Hesperia City Council
February 1, 2022

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 residents 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 CALCULATIONS–

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 CALCULATIONS–

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 CALCULATIONS–

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 CALCULATIONS–

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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 Hydrology1 (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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 IV: 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 ITE1 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, utilit ies, 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 co rridors 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 ut ility 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