Tuesday, February 1, 2022
Meeting Agenda
Closed Session - 5:30PM
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HOUSING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
WATER DISTRICT
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave., Hesperia CA, 92345
City Clerk's Office: (760) 947-1007
City Council Members
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
William J. Holland, Mayor Pro Tem
Larry Bird, Council Member
Cameron Gregg, Council Member
Rebekah Swanson, Council Member
Nils Bentsen, City Manager
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
See page (3) for details on public meeting guidelines during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic
Green Sheet Item #15 Information received after posting of the Agenda.
NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (760) 947-1007 or (760) 947-1026. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
Came
ron Gregg, Mayor 9700 Seventh Avenue
Brigit Bennington, Mayor Pro Tem Hesperia, CA 92345 Larry Bird, Council Member
Bill Holland, Council Member 760-947-1000
Rebekah Swanson, Council Member TD 760-947-1119
Nils Bentsen, City Manager www.cityofhesperia.us
Gateway to the High Desert
City of Hesperia
Public Access to City Council Meetings:
City Council meetings are now open to the public within the guidelines provided by the State which may include wearing masks and socially distancing from other attendees.
Public Comments can be made in- person at City Council Meetings and/or can be submitted via telephone recording that will be played during the meeting.
City Council meetings may be viewed live or af ter the event on the City’s website at www.cityofhesperia.us.
Remote Public Comment:
Public Comments Made By-Telephone Process
Public comments will b e accepted in advance until 5: 30 pm on the day of the scheduled meeting by calling and leaving a recor ded message at (760) 947-1 056. Comments received past 5:30 pm will not be included in the record. If you would like to comment remotely, please follow the protocols below:
• Call ( 760)947-1056 to leav e a detailed message of your public comment.
• Identify your name and the item you wish to comment on in your message.
• Contact information in your voicemail is optional, but will allow staff to easily follow up with you if necessary.
• Each public comment received by voicemail will be played by a staff member for up to three (3) minutes for Consent Calendar/New Business items and up to five (5) minutes for Public Hearing items.
Remote public comments received outside of the comment period outlined above will not be included in the record.
February 1, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HESPERIA HOUSING AUTHORITY
HESPERIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT
9700 7th Avenue, Council Chambers, Hesperia, CA 92345
As a courtesy, please silence your cell phones and other electronic devices while the meeting is in session. Thank you.
Prior to action of the Council, any member of the audience will have the opportunity to address the legislative body on any item listed on the agenda, including those on the Consent Calendar.
Individuals wishing to speak during General Public Comments or on a particular numbered item must submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to the public comment portion of the agenda or before an agenda item is discussed. Comments will be limited to three minutes for General Public Comments, Consent Calendar items and New Business items. Comments are limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.
In compliance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items or engage in question and answer sessions with the public. The City Council may ask brief questions for clarification; provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information and direct staff to add an item to a subsequent meeting.
CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 PM
Roll Call
Mayor Brigit Bennington
Mayor Pro Tem William J. Holland
Council Member Larry Bird
Council Member Cameron Gregg
Council Member Rebekah Swanson
Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation:
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)2
1. Three (3) Cases
CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 PM
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
C. Roll Call
Mayor Brigit Bennington
Mayor Pro Tem William J. Holland
Council Member Larry Bird
Council Member Cameron Gregg
February 1, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
Council Member Rebekah Swanson
D. Agenda Revisions and Announcements by City Clerk
E. Closed Session Reports by City Attorney
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items and matters not listed on the agenda) Individuals wishing to speak during General Public Comments or on a particular numbered item are requested to submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to the public comment portion of the joint agenda or before an agenda item is discussed. Comments will be limited to three minutes for General Public Comments, Consent Calendar items and New Business items. Comments are limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.
In compliance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items or engage in question and answer sessions with the public. The City Council may ask brief questions for clarification; provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information and direct staff to add an item to a subsequent meeting.
JOINT CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Consideration of the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, January 18, 2022.
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, January 18, 2022.
Staff Person: Assistant City Clerk Erin Baum
Draft CC Min 2022-01-18Attachments:
2. Warrant Run Report (City - Successor Agency - Housing Authority - Community Development Commission - Water)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
Staff Person: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher SR Warrant Run 2-1-2022
Attachment 1 - Warrant Run
Attachments:
3. Amendment to Agreement for Interactive Voice Response, Online Bill Pay, Presentment Services, Data Processing, and Printing and Mailing Services for Water/Sewer Utility Bills through Fiscal Year 2023-24
Recommended Action:
February 1, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment of $299,066 to the existing contract with InfoSend, Inc. (InfoSend), for a total revised not-to-exceed amount of $449,066, for the continued Interactive Voice Response, Online Bill Pay, Presentment Services, Data Processing, and Printing and Mailing Services for Water/Sewer utility bills through Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24.
Staff Person: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher SR Infosend Contract Amendment 2-1-2022Attachments:
4. Increase to Contract with Apex Rentals
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment of $40,000 to the existing contract with Apex Rentals, for a total revised not-to-exceed amount of $90,000, for off-road heavy vehicles and equipment maintenance.
Staff Person: Director of Public Works Jeremy McDonald
SR Increase to Contract with Apex Controls 2-1-2022Attachments:
5. Equipment Procurement for Water Pipeline Program
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to approve the procurement of one (1) new Case backhoe; adopt Hesperia Water District (HWD) Resolution No. 2022-01 amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Budget by appropriating $34,501 to the Water Pipeline Program; and award the bid to Sonsray Machinery LLC of Fontana in the not-to-exceed amount of $129,301.
Staff Person: Director of Public Works Jeremy McDonald
SR Equipment Procurement for Water Pipeline Program 2-1-2022 Resolution HWD 2022-01
Attachment 2 - Bid Comparison
Attachments:
6. G & M Automotive and Towing Contract Amendment
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment to the existing contract with G & M Automotive and Towing in the amount of $56,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $156,000, for on-road heavy equipment vehicle maintenance and repairs.
Staff Person: Director of Public Works Jeremy McDonald
SR G&M Automotive and Towing Contract Amendment 2-1-2022Attachments:
7. Parcel Map No. 19608
February 1, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-04 approving Parcel Map No. 19608 to create four single family residential parcels and a remainder lot from five (5) gross acres located on the southeast corner of Sage Street and Topaz Avenue. (Applicant: James Vandenberg Construction, Inc.; APN: 3046-131-27).
Staff Person: Administrative Analyst Bethany Hudson
SR Parcel Map 19608 2-1-2022
Resolution 2022-04
Attachment 2 - Parcel Map 19608
Attachments:
8. Parcel Map No. 20038
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-05 approving Parcel Map No. 20038 to create two single family residential parcels from 2.16 acres gross acres located in the A1 Agricultural zone located on Cherry Street between Willow Street and Timberlane Avenue. (Applicant:
Santiago Nuno; APN: 0411-172-08).
Staff Person: Administrative Analyst Bethany Hudson
SR Parcel Map 20038 2-1-2022
Resolution 2022-05
Attachment - Parcel Map 20038
Attachments:
9. Authorize Submittal of Applications for CalRecycle
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-002 authorizing submittal of applications for all Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) grants for which the City is eligible for five (5) years from the date of adoption of this resolution.
Staff Person: Management Analyst Jamie Carone
SR Authorize Submittal of Applications to CalRecycle 2-1-2022 Resolution 2022-002
Attachments:
10. Authorize Submittal of Urban and Multibenefit Drought Relief Funding for the Hesperia Recycled Water Expansion Project
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-003 authorizing submittal of an application for the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) 2021 Urban and Multibenefit Drought Relief Funding (UMDRF) for the Hesperia Recycled Water Expansion Project.
Staff Person: Management Analyst Jamie Carone
February 1, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
SR Submittal of Urban and Multibenefit Drought Relief Funding 2-1-2022 Resolution 2022-003
Attachments:
11. Authorize Submittal of a Notice of Intent to Comply to CalRecycle Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-007 authorizing submittal of a Notification of Intent to Comply to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to secure administrative civil penalty relief from possible violations of Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383).
Staff Person: Management Analyst Jamie Carone
SR Notice of Intent to Comply to CalRecycle 2-1-2022
Resolution 2022-007
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A Notification of Intent to Comply Attachments:
12. Award Professional Services Agreement to LDM & Associates, Inc.
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council and the Hesperia Housing Authority (HHA) Board award a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with LDM & Associates, Inc. (LDM) to provide consultancy services to assist the City in implementing its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, monitoring Affordable Housing activities and program assistance for a three year period in an amount not-to-exceed $249,702.
Staff Person: Economic Development Manager Victor Knight SR LDM & Associates, Inc Agreement 2-1-2022Attachments:
PUBLIC HEARING
Individuals wishing to comment on public hearing items must submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the numbered agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to an agenda item being taken up.
Comments will be limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.
WAIVE READING OF ORDINANCES
Approve the reading by title of all ordinances and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.
13. Development Impact Fee Update
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-01, which authorizes the reducing of the current discounted Development Impact Fees (DIF), in the DIF categories of Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, & Equipment, Police Facilities, Animal Control Facilities, City Hall Facilities, Records Storage Facilities, Drainage Facilities and Transportation Facilities that will amend the fees to Single Family Residence/Multi-Family/Office/Retail sites per 1,000 square feet (SF), Industrial sites per 1,000 SF, and Hotel/Motel sites per room.
February 1, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
Staff Person: Assistant City Manager Rachel Molina and Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher
SR Development Impact Fee Update 2-1-2022
Attachment 1 - Fee Summary Memorandum
Resolution 2022-01
Attachments:
NEW BUSINESS
14. Consideration of the 2022 Legislative Platform and Funding Priorities Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council adopt the 2022 Legislative Platform consisting of Legislative Policy Statements and Funding Priorities.
Staff Person: Management Analyst Jamie Carone
SR 2022 Legislative Platform and Funding Priorities 2-1-2022 Attachment 1 - 2022 Legislative Platform
Attachments:
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The Council may report on their activities as appointed representatives of the City on various Boards and Committees and/or may make comments of general interest or report on their activities as a representative of the City.
CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY/STAFF REPORTS
The City Manager, City Attorney or staff may make announcements or reports concerning items of interest to the Council and the public.
ADJOURNMENT
I, Erin Baum, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Hesperia, California do hereby certify that I caused to be posted the foregoing agenda on Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. pursuant to California Government Code §54954.2.
_____________________________
Erin Baum,
Assistant City Clerk
Documents produced by the City and distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting regarding items on the agenda will be made available in the City Clerk's Office during normal business hours.
City of Hesperia
City of Hesperia
Meeting Minutes - Final
City Council
Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HESPERIA HOUSING AUTHORITY
HESPERIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT
January 18, 2022
9700 7th Avenue, Council Chambers, Hesperia, CA 92345
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM
Roll Call
Present: 5 - Mayor Bennington, Mayor Pro Tem Holland, Council Member Bird, Council Member Gregg and Counci
l Member Swanson
Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)2
1. Two (2) Cases
Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(d)1
1. Nulevel Partners Inc. v City of Hesperia
CAL
L TO ORDER - 6:30 PM
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
C. Roll Call
Present: 5 - Mayor Bennington, Mayor Pro Tem Holland, Council Member Bird, Council Member Gregg
and Council Member Swanson
D. A genda Revisions and Announcements by City Clerk
E.
Closed Session Reports by City Attorney
ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave.
Hesperia CA, 92345
City of Hesperia
1. Presentation to Planning Commissioner Cody Leis by Mayor Pro Tem Holland GENERA
L PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items and matters not listed on the agenda) Bob Nelson commented on community issues.
Daniel Krist commented on community issues.
Ed Rostamian commented on development issues.
Al Vogler commented on traffic issues.
Chuck Wolf commented on water rates.
Bill Jensen commented on development issues.
Mark Ziesmer commented on the Rental Housing Program.
Tom Steeno commented on recognition of Cody Leis.
JOINT CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Bird, seconded by Gregg, that this item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Bennington, Bird, Swanson, Holland and Gregg
Nay: 0
1. Consideration of the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, December 21, 2021.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, December 21, 2021.
Sponsors: Assistant Cit
y Clerk Erin Baum
2. Warrant Run Report (City - Successor Agency - Housing Authority - Community Developm ent Commission -
Water)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Co
mmunity Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Comm unity Developm
ent Commission, and Water District.
Sponsors: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher
3. Treasurer’s Cash Report for the unaudited period ended October 31, 2021.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council/Board accept the Treasurer’s Cash Report for the City, Succes sor Agency to the Hes
peria Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Comm unity Developm
ent Commission, and Water District.
Sponsors: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher
4. Treasurer’s Cash Report for the unaudited period ended November 30, 2021.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council/Board accept the Treasurer’s Cash Report for the City, Succes sor Agency to the Hes
peria Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Comm unity Developm
ent Commission, and Hesperia Water District.
City of Hesperia
Sponsors: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher
5. Audited Hesperia Housing Authority Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 and Housing Successor SB 34
1 Report
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and the Hesperia Housing Authority (HHA) Board receive and file the audited H
esperia Housing Authority - Component Unit Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 3
0, 2021 and Housing Successor SB 341 Report .
Sponsors: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher
6. Receive and File the SB 165 Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act Report (SB 165) for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20
21 Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the Communities Facilities District (CFD) 2005-1 (Belgate Development Rest
ructuring) Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act Report (SB 165) for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021.
Sponsors: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher
7. Fiscal Years 2015-2016 through 2020-2021 Annual and 5-Year Compliance Report for AB 1600 Development Impact Fees
Recommend
ed Action:
It is recommended that the Cit y Council receive and file the AB 1600 report on development fee activit y that occurr
ed during Fiscal Years (FY) 2015-2016 through 2020-2021.
Sponsors: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher
8. Network Security Detection and Response Services
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authori ze the Cit
y Manager to enter into a three (3) year agreement with Kroll, LLC (Kroll) in an amount not-to-exceed $7
8,000, to actively monitor the City’s network for cybersecurity intrusions and provide remediation.
Sponsors: Director of Administrative Services Casey Brooksher
9. GP Electric Motor Contract Amendment
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and Board Members of the Hesperia Water District (District) authorize the City Manager
to execute an amendment to increase the existing contract with GP Electric Motor in the amount of $30,000 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $100,000 for well and boos ter m
otor maintenance.
Sponsors: Director of Public Works Jeremy McDonald
10. Award of Contract for Engineering Plan Review and Inspection Services
City of Hesperia
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the award of two (2) Professional Services Agreements (PSAs); one to HRGreen in
the amount of $20,000 for a term of 1 year for Plan Check services and the other to Transtech in the amount of $10,000 for a term of 1 year for Engineering Inspection services.
Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Rachel Molina
CONSENT ORDINANCES
11. Amendments to Title 14, Chapter 14.04 of the Hesperia Municipal Code related to water use, conservation and water sho
rtage plan.
Recommended Action:
Place on second reading and adopt by title waiving the text of Ordinance No. 2021-08 regarding water use, water conservation an
d water shortage plan; amending Title 14, Chapter 14.04 of the Hesperia Municipal Code. At the December 21, 2021 Council meeting the City Council and Board of Directors m
ade a minor amendment to the verbiage of Stage 2, a. to reflect that mandatory consumption reduction m
ethods may be in effect.
Sponsors: Management Analyst Tina Souza
A motion was made by Bird, seconded by Gregg, that this item be approved. The motion carried by the follow
ing vote:
Aye: 5 - Bennington, Bird, Swanson, Holland and Gregg
Nay: 0
Meeting went i
nto Recess
Meeting Reconvened
PUBLIC HEARING
12. Third Public Hearing - Redistricting due to 2020 Census and Review of Draft Maps Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council 1) Receive a presentation from National Dem ographics Corporation (NDC), the C
ity’s redistricting consultant detailing the redistricting process and perm issible criteria to be cons
idered to create district boundaries; 2) Conduct the third public hearing to receive public input on
the redistricting process and composition of districts; and 3) review and consider the three draft m
aps provided by National Demographics Corporation and any others that may have been subm
itted by the public for review.
Sponsors: Director of Government Services/City Clerk Melinda Sayre Kelly Gregg commented during the public hearing period.
NEW BUSINESS
Items 13 and 14 were heard in reverse order.
City of Hesperia
14. Capital Improvement Project Prioritization
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Rachel Molina
13. National Opioid Settlements - Permitted Use of Settlement Funds Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
Sponsors: City Attorney Eric Dunn
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Council Member Swanson commented on attendance at SBCTA, CIP funding, and future Brightline rail project.
Council Member Bird thanked Council Member Swanson for her service with SBCTA and commented on VVTA, keeping City Council Meetings open to the public during the pandemic surge, staffing shortages at HUSD, the Ranchero Rd. widening ground breaking, an article in the Daily Press, drug use among students, the new year, and asked that the meeting be closed in honor of the passing of a Sultana class of 2020 student and a teacher with HUSD.
Council Member Gregg commented on student access to illicit drugs and services to address the issue, the timing of Public Comments, caution on Council Member Swanson's support of Brightline, law enforcement activity on traffic, wished everyone a Happy New Year and Merry Christmas, and thanked staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Holland commented on Council expectations when dealing with other agencies, Tri-Agency, LOCC, caution with regards to Brightline, and the grand opening of the natural gas production facility at VVWRA.
Mayor Bennington recognized Kelly Gregg, commented on attendance chamber coffee update, the Ranchero Rd.
Widening ground breaking, the grand opening of Raising Caine's, Sherman Hegman's mayor’s conference call on state COVID regulations, retirement of Mike Jasberg, Operations Manager at Mitsubishi Cement, attendance at the Dreams, Visionaries, and Leaders Tribute to MLK celebration at VVC, VVWRA natural gas project opening, Dave Corbin on the television news, keeping Council Meetings open for continued public participation, fire at an illegal grow house in Adelanto, the passing of Ken Porter's wife Brenda and prayers to their family, thanked Sheriff's staff, Fire staff, and City staff. Let's go Niners!
CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY/STAFF REPORTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned in honor of the passing of Brenda Porter, Sultana class of 2020 student, and a HUSD teacher at 10:04 PM.
_____________________________
Erin Baum,
Assistant City Clerk
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 01, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
City Council, as Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency
Chair and Commissioners, Hesperia Housing Authority
Chair and Commissioners, Community Development Commission Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Casey Brooksher, Director of Administrative Services Anne Duke, Deputy Finance Director
Rosa Roman, Accountant
SUBJECT: Warrant Run Report (City – Successor Agency – Housing Authority – Community Development Commission – Water)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
BACKGROUND
The Warrant Run totals represented below are for th e period December 04 , 2021 through December 24, 2021.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Warrant Runs
Agency/District Accounts Payable Payroll Wires Totals
City of Hesperia $2,949,018.05 $453,203.82 $0.00 $3,402,221.87 Successor Agency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Authority 1,980.30 0.00 0.00 1,980.30
Community Development Commission 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 1,182,635.46 207,974.10 0.00 1,390,609.56
Totals $4,133,633.81 $661,177.92 $0.00 $4,794,811.73
YEAR-TO PRIOR FY YTD
W/E W/E W/E WARRANT DATE DATE
FUND # FUND NAME 12/10/2021 12/17/2021 12/24/2021 TOTALS Wires TOTALS * TOTALS Accounts Payable
100 GENERAL 114,836.51$ 164,711.97$ 1,723,373.38$ 2,002,921.86$ -$ 15,127,818.05$ 12,086,999.02$ 204 MEASURE I - RENEWAL 777.50$ -$ -$ 777.50$ -$ 84,308.86$ 413,426.54$ 207 LOCAL TRANSPORT-SB 325 91.93$ -$ -$ 91.93$ -$ 25,091.93$ 16,902.70$ 209 GAS TAX-RMRA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 67,468.24$ 2,086,913.29$ 210 HFPD (PERS) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,007,746.00$ 975,994.00$ 251 CDBG 5,328.50$ 18,475.38$ -$ 23,803.88$ -$ 593,304.30$ 583,738.45$ 254 AB2766 - TRANSIT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
256 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS GRANT 663.91$ (67.27)$ 550.00$ 1,146.64$ -$ 20,666.13$ 9,719.32$ 257 NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROG -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,404.88$ 258 CDBG-CV CARES ACT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
260 D
ISASTER PREPARED GRANT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
263 STREETS MAINTENANCE 8,704.15$ 53,847.22$ 38,220.97$ 100,772.34$ -$ 951,248.02$ 1,357,130.62$ 300 DEV. IMPACT FEES - STREET -$ 2,945.00$ -$ 2,945.00$ -$ 35,488.33$ 269,608.05$ 301 DEV. IMPACT FEES - STORM DRAIN -$ 705.00$ -$ 705.00$ -$ 34,769.50$ 54,401.25$ 302 DEV. IMPACT FEES - FIRE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
303 D
EV. IMPACT FEES - POLICE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 23,330.00$ -$ 304 DEV. IMPACT FEES - PUBLIC WKS. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 306 DEV. IMPACT FEES - 2018-STREETS 40.55$ 45,441.42$ -$ 45,481.97$ -$ 90,237.08$ -$ 312 DIF 2018-POLICE FACILITIES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,888.17$ -$ 313 DIF A-04 DRAINAGE -$ 2,925.00$ -$ 2,925.00$ -$ 963, 024.00$ -$ 396 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
399 FEMA-1203-DR (DISASTER) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
400 2004 STREETS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
401 CITY DEBT SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
402 WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,074,335.70$ 1,059,536.83$ 403 2013 REFUNDING LEASE REV BONDS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 632,972.25$ 2,190.00$ 501 CFD 91-3 BELGATE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
504 CITY WIDE STREETS - CIP 96,888.13$ 97,580.40$ -$ 194,468.53$ -$ 523,963.70$ 281,392.86$ 509 CITY FACILITIES CIP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
800 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 178,645.28$ 149,031.46$ 110, 778.06$ 438,454.80$ -$ 3, 754,019.96$ 3,669,796.45$ 801 TRUST/AGENCY 40.00$ 521.05$ 131,226.55$ 131,787.60$ -$ 1,545,345.17$ 1,186,058.79$ 802 AD 91-1 AGENCY -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
804 TRUST-INTEREST BEARING -$ 882.00$ 1,104.00$ 1,986.00$ -$ 28,905.00$ 65.00$ 807 CFD 2005-1 -$ -$ 750.00$ 750.00$ -$ 929,882.65$ 1,484,406.01$ 808 HFPD (TRANSITION) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 369,875.18$ 349,739.56$ 815 PLAN REVIEW TRUST - FRONTIER -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CITY 406,016.46$ 536,998.63$ 2, 006,002.96$ 2, 949,018.05$ -$ 27, 890,688.22$ 25, 893,423.62$ 163 REDEVELOP OBLIG RETIREMENT-2018 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,944,168.22$ 7,586,988.44$ SUCCESSOR AGENCY -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7, 944,168.22$ 7, 586,988.44$ 370 HOUSING AUTHORITY -$ -$ 1,980.30$ 1,980.30$ -$ 9,324.93$ 40,682.35$ HOUSING AUTHORITY -$ -$ 1, 980.30$ 1, 980.30$ -$ 9, 324.93$ 40, 682.35$ 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,135.42$ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1, 135.42$ 700 WATER OPERATING 317,500.14$ 292,608.48$ 195,372.27$ 805,480.89$ -$ 5,400,322.34$ 11,769,214.14$ 701 WATER CAPITAL -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22,438.15$ 815,954.96$ 710 SEWER OPERATING 57,047.54$ 4,983.73$ 313,977.31$ 376,008.58$ -$ 2,607,572.40$ 2,098,644.89$ 711 SEWER CAPITAL 160.00$ 815.50$ -$ 975.50$ -$ 150,661.87$ 1,437,385.02$ 713 SEWER CAPITAL REHAB AND REPLACE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 54,882.50$ 720 RECLAIMED WATER OPERATIONS 76.54$ 93.95$ -$ 170.49$ -$ 1,325.31$ -$ WATER 374,784.22$ 298,501.66$ 509, 349.58$ 1, 182,635.46$ -$ 8, 182,320.07$ 16, 176,081.51$ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TOTAL 780,800.68$ 835,500.29$ 2, 517,332.84$ 4, 133,633.81$ -$ 44, 026,501.44$ 49, 698,311.34$ REG. PAYROLL
City 220,844.65$ -$ 232,359.17$ 453,203.82$ -$ 3,074,120.91$ 2,757,215.88$ Housing Authority -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 745.24$ 2,446.15$ Water 101,456.87$ -$ 106,517.23$ 207,974.10$ -$ 1,336,170.21$ 1,313,962.38$ PAYROLL TOTAL 322,301.52$ -$ 338, 876.40$ 661, 177.92$ -$ 4, 411,036.36$ 4, 073,624.41$ City of Hesperia
WARRANT RUNS
12/04/2021 - 12/24/2021
* The year to date totals for this Warrant Report are for the 2021-22 fiscal year starting July 1, 2021; however, the year-to-date totals include a total of $219,412.79 in payments issued on 6/28/21 and 6/29/21.
Attachment 1
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Casey Brooksher, Director of Administrative Services Anne Duke, Deputy Finance Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement for Interactive Voice Response, Online Bill Pay, Presentment Services, Data Processing, and Printing and Mailing Services for Water/Sewer Utility Bills through Fiscal Year 2023-24
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment of $299,066 to the existing contract with InfoSend, Inc. (InfoSend), for a total revised not-to-exceed amount of $449,066, for the continued Interactive Voice Response, Online Bill Pay, Presentment Services, Data Processing, and Printing and Mailing Services for Water/Sewer utility bills through Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24.
BACKGROUND
The Hesperia Water District (District) has utilized InfoSend since 2010 to provide customers with the ability to pay their water /sewer bills online. As a result of a Request for Proposal (RFP), Infosend was awarded an agreement for Interactive Voice Response, Online Bill Pay, and Presentment services in December 2020. InfoSend hosts a secure website that is available 24- hours a day where the customer can view and pay their bill . A customer can make a one-time payment as a guest or , upon enrolling for an online payment account, the c ustomer can setup automatic payments. Additionally, the customer can elect paperless billing.
To help remedy wait times, as well as provide further customer options during the pandemic, the District added additional payment options, including , Interactive Voice Response System (processing electronic ACH and debit/credit card transactions , via phone ), as well as a text -to- pay option for mobile payments. In addition, for cost efficiencies, bill printing and mailing services were also added to the agreement with Infosend.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The added components have provided District customers with additional options for payment, including automated English and Spanish phone service ; reduced need for face to face transactions; ability to pay multiple accounts under one shopping cart ; ability for text message notifications and text -to-pay. In addition, the inclusion of printing and mailing services into the Infosend agreement has enabled the District to substantially reduce its printing and postage costs.
Additional funds are necessary to facilitate the continuation of timely and efficient water/sewer utility billing services through FY 2023-24.
Staff Report to the Board Members of the Hesperia Water District Amendment to Agreement for Interactive Voice Response, Online Bill Pay, Presentment Services , Data Processing, and Printing and Mailing Services for Water/Sewer Utility Bills through Fiscal Year 2023-24 February 1, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT
The District currently has an agreement and F iscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Budget authority with InfoSend in the amount of $150,000. An amendment to the existing agreement in the amount of $299,066, is requested for a total not -to-exceed contract amount of $499,066 for the continued Interactive Voice Response, Online Bill Pay, Presentment Services, Data Processing, and Printing and Mailing Services for Water/Sewer Utility Bills through FY 2023-24.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Jeremy McDonald, Director of Public Works
Robert Worby, Fleet/Warehouse Supervisor
SUBJECT: Increase to Contract with Apex Rentals
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is re commended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment of $40,000 to the existing contract with Apex Rentals, for a total revised not -to-exceed amount of $90,000, for off-road heavy vehicles and equipment maintenance.
BACKGROUND
Preventative and corrective maintenance is required for the twenty-three (23) off-road heavy- duty vehicles and equipment in the fleet of which fifteen (15) are thirteen years and older.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
On February 18, 2021, Public Works requested bids (RFB 2020 -21-007) from local vend ors located in the High Desert that could provide maintenance and a public bid opening was held on March 2, 2021. The City received two (2) bids, with Apex Rentals (Apex) of Hesperia deemed the lowest responsible/responsive bidder at $98.00 an hour with a 25% material / parts markup.
A contract was executed during Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 for $15,000. The original agreement was increased by $35,000 as Apex held pricing during FY 2021-22. Unfortunately, as vehicles and equipment age, they start experiencing more frequent and expensive repairs. Although Apex offers a favorable labor rate and material markup, outdated spare parts are costly, resulting in higher than anticipated repair costs.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for fleet services has been included in the FY 2021-22 City and Water District’s Budgets.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
None
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Jeremy McDonald, Director of Public Works
Robert Worby, Fleet/Warehouse Supervisor
SUBJECT: Equipment Procurement for Water Pipeline Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is re commended that the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to approve the procurement of one (1) new Case backhoe; adopt Hesperia Water District (HWD) Resolution No. 2022-01 amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 -22 Budget by appropriating $34,501 to the Water Pipeline Program; and award the bid to Sonsray Machinery LLC of Fontana in the not-to-exceed amount of $129,301.
BACKGROUND
The current backhoe is 16 years old and has required numerous repairs to remain in service. It has excessive hours at over 8,000, is currently in need of an extremely costly repair, and operates with a tier 2 engine. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has mandated that all off -road fleets remain diesel compliant, requiring the retirement of not only tier 0 engines by 2028 through increasingly stricter standards, but also ultimately tiers 1 through tier 3 as well.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The City of Hesperia and HWD released a formal request for bid (RFB) on December 16, 2021 and solicited bids from three local vendors including one based in Hesperia. A public bid opening was held on January 5, 2022. Sonsray Machinery LLC and Quinn Cat responded. Stotz Equipment, the local John Deere dealer, did not submit a bid. Sonsray Machinery, LLC has been deemed the lowest responsible/responsive bidder per the purchasing ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the one (1) backhoe was not included in the Adopted FY 2021-22 Budget. Staff has identified program savings in the amount of $94,800, therefore staff is only requesting approval from the Board of Directors to increase the Water Operating Fund 700 budget by $34,501 via HWD Resolution No. 2022-01.
Staff Report to the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District Equipment Procurement
February 1, 2022
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. HWD Resolution No. 2022-01
2. Bid Comparison
RESOLUTION HWD NO. 2022-01
RESOLUTION OF THE HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL $129,301 IN FUND 700, WATER OPERATIONS
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Budget on June 15, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the anticipated total expenditure of $129,301 will occur in the FY 202 1-22 Budget; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2021-22 Budget does not i nclude $129,301 for the purchase of a backhoe; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District has reviewed the proposed amendment information and have found it acceptable.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The District hereby amends the Water Pipeline Operating Budget and appropriates $34,501 to Account No. 700-29-400-4035-8440.
Section 2. That the above is true and correct and adopted as findings.
Section 3. That the Board Secretary shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1st day of February, 2022.
______________________________
Brigit Bennington, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Melinda Sayre, Board Secretary
RFB 2021-22-006 One (1) New Backhoe
Bid Comparison
Bid Comparison Type: Taxable
Bid Comparison Completed By: Purchasing
Date:
Item
No. UOM Qty Description Make/Model # Unit Cost Extended Amount Make/Model # Unit Cost Extended Amount Make/Model # Unit Cost Extended Amount Sales Tax (7.75%) $9,534.53 Sales Tax (7.75%) $9,013.64 Sales Tax (7.75%) $0.00 Subtotal $132,560.76 Subtotal $125,318.64 Subtotal $0.00 Warranty/Telematics (Non-Taxable) $3,975.00
Tire Fee (Non-Taxable) $7.00 Tire Fee (Non-Taxable) $7.00 Tire Fee (Non-Taxable) $0.00 TOTAL BID $132,567.76 TOTAL BID $129,300.64 TOTAL BID $0.00 $132,567.76 $129,300.64 $0.00
Difference $0.00 Difference ($0.00) Difference $0.00
($1,325.68) $0.00 $0.00
Bid For Bidding Purposes Only $131,242.09 Final Bid $129,300.64 Bid For Bidding Purposes Only $0.00 1 EA 1 Cat 416New Backoe
1/5/2022
Submitted Bid Amount
Hesperia, CA
$123,026.230 $123,026.23
Quinn Cat
Submitted Bid Amount
Sonsray Machinery
Fontana, CA
Case 580SN $116,305.00 $116,305.00
Submitted Bid Amount
Stotz Equipment
Montclair, CA
$0.00 Did Not Bid
*Per Hesperia Ordinance 2014-09, Section 3.08.080, Sub-section E, "For purposes of determining the lowest responsible, responsive bidder, there shall be deducted from the bid(s) submitted by a local bidder all sales taxes which will be apportioned to and received by the City" (1%).
1% Local Vendor Deduction 1% Local Vendor Deduction 1% Local Vendor Deduction Winning Bidder
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Jeremy McDonald, Director of Public Works
Marc Morales, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: G & M Automotive and Towing Contract Amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment to the existing contract with G & M Automotive and Towing in the amount of $56,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $156,000, for on-road heavy equipment vehicle maintenance and repairs.
BACKGROUND
Preventative and corrective maintenance is required for the City and Hesperia Water District’s eighteen (18) on-road heavy duty vehicles and equipment that exceed one (1) ton, as determined by the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). These fleet services are necessary within the Water, Sewer, and Public Works Divisions.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Recently, a vactor truck that is utilized to perform proactive and reactive storm drain maintenance had a catastrophic engine failure. This truck is important to the City’s fleet to keep the storm drain system free of debris, which will allow for an appropriate flow of storm water. G & M Automotive and Towing (G & M) inspected the vactor truck and determined an engine replacement will be required. The current contract with G & M is for a not -to-exceed amount of $100,000 and an additional $56,000 for the amended not -to-exceed amount of $156,000 will be needed for the remainder of the fiscal year. The amendment to the contract is needed for the engine replacement.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding of $56,000 for the engine replacement was not included in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget and an amendment will be presented to the City Council and Water Board during the Mid-Year Budget Review.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
None
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
Bethany Hudson, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 19608
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-04 approving Parcel Map No. 19608 to create four single family residential parcels and a remainder lot from five (5) gross acres located on the southeast corner of Sage Street and Topaz Avenue . (Applicant: James Vandenberg Construction, Inc.; APN: 3046-131-27).
BACKGROUND
On August 4, 2015, City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 19608 to create four single family residential parcels and a remainder lot from five (5) gross acres located on the southeast corner of Sage Street and Topaz Avenue. (Applicant: James Vandenberg Construction, Inc.; APN:
3046-131-27).
Staff has reviewed the map and determined that it complies with all General Plan and zoning regulations, all required conditions of approval, and with all local ordinances related to the creation of these parcels.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
There are no issues identified with this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no significant fiscal impacts to the City related to this action.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution No. 2022-04
2. Parcel Map No. 19608
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 19608 TO CREAT E FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AND A REMAINDER LOT FROM 5
GROSS ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAGE STREET AND TOPAZ AVENUE (APPLICANT: JAMES VANDENBERG
CONSTRUCTION; APN: 3046-131-27).
WHEREAS, On August 4, 2015, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 19608 to create four (4) single family residential parcels and a remainder lot from five (5) gross acres located on the southeast corner of Sage Street and Topaz Avenue. (Applicant : James Vandenberg Construction, Inc.; APN: 3046-131-27); and
WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 19608 to cre ate four (4) single family residential parcels and a remainder lot from five (5) gross acres located on the southeast corner of Sage Street and Topaz Avenue. (Applicant: James Vandenberg Construction, Inc.; APN: 3046-131-27); and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Parcel Map No. 19608 is hereby approved and the City Clerk is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record.
Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1st day of February, 2022.
Brigit Bennington
Mayor
ATTEST:
Melinda Sayre
City Clerk
Attachment 2
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
Bethany Hudson, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 20038
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-05 approving Parcel Map No. 20038 to create two single family residential parcels from 2.16 acres gross acres located in the A1 Agricultural zone located on Cherry Street between Willow Street and Timberlane Avenue. (Applicant: Santiago Nuno; APN: 0411-172-08).
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 2019, the Design Review Committee approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 20038 to create two single family residential parcels from 2.16 acres gross acres located in the A1 Agricultural zone located on Cherry Street between Willow Street and Timberlane Avenue. (Applicant: Santiago Nuno; APN: 0411-172-08).
Staff has reviewed the map and determined that it complies with all General Plan and zoning regulations, all required conditions of approval, and with all local ordinances related to the creation of these parcels.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
There are no issues identified with this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no significant fiscal impacts to the City related to this action.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution No. 2022-05
2. Parcel Map No. 20038
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 20038 TO CREAT E TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FROM 2.16 GROSS ACRES LOCATED IN THE A1 AGRICULTURAL ZONE LOCATED ON CHERRY
STREET BETWEEN WILLOW STREET AND TIMBERLANE AVENUE.
(APPLICANT: SANTIAGO NUNO; APN: 0411-172-08).
WHEREAS, On June 26, 2019, the Design Review Committee approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 20038 to create two single family residential parcels from 2.16 acres gros s acres located in the A1 Agricultural zone located on Cherry Street between Willow Street and Timberlane Avenue (Applicant: Santiago Nuno; APN: 0411-172-08); and
WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 20038 is to create two single family residential parcels from 2.16 acres gross acres located in the A1 Agricultural zone located on Cherry Street between Willow Street and Timberlane Avenue. (Applicant: Santiago Nuno; APN: 0411-172-08); and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Parcel Map No. 20038 is hereby approved and the City Clerk is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record.
Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this1st day of February, 2022.
Brigit Bennington
Mayor
ATTEST:
Melinda Sayre
City Clerk
Attachment 1
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
Jamie Carone, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Authorize Submittal of Applications for CalRecycle
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-002 authorizing submittal of applications for all Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) grants for which the City is eligible for five (5) years from the date of adoption of this resolution.
BACKGROUND
CalRecycle offers funding opportunities authorized by legislation to assist public and priva te entities in the safe and effective management of the waste stream. The City of Hesperia is eligible to apply for several beneficial and impactful grants through CalRecycle including Tire Amnesty Grants, Tire Clean-Up Grants, Rubberized Pavement Grants, and as of this year, a grant to assist in the implementation of SB 1383 known as the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program. Since 2007, the City has received a variety of CalRecycle grant awards totaling approximately $794,000 to assist in funding for t ire amnesty events and cleanup costs for illegal dumping of waste tires and other litter.
As a requirement of CalRecycle’s grant process, all grant participants must provide certain documentation to submit a complete grant application. This documentation , in the form of a resolution, includes authorization of a City’s governing body to apply for CalRecycle grants. The resolution authorizes the City Manager to submit applications for any CalRecycle grant offered over the next five (5) years.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
CalRecycle has allocated $57,000,000 for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program in Fiscal Year 2021-22. The City of Hesperia is eligible to receive, based on population, approximately $127,000 in grant funding. This non -competitive grant program will provide one-time funding to local jurisdictions to assist with the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383.
Eligible projects include the following:
Collection
Education and Outreach
Edible Food Recovery
Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Authorize Submittal of Applications for CalRecycle Grants February 1, 2022
Capacity Planning
Procurement Requirements
Record Keeping
Enforcement and Inspection
Program Evaluation/Gap Analysis
This funding is intended to provide financial relief to cities in their efforts to implement SB 1383.
Approval of this resolution will allow the City to apply for these one -time funds; furthermore, approval will allow the City Manager to apply for all CalRecycle grants that are offered over the next five years. Sinc e all CalRecycle grant applications require an adopted resolution, not adopting the resolution would result in the City not applying for CalRecycle grants over the next five (5) years.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts identified with this action.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution No. 2022-002
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR ALL
DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
(CALRECYCLE) GRANTS FOR WHICH THE CITY OF HESPERIA IS ELIGIBLE.
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 40000 et seq. authorize s the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various Grant Programs (grants) in furtherance of the State of California’s (State) effor ts to reduce, re cycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the application, awarding, and management of the grants; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle grants.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HES PERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City of Hesperia authorizes the submittal of applications to CalRecycle for all grants for which the City of Hesperia is eligible.
Section 2. That t he City Manager of the City of Hesperia , or his/her designee , is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Hesperia all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds to implement the approved grant projects.
Section 3. That these authorizations are effective for five (5) years from the date of adoption of this resolution.
Section 4. That City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1st day of February 2022.
______________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:
Resolution City Council No. 2022-002
Authorize Submittal of Applications for CalRecycle Grants
____________________________
Melinda Sayre
City Clerk
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
Jamie Carone, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Authorize Submittal of Urban and Multibenefit Drought Relief Funding for the Hesperia Recycled Water Expansion Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-003 authorizing submittal of an application for the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) 2021 Urban and Multibenefit Drought Relief Funding (UMDRF) for the Hesperia Recycled Water Expansion Project.
BACKGROUND
The California Department of Water Resources offers funding for two Drought Relief Grant Programs that offer financial assistance to address drought impacts through implementation of projects with multiple benefits. These benefits are intended to address the loss or contamination of water supplies due to drought, to address the immediate drought impacts on human health and safety, and to protect fish and wildlife resources along with other public benefits, such as ecosystem improvements. The Urban and Multibenefit Drought Relief Fund ing Program is one of these two grants.
Funding for the UMDRF Program was authorized by the Legislature pursuant to the Budget Act of 2021 and its Trailer Bill, Assembly Bill 148; DWR was allocated $100 million for Urban Communities and $200 million for M ultibenefit projects. The same Budget Act also authorized $200 million for the Small Community Drought Relief Program. The Hesperia Recycled Water Expansion Project qualifies for both the Urban Community Drought Relief Program or the Multibenefit Project Program.
As a requirement of DWR’s grant process, all grant participants must provide certain documentation to submit a complete grant application. This documentation , in the form of a resolution, includes authorization of a City’s governing body to a pply for DWR grants. The resolution authorizes the City Manager , or designee, to submit an application for the DWR’s UMDRF grant program.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Currently, the City’s only source of water supply is groundwater from the Mojave River Adjudicated Basin. The City has rights to produce 11,500 AFY of water, and water produced beyond this is subject to replenishment assessments which are used to purchase and deliver imported water supplies to the region. Water demands are projected to increase into 2025 and
Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Authorize Submittal of Application for UMDRF Grant
February 1, 2022
again into 2030. To meet current and future demands, the City would like to u se recycled water supplies to the greatest extent possible to reduce dependence on imported water. Expansion of the current recycled water system is necessary to provide recycle d water supplies to schools, parks, and landscape areas. The UMDRF grant would provide the City with the funds necessary to construct this project and reduce its demand on the current water supply.
Approval of this resolution will allow the City to apply for funding from the DWR’s Urban and Multibenefit Drought Relief Funding and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to prepare and file the application, execute the funding agreement with DWR and any amendments thereto, and submit any required documents, invoices, and reports required to obtain funding.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts identified with this action.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution No. 2022-003
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE URBAN AND MULTIBENEFIT DROUGHT
RELIEF GRANT APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE, AND EXECUTION FOR THE HESPERIA RECYCLED WATER EXPANSION PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia proposes to implement the Hesperia Recycled Water Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia has the legal authority and is authorized to enter into a funding agreement with the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia intends to apply for grant funding from the California Department of Water Resources for the Hesperia Recycled Water Expansion Project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HES PERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That pursuant and subject to all terms and provisions of the Budget Act of 2021 (Stats. 2021, ch. 240, §80), the City of Hesperia City Manager, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and file an application for funding with the Depart ment of Water Resources and take such other actions necessary or appropriate to obtain grant funding.
Section 2. The City of Hesperia City Manager, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute the funding agreement with the Depar tment of Water Resources and any amendments thereto.
Section 3. The City of Hesperia City Manager, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to submit any required documents, invoices, and reports required to obtain grant funding.
Section 4. That City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1st day of February 2022.
______________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Melinda Sayre
City Clerk
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
Jamie Carone, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Authorize Submittal of a Notice of Intent to Comply to CalRecycle
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-007 authorizing submittal of a Notification of Intent to Comply to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to secure administrative civil penalty relief from possible violations of Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383).
BACKGROUND
CalRecycle, in consultation with the California Air Resources B oard, has adopted regulatory requirements (Regulations), consistent with the mandate of SB 1383 that are designed to achieve the organic waste reduction goals established in Section 39730.6 of the Health and Safety Code through a 75 percent reduction in th e level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2025.
The regulations created to reduce organic waste consist of various components including providing an organic recycling service to all residential and commercial properties, es tablishing an edible food recovery program, meeting procurement requirements, tracking third-party organic waste haulers, creating education and outreach material, requiring compliance with certain provisions of the State’s Water Model Efficiency Landscape Ordinance, and conducting inspection and enforcement activities.
Beginning January 1, 2022, jurisdictions that were not in full compliance risked facing enforcement measures including financial penalties of up to $10,000 per day. However, in October of 2021, the governor signed Senate Bill 619 (SB 619) which creates a mechanism to delay penalties for local agencies. This mechanism is called a Notification of Intent to Comply through which a local jurisdiction may secure administrative civil penalty reli ef from any continuing violations of the Regulations for the 2022 calendar year and may be eligible for a broader and longer -term compliance path.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The City of Hesperia intends to submit a Notice of Intent to Comply to allow additional tim e to finalize amendments to the City’s Franchise Agreement with the City’s hauler, Advance Disposal.
These amendments are required to ensure haulers comply with SB 1383 Regulations. Filing the Notice of Intent to Comply will also allow for additional tim e for the City to comply with the
Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Authorize Submittal of Notice of Intent to Comply
February 1, 2022
procurement requirements of SB 1383 whereby the City must procure approximately 7,800 tons of recovered organic waste products such as compost, mulch, or renewable natural gas.
To submit a Notification of Intent to Comply , a local jurisdiction’s governing body must adopt a resolution adopting the Notification of Intent to Comply in writing . Jurisdictions shall submit the adopted resolution along with the Notification to CalRecycle for review. CalRecycle must, within 45 b usiness days of receiving a Notification, approve it, disapprove it, request additional information, or commit to a particular timeline for a final decision on approval or disapproval.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts identified with this action.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution No. 2022-007
2. Exhibit A: Notification of Intent to Comply
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY TO THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) TO SECURE ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY RELIEF FROM POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF SENATE BILL 1383.
WHEREAS, CalRecycle, in consultation with the California Air Resources Board, has adopted regulatory requirements (Regulations), consistent with the mandate of Senate Bill 1383 (Lara, 2016), that are designed to achieve the organic waste reduction goals established in Section 39730.6 of the Health and Safety Code through a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia is a local jurisdiction required to comply with the Regulations; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 619 (Laird, 2021), through amendments to Section 42652.5 of the Public Resourcs Code (Statute), created a mechanism called a Notification of Intent to Comply through which a local jurisdiction may secure administrative civil penalty relief from any continuing violations of the Regulations for the 2022 calendar year and may be eligible for a broader and longer-term compliance path, including suspended administrative civil penalties, through a corrective action plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia is a local jurisdi ction authorized by the Statute to submit a Notification of Intent to Comply for CalRecycle approval; and
WHEREAS, CalRecycle shall approve a Notification of Intent to Comply that is duly adopted by the jurisdiction by formal written resolution and meets the requirements of the Statute.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HES PERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Hesperia by and through its City Manager, or his or her designee, hereby formally adopts the Notification of Intent to Comply attached as Exhibit “A.”
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Hesperia hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager, or his or her designee, on its behalf, to submit the Notification of Intent to Comply attached as Exhibit “A” to CalRecycle for approval pursuant to the Statute.
Section 3. By submitting the Notification of Intent to Comply pursuant to and subject to the above referenced requirements, the City of Hesperia represents and certifies that it will im plement the proposed actions to remedy the violations according to the proposed schedule as approved by CalRecycle and in accordance with the Statute and Regulations.
Resolution City Council No. 2022-007
Authorize Submittal of Notification of Intent to Comply
Section 4. The City of Hesperia by and through its City Manager, or his or her designee, also acknowledges and agrees to comply with any maximum compliance deadline in any corrective action plan that CalRecycle, in its sole discretion, determines to be necessary and appropriate under the circumstances for the correction of any violation(s) of the Statute and Regulations identified in its Notification of Intent to Comply.
Section 5. That City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1st day of February 2022.
______________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Melinda Sayre, City Clerk
Attachment 2 Exhibit A
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Housing Authority
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
Victor Knight, Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: Award Professional Services Agreement to LDM & Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council and the Hesperia Housing Authority (HHA) Board award a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with LDM & Associates, Inc. (LDM) to provide consultancy services to assist the City in implementing its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, monitoring Affordable Housing activities and program assistance for a three year period in an amount not-to-exceed $249,702.
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2021, the City of Hesperia (City) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP 2021-22- 003) for professional CDBG Program Administration and Housing Services. Staff contacted twenty firms and received only two (2) proposals, and after the proposals were reviewed it was determined that LDM was the most responsive and qualified service provider to perform the requested services.
For the past several years LDM has contracted with the City to assist in the implementation of CDBG-funded programs and ensure compliance with Federal Regulations and guidel ines.
Additionally, LDM is required to operate within the scope of the programs approved by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the City.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Current PSA's for professional CDBG administration and housing services are about to expire.
Economic Development staff is tasked with developing and implementing new and existing programs that will facilitate residential, commercial, and industrial development. The City uses professional services in administering its CDBG-funded programs to ensure compliance with federal regulations and timeliness. The award of the PSA is necessary to continue professional CDBG administration, housing and economic development advisory services.
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funding exists in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
None.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
Casey Brooksher, Director of Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fee Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -01, which authorizes the reducing of the current discounted Development Impact Fees (DIF), in the DIF categories of Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, & Equipment, Police Facilities, Animal Control Facilities, City Hall Facilities, Records Storage Facilities, Drainage Facilities and Transportation Facilities that will amend the fees to Single Family Residence/Multi-Family/Office/Retail sites per 1,000 square feet (SF), Industrial sites per 1,000 SF, and Hotel/Motel sites per room.
BACKGROUND
Government Code Section 66000, enacted by the State of California in 1987, enables cities to establish development impact fees for the purpose of mitigating the cost of additional municipal facilities as a result of new development. It is appropriate for municipal governments to periodically evaluate their fee structures and conduct studies to determine whether the fees collected are an adequate representation of costs incurred. On May 08, 2018, David Taussig & Associates (DTA) completed the nexus study, which utilized project information, demographic information, and industry accepted assumptions.
The nexus study calculated the maximum amount that can be charged as a Development Impact Fee for each type of land use based on the capital project needs list. The City Council may elect to set the fee at or below this maximum amount. Table 1 illustrates the maximum DIF fee allowed by the approved nexus study.
T AB LE 1
Nexus Study Maximum
Single Family
Residence
Multi-Family
Residence
Commercial/
Office/Retail
(per 1k SF)
Industrial
(per 1k SF)
Hotel/Motel
(per Room)
Fire Suppression 648$ 491$ 187$ 908$ 437$ Police Facilities 10 8 4 16 8 Animal Control 227 176 0 0 0 City Hall 546 424 194 856 412 Records Storage 26 20 9 41 20 Drainage 1,387 529 432 910 306 Transportation 18,891 13,087 26,195 13,759 17,608 Total Maximum 21,735$ 14,735$ 27,021$ 16,490$ 18,791$
Staff Report to the City Council
Development Impact Fee Update
February 1, 2022
The DIF nexus study was presented to the City Council during the May 15, 2018 meeting. Upon careful consideration, the City Council discounted the maximum rates, which is reflected in Table
2. When comparing Table 1 (maximum rate) to Table 2 (adopted rate), each category (single family residence (SFR), multi- family, commercial/office/retail, industrial, and hotel/motel) was discounted from the nexus study maximum. Table 3 demonstrates the perc entage reduction (discount) for each category when compared to the maximum rate.
This discounting of rates means that the City must identify other funding sources for projects identified in the DIF nexus study.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
There are substantial infrastructure expansion needs in Hesperia to accommodate growth in previously undeveloped areas. There are numerous large scale industrial projects west of Interstate 15 currently in the development process. The area has little infrastructure and the City is heavily reliant on DIF for expansion. As show n in Table 3 above, industrial, along with commercial/office/retail and hotel/motel, receive a larger discount than that of SFR and multi - family. The City’s infrastructure needs will always outpace its ability to fund all identified needs.
As a result, any discount of DIF results in a marked impact to the delivery timeline of improvement projects.
Across the City, additional infrastructure needs and Capital Improvement Projects have been identified as funding priorities. One such project is t he Main Street Widening and Aqueduct Construction Project, which is included on the list of projects slated to receive future funding from San Bernardino County Trans portation Authority (SBCTA). Like the Ranchero Road Widening project, SBCTA will provide partial funding, with the City responsible for funding 59% of the T AB LE 3
Percentage Reduction
Maximum
R
ate
Adopted
Rate
Percentage
Reduction
Single Family Residence 21,735 $ 12, 352$ -43%
Multi-Family 14,735 8,381 -43%
Commercial/Office/Retail (per 1k SF) 27,021 6,694 -75% Industrial (per 1k SF) 16,490 3,934 -76%
Hotel/Motel (per Room) 18,791 7,389 -61%
T AB LE 2
Adopted DIF Rates
Single Family
Residence
Multi-Family
Residence
Commercial/
Office/Retail
(per 1k SF)
Industrial
(per 1k SF)
Hotel/Motel
(per Room)
Fire Suppression 648$ 491$ 187$ 908$ 88$ Police Facilities 10 8 4 16 2 Animal Control 223 176 0 0 0 City Hall 530 424 194 837 81 Records Storage 26 20 9 41 4 Drainage 963 367 300 632 213 Transportation 9,952 6,895 6,000 1,500 7,001 Total Current 12,352$ 8,381$ 6,694$ 3,934$ 7,389$
Staff Report to the City Council
Development Impact Fee Update
February 1, 2022
project. With the current DIF rates, the City may not have adequate funding for the Main Street Widening and Aqueduct Construction Project when the SBCTA funding becomes available.
To ensure adequate DIF is collected to fund crucial Capital Improvement Projects, staff recommends reducing the discount of DIF rates on SFR, multi-family, industrial, and hotel/motel.
This reduction of discount allows for the City to keep pace with inflationary increases, while allowing for increased capacity in critical areas. At this time, there is no change being proposed to commercial. If approved, t able 4 summarizes the recommended rate by dollar value, while Table 5 shows the percentage comparison.
FISCAL IMPACT
Development Impact Fees are an important source of revenue that allows the City to pay for the expansion of infrastructure projects triggered by new development. Revenue will fluctuate based on building activit y; a component of the annual budget is an estimate of construction permits issued. By reducing the discount, the City will be in a better position to pr ovide much needed expansion of infrastructure.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternate direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Fee Summary Memorandum prepared by David Taussig & Associates
2. Resolution No. 2022-01
T AB LE 4
Proposed Rate S FR Multi-Family
Comme rcial
(per 1k SF)
Industrial
(per 1k SF)
Hotel/Motel
(per Room)
Fire Suppression 648$ 491$ 187$ 908$ 88$ Police Facilities 10 8 4 16 8 Animal Control 227 176 0 0 0 City Hall 546 424 194 856 412 Records Storage 26 20 9 41 20 Drainage 1,387 529 300 910 306 Transportation 11,028 7,733 6,000 2,703 11,100 Total Proposed Rate 13,872$ 9,381$ 6,694$ 5,434$ 11,934$ T AB LE 5
Proposed Rate % Reduction
Maximum
R
ate
Adopted
Rate
Percentage
Reduction
Adopted
Rate
Percentage
Reduction
Single Family Residence 21,735 $ 12, 352$ -43% 13,872 $ -36% Multi-Family 14,735 8,381$ -43% 9,381$ -36%
Commercial/Office/Retail (per 1k SF) 27,021 6,694$ -75% 6,694$ -75% Industrial (per 1k SF) 16,490 3,934$ -76% 5,434$ -67% Hotel/Motel (per Room) 18,791 7,389$ -61% 11,934 $ -36% Current Rates Proposed Rates
DAVID
TAUSSIG
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Public Finance
Facilities Planning
Urban Economics
CITY OF HESPERIA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
May 8, 2018
Prepared for
CITY OF HESPERIA
9700 7th Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
Prepared by
DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5000 Birch Street, Suite 6000
Newport Beach, California 92660
(800) 969-4382
Newport Beach
San Francisco
San Jose
Riverside
Dallas
Houston
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................. 2
III. DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................... 7
IV. FEE CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................... 17
A. FIRE FEE ................................................................................................................................ 17
B. POLICE FEE ........................................................................................................................... 22
C. ANIMAL CONTROL FEE.......................................................................................................... 26
D. CITY HALL FEE ....................................................................................................................... 30
E. RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES FEE.................................................................................... 33
F. DRAINAGE FEE ....................................................................................................................... 37
G. TRANSPORTATION FEE ......................................................................................................... 44
V. IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 50
APPENDICES
A. DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY
B. DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY – NOT INCLUDING TAPESTRY & TAPESTRY ONLY C. TRANSPORTATION NEEDS LIST
D. FEE MODELS
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
City of Hesperia Page 1
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
The City of Hesperia ("City") authorized David Taussig & Associates, Inc. (“DTA”) to prepare a nexus study to justify proposed development impact fees to be imposed on new development within the City limits (the “Fee Study”). The fees to be collected will provide a source of revenue to fund public improvements that will mitigate the impacts of such new development. This Fee Study will meet the requirements of California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. known as the "Mitigation Fee Act" and will achieve the following goals related to said section:
Ensure the development impact fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is imposed Provide a clear and concise document that will serve as the basis for the proposed fee levels
A development impact fee (“Fee”) is a one-time charge imposed by a local agency on new development to recover, or partially recover, the estimated reasonable cost of providing public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of such new development.
Further discussion on the legal limitations related to imposing development impact fees is discussed in Section II, "Legal Requirements."
This Fee Study and the resulting fee structure will focus on the justification for imposing impact fees to fund, or partially fund, fire, police, animal control, City Hall, records storage, drainage, and transportation facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development.
This study uses a planning horizon of 2040 for all projections of demographic growth. To ensure the proposed fee structure meets the nexus requirements of Section 66001 and ensure the fees are proportionate to the impacts generated by the various land uses, this Fee Study uses an equivalent development unit ("EDU") method to fairly allocate costs to new development and determine the appropriate fee levels that will provide a source of funds to pay for the proposed facilities. A more detailed discussion regarding the EDU methodology can be found in Section III-4.
Section IV of this Fee Study provides detailed analyses of facility needs (the “Needs Lists”) for each fee category, allocation of costs to new development and calculation of fee structures for fire, police, animal control, City Hall, records storage, drainage, and transportation facilities. For purposes of this Fee Study, the City categorizes developable land uses as residential property and non-residential property.
Residential and non-residential property is further categorized into subclasses of single family, multi-family, commercial/office/retail, industrial, and hotel/motel.
Section V also adds an administrative component of 1.0% of the individual fee amounts to pay for the City's overhead costs incurred in the administration of the Fee program.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Hesperia Page 2
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 The City has identified the need to levy impact fees to pay for fire, police, animal control, City Hall, records storage, drainage, and transportation facilities. These fees will finance facilities on the Needs Lists at levels identified by the City as appropriate for new development. Upon the adoption of the Fee Study and required legal documents by the City Council, all new development will be required to pay its “fair share” of the cost of facilities on the Needs Lists through these fees.
The fees are established pursuant to AB 1600 as described below.
AB 1600 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Prior to World War II, development in California was held responsible for very little of the cost of public infrastructure. Public improvements were financed primarily through jurisdictional general funds and utility charges. It was not uncommon during this period for speculators to subdivide tracts of land without providing any public improvements, expecting the closest city to eventually annex a project and provide public improvements and services.
However, starting in the late 1940s, the use of impact fees grew with the increased planning and regulation of new development. During the 1960s and 1970s, the California Courts broadened the right of local government to impose fees on developers for public improvements that were not located on project sites. More recently, with the passage of Proposition 13, the limits on general revenues for new infrastructure have resulted in new development being held responsible for a greater share of public improvements, and both the use and levels of impact fees have grown substantially. Higher fee levels were undoubtedly driven in part by a need to offset the decline in funds for infrastructure development from other sources.
The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development, as the levy of such fees provides funding to maintain an agency's existing level of service for an increased service population. A fee is “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which 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...” (California Government Code, Section 66000). A fee may be levied for each type of capital improvement required for new development, with the payment of the fee occurring prior to the beginning of construction of a dwelling unit or non-residential building (or prior to the expansion of existing buildings of these types). Fees are often levied at final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance.
Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1600, which created Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code, was enacted by the State of California in 1987. This Fee Study is intended to meet the nexus or benefit requirements of AB 1600, which mandates that there is a nexus between fees imposed, the use of the fees, and the development projects on which the fees are imposed.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Hesperia Page 3
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a fee cannot include costs attributable to existing deficiencies, but can fund costs used to maintain the existing level of service or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.
Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code requires all public agencies to satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of new development:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1)).
2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(2)).
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(3)).
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4)).
5. Discuss 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 sections below present each of the five requirements listed above as they relate to the imposition of the proposed fees.
1. Purpose of the Fee (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))
New residential and non-residential development within the City will generate additional residents and employees who will require additional public facilities. Land for these facilities will have to be acquired and public facilities and equipment will have to be expanded, constructed or purchased to meet this increased demand.
This Fee Study has been prepared in response to the projected direct and cumulative effect of future development. Each new development will contribute to the need for new public facilities. Without future development many of the new public facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary as the existing facilities are adequate for the City’s present population. In instances where facilities would be built regardless of new development, the costs of such facilities have been allocated to new and existing development based on their respective level of benefit.
The proposed Fees, other than the fire Fee, will be charged to all future development, irrespective of location, in the City. The fire Fee will not be
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Hesperia Page 4
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
charged in the Tapestry Specific Plan (“Tapestry”) as described further in Section III herein. Even future “in fill” development projects contribute to impacts on public facilities because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the City. First, the property owners and/or the tenants associated with any new development in the City can be expected to place additional demands on City facilities funded by the fee. Second, these property owners and tenants are dependent on and, in fact, may not have chosen to utilize their development, except for residential, retail, employment and recreational opportunities located nearby on other existing and future development. Third, the availability of residents, employees, and customers throughout the City has a growth-inducing impact without which some of the “in-fill” development would not occur. As a result, all development projects in the City contribute to the cumulative impacts of development.
The proposed Fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities identified on the Needs Lists and appropriate administrative costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development in the City.
2. The Use to Which the Fee is to be Put (Government Code Section 66001(a)(2))
The proposed Fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public facilities identified on the Needs Lists, included in Section IV of the Fee Study and other appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development in the City. The Fee will provide a source of revenue to the City to allow for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities, which in turn will maintain the current standard of service, preserve the quality of life in the City and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the existing and future residents, visitors, and employees.
3. Determine That There is a Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee’s Use and the Type of Development Project Upon Which the Fee is Imposed (Benefit Relationship) (Government Code Section 66001(a)(3))
It is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future development that has prompted the preparation of the Fee Study. Each development will contribute to the need for new public facilities. Without future development, the City would have no need to construct many of the public facilities on the Needs Lists. For all other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new development based on their level of benefit. Even future “in fill” development projects, which may be adjacent to existing facilities, further burden existing public facilities. Consequently, all new development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Hesperia Page 5
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
impacts of development on public facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth.
The Fees will be expended for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public facilities identified on the Needs Lists and other authorized uses, as that is the purpose for which the Fee is collected. As previously stated, all new development creates either a direct impact on public facilities or contributes to the cumulative impact on public facilities. Moreover, this impact is generally equalized among all types of development because it is the increased demands for public facilities created by the future residents and employees that create the impact upon existing facilities.
For the foregoing reasons, new development benefits from the acquisition, construction, and installation of the facilities on the Needs Lists.
4. Determine How There is a Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project Upon Which the Fee is Imposed (Impact Relationship) (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))
As previously stated all new development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Please note that the fire facilities required to serve new development in Tapestry will be built and paid for under a separate agreement, as discussed in Section III. Without future development, many of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary. For certain other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new development based on their level of benefit.
For the reasons presented herein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities included on the Needs List and all new development within the City.
5. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Public Facilities Attributable to the Development Upon Which the Fee is Imposed (“Rough Proportionality” Relationship) (Government Code 66001(a)
As set forth above, all new development in the City impacts public facilities.
Moreover, each individual development project and its related increase in population and/or employment, along with the cumulative impacts of all development in the City, will adversely impact existing facilities. Thus, imposition of the Fees to finance the facilities on the Needs Lists is an efficient, practical, and equitable method of permitting development to proceed in a responsible manner.
New development impacts facilities directly and cumulatively. In fact, without any future development, the acquisition, construction, and/or installation of
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
City of Hesperia Page 6
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
many of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary as existing City facilities are adequate. Even new development located adjacent to existing facilities will utilize and benefit from facilities on the Needs List.
The proposed Fees are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from new development based on the analysis in Section IV. Thus there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the facilities.
Identifying these items will enable the Fees to meet the nexus and rough proportionality requirements established by previous court cases. These findings are discussed in the nexus test for each proposed Fee as presented in Section IV.A through Section IV.G. Current State financing and fee assessment requirements only allow new development to pay for its fair share of new facilities’ costs. Any current deficiencies resulting from the needs of existing development must be funded through other sources. Therefore, a key element to establish legal impact fees is to determine what share of the benefit or cost of a particular improvement can be equitably assigned to existing development, even if that improvement has not yet been constructed.
By removing this factor, the true impact of new development can be assessed and equitable fees assigned.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 7
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
In order to determine the public facilities needed to serve new development as well as establish Fees to fund such facilities, the City provided DTA with existing development and projections of future population, employees and development within the City. For purposes of determining existing development and projecting future population and employment growth, the City categorizes developable land uses as residential property and non- residential property. Residential and non-residential property is further categorized into subclasses as shown in Table III-1. Based on these designations, DTA established Fees for these land use categories to acknowledge the difference in impacts resulting from various land uses and to make the resulting fee program implementable. A summary of the land use classes utilized in this Fee Study is included in Table III-1. However, not all Fees will apply to all land uses.
Table III-1
LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR
FEE STUDY
DEFINITION
GENERAL
PLAN
DESIGNATION
Single Family Residential
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the
following:
Single family detached homes
Single family attached homes
R-1
Multi-Family Residential
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the
following:
Buildings with attached residential units including
apartments, town homes, condominiums
R-3
Commercial/Office/Retail
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the
following:
Department stores, discount stores,
furniture/appliance outlets, home improvement
centers
Neighborhood shopping center
Subregional and regional shopping centers
Automobile sales and services
Entertainment and cultural facilities
Business Parks
Service-oriented business activities unless specifically listed elsewhere
Business/professional office
Professional medical offices not located on the same
property/development as a hospital
Service oriented business activities where the focus is on customer service delivery in an office environment.
C-1, C-2, C-3
Industrial
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the
following:
Manufacturing Facilities
Storage Facilities
Parking lots
Utility Facilities
I-1, I-2
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 8
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR
FEE STUDY
DEFINITION
GENERAL
PLAN
DESIGNATION
Hotel/Motel
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the
following:
Short term and intermediate term housing with room
rental businesses defined as hotel or motel in the
Hesperia Municipal Code
R-3
The time horizon used for all fees is through the year 2040. The City utilized data from the City’s General Plan (the “General Plan”), California Department of Finance, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the City’s Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) dated December 2010 to generate existing and future development projections through 2040.
All fees indicated herein are imposed on a city-wide basis except for the fire Fee which does not include the property in Tapestry. Tapestry, formerly known as the Rancho Las Floras Specific Plan, is located in the southern part of the City and is comprised of approximately 9,365 acres. Fire facilities required by Tapestry will be built and paid for under a separate agreement. Please refer to Appendix B which summarizes estimated future development for residential and non-residential property through the year 2040 not including Tapestry and for Tapestry only.
The following sections summarize the existing and future development figures used in calculating the Fees.
Section 1 below summarizes the existing development in the City.
Section 2 below summarizes the future development in the City through the year 2040.
Section 3 below summarizes the total development in the City in the year 2040.
Lastly, Section 4 below summarizes the EDU methodology used in all fee calculations.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 9
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
1. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CITY
Work on the Fee Study began in 2015. Therefore, all existing development indicated herein starts with 2015 as the current year. Since then, there has not been any significant changes to the development information and the City believes that the demographics presented herein are still reasonable.
A. Residential Development
The City estimates there were 92,177 residents and 29,067 residential units within the City as of January 1, 2015. This is based on data provided by the California Department of Finance.
Table III-2 below summarizes the existing residential development within the City.
TABLE III-2
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Residential Property Existing Number of
Residents (2015)
Existing Number of
Residential Units (2015)
Single-Family 83,974 25,747
Multi-Family 8,203 3,320
Total 92,177 29,067
B. Non-Residential Development
In terms of non-residential development, the City estimates that there are approximately 393 Hotel/Motel rooms, 5.8 million square feet of Commercial/Office/Retail development, and 1.8 million square feet of Industrial development within the City as of January 1, 2015. The number of existing non- residential square feet is based on Tables 3 and 4 of the City’s December 2010 EIR.
In terms of employees, the City estimates there are 16,758 existing employees within the City. Existing employees is based on Year 2012 figures and an annual growth rate of 2.32% as shown in Table 1 of SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (“RTP/SCS”) dated May 14, 2014.
Table III-3 below summarizes the existing non-residential development within the City.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 10
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
TABLE III-3
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Non-Residential Property
Number of
Employees
(2015)
Number of Non-
Residential SF
(2015)
Number of
Rooms
(2015)
Commercial/Office/Retail 6,157 5,790,617 NA
Industrial 9,618 1,853,804 NA
Hotel/Motel 983 NA 393
Total 16,758 7,644,421 393
2. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CITY (2016 – 2040)
A. Residential Development
The City estimates there will be 182,732 residents residing in 57,296 residential units within the City in the year 2040. Therefore, the City will have a population increase of 90,556 new residents and growth in residential development of 28,229 new dwelling units from 2016 through 2040. Population and development growth is based on information provided by the City on January 30, 2018.
Table III-4 below summarizes the future demographics for residential property through the year 2040.
TABLE III-4
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(2016 THROUGH 2040)
Residential Property Future Number of
Residents (2016 – 2040)
Future Number of Residential
Units (2016 - 2040)
Single-Family 80,495 24,312
Multi-Family 10,061 3,917
Total 90,556 28,229
B. Non-Residential Development
In terms of non-residential development, it is estimated there will be approximately 212 new Hotel/Motel rooms, 5.2 million new square feet of
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 11
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
Commercial/Office/Retail development, and 1.4 million new square feet of Industrial development within the City from 2016 to 2040.
In terms of employees, it is estimated there will be 14,123 additional employees within the City through 2040.
Table III-5 below summarizes the future demographics for the non-residential land uses through the year 2040.
TABLE III-5
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED FUTURE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(2016 THROUGH 2040)
Non-Residential Property Number of
Employees
Number of Non-
Residential SF
Number of
Rooms
Commercial/Office/Retail 6,142 5,218,900 NA
Industrial 7,451 1,436,072 NA
Hotel/Motel 530 0 212
Total 14,123 6,654,972 212
3. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CITY (2040)
Table III-6 below describes the total residential development in the City in the year 2040.
This is based on the sum of Tables III-2 and III-4.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 12
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
TABLE III-6
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(IN YEAR 2040)
Residential
Property Description
Total Existing
(2015)
(From Table III-2)
Future
Development
(2016 to 2040)
(From Table III-4)
Total
Development
(2040)
Single-Family
Residents 83,974 80,495 164,469
Units 25,747 24,312 50,059
Multi-Family
Residents 8,203 10,061 18,264
Units 3,320 3,917 7,237
Total
Residents 92,177 90,556 182,732
Units 29,067 28,229 57,296
Table III-7 below describes the total non-residential development in the City in the year 2040. This is based on the sum of Tables III-3 and III-5.
TABLE III-7
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(IN YEAR 2040)
Residential Property Description
Total Existing
(2015)
(From Table III-3)
Future Development
(2016 to 2040)
(From Table III-5)
Total
Development
(2040)
Commercial/Office/Retail
Employees 6,157 6,142 12,299
Non-Res. SF 5,790,617 5,218,900 11,009,517
Industrial
Employees 9,618 7,451 17,069
Non-Res. SF 1,853,804 1,436,072 3,289,876
Hotel/Motel
Employees 983 530 1,513
Rooms 393 212 605
Total
Employees 16,758 14,123 30,881
Non-Res. SF 7,644,421 6,654,972 14,299,393
Hotel Rooms 393 212 605
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 13
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
4. EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU) PROJECTIONS
California Government Code §66001(4)(b) requires there to be 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." To ensure a reasonable relationship is maintained within the proposed fee structure, this study uses an Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") methodology. This approach establishes, for given land uses, a method of comparison of that land use to a baseline land use, utilizing a common demand variable. A demand variable is a measurable factor directly related to the size of the public facility.
As stated earlier, Fees are calculated for various land use categories. Each land use has different levels of demand for the new facilities depending upon the demand variable most closely related to the determination of the size, extent and cost of the facility in question. For instance, additional traffic generated by new development requires expansion of existing roadway systems, therefore vehicular trips generated by growth in the various land uses would be a reasonable variable to measure traffic demand. In this case the Average Daily Trips ("ADT") would be the common demand variable and the ADTs generated by a residential dwelling unit would be the baseline value to which the ADTs generated by the remaining land uses would be compared. Likewise, additional residents resulting from new residential development will generate demand for expanded police facilities in the existing police system, therefore population increase would be considered a reasonable common demand variable and the population growth from a new residence would be used as the baseline.
Table III-8 shows the facility type, service factor, and applicable land uses which are used in the Fee calculations.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 14
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
TABLE III-8
Facility Type Development
Includes Service Factor Fee charged to Land
Uses
Fire Does Not Include
Tapestry
Residents and
Employees Served
Residential and Non-
Residential
Police City-wide Residents and
Employees Served
Residential and Non-
Residential
Animal Control City-wide Residents Served Residential Only City Hall City-wide Residents and
Employees Served
Residential and Non-
Residential
Records Storage City-wide Residents and
Employees Served
Residential and Non-
Residential.
Drainage City-wide Equivalent Runoff Unit Residential and Non- Residential
Transportation City-wide Average Daily Trips Residential and Non- Residential
Table III-9 shows the existing EDUs for each land use. The EDU data is used for the police, City Hall, and records storage facilities fees. The EDUs for fire, which exclude Tapestry, are summarized Appendix B. The EDUs for drainage and transportation, which are based on equivalent runoff units (“ERU”) and ADTs, respectively, are described in Section IV.F and Section IV.G.
For Tables III-9 through III-11 below, the EDU factor is calculated based on the residents per unit (or employees per 1,000 SF/Room) for each land use divided by the residents per unit for Single Family units. For example, existing multi-family units has an EDU factor of 0.76, which is based on 2.47 divided by 3.26.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 15
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
TABLE III-9
City of Hesperia
Existing Equivalent Dwelling Units
(In 2015)
Residential Property Number of Existing
Residents
Number of
Residential Units
Residents Per
Unit
EDUs per
Residential Unit
Total Existing
EDUs
Single Family 83,974 25,747 3.26 1.000 25,747
Multi-Family 8,203 3,320 2.47 0.76 2,515
Subtotal 92,177 29,067 28,262
Non-Residential Property Number of Existing
Employees
Number of Non-
Residential SF /
Rooms
Employees per
1,000 Non-Res.
SF / Room
EDUs per 1,000
Non-Res. SF /
Room
Total Existing
EDUs
Commercial/Office/Retail 6,157 5,790,617 1.06 0.33 1,888 Industrial 9,618 1,853,804 5.19 1.59 2,949
Hotel/Motel Rooms 983 393 2.50 0.15 301
Subtotal 16,758 7,644,421 5,138
Grand Total 33,400
Table III-10 shows the total number of future EDUs calculated for each land use for the time period from 2016 through 2040. Please note that the future EDU factors differ from the existing EDU factors due to various reasons including estimated changes in residents per unit and employees per square foot as provided by the City.
TABLE III-10
City of Hesperia
Future Equivalent Dwelling Units
(From 2016 to 2040)
Residential Property Number of Future
Residents
Number of
Residential Units
Residents Per
Unit
EDUs per
Residential Unit
Total Future
EDUs
Single Family 80,495 24,312 3.31 1.000 24,312
Multi-Family 10,061 3,917 2.57 0.80 3,039
Subtotal 90,556 28,229 27,351
Non-Residential Property Number of Future
Employees
Number of Non-
Residential SF /
Rooms
Employees per
1,000 Non-Res.
SF / Room
EDUs per 1,000
Non-Res. SF /
Room
Total Future
EDUs
Commercial/Office/Retail 6,142 5,218,900 1.18 0.38 1,855 Industrial 7,451 1,436,072 5.19 1.58 2,250
Hotel/Motel Rooms 530 212 2.50 0.15 160
Subtotal 14,123 6,654,972 4,266
Grand Total 31,616
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Hesperia Page 16
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
Table III-11 shows the total number of EDUs calculated for each land use in the year 2040:
TABLE III-11
City of Hesperia
Equivalent Dwelling Units
(In 2040)
Residential Property Number of Future
Residents
Number of
Residential Units
Residents Per
Unit
EDUs per
Residential Unit
Total Future
EDUs
Single Family 164,469 50,059 3.29 0.88 50,059
Multi-Family 18,264 7,237 2.52 0.69 5,554
Subtotal 182,732 57,296 55,613
Non-Residential Property Number of Future
Employees
Number of Non-
Residential SF /
Rooms
Employees per
1,000 Non-Res.
SF / Room
EDUs per 1,000
Non-Res. SF /
Room
Total Future
EDUs
Commercial/Office/Retail 12,299 11,009,517 1.12 0.31 3,743 Industrial 17,069 3,289,876 5.19 1.40 5,199
Hotel/Motel Rooms 1,513 605 2.50 0.14 461
Subtotal 30,881 14,299,393 9,404
Grand Total 65,016
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -
FIRE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 17
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 The following sections present the reasonable relationship for benefit, impact, and rough proportionality tests for each Fee element (i.e., fire facilities, police facilities, animal control facilities, etc.) and the analysis undertaken to apportion costs for each type of public facility on the Needs Lists. More detailed fee calculation worksheets for each type of facility are included in Appendix D.
A. F IRE FACILITIES
The Fire Facilities will serve the residents and employees of the City by providing fire protection services. The Fee Study includes a component for new fire facilities and expansion to existing fire facilities. As mentioned previously, the fire Fee will not apply to Tapestry since the Fire Facilities needed for such development will be mitigated under a separate agreement. Table IV-A1 illustrates how the fire Fee will meet the requirements of AB 1600 with regard to use of the fee, the type of development funded or partially funded by the fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need for facilities, and the proportionality requirements.
TABLE IV-A1
FIRE FACILITIES
AB 1600 Code
Section Description Justification
66001(a)(1) Identify the purpose of
the Fee
Provide a revenue source that will provide funds to
construct various new Fire facilities and expand
existing Fire facilities that will mitigate the impacts of new residential and non-residential development to
the City’s Fire facilities.
66001(a)(2) Identify the use to which
the fee is to be put Expansion/construction/acquisition of Fire facilities. 66001(a)(3)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
fee’s use and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential development in
the City will generate additional residents and
employees increasing the need for trained Fire
personnel. Buildings used to provide these services
will have to be expanded, constructed or purchased
to meet this increased demand.
66001(a)(4)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
need for the public
facilities and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
The additional residents and employees from new
development will impact demand for fire facilities.
New Fire facilities are needed to mitigate the
impacts of the additional r esidents and employees.
If additional Fire facilities are not constructed and
equipment and vehicles are not acquired, then
overall public safety in the City will suffer.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -
FIRE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 18
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
66001(b)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
amount of the fee and
the cost of the public
facility
The Fire fee is based on the cost to provide new
facilities and expand existing facilities.
EXISTING FACILITIES
The City of Hesperia currently has four fire stations totaling 31,860 building square feet. See Table IV-A2 for a summary of the existing inventory.
TABLE IV-A2
EXISTING FIRE FACILITIES
Fire Facilities Location Facility Unit Building Size
Fire Station 301 9430 11th Avenue SF 3,700
Fire Station 302 17288 Olive Street SF 3,435
Fire Station 304 15660 Eucalyptus Street SF 5,627
Fire Station 305 8331 Caliente Road SF 19,098
Total Fire Stations 31,860
Please note that Fire Stations 301 and 302 will be torn down and rebuilt into larger facilities. This leaves a total of 24,725 square feet of existing facilities (Fire Stations 304 and 305) which will remain as is. The proposed rebuilt facilities are included in the section below.
PROPOSED FACILITIES
In order to determine the proposed facilities, the City must determine the demand upon infrastructure created by new development. It is clear all new development in the City will impact the City’s current ability to respond to fire, rescue, and medical calls-for- service. The effect is twofold. Initially, each new residence and business will create additional calls-for-service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thus competing) calls-for-service. Additionally, as development spreads further from existing stations, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the existing engine companies out-of-service for greater periods of time.
The capacity of any fire station is finite and will reach practical limits (through call frequency and total incident time). When capacity is exceeded, the level of service afforded to existing development will be reduced. In other words, if development continues without an increase in the number of fire stations, the existing stations would be overwhelmed in terms of calls-for-service, increasing the possibility of a greater number of simultaneous calls-for-service. Additional demands will be made
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -
FIRE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 19
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
upon the previously listed assets in Table IV-A2 above and therefore, such assets would need to be expanded.
Table IV-A3 identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of Fire fees. Quantity and costs are based on estimates provided by the City.
TABLE IV-A3
NEEDS LIST
Fire Facilities Location Facility
Unit Building Size Facility Cost
Tear Down and Rebuild Fire Station 301 9430 11th Avenue SF 15,200 $7,600,000 Tear Down and Rebuild Fire Station 302 17288 Olive Street SF 18,200 $9,240,000 Fire Station 304 Expansion 15660 Eucalyptus Street SF 4,200 $2,333,000 Grand Total 37,600 $19,173,000
Equivalent Dwelling Units
For Fire facilities, the development of property into residential and non-residential uses generates residents and employees increasing the need for trained fire personnel. Buildings used to provide fire protection services will have to be expanded, constructed or purchased to meet this increased demand.
Since the facilities proposed to be financed by the impact fees will serve both residential and non-residential property, DTA projected the number of future EDUs based on the number of residents or employees generated by each land use class.
As shown in Section III.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 33,400 total existing EDUs and 15,677 future EDU’s (which does not include the property in the Tapestry Specific Plan), bringing the total EDUs in 2040 to 49,077 EDUs.
As mentioned previously, the Fire Fee will not apply to property in the Tapestry Specific Plan since the specific Fire Facilities for such property will be built and paid for under a separate agreement.
Allocation of Costs
The total cost of $19,173,000, as shown in Table IV-A3 above, for fire facilities needed to serve existing and new development is allocated to existing and new development based on the share of total EDUs in 2040.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -
FIRE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 20
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
Fire Stations
Table IV-A4 summarizes the allocation of fire station costs to existing and new development. The City currently has 24,725 square feet of existing fire station buildings that will remain at buildout. Based on the locations of existing and new development, two existing fire facilities will need to be torn down and rebuilt and one fire facility will need to be expanded. The City has determined that fire stations totaling 37,600 new building square feet are needed to adequately serve both existing and new development, bringing the total building square footage of the fire stations to 62,325 square feet. Therefore, after providing a credit to existing development for the existing 24,725 square feet, 47.05% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 52.95% will be allocated to new development as shown below.
TABLE IV-A4
ALLOCATION OF FIRE FACILITIES COSTS
Type of
Development EDUs Percentage
of Total EDUs
Total Facilities
Sq. Ft. in 2040
Sq. Ft. Credit
for Existing
Development
Building Sq. Ft.
Net of Credit
Percentage
of Costs
Allocated
Facility Costs
Allocated
Existing
Development 33,400 68.06% 42,417 (24,725) 17,692 47.05% $9,021,258 Future
Development 15,677 31.94% 19,908 0 19,908 52.95% $10,151,742 Total 49,077 100.00% 62,325 (24,725) 37,600 100.00% $19,173,000
Proposed Fee Amount
The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future development by the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-A5 for the Fee for each land use.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -
FIRE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 21
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
TABLE IV-A5
PROPOSED FEES
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/Room/1,000 Sq.
Ft.
Development Impact Fee
per Unit/Room/1,000
Sq. Ft.
Cost Financed
by Fees
Residential Property
Single Family 1.00 $648 $7,208,120
Multi-Family 0.76 $491 $704,187
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 0.29 $187 $842,785
Industrial 1.40 $908 $1,303,902
Hotel/Motel 0.68 $437 $92,748
Total $10,151,742
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $9,021,258
Total Cost of Fire Facilities $19,173,000
Based on the development projections in Section III, the fee amount presented in Table IV- A5 above is expected to finance approximately 52.95% of the facilities needed. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCU LATIONS–
POLICE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 22
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 B. P OLICE FACILITIES
The Police Facilities will serve the residents and employees of the City by providing law enforcement and public safety services. The Fee Study includes a component for new police cameras. Table IV-B1 illustrates how the police fee will meet the requirements of AB 1600 with regard to use of the fee, the type of equipment funded or partially funded by the fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need for equipment, and the proportionality requirements.
TABLE IV-B1
POLICE FACILITIES
AB 1600 Code
Section Description Justification
66001(a)(1) Identify the purpose of
the Fee
Provide a revenue source that will provide funds to
acquire police cameras that will mitigate the
impacts of new residential and non-residential
development to the City’s Police department.
66001(a)(2)
Identify the use to
which the fee is to be
put
Acquisition of fixed and mobile police cameras.
66001(a)(3)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between
the fee’s use and the
type of development
project on which the fee
is imposed
New residential and non-residential development in
the City will generate additional residents and
employees increasing the need for trained police
personnel. Fixed and mobile cameras used to
provide police services will have to be purchased to
meet this increased demand.
66001(a)(4)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between
the need for the public
facilities and the type of
development project on
which the fee is
imposed
The additional residents and employees from new
development will impact demand for police
cameras. New police cameras are needed to
mitigate the impacts of the additional residents and
employees. If additional police cameras are not
acquired, then overall public safety in the City will
suffer.
66001(b)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between
the amount of the fee
and the cost of the
public facility
The police fee is based on the cost to provide new
fixed and mobile police cameras.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCU LATIONS–
POLICE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 23
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT
The addition of new residential units and new business will increase the demand upon enforcement service level, more areas requiring preventative patrol, and in general, will create more opportunities for crimes to be committed. The City has determined that a new camera system will be required in the future to serve both existing and new development.
Table IV-B2 identifies the police cameras proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of Police fees. Quantity and costs are based on estimates provided by the City.
TABLE IV-B2
NEEDS LIST
Police Equipment Facility Unit Number Facility Cost
Future Mobile Cameras
Mobile LPR 4 Camera Unit Units 15 $190,500
Future Fixed Cameras
ALPR Camera Units 1 $86,532
ALPR Camera Units 1 $73,310
ALPR Camera Units 1 $73,310
ALPR Camera Units 1 $60,088
ALPR Camera Units 1 $90,132
ALPR Camera Units 1 $106,954
Grand Total 21 $680,826
Equivalent Dwelling Units
For police equipment, the development of property into residential and non- residential uses generates residents and employees increasing the need for trained police personnel. Police cameras used to provide police services will have to be purchased to meet this increased demand.
Since the equipment proposed to be financed by the impact fees will serve both residential and non-residential property, DTA projected the number of future EDUs based on the number of residents or employees generated by each land use class.
As shown in Section III.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 33,400 total existing EDUs and 31,616 future EDUs (including the property in the Tapestry Specific Plan), bringing the total EDUs in 2040 to 65,016 EDUs.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCU LATIONS–
POLICE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 24
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
Allocation of Costs
The total cost of $680,826, as shown in Table IV-B2 above, for police equipment needed to serve existing and new development is allocated to existing and new development based on the share of total EDUs in 2040.
Total Equipment Costs
See Table IV-B3 for the total equipment costs allocated to new and existing development.
TABLE IV-B3
TOTAL COSTS
Proposed Fee Amount
The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future development by the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-B4 for the fee amount for each land use.
Type of Development EDUs Percentage of
Total EDUs Allocated Units Total Costs
Existing Development 33,400 51.37% 11 $349,754
Future Development 31,616 48.63% 10 $331,072
Total 65,016 100.00% 21 $680,826
SECTION IV: FEE CALCU LATIONS–
POLICE FEE
City of Hesperia Page 25
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
TABLE IV-B4
PROPOSED FEES
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/Room/1,000 Sq.
Ft.
Development Impact Fee
per Unit/Room/1,000
Sq. Ft.
Cost Financed
by Fees
Residential Property
Single Family 1.00 $10 $254,586
Multi-Family 0.78 $8 $31,819
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 0.36 $4 $19,426
Industrial 1.57 $16 $23,566
Hotel/Motel 0.76 $8 $1,676
Total $331,072
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $349,754
Total Cost of Police Equipment
$680,826
Based on the development projections in Section III, the fee amount presented in Table IV- B4 above is expected to finance 48.63% of the equipment needed. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS
–ANIMAL CONTROL FEE
City of Hesperia Page 26
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 C. A NIMAL CONTROL FACILITIES
Animal control facilities play an important part in the health, safety, and overall quality of life for residents in the City of Hesperia. The Fee Study includes a component for a new animal control facility. Table IV-C1 illustrates how the animal control Fee will meet the requirements of AB 1600 with regard to use of the Fee, the type of development funded or partially funded by the Fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need for facilities and the proportionality requirements.
TABLE IV-C1
ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITIES
AB 1600 Code
Section Description Justification
66001(a)(1) Identify the purpose of
the Fee
Provide a revenue source that will provide funds to
construct a new animal control facility that will
mitigate the impacts of new residential development
to the City’s animal control facilities.
66001(a)(2) Identify the use to which
the fee is to be put
Construction and development of new animal control
facility.
66001(a)(3)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
fee’s use and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential development in the City will
generate additional residents increasing the need
for animal control facilities. Animal control facilities used to provide these services will have to be
expanded or constructed to meet this increased
demand.
66001(a)(4)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
need for the public
facilities and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
The additional residents from new development will
impact demand for animal control facilities. New
animal control facilities are needed to mitigate the
impacts of the additional residents. If additional
animal control facilities are not constructed, then
the overall quality of life for residents in the City will suffer.
66001(b)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
amount of the fee and
the cost of the public
facility
The animal control facilities fee is based on the cost
to construct and develop a new animal control
facility.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS
– ANIMAL CONTROL FEE
City of Hesperia Page 27
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
EXISTING FACILITIES
See Table IV-C2 for a summary of the existing inventory of the City’s animal control facilities.
TABLE IV-C2
EXISTING ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITIES
Animal Control Facility Units
Animal Control Facility 10,000 Sq. Ft.
It is expected that the existing Animal Control facility will be torn down and will be replaced by a larger facility as described in the section below.
PROPOSED FACILITIES
In order to determine the proposed facilities, the City must determine the demand upon infrastructure created by new development. It is clear new residential development in the City will impact the City’s current animal control system.
If development continues without an increase in facilities, the existing facility would be overwhelmed in terms of providing animal control services. Additional demands will be made upon the previously listed asset in Table IV-C2 above and therefore, such asset would need to be expanded.
Table IV-C3 identifies the animal control facility proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of animal control fees. Quantity and costs are based on estimates provided by the City.
TABLE IV-C3
NEEDS LIST
Animal Control Facilities Facility Unit Number Facility Cost (2015) New Animal Control Facility SF 36,000 $12,600,000
Equivalent Dwelling Units
For Animal Control facilities, the development of property into residential uses generates residents increasing the need for Animal Control facilities. The developed animal control facility will have to be expanded to meet this increased demand.
City records do not indicate a significant link between the business community and animal control facilities use, therefore, no Fee is required from non-residential property. Therefore, the EDUs for existing and future development are based on the
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS
– ANIMAL CONTROL FEE
City of Hesperia Page 28
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
residents generated from existing and future residential units. There are no EDUs assigned to Non-Residential Property.
As shown in Section III.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 28,262 total existing residential EDUs and 27,351 future residential EDUs, bringing the total residential EDUs in 2040 to 55,613 EDUs.
Allocation of Costs
The total cost of $12,600,000, as shown in Table IV-C3 above, for Animal Control facilities needed to serve existing and new development is allocated to existing and new development based on the share of total EDUs in 2040.
Table IV-C4 summarizes the allocation of the new animal control facility costs to existing and new development. The City currently has 10,000 sq. ft. existing animal control facilities which will be torn down and replaced by a larger facility. Based on the existing and new development within the City, a new animal control facility will be needed. The City has determined that a demolition of the existing animal control facility and construction a new 36,000 sq. ft. animal control facility is needed to adequately serve both existing and new development. Therefore, 50.82% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 49.18% will be allocated to new development as shown below.
TABLE IV-C4
ALLOCATION OF NEW ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY COSTS
Type of
Development
Residential
EDUs
Percentage
of Total
EDUs
Total SF in
2040
Facility Costs
Allocated
Existing
Development 28,262 50.82% 18,295 $6,403,263
Future
Development 27,351 49.18% 17,705 $6,196,737
Total 55,613 100.00% 36,000 $12,600,000
Proposed Fee Amount
The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future development by the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-C5 for the Fee for each land use.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS
– ANIMAL CONTROL FEE
City of Hesperia Page 29
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
TABLE IV-C5
PROPOSED FEES
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/Room/1,000 Sq.
Ft.
Development Impact Fee
per Unit/Room/1,000
Sq. Ft.
Cost Financed
by Fees
Residential Property
Single Family 1.00 $227 $5,508,291
Multi-Family 0.78 $176
$688,446
Total $6,196,737
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $6,403,263
Total Cost of Animal Control Facilities $12,600,000
Based on the development projections in Section III, the Fee presented in Table IV-C5 above is expected to finance approximately 49.18% of the facilities needed. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS –
CITY HALL FEE
City of Hesperia Page 30
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 D. C ITY HALL FACILITIES
The City Hall Facilities will serve the residents and businesses of the City by providing a range of administrative duties and public services. The Fee Study includes a component for paying the outstanding debt service on the 2013 Civic Plaza Bonds.
Table IV-D1 illustrates how the City Hall Fee will meet the requirements of AB 1600 with regard to use of fees, the type of development on which the fee is imposed, the reasonable relationship to the need for collection items, and proportionality requirements.
TABLE IV-D1
CITY HALL FEE – AB 1600 COMPLIANCE
AB 1600 Code
Section Description Justification
66001(a)(1) Identify the purpose of
the Fee
Provide a revenue source that will provide funds to
pay outstanding debt service on the 2013 Civic
Plaza Bonds that will mitigate the impacts of new
residential and non-residential development to the
City’s City Hall facilities.
66001(a)(2) Identify the use to which
the fee is to be put
Pay outstanding debt service on the 2013 Civic
Plaza Bonds.
66001(a)(3)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
fee’s use and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential development in
the City will generate additional residents and
employees who will use the City Hall facilities. Fees
collected from new residential and non-residential
development will be used to pay debt service on the
2013 Civic Plaza Bonds.
66001(a)(4)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
need for the public
facilities and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
The additional residents and employees from new
residential and non-residential development will
impact demand for City Hall facilities. If new
development is not subject to the Fee, the City will
have insufficient funds to pay the outstanding debt
on the 2013 Civic Plaza Bonds.
66001(b)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
amount of the fee and
the cost of the public
facility
The City Hall fee is based on the total 2013 Civic
Plaza bonds outstanding which were used to pay for
City Hall facilities.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS –
CITY HALL FEE
City of Hesperia Page 31
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
PROPOSED COSTS
Table IV-D2 identifies the City Hall facilities costs proposed to be funded with the collection of City Hall fees. Quantity and costs are based on estimates provided by the City.
TABLE IV-D2
PROPOSED COSTS
City Hall Facilities Amount
Total Facilities Cost $19,782,375
Allocation of Costs
The total cost of $19,782,375, as shown in Table IV-D2 above, is for the outstanding debt on the 2013 Civic Plaza Bonds. The City (existing development) directly funded a portion of the facility cost, outside of the bond issue. The amount indicated below is an allocation of only the debt service on the bonds to existing and new development.
The share of the total facilities cost allocated to new development, when accounting for the City’s prior contribution is approximately 64%. Table IV-D3 summarizes the allocation of the outstanding debt on the 2013 Civic Plaza Bonds.
TABLE IV-D3
ALLOCATION OF CITY HALL FACILITIES COSTS
Type of Development Percentage
Allocation
Facility Costs
Allocated
Existing Development 12.75% $2,522,253
Future Development 87.25% $17,260,122
Total 100.00% $19,782,375
Proposed Fee Amount
The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future development by the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-D4 for the fee amount for each land use.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS –
CITY HALL FEE
City of Hesperia Page 32
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 TABLE IV-D4
PROPOSED FEES
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/Room/1,000 Sq.
Ft.
Development Impact Fee
per Unit/Room/1,000
Sq. Ft.
Cost Financed
by Fees
Residential Property
Single Family 1.00 $546 $13,272,575
Multi-Family 0.78 $424 $1,658,854
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 0.36 $194 $1,012,733
Industrial 1.57 $856 $1,228,570
Hotel/Motel 0.76 $412 $87,390
Total $17,260,122
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $2,522,253
Total Cost of City Hall Facilities $19,782,375
Based on the development projections in Section III, the fee amount presented in Table IV- D4 above is expected to finance 87.25% of the facilities needed. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS –
RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 33
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 E. R ECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES
The Records Storage Facilities will serve the residents and employees of the City by providing additional storage services. The Fee Study includes a component for a new records storage facility. Table IV-E1 illustrates how the records storage facilities Fee will meet the requirements of AB 1600 with regard to use of the Fee, the type of development funded or partially funded by the Fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need for facilities and the proportionality requirements.
TABLE IV-E1
RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES
AB 1600 Code
Section Description Justification
66001(a)(1) Identify the purpose of
the Fee
Provide a revenue source that will provide funds to
demolish the existing records facility and construct a
new records storage facility that will mitigate the
impacts of new residential and non-residential
development to the City’s record storage facilities.
66001(a)(2) Identify the use to which
the fee is to be put
Demolition of existing records storage facility and
construction of new records storage facility.
66001(a)(3)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
fee’s use and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential development in
the City will generate additional residents and
employees increasing the need for records storage
facilities. Records storage facilities used to provide
these services will have to be expanded, constructed
or purchased to meet this increased demand.
66001(a)(4)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
need for the public
facilities and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
The additional residents and employees from new
development will impact demand for records storage
facilities. A new records storage facility is needed to mitigate the impacts of the additional residents and
employees. If new records storage facility is not
constructed then overall records storage services
provided to the residents and employees in the City
will suffer.
66001(b)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
amount of the fee and
the cost of the public
facility
The records storage facilities fee is based on the
cost to demolish the existing records storage facility
and construct a new records storage facility.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS –
RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 34
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
EXISTING RECORDS STORAGE FACILITY
See Table IV-E2 for a summary of the existing inventory of the City’s records storage facilities.
TABLE IV-E2
EXISTING RECORDS STORAGE FACILITY
Records Storage Facility Units
Records Storage Facility 3,000 Sq. Ft.
It is expected that the existing Records Storage facility will be torn down and will be replaced by a larger facility as described in the section below.
PROPOSED FACILITIES
In order to determine the proposed facilities, the City must determine the demand upon infrastructure created by new development. It is clear all new development in the City will impact the City’s current ability to provide records storage services.
If development continues without an increase in the records storage facilities, the existing facilities would be overwhelmed in terms of providing records storage services.
Additional demands will be made upon the previously listed asset in Table IV-E2 above and therefore, such assets would need to be expanded.
Table IV-E3 identifies the records storage facility proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of Records Storage fees. Quantity and costs are based on estimates provided by the City.
TABLE IV-E3
NEEDS LIST
Records Storage Facilities Facility Unit Number Facility Cost New Records Storage Facility SF 6,000 $1,716,000
Equivalent Dwelling Units
For records storage facilities, the development of property into residential and non- residential uses generates residents and employees increasing the need for records storage services. Existing records storage facilities used to provide these services will have to be expanded, constructed or purchased to meet this increased demand.
Since the facilities proposed to be financed by the impact fees will serve both residential and non-residential property, DTA projected the number of future EDUs based on the number of residents or employees generated by each land use class.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS –
RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 35
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
As shown in Section III.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 33,400 total existing EDUs and 31,616 future EDUs, bringing the total EDUs in 2040 to 65,016 EDUs.
Allocation of Costs
The total cost of $1,716,000, as shown in Table IV-E3 above, for records storage facilities needed to serve existing and new development is allocated to existing and new development based on the share of total EDUs in 2040.
Table IV-E4 summarizes the allocation of the future records storage facilities costs to existing and new development. The City has determined that the existing records storage facility will need to be replaced with a new 6,000 square foot records storage facility in order to adequately serve both existing and new development. Therefore,
51.37% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 48.63% will be allocated to new development as shown below.
TABLE IV-E4
ALLOCATION OF RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES COSTS
Type of
Development EDUs
Percentage
of Total
EDUs
Total SF in
2040
Facility Costs
Allocated
Existing
Development 33,400 51.37% 3,082 $881,543
Future
Development 31,616 48.63% 2,918 $834,457
Total 65,016 100.00% 6,000 $1,716,000
Proposed Fee Amount
The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future development by the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-E5 for the fee amount for each land use.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS –
RECORDS STORAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 36
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 TABLE IV-E5
PROPOSED FEES
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/Room/1,000 Sq.
Ft.
Development Impact Fee
per Unit/Room/1,000
Sq. Ft.
Cost Financed
by Fees
Residential Property
Single Family 1.00 $26 $641,675
Multi-Family 0.78 $20 $80,199
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 0.36 $9 $48,962
Industrial 1.57 $41 $59,396
Hotel/Motel 0.76 $20 $4,225
Total $834,457
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $881,543
Total Cost of Records Storage Facilities $1,716,000
Based on the development projections in Section III, the fee amount presented in Table IV- E5 above is expected to finance approximately 48.63% of the facilities needed. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS -
DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 37
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 F. D RAINAGE FACILITIES
The Drainage Facilities will serve the residents and employees of the City by providing new drainage systems and improvements to existing drainage facilities in order to mitigate the impacts of new development on the existing drainage facilities. The drainage facilities to be financed include components for new detention basins, storm drain systems, street crossings, and flood control basins. Table IV-F1 illustrates how the drainage facilities Fee will meet the requirements of AB 1600 with regard to use of the fee, the type of development funded or partially funded by the fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need for facilities and the proportionality requirements.
TABLE IV-F1
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
AB 1600 Code
Section Description Justification
66001(a)(1) Identify the purpose of
the Fee
Provide a revenue source that will provide funds to
construct various drainage projects that will mitigate
the impacts of new development on the City’s
drainage and flood control facilities.
66001(a)(2) Identify the use to which
the fee is to be put
Fund or partially fund the construction of new storm
drains, culverts, channels, and basins within the City
limits. The drainage improvements to be funded or
partially funded are summarized in Table IV-F2
66001(a)(3)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
fee’s use and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential development in
the City will generate additional run-off on City
streets, where on-site retention is not conditioned as
part of the permitting process. The fee revenue will
be used to construct new drainage projects from
which new residents and employees will benefit from
flood protection related to property damage, health
and safety and vehicular access on public streets. A
fee imposed on new residential and nonresidential
development is a reasonable method for mitigating
the impacts of such new development.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS -
DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 38
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 AB 1600 Code
Section Description Justification
66001(a)(4)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
need for the public
facilities and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
The additional run-off generated by new
development will increase the risk of flood damage
in proportion to the volume of run-off added to the
system. New and enlarged facilities are needed to
mitigate the impacts of the increased run-off
volumes. If the proposed projects are not
constructed in concert with new development the
City’s drainage system will experience a higher risk
of i) flood damage to public and private
improvements ii) impaired access on public streets,
and iii) adverse conditions relating to public health
safety
66001(b)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
amount of the fee and
the cost of the public
facility
Project costs are allocated to new development
based on the percentage of run-off generated by
new development to the total run-off at buildout.
Run-off amounts are calculated based on Rational
Method Hydrology principles. Specific fees
calculated for various land uses are based on the
relative run-off rates as compared to a residential
unit (baseline rate or ERU factor, where ERU is the
equivalent runoff unit)
PROPOSED FACILITIES AND COSTS
In order to determine the proposed improvements, the City must determine the demand upon infrastructure created by new development. It is clear all new development in the City will impact the City’s current ability to provide drainage systems and flood protection.
The discharge capacity of the existing drainage systems is determined by design and in many cases is at design capacity for the appropriate storm event. When capacity is exceeded due to the runoff impacts of new development, the level of flood protection afforded to existing development will be reduced. In other words, if development continues without new improvements to the drainage systems, the existing facilities would be unable to provide the level of flood protection consistent with City standards.
Table IV-F2 identifies the drainage improvements proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of Drainage Facilities fees. Quantity and costs are based on estimates provided by the City. The proposed drainage improvements include culverts and basins that provide flood protection at key roadways within the City. These roadways are not only integral parts of the city-wide circulation system but also provide city-wide access for emergency vehicles during significant flood events. Therefore, these improvements have city-wide rather than local benefit, and the costs will be split
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS -
DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 39
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 between new and existing development in proportion to the contribution to total runoff from each.
TABLE IV-F2
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS COST SUMMARY
Improvement Type Location Total Project Cost Cost Allocated to New Development
Storm Drainage System, Detention
Basins
Escondido Ave. to Eucalyptus St./ Line
A-04 $21,120,000 $10,258,228
Storm Drainage System Muscatel Ave. to Main St. Line H-01 $11,367,000 $5,521,083 Storm Drainage System, Street
Crossing / Culvert 4th to 3rd, Line H-01 $1,400,000 $679,996 Street Crossing / Culvert Arrowhead Lake Rd. between
Centennial St. and Sutter St., Line D-01 $970,000 $471,140 Street Crossing / Culvert Lemon Street between G Ave. and H Ave., Line H-02 $800,000 $388,569
Street Crossing / Culvert Lemon Street between C Ave. and E Ave., Line H-01 $1,300,000 $631,425
Storm Drainage System, Street
Crossing / Culvert E Ave. to I Ave., Line H-01 and H-03 $2,320,000 $1,126,851 Street Crossing / Culvert Orchard Ave., North of Lilac St., Line H- 01 $660,000 $320,570
Storm Drainage System, Street
Crossing / Culvert
I Ave. to Line H-01 (near Talisman), Line
H-02 $2,040,000 $990,852
Storm Drainage System Third Ave. to Railroad Tracks, Line H-01 $9,900,000 $4,808,544 Detention/Retention Basins Local Flood Control Basins (City-wide) $8,000,000 $3,980,237 Detention Basin Walnut Basin, Line H-01 $3,700,000 $1,797,133 Detention Basin Temecula Basin, Line C-01 $3,900,000 $1,894,275 Street Crossing / Culvert, Raise Road Peach Ave. between Centennial St. and Hinton St., Line D-01 $400,000 $194,285
Storm Drainage System, Detention
Basins
11th Ave. at Elm St. to Hesperia Rd.,
Line H-02 $13,300,000 $6,459,963
Grand Total $81,177,000 $39,428,606
Equivalent Runoff Units
For the purposes of allocating drainage costs to both total existing and total new development the demand variable chosen is the equivalent runoff unit (ERU). This is a metric that estimates the runoff (“Q”, in cubic feet per second) per acre from the various land use types. The Rational Method Hydrology 1 (Q=CIA) analysis was used because it is felt that this is method is the most reasonable and accepted method for
1 Rational Method Hydrology (Q=C * I *A) is a widely accepted method of computing rainfall runoff for small drainage areas, where Q is the runoff rate in cubic feet per second, C is the percentage of site area that is impervious, I is rainfall intensity in inches per hour and A is parcel area in acres.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS -
DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 40
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 analyzing parcels of the size typically found in this study. For simplicity, the rainfall intensity, "I", is assumed to have a value of 1 (in inches of rainfall per acre). The total area, in acres, for residential parcels is determined by using the total residential units and average residential densities (units per acre) to determine site acreage. The total acreage for non-residential development is determined by dividing the building square feet identified in the Demographics section of this study by the industry standard floor area ratios (“FAR”).
The ERU was chosen as the demand variable because it is a reliable industry standard and best relates the quantity of runoff generated by the various land uses to the costs associated with mitigating the effects of this runoff. In order to fairly allocate costs between existing and new development, total ERUs must be calculated for both cases. Tables IV-F3 and IV-F4 show the calculations for determining the total ERUs for existing and future development respectively. Further discussion on the application of the Rational Method as it relates to this Fee Study can be found in Appendix C.
ERUs are a fair and reasonable measure of the demand placed on the City's drainage system. When these factors are applied to the demographic data for existing and new development, total calculated ERUs for existing and new development as a percentage of total ERUs can be used in the allocation of facility costs to new development.
As discussed in Section III the land uses considered upon which development impact fees will be imposed include Residential, Commercial/Office/Retail, Industrial and Hotel/Motel, with their various sub categories. Within the Residential category are single family and multi-family. Existing and future ERUs from the above subcategories are calculated for the purposes of the allocation of drainage improvement costs to existing and new development.
The total ERUs for existing development as well as the percentage of total ERUs are shown in Table IV-F3 below.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS -
DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 41
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 TABLE IV-F3
EXISTING ERUS
Residential Property
Residential
Units/1,000
SF/Rooms
Density
(EDU/Acre) FAR Acres “A” Runoff Coefficient
“C” Total ERUs
Single Family 25,747 4.0 N/A 6,436.8 0.70 4,505.7
Multi-Family 3,320 12.0 N/A 276.7 0.80 221.3
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 5,791 N/A 0.4 332.3 0.95 315.7 Industrial 1,853.8 N/A 0.2 212.8 1.00 212.8
Hotel/Motel 393 N/A N/A 11.5 0.90 10.4
Total Existing ERUs 5,265.9
% of Total ERUs 51.43%
The total ERUs for future development as well as the percentage of total ERUs are shown in Table IV-F4:
TABLE IV-F4
FUTURE ERUS
Residential Property
Residential
Units/1,000
SF/Rooms
Density
(EDU/Acre) FAR Acres “A” Runoff Coefficient
“C” Total ERUs
Single Family 24,312 4.0 N/A 6,078.0 0.70 4,254.6
Multi-Family 3,917 12.0 N/A 326.4 0.80 261.1
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 5,219 N/A 0.4 299.5 0.95 284.5 Industrial 1,436 N/A 0.2 164.8 1.00 164.8
Hotel/Motel 212 N/A N/A 9.1 0.90 8.2
6,877.9 Total Existing ERUs 4,973.3
% of Total ERUs 48.57%
Total ERUs 10,239.2
Allocation of Costs
The total cost of $81,177,000, as shown in Table IV-F2 above, is needed for drainage improvements that have city-wide benefit. Of this total $39,428,606 is needed to mitigate the impacts of new development based on the share of total ERUs in 2040.
Table IV-F5 below summarizes the allocation of the future drainage improvement costs to existing and new development. The City has determined that the existing drainage facilities will need to be improved in order to adequately serve both existing
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS -
DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 42
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 and new development. Therefore, 51.43% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 48.57% will be allocated to new development as shown above.
The drainage costs allocated to new development are then divided by total future ERUs to determine the cost per ERU. This is the baseline ERU used in calculating the various fees. See Table IV-F5 below for the calculation of the cost per baseline ERU.
TABLE IV-F5
COST PER ERU
Total Drainage Costs Allocated
to New Development
Total Future
ERUs Cost per ERU
$39,428,606 4,973.3 $7,928.04
Proposed Fee Amount
The fee amount for each unit of new residential development is determined by calculating the relative runoff per unit, using the Rational Runoff Method (Q=CIA), and multiplying that amount by the cost per ERU found in Table IV-F5 above. Because the Rational Runoff Method (Q=CIA), as used in this Study, calculates runoff on a per acre basis from a unit storm intensity (1 inch per hour) and a given percentage of impervious area depending on land use type, the resulting calculation must be divided by the various land use densities in order to determine the relative contributions of runoff. See Table IV-F6 for the fee amount for each land use.
The fee amounts for new non-residential development are based on the allocated cost per 1,000 square feet of building space for Commercial/Office/Retail and Industrial uses.
SECTION I V: FEE CALCULATIONS -
DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 43
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 TABLE IV-F6
PROPOSED FEES
Land Use Type
Density
(Units/
Acre)
Acres Runoff
Coefficient
Q = Runoff
Density
Cost per
ERU
Fee per
Unit/ 1,000
SF/Room
Fee Units Cost Financed
by Fees
Residential Property
Single Family 4.0 N/A 0.70 0.175 $7,928 $1,387.41 Residential Units $33,730,649 Multi-Family 12.0 N/A 0.80 0.067 $7,928 $528.54 Residential Units $2,070,276
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail N/A 0.4 0.95 0.055 $7,928 $432.26 Square Feet $2,255,904 Industrial N/A 0.2 1.00 0.115 $7,928 $910.01 Square Feet $1,306,846 Hotel/Motel N/A N/A 0.90 0.900 $7,928 $306.28 Room $64,931 Total $39,428,606
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $41,748,394
Total Cost of Drainage Facilities $81,177,000
Based on the development projections in Section III, the fee amount presented in Table IV- F6 above are expected to finance approximately 48.57% of the facilities needed. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS –
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 44
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 G. T RANSPORTATION FACILITIES
The planning tool the City uses to identify current and future needs for an effective overall circulation system within the City is the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Mandated by State Law, the Circulation Element must be linked to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In addition, the Circulation Element must be consistent with, and integrated with, the Riverside-San Bernardino Area Comprehensive Transportation Plan Model (CTP Model). Consistency is a requirement for eligibility for State and local transportation funds.
The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan serves as the City's Transportation Master Plan, which identifies future transportation facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development through build out conditions, beyond the year 2040. The City provided a listing of future transportation facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development through 2040. The facilities listed included freeway exchanges and overpasses, major arterials, arterials, secondary arterials, intersection expansions and a transit facility. Project limits and costs for the first three categories are consistent with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (“SBCTA”) Development Mitigation Nexus Study and the SBCTA Congestion Management Plan ("CMP"), with appropriate cost escalators.
City staff uses current traffic and land use data to update their traffic Circulation Element.
Any significant changes to impacts resulting from new development are incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at regular intervals. Such changes are also incorporated into the Circulation Element at periodic intervals.
All projects to be funded or partially funded through this DIF will have city-wide benefit.
Table IV-G1 illustrates how the transportation Fee will meet the requirements of AB 1600 with regard to use of fees, the type of development funded or partially funded by the fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need for facilities, and the proportionality requirements.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS –
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 45
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 TABLE IV-G1
TRANSPORTATION FEE – AB 1600 COMPLIANCE
AB 1600 Code
Section Description Justification
66001(a)(1) Identify the purpose of
the Fee
Provide a revenue source that will provide funds to
construct various transportation projects that will
mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's
circulation system
66001(a)(2)
Identify the use to
which the fee is to be
put
Fund or partially fund the construction of new
roadways and transit facility within the City limits. The roadway improvements to be funded or partially
funded are summarized in Table IV-G2 further listed in
Appendix C
66001(a)(3)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between
the fee’s use and the
type of development
project on which the
fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential development will
generate additional traffic on City streets. The fee
revenue will be used to construct new transportation
projects upon which new residents and employees will
travel. A fee imposed on new residential and non-
residential development is a reasonable method for
mitigating the impacts of such new development
66001(a)(4)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between
the need for the public
facilities and the type
of development project
on which the fee is
imposed
The additional traffic volumes generated by new
development will impact current levels of congestion.
New roadways and supplemental lanes are needed to
mitigate the impacts of the increased traffic volumes.
If the proposed projects are not constructed in concert with new development the City's circulation system will experience higher traffic volumes and increase the
level of congestion to a condition well below City
standards
66001(b)
Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between
the amount of the fee
and the cost of the
public facility
Project costs are allocated to new development based
on the percentage of traffic volume generated by new
development to the total traffic volume at build out.
The specific fee imposed on the various land uses are
based on the relative trip generation rate as compared
to a residential unit (baseline rate or EDU factor)
PROPOSED FACILITIES AND COSTS
As mentioned above, City staff provided a detailed breakdown of the city-wide transportation projects needed to mitigate the impacts of new development through the year 2040. The projects consist of city-wide roadway improvements totaling nearly $950 million, of which over $670 million will be financed through transportation impact fee revenue. The Needs
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS –
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 46
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 List includes improvements to freeway exchanges and overpasses, major arterials, arterials, secondary arterials, intersection expansions, and a transit facility. Roadway projects and intersection projects are part of the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan and the City's Capital Improvement Program. The interchange projects as well as the grade separations and regional arterial projects are part of the Riverside-San Bernardino Area CTP Model by SCAG and SBCTA Nexus Study and Congestion Management Plan. These projects are identified by these models and master plans as being needed solely or partially to mitigate the impacts of new development. Where projects are partially needed to cure existing deficiencies or otherwise benefit existing development, the proportionate share of the cost of those projects allocated to existing development would have to be funded by sources other than impact fees.
Major arterials, arterials, secondary arterials, freeway interchanges, and intersection expansions will be funded or partially funded by these impact fees. With regard to freeway interchanges, this Study uses the percentage allocations to new development for interchange projects that are identified in the SBCTA Nexus study. Where the benefits from local projects are shared between existing and new development the allocation to new development is based on the percentage of average daily trips ("ADTs") generated by new development to the total ADTs of the City's roadway network. Where projects are required solely to mitigate the impacts of new development, a 10% allocation to general benefit is assumed, with the remaining 90% allocated to new development. The City has indicated that four of the projects are required solely to mitigate the impacts of new development and will not be impacted by pass through traffic whose trips are originated and ended outside of the City limits. Therefore these projects receive 100% allocation to new development. The project categories, costs and allocations are shown in Table IV-G2,"Transportation Cost Summary":
TABLE IV-G2
TRANSPORTATION COST SUMMARY
Component Total Project Cost Cost Allocated to New
Development
Freeway Exchanges & Overpass $317,112,652 $193,867,029 Major Arterials $298,338,093 $227,695,435
Arterials $272,100,190 $201,359,544
Secondary Arterials $54,958,260 $41,195,371
Intersection Expansion $6,153,220 $5,537,898
Transit Facility $1,200,000 $1,080,000
Grand Total $949,862,415 $670,735,278
Please refer to Table C-1 of Appendix C for a list of projects to be funded, or partially funded by transportation facilities fee. The total project cost as well as the costs allocated to new development are also shown in the table.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS –
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 47
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018
Equivalent Dwelling Units
For the purposes of allocating transportation costs to both existing and new development the demand variable is the average daily trip end. This is a metric that estimates the number of vehicular trips generated by a specific land use within a one hour period during that part of the day in which peak traffic volumes are observed. ADT was chosen as the demand variable because it is consistent with the metric used in the regional transportation plans mentioned at the beginning of this section and is an industry standard. Without question the design and cost estimates for new and expanded roadways are based on traffic volumes generated, congestion levels of service and standards adopted by the local agency. ADTs are a fair and reasonable measure of the demand placed on the City's roadway system. The ADTs generated by a residential dwelling, whose value is determined from the ITE 1 manual, is used as the baseline variable. Comparison of ADTs for the other land uses to the baseline ADT produces EDU factors for the various land uses. When these factors are applied to the demographic data for existing and new development, total calculated EDUs for existing and new development as a percentage of total EDUs can be used in the allocation of facility costs to new development.
Trip Rates
As discussed in Section III the land uses considered upon which development impact fees will be imposed include Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Commercial/Office/Retail, Industrial, and Hotel/Motel, with their various sub categories.
Within the Residential uses are single family and multi-family, which were chosen to best fit the type of residential development throughout the City, and for which the ITE manual has data and recommended trip rates. In a similar manner, the ITE trip rates for Commercial land use designation includes commercial, retail trade and food service sub categories. The Industrial category includes warehousing, manufacturing, general industrial and health care.
Weighted average ADTs from the above subcategories are calculated for the purposes of determining existing and future ADTs and the allocation of transportation costs to existing and new development. Weighted average ADTs will also be used to determine EDU factors needed to calculate the various fee levels.
In order to fairly allocate costs between existing and new development, total ADTs must be calculated for both cases. The total ADTs for existing development as well as the percentage of total ADTs are shown in Table IV-G3 below.
18 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Volumes 1,2 and 3
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS –
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 48
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 TABLE IV-G3
EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS
Residential Property Trip Rate
Residential
Units/1,000
SF/Rooms
Units ADTs
Single Family 9.57 25,747 Residential Units 246,399
Multi-Family 6.63 3,320 Residential Units 22,012
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 13.27 5,791 1,000 Sq. Ft. 76,841 Industrial 6.97 1,854 1,000 Sq. Ft. 12,921
Hotel/Motel 8.92 393 Rooms 3,506
Grand Total 361,678
% of Total ADTs 51.56%
The total ADTs for future development as well as the percentage of total ADTs are shown in Table IV-G4:
TABLE IV-G4
FUTURE ADTS
Residential Property Trip Rate
Residential
Units/1,000
SF/Rooms
Units ADTs
Single Family 9.57 24,312 Residential Units 232,666
Multi-Family 6.63 3,917 Residential Units 25,970
Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 13.27 5,219 1,000 Sq. Ft. 69,255 Industrial 6.97 1,436 1,000 Sq. Ft. 10,009
Hotel/Motel 8.92 212 Rooms 1,891
Grand Total 339,791
% of Total ADTs 48.44%
Total ADTs 701,469
The percentage of total ADTs for future development, as shown in the table above, is used in Table C-1 of Appendix C, "Transportation Needs List" to allocate to new development new transportation facilities that have citywide benefit.
Allocation of Costs
The transportation costs allocated to new development are then divided by total new ADTs to determine the cost per ADT. The cost per ADT is then multiplied by the ADT rate for a single family unit. This is the baseline EDU used in calculating the various fees.
SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS –
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FEE
City of Hesperia Page 49
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 See Table IV-G5 for the calculation of the cost per single family unit, or baseline EDU:
TABLE IV-G5
COST PER ADT
Total Transportation Costs Allocated
to New Development
Total Future
ADTs Cost per ADT
$670,735,278 339,791 $1,974
Proposed Fee Amount
The EDU factors for the various land uses are determined by dividing the ADT rate for each corresponding land use by the ADT rate for the single family category (baseline rate). The EDU factor for each land use is multiplied by the cost per EDU calculated in the preceding table to determine the proposed fee. The proposed fee schedule for transportation is shown in Table IV-G6:
Table IV-G6 is a summary of the proposed transportation fees for the various land uses within the six facility categories.
TABLE IV-G6
TRANSPORTATION FEE SCHEDULE
Residential Property
Average
Daily Trip
Rate
Cost per
ADT Units
DIF per
Unit/1,000 SF/
Room
Cost Financed by
DIF
Single Family 9.57 $1,974 Residential Units $18,891 $459,274,295 Multi-Family 6.63 $1,974 Residential Units $13,087 $51,263,306 Non-Residential Property
Commercial/Office/Retail 13.27 $1,974 1,000 Sq. Ft. $26,195 $136,706,578 Industrial 6.97 $1,974 1,000 Sq. Ft. $13,759 $19,758,251 Hotel/Motel 8.92 $1,974 Rooms $17,608 $3,732,847
Total $670,735,278
SECTION V: IMPLEMENTATION
City of Hesperia Page 50
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 The calculated Fees shown in Table V-1 below represent the maximum Fee for each land use that can be charged. The City Council may decide to charge a lower amount than the maximum Fee. It must be pointed out that if lower fees are implemented, other funding sources will be needed to make up the shortfall if all projects are to be completed, or it is highly possible that not all of the projects listed will be completed at build out conditions.
In order to recover administrative costs incurred by the City in the administration of the fee program, an administrative component of 1.0% of each fee is added on to the proposed fees calculated for each land use category.
Table V-1 below summarizes the proposed Fee schedule including the administrative component:
TABLE V-1
CITY OF HESPERIA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Residential
(Fee per unit)
Non-Residential (Fee
per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)
Fee per
Room
Land Use
Single Family
Multi-Family
Commercial/
Office/Retail
Industrial
Hotel/Motel [1]
Fire Facilities [2] $648 $491 $187 $908 $437
Police Facilities $10 $8 $4 $16 $8
Animal Control Facilities $227 $176 $0 $0 $0
City Hall Facilities $546 $424 $194 $856 $412
Records Storage
Facilities $26 $20 $9 $41 $20
Drainage Facilities $1,387 $529 $432 $910 $306
Transportation Facilities $18,891 $13,087 $26,195 $13,759 $17,608 Administrative Fee
(1.00%) $217
$147 $270 $165 $188
Totals $21,953 $14,882 $27,291 $16,655 $18,980
[1] Drainage fee for Hotel/Motel category is on a per gross acre basis. [2] Not charged to property in Tapestry.
SECTION V: IMPLEMENTATION
City of Hesperia Page 51
Development Impact Fee Justification Study May 8, 2018 New development, at the time of permit issuance, or as prescribed by the City of Hesperia Municipal Code, shall pay the appropriate Fee for each facility category and the City shall deposit the funds in a separate account dedicated to the construction of the respective facilities proposed, in accordance with Government Code Section 66006(a).
For purposes of determining the impact fees due, any “second unit” or “accessory dwelling unit” (as determined pursuant to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code) shall be considered a separate residential unit and shall be subject to this Fee.
Every five years the City shall report the status of the funds in accordance with Government Code Section 66001(d) and shall i) identify the purpose to which the fee is put; ii) demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; iii) identify the sources and amounts of funding needed to complete the program; iv) list the facilities not yet completed; and v) identify, to the extent possible, the timing of when the remaining funds are expected to be received.
It is further recommended that the City update its Capital Improvement Plan annually, by resolution of the City Council, in accordance with Government Code Section 66002.
Finally, it is recommended that the City include in its Council Resolution to adopt the fees, a provision to automatically increase the fees annually tied to an inflation index, such as the Engineering News Record Construction Price Index, or some other reasonable measure of inflation.
APPENDIX A
Demographics Summary
A-1
Appendix A – Demographics Summary
The purpose of this appendix is to document the methodology used to process raw data for residential and non-residential land uses provided by the City and other sources in order to prepare an estimate of the existing and future development data. This Study will project residential and non-residential development to a 2040 development horizon. This data will be used to calculate the Fees, as discussed in Section IV of this Study. This demographic data was calculated in order to recommend a Fee structure that will ensure that new development will pay its reasonable fair share of the total facilities costs.
A.1 Existing Development
Existing number of residents and existing residential units as of January 1, 2015 are shown in Table III-2 of the Study. The number of residential units was provided by the California Department of Finance. The number of residents was estimated based on a population per household of 3.26 for Single Family units and 2.47 for Multi-Family units, as shown in Table LU-8 of the Land Use Element of the 2010 City General Plan included as backup herein. Existing number of employees and non-residential building square feet as of January 1, 2015 are shown in Table III-3 of the Study. The number of existing employees for commercial/office/retail, and industrial land uses is based on Year 2012 figures shown in Table 1 of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) included as backup herein and estimated to 2015 based on the annual growth rate of
2.32% indicated in the SCAG data. The number of existing employees for the hotel/motel land use is based on the City’s estimate of 2.5 employees per room. Existing non- residential square feet is based on Tables 3 and 4 of the City’s December 2010 EIR included as backup herein. Per the City, an additional 600,000 square feet of commercial/office/retail development was included to bring the 2010 development to 2015.
A.2 Future Residential and Non-Residential Development (City-wide)
Section III.2 of this Study refers to development through 2040 including property located in the Tapestry Specific Plan. The future number of residents and existing residential units through 2040 are shown in Table III-4 of the Study. Future residents and residential units were based on information that was provided by the City. Future number of employees and non-residential building square feet through 2040 are shown in Table III-5 of the Study. Future employees for industrial property is based on Year 2012 figures shown in Table 1 of the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and projected forward to 2015 based on the annual growth rate of 2.32% indicated in the SCAG data. The number of future hotel/motel rooms and future employees for the hotel/motel land use is based on the City’s estimate of 2.5 employees per room. Future industrial square feet through 2040 is based on the existing 2015 employees per 1,000 square feet factor. Future commercial/office/retail square feet through 2040 is based on estimates provided by the City.
LAND USE
City of Hesperia General Plan 2010
LU-39
TABLE LU-8
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ACREAGE
General Plan Land
Use Designation Description Density/Intensity
Project Average
DU/AC or FAR
Population per
Household/
Employee per
Acre
Total
Acreage
Percent of Total
City
Residential
A2 General Agriculture (0.0 - 0.2 du/ac) 0.1 3.3 2191.74 3.13% A1-2 ½ Limited Agriculture-2 ½ (0.21 0.4 du/ac) 0.4 3.3 799.89 1.14% A1 Limited Agriculture-1 (0.41 1.0 du/ac) 0.75 3.3 4163.96 5.95% Rural Residential
RR-2 ½ Rural Residential-2 ½ (0.0 0.4 du/ac) 0.4 3.3 13543.17 19.34% RR(SD)
Rural Residential-Special
Development (0.0 0.4 du/ac) 0.25 3.3 11551.76 16.49%
RR-1 Rural Residential-1 (0.41 1.0 du/ac) 1.0 3.3 2762.89 3.94% RR-20000 Rural Residential-20,000 (1.1 2.0 du/ac) 1.75 3.3 3210.77 4.58% Residential
R1-18000 Single-Family Residence-18,000 (2.1 2.4 du/ac) 2 3.3 4730.07 6.75% R1 Single-Family Residence (2.5 4.5 du/ac) 4 3.3 744.72 1.06% R1-4500 Single Family Residence-4,500 (4.6 8.0 du/ac) 6.5 3.3 454.09 0.65% R3 Multiple Family Residential (8.1 15.0 du/ac) 12 2.5 140.77 0.20% Commercial
C1 Neighborhood Commercial (0.0 0.5 FAR) 0.25 10.08 72.5 0.10% C2 General Commercial (0.0 1.0 FAR) 0.35 10.08 412.06 0.59% C3 Service Commercial (0.0 0.5 FAR) 0.35 7.83 61.74 0.09% Industrial
I1 Limited Manufacturing (0.0 1.0 FAR) 0.4 7.83 274.92 0.39% I2 General Manufacturing (0.0 1.0 FAR) 0.25 7.83 496.41 0.71% Public
P-School Public Schools (0.0 1.0 FAR) - - 156.53 0.22% P-Govt Government Facilities (0.0 1.0 FAR) - - 113 0.16% P-Park/Rec Park and Recreation Facilities (0.0 1.0 FAR) - - 1876.35 2.68% Specific Plan
SP-89-01 Rancho Las Flores Specific Plan - - - 9631.59 13.75% SP-91-003
Summit Valley Ranch Specific
Plan
- - - 786.21 1.12%
MSFC-SP
Main Street / Freeway Corridor
Specific Plan
- - - 8859.89 12.65%
Other
Airport Airport Use - - - 20.57 0.30%
Rec-Com Recreation Commercial - - - 278.96 0.40%
RC Resource Conservation - - - 314.75 0.45%
RRC Railroad Corridor - - - 485.82 0.69%
AQ Aqueduct - - - 589.32 0.84%
TC Transportation Corridor - - - 398 0.57%
UC Utilities Corridor - - - 916.48 1.31%
Totals 70,038.93 100.00%
Notes:
1. The total acreage for the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (MSFC-SP) does not include the approximately 132 acres of aqueduct, 101 acres of railroad corridor, 301 acres of utility corridor, 398 acres of major transportation corridors, and 845 acres in roadways that is included in the total identified in Table LU-4 Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Land Uses. The acreages for the aqueduct, railroad corridors, utilities, and major transportation corridors are identified under Other in this table; roadways were included with the adjacent land use designation. Therefore, the total acreage identified in Table LU-4 of 10,637 acres is consistent with the total of the MSFC-SP and the aqueduct, railroad, utility, and transportation corridors.
2. The total acreage for the Rancho Las Flores Specific Plan (SP-89-01) does not include the approximately 236 acres of utility corridors that is included in the total identified in Table LU-5 Rancho Las Flores Specific Plan, May 2006, Land Uses. The acreage for the utility corridors is included under Other in this table. The total acreage identified in Table LU-5 of 9,867 acres is consistent with the total for SP-89-01 and 236 acres of utility corridor identified within this table.
TABLE 1 ‐ COMPARISON OF CITY‐LEVEL GROWTH FORECASTS FOR THE SCAG 2016‐2040 RTP/SCS ‐ ORIGINAL SCAG DATA vs. LOCAL INPUT As of May 14, 2014
AB C D E F G HI J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y
Jurisdiction 2012 2040
Annual
Growth
Rate 2012 2040
Annual
Growth
Rate 2012 2040
Annual
Growth
Rate SF MF Total 2020 2035 2040 %
Change
From SCAG Retail Non‐Retail Total 2020 2035 2040 %
Change
From SCAG
Adelanto 31,146 80,390 3.44% 7,923 21,080 3.56% 3,885 11,500 3.95% 8,105 2,092 10,197 10,052 16,019 18,120 3.00% ‐0.56% 886 2,982 3,868 5,213 7,545 7,753 2.50% ‐1.45% Apple Valley 70,162 113,15 0 1.72% 23,706 39,410 1.83% 15,417 30,570 2.47% 7,252 3,828 11,080 26,52 4 32,987 34,786 1.38% ‐0.45% 8,596 3,551 12,147 19,588 26,530 27,56 4 2.10% ‐0.38% Barstow 23,070 33,940 1.39% 8,150 12,430 1.52% 8,135 12,860 1.65% 3,235 1,499 4,735 9,876 12,287 12,885 1.65% 0.13% 2,339 6,311 8,650 11,073 16,053 16,785 2.62% 0.97% Big Bear Lake 5,095 6,520 0.88% 2,198 2,820 0.89% 3,840 5,060 0.99% 640 162 802 2,549 2,936 3,000 1.12% 0.22% 442 1,118 1,560 4,364 5,272 5,400 1.23% 0.23% Chino 79,447 108,93 0 1.13% 20,997 30,130 1.30% 42,580 66,190 1.59% 6,974 5,979 12,953 24,462 32,23 4 33,950 1.73% 0.43% 3,811 4,177 7,988 45,493 49,989 50,568 0.62% ‐0.97% Chino Hills 75,765 88,600 0.56% 22,999 29,610 0.91% 11,471 18,580 1.74% 4,447 2,164 6,611 23,520 28,470 29,610 0.91% 0.00% 2,217 4,892 7,109 13,920 17,940 18,580 1.74% 0.00% Colton 52,769 69,070 0.97% 14,993 20,810 1.18% 16,826 29,200 1.99% 2,329 3,488 5,817 17,570 20,370 20,810 1.18% 0.00% 2,026 10,348 12,37 4 21,140 28,100 29,200 1.99% 0.00% Fontana 200,228 283,88 0 1.25% 49,646 74,870 1.48% 47,011 83,760 2.08% 10,599 13,789 24,388 53,537 70,041 74,03 4 1.44% ‐0.04% 10,552 13,252 23,80 4 55,373 68,917 70,815 1.47% ‐0.61% Grand Terrace 12,201 13,340 0.32% 4,417 5,360 0.69% 2,153 3,690 1.94% 443 856 1,299 4,821 5,592 5,716 0.92% 0.23% 1,108 2,080 3,188 3,288 5,051 5,341 3.30% 1.36% Hesperia 91,122 136,51 0 1.45% 26,436 41,440 1.62% 14,909 29,360 2.45% 11,740 881 12,621 30,427 37,593 39,057 1.40% ‐0.21% 5,344 8,090 13,43 4 19,651 27,293 28,343 2.32% ‐0.13% Highland 53,740 67,090 0.80% 15,497 20,700 1.04% 5,532 10,500 2.32% 4,209 925 5,134 17,325 20,217 20,631 1.03% ‐0.01% 1,734 2,939 4,674 7,205 9,829 10,206 2.21% ‐0.10% Loma Linda 23,409 31,310 1.04% 8,763 12,680 1.33% 16,665 31,900 2.35% 1,386 1,623 3,009 9,905 11,495 11,772 1.06% ‐0.27% 1,047 3,435 4,482 18,161 20,662 21,147 0.85% ‐1.49% Montclair 37,199 43,230 0.54% 9,564 11,700 0.72% 16,523 24,550 1.42% 129 1,868 1,997 10,205 11,411 11,561 0.68% ‐0.04% 803 1,691 2,494 17,411 18,790 19,017 0.50% ‐0.92% Needles 4,898 7,030 1.30% 1,920 2,820 1.38% 2,235 3,790 1.90% 458 442 900 2,300 2,720 2,820 1.38% 0.00% 295 1,260 1,555 2,750 3,640 3,790 1.90% 0.00% Ontario 166,328 289,49 0 2.00% 45,112 84,030 2.25% 103,312 166,280 1.71% 7,343 22,112 29,455 58,257 71,585 74,567 1.81% ‐0.44% 5,426 66,651 72,077 129,305 170,57 0 175,389 1.91% 0.19% Rancho Cucamonga 170,105 180,63 0 0.21% 55,362 63,990 0.52% 69,901 104,620 1.45% 7,307 11,420 18,727 57,897 71,202 74,089 1.05% 0.53% 6,188 28,531 34,719 82,340 101,76 0 104,620 1.45% 0.00% Redlands 69,586 85,540 0.74% 24,821 32,430 0.96% 31,732 53,400 1.88% 4,905 2,704 7,609 27,320 31,600 32,430 0.96% 0.00% 4,235 17,433 21,668 39,240 51,310 53,400 1.88% 0.00% Rialto 100,836 122,010 0.68% 25,365 34,510 1.11% 21,076 36,080 1.94% 3,037 3,108 6,145 27,982 31,040 31,510 0.78% ‐0.33% 2,097 7,356 9,453 24,430 29,767 30,529 1.33% ‐0.61% San Bernardino (City) 211,943 257,41 0 0.70% 59,321 77,110 0.94% 88,576 145,170 1.78% 11,336 6,453 17,789 68,900 76,610 77,110 0.94% 0.00% 10,102 29,946 40,048 102,151 124,902 128,62 4 1.34% ‐0.44% Twentynine Palms 25,876 43,760 1.89% 8,341 14,510 2.00% 4,336 8,510 2.44% 2,859 247 3,106 9,035 10,893 11,447 1.14% ‐0.86% 724 3,450 4,174 5,760 8,130 8,510 2.44% 0.00% Upland 74,661 88,860 0.62% 25,882 31,590 0.71% 31,68 4 51,790 1.77% 1,136 1,890 3,026 27,159 28,786 28,908 0.40% ‐0.32% 3,736 8,051 11,787 35,897 42,345 43,471 1.14% ‐0.63% Victorville 119,596 209,370 2.02% 33,079 63,700 2.37% 29,79 4 55,700 2.26% 22,052 8,569 30,621 39,430 58,180 63,700 2.37% 0.00% 4,659 18,247 22,906 37,633 50,923 52,700 2.06% ‐0.20% Yucaipa 52,271 64,250 0.74% 18,365 25,040 1.11% 8,160 15,020 2.20% 3,903 2,364 6,267 19,740 23,759 24,632 1.05% ‐0.06% 1,776 5,068 6,844 10,61 4 14,415 15,00 4 2.20% 0.00% Yucca Valley 20,952 26,330 0.82% 8,289 12,160 1.38% 6,053 10,030 1.82% 2,978 893 3,870 9,370 11,620 12,159 1.38% 0.00% 638 3,339 3,977 7,450 9,670 10,030 1.82% 0.00% Unincorporated County 295,588 340,36 0 0.50% 94,243 110,080 0.56% 57,357 96,870 1.89% 12,88 4 3,144 16,028 99,148 109,512 110,271 0.56% 0.01% 5,241 28,521 33,762 69,621 88,291 91,119 1.67% ‐0.22% Total 2,067,993 2,791,00 0 1.08% 615,389 875,01 0 1.27% 659,163 1,104,98 0 1.86% 141,68 6 102,500 244,186 687,311 829,159 859,575 1.20% ‐0.06% 86,02 4 282,718 368,742 789,071 997,693 1,027,905 1.60% ‐0.26% Summary Stats ‐ County and Regional Draft SCAG Estimate Column Legend:
2012 2040 SCAG 2040 L.I. A: SCAG draft 2012 city‐level population estimate M: Revised 2020 total HH after consideration of local input (using SCAG original growth rate for 2012 to 2020) Pop/HH County 3.36 3.19 3.19 B: SCAG draft 2040 city‐level population estimate N: Revised 2035 total HH after consideration of local input (using SCAG original growth rate for 2012 to 2035) Emp/HH County
1.07 1.26 1.20 C: Annual population growth rate from 2012 (Col A) to 2040 (Col B) O: Revised 2040 total HH after consideration of local input Pop/HH Region 3.12 2.99 D: SCAG draft 2012 city‐level HH estimate P: Annual HH growth rate after local input from 2012 (Col D) to 2040 (Col O) Emp/HH Region
1.27 1.32 E: SCAG draft 2040 city‐level HH estimate Q: Annual HH growth rate change from SCAG draft annual growth rate (Col P ‐ Col F) F: Annual HH growth rate from 2012 (Col D) to 2040 (Col E) R: Local input growth in retail employment from 2012 to 2040 G: Original (Oct 2013) SCAG draft 2012 city‐level employment estimate S: Local input growth in non‐retail employment from 2012 to 2040 H: Original (Oct 2013) SCAG draft 2040 city‐level employment estimate T: Local input growth in total employment from 2012 to 2040 (Col R + Col S) I: Annual employment growth rate from 2012 (Col G) to 2040 (Col H) U: Revised 2020 total employment after consideration of local input (using SCAG original growth rate for 2012 to 2020) J: Local input growth in single family HH from 2012 to 2040 V: Revised 2035 total employment after consideration of local input (using SCAG original growth rate for 2012 to 2035) K: Local input growth in multi family HH from 2012 to 2040 W: Revised 2040 total employment after consideration of local input L: Local input growth in total HH from 2012 to 2040 (Col J + Col K) X: Annual employment growth rate after local input from 2012 (Col G) to 2040 (Col W) Y: Annual employment growth rate change from SCAG draft annual growth rate (Col X ‐ Col I) Annual Growth Rate
('12 vs '40)
Original Draft SCAG City‐Level Estimates Revised Draft City‐Level Estimates with Local Input Households Employment
Population
Households Employment Growth (2012‐2040)
Annual Growth Rate
('12 vs '40)
Growth (2012‐2040) TotalTotal
http://portal.sanbag.ca.gov/mgmt/workgroups/plan/growth/growthrtp/Growth Forecast2016 RTP/SCAG_CityLevel_2012‐2040_LocalInput_140512.xlsx;RTP16‐Smry
APPENDIX B
Demographics Summary –
Not Including Tapestry and Tapestry Only
(Applies to Fire Fee only)
1. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CITY (2016 – 2040) (TAPESTRY ONLY)
The tables below reflect property located in Tapestry only. Tapestry is located in the southern part of the City and is comprised of approximately 9,365 acres. As previously mentioned, Fire facilities required by development in Tapestry will be built and paid for under a separate agreement.
Table B-1 below summarizes the future demographics for residential property through the year 2040 for Tapestry only.
TABLE B-1
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(2016 THROUGH YEAR 2040)
TAPESTRY ONLY
Residential Property Future Number of
Residents (2016 – 2040)
Future Number of Residential
Units (2016 - 2040)
Single-Family 39,305 13,181
Multi-Family 6,037 2,482
Total 45,342 15,663
Future residents and residential units by land use as shown above was based on information provided by the City on January 30, 2018.
Table B-2 below summarizes the future demographics for the non-residential land uses through the year 2040 for Tapestry only.
TABLE B-2
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED FUTURE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(2016 THROUGH 2040)
TAPESTRY ONLY
Non-Residential Property Number of
Employees
Number of Non-
Residential SF
Commercial/Office/Retail 1,326 700,000
Industrial 0 0
Hotel/Motel 0 0
Total 1,326 700,000
Future employees and non-residential square feet by land use as shown above was based on information provided by the City.
2. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CITY (2040) (DOES NOT INCLUDE PROPERTY IN TAPESTRY)
Table B-3 below describes the total residential development in the City in the year 2040. This is based on the difference of Tables III-6 and B-1.
TABLE B-3
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(IN YEAR 2040)
DOES NOT INCLUDE TAPESTRY
Residential Property Description
Total
Development
(2040)
(From Table III-6)
Future
Development in
Tapestry
(2016 to 2040)
(From Table B-1)
Total
Development
(2040)
Single-Family
Residents 164,469 39,305 125,164
Units 50,059 13,181 36,878
Multi-Family
Residents 18,264 6,037 12,227
Units 7,237 2,482 4,755
Total
Residents 182,732 45,342 137,391
Units 57,296 15,663 41,633
Table B-4 below describes the total non-residential development in the City in the year 2040.
This is based on the difference of Tables III-7 and B-2.
TABLE B-4
CITY OF HESPERIA
ESTIMATED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(IN YEAR 2040)
DOES NOT INCLUDE TAPESTRY
Residential Property Description
Total Development
(2040)
(From Table III-7)
Future Development
in Tapestry
(2016 to 2040)
(From Table B-2)
Total Development
(2040)
Commercial/Office/Retail
Employees 12,299 1,326 10,973
Non-Res. SF 11,009,517 700,000 10,309,517
Industrial
Employees 17,069 0 17,069
Non-Res. SF 3,289,876 0 3,289,876
Hotel/Motel
Employees 1,513 0 1,513
Rooms 605 0 605
Total
Employees 30,881 1,326 29,555
Non-Res. SF 14,299,393 700,000 13,599,998
Hotel Rooms 605 0 605
3. EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU) PROJECTIONS (DOES NOT INCLUDE TAPESTRY)
Table B-5 shows the total number of future EDUs calculated for each land use for the time period from 2016 through 2040 not including Tapestry. Please note that the future EDU factors differ from the existing EDU factors due to various reasons including estimated changes in residents per unit and employees per square foot as provided by the City.
TABLE B-5
City of Hesperia
Future Equivalent Dwelling Units
(From 2016 to 2040)
Does Not Include Tapestry
Residential Property Number of Future
Residents
Number of
Residential Units
Residents Per
Unit
EDUs per
Residential Unit
Total Future
EDUs
Single Family 41,190 11,131 3.70 1.000 11,131
Multi-Family 4,024 1,435 2.80 0.76 1,087
Subtotal 45,214 12,566 12,218
Non-Residential Property Number of Future
Employees
Number of Non-
Residential SF /
Rooms
Employees per
1,000 Non-Res.
SF / Room
EDUs per 1,000
Non-Res. SF /
Room
Total Future
EDUs
Commercial/Office/Retail 4,816 4,518,900 1.07 0.29 1,301 Industrial 7,451 1,436,072 5.19 1.40 2,014
Hotel/Motel Rooms 530 212 2.50 0.14 143
Subtotal 12,797 5,954,972 3,458
Grand Total 15,677
Table B-6 shows the total number of EDUs calculated for each land use in the year 2040 not including Tapestry:
TABLE B-6
City of Hesperia
Equivalent Dwelling Units
(In 2040)
Does Not Include Tapestry
Residential Property Number of Future
Residents
Number of
Residential Units
Residents Per
Unit
EDUs per
Residential Unit
Total Future
EDUs
Single Family 125,164 36,878 3.39 0.92 36,878
Multi-Family 12,227 4,755 2.57 0.69 3,603
Subtotal 137,391 41,633 40,481
Non-Residential Property Number of Future
Employees
Number of Non-
Residential SF /
Rooms
Employees per
1,000 Non-Res.
SF / Room
EDUs per 1,000
Non-Res. SF /
Room
Total Future
EDUs
Commercial/Office/Retail 10,973 10,309,517 1.06 0.29 3,189 Industrial 17,069 3,289,876 5.19 1.40 4,962
Hotel/Motel Rooms 1,513 605 2.50 0.14 445
Subtotal 29,555 13,599,998 8,596
Grand Total 49,077
APPENDIX C
Transportation Needs List
TABLE C-1
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS LIST
Facility/Location Limits Project Cost
% Allocation to
New
Development
[1]
Cost to be
Funded by
Development
Impact Fee
Freeway Interchanges/Overpass/Railroad Crossings
(All to be Federal Funds w/City Match)
I-15 at Mojave/Mauna Loa Interchange $65,900,000 55.40% $36,508,600 I-15 at Muscatel Interchange $65,900,000 58.70% $38,683,300 I-15 at Ranchero Interchange $58,912,652 57.50% $32,096,529 Eucalyptus Grade Separation $39,000,000 58.90% $22,971,000 Lime Grade Separation $39,000,000 90.00% $35,100,000
Lemon/Mauna Loa Grade Separation $48,400,000 58.90% $28,507,600 Subtotal $317,112,652 $193,867,029
Major Arterials
Bear Valley Road I-15 to Bridge over Mojave River $4,463,813 48.44% $2,162,265 Main Street Hwy 395 to Rock Springs Rd. $38,245,090 58.90% $22,526,358 Mojave/Mauna Loa/Lemon I-15 to "I" Ave. $28,740,210 58.90% $16,927,984 Ranchero Road Mariposa to UP RR X-ing $7,232,890 58.90% $4,260,172 Ranchero Road Topaz to 7th (Includes Aqueduct Crossing) $36,068,020 58.90% $21,244,064 Ranchero Road2 7th to Danbury (Includes RR Grade Sep) $750,000 100.00% $750,000 Escondido Avenue Mariposa to Main (Includes Aqueduct
Crossing)
$19,989,200 90.00% $17,990,280
Eucalyptus Street I-15 to 11th Ave. $16,442,920 58.90% $9,684,880 Poplar St. I-15 to Hwy 395 $3,333,500 58.90% $1,963,432 Santa Fe Ave. Ranchero to Summit Valley Road $6,944,340 90.00% $6,249,906 Main Street Hwy 395 to Bellflower St. $3,125,500 90.00% $2,812,950 Caliente Road Joshua to Oak Hill Road $25,067,920 90.00% $22,561,128 Ranchero Road Caliente to West City Limits $4,184,700 90.00% $3,766,230 Mariposa Road Bear Valley to Live Oak St. $21,534,410 90.00% $19,380,969 Mariposa Road Sultana to City Limit near Forestry Rd $37,468,540 90.00% $33,721,686 Lemon Street "I" Ave. to East City Limit $13,867,360 90.00% $12,480,624 Maple Avenue Ranchero to City Limit near Summit Valley
Rd.
$9,738,040 90.00% $8,764,236
Summit Valley Road Santa Fe to Tapestry Boundary $14,207,960 100.00% $14,207,960 Arrowhead Lake Road Summit Valley to Southern City Limit $6,933,680 90.00% $6,240,312 Subtotal $298,338,093 $227,695,435
Arterials
Hesperia Road Bear Valley to Sultana $12,967,500 48.44% $6,281,440 "I" Avenue Bear Valley to Ranchero (Includes RR X-ing) $21,145,500 90.00% $19,030,950 7th Avenue Bear Valley to Ranchero $20,182,750 90.00% $18,164,475 Ranchero Road Danbury to "I" Ave. $4,440,000 90.00% $3,996,000 Rock Springs Road Glendale to East City Limits $1,333,400 48.44% $645,897 Sultana Street Mariposa to Escondido $5,667,220 90.00% $5,100,498 Arrowhead Lake Road Rock Springs to South of Hesperia Lakes $7,015,750 48.44% $3,398,420 "C" Avenue RR Xng to Sultana $5,818,750 90.00% $5,236,875 Cottonwood Avenue Bear Valley to Main $10,008,250 48.44% $4,847,983 "E" Avenue "I" Ave. to Lime (Includes RR X-ing) $11,471,250 48.44% $5,556,659 11th Avenue Bear Valley to Main $10,640,000 48.44% $5,154,002 Lassen Road Sultana to Poplar $2,075,320 48.44% $1,005,282 Maple Avenue Mariposa to Ranchero (Includes Aqueduct
Crossing)
$34,551,500 90.00% $31,096,350
Lime Street Cottonwood to "I" Ave. $25,890,000 58.90% $15,249,210 Muscatel Street Mariposa to Cottonwood (Includes Aqueduct Crossing)
$25,120,000 58.90% $14,795,680
Cottonwood Avenue Muscatel to Lime $950,000 58.90% $559,550 Main Street "I" Ave. to Rock Springs $2,842,875 58.90% $1,674,453 Santa Fe Avenue Spruce to Ranchero $9,808,750 90.00% $8,827,875 Eucalyptus Avenue 11th to Peach Ave. $11,970,000 58.90% $7,050,330 Sultana Street Mesa Linda to Lassen Rd. $864,500 90.00% $778,050 Mesa Linda Street Main to Sultana St. $1,729,000 90.00% $1,556,100 Smoke Tree Road Hwy 395 to Merito Rd. $798,000 90.00% $718,200 Amargosa Road Keypointe to Avenal St. $12,441,000 90.00% $11,196,900 Escondido Avenue Palm to North of Sultana St. $1,330,000 48.44% $644,250 Third Avenue Bear Valley to Main St. $11,238,500 90.00% $10,114,650 Sultana Street 7th Ave. to Hesperia Rd. $648,375 90.00% $583,538 Sultana Street Santa Fe. To I Ave. $3,591,000 90.00% $3,231,900 Jacaranda Avenue Bear Valley to Carob St. $798,000 90.00% $718,200 Rock Springs Road Main to Glendale Ave. $1,197,000 48.44% $579,825 Summit Valley Road Santa Fe westerly to City Limit $6,916,000 100.00% $6,916,000 Summit Valley Road Tapestry Boundary to East City Limit $6,650,000 100.00% $6,650,000 Subtotal $272,100,190 $201,359,544
Facility/Location Limits Project Cost
% Allocation to
New
Development
[1]
Cost to be
Funded by
Development
Impact Fee
Secondary Arterials
Danbury Ranchero to Arrowhead Lake Rd. $11,172,000 48.44% $5,411,703 Ranchero Road "I" Ave to Arrowhead Lake Rd. $5,552,750 48.44% $2,689,745 Joshua Street Mariposa to Caliente Rd. $1,471,313 48.44% $712,702 Keypointe Avenue Main to Amargosa $7,244,510 90.00% $6,520,059 Live Oak/Willow Street Mariposa to Hesperia Rd. $1,695,750 48.44% $821,419 Fuente Avenue Main to Live Oak St. $4,239,375 90.00% $3,815,438 Sultana Street Maple to 7th Ave. $6,384,000 90.00% $5,745,600 Mesquite Street Topaz to Hesperia Rd. $15,436,313 90.00% $13,892,681 Peach Avenue Bear Valley to Ranchero Rd. $1,762,250 90.00% $1,586,025 Farmington Street Topaz to Maple Ave. 90.00% $0
Subtotal $54,958,260 $41,195,371
Intersection Expansion
"C" Avenue Intersection at Main $6,153,220 90.00% $5,537,898 Subtotal $6,153,220 $5,537,898
Transit Facility $1,200,000 90.00% $1,080,000
Totals $949,862,415 $670,735,278
APPENDIX D
Fee Models
FIRE FEE MODEL
David Taussig Associates, Inc. 5/4/2018
Table 1
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Location Description Facility Unit Square Feet Fire Station 301 9430 11th Ave. Will be torn down and rebuilt SF 3,700 Fire Station 302 17288 Olive St. Will be torn down and rebuilt SF 3,435 Fire Station 304 15660 Eucalyptus St. Will be expanded SF 5,627 Fire Station 305 8331 Caliente Rd. No change SF 19,098
Subtotal for Facilities to remain at buildout 24,725
Total for all existing Facilities 31,860
Table 2
Proposed Facilities
Facility
Facility Location Facility Unit Number Cost
Tear Down and Rebuild Fire Station 301 9430 11th Ave. SF 15,200 $7,600,000 Tear Down and Rebuild Fire Station 302 17288 Olive St. SF 18,200 $9,240,000 Fire Station 304 Expansion 15660 Eucalyptus St. SF 4,200 $2,333,000 Total Facilities Cost NA 37,600 $19,173,000
Table 3
Allocation of Facilities to Existing and New Development (Does not inlude Tapestry Specific Plan) Based on Total EDUs - Credit given to existing development Percentage of Total SF Percentage of
Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs in 2040 SF Credit Allocated SF Costs Allocated Total Cost Existing Development 33,400 68.06% 42,417 (24,725) 17,692 47.05% $9,021,258 Future Development 15,677 31.94% 19,908 0 19,908 52.95% $10,151,742 Total 49,077 100.00% 62,325 (24,725) 37,600 100.00% $19,173,000 Table 4
Proposed Facilities and Cost Per EDU
Number of Cost
Facility Cost Future EDUs Per EDU
Tear Down and Rebuild Fire Station 301 $4,024,057 15,677 $257 Tear Down and Rebuild Fire Station 302 $4,892,406 15,677 $312 Fire Station 304 Expansion $1,235,280 15,677 $79
Total $10,151,742 NA $648
Table 5
Development Impact Fee per Unit or 1,000 SF
EDUs per EDUs per EDUs per Fees per Fees per Fees per Cost Financed Land Use Type Unit 1,000 SF Room Unit 1,000 SF Room by DIF Single Family 1.00 NA NA $648 NA NA $7,208,120
Multi-Family 0.76 NA NA $491 NA NA $704,187
Commercial/Office NA 0.29 NA NA $187 NA $842,785
Industrial NA 1.40 NA NA $908 NA $1,303,902
Hotel/Motel NA NA 0.68 NA NA $437 $92,748
Total $10,151,742
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $9,021,258
Total Cost of Fire Suppression Facilities $19,173,000
City of Hesperia
Fire Suppression Facilities
Fee Calculation
POLICE FEE MODEL
David Taussig Associates, Inc. 5/4/2018
Table 1
Proposed Facilities
Facility
Facility Location Facility Unit Number Cost
Mobile Cameras
Mobile LPR 4 Camera Unit NA Units 15 $190,500
Fixed Cameras
ALPR Camera Bear Valley Rd & Mariposa Rd Unit 1 $86,532 ALPR Camera Bear Valley Rd & Hesperia Rd Unit 1 $73,310 ALPR Camera Bear Valley Rd and I Ave Unit 1 $73,310
ALPR Camera Bear Valley Rd & Jacaranda Ave Unit 1 $60,088 ALPR Camera Main St & Rock Springs Rd Unit 1 $90,132
ALPR Camera Ranchero Rd & Santa Fe Ave Unit 1 $106,954
Total Facilities Cost NA 21 $680,826
Table 2
Allocation of Facilities to Existing and New Development Based on Total EDUs (includes Tapestry)
Percentage of
Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs Allocated Units Total Cost Existing Development 33,400 51.37% 11 $349,754
Future Development 31,616 48.63% 10 $331,072
Total 65,016 100.00% 21 $680,826
Table 3
Proposed Facilities and Cost Per EDU
Number of Cost
Facility Cost Future EDUs Per EDU
Mobile Cameras $92,636 31,616 $3
Fixed Cameras $238,436 31,616 $8
Total $331,072 NA $10
Table 4
Development Impact Fee per Unit or 1,000 SF
EDUs per EDUs per EDUs per Fees per Fees per Fees per Cost Financed Land Use Type Unit 1,000 SF Room Unit 1,000 SF Room by DIF Single Family 1.00 NA NA $10 NA NA $254,586
Multi-Family 0.78 NA NA $8 NA NA $31,819
Commercial/Office NA 0.36 NA NA $4 NA $19,426
Industrial NA 1.57 NA NA $16 NA $23,566
Hotel/Motel NA NA 0.76 NA NA $8 $1,676
Total $331,072
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $349,754
Total Cost of Police Facilities $680,826
City of Hesperia
Police Facilities
Fee Calculation
ANIMAL CONTROL FEE MODEL
David Taussig Associates, Inc. 5/4/2018
Table 1
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Facility Unit Number
Animal Control Facility SF 10,000
Note: Exisiting 10,000 square foot animal shelter facility will no longer be used and will be replaced with a new 36,000 square foot facility.
Table 2
Proposed Facilities
Facility Cost
New Animal Control Facility Facility Unit Number (2015$) New Animal Control Facility SF 36,000 $12,600,000
Table 3
Allocation of Costs to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs - includes Tapestry) Residential Percentage of
Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs Total SF Total Cost Existing Development 28,262 50.82% 18,295 $6,403,263
Future Development 27,351 49.18% 17,705 $6,196,737
Total 55,613 100.00% 36,000 $12,600,000
Table 4
Proposed Facilities and Cost Per EDU
Number of Cost
Facility Cost Future Residential EDUs Per EDU
New Animal Control Facility [2] $6,196,737 27,351 $227
Total $6,196,737 NA $227
Table 5
Development Impact Fee per Unit
EDUs Fees per Fees per Cost Financed
Land Use Type per Unit Unit 1,000 SF by DIF
Single Family 1.00 $227 NA $5,508,291
Multi-Family 0.78 $176 NA $688,446
Commercial/Office NA NA NA $0
Industrial NA NA NA $0
Hotel/Motel NA NA NA $0
Total $6,196,737
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $6,403,263
Total Cost $12,600,000
[1] EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit.
[2] City already owns site where building is to be constructed.
City of Hesperia
Animal Control Facilities
Fee Calculation
CITY HALL FEE MODEL
David Taussig Associates, Inc. 5/4/2018
Table 1
Proposed Costs
Total Debt Service
Allocation of Debt Service of the 2013 Civic Plaza Bonds 2013 Civic Plaza Bond Amount Funded by General Fund $2,522,253
Amount Funded by DIF $17,260,122
Total $19,782,375
Table 2
Allocation of Costs to New Development (includes Tapestry) Percentage
Debt Service Allocation [1] Total Cost
Existing Development 12.75% $2,522,253
Future Development 87.25% $17,260,122
Total 100.00% $19,782,375
Table 3
Proposed Cost Per EDU
Number of Cost
Costs Cost Future EDUs Per EDU
Debt Service $17,260,122 31,616 $546
Total NA NA $546
Table 4
Development Impact Fee per Unit
EDUs EDUs per EDUs per Fees per Fees per Fees per Cost Financed Land Use Type per Unit 1,000 SF Room Unit 1,000 SF Room by DIF Single Family 1.00 NA NA $546 NA NA $13,272,575
Multi-Family 0.78 NA NA $424 NA NA $1,658,854
Commercial/Office NA 0.36 NA NA $194 NA $1,012,733
Industrial NA 1.57 NA NA $856 NA $1,228,570
Hotel/Motel NA NA 0.76 NA NA $412 $87,390
Total $17,260,122
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $2,522,253
Total Cost $19,782,375
[1] Based on information provided by City, all $17,260,122 in debt service allocated to the DIF is for costs associated with the Civic Plaza Project needed for new development only.
City of Hesperia
City Hall Facilities
Fee Calculation
RECORDS STORAGE FEE MODEL
David Taussig Associates, Inc. 5/4/2018
Table 1
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Facility Unit Number
Existing Facility (will be rebuilt at a new location) SF 3,000 Note: The City plans to abandon the exisiting 3,000 square foot storage facility and build a new 6,000 square foot facility.
Table 2
Proposed Facilities
Facility Facility Unit Number Facility Cost
New Records Storage Facility SF 6,000 $1,716,000
Table 3
Allocation of Facilities to Existing and New Development (Based on Total EDUs - includes Tapestry) Percentage of
Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs Total SF Total Cost Existing Development 33,400 51.37% 3,082 $881,543
Future Development 31,616 48.63% 2,918 $834,457
Total 65,016 100.00% 6,000 $1,716,000
Table 4
Proposed Facilities and Cost Per EDU
Number of Cost
Facility Cost Future EDUs Per EDU
New Records Storage Facility $834,457 31,616 $26
Total $834,457 NA $26
Table 5
Development Impact Fee per Unit or 1,000 SF
EDUs per EDUs per EDUs per Fees per Fees per Fees per Cost Financed Land Use Type Unit 1,000 SF Room Unit 1,000 SF Room by DIF Single Family 1.00 NA NA $26 NA NA $641,675
Multi-Family 0.78 NA NA $20 NA NA $80,199
Commercial/Office NA 0.36 NA NA $9 NA $48,962
Industrial NA 1.57 NA NA $41 NA $59,396
Hotel/Motel NA NA 0.76 NA NA $20 $4,225
Total $834,457
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $881,543
Total Cost $1,716,000
City of Hesperia
Records Storage Facility
Fee Calculation
DRAINAGE FEE MODEL
Table 1
Land Use
Residential Units/
Non Residential.
KSF./hotel rooms
Density
(EDU/acre) FAR Acres, "A" Runoff Coefficient,
"C" ERU by acres
Single Family Residential 25,747 4.0 6,436.8 0.70 4,505.7 Multi Family Residential 3,320 12.0 276.7 0.80 221.3
Commercial/Office 5,791 0.4 332.3 0.95 315.7
Industrial 1,853.8 0.2 212.8 1.00 212.8
Hotel/Motel 393 11.5 0.90 10.4
7,270.0 sub total 5,265.9
% of Total = 51.43%
Table 2
Land Use
Residential Units/
Non Residential.
KSF./hotel rooms
Density
(units/acre) FAR Acres, "A" Runoff Coefficient,
"C" Runoff Q = C x A
Single Family Residential 24,312 4.0 6,078.0 0.70 4,254.6 Multi Family Residential 3,917 12.0 326.4 0.80 261.1
Commercial/Office 5,219 0.4 299.5 0.95 284.5
Industrial 1,436 0.2 164.8 1.00 164.8
Hotel/Motel 212 9.1 0.90 8.2
6,877.9 sub total 4,973.3
% of Total = 48.57%
Total ERUs = 10,239.2
Table 3
Cost per ERU
New ERUs
Total Cost Allocated
to New
Development Cost per ERU
4,973.3 $39,428,606 $7,928.04
Table 4
Fee Schedule
Land Use Density (units/acre) Acres Runoff Coefficient
Q = Runoff /
Density Cost per ERU
DIF Fee per unit /
1,000 SF/room Fee Units Cost Financed by DIF
Single Family Residential 4.0 0.70 0.175 $7,928 $1,387.41 residential unit $33,730,649 Multi Family 12.0 0.80 0.067 $7,928 $528.54 residential unit $2,070,276 Commercial/Office 0.4 0.95 0.055 $7,928 $432.26 square feet $2,255,904 Industrial 0.2 1.00 0.115 $7,928 $910.01 square feet $1,306,846 Hotel/Motel 0.90 0.900 $7,928 $306.28 room $64,931
Total $39,428,606
Cost Allocated to Existing Development $41,748,394
Total Cost $81,177,000
Existing ERUs
Future ERUs (2015 to buildout)
City of Hesperia
Drainage Facilities
Fee Calculation
TRANSPORTATION FEE MODEL
TABLE 1
Land Use Trip Rate
(ATDs)
Res. Units / 1,000
S.F./ Rooms units ADT
Single Family 9.57 25,747 Res. Units 246,399
Multi Family 6.63 3,320 Res. Units 22,012
Commercial/Office 13.27 5,791 1,000 square feet 76,841
Industrial 6.97 1,854 1,000 square feet 12,921
Hotel/Motel 8.92 393 Rooms 3,506
Total Existing ADTs 361,678
% of total ADTs = 51.56%
TABLE 2
Land Use Trip Rate
(ATDs)
Res. Units / 1,000
S.F./ Rooms units ADT
Single Family 9.57 24,312 Res. Units 232,666
Multi Family 6.63 3,917 Res. Units 25,970
Commercial/Office 13.27 5,219 1,000 square feet 69,255
Industrial 6.97 1,436 1,000 square feet 10,009
Hotel/Motel 8.92 212 Rooms 1,891
Total Future ADTs 339,791
% of total ADTs = 48.44%
Total ADTs = 701,469
TABLE 3
Total Transportation Costs
Allocated to New Development
Total Future
ADT's
Cost per future
ADT
$670,735,278 339,791 $1,974
TABLE 4
Land Use Trip Rate
(ATDs) Cost per ADT Units DIF Fee per unit /
1,000 SF/ Room
Cost Financed by
DIF
Single Family 9.57 $1,974 Res. Units $18,891 $459,274,295 Multi Family 6.63 $1,974 Res. Units $13,087 $51,263,306 Commercial/Office 13.27 $1,974 1,000 square feet $26,195 $136,706,578 Industrial 6.97 $1,974 1,000 square feet $13,759 $19,758,251 Hotel/Motel 8.92 $1,974 Rooms $17,608 $3,732,847
Total Cost Total= $670,735,278
Transportation Fee Schedule
Existing Average Daily Trips
Future Average Daily Trips (Includes Tapestry Specific Plan) City of Hesperia
Transportation Facilities
Fee Calculation
Cost per ADT
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2018-26 AND REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City formed an Ad Hoc Committee to study the capital project needs list and propose updated Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017 the City Council in a regularly scheduled meeting directed staff in the creation of a capital projects needs list related to future growth in the City; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2018 the City Council voted 5-0 to bring forth the proposed Development Impact Fees found in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66000, enacted by the State of California in 1987, enables cities to establish development impact fees for the purp ose of mitigating the cost of additional municipal facilities as a result of new development; and
WHEREAS, this action is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a) as adjustments to rate, tolls, fares and charges will not have an adverse impact on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is being responsible, prudent and conservative in its business approach to the operation of the City by establishing Development Impact Fees and reviewing said fees when
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA
AS FOLLOWS
Section 1. In all respects, the facts as set forth in this resolution are true and correct.
Section 2. The following resolution is hereby rescinded: Resolution No. 2018-26, Section 3. The schedule of fees and charges set forth in Exhibit “1” are hereby adopted and shall be applied to the specified services. The effective date of this resolution shall be April 2, 2022.
Section 4. A public hearing was held on February 1, 2022 allowing for public testimony, oral and written staff reports and Council action.
Section 5. The effective date of the fee revision shall not take effect any sooner than 60 days following the adoption of this Resolution pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a). The effective date of the Development Impact Fee revision is April 2, 2022.
Section 6. Any development project that has submitted for a valid building permit prior to this effective date shall be subject to the previously established fees. Any project submitted on or after April 2, 2022 will be subject to the new fees.
Resolution 2022-01
Section 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1st day of February, 2022.
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:
Melinda Sayre, City Clerk
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
Jamie Carone, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Consideration of the 2022 Legislative Platform and Funding Priorities
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the 20 22 Legislative Platform consisting of Legislative Policy Statements and Funding Priorities.
BACKGROUND
The City Manager’s office is responsible for maintaining the annual Legislative P latform. The purpose of this document is to provide City Council guidance and reference when responding to State and Federal legislative proposals that have the potential to impact the City of Hesperia. To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s legislative advocacy program, the City Council adopts a Legislative Platform each year to serve as the foundation for the City’s advocacy strategy.
The 202 2 Legislative Platform outlines the City’s priorities for the coming legislative year.
Adopting the Legislative Platform provides the Mayor and City Manager with clarity on the position of the City Council regarding priority legislative issues. While this allows for consistent decision making, the adoption of the Legislative Platform also allows for flexibility to adapt to the variety of legislative and budgetary issues that arise throughout the year. Furthermore, this adoption also allows for consistency in the prompt submission of letters of support or opposition , on behalf of the City of Hesperia, to the Legislature and Congress.
The Legislative Platform provides direction to the City Manager’s Office when responding to legislation and when prioritizing grant and funding opportunities. Additionally, the 2022 Legislative Platform provides guidance to the City’s Federal and State legislative advocates representing the City’s interests during the year.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The Legislative Platform is comprised of three components: The Legislative Platform Process, the Legislative Policy Statements, and the City Council Funding Priorities.
The Legislative Platform is a long term, multi-year effort that helps the City maintain a consistent approach in pursuing its legislative priorities; consequently, the Policy Statements and Council Funding Priorities are updated each year after review and input from Senior Management and from the City’s Federal and State legislative advocates. This annual update allows for consistency
Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Consideration of the 2022 Legislative Platform and Funding Priorities February 1, 2022
in City opposition and support while allowing for flexibility with new legislative and budgetary issues and unexpected changes to revenue and existing policies.
The Policy Statements in the 2022 Legislative Platform emphasize preserving and protecting local control over City revenue, land use, economic development, and other activities that benefit and enhance Hesperia. This year’s policy statements include the advocacy of financial support for local agencies during a global pandemic and the support of individual and local decision making.
Additionally, Priority Projects are listed in the Legislative Platform. City projects that are of the highest priority to the City, and have the greatest potential for funding, include the following:
Transportation
o Main Street Widening and Aqueduct Bridge Construction o I Avenue Widening
o Sultana Street, Muscatel Street, and Cedar Street Improvements o Bear Valley Road Rehabilitation and Widening Project
o North-South Corridor Improvements
o Traffic Signals
Flood Control
o A-04 Corridor Flood Protection Program
o Cataba Road Basin
o Temecula Avenue Basin
Sewer Improvements
o Township Septic to Sewer
o Wastewater System Improvements
o Mesa Area Septic to Sewer
Water System Improvements
o Hesperia Well Field Construction
Recycled Water Improvements
o Distribution System Improvements
FISCAL IMPACT
The Legislative Platform is coordinated by the City Manager’s Office. Costs for any necessary travel and other related expenses by Council Members and Staff will be discussed during the City’s budget process or on a case-by-case basis.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 2022 Legislative Platform
Attachment 1
City of Hesperia
2022 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
CITY COUNCIL
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
Bill Holland, Mayor Pro Tem
Larry Bird, Council Member
Cameron Gregg, Council Member
Rebekah Swanson, Council Member
9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, CA 92345 . 760-947-1018 . www.cityofhesperia.us
2022 Legislative Platform Page 1 of 26
2022 Legislative Platform Process
Purpose
The Legislative Platform provides a means for summarizing the City’s core legislative principles to support advocacy efforts at the reg ional, state and federal level. Recognizing the importance of promoting City priorities and legislative initiatives, the legislative platform focuses on the City’s commitment to service, community, and economic development initiatives. Adopted annually, the Legislative Platform serves as a reference guide for urgent requests of support, opposition, or neutrality of a legislative proposal and provides direction for the City Council and staff throughout the year.
Guiding Principles
1. Preserve and Enhance Local Control
Support measures that preserve and protect the City’s local authority to enact policy pertaining to local affairs. Oppose measures that seek to preempt local control without the occurrence of the City.
2. Maintain Fiscal Responsibility
Support measures that promote fiscal stability, predictability and financial independence at the local level. Support efforts that preserve and promote the City’s ab ility to maintain and grow its revenue base. Oppose measures that diminish the City’s revenue sou rces thereby threatening its ability to provide and maintain critical services.
3. Promote Economic Development
Support legislative efforts that are designed to provide local governments with the tools necessary to bolster economic development. Support legislation and regulatory streamlining initiatives that would enhance the City’s ability to attract and retain businesses as well as encourage business expansion and job retention.
4. Support Funding Opportunities
Support measures that allow the City to compet e for its fair share of regional, state , and federal funding including competitive grants and other funding programs . Support initiatives that promote dedicated funding streams to cities for critical service areas.
5. Collaborate with Regional Partners
Support opportunities to work collaboratively with local and regional partners on areas of mutual interest. Maintain strong relationships with other municipalities, local transportation agencies, special districts, regional government agencies, local elected officials, school districts, and college boards.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 2 of 26
Goals and Objectives
The primary objective is for the City Council to adopt official City positions on clearly stated legislative issues and to adopt a guideline for funding priorities at the start of the l egislative session. The Legislative Platform also sets forth the City’s legislative objectives for the 2021 legislative session and provides direction for our legislative advocates as they work to secure clear and strategic initiatives in Sacramento and Wa shington, D.C. By doing this, the legislative approval process is streamlined by eliminating the need for repetitive concurrence and direction from the City Council on previously approved issues.
A secondary objective is to implement a process that ensures the City Council provides input and direction on legislative issues that have not been previously reviewed by the City Council. This objective will ensure that staff will seek the Council’s guidance on issues that are not contained within the City’s ado pted legislative platform.
With the dynamic growth of the City over the years and planned development in the future, the City’s Legislative Platform is aimed at securing legislative policies and resources that will help the City manage this growth, fund critical infrastructure needs, keep the City safe and maintain and enhance the quality of life residents have come to enjoy.
Process
The following outlines the process that is used to develop and implement the various elements of the City of Hesperia’s Legislative Platform:
1. Develop Legislative Policy Statements
Each year, the City Manager’s Office submits the Legislat ive Platform with its proposed State and F ederal Legislative Policy Statements compiled in accordance with the following:
a. Input from Senior Management and City’s legislative advocates. b. Research of current law and pending legislation.
c. A review of legislative priorities and any other issues recommended by the League of California Cities, the National League of Cities, the City’s legislative a dvocates, or any other agencies conducting legislative analysis and advocacy on behalf of cities. d. City’s adopted Mission Statement and Values.
e. Consideration of special, unique, or changing interests of the City of Hesperia.
Staff will use the 2022 Legislative Policy Statements as a guiding policy when reviewing and analyzing bills that have an impact on the City’s interests. The City will have discretion in determining on which specific bills to take official position . Official City positions are not aut omatically assumed on bills simply due to their similarity with the policy statements contained within this document. Furthermore, the policies established within the platform do not preclude City Council consideration of additional legislative matters arising throughout the year that may be brought forward for City Council action.
2. Legislative Monitoring and Advocacy
The City Council recognizes that it is vital to the fiscal health and self -determination of the City to effectively communicate with State legislators and Federal representatives in order to favorably influence
2022 Legislative Platform Page 3 of 26
State and Federal legislation, regulations, and funding requests. Legislative Advocates at the Federal and State levels provide a useful service in the success of the City’s legislative goals and objectives by providing the necessary communication link with our Congressional delegation and State legislators in order to further Hesperia’s priority projects for funding consideration. To that end, funding for Legislative Advocates will be considered by the City Council on an annual basis.
Upon the Legislative Platform’s adoption, t he City Manager’s Office will exercise day -to-day oversight of legislative matters. Staff will monitor and review State and Federal legislation as well as write letters, contact legislators, or otherwise communicate the City’s position, as warranted. T he City Manager is authorized to send such letters on adopted legislative positions, along the following lines:
Support: Legislation that the City should support as drafted. Oppose: Legislation that the City should oppose as drafted. Oppose Unless Amended: Legislation the City should oppose unless amended. No Position or Watch: Legislation that the City does not take a formal position on but continues to monitor for progress.
3. Staff Responsibilities in the Legislative Process
In addition to coordinating formal action through the City Council, City staff responsibilities in the implementation of the Legislative Platform include:
1. Prepare support/opposition analyses and correspondence.
2. Seek and solicit support/opposition from other interested entities.
3. Participate in and attend legislative meetings with legislators and staff, as well as other local public officials and staff , to actively engage and stay apprised of legislative trends and upcoming legislation.
4. Prepare and present testimony on behalf of the City before the state and federal government.
5. Monitor and track key bills through the legislative process utilizing the City’s advocacy services, legislative websites, and government/professional associations.
6. Update City Council on legislation that the City has taken a position on, including any significant amendments that would impact the City’s adopted positions.
7. Ensure City Council Members receive copies of all legislative correspondence.
8. Work with City’s Federal and State lobbyists to identify funding resources for departmental projects.
4. City Council Role in the Legislative Process
Through adoption of the Legislative Platform, the City Council prohibits any of its members from lobbying, advocating, or taking a position contrary to the Council’s adopted position on any legislative item. Council Members may, as allowed for by law, take opposing positions as an individual citizen; however, said communication is discouraged and considered detrimental to the success of the City and this Legislative Platform specifically.
Written correspondence by individual City Council Members on legislative items not adopted by the City Council may be transmitted if the corr espondence identifies that it is a position as an individual citizen as opposed to an elected official of the City of Hesperia. Any individual correspondence must be on personal stationery that is free of any City of Hesperia identifying information, including logos, addresses, phone
2022 Legislative Platform Page 4 of 26
numbers, etc.
City Council Members may be asked to participate in meetings with legislators and staff, as well as other local public officials. Council Members may also be asked to present testimony on behalf of the City before the state and federal government. Council Members will be provided copies of all correspondence related to the City’s activities in the legislative process.
When proposed legislation, or a significant public policy issue, comes to the attention of City officials that is not specifically addressed in the Legislative Platform, it may be brought to Council for consideration. If the Council determines that the proposed legislation or policy issue is of importance to the City, it will recommend that a f ormal position on the matter be taken, which may include adoption of a City Council Resolution.
5. Identify Funding Priorities
Each year, Senior Management provides input on funding priorities for the City’s major infrastructure projects. These projects an d programs are identified and listed in the annual Legislative Platform and once approved by Council, become the basis for preparing the City’s annual Legislative Priorities book.
The Legislative Priorities book is the vehicle by which Federal and State r epresentatives are provided information on the City’s top priority projects for which the City seeks funding.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 5 of 26
2022 State Legislative Policy Statements
The following categories of policy statements are broad and are not intended to be all -inclusive, rather they will be used as a reference tool and guideline for the City’s State advocacy efforts in 2021.
Administrative Services
General Area of Review: Elections, Brown Act, Public Records Act, Political Reform Act, Conflict of Interest, Insurance, Tort Reform, Open and Transparent Government.
1. Support a comprehensive state performance review and audit system and long -range financial planning and performance budgeting to enhance accountability, efficiency, and responsiveness at all levels of government.
2. Support l egislation that controls the costs of elections as long as the elections process is not adversely affected, (e.g., purge voter rolls, limit costs for candidate statements, and prevent abuse of the mail ballot process).
3. Support legislation that woul d increase voter turnout in local elections, (e.g., mail ballots, more information to voters for judicial elections).
4. Support legislation that reduces the amount of recall abuse while improving, streamlining , and ensuring that the public has full knowledge of the issues.
5. Support legislation that strengthens local control over election related matters such as boundary and district requirements.
6. Support measures that enable cities to maximize their ability to efficiently and effectively administer local elec tions, including programs designed to encourage and increase voter education, registration, and voter turn-out.
7. Support reforms to modernize the structure, governance, management and method of financing State government.
8. Support legislation that discourage s baseless and frivolous claims and demands made against municipalities, their officers, and employees.
9. Support legislation that would allow a city presented with an allegation of a violation of the California Voter Rights Act (CVRA) to address the allegat ion before any person may file a lawsuit related to the alleged violation.
10. Support legislation providing city councils more flexibility to fill city council vacancies including extending the appointment period to fill a vacancy.
11. Support limited tort liabil ity and provide certain tort immunities for public entities for unauthorized use of public property.
12. Support comprehensive tort reform, including limiting the joint and separate liability of governmental agencies to a liability equal to their percentage of their wrongdoing.
13. Support measures that preserve the integrity and fundamentals of the Brown Act while opposing measures that would constrain communication among staff and local officials.
14. Support measures increasing local autonomy, protecting privacy , and maintaining the City’s authority over public records. This includes measures that provide for the recovery of costs with regard to public records requests.
15. Support efforts to amend rules that limit and restrict local governments’ ability to achieve greater transparency of governmental business by improving the platform in which agencies can publish and advertise notices, resolutions, orders, or other matters required by law.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 6 of 26
16. Support measures that promote transparency, public participation , and first ame ndment rights, while preserving procedures that continue to foster efficient government proceedings.
17. Support alternative methods of meeting public notice requirements and enhancing them through the use of cost effective and innovative, technology friendly methods of communication.
18. Support legislation that maintains and enhances local franchising authority for cable television and wireless services.
19. Support legislation that provides funding and financial relief to local communities directly impacted by the C OVID-19 pandemic by assisting with budget shortfalls due to the reduction in sales and use taxes.
20. Oppose legislation that expands or increases municipal liability , or, conversely, further limits municipal immunity.
21. Oppose legislation that limits the author ity of municipalities to enforce their own ordinances in municipal courts.
22. Oppose any legislation that diminishes or does not assure local franchise fees for all utilities’ use of City right-of- way.
23. Oppose legislative efforts to impose binding arbitration that w ould remove local government authority on matters of local interest. Specifically, support all legislative and legal efforts to overturn any legislation that implements binding arbitration on local government.
24. Oppose legislation that seeks to lessen the City’s ability to enforce contractual language agreed to and contained within existing franchise documents.
Economic Development
General Area of Review: Economic Development, Redevelopment, Enterprise and Opportunity Zones, Job Creation.
1. Support r egional economic development policies that provide for planned economic growth in the City and neighboring communities.
2. Support legislation that promotes sustainable economic development.
3. Support legislation that would enhance a city’s ability to attract and retain local businesses, and encourages business expansion and retention through job creation, investment in capital equipment, and employer facility development.
4. Support legislation that provides incentives (tax benefits, grants, loans, credits for af fordable units) to local agencies to rehabilitate residential and commercial properties.
5. Support legislation that promotes business formation and growth.
6. Support legislation that promotes “re-shoring” of manufacturing processes.
7. Support legislatio n that will establish a meaningful and useful tax increment financing (TIF) program to support local economic development.
8. Support State and Federal legislation to maximize the economic benefits of Opportunity Zones for communities and businesses, includin g environmental streamlining and flexibility to expand or change existing designations.
9. Support legislation that ensures all assets (real & personal property, loans , and grants receivable, etc.) are retained by the sponsoring entity of a former redevelopme nt agency for the benefit of the former redevelopment project area(s) and the elimination of physical and economic blight.
10. Support legislation that clarifies and narrows the prevailing wage standard for economic development and affordable housing projects.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 7 of 26
11. Support polices and legislation that promote an increase in housing development and subsequently an increase in commercial development.
12. Support zone changes and policies that incentivize and encourage development of property west of the I-15 Freeway, such as e-commerce and distribution centers.
13. Oppose legislation that is deemed by the City to be “anti-business” and/or “job killer.”
14. Oppose legislation that would reduce funds dedicated to the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and the HOME program and support the expansion of eligibility and allowable uses under these programs.
15. Oppose legislation that restricts the building industry and consequently diminishes economic development in the City.
16. Oppose legislation that would contribute to a decrease in property values within the City.
Employee Relations and Risk Management
General Area of Review: Labor Relations, Employee Relations, and Human Resources.
1. Support legislation that would reform the State’s Workers’ Compensation System to draw a balance b etween reasonable claimant benefits versus the increasing costs/corruption that has plagued the System to date.
2. Support legislation that improves access to, and reduces the cost of, healthcare for public employees.
3. Support legislation tha t expands the City ’s ability to offer health, welfare , and wellness services for employees.
4. Support reform of the California tort law system to curtail unreasonable liability exposure for municipalities and to facilitate the ability to obtain affordable ge neral l iability an d workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
5. Support local government efforts to establish succession planning and mentoring programs.
6. Support efforts to provide additional flexibility in the provision and administration of retirement and medical benefit programs while ensuring those programs are sustainable for past, current, and future employees.
7. Oppose the taxability of employee benefits.
8. Oppose legislation that would add administrative burdens or taxes to self-insurance programs.
9. Oppose legislation or re gulations that would increase employer medical costs for workers’ compensation.
10. Oppose legislation that would promote workers’ compensation claim litigation.
11. Oppose legislation that presumptively expands workers’ compensation coverage to illness or injuries that are not work-related.
12. Oppose legislation that creates unnecessary burdens on or limits the City’s ability to decide employment issues, including collective bargaining, binding arbitration, benefits, and leaves.
13. Oppose legislation i mposing state-mandated costs for mandatory employee training programs when there is no guarantee of local reimbursement or offsetting benefits.
14. Oppose legislation that would create additional financial burden on, or threaten the viability of, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).
2022 Legislative Platform Page 8 of 26
Environmental
General Area of Review: Air, Water and Water Quality, Climate Change, CEQA, Energy Efficiency, Recycling, Solid Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, and Utilities.
1. Support legislation that pr omotes regi onal improvement of air quality, recognizing that air pollution does not follow jurisdictional boundaries.
2. Support legislation to assure that Federal, State , and County agencies have adequate authority and resources to enforce air quality regulations.
3. Support legislation and regulations that provide authority for local governments to implement vehicle emissions reductions programs.
4. Support legislation requiring local government participation on the governing bodies of air quality management districts without diluting any existing authority already held by the City.
5. Support efforts that maintain and enhance local decision -making authority in the development and implementation of air quality attainment strategies.
6. Support water quality legi slation that results in reasonable water quality control regulations that are cost effective and can show identifiable benefits.
7. Support regional approaches to provide needed water and encourage local conservation and efficient use of the water supply.
8. Support legislation and regulations that promote the appropriate and beneficial use of reclaimed water.
9. Support continued federal and state funding for water and wastewater treatment infrastructure to reduce local costs and expedite construction of necessary treatment, distri bution, and collection facilities to comply with Federal and State mandates.
10. Support efforts that help local governments maintain water efficiency programs that meet state objectives, are cost effective, and make sense for the local conditions.
11. Support sta te and federal efforts to increase water efficiency ratings for common consumer products that use water.
12. Support streamlined environmental processing for Federal and State regulatory permits administered by Caltrans and various other State and Federal agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure developments.
13. Support major revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its state counterpart , including delisting of endangered species that have thrived and recovered throug h effective resour ce management.
14. Support legislation to include consideration of the economic impacts of proposed species listings, as well as support the delisting of species no longer threatened or endangered.
15. Support efforts to repeal AB 32 and SB 375 legislation.
16. Support efforts to streamline and improve the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process to reduce time and cost of compliance while ensuring that the environment is adequately protected.
17. Support “green” projects and regulations that do not place an undue burden on local government and other financial incentives for reductions in Greenhouse Gases.
18. Support programs and policies that promote advanced low emission vehicle technology and encourage or promote alternative fuels such as biodiesel, hydrogen, and compressed natural gas.
19. Support legislation that increases availability and promotes the adoption of energy efficient technologies and use of alternative/renewable energy sources.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 9 of 26
20. Support legislation that encourages and funds energy eff iciency and conservation while allowing local design and implementation of the program.
21. Support local government’s adoption and implementation of recycled content and green procurement policies.
22. Support legislation to provide changes to AB 939 regarding mandated waste diversion goals that will streamline its provisions and assist in compliance , placing more emphasis on implementation of waste diversion programs and less on strict mathematical accounting.
23. Support leg islation th at delays or reduces pe nalties for noncompliance with SB 1383 to allow jurisdictions to implements the many components of the regulations.
24. Support funding for implementation of SB 1383 including funding to increase the capaci ty of facilities that accept and process organic waste and funding increase the capacity of food recovery services and organizations.
25. Support legislation that clarifies and broadens the regulatory authority of local government to ensure the efficient management of recyclable material and solid waste.
26. Support legislation that provides incentives and funding for programs that promote waste reduction, reuse, and recycling and development of related infrastructure.
27. Support expansion of the market for recyclable materials.
28. Support legislation that allows the City to continue controlling risks from hazardous materials use, storage and transportation through the Uniform Building and Fire Codes an d related local amendments.
29. Oppose legislation that would require the City to divert more than 50 percent of the solid waste stream and places undue burden on local government.
30. Oppose legislation that requires the City to reduce the amount of organic was te by 5 0 to 75 percent and requires disposed edible food to be used for human consumption accompanied by infrastructure, procurement, and implementat ion requirements which places a financial burden on local government.
31. Oppose mandated material disposal ba ns or r estrictions in circumstances where there is an insufficient capacity within the private recycling market to handle these materials in a more beneficial way besides landfilling.
32. Oppose legislation that restricts the City’s ability to adopt local regu lations for hazardous materials, including review and approval of the location of facilities that use or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste.
33. Oppose air quality legislation that restricts a local agency’s land use authority.
34. Oppose all state and/or federal legislation that would allow for lower water quality testing limits based on any other parameters than scientific evidence.
35. Oppose legislation that would impose a tax on residential water service customers, including requirements characterized as voluntary contributions.
36. Oppose the expansion of the State listing of endangered or threatened species without economic impact analyses and valid scientific data.
37. Oppose any additional listings to the California Endangered Species Act when such l istings threaten development and the local economy and impose an undue financial burden on local agencies.
38. Oppose all unfunded mandates on local governments to address climate change (which is outside the City’s control).
39. Oppose expanding the current unfun ded mandate to meet Environmental Protection Agency regulations aimed at the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
2022 Legislative Platform Page 10 of 26
Grants and Funding
General Area of Review: Competitive, Discretionary, Formulaic Sources of Funding for Capital Pro jects and Operations.
1. Support and pursue funding for projects that improve the quality of life in Hesperia.
2. Support and pursue funding to increase public safety service levels in the City and unincorporated areas.
3. Support measures that allow the City to compete for its fair share of regional, state and federal funding.
4. Support initiatives that promote dedicated funding streams to cities for critical service areas.
5. Support legislation that provides incentives or grant opportunities for community improveme nts such as cultural services for the education, entertainment, and enrichment of the community.
6. Support tax credits, grants, loans , and other incentives to assist the public, businesses, and local agencies that invest in energy efficient equipment and techn ology, and fuel efficient, low emission vehicles.
7. Support and pursue funding that specifically benefits the City ’s transportation and publ ic works projects, including for new railroad grade crossings.
8. Support legislation or policy, whether state or federa l, that creates and makes available grant funds for economic development and tax increment financing (TIF) programs.
9. Support legislation th at maintains or enhances funding for parks, trails, and recreation services and facilities.
10. Support legislation that provides funding for water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure; flood prevention, water resources planning and development; water q uality improvement; and water resources related regulatory reform.
11. Support legislation that provides sustainable funding support for disaster preparedness, Homeland Security, Court Security and other local emergency management and law enforcement activities.
12. Support legi slation that addresses full reimbursement of law enforcement costs of state and federal mandates.
13. Support legislation that ensures communities of all sizes remain eligible for funding, not just large urban areas or communities identified through overly-prescriptive eligibility criteria.
14. Support legislation that directs proceeds from cap and trade auction revenues to projects in the City that result in improved air quality, active modes of transportation, and the reduction of harmful pollutants.
15. Support leg islation that provides funding and resources for local governments to implement Healthy Cities program s and policies aimed at reducing obesity, childhood obesity, high rates of diabetes, heart disease, and other health conditions.
16. Support legislation that provides funding to implement unfunded mandates such as the organi c waste reduction mandates included in SB 1383.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 11 of 26
Housing, Community Development and Planning
General Area of Review: Housing, Land Use, Development, Annexation, Incorporati on, Building Standards, Mobile Home, and Sign Regulations.
1. Support joint efforts to develop mutual development standards for unincorporated areas that are binding upon the County and the City.
2. Support changes to Sphere of Influence legislation to limit county development and allow cities to annex logical growth.
3. Support local City input on all regional land use and planning issues.
4. Support legislative strategies and programs that promote efficient and sustainable land use and building practices.
5. Support legislation that protects the Cit ies’ land use authority and their right to make land use decisions with respect to water supply.
6. Support a streamlined right-of-way acquisition process.
7. Support land use patterns that maintain safe residential neighborhoods, bolster economic prosperity, preserve open space, and enhance overall quality of life in Hesperia.
8. Support legislation and regulations that protect a local agency’s control over the cultivation and possession of cannabis, including the licensing of dispensaries and abatement of illegal activities.
9. Support legislation that encourages home ownership, including programs that are intended to alleviate the national housing crisis.
10. Support legislation that preserves municipal authority over the public right -of-way including fair and reasonable compensation for use of the right-of-way.
11. Support legislation that facilitates the creation and maintenance of payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements that support the development of affordable housing projects.
12. Support le gislation t o relax eligibility regulations related to affordable housing production requirements.
13. Support state and federal legislation that enhance the viability of public housing authorities (PHAs), including funding mechanisms, and protects the authorities and powers of PHAs.
14. Support legislation t hat preserves local control and decision making over housing and land use based on local factors and conditions.
15. Oppose legislation that would limit or restrict local land use decision-making authority.
16. Oppose affordable housing production mandates without necessary funding to support said housing mandates.
17. Oppose measures that remove lo cal authority over housing decisions that best fit the City and its population.
18. Oppose legislation that limits local ability to regulate, manage or generate alternative sources of funding for affordable housing, including public-private partnerships.
19. Oppose l egislation that increases administrative burdens and costs associated with affordable housing without increasing provision of services at the local level.
20. Oppose efforts by any regulatory commission from promulgating rules and regulations that infringe on local land use decisions and management of the public right-of-way.
21. Oppose legislation that would inappropriately limit local govern ment authority to impose growth impact fees.
22. Oppose legislation similar to SB 375 which unfairly ties road funding to l ocal decisions on density and affordable housing.
23. Oppose legislation similar to AB 32 which will require compliance with climate change regulations.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 12 of 26
24. Oppose legislation similar to SB 9 which required cities to ministerially approve, without condition or discretion, the amount of units allowed on a parcel without considering local conditions and community input.
25. Oppose legislation that limit s or removes local authority to manage the right -of-way concerning broadband deployment.
Local Control
General Area of Review: Preservation of Local Authority and Decision-Making Powers.
1. Support enhanced local control over public nuisances, (e.g. adult entertainment facilities, problem alcohol establishments, drug paraphernalia establishments, etc.).
2. Support legislation that strengthens local control over gaming issues.
3. Support the creation o f mo re affordable, innovative and quality child care options while maintaining strict adherence to child care regulations and guidelines.
4. Support efforts to increase opportunities for community-wide citizen volunteer programs.
5. Support legislation to fund s ummer youth employment and training programs and expand funding for year -round youth employment and leadership in order to better prepare youth for future self-sufficiency and prevent youth violence and crime.
6. Support efforts to promote and finance program s to combat pet overpopulation, increase pet adoptions and s pay/neuter programs and educate citizens on the dangers and nuisance of roaming, uncontrolled animals and other animal control issues that risk public health and safety and quality of life.
7. Support pr ograms and efforts aimed at assisting with the clean -up of abandoned and/or inoperative vehicles.
8. Support for expansion of aviation services at Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA), provided no quality of life or economic competitiveness issues are impacted in Hesperia.
9. Support legislation and regulator y efforts that provide people with the social, economic, and physical environments needed to make healthy choices and lead healthy lifestyles.
10. Oppose any legislation that preempts local authority or transfers jurisdiction over local programs.
11. Oppose legislation and the promulgation of rules and regulations that allow any regulatory agency to encroach on or supersede local authority including, but not limited to, the City’s right to franchise for the right to operate in the public right-of-way.
12. Oppose legi slation that supports federal or s tate iss ued mandates which infringe up on an individual’s freedom of choice regarding medical decisions, such as vaccine mandates.
Public Safety
General Area of Review: Law Enforcement, Fire Safety, Emergency Communica tions, Emergency Services, Disaster Preparedness, and Nuisance Abatement.
1. Support adequate financing of jails and c riminal justice facilities. Address the need to devote equal time and energy to develop effective alternatives to incarceration, including early intervention of at-risk youth and counseling and rehabilitation programs.
2. Pursue additional opportunity for pa rticipation in regional Restoration of Competency (ROC) programs.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 13 of 26
3. Support legislation that limits the placement of sex offender and parolee homes within the City limits.
4. Support measures that protect the public against disease and disability and promote health.
5. Support increased authority and resources devoted to cities for abatement of graffiti and other acts of public vandalism.
6. Support legislation that provides local law enforcement agencies authority to recover any costs associated with complying with any federal, state or court -ordered licensing, registration , and testing requirement.
7. Support legislation that has the potential to reduce in cidents of violence in the community, especially through the development of treatment and intervention programs for youth.
8. Support legislation that provides greater protection to victims of crime.
9. Support efforts of the Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act.
10. Support efforts to resolve the medicinal cannabis collective issue through judicial or legislative action.
11. Monitor impacts of regulation of medical marijuana and recreational marijuana.
12. Support legislation that c ontinues efforts to maximize opp ortunity for reimbursement for inmate medical and mental health care, as well as assisting with continuity of care p ost-release and pursuing funding for increased needs resulting from realignment. Mitigate liabilities in areas such as health, mental health, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other areas of legal concern.
13. Support legislation establishing protocol s and funding for shared, statewide emergency response communications.
14. Support legislation that protects senior citizens from criminal exploitation.
15. Support legislation that protects society against identity theft.
16. Support legislation that protects juveniles from sexual predators on the internet.
17. Support legislation aimed at reducing gang violence and support enhanced sentences for criminal offenses committed by gang members.
18. Support legislation that provides education for public safety training.
19. Support legislation which would amend Proposition 47 and restore felony status to crimes which were reduced to misdemeanors and/or require the complet ion of drug rehabilitation to the reduction of said related crimes to a misdemeanor.
20. Address changes made by Propos ition 47 regarding implementation and state and local criminal justice system impacts.
21. Support legislation that addresses the impacts of long-term jail sentences.
22. Support legislation and funding to provide law enforcement/public safety agencies greater access to wireless communication necessary to support a national wireless broadband network capable of use by any public safety entity to serve and protect communities throughout the nation.
23. Support legislation that promotes programs that enhance the benefit s of mutual aid agreements between local governments.
24. Support additional funding for local agencies to recoup the costs associated with fir e safety in the community.
25. Support legislation that strengthens the City’s ability to prohibit the use and sale of fireworks and that allows counties and fire districts to prohibit and otherwise control fireworks.
26. Support legislation that supports the Fir e District’s physical and financial ability to actively interdict the sale and/or transportation of fireworks.
27. Support legislation that promotes fire safety, education, and prevention with the goal of reducing injury, loss of life, and property damage.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 14 of 26
28. Support statewide efforts to coordinate solutions to the systemic overcrowding o f local Hospital Emergency Rooms and reduce Ambulance overdependence or Ambulance Patient Offload Delays (APOD).
29. Support legislation that provides the Fire District’s authorit y to recover any costs associated with complying with any federal, state , or court -ordered licensing, registration , and testing requirement.
30. Support measures that encourage disaster preparedness and emergency planning.
31. Support statewide efforts to coordinate disaster preparedness programs in local jurisdictions, and support guidelines to identify the strengths and weaknesses of local preparedness efforts.
32. Oppose programs that have the potential to compromise officer safety.
33. Oppose unfunded mandates on local government in relation to tracking of paroled sexual predators.
34. Oppose any State or local fire related tax or fee increase that does not go back to local agencies.
Revenue and Taxation
General Area of Review: Finance Administration, Taxation Reform, Gen eral and Special Revenue, and Revenue Sources at the Federal, State, and Local Levels.
1. Support efforts to protect loca l government revenue sources and the provisions of Propositions 1A and 22.
2. Support legislation/initiatives that guarantee all local histo rical funding sources shall be a dedicated revenue source for local governments.
3. Support legislation designed to protect, without unnecessarily restricting, the investments of local government agencies.
4. Support local control of the awarding of contracts a nd the accountability of local officials for those actions.
5. Support legislation that facilitates and enables the timel y co llection of delinquent assessments and strengthens or maintains the lien position of those assessments.
6. Support legislation that would require the State to comply with its obligation and original intent of the State Mandated Costs claim process to reim burse cities for costs incurred as a result of State - mandated programs and processes.
7. Support measures that promote fiscal stability, pred ictability, and financial independence at the local level.
8. Support efforts that preserve and promote the City’s ability to maintain and grow its revenue base.
9. Support regional cooperation on common interests and goals by providing access to share incremental growth in ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) property tax.
10. Support legislation that provides a more balanc ed mix of property tax revenues related to public service costs among cities, counties, and special districts.
11. Support full cost reimburs ement to the City for all Federal, State, and County-mandated programs.
12. Support legislation that provides for adequate transparency of the City’s investment activity.
13. Oppose measures that diminish the City’s revenue sources that are required to maintain cri tical services.
14. Oppose imposition of State, F ederal, and regional mandates upon local governments, as well as Federal mandates on the State, especially those for which no funding exists.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 15 of 26
15. Oppose taxes or fees on local refuse programs to fund statewide programs.
16. Oppose legislation that would preempt or threaten local taxation authority.
17. Oppose any change in revenue allocati ons that wo uld negatively affect local government, including sales, use and property tax, tax increment, gas tax (HUTA), transient occupan cy tax (TOT) and vehicle in-lieu fees (VLF).
18. Oppose restrictions on the City’s ability to adopt its own investment policies.
19. Oppose any legislation that would require municipalities to participate in investments that do not meet the objectives set forth in the City’s policies.
Transportation, Communication and Public Works
General Area of Review: Transportation, Construction, Telecommunications, and General Public Works Related Areas.
1. Support increased transportation funds allocated to local jurisdictions for discretionary projects.
2. Support legislation to enhance transportation funding equity within the State.
3. Support efforts to encourage flexibility in federal funding and regulations to better meet the needs of small to medium size communities.
4. Support legislation that facilitates cooperative programs among government agencies in order to help the City meet its basic needs, including transit, street, highway, road and bridge construction and maintenance, and safe corridors for bicyclists and pedestrians.
5. Support new processes to expedite the permitting and environmental review and approval of transportation projects.
6. Support legislation that requires the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Federal PUC and railroad operators to adopt and fund pr ograms to construct grade separations necessary for public safety and welfare.
7. Support legislation that would lift the minimum requirement of payment of prevailing wages on municipal Public Works projects to amounts greater than $500,000.
8. Oppose the reduction/elimination of previously dedicated funds for any transportation projects, especially those that are currently nearing construction and have been delayed by agency actions beyond the City’s control.
9. Oppose transportation proposals that would a dversely affect the quality of life in Hesperia by increasing traffic congestion, air pollution, or other problems.
10. Oppose legislation that ties transportation funds to compliance with land use, housing, or climate change goals.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 16 of 26
2022 Federal Legislative Policy Statements
The following categories of policy statements are broad and are not intended to be all-inclusive but will be used as a reference tool and guideline for the City’s Federal advocacy efforts in 2021.
1. Support funding that specifi cally benefits the City of Hesperia’s transportation and public works projects. Support efforts to ensure funding to semi-urban/rural areas, and provide a permanent, direct percentage of unrestricted federal transportation funds to local government transportation departments for priority work in such areas.
2. Support streamlined environmental processing for federal regulat ory permits issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Federal Highway Administration , and various other state and federal agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure projects.
3. Support efforts to establish regional recognition of the limits of authority by the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.
4. Support direct federal funding from the Economic Development Administration for economic development and public works projects.
5. Support federal legislati on t hat recognizes the importance of sales and use tax to local municipalities and equitably distributes sales tax collections on e-commerce transactions.
6. Support direct federal funding to cities, without matching requirements, to use in drug prevention, intervention, and enforcement efforts.
7. Support efforts to ensure protection of sufficient radio spectrum to meet public safety’s current and future nee ds. Public safety needs should have priority over private, or for -profit, communication systems.
8. Support l egislation that enhances and continues the Healthy Forests Initiative which protects public safety and welfare by caring for forest areas and ensuring that losses from wildfires are minimized.
9. Support efforts to secure a Federal Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) designation for the City.
10. Support local/regional control and administration of federal programs and strategic placement of federal personnel to ensure expedited decision-making.
11. Support responsible and equitable legislation to help stabilize the housing market.
12. Oppose cuts to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs. Advocate for a more streamlined application process and for grea ter flexibility of local appropriation and use of monies.
13. Oppose any legislation that mandates a Social Security tax for public employers and employees.
14. Support legislation to modify inappropriate sections of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as it relates to regulating public sector employment.
15. Oppose any changes to the Mortgage Interest Deduction.
16. Oppose any efforts by government sponsored entities (FNMA & Freddie Mac) that will destabilize the housing market including bulk sales of real estate owned properties (REOs).
2022 Legislative Platform Page 17 of 26
2022 City Council Funding Priorities
Transportation
Main Street Widening and Aqueduct Bridge Construction
Three heavily congested corridors are all that exi st in the City of Hesperia (City) to move traffic east-west through the city. To improve circulation, Main Street will be widened from the Interstate 15 (I-15) freeway to 11th Avenue from four lanes to six lanes with center turn lanes and an addi tional aqueduct bridge adjacent to the existing bridge will be constructed consistent with the California Department of Water Resources ( DWR) bridge requirements . The project will enhance capacity by more than 30% and will include raised medians to restric t traffic movements and a three -lane bridge tog ether with shoulder, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and aqueduct safety features.
The project will improve the critically needed east-west traffic circulation, improve air quality by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improve safety and safety response times for emergency vehicles, p rovide efficient connectivity for residents and business centers, create jobs, increase use of non -motorized transportation systems, and facilitate growth. The project will alleviate current congestion along Main Street that is anticipated to worsen due to growth. The widening will achieve the ultimate configuration of M ain Street which is classified as a Major Arterial Roadway in the Ci ty’s Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Total project cost is $18.9 million for Main Street widening and $ 10.1 million for aqueduct bridge construction. The City intends to deliver t he project in three (3) phases with each phase totaling about $10 million. The first phase would be construction of t he aqueduct bridge. The goal for construction of the Main Street improvements is $25 million in grant funding . The City will advocate for funding for the Main Street Widening project from a variety of State and Federal sources.
I Avenue Widening
I Avenue connects a large residential area to commercial services in the City of Hesperia. It contains both horizontal and vertical sight distance deficiencies. Over the past 10 years, there were 182 accidents along I Avenue, of which 22 involved bicyclists and pedestrians with four resulting in fatalities. In addition, 31 of these accidents were located near schools.
To improve these safety deficiencies, I Avenue will be widened between Ranchero Road and Bear Valley Road, approximately 6.4 miles . I Avenue is currently a north -south two-lane roadway terminating at Ranchero Road in the south and Bear Valley Road in the north. I Avenue is classified as a four-lane divided Arterial with a center turn la ne for its entire length. The project will create a community vision that prioritizes safety improvements for all roadway users addressing safety concerns, travel patterns, and infrastructure. The City recently received a planning grant for the project th rough the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant.
The project will focus on the following goals:
1. Provide increased capacity to improve safety conditions for both motorized and no n-motorized users.
2. Create a healthy, livable, and sustainable co mmunity by providing complete streets, thereby increasing walking, biking, and transit trips while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Improve public transit services for the entire community.
2022 Legislative Platform Page 18 of 26
4. Connect Hesperia's residents to destinations that bridge t he healthcare divide, provide education opportunities, and provide access to spur economic growth.
5. Promote commerce and economic vitality by facilitating goods movement along I Avenue and improving efficiency.
6. Involve the community in developing a long -term prioritized strategy and plan for promoting reliable and efficient mobility for people, goods, and services.
The total project cost is estimated at $53.2 million. The City, as part of its study, divided the project into six segments as follows:
1. Segment 1 – Ranchero Road to Danbury Avenue
2. Segment 2 – Danbury Avenue to Redbud Street
3. Segment 3 – Redbud Street to Hercules Street
4. Segment 4 – Hercules Street to “E” Street
5. Segment 5 – “E” Street to Catalpa Street
6. Segment 6 – Catalpa Street to Bear Valley Road
The City will endeavor to construct improvements in phases/segments. The City has elected to construct interim Segments 2 and 3 initially to address traffic congestion , safe routes to schools, and to increase safety. These segments are estimated at $15 million. The City will pursue $10 million in grant funding from a variety of State and Federal sources and match the amount with local funds of $5 million.
Sultana Street, Muscatel Street, and Ce dar Street (Mariposa Road to Escondido Avenue) Street Improvements
Over the past couple of decades, residential development ha s occurred in the area generally bounded by Main Street to the North, the California Aqueduct to the East, Cedar Street to the Sou th, and Mariposa Road to the West. It is anticipated that growth in the area will continue in the future. The area contains a large wash (A -04 Drainage Corridor) that prevents these developments fro m having improved access to Mariposa Road. To gain access to the Main Street commercial corridor and/or to Interstate 15, r esidents primarily use Escondido Avenue as alternate improved routes are not available. All eastbound routes are terminated at the California Aqueduct. These conditions have created significant traffic congestion both along Main Street and Escondido Avenue in addition to safety concerns.
The City desires to construct three roadway c onnections along Sultana Street, Muscatel Street, and Cedar Street together with roadway widening along Mariposa R oad to facilitat e traffic movements to both the Main Street commercial corridor and to Interstate 15 and Highway 395. The City will collaborate with San Bernardino County and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to complete the project. The work will include c onstruction of drainage system improvements s o that storm water will continue to be conveyed along the A-04 wash under the new roadways to the northeast, embankment construction that must comply with State Division of Dam Safety requirement s, and two -lane roadways along each street together with road way improvements along Mariposa Road that will include widening to four lanes, a center turning lane, pavement rehabilitation, and traffic signals at each intersection. The roadways will also include pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes to encourage non-motorized transportation.