basis; see Table 8.4
2 2040 Fire calls for service per year; see Table 2.4
3 Cost per call for service = total cost basis / 2040 calls for service per year
1735
City of Eastvale Page 8-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 8.7 projects potential revenue from the fire impact fees. That projection is based on the impact fee per call from Table 8.5 and the added calls from Table 2.3.
The unfunded cost of the planned new fire station, as shown in Table 8.2, is $7,994,861. That cost is slightly lower than the amount of projected revenue shown in Table 8.7, meaning if the impact fees are adopted as shown in Table 8.6, the projected revenue could exceed the unfunded cost of the planned new fire station by $185,964. To bring the impact fees in line with the unfunded Table 8.6: Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Calls Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Call 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.100 612.96 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.110 674.25 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.120 735.55 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.130 796.84 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.140 858.14 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.150 919.43 $ Hotel/Motel Room $6,129.55 0.085 517.95 $
Commercial Retail KSF $6,129.55 0.211 1,294.87 $
Business-Professional KSF $6,129.55 0.059 362.56 $
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF $6,129.55 0.025 155.38 $ 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2
Cost per call for service; see Table 8.5
3 Calls for service per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit Table 8.7: Projected Revenue from Fire Impact Fees
Impact Fee per Added Calls Projected
Call for Service 1for Service 2 Revenue 3
$6,129.55 1,335 $8,180,825
1 See Table 8.5
2 See Table 2.3; excludes calls for service from public facilities, parks and public schools 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per call for service X added calls for service
1736
City of Eastvale Page 8-7
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
cost of the fire station, Table 8.8 recalculates the impact fees using a reduced cost per call so that the projected revenue from impact fees approximately equals the unfunded cost of the facility.
Table 8.9 shows the projected revenue from the fire impact fees using the adjusted cost per call from Table 8.8 and the added calls for service from Table 2.3, with calls for public facilities, public schools, and parks excluded.
Table 8.8: Adjusted Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Calls Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Call 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.100 599.01 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.110 658.91 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.120 718.81 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.130 778.71 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.140 838.62 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.150 898.52 $ Hotel/Motel Room $5,990.11 0.085 506.16 $
Commercial Retail KSF $5,990.11 0.211 1,265.41 $
Business-Professional KSF $5,990.11 0.059 354.32 $
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF $5,990.11 0.025 151.85 $ 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2
Cost per call for service reduced by 2.275% so that projected revenue will approximately equal the unfunded cost of the fire station as shown in Table 8.2 3 Calls for service per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit Table 8.9: Projected Revenue from Adjusted Fire Impact Fees Adj Impact Fee per Added Calls Projected
Call for Service 1for Service 2 Revenue 3
$5,990.11 1,335 $7,994,717
1 Adjusted impact fee per call for service reduced by 2.275% from the amount shown in Table 8.7
2 See Table 2.3; excludes calls for service from public facilities, parks and public schools 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per call for service X added calls for service
1737
City of Eastvale Page 8-8
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
The projected revenue shown in Table 8.9 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects. It should also be noted that the total projected revenue is less than the total cost allocated to future development in this analysis based on the number of forecasted fire calls because some of those costs are associated with development such as public facilities and schools that are exempt from impact fees.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for the Fire Department facilities and vehicles. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Improvements
Details regarding Eastvale’s planned third fire station project and the estimated cost of the project can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
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.
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.
1738
City of Eastvale Page 8-9
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new Fire Department facilities being planned to serve the City Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay part of the cost of Fire Department facilities being planned to serve new development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. 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 pay new development’s proportionate share of the cost of additional Fire Department facilities planned to serve Eastvale out to 2040.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added calls for service associated with new development will increase the need for Fire Department facilities in Eastvale. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the additional Fire Department facilities.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average fire calls per unit per year for that type of development in Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for Fire Department facilities in the City.
1739
City of Eastvale Page 9-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 9. Implementation
This chapter of the report summarizes requirements for adoption and administration of impact fees, calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.
Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
Adoption
NBS recommends that the City obtain legal advice from the City Attorney regarding the form by which development impact fees are enacted. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public-hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10-day notice period. However, Section 66016.5 added by AB 602 in 2021 requires that impact fee nexus studies be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30-day notice.
Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.
Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Chapter 1 of this report.
NBS recommends that the City obtain legal advice from the City Attorney as to the specific language of those findings. A nexus summary for each impact fee calculated in this report can be found in individual chapters of this report and those nexus summaries may be used to support the findings required by Section 66001.
Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Notices and Statute of Limitations. Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required notification could refer to the capital improvement plan that must now be adopted with each new impact fee nexus study.
1740
City of Eastvale Page 9-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90-day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge.
Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, as amended by SB 937 in 2024, provides that, with some exceptions, a local agency shall not require payment of impact fees by developers of residential development projects prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, or first temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. That provision does not apply if construction of the residential development does not begin within five years of the date upon which the building permit is issued.
An exception that allows utility service fees to be collected when an application for service is received, is now limited to the cost of “connection activities.” Local agencies may require payment of fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy under certain conditions, including if the fees are to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made (or to fund projects with an adopted construction schedule or plan with appropriated funds), unless the project reserves at least 49% of residential units for occupancy by lower income households. For such projects, the local agency may require posting of a performance bond or letter of credit from a federally insured depository institution to guarantee payment when the fees are eligible for collection.
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (d) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. The local agency may not charge interest or other fees on any amounts deferred pursuant to Section 66007.
If a residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may determine whether the fees or charges described shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it receives its certificate of occupancy, on a pro rata basis when a certain percentage of the dwellings have received their certificate of occupancy, or on a lump-sum basis when all the dwellings in the development receive their certificate of occupancy.
Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-residential development.
Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for 1741
City of Eastvale Page 9-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
which the fee was collected.” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on impact fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.
Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.
Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.
If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly to meet the requirement that there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities.
In some cases, an agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects. So, the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other than impact fees.
Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development.
In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements.
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.
Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;
2. The amount of the fee;
1742
City of Eastvale Page 9-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; An identification of each public improvement identified in a previous report and whether construction began on the approximate date noted in the previous report. For a project identified for which construction did not commence by the approximate date provided in the previous report, the reason for the delay and a revised approximate date that the local agency will commence construction;
7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).
The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public, per Section 66006 (b) (2).
Five-Year Findings and Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money.
Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete 1743
City of Eastvale Page 9-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d).
Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).
For a useful discussion of the foregoing requirements, see “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Counsel, Abbott and Kindermann, and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson, presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference.
Audit Requests. Section 66023 provides that any person may request an audit to determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility, as defined in Section 66000, or service provided by the local agency. The legislative body of the local agency may retain an independent auditor to conduct the audit but is not required to conduct an audit if an audit has been performed for the same fee within the previous 12 months.
The agency shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit only if the person who requests the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the local agency’s reasonable estimate of the cost of the independent audit. At the conclusion of the audit, the local agency shall reimburse unused sums, if any, or the requesting person shall pay the local agency the excess of the actual cost of the audit over the amount that was deposited.
However, if the local agency fails to comply with the annual report requirement of Section 66006 following the establishment, increase or imposition of a fee, but requires payment of that fee in connection with the approval of a development project for three consecutive years, the agency shall not require a deposit for the independent audit and shall pay the cost of the audit.
Indexing of Impact Fees. Impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs and should be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by those fees. That adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. The Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) and Construction Cost Index (CCI), as well as the General Services Department’s California Construction Cost Index, are useful for indexing construction costs.
Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs should be adjusted 1744
City of Eastvale Page 9-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
based on changes in local land prices. Costs for vehicles and equipment should be updated based on vendors’ quotes.
Requirements Imposed by AB 602
As noted in Chapter 1, AB 602, which took effect in 2022, creates some new requirements for impact fees. The new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water and sewer utility connection b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning, design and development standards that apply to each parcel c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540 d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes 3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate is issued. That information must be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year. 4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted. 5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to 1745
City of Eastvale Page 9-7
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the agency makes certain findings outlined in the statute.
8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code (counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-day's notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Impact fee nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.
Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear.
Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified in the impact fee nexus study in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended.
1746
Appendix A - City of Eastvale 2024 Impact Fee Study - Fee Comparison
Appendix A Page 1 of 2 Appendix A Page 1 of 2
Development Impact Fee Type Units 1 Current Fee 2 Proposed Fee 3 CHINO CITYWIDE 4 CHINO PRESERVE 4 CORONA CITYWIDE 5 CORONA TEMESCAL VALLEY 5 JURUPA
VALLEY 6 NORCO 7 ONTARIO
CITYWIDE 8 ONTARIO ONTARIO RANCH
8 Residential - Single-Family
Park Land and Improvements DU No Existing Fee 7,208 $ $ 22,494 $ 13,928 12,708 $ 12,708 $ 1,423 $ 11,821 $ 15,198 $ 15,198 $ Recreation Facilities DU No Existing Fee 1,500 $ 4,736 $ 4,736 $ 192 $ 192 $ Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) DU $ 3,932 942 $ 156 $ 156 $ 790 $ 790 $ 271 $ 4,768 $ 3,461 $ 3,461 $ Police DU No Existing Fee 1,098 $ 636 $ 637 $ 212 $ 338 $ 509 $ 509 $ Fire DU $ 797 481 $ 1,310 $ 1,310 $ 349 $ 627 $ 672 $ 1,010 $ 523 $ 1,102 $ Total Residential - Single-Family $ 14,535 1,423 $ 29,332 $ 20,767 $ 14,251 $ 14,655 $ 2,366 $ 17,599 $ 19,691 $ 20,270 $ Residential - Multi-Family
Park Land and Improvements DU No Existing Fee 3,720 $ $ 17,441 $ 10,799 8,924 $ 9,824 $ 965 $ 9,639 $ 13,470 $ 13,470 $ Recreation Facilities DU No Existing Fee 774 $ 3,911 $ 3,911 $ 135 $ 135 $ Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) DU $ 2,030 650 $ 156 $ 156 $ 564 $ 564 $ 229 $ 3,063 $ 2,906 $ 2,906 $ Police DU No Existing Fee 891 $ 404 $ 407 $ 91 $ 146 $ 502 $ 502 $ Fire DU $ 674 332 $ 846 $ 846 $ 466 $ 836 $ 405 $ 1,009 $ 479 $ 1,007 $ Total Residential - Multi-Family $ 8,089 982 $ 22,758 $ 16,119 $ 10,180 $ 11,505 $ 1,599 $ 13,711 $ 17,357 $ 17,885 $ Commercial
Park Land and Improvements KSF No Existing Fee - $ 90 $ 90 $ 463 $ Recreation Facilities KSF No Existing Fee - $
Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) KSF $ 2,033 150 $ 60 $ 60 $ 22 $ 226 $ 210 $ 210 $ Police KSF No Existing Fee 5,232 $ 1,040 $ 1,040 $ 180 $ 280 $ 713 $ 713 $ Fire KSF $ 1,295 132 $ 1,040 $ 1,040 $ 160 $ 290 $ 134 $ 561 $ 398 $ 847 $ Total Commercial KSF $ 8,559 282 $ 2,140 $ 2,140 $ 430 $ 660 $ 156 $ 1,250 $ 1,321 $ 1,770 $ Office
Park Land and Improvements KSF No Existing Fee - $ 90 $ 90 $ 463 $ Recreation Facilities KSF No Existing Fee - $
Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) KSF $ 1,360 149 $ 60 $ 60 $ 22 $ 226 $ 92 $ 92 $ Police KSF No Existing Fee 750 $ 740 $ 740 $ 180 $ 280 $ 279 $ 279 $ Fire KSF $ 363 132 $ 1,050 $ 1,050 $ 160 $ 290 $ 134 $ 561 $ 319 $ 637 $ Total Office $ 2,473 281 $ 1,850 $ 1,790 $ 430 $ 660 $ 156 $ 1,250 $ 690 $ 1,008 $ Industrial
Park Land and Improvements KSF No Existing Fee - $ 370 $ 370 $ 329 $ Recreation Facilities KSF No Existing Fee - $
Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) KSF $ 543 156 $ 60 $ 60 $ 22 $ 161 $ 54 $ 54 $ Police KSF No Existing Fee 115 $ 60 $ 60 $ 10 $ 20 $ 29 $ 29 $ Fire KSF $ 155 137 $ 40 $ 40 $ 20 $ 30 $ 36 $ 116 $ 25 $ 51 $ Total Industrial $ 813 293 $ 160 $ 160 $ 400 $ 420 $ 58 $ 606 $ 108 $ 134 $
CITY OF EASTVALE COMPARISON AGENCIES
1747
Appendix A - City of Eastvale 2024 Impact Fee Study - Fee Comparison
Appendix A Page 2 of 2 Appendix A Page 2 of 2
Notes:
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2 Eastvale existing impact fees updated July 1, 2019
3 Proposed impact fees from NBS 2024 Impact Fee Study; proposed single-family residential impact fees based on the 1,200-1,900 square foot fee category; proposed multi-family residential impact fees based on the 600-800 square foot fee category 4 City of Chino impact fees effective July 1, 2023; Chino has two impact fee schedules, one citywide and one for the Preserve 5 City of Corona impact fees effective July 1, 2023; Corona has two impact fee schedules, one citywide and one for Temescal Valley 6 City of Jurupa Valley impact fees adopted January 21, 2021 7 City of Norco impact fees effective July 1, 2023
8 City of Ontario impact fees effective January 1, 2023; Ontario has two impact fee schedules, one for the general city and one for Ontario Ranch 1748
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Final Report
May 13June 19, 2025
1749
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... S-1 Organization of the Report .................................................................................................................... S-1 Development Data ................................................................................................................................. S-2 Impact Fee Analysis ................................................................................................................................ S-2 Impact Fee Summary ............................................................................................................................. S-4 Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees .......................................................................................................... 1-1 Recent Legislation .................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology .................................................................................................... 1-7 Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ................................................................................. 1-9 Facilities Addressed in this Study ........................................................................................................... 1-9 Chapter 2. Development Data ......................................................................................................... 2-1 Study Area and Time Frame ................................................................................................................... 2-1 Development Types ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 Population Growth ................................................................................................................................. 2-5 Units of Development ............................................................................................................................ 2-5 Demand Variables .................................................................................................................................. 2-5 Demand Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Existing and Future Development ........................................................................................................ 2-10 Growth Potential .................................................................................................................................. 2-13 Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements .................................................................................. 3-1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 3-2 Existing Level of Service ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit ............................................................................................... 3-4 1750
Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 3-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 3-5 Planned Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 3-5 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-5 Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Centers ................................................................................ 4-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 4-2 Existing Level of Service ......................................................................................................................... 4-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 4-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 4-4 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 4-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Chapter 5. Library ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 Planned Library Facility .......................................................................................................................... 5-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 5-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 5-3 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 5-4 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 5-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 5-4 Chapter 6. City Hall ......................................................................................................................... 6-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 6-1 Planned City Hall .................................................................................................................................... 6-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 6-3 1751
Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 6-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 6-4 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 6-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 6-5 Chapter 7. Police Station ................................................................................................................. 7-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 Planned Police Station ........................................................................................................................... 7-2 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 7-3 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 7-4 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 7-4 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 7-4 Chapter 8. Fire Department Facilties ................................................................................................ 8-1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Demand Variable ................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Level-of-Service Standard ...................................................................................................................... 8-1 Existing and Planned Fire Department Facilities ................................................................................... 8-3 Impact Fees per Unit .............................................................................................................................. 8-5 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 8-6 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................................. 8-8 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 8-8 Nexus Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 8-8 Chapter 9. Implementation ............................................................................................................. 9-1 Adoption ................................................................................................................................................ 9-1 Administration ....................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Requirements Imposed by AB 602 ......................................................................................................... 9-6 Training and Public Information ............................................................................................................ 9-7 Appendices
Fee Comparison Appendix A
1752
City of Eastvale Page S-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Executive Summary
The City of Eastvale 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.). In particular, this study is intended to address the requirements of an “impact fee nexus study” as set forth in Government Code Section 66016.5.
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 8 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 Centers
Chapter 5. Libraries
Chapter 6. City Hall
Chapter 7. Police Station
Chapter 8. Fire Station
Chapter 9 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 Eastvale’s existing and proposed impact fees to the cities of Chino, Corona, Jurupa Valley, Norco, and Ontario. 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 does 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 deciding 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. 1753
City of Eastvale Page S-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Development Data
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Eastvale and a forecast of future development through 2040. Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit, service population per unit, and police and fire calls 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 ranges. 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 on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used for maintenance or operating costs. Impact fees calculated in this study are intended to recover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of facilities. Costs attributable to existing development must be funded by non-impact fee funds. The City has set aside substantial reserves from the General Fund and, for the new fire station, the Fire Fund to cover those costs.
The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for each of the facility types addressed in this study.
Parks Improvements. Impact fees for park improvements in Chapter 3 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that impact fees for park improvements are based on the existing level of service for those facilities in the City. The impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing level of service in terms of improved park acres per capita of population. The estimated cost per acre for park improvements is used to determine a cost per capita which is then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this report. Because added population is associated with new residential development, the park improvement impact fees apply only to residential development.
Community and Recreation Centers. Impact fees for community and recreation centers in Chapter 4 are calculated using the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1, which means that impact fees for community and recreation centers are based on the existing level of service for those facilities in the City. The impact of development on the need for those facilities is represented by the added population associated with new residential development. The 1754
City of Eastvale Page S-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
existing level of service is defined as the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing population.
The cost per capita is converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this report.
Because added population is associated with residential development, impact fees for community and recreation centers apply only to new residential development in the City.
Library. The Library impact fees in Chapter 5 are calculated using the system plan method. That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the cost of the planned new library is allocated to both existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected out to 2040. The library impact fees are based on new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the planned new library at the Civic Center, based on new development’s share of the City’s 2040 population. The relationship between the estimated cost of the library and the forecasted 2040 population 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 defined in this study. Because added population is associated with residential development, the impact fees for the Library apply only to new residential development in the City.
City Hall. The City Hall impact fees in Chapter 6 are calculated using the system plan method.
That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the cost of the planned new City Hall is allocated to both existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected out to 2040. The impact of new development on the need for City Hall is represented by service population, a weighted composite of resident population and employees of businesses in the City. See Chapter 2 for a more detailed discussion of service population.
The City Hall impact fees are based on new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the planned new City Hall based on new development’s share of the City’s 2040 service population.
The relationship between the estimated cost of the new City Hall and the forecasted 2040 service population is stated as a cost per capita of service population. The impact fees are calculated as the cost per capita of service population multiplied by the service population per unit for each type of development defined in this study. The City Hall impact fees apply to all types of new development in the City.
Police Station. The police impact fees in Chapter 7 are calculated using the system plan method.
That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the cost of the planned police station is allocated to both existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected out to 2040. The impact of new development on the need for the police station is represented by calls for service per year to the Police Department. Police station impact fees are based on new development’s proportionate share of the projected number of calls for service per year, which is stated as a cost per call for service.
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 1755
City of Eastvale Page S-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
of development. The impact fees are calculated as the cost per call for service multiplied by the calls per unit per year associated with each type of development defined in this study. The police station impact fees apply to all types of new development in the City.
Fire Station. The fire impact fees in Chapter 8 are calculated using the system plan method. That method bases the impact fees on future conditions, so the cost of both existing and future Fire Department assets serving the City are allocated to both existing and future development in the City. In this case, future development is projected out to 2040.
The impact of development Fire Department facilities, apparatus and equipment is represented in this study by the number of Fire Department calls for service per year generated by development in the City. As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of fire calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development.
A cost per call for service per year is calculated by dividing estimated 2040 Fire Department asset costs, in current dollars, by the projected number of calls for service per year generated by development in the City in 2040. Then, an impact fee per unit is calculated by multiplying that cost per call by the number of calls for service per year generated by each category of development defined in this study.
Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 shows the impact fees calculated in this report. Blank areas in the table indicate that some impact fees are not calculated for non-residential development.
Table S.2 shows the City’s existing impact fees. Currently, the City charges impact fees for transportation, fire, and general facilities. This study does not address transportation impact Table S.1: Summary of Development Impact Fees per Unit Calculated in This Study Development Park Comm/Rec City
Type Units 1Imprvmts Centers Library Hall Police Fire Total Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU 2,558 532 640 755 801 613 $ 5,899 Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU 3,720 774 931 1,099 891 674 $ 8,089 Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU 5,115 1,065 1,280 1,511 982 736 $ 10,688 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU 7,208 1,500 1,804 2,129 1,098 797 $ 14,535 Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 9,533 1,984 2,385 2,816 1,188 858 $ 18,764 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 12,323 2,565 3,084 3,640 1,279 919 $ 23,809 Hotel/Motel Room 1,498 775 518 $ 2,791
Commercial Retail KSF 2,033 5,232 1,295 $ 8,559
Business-Professional KSF 1,360 750 363 $ 2,473
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 543 115 155 $ 813
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = each separately rentable room with a key 1756
City of Eastvale Page S-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
fees. Specific impact fees are calculated in this study for parks, community and recreation centers, City Hall, the library, the police station and the fire station.
Because there are so many differences between the existing and proposed impact fees, in terms of facility types and development types, it is not practical to provide a table comparing the existing and proposed impact fees.
Table S.2: Existing Impact Fees From City of Eastvale Fee Schedule Development
Type Units 1 General 2 Fire Total
Residential, Multi-Family DU 650 332 $ 982
Residential, Single-Family DU 942 481 $ 1,423
Commercial Retail KSF 150 132 $ 282
Office/Business Park KSF 149 132 $ 281
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 156 137 $ 293
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2
Existing "General" Impact Fee charged by City includes City Hall and Library 1757
City of Eastvale Page 1-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for certain capital facilities and other capital assets provided by the City of Eastvale 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) and the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), where applicable.
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.” Generally, 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 identified the legal standard applied to a government agency when requiring the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposing ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project. 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).
In April 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, that legislatively adopted impact fees must also consider the 5th Amendment limitations to avoid a “taking” of private property. The Court in Sheetz recognized that the “degree of specificity” for a legislatively enacted impact fee on a class of properties may differ from the site-specific individualized determination that is needed when imposing a fee on a particular project. 1758
City of Eastvale Page 1-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
In this study, the methods used to calculate impact fees quantify the impacts of different types of development on various types of facilities based on demand variables that represent the service demand generated by each type of development.
Defining “Nexus.” The nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees 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 public 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. 1759
City of Eastvale Page 1-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. The police power is an important 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, establish procedures public agencies are required to follow for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges, as a condition of property development.” Thus, impact fees that comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act 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 term “impact fee” which 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:
1760
City of Eastvale Page 1-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
1. Identify the purpose of the fee
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
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. 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 of Section 66016.5 is in addition to the existing provisions of Section 66001(a)(2) (which allows a public agency to use a capital improvement plan to identify the use of a fee) and Section 66002(b) (which requires a public agency that relies on a capital improvement plan as a part of a fee justification to update the plan annually).
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:
1761
City of Eastvale Page 1-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
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.
For the third requirement in that list, there are open legal questions regarding the level of detail required for a legislatively adopted fee schedule as compared to an “ad hoc” imposition of a fee on a development project. However, it is reasonable to assume that all three are part of a complete “nexus” or “reasonable relationship” framework. 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. As a practical matter, such fees are difficult to implement unless the fees can be used to repay outstanding debt related to the facilities in question.
1762
City of Eastvale Page 1-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
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 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 went 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.
1763
City of Eastvale Page 1-7
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
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 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.
AB 516 – Amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act. AB 516, which took effect on January 1, 2024, amends Government Code Section 66006 to add certain requirements to the annual reports mandated by that section. Specifically, Section 66006 now requires that:
Annual reports indicate whether construction on public improvements identified in previous annual reports began on the approximate date shown in the previous annual report; and,
If a project failed to start construction on schedule, the annual report must explain the reason for the delay and provide a revised approximate date when construction will begin.
AB 516 also amends Section 66023 to provide that when a person requests an audit of a fee or charge levied by a local agency, that audit may address when revenue generated by that fee or charge is scheduled to be expended, and when the public improvement to be funded by that fee or charge is scheduled to be completed. Prior to this amendment, the only stated purpose of such an audit was to determine whether such a fee or charge exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility or service provided by the local agency.
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are designed to comply with all of the legal requirements discussed earlier in this chapter. 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 1764
City of Eastvale Page 1-8
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
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 is 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.
Although it is not mandatory, this study adopts the nomenclature used in the Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley to describe impact fee calculation methods. Those templates were prepared for The California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code and are cited in AB 602.
Planned Facility Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will pay for the planned expansion of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the cost of planned facilities is divided by the amount of demand that will be created by new development. The impact fees depend on the cost of planned future facilities and a plan for future development, so the fees should be recalculated if facility plans or development plans change.
Existing Inventory Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve existing development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities is divided by the amount of demand associated with existing development. This method allows impact fees to be calculated without a list of planned facilities, but such a list is required by AB 602 as part of a Capital Improvement Plan that must be adopted with any new impact fee nexus study. This approach can be used to calculate impact fees for many types of public facilities but is usually not appropriate for facilities such as transportation improvements or water, wastewater or drainage systems where improvement needs must be determined by engineering analysis.
System Plan Method. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development. This approach is especially appropriate for impact fees for fire protection and EMS facilities because new facilities must be planned to integrate geographically with existing facilities.
1765
City of Eastvale Page 1-9
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
SB 477, enacted in 2024, relocated and consolidated California’s ADU laws into a new Government Code Chapter (Chapter 13, Division 1, Title 7). As mentioned earlier, recent amendments to ADU law provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet and establish 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.”
Since the impact fees described in this report will be imposed on all residential development projects based on unit size in square feet (using tiered ranges of square footage), the fee imposed on an ADU will be proportionate to the size of any primary unit.
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
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. 1766
City of Eastvale Page 2-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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.
Development data presented in this chapter are based on information from the City of Eastvale Community Development Department, the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community Survey (ACS), and the California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit.
Study Area and Time Frame
The study area for this study is the City of Eastvale. The timeframe for this study extends from the present time to 2040. Although the future development projected in this chapter is expected to occur by 2040, the actual timing of development cannot be predicted with certainty. The impact fee calculations in this report do not depend on when development occurs.
Development Types
The development types for which impact fees are calculated in this study are listed below. Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to be applied based on actual land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. For mixed use development projects, impact fees should be applied to each type of development within the project, consistent with the number of units of development of each type within the project.
Residential Development. Traditionally, impact fees for residential development are based on unit types such as single-family, multi-family and mobile home units. However, Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) which was added to the Mitigation Fee Act by AB 602 in 2021 contains the following requirement:
“A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development”
But that requirement is not absolute. Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) provides that a nexus study is not required to comply with Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
1. An explanation as to why square footage is not the appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
1767
City of Eastvale Page 2-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
2. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden imposed by the development.
3. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees The proportionality requirement in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) is commonly interpreted to mean that impact fees must have a linear relationship to unit square footage. That means the fees must increase by the same amount for every added square foot of unit size. Such a fee structure results in impact fees that are necessarily five times as high for a 3,000 square-foot single-family unit as for a 600 square apartment. That type of fee structure is justified only if the actual impact of a 3,000 square-foot unit is five times greater than the impact of a 600 square-foot unit.
Otherwise, the impact fees could violate the “rough proportionality” requirement set forth in the U. S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. Tigard [512 U. S. 374 (1994)]. The recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado [601 U. S. 267--- (2024)] made clear that Dolan applies to all impact fees, whether they are applied ad hoc or legislatively adopted.
This study uses several attributes of development, including added population, added police calls for service per year and added fire calls for service per year, to represent the impact of new development on different types of City facilities. We use those attributes to represent the demand created by various types of development for public services and the capital facilities and other capital assets needed to support those services.
What we see in analyzing patterns of service demand is that the relationship between unit size and service demand doesn’t conform to a linear model. While the potential for added population may be five times as great for the largest residential units compared with the smallest units, that increase is not linear. In the real world, population per unit does not increase in a tiny increment for each added square foot. It increases in a stairstep fashion, jumping from one person to two persons to three persons per unit and so on.
It is not feasible to get specific data on police and fire calls by unit size, but in our experience, there is typically not a large difference in the average number of police and fire calls-per-unitper-year generated by single-family as opposed to multi-family residential units. So, a fee structure that results in large units paying five times as much as small units would appear disproportionate to the actual demand created by units of different sizes.
This study breaks down residential development into tiered square-feet-per-unit ranges and calculates an impact fee for each range or category. That approach allows impact fees to be graduated by unit size while avoiding the distortions that result from a rigid, fixed fee per square foot approach, and while respecting the need for rough proportionality between the fees and the impact of development as set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we propose that the Eastvale City Council adopt the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) to justify the use of tiered square 1768
City of Eastvale Page 2-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
footage ranges for residential development in this study rather than a fixed fee-per-square-foot approach:
1. A fixed fee-per-square-foot approach is not the appropriate metric to calculate the fees analyzed in this study since it would not reflect the actual impact of different-sized residential units on the facilities addressed in this study and would not meet the rough proportionality standard set forth in Dolan v. Tigard.
2. An alternative basis of calculating the fees, using tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot approach, better reflects the reasonable relationship between the fees charged and the actual burden imposed by the development.
3. Calculating impact fees for tiered square footage ranges rather than a fixed fee per square foot still ensures that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees because that approach allows the impact fees to be tailored to the actual impacts created by smaller developments, while protecting larger units from excessive fees.
As discussed above, residential development categories are defined in this study by ranges of unit sizes rather than by unit types (e.g., single-family or multi-family) as is the case for the City’s existing impact fees. Unit-size ranges used to define residential development in this study are listed below.
Residential <600 Square Feet per Unit
Residential >600-800 Square Feet per Unit
Residential >800-1,200 Square Feet per Unit
Residential <1,200-1,900 Square Feet per Unit
Residential >1,900-2,300 Square Feet per Unit
Residential >2,300 Square Feet per Unit
Each of these unit-size ranges is typical of units with a certain number of bedrooms, ranging from studio apartments up to single-family units with five or more bedrooms. 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).
Non-Residential Development. Non-residential development types used in this study are:
Hotel/Motel. This category encompasses hotels, motels and similar lodging uses. Commercial-Retail. This category includes retail commercial and commercial services including restaurants and commercial recreation, but excludes hotels, motels and lodging uses which are included in a separate category.
Business-Professional. This category includes general office uses and research and development facilities.
1769
City of Eastvale Page 2-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Industrial-Industrial Flex. This category includes development designed to accommodate a range of light industrial uses, including warehouses and distribution facilities with office space, light manufacturing and processing and some limited commercial uses. Public Facilities. This category includes government buildings and other public or quasipublic facilities, but excluding public schools which are addressed in a separate category below.
K-12 Schools. This category includes public schools from kindergarten through high school.
Parks. This category includes public parks and other public recreational facilities.
It should be noted that the Public Facilities, K-12 Schools and Parks categories are included in this study to account for the impacts they create on certain types of facilities. However, this study does not actually calculate impact fees for those categories because, in most cases, the City either lacks the authority to impose those fees, or in the case of City facilities, the City would be charging itself. Therefore, the City will be required to rely on general purpose funding sources other than impact fees to fund the costs of those impacts.
Other Development Types. Certain types of development, such as churches, hospitals and private schools, do not fit neatly into any of the categories listed above. Those developments are not legally exempt from impact fees, but no fee is calculated in this study for such uses. Fees for such projects can be calculated on an individual basis by considering factors such as service population or police and fire calls that will be generated by a proposed project and applying those factors to the cost per capita or cost per call shown in each impact fee chapter in this report. 1770
City of Eastvale Page 2-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Population Growth
The chart at right shows the
California Department of
Finance (DOF) official January 1
population estimates for the City
of Eastvale for the years from
2014 through 2024, except for
the 2020 population which is
based on the 2020 Census count.
This chart shows a steady
increase in Eastvale’s population
from 2014 to 2021, averaging
about 2% per year. Since 2021,
estimated population growth
has been slightly negative.
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) and are grouped into unit-size ranges. Residential impact fees vary by unit size.
Building Area. Several types of non-residential development in this study are measured in terms of building area, in thousands of square feet, denoted as KSF.
Rooms. Development in the Hotel/Motel category is measured in terms of rooms, meaning the number of guest rooms or suites. A room is defined as each separately rentable room with a key”
Students. For the K-12 Public Schools category, development is measured in terms of the number of students.
Acres. Public parks and other public recreation facilities are measured in terms of acres.
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 or police and fire 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. 1771
City of Eastvale Page 2-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 are referred to in this report as “demand factors.” For example, whereas the demand variable is “population,” the demand factor for each residential unit size category used in this study is the estimated population per unit for that category.
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 2-8.
Population. Population, which refers to residents of the City, is used as a demand variable to calculate impact fees for facilities like parks that are intended to serve residents of the City.
Resident population is tied to residential development, so this variable reflects no demand from non-residential development.
Service Population. Some types of City facilities are impacted by both residential and nonresidential development so population alone does not represent all of the impacts of development on those facilities. Where the impact of development cannot be measured by specific demand variables such as vehicles trips or police or fire calls for service, a variable called service population is commonly used to represent the impact of development. An example would be general government facilities like City Hall.
Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the City 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.
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 the 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 1772
City of Eastvale Page 2-7
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
on how many residents work in the city and how many commute to work outside the City. In addition, we assume the average resident spends eight hours a week outside the City for activities like shopping and recreation.
Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2022 show that about 60% of Eastvale residents between ages 16 and 64 are employed and that about 77% 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 other residents spend 160 (168 - 8 = 160) hours per week in the City, the weighted average for all residents is 142.2 hours per week in the City. Dividing that number by 168 hours per week gives us a weight of 0.846 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 as well as the weighting factor for each type of development are shown in Exhibit 2A, below. It should be noted that since all students in the K-12 Schools category are assumed to be residents of the City, the non-residential service population weight for that category is zero.
The service population weights shown in Exhibit 2A are intended to allow a balanced allocation of costs among non-residential development types. However, a comparison of the residential and non-residential shares of service population resulting from that allocation indicates that it likely underrepresents the demand created by non-residential development, so a factor of 2.5 is applied to all non-residential service population weights, which brings the non-residential share of service population to 18.9% of total service population.
Finally, for simplicity, all of the service population base weights are normalized by dividing them by residential base weight of 0.846 so that the normalized weight for population equals 1.0 and weight for each of the non-residential components is increased proportionately. The resulting service population weights are shown in Exhibit 2A. Service population per unit factors based on the normalized service population weights and population or employees per unit are shown in Table 2.1.
1773
City of Eastvale Page 2-8
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 by development type. Those callsfor-service-per-unit factors are calculated using a random sample of calls for service for a oneyear period to determine the distribution of calls by development type. Then the number of calls per year for each type of development is divided by the number of existing units for that type of development to arrive at calls-per-unit-per-year factors. In this study, data for police and fire calls for service were for calendar year 2023. The police and fire calls-for-service factors for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.1.
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 California Department of Finance collect data on population per unit, by unit type (single-family, multi-family, mobile home) rather than by unit size. Based on the City’s documentation of findings (summarized above), in response to the California Mitigation Fee Act default standard of calculating fees based on square footage of units in a development, we must estimate the population per unit for each of the unit size categories used in this study.
The population-per-unit factors for the unit size categories used in this study are shown in Exhibit 2B. Those factors were estimated by NBS using data on the distribution of units by number of bedrooms from American Community Survey (ACS) Table B25041. The estimated population per unit for each unit-size category is adjusted so that the total population and average population per unit approximately equal the total population and average population per unit from the known data. The results are cross-checked with data on the distribution of household population from ACS Table 25009.
Exhibit 2A: Service Population Weights
Development Avg Hrs Total Hrs Base Svc Pop Scaling Scaled Svc Normalized Type per Wk per Week Weight 1Factor 2 Pop Weight 3Svc Pop Wt 4 Residential 142.0 168.0 0.845 1.00 0.845 1.000 Commercial Retail 84.0 168.0 0.500 2.50 1.250 1.479
Business-Professional 45.0 168.0 0.268 2.50 0.670 0.792 Industrial/Industrial Flex 45.0 168.0 0.268 2.50 0.670 0.792 Public Facilities 45.0 168.0 0.268 2.50 0.670 0.792
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 scaled population weight / residential service population weight 1774
City of Eastvale Page 2-9
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Note that in Exhibit 2B, no units are shown for the two smallest unit size categories. That is because the source data showed no existing units in those unit-size categories. However, a population per unit is estimated for those categories because units in those categories may be constructed in the future.
Factors shown in Table 2.1 are population per unit for residential unit-size categories and employees per unit for various types of non-residential development, as well as service population per unit, and police and fire calls per unit per year for all types of development defined in this study.
Exhibit 2B: Population per Unit by Unit Size
Unit Size No. of No. of % of Est Pop Adjusted
in Sq Ft 1 Bedrms Units 2 Units per Unit 3 Pop 4
<600 0 0 0.0% 1.10 0
600-800 1 0 0.0% 1.60 0
>800 - 1,200 2 2,498 14.1% 2.20 5,495
>1,200 - 1,900 3 3,957 22.3% 3.10 12,268
>1,900 - 2,300 4 7,015 39.5% 4.10 28,760
>2,300 5+ 4,273 24.1% 5.30 22,648
Total/Average 17,743 100.0% 3.90 69,170
1 Estimated square-feet-per-unit ranges based on number of bedrooms 2 Distribution of units by number of bedrooms from American Community Survey Table B25041, 2022 1-Year Estimate 3
Estimated population per unit by NBS 4
Adjusted population = number of units X estimated population per unit 1775
City of Eastvale Page 2-10
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.2 through 2.4 on the following pages present data on existing and future development in Eastvale. Data from those tables will be used throughout this report. Table 2.2 shows estimated existing development as of January 2024.
It is important to note that in Tables 2.2 through 2.4, all residential development is grouped into a single category because it is not possible to estimate the mix of existing or future residential units by unit size.
Table 2.1: Demand Factors
Development Unit Pop per Empl per Svc Pop Police Calls Fire Calls Type 1 Type 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 per Unit 5 per Unit 6 per Unit 7 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU 1.10 1.10 0.620 0.100 Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU 1.60 1.60 0.690 0.110
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU 2.20 2.20 0.760 0.120 Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU 3.10 3.10 0.850 0.130 Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 4.10 4.10 0.920 0.140 Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU 5.30 5.30 0.990 0.150
Hotel/Motel Room 0.98 0.50 2.18 0.600 0.085
Commercial Retail KSF 2.00 2.96 4.051 0.211
Business-Professional KSF 2.50 1.98 0.581 0.059
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 1.00 0.79 0.089 0.025
Public Facilities KSF 2.50 1.98 0.000 0.079
Parks Acres 0.00 0.00 1.933 0.150
Schools Students 0.00 0.00 0.038 0.004
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 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key
3 See Exhibit 2B for residential population per unit; the Hotel/Motel category assumes an average of 1.5 guests per room and 65% occupancy
4 Employees per unit estimated by NBS using data from the ESRI Business Summary and data on existing non-residential development from the City of Eastvale 5 Service population per unit; see Exhibit 2A
6 Police Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 7 7 Fire Department calls for service per unit per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 8 1776
City of Eastvale Page 2-11
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Table 2.3 on the next page presents a forecast of future development in the City to 2040 based on the Eastvale General Plan Environmental Impact Fee Report and additional information from the Draft 2040 General Plan.
Table 2.2: Existing Development January 1, 2024 - City of Eastvale Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service PD Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1 Units 2lation 3yees 4 Pop 5 per Year 6 per Year 7 All Residential DU 18,413 68,814 68,814 17,095 2,725 Hotel/Motel Room 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial Retail KSF 1,600.0 3,200 4,736 6,481 338
Business-Professional KSF 87.8 220 174 51 123
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 14,400.0 14,400 11,376 1,286 169 Public Facilities KSF 75.6 128 150 0 6
Parks Acres 213.2 0 412 32
Schools Students 14,733 0 566 58
Totals 68,814 17,948 85,250 25,891 3,451
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2 Number of existing residential units based on the January 2024 CA Department of Finance E-5 report; non-residential units based on City of Eastvale data 3
Existing household population from 2024 CA Department of Finance E-5 report 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 7 Police Department calls for service per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service; see discussion in text and in Chapter 7
8 Fire Department calls for service per year based on analysis of a random sample of all 2023 calls for service; discussion in text and in Chapter 8
1777
City of Eastvale Page 2-12
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Table 2.4 shows forecasted total development in the City in 2040.
Table 2.3: Projected Future Development to 2040 - City of Eastvale Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service PD Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1 Units 2lation 3yees 4 Pop 5 per Year 6 per Year 7 All Residential DU 4,173 16,358 16,358 3,338 576 Hotel/Motel Room 450 439 225 982 270 38
Commercial Retail KSF 2,659.3 5,319 7,872 10,772 562
Business-Professional KSF 2,051.9 5,130 4,063 1,192 121 Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 1,483.5 1,484 1,172 132 38 Public Facilities KSF 113.0 283 224 0 9
Parks Acres 49.1 0 0 95 7
Schools Students 3,433 0 0 132 14
Totals 16,797 12,440 30,670 15,931 1,365
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 2 Added units based on Table 2.0-2 of the Eastvale General Plan Environmental Impact Report and additional data from the Draft 2040 General Plan
3 Added population based on Table 2.0-2 of the Eastvale General Plan Environmental Impact Report 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 police calls per year for residential development = added units X the average residential rate of 0.8 police calls per unit per year; added police calls for non=residential development = added units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.1
7 Added fire calls per year = added units X fire calls per unit per year from Table 2.1 Table 2.4: Total 2040 Development - City of Eastvale
Development Unit No. of Popu- Emplo- Service PD Calls Fire Calls Type Type 1 Units 2lation 3yees 4 Pop 5 per Year 6 per Year 7 All Residential DU 22,586 85,172 85,172 20,433 3,301 Hotel/Motel Room 450 439 225 982 270 38
Commercial Retail KSF 4,259 8,519 12,608 17,253 900
Business-Professional KSF 2,140 5,349 4,237 1,243 244
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF 15,884 15,884 12,548 1,418 207 Public Facilities KSF 189 411 374 0 15
Parks Acres 262 0 0 507 39
Schools Students 18,166 0 0 698 72
Totals 85,611 30,387 115,919 41,822 4,816
Note: The figures shown in Table 2.4 represent the sum of the corresponding figures from Tables 2.2 and 2.3
1778
City of Eastvale Page 2-13
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Growth Potential
The numbers in Table 2.4 represent an increase of approximately 24% in population and 69% in employment between 2024 and 2040. Police and Fire Department calls are projected to increase 62% to 39%, respectively.
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 forecasted in this chapter.
1779
City of Eastvale Page 3-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements
Background
Since the City of Eastvale was incorporated in 2010, two special districts have been responsible for constructing and maintaining parks in the City. Parks in the portion of the City west of Hamner Avenue are provided by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD). In the area east of Hamner Avenue, parks are provided by the Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District (JARPD).
Eastvale’s Municipal Code requires new residential development projects to dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of park land dedication. Until recently, those assets were transferred to the responsible special district, and, since there is no remaining residential development potential in the area served by JARPD, dedicated park land or in-lieu fees were going to JCSD.
However, in May 2022, Eastvale adopted a resolution to designate the City of Eastvale as the public agency eligible to receive park land dedications and in-lieu fees under the Quimby Act and revoke JCSD’s previous designation as a public agency eligible to receive Quimby Act dedications and in-lieu fees. That means the City will be collecting and retaining Quimby Act fees and will be responsible for expending those fees in accordance with the law.
This chapter calculates impact fees for park improvements, which apply only to residential development. Any proposed updates to the park land dedication and in-lieu fees will be made in a separate action brought forward by City staff separate from this report.
Methodology
The method used to calculate park improvement impact fees in this chapter is the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1. Using this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve existing development. For parks, that standard is defined in terms of acres of parks per 1,000 population. See the Level of Service Standard section below for a discussion of the actual standards used to calculate in-lieu fees and impact fees in this chapter.
Service Area
Eastvale’s parks serve all residents of the City and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all residential development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or by a development agreement.
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 park in-lieu fees and impact fees in this chapter is population. 1780
City of Eastvale Page 3-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Population is used for that purpose because the need for parks is typically defined in terms of the relationship between park acreage and population. Since added population is associated with new residential development, the in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
Population per dwelling unit is estimated for each residential unit size category defined in this study. Those population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 and in Table 3.4, below.
Level-of-Service Standard
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the Eastvale General Plan (page 11-6) adopts a standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 population for park land dedication and in-lieu fees to be collected from new residential development. However, that standard exceeds the level that can be justified under the Mitigation Fee Act because it exceeds the existing level of service shown in Table 3.2, below.
In this study, the impact fees for park improvements are based on the existing ratio of 3.1 acres of parks per 1,000 population as shown in Table 3.2.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires that, after January 1, 2022, 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 differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on a level of service that equals the existing level, so there is no conflict with that provision of Section 66016.5.
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing parks and the improved acres for each park. In keeping with the 2019 California Court of Appeal decision in Boatworks LLC v. City of Alameda, only improved park acres are used to determine the existing ratio of park acres to population in this study.
All of the City’s existing parks are owned by either JCSD or JARPD. However, since those parks were constructed for the benefit of City residents, it is reasonable to treat them as City parks for purposes of calculating the existing level of service.
1781
City of Eastvale Page 3-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Table 3.2 calculates the existing level of service for Eastvale’s parks. The existing level of service is shown both per capita, and per 1,000 population.
Table 3.3 shows the cost per capita used to calculate park improvement impact fees in this chapter.
Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service
Existing Improved
Park Acres 1
Existing
Population 2
Improved Acres
per Capita 3
Improved Acres
per 1,000 4
213.17 68,814 0.00310 3.10
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 Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park Improved
Name Agency Park Acres
American Heroes Park JCSD 18.95 Cedar Creek Park JCSD 9.54 Dairyland Park JCSD 9.22 Deer Creek Park JCSD 9.30
Eastvale Community Park JCSD 46.53 Half Moon Park JCSD 5.00 Harada Heritage Park JCSD 30.72
James C. Huber Park JCSD 12.56
McCune Family Park JCSD 11.85
Mountainview Park JCSD 7.87 Orchard Park JCSD 9.84
Providence Ranch Park JCSD 12.79 Riverwalk Park JCSD 13.00 Sendero Park JCSD 11.75
Symphony Park JCSD 2.54 Harmony Park JARPD 0.59
Cambria Park JARPD 0.48
Deleware Greenbelt JARPD 0.29
Moon River Park JARPD 0.35
Total 213.17 Source: Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) and Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JARPD)
1782
City of Eastvale Page 3-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit
Table 3.4 shows the calculation of park improvement impact fees per dwelling unit by unit-size category. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 3.3 and population per dwelling unit factors from Table 2.1. These fees are intended to apply to all residential development in the City.
Projected Revenue
Table 3.5 shows projected revenue from park improvement impact fees. Those revenue projections assume that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2.
These revenue projections are in current dollars.
Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Park Improvements
Fee Type
Acres per
Capita 1 Cost per Acre2 Cost per Capita3 Park Improvements 0.0031 $750,000 $2,325.00 1 See Table 3.2
2 Park improvement cost per acre from the Capital Improvement Plan 3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
Table 3.4: 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 $2,325.00 1.10 2,557.50 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 1.60 3,720.00 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 2.20 5,115.00 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 3.10 7,207.50 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 4.10 9,532.50 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $2,325.00 5.30 12,322.50 $ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2
See Table 3.3
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 1783
City of Eastvale Page 3-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
Updating the Fees
The in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on 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. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Facilities
Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The City of Eastvale will develop its first City-owned park as part of the planned Civic Center complex. That park is located in the Downtown West policy area where more than half of all new residential units in Eastvale will be constructed. A substantial number of new residential units are also planned for the nearby Downtown East policy area. The CIP estimates the cost of the Civic Center Park at over $31 million, including the cost of improvements to the Civic Center Plaza.
The City’s CIP also includes Grand Park, a passive park in the southern part of the City planned for approximately 200 acres of flood plan owned by OCPW. That park will include conservation areas, picnic areas, recreation areas and a visitor center. The CIP estimates the cost of Grand Park at $192 million.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the firepark facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact 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,
Table 3.5: Projected Revenue from Park Improvement Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1 Population 2 Revenue 3 All Residential $2,325.00 16,797 $39,052,444 1 See Table 3.3
2 See Table 2.3
3 Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population 1784
City of Eastvale Page 3-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13June 19, 2025
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 development on the need for parks in Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
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 to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Eastvale.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the need for parks to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional parks, 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 park improvement impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The impact 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 Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City.
1785
City of Eastvale Page 4-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 4. Community and Recreation Centers
This chapter calculates impact fees for community and recreation centers needed to maintain the existing level of service in Eastvale as the City grows. Since the City’s incorporation in 2010, parks and community and recreation centers in most of Eastvale have been provided by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD), which has constructed many parks and several community and recreation centers in the City. The part of the City east of Hamner Avenue is served by the Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District (JARPD) which has constructed only four small pocket parks and no community or recreation centers in Eastvale.
JARPD’s service area within the City is essentially built out with respect to new residential development. All future residential development in the City will occur in the JCSD service area and Eastvale’s City Council has chosen to take over responsibility from JCSD for developing future parks as well as future community and recreation centers in the City.
Methodology
The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing inventory method discussed in Chapter 1. Using this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development will fund expansion of facilities at the same standard currently used to serve existing development.
In this case, the standard used to calculate impact fees for community and recreation centers is the existing level of service, which is discussed below in the Level-of-Service Standard section.
Service Area
Eastvale’s community and recreation centers serve all residents of the City and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all residential development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 community and recreation centers in this chapter is population.
Population is used for that purpose because the need for community and recreation centers is typically defined in terms of the population to be served. Because added population is associated with new residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
Population per dwelling unit is estimated for each residential unit size category defined in this study. Those population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 and in Table 4.3, below.
1786
City of Eastvale Page 4-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Level-of-Service Standard
Eastvale has not adopted a formal level of service standard for community and recreation centers. The standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service, defined as the replacement cost of existing community and recreation centers per capita of existing population. Replacement cost is used to represent the current dollar cost of additional facilities that will be needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. Although Eastvale’s existing community and recreation centers (see Table 4.1) are owned by JCSD, they were constructed for the benefit of residents of the City using development fees paid by development in Eastvale, so it is reasonable to treat those facilities as existing City assets for purposes of determining the existing level of service in this chapter.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. 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 differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on a level of service which equals the existing level, so there is no conflict with that provision of Section 66016.5.
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.1 lists Eastvale’s existing community and recreation centers with their estimated replacement cost.
Table 4.2 calculates the existing level of service in terms of the cost per capita of existing population for the existing community and recreation centers.
Table 4.1: Existing Community and Recreation Centers
Facility Building Building Site Site Impact Fee
Name Agency Sq Feet 1 Repl Cost 2 Area 1 Value 3 Cost Basis 4 Eastvale Community Ctr JCSD 34,647 17,323,500 $ 4.6 5,060,000 $ 22,383,500 $ Harada Neighborhood Ctr JCSD 5,040 2,520,000 $ In Park 0 $ 2,520,000 $ The Desi House JCSD 7,700 8,400,000 $ 2.3 Included 8,400,000 $ Total 33,303,500 $ 1
Data from Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) and the City of Eastvale 2 Building replacement cost for Eastvale Community Center and Harada Neighborhood Center assumes a cost of $500 per square foot; building replacement cost for the Desi House based on best available costs for acquisition and improvement of the facility 3 Site value for Eastvale Community Center assumes a cost of $1.1 million per acre based on recent appraisals of land at the Civic Center site and a proposed fire station site. 4 Impact fee cost basis = building replacement cost + site value 1787
City of Eastvale Page 4-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 4.2 is used to calculate impact fees per dwelling unit for community and recreation centers.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of community and recreation center impact fees per unit of development by residential unit size category. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 4.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1.
Projected Revenue
Table 4.4 projects potential revenue from the community and recreation center impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per capita from Table 4.2 and the added population from Table
2.3. These revenue projections assume that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It is also worth noting that the projected revenue shown in Table 4.4 is in current dollars. As discussed below, we recommend that the fees be adjusted periodically to keep pace with construction costs.
Table 4.2: Existing Level of Service
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Cost Basis 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$33,303,500 68,814 $483.96
1 See Table 4.1
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = existing facilities cost basis / existing population
Table 4.3: Community and Recreation Center 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 $483.96 1.10 532.36 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 1.60 774.34 $
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 2.20 1,064.72 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 3.10 1,500.29 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 4.10 1,984.25 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $483.96 5.30 2,565.01 $ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2
See Table 4.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 1788
City of Eastvale Page 4-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
The projected revenue shown in Table 4.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for community and recreation centers. 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 Building Cost Index (BCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Improvements
Future community and recreation center projects, including a community center and an aquatic center, are shown as part of the Citrus Reimagined project in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Although costs for the aquatic center and the community center are not broken out in detail in the CIP, the combined cost of the two facilities is expected to be $35-$40 million. Those costs would far exceed the impact fee revenue shown in Table 4.4.
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:
Table 4.4: Projected Revenue from Comm/Rec Center Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected
Type per Capita 1 Population 2 Revenue 3 All Residential $483.96 16,358 $7,916,683 Total $7,916,683
1 See Table 4.3
2 See Table 2.3 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population 1789
City of Eastvale Page 4-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 development on the need for additional community and recreation center facilities in Eastvale.
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. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
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 centers to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Eastvale.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added population associated with new residential development will increase the need for community and recreation centers to maintain the existing level of service as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional community and recreation center facilities, that added population 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 community and recreation center impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. 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 Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for community and recreation centers in the City. 1790
City of Eastvale Page 5-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 5. Library
This chapter calculates impact fees for a new library for the City of Eastvale. The City’s existing library is located on the campus of Eleanor Roosevelt High School and is open to the public after 4 p.m. on weekdays and from 10:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. The City is planning a new main library as part of the planned Civic Center development in the Downtown West Specific Plan area.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
Service Area
Eastvale’s library will serve all residents of the City and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all residential development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 the library in this chapter is population.
Population is used for that purpose because the need for libraries is almost universally defined in terms of the population to be served. Because added population is associated with new residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
Population per dwelling unit varies by development type, so the average population per unit is estimated for each residential unit size category defined in this study. Those individual population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Level-of-Service Standard
Eastvale has not adopted a formal level of service standard for libraries, but the City has prepared a plan for a new main library which would serve both existing and future development in Eastvale.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared 1791
City of Eastvale Page 5-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
The library impact fees calculated in this chapter are necessarily based on a level of service higher than the existing level of service. Eastvale was incorporated fairly recently, in 2010, and is still in the process of developing a full complement of public facilities to serve the City. Eastvale has set aside substantial financial reserves for the purpose of constructing the new library (see Table 5.1) and the impact fees calculated in this chapter will recover only future development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new library.
Planned Library Facility
Table 5.1 summarizes the estimated construction costs for the planned library facility. Details regarding the planned library project and project costs are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Table 5.1 also shows the amount of reserves the City has currently set aside to fund the project. Costs shown in Table 5.1 are from the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 5.2 allocates the estimated cost of the new library to the forecasted 2040 population of the City to arrive at an average cost per capita for the entire 2040 population. That approach ensures that costs are allocated equitably to existing and future development on a per-capita basis.
Table 5.1: Planned Library
Cost Estimated
Component Cost 1 Building Construction 47,880,093 $
Land Cost 1,672,560 $
Total 49,552,653 $
Library Capital Reserves on Hand (39,889,986) $
Unfunded Cost 9,662,667 $ 1
Estimated costs from the Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan project detail sheet; library capital reserves provided by the Eastvale Finance Department
1792
City of Eastvale Page 5-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 5.2 is used to calculate library impact fees per dwelling unit for each unit size range.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 5.3 shows the calculation of library impact fees per unit of residential development by unit size category. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 5.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1.
Projected Revenue
Table 5.4 projects potential revenue from the library impact fees. That projection is based on the cost per capita from Table 5.2 and the added population from Table 2.3.
Table 5.2: 2040 Level of Service
Estimated 2040 Cost per
Facility Cost 1 Population 2 Capita 3
49,552,653 85,172 581.80
1 See Table 5.1
2 Residential population only, not including hotel/motel guests; see Table 2.4
3 Square feet per capita = library square footage / 2040 population Table 5.3: Library Impact Fees per Unit
Development Dev Cost per Population Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 1.10 639.97 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 1.60 930.87 $
Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 2.20 1,279.95 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 3.10 1,803.56 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 4.10 2,385.36 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $581.80 5.30 3,083.51 $ 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 1793
City of Eastvale Page 5-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
New development’s total share of the cost of the new library, to be funded by impact fees calculated in this report, is 19.2% of the facility’s total cost. The projected impact fee revenue shown in Table 5.4 is slightly less than the unfunded balance of $9,662,667 shown in Table 5.1, leaving $145,663 to be funded from the General Fund or other non-impact fee sources.
The projected revenue shown in Table 5.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects.
To the extent that projects with development agreements do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for the library. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Improvements
Details regarding the planned library facility and project costs can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The new main library is being planned as part of the City’s Civic Center development project.
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:
Table 5.4: Projected Revenue from Library Impact Fees
Impact Fee Added Projected
per Capita 1 Population 2 Revenue 3
$581.80 16,358 $9,517,004
1 See Table 5.2
2 See Table 2.3 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added population 1794
City of Eastvale Page 5-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the main library being planned to serve the City Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay part of the cost of library facilities planned serve new residential development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
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 pay new development’s proportionate share of the cost of library facilities planned to serve Eastvale out to 2040.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added population associated with new residential development will increase the need for library facilities Eastvale, and the new library is being planned to accommodate the needs of both existing and future residents. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the library.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the library impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. 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 Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for library facilities in the City.
1795
City of Eastvale Page 6-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 6. City Hall
This chapter calculates impact fees for a new City Hall for the City of Eastvale. Eastvale’s existing City Hall is located in leased space in a commercial development on Limonite Avenue. The City also houses some departments in a City-owned building on Citrus Street. A new City Hall will be constructed as part of the planned Civic Center complex in the Downtown West Specific Plan area.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
Service Area
Eastvale’s new City Hall will serve all development in the City, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 the City Hall in this chapter is service population.
Service population is used to represent the impact of development on the need for City Hall facilities because that impact is created by both residential development and non-residential development. As explained in Chapter 2, service population is a weighted composite variable that includes both resident population (representing residential development) and employees of businesses in the City (representing non-residential development). Chapter 2 presents a detailed explanation of how the components of service population are weighted.
The service population-per-unit factors used in this analysis are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Level-of-Service Standard
Eastvale has not adopted a formal level of service standard for City Hall facilities, but the City has prepared a plan for a new City Hall as part of the planned Civic Center complex. That facility will serve both existing and future development in Eastvale. The new City Hall facility is shown in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
1796
City of Eastvale Page 6-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. 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 differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
Eastvale was incorporated fairly recently, in 2010. For obvious reasons, prior to incorporation, there was no City Hall in Eastvale. The City has no choice but to establish an acceptable level of service for the City Hall facility over time. At present, City staff are housed in a combination of leased and City-owned buildings. The City has already set aside substantial financial reserves for the purpose of constructing a new City Hall (see Table 6.1). The impact fees calculated in this chapter will recover only future development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new City Hall.
Planned City Hall
Table 6.1 summarizes the estimated costs for the planned City Hall facility, as shown in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. That table also shows the amount of reserves the City has currently set aside to fund the project, as well as the balance in the Public Facilities impact fee fund. Costs shown in Table 6.1 are from the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 6.2 allocates the estimated cost of the new City Hall to the forecasted 2040 service population of the City to arrive at an average cost per capita for the entire 2040 service population. That approach ensures that costs are allocated equitably to existing and future development on a per-capita basis.
Table 6.1: Planned City Hall
Cost Estimated
Component Cost 1 Building Construction 76,923,727 $
Land Cost 2,681,377 $
Total 79,605,104 $
City Hall Capital Reserves on Hand (57,915,015) $
Public Facilities Impact Fee Fund Balance (2/27/25) (552,727) $ Unfunded Cost 21,137,362 $ 1
Estimated costs from the Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan project detail sheet; City Hall capital reserves and Public Facilities impact fee fund balance provided by the Eastvale Finance Department 1797
City of Eastvale Page 6-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In the next section, the cost per capita from Table 6.2 is used to calculate impact fees per unit of development for the City Hall facility.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 6.3 shows the calculation of City Hall impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita cost from Table 6.2 and service population per unit factors from Table 2.1.
Table 6.2: Buildout Level of Service
Estimated Buildout Service Cost per
Facility Cost 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$79,605,104 115,919 $686.73
1 See Table 6.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = impact fee cost basis / buildout service population
Table 6.3: City Hall Impact Fees per Unit
Development Dev Cost per Service Pop Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 1.10 755.40 $
Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 1.60 1,098.76 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 2.20 1,510.80 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 3.10 2,128.86 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 4.10 2,815.58 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $686.73 5.30 3,639.66 $
Hotel/Motel Room $686.73 2.18 1,497.99 $
Commercial Retail KSF $686.73 2.96 2,032.71 $
Business-Professional KSF $686.73 1.98 1,359.72 $
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF $686.73 0.79 542.52 $
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key
2 See Table 6.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 1798
City of Eastvale Page 6-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 6.4 projects potential revenue from the City Hall impact fees. That projection is based on the impact fees per capita from Table 6.2 and the added service population from Table 2.3.
New development’s total share of the cost of the new City Hall, to be funded by impact fees calculated in this report, is 26.5% of the facility’s total cost. The projected revenue shown in Table
6.4 is less than the unfunded balance of $21,137,362 shown in Table 6.1, leaving $229,320 to be funded by the General Fund or other non-impact fee sources.
The projected revenue shown in Table 6.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees that may be set by statute or development agreements for some future projects.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for the City Hall. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Improvements
More details about the proposed City Hall project and projected costs can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The new City Hall is a one-of-a-kind facility being planned as part of the City’s Civic Center complex.
Table 6.4: Projected Revenue from City Hall Impact Fees Impact Fee Added Service Projected
per Capita 1 Population 2 Revenue 3
$686.73 30,446 $20,908,042
1 See Table 6.2
2 See Table 2.3; excludes added service population associated with public facilities 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per capita X added service population
1799
City of Eastvale Page 6-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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.
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 recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new City Hall being planned to serve the City Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay part of the cost of a new City Hall being planned serve new development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
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 pay new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new City Hall planned to serve Eastvale out to 2040.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added service population associated with new development will increase the need for City Hall facilities in Eastvale, and the new City Hall is being planned to accommodate the needs of both existing and future development. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the City Hall facility.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the City Hall impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on 1800
City of Eastvale Page 6-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
the estimated average service population per unit for that type of development in Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for City Hall facilities in the City.
1801
City of Eastvale Page 7-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 7. Police Station
This chapter calculates impact fees for a police station for the City of Eastvale. The police station will be constructed as part of the planned Civic Center complex in the Downtown West Specific Plan area. Eastvale contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services and is currently served from a Sheriff’s station in the adjacent city of Jurupa Valley.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
Service Area
Eastvale’s new police station will serve all development in the City, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 the police station in this chapter is Police Department calls for service per year.
Calls for service per year is used to represent the impact of development on the need for police station facilities because it represents a clear relationship between development and the demand for law enforcement services in the City. Calls-for-service-per-unit-per-year factors are shown by development type in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Level-of-Service Standard
Eastvale has not adopted a formal level of service standard for police station facilities, but the City has prepared a plan for a new police station as part of the planned Civic Center complex.
That facility would serve both existing and future development in Eastvale. The new police station is shown in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared 1802
City of Eastvale Page 7-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
As noted above, the City is currently served from a Sheriff’s Department station in Jurupa Valley.
Eastvale was incorporated in 2010 and has not yet constructed its own police station. The City has determined that Eastvale needs its own police facility and has already set aside substantial financial reserves to be used in constructing such a facility.
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are necessarily based on a level of service higher than the existing level of service. That is a consequence of the fact that the City is still in the process of developing a full complement of public facilities since its incorporation in 2010. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will recover only future development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new police station.
Planned Police Station
Table 7.1 summarizes the estimated costs for the planned new police station. Details of the planned police station and project costs can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 7.1 and also shows the amount of reserves the City has currently set aside to fund the project. Costs shown in Table 7.1 are from the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 7.2 allocates the estimated cost of the new police station over the forecasted 2040 police calls for service per year in the City to arrive at an average cost per call. That approach ensures that costs are allocated equitably to existing and future development on a per-call basis.
Table 7.1: Planned Police Station
Cost Estimated
Component Cost 1 Building Construction 52,148,973 $
Land Cost 1,867,234 $
Total 54,016,207 $
Police Station Capital Reserves on Hand (32,195,000) $
Unfunded Cost 21,821,207 $ 1
Estimated costs from the Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan project detail sheet; police station capital reserves provided by the Eastvale Finance Department
1803
City of Eastvale Page 7-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 7.2 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for the police station.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 7.3 shows the calculation of police station impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call from Table 7.2 and police call per unit per year factors from Table 2.1.
Table 7.2: Buildout Level of Service
Estimated Buildout Calls Cost per
Facility Cost 1for Service 2 Call 3
$54,016,207 41,822 $1,291.56
1 See Table 7.1
2 See Table 2.4
3 Cost per capita = estimated facility cost / 2040 police calls for service per year
Table 7.3: Police Impact Fees per Unit
Development Dev Cost per Calls for Svc Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.62 800.77 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.69 891.18 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.76 981.59 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.85 1,097.83 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.92 1,188.24 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $1,291.56 0.99 1,278.65 $ Hotel/Motel Room $1,291.56 0.60 774.94 $
Commercial Retail KSF $1,291.56 4.05 5,231.64 $
Business-Professional KSF $1,291.56 0.58 750.23 $
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF $1,291.56 0.09 115.34 $ 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2
See Table 7.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 1804
City of Eastvale Page 7-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 7.4 projects potential revenue from the police station impact fees. That projection is based on the impact fees per call from Table 7.2 and the added calls for service per year from Table 2.3.
New development’s total share of the cost of the new City, to be funded by impact fees calculated in this report, is 35.2% of the facility’s total cost. The projected revenue shown in Table 7.4 is less than the unfunded balance of $21,821,207 shown in Table 7.1, leaving $2,800,873 to be funded by the General Fund or other non-impact fee sources.
The projected revenue shown in Table 7.4 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees that may be set by statute or development agreements for some future projects.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for the police station. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
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,
Table 7.4: Projected Revenue from Police Impact Fees
Impact Fee per Added Calls Projected
Call for Service 1for Service 2 Revenue 3
$1,291.56 14,727 $19,020,334
1 See Table 7.2
2 See Table 2.3; excludes calls for service from public facilities, parks and public schools 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per call for service X added calls for service
1805
City of Eastvale Page 7-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
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 recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new police station being planned to serve the City Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay part of the cost of a new police station being planned to serve all development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
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 pay new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new police station planned to serve Eastvale out to 2040.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added calls for service associated with new development will increase the need for police facilities in Eastvale, and the new police station is being planned to accommodate the needs of both existing and future development. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the police station.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the police station impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project.
The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average police calls per unit per year generated by that type of development in Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for police station facilities in the City. .
1806
City of Eastvale Page 8-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 8. Fire Department Facilties
This chapter calculates impact fees for Fire Department facilities and vehicles for the City of Eastvale. Eastvale contracts with CAL FIRE through the Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection and emergency medical services. CAL FIRE provides staffing and firefighting apparatus while the City is responsible for providing fire stations and some vehicles. There are two existing fire stations in Eastvale, and the City is planning for a third fire station which is expected to start construction within three years.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the system plan method discussed in Chapter 1. With this method, impact fees are calculated so that new development pays for its share of the cost of an integrated system of facilities at the future standard attributable to new development. To calculate the cost per unit of demand, the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities is divided by the combined demand associated with both existing development and planned development.
Service Area
The Fire Department facilities and vehicles addressed in this chapter will serve all development in the City, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new development in the City unless the fees for a project are limited by statute or established by a development agreement.
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 in this chapter is Fire Department calls for service per year.
Calls for service per year is used to represent the impact of development on the need for Fire Department facilities because it represents the best measure of the demand for fire protection and emergency response services in the City. Calls-for-service-per-unit-per-year factors are shown by development type in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Level-of-Service Standard
The Eastvale Fire Department has not adopted a formal level of service standard for fire stations, but the City has determined that one additional fire station will be needed to serve the City at buildout. The City is setting aside money from the Fire Fund to help pay for construction of that station.
1807
City of Eastvale Page 8-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
In 2021, Section 66016.5 was added to the Mitigation Fee by Act AB 602. 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 differs from the existing level of service, an explanation is required.
Defining a level of service for fire protection and emergency response facilities is more complicated than for other types of facilities. Ultimately, that level of service must be measured primarily in terms of response time to emergency calls for service. And while the number and location of fire stations plays a role in determining response time performance, operational considerations also play a large part. So, for purposes of this study, response time itself cannot be used to establish a level-of-service standard for Fire Department facilities.
In this study, we use Fire Department calls for service as a measure of the service demand created by development. Calls-per-unit-per-year factors are established through analysis of recent call records and those factors vary by development type. The overall level of service is calculated as the cost of Fire Department facilities and vehicles per call for service per year.
However, that level of service changes over time as new development occurs and new facilities are constructed. Planning for an acceptable response time needs to be considered from a longrange perspective. Once a fire station is constructed, it is likely to remain in the same location for decades. Consequently, planners must look toward the ultimate demand pattern in order to locate fire stations efficiently.
It is important to view the fire protection and emergency response resources of a fire department as a whole. Individual fire stations with their apparatus and staff don’t simply serve a designated area. In fact, all the elements of the fire service operate as an integrated system. Many calls for service are handled by the nearest fire station, but it is not uncommon that the resources of the nearest fire station may already be committed when a new call is received. In that case, resources from a different fire station must be deployed.
Furthermore, a single fire station, typically housing one engine company, is not capable of responding effectively to many fire calls. A fire in a single-family house fire may require several engines and other apparatus and at least 15 firefighters. That means a single, relatively small fire in Eastvale could require all available resources of the City’s Fire Department as well as automatic aid or mutual aid from multiple fire stations in nearby communities.
This study takes the view that the fairest way to evaluate the level of service for a Fire Department, when calculating impact fees, is to consider conditions at buildout of the City when the overall plan has been realized. Since the Fire Department’s level of service changes over time, focusing on the level of service at a single point in time prior to buildout can be misleading.
The buildout level of service used to calculate impact fees in this study is higher than the existing level of service, based on the average cost per call for existing development and existing facilities.
However, all development at buildout will benefit from an increased level of service with the addition of a new fire station and the impact fees will cover only new development’s 1808
City of Eastvale Page 8-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
proportionate share of the overall cost. The City has already set aside enough money to pay for the existing community’s share of fire station costs that exceed new development’s proportionate share as reflected by projected calls for service in 2040. For those reasons, we believe the buildout level of service is the most appropriate for use in the impact fee calculations.
The total value of existing and planned fire department assets, as shown in Table 8.4 later in this chapter, is roughly $29.5 million. Based on development projections used in this study, at buildout, new development between 2024 and 2040 will generate about 28% of all 2040 Fire Department calls for service. The projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter is approximately $8 million, which is about 27% of the $29.5 million value of the Fire Department’s existing and future assets (valued in current dollars).
Existing and Planned Fire Department Facilities
Table 8.1 lists the City’s existing Fire Department facilities with their estimated replacement costs, including land.
Table 8.2 summarizes the estimated construction costs for the planned third fire station and also shows the amount of reserves the City has currently set aside to fund the project. The new fire station will be located near the intersection of 58th Street and Scholar Way in the City’s Downtown West policy area.
Table 8.1: Existing Fire Stations
Constr Building Site Bldg Repl Est Land Total
Facility Date Sq Ft 1 Acres 2 Cost 3 Value 4 Repl Cost 5 Fire Station #27 2011 10,025 1.57 3,602,900 $ 1,727,000 $ 5,329,900 $ FS #27 Storage Bldg 2011 576 Included 68,300 $ 0 $ 68,300 $ Fire Station #31 2017 6,500 1.75 3,029,773 $ 1,925,000 $ 4,954,773 $ Total 10,352,973 $ 1 Existing fire station building area from City insured property schedule 2 Site acreage provided by City staff 3 Replacement cost for existing buildings sourced from City insured property schedule 4 Estimated land value of $1,100,000 per acre is consistent with the land value used in the Capital Improvement Plan for the proposed new fire station 5 Total replacement cost = sum of building replacement cost and land value 1809
City of Eastvale Page 8-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Table 8.3 lists the Eastvale Fire Department’s existing vehicles with their current replacement cost.
Table 8.4 summarizes the Fire Department facility and vehicle costs from Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.
Table 8.5 allocates the estimated cost of the existing and planned Fire Department assets to the forecasted 2040 fire calls for service per year in the City to arrive at an average 2040 cost per call.
Table 8.2: Planned Fire Station
Cost Estimated
Component Cost 1 Building Construction 17,490,718 $
Land Cost (1.2 acres) 1,352,650 $
Total 18,843,368 $
Fire Fund Reserves on Hand (10,000,000) $
Fire Impact Fee Fund Balance (2/27/25) (848,507) $
Unfunded Cost 7,994,861 $ 1
Estimated building construction cost and land cost from the Capital Improvement Plan
Table 8.3: Existing Fire Department Vehicles
Model Replacement
Year Make Description Cost 1
2015 Dodge RAM Paramedic Squad 265,300 $
2022 Ford Maverick Pickup 28,000 $
2022 Ford Ranger Pickup 28,000 $
Total 321,300 $
Source: City of Eastvale vehicle schedule
Table 8.4 Existing and Planned Fire Dept. Assets
Cost Total
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Fire Stations 10,352,973 $
Planned Fire Station 18,843,368 $
Existing Fire Department Vehicles 321,300 $
Total Cost 29,517,641 $ 1
See Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3
1810
City of Eastvale Page 8-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
That approach ensures that costs are allocated equitably to existing and future development on a per-call basis.
In the next section, the cost per call from Table 8.5 is used to calculate impact fees per unit for Fire Department facilities and vehicles.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 8.6 shows the calculation of fire impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call from Table 8.5 and calls-per-unit-per-year factors from Table 2.1. The impact fees shown in Table 8.6 would recover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of all Fire Department facilities and vehicles.
Table 8.5: Cost per Call for Service
Total 2040 Calls Cost per Call
Cost Basis1for Service 2for Service 3
$29,517,641 4,816 $6,129.55
1 Total cost basis; see Table 8.4
2 2040 Fire calls for service per year; see Table 2.4
3 Cost per call for service = total cost basis / 2040 calls for service per year
1811
City of Eastvale Page 8-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Projected Revenue
Table 8.7 projects potential revenue from the fire impact fees. That projection is based on the impact fee per call from Table 8.5 and the added calls from Table 2.3.
The unfunded cost of the planned new fire station, as shown in Table 8.2, is $7,994,861. That cost is slightly lower than the amount of projected revenue shown in Table 8.7, meaning if the impact fees are adopted as shown in Table 8.6, the projected revenue could exceed the unfunded cost of the planned new fire station by $185,964. To bring the impact fees in line with the unfunded Table 8.6: Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Calls Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Call 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.100 612.96 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.110 674.25 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.120 735.55 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.130 796.84 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.140 858.14 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $6,129.55 0.150 919.43 $ Hotel/Motel Room $6,129.55 0.085 517.95 $
Commercial Retail KSF $6,129.55 0.211 1,294.87 $
Business-Professional KSF $6,129.55 0.059 362.56 $
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF $6,129.55 0.025 155.38 $ 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2
Cost per call for service; see Table 8.5
3 Calls for service per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit Table 8.7: Projected Revenue from Fire Impact Fees
Impact Fee per Added Calls Projected
Call for Service 1for Service 2 Revenue 3
$6,129.55 1,335 $8,180,825
1 See Table 8.5
2 See Table 2.3; excludes calls for service from public facilities, parks and public schools 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per call for service X added calls for service
1812
City of Eastvale Page 8-7
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
cost of the fire station, Table 8.8 recalculates the impact fees using a reduced cost per call so that the projected revenue from impact fees approximately equals the unfunded cost of the facility.
Table 8.9 shows the projected revenue from the fire impact fees using the adjusted cost per call from Table 8.8 and the added calls for service from Table 2.3, with calls for public facilities, public schools, and parks excluded.
Table 8.8: Adjusted Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Calls Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Call 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential: <600 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.100 599.01 $ Residential: 600-800 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.110 658.91 $ Residential: >800-1,200 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.120 718.81 $ Residential: >1,200-1,900 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.130 778.71 $ Residential: >1,900-2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.140 838.62 $ Residential: >2,300 Sq. Ft. DU $5,990.11 0.150 898.52 $ Hotel/Motel Room $5,990.11 0.085 506.16 $
Commercial Retail KSF $5,990.11 0.211 1,265.41 $
Business-Professional KSF $5,990.11 0.059 354.32 $
Industrial/Industrial Flex KSF $5,990.11 0.025 151.85 $ 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 sq feet of gross leasable area (GLA); Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2
Cost per call for service reduced by 2.275% so that projected revenue will approximately equal the unfunded cost of the fire station as shown in Table 8.2 3 Calls for service per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit Table 8.9: Projected Revenue from Adjusted Fire Impact Fees Adj Impact Fee per Added Calls Projected
Call for Service 1for Service 2 Revenue 3
$5,990.11 1,335 $7,994,717
1 Adjusted impact fee per call for service reduced by 2.275% from the amount shown in Table 8.7
2 See Table 2.3; excludes calls for service from public facilities, parks and public schools 3
Projected revenue = impact fee per call for service X added calls for service
1813
City of Eastvale Page 8-8
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
The projected revenue shown in Table 8.9 assumes that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2. It does not account for limits on impact fees set by development agreements for some future projects. It should also be noted that the total projected revenue is less than the total cost allocated to future development in this analysis based on the number of forecasted fire calls because some of those costs are associated with development such as public facilities and schools that are exempt from impact fees.
To the extent that projects with development agreements, or public facilities and schools, do not pay a fee to offset their impacts on the fire facilities, those impacts are required to be funded from sources other than impact fees.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on estimated current construction costs for the Fire Department facilities and vehicles. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using the most current estimates. The City will be required to update the nexus study at least every eight years, per Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(8).
Planned Improvements
Details regarding Eastvale’s planned third fire station project and the estimated cost of the project can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
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.
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.
1814
City of Eastvale Page 8-9
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to recover new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the new Fire Department facilities being planned to serve the City Eastvale.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay part of the cost of Fire Department facilities being planned to serve new development in the City. Specific projects and costs to be funded by these impact fees can be found in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. 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 pay new development’s proportionate share of the cost of additional Fire Department facilities planned to serve Eastvale out to 2040.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. Added calls for service associated with new development will increase the need for Fire Department facilities in Eastvale. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only new development’s proportionate share of the cost of the additional Fire Department facilities.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated average fire calls per unit per year for that type of development in Eastvale. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for Fire Department facilities in the City.
1815
City of Eastvale Page 9-1
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Chapter 9. Implementation
This chapter of the report summarizes requirements for adoption and administration of impact fees, calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.
Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
Adoption
NBS recommends that the City obtain legal advice from the City Attorney regarding the form by which development impact fees are enacted. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public-hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10-day notice period. However, Section 66016.5 added by AB 602 in 2021 requires that impact fee nexus studies be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30-day notice.
Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.
Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Chapter 1 of this report.
NBS recommends that the City obtain legal advice from the City Attorney as to the specific language of those findings. A nexus summary for each impact fee calculated in this report can be found in individual chapters of this report and those nexus summaries may be used to support the findings required by Section 66001.
Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Notices and Statute of Limitations. Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required notification could refer to the capital improvement plan that must now be adopted with each new impact fee nexus study.
1816
City of Eastvale Page 9-2
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90-day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge.
Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, as amended by SB 937 in 2024, provides that, with some exceptions, a local agency shall not require payment of impact fees by developers of residential development projects prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, or first temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. That provision does not apply if construction of the residential development does not begin within five years of the date upon which the building permit is issued.
An exception that allows utility service fees to be collected when an application for service is received, is now limited to the cost of “connection activities.” Local agencies may require payment of fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy under certain conditions, including if the fees are to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made (or to fund projects with an adopted construction schedule or plan with appropriated funds), unless the project reserves at least 49% of residential units for occupancy by lower income households. For such projects, the local agency may require posting of a performance bond or letter of credit from a federally insured depository institution to guarantee payment when the fees are eligible for collection.
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (d) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. The local agency may not charge interest or other fees on any amounts deferred pursuant to Section 66007.
If a residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may determine whether the fees or charges described shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it receives its certificate of occupancy, on a pro rata basis when a certain percentage of the dwellings have received their certificate of occupancy, or on a lump-sum basis when all the dwellings in the development receive their certificate of occupancy.
Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-residential development.
Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for 1817
City of Eastvale Page 9-3
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
which the fee was collected.” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on impact fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.
Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.
Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.
If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly to meet the requirement that there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities.
In some cases, an agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects. So, the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other than impact fees.
Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development.
In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements.
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.
Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;
2. The amount of the fee;
1818
City of Eastvale Page 9-4
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; An identification of each public improvement identified in a previous report and whether construction began on the approximate date noted in the previous report. For a project identified for which construction did not commence by the approximate date provided in the previous report, the reason for the delay and a revised approximate date that the local agency will commence construction;
7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).
The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public, per Section 66006 (b) (2).
Five-Year Findings and Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money.
Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete 1819
City of Eastvale Page 9-5
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d).
Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).
For a useful discussion of the foregoing requirements, see “The Mitigation Fee Act’s Five-Year Findings Requirement: Beware Costly Pitfalls” by Glen Hansen, Senior Counsel, Abbott and Kindermann, and Rick Jarvis, Managing Partner, Jarvis, Fay and Gibson, presented at the 2022 League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference.
Audit Requests. Section 66023 provides that any person may request an audit to determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product, public facility, as defined in Section 66000, or service provided by the local agency. The legislative body of the local agency may retain an independent auditor to conduct the audit but is not required to conduct an audit if an audit has been performed for the same fee within the previous 12 months.
The agency shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit only if the person who requests the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the local agency’s reasonable estimate of the cost of the independent audit. At the conclusion of the audit, the local agency shall reimburse unused sums, if any, or the requesting person shall pay the local agency the excess of the actual cost of the audit over the amount that was deposited.
However, if the local agency fails to comply with the annual report requirement of Section 66006 following the establishment, increase or imposition of a fee, but requires payment of that fee in connection with the approval of a development project for three consecutive years, the agency shall not require a deposit for the independent audit and shall pay the cost of the audit.
Indexing of Impact Fees. Impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs and should be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by those fees. That adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. The Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) and Construction Cost Index (CCI), as well as the General Services Department’s California Construction Cost Index, are useful for indexing construction costs.
Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs should be adjusted 1820
City of Eastvale Page 9-6
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
based on changes in local land prices. Costs for vehicles and equipment should be updated based on vendors’ quotes.
Requirements Imposed by AB 602
As noted in Chapter 1, AB 602, which took effect in 2022, creates some new requirements for impact fees. The new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water and sewer utility connection b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning, design and development standards that apply to each parcel c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540 d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes 3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate is issued. That information must be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year. 4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted. 5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to 1821
City of Eastvale Page 9-7
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
May 13, 2025
establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the agency makes certain findings outlined in the statute.
8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code (counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-day's notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Impact fee nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.
Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear.
Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified in the impact fee nexus study in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended.
1822
Appendix A - City of Eastvale 2024 Impact Fee Study - Fee Comparison
Appendix A Page 1 of 2 Appendix A Page 1 of 2
Development Impact Fee Type Units 1 Current Fee 2 Proposed Fee 3 CHINO CITYWIDE 4 CHINO PRESERVE 4 CORONA CITYWIDE 5 CORONA TEMESCAL VALLEY 5 JURUPA
VALLEY 6 NORCO 7 ONTARIO
CITYWIDE 8 ONTARIO ONTARIO RANCH
8 Residential - Single-Family
Park Land and Improvements DU No Existing Fee 7,208 $ $ 22,494 $ 13,928 12,708 $ 12,708 $ 1,423 $ 11,821 $ 15,198 $ 15,198 $ Recreation Facilities DU No Existing Fee 1,500 $ 4,736 $ 4,736 $ 192 $ 192 $ Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) DU $ 3,932 942 $ 156 $ 156 $ 790 $ 790 $ 271 $ 4,768 $ 3,461 $ 3,461 $ Police DU No Existing Fee 1,098 $ 636 $ 637 $ 212 $ 338 $ 509 $ 509 $ Fire DU $ 797 481 $ 1,310 $ 1,310 $ 349 $ 627 $ 672 $ 1,010 $ 523 $ 1,102 $ Total Residential - Single-Family $ 14,535 1,423 $ 29,332 $ 20,767 $ 14,251 $ 14,655 $ 2,366 $ 17,599 $ 19,691 $ 20,270 $ Residential - Multi-Family
Park Land and Improvements DU No Existing Fee 3,720 $ $ 17,441 $ 10,799 8,924 $ 9,824 $ 965 $ 9,639 $ 13,470 $ 13,470 $ Recreation Facilities DU No Existing Fee 774 $ 3,911 $ 3,911 $ 135 $ 135 $ Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) DU $ 2,030 650 $ 156 $ 156 $ 564 $ 564 $ 229 $ 3,063 $ 2,906 $ 2,906 $ Police DU No Existing Fee 891 $ 404 $ 407 $ 91 $ 146 $ 502 $ 502 $ Fire DU $ 674 332 $ 846 $ 846 $ 466 $ 836 $ 405 $ 1,009 $ 479 $ 1,007 $ Total Residential - Multi-Family $ 8,089 982 $ 22,758 $ 16,119 $ 10,180 $ 11,505 $ 1,599 $ 13,711 $ 17,357 $ 17,885 $ Commercial
Park Land and Improvements KSF No Existing Fee - $ 90 $ 90 $ 463 $ Recreation Facilities KSF No Existing Fee - $
Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) KSF $ 2,033 150 $ 60 $ 60 $ 22 $ 226 $ 210 $ 210 $ Police KSF No Existing Fee 5,232 $ 1,040 $ 1,040 $ 180 $ 280 $ 713 $ 713 $ Fire KSF $ 1,295 132 $ 1,040 $ 1,040 $ 160 $ 290 $ 134 $ 561 $ 398 $ 847 $ Total Commercial KSF $ 8,559 282 $ 2,140 $ 2,140 $ 430 $ 660 $ 156 $ 1,250 $ 1,321 $ 1,770 $ Office
Park Land and Improvements KSF No Existing Fee - $ 90 $ 90 $ 463 $ Recreation Facilities KSF No Existing Fee - $
Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) KSF $ 1,360 149 $ 60 $ 60 $ 22 $ 226 $ 92 $ 92 $ Police KSF No Existing Fee 750 $ 740 $ 740 $ 180 $ 280 $ 279 $ 279 $ Fire KSF $ 363 132 $ 1,050 $ 1,050 $ 160 $ 290 $ 134 $ 561 $ 319 $ 637 $ Total Office $ 2,473 281 $ 1,850 $ 1,790 $ 430 $ 660 $ 156 $ 1,250 $ 690 $ 1,008 $ Industrial
Park Land and Improvements KSF No Existing Fee - $ 370 $ 370 $ 329 $ Recreation Facilities KSF No Existing Fee - $
Public Buildings (Incl Libraries) KSF $ 543 156 $ 60 $ 60 $ 22 $ 161 $ 54 $ 54 $ Police KSF No Existing Fee 115 $ 60 $ 60 $ 10 $ 20 $ 29 $ 29 $ Fire KSF $ 155 137 $ 40 $ 40 $ 20 $ 30 $ 36 $ 116 $ 25 $ 51 $ Total Industrial $ 813 293 $ 160 $ 160 $ 400 $ 420 $ 58 $ 606 $ 108 $ 134 $
CITY OF EASTVALE COMPARISON AGENCIES
1823
Appendix A - City of Eastvale 2024 Impact Fee Study - Fee Comparison
Appendix A Page 2 of 2 Appendix A Page 2 of 2
Notes:
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Room = each separately rentable room with a key 2 Eastvale existing impact fees updated July 1, 2019
3 Proposed impact fees from NBS 2024 Impact Fee Study; proposed single-family residential impact fees based on the 1,200-1,900 square foot fee category; proposed multi-family residential impact fees based on the 600-800 square foot fee category 4 City of Chino impact fees effective July 1, 2023; Chino has two impact fee schedules, one citywide and one for the Preserve 5 City of Corona impact fees effective July 1, 2023; Corona has two impact fee schedules, one citywide and one for Temescal Valley 6 City of Jurupa Valley impact fees adopted January 21, 2021 7 City of Norco impact fees effective July 1, 2023
8 City of Ontario impact fees effective January 1, 2023; Ontario has two impact fee schedules, one for the general city and one for Ontario Ranch 1824
Exhibit "B"
1825
Introduction and Summary .................................................................................................. 4 Program Summary ............................................................................................................... 5 Program Project Detail Sheets ............................................................................................ 9 Appendix A Critical Projects Detail Sheets..............................................................10 Appendix B Essential Projects Detail Sheets .......................................................... 29 Appendix C Desirable Projects Detail Sheets ......................................................... 45 Table 1 - Critical Projects Category Summary ................................................................... 7 Table 2 - Essential Projects Category Summary ............................................................... 7 Table 3 - Desirable Project Category Summary ................................................................. 8
SUMMARY OF TABLES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1826
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FY 2025/2026 through FY 2029/2030
CITY COUNCIL
Michael McMinn, Mayor
Jocelyn Yow, Mayor Pro Tem,
Todd Rigby, Council Member
Christian Dinco, Council Member
Clint Lorimore, Council Member
ADMINISTRATION
Mark Orme, City Manager
Prepared By:
Public Works Department
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Jimmy Chung, P.E.
1827
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 4 The City of Eastvale's Five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) serves as a strategic blueprint for infrastructure planning and investment. It includes detailed project descriptions, cost estimates, project status, prioritization, and categorization — all with the goal of improving quality of life and addressing the City's long-term infrastructure needs.
This comprehensive planning tool ensures transparency, fiscal responsibility, and efficient allocation of resources, thereby supporting the successful delivery of capital projects throughout the five-year planning period.
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is overseen by the Public Works Department and serves as a strategic framework for the planning, design, and construction of various infrastructure projects throughout the City. These include improvements in transportation, drainage, public facilities, and parks. Public Works staff are responsible for managing all phases of CIP projects—from initial planning and design to final construction and project closeout.
CIP addresses a broad range of project types, including critical, essential, and desirable improvements across categories such as transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, maintenance, utilities, accessibility enhancements, and public facilities. Each project is assessed and categorized based on its urgency and anticipated community benefit.
Five-Year Capital improvement Plan (CIP) Annual Update
Each year, as part of the City's budget process, the City Council reviews and adopts a FiveYear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in accordance with California Government Code Section 65403.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090, the adoption of the Five-Year CIP requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council, providing opportunities for community input prior to formal adoption through resolution. At their meeting on June 18, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and determined that the plan conforms to the goals, objectives, and policies of the elements of the General Plan.
Annual Capital Improvement Budget Process
The Annual Capital Improvement Budget (Annual CIP) process usually starts in January or February with the development of the overall City budget. This process identifies all priority
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1828
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 5 operational needs, as well as capital improvement needs. Once the budget is completed, it is recommended for adoption by the City Council prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, which begins in July. City management and the City Council are updated monthly on the status of CIP projects through status reporting and meetings.
FY 2025/2026 Annual Operations and Capital Improvement Budget was adopted by the City Council on June 25, 2025. The budget document provides detailed insights into the financial aspects and funding sources allocated for each project within the Capital Improvement Program. It serves as a valuable resource, outlining the financial considerations and allocations for the specified planning period.
This document presents the City of Eastvale Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2025/2026 through 2029/2030. The City of Eastvale’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is comprised of thirty-seven (37) projects divided into five categories: Accessibility Improvements Program, Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements, Street Improvements, Citywide Maintenance Program, and Land, Building, Facilities & Equipment. The projects are further categorized into three priorities based on the following order of precedence:
1. Safety Projects
2. Annual projects
3. Funding deadlines
4. Projects with significant progress (more than 50% in design)
5. New projects from Strategic Goal
6. All others
The three priorities are:
Critical Projects:
Critical projects are those that require immediate attention due to safety concerns, regulatory compliance, or their potential to adversely affect the City's infrastructure or services if left unaddressed. These projects are given the highest priority and are crucial for maintaining the integrity and functionality of City of Eastvale's public systems.
Essential Projects:
PROGRAM SUMMARY
1829
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 6 Essential projects are deemed necessary to meet the growing demands of the community and improve the overall quality of life for its residents. These projects aim to enhance existing infrastructure, expand services, and create a more sustainable environment. They play a vital role in ensuring City of Eastvale remains a vibrant and desirable place to live, work, and engage in recreational activities.
Desirable Projects:
Desirable projects, while not as critical or essential, are still significant in enhancing the community's well-being and supporting its long-term vision. These projects focus on various aspects such as aesthetic improvements, public safety improvements, infrastructure maintenance, and transportation advancements. They contribute to the unique identity and character of City of Eastvale, creating a more appealing and engaging environment for residents and visitors.
The Five-Year CIP is summarized as follows:
Priority Category Total number of Projects
Critical 18
Essential 15
Desirable 4
A summary of proposed projects by category for the entire Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is included in Table 1 through Table 3. A program summary by category that includes each project cost estimates is presented in Appendices A through C. 1830
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 7 Table 1 -Critical Projects Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
95024 Parking Structure Critical
95023 Civic Center Site Improvement Critical
95017 Public Works Yard Facility Project Critical
95014 Police Station Critical
95012 Library Critical
95011 City Hall Critical
94014 Beautification Project at Sumner Ave and Bellegrave Ave Critical 94010 Citywide Branding: Entryway and Median Improvements Critical 94006 Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization – Phase 1 Arterials Critical 94005 Miscellaneous Traffic/Pedestrian Safety Critical
94001 Pavement Slurry Seal and Resurfacing Project Critical 93040 Hamner Utility Trench Repair Critical
93039 Median Improvement Project at River Rd, Cantu Galleano Rd, and Archibald Ave
Critical
93037 Limonite Gap Pedestrian Bridge Critical
93034 Hellman Avenue Street Widening Critical
93018 Annual Overlay Critical
92021 Traffic Signal Improvement at Sumner and 68th Critical 92001 Traffic Sign Inventory and Replacement Critical
Table 2 - Essential Projects Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
95022 Citrus Reimagined Project Essential
95020 OCPW Land Use – Passive Park Essential
95019 Santa Ana River Area Passive Park Essential
95016 Fire Medic Squad Replacement Essential
95015 Fire Aerial Ladder Truck Purchase Essential
95013 Fire Station Essential
94011 Smart City Masterplan Essential
94007 Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization – Phase 2 Collectors Essential 94004 Street Maintenance: Pot Holes, Deep Patch, and Crack Seal Essential 93036 Streetlight Installation Project Essential
93027 Schleisman Road Mobility, Safety, and Connectivity Project Essential 92020 Hamner Avenue Beautification Project Essential
92013 Limonite Interchange Gateway Feature Essential
92012 Improvement of Bike Network Connectivity Essential 91010 Citywide Americans with Disabilities Act Improvement Project Essential 1831
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 8 Table 3– Desirable Project Category Summary
Project
No.
Project Title Project
Category
92019 SCE Easement Trail Improvement along 68th Street Desirable 92018 Orchard Park to American Heroes Park Trail Desirable 92014 Roadway Vision Desirable
92011 Traffic Signal Battery Backup Systems Desirable
1832
CITY OF EASTVALE CIP – FY 2025/2026 THROUGH FY 2029/2030 9 For each proposed project in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a Project Detail Sheet has been prepared that presents the various project details including:
• Project Title and Location
• Project/CIP No. and Category
• Project Priority Category
• Project Justification
• City Council Goal & Objectives
• Description of Project
• Project Cost Overview
• Review and Comments
PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEETS
1833
CRITICAL PROJECTS
(appendix continues on next page)
10 APPENDIX A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY
PROJECT DETAILS
1834
Parking Structure
95024
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded Partially Funded x No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: This project will utilize a design-build approach, and the scope includes the construction of a multi-story parking structure that will serve the Civic Center and the future Downtown area.
Justification or Significance of Improvement:
The new parking structure will support the anticipated increase in parking demand associated with the new Civic Center.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 2,500,000$
Property Acquisition1 2,000,000$
Construction Contracts 29,700,000$
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost 34,200,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments:
1Based on $1,109,639 per acre (from the appraisal done for Lot 14 from DA; but the actual cost will be determined when an appraisal is done) Tentative Schedule:
Design-Build Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
1835
Civic Center Site Improvement
95023
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: An approximately 2.8 acre City Park with an amphitheater and a central hardscape Civic Plaza and associated site work around the three buildings: City Hall, library, and police station.
Justification or Significance of Improvement:
Phase I of the Downtown Eastvale Project includes a City Hall, a library, a police station, arts and cultural spaces, a park and an amphitheater, and an open plaza. The Civic Center will be a community serving and welcoming place, space and destination where people can connect and prosper.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates5
Architect & Eng Serv. 1,843,624$
Property Acquisition1 1,109,808$
Construction Contracts2
26,653,021$
Other Professional Serv.3
785,404$
Other Misc Expenses4 654,843$
Total Cost 31,046,700$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre 2 includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,, 4 Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives
5 Includes project cost estimates for Site Improvements including Park and Plaza
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
1836
Public Works Yard Facility Project
95017
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: 14821 & 14835 Chandler St
Description of Improvements: This project will utilize a design-build approach. The project scope includes the construction of maintenance yard buildings with vehicle/equipment storage area, office spaces, washing bays, and rest areas and the site work.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : The City is lacking appropriate space for storage of equipment, supplies, fleet garage, workshop space, crew break room. The City also needs to be prepared for the increased demand for services once the Civic Center, Civic Park, and Civic Plaza construction begins.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 7,730,272$
1,250,000$
500,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q4 2026
Estimated Completion: Q4 2028
9,480,272$
Annual O&M
1837
Police Station
95014
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target A, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct a new Police Station, approximately 22,021 SF in size, located in the southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The Police Station a two-story building with one level below grade secured parking.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : The new police station would serve as the City’s law enforcement headquarters and will enhance the provision of law enforcement services for the City’s current residents as well as or new development and population as the City continues to grow over future decades..The new police station would also house the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which would serve as a central command-and-control facility for coordinating emergency response and recovery efforts during disasters and major emergencies.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2
3,101,867$
44,843,263$
1,867,234$
Project Cost Overview
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Other Professional Serv.3
Other Misc Expenses4
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre 2 includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,, 4 Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
Annual O&M
54,016,207$
1,912,753$
2,291,090$
Funding
Information:
1838
Library
95012
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Funding
Information:
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan.
Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct an approximately 25,599 SF Library located in the southeast commercial quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The Library is a two-story building featuring book collection areas for all ages, group study rooms, acitivity spaces, offices, and an occupiable terrace.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : The City's existing library is operated by a facility that is shared with a high school. The new facility would be the first true library in the City, which is currently underserved by its existing library facilities. The construction of a new Library is vital to fostering education, equality, community cohesion, and personal development. The library would accommodate a range of public programs and offer expanded access to equipment to increase public access to literacy and digital programs.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2 40,168,002$
1,672,560$
2,778,473$
Project Cost Overview
Annual O&M
49,552,653$
2,856,611$
ssional Serv. Other Profe 2,077,007$
3 Other Misc Expenses4
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre 2 includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,, 4 Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
1839
City Hall
95011
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements x Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 1, Target E, Goal A
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Southeast commerical quadrant of the Leal Master Plan Description of Improvements: A design-bid-build project to construct an approximately 52,340 SF City Hall located in the southeast commercial quadrant of the Leal Master Plan. The City Hall is a three-story building that includes public counter spaces, an outdoor amphitheater, a council chamber that could be converted into a stage for performances, conference rooms, and office spaces.
Justification or Significance of Improvement:
Eastvale was incorporated in 2010, making it a relatively new city. Before incorporation, there was no City Hall in Eastvale. The construction of a new City Hall is essential to support government operations, offer services to the public, encourage civic engagement, and serve as a symbol of local governance.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition1
Construction Contracts2 64,395,621$
2,681,377$
4,454,330$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Cost Overview
Total Project Cost Estimates
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.3
Other Misc Expenses4
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
1Based on a development agreement appraisal of $1,109,074 per acre 2 includes estimated building construction cost and 10% contingency 3 Includes project/consulant management, plan check, geotech,,, 4 Includes FF&E, AV System, and Alternatives
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q2 2028
Annual O&M
79,605,104$
4,696,329$
3,377,447$
1840
Beautification Project at Sumner Ave and Bellegrave Ave 94014
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
x Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
N/A
Priority 2, Target B, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Project Category:
Location: Southwest corner of Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave and Sumner Ave Description of Improvements: This project will include installation of landscaping and hardscape to beautify the gap that exists at the southwest corner of Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave and Sumner Ave.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Sumner Ave at Bellegrave Ave/Merrill Ave serves as a key entry point into the city, making it essential to enhance its appearance and create a welcoming atmosphere for both residents and visitors. This improvement will not only elevate the aesthetic appeal but also set a positive tone for all who enter our community.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 650,000$
50,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q1 2026
Estimated Completion: Q3 2026
Annual O&M
700,000$
1841
Citywide Branding: Entryway and Median Improvements
94010
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target B, Goal C
Fully Funded x Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Citywide Branding efforts including entryway median improvement, monument installation at various locations within the City, and various street beautification projects.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Although this project has been categorized as Essential in previous Five-Year CIP’s, staff has been actively seeking opportunities to implement it in coordination with other improvement efforts, such as the median project at Cantu and River Road. With the acceptance of the Right-of-Way dedication at the corner of Sumner Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue, we are now ready to move forward with the design and installation of the Entryway City Branding Monument, in conjunction with the Beautification Project (Project No. 94014).
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 1,100,000$
110,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q1 2026
Estimated Completion: Q3 2026
Annual O&M
1,210,000$
1842
Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization - Phase 1 Arterials 94006
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Target E, Goal D
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Project Category:
Location: This project will implement traffic signal synchronization along major arterials including Hamner Ave, Archibald Ave, and Schleiman Ave.
Description of Improvements: Install traffic synchronization components and fiber optic line and/or wireless antenna to relay signal per the traffic signal synchronization master plan. Traffic signal synchronization of major corridors will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 includes Hamner Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Schleisman Road and Scholar Way. Phase 2 includes collectors streets including Harrision Ave, Sumner Ave, 65th St, and Citrus St (CIP 94007). This project is for Phase 1, and sycnrhonization on Schleisman Rd will be completed after the intersection of Schleisman Rd and Sumner is improved by a developer.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Synchronizing major corridors throughout the City has remained a high priority. WRCOG’s recent Nexus Study highlighted and included the ITS improvements along these key corridors. Implementing this initiative will significantly enhance traffic flow and reduce travel times, delivering clear benefits to the public.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 5,000,000$
1,000,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q1 2026
Estimated Completion: Q3 2026
Annual O&M
6,000,000$
1843
Miscellaneous Traffic/Pedestrian Safety
94005
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Miscellaneous design and construction to improve traffic safety for year-round traffic/safety needs.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 50,000$
50,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an ongoing annual project.
Annual O&M
100,000$
1844
Pavement Slurry Seal and Resurfacing Project
94001
Accessibility Improvements Program x Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
CalRecycle and RMRA (Road Maintenance and Rehalibitation Account) Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Annual program to treat pavement on various residential streets throughout the City with slurry seal. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated each year as needed.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Preventative maintenance is a proactive strategy that helps City manage infrastructure responsibly, ensuring roads remain safe, functional, and cost-effective over time.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 1,000,000$
100,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
Annual O&M
1,250,000$
150,000$
1845
Hamner Utility Trench Repair
93040
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: Hamner Ave north of Schleisman Rd in front of Dollar Tree store Description of Improvements: This project will excavate and property backfill the existing trench line over the storm drain line along Hamner Ave in front of Dollar Tree store.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : It is critical to address the settlement issues observed at the project location to ensure roadway safety and structural integrity of the roadway and to ensure its long-term performance.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. -$
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 500,000$
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost 500,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q1 2026
1846
Median Improvement Projects at River Rd, Cantu Galleano Rd, and Archibald Ave 93039
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual x Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Project Category:
Location: River Rd at Baron Dr, Cantu Galleano Rd between Hamner Ave and Goodman Way, and Archibald Ave between Corbin Dr and existing raised median to the north
Description of Improvements: Install landscaped raised median to physically separate opposing traffic streams and help stop vehicles traveling into opposing traffic lanes.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Public Safety Needs to prevent illegal left turns and dangerous driving pattern.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 200,000$
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 2,200,000$
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost 2,400,000$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q3 2025
Estimated Completion: Q4 2025 (Phase 1: concrete hardscape and raised medians completed in Q2 2025)
1847
Limonite Gap Pedestrian Bridge
93037
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal E
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Construction of this project was approved for CPFCDS (Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending) funding through the FY22-23 earmark process. Funding obligation deadline is September 30, 2026.
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
Funding
Information:
Project Category:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
-$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q4 2026
Estimated Completion: Q4 2027
Total Cost 4,781,000$
Other Misc Expenses
Location: Over Cucamonga Creek Channel, approximately 0.1 mil south of Limonite Ave.
Description of Improvements: Design and construct a pedestrian bridge that is roughly 300 ft in length over Cucamonga Creek Channel to close the gap of pedestrian path that will ultimately extend to a 2.5-mile multiuse trail and connect with four parks through a nonmotorized corridor.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 781,000$
500,000$
Construction Contracts 3,500,000$
Other Professional Serv. -$
Property Acquisition
Project Cost Overview
1848
Hellman Avenue Street Widening and Walters Pedestrian Bridge 93034
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
x Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Project Category:
Location: Hellman Ave between Chandler St. to Walters St.
Description of Improvements: The project involves widening Hellman Avenue from Walters Street to River Road to eliminate bottlenecks and improve traffic flow. The scope includes conducting a feasibility study, preparing environmental documents, right-of-way easement documents, and PS&E. The project will be completed in two phases: 1) Widening of Hellman Avenue north of Chandler Avenue, including lot grading south of Rondo Elementary School and bridge widening. 2) Widening of Hellman Avenue from Shortham Street to River Road.The feasibility study will determine the most efficient approach for phasing the project.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 8,500,000$
15,000,000$
2,000,000$
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Funding
Information:
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: TBD (pending TUMF construction budget allocation) Estimated Completion: TBD (pending TUMF construction budget allocation) Annual O&M
25,500,000$
1849
Annual Overlay
93018
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment x Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Target E, Goal C
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Funding
Information:
Project Number:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Category:
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: Annual asphalt concrete overlay or micro-resurfacing treatment on various streets according to the approved Pavement Management Plan. The contractor for construction will be selected by a bidding procedure.
Justification or Significance of Improvement :
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task
Architect & Eng Serv.
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts
Annual O&M
2,750,000$
150,000$
2,100,000$
500,000$
Total Project Cost Estimates
Project Cost Overview
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost
Review and Comments:
This is an annual project.
1850
Traffic Signal Improvement at Sumner Ave and 68th St
92021
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation x Design – Engineering Annual Projects
Target E, Goal D
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Project Title:
Project Number:
City Council Goals
& Objectives:
Location: At the intersection of Sumner Ave and 68th St Description of Improvements: Design and install traffic signals at the intersection of Sumner Ave and 68th Street Justification or Significance of Improvement: This project will improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and also allow for future opportunity to synchronize the Sumner Ave corridor. City Council directed the staff to commence the process for signalizing this intersection at April 10, 2024, meeting.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines:
Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) Cycle 12
Funding
Information:
Project Cost Overview
PROJECT PICTURE
Project Phases/Task Total Project Cost Estimates
Architect & Eng Serv. 87,000$
Property Acquisition
Construction Contracts 634,800$
Other Professional Serv.
Other Misc Expenses
Total Cost 721,800$
Annual O&M
Review and Comments: None
Tentative Schedule:
Construction Start: Q4 2026
Estimated Completion: Q3 2027
1851
Traffic Sign Inventory and Replacement
92001
Accessibility Improvements Program Citywide Maintenance Program x Roadway Safety/Traffic Improvements Land, Buildings, Facilities & Equipment Street Improvements
x
Feasibility Study In Progress
Design – Conceptual Under Construction/Implementation Design – Engineering x Annual Projects
Priority 2, Target E, Goal F
x Fully Funded Partially Funded No Funding
Project Category:
CITY OF EASTVALE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DETAIL SHEET
Project Title:
Project Number:
FY 2025/2026 to FY 2029/2030
Location: Citywide
Description of Improvements: The City of Eastvale owns and maintains approximately 8,210 traffic signs throughout the city. Signs that are missing, weathered, faded, or non-compliant will be replaced. One key compliance measure is retroreflectivity, a standard established to enhance nighttime driving safety. Approximately 2,160 signs have been scanned, with 821 failing to meet retroreflectivity standards. The remaining signs will be scanned while the failed ones are replaced. Additionally, the typical lifecycle of traffic signs is 10 years. This is an ongoing project and will be reappropriated annually as needed.
Justification or Significance of Improvement : Traffic signs are vital sources of infomration that communicate traffic control rules, warnings, and provide the necessary guidance that roadway users need to safetly and efficiently navigate.
Project Priority
within CIP
Category:
Critical (Start within a year)
Essential (Start within 1 to 3 years)
Desirable (Start within 3 to 5 years)
Project Status:
Special Funding
Milestones/
Deadlines: