Highland City Council
September 12, 2023

-36-
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Land Use Definitions. This Report classifies properties as one of three residential land uses or several different commercial/ industrial development categories. These land uses are defined below:,
Residential Land Uses:

Detached Dwelling Residential Corresponds to an allowable use within the City' s land use designation of Agricultural Equestrian, Low Density, Village Residential, and some Medium Density Mixed Use and Planned Development Residential.

Attached Dwelling Residential - Corresponds to an allowable use within the City' s land use designation of some Medium Density, Mixed Use, Planned Development, and High Density.

Mobile Home Residential - This category of land use is not specifically mentioned but encompasses portions of the City's land use designations in the Zoning Code appropriate for these densities.

Business/ Commerce Land Uses:

Commercial Lodging ( Hotel/ Motel) - This category does not have a separate corresponding designation within the Zoning Code but is separated due to nexus.

Retail/ Commercial Uses - As utilized in this Report, Commercial uses include the general category of retail services and thus include outlets ranging from restaurants to auto repair shops to shopping centers. This category includes the relevant portions of the General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Planned Commercial, Office Professional, Mixed Use, and Business Park zone. The Historic Village District probably would fall into this category also.

Ind ustrial/ Manufacturing Uses - This category contains all businesses engaged in heavy manufacturing or industrial development in a single industrial zone and is largely limited to Industrial uses.

Definitions of Land Use Status. For each of the major land use categories detailed above, the land is categorized as either Developed or Undeveloped. Definitions regarding the status of each land use are as follows:

Developed Acreage - Includes fully developed land in the City that is in conformance with the zoning designation for that area or land which has received a building permit but is not yet constructed. Acreage in this category may also include non -conforming use areas of the City which contain extensive development prior to annexation or before changes to the General Plan were made.

RCS has made no projections regarding properties currently classified as " Developed" but which may undergo redevelopment in the future.

City of Highland 2022-23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report

-37-
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Undeveloped Acreage - Refers to all non- public vacant acreage located within the City. This category also includes any largely vacant and underutilized residential properties anticipated to be redeveloped in the future.

Table 2- 2
Summary of Undeveloped and Developed Acreage
Developed
Acres
of
Total
Vacant
Acres
of
Total
Total
Acres
Detached Dwellings 4, 371. 0 74. 0% 285. 5 4. 8% 4, 656. 5 Attached Dwellings 360. 0 6. 1% 100 1. 7% 460. 0
Mobile Home Dwellings 91. 0 1. 5% 1 0. 0% 92. 0
Comm. Lodging Units 4. 0 0. 1 % 12 0. 2% 16. 0
Commercial/ Offices S. F. 466. 0 7. 9% 65 1. 1 % 531. 0 Industrial S. F. 82. 0 1. 4% 72 1. 2% 154. 0
Total 5, 374. 0 91. 0% 535. 5 9. 0% 5, 909. 5
Table 2- 2, previous, summarizes the detailed land use inventory, limited to privately held property, provided in Table 2- 1. Staffs land use inventory reveals that there are 5, 374 acres of privately held developed land within the City' s current boundaries. Conversely, 535. 5 acres of vacant or substantially undeveloped land remain in the City. Undeveloped land represents approximately 9 0% of the total 5, 909. 5 privately held acres within the City of Highland. Detached dwelling residentially designated land constitutes the greatest amount ( 4. 8%) of vacant acreage of all the land uses.

Commercial/ Industrial Development. In order to assess the costs of impact from commercial or industrial building intensification or building expansions, this Report includes a calculation of impact fees both on an acreage basis and per gross square foot basis for commercial and industrial development. To accomplish this, City Planning staff estimated the average square feet of building coverage developed per net acre of land for future development ( sometimes referred to as the average FAR, or Floor Area Ratio), shown following:

Commercial/ Office Development - 15, 246 G.S.F. per Acre ( about 35% F.A. R.) Industrial Development - 13, 068 G.S.F. per Acre (about 30% F.A. R.)

POPULATION PROJECTIONS
A realistic assessment ofthe build -out population ofthe City is a second component in determining the magnitude of the impact of future development and the necessary facilities needed to mitigate that impact. Many of the facilities contained in this Report are sized according to either the estimated population at theoretical " build -out" or upon service levels, which are based in part upon an estimation of the population to be served. Library, parks, recreation, and community center facilities and equipment are examples of cost areas that rely heavily on population projections to City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report

-38-
Chapter 2
Demographics and Findings
determine space and facility needs. Park standards are usually stated in terms of the number of acres of parkland per 1, 000 persons, for instance.

There are at least two generally accepted methods for projecting future population levels in a City:
1) past growth trends projected forward and ( 2) population holding capacity based on the General Plan land -use element. Each of these methods can be useful even though both possess certain limitations.

There are several serious flaws in projecting the build -out population of a community using the past growth trends methodology. While this method is relatively simple and, therefore, easy for the general public to understand, it does not give consideration to when an area is actually built out. Eventually, there comes a point in time where the amount of available land to build on is negligible. This technique does not help explain when that point is reached.

Also, the past growth trends approach is not sensitive to policy changes made by Council or land use issues contained in the City' s General Plan. For these reasons, this technique is more useful in projecting short- term population levels and should not be used to forecast the built -out population of an area.

This Report relies on the methodology of holding capacity (described in the following section) to project future service levels and facility requirements.

Holding Capacity Analysis. The methodology used in this Report to forecast the built -out population of Highland is the current holding capacity approach. This method calculates the sum of existing development and potential development allowable under current land use regulations, using average densities found in the City.

The first step in projecting the City's population using the holding capacity approach is to inventory the remaining undeveloped acres within the City limits, which was previously accomplished in Tables 2- 1 and 2- 2 ofthis Chapter. The next step is to estimate the potential dwelling units allowed per acre and then multiply the potential number of units by the average number of residents per unit.

Table 2- 3, projects the additional number of dwelling units and potential population for the City of Highland through build -out. The number of potential new dwelling units was calculated by multiplying the amount of vacant acreage for each land use zone by the average densities ( i. e., number of units allowed per acre) indicated in the City' s General Plan. The number of persons per unit for new residential units is based on the 2000 U.S. Census and ranges from 3. 550 and 2. 315 persons for detached dwellings and mobile homes, respectively, to 3. 232 persons for attached dwellings. Based on these assumptions, future residential development is expected to generate approximately 10, 228 additional residents3 to the City of Highland, joining the approximately 56, 546 citizens already living in City, resulting in a total estimated population at build -out of 66, 774 residents. 4
The estimated General Plan build -out population of approximately 66, 774 residents using this holding capacity approach is typically lower than the population forecasts based on the City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report

-39-
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
mathematical models described previously. This implies either that the City' s residential build -out period will be shorter than the ten years indicated above or that the City' s growth rate will decline from historical levels. This latter scenario is probably more likely to occur. As the residentially zoned land remaining to be developed continues to be built during the next ten years, the City is likely to see the number of new dwelling units developed decrease each year.

This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report

-40-
Table 2- 3
City of Highland
Development Impact Fee Detail
Average Residential Dwelling Occupancy 2000 United States ( Special) Census Data ( 1) Total Vacant Occupied Total Average Percentage
Existing Residential Units Units Units Occupants— t Occupancy Occupied Dwelling Units
Detached Dwellings 10, 862. 00 658 10, 204 36, 222 3. 550 93. 94% A tt... h- 4 Tl.., on: o.. TT.,: tc
fb
Attached Dwelling Units 515 115 400 1, 601 4. 003 77. 67% Duplex to Quadplex Units 616 107 509 1, 761 3. 460 82. 63% Five to Forty- nine Units 1, 169 285 884 2, 602 2. 943 75. 62% Fifty or More Units 972 235 737 2, 213 3. 003 75. 82%
Average 3, 272 742 2, 530 8, 177 3. 232 77. 32%
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 800 93 707 1, 637 2. 315 88. 38% Other Dwelling Units
Other Dwelling Units 1
14 6— 6 0. 750 NA
Existing - State Department of Finance 01/ 01/ 22 Population I56,546 G.P. Build -out Population At Anticipated Occupancy JFPr;o babl, Dwelling Anticipated Historic Oeeu ant Rates I Units I Rate I Occupancy Densitv, I Population Potential Detached Dwellings 1, 426 93. 94% 1, 340 3. 550 4, 757 Potential Attached Dwellings 1, 592 77. 32% 1, 231 3. 232 3, 979 Potential Mobile Dwellings 9 88. 38% 8 2. 315 19
Population to be Added Via Development at Historic Occupancy Rates 8, 755 8, 755 Current State of California Department of Finance Population 56, 546 Potential " Build - out" Population, at Historic Vacancy Rates. 65, 301 G.P. Build -out Population Anticipated Occupancy Probable Dwelling Anticipated At 100% Occupancy Rate I Units I Rate Occupancy Density Population Potential Detached Dwellings 1, 426 1
100. 00% 1, 426 3. 550 5, 062
Potential Attached Dwellings 1, 592 1 100. 00% 1, 592 3. 232 5, 145 Potential Mobile Dwellings 9 1 100. 00% 9 2. 315 21
Population to be Added Via Development at 100% Occupancy 10, 228 10, 228 Current State of California Department of Finance Population 56, 546 Potential Maximum ' Build - out" Population. 66, 774
Population at General Plan Build -out @ Low per Dwelling Resident Densities 65, 301 Population at General Plan Build -out @ High per Dwelling Resident Densities 66,774 Average Population at General Plan Build -out 66, 038
1) Summary File 3 ( SF3), available at hitp: llfacifinder. census. gov 2) Current population based upon State of California Department ofFinance data.

-41-
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
City staff and RCS have identified just over $ 123. 4 million in needed and desired capital improvement projects required through the City' s General Plan build -out, including both projects related to existing deficiencies and those needed solely to support future growth. The adoption of the recommended maximum impact fees supported by the calculations in this Report ( Schedule 2. 1) would raise some $ 94. 2 million ( 76. 36%). Existing fund balances of $7. 4 will finance 5. 98% of the needs. Other financial resources have been identified through build - out at an additional $ 21. 8 million ( 16. 63%).

Based on these costs and the schedules found at the end of each of the remaining chapters of this Report, costs attributable to future development were derived on a per -unit basis for residential land uses and on a per -square -foot of pad basis for commercial and industrial land uses.

Schedule 2. 1, found at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary detail of the maximum DIFs for each type of infrastructure and land use category. The fees are summarized in Table 2- 4 following:

Table 2- 4
Summary of Development Impact Fees
Land Use Maximum Development Impact Fees
Detached Dwelling Units 33, 183/ Dwelling Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 23, 957/ Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 20, 603/ Dwelling Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 14, 188/ Lodging Unit
Commercial/ Office Uses 20. 949/ Square Foot
Industrial Uses 15. 604/ Square Foot
Specific impact fee rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to each infrastructure. Schedule *2. 2 at the end of this Chapter also identifies the probable impact fee revenue, the capital cost total, and the difference by individual infrastructure type ( e. g., fire).

However, while some of the impact fees calculated in this Report identify the potential for maximum adoption, staff has indicated that neither the maximum library facility nor parkland acquisition and park facilities development impact fees need to be at the maximum. As such, the recommended Development Impact Fees are the lower fees indicated following in Table 2- 5.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report

-42-
Chapter 2
Demographics and Findings
Table 2- 5
Summary of Recommended Development Impact Fees
Land Use Recommended Development Impact Fees
Detached Dwelling Units 31, 349/ Dwelling Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 22, 287/ Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 19, 408/ Dwelling Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 14, 188/ Lodging Unit
Commercial/ Office Uses 20. 949/ S uare Foot
Industrial Uses 15. 604/ S uare Foot
The adoption of these staff -recommended impact fees supported by the calculations in this Report Schedule 2. 2) would raise approximately $ 88. 9 million or about 75. 31 % of the total capital needs. Existing fund balance support would remain the same at $ 7. 4 million or about 6. 25% of the capital needs.

Specific impact fee rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to a specific infrastructure. Schedule 2. 2, at the end of this Chapter, identifies the probable impact fee revenue, the capital cost total, and the difference by individual infrastructure type.

Schedule 2.2, identifies the individual and total impact fees by land -use and provides a calculation of the potential collection through build -out at the proposed Marginal -needs Based impact fee rates and the cost of the total infrastructure needs and is the recommended impact fee schedule for adoption.

FORMAT OF THIS REPORT
The following chapters of this Report contain detailed information relative to the calculation of DIFs recommended by RCS for the entire City. Appropriate textual explanations are contained in each chapter, with a chapter devoted to each of the eight sets of DIF cost schedules listed below and two appendices.

CHAPTER 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 4 - Fire Suppression/ Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 5 - Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage, and Bridges) System CHAPTER 6 - Regional Flood Control Facilities
CHAPTER 7 - General Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 8 - Library Facility and Collection
CHAPTER 9 - Public Use ( community center type) Facilities CHAPTER 10 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development APPENDIX A - Summary of Recommendations
APPENDIX B - Detailed Land -use Database
APPENDIX C — Park Land Construction Cost
APPENDIX D — AB- 602 Justification
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report

-43-
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMATICS: It is important to note that the use of a computer providesfor calculations to a large number ofdecimal points. Such data, when included in the text and supporting textual tables, has been rounded to no more than two decimals for clarity and thus may not replicate to the necessary degree ofaccuracy as the spreadsheet schedules at the end ofeach• chapter. Should there be any difference between tables within a chapter and the schedules at the end ofthe same chapter, the schedules shall prevail.

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
The figures are consistent with the most recent Land Use Element. 2 City ofHighland General Plan, March 2006, Land Use Plan, Land Use Designation System, pages 2- 8 through 2- 16. 3 Assuming that the vacancy factor retains its traditionally high occupancy factor as evidenced in 2000 Census averaging 86. 55%). The estimated 10, 228 additional residents is the average of full occupancy and the roughly

86. 55% average occupancy.
4 Ibid.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report

-44-
d N
co
O
C1
LL
XN (
O
C
C
c
as
o
N
a
a)
CL
C ( 7 C
n
O
d
0) L)
3 LL
m
O
O
CL
y
y
w
O O _
to
C
LL
C m -
C1
cc
CL
F
a
C E _
C
m
d O y
a
d
L
0 C1
s
o
41 rn
LL m
O
E
O 2)
U
cn
U
Cl)
M
M
M
O
O
Irr
Cl)
M
V
C
V
M
O)
O
C
N
M
M
M
N
n
64 64
64 64
69 61)
V > L
cc
O
LL
v
U
N
I
CO
N
M
O
00 LO
D
O
fl
0)
O
N
O
N
N
69 64
U)
O
64 f!-
J
69 69
C
O
tp
aO U;
Lm
R'
LL
O
V
LL
N
O
co
O
M
O
O
E
C
ate+
M
O
O O
CO LO
00 Cfl
Cl) Lo
O m
V)
U)
O
LO
64 6q
T
d
n
d
64 64
64 69
0 3
7 c6
V
a
U
C
L
O
LL
di
U
a)
CO
V
O)
LO
V
co
M
IO
co
N
N
CO
00 V
d'
D
co
O .
a)
N
LA
69 69
69 V>
64 d
i
V (
6 U
o
LL
u
J
CO
O)
N
n
r
N
V
LO
co
O
IlN
O)
N
O
0 C (
0 N
69 69
64 O
O
y
w
69 69
69 N
d
to
N
7 LL
CL
y
4)
CL
C
cn
co
l
IlI`
rco
O)
co
CDEA
64 69
O
O
N
Cy
H
M
69 A
d
d
c3v
cOi =
a
C L
LL
C)
W
n
c
LL
2 O
n
cn
y
C
n
n
y
N
UaNi
n
cm
C
d
C
C)
cn
O
UU)
m
d
m
c
m
o
o
d
a
o
a
2 U
Q
O
LO
I
O
O
V
O
N
co
O
N
M
N
cy
O
M
V
D
Lf)
N
M
N
CO
O
m
64 M
O
00 L()
60,
N
N
00 O
O
O
N
O
M
O
V
O
O
V
O
O
LO
IlO
O
m
co
V'
O)
N
L6
co
M
O
D
O
IO
CO
Lf
64 O
CO
CO
r
V
N
O
M
Cl)
LD
LO
CD
N
N
0-)
00 CO
LO
O)
1lO
O
Lo
6 O
O
V
ILO64 O
co
V
691
LO
69 LO
N
69 V
It
00 Lf)
O
V
O
O
D
O
00 N
O
O
L()
I,-
M
CD
Ir
N
M
I
N
CO
O
O
64 N
0 64
6G,
64 Li)
O
N
O
m
Ln
M
co
D
m
O
co
CO
N
D
M
ILO
O
cd
N
M
o0
O
64 N
64 LO
rf
N
EA
r
fR
69 N
V
co
0 0
0 0
D
o
O
V
Ln
N
O
O
CO
T
M
00 W
V
co
6'?
O
00 N
I--
69 CO
rN--
N
64 ka
64 64
LL N a 0v
li
o D Ycz 0
c
LL
0)
C)
LL
@
a
Cn3.
tFY
N
c
U
n
0 o
0 O
O
n
Q
E
O
O
O
i
U
a)
E
m
E
6 O
O
O
Q
2i
U
0 Ln
Ln CD 69 ZE M
CO
N
00 N64
6 2
V
O
D
C
I
O
N
LL
N
O
O
m LL
U)
C
XU
CO
00 tJ
N
co
y
CO
m
Ln
L)
O
O
LO
U
O -
N
d
b
O
N
C
Q
O
0 cB
o
Ico
E
U)
E '
O
N
0 LO
O0
O
c
0 U
7 O
O
N
00 a)
09 U6 (
6 n
N
O
O
O
o .
c
N (
6 O
Q
Q
O
00 V
N
o
0 (
Ti
Y)
LO
CD
7 2
C6
1) 0
o
O
Lri
TO
L
Q
Q >
E
2 N
Iv
CO
O
M
E .

Z
0O
dN
ZI
n
n
O
U
@
N
N
N
64 N (
4 (
n
O_
3 (
n'
c
Qc
U)
6 B
C
7 O .
0 O_
j
O
O
C
U
c
6 LO._c
O.,
C)
Q)
U
U
c
ES;
U
X
o
m
O_ ED
U O
6 O
U
C
LL
f6 (
6 U
N
p)
N
O
L
E
in
a
n
c
E
O
U (
n
o
Z
O
-45-
Y
c
w
LLL
LL d
D
D
D :

D
i
a)
a)
a)
a)
a
Q
0)
7 O_
i?
Q_
d
a
0fn
00 U
co
LO
O
00 V
O
O
LL
L —
M (
o
0)
CO
W
Y
O
M
M
O
V
O
LO
Q
Q
E
ER
lF)
E
a
0)
O
co
w
N
r
V
O
E
V
p
LnEA
Efi
M6A
CA > J
O .

LL
LL
LL
aLE
z°
z°
z°
a
cn
C
as
O
8)
N
LL
V
C
O
O
a)
N
O
N
O
N
Y=
3 LL
LL
LL
LL
L.

L
LL
c
a °'
oa°'
z°
zz°
z°
zz
5 LL
V
F
a) Q N
Ln
V
0 h
rn
T
o
N
co
n
0) O
r06
sv
iA
0)
Q)
3 i
C1
7 LL
LL
LL
LL
m
fl2
o
O
O
O
O
O
J
LL.

O
s
Z
Z
Z
Y
Y
O
U
U
H
aT
0 m
O
o =
N
a)
N+
d
3 y
LL
0 CL
CL ~
a
o
a
Y
E
C
y
N
C
N
N
Lp ate+
YC
y
N=
cD E
d
O
y
U!
Q
is
m
o
3 rn
Y
p
L
a
4)—_
a
0 o
0 3
c
o
N
ED
a
c'
L`
i6
O
67 a)
n7
f6
O
E
N
n
Z
E
U
f6
V
E
7 UcnU O
U
Q2UW
Y
w
2 a
0 V
r
0 Co
N
r
Ln
Iq
N
V
co
In
LO
O
Ln
V
0 N
V
V
o
W
LO
Cl)
CO
r
co
M
o0
LO
0)
O
O
M
Ld)
0)
O
r
0 N
N
co
V
EPr
64 64
6q
00 v
v
0 0
r
co
O
co
O
Ln
r
0)
M
O
NT
Lo
EH
O
N
O
O
rr—
rrlN
a)
a)
LO
UL
LL
LL
O
0 0
Z
zZ
O6q
Q)
a)
a)
Q)
a)
a)
a)
D
a)
a)
a)
a)
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
z
z
z
z
z
z
d
0 CO
R
N
3 r
v
Lo
r
a
0 C
w
O
m
rl00
rn
Ln
V
V
V
D
a)
N
000
yLL Ul
LL
O
O
O
Li
Z
Z
z
m Q
a
a
U
E E m
LL
o
p
d
U)
a) Y
U
O
n
O
O
0)
0 a)
C
U
n
O
S
O
o
O
Q)
U
o
o
E
m.
0 O
2 Fu
O
U
L
N
E
N
r
E
S
m
d
0 Q
2i
U
r
M
V
0 V
m
N
LO
Co
69 co
r
V
V
r
00 O
O
Ef3
00 O
Ln
Ln
U
O
0 r
LO
LC)
M
r
M
M
v
r
M
M
0)
ER
N
C\
j
6q
bl
cN64
f}
00 r
O
O
In
LO
O
rn
r
6r
M
r
LO
r
M
M
0)
LO
LO
LO
O
CO
r
r
Ln

6. U')
LO
64 O fA
O fR
O
O
O
O
O
e»
cn
E»
bs
s3
00 ea
kf
N
LO
O
O
O
r
O
D
r
Uf
O
m
r
a
Ln
Ln
r
O
00 Cl)
w
0 V
N
LO
69 M
fA
cn Ln
c
a)
6 o
U
O U
O
a)
co
U)
U o
a m m
a
0 U
a)
a
Ca
z
LL
a)
to
6 O
LL
U
o
a
m
O
U)
O
a
U
E
O
O
E
m
o
E
6 O
O
a)
c
d
0 O
U
-46-
d N N
a)
a+
a
O
Q
LL
X
d
C
3 C
S
O (
C) n
d =-
O
T
C
y
C
d
O
N C
d
O
LL
0O m
O
O
rL
C
U
H
7 +
C
O
d rnm
C
LL
00 m
c
m
a
C
a
E _
L
d
d
a- E
Z
O
a)
d
6 0
LL OCD yN
O
E
jON
U
En
U
N
N
n
7 > C
m
C
O
LL
co
O
Cl!
w
y
tD
C
C
y
d
O
0 OU;
d
a'
O
LL
s
O
t)
LL
N
wE
M
O
cn
y
Lo
a)
y
3 1 .
0 p
i
O
LL
0 U
co o
E
N
C
O
Ln
N
O
a+
T
y =
J
N
C
R{
N
0 Y
y
O
d
W
0N
d
O
iz
a
d
CL =
s
7 U
U
N
LL
N
d
0 M
a)
y
i
J .
0 R
C
LL
V
W (
n
U m wOcn aSJ
a) N
3 00
CO
I--
O
O
O
6)
Lo
V'
O
O
rV
O
N
M
O
N
M
N
M
CO
M
I7
CO
O
m
69 M
m
M
LO
V
LD
69 T
64 64
69 Efl
64 N
N
M
O
O
O
N
CO
M
O'
T
O
O
V
D
O
Ln
PC
O
O
rO
V
O
N
LD
Co
M
O
CO
O
IM
W
Ln
EfT
O
D
M
4L}
V
N
r
O
M
LD
Y,
T
OM
N
N
O
CO
Lo
sO
3 M
rT
O
O
M
T
rLD
6q
O
M
V
64 LO
69 Ln
N
f
64 69
64 E13
fR
V
co
LD
O
V
O
O
D
CO
M
N
O
O
LO
IM
r
M
N
CfN
CO
O
M
6 Y
6S
CO
O
O
64 N
N
fA
6`
T
ELT
64 q
ILD
O
N
O
Lo
UD
M
co
M
O
M
m
CO
N
CD
00 M
O
CO
N
M
CO
O
64 N
64 Ln
IT
N
69 IER
69 ER
69 N
V
M
O
M
0 CD
D
O
m
V
LO
N
O
O
D
V
LD
M
00 CO
64 O
co
N
N
64 CD
N
64 V
64 69
LL cr- a) U L 64 O
Y
5 C
N
D
D
a
0)
a)
Fu
a)
c
6)
U
Yn
c
p
0 0
Q
O
CU
U
N
a3
E
a3
o
O
O
0 O
Q
E
U
N
O
O
CO
O
CO
O
O
O
LO
CO
M
V
CD
Cl
r
Lo
D
0)
69 69
6LD
LD
O
V
V
64 00 69
0 V
o
6)
O
C,
O
00 NEfl
O ^
m
r
co
V
L
N
CO
V
l
1-
6q
CO
Io
LL
69 69
6<
T
v
m Z
CO
6 00 N
co
D
Ln
O
D M
Lo
N
Ico
CO
C) co
O
V
coV
Lnv
U
O
M
69 co
V
N
CD
Lci M
LO
M
LO
MN
N
b
bs
61).

Q
E U c6
0 O
0 O
0V
0IO
M
O
o
c
U '-
O p
LOV
LO
I
C,
C,
A
LO
D
U
O
M
00 O
64 EA
CO
a;
OC)
O
U
N
CO
00 CO
m
C)
63 r
rn
69 64
69 O
U)
01 o
O o
tt
Ln
O
M
M
m
CO
O
O
d'
co
LD
6 O
Om
O O
N
CO
N
69p
O
00 0
o
O
69 Cl)
M
o
LO
M
IlO
O
a)
ILO
EAr
M
M
T
64 O
CDQ
L(
T
LD
70 a
Q
64 @ (
6 U O
a)
O
E
M
O
0)
O
Ln
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
V
CO
L'
O
O
ELT M
O
rN
m
cli
I--
N
64 V
a)
a) .

O
6<
3 m
6s
Q
V
rII
aT
L)
6`,
3 c
o
c
E
c
C
O
U
70 C .
c
7 o
o
c
U
0 O
O
O
LL
U
O
a)
N
U
0 M
n
ca
20 fl
as
n
CO
w
U
a)
ao
a
a
0 (
U)
Q
c
Q6
Z
N
LL
N
I--
DO
orf
LL
C)
o
o
m
O U
a
O
UE
CO
E
O
7 O
Ea)
cE
o
a)
O
of
m
a>'
d
O
O
U
-47-
wQ%
LL
LL
LL
D
D
D
w''
03 o
o
ai a
o
a
ma
a
a
y
a4)
U)
vmrocovo
0 LL"
M
N
V
r
6)
CO
v
0 M
N
O
d'
O
T
a
a
j
69 N69
69 64
N69
69 E
NIL
ON
rltd
M
O
y
N
M LC)
M N
N co
6f)
64 64
Cc J
y
N
0)
N
U
O
7 Z)
LL
LLB
LL
L
C.
m
0 0
0 aEa
z
z
z
L3
cn
R
o
y
m
LL
m•
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
R
a
m
z
z
z
z
z
z
V
LL
V
1) ZT
M
V
O
LO
V
O
N
Z,
d
64 64
64 U
a)
m
U
7 NLL
NLL
OLL
w
R
0 0
0 O
O
J
LL
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
N
d
w
O
a
U
u
rn
O
m
O -
y
y
y cn
LL
m
U
R
U
LL
d
E~
o
a
N
Y
R
m
E
E
n
m
CD
w
rn
m
LL
O
CD
O
m
L
O
c
o
Y
0 2m
LL
a0+
N
Od
id
d
R
R
R
N
o
y
s
E
3 00_
CO
O
O
O
D
N
M
O
M
O
V'
M
LO
M
CO
M
CO
00 N
V
M
O
V
Cl)
Cl)
r
Cl)
O
00 T
Ln
6)
O
r
V
LO
O)
O
O
69 6s
Co
co
Ef}
fA
EPr
m
CO
CO
N
M
U-)
O
O
V
N
A
O
69,
CD
N
U
LO
N
O
U
O
LL
LL
LL
0 0
0 z
z
z
06q
u
u
u
u
o
0 ai
m
o
u (
LLL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
0 0
0 0
0 0
z
z
z
z
Z
z
N
00 00
O
CO
M
O
00 N
cc
O
O
d
00 r
CT
LO
LU
N
N
ON
64 N
Q)
N
OLo
lL
LL
LL
O
O
O
Uz
Z
Z
E Rai
0)
L) U a
E
E E
1L
O
p
c> t
Z
y
U
o
c
c
U
m
C:
u
0 3
c
w
c
Z
Z
o
0)
o
Y LL
0-
o
o
n
U
p
o
E
0 R
U
O
ll
j
IS
N
R
Q
R
a
a
0 Q
2E 0
o
0G,
c
M
M
0 0
N
CO
CO
64 Cn
CO
O
LO
O
0)
CO
rCO
0 T
co
r
O
O
00 r--:
cw
co
00 69
N
64 6S

69. 64 Alm
-48-
Chapter 3
Law Enforcement Facilities
The Existing System ( or infrastructure). The Highland Police Department currently operates at 26985 Baseline. An expansion of the City -owned facilities dedicated to law enforcement uses will likely need to occur before General Plan build -out to allow the Department to adequately house the additional staffing required to absorb the growth created from the additional calls -for -service.

There is an existing balance of $392, 565 in the Law Enforcement DIF fund balance. The County owns the vehicles and most of the specialty equipment and provides use to the City via an annual contract for law enforcement services. These costs are regarded as annual operating costs as opposed to capital costs.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Vacant Parcels. Residents and businesses benefit from law enforcement services in three ways: directly, Indirectly, and through standby availability. Direct services are those where a resident or business owner requires a direct response, usually due to being the victim of a crime. Direct service results in the form of a law enforcement officer contacting the victim. Indirect benefits, such as crime prevention programs, free patrol time, and other law enforcement services that serve all businesses, citizens, and visitors, are impossible to calculate for a specific beneficiary. An example of an indirect benefit would be the apprehension of a burglar in your neighbor' s home yesterday. Had the burglar not been arrested, he/ she may have broken into someone else' s home on another day.

Most residents and businesses may go for many years before ever requiring a call for service.

However, these fortunate residents and businesses still benefit from law enforcement services, if in no other way than in the knowledge that a law enforcement officer is available through adequate planned stand- by to respond if you require public safety assistance.

Adding new residential units and businesses will increase the demand for the law enforcement service level by creating more direct calls -for -service, areas requiring preventive patrol, and more opportunities for crimes to be committed.

The development of vacant or underutilized parcels into residential or business units will also generate more calls. The residents and business owners occupying those residences and businesses will create an increase in law enforcement " calls -for -service." More homes and businesses will mean more responses to burglaries, domestic disputes, noise complaints, shoplifting, and miscellaneous incidents that will occur in the new homes and businesses.

Ifthe law enforcement force capabilities ( the base) are not expanded, then the increasing number of calls -for -service ( the rate) will reduce the number of "free" hours available for preventative patrol. This inability to expand the capabilities would ultimately drive the Department into a reactionary mode. The additional calls -for -service would limit the amount of time for training, planning, proactive crime prevention, and other non -direct services.

-49-
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities
Table 3- 1 summarizes an analysis of the calls -for -service received by the Police Department in a recent twelve- month period.'
The breakdown of calls into the land uses that generated them, divided by the number of developed units (during the same period), generated a " calls -for -service" factor.

Table 3- 1
Law Enforcement Calls Generated by Land Use ( 12- month period) Land Use
Developed
Dwelling
Or Acre
Calls
For
Service
Total Calls Per
Dwelling or
Acre
Detached Dwelling Units 12, 866 19, 376 1. 506/ Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 3, 024 7, 203 2. 382/ Unit
Mobile Home Units 955 1, 232 1. 290/ Unit
Commercial Lodging 130 1 1. 000/ Acre
Retail/ Office Uses 7, 105 6, 096 0. 858/ Acre
Industrial/ Manufacturin Uses 1, 072 50 1 0. 047/Acre
As an example, there were approximately 19, 376 calls -for -service that generated a response to one of the 12, 866 existing detached dwelling units in the City. The result indicates that, on average, each detached dwelling will generate just over one and a half calls per year ( 1. 506). The same analysis was undertaken for the remaining land uses. Since these calls -for -service by land use are an average, they are then used to project the number of additional calls that could be expected from the remaining new development by multiplying the calls per residential unit or business acre by the number of anticipated new residential dwellings and business acres. To determine the number of additional officers necessary to meet this increase from future developments, the number of increased calls resulting from new development was then divided by the average number of calls requiring a response by a sworn officer.

The Purpose of the Fee. Additional calls -for -service can be expected, and the cost of adding officers necessary to respond to those calls can also be determined. Those new costs can be translated to a fee or an amount necessary to be collected to offset the additional staffing costs.

These costs include equipping and housing the additional officers. Provided that the fee is adopted and imposed, new development will finance the capital costs of expansion of the City' s law enforcement capabilities. The continued costs ofthe annual salary and benefits for those additional officers will need to come from increases in property and sales tax generated by the new residences, businesses, and their occupants.

The Use of the Fee. The revenues raised from a properly calculated and legally supported Law Enforcement Impact Fee would be limited to capital costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to expand the law enforcement station. The City can increase the number of response and investigator' s vehicles and properly equip additional officers through the annual contract, which City of Highland 2022-23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page29 -50-
Chapter 3
Law Enforcement Facilities
as an operating expense would not be appropriate as a component of the impact fee. Any collected impact fee receipts could not be used to repair the existing building.

Where the amount of equity of the existing community is larger than the marginal needs fee, there is the possibility that the difference may be returned to the General Fund as repayment from the developing properties when excess capacity can be demonstrated. However, this is not the case with the Law Enforcement impact Fee ( see the remainder of the Chapter) because the proposed capital projects were limited to those necessary to maintain the existing levels of service, and the proposed building would result in an increase over the existing standard.

The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project.

Department records were used to demonstrate that differing land uses generate different numbers of calls. Clearly, a retail store is more likely to suffer shoplifting incidents, whereas a residence is more likely to experience a domestic disturbance or break-in. As such, calls -for -service from differing land uses can be expected in differing amounts.

It is not likely that a single development will generate the need for a single officer. However, cumulatively the calls generated from various developments will create the need for an additional officer and, ultimately, an additional patrol beat. On an acreage basis, an acre of detached dwellings will generate fewer calls than an acre of multi -family dwellings. The impact resulting fee is accordingly higher.

The existing complement of thirty- four sworn officers currently absorbs the 34, 087 ( rounded) annual calls by responding to just over 1, 000 annual calls- for- service2 each to privately -owned and developed parcels annually. Based upon the addition of 7, 026 calls -for -service, the City will need to add seven officers (rounded) to maintain the same response capabilities that are provided now.

This is not to imply that the existing level of services or the ratio of officers to calls -for -service is the desired level ofservice; it is merely identified as the current or actual level of law enforcement service.

The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee.

Again, the use ofthe fee is a similar argument to the need for the fee. As the development occurs, the impact is generated, and the impact fee would be collected as the development occurs generally, at plan check permit). The collected fee would be put to use to acquire additional building space to house the additional officers required to respond to those additional calls without reducing the capability ofresponding to calls from the existing community.

The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The City has indicated they intend to expand the current police station by 2, 900 square feet. The existing calls for service ( 34, 087 per year) represent about

79. 39% ofthe total annual calls anticipated at General Plan build -out ( 41, 113). The annual calls - for -service anticipated from the proposed new development ( 7, 026) represents the remaining

20. 61 % anticipated at General Plan build -out.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 30 -51-
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities
Marginal Needs - based Fees. Table 3- 2, on the following page, summarizes the resulting impact fees ( from Schedule 3. 2) for development to pay to contribute to the expansion of the Law Enforcement capabilities of the City in order to allow the City to extend the same level of service to the City' s newest citizens and businesses, a net of $404,435.

Table 3- 2
Marginal Needs - based Costs Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees Land Use
Allocation
Of Costs
Total Cost
Per Unit of SF
Detached Dwelling Units 123, 645 87/ Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 218, 277 137/ Unit
Mobile Home Units 691 77/ Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 10, 361 58/ Unit
Commercial/ Office Uses 48, 928 0. 049/ S. F.

Industrial Uses 2, 533 0. 003/ S. F.

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
RCS recommends the adoption of the Marginal Needs based fees ( necessary for expansion) found on Schedule 3. 2 to maintain the current level of service.

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1 Data from a ten percent random sampling of calls from a recent continuous twelve- month period. z Limited to privately owned parcels, but there are additional calls to public property such as schools, parks, and roadway right- of-way that could not be included, thus are a function of calls to private property.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 31 -52-
oco
roar
soc
me« n
cczz
Oct
23± k
00 C13
Q
o
k
t§$ 5
CD
CDG
S/ G
LL0
22 2y/
0 w §
222
Q
k\ t § J23K932
G
2$£
0$ tQ
S/
0w666666
S
ee R9 e R
2 e« 2
ea
2R3
u
KS
z
k2
LL
k
so
CO§ 0
G7
k
k
yug7
J
ui
cc
a)\
Q
imk 23
mI
z_
oƒ
S
z
0I I
-53-
LLLL
Zi p
Vj
vj
c
dU dddd
61d
E
tty
O. d
00 enN
Lo" i0
w
evfqoo
QQ> O
O) NOO
10 O
6) DOV
LO
RLr) O
LnNO
O' d
R
i
O
UL
Q
M
coMM
Lo
CO
Cl) N
6) M
LnM
VD
00 I69 a
ft}
Ef-?
69 Utq
aQ
UO
vd
ha
N
I—
LOrMD
LO
IT
I— NNE CC
cr
I- O
CON
O r. ywc
ooN
coo m
rn
rr
co
coN6
t0ON
cY
4,
43C
kU
GqQ
W0
000oa
co
rr
flOMd R
LOOV
CD
a1
Ca
OVO
MLn
coCDNNO
a¢
O
v)
00 CNNOOVV
O)
00 Lr)
00V
cm ++
N
coQ
3 Cl) Q
240 O
N
0 00
6) Vh
v., Q
InOa
cd
LO
dO
o0000a
LO
CO
CV
LON
cno
N
c
cflr--
U
LL
Q
c
Y
D
NC
L - Cc
Q
V! D
LLN C
Q> a
cc0
UO 0Yc aNuNJNp
aU
EO
Q7
a'
oa0a
t0
H
HNCrn
-54-
Chapter 4
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The Existing System. The Fire Department responds to calls -for -service within the City limits from the three existing stations. Fire Station# 1 is 4, 168 square feet and is located at 26974 Base Line Street.

Fire Station #2 is a 4,466-square- foot structure located at 29507 Base Line Street. The third Station is 7, 076 square feet and is located at 7649 Sterling Avenue. The existing Impact Fee Fund has a balance of $848, 953.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development ofUnderdeveloped or Vacant Parcels. While it can be said that numerous factors are considered when determining the number and location of fire stations in any city, it can be stated without any logical argument that all new private development in the City will have an effect on the City' s current ability to respond to fire, rescue, and emergency calls -for -service. The effect, simplified but not trivialized, is twofold. Initially, each new residential and business development will create, on average, more calls -for -service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous ( and thus competing) calls -for -service. Additionally, as development spreads further from any existing station or stations, as large- scale development is often likely to do, the distances ( and thus response times) will increase, taking the existing truck companies out of service for greater periods oftime.

The capacity of any fire station is finite and will reach practical limits ( through call frequency and total time). When that capacity is exceeded, the level of service afforded to existing development will be greatly reduced. Or, stated in another way, if development continues without the addition of a fire station, the existing station could be overwhelmed, making a timely response for emergency service a virtual coin flip. That is, will the existing engine companies be available to respond to your needs, or will they most likely be out -of -service on a call in a different part ofthe community? The Purpose of the Fee. In order to continue to be able to respond to an ever- increasing number of expected calls, the City staff has determined the need to relocate an existing station. Having the right type and number of fire stations in the right locations will enable policymakers, the Chief, and City Council to house firefighters, apparatus, and equipment rationally for maximum use of resources.

Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible for a poor fire station location or no facility location at all. Adverse effects are felt by the City staff, the council, and indeed by the existing taxpayers. With poor location or no additional location, response times ( via distance or out -of -service due to a previous call) can become excessive, and if a tragedy occurs, the incident will be well publicized.

Response time is often mistakenly referred to for only the first -in unit, which can be a grave error.

Instead, response time must consider all the forces necessary to place the incident under control. Ifthe first unit arrives within five minutes but cannot provide the necessary water flow or perform the needed functions due to a lack of staffing, the five- minute response becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Thus, an increase in the number and type ofresponse vehicles is also necessary to match and equip the needed

-55-
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment additional staff. The following sections identify the manner in which the City plans to meet the demands of additional calls -for -service.

The Use ofthe Fee. The revenues raised from a properly calculated and legally supported Fire Facilities and Equipment Impact Fee would be limited to capital costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to construct new stations or expand existing stations ( to increase the response capacity of that station) and increase the number of emergency response vehicles. Conversely, the Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Impact Fee receipts would not be used to repair any existing fire stations or replace any existing emergency response vehicles.

Additional facilities are planned to come online, as needed, as development creates additional demands beyond the existing stations' capability (volume or calls and distance). The capital capacity expansions include:

FD-01, Relocate Station #1 - The project consists of relocating Station # 1 from its current location on Base Line to expand service to the more easterly areas while also maintaining the existing level of service to the current residences and businesses.

FD-05, Acquisition of an Engine with Aerial Capability - All areas of the City would benefit from the aerial capability of this vehicle, but the immediate area benefits from the standard engine capability ofthe vehicle.

The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 4. 1 and are detailed in the Master Facilities Plan. The total cost of completing the General Plan build -out fire infrastructure system is $ 15, 303, 180, and a net $ 14, 766, 264 after the current impact fee fund balance of $536, 916 is applied to the proposed total cost.

Where the existing community' s equity amount is larger than the Marginal Need -based impact fee and excess capacity can be demonstrated, the difference may be returned to the City' s operations fund as repayment from the developing properties for the creation ofthe excess capacity. However, this will not be the case with the Fire Suppression/ Medic Facilities and Equipment Impact Fee.

The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. Fire service response standards extended to new development should be consistent with the fire response currently enjoyed by the City' s existing citizens and business community by constructing new facilities, or the result will be a deterioration in the level of service provided both to the existing residents and future citizens and businesses within the City of Highland. It follows that assessing future development to contribute additional fire facilities is appropriate.

To project the impact of future development on fire services, it was first necessary to quantify the current impact on services from each of the City' s land uses. Then, the costs of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand were determined. The following section illustrates the relative impact of each land use on fire services and facilities.

While Highland citizens made the majority of these requests for service from their residences, a large percentage of requests were generated from commercial, office, and industrial uses within City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 35 -56-
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression Facilities Vehicles and Equipment the City. A survey of each land use and its effect on calls -for -service requests was conducted to project the impact of future development on fire services. The survey was undertaken similarly to the process used to determine law enforcement demand ( Specifically described in Chapter 3, Law Enforcement). Only requests for fire, medical, and rescue services to privately held property were counted. Requests for service to public property, such as City parks and public right-of-way or intersections, were excluded, thus distributing these calls pro-rata through the requests for service from privately held property. This is based upon the argument that all public land serves privately held land in some manner.

Table 4- 1 below identifies the number of requests for service received by the Fire Department during the past calendar year by land use ( detached dwelling, attached dwellings, mobile homes, commercial lodging, commercial/ office KSF, and industrial KSF). The number of requests for service received by the Fire Department during the year was then divided by either the developed acreage or the existing number of dwelling units to determine the number of requests generated per commercial or industrial acre or per dwelling unit.

Table 4- 1
Average Annual Existing Responses Per Unit Or Acre
Land Use
Dwellings,
Units or
Square Feet
Calls
For
Service
Annual Calls
per Unit or
1, 000 S. F.

Detached Dwellings 12, 866 3, 641 0. 283/ Unit
Attached Dwellings 3, 024 278 0. 092/ Unit
Mobile Home Dwellings 955 284 0. 297/ Unit
Commercial Lodging 130 59 0. 450/ Unit
Commercial/ Office ( KSF) 7, 105 490 0. 069/ KSF
Industrial ( KSF) 1, 072 21 0. 020/ KSF
Of residential land uses, an attached dwelling unit is less likely to require an emergency fire service response at 0. 092 annual responses per unit than a detached dwelling at 0. 283 annual responses per unit. Commercial/ office development is shown to generate 0. 069 responses per 1, 000 square feet of developed land, while industrial development generates a minimal response demand of 0. 020 calls per 1, 000 square feet. The lower demand for industrial uses should be expected, given the greater density of employees and patrons in commercial establishments when compared to industrial businesses of a similar size. However, it should be noted that while there are fewer calls for industrial properties, significant training is required to be prepared for industrial responses ( i.e., trenching response and hazardous materials training).

Table 4- 2 indicates that on a comparative basis, an acre of commercial lodging development creates the highest demand for fire/ medic services; thus, the impact fee is the highest on an acreage basis.

Based on the existing rate of responses by land use, the increased number of fire service responses generated by future residential, commercial, industrial, and office development was extrapolated. This City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 36 -57-
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment was accomplished by multiplying the average responses per unit or acre, established in Table 4- 1, by the number of undeveloped units, rooms, or acres. This data is summarized in Table 4- 2.

Table 4- 2
Calls -for -service by Land Use Acre
Land Use Calls per
Units or KSF
Units of
KSF/ Acre
Calls
Per Acre
Detached Dwelling 0. 283 4. 99 1. 413
Attached Dwelling 0. 092 15. 92 1. 464
Mobile Home Dwelling 0. 297 9. 00 2. 673
Commercial Lodging 0. 450 15. 00 6. 750
Commercial/ Office Uses 0. 069 15. 25 1. 052
Industrial Uses 0. 020 13. 06 0. 261
Table 4- 3, on the following page, indicates the number of additional calls -for -service that could be anticipated from the development of currently vacant land.

Table 4- 3
Additional Annual Fire Responses Generated
by Future Development ( Rounded)
Land Use
Fire
Responses
Per Unit
Undeveloped
Units or Acres
Additional
Fire Responses
rounded
Detached Dwelling Units 0. 283/ Unit 1, 426 Units 404 Calls Attached Dwelling Units 0. 092/ Unit 1, 592 Units 146 Calls Mobile Home Units 0. 297/ Unit 9 Units 3 Calls
Commercial Lodging Units 0. 450/ Unit 180 Units 81 Calls Commercial/ Office Acres 0. 069/ KSF 991 KSF 4 Calls
Industrial Acres 0. 020/ KSF 940 KSF 1 Calls
Total 640 Calls
Marginal Needs -based Impact Fees. The collection of the resulting impact fees through build -out would allow the City to acquire or construct the proposed expansion and obtain the required equipment.

This indicates that the City's expansion ofthe Fire system capital has generally maintained pace with the increases in calls for service from new residential and business development. Table 4- 4, on the following page, distributes the $ 1, 758, 561 in Fire Suppression/ Medic infrastructure costs attributed to new development and also indicates the impact fee necessary to finance the cost of those additional stations, response equipment, and firefighter equipment.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact
-58-
Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 37
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression Facilities Vehicles and Equipment Table 4- 4
Marginal Needs -based Fire Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fees
Land Use
Allocation
Of Costs
Total Cost
Per Unit or SF
Detached Dwelling Units 1, 110, 222 779/ Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 401, 219 252/ Umt
Mobile Home Units 8, 244 915/ Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 222, 594 1, 237/ Unit
Commercial/ Office Uses 12, 325 0. 012/ S. F.

Industrial Uses 3, 957 0. 004/ S. F.

The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The use of the fee is equivalent to the need for the fee. The impact fee would be collected as the development occurs ( generally at building permit). As the development occurs, the impact is generated. The collected fee would be put to use to acquire additional firefighter emergency response vehicles and an additional fire station necessary to respond to the additional calls -for - service without reducing the capability ofresponding to calls from the existing community.

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
RCS recommends the adoption of the Marginal Needs based fees ( necessary for expansion) found on Schedule 4. 2 to maintain the current level of service.

OTHER NOTES AND ISSUES

1. A recently identified trend is one where newly constructed industrial developments, initially charged the lower industrial use impact fee, often end up being commercial uses and generate the greater demand created by commercial land uses. Ifthis trend is left unnoticed, the Fire Department and other City services will face greater demand from commercial uses but will be left only with the collection of the lower industrial impact fee rates. To avoid this under -collection, the City should impose an impact fee representing the difference between the commercial impact fee and the previously paid industrial land -use impact fee when a CUP is approved, and tenant improvement plans are submitted indicating a commercial use.

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
There are no endnotes.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 38 -59-
I—
O
O
O
O
t—
cfl
EA
U1
O
Ir
a
w
0 LO
0 N
N
Q
6 69
ER
O
3 °
a
0 0
0 0
0 0
u
m
O
O
y
C
I?
O
0 0
to rSri
M
O
0cA
069
0csi
0 O
co
O
a
w
O
f—
i
d
N
CO
00 o
Ila
W
V
O
O
a'
Q°
i
Q
i
w
d
o
0 0
0 0
0 o
N
0 a
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 O
y
co
co
co
W Q. i
cfl
O
c9
b3
r
Cb
N
co
co
co
M
co
Ln
LO
LO
G1
69 613,
69 0r U m a
0 0
0 0'
a
O
O
O
Ip
O
O
O
d
2 0
0 0
o
r
LL
O
O
O
M
Ef3
Hi
64 O
t` t`
0 0
0 0
M
0 0
o
rn
0 o
O
o
0 0
0 ro co
Co o
O
IA Gl
M
c0 d7 co
co
In3
o
a7 co
C
MLnvi
69 IT COr N v
N
i N
N
d
7 Z
O
ac
d
U
u
c
m
c
a
LL L
NN
tTC
m
rn
m m CD
am
R
C
C
cLL
N
O m
NLL
N
U O
N
c
U
E O
N
N
Q
y
O
d
d d
Oin 7
C
c0
C
mC
cDN
utC
C
dN
LL
C
Z
W
O
I°-
-60-
c7
LC
22ww
Zt
k\
0- kkk
2 0)
C4mw
fommm%¢%
2y
30y5
tt3a
a//
0Q§
S2
c
@J
22e- e
K&/
3\e
oq
U«
mk4) B
moewwr
c
sere
22 e
T
e
k
2a
C\
mac%
aAuoa60
Eke tk)
A
aW3
CO
a/ v
k/
CD 22
2p
co
aA
p
S aEn2 2 k y 4G
ZD
U3
E}
f/$
0\\/\
2e
5°
2[\'M
e»
5E/ 9
au
4 2
kS IQ
J
k
-61-
Chapter 5
Local and Regional Circulation Systems
Streets, Signals, Drainage, and Bridges)
The following Chapter will discuss the circulation improvements planned for the City through build -out of the existing City limits as identified in the Land -use Database Table in Chapter 2.

RCS recommends calculating a comprehensive impact fee covering all circulation improvements within the City. Accordingly, this infrastructure category includes the costs of major streets and bridges, traffic signals ( including interconnection), local storm drainage, medians, streetlights, curb, gutters, and sidewalks. While all new development may have specific capital improvements imposed as a condition of development or a development agreement, they also benefit from the entire General Plan circulation system. The reasons are practical in that combining this infrastructure will provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is essentially a singular transportation issue with a common nexus, a combination of trip -end' generation and average trip distance ( by land use). It is not uncommon that a single transportation capital project involves both street and signal improvement.

Modifications to the Circulation ( et al.) pact Fee from Previous Study. To better reflect the importance of drainage, local and regional drainage are combined in Chapter 6.

The Existing System, The City currently has and maintains an extensive system of roadways available for the transportation of goods and services, including public safety services and educational, recreational, and social purposes. This category consists of roadways, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, bridges, streetlights, medians, local drainage, signals, and signal interconnection that make up the spine infrastructure or arterial/ collector system. Roadways that fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Highland would be classified as one of four fairly common types of roadways for the purposes of this Report. They are generally defined by the City' s General Plan Circulation Element: 2
Collector Street - This category ofroadway is intended to carry traffic between residential neighborhoods and the larger street network. They are generally two-lane roadways that have a mixture of residential and commercial land uses along them. Collector streets are 44 feet from curb to curb, within 66- foot- rights- of-way. Examples of collector streets are Church Avenue and Weaver Street.

Secondary Highway - Secondary Highways provide more local access than major arterials but also provide some non -local through -traffic service. This classification includes a four - lane roadway with or without a raised median with a pavement width of approximately 64 feet. Del Rosa Drive, Tippecanoe Street, Pacific Street, Ninth Street, and Church Street are examples of secondary Highways.

Major Highway - Major highways provide service to non -locals through trips and limited local access. Ideally, curb cuts are minimized on major arterials, although such access

-62-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets Signals Drainage, and Bridges control has historically been difficult to achieve. Major highways are designated as four - lane, 80- foot roadways ( including a 12- foot median) curb -to -curb within 104- foot rights - of -way. Base Line, between Boulder Avenue and Church Street, and most of Greenspot Road are examples of major highways.

Primary Arterial - Primary arterials are limited access facilities that provide service to non -local through trips with minimal direct access to adjacent land uses. They are designed as 96- foot roadways, curb to curb, within a minimum of 112- foot rights -of -way, and carry up to three lanes of through traffic in each direction. An example of a primary arterial is 5th Street/ Greenspot Road between Palm Avenue and Boulder Avenue.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Undeveloped Parcels. Undeveloped parcels create few trip -ends beyond an occasional visit to the site for weed abatement purposes, planning purposes, or to consider a sale or development of the vacant parcel. None of these trip - ends are on a routine basis. However, a developed parcel will generate a statistically predictable number of trip -ends and trip -miles, depending upon the specific land use of the development. Thus, it can be stated that a vacant parcel, when developed into a specific use, i. e., residential or business, will generate more traffic than it did when it was vacant. Similarly, a change in the use of the property may also increase the number of trip -ends, i. e., the demolition of a low trip -generating insurance office into reconstruction as a new high trip -generating fast-food restaurant.

All new development contributes to cumulative traffic impacts, which are difficult to measure and mitigate on a project -by -project basis, but which have significant and widespread cumulative impacts on the City' s existing road system. Factors that will increase the competition for existing lane miles existing in the City include the following:

The construction of private commercial uses on 65 acres currently identified as undeveloped commercial uses will generate 32 new daily trip -miles, or 0. 04% of the total new trip -miles expected at build -out. This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of commercial uses constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued.

An increase in the City' s full-time population through constructing of about 3, 027 additional dwelling units contributes approximately 86, 252 new trip -miles daily or just over 96% of the newly expected daily trip -miles.

The addition of 72 acres of industrial development generates the potential for an additional 21 daily trip -miles, or 0. 02% of the total new trip -miles in the City. Again, it is possible that some parcels zoned for industrial uses will end up being commercial uses after obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. For that matter, there are existing industrial buildings contiguous to the City' s many arterials and collectors that have become commercial venues.

The addition of some 180 commercial lodging units will increase traffic miles by 3, 283 or

3. 66% ofthe anticipated new daily trip -miles.

City of Highland 2022-23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page42 -63-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets Signals Drainage, and Bridges When all ( or most) of the available vacant land in the City is developed, the City can expect an additional 89, 588 daily trip -miles. For perspective, the City currently experiences approximately 534, 703 daily trip -miles from the existing residences and businesses. The roughly 89, 588 newly anticipated trip -miles represent just slightly under a 17% increase over the current 534, 703 daily trip -miles.

The Purpose of the Fee. In the City, most planned arterials and collectors exist in some form, perhaps not yet fully widened to allow for the full number of lanes. Thus, the circulation system impact fee collection could be used to finish off these existing but uncompleted or not yet maximized roads. The same can be said for bridges; a number of them are included on the list to be completed to their maximum planned width, again maximizing the carrying capacity.

Additionally, the fees would be used to complete the system of signals that ensures the smooth movement of vehicles through the intersections.

Included are circulation projects needed to alter existing arterials, connectors, or collectors that currently exist but, due to additional trip -ends are becoming ineffective at moving vehicles. An example would be the final widening of Base Line to its completed width. This project is required because additional citizens and business owners will use the existing street along with the current users, rendering it ineffective at moving traffic at a reasonable pace, primarily during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of traffic. Acceptable traffic pace can be maintained with a combination of street widening, turn lane channelization, and signal improvements.

Again, given the magnitude of growth projected in this Report, numerous intersection improvements and the construction of new traffic signals will also be needed to avoid congestion and gridlock in the future. Traffic planners have long known that the critical constraint in a typical roadway network is usually not the roadway itself but the intersections. While the street capacity may be theoretically adequate to carry traffic volumes at build -out, motorists may experience congestion and even gridlock at the intersections of the street. While the City of Highland will certainly undertake a number of major street -widening projects, an equally important component of traffic circulation is the installation of traffic signals and lane reconfiguration at critical intersections in the City.

The importance of a properly signalized intersection is two -fold. First, the City can build only so many major collector streets, and there are limits as to how wide they can be. Second, north -south collectors will, by definition, intersect with east -west collectors, assuring that someone will have to stop at a stop sign or a traffic signal. The traffic carrying capacity of each collector can only be maximized by assuring an orderly traffic flow by signaling those intersecting collectors. This is especially important because there is little room left for any additional collectors and arterials.

None of this is intended to eliminate the time- honored practice of the developer constructing the full -width roadway and being credited for the portion greater than the developer would otherwise require. This impact fee calculation and resulting fee collection would simply improve the credit allowance capability.

The City' s total Master Facilities Plan Circulation System improvements section identified 63 general transportation projects covering the City costing $288, 855, 527, or a net $ 118,632, 131 after City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page43 -64-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets Signals Drainage and Bridges some $ 167, 460, 158 in off -setting revenues and the existing Circulation System Impact Fee Fund balance of $2, 763, 238. Roughly thirty- seven projects are within the City limits but are also subjected to regional demands and may receive up to 76% of their project costs financed by Measure I revenues. Three interchange projects also will receive Measure I financing. The total project costs for these three projects are much higher. Each project will increase the circulation system' s capacity to meet the 17% increase in capacity needs. The individual projects and costs are identified on Schedule 5 . 1 at the end of the Chapter and detailed in the Master Facilities Plan.

The Use of the Fee. The collection of a Circulation System Impact Fee would be used to construct the projects ( or portions of projects) identified in Schedule 5. 1 at the conclusion of this Chapter' s text. The collected fees will be used to create additional lane miles, bridge lanes, and signals with which to accommodate the additional 89, 588 additional daily trip -miles expected from further development ofthe City.
49,790,615 in future projects is the total of the net cost of the City development portion of the regional projects that have Measure I support ($ 42, 501, 262, Schedule 5. 3) and the projects deemed as only local in demand ($ 7,289,353, Schedule 5. 2).

The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. Schedule

5. 1 identifies the additional traffic generated by new development by type of development. The technical volume, Trip Generation ( Manual) 7th Edition, produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, has been used to identify the nexus or relationship between the type of development and the projected number of trips that development will generate. A 400-unit detached dwelling unit residential -specific plan would generate about 13, 840 daily trip - miles, and a twenty -acre commercial -retail development would generate 9, 910 daily trip miles.

Each would pay its proportionate share of the total 302, 084 newly created the City trip miles expected at General Plan build -out. In the case of the residential -detached dwelling development, the daily trip -miles generated by the 400 new homes represents about 4. 58% of the total 302, 084 new trip -miles anticipated at build -out; thus, they would be required to pay or construct projects on the list to an amount equal to 4. 58% of the total development - related project costs. The twenty -acre commercial development would generate 3. 28% of the additional trip -miles, thus responsible for 3. 28% of the circulation system project costs.

Circulation System Cost Distribution by Average Land Use Trip Frequency and Distance New Trip Adjustment for Pass -by or Diverted Trips. Schedule 5. 2 contains a sub -schedule that identifies adjustments to new total trip -ends. As an example, an acre of general commercial use would be expected, on average, to generate about 301. 83 trip -ends daily. However, approximately 15% of those trip -ends, or about 45 trip -ends per day, are pass -by trip -ends; that is, the trip -end is not truly an end but is actually one in a series of stops, i. e., at various commercial establishments, with a different location such as a residence as the final trip -end or destination of the series oftrip -ends. In order to be considered a pass -by trip, the location of the stop must be contiguous to the generator? route, i.e., the route that would have been used even if the stop had not been made The Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) indicates that:

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 44 -65-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets, Signals, Drainage, and Bridges Pass -by trips are attracted from passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the generator. Pass -by trips are not diverted from another roadway.
5 Pass -by trip -ends are fully adjusted ( reduced at 100%) from the average trip -ends ( per day) generated by the six land uses identified in Schedules 5. 2 and 5. 3.

A diverted trip is similar to a pass -by trip -end in that it is an extra stop between, for example, a motorist' s work site and his or her residence. The diverted trip differs slightly from the pass -by trip, requiring a minor deviation from the normal generator route and the temporary stop. In short, a diverted trip creates a separate side trip using additional ( and different) lane miles from that of the normal route from the motorist' s place of employment and his or her home. These trips increase the traffic volume from the generator route, but only for brief distances. The ITE states that diverted trips:
are attracted from traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator route) but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the site. These trips could travel on highways or freeways adjacent to the generator, but without access to the generator. Diverted linked trips add traffic to streets adjacent to a site, but may not add traffic to the area' s major travel routes, 6 These diverted trips will be adjusted ( reduced at 50%) from the full trip count for each ofthe land uses identified in Chapter 2. The ITE also indicates that " both pass -by and diverted linked trips may be a part of a multiple -stop chain of trips". 7
Again, the sub -schedule at the bottom of Schedule 5. 2 indicates the total trip -ends and the reduction due to the number of pass -by trips ( at 100%) and diverted trips ( at 50%). The trip pass - by and diversion percentages were generated and are supported by a study conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAL) in conjunction with various U. S. and California agencies. 8
Additionally, the same SANDAG data schedule referenced above provides information for a trip distance factor component to the nexus. Based on that data, a trip to an industrial worksite has the greatest distance at 9.0 miles. A trip to an office averages 8. 8 miles, a residential trip averages 7. 9 miles, a trip from a hotel or motel ( once in residence) averages 7. 6 miles, and an average trip to a commercial site is the smallest at 4. 3 miles. This indicates that drivers are generally willing to travel further distances to work and for treatment at medical offices than they are to shop. Both frequency ( trip -ends) and distance ( average miles per trip) have been combined into the nexus by multiplying frequency times distance.

For consistency, RCS has used the ITE trip -end and length factor from the 2006 Nexus report.

The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee.

There is very little difference between this and the above category. The fee collected will be based on the projected number of trip -ends the proposed development will generate in relation to the total 89, 588 additional projected trip -miles at build -out. Any amount imposed as a circulation system improvements Development Impact Fee will be placed in a separate fund City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 45 -66-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets Signals Drainage, and Bridges collecting interest) and will be used only on the projects identified on Schedule 5. 1 as development -related.

From time to time, the City may require an applicant for a private project to construct a street or signal improvement ( or a portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of this Chapter. This method is often undertaken to expedite the project at the request of the applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit for any monies expended on this required improvement against their circulation improvements impact fee. If one does not already exist, an ordinance addressing the issue of credits should be prepared and added to Highland Municipal Code.

The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The circulation system Impact Fee calculation is based upon the recognition that different types of developments generate differing amounts of trips.

The fee is based on the projected number of trips generated by the proposed private development project. Impact fee receipts will be accumulated until they reach the amount that could construct a meaningful project to alleviate or mitigate the demands of those new developments. Table 5- 2 ( summarized from Schedule 5. 2) identifies the Marginal Needs - based Circulation system Impact Fee Schedule for the City, based upon a net cost of 7,289, 353 in proposed projects.

Table 5- 2
Marginal Needs -based Impact Fees
Local -only Circulation System Impact Fees)
Land Use Allocation
Of Costs
Total Cost
Per Unit of SF
Detached Dwelling Units 4, 013, 180 2, 814/ Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 2, 991, 557 1, 879/ Unit
Mobile Home Units 13, 181 1, 465/ Unit
Commercial Lodging 267, 122 1, 484/ Unit
Commercial/ Office Uses 2 604 2. 627/ S. F.

Industrial Uses 1, 7091 1. 818/ S. F.

Alternative Cost Methodology. A more precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses i. e., banks, hospitals, convalescent homes, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per trip of $81. 37 by the applicable daily trip -mile rate. An example of this calculation can be found in Schedule 5. 2 at the end of the Chapter and applied to Table 5- 3 on the following page.

These tables list trip rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial, and commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip mile rates theoretically provides more accuracy and, therefore, equity in determining the impact of specific uses on the City's circulation system, but at the same time, may increase the City' s costs to administer the fee. A more extensive listing of traffic generator by land use is available in Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D. C.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report rage 46 -67-
Table 5- 3
Detail of Circulation System Local Marginal Need - based Impact Fees for Specific Commercial Uses
Land Use
Category
Adjusted
Trip -ends
Average
Distance
Trip -end I to Trip
Additional I Trip -miles
Cost per
Trip -mile
Cost per 1, 000 Square I Feet or Dwelling Unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ( per Unit):

Detached Dwelling Unit 8. 76 7. 9 0. 5 34. 60 81. 37 2,814 / Unit Apartment 5. 85 7. 9 0. 5 23. 1 81. 37 1, 879 / Unit
Condominium/ Townhome 5. 36 7. 9 0. 5 21. 2 81. 37 1, 725 / Unit High Density Dwelling 3. 61 7.9 0. 5 14. 3 81. 37 1, 163 / Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4. 57 7.9 0. 5 18. 1 81. 37 1, 473 / Unit RESORT/ TOURIST ( per Unit or Entry Door):

Hotel ( multi -story) 6. 29 7. 6 0.5 23. 9 81. 37 1, 945 / Room All Suites Hotel 3. 77 7. 6 0. 5 14. 3 81. 37 1, 164 / Room Motel 4. 34 7. 6 0. 5 16. 5 81. 37 1, 343 / Room
INDUSTRIAL ( per 1, 000 SF):

General Light Industrial 6. 17 9. 0 0. 5 27. 8 81. 37 2, 262 / KSF Heavy industrial 5. 97 9. 0 0. 5 26. 9 81. 37 2, 189 / KSF Manufacturing 2. 73 9.0 0. 5 12.3 81. 37 1, 001 / KSF
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0. 5 19. 8 81. 37 1, 611 / KSF
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS USES ( per 1, 000 SF):

Office Park 9. 08 8. 8 0. 5 40.0 81. 37 3,255 / KSF
Research Park 7. 18 8. 8 0. 5 31. 6 81. 37 2, 571 / KSF Business Park ( Specific) 11. 29 8. 8 0. 5 49. 7 81. 37 4, 044 / KSF RETAIL/ SERVICE USES ( per 1, 000 SF):

Building Material Store 29. 35 4. 3 0. 5 63. 1 81. 37 5, 134 / KSF Garden Center 23. 45 4.3 0. 5 50.4 81. 37 4, 101 / KSF
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0. 5 5.3 81. 37 431 / KSF
Church 5.92 4.3 0. 5 12. 7 81. 37 1, 033 / KSF
Medical - Dental Office 22. 21 8. 8 0. 5 97. 7 81. 37 7,950 / KSF General Office Building 7. 16 8. 8 0. 5 31. 5 81. 37 2, 563 / KSF Shopping Center 30. 20 4.3 0. 5 64. 9 81. 37 5,281 / KSF Hospital 11. 42 4.3 0. 5 24. 6 81. 37 2, 002 / KSF
Discount Center 62. 93 4. 3 0. 5 135. 3 81. 37 11, 009 / KSF High -Turnover Restaurant 8. 90 4. 3 0. 5 19. 1 81. 37 1, 554 / KSF Convenience Market 43. 57 4. 3 0.5 93. 7 81. 37 7, 624 / KSF Walk-in Bank 13. 97 4. 3 0. 5 30. 0 81. 37 2,441 / KSF
Other. ( not available " per KSF')
Cemetary ( per acre) 3. 07 4.3 0. 5 6. 6 81. 37 537.04 / Acre Service Station/ Market ( avg 107. 69 4. 3 0. 5 231. 5 81. 37 18, 837. 16 / FP/ Day Service Station/ Car Wash 99. 35 4. 3 0. 5 213. 6 81. 37 17, 380, 63 / FP/ Day NOTES:

1. ADT = Average Daily Trips

2. KSF = Thousand Square Feet of Gross Floor Area

3. Adjusted for Pass -by and Diverted Trips.

4. FP/Day = per "Fueling Position" per day.

-68-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets Signals Drainage, and Bridges This set of proposed fees would generate the marginal revenue needed to construct the needed circulation construction projects.

Regional ( SBCTA) Circulation Improvements Development Impact Fee Calculation. The following is an excerpt from the SBCTA policy document. It states in part:

BACKGROUND. San Bernardino County Voters approved Measure I, the half -cent sales tax for countywide transportation improvements, in November 2004. The Measure I Ordinance requires each jurisdiction in the urbanized areas of San Bernardino County to adopt a development mitigation program to address regional transportation needs. The Ordinance states that by November 2006, each jurisdiction in the San Bernardino Valley and Victor Valley must adopt a mechanism that:

Requires all future development to pay its fair share for transportation facilities that are needed as a result of the new development; and
Complies with the Land Use/ Transportation Analysis and deficiency Plan provisions ofthe Congestion management Plan (CMP) set by state law. SBCTA Board Adopted the updated CMP November 2, 2005.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW. SBCTA' s development mitigation program ensures that the new development pays its fair share for the construction of regional transportation infrastructure, including freeway interchanges, major streets and railroad grade separations. Local flexibility is a key component. The program does not include a uniform regional fee; instead, it allows each jurisdiction to design its own approach to reach specified levels of fair share contributions from new development. Using a generally accepted methodology, SBCTA has set a fair share requirement from each city, town, or unincorporated area, and it is the responsibility of the municipalities to demonstrate that they will reach the required level of development contribution.

This could involve development impact fees, community facilities districts, or a range of other funding techniques that are based on contributions from new development.

There are eighty- four SBCTA Measure I supported regional projects, thirty- seven within the City limits, and a portion of three interchange projects. The costs associated with these projects represent only the City' s portion of the much larger cost of the projects. The total identified to be raised from new development from within the Highland City limits is a net $ 42, 501, 262 for the thirty- seven projects identified in Schedule 5 . 1 after applying $ 167. 5 million from other expected revenue sources.

The nexus previously utilized in distributing the local circulation project costs is also used to distribute the regional circulation projects. The use of trip -miles was previously explained on pages 44 and 45 of this Chapter.

Table 5- 4, following and summarized from Schedule 5. 3, distributes the $ 42, 501, 262 over the 89, 588 anticipated trip -miles resulting from additional development through General Plan buildout. They represent the recommended development impact fee schedule for the collection of City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page48 -69-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets Signals Drainage and Bridges revenues for financing the City' s new development portions of SBCTA Measure I financing - assisted regional circulation improvements.

Table 5- 4
Measure I -assisted Regional Circulation Improvements Impact Fees Land Use Allocation
Of Costs
Total Cost
Per Unit of SF
Detached Dwelling Units 23, 399, 225 16, 409/ Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 17, 442, 558 10, 956/ Unit
Mobile Home Units 76, 854 8, 539/ Unit
Commercial Lodging 129, 790 8, 653/ Unit
Commercial/ Office Uses 234 15. 319/ S. F.

Industrial Uses 138 10. 598/ S. F.

Alternative Cost Methodology. A more precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent homes, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per trip of $474.41 by the applicable daily trip -mile rate. An example of this calculation can be found in Table 5- 5 on the following page. These tables list trip rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial, and commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip mile rates theoretically provides more accuracy and, therefore, equity in determining specific uses' impact on the City' s circulation system, but at the same time, may increase the City's costs to administer the fee. A more extensive listing of traffic generators by land use is available in Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D. C.

This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact
-70-
Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page49
Table 5- 5
Measure I -assisted Regional Circulation System Marginal Need -based Impact Fees for Specific Commercial Uses
Land Use
Category
Adjusted
Trip -ends
Average I Distance
Trip -end I to Trip
Additional I Trip -miles
Cost per
Trip -mile
Cost per 1, 000 Square I Feet or Dwelling Unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ( per Unit):

Detached Dwelling Unit 8. 76 7.9 0. 5 34. 60 474. 41 16, 414 / Unit Apartment 5. 85 7. 9 0. 5 23. 1 474. 41 10, 958 / Unit
Condominium/ Townhome 5.36 7. 9 0. 5 21. 2 474.41 10, 057 / Unit High Density Dwelling 3. 61 7. 9 0. 5 14.3 474.41 6, 783 / Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4. 57 7. 91 0. 51 18. 1 474. 41 8, 587 / Unit RESORT/ TOURIST ( per Unit or Entry Door):

Hotel ( multi -story) 6. 29 7. 6 0. 51 23. 9 1 $ 474.41 1 $ 11, 338 / Room All Suites Hotel 3. 77 7. 6 0. 51 14.3 1 $ 474. 41 1 $ 6, 784 / Room Motel 4. 34 7. 6 0. 51 16.5 1 $ 474. 41 1 $ 7, 828 / Room INDUSTRIAL ( per 1, 000 SF):

General Light Industrial 6. 17 9. 0 0. 5 27. 8 474. 41 13, 189 / KSF Heavy Industrial 5. 97 9. 0 0. 5 26. 9 474. 41 12, 762 / KSF Manufacturing 2. 73 9. 0 0. 5 12. 3 474.41 5, 835 / KSF Warehousing 4.39 9. 0 0. 5 19. 8 474. 41 9, 393 / KSF
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS USES ( per 1, 000 SF):

Office Park 9. 08 8. 81 0. 51 40.0 1 $ 474. 41 18, 976 / KSF Research Park 7. 18 8. 81 0. 51 31. 6 1 $ 474. 41 1 $ 14, 991 / KSF Business Park (Specific) 11. 29 8. 81 0.51 49.7 1 $ 474. 41 23, 578 / KSF RETAIUSERVICE USES (per 1, 000 SF):

Building Material Store 29. 35 4.3 0.5 63. 1 474. 41 29, 935 / KSF Garden Center 23. 45 4.3 0.5 50. 4 474. 41 23, 910 / KSF Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0. 5 5.3 474. 41 2, 514 / KSF
Church 5. 92 4. 3 0. 5 12. 7 474. 41 6, 025 / KSF
Medical - Dental Office 22. 21 8. 8 0. 5 97.7 474. 41 46,350 / KSF General Office Building 7. 16 8. 8 0.5 31. 5 474, 41 14, 944 / KSF Shopping Center 30. 20 4. 3 0.5 64. 9 474. 41 30, 789 / KSF Hospital 11. 42 4. 3 0. 5 24. 6 474. 41 11, 670 / KSF
Discount Center 62. 93 4. 3 0. 5 135. 3 474. 41 64, 188 / KSF High - Turnover Restaurant 8. 90 4.3 0. 5 19. 1 474. 41 9, 061 / KSF Convenience Market 43. 57 4.3 0. 5 93. 7 474.41 44,452 / KSF Walk- in Bank 13. 97 4. 3 0. 5 30.0 474. 41 14, 232 / KSF Other. (not available " per KSF)
Cemetary ( per acre) 3. 07 4.31 0. 51 6. 6 474. 41 1 $ 3, 131. 11 / Acre Service Station/ Market ( avg 1
107. 69 4.31 0. 51 231. 5 1 $ 474. 41 1 $ 109, 825. 92 / FP/ Day Service Station/Car Wash 99. 35 4.31 0. 51 213. E 1 $ 474. 41 1 $ 101, 333. 98 / FP/ Day NOTES:

1. AD = Average Daily Trips

2. KSF = Thousand Square Feet of Gross Floor Area

3. Adjusted for Pass - by and Diverted Trips.

4. FP/Day = per " Fueling Position" per day.

-71-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets Signals Drainage, and Bridges Recommended Local Circulation System Development Impact Fee. The " Marginal Needs - based" DIFs for the six broad land uses, as identified in Table 5- 2 ( Schedule 5. 2) and Measure I -assisted Regional Circulation improvements impact Fees are recommended as the fairest sets of fees with the option for the staff to apply the per trip fee from Schedule 5. 2 multiplied by the specific use Table 5- 3 and 5- 5 or the more extensive listing of traffic generation by land use available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C.

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED LOCAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPACT FEES Adopt Schedule 5. 2 for most land uses and the per trip -mile rate on Schedule 5. 2 to be used in conjunction with the Table 5- 3 or the most current edition of the ITE manual ( and the trip length figures ( via SANDAG) at the bottom of Schedule 5. 2) for unusual land uses ( e. g., an amusement park).

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED REGIONAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPACT FEES Adopt Schedule 5. 2 for most land uses and the per trip -mile rate on Schedule 5. 2 to be used in conjunction with Table 5- 3 or the most current edition of the ITE manual ( and the trip length figures ( via SANDAG) at the bottom of Schedule 5. 2) for unusual land uses ( e. g., an amusement park).

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1 A trip is defined as a series of one or more trip -ends. A trip -end is a single stop in a trip. As an example, a drive from home to work is a trip. Each individual stop along the way for to drop children off at school, get gas, buy a lunch, drop offthe laundry, and the arrivals at that workplace is a trip -end. The arrival back home in the evening is a trip -end also. There term "trip" has no effect on the calculation and only means " a drive". z For a complete set of descriptions and cross - sections, see Chapter 3. 0, Highland General Plan Circulation Element.
s The normal route between a daily work -site and the residence of the motorist. 4 As an example, a motorist travels the same route from work to home daily. On some number of occasions, the motorist stops at a market along the route to pick up some groceries. These stops at the market would be considered pass -by trip -ends in that they do not generate an additional trip -ends along that route. 5 Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1099 14th Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington D. C. 20005- 3438, Chapter 5, Section 5. 1, Pass - by, Primary and Diverted Linked Trips, page 29. e Ibid, page 29
City of Highland 2022-23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 51 -72-
Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets Signals, Drainage, and Bridges Ibid, page 29
8 Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, Brief Guide to Traffic Generation Rates compiled in conjunction with the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U. S. Department of Transportation, the California Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1995.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 52 -73-
i

8. S.

S. r*
rrla........*.!*!.*
raa*
2!
@G
@@
@
@
4 k{§
k\
r
err*
IN)
jj\
2)
7 j
j
-74-
eve
CDe
ID
ore
0 CD0
voo<
ee
ee
00e ee
eeevasoe° a
geo
oee
ssse
ee
esa
ee
n
NI
16 000
INN
CN
IN
MNI
w
IV
mo
0 OU
0:
a`
C
V
N
@Z
0oumZavUmZEwmmEUu Em N u
m
ci LLN
cS
LL
f
p
E! n
cm
cU`
nw' oc
mUo
m
mm
a
zI oopEz
vim
caamcommOUoUmUUwaam am UmmU
zEm
10 m
c
0Q
5gEsymooim32Emm
02 o - s
hhmoi
rn3myONnUyA
m
Ja
N°
1°
o
c,
mo
no
K
O: KK
O: K
O; N0
a' ¢¢
tlNwmvw
Q ¢' NEyUEaEtam ENCym
C=i
c. mm jccm
J.]> ccmmccmmccmmc
m=
J'
a¢- dUUmmUamNmNmNummdnNa
c' Y

5. 2
aaaaaa
ommvmv
cwv
cm
cw
cm °' cccczc
c= 3uuoEEEEEEEEEEEEE
c= oo
u° o000co
o•o
octccc
c9c ccc
ii2ss=
iizz
W"
aaa°
a"
aa"
e"
ama"
a"
a"
aaa"
a°
aa°
is°"
in
nmu n.
inam` u
a>»>>
3333o`
Euo Go
z°o
nm
00000000
2NH
Alvry Nn
im- 1
o.-
NneN
tirn
rwmo.-
cl
Fr
F=
o
rtim
mmmrn tim
mm
ti
rnrnrn
mm
rnso
tirNNNNNN

ILNNNNNNNNNN
fn . NNN
N.. NNNNNNNyNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWNNN
fn ( n
-75-
Ci
O
d
V
O
N
N
tF
w
c
Cl
00 00
C11
N
o
M
cn
tb
c-..
o
LL
0)
d
N
Q
k
m
j
vi
v)
k
EX
a>
z
a)
z
z
L
a)
a)
cn
1 4
Q
tz
CA
M
a)
m
M
O
Oa
y
N
N
d
V`
z
Y
O)
to
ilco
C
f
IA
I
t}
00 Il_
co
CO
V
00t
CO
co
LL
tm
w
QO
N—
eN
o
to
bs
to
bs
bs
bs
Q
J
Z
N
d
W
D
4 i
It LO
Itt CDOD
co
O
y
Q.
a
r
a
M5.
w
O
Cl)
ID
M
Ol
y
V
to
m
U.)
0 GI
O
Q
4n
a
F
7 o
LL
O
Ix
7 RS
CX
i
C
R
C
C
a
m
O
M
1-
tA
CO
1D
00 I—
LO
O
O
CD
OV
V
N
C
O
O
cN
EA
6-
3 V
M
R '
E
w
v
ri
N
U
Go
CL
y '
c
p
G
Q
E»
e»
e»
ss
OC ~
v
a
nonoorc
CO
Q
00 C
M
a
m R
N
M
CD
k
tb
LO
to
N
N
O
O
O
N
N
Nrn
9 N
N
a
a.
y:

CD
bl3
coN
ER
U>
y0
d.

N
64 N
O
00000O
QW
f
M
co
co
V
Lo
N
C
a
a
o
o-(
0 0
0 o
a
a
h
a
o
o
psi
CD
C,
0 0
da
Lo
v
o
O
u)
LID
in
o
o
u;
i
av «.

LX)
LDL
4a2CDM
a
o ~
CD
a
r (
D
00 a
a
i '
a
M
f
N
M
N
00 m
y
M
O
CD
M
N
00 00
O
C
N
6D
Co
M
M
TO
cl 00
LoL"
LnLDLOLO
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
0 0
0 0
0 0
Q
r=
E
r
a
a
vFa
NDrn°
0 0
y
V
LO
6 O
o0orn
CL
a
o
a
y
LnOOOoo o
aaO
tO
O
N
Lo
N
N
y
co
N
o
cD
N
VI
f
M
65 N
O
m
co
v
Co
c+
7 LC)
J
Q
o
r .
a
O a
O J
Ln
rn
Y
a)
WW
a
u
C
C
CZ
C
r
U)
c
co LL
W
O
3 v
14 IA
D
c'
u
vi
c
0 U
W
u:

U
o)
Q
o
Y
J
O
J
3 E
v
w
V
R
3 CD
O] u
O
6 0
0 0
Q
L
J
p
rC
c—Oo
y
D
n
a
S
H
O
o
M
U
E
m
a
0a
Q
o
Uo
Cf a
Q J
Q
ZH o
o
UQ 0_
r- 0
-76-
ew
w
i
Ii
0 02
0 4
Q
Q
O0)
cLo
O
O
D)
c0
0)
M
05 N
V
O
Ln
M
Ln
O) Ln
N
L
a'
0)
Ln
D
M
Q
O.

O
cO
O
M
N
Ln
0 bg
69 E
1-
969
113
69 LO
CO
v
O)
07 O
CD
LO
0)
LD
W
V
C'
d
Q i
CO
V
O
Iq
00 C
L
N
Ln
m
co
O
G1
O)
V
M
r
Ncs
64 J
00 CO
N
U
w
aLi
y
Ln
co
It
M
N
Ln
Lo
CO
CO
CD
O
N
Ln
00 O)
C
M
Ln
EA
H
Cl)
V
EA
Ln69
cfl
O
M
69 OV
k
U
Q
W
0 69
0 0
0 0
0 5)
N
O
O-'
D
O
O
O
w
O
Ln
O
M
O
O
Ln
V
da
i
a •
1 a
0 Cl)
rN
n
N
0)
N
CD
cD
00 M
N
cD
M
O
a •
a
Q
0 N
6)
O
P
O
N
0)
Co
41 V
C
LO
6)
3)
h
r.
dO d
Ln
0 0
0 0
0 a
Ln
O
cV
Ln
N
00 o
D
r--
Q LVN
Y
Y
D
w
N
N
N
N
cz
N
j
C
E
V
U)
a
c
o
O
N
a
O
U
5 N70
O
D
TO
O
a
E
CL
6 0
E700
0 mod.. U
1I
to
0 C
O
Cl
O
LO Sri 0 01) 00 P O
co
co
Lf )
M
-77-
Chapter 6
Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities
The Existing System. The financial analysis ofthe City's existing local storm drainage component network, composed of street gutter facilities, inlets, and a network of storm drain pipelines, has been moved from Chapter 5- Circulation ( et . al) System. These pipes convey stormwater runoff from the City' s circulation network to washes and creeks located throughout the City, such as City Creek, ultimately leading ( outside of the City) to the Santa Ana Riverbed. As the City continues to develop vacant parcels with rooftops, parking lots, and driveways, the existing City -owned storm drainage system will reach capacity, and the ability of the existing drainage lines to collect additional runoff from developing areas will diminish.

Property -based Benefit Reasoning. Initially, separate zones were considered for each flood control basin within the City because each area may have its own capital needs for stormwater collection.

While stormwater runoff from the most southerly part of Church Street may not directly impact the homeowner near Victoria Avenue and Base Line, similarly, a small debris detention basin near the City Hall required to handle runoff from the City Hall parking lot may provide little direct benefit to a home on Highland Avenue, virtually all storm drainage runoff in the City will end up in one of the City' s many major creeks ultimately ending up in the Santa Ana riverbed. In each case, there can be some distinct property -related areas of benefit for each drainage basin, but direct benefits are only part of the equation.

User -based Benefit Reasoning, the Human Element. The owners and users of all developed and undeveloped parcels benefit, directly and indirectly, from all City- wide existing and future regional flood control improvements. As the various regional flood control systems within the greater community of the City of Highland develop, concurrent with the development of private property, the benefits are generally recognized as:

Proposed development projects can only be approved by the City when precautions, generally in the form of infrastructure improvements, have been made that assure that developed and undeveloped downstream parcels will not be adversely affected ( i.e., inundated, flooded, cut off from access in and out), by flood water from the project being proposed. The avoidance of downstream or down -zone damage from the development of an upstream parcel may not be a major concern to a developer, but the City must concern itself with such issues when approving private development proposals. Stated more simply, private development cannot be approved, which may create the potential for adverse flood conditions downstream. This set of fees will be used on projects that will allow for continued development upstream.

2. The private development being assessed an impact fee will receive the same flood water protection from other development projects upstream or up -zone from its own development.

-78-
Chapter 6 Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities

3. Flood water must be adequately controlled within large- scale flood control channels or creeks to assure access by public safety vehicles to all parts ofthe City, regardless ofwhich zone a call for service is in. Law enforcement, fire suppression/ medic service, other emergency calls, and public works emergency responses cannot wait during heavy rainstorms, possibly flooding channels, creeks, and rivers. On the contrary, emergency calls -for -service probably increase during such storm events, and the City' s public safety and maintenance units must be able to respond to all zones.

4. The City of Highland' s citizens and business owners/ employees must also be able to travel safely in heavy rain from one zone to another over these local and regional floodwater collectors, creeks, and rivers. An adequate and sufficient flood control system will provide such protection.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. The building of new homes and businesses on presently undeveloped land will increase the amount of runoff and thus accelerate the need for additional storm drainage facilities to handle increased runoff from these developing areas. As the vacant land is developed and bare dirt or turf is replaced with impervious rooftops, parking lots, driveways, pools, and sidewalks, more rainfall runs offof the developed parcel. The amount of run-off varies with different types of development i. e., land use), and the varying amounts are referred to as the runoff coefficients. Approximately

0. 740 ( or 74. 0%) of the rain that falls on a parcel developed with detached dwellings exits that developed parcel. The rate for an attached dwelling run- off is slightly higher ( per unit) at 0. 830

83. 0%) than detached dwelling uses. Most business uses, such as commercial and office, have a runoff coefficient of 0. 850 or 85. 0%, with industrial acres slightly higher at 0.900 or 90%.

Clearly, the amount of water runoff increases with development, regardless of any on -site retention requirements. The cumulative effects of additional flood control runoff must be managed with the appropriate capital facilities. These costs of the new storm drainage ( and flood control revenue shortages) will be distributed by the coefficients of drainage, i. e., the percentage of the property that will end up with impervious coverage such as asphalt or cement -based drives, or parking lots, rooftop, pools and any other hard surface that does not allow any absorption into the soil.

The Purpose of the Fee. The fee must be collected to improve the local and regional flood control projects identified in Schedule 6. 1. Without such revenues, these unimproved creeks, primarily Elder Creek, may dangerously approach the practical limits of flood control capacity. The costs of extending the same level of flood control protection to the newly developing homes and businesses as is provided to the existing community ( that has largely paid for the existing system) can be calculated, a fee imposed, and collected. The fee revenues can then be used to expand the flood control facilities necessary to extend that same level of services. City staff has identified a portion of nine drainage flood control projects required to complete the network of projects identified as locally generated. The locally generated portions of these nine projects cost $ 8, 373, 691. There is currently a $ 675, 020 existing balance in the dedicated Impact Fee Fund, lowering the net cost of the flood control projects to $ 7, 698, 671.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 58 -79-
Chapter 6 Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities
The Use of the Fee. The construction of local and regional flood control facilities in the City of Highland is essential to preserving private property, public streets, bridges, and other improved facilities. The building of new homes and businesses on presently undeveloped land will require the installation of additional storm drains and inlets to handle increased runoff from these developing areas.

The revenues raised from a properly calculated and supported Impact Fee would be limited to capitalized costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to construct local drainage and flood control channels necessary to increase the outfall drainage capacity of the system.

Conversely, the Impact Fee receipts would not be used to repair, replace or rehabilitate any existing storm drainage lines.

The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. Upon the identification ofthe costs of storm drainage facilities generated by future development, costs must be further distributed for each of the land uses ( i. e., business/ residential uses) based on their estimated flood water runoff. Detached dwellings ( four or fewer dwellings/ acre) development provides the most turf percentage per parcel and thus the greatest percolation and, conversely, the least stormwater runoff. As such, these land uses should not bear the same cost as Commercial or industrial development, which generally have little or no turf area ( or, stated another way, a higher percentage of impervious area), generating a higher amount of runoff. For this Report, costs were distributed between land uses on established runoff coefficients. A listing of these runoff coefficients is provided in Table 6- 1
I
following.

Table 6- 1
Storm Drainage Runoff Coefficients
@2" per Hour Rainfall)
Proposed Land Use
Runoff
Coefficient
Detached Dwellings 0. 740
Attached Dwellings 0. 830
Mobile Homes 0. 800
Commercial Lodging 0. 780
Commercial/ Office Uses 0. 850
Industrial Uses 0. 900
Dwelling Density Anomaly Adjustment. Since this impact fee is determined by applying a drainage factor to the type of land use zone, differences between what the development code allows and what is actually approved can significantly skew the cost figures. As a result, adjusting to the average densities of the General Plan at build -out has been necessary. For example, the City anticipates future approval of 1, 426 detached dwelling units on 285 acres in the City for an average of 4. 99 units per acre. However, the existing 12, 866 detached dwelling units occupy 4, 371 acres for an average of 2. 94 units per acre. Assuming a storm drainage impact fee or equity of $5, 000 City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 59 -80-
Chapter 6
Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities
per acre, each existing detached dwelling, @ 2. 94 units/ acre, would have an equity share of about 1, 700 ($ 5, 000 per acre - 2. 94 units per acre = $ 1, 700/unit) while the future detached units, @

4. 99 units/ acre, would be assessed about $ 1, 000 ($ 5, 000 per acre _ 2. 31 units per acre = 1, 000/ unit). Thus, the use ofthe average densities at General Plan build -out, as identified in the following Table 6- 2, has been employed.

Table 6- 2
Average Units or Square Feet per Acre at Build -out
Land - use Designation Acres Units or S. F.

Units or S. F.

Per Acre
Detached Dwellings Units 4, 371 12, 866 2. 94
Attached Dwellings Units 460 4, 616 10. 03
Mobile Home Units 92 964 10. 48
Commercial Lodging Units 16 310 19. 38
Commercial/ Office Use Square Feet 531 8, 096 15
Industrial Use Square Feet 154 2, 012 13
Table 6- 3 indicates the impact fee amounts that would need to be imposed for new development to contribute the proportional amount of the system' s collection pipes and channels identified by staff. It would not be unreasonable to expect future development to finance the identified storm drainage needs if no proportionality requirement is violated.

Table 6- 3
Marginal Needs -based Storm Drainage Facilities Impact Fees Land Use Allocation
Of Costs
Total Cost
Per Unit or SF
Detached Dwelling Units 3, 831, 743 2, 687/ Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 1, 505, 347 946/ Unit
Mobile Home Units 14, 509 1, 612/ Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 169, 760 943/ Unit
Commercial/ Office Uses Square Feet 1, 002, 053 1. 011/ S. F.

Industrial Uses Square Feet 1, 175, 259 1. 250/ S. F.

The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The Storm Drainage Impact Fees that are imposed and collected will be used to mitigate the stormwater runoff generated by the type of development. Ifthe development is a commercial or industrial property generating a significant amount of rainwater runoff, the fee collected will be proportionally higher and will be enough to construct the required additions to the storm drainage system downstream from this development.

City of Highland 2022-23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 60 -81-
Chapter 6 Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Similar to the section above, the relationship is based on the projected amount of stormwater collected and transported to flood control creeks, channels, or rivers.

The downstream flood control channels, creeks, and rivers need to be sized to handle all of the stormwater collected upstream. Stormwater that is collected in one location accumulates with feeder lines along the way. Thus, the downstream system must be built increasingly larger ( at increasing higher material and construction costs) the farther it gets away from its source.

Recommended Storm Drainage Impact Fee
Schedule 6. 2 at the end of this chapter, as the storm drainage impact fees would generate capital to construct most ofthe nine identified projects. Also, adopt Schedule 6. 2 for the six land -uses and the Marginal Needs - based Impact Fees per acre figure ( from the third column on the right side of the Schedule 6.2) for developments that do not involve a building pad, ( e. g., additional asphalt parking area).

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1 San Bernardino Hydrology Manual, Williamson and Schmidt, Irvine, CA 1986, Figure D-4b, Runoff Coefficient Curves, Soil Group - B, Cover Type - Urban Landscaping, AMC- 11, Index Number 56, page D- 15.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 61 -82-
M
C.

O
O
O
CDO
O
m
0 0
cn
M
O
O
O
O
It
CD
C)
b
v..
m
1-
D
n
0 0-
0 0
m
L1n
O
n
N
0 0
0 LoLD
b
C
G
O
Cl)
1-
M
N
O
O
O
N
r
r
ay
N
O
U
6q
69 VO
69 Loto
m69
co
m
a
o
o
fl
fl
69 Z
o'
m
a
o
E >
Q
C,
o
j
chi
b
Q
y
i
O
C ,
a
O
0 O
0 O
0 O
0 O
0 O0
o
0 O
0 O
0 O
60 O
0 m
4-
a
d
Lr)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ri
n
co
G
t)
i
y
r
o
o
n
n
L0
n
LD
N
M
r
v
G
as
m
CU
C)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Cl)
0 0
0 0
V
O
O
a
w
rn
Pn
n
o
Cl
IT
0 y
y
o
Lo
N
o
0 r
u-)
i)
O
N
r
N
m
yb
y
O
U
A
V
M
M69
O
O
N
OtH
C)
r4
y
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
y
O
o
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
n
Gp
0 C
b
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 U
y
y
Ln
O
O
Olr)
o
to
0n
on
On
LDr
ri
D
nN
i)
G
N
2 a
O
O
N
N
O
O
Lo
N
rr
m
mtq
0 0
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O
ER (
f3
0 0
O
o
o
O
O
O
Ova
UO
W
r: V'Ui Onr•
C.)
n
0 6"
m
C' Of9 d 0
0 DfA O0
d' D
61> ui 0
O0
o
0 O0
O
NER O
0 m
69 O
O o O0
0 0) 64 MD co Ln
0 C)
O
o O
O
A 0
o O 0
O
69 M
V
O
Om
C)
O
N
CDO N
ui
Ur
rrCO (
D
m
LL U
Cm m 3OV) GA
DU m
E N Q
O
m
Q
Sl
C°
a
N
C:

O
O
v
0 m
a)
rn
0 0
m
p
p)
E
o
U
LL
U
a) n
cn O
coc
N
Y
6 Z
O
LU
m
U
m
a
LL
Q
U
m
co
E
LL
LL
oram.

E
O
U
M
LO
m
o
U
y
m
o
U)
n
E
O a)
Q
m
o
a
y
a
o
o
W
co
a)
U) E
N
m
5 i
0 o
0 0
m c
E
c>
y
0)
0m
a
c
o
M
o
m
D
m
N
NA Q
M
Q U
O
m VJ
O)
O
O
7 UCCQ'
N M
7 p
Q
C
Q
U)
O
Y
Y
N
H
CY
n
n
N
N6
m
n
N
N
N
O
Q
N
cU
O
N
N
C
pc
C
I1
U
C>
U
a
U
a
a
J
u
N
O
Nm
Q
m
d
y
w
W
S
O
n
w
C
m
rn
FN
m
J C
LL
Ll_
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
w
LL
rCO
N
m (
p
m
N
69 0 cn 6mr
0 m
a
LL 0
69 m M 0 mhR m
m
r-
-83-
3vm v
d
O C a N
LT Z
U
y
LL
y
O
LL
M
a
0 0U
d
lL
t
M
a
a
o
O
N
u
m
n
U
04 J

0. 0
aQ
m
0 a'
d
LAh <
O
N
M
eO
4 y
co
e. "
Ivt (
n
Q
y
co
m
to
o)
O
N
d
LL
IE4
6,
ts
U m a
d N
O
N
O
O
00 p
O
O
O
O
O
O
@
@
U
LO
mU-)
co
co
a
V
L `
p
N
O
01 n
N
j
O
LL
g
Q
3 m
N
M
61 II
O
M
U
G
V
O
V
M
C
Q
E!
i
fH
64 69
d3
6h
w
O
0 m
M
I
O
O
M
O
O =
I
co
Lr
O
N
O
cOD
O
r
W
c0
LO
V)
0 @
3 u
k
U
smsbq
o + QW
0 0
0 0
0 0
w@
tiLq
N
O
N
O
d@
O
O
O
N
M
u-)
O
3 y
Ua u
p
Il0
0 (
D (
n
0 00
y
cy
0 CO
M
N
CO '
IT
a
00 y
N
OOLn
LO(
o
a
Q
L
tjO
O
O
O
O
O
@
@
aD
W
O
O
p •
V
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 Oki
p
C
U
D
N
m
O
0 N
O
W
Q
V
CL
LDOOOOCI dNN O
OO
O
a -
CO
N
G
to
co
O <-
CO
IN
i
N
Ln
V
J Q
y O Q
Y
Fa)
j
a
c
C)
CO
c
Q -
0tF
Y
0 3
W
0 o
0 0
Z
U
U —
E =
N
m
m
s
E
m
O
O
N
-84-
Chapter 7
General Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The Existing System. General Facilities are generally limited to general office or work buildings, vehicles, and equipment used by City staff to undertake their daily duties. The Fund has a positive balance of $1, 919,402.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. As the City increases in population and new businesses, the City Hall will become more crowded with a growing staff, even if efforts are made to keep the number of municipal workers at a minimum. Additionally, the council chambers will likely become less adequate for public meeting attendance on an increasing frequency. The existing amount of improved office building space may suffice for some period of time, but it will ultimately prove insufficient for management needs. The same will hold true for the City maintenance facility, which will need a few improvements to maximize management efforts.

City " pool" vehicles are generally made available for general employees assigned with general code enforcement, intra-city mail delivery, planning and engineering projects or issues that require on -site review and inspection, as well as other travel by employees that do not have assigned City vehicles, will be " checked -out" on an increasing basis requiring some fleet additions. This is in addition to streets, storm drainage, and parks maintenance vehicles, all supporting General Fund financed services. Lastly, the City' s computer processing capability and storage space will also be impacted by greater amounts of data necessary to manage a larger city.

The Purpose of the Fee. The costs of extending the same level of service to the newly developing community as is provided to the existing community, which has largely paid for the existing facilities, can be calculated, a fee imposed and collected, and used to expand the facilities necessary to extend that same level of services.

The Use of the Fee. The revenues raised from a properly calculated and supported General Facilities and Equipment Impact Fee would be limited to capital( ized) costs related to that growth.

The fees would be used to construct additional general facilities. Conversely, the General Facilities and Equipment Impact Fee receipts would not be used to repair or rehabilitate at its current use any existing general building. Where the existing community' s equity is larger than the marginal fee and existing capacity can be demonstrated, the difference may be returned to the General Fund as repayment from the developing properties to create the excess capacity. While the City has a significant investment in General Facilities, such is not the case with the General Facilities Impact Fee. The improvements necessary to contend with increased demand resulting from additional residents and businesses would include the following:

GF- 01, Construction of an additional 20,000 square feet of City Hall space to respond to the need for a larger staff. Even though all efforts will be made to keep the municipal staff

-85-
Chapter 7 General Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
to a minimum, some additional staff will be required, and a 100% increase in the existing 20, 000- square- foot facility can be expected.

GF- 02, Expansion of the pool car and General Fund based maintenance fleet to meet the needs to maintain the additional streets, signals, storm drainage pipe, curb, gutter and sidewalks, streetlights, street trees, and medians that will be dedicated to the City by the many developers after they have finished their projects.

GF- 03, Computer system capacity upgrade of approximately $ 496, 230.

GF- 04, Construction of a maintenance yard in the more easterly area of the City along Greensport Road.

The Relationship Between the Need for The Fee and The Type of Development Project. The need is based upon the recognition that additionally developed parcels in the City will create the need for more building space and specialty equipment, largely within the arena of overhead space, i.e., administrative management, personnel, record keeping, financial accounting, etc. The costs are distributed on an equal acreage basis as the most direct indices of demand relating to central management services.

The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee.

General management, City-wide, and General Plan issues transcend the type of land use, the use of the fee, and the need for the fee. Distribution will be based upon an equal benefit in terms of the general management of the City.

The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The fee would be based on the size of the development. A fee has been determined for individual units, either residential dwelling units or business square feet. A development of twelve residential units would have to pay a fee twelve times larger than a single unit.

Resulting Impact Fee. Table 7- 1 below summarizes the Marginal Needs General Facilities Impact Fees. The fees identified below represent the fees necessary to construct or acquire the facilities identified on Schedule 7 . 1.

Table 7- 1
Marginal Needs -based General Facilities Impact Fees
Land Use Allocation
of Costs
Total Costs
Per Unit or SF
Residential Units 10, 512, 907 3, 473/ Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 326,403 1, 813/ Unit
Business Uses in S. F. 3, 726, 438 1. 930/ S. F.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 65 -86-
Chapter 7 General Facilities Vehicles, and Equipment
It must be restated that the existing community has established an existing City Hall and a City maintenance yard that, up to this point, have well -served the existing community but no longer do so as completely as they once had. Stated slightly differently, the current community created, once adequate, staff facilities that no longer fully meet the community' s needs. As a result, the current community has amassed a small equity position vis-a-vis future needs.

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
RCS recommends the adoption of the Marginal Needs based fees ( necessary for expansion) found on Schedule 7. 2 to maintain the current level of service.

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
There are no Chapter endnotes.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page66 -87-
f
5 Q
2 Q
2 k
u
CD\
2 LL
2%&
2 2
j
k\
G
5 @
S
7$
CD
6 5
e
6 6
6 6
It
2 7
R
y
2 R
e
e
2 $
2 JJ\
Cl \ 3 ®
E _ - /
3 G
0 f
7\(
O [
7 7 \
E \
j
0 3
CD /
C,
6 c
2 0
o
0 2
e c 3
EL k
-88-
Kk\
cr t
Q)
cli
Q
L.o
2GS¢
eeyao
2 , 2
J$ 7oI
j
LU
f
k\
2&\
B
3 kG/ 0
c%
2 U
LO
7U
2 a
a3z
t/\
@§
k\
k~
CD
Q
0 co
Lnm
2r
j2
m
a
Lo
m SSSS
k
0k
D( n
A
2aEE
7j3a
-89-
Chapter 8
Library Facility and Collection
The Existing System. The San Bernardino County Library staff operates out of a 30, 000- squarefoot library facility near Highland Community Park. When the number of square feet of library building space is divided by the City population of 56, 546, a " space" standard is established of

0. 53 square feet/ person ( 30, 000 square feet + 56, 546 persons). While the City is not the direct library service provider, the City's residents are interested in maintaining the service levels, and the City, as will be explained later in this Chapter, is an integral part of maintaining those service levels by owning the facility.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. The 30, 000- square- foot facility can accommodate only a finite number of collection items and patrons. Additional development will increase the demand for the existing square feet of library pad and the volume collection.

The Purpose of the Fee. The fee enables the City to collect a fee necessary to construct additional square feet necessary to ensure that its citizens have access to and enjoyment of the Library space and its collection therein. Table 8- 1 indicates that the remaining residential development combined with the typical number of persons per type of residential dwelling will generate a need for roughly 5, 421 additional square feet to maintain the existing library facility standard of 0. 53 square feet per resident.

Table 8- 1
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Facility Standard Residential
Land -Use
Number of
Dwellings
Persons per
Dwelling
Density
Yield
Detached Dwelling 1, 426 3. 550 5, 062
Attached Dwelling 1, 592 3. 232 5, 145
Mobile Home Dwelling 1
9 2. 315 21
Additional Highland Population to be Served 10, 228
Square Foot per Person Existing Standard 0. 53
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Standard 5, 421 However, the City has determined that a modest 5, 000- square- foot expansion would serve the General Plan build -out population. Such an expansion would allow the standard to drop to 0. 524 square feet per resident ( 35, 000 S. F. / 66, 774 residents = 0. 524 S. F. per resident). This figure, however, would remain above the recommended target of 0. 40 S. F. per resident recommended by

-90-
Chapter 8 Library Facility and Collection
the American Library Association. It must be noted, however, that the ALA recommended figure of 0. 4 square foot per person ( or resident) is not based upon any type of empirical study and that each community must determine its own space needs.

Table 8- 2 indicates that the remaining residential development combined with a typical number of persons per type ofresidential dwelling will generate a need for roughly 22, 605 additional volumes to maintain the existing library facility standard of 2. 21 volumes per resident.

Table 8- 2
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Collection Standard Residential
Land -Use
Number of
Dwellings
Persons per
Dwelling
Density
Yield
Detached Dwelling 1, 426 3. 550 5, 062
Attached Dwelling 1, 592 3. 232 5, 145
Mobile Home Dwelling 9 2. 315 21
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Standard 22, 605 The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, would be imposed, collected, and, as needed ( and desired), expended on the expansion of the amount of library facility space in the Library and on increasing the number of volumes in the library collection.

The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. The development of any acreage zoned for residential uses increases the demand for the finite amount of library space and volumes. Thus, those residential land uses that generate higher amounts of residents ( i. e., detached dwellings) will be charged a proportionally higher amount. There is no information available demonstrating a substantive link or nexus between library use and local businesses.

The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paving the Fee.

Additional square feet will be constructed with the fees collected from residential development, and additional volumes will be added to the existing collection. The fees cannot be used for any other purpose.

The Relationship Between the Amount ofthe Fee and the Cost ofthe Portion ofthe Facility Attributed to the Development Protect. The cost of acquiring land for additional library space and construction is about $ 718. 33 per square foots ( per Schedule 8. 1). The 30, 000 square feet oflibrary space, when divided by the 56, 546 existing potential patrons, creates a standard of 0. 53 square feet of library space per district resident. The standard of 0. 53 square foot standard multiplied by the 718. 33 per square foot of pad cost of library construction results in a charge of $381. 43 per additional City resident. The $ 381. 43 per resident figure is then multiplied by 92. 23%, the percentage of the maximum allowable fee needed to acquire the revenue necessary to construct the proposed 5, 000- square- foot facility as opposed to the 5, 421 square feet that could be financed with the maximum impact fee ( 5, 000 S. F. _ 5, 421 S. F. = 92. 23%). Table 8- 3 following, demonstrates this calculation.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 70 -91-
Chapter 8 Library Facility and Collection
Table 8- 3
Establishment of the Library Facilities Standard and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
Library Square Feet 30, 000
Current City Population 56, 546
Square Feet per Resident 0. 53
Cost of Library Building Construction per Square Foot 718. 33 Cost per Additional Resident 381. 43
Adjustment to 5, 000 S. F. Facility ( 5, 000 S. F. / 12, 488 S. F.) 92. 23% Adjusted Cost per Additional Resident 351. 80
Library Volume Component. The cost of acquiring additional volumes called the accession process per Schedule 8. 1), is $ 40 per volume. The 125, 000 current volumes, when divided by the 56, 546 existing service population, creates a standard of 2. 40 volumes per City resident. The 2. 40 volume standard multiplied by the $ 40 per volume costs $ 96. 13 per additional resident to maintain the existing standard. Table 8- 4 on the following page demonstrates this.

Table 8- 4
Establishment ofthe Library Facilities Standard
and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
Library Volumes 125, 000
Current City Population 56, 546
Volumes per Resident 2. 40
Cost per Volume Accession 40. 00
Cost per Additional Resident 96. 13

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
Table 8- 5 contains the recommended Library Facility and Volume Development Impact Fees.

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1 Based upon a construction cost of $703. 33 per square foot and a 33. 3% floor area ratio, thus requiring three feet of land at a conservative $ 5. 00/ square foot for each square foot of building pad ( for parking and landscaping requirements), thus $ 15. 00 for three square feet of land ( per building square foot) and $ 703. 33 for building construction= $ 718. 33/ square foot of building construction. The $ 703. 33 construction cost is based upon the final

21. 1 million construction cost of the existing 30, 000- square- foot facility.

City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 71 -92-
Schedule 8. 1
City of Highland
2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Update Library Space Facilities and Collection
Library Space and Volume Standard Calculation
Library Building (SF)
Library Volumes
Library Volumes Represented by Existing Fund Balance
Total Library Components Status
Current Net City Population
Library Construction/ Resident
Books/ Resident
Library Construction/ S. F.

Land Cost at $ 5. 00 per S. F. and a 0. 33 FAR
Total Cost per Square Foot of Library Space
Cost per Library Volume
Building Cost per Resident
Library Volume Cost perResident
Cost per Land Use
Residential Dwelling Unit
Density per
Dwelling Unit
Detached Dwelling Unit 3. 550
Attached Dwelling Unit 3. 232
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 2. 315
Adjustment to Finance 5, 000 Square Foot Facility Only

92. 23
Cost per Land Use
Detached Dwelling 3. 550
Attached Dwelling 3. 232
Mobile Home Dwelling 2. 315
Library Library
Building Volumes
30, 000
125, 000. 00
10, 898. 00
30, 000 135, 898. 00
56, 546 56, 546

0. 53

2. 40
703. 33

15. 00
718. 33

40. 00
381. 43

96. 13
Library Library Total Total Total
Building Volumes I Resources Units
1, 354. 001 341. 001 1, 695. 001 1, 426. 00 1 $ 2, 417, 070 1, 233. 001 311. 001 1, 544MI 1, 592. 00 2, 458, 048
883. 00 223. 001 1, 106. 001 9. 00 9, 954
Master Plan Capital Needs $ 4, 885, 072
Existin 5/ 16123 Development Fee Fund Balance $ 435, 906 Net Required Capital Total for Library $ 5, 320, 778
Library
Buildin
Library
Volumes
Total
Resources
Total
Units
Total
1, 249. 00 315. 00 1, 563. 00 1, 426. 00 2, 228, 838
1, 137. 00 287. 00 1, 424. 00 1, 592. 00 2, 267, 008
814. 00 206. 00 1, 020. 00 9. 00 9, 180
Master Plan Capital Needs 4, 505, 026
Existing 5/ 16/ 23) Development Fee Fund Balance 435, 906 Net Capital Total for Library 92 % 4, 940, 932

-93-
Chapter 9
Public Use ( Community Center) Facilities
This category of infrastructure, i. e., facilities limited to public use, differs from general facilities, which are facilities used by the City staff to undertake their municipal service duties. Public use facilities are defined as facilities reserved for use by some or all ofthe defined portion ofthe public.

Examples include a performing arts building, teen or senior center, sports gymnasium, business conference center, or multi -purpose community center.

Previous collections of this fee have completed construction of the facilities programmed by the prior DIF Update. Consequently, no new fee is recommended at this time.

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
No Impact Fees are recommended.

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
There are no endnotes.

-94-
Chapter 10
Park Land Acquisition
And Park Facilities Development
This Chapter summarizes the City' s existing inventory of parks and identifies the ratio of parkland per resident allowable under the Quimby Act (§ 66477 of the Government Code') for residential developments involving the subdivision of land and the Mitigation Fee Act (§ 66000) for the construction of residential developments not involving the subdivision of land. The existing per capita standard is then utilized to calculate the park dedication requirement for future residential development.

EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM
The addition of parks, trails, and recreational facilities constitutes one of the City of Highland' s greatest assets, both with respect to facilities for current and new residents. Providing a well - planned park system with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered is an important amenity to residents of any city, the City of Highland included. A mixture of passive and active uses and facilities and programs that appeal to a broad spectrum of potential park and trail users are optimal in most urban cities. As the City's population increases, future residential development will necessarily impact the City' s park system by requiring additional baseball fields and adequate space for various athletic activities. Given the growth projected in this Report, the challenge facing the City will be to provide new facilities in existing parks and parkland to serve the recreational needs of these current and new residents. Without some minor parkland acquisition and continued development of currently owned parkland during the next twenty to thirty years, the City' s parks will become overcrowded and overused, ultimately becoming a negative experience for park users.

ExistingParks. arks.

Currently, the City of Highland residents enjoy approximately 136.42 acres of parkland ( city - owned and private). This is a significant achievement since the City was incorporated in November of 1987 without any parkland. As highlighted in the City' s General Plan, Chapter 5, Conservation and Open Space Element adopted in March 2006, the City' s future parkland ( given a projected build -out population between 67, 000 and 69, 000) should consist of approximately 138 acres of developed park and 35 acres of undeveloped natural parkland, based on the General Plan park standard of 2. 00 acres of developed parkland per 1, 000 population, and 0. 5 acres of undeveloped natural parkland per 1, 000 population.

The City' s parkland accomplishments are listed in Table 10- 1 below. One notable Highland recreational facility is the Highland Community Park ( 17. 5 acres). Within the Highland Community Park is the Jerry Lewis Community Center, consisting of a 30,000 square -foot multiuse facility containing a gymnasium, pool, several multi -purpose rooms, a kitchen, and offices, surrounded by the Community Park facilities and sports complex. A major Public Library and the San J. Racadio Environmental Learning Center are located nearby to the Community Center.

Additional recreational needs of the City are supplemented by the sports fields and playgrounds in the public and private schools within the City. The Beatty Middle School is one facility that is recognized as an activity city park through a joint -use school/ park facilities agreement with the Redlands Unified School District.

DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION

-95-
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development For residents who live within the East Highlands Ranch Planned Unit Development ( PUD) area, there is sufficient park space. It should be noted that East Highlands Ranch PUD document identifies the Ranch as having 113. 6 acres of active recreational space ( 58. 15 acres are documented in this report), including walking, hiking, or biking trails and 940. 3 acres of natural and visual open space for the private use of its residents. However, the active parks in the Ranch and other parkland noted with an asterisk in Table 10- 1 below are not counted toward the parkland requirements that must be met by the City because they are private.

The City owns approximately 76. 07 acres of parkland; Highland Community Park is the largest park. It represents 23% of the park system acreage and provides the greatest variety of active and passive uses. There are a total of 136. 42 park acres in the City when private parks are included in the total park inventory. If all city -owned and private park acreage is taken into consideration and applying the City' s General Plan park standard noted above, as of the date of this report, the City possesses a total standard of 2. 41 acres of parkland per 1, 000 population ( 136. 41 acres - [ 56, 546 1, 000] = 2. 41 acres). However, for the purposes of this report, only public parks ( i.e., 76. 07 acres), easily accessible by all residents in the City, have been counted toward the Mitigation Fee Act park standard.

It should be noted that the City currently has a DIF fund balance of $657, 717. This fund balance has been added to the current park inventory as acreage owned by the City. The calculation for the conversion of the DIF fund balance to currently owned park acreage is ($ 657, 717 DIF fund balance _ $ 737, 981, the combined cost of the acquisition and construction of a park acre = 0. 89 acres).

Table 10- 1 is the inventory of the existing park acreage.

Table 10- 1
Current Park Inventory
Park Name Park Size
Canyon Oaks 1. 00
Aurentia 12. 00
Highland Community 17. 50
Cunningham 2. 00
Sealey 0. 45
Oak Creek 3. 30
Sycamore Trail 2. 80
Beatty Middle School Joint Use 15. 00
Master Craft 0. 44
Trails/Multi-Use Parkways 15. 25
Mediterra 4. 13
Historic Iron Bridge Interpretive Center/Multi-use Trail 1. 31 East Highland Parks PUD/ DA * 58. 15
Glen Rose Ranch * 0. 50
San Carlo I Greens of Village & Marketplace SP * 1. 70
Park Acres Represented by DIF Fund Balance 0. 89
Total Acres in the City 136.42
Total Acres Applied to the Mitigation Fee Act Standard 76. 07 Note: * Private parks are to be excluded from the Mitigation Fee Act parkland ratio.

DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report -96-

Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development City Park Standard. Table 10- 2, below, is a comparison of the acreage of parks to the City of Highland' s current population and indicates that the City presently possesses a total standard of

1. 35 acres of owned parkland per 1, 000 residents ( 76. 07 acres - [ 56, 546 residents - 1, 000], rounded). The 1. 35 acres per 1, 000 residents is below both the benchmark of 3. 00 acres per 1, 000 persons contained in Section 66477 of the California Government Code relating to the dedication of parks and the City's adopted standard of 2. 00 acres of park space per 1, 000 residents. The existing standard is identified in Table 10- 2 following:

Table 10- 2
Calculation of Actual City -owned Park Acres Standard
Total Park Acres Owned 76. 07
Current City Population 56, 546
Population Stated in Thousands 56. 546
Acres per 1, 000 Population 1. 35
However, to be discussed later, the Quimby Act allows a minimum standard of 3. 00 acres per thousand population even ifthe City does not currently reach that standard. This is very important to the City of Highland as the park acres owned standard is only 1. 35 acres per 1, 000 population.

It should be noted that although the Quimby Act allows a standard of 3. 00 acres per thousand residents, the City has opted to set the Quimby Act standard to 2. 00 acres per thousand residents.

Therefore, all park calculations that fall under the Quimby Act will be calculated at a standard of

2. 00 acres per thousand residents.

Table 10- 3, on the following page, indicates the number of acres the City could acquire and develop based on the adopted Quimby Act Standard of 2. 00 acres per 1, 000 new residents.

Table 10- 3
Calculation of Future Developed Park Acres based
Upon the Quimby Allowable Standard of 2. 00 Acres/ 1, 000 New Residents Future Added Population 10, 228
Population Stated in Thousands 10. 228
Existing Quimby Act Standard Allowed 2. 00
Parks Acres Acquired through the Quimby Act 20.46
Table 10- 4 indicates the number of acres the City could acquire and develop if the Mitigation Fee Act Standard of 1. 35 acres per 1, 000 new residents were adopted and imposed.

Table 10- 4
Calculation of Future Developed Park Acres based
Upon the Mitigation Fee Act Allowable Standard of 1. 35 Acres/ 1, 000 New Residents Future Added Population 10,228
Population Stated in Thousands 10. 228
Existing Mitigation Fee Act Standard Allowed 1. 35
Parks Acres Acquired through Mitigation Fee Act 13. 81
Planned Improvements. In addition to the ongoing improvement of the existing 136. 42 acres3, the City could acquire between 13. 81 and 20.46 park additional acres and develop these new parks to DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 76 -97-
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development serve the additional residents anticipated to live in the City of Highland at build -out using the Quimby Act standard. Ifthe Mitigation Fee Act park standard is used, then the City could acquire

13. 81 additional acres. City staff has not proposed any new park configurations. The additional park acreage could be constructed in any of the following configurations:

Mini Parks - Often called pocket parks, sub -neighborhood parks, or play lots, they serve built-up, urbanized areas and are commonly developed in conjunction with specific plans, planned developments, and community centers. Canyon Oaks Park fits this category best.

Neighborhood Parks - From 10 to 20 acres, these are walking, or bike -to parks located within the neighborhood they serve. They include both active and passive designs and include such facilities as picnic areas, informal fields, tot lots, court games, passive green space, and off-street parking.

These facilities usually represent a separate property delineated by a fence.

Community Parks - These facilities are 20 to 40 acres with a service radius of 1. 5 miles. Their typical amenities include lighted sports fields and courts, picnic facilities, play areas, restrooms, off-street parking, pool, and service yards. Highland Community Park best fits the definition of a community park, but functions primarily as a sports facility.

Regional Parks - Consisting of 100 acres or more and attracting users from a service radius of up to an hour' s drive, these facilities contain a wide range of amenities from hiking areas, scenic areas, and major sports facilities. Using this criterion, numerous regional facilities are available to Highland' s residents, including the San Bernardino National Forest and the recreational facilities associated with three major universities.

Staff has not specifically identified any preferred combination of the above -sized parks that would total up to the roughly 20.46 acres of parkland that could be acquired through the adoption ofthe Quimby Act, deferring probably to the need for a Park and Recreation Facilities Master Plan.

However, staff has also indicated that they intend to recommend a schedule of park Impact Fees based upon the standard of 1. 35 acres per 1, 000 residents for Park Fees generated through the Mitigation Fee Act.

The park and recreation improvements that could be contained within the acres and the allowable Quimby standard ( Table 10- 3) is consistent with the City' s Conservation and Open Space Element. The General Plan provides that " The open space ratio established for the Highland is 2. 5 acres per 1, 000 residents, which includes a ratio of 2. 00 acres of developed park acreage and 0. 5 acres of undeveloped natural parkland. In California, park standards are provided by the Quimby Act of 1975, which gave cities the authority to pass parkland impact fees or dedication ordinances, recognizing the tremendous strain that local cities were under to provide enough parkland and open space for their residents. It is the City' s intention to exceed state -mandated minimums, which generally fall in the 4 to 5 acres per 1, 000 citizen range." The City' s current 1. 35 acres per 1, 000 population standard generally indicates that the City was incorporated without any owned parkland and thus would have great difficulty achieving the commonly accepted 3. 00 acre per 1, 000 residents target set by most municipalities and recreation and park special districts throughout Southern California.

CALCULATION OF PARK DEDICATION STANDARD AND IMPACT COSTS FOR

THE QUIMBY ACT
Unlike the other facilities discussed in this Report, the California Government Code contains specific enabling legislation for the acquisition and development of community and neighborhood DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report -98-
Page77
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development parks by a City. This legislation, codified as Section 66477 of the Government Code and known commonly as the " Quimby Act," establishes criteria for charging new development for park facilities based on specific park standards. This Report will recommend the adoption of Quimby - style Park fees over a Mitigation Fee Act -style development impact fee for developments requiring the subdivision of land and a Mitigation Fee Act impact fee for non -subdivided land.

It should also be noted that Impact Fees that fall under the Quimby Act can only be applied to detached dwellings that fall under the Subdivision Map Act.

The use of the fees generated by the Quimby Act differs from fees generated by the Mitigation Fee Act for one significant reason. The fees generated by the Quimby Act can be used for the rehabilitation of parks, whereas the fees generated by the Mitigation Fee Act can only be used to expand current park facilities and equipment and acquire and develop new parkland.

It is the recommendation of RCS that the fee receipts generated under the Quimby Act be kept in a separate fund from those that fall under the Mitigation Fee Act.

Allowable Park Standard Again, as stated earlier, under Section 66477 of the Government Code, the City may by ordinance charge new residential development based on a standard of up to

3. 00 acres per 1, 000 population even if the City does not presently possess a ratio of 3. 00 acres per 1, 000 for the existing population ifthe fee is generated through the Quimby Act. However, as stated previously, the City has decided to use the standard of 2. 00 acres per 1, 000 for the Quimby Act standard, consistent with the General Plan and the City' s Quimby Act ordinance.

The legislative body has adopted a general plan containing a recreational element, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards contained therein.

The city ... shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational facilities ... Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees.

Determination of Park Standard. As previously identified, the City currently has 1. 35 acres of owned and developed parkland per 1, 000 residents. However, both the City' s Quimby ordinance and the General Plan establish a parkland ratio of 2. 00 acres per 1, 000 residents.

Thus, this is the standard that will be applied.

Average Park Land Acquisition and Development Cost per Capita for the Quimby Act. The combined park/ open space land acquisition and development cost is $ 737, 981 per acre ($ 217, 800 for parkland acquisition and $ 520, 181 per acre for the park improvement development). If the City were to charge development for the maximum allowable amount of park acreage as allowed in the Quimby Act and as recommended here, then the City would need to acquire 2. 00 acres of new parkland for every potential 1, 000 new residents to the City. The 2. 00 acres of land acquisition and development per 1, 000 persons would be $ 1, 475. 96 or about $ 1, 475. 96 per new resident. Schedule 10. 1 calculates the cost to develop 2. 00 acres, which again represents the required parkland cost for 1, 000 persons. Table 10- 5 indicates the cost per type of residence based on the average number of occupants per dwelling.

Table 10- 5, on the following page, indicates the cost per type of residence based on the average number of occupants per dwelling.

DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 78 -99-
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 10- 5
Summary of the Maximum Quimby Park Development Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction
Residential Land Use
Persons Per
Dwellin
Fee Per
Person
Maximum Net
Fee Per Unit
Detached Dwellings 3. 550 1, 475. 96 5, 239
The impact fee for Detached Dwelling residential development involving the subdivision of land, as identified in Table 10- 5, should be adopted under the auspices ofthe Quimby Act.

CALCULATION OF IMPACT COSTS FOR THE MITIGATION FEE ACT
The Purpose of the Fee. As previously discussed, parks are one of the City' s important amenities to the residents of Highland. However, as the population of the City increases from new development, the existing parks will become overcrowded and overused. The park impact fee aims to expand existing parks' facilities and equipment to increase capacity to accommodate future development and acquire additional parkland to maintain the current LOS for current and future residents.

The Use of the Fee. The revenues raised from a properly calculated and supported Park Land Acquisition and Park Impact Fee would be used to expand current park facilities and equipment and acquire and develop new parkland.

The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and The Type of Development Project. The need is based on the recognition that an increase in the City' s residential population will result in an increase in demand for the existing parks system. To accommodate this new development, new park acres will need to be acquired, and existing facilities and equipment expanded to meet the increased demand from new residents.

The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Project Paying the Fee. Since residents are the primary beneficiaries of the City' s park system, only residential dwelling units have been used to calculate the fee. Park Impact Fees that are applied using the Mitigation Fee Act are distributed using the residential land uses detached, attached, and mobile home dwelling units. The Park Impact Fee is imposed on any land that is not subdivided.

The City standard is 13. 81 acres per 1, 000 population. follows.

Park -land Acquisition Costs. Land costs will vary significantly from one proposed park to another.

The parkland to be acquired should be suitable for park construction and is conservatively estimated at approximately $ 217, 800 per acre ( or $ 5. 00/ square foot) for parcels in the size ( five, DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022-23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report -100-

Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development ten, and twenty acres) required by the City. This is consistent with the cost of land suitable for residential dwelling development. This figure is used in the calculation of the Park Impact Fee. However, if a developer can show that the cost of the residential land they are developing is valued at less than the $ 217, 800/ acre figure, then the developer can seek an adjustment under the City' s DIF ordinance.

Park Improvements Construction Costs. Park improvement construction costs are estimated to be approximately $ 520, 181 per acre. The City does not have any more recent park construction history; thus, an average park cost schedule is included in Appendix C. Public Use ( community center) Facilities were not included in the cost calculation ( see Chapter 9).

Average Park Land Acquisition and Development Cost per Capita for the Mitigation Fee Act. As stated previously, the combined park/ open space land acquisition and development cost is $ 737, 981 per acre ($ 217, 800 for parkland acquisition and $ 520, 181 per acre for the park improvement development). If the City were to charge development for the Mitigation Fee Act Standard of 1. 35, then the City would need to acquire 1. 35 acres of new parkland for every potential 1, 000 new residents to the City. The 1. 35 acres of land acquisition and development per 1, 000 persons would be $ 996. 27 or about $ 996. 27 per new resident. Schedule

10.2 calculates the cost to develop 1. 35 acres, which again represents the required parkland cost for 1, 000 persons. Table 10- 6 indicates the cost per type of residence based on the average number of occupants per dwelling.

Table 10- 6
Summary of the Maximum Mitigation Fee Act Park Development Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction
Residential Land Use
Persons Per
Dwelling
Fee Per
Person
Maximum Net
Fee Per Unit
Detached Dwellings 3. 550 996. 27 3, 537
Attached Dwellings 3. 232 996. 27 3, 220
Mobile Home Dwellings 2. 315 996.27 2, 307
Park Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Calculation Example. Developers have been allowed to donate sites in the past, and it is in the City' s best interests to continue this practice. The size ofthe park needed to serve the proposed residential development is calculated by multiplying the number of single and Attached Dwelling residences to be developed by the average number of people living in the units and then multiplying by three acres per 1, 000 residents. The example, demonstrated in Table 10- 7, on the following page, calculates the developed park size required for a 500 Detached Dwelling unit development:

This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 80 -101-
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 10- 7
Example of Park Construction in Lieu of Fee
Park Development Requirement Share Cost Development
Cost
Total
Cost
Proposed # of Detached Homes 500 500
Average # of Persons per Dwelling 3. 550 3. 550
Anticipated Additional Population 1, 775 1, 775
Basis of Standard( persons) 1, 000 1, 000
Added Population Divided by 1, 000 1. 775 1. 775
Acres Required per 1, 000 Population Standard 1. 35 1. 35 Required Acres of Acquisition/ Development 2. 40 2. 40
Cost per Acre of Acquisition or Development 217, 800 520, 181 Total Park Impact Fee 522, 720 1, 248, 434 1, 771, 154
Acquisition/ Development Cost Per Acre $ 217, 800 + $ 520, 18 1 / acre)$ 737, 981 Park Acre Requirement for a 500 Detached Dwelling Unit Development 2. 40 As suggested in the example above, the City and a developer could reach an agreement on the park obligation in a number of ways. The following are a few such options. Note that each option produces the required $ 1, 771, 154 for 500 detached dwelling developments in a number of combinations of land, improvements, or fee payments.

Option 1. The developer could make a $ 1, 771, 154 Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee payment, and the City could use it ( and combine it with other park impact fees) to construct the park somewhere in the City. However, most large- scale developers would probably prefer that the park be very near, if not within, the proposed subdivision.

Option 2. The developer could construct and donate a developed park smaller in size and make a payment for any remaining acres required ofthe developer. This option is generally used when the proposed residential development is in excess of 500 homes. At no time, however, should a developer be able to receive a credit for constructing their entire park acre obligation as a neighborhood park and ignore the need for sports or community parks.

Option 3. The developer could construct a 2.40- acre park and dedicate it to the City. A developed park this size would represent the total $ 1, 771, 154 acquisition and development impact fee. This would not likely be an option for the smaller developments resulting in parks less than 3. 5 acres in size. Parks of this small size generate significant annual maintenance costs with little benefit beyond the immediate neighborhood, so they are not generally desired.

Option 4. The City could combine other impact fees with the developer' s 2.40-acre fee or actual park contribution to create a larger park, assuming the developer agrees to make the larger park parcel available.

Option 5. The developer could donate 8. 13 acres of undeveloped land ($ 1, 771, 154 total Park fee requirement - by $ 217, 800/ acre cost), and then the City could use other impact fees to develop it.

DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report -102-

Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development The key to understanding the flexibility of the options above is that each one represents the same amount in terms of a contribution to the City' s park system, with the result that the same amount has been contributed for each dwelling.

Land Acquisition Cost Adjustment Challenge. As mentioned previously, the use of $217, 800 as the default park land cost is based upon the assumption that park acreage would likely be close in proximity and thus similar in cost to residential land value of the private project the park is intended to serve. However, ifthe developer or contractor of a home can provide evidence ( acceptable to the City), in the form of a recent purchase agreement or appraisal of the property they will be developing, that the current land value is worth less than the $ 217, 800/ acre ( or $5. 00/ square foot), the impact fee could be adjusted downward accordingly by placing the actual cost of land acquisition into Schedule 10. 1. Again, if the City wishes to adopt such an adjustment, the terms under which the challenge may be made and proved should be included in the Impact Fee Ordinance.

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
Schedule 10. 1 contains the recommended Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Improvements Development Impact Fees.

Schedule 10.2 contains the recommended Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Improvements Development Impact Fees.

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1 Adoption of a Quimby Act fee requires a Park " plan" or General Plan element.

Z For residential dwellings under the Subdivision Map Act. 3 The Quimby Act does allow use of revenues raised by the adoption of a Quimby Act Park Impact Fee to be used for the rehabilitation of existing parks.

DIF REPORT 08/ 28/23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report -103-

Schedule 10. 1
Park Site Inventory
Quimby Act Fee
Park Name
Acres
Owned or
LT Lease
Developed/
Constructed
Acres
Canyon Oaks Park 1. 00 1. 00
Aurantia Park 12. 00 12. 00
Highland Community Park 17. 50 17. 50
Cunningham Park 2. 00 2. 00
Sealey Park 0. 45 0. 45
Oak Creek Park 3. 30 3. 30
Sycamore Trail Park 2. 80 2. 80
BeattyMiddle School Park Joint Use 15. 00 15.00
Master Craft Park 0.44 0. 44
City Community Trails 15. 25 15. 25
Mediterra Park 4. 13 4. 13
Historic Iron Bridge Interpretive Center/ Multi- use Trail 1. 31 1. 31 East Highland Ranch Parks PUD/ DA 58. 15 58. 15
Glen Rose Ranch Park (" 0. 50 0. 50
San Carlo 1 Park ( Greens of Village & Marketplace SP (" 1. 70 1. 70 Park Acres Represented b DIF Fund Balance 0. 89 0. 89
Total Park Inventory ( Including Private Acres 136.42 136. 42 Total Acres Applied to the Mitigation Fee Act Standard 76. 07 76. 07 Current City Population 56, 546 56, 546
Current Standard of Acre/ 1, 000 Population 1. 35 1. 35 jAcres/ ulation ard
pommendatiodn 1 3,1TI 1. 35 Quimby Act Rec,
000
Size 2. 00 11 2. 00
Construction Cost per Acre I F--$ 52-0, 7181
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre 217, 800
Total Cost perAcre 217, 800 520, 181
Cost X 2. 0 Acre/ 1, 000 Residents Standard $ 435, 600 $ 1, 040, 362 Population Served by Standard 1, 000.00 1, 000.00
Ac uisition/ Construction Cost per Resident $ 435. 60F $ 1 , 040. 36 Occupants/ Land Park Total Park Number Gross Park
Dwelling Acquisition Construction Costs I of Units Collections Cost per -Additional Resident 1 $ 435. 60 $ 1, 040. 36 $ 1, 475. 96 Detached Dwelling Units 3. 550 1, 546 3, 693
Attached DwellingUnits 3. 232 1, 408 3, 362
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 1

2. 315 1, 008 2, 408
5, 239 1, 426 7, 470, 814
4, 770 1, 592 7, 593, 840
3, 416 9 30, 744
Master Plan Capital Needs $ 15, 095, 398
Note: " private parks to be excluded from the Mitigation Fee Act parkland ratio lExisting ( 5/ 16/ 23) Development Fee Fund Balance $ 657, 717 Net Required Capital Total for Parks $ 15, 753, 115
DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION

-104-
Schedule 10. 2
Park Site Inventory
Mitigation Fee Act
Park Name
Acres
Owned or
LT Lease
Developed/
Constructed
Acres
Canyon Oaks Park 1. 00 1. 00
Aurantia Park 12. 00 12. 00
Highland Community Park 17. 50 17. 50
Cunningham Park 2. 00 2. 00
Sealey Park 0. 45 0. 45
Oak Creek Park 3. 30 3. 30
Sycamore Trail Park 2. 80 2. 80
Beatty Middle School Park Joint Use 15. 001 15. 00
Master Craft Park 0, 441 0.44
City Community Trails 15, 251 15. 25
Mediterra Park 4. 13 4. 13
Historic Iron Bridge Interpretive Center/ Multi- use Trail 1. 31 1. 31 East Highland Ranch Parks PUD/ DA *) 58. 15 58. 15
Glen Rose Ranch Park (*) 0. 50 0. 50
San Carlo I Park Greens of Village 8 Marketplace SP 1. 70 1. 70 Park Acres Represented by DIF Fund Balance 0. 891 0. 891 Total Park Inventory (Including Private Acres) 136. 42 136. 42 Total Acres Applied to the Mitigation Fee Act Standard 76. 07 76. 07 Current City Population 56, 546 56, 546
Population Divided by 1, 000 56. 546 56. 546
Current Standard of Acre/ 1, 000 Population 1. 35 1. 35 Acres/ 1, 000 Population Standard 1. 350 1. 350
Quimby Act Recommendation Size 2. 0001 2. 000
Construction Cost per Acre 520, 181
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre 217, 800
Total Cost per Acre 217, 800 520, 181
Cost X 1. 35 Acre/ 1, 000 Residents Standard 294, 030 $ 702, 244 Population Served by Standard 1, 000. 00 1, 000. 00
Acquisition/ Construction Cost per Resident 294. 03 $ 702. 24 Occupants/ Land FA. gluisition
Park
Dwelling Construction
Cost per Additional Resident I 294. 03 702. 24
Detached Dwelling Units 1

3. 550 1, 044 2, 493
Attached Dwelling Units 1

3. 232 950 2, 270
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 1

2. 315 681 1, 626
Note: * private parks to be excluded from the Mitigation Fee Act parkland ratio Total Park
Costs
Number
of Units
Gross Park
Collections
996. 27
3, 537 1, 426 1 $ 5, 043, 694
3, 220 1, 592 5, 125, 666
2, 307 9 1 20, 760
Master Plan Capital Needs $ 10, 190, 120
Existing ( 5116123) Development Fee Fund Balance $ 657, 717 Net Required Capital Total for Parks $ 10, 847, 837
DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION

-105-

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities
Adopt Schedule 3. 2, p. 33, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees
Chapter 4 - Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Adopt Schedule 4.2, p. 40, Marginal Need -based Impact
Fees
Chapter 5 - Local/ Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets, Signals, and Bridges) Adopt Schedule 5. 2, p. 55, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Adopt Schedule 5. 3, p. 56, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Chapter 6 - Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities Adopt Schedule 6. 2, p. 63, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Chapter 7 - General Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Adopt Schedule 7. 2, p. 68, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Chapter 8 - Library Facilities and Volume Collection
Adopt Schedule 8. 2, p. 72, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Chapter 9 - Public ( community center) Facilities
No Impact Fee charged.

Chapter 10 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Create Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund' Adopt Schedule 10. 1, p. 83, for residential uses requiring the sub -division of land for Quimby Act application
Create Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund Adopt Schedule 10. 2, p. 84, for residential uses not requiring the sub -division ofland for the Mitigation Fee Act application
1 Separate Park Land Acquisition and Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allows the use of receipts for the rehabilitation of existing facilities, whereas AB1600 requirements prevent such expenditures.

DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION

-106-
xOJ y 0 t C. c6 d
Qi
Z
y '
O
ns
c C
ca
c0
c=
c
u
m —
U
CL aci=
cU
rL
O
J
d
Q
w '
0 LL
O
U
C
c0
OS
Q
a
E
LLB x
m a0E m
M N
N
O
N
N
CO
1 O
co
N
O
co
O
Cr
N
coO
M
O
O
V
V
06 N
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
0 0
0 0
0 CO
O
N (
D
V
CO
CD
0)
m
n
N V
m
M00
0) '
T
V
Cn —
rn
rn
O
O
O
O
O
O
U')
O
O
O
O
O
Cc)
O
r
N
Cn
N
co
O —
CO
IO N —
T
Ln
O
U')
N
co
cli
LO
00 CD
M
O
O
N
co
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
O
O
O
V
cD
N
n
O
O
Cfl
co
M
M
R
v
LL
w
Y_
Vl
d1
O
N
LL
rn
Q O
2 fn
Y
O
y
3 0)
N
J
y
U
c) L
d
OS
N
C
Voo
U
y
0 Q
2 U
w
5 C.

N
O
CO
O
Ih
r (
D
C)
00 M
r
O
O
O
N
r
r
O
O M
C.

O
O
U)
In
O
o
0)
CO
CO
L6
O
O
r
00 0)
N
co
00 N
f—
O
r
M
N
00 M
r
O
r
T
cn
C,
r
0 CD
O
o
U')
u>
o
O
W;
tO
N
cM
CO
r
M
LO
M
r
N
cA
O
ccn
It
M
c—
r
CO
r
r
ui
co
00 N
r
O
O
O
O
C.

O
O
O
r
N
V
M
Co
LO
w
y
c
O E
C
d
O
C
d
3 '
a
LL
y
O
m
J
7 O —
cr
a •
Cc
N
C
L
y
03 y
y
m
E
c
U
E -
y
EMn
U
m
N
O
V
O
CO
N
O
O
N
CO
0) O
M
O
O
00 N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
UO
0 0
0 0
0 In
CD
O
N
CD
V
O
CD
M
M
Cn
O
O
N
O
O
r
O
N
O
N
O
V
o
O
O
O
O
OLO000OoO
U
CO
O
N
U)
N
cn
00 O
D
r
M
N
r
LO
CO
ICn
O
LO
N
co
CO
O
M
O
N
M
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
CO
N
rMD
O)
M
V
N 7
w+ 0a M
C V1
O
y
3 a
J
jB
u0i
p
E
Uca
u
O
O
L
0 cC
CD
S
E
U
cYa
E
y
13 Q
U
O 00 N 00 N M LJJ O Z
0- 0 LL LU 41
-107-
Appendix C
2006 Unit ENR% CurrmtCost Unit $ Acre NepNbortwad 16 Acre Communlry Park 11 20 Acre sports Park Public Imps, Road/ curb, gutter, etc 121 00 b-, Fool 184. 0% 222. 65 Lrear Foot Large Park Gradingllmgahorv' Tun 25, 5W Acre 1.. 0% 46, 920 Acre Small P, N Grztlirq/ Irrigabon? urt 300. Acre 184. 0% 56. 310 Acre Pkrt Mate 1
Treesfi, 24 Gal- Box/ Acre 2. W Eats 1. 0 % 368. 11 Each Trees- 15, 15Gallon/ A- 1o0. D3 Exn 1B4 g% i8M1. 01 Exh Shrubs- 10, Fne Gallon 1900 Earh 184. 0% 53496 Ears
Shrubs- 30 Cre Gallon 7W Each 184. 0% 1288 Each
Play aPP , etas
Play Appaatus- large 12D, OW Lot 1. o% E220, 810 Ut
Lary, Apparatus Curbing, 4`A' 1850 lirear Foot 184. 0% 34 o4 linear Foot Play Appamtus- Medium 80000 Lot 18d. 0% 147. 210 Ut
Medium Appamtus C,- g. 3] 5' 1- Urea, Fool 184. 0% 340 u-, Fmt Play Appa talus - Small 40000 Lot 184. 0% 73600 Lot
Small AParatus Curbing. 225' Et850 lirear Foot 184. 0% 3404 braar Fcot Ppparahs Sakty B-- 2 S0 Square Fod 1. 0% U 60 Square Fod Bu•.Mmgs
ReSroem- Srtea 60450 E- 1...$ 111230 ER.- - large 102, 300 Each 1840% 188, 260 EaNr EkcMcal S- Exkrsgn 15, 000 Each 184. 0% E2], 600 EnEq rr- Stc F ty 55, 800 E.. 184. 0% E102, 680 Each CRaslmom,:. aNanetl oncesswn Eats 186. 0% 3os, Q3D Each Parking lot Paddng
Space 4"A. 0 W/ G'Rxk base 102750 Space 1. 0% 52, 994.]1 Square kM Vguber 144 Lmar Foot 1840% 13691- 1 Fool Pain
lraet 744 Each 1B40% 1, 369. 01 E- Drainlr#
dCmrector 1, 209 Eadr 1840% E222464 Each Slone
Drainage CdkMm Lre E1600 Lma, Feot 1840% 3312 Lircar Foot Dina Approach 1614 E- 1040° b 3080. Exli PerimeterCw 9. 30 lirear Foot 1040% 1711 Linear Foot Parking Lot Striping 028 Lear Foot 1..% W52 linear Fcot EA-,
Street LghbN Standards 1674 Each t8a. 0% 3, 0600o Exh Lot Slgnage 1 Bfi Ul t840% 3d2. 25 Wt Storm
Oairape FaalNes ( pang nlels
m Exh 184. 0% 1 3] 0 Each CorrrMlw'
a 81, 209 EaW 184. 0% 2, 220 Exh Uk2I (
to aMerel) 1800 lirear Feot 1840% 33121inear Fwt Seaar
FariXcs Cmrerilrn
to Menal 1.- Lot 1840% 34201ot lire
In Street 14. SD Linear Foot 1- 2668 Lmar Foot Lre
m Park 1250 lima, Fool 1840% E2300 lirear Foot 5130
2190 E- 184. 0% Pa/ Exh Fire.,-
k Lphhrg 1Nal-,
lignhng Standards 1, 256 Earn 1Bd 0% 231D Ead1 DW
NbrkM' inrp 6] E- 1840% 141D Eacn Walk,
ey Ele I Wnng 1- Lima, Foo! 1. 0% 30 Earn Wale,
FaoMres 3Meter
1 BW Each 184. 0% A20 Each K' Barlalox
Derma 2 325 Each 184. 0% E4, 280 Exn lire in
Street 11 16 Lrear Fool 184. 0% 20 Lirear Fool Wa. r
Fwrtaire W51 W Each 1040% 1 200 Each Fountain Lees ,
1- 1116 Lrear Foot 1840% E20 tirear Fool Bencnes ab.
s Concrete Pmic
Tables 150 E- 184. 0% 1 .0 Exh T x
10 Cement Tab. Pads 1, OW Each 184. 0% 1930 Each Individual BBC G- 326 Ea: Ar 1840% 599. 86E- Cgm+ eleBarc
325 Each 1840% SBB 02 Each 3 x
6 Concrete Bence P,d, 270 Each 1840% 6% K Each aUlers Bk 255 3, Each 184o% I,- Each large Cweretl-.

Rarreda 57, 660 Each 1840% 106, 100 Each Individual Covered P.-Pad 13950 Eaon 1.0% 25670 Each User Elt-1 Service W. WO Each 1B4. o% 1711D E- Ekdrlcal Sp,r Gm area 1 163 Exh 1840% 2. 140 Each Game Couds 75, 600 BaSketballCoaM 50,
350 Full Coud 1840% 926.. 0 Each Baslretball Coud
Ui hlr E32, 550 Full Court E55, 800
CM 1040% A59,
890 Each Fenced Tennis
Couds 184. 0% 102, 680 Each Tennis Coud
lignfirg 325W Court 184. 0% 593890 Each Basebal Frets - Carp.- U5. 503 Field 1840% 85, 563 Eadr Balfield Uqg ,
1W, OW T•.w Feks 1.0% 342, 2W Pa!( ngfle. a Ba . 1-
Fl- aborul 13, 950 Fieltl 1840% 25, 670 EaO S-, Fk,
0 ( cmwrei) 16, 740 Field 184. 0% 30. 800 Each SlekpaM 1550 Square Fool 1840% 2850 E- P tleKHran WLkway5'..1de
20 W Unear Foot 184. 0% 36. 80 Urear Foot 6 +ide

24. W - a, Fool 1840% b4416 Umar Foot 9vntle
59600 Brea, Fmt 184. 0% 6624 Urea, Fmt Mrxelkneow FNN.
od! 15W Square FOIX 1840% 2760 Lmea, Foot Small Park
Slgrage E4. 65o Lot 1840% mo Lot Urge Park
Slgnage 15, W0 Lot 1840% 27. 600 Lot Ire Ra1395 Each 1840% 2, 570 Eaeh Natural Ek• merd Inp ,r- ( lake,, tc) 3]5, 000 Exh 1840% B..- E- C- 1 musk singe 29,060 Each 1840% 53470 Eats j256E90 Eadr
bandsnell 139. 500 Each 1- Total Metllum lvnpiNeater/ Cost Total Acres
Average Cost
per Acre Number of
Parks 71. Total Cost
of Parks 3? dOT004 Average Cost
Per Park Acre 520,1B1 1 fi0D $
374, 72 3363 E] 66, 10a 3,]B0 $ 841617 D $ 0
15 $ JD3, BOJ 20 $938, 400 s 8281
550 0 $0 0 $ 0 25 $ 9,
200 ] 5 $2), 601 50 E18401 $ 13BD1 225 $
4t402

1. $
WoE1? 48150 $
1932 5450

1. 5, 796 3W $ 3, 864 1660 $ 61624
1680 $ 74189
2, 94D $

1.- 3500 E234,
600 0 $0
2], 600
9 $ 23,
130 69J D20
2 $1W1 $ 255,
690 e T38Od2
15W 5582
536
25 62
bta, 809,
069 2542 DIF
REPORT
08/28/23 EDITION Page 87
-108-
End of Report
DIF REPORT 08/ 28/ 23 EDITION
-109-
Chapter 10
Park Land Acquisition
And Park Facilities Development
This Chapter summarizes the City' s existing inventory of parks and identifies the ratio of parkland per resident allowable under the Quimby Act (§ 66477 of the Government Code) for residential developments involving the subdivision of land and AB1600 (§ 66000) for the construction of residential developments not involving the subdivision of land. The existing per capita standard is then utilized to calculate the park dedication requirement for future residential development.

EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM
Open space notwithstanding, the addition of parks, trails, and recreational facilities constitutes one of the City of Highland's greatest needs, both with respect to facilities for current residents and future citizens. Providing a well -planned park system with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered is an important amenity to residents of any city, the City of Highland included. A mixture of passive and active uses and facilities and programs which appeal to a broad spectrum of potential park and trail users are considered optimal in most urban cities. By increasing the City' s population, future residential development will necessarily impact the City' s park system by requiring additional baseball fields and adequate space for various athletic activities. Given the magnitude of growth projected in this Report, the challenge facing the City will be to provide new facilities and parkland to serve the recreational needs ofthese new residents. Without some minor parkland acquisition and continued development of currently owned but underutilized parkland during the next twenty to thirty years, the City' s parks will become overcrowded and overused, ultimately becoming a negative experience for park users.

Existing Parks. Currently, the City owns approximately 54. 05 acres of parkland; Highland Community Park is the largest park and the only one that truly functions as either a sports or community - wide park. It represents 32% of the park system acreage and provides the greatest variety of sport uses.

Table 10- 1, on the following page is the inventory ofthe existing park acreage.

This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION

-110-
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 10- 1
Current Park Inventory
Park Size
Canyon Oaks Park 1. 0
Aurentia Park 12. 0
Highland Community Park 17. 5
Cunningham Park 2. 0
Sealey Park 0. 45
Oak Creek Park 3. 30
Sycamore Trail Park 2. 80
Beatty Middle School Park 15. 00
Total Aces Owned 54. 05
City Park Standard. Table 10- 2, below, is a comparison of the acreage of parks to the City of Highland' s current population and indicates that the City presently possesses a total standard of

0. 956 acres of owned parkland per 1, 000 residents ( 54. 05 acres + [ 56, 546 residents - 1, 000], rounded). The 0. 956 acres per 1, 000 residents is below both the benchmark of 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 persons contained in Section 66477 of the California Government Code relating to the dedication of parks and the City' s adopted standard of 2. 0 acres of park space per 1, 000 residents. The existing standard is identified in Table 10- 2 following:

Table 10- 2
Calculation of Actual City -owned Park Acres Standard
Total Park Acres Owned 54. 050
Current City Population 56, 546
Population Stated in Thousands 56. 546
Acres per 1, 000 Population 0. 956
However, to be discussed later, the Quimby Act allows a minimum standard of 3. 0 acres per thousand population even ifthe City does not currently reach that standard. This is very important to the City of Highland as the park acres owned standard for the City of Highland is a very modest

0. 956 acres per 1, 000 population.

Table 10- 3, on the following page, indicates the number of acres the City could acquire and develop if the Quimby Act Standard of 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 new residents were adopted and imposed.

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022-23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 75 -111-
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 10- 3
Calculation of Future Developed Park Acres based
Upon the Quimby Allowable Standard of 3. 0 Acres/ 1, 000 New Residents Future Added Population 10, 228
Population Stated in Thousands 10. 228
Existing Quimby Act Standard Allowed 3. 00
Parks Acres Acquired through Quimby Act 30. 68
Planned Improvements. In addition to the ongoing improvement ofthe existing 54. 050 acres', the City could acquire 30. 68 park additional acres and develop these new parks to serve the additional residents anticipated to live in the City of Highland at build -out. City staff has not proposed any new park configurations. The 30. 68 acres could be constructed in any of the following configurations:

Mini Parks - Often called pocket parks, sub -neighborhood parks, or play lots, they serve built- up, urbanized areas and are commonly developed in conjunction with specific plans, planned developments, and community centers. Canyon Oaks Park fits this category best.

Neighborhood Parks - From 10 to 20 acres, these are walking or bike -to parks located within the neighborhood they serve. They include both active and passive designs and include such facilities as picnic areas, informal fields, tot lots, court games, passive green space, and off-street parking.

These facilities usually represent a separate property delineated by a fence.

Community Parks - These facilities are 20 to 40 acres with a service radius of 1. 5 miles. Their typical amenities include lighted sports fields and courts, picnic facilities, play areas, restrooms, off-street parking, pool, and service yards. Highland Community Park best fits the definition of a community park, but functions primarily as a sports facility.

Regional Parks - Consisting of 100 acres or more and attracting users from a service radius of up to an hour' s drive, these facilities contain a wide range of amenities from hiking areas, scenic areas and major sports facilities. Using this criterion, numerous regional facilities are available to Highland' s residents, including the San Bernardino National Forest and the recreational facilities associated with three major universities.

Staff has not specifically identified any preferred combination of the above sized parks that would total the roughly 30. 68 acres of parkland that could be acquired through the adoption of the Quimby Act, deferring probably to the need for a Park and Recreation Facilities Master Plan.

However, staff has indicated that they intend on recommending a schedule of park impact fees based upon a standard of 1. 85 acres per 1, 000 residents. The Chapter will, however, be based upon the maximum allowable impact fee but will include the 62% adjustment to the fees at the end of the Chapter.

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report -112-

Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development The park and recreation improvements that could be contained within the acres and the allowable Quimby standard ( Table 10- 3) is not consistent with the City' s proposed Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan, which identifies 2. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents as the target standard.

It should be noted that there is a separate standard of 0. 5 acres per 1, 000 residents. The City' s current 0. 956 acres per 1, 000 population standard generally indicates that the City was incorporated without any owned parkland and thus would have great difficulty achieving the commonly accepted 3. 0 acre per 1, 000 residents target set by most municipalities and recreation and park special districts throughout Southern California. When General Plan build -out is reached and assuming that the City acquires the 44.4 acres it could by imposing an impact fee based upon

2. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents, the City ofHighland will need to acquire an additional 70 acres of parkland outside ofthe Quimby Act application to achieve afinal standard of2. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents, per General Plan.

The 1. 85 acres per 1, 000 standard suggested by staff would generate approximately nineteen acres of owned/ developed parkland or trails. The difference between the 1. 85 acres per 1, 000 residents proposed impact fee and the City' s adopted standard of 2. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents, or 0. 5 acres per 1, 000, would be financed with RDA revenues.

CALCULATION OF PARK DEDICATION STANDARD
Unlike the other facilities discussed in this Report, the California Government Code contains specific enabling legislation for the acquisition and development of community and neighborhood parks by a City. This legislation, codified as Section 66477 of the Government Code and known commonly as the " Quimby Act", establishes criteria for charging new development for park facilities based on specific park standards. This Report will recommend the adoption of Quimby - style park fees over an AB 1600- style development impact fee for developments requiring the subdivision of land and an AB 1600 fee for non -subdivided land.

Allowable Park Standard Again, as stated earlier, under Section 66477 of the Government Code, the City may charge new residential development based on a standard of 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 population even if the City does not presently possess a ratio of 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 for the existing population. Though not relevant to the City of Highland, the Government Code also enables a city to charge development based on a standard higher than 3. 0 acres ( to a maximum of 5. 0 acres) if the City currently exceeds the minimum benchmark ratio of 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 persons.

The law states, " ifthe amount of existing neighborhood and community park area ... exceeds the 3 acres of park area per 1, 000 persons] limit ... the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to exceed 5 acres per 1, 000 persons. i3 Park fees may be required by the City provided that the City meets certain conditions, including:

The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 77 -113-
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development The legislative body has adopted a general plan containing a recreational element, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards contained therein.

The city ... shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational facilities ... Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees.

Determination of Park Standard. As previously identified, the City currently has 0.956 acres of owned and developed parkland per 1, 000 residents. The current demonstrable standard of developed park land owned is significantly less than the 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 benchmark cited by the Quimby Act.

CALCULATION OF IMPACT COSTS
Once a per capita standard for parks is determined, the cost of residential development's impact on the City' s park system can then be computed as follows.

Park -land Acquisition Costs. Land costs will vary significantly from one proposed park to another.

The parkland to be acquired should be suitable for park construction and is conservatively estimated at approximately $ 217, 800 per acre ( or $ 5. 00/ square foot) for parcels in the size ( five, ten, and twenty acres) required by the City. This is consistent with the cost of land suitable for residential dwelling development. This figure is used in the calculation of the park impact fee.

However, the use of this figure could be criticized if a developer can show that the cost of the residential land they are developing is valued at less than the $ 217,800/ acre figure. The fee recommendation at the end of the Chapter will allow for such a challenge.

Park Improvements Construction Costs. Park improvement construction costs are estimated to be approximately $ 520, 181 per acre. The City does not have any more recent park construction history; thus, an average park cost schedule is included in Appendix C. Public Use ( community center) Facilities were not included in the cost calculation ( see Chapter 9).

Average Park Land Acquisition and Development Cost per Capita. The combined park/ open space land acquisition and development cost is $ 737, 981 per acre ($ 217, 800 for parkland acquisition and 520, 181 per acre for the park improvement development). Ifthe City were to charge development for the maximum allowable amount of park acreage as allowed in the Quimby Act and as recommended here, then the City would need to acquire 3. 00 acres of new parkland for every potential 1, 000 new residents to the City. The 3. 00 acres of land acquisition and development per 1, 000 persons would be $ 2,213, 940 or about $2,213. 94 per new resident. Schedule 10. 1 calculates the cost to develop 3. 00 acres, which again represents the required parkland cost for 1, 000 persons.

Table 10- 5, on the following page, indicates the cost per type of residence based on the average number of occupants per dwelling.

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report -114-

Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 10- 5
Summary of the Maximum Quimby Park Development Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction
Residential Land Use
Persons
Per
Dwelling
Fee
Per
Person
Maximum
Net Fee
Per Unit
Detached Dwellings 3. 55 2, 213. 94 7, 860
Attached Dwellings 3. 232 2,213. 94 7, 156
Mobile Home Dwellings 2. 315 2, 213. 94 5, 126
The impact fee for Detached Dwelling residential development involving the subdivision of land, as identified in Table 10- 5, should be adopted under the auspices of the Quimby Act. The impact fees for residential dwellings, not requiring the sub -division of a parcel, will need to be adopted as an AB 1600- supported impact fee. 4
Park Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Calculation Example. Developers have been allowed to donate sites in the past and it is in the City' s best interests to continue this practice. The size of the park needed to serve the proposed residential development is calculated by multiplying the number of single and Attached Dwelling residences to be developed by the average number of people living in the units and then multiplying by three acres per 1, 000 residents. The example, demonstrated in Table 10- 6, on the following page, calculates the developed park size required for a 500 Detached Dwelling unit development:

Table 10- 6
Example of Park Construction in Lieu of Fee
Park Development Requirement Acquisition
Cost
Development
Cost
Total
Cost
Proposed # of Detached Homes 500 500
Average # of Persons per Dwelling 3. 550 3. 550
Anticipated Additional Population 1, 775 1, 775
Basis of Standard( persons) 1, 000 1, 000
Added Population Divided by 1, 000 1. 775 1. 775
Acres Required per 1, 000 Population Standard 3. 00 3. 00 Required Acres of Acquisition/ Development 5. 33 5. 33
Cost per Acre of Acquisition or Development 217, 800 520, 181 Total Park Impact Fee 1, 159, 785 2, 769, 964 3, 929, 749 Acquisition/ Development Cost Per Acre $ 217, 800 + $ 520, 181/ acre 737, 981 Park Acre Requirement for a 500 Detached Dwelling Unit Development 5. 33 As suggested in the example above, the City and a developer could reach agreement on the park obligation in a number of ways. The following are a few such options. Note that each option produces the required $ 3, 929, 749 for 500 detached dwelling development in a number of combinations of land, improvements, or fee payment.

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report -115-
Page79
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Option 1. The developer could make a $ 3, 929, 749 Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee payment, and the City could use it (and combine with other park impact fees) to construct the park somewhere in the City. However, most large- scale developers would probably prefer that the park be very near, if not within, the proposed subdivision.

Option 2. The developer could construct and donate a developed park smaller in size and make a payment for any remaining acres required ofthe developer. This option is generally used when the proposed residential development is in excess of 500 homes. At no time, however, should a developer be able to receive a credit for constructing their entire park acre obligation as a neighborhood park and ignore the need for sports or community parks.

Option 3. The developer could construct a 5. 33- acre park and dedicate it to the City. A developed park this size would represent the total $ 3, 929, 749 acquisition and development impact fee. This would not likely be an option for the smaller developments resulting in parks less than 3. 5 acres in size. Parks of this small size generate significant annual maintenance costs with little benefit beyond the immediate neighborhood, so they are not generally desired.

Option 4. The City could combine other impact fees with the developer' s 5. 33- acre fee or actual park contribution to create a larger park, assuming the developer agrees to make the larger park parcel available.

Option 5. The developer could donate 11. 03 acres of undeveloped land ($ 3, 929, 749 total park fee requirement+ by $217, 800/ acre cost), and then the City could use other impact fees to develop it.

The key to understanding the flexibility of the options above is that each one represents the same amount in terms of a contribution to the City' s park system with the result that the same amount has been contributed for each dwelling.

Land Acquisition Cost Adjustment Challenge. As mentioned previously, the use of $217, 800 as the default park land cost is based upon the assumption that park acreage would likely be close in proximity and thus similar in cost to residential land value ofthe private project the park is intended to serve. However, ifthe developer or contractor of a home can provide evidence ( acceptable to the City), in the form of a recent purchase agreement or appraisal of the property they will be developing, that the current land value is worth less than the $ 217, 800/ acre ( or $5 . 00/ square foot), the impact fee could be adjusted downward accordingly by placing the actual cost of land acquisition into Schedule 10. 1. Again, ifthe City wishes to adopt such an adjustment, the terms under which the challenge may be made and proved should be included in the Impact Fee Ordinance.

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact
-116-
Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 80
Chapter 10 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Improvement Impact Fee Adjustment. As stated earlier in the Chapter, staff has indicated that it intends on recommending that the Park Impact Fee Schedule be based upon a standard of 1. 85 acres per 1, 000 persons. The Highland General Plan specifies a standard of 2. 5 acres of parkland and open space per 1, 000 residents. The adjustment to the fee calculation is made by simply multiplying the 3. 0 acres per 1, 000- person standard by 62%. The impact fees for this infrastructure at the 62% adjustment would be:

Table 10- 7
Summary of Park Land et al. Impact Fee and Open Space Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction
Residential Land Use Park Land
Impact Fee
100%
Impact Fee
Adjustment
62%
Adjusted
Impact Fee
Unit
Detached Dwellings 7, 860 62. 0% 4, 846
Attached Dwellings 7, 156 62. 0% 4, 412
Mobile Home Dwellings 5, 126 62. 0% 3, 161

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
Schedule 10. 1 contains the recommended Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Improvements Development Impact Fees.

CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1 Adoption of a Quimby Act fee requires a Park " plan" or General Plan element.

Z The Quimby Act does allow use of revenues raised by the adoption of a Quimby Act Park Impact Fee to be used for rehabilitation of existing parks.
3 California Government Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 66477 ( b); This is necessary because the Quimby Act is referenced in the Subdivision Codes. Thus, it may be necessary for the City to have two separate park impact funds to insure that no AB1600 park impact fee revenues are used for rehabilitation purposes.

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION
City of Highland 2022- 23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report rage 81 -117-
Schedule 10. 1
Park Site Inventory
Quimby Fee for Land Acquisition
AB 1600 Fee for Park Construction
Park Name
Acres
Owned or
LT Lease
Developed/
Constructed I I Acres
Canyon Oaks Park 1. 000 1. 000
Aurantia Park 12. 000 12. 000
Highland Community Park 17. 500 17. 500
Cunningham Park 2. 000 2. 000
Sealey Park 0. 450 0. 450
Oak Creek Park 3. 300 3. 300
S camore Trdlail Park 2. 800 2. 800
Beatty Mide School Park 15. 000 5. 080
Park Acres Represented by DIF Fund Balance 0. 891 0. 891 Total Park
lCurrent City ion 5 46
6, 546
Current Standard otAcre/ 1, 000 Po ulation 056 0. 7961 y IQuimby Act Recommendation Sze 3. 000 1 L 33. 000 Construction Cost perAcre 520, 181 Land
Acquisition Cost per Acre 217, 800 Total
Cost per Acre 217, 800 520, 181 Cost
X 3. 0 Acre/ 1,000 Residents Standard 653, 400 $1, 560, 543 Population Served by Standard 1, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 A
uisition/ Construction Cost per Resident 653. 40 $1 560. 54 Occupants/ Land Park Dwelling
Ac uisition Construction Cost
er Additional Resident 653. 40 1, 560, 54 Detached
Dwelling Units 3. 55 2, 320 5, 540 Attached
Dwelling Units 3. 232 2, 112 5, 044 Mobile
Homes Dwelling Units 2. 315 1, 51311 3, 613 Total
Park Costs
Number
of
Units Gross
Park Collections
2,
213. 94 7,
860 1, 426 11, 208, 360 7,
156 1, 592 11, 392, 352 5,
126 9 46, 134 Master
Plan Capital Needs $ 22, 646, 846 Existing
5/16123 Development Fee Fund Balance $657, 717 Net
Required Capital Total for Parks $ 23, 304, 563 DIF
REPORT 07/06/ 23 EDITION Page
82 -118-
Schedule 10. 2
Park Site Inventory
Quimby Fee for Land Acquisition
AS 1600 Fee for Park Construction
Park Name
Acres
Owned or FLT Lease
Developed/
Constructed
Acres
Canyon Oaks Park 1. 000 1. 000
Aurantia Park 12. 000 12. 000
Highland Community Park 17. 500 17, 500
Cunningham Park 2. 000 2. 000
Sealey Park 0. 450 0. 450
Oak Creek Park 3. 300 3. 300
re Trail Park 2. 800 2. 800
Middle School Park F5 5551 F 5. 080
Park Acres Represented by DIF Fund Balance1 0. 891 0. 891 Total Park Inventory 54. 050 45. 021
Current City Population 56, 546 56, 546
Population Divided by 1, 000 56. 546 56. 546
Current Standard of Acre/ 1, 000 Population 0. 956 0. 796 Acres/ 1, 000 Population Standard 0. 956 0. 796
Quimby Act Recommendation Size 1. 850 11 1. 850
Construction Cost per Acre 520, 181
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre 217, 800
Total Cost per Acre 1 $ 217, 8001 L $ 520, 181
Cost X 3. 0 Acre/ 1, 000 Residents Standard 402, 930 $ 962, 335 Population Served by Standard 1, 000. 00 1, 000. 00
Acquisition/ Construction Cost per Resident I$ 402. 93 $ 962. 34 Occupants/ Land Park
Dwelling Ac uisiIIon Construction
Cost per Additional Resident 402. 93 962. 34
Detached Dwelling Units 3. 55 1, 430 3, 416
Attached Dwelling Units 3, 232 1, 302 3, 110
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 2. 315 933 2, 228
Total Park
Costs
Number
of Units
Gross Park
Collections
1, 365. 27
4, 846 1, 426 6, 910, 834
4, 412 1, 592 7, 024, 354
3, 161 9 28, 447
Master Plan Capital Needs 1 $ 13, 963,635
Existing ( 5/ 16/ 23 Development Fee Fund Balance $ 657, 717 Net Required Capital Total for Parks $ 14, 621, 352
DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION Page 83
-119-

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities
Adopt Schedule 3. 2, p. 33, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees
Chapter 4 - Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Adopt Schedule 4. 2, p. 40, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees
Chapter 5 - Local/ Regional Circulation Systems ( Streets, Signals, and Bridges) Adopt Schedule 5. 2, p. 55, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Adopt Schedule 5. 3, p. 56, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Chapter 6 - Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities Adopt Schedule 6. 2, p. 63, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Chapter 7 - General Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Adopt Schedule 7. 2, p. 68, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Chapter 8 - Library Facilities and Volume Collection
Adopt Schedule 8. 2, p. 72, Marginal Need -based Impact Fees Chapter 9 - Public ( community center) Facilities
No Impact Fee charged.

Chapter 10 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Create Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund' Adopt Schedule 10. 2, p. 82, for residential uses requiring the sub -division of land for Quimby Act application
Create AB 1600 Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund Adopt Schedule 10. 2, p. 82, for residential uses not requiring the sub -division ofland for AB 1600 application
1 Separate Park Land Acquisition and Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allows the use of receipts for the rehabilitation of existing facilities, whereas AB1600 requirements prevent such expenditures.

DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION Page84
-120-
Z xm n a 0 0
a
t d
a y
c
m •
a
x
C
W
3 aa)
c
U
CL
O
J
a)
Q
a_
T+ '
O
LL
U )
a
O_
E
xW =
N
NO MN d m a
0Ed
N
o
V
O
CO
N
O
CO
0)
N
O
O
M
O
O
V
V
06 N
O
O
O
O
O
O
L()
0 0
0 0
0 C)
O
N
CO
V
Ln
O
O
M
Ln
O
V
Ln
co V
N
O
O
O
N
O
CC)
O
V
C'
LC)
O
O
O
o
0 0
0 0
L0
o
0 0
0 0
Lf)
O
N
L0
N
00 O
D
pN
r
O
V
Lf)
O
Ln
N
C)
N
L )
Cl)
O
I -
co
O
6)
O
N
M
O
O
o
C)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
r
V
N
CD
3)
D00
v M
y
d Y LL
3•
rn
Y
O
E
O
O
p
O
UL
d
f0
E
N
y
o
E
Lo
Q
U
w
O
N
O
00 O
r
r
O
C
00 M
r
O
O
C.

N
r
r
O
O M
O
O
O
Ln
W
o
O
T
00 tD
Ln
O
O
r
00 O
N
to
co
n
o
r
M
N (
b
M
r
O
r
Cn
Ln
M
r
0 0
0 0
Ln
Lo
o
0 to
tO
N
n
M
CO
r
M
Ln
m
r
N
10 O
n
Lo !*
M
h
r
CO
r
r
Lfl (
D
W
N
r
0 0
o
O
Cl
O
o
C.
tf
N
of
00 Cl)
00 Lo
l0J C
N
D
V
O
D
N
O
O
O
N
fl
O
Cl)
O
O
d
M
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
0 0
0 0
0 O
O
N
Co
V
O
r
CEO
V
Lo
0 V
N
3)
O
O
N
O
00 O
V
V
Lf)
O
m
0 0
0 D
0 0
Lii
O
O
o
0 0
Lh
O
r
N
LC)
N
00 O
r
D
O N
V
Ln
O
Lo
N
Cl)
O
W
0 0
N
M
I
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O
o
0 0
0 O
V
0 N
t`
O
O
O
00 Cl)
M
V
V
0 Lo
Lri
M
Ln
0 N 7 Y 0 Ln Cl) 0
A
Y
n
C)
O
0 n
O
O
U
L)
t
c.)
m
E
n
6E
27 Q
U
DIF
REPORT
07/
06/
23 EDITION
-121-
y
7Xd
O
O. 1) t aQ m
D
Z
n
a
m m
m
m
is
X_
t (
n
7 a .

O1
O
w
CL m = =
U
a °
J
O
Q
w
a
LL
a
w
c
m
m
O
a
E
x _ W
d a
OE m
N
N
O M
N 0
0)
T
l
M
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
to
O
O
O
O
O
CO
O
N
Qo
C
Ln
O
O
7 Lf )
CO
V
In
v
co0)•
lVN
Lr)
6)
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
U)
0 00
0 0
Ln
O
N
Ln
N
00 O
f
O
fD N
V
Ln
O
Lo
N
O
N
Ln
Cl)
O
f`
oz
O
O
O
N
M
ti
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 C
0 0
0 0
O
V
O
N
0')
D
00 M
co
v
N 11
Y
Y_
O y
C
c
o3,
a
Y
m
O
w
Vi
O
C,
E
m
y
a
O
w
L
m
f6
U
E
in
m
0 a
O
N
O
00 O
Ir
O
O
00 M
r
a)
m
O
N
r
r
O
0 M
a
o
O
Lf)
O
O
O
O
O (
D
to
O
O
r
00 O
N
co
Ln
Ll
00 n
O
r
M
N
00 Cl)
r
O
r
fn
Ln
f")
r
O
O
O
O
Ln
Ln
O
O
to (
i
N
h
Cl)
00 r
Cl)
Lo
M
r
N
Lo
O
h
U)
7 Cl)
n
r
00 r
r
Ln (
L1
00)
o N
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
4 N
4 00
M
00 Ln
L6
ay+ v
y
c
E
Z)
O
LT
a) o
N
N
LL
3 '
o(LT
La
y
J
3 s
o
T
U)
a m
L (
n
m
y (
nCD
w
c
y
E
y
U
m
y
C
w'
3 Q
c
m
N
o
R
O
co
N
O
D
O
N
fl
m
co
O
O
V
T
06 N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U)
O
O
O
O
O
to
co
O
N
o
V
to
Lf)
co
6)
CO
U)
O
QD
V
U)
Cn
v
0)
N
N
m
O
V
V
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U')
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
Lo
O
N
Ln
N
to
00 O
r
O
fM
N
r
Lo
CD
tt
Ln
O
Lf)
N
0 N
Ln
Cl)
O
fl00
O
O
O
N
M
I
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
r
O
r
V
fl
N
l'
N
W
00 M
v
3 w O m Ln
w
y
D
y
y
m
O
6)
O w
3 d
d
J
cmi
o
E
w
ya
a= d
Ld
mfn
im
wa
a d
E
N
E
g
0)
OQ
U
DIF
REPORT
07/
06/
23 EDITION
-122-
Appendix C
2006 Unil ENR% Current Cost Unit SAcre Neighborhood 15 Acre Community Park 20 Acre $ ports Park Public Imps, Roatllcurt, gutter, etc $ 121 W linear Foot 184. 0°b $ 222. 65 Linear Fool 1 680 $ 3I4052 3360 $] 48, 106 3, 780 S141 117 larye Park Gratlingllydgatlonrtun $ 25, SC0 Acre 1840% 846,920 Acre 0 BD 15 S] W,BW 20 $ 938, 4W Small Park Gmtling/ Irngal10 . 0 $ 30fi00 Acm 184. 0% $ 56, 310 Acre 5 $ 2B1 S50 0 80 0 80 Plant Maleral:

Trees 5 24 G Ike Boz/ Acre $ 200. OJ E- 1B4 0 % $ 388. 01 Exh 25 $ 9 2W 75 $ 2? W 1 50 $ 18, 401 Trees- 15, 15 Gallon/ Acre $ 100. W E- 1840% $ 18401 Each ] 5 $ 13, 801 225 $ 41402 300 Y55. 2J3 8hmbs- 10, Frve Gallon $ 19W E- 184 U% $ 3496 E- W $ 1148 150 $ 5, 244 100 $ 3496 Shrubs- 30, One Gallon $ 700 E- 184 U% 81288 Eadr 150 $ 1, 932 450 S5.] 56 WO $ 3, B6d Playappa
M. Y Apparatus - Large $ 120, W0 ttl 1840% $ 220, 811 Lot 0 $ 0 1 S221.- 1 E220, e10 La rge Apparatus Curving, 459 $ 18W Umar Fool 1e4. 0% $ 34.04 Linear Fmt 0 $ 0 450 $ 15. 318 45p $ 15, 318 Pl, y Apparatus - Medium $ 80, WJ Ld 18d. 0% $ 147, 210 Lot 1 $ 147. 210 2 $ 2.- 1 $ 147, 210 M' etlium Appamtus Curbing, 375 $ 1880 Lrear Fool 184. 0° b $ 3d. 0a Lirea, Fool 3] 5 $ 12,] 65 ] 50 $ 21, 530 375 $ 12, 765 Play Apparatus - Small $ a0, 000 Lot 1840% $] 36W Lot 0 SO 2 E14], 2W 1 E] 36W Small Aparatus Curbl" 225' $ 18. 50 Lmar Fact 184. 0% $ 34. 04 Linear F. 1 0 $ O 450 $ 15, 318 225 $ 7. 659 Appalatus Sakty Su w $ 250 Square Fod 184. 0% $ 460 Square Fool 8, 789 $ 40,429 36, 562 $ tfiB 185 24I. $ 113, 201 Buddrtgs
Resdoom- Snell $ 804. Each 1840% 81112W Each 0 $ 0 1 $ 111, 2W 1 $ 1112W Restroom- Large $ 102, 3W Each 184. 0% 81882d0 Each 0 i0 1 Et 88, 2. 1 5188, 240 Electrical.- Exereipn $ 15, 000 Eadl t84. 0% S2], 6W Each 0 EO 2 $ 55, 2W 2 $ 55, 2W Eguipm Stprege Faoldy $ 558W E- 184. 0°b E102, 6W Each 0 $ 0 0 SO 1 $ 102, 680 Combired ReshoorNGomersron $ 16144W Each 1840% 43W. 030 Each 0 $ 0 1 $ 311, 030 2 $ 616, OfA Pa ti g Lot
Pandrg Space 4 A.0 WI6" Rock base $ 1, 62] W Space 184. 0% $ 2, 994.] 1 Square foot 8 $ 23, 958 150 $ 44920] . 0 $ 119], 884 V- gutter $ 744 lima, Fo 1840% $ 13M U- Foot 96 $ 1314 1, 800 $ 24, 642 4800 $ 65, 712 pram kkf $] 44 E- 1840% $ 13fi9. 01 Each 1 E1, 3fa5 8 $ 10, 268 20 $ 2? 3W gain klet COrmdor $ 12W EaU 1840% 52,22484 Each E2225 B E16,EB5 20 $ 44, d93 Sloan pvnage Corednn Lure $ 18 W lima, Fod 184. 0% $ 33. 12 Li, ea, Foot 144 $ 4 7% 2,] 00 $ 99, 424 7, 2W $ 238, 464 Drive AppreaGr $ 1, 6] 4 Each 1840% 53, OBO. W Each 1 $ 3, 080 4 $ 12, 320 6 $ 18, 480 Perimeter Curbing 89. 30 Lima, Fod 1840% $ 1]. 11 Lima, Foot 490 $ 8, 384 3, 6C0 $ 6159fi 9, W0 E72 Parldrg Lot Striping $ 028 Umar Font 18d. 0° b $ 052 linear Fmt eD $ 42 1, 500 $] 80 4, OW 820E0 Exterior Street Ughting Stard Ns $ 1 fi14 Each 1e4. 0% $ 30W Eatlr 4 $ 12, 320 18 & 55, 440 21.$ fi1600 Lot Signage E1 B6 Lot 184. 0% E342. 25 Ld 1 $ 342 3 $ 102] 3 $ 102] Slone Drainage Fxll2es tin park)
Inlets $ 744 Eadr 184. 0° b $ 13] 0 EaM 2 $ 2,] 40 30 $ 411W 40 $ 54, B00 Conrechors $ 1209 Each 184. 0% $ 2. 220 Exh 2 § 4440 6 $ 13, 320 8 81 ], IW late2l ( to arsenal) $ 18 W unear Foot 184. 0° b $ 33. 12 Lima, Fool 1050 E34,]] fi 4,] 25 5156, 492 63W . $ i
f 6
Sewer Faolds
Conrechon bAneral $ 1860 Lot 1840° b $ 3, 420 Lot 0 80 2 $ 5840 2 56,840 lire in Street $ 145C Urea, Fool 184. 0% $ z8fi8 Urea, Fcot o SO 120 $ 3202 12E $ 3202 Line In Park $ 1250 Umar Foot 184. 0% E23.W Lima, Foot 0 SO 630 $ 14, 4W 630 814, 49J Fre HytlmM E2,] W E- 184. 0% SS, 1W EaCI $ 5, 1W 4 $ 20, 520 5 $ 25 C50 Pant Ughbrg
Walkvray Lighting StantlaNs S1, 256 Each 184. 0% E- 0 W 252 4582, 125543. 312 Duct WorkAMring $]
Eledical Waing50
6]
Umar
E84.

Fool 1840
0%
0 EO 13, 120
E393, 600 6830 $ 264, 900
Water Faal3' Meter $ 1 BW Ea 186. 0° b $ 3420 Eadr 1 $ 3420 1 $ 3, 420 $ 3, 420 K' BaticMw Device $ 2, 325 Exh 1840% $ 4, 280 Eadr 1 $ 4280 1 $ 42. Ea, 280 line in Street $ 1116 lima, Fod 184. 0% $ 20 Linear Fool 1320 $ 26, 4W 120 $ 24W 120 $ 26W Water FOuntaire S15100 E.. 184. 0% $ 1, 2W 1- 1 $ 12W 8 $ 96W 12 $ 14, 4W Fountain Lutes in Park $ 11. 16 lima, Fod 1840% $ 20 linear Foot 200 $ 4, 000 1 000 $ 20, 000 10W $ 20,5 BeMles/ fables
Corcrete Pwrc Tables $] BO Eadi 184. 0% $ 1380 EaU d $ 5, 520 W S82, EW 30 $ 414W T x 10 Cement Tabk Pads $ 1050 Each 1840% $ 1930 EM4$ 1 W E115, EW 30 $ 5J, 9D3
hdrvldual BBC Grills $ 326 1- 184. 0% $ 599. BB Each
W Et ], 996 10 $ 5, 999
Concrete Bendles $ 325 Each 1. 0% $ 590. 02 Exh 30 $ 11, 941 15 $ 8, 9] 0 3, 6 Corxrete Bench Pads $ 270 E- 184. O% $ 496. 82 Each W $ 1 d, 905 15 $? 452
Bleachers 53255 Each 1. 0% 55. 990 E- 0 $ 0 1d $ 838W
Lage W, ered pave Ramada $ 5] 6W Eadr 1840% $ 1W, 1W Each 2 $ 212, 2W 0 SO IntlrvidualCovered Picnic Patl $ 13, 95O E.& 184. 0% $ 25, 670 Exh Eleclrcal S.- $ 93W Each 1840% $ 1], 110 Each
2$
2 $
513,
3d,4220 1 $ 17110
ElxEial Sernce per Gmup area E11fi3 Each 184. 0% $ 2140 Each 6 812, 840 58, 560 Lama Colxm $ 75, fi00
BaSremall Courh $ 50, 350 Full e0urt 18d0% W20550 Each 0 SO 2 $ 185, 3W 4 $ 3] 0, 600 Basketball Coun LgMing $ 32, 560 Full Court 1. 0% $ 59, 890 Each 0 W 0 SO 4 $ 239, 5W Fenced Tennis Courk $ 55, IW Corot 184. 0% $ 102, 680 Each 0 SO 2 $ 205, 3W 6 $ 616, 0e0 Tennis Court Lighting $ 32, 550 Court 1840% $ 59, BW Enh 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 6 $ 359, 340 Baseball Feeld- CompelNve 548,500 Fick 184. 0% $ 85, S60 Each 0 SO 0 SO 6 5513, 3fi0 Ball! kUghbr $ t86,W3 Two Feks 184. 0° b $ 342, 2W Per two fieks 0 W 0 W 3 $ 1026,] W Baseball Feld- Reaeatwnal $ 13, 950 Fiek t84. 04 $ 25, 6] O Each 1$ 25,6] 0 fi E154, 020 0 EO Sower Frek ( waxed) $ 16,] 40 Fek 184. 0°b $ 30,80 Each 0 SO 0 $ O 4 $ 1232W Slatepark $ 15 W Square Foot 184. 0% $ 28. 50 E- 0 $ 0 14, 4W $ 410, 4W 21, 6W 5615, 600 6 w
Ped- Walkway
5' ke $ 20. W Lmar Fod 184. 0% 536. 80 Lirear Fool 1680 $ 51324 1, W0 $ 6t, 82d 1050 $ 38, 640 6 wke $ 24W Lnea, Fod 1. 0% S44. 16 L.- Foot 1fi80 $ 74, 189 1680 $ 74, 189 1050 $ d6, 388 9 witle $ 38W Urea, F. 1. 0% $ 66. 24 Lima, FWt 0 $ 0 2,. 0 $ 194, 746 3, 780 $ 250, 387 Mlvxlkneols Flatwodt $ 15 W Square FWt 1840% $ 27W Linear Fool 500 $ 13, 800 8, 500 $ 234, EW 4, WO $ 110, 400 Small Park Slgnage 84 fi5'3Lot 1840% $ B. SfiO LIN 1 $ 8, 560 0 W 0 SO Large P- Sgnage $ 15, 000 Lot 1840% $ 270600 Lot 0 $ 0 1 $ 270Cll0 1 $ 27, EW Ire RadvPatl $ 1, 395 Exh 184. 0% . SI$] O E.. 2 $ 5, 1d0 9 $ 23, 130 12 $ 30, 840 Natval Element Irryma: me7 ( lalre, dc) $375, 000 Each 184 0% 5690, 020 Each 0 SO 1 $ 6% 0020 0 SO Srrell rorrvete rtage $ 29, 000 EaM 1840A 3534] 0 Each 1 $ 53, d] 0 2 Et W, 940 1 $ 53, d] 0 Medium Amp4heaterlbandlhdl $ 139, SW Exh 1841% $ 256, 69J Each 0 BD 1 $ 256, 69J 0 BD Total Cost $ 1 39],3% $ B,] 38, Od2 $ 11 293, fi1fi Total
Acres 5 W 15. 20. W Average
Cost per Acre $ 2) 9 480 b562, 536 E56d fief Number
of Parks 71 90 1281 25. 42 33 6] Total
Cost of Parks $ 37, 401, W4 $ 3, SBO, t34 $ 14, BOB, W9 $ 19, 012802 Average Cost Per Park Acre $520, 181 t2 81 25 42 33. 6] DIF
REPORT 07/06/ 23 EDITION Page
87 -123-
End of Report
DIF REPORT 07/ 06/ 23 EDITION
-124-

EXHIBIT B
-125-
TAM
Al
17 17
-126-
Master Facilities Plan
for the City of Highland,
California
July, 2023
-127-
Project City of Highland Page
Number Master Facilties Plan Project Index Number
Guide to Master Facilities Plan 1
Cost Summary of Master Facilities Plan Projects 6
Law Enforcement Facilities 10
Law Enforcement Facilities Cost Summary 11
LE- 01 Construct Police Station( Completed) 12
LE- 02 Police Station Expansion 13
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 14
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Sumnmary 15 FD- 01 Relocate Station# 1 16
FD- 02 Construct Station# 4( Greenspot Road)( Deleted) 17 FD- 03 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles for Station# 4 ( Deleted) 18 FD-04 Acquire Additional Fire Fighter Equipment( Deleted) 19 FD- 05 Acquire Specialty Vehicle 20
Circulation Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges 21
Circulation Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges Cost Summary 22 ST-01 Interstate 210 , Del Rosa Interchange( Deleted; Not in Highland) 26 ST- 02 Interstate 210, Baseline Interchange( COH Fair Share) 27 ST- 03 Interstate 210, 5th Street Interchange( COH Fair Share) 28 ST- 04 3rd Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 29
ST- 05 3rd Street, Del Rosa Drive To Shirley 30
ST- 06 3rd Street, Victoria to Cunningham ( Completed) 31 ST-07 3rd Street, Cunningham to Central ( Completed) 32 ST- 08 3rd Street, Central to Palm( Completed) 33
ST- 09 3rd Street, Palm to 5th ( Completed) 34
ST- 10 5th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 35
ST- 11 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities( FC- 05) 36 ST- 12 5th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Shirley 37
ST- 13 5th Street, Sterling to Victoria 38
ST- 14 5th Street, Victoria to Cunningham ( Completed) 39 ST- 15 5th Street, Cunningham to Central( Completed) 40 ST- 16 5th Street, Cunningham to Central Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) 41 ST- 17 5th Street, Central to Palm( Completed) 42
ST- 18 5th Street, Central to Palm Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) 43 ST- 19 5th Street, Palm to Church Avenue( Completed) 44 ST-20 5th Street, Church Avenue to State Route 30( Completed) 45 ST-21 6th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 46
ST- 22 6th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Sterling 47
ST- 23 6th Street, Sterling to Victoria 48
ST- 24 6th Street, Victoria to Central( Completed) 49
ST- 25 9th Street, Tippecanoe to Fairfax 50
ST- 26 9th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Golondrina( Completed) 51 ST- 27 9th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Golondrina Storm Drainage Segment 52 ST-28 9th Street, Golondrina to Sterling ( Completed) 53 ST- 29 9th Street, Golondrina to Sterling Storm Drainage Segment 54 -128-
Project City of Highland Page
Number Master Facilties Plan Project Index Number
ST- 30 9th Street, Sterling to Victoria ( Completed) 55 ST- 31 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities( FC- 09) 56 ST- 32 9th Street, Victoria to Cunningham ( Completed) 57 ST- 33 9th Street, Cunningham to Hillview( Completed) 58 ST- 34 9th Street, Hillview to Central ( Completed) 59
ST- 35 9th Street, Central to Lillian( Completed) 60
ST- 36 9th Street, Lillian to Drummond ( Completed) 61
ST- 37 9th Street, Drummond to Palm ( Completed) 62
ST- 38 Base Line, Del Rosa Drive to Cole( Completed) 63 ST- 39 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities( FC- 10) 64 ST- 40 Base Line, Cole to Palm( Completed) 65
ST- 41 Base Line, Palm to Boulder( Completed) 66
ST-42 Base Line, Boulder to Church Street( Completed) 67 ST- 43 Base Line, Church Street to Weaver( Completed) 68 ST- 44 Base Line, Weaver to Aplin ( Completed) 69
ST- 45 Base Line, Aplin to Brookwood ( Completed) 70
ST-46 Boulder, South City Limit to Orange 71
ST- 47 Boulder, Orange to 5th 72
ST- 48 Boulder, 5th to Pacific( Completed) 73
ST-49 Boulder, Pacific to Highland( Completed) 74
ST- 50 Central Avenue, 3rd to 5th ( Completed) 75
ST- 51 Central Avenue, 5th to Base Line ( Completed) 76 ST- 52 Central Avenue, 917' S/ O Base Line to Base Line 77 ST- 53 Central Avenue, Base Line to Mansfield 78
ST- 54 Church Avenue, 5th to Base Line 79
ST- 55 Chruch Avenue, Base Line to Pacific 80
ST- 56 Church Street, Greenspot to Highland 81
ST- 57 Cone Camp Road, from S. City Limit to 1, 320' S/ O Greenspot( Deleted) 82 ST- 58 Cone Camp Road, from 1, 320' South of Greenspot to Greenspot( Deleted) 83 ST- 59 Cunningham Street, 5th to 9th ( Completed) 84
ST- 60 Cunningham Street, 9th to Base Line( Completed) 85 ST- 61 Del Rosa Avenue, 3rd to 5th 86
ST- 62 Del Rosa Avenue, 5th to 6th ( Completed) 87
ST- 63 Del Rosa Avenue, 6th to Union 88
ST- 64 Del Rosa Avenue, Union to 9th 89
ST- 65 Del Rosa Avenue, 9th to Paloma 90
ST- 66 Del Rosa Avenue, Paloma to Warm Creek 91
ST- 67 Del Rosa Avenue, Base Line to Pacific 92
ST- 68 Del Rosa Drive, 3rd to 6th 93
ST-69 Del Rosa Drive, 9th to Base Line 94
ST- 70 Greenspot Road at State Route 30 Interchange( Completed) 95 ST- 71 Greenspot Road at State Route 30 Interchange Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) 96 ST- 72 Greenspot Road, State Route 30 to Boulder( Completed) 97 ST- 73 Greenspot Road, State Route 30 to Boulder Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) 98 -129-
Project City of Highland Page
Number Master Facilties Plan Project Index Number
ST- 74 Greenspot Road, Boulder to Orange 99
ST- 75 Greenspot Road, Orange to Valencia 100
ST- 76 Greenspot Road, Valencia to Gold Buckle( Completed) 101 ST- 77 Greenspot Road, Gold Buckle to Aplin 102
ST- 78 Greenspot Road, Aplin to Santa Paula 103
ST- 79 Greenspot Road, Santa Paula to Santa Ana River 104 ST- 80 Greenspot Road, Santa Ana River to Bryant( Deleted) 105 ST- 81 Highland Avenue, West City Limit to Victoria( Completed) 106 ST- 82 Highland Avenue, Victoria to 1, 320 East of Victoria( Completed) 107 ST- 83 Highland Avenue, West City Limit to Boulder( Completed) 108 ST- 84 Highland Avenue, Boulder to Summer Trail ( Completed) 109 ST- 85 Highland Avenue, Summer Trail to Orchard Lane 110 ST- 86 Highland Avenue, Orchard to Surrey Lane 111
ST- 87 Highland Avenue, Surrey Lane to 350' E/ O Surrey Lane 112 ST- 88 Highland Avenue, 350' E/ O Surrey Lane to Gala 113 ST- 89 Highland Street, Gala to Church Street( Completed) 114 ST- 90 Lankershim, 5th to Cypress( Completed) 115
ST- 91 Lankshim, Cypress to Lankershim/ Arden Connection 116 ST- 92 Lankershim/ Arden Connection 117
ST- 93 Lankershim/ Arden Connection Storm Drainage Segment 118 ST- 94 Newport Street, South City Limit to Greenspot( Deleted) 119 ST- 95 Pacific Avenue, Del Rosa Drive to Guthrie( Completed) 120 ST-96 Pacific Avenue, Sand Creek to Dundee( Completed) 121 ST- 97 Pacific Avenue, Orange to Two Lots W/ O Cole( Completed) 122 ST- 98 Pacific Avenue, Two Lots W/ O Cole to Cole 123
ST- 99 Pacific Avenue, Cole to Palm ( Completed) 124
ST- 100 Pacific Avenue, Palm to Church Avenue 125
ST- 101 Palm Avenue, South City Limits to 3rd 126
ST- 102 Palm Avenue, 3rd to 5th( Completed) 127
ST- 103 Palm Avenue, 5th to City Creek( Completed) 128
ST- 104 Palm Avenue, City Creek to Cypress( Completed) 129 ST- 105 Palm Avenue, Cypress to Harlan ( Completed) 130 ST- 106 Palm Avenue, Harlan to 9th 131
ST- 107 Palm Avenue, 9th to Base Line( Completed) 132
ST- 108 Palm Avenue, Base Line to Foster( Completed) 133 ST- 109 Palm Avenue, Foster to Villa 134
ST- 110 Palm Avenue, Villa to 951' S/ O Fisher 135
ST- 111 Palm Avenue, 951' S/ O Fisher to Fisher 136
ST- 112 Palm Avenue, Fisher to Main 137
ST- 113 Palm Avenue, Main to Pacific( Completed) 138
ST- 114 Palm Avenue, Pacific to Atlantic 139
ST- 115 Santa Ana Canyon Road, W/ O North Fork 140
ST- 116 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Fronting Tract 14384 ( Completed) 141 ST- 117 Santa Ana Canyon Road, W/ O Alta Vista 142
-130-
Project City of Highland Page
Number Master Facilties Plan Project Index Number
ST- 118 Sterling Avenue, 3rd to 6th 143
ST- 119 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control( FC- 04) 144 ST- 120 Sterling Avenue, 6th to 7th 145
ST- 121 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control( FC- 04) 146 ST- 122 Sterling Avenue, 7th to Pacific( Completed) 147 ST- 123 Sterling Avenue, 7th to Pacific Storm Drainage Segment 148 ST- 124 Tippecanoe, 3rd to 9th 149
ST- 125 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control ( FC- 11) 150 ST- 126 Victoria Avenue, 3rd to 6th( Completed) 151
ST- 127 Victoria Avenue, 6th to 660' N/ O 6th 152
ST- 128 Victoria Avenue, 6th to 660' N/ O 6th Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) 153 ST- 129 Victoria Avenue, 6th to North City Limit 154
ST- 130 Victoria Avenue, 6th to North City Limit Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) 155 ST- 131 Water Street, Cram Road to Weaver 156
ST- 132 Weaver Street, Water to Base Line 157
ST- 133 Webster Street, 5th to Boulder( Completed) 158
ST- 134 Webster Street, Boulder to Eucalyptus 159
ST- 135 Orange Street Bridge over Plunge Creek 160
ST- 136 Interstate 210 Victoria Avenue Interchange 161
Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities 162
Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities Cost Summary 163 FC- 01 Elder Creek, West Boulder( SBCFCD) 164
FC- 02 Elder Creek, Abbey Way to Morris( SBCFCD)( Deleted) 165 FC- 03 Warm Creek, Obsun to East City Limit( SBCFCD)( Deleted) 166 FC- 04 Sterling Avenue, 3rd to 7th Storm Drainage Segment 167 FC- 05 5th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive Storm Drainage Segment 168 FC- 06 Elder Gulch Storm Drain( SDR 19001) 169
FC- 07 Greenspot Road Storm Drainage( 6- SA- 07) 170
FC- 08 6th Street Storm Drain ( 6- WA- 03& 6- CI- 03) 171 FC- 09 9th Street Sterling to Victoria Storm Drainage Segment( 6- WA- 07) 172 FC- 10 Base Line, Del Rosa Drive to Highland Creek( 6- DR- 01) 173 FC- 11 Tippecanoe, 3rd to 6th Street Storm Drain ( 6- CI- 01) 174 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 175
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 176 GF- 01 City Hall Improvements( 20, 000 S. F. Expansion) 177 GF- 02 Expansion of City Pool/ Maintenance Fleet 178
GF- 03 Computer Storage and Processing Upgrade 179
GF- 04 Eastern Area Satellite Maintenance Yard 180
Library Facilities and Collection 181
Library Facilities and Collection Cost Summary 182
LB- 01 Library Building Expansion 183
LB- 02 Expansion of Library Collection 184
Public Use Facilities 185
Public Use Facilities Cost Summary 186
-131-
Project City of Highland Page
Number Master Facilties Plan Project Index Number
CC- 01 Construct Additional Public Use Space( Completed) 187 Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 188 Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Cost Summary 189 PK- 001 Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Improvements 190 PK- 002 Construct Community Pool( removed from projects) 191 PK- 003 Trails Rights- of-way and Minor Improvements 192 -132-

CITY OF HIGHLAND

GUIDE TO THE MASTER FACILITIES PLAN
The Master Facilities Plan is a compilation of projects identified by City staff as being needed by the City of Highland through theoretical General Plan build-out of the City. The Plan is based on input from City staff, recommended projects contained in City planning documents for infrastructure, and an occasional recommendation from RCS staff.

The Master Facilities Plan provides for three major types of projects. The first group of projects provides for the maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the City' s varied infrastructure, including its streets, storm drains, and other public facilities. These projects represent a portion of the needed replacement of the City' s General Facilities' fixed assets, as identified as almost $ 21, 775, 814 million in depreciable fixed assets, which are being consumed, conservatively over fifty years, at a rate of nearly $ 435, 516 annually. Remember that this list does not represent the hundreds of millions of dollars currently invested in local' streets and storm drainage improvements.

The second type of projects are needed to serve future development and includes such projects as the widening of streets, the creation ofadditional parkland, or the construction ofa new fire station.

These projects are proposed to be funded through the development impact fees recommended in the companion to this document called Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City ofHighland.

The last type of projects is proposed to enhance the quality of life for all City residents and spur economic growth in the community. These projects would include the construction ofa community center or library expansion.

Goal ofthe Master Facilities Plan. The Master Facilities Plan is not intended to be the final word on capital improvement projects needed for the City but rather a starting point for discussions between City management staff, decision- makers ( i.e., the City Council), and the public prior to the formulation of a two or three Year Capital Improvement Plan( CIP). The Master Facilities Plan begins the process ofidentifying all needed projects for the City through build-out. This document, as all capital improvement programs should be, is rooted in the philosophy that for the document to have any meaningful value to future residents and staff members, it must be constantly updated and revised as new legislation is adopted and as the environment and the City itself changes over the years.

In short, the Master Facilities Plan is intended as a fluid, not static, document. Thus, it is essential that periodic updates be performed to add new projects or delete completed or no longer-needed projects.

The Master Facilities Plan represents the starting point for the fulfillment of the following purposes:

-133-
Planning - The Plan implements the standards and goals contained in the City's General Plan when applicable and proposes improvement projects which are constructed and located in conformance with the General Plan.

Financial Planning - A Facilities Plan or CIP should consider the scheduling and availability of fmancing sources to achieve an orderly and comprehensive process.

Individual project descriptions in this document detail the project's relationship to other recommended improvements and other scheduling constraints. This effort should always be a high priority of the City to ensure that efforts between departments are coordinated and to avoid construction being made more costly by duplication of construction efforts i.e., a water pipe installed one year after a road is constructed).

A sound capital planning process can also help to plan projects rationally for the purposes of long- term financing. Taxpayers can accrue savings when capital fmancing is coordinated such that long-term financing can be sized and timed to achieve the lowest possible financing costs.

Budgeting - The following projects should provide the outline for the preparation of the Five-year Capital Improvement Plan in the future. The first year of the CIP is then incorporated into the City's Annual Budget. Note: The current effort does not identify the year the projects will be needed; therefore, the project costs default to the last column.

However, the project costs are defined in terms of 2022- 23- dollar values.

Master Facilities Planning Process. The Master Facilities Plan represents an interdepartmental effort to identify needed projects through the theoretical point of build- out of the City. The management staff was then asked to allocate projects as a first step towards prioritizing all projects for the Plan. Criteria considered by the management team in evaluating projects included:

Does the project generate operating savings or otherwise enhance the ability of the department to deliver services?
Does the project reduce or eliminate safety or health hazards? Is the project needed to provide adequate levels of service to future residents or prevent deterioration of service to existing residents?
Was the project recommended in any of the City' s engineering or planning master plans, the Corporate Plan, or any other adopted City document? Does the project have a significant positive effect on the community? Funding Analysis. The following summary section of this Plan includes a projection of historical and potential revenue sources for the financing of the listed capital improvement projects.

Development impact fee revenues were estimated based on the proposed rates recommended in the Development Impact Fee Report. Also, it was assumed for the purposes of this Report and the Development Impact Fee Report that development will occur evenly over the period of build-out

-134-
for the City. In actuality, new development is expected to maintain the current rate over the next ten years and then decrease during the second ten-year period.

Other revenue sources were projected based on discussions with City staff but are shown only for informational purposes. Given the magnitude of costs shown in this Report, RCS recommends that a more detailed financial strategy for the construction of these improvements ( i.e., a Capital Financing Plan) be conducted by the City within the immediate future. Such a document would seek to identify further and quantify potential financing sources for the City of Highland.

Also, it should be noted that the Master Facilities Plan emphasizes the total capital needs of the City, in contrast to the more traditional Capital Improvement Program approach, which emphasizes reducing total needs to only reasonably assured revenue sources. Further scheduling projects on a year- to- year basis should continue during the Capital Improvement Program process.

Organization of the Master Facilities Plan. The Master Facilities Plan is divided into eight major sections according to the category of capital improvement, and each will ultimately be quantified as a separate development impact fee in the companion document. The eight types of improvements are:

Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment- The project needed for the City' s law enforcement agency is limited to the expansion of the law enforcement facility.

Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment- This program includes facilities necessary to support the level of service recommended by the City' s Fire Department. This section contains an explanation of the need for additional fire stations, vehicles and assigned equipment for needed fire- fighters.

Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System - These projects include future street widenings and additional intersection/ signal improvements.

Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities- These projects include the construction of local and regional flood control channels for the purpose ofremoving City-generated storm drainage safely in downstream washes, creeks, and rivers.

General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment - The additional City Hall and City Yard workspace, vehicles, and equipment needed for the City's employees that will serve the additional residents and business owners are outlined in this chapter.

Library Facilities and Collection - This section explains the proportional expansion of the existing library square feet and the number of items in the collection per City resident.

Public Use ( Community Centers) Facilities - These projects include the construction of additional community centers for classes, meetings, and general public use.

Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development - The acquisition and development ofnew trails, parks and, the construction ofrecreational facilities for the City,

-135-
and the improvement of existing undeveloped parklands are accomplished through this program.

A summary list ofthe proposed projects and project costs is found at the beginning of each section.

Next, you will find an individual project description for each project submitted detailing the proposed scope of the project, the submitting department, justification, and the supporting reference document.

The following table details the total project expenditures ($ 263, 726, 505) identified as necessary through build- out.

Table MFP-2
Cost of Required Expansions to City Infrastructure
Infrastructure Type Project Total
Law Enforcement Facilities 797, 243
Fire Suppression Facilities 15, 303, 180
Circulation Systems 7, 898, 507
Local and Regional Flood Control 44, 654, 346
General Facilities 17, 141, 800
Library Facilities/ Collection 16, 485, 150
Public Use Facilities 4, 940, 932
Parkland/ Improvements 14, 621, 352
Total 121, 843, 268
Fairness and reason ( as well as the more important State statutes and Federal court decisions) dictate that not all of the projects will qualify for impact fee funding ( i.e., some projects are replacements or service level increasing, etc.). There are no existing impact fee fund balances, and thus they will not fmance any ofthe total project needs. Any remaining amount ofthe total project costs would have to be financed by other sources such as fees, existing taxes or voter-approved additional taxes, inter- governmental transfers, and the occasional grant. Relationship to Development Impact Fee Report. The Master Facilities Plan was prepared in conjunction with the City' s Development Impact Fee ( DIF) Report, also prepared by RCS. Projects listed in the DIF Report correspond to projects found in this document and contain the same numbering sequence as the Master Facilities Plan. The DIF Report is also divided into fourteen major chapters according to the same order of projects described on the previous page. Thus, a reader who wants more information on Law Enforcement Project# 1 ( police station expansion) found on Schedule 3. 1 of the DIF Report should turn to Project No. LE- 01 of the Master Facilities Plan. For readers of the Master Facilities Plan who wish to understand the determination of impact fee funding more fully, refer to the Development Impact Fee Report.

-136-
End of Guide
Local" infrastructure is defined as infrastructure within neighborhoods or within the footprint of the development as opposed to spine infrastructure. As an example, 6" sewer collection lines are generally limited to neighborhoods while 12" lines( spine) collect wastewater from the neighborhood to transmit it to the treatment plant.

-137-
City of Highland, California
Master Facilities Plan- All Plan Areas
Master Project List
Project Build
Out Total
LE- 01 Construct Police Station ( Completed)
LE-02 Police Station Expansion 797, 000
FD- 01 Relocate Station# 1 2, 115, 477
FD- 02 Construct Station# 4( Greenspot Road)( Deleted)
FD- 03 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles for Station# 4( Deleted) FD- 04 Acquire Additional Fire Fighter Equipment( Deleted) FD- 05 Acquire Specialty Vehicle 180, 000
ST-01 Interstate 210 , Del Rosa Interchange( Deleted; Not in Highland) ST- 02 Interstate 210, Baseline Interchange( COH Fair Share) 8, 683, 231 ST- 03 Interstate 210, 5th Street Interchange( COH Fair Share) 3, 260, 362 ST-04 3rd Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 715,792
ST-05 3rd Street, Del Rosa Drive To Shirley 577, 961
ST- 06 3rd Street, Victoria to Cunningham ( Completed)
ST-07 3rd Street, Cunningham to Central ( Completed)
ST-08 3rd Street, Central to Palm ( Completed)
ST- 09 3rd Street, Palm to 5th ( Completed)
ST- 10 5th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 1, 257, 435 ST- 11 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities ( FC- 05) ST- 12 5th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Shirley 579, 541
ST- 13 5th Street, Sterling to Victoria 316, 942
ST- 14 5th Street, Victoria to Cunningham( Completed)
ST- 15 5th Street, Cunningham to Central ( Completed)
ST- 16 5th Street, Cunningham to Central Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 17 5th Street, Central to Palm ( Completed)
ST- 18 5th Street, Central to Palm Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 19 5th Street, Palm to Church Avenue ( Completed)
ST- 20 5th Street, Church Avenue to State Route 30( Completed) ST- 21 6th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 470, 500 ST- 22 6th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Sterling 518,980
ST- 23 6th Street, Sterling to Victoria 2, 177, 380
ST- 24 6th Street, Victoria to Central ( Completed)
ST- 25 9th Street, Tippecanoe to Fairfax 113, 179
ST- 26 9th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Golondrina ( Completed) ST- 27 9th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Golondrina Storm Drainage Segment 402, 160 ST-28 9th Street, Golondrina to Sterling ( Completed)
ST- 29 9th Street, Golondrina to Sterling Storm Drainage Segment 115, 713

-138-
City of Highland, California
ST-30 9th Street, Sterling to Victoria( Completed)
ST- 31 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities( FC- 09) ST-32 9th Street, Victoria to Cunningham ( Completed)
ST- 33 9th Street, Cunningham to Hillview( Completed)
ST- 34 9th Street, Hillview to Central( Completed)
ST- 35 9th Street, Central to Lillian ( Completed)
ST- 36 9th Street, Lillian to Drummond ( Completed)
ST-37 9th Street, Drummond to Palm ( Completed)
ST- 38 Base Line, Del Rosa Drive to Cole( Completed)
ST- 39 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities( FC- 10) ST- 40 Base Line, Cole to Palm( Completed)
ST- 41 Base Line, Palm to Boulder( Completed)
ST- 42 Base Line, Boulder to Church Street( Completed)
ST- 43 Base Line, Church Street to Weaver( Completed)
ST- 44 Base Line, Weaver to Aplin ( Completed)
ST- 45 Base Line, Aplin to Brookwood ( Completed)
ST- 46 Boulder, South City Limit to Orange 300, 904
ST- 47 Boulder, Orange to 5th 536, 152
ST- 48 Boulder, 5th to Pacific( Completed)
ST- 49 Boulder, Pacific to Highland ( Completed)
ST- 50 Central Avenue, 3rd to 5th ( Completed)
ST- 51 Central Avenue, 5th to Base Line( Completed)
ST- 52 Central Avenue, 917' S/ O Base Line to Base Line 67, 978 ST- 53 Central Avenue, Base Line to Mansfield 7, 010
ST- 54 Church Avenue, 5th to Base Line 15, 865
ST- 55 Chruch Avenue, Base Line to Pacific 171, 664
ST- 56 Church Street, Greenspot to Highland 653, 422
ST-57 Cone Camp Road, from S. City Limit to 1, 320' S/ O Greenspot( Deleted) ST- 58 Cone Camp Road, from 1, 320' South of Greenspot to Greenspot( Deleted) ST- 59 Cunningham Street, 5th to 9th ( Completed)
ST- 60 Cunningham Street, 9th to Base Line( Completed)
ST-61 Del Rosa Avenue, 3rd to 5th 240, 410
ST- 62 Del Rosa Avenue, 5th to 6th ( Completed)
ST- 63 Del Rosa Avenue, 6th to Union 264, 455
ST- 64 Del Rosa Avenue, Union to 9th 100, 780
ST- 65 Del Rosa Avenue, 9th to Paloma 185, 840
ST- 66 Del Rosa Avenue, Paloma to Warm Creek 35, 915
ST- 67 Del Rosa Avenue, Base Line to Pacific 542, 773
ST- 68 Del Rosa Drive, 3rd to 6th 506, 920
ST- 69 Del Rosa Drive, 9th to Base Line 51, 592
ST- 70 Greenspot Road at State Route 30 Interchange( Completed) ST- 71 Greenspot Road at State Route 30 Interchange Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 72 Greenspot Road, State Route 30 to Boulder( Completed)

-139-
City of Highland, California
ST- 73 Greenspot Road, State Route 30 to Boulder Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST-74 Greenspot Road, Boulder to Orange 272, 779
ST- 75 Greenspot Road, Orange to Valencia 496, 531
ST- 76 Greenspot Road, Valencia to Gold Buckle ( Completed) ST- 77 Greenspot Road, Gold Buckle to Aplin 349, 306
ST- 78 Greenspot Road, Aplin to Santa Paula 1, 760, 899 ST- 79 Greenspot Road, Santa Paula to Santa Ana River 1, 740, 000 ST- 80 Greenspot Road, Santa Ana River to Bryant( Deleted) ST- 81 Highland Avenue, West City Limit to Victoria ( Completed) ST- 82 Highland Avenue, Victoria to 1, 320 East of Victoria( Completed) ST- 83 Highland Avenue, West City Limit to Boulder( Completed) ST-84 Highland Avenue, Boulder to Summer Trail( Completed) ST- 85 Highland Avenue, Summer Trail to Orchard Lane 249, 864 ST- 86 Highland Avenue, Orchard to Surrey Lane 126, 266 ST- 87 Highland Avenue, Surrey Lane to 350' E/ O Surrey Lane 52, 928 ST- 88 Highland Avenue, 350' E/ O Surrey Lane to Gala 396, 801 ST- 89 Highland Street, Gala to Church Street( Completed) ST- 90 Lankershim, 5th to Cypress( Completed)
ST- 91 Lankshim, Cypress to Lankershim/ Arden Connection 19, 145 ST-92 Lankershim/ Arden Connection 571, 486
ST- 93 Lankershim/ Arden Connection Storm Drainage Segment 250, 338 ST- 94 Newport Street, South City Limit to Greenspot( Deleted) ST- 95 Pacific Avenue, Del Rosa Drive to Guthrie( Completed) ST- 96 Pacific Avenue, Sand Creek to Dundee( Completed) ST- 97 Pacific Avenue, Orange to Two Lots W/ O Cole ( Completed) ST-98 Pacific Avenue, Two Lots W/ O Cole to Cole 40, 750 ST-99 Pacific Avenue, Cole to Palm ( Completed)
ST- 100 Pacific Avenue, Palm to Church Avenue 298, 443
ST- 101 Palm Avenue, South City Limits to 3rd 430, 172
ST- 102 Palm Avenue, 3rd to 5th( Completed)
ST- 103 Palm Avenue, 5th to City Creek( Completed)
ST- 104 Palm Avenue, City Creek to Cypress( Completed)
ST- 105 Palm Avenue, Cypress to Harlan( Completed)
ST- 106 Palm Avenue, Harlan to 9th 53, 323
ST- 107 Palm Avenue, 9th to Base Line( Completed)
ST- 108 Palm Avenue, Base Line to Foster( Completed)
ST- 109 Palm Avenue, Foster to Villa 100, 036
ST- 110 Palm Avenue, Villa to 951' S/ O Fisher 74, 597
ST- 111 Palm Avenue, 951' S/ O Fisher to Fisher 307, 613 ST- 112 Palm Avenue, Fisher to Main 195, 119
ST- 113 Palm Avenue, Main to Pacific( Completed)
ST- 114 Palm Avenue, Pacific to Atlantic 173, 694
ST- 115 Santa Ana Canyon Road, W/ O North Fork 157, 500

-140-
City of Highland, California
ST-116 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Fronting Tract 14384( Completed) ST- 117 Santa Ana Canyon Road, W/ O Alta Vista 257, 003 ST- 118 Sterling Avenue, 3rd to 6th 139, 200
ST- 119 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control ( FC- 04) ST- 120 Sterling Avenue, 6th to 7th 184, 013
ST- 121 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control ( FC- 04) ST- 122 Sterling Avenue, 7th to Pacific( Completed)
ST- 123 Sterling Avenue, 7th to Pacific Storm Drainage Segment 610, 500 ST- 124 Tippecanoe, 3rd to 9th 641, 480
ST- 125 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control ( FC- 11) ST- 126 Victoria Avenue, 3rd to 6th ( Completed)
ST- 127 Victoria Avenue, 6th to 660' N/ O 6th 86, 536
ST- 128 Victoria Avenue, 6th to 660' N/ O 6th Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 129 Victoria Avenue, 6th to North City Limit 887, 400 ST- 130 Victoria Avenue, 6th to North City Limit Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 131 Water Street, Cram Road to Weaver 79, 120
ST- 132 Weaver Street, Water to Base Line 146, 570
ST- 133 Webster Street, 5th to Boulder( Completed)
ST- 134 Webster Street, Boulder to Eucalyptus 88, 438
ST- 135 Orange Street Bridge over Plunge Creek 2, 570, 147 ST- 136 Interstate 210 Victoria Avenue Interchange 15,875, 000 FC- 01 Elder Creek, West Boulder( SBCFCD) 335, 813
FC- 02 Elder Creek, Abbey Way to Morris( SBCFCD)( Deleted) FC- 03 Warm Creek, Obsun to East City Limit( SBCFCD)( Deleted) FC- 04 Sterling Avenue, 3rd to 7th Storm Drainage Segment 470, 730 FC- 05 5th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive Storm Drainage Segment 335, 500 FC- 06 Elder Gulch Storm Drain ( SDR 19001) 322, 500
FC- 07 Greenspot Road Storm Drainage( 6- SA- 07) 1, 000, 000 FC- 08 6th Street Storm Drain ( 6- WA- 03& 6- CI- 03) 4, 000, 000 FC- 09 9th Street Sterling to Victoria Storm Drainage Segment( 6- WA-07) 409, 148 FC- 10 Base Line, Del Rosa Drive to Highland Creek( 6- DR- 01) 525, 000 FC- 11 Tippecanoe, 3rd to 6th Street Storm Drain ( 6- CI- 01) 975, 000 GF- 01 City Hall Improvements( 20, 000 S. F. Expansion) GF- 02 Expansion of City Pool/ Maintenance Fleet 1, 294, 120 GF- 03 Computer Storage and Processing Upgrade
GF- 04 Eastern Area Satellite Maintenance Yard 397, 810 LB- 01 Library Building Expansion 4, 940, 932
LB- 02 Expansion of Library Collection 983, 238
CC- 01 Construct Additional Public Use Space ( Completed) PK-001 Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Improvements 14, 621, 352 PK- 002 Construct Community Pool ( removed from projects) PK- 003 Trails Rights- of-way and Minor Improvements
Total All Projects 86, 257, 473

-141-
City of Highland
Law Enforcement Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment

-142-
City of Highland, California
Master Facilities Plan - All Plan Areas
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, & Equipment
July, 2023
Project Build
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY2025 FY 2026 GP Build- Out Out Total
LE- 01 Construct Police Station ( Completed)
LE- 02 Police Station Expansion 797,000 $ 797, 000
Total 797, 000
Notes:
1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their" Thru Build Out" amount.

-143-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number 1LE- 01
Project Title Construct Police Station
Infrastructure Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department Police Department
Project Description
Acquire land for and construct facilities to house the City' s law enforcement services. The building would need to be approximately 20, 000 square feet in size to be able to maintain the current levels of service. The building would house law enforcement administration, patrol, investigation, records, traffic control, short-term evidence storage, report writing space, a large training and meeting room, two sets of locker rooms/ shower facilities, and other space needs. The law enforcement facility would be located near the City Hall. Included in the cost estimate is the acquisition of about 3. 2 acres.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

The ultimate- use law enforcement building will be required to house the build- out staff as the full impact of development of all currently undeveloped acreage in the City occurs. The current 7, 200 square feet of the former City Hall affords approximately 232 square feet of building space for each of the 32 officers ( and defines the current building standard of space/ officer,) and the new facility will extend that standard into the future. The station will need to house the 32 current sworn staff and the 11 additional officers required to meet the new demands generated by at General Plan build- out by the remaining new development at the existing level of service.
2022 Update:

Completed
Reference Document: Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 28. 89%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 0

-144-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number LE- 02
Project Title Police Station Expansion
Infrastructure Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department Police Department
Project Description
Expand the second floor of the current police station adding 2, 900 additional square feet to the current station.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

The ultimate- use law enforcement building will be required to house the build- out staff as the full impact of development of all currently undeveloped acreage in the City occurs. The current 7, 200 square feet of the former City Hall affords approximately 232 square feet of building space for each of the 32 officers (and defines the current building standard of space/officer,) and the expansion to the current facility will extend that standard into the future. The station will need to house the 32 current sworn staff and the 11 additional officers required to meet the new demands generated by at General Plan build- out by the remaining new development at the existing level of service.
2022 Update:

This project was not in the 2006 MFP and has been added by the City for this update. City staff has determined the price for the expansion.

Reference Document: Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100. 00%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 725, 000
Contingency 72, 500
Equipment/ Other 797, 500
Total Estimated Cost

-145-
City of Highland
Fire Suppression Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment

-146-
City of Highland, California
Master Facilities Plan - All Plan Areas
Fire Suppression/ Medic Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment July, 2023
Project Build
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY2025 FY 2026 GP Build- Out Out Total
FD- 01 Relocate Station# 1 2, 115, 477 $ 2, 115, 477
FD- 02 Construct Station# 4( Greenspot Road) (Deleted) ( Note 1) FD- 03 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles for Station# 4( Deleted) ( Note 1) FD- 04 Acquire Additional Fire Fighter Equipment( Deleted) ( Note 1) FD- 05 Acquire Specialty Vehicle 180, 000 $ 180, 000
Total 2, 295, 477
Notes:
1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their" Thru Build Out" amount.

-147-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number FD- 01
Project Title Relocate Station # 1
Infrastructure Fire Suppression/ Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department Fire Department
Project Description
Relocate Headquarters Station # 1 to the vicinity of Base Line Street, between Palm Avenue and Boulder Highway. The proposed three- bay wide by two- vehicle deep station would be approximately 6,868 square feet.

There would be approximately 1, 700 square feet required for living quarters and a large training room. Being the headquarters station, there would also be some 700 square feet for management purposes. Each of the three 20' foot wide by 80' deep bays would take up 1, 600 square feet for a total of 4, 800 square feet. Each 1, 600- square-foot bay is capable of storing or parking two major vehicles for a total of six for the station. The facility would require the acquisition of about 1. 2 acres.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

Changing densities and development within the City requires the relocation of the facility to a more easterly location. Additionally, the existing facility' s parcel size, less than half an acre, prevents any expansion of the existing station, effectively limiting its staff and vehicle- supporting capacity. Relocation and expansion of the station will enable the Fire staff to meet the anticipated increase in calls- for- service. 2022 Update:

City staff have recalculated the size and cost of the fire station, raising the 2006 cost of 3. 5 million to 14. 1 million and decreasing the station size by 332 square feet.

Reference Document: Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 15. 00%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 687, 270
Land Acquisition/ ROW 751, 721
Construction 6, 325, 466
Contingency 372, 824
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 8, 069, 291

-148-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number FD- 02
Project Title Construct Station #4 (Greenspot Road)
Infrastructure Fire Suppression/ Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department Fire Department
Project Description
Construct a 6, 500-square-foot station on Greensport Road, generally east of Cone Road. The proposed threebay wide by two- vehicle deep station would be approximately 6, 500 square feet. There would be approximately 1, 700 square feet required for living quarters and a large training room that could be made available for use by public groups when not required for fire purposes. Each of the three 20' foot wide by 80' deep bays would take up 1, 600 square feet for a total of 4,800 square feet. Each 1, 600-square-foot bay is capable of storing or parking two major vehicles for a total of six for the station. The facility would require the acquisition of about 1. 2 acres.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

The station would provide greatly needed first-in capability in the more easterly areas of the City but would also provide second- in capability to a major portion of the community. 2022 Update:

Completed
Reference Document: Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost p

-149-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number FD- 03
Project Title Acquire Additional Response Vehicles for Station # 4 Infrastructure Fire Suppression/ Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department Fire Department
Project Description
Acquisition of two response pumpers ($ 340, 000 each), a type Ill brush truck ($ 125, 000), and a large utility pick- up truck ($ 30, 000). One engine/ pumper would be required for the full- time staff, and the second one would be for the paid- call responders.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

The fire staff would have to respond from the existing limited facilities with the existing response vehicles capacity to a growing number of calls-for-service beyond the existing station' s five-minute response area. 2022 Update:

Completed
Reference Document: Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 0

-150-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number FD- 04
Project Title Acquire Additional Fire Fighter Equipment Infrastructure Fire Suppression/ Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department Fire Department
Project Description
Acquisition of equipment assigned to each firefighter required to staff the new station. It costs the City some 3, 997 to outfit each firefighter, and there will need to be ten firefighters assigned to Station # 4.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

The firefighters require personally- assigned equipment and cannot perform their duties without it. 2022 Update:

Completed
Reference Document: Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other
Total Estimated Cost p

-151-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number FD- 05
Project Title Acquire Specialty Vehicle
Infrastructure Fire Suppression/ Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department Fire Department
Project Description
Acquisition of a ladder truck or Quint- style aerial lift vehicle.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

The construction of large footprint structures, a combination of taller or wider/ deeper buildings, will generate the need for a response vehicle with the ability to deliver fire suppression liquids from a higher point. 2022 Update:

RCS has used the Consumer Pricing Index to update the original 2006 project cost by 147. 07%.

Reference Document: Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 15%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/ Other 180, 000
Total Estimated Cost 180, 000

-152-
City of Highland
Circulation System
Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges

-153-
City of Highland, California
Master Facilities Plan - All Plan Areas
Circulation ( Streets, Signals & Bridges) System
July, 2023
Project Build
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY2025 FY 2026 GP Build- Out Out Total
ST- 01 Interstate 210 , Del Rosa Interchange( Deleted; Not in Highland) ST- 02 Interstate 210, Baseline Interchange( COH Fair Share) 8, 683, 231 $ 8, 683, 231 ST-03 Interstate 210, 5th Street Interchange( COH Fair Share) 3, 260, 362 $ 3, 260, 362 ST- 04 3rd Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 715, 792 $ 715, 792 ST- 05 3rd Street, Del Rosa Drive To Shirley 577, 961 $ 577, 961 ST- 06 3rd Street, Victoria to Cunningham ( Completed)
ST- 07 3rd Street, Cunningham to Central( Completed)
ST- 08 3rd Street, Central to Palm( Completed)
ST- 09 3rd Street, Palm to 5th( Completed)
ST- 10 5th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 1, 257, 435 $ 1, 257, 435 ST- 11 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities( FC- 05) ST- 12 5th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Shirley 579, 541 $ 579, 541 ST- 13 5th Street, Sterling to Victoria 316, 942 $ 316, 942 ST- 14 5th Street, Victoria to Cunningham( Completed)
ST- 15 5th Street, Cunningham to Central( Completed)
ST- 16 5th Street, Cunningham to Central Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 17 5th Street, Central to Palm ( Completed)
ST- 18 5th Street, Central to Palm Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 19 5th Street, Palm to Church Avenue( Completed)
ST- 20 5th Street, Church Avenue to State Route 30( Completed) ST- 21 6th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive 470,500 $ 470, 500 ST- 22 6th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Sterling 518, 980 $ 518, 980 ST- 23 6th Street, Sterling to Victoria 2, 177, 380 $ 2, 177, 380 ST- 24 6th Street, Victoria to Central ( Completed)
ST- 25 9th Street, Tippecanoe to Fairfax 113, 179 $ 113, 179 ST- 26 9th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Golondrina( Completed) ST-27 9th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Golondrina Storm Drainage Segment 402, 160 $ 402, 160 ST- 28 9th Street, Golondrina to Sterling ( Completed)
ST- 29 9th Street, Golondrina to Sterling Storm Drainage Segment 115, 713 $ 115, 713 ST- 30 9th Street, Sterling to Victoria ( Completed)
ST- 31 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities( FC- 09) ST- 32 9th Street, Victoria to Cunningham( Completed)
ST-33 9th Street, Cunningham to Hillview( Completed)
ST- 34 9th Street, Hillview to Central ( Completed)
ST- 35 9th Street, Central to Lillian ( Completed)
ST- 36 9th Street, Lillian to Drummond ( Completed)

-154-
City of Highland, California
Master Facilities Plan - All Plan Areas
Circulation ( Streets, Signals & Bridges) System
July, 2023
Project Build
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY2025 FY 2026 GP Build- Out Out Total
ST-37 9th Street, Drummond to Palm ( Completed)
ST- 38 Base Line, Del Rosa Drive to Cole( Completed)
ST- 39 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control Facilities( FC- 10) ST- 40 Base Line, Cole to Palm ( Completed)
ST-41 Base Line, Palm to Boulder( Completed)
ST-42 Base Line, Boulder to Church Street( Completed)
ST-43 Base Line, Church Street to Weaver( Completed)
ST- 44 Base Line, Weaver to Aplin( Completed)
ST- 45 Base Line, Aplin to Brookwood ( Completed)
ST- 46 Boulder, South City Limit to Orange 300, 904 $ 300, 904 ST- 47 Boulder, Orange to 5th 536, 152 $ 536, 152
ST- 48 Boulder, 5th to Pacific( Completed)
ST- 49 Boulder, Pacific to Highland( Completed)
ST- 50 Central Avenue, 3rd to 5th( Completed)
ST- 51 Central Avenue, 5th to Base Line( Completed)
ST- 52 Central Avenue, 917' S/ O Base Line to Base Line 67, 978 $ 67, 978 ST- 53 Central Avenue, Base Line to Mansfield 7, 010 $ 7,010 ST- 54 Church Avenue, 5th to Base Line 15, 865 $ 15, 865 ST- 55 Chruch Avenue, Base Line to Pacific 171, 664 $ 171, 664 ST- 56 Church Street, Greenspot to Highland 653, 422 $ 653, 422 ST- 57 Cone Camp Road, from S. City Limit to 1, 320' S/ O Greenspot( Deleted) ST- 58 Cone Camp Road, from 1, 320' South of Greenspot to Greenspot( Deleted) ST- 59 Cunningham Street, 5th to 9th( Completed)
ST- 60 Cunningham Street, 9th to Base Line( Completed)
ST- 61 Del Rosa Avenue, 3rd to 5th 240, 410 $ 240, 410
ST- 62 Del Rosa Avenue, 5th to 6th( Completed)
ST- 63 Del Rosa Avenue, 6th to Union 264,455 $ 264, 455 ST- 64 Del Rosa Avenue, Union to 9th 100, 780 $ 100, 780 ST- 65 Del Rosa Avenue, 9th to Paloma 185, 840 $ 185, 840 ST- 66 Del Rosa Avenue, Paloma to Warm Creek 35, 915 $ 35, 915 ST- 67 Del Rosa Avenue, Base Line to Pacific 542, 773 $ 542, 773 ST- 68 Del Rosa Drive, 3rd to 6th 506, 920 $ 506, 920
ST- 69 Del Rosa Drive, 9th to Base Line 51, 592 $ 51, 592 ST- 70 Greenspot Road at State Route 30 Interchange( Completed) ST- 71 Greenspot Road at State Route 30 Interchange Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 72 Greenspot Road, State Route 30 to Boulder( Completed)

-155-
City of Highland, California
Master Facilities Plan - All Plan Areas
Circulation ( Streets, Signals & Bridges) System
July, 2023
Project Build
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY2025 FY 2026 GP Build- Out Out Total
ST- 73 Greenspot Road, State Route 30 to Boulder Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 74 Greenspot Road, Boulder to Orange 272, 779 $ 272, 779 ST- 75 Greenspot Road, Orange to Valencia 496, 531 $ 496, 531 ST- 76 Greenspot Road, Valencia to Gold Buckle( Completed) ST- 77 Greenspot Road, Gold Buckle to Aplin 349, 306 $ 349, 306 ST- 78 Greenspot Road, Aplin to Santa Paula 1, 760, 899 $ 1, 760, 899 ST- 79 Greenspot Road, Santa Paula to Santa Ana River 1, 740, 000 $ 1, 740, 000 ST- 80 Greenspot Road, Santa Ana River to Bryant( Deleted) ST- 81 Highland Avenue, West City Limit to Victoria( Completed) ST- 82 Highland Avenue, Victoria to 1, 320 East of Victoria ( Completed) ST- 83 Highland Avenue, West City Limit to Boulder( Completed) ST- 84 Highland Avenue, Boulder to Summer Trail ( Completed) ST- 85 Highland Avenue, Summer Trail to Orchard Lane 249,864 $ 249, 864 ST- 86 Highland Avenue, Orchard to Surrey Lane 126, 266 $ 126, 266 ST-87 Highland Avenue, Surrey Lane to 350' E/ O Surrey Lane 52, 928 $ 52, 928 ST- 88 Highland Avenue, 350' E/ O Surrey Lane to Gala 396, 801 $ 396, 801 ST- 89 Highland Street, Gala to Church Street( Completed) ST- 90 Lankershim, 5th to Cypress( Completed)
ST- 91 Lankshim, Cypress to Lankershim/ Arden Connection 19, 145 $ 19, 145 ST- 92 Lankershim/Arden Connection 571, 486 $ 571, 486
ST- 93 Lankershim/ Arden Connection Storm Drainage Segment 250, 338 $ 250, 338 ST- 94 Newport Street, South City Limit to Greenspot( Deleted) ST-95 Pacific Avenue, Del Rosa Drive to Guthrie( Completed) ST-96 Pacific Avenue, Sand Creek to Dundee( Completed)
ST-97 Pacific Avenue, Orange to Two Lots W/ O Cole( Completed) ST- 98 Pacific Avenue, Two Lots W/ O Cole to Cole 40, 750 $ 40, 750 ST- 99 Pacific Avenue, Cole to Palm ( Completed)
ST- 100 Pacific Avenue, Palm to Church Avenue 298,443 $ 298, 443 ST- 101 Palm Avenue, South City Limits to 3rd 430, 172 $ 430, 172 ST- 102 Palm Avenue, 3rd to 5th ( Completed)
ST- 103 Palm Avenue, 5th to City Creek( Completed)
ST- 104 Palm Avenue, City Creek to Cypress( Completed)
ST- 105 Palm Avenue, Cypress to Harlan( Completed)
ST- 106 Palm Avenue, Harlan to 9th 53, 323 $ 53, 323
ST- 107 Palm Avenue, 9th to Base Line( Completed)
ST- 108 Palm Avenue, Base Line to Foster( Completed)

-156-
City of Highland, California
Master Facilities Plan - All Plan Areas
Circulation ( Streets, Signals & Bridges) System
July, 2023
Project Build
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY2025 FY 2026 GP Build- Out Out Total
ST- 109 Palm Avenue, Foster to Villa 100, 036 $ 100, 036 ST- 110 Palm Avenue, Villa to 951' S/ O Fisher 74, 597 $ 74, 597 ST- 111 Palm Avenue, 951' S/ O Fisher to Fisher 307,613 $ 307, 613 ST- 112 Palm Avenue, Fisher to Main 195, 119 $ 195, 119 ST- 113 Palm Avenue, Main to Pacific( Completed)
ST- 114 Palm Avenue, Pacific to Atlantic 173, 694 $ 173, 694 ST- 115 Santa Ana Canyon Road, W/ O North Fork 157,500 $ 157, 500 ST- 116 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Fronting Tract 14384( Completed) ST- 117 Santa Ana Canyon Road, W/ O Alta Vista 257, 003 $ 257, 003 ST- 118 Sterling Avenue, 3rd to 6th 139, 200 $ 139, 200 ST- 119 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control ( FC- 04) ST- 120 Sterling Avenue, 6th to 7th 184, 013 $ 184, 013 ST- 121 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control ( FC- 04) ST- 122 Sterling Avenue, 7th to Pacific( Completed)
ST- 123 Sterling Avenue, 7th to Pacific Storm Drainage Segment 610, 500 $ 610, 500 ST- 124 Tippecanoe, 3rd to 9th 641, 480 $ 641, 480
ST- 125 Project Transferred to Regional Flood Control ( FC- 11) ST- 126 Victoria Avenue, 3rd to 6th ( Completed)
ST- 127 Victoria Avenue, 6th to 660' N/ O 6th 86, 536 $ 86, 536 ST- 128 Victoria Avenue, 6th to 660' N/ O 6th Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 129 Victoria Avenue, 6th to North City Limit 887, 400 $ 887, 400 ST- 130 Victoria Avenue, 6th to North City Limit Storm Drainage Segment( Completed) ST- 131 Water Street, Cram Road to Weaver 79, 120 $ 79, 120 ST- 132 Weaver Street, Water to Base Line 146, 570 $ 146, 570 ST- 133 Webster Street, 5th to Boulder( Completed)
ST- 134 Webster Street, Boulder to Eucalyptus 88,438 $ 88, 438 ST- 135 Orange Street Bridge over Plunge Creek 2, 570, 147 $ 2, 570, 147 ST- 136 Interstate 210 Victoria Avenue Interchange 15, 875, 000 $ 15, 875, 000 Total 52, 553, 853

-157-
C City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 01
Project Title Interstate 210, Del Rosa Interchange ( COH Fair Share) Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Construct the Interstate 210 at Del Rosa Interchange. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing, and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs. The dollar amount indicated is the full share required as a result of remaining new development in Highland net of other added regional demand from new development and Measure I financing.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

Improve safety and mobility and enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility in the local circulation system. The City can expect a

16. 75% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 534,703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily trip- miles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48. 4 additional lane miles); thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. 2022 Update:

Removed from List; Not in Highland
Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development 0. 00%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023-24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 0

-158-
igg City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 02
Project Title Interstate 210, Baseline Interchange ( COH Fair Share) Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Construct the Interstate 210 at Baseline Interchange. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing, and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs. The dollar amount indicated is the full share required as a result of remaining new development in Highland net of other added regional demand from new development and Measure I financing.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

Improve safety and mobility and enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility in the local circulation system. The City can expect a

16. 75% increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624,291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily trip- miles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48. 4 additional lane miles); thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/ arterials. 2022 Update:

RCS has used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index to update the original 2006 project cost by 172. 00%. Project cost updated to reflect partial completion of the project.

Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development 24. 80%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023-24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 1, 128, 820
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 7, 554, 411
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 8,683,231

-159-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 03
Project Title Interstate 210, 5th Street Interchange ( COH Fair Share) Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Construct the Interstate 210 at 5th Street Interchange. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soil testing, and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs. The dollar amount indicated is the full share required as a result of remaining new development in Highland net of other added regional demand from new development and Measure I financing.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

Improve safety and mobility and enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility in the local circulation system. The City can expect a

16. 75% increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89,588 daily trip- miles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed (48.4 additional lane miles); thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/ arterials. 2022 Update:

RCS has used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index to update the original 2006 project cost by 172. 00%. Project cost updated to reflect partial completion of the project.

Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development 20. 60%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 423, 847
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 2, 836, 515
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 3, 260, 362

-160-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 04
Project Title 3rd Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive
Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description__
Widen and improve 2, 535 linear feet of 3rd Street from Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive to meet the design standards of a Primary Arterial roadway. The project includes street light and median improvements and an amount for signal interconnection. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project.

Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20% of these projects are required to support new development in Highland and thus will receive 23. 20% of the total project cost. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soil testing and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway ( arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48.4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/ arterials.
2022 Update:

RCS has used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index to update the original 2006 project cost by 172. 00%.

Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development 23. 20%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023-24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 93, 053
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 622, 739
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 715, 792

-161-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 05
Project Title 3rd Street, Del Rosa Drive to Shirley
Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Widen and improve 1, 108 linear feet of 3rd Street from Del Rosa Drive to ( 200' E/ O) Shirley to meet the design standards of a Primary Arterial roadway. The project includes street light and median improvements and an amount for signal interconnection. There is $ 250, 000 for traffic signal improvements along this segment. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project. Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20% of these projects are required to support new development in Highland and thus will receive 23. 20% of the total project cost. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing, and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48.4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/ arterials.
2022 Update:

RCS has used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index to update the original 2006 project cost by 172. 00%.

Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development 23. 20%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 75, 135
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 502, 826
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 577,961

-162-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 06
Project Title 3rd Street, Victoria to Cunningham
Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department (Engineering) Project Description
Widen and improve 1, 320 linear feet of 3rd Street from Victoria to Cunningham to meet the design standards of a Secondary Highway roadway. The project includes street light and median improvements and an amount for signal interconnection. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project. Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20% of these projects are required to support new development in Highland, and thus will receive 23. 20% of the total project cost. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing, and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48. 4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/ arterials.
2022 Update:

Completed
Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 0
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 0
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 0

-163-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 07
Project Title 3rd Street, Cunningham to Central
Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Widen and improve 1, 320 linear feet of 3rd Street from Cunningham to Central to meet the design standards of a Secondary Highway roadway. The project includes street light and median improvements and an amount for signal interconnection. There is $ 250, 000 for new traffic signal improvements along this segment. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project. Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20% of these projects are required to support new development in Highland and thus will receive 23. 20% of the total project cost. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing, and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway ( arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed (48.4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
2022 Update:

Completed
Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 0
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 0
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 0

-164-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 08
Project Title 3rd Street, Central to Palm
Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Widen and improve 2, 640 linear feet of 3rd Street from Central to Palm to meet the design standards of a Secondary Highway roadway. The project includes street light and median improvements and an amount for signal interconnection. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project. Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20% of these projects are required to support new development in Highland, thus will receive 23. 20% of the total project cost. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway ( arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48.4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/ arterials.
2022 Update:

Completed
Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 0
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 0
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 0

-165-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 09
Project Title 3rd Street, Palm to 5th
Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Widen and improve 1, 426 linear feet of 3rd Street from Palm to 5th to meet the design standards of a Secondary Highway roadway. The project includes street light and median improvements and an amount for signal interconnection. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project. Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20% of these projects are required to support new development in Highland, and thus will receive 23. 20% of the total project cost. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway ( arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed (48.4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
2022 Update:

Completed
Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 0
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 0
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 0

-166-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 10
Project Title 5th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive
Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Widen and improve 2, 957 linear feet of 5th Street from Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive to meet the design standards of a Secondary Highway roadway. The project includes street light and median improvements and an amount for signal interconnection. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project. Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20% of these projects are required to support new development in Highland, and thus will receive 23. 20% of the total project cost. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing, and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48.4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
2022 Update:

RCS has used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index to update the original 2006 project cost by 172. 00%.

Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development 23. 20%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 163, 467
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 1, 093, 968
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 1, 257,435

-167-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan —Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 11
Project Title 5th Street, Tippecanoe to Del Rosa Drive Storm Drainage Segment Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department ( Engineering) Project Description
Construct a 33" to 51" of storm drainage line as part of the Measure I financed project. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project. Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20 % of these projects are required to support new development in Highland, thus would normally finance 23. 20% of the total project cost.

However, storm drainage improvements are not included within Measure I financing, and therefore, 100% of the cost has been allocated to local development impact fees. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway ( arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534, 703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624, 291 daily trip- miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48. 4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/ arterials.
2022 Update:

Project Moved to Local and Regional Flood Control Facilities Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development 100%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 0
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 0
Contingency
Equipment/ Other
Total Estimated Cost 0

-168-
City of Highland
Master Facilities Plan — Project Detail
July 2023
Project Number ST- 12
Project Title 5th Street, Del Rosa Drive to Shirley
Infrastructure Circulation ( Streets, Signals, Drainage and Bridges) System Submitting Department Development Services Department (Engineering) Project Description
Widen and improve 1, 584 linear feet of 5th Street from Del Rosa Drive to Shirley to meet the design standards of a Secondary Highway roadway. The project includes street light and median improvements and an amount for signal interconnection. This road segment improvement has been identified as a Measure I project. Per SBCTA studies, 23. 20% of these projects are required to support new development in Highland, thus will receive 23. 20% of the total project cost. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/ soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 13% of construction costs.

Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:

This section of" major" roadway ( arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the 16. 75% increase in daily trip- miles at General Plan build- out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an increase in the number of daily trip- miles from the current 534,703 daily trip- miles to roughly 624,291 daily trip-miles, an increase of 89, 588 daily tripmiles. There are limits on how many additional lane miles can be constructed ( 48.4 additional lane miles; thus, optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the 136 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
2022 Update:

RCS has used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index to update the original 2006 project cost by 172. 00%.

Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element.

Allocation to General Plan Development 23. 20%
Project Costs 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Build- Out TOTAL Design 75, 340
Land Acquisition/ ROW
Construction 504, 201
Contingency
Equipment/Other
Total Estimated Cost 579, 541