Agenda — Loma Linda City Council, June 14, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

CITY OF LOMA LINDA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2022
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Loma Linda is scheduled to be held Tuesday, June 14, 2022, in the City Council Chamber, 25541 Barton Road, Loma Linda, California. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.08.010, study session or closed session items may begin at 5:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The public meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.

Reports and Documents relating to each agenda item are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during normal business hours. The Loma Linda Branch Library is also provided an agenda packet for your convenience. The agenda and reports are also located on the City’s Website at www.lomalinda-ca.gov.

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, 25541 Barton Road, Loma Linda, CA during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City’s website at www.lomalinda-ca.gov subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

Persons wishing to speak on an agenda item, including any closed session items, are asked to complete an information card and present it to the City Clerk prior to consideration of the item. When the item is to be considered, please step forward to the podium, the Chair will recognize you and you may offer your comments. The City Council meeting is recorded to assist in the preparation of the Minutes, and you are therefore asked to give your name and address prior to offering testimony.

The Oral Reports/Public Participation portion of the agenda pertains to items NOT on the agenda and is limited to 30 minutes; 3 minutes allotted for each speaker. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action may be taken by the City Council at this time; however, the City Council may refer your comments/concerns to staff or request that the item be placed on a future agenda.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 799-2819. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible.

A recess may be called at the discretion of the City Council.

Meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Every attempt will be made to swiftly address each request. Requests in advance of the meeting will enable us to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and the materials related to it. Individuals who need special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the meeting materials, should contact the City Clerk at [email protected] or (909) 799-2890.

THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND MASKS MAY BE REQUIRED

REMOTE PARTICIPATION WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE

THE MEETING IS LIVE STREAMED AND THEN ARCHIVED ON
THE CITY’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSOe1mP-1Iw9W8ZeX3CUS0Q A. Call To Order
B. Roll Call
C. Closed Session – 5:30pm
a. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(d)(2) b. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title: City Manager
[Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)]
D. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance – Mayor Dupper (In keeping with long-standing traditions of legislative invocations, this City Council meeting may include a brief, nonsectarian invocation. Such invocations are not intended to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation.)
E. Items To Be Added Or Deleted
F. Oral Reports/Public Participation - Non-Agenda Items (Limited to 30 minutes; 3 minutes allotted for each speaker)
G. Conflict of Interest Disclosure - Note agenda item that may require member abstentions due to possible conflicts of interest
H. Scheduled and Related Items

1. Public Hearing - Council Bill #O-2022-02 (Introduce on first reading, set second reading for June 28, 2022) Amend the Loma Linda Municipal Code Chapter 8.12, Refuse Collection, Recycling and Disposal, to include Mandatory Residential Organic Waste Recycling as required by Senate Bill 1383 [Public Works]

2. Public Hearing – Adopt the following Resolutions pertaining to the Development Impact Fee Calculation Update and Nexus Report [Community Development]:
a. Council Bill #R-2022-28– Adopt a Resolution to Approve the Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Update and Nexus Report that establishes updated impact fees for development within Loma Linda
b. Council Bill #R-2022-30 – Adopt an Urgency Resolution to establish the updated Development Impact Fees immediately upon its approval

3. Public Hearing - Council Bill #R-2022-26 – Adopt a Resolution to approve the Annual Report and Assessments for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for fiscal year 2022-2023 [Public Works]

4. Public Hearing – Council Bill #R-2022-27 - Adopt a Resolution to approve the Annual Report and Assessments for Street Light Benefit Assessment District for fiscal year 2022- 2023 [Public Works]
I. Consent Calendar

5. Demands Registers

6. Minutes – May 10, 2022

7. May 2022 Treasurer’s Report

8. May 2022 Fire Department Report

9. Award Contracts to the following:
a. Techstrata, LLC, for a one-year agreement contract for Managed Security Service Provider/Managed Detection and Response Practitioner for FY 2022-23 [Information Systems]
b. City of San Bernardino Animal Services Department for an agreement contract for animal shelter service for FY 2022-23[Fire]
c. Atlas Planning Solutions for an agreement contract to update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan for FY 2022-23[Fire]
d. Phoenix Group Information Systems for an agreement contract to provide the City an online animal licensing database and web portal for FY 2022-23 [Fire] e. St. Francis Electric for traffic signal maintenance service contract from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 [Public Works]
f. Lloyd Pest Control for gopher prevention service contract from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025 [Public Works]
g. Loma Linda Heat and Air for heating, ventilation and air conditioning service contract for city buildings from June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2024 [Public Works]

10. Approve an Amendment to the Site Lease Agreement CA45938 with SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC for the cell tower site at 26000 Barton Road (City Corporation Yard) [Information Systems]

11. Approve an appropriation of $139,900.00 from SB1 Fund Balance into the project account for unforeseen costs on the Pavement Rehabilitation and Waterline project (CIP 21-102) [Public Works]

12. Approve Waste Delivery Agreement Fee Adjustment with the County of San Bernardino [Public Works]

13. Council Bill #R-2022-31 – Adopt Resolution to modify wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for the members of Fire Management and the Unrepresented Employees [City Manager]

14. Approve supplemental appropriations of $298,800 from General Fund – Fund Balance to Community Development ($223,400) and Parks ($75,400) accounts and $79,500 from the Water Fund Balance to Water Production account for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 to fill the positions of Community Development Director, Field Maintenance Technician and Utilities Maintenance Technician [City Manager]
J. Old Business

15. Community Benefitting improvements, Specific Plan Reimbursements and Reimbursement of certain legal expenses associated with the Groves at Loma Linda Specific Plan [City Manager] K. New Business
L. Reports of Councilmen (This portion of the agenda provides City Council Members an opportunity to provide information relating to other boards/commissions/committees to which City Council Members have been appointed).

M. Reports Of Officers (This portion of the agenda provides Staff the opportunity to provide informational items that are of general interest as well as information that has been requested by the City Council).

N. Adjournment - Next Meeting scheduled for June 28, 2022

POSTING
I, Lynette Arreola, City Clerk, do hereby certify and declare that on the 9 th day of June, 2022, I caused this
agenda to be posted at the following three (3) locations, to-wit:

1. Loma Linda Branch Library, 25581 Barton Road, Loma Linda, California

2. City Council Chambers, 25541 Barton Road, Loma Linda, California

3. U. S. Post Office Annex, Newport Avenue, Loma Linda, California Lynette Arreola, City Clerk
City of Loma Linda, California
CC AGENDA ITEM 1
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA

LINDA, CALIFORNIA, TO UPDATE AND AMEND LOMA LINDA
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.12, REFUSE COLLECTION,
RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL, TO IMPLEMENT SB 1383, THE
SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANT REDUCTION ACT OF 2016

RELATED TO SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY AND

COMMERCIAL ORGANICS COLLECTION, AND EDIBLE FOOD
WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAMS.

WHEREAS, State recycling law, Assembly Bill 939 of 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code Section 40000, et seq., as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires cities and counties to reduce, reuse, and recycle (including composting) Solid Waste generated in their Jurisdictions to the maximum extent feasible before any incineration or landfill disposal of waste, to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources, and to protect the environment.

WHEREAS, State recycling law, Assembly Bill 341 of 2011 (approved by the Governor of the State of California on October 5, 2011, which amended Sections 41730, 41731, 41734, 41735, 41736,41800, 42926, 44004, and 50001 of, and added Sections 40004, 41734.5, and 41780.01 and Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 42649) to Part 3 of Division 30 of, and added and repealed Section 41780.02 of, the Public Resources Code, as amended, supplemented, superseded and replaced from time to time), places requirements on businesses and Multi-Family property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of Solid Waste to arrange for recycling services and requires Jurisdictions to implement a Mandatory Commercial Recycling program.

WHEREAS, State organics recycling law, Assembly Bill 1826 of 2014 approved by the Governor of the State of California on September 28, 2014, which added Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section 42649.8) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, relating to Solid Waste, as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires businesses and Multi-Family property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organic Waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, requires Jurisdictions to implement a recycling program to divert Organic Waste from businesses subject to the law, and requires Jurisdictions to implement a Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling program.

WHEREAS, SB 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires CalRecycle to develop regulations to reduce organics in landfills as a source of methane. The regulations place requirements on multiple ent1t1es including Jurisdictions, residential households, Commercial Businesses and business owners, Commercial Edible Food Generators, haulers, Food Recovery Organizations, and Food Recovery Services to support achievement of Statewide Organic Waste disposal reduction targets.

WHEREAS, SB 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires Jurisdictions to adopt and enforce an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of SB 1383 Regulations. This ordinance will also help reduce food insecurity by requiring Commercial Edible Food Generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their Edible Food, that would otherwise be disposed, be recovered for human consumption; and
2 WHEREAS, this Ordinance implements the requirements of AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383 Regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the Loma Linda City Council:

SECTION 1. Adoption of Ordinance. The foregoing Recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully within the body of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Code Amendments. The Loma Linda Municipal Code for the City of Loma Linda (“Code”) shall be amended to the following Chapters: Chapter 8.12.030 (Definition) Amended; 8.12.040 (Collection fees) Amended; 8.12.050 (Unauthorized containers or offensive refuse a nuisance) Amended; 8.12.060 (Containers—Required) Amended; 8.12.070 (Containers—Specifications) Amended; 8.12.080 (Containers— Covers required) Amended; 8.12.090 (Loose material specifications) Deleted; 8.12.100 (Containers—Placement generally) Amended; 8.12.110 (Containers—Street placement time limits) Amended; 8.12.120 (Unauthorized refuse deposit prohibited) Amended; 8.12.130 (Collection of unusual accumulations) Amended; 8.12.140 (Collection from public containers required) Amended; 8.12.150 (Containers—Interference prohibited) Amended;

8.12.160 (Containers—Placement of unauthorized substances prohibited) Amended; 8.12.170 (Collection vehicle specifications) Amended; 8.12.180 (Multifamily collection rates and frequency) Amended; 8.12.190 (Waivers — Authorized when—Application—Self-hauling permits) Retitled and Amended; Chapter 8.12.200 (Requirements for Single Family Generators) is added in its entirety; 8.12.201 (Requirements for Commercial Businesses) is added in its entirety; 8.12.202 (Requirements for Commercial Edible Food Generators) is added in its entirety; 8.12.203 (Requirements for Food Recovery Organizations and Services) is added in its entirety;

8.12.204 (Requirements for Haulers and Facility Operators) is added in its entirety; 8.12.205 (Compliance with CALGreen Recycling Requirements) is added in its entirety; 8.12.206 (Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance Requirements (MWELO)) is added in its entirety; 8.12. 207 (Procurement Requirements for City Departments, Direct Service Providers, and Vendors) is added in its entirety; (8.12. 208 (Inspections and Investigations by City) is added in its entirety; Chapter 8.12.210 (General Penalty) Amended.

8.12.010 Collection by city or agent required.

All refuse collection service from all places and premises shall be by the city or its agent, and it shall be mandatory for all occupants or persons in possession, charge or control of such places and premises in the city in or from which refuse is created, accumulated or produced to use the city’s collection service; provided, however, that there may be joint or multiple use of refuse containers, subject to authorization therefor pursuant to rules and regulations as established by the council. It is unlawful for any person other than authorized agents or employees of the city to collect, remove or dispose of refuse in the city; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall prevent the use of garbage disposal devices as permitted by the city. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 114 § 1, 1975; Ord. 65 § 1, 1972)

8.12.2020 Contracts—Letting and termination.

A. The City Council may let contracts for the accumulation and disposal of refuse as provided for in this chapter and may, as a condition for granting such contract, require a bond from the contractor in an amount determined by the council for the faithful performance of such agreement. In case the contractor fails or refuses to conform to the conditions of such agreement in this chapter, the city council, at its option and after hearing, of which the contractor shall have ten days’ notice in writing, may terminate such agreement and let the contract to another person being more capable of carrying out the terms of such agreement. In letting contracts for refuse disposal, the city council shall not be required to let the same to the lowest bidder, but shall be free to let such contract to the person best suited to comply with the terms and intent of this chapter. 3 B. All refuse accumulated in the city shall be collected, conveyed and disposed of by the city or its agents. No other person shall collect, convey over any of the streets or alleys of the city, or dispose of any refuse accumulated in the city. Collectors of refuse from outside the city shall not be prohibited from hauling such refuse over city streets, provided such collectors comply with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable rules and regulations. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 114 § 1, 1975; Ord. 65 § 2, 1972)

8.12.030 Definitions.

The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section:
“Authorized recycler” means any person or business entity which lawfully collects, accepts, transports or otherwise processes recyclable materials from generators for a fee or profit through a proper permit, business license or other regulatory structure or authorization issued by the city. “Black Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(28) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of black container waste. This definition shall be interchangeable with “Gray Container.” “Black Container Waste” means solid waste that is collected in a Black Container that is part of the threecontainer Organic Waste collection service that prohibits the placement of Organic Waste in the Black container as specified in 14 CCR Sections 18984.1(a) and (b), or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section. This definition shall be interchangeable with “Gray Container Waste.”
“Blue Container” has the same meaning as in the 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(5) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Recyclable Materials or Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste.
“Business” means any commercial entity, including, but not limited to: proprietorship, firm partnership, person in representative or fiduciary capacity, capacity, association, venture, trust, corporation which is organized for financial gain or for profit; or nonprofit corporation or entity, or industrial or manufacturing, restaurant, retail facility, markets, office buildings, hotels, motels, shopping centers, and theaters. "CalRecycle" means California's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, which is the Department designated with responsibility for developing, implementing, and enforcing SB 1383 Regulations on Jurisdictions (and others).
"California Code of Regulations" or "CCR" means the State of California Code of Regulations. CCR references in this ordinance are preceded with a number that refers to the relevant Title of the CCR (e.g., "14 CCR" refers to Title 14 of CCR).
"California Code of Regulations" or "CCR" means the State of California Code of Regulations. CCR references in this ordinance are preceded with a number that refers to the relevant Title of the CCR (e.g., "14 CCR" refers to Title 14 of CCR).
“City” means city of Loma Linda.
“City manager” means the city manager of the city of Loma Linda or any person designated by the city manager.
“Code enforcement officer” means the employee charged by the city with the responsibility for the enforcement of the Loma Linda Municipal Code, ordinances and regulations. 4 “Collect or collection” means to take physical possession of and remove solid waste or recyclable materials at the place of generation.
“Combustible waste matter” includes and means magazines, books, hats, trimmings from lawns, trees and flower gardens, pasteboard boxes, rags, paper, straw, sawdust, packing material, shavings, boxes and all such material that will incinerate through contact with flames of ordinary temperature. "Commercial Business" or "Commercial" means a firm, partnership, proprietorship, joint-stock company, corporation, or association, whether for-profit or nonprofit, strip mall, industrial facility, or a multifamily residential dwelling, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(6). A Multi-Family Residential Dwelling that consists of fewer than five (5) unitsis not a Commercial Business for purposes of implementing this ordinance.
"Commercial Edible Food Generator" includes a Tier One or a Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator as defined in Sections 3(rrr) and 3(sss) of this ordinance or as otherwisedefined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) and (a)(74). For the purposes of this definition, Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services are not Commercial Edible Food Generators pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7). "Community Composting" means any activity that composts green material, agriculturalmaterial, food material, and vegetative food material, alone or in combination, and the total amount of feedstock and Compost on-site at any one time does not exceed 100 cubic yards and750 square feet, as specified in 14 CCR Section 17855(a)(4); or, as otherwise defined by 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(8)."Compost" has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section l 7896.2(a)(4), which stated, as of the effective date of this ordinance, that "Compost" means the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic Solid Wastes that are Source Separated from themunicipal Solid Waste stream, or which are separated at a centralized facility "Compliance Review" means a review of records by City to determine compliance with this ordinance. “Compost” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 17896.2(a)(4), which stated, as of the effective date of this ordinance, that “Compost” means the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic Solid Wastes that are Source Separated from the municipal Solid Waste stream, or which are separated at a centralized facility.
“Compostable Plastics” or “Compostable Plastic” means plastic materials that meet the ASTM D6400 standard for compostability, or as otherwise described in 14 CCR Section 18984.1(a)(1)(A) or 18984.2(a)(1)(C) “Container” shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of refuse and source recyclable materials or source separated
"Container Contamination" or "Contaminated Container" means a container, regardless of color, that contains Prohibited Container Contaminants, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(55). "C&D" means construction and demolition debris.
“Customer” means a generator that contracts for solid waste removal services and enters into a service agreement with a franchised hauler or authorized recycler for recycling services. In the event a business, nonresidential property or commercial facility shares solid waste or recycling containers and/or service, “customer” refers only to the entity that arranges for service. 5 "Designee" means an entity that City contracts with or otherwise arranges to carry out any of the City’s responsibilities of this ordinance as authorized in 14 CCR Section 18981.2. A Designee may be a government entity, a hauler, a private entity, or a combination of those entities. "Edible Food" means food intended for human consumption, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(18). For the purposes of this ordinance or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(l 8), "Edible Food" is not Solid Waste if it is recovered and not discarded. Nothing in this ordinance or in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 requires or authorizes the Recovery of Edible Food that does not meet the food safety requirements of the California Retail Food Code.
"Enforcement Action" means an action of the City to address non-compliance with this ordinance including, but not limited to, issuing administrative citations, fines, penalties, or using other remedies. "Excluded Waste" means hazardous substance, hazardous waste, infectious waste, designated waste, volatile, corrosive, medical waste, infectious, regulated radioactive waste, and toxic substances or material that facility operator(s), which receive materials from the City and its generators, reasonably believe(s) would, as a result of or upon acceptance, transfer, processing, or disposal, be a violation of local, State, or Federal law, regulation, or ordinance, including: land use restrictions or conditions, waste that cannot be disposed of in Class III landfills or accepted at the facility by permit conditions, waste that in Citys, or its Designee's reasonable opinion would present a significant risk to human health or the environment, cause a nuisance or otherwise create or expose City, or its Designee, to potential liability; but not including de minimis volumes or concentrations of waste of a type and amount normally found in Single-Family or Multi-Family Solid Waste after implementation of programs for the safe collection, processing, recycling, treatment, and disposal of batteries and paint in compliance with Sections 41500 and 41802 of the California Public Resources Code. “Director” means director of public works or the director’s designee. “Disposal” means the final disposition of solid waste at a permitted landfill or other permitted solid waste disposal facility, as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 40192. “Diversion or divert” means the final reduction or elimination of solid waste from solid waste disposal in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 40192. "Food Recovery" means actions to collect and distribute food for human consumption that otherwise would be disposed, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(24). "Food Recovery Organization" means an entity that engages in the collection or receipt of Edible Food from Commercial Edible Food Generators and distributes that Edible Food to the public for Food Recovery either directly or through other entities or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25), including, but not limited to:
1) A food bank as defined in Section 113783 of the Health and Safety Code; 2) A nonprofit charitable organization as defined in Section 113841 of the Healthand Safety code; and, 3) A nonprofit charitable temporary food facility as defined in Section 113842 of the Health and Safety Code.

A Food Recovery Organization is not a Commercial Edible Food Generator for the purposes of this ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7).

If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25) for Food Recovery Organization differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25) shall apply tothis ordinance. 6 "Food Recovery Service" means a person or entity that collects and transports Edible Food from a Commercial Edible Food Generator to a Food Recovery Organization or other entities for Food Recovery, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(26). A Food Recovery Service is not a Commercial Edible Food Generator for the purposes of this ordinanceand implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7).
"Food Scraps" means all food such as, but not limited to, fruits, vegetables, meat, poultry, seafood, shellfish, bones, rice, beans, pasta, bread, cheese, and eggshells. Food Scraps excludes fats, oils, and grease when such materials are Source Separated from other Food Scraps.
"Food Service Provider" means an entity primarily engaged in providing food services to institutional, governmental, Commercial, or industrial locations of others based on contractual arrangements with these types of organizations, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(27). "Food-Soiled Paper" is compostable paper material that has come in contact with food or liquid, such as, but not limited to, compostable paper plates, paper coffee cups, napkins, pizza boxes, and milk cartons. "Food Waste" means Food Scraps, Food-Soiled Paper, and Compostable Plastics. “Franchise” means commercial solid waste collection franchise contracted for or issued by the city to a hauler. “Franchised hauler” means a hauler holding a franchise, contract, license or permit issued by the city which authorizes the exclusive or nonexclusive right to provide solid waste handling servicers within all or part of the jurisdictional boundaries of the city.
“Generator” means an owner or responsible party for a commercial facility(ies) or business, including nonresidential property which generates recyclable or compostable materials as a result of its business, commercial facility(ies) or property activity. Generator may also include tenants, property managers for facilities with leased space, employees and contractors of the generator, as well as a responsible party for special events. Generator also includes the city, its facilities, its nonresidential properties and special events, its sponsors or cosponsors. “Gray Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(28) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Gray Container Waste.
“Gray Container Waste” means Solid Waste that is collected in a Gray Container as specified in 14 CCR Sections 18984.1(a) and (b), or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402(a)(6.5). Gray Container Waste may specifically include carpet, Non-Compostable Paper and textiles. “Green Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(29) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste. "Grocery Store" means a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food; dry goods: fresh fruits and vegetables; fresh meats, fish, and poultry; and any area that is not separately owned within the store where the food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood departments, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 8982(a)(30).
“Hauler” means any person or commercial entity which lawfully collects, hauls, or transports solid waste for a fee by use of any means, including, but not limited to, a dumpster truck, roll-off truck, side-load, front-load, rearload hauler truck or trailer. 7 “Hauler Route” means the designated itinerary or sequence of stops for each segment of the City of Loma Linda’s collection service area, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(31.5). "High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility" means a facility that is in compliance with the reporting requirements of 14 CCR Section 18815.5(d) and meets or exceeds an annual average mixed waste organic content Recovery rate of 50 percent between January l, 2022 and December 31, 2024, and 75 percent after January 1, 2025, as calculated pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18815.S(e) for Organic Waste received from the "Mixed waste organic collection stream" as defined in 14 CCR Section 17402(a)(I 1.5); or, as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(33).
"Inspection" means a site visit where City reviews records, containers, andan entity's collection, handling, recycling, or landfill disposal of Organic Waste or Edible Food handling to determine if the entity is complying with requirements set forth in this ordinance, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(35). “Jurisdiction" means the City of Loma Linda.
“Jurisdiction Enforcement Official" means the city manager, or other executive in charge or their authorized Designee(s) who is/are partially or whole responsible for enforcing the ordinance.See also "Regional or County Agency Enforcement Official".
“Landfill” means a permitted disposal site which accepts solid waste. "Large Event" means an event, including, but not limited to, a sporting event or a flea market, that charges an admission price, or is operated by a local agency, and serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals per day of operation of the event, at a location that includes, but is not limited to, a public, nonprofit, or privately owned park, parking lot, golf course, street system, or other open space when being used for an event. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(38) differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(38) shall apply to this ordinance.
“Large Venue means a permanent venue facility that annual seats or serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals within the grounds of the facility per day of operation of the venue facility. For purposes of this ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a venue facility includes, but is not limited to, a public, nonprofit, or privately owned or operated stadium, amphitheater, arena, hall, amusement park, conference or civic center, zoo aquarium, airport, racetrack, horse track, performing arts center, fairground, museum theater, or other public attraction facility. For purposes of this ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a site under common ownership or control that includes more than one Large Venue that is contiguous with other Large Venues in the site is a single Large Venue. If the definition in 14 CCR, Section 18982(a)(39) differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(39) shall apply to this ordinance. "Local Education Agency" means a school district, charter school, or county office of education that is not subject to the control of city or county regulations related to Solid Waste, oras otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(40).
“Multi-Family Residential Dwelling” or “Multi-Family” means of, from, or pertaining to residential premises with five (5) or more dwelling units. Multi-Family premises do not include hotels, motels, or other transient occupancy facilities, which are considered Commercial Businesses. "MWELO" refers to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7.
8 "Non-Compostable Paper" includes but is not limited to paper that is coated in a plasticmaterial that will not breakdown in the composting process, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(41). "MWELO" refers to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance(MWELO), 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7. “Noncombustible waste matter” includes and means crockery, bottles, glass, tin cans, metal vessels, ashes and all such material that will not incinerate through contact with flames of ordinary temperature. "Non-Local Entity" means the following entities that are not subject to the City’s enforcement authority, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(42):
1) Federal facilities, including Veterans Administration installations, located within the boundaries of the Jurisdiction, including Jerry R.Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital. 2) State agencies located within the boundaries of the Jurisdiction, includingCalifornia Highway Patrol Facility.
"Non-Organic Recyclables" means non-putrescible and non-hazardous recyclable wastes including but not limited to bottles, cans, metals, plastics and glass, or as otherwisedefined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(43). "Notice of Violation (NOV)" means a notice that a violation has occurred that includes acompliance date to avoid an action to seek penalties, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section18982(a)(45) or further explained in 14 CCR Section 18995.4.
“Occupant” includes and means every owner, tenant, occupant or person having the care or control of any premises within the city.
"Organic Waste" means Solid Wastes containing material originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, including but not limited to food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, Paper Products, Printing and Writing Paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges or as otherwise defined in 14 CCRSection 18982(a)(46). Biosolids and digestate are as defined by 14 CCR Section 18982(a).
"Organic Waste Generator" means a person or entity that is responsible for the initial creation of Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(48). "Paper Products" include, but are not limited to, paper janitorial supplies, cartons, wrapping, packaging, file folders, hanging files, corrugated boxes, tissue, and toweling, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(51).
"Printing and Writing Papers" include, but are not limited to, copy, xerographic, watermark, cotton fiber, offset, forms, computer printout paper, white wove envelopes, manila envelopes, book paper, note pads, writing tablets, newsprint, and other uncoated writing papers, posters, index cards, calendars, brochures, reports, magazines, and publications, or as otherwisedefined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(54). "Prohibited Container Contaminants" means the following: (i) discarded materials placed in the Blue Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials for the City’s Blue Container; (ii) discarded materials placed in the Green Container thatare not identified as acceptable Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste for the City’s Green Container; (iii) discarded materials placed in the Black Container that are acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials and/or Source Separated Green Container Organic Wastes to be placed in City’s Green Container and/or Blue Container; and, (iv) Excluded Waste placed in any container.
9 “Recovered Organic Waste Products" means products made from California, landfill- diverted recovered Organic Waste processed in a permitted or otherwise authorized facility, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(60).
"Recovery" means any activity or process described in 14 CCR Section 18983. l(b), or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(49).
"Remote Monitoring" means the use of the internet of things (IoT) and/or wireless electronic devices to visualize the contents of Blue Containers, Green Containers, and Black Containers for purposes of identifying the quantity of materials in containers (level of fill) and/or presence of Prohibited Container Contaminants. "Renewable Gas" means gas derived from Organic Waste that has been diverted from a California landfill and processed at an in-vessel digestion facility that is permitted or otherwise authorized by 14 CCR to recycle Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(62). "Restaurant" means an establishment primarily engaged in the retail sale of food and drinks for onpremises or immediate consumption, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(64). "Route Review" means a visual Inspection of containers along a Hauler Route for the purpose of determining Container Contamination, and may include mechanical Inspection methods such as the use of cameras, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(65). "SB 1383" means Senate Bill 1383 of 2016 approved by the Governor on September 19,2016, which added Sections 39730.5, 39730.6, 39730.7, and 39730.8 to the Health and Safety Code, and added Chapter

13.1 (commencing with Section 42652) to Part 3 of Division 30 of thePublic Resources Code, establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a Statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time. "SB 1383 Regulations" or "SB 1383 Regulatory" means or refers to, for the purposes of this ordinance, the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reduction regulations developed by CalRecycle and adopted in 2020 that created 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 andamended portions of regulations of 14 CCR and 27 CCR. “Single-Family means of, from, or pertaining to any residential premises with fewer than five (5) units "Solid Waste" has the same meaning as defined in State Public Resources Code Section 40191, which defines Solid Waste as all putrescible and non-putrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, dewatered, treated, or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not hazardous waste, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid wastes, and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes, with the exception that Solid Waste does not include any of the following wastes:
1) Hazardous waste, as defined in the State Public Resources Code Section 40141. 2) Radioactive waste regulated pursuant to the Stte Radiation Control Law (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 114960) of Part 9 of Division 104 of the State Health and Safety Code. 3) Medical waste regulated pursuant to the State Medical Waste Management Act (Part 14 (commencing with Section 117600) of Division 104 of the State Health and Safety Code). Untreated medical waste shall not be disposed of in a Solid Waste landfill as defined in State Public Resources Code Section 40195.1.

Medical waste that has been treated and deemed to be Solid Waste shall be regulated pursuant to Division 30 of the State Public Resources Code.
10 "Source Separated" means materials, including commingled recyclable materials that have been separated or kept separated from the Solid Waste stream, at the point of generation, for the purpose of additional sorting or procession those materials for recycling or reuse in order to return them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused or reconstituted projects which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402.5(6)(4). For the purposes of the ordinance, Source Separated shall include separation of materials by the generator, property owner, property owner’s employee, property manager or property manager’s employee into different containers for the purpose of collection such that Source Separated materials are separated from Black Container or other Solid Waste for the purposes of collection and processing.
"Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste" means Source Separated Organic Wastes that can be placed in a Blue Container that is limited to the collection of those Organic Wastes and Non-Organic Recyclables as defined in Section 18982(a)(43), or as otherwise defined by Section 17402(a)(18.7). "Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste" means Source Separated OrganicWaste that can be placed in a Green Container that is specifically intended for the separate collection of Organic Waste by the generator, excluding Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste, carpets, Non-Compostable Paper, and textiles.
"Source Separated Recyclable Materials" means Source Separated Non-OrganicRecyclables and Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste.
"State" means the State of California.
"Supermarket" means a full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, and which sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(71). "Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator" means a Commercial Edible Food Generator that is one of the following:
1) Supermarket.
2) Grocery Store with a total facility size equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet. 3) Food Service Provider.
4) Food Distributor.
5) Wholesale Food Vendor.

If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) of Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) shallapply to this ordinance. "Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator" means a Commercial Edible Food Generator that is one of the following:
1) Restaurant with 250 or more seats, or a total facility size equal to or greater than5,000 square feet. 2) Hotel with an on-site Food Facility and 200 or more rooms. 3) Health facility with an on-site Food Facility and 100 or more beds. 4) Large Venue.
5) Large Event.
6) A State agency with a cafeteria with 250 or more seats or total cafeteria facilitysize equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet.
7) A Local Education Agency facility with an on-site Food Facility. 11 If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(74) of Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator differsfrom this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(74) shallapply to this ordinance. "Uncontainerized Green Waste and Yard Waste Collection Service" or "Uncontainerized Service" means a collection service that collects green waste and yard waste that is placed in a pile or bagged for collection on the street in front of a generator's house or place of business forcollection and transport to a facility that recovers Source Separated Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 189852(a)(75). "Wholesale Food Vendor" means a business or establishment engaged in the merchant wholesale distribution of food, where food (including fruits and vegetables) is received, shipped, stored, prepared for distribution to a retailer, warehouse, distributor, or other destination, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 189852(a)(76).

8.12.040 Collection fees.

Fees for the service collection of refuse shall not exceed those ceilings as established by resolution by the city council. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 550 § 1, 1997: Ord. 65 § 4, 1972)

8.12.050 Unauthorized containers or offensive refuse a nuisance.

The keeping of solid waste or source-separated materials in containers other than containers prescribed by this chapter or the keeping upon premises of solid waste or source-separated materials which is allowed to become offensive and noisome, shall constitute a public nuisance and may be abated in the manner provided by law for the abatement of nuisances. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 5, 1972)

8.12.060 Containers—Required.

It shall be the duty of every owner, lessee, manager and/or person in possession, charge or control of a building on any premises in the city to maintain at all times the hauler-provided convenient portable solid waste and sourceseparated containers upon said premises. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 6, 1972)

8.12.070 Containers—Specifications.

Each solid waste and source-separated material container shall be of sound construction and shall be watertight and shall have no ragged or sharp edges or any other defect liable to hamper or injure the person collecting the contents of the container. Containers shall be provided by the hauler. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 114 § 1, 1975; Ord. 65 § 7, 1972)

8.12.080 Containers—Covers required.

All containers shall have a tight-fitting cover. The covers shall not be removed from containers except when necessary to place solid waste or source-separated materials therein or to remove refuse therefrom; at all other times, said cover shall be in place on said container. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 8, 1972)

8.12.100 Containers—Placement generally.

Each container shall be kept in or placed in such a manner as not to be visible from the public street and so as to be easily accessible to the hauler collector; provided, that during or for the time fixed for the collection of solid waste or source-separated materials from said containers, such containers shall be kept or placed as follows:
12 A Near Alley. Where there is an alley other than a blind alley in the rear of such premises, such container(s) shall be placed on the premises, within five feet of the rear property line.

B. On Curb. Where there is no alley other than a blind alley in the rear of the premises, each container shall be placed immediately behind the curb on a public street, in front of the premises. Where no curb exists, containers shall be placed in a position as though a curb did exist. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 10, 1972)

8.12.110 Containers—Street placement time limits.

No person shall place any container in any street, alley, sidewalk, court or other public way in the city at any time other than the regular time for collection service. Every person who so places a container for the purpose of solid waste or source-separated materials collection shall place the container(s) no earlier than sundown prior to the date of collection and shall remove same no later than seven p.m. of the day of collection. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 11, 1972)

8.12.120 Unauthorized solid waste or source-separated materials deposit prohibited.

No person shall deposit or cause or permit to be deposited any solid waste or source-separated materials upon or in any public street, alley or other public place, or upon any premises in the city, except in appropriate containers as provided in this chapter. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 12, 1972)

8.12.130 Collection of unusual accumulations.

For collection of unusual accumulations of solid waste or source-separated materials, or collection from locations not otherwise provided for in this chapter, reasonable collection charges may be charged as shall be agreed upon by the Hauler contractor and the customer; provided, that in all cases where a dispute arises as to the rate charged or to be charged for such unusual collection service, the matter shall be referred to the city council which shall determine and fix a maximum ceiling for such charge. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 550 § 2, 1997; Ord. 65 § 13, 1972)

8.12.140 Collection from public containers required.

The contractor shall collect solid waste or source-separated materials from receptacles belonging to the city. The city shall keep containers at appropriate public locations within the city, including, but not limited to, parks, playgrounds, and public sidewalks in business areas, civic center, and other locations frequented by the public.

After each holiday and other days when such parks and playgrounds have extraordinary use, collections shall be made. Regular collection shall be made once a week or on a greater frequency as necessary in order to ensure adequate service. Such collection shall be performed without charge to the city. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 14, 1972)

8.12.150 Containers—Interference prohibited.

It is unlawful for any person, other than the owner or person responsible for the container(s) or any officer, agent, or employee of such person or of the city or its agents, to interfere in any manner with any container or to remove any container or any of its contents or materials from the location where it was placed by the owner thereof. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 440 § 1, 1990; Ord. 439 § 1, 1990; Ord. 65 § 15, 1972)

8.12.160 Containers—Placement of unauthorized substances prohibited. 13 No person shall place or cause or permit to be placed in any solid waste or source-separated materials container any substance or material other than solid waste or source-separated materials as defined in this chapter. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 16, 1972)

8.12.170 Collection vehicle specifications.

All vehicles used in collecting and transporting solid waste or source-separated materials shall be provided with metal bodies and shall be so constructed as to be watertight and to prevent the loss of any contents being collected or transported therein upon the streets, alleys and other public ways in the city. Such vehicle shall be thoroughly cleansed daily so as to reduce or eliminate odors and decayed or rotten materials. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 65 § 17, 1972)

8.12.180 Multifamily collection rates and frequency.

Multifamily residential, commercial and industrial units shall have their solid waste or source-separated materials collected in the same manner and subject to such rate ceilings as the city council may adopt for various levels of service. The frequency of collection shall be negotiated individually but shall be collected at least once a week. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018; Ord. 550 § 3, 1997; Ord. 65 § 18, 1972)

8.12.190 Waivers —Authorized when—Application—Self-hauling permits.

A. Where practical difficulties or results inconsistent with the general purposes of this chapter would occur from its strict literal enforcement, the city council may grant a waiver from certain or all of its provisions, upon such terms and conditions as it deems necessary. A written application for waiver shall be filed with the city clerk setting forth provisions the applicant seeks to be exempt from and setting forth with specificity the reasons why such waiver should be granted. The following shall be the acceptable Waivers for Generators that may be approved by the City:
(a) De Minimis Waivers: The City of Loma Linda may, at its discretion, waive a Commercial Business’ obligation (including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings) to comply with some or all of the Organic Waste requirements of this Chapter if the Commercial Business:
(1) Submits an application specifying the services that they are requesting a waiver from; and, (2) Provides documentation that either:
(A) The Commercial Business’ total Solid Waste collection service is two cubic yards or more per week and Organic Waste subject to collection in a Blue Container or Green Container comprises less than 20 gallons per week per applicable container of the business’ total waste; or,
(B) The Commercial Business’ total Solid Waste collection service is less than two cubic yards per week and Organic Waste subject to collection in a Blue Container or Green Container comprises less than 10 gallons per week per applicable container of the business’ total waste; and,
(3) Notifies the City of Loma Linda if circumstances change such that Commercial Business’s Organic Waste exceeds the threshold required for waiver, in which case waiver will be rescinded; and, (4) Provides written verification of eligibility for de minimis waiver every 5 years, if the City of Loma Linda has approved de minimis waiver.
14 (b) Physical Space Waivers: The City of Loma Linda may, at its discretion, waive a Commercial Business’ or property owner’s obligations (including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings) to comply with some or all of the recyclable materials and/or Organic Waste collection service requirements if the City of Loma Linda has evidence from its own staff, a hauler, licensed architect, or licensed engineer demonstrating that the premises lack adequate space for the collection containers required for compliance with the Organic Waste collection requirements of this Chapter. A Commercial Business or property owner may request a physical space waiver through the following process:
(1) Submit an application form specifying the type(s) of collection services for which they are requesting a compliance waiver.
(2) Provide documentation that the premises lack adequate space for Blue Containers and/or Green Containers, including documentation from its hauler, licensed architect, or licensed engineer. (3) Provide written verification to the City of Loma Linda that it is still eligible for physical space waiver every five years, if the City of Loma Linda has approved application for a physical space waiver.
(c) Collection Frequency Waiver: The City of Loma Linda, at its discretion and in accordance with 14 CCR Section 18984.11(a)(3), may allow the owner or tenant of any residence, premises, business establishment or industry that subscribes to the City of Loma Linda’s three-container Organic Waste collection service to arrange for the collection of their Blue Container, Gray Container, or both once every fourteen days, rather than once per week.

B. Self-Haul Permits. Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 8.12.010 and 8.12.020, the person responsible for day-to-day operations of any premises within the city, or the occupant thereof, may apply for a self-hauling permit to remove refuse or other waste matter from his or her own premises. Such a permit may be issued by the city public works department upon the payment of a fee as authorized by resolution of the city council of the city of Loma Linda, upon the showing that the proposed permittee owns an enclosed pickup truck or similar enclosed vehicle and upon proof of the permittee’s compliance with this chapter of the municipal code of the city of Loma Linda by providing weekly receipts from an authorized landfill on a monthly basis. The permit shall be subject to revocation upon any violation of this chapter. The permittee shall have the right to dispute the revocation by appeal to the director of public works or designee within ten days of notice of revocation. The decision of the director of public works or designee shall be final.

C. In addition to any other requirements for Self-haulers as contained in Chapter 8.12.190 B, the following shall also apply:
(a) Authorized Self-Haulers shall source separate all recyclable materials and Organic Waste (materials that the City of Loma Linda otherwise requires generators to separate for collection in the City of Loma Linda’s organics and recycling collection program) generated on-site from Solid Waste in a manner consistent with 14 CCR Sections 18984.1 and 18984.2, or shall haul Organic Waste to a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility as specified in 14 CCR Section 18984.3. (b) Self-Haulers shall haul their Source Separated Recyclable Materials to a facility that recovers those materials; and haul their Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste to a Solid Waste facility, operation, activity, or property that processes or recovers Source Separated Organic Waste. Alternatively, Self-Haulers may haul Organic Waste to a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility. (c) Self-Haulers that are Commercial Businesses (including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings) shall keep a record of the amount of Organic Waste delivered to each Solid Waste facility, operation, 15 activity, or property that processes or recovers Organic Waste; this record shall be subject to Inspection by the City of Loma Linda. The records shall include the following information:
(1) Delivery receipts and weight tickets from the entity accepting the waste. (2) The amount of material in cubic yards or tons transported by the generator to each entity. (3) If the material is transported to an entity that does not have scales on-site, or employs scales incapable of weighing the Self-Hauler’s vehicle in a manner that allows it to determine the weight of materials received, the Self-Hauler is not required to record the weight of material but shall keep a record of the entities that received the Organic Waste. (d) Self-Haulers that are Commercial Businesses (including Multi-Family Self-Haulers) shall provide information collected in subsection(c) to the City of Loma Linda or its authorized designee or other representative, if requested.

C. No person shall provide services as a hauler of recyclables within the boundaries of the city without being a franchised hauler with the city.

8.12.200 Requirements for Single Family Generators
Single-Family Organic Waste Generators, except Single-Family generators that meet all applicable Self-Hauler requirements in this Chapter:
(a) Shall subscribe to the City of Loma Linda’s three-container Organic Waste collection services.

The City of Loma Linda shall have the right to review the number, size, and location of a generator’s containers to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials; and, generator shall adjust its service level for its collection services as requested by the City of Loma Linda. (b) Shall participate in the City of Loma Linda’s three-container system for Source Separated Recyclable Materials, Source Separated Green Container organic materials, and Gray Container Waste collection services. Generator participation in the collection programs requires that generators place only approved materials in the appropriate colored containers. Generators shall not place materials designated for the Gray Container into the Green Container or Blue Container.

Commercial Businesses, which includes Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, shall:
(a) Except Commercial Businesses that meet all applicable Self-Hauler requirements in this Chapter, subscribe to the City of Loma Linda’s three-container Organic Waste collection services. The City of Loma Linda shall have the right to review the number, size, and location of a generator’s containers and frequency of collection to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials; and, Commercial Business shall adjust its service level for its collection services as requested by the City of Loma Linda.
(b) Except Commercial Businesses that meet all applicable Self-Hauler requirements in this Chapter, participate in and comply with the City of Loma Linda’s three-container (Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Container) collection service by placing designated materials in designated containers. Generator shall place only approved materials in the appropriate colored containers. Generators shall not place materials designated for the Gray Container into the Green Container or Blue Container.

Notwithstanding the above, and in accordance with the SB 1383 Regulations, the City of Loma Linda is not required to replace functional containers, including containers purchased prior to January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the color requirements of this Chapter and the Regulations, prior to the end of the useful life of those containers, or prior to January 1, 2036, whichever comes first. Labels will be placed on the containers indicating the primary materials accepted and the primary materials prohibited in the containers. Until SB 1383 compliant colored containers are provided (Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Container), Commercial Businesses shall comply with the container label requirements.
(c) Supply and allow access to adequate number, size, and location of collection containers with sufficient labels or colors (conforming with subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) below), for employees, contractors, tenants and customers, consistent with the City of Loma Linda’s Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Container collection service, or, if self-hauling, per the Commercial Businesses’ instructions to support its compliance with its self-haul program.
(d) Excluding Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, provide containers for the collection of Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste, and Source Separated Recyclable Materials in all indoor and outdoor areas where disposal containers are provided for customers, for materials generated by that business. Such containers do not need to be provided in restrooms. If a Commercial Business does not generate any of the materials that would be collected in one type of container, then the business does not have to provide that particular container in all areas where disposal containers are provided for customers. Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b), the containers provided by the business shall have either:
(1) A body or lid that conforms with the container colors provided through the collection service provided by the City of Loma Linda, with either lids conforming to the color requirements or bodies conforming to the color requirements or both lids and bodies conforming to color requirements. A Commercial Business is not required to replace functional containers, including containers purchased prior to January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the requirements of the subsection prior to the end of the useful life of those containers, or prior to January 1, 2036, whichever comes first. (2) Container labels that include language or graphic images or both indicating the primary material accepted and the primary materials prohibited in that container or containers with imprinted text or graphic images that indicate the primary materials accepted and primary materials prohibited in the container.

Pursuant 14 CCR Section 18984.8, the container labels are required on new containers commencing January 1, 2022.
17 (e) Multi-Family Residential Dwellings are not required to comply with container placement requirements or labeling requirement pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b). (f) To the extent practical through education, training, Inspection, and/or other measures, excluding MultiFamily Residential Dwellings, prohibit employees from placing materials in a container not designated for those materials per the City of Loma Linda’s Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Container collection service or, if self-hauling, per the Commercial Businesses’ instructions to support its compliance with its self-haul program.
(g) Excluding Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, periodically inspect Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Containers for contamination and inform employees if containers are contaminated and of the requirements to keep contaminants out of those containers pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b)(3). (h) Annually provide information to employees, contractors, tenants, and customers about Organic Waste Recovery requirements and about proper sorting of Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste and Source Separated Recyclable Materials.
(i) Provide education information before or within fourteen (14) days of occupation of the premises to new tenants that describes requirements to keep Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste and Source Separated Recyclable Materials separate from Gray Container Waste (when applicable) and the location of containers and the rules governing their use at each property. (j) Provide or arrange access for the City of Loma Linda or its agent to their properties during all Inspections conducted in accordance with this Chapter to confirm compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. (k) If implemented, accommodate and cooperate with the City of Loma Linda’s Remote Monitoring program for Inspection of the contents of containers for Prohibited Container Contaminants, to evaluate generator’s compliance with this Chapter. The Remote Monitoring program shall involve installation of Remote Monitoring equipment on or in the Blue Containers, Green Containers, and/or Gray Containers. (l) If the Commercial Business wants to self-haul, meet all requirements of this Chapter of the Municipal Code.
(m) Nothing in this Section prohibits a generator from preventing or reducing waste generation, managing Organic Waste on site, or using a Community Composting site pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(c). (n) Commercial Businesses that are Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators shall comply with Food Recovery requirements of this Chapter.

8.12.202 Requirements for Commercial Edible Food Generators. (a) Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators must comply with the below requirements commencing January 1, 2022, and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators must comply commencing January 1, 2024, pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3. (b) Large Venue or Large Event operators not providing food services, but allowing for food to be provided by others, shall require Food Facilities operating at the Large Venue or Large Event to comply with the requirements of this Section, commencing January 1, 2024. 18 (c) Commercial Edible Food Generators shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) Arrange to recover the maximum amount of Edible Food that would otherwise be disposed.
(2) Contract with, or enter into a written agreement with Food Recovery Organizations or Food Recovery Services for: (i) the collection of Edible Food for Food Recovery; or, (ii) acceptance of the Edible Food that the Commercial Edible Food Generator self-hauls to the Food Recovery Organization for Food Recovery. (3) Shall not intentionally spoil Edible Food that is capable of being recovered by a Food Recovery Organization or a Food Recovery Service.
(4) Allow the City of Loma Linda’s designated enforcement entity or designated third party enforcement entity to access the premises and review records pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.4.
(5) Keep records that include the following information, or as otherwise specified in 14 CCR Section 18991.4:
(A) A list of each Food Recovery Service or organization that collects or receives its Edible Food pursuant to a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b).
(B) A copy of all contracts or written agreements established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b).
(C) A record of the following information for each of those Food Recovery Services or Food Recovery Organizations:
(i) The name, address and contact information of the Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization.
(ii) The types of food that will be collected by or self-hauled to the Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization.
(iii) The established frequency that food will be collected or self-hauled. (iv) The quantity of food, measured in pounds recovered per month, collected or self-hauled to a Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization for Food Recovery.
(6) Commencing no later than January 1, 2022, for Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators and January 1, 2024, for Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators, Commercial Edible Food Generators shall provide a quarterly Food Recovery report to the City of Loma Linda which includes the information required in 14 CCR Section 18991.4 “Record Keeping Requirements for Commercial Edible Food Generators.”
19 (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit or conflict with the protections provided by the California Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 2017, the Federal Good Samaritan Act, or share table and school food donation guidance pursuant to Senate Bill 557 of 2017 (approved by the Governor of the State of California on September 25, 2017, which added Article 13 [commencing with Section 49580] to Chapter 9 of Part 27 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, and to amend Section 114079 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to food safety, as amended, supplemented, superseded and replaced from time to time).

8.12.203 Requirements for Food Recovery Organizations and Services. (a) Food Recovery Services collecting or receiving Edible Food directly from Commercial Edible Food Generators, via a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b), shall maintain the following records, or as otherwise specified by 14 CCR Section 18991.5(a)(1):
(1) The name, address, and contact information for each Commercial Edible Food Generator from which the service collects Edible Food.
(2) The quantity in pounds of Edible Food collected from each Commercial Edible Food Generator per month.
(3) The quantity in pounds of Edible Food transported to each Food Recovery Organization per month.
(4) The name, address, and contact information for each Food Recovery Organization that the Food Recovery Service transports Edible Food to for Food Recovery. (b) Food Recovery Organizations collecting or receiving Edible Food directly from Commercial Edible Food Generators, via a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b), shall maintain the following records, or as otherwise specified by 14 CCR Section 18991.5(a)(2):
(1) The name, address, and contact information for each Commercial Edible Food Generator from which the organization receives Edible Food. (2) The quantity in pounds of Edible Food received from each Commercial Edible Food Generator per month.
(3) The name, address, and contact information for each Food Recovery Service that the organization receives Edible Food from for Food Recovery. (c) Commencing January 1, 2022, Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services that have their primary address physically located in the City of Loma Linda and contract with or have written agreements with one or more Commercial Edible Food Generators pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b) shall report to the City of Loma Linda the total pounds of Edible Food recovered in the previous calendar year from the Tier One and Tier 20 Two Commercial Edible Food Generators they have established a contract or written agreement with pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b), as applicable. (d) Food Recovery Capacity Planning
In order to support Edible Food Recovery capacity planning assessments or other studies conducted by the [County, city, special district] that provides solid waste collection services, or its designated entity, Food Recovery Services and Food Recovery Organizations operating in the City of Loma Linda shall provide information and consultation to the City of Loma Linda, upon request, regarding existing, or proposed new or expanded, Food Recovery capacity that could be accessed by the City of Loma Linda and its Commercial Edible Food Generators. A Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization contacted by the City of Loma Linda shall respond to such request for information within 60 days, unless a shorter timeframe is otherwise specified by the City of Loma Linda.
(e) Commencing no later than January 1, 2022, Food Recovery Services and Organization shall provide a quarterly report to the City of Loma Linda which includes the information required in 14 CCR Section 18991.5 “Food Recovery Services and Organizations.”

8.12.204 Requirements for Haulers and Facility Operators A. Exclusive franchised hauler providing residential, Commercial, or industrial Organic Waste collection services to generators within the City’s boundaries shall meet the following requirements and standards as a condition of approval of a contract, agreement, or other authorization with the City to collect Organic Waste:

1. Through written notice to the City annually on or before July 1, 2022, identify the facilities to which they will transport Organic Waste including facilities for Source Separated Recyclable Materials.

Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste.

2. Transport for Source Separated Recyclable Materials. Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste to a facility, operation, activity, or property thatrecovers Organic Waste as defined in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 2.

3. Obtain approval from the City to haul Organic Waste, unless it is transporting Source Separated Organic Waste to a Community Composting site or lawfully transporting C&D in a manner that complies with 14 CCR Section 18989.1, Section 13 of this ordinance, and Cityof Loma Linda C & D Ordinance

4. Exclusive franchised hauler authorization to collect Organic Waste shall comply witheducation, equipment, signage, container labeling, container color, contamination monitoring, reporting, and other requirements contained within its franchise agreement, permit, license or other agreement entered into with City of Loma Linda.

5. Notwithstanding any the foregoing, nothing in this Chapter shall restrict or otherwise prohibit [the authorized Hauler] from meeting its compliance requirements by any alternative methods or procedures, 21 provided it complies with SB 1383, the SB 1383 Regulations, and/or any other applicable law, as may be amended from time to time.

B. Requirements for Facility Operators and Community Composting Operations

1. Owners of facilities, operations, and activities that recover Organic Waste, including,but not limited to, Compost facilities, in-vessel digestion facilities, and publicly-owned treatment worksshall, upon City request, provide information regarding available andpotential new or expanded capacity at their facilities, operations, and activities, including information about throughput and permitted capacity necessary for planning purposes. Entities contacted by the City shall respond within 60 days.

2. Community Composting operators, upon City of Loma Linda request, shall provide information to the City to support Organic Waste capacity planning, including, but not limited to, an estimate of the amount of Organic Waste anticipated to be handled at the Community Composting operation.

Entities contacted by the City shall respond within 60 days.

8.12.205 Compliance with CALGreen Recycling Requirements A. Persons applying for a permit from the City for new construction and building additions and alternations shall comply with the requirements of this Section and all required components of the California Green Building Standards Code, 24 CCR, Part 11, known as CALGreen, as amended, if its project is covered by the scope of CALGreen or more stringent requirements of the City of Loma Linda. If the requirements of CALGreen are more stringent then the requirements of this Section, the CALGreen requirements shall apply. Project applicants shall refer to City of Loma Linda Municipal Code for complete CALGreenrequirements.

B. For projects covered by CALGreen or more stringent requirements of the City of Loma Linda, the applicants must, as a condition of the City’s permit approval, comply with thefollowing:

1. Where four (4) or more Multi-Family dwelling units are constructed on a building site, provide readily accessible areas that serve occupants of all buildings on the site and are identified for the storage and collection of Blue Container or Green Container materials, consistent with the threecontainer collection service program offered by the City, or comply with provision of adequate space for recycling for Multi-Family and Commercial premises pursuant to Sections 4.408.1,

4.410.2, 5.408.1, and 5.410.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code, 24 CCR, Part 11 as amended provided amended requirements are more stringent than the CALGreen requirements for adequate recycling space effective January 1, 2020.

2. New Commercial construction or additions resulting in more than 30% of the floor areashall provide readily accessible areas identified for the storage and collection Blue Container orGreen Container materials, consistent with the three-container collection service program offered by the City, or shall comply with provision of adequate space for recycling for Multi- Family and Commercial premises pursuant to Sections 4.408.1, 4.410.2, 5.408.1, and 5.410.1 ofthe California Green Building Standards Code, 24 CCR, Part 11 as amended provided amendedrequirements are more stringent than the CALGreen requirements for adequate recycling spaceeffective January 1, 2020.

3. Comply with CALGreen requirements and applicable law related to management ofC&D, including diversion of Organic Waste in C&D from disposal. Comply with City’s C&D ordinance, Chapter

15.58 of the Loma Linda Municipal Code and all written and published City policies and/or administrative guidelines regarding the collection, recycling, diversion, tracking, and/or reporting of C&D.
22 8.12.206 Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance Requirements (MWELO) A. Property owners or their building or landscape designers, including anyone requiring a building or planning permit, plan check, or landscape design review from the City, who are constructing a new (Single-Family, Multi-Family, public, institutional, or Commercial) project with a landscape area greater than 500 square feet, or rehabilitating an existing landscape with a total landscape area greater than 2,500 square feet, shall comply with Sections 492.6(a)(3)(B) (C), (D), and (G) of the MWELO, including sections related to use of Compost and mulch as delineated in this Section 14.

B. The following Compost and mulch use requirements that are part of the MWELO are now also included as requirements of this ordinance. Other requirements of the MWELO are in effect and can be found in 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7. (c) Property owners or their building orlandscape designers that meet the threshold for MWELO compliance outlined in Section 14(a) above shall:

1. Comply with Sections 492.6 (a)(3)(B)(C),(D) and (G) of the MWELO, which submittal of a landscape design plan with a soil preparation, mulch, and amendments section to include the following:

C. For landscape installations, Compost at a rate of a minimum of four cubicyards per 1,000 square feet of pe1meable area shall be incorporated to a depth ofsix (6) inches into the soil. Soils with greater than six percent (6%) organic matterin the top six (6) inches of soil are exempt from adding Compost and tilling.

D. For landscape installations, a minimum three (3) inch layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch is contraindicated. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife up tofive percent (5%) of the landscape area may be left without mulch. Designated insect habitat must be included in the landscape design plan as such.

E. Organic mulch materials made from recycled or post-consumer materials shall take precedence over inorganic materials or virgin forest products unless the recycled post-consumer organic products are not locally available. Organic mulches are not required where prohibited by local fuel modification plan guidelines or other applicable local ordinances.

1. The MWELO compliance items listed in this Section are not an inclusive list of MWELO requirements; therefore, property owners or their building or landscape designers that meet the threshold for MWELO compliance outlined in Chapter 8.12.250 (A) shall consult the full MWELO for all requirements.

2. If, after the adoption of this ordinance, the California Department of Water Resources, or its successor agency, amends 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7, Sections 492.6(a)(3)(B) (C), (D), and (G) of the MWWELO September 15, 2015, requirements in a manner that requires Jurisdictions to incorporate the requirements of an updated MWELO in a local ordinance, and the amended requirements include provisions more stringent than those required in this Section,the revised requirements of 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7 shall be enforced.

8.12.207 Procurement Requirements for City Departments, Direct Service Providers, and Vendors A. City departments, and direct service providers to the City , as applicable, must comply with the City’s Recovered Organic Waste Product procurement policyand recycled-Content Paper procurement policy. 23 B. All vendors providing Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper shall:

1. If fitness and quality are equal, provide Recycled-Content Paper Products and Recycled-Content Printing and Writing Paper that consists of at least 30 percent, by fiber weight, postconsumer fiber instead of non-recycled products whenever recycled Paper Products andPrinting and Writing Paper are available at the same or lesser total cost than non-recycled items.

2. Provide Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper that meet Federal Trade Commission recyclability standard as defined in 16 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 260.12.

3. Certify in writing, under penalty of perjury, the minimum percentage of postconsumer material in the Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper offered or sold to the City. This certification requirement may be waived if the percentage of postconsumer material in the Paper Products, Printing and Writing Paper, or both can be verified by a product label, catalog, invoice, or a manufacturer or vendor internet website.

4. Certify in writing, on invoices or receipts provided, that the Paper Products and Printingand Writing Paper offered or sold to the City is eligible to be labeled with an unqualified recyclable label as defined in 16 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 260.12 (2013).

5. Provide records to the City’s Recovered Organic Waste Product procurement recordkeeping Designee, in accordance with the City’s Recycled-Content Paper procurement policy(ies) of all Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper purchases within thirty (30) days of the purchase (both recycled-content and non-recycled content, if any is purchased) made by any division or department or employee of the City. Records shall include a copy (electronic or paper) of the invoice or other documentation of purchase, written certifications as required in Sections 15(b)(3) and 15(b)(4) of this ordinance for recycled-content purchases, purchaser name, quantity purchased, date purchased, and recycled content (including products that contain none), and if non-recycled content Paper Products or Printing and Writing Papers are provided, include a description of why RecycledContent Paper Products or Printing and Writing Papers were not provided.

8.12.208 Inspections and Investigations by City
A. City representatives and/or its designated entity including Designees are authorized to conduct Inspections and investigations, at random or otherwise, of any collection container, collection vehicle loads, or transfer, processing, or disposal facility for materials collected fromgenerators, or Source Separated materials to confirm compliance with this ordinance by Organic Waste Generators, Commercial Businesses (including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings), property owners,Commercial Edible Food Generators, haulers, , FoodRecovery Services, and Food Recovery Organizations, subject to applicable laws. This Section does not allow City to enter the interior of a private residential property for Inspection.

B. Regulated entity shall provide or arrange for access during all Inspections (with the exception of residential property interiors) and shall cooperate with the City’s employee or its designated entity/Designee during such Inspections and investigations. Such Inspections and investigations may include confirmation of proper placement of materials in containers, Edible Food Recovery activities, records, or any other requirement of this ordinance described herein. Failure to provide or arrange for:
(i) access to an entity's premises or (ii) access to records for any Inspection or investigation is a violation of this ordinance and may result in penalties described.

C. City representatives, its designated entity, and/or Designee are authorized to conduct any Inspections or other investigations as reasonably necessary to further the goals of this ordinance, subject to 24 applicable laws.

D. City shall receive written complaints from persons regarding an entity that may be potentially noncompliant with SB 1383 Regulations, including receipt of anonymous complaints.

8.12.210 General penalty
Beginning January 1, 2022 and through December 31, 2023, City will conduct Inspections, Route Reviews or waste evaluations, and Compliance Reviews, depending upon the type of regulated entity, to determine compliance, and if City determines that Organic Waste Generator, hauler, Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service, or other entity is not in compliance, it shall provide educational materials to the entity describing its obligations under this ordinance and a notice that compliance is required by January 1, 2022, and that violations may be subject to administrative civil penalties starting on January 1, 2024.

For incidences of Prohibited Container Contaminants found in containers, City will issue a Notice of Violation to any generator found to have Prohibited Container Contaminants in a container. Such notice will be provided via a cart tag or other communication immediately upon identification of the Prohibited Container Contaminants or within three (3) weeks after determining that a violation has occurred.

Violation of any provision of this ordinance shall constitute grounds for issuance of a Notice ofViolation and assessment of a fine by City Enforcement Official or representative. Enforcement Actions under this ordinance are issuance of an administrative citation and assessment of a fine. The City’s procedures on imposition of administrative fines are hereby incorporated in their entirety, as modified from time to time, and shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and review of administrative citations issued to enforce this ordinance and any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this ordinance, except as otherwise indicated in this ordinance.

A. Other remedies allowed by law may be used, including civil action or prosecution as misdemeanor or infraction. City may pursue civil actions in the California courts to seek recovery of unpaid administrative citations. City may choose to delay court action untilsuch time as a sufficiently large number of violations, or cumulative size of violations exist suchthat court action is a reasonable use of City staff and resources.

B. Responsible Entity for Enforcement

1. Enforcement pursuant to this ordinance may be undertaken by the City Enforcement Official, which may be the City Manager or their designated entity, legal counsel, or combination thereof.

C. Processfor Enforcement

1. City of Loma Linda Enforcement Officials and/or their Designee will monitor compliance with the ordinance randomly and through Compliance Reviews, Route Reviews, investigation of complaints, and an Inspection program. Section 16 establishes City’s right to conduct Inspections and investigations.

2. City may issue an official notification to notify regulated entities of its obligations under the ordinance. With the exception of violations of generator contamination of container contents addressed under Section 17(d)(3),City shall issue a Notice of Violation requiring compliance within 60 days of issuance of the notice. Notices shall be sent to "owner" at the official address of the owner maintained by the tax collector for the City or if no such address is available, to the owner 25 at the address of the dwelling or Commercial property or to the party responsible for paying for the collection services, depending upon available information D. Compliance Deadline Extension Considerations. The City may extend the compliance deadlines set forth in a Notice of Violation issued in accordance with Section 17 if it finds that there are extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the respondent that make compliance within the deadlines impracticable, including the following:

1. Acts of God such as earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, and other emergencies or natural disasters;

2. Delays in obtaining discretionary permits or other government agency approvals; or,

3. Deficiencies in Organic Waste recycling infrastructure or Edible Food Recoverycapacity and the City is under a corrective action plan with CalRecycle pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18996.2 due to those deficiencies.

Except as otherwise provided herein, the city manager and code enforcement officer are authorized to administer and enforce provisions of this chapter to the extent permitted by law. Any violation shall be handled per the provisions of Chapter 1.12, General Penalty. (Ord. 746 § 1, 2018) SECTION 3. Validity. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect this validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective a minimum of thirty (30) days after passage.

SECTION 5. Posting. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted pursuant to law in three (3) public places designated for such purpose by the City Council.

This Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Loma Linda, California, held on the day of 2022 and was adopted on the day of 2022 by the following vote to wit:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
______________________________
Phill Dupper, Mayor
26 Attest:
___________________________________
Lynette Arreola, City Clerk
CC AGENDA ITEM 2a & 2b

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-28

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION UPDATE

AND NEXUS REPORT AND ESTABLISHING THE

UPDATED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LOMA LINDA
WHEREAS, the City of Loma Linda has conducted an extensive and exhaustive analysis of its potential development, anticipated capital improvements, the costs reasonably borne of providing those improvements, the beneficiaries of those improvements, current population and estimated growth; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to comply with AB 1600, now codified under the California Government Code, Sections 66000 through 66009; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to implement these increased development impact fees for every new development to install the necessary facilities, pay for future facilities or reimburse another developer or the City for installing facilities in the past; and WHEREAS, development impact fees can be used to fund only capital costs of new facilities, not facility maintenance or operations, nor capital improvements to serve existing infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention that the fees be allocated proportionally to new and existing development; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq. the specific fees to be charged for services must be adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution, after providing notice and holding a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 6062a, a general explanation of the hereinafter contained schedule of fees and charges has been published in the local newspaper on May 31, 2022 and June 5, 2022, as required; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing has been provided, oral and written presentation made and received, and the required public hearing held on June 14, 2022, and WHEREAS, all requirements of California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. are hereby found to have been complied with;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that the Report complies with California Government Code Section 66001 by establishing the basis for the imposition of fees on new development. This finding is based on the fact that the Report:

Identifies the purpose of each fee; Identifies the use to which the fee will be put; Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2022-28

Page 2 of 3 ends

which the fee is imposed; and Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

SECTION 2. Reports. The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, set forth in Exhibit A, conducted by the firm of Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC, dated May 2022 on file in the Office of the City Clerk, shall be adopted and shall serve as the basis for various development impact fee calculations. The Report provides a listing of necessary planned capital improvements and commensurate costs and establishes a relationship between such improvements and the resultant establishment of fees.

SECTION 3. Fees for Uses Consistent With the Reports. Development Impact Fees shall be charged and collected for the identified and described facilities and equipment in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, set forth in Exhibit A, or such other public facility master plans as may from time to time be adopted by the City Council. Such fees shall be due and paid upon recordation of Final Map for subdivisions or otherwise prior to issuance of any Building Permits or Certificates of Occupancy unless otherwise defined by Government Code Section 66007.

SECTION 4. Rescission of all Prior Development Impact Fees. The adoption of this Resolution shall have the effect of rescinding and repealing all previous resolutions establishing development impact fees for new development projects in the City including, but not limited to, Resolution 2841.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution or the imposition of a development impact fee for any project described in the Report or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution and other fees levied by this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective 60 days after its adoption.

SECTION 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be posted at the designated locations in the City.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June 2022 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Resolution No. 2022-28

Page 3 of 3 ends

Phill Dupper, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lynette Arreola, City Clerk
ENCLOSURE:

Exhibit A: Development Impact Fee Calculation Update and Nexus Report, May 5, 2022 Development Impact Fee
Calculation Update and Nexus Report
For the
City of Loma Linda, California
May 5, 2022

ATTACHMENT B
May 5, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via Mr. Jarb Thaipejr, City Manager/Public Works Director City of Loma Linda City Hall
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, CA 92354
RE: 2021-22 Update to the Development Impact Fee (DIFs) Calculation and Nexus Report Honorable Mayor, Council and City Manager Thaipejr:

In 2003/04 the City committed to a major effort to identify all of the City's capital needs through General Plan build-out and calculate a full schedule of development impact fees (henceforth referred to as 0/Fs) with which to finance the proportional share of development-generated capital needs. The City's inventory of infrastructure is important because it determines the limits of the City's service levels to its residents and businesses. The City has conducted a basic periodic update to keep the DIF schedules relevant.

The Report and its inherent calculations were updated in 2013-14 after inflation made its impact on the numerous project estimates made in 2003-04 by making them no longer relevant.

However, after some eight years and it is once again time to undertake an update of the DIF calculations. Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C., was contracted to provide the technical expertise in the identification of capital projects and acquisitions. These capital additions are necessary in order to preserve the existing Levels of Service (LOS) currently offered to and enjoyed by the existing community from the diminution of those existing LOS due to the addition of new residential and business development in Loma Linda and calculate the DIFs necessary to fund those required projects.

City Council and staff, responsible for providing services to a continually expanding residential and business community, must recognize that the magnitude of the DIFs is a direct function of the nearly $334.0 million cost of the capital projects that are identified in the Master Facilities Plan (MFP). Approximately $94.9 million of the $334.0 million will be financed by SANBAG revenue sources. An additional $4.9 million will come from water rate receipts supporting water system projects not eligible for Development Impact Fee financing. Existing DIF fund balances will finance approximately $21.5 million of the total projects. There remains a shortfall of $3.6 million. also for General Fund supported projects not eligible for Development Impact Fee financing.

The following DIF Report recalculates and updates the DIFs for the City of Loma Linda, based on the aforementioned changes and the City's recently amended General Plan and its effect upon requirements for public safety, circulation, storm drainage collection, utilities, refuse collection and disposal and the quality of life facilities (public use facilities, parks etc.). The adoption of the · 1519 E. Chapman • Suite C • Fullerton, CA• 92831
May 5, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via Mr. Jarb Thaipejr, City Manager/Public Works Director City of Loma Linda City Hall
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, CA 92354
RE: 2021-22 Update to the Development Impact Fee (DIFs) Calculation and Nexus Report Honorable Mayor, Council and City Manager Thaipejr:

In 2003/04 the City committed to a major effort to identify all of the City's capital needs through General Plan build-out and calculate a full schedule of development impact fees (henceforth referred to as O/Fs) with which to finance the proportional share of development-generated capital needs. The City's inventory of infrastructure is important because it determines the limits of the City's service levels to its residents and businesses. The City has conducted a basic periodic update to keep the DIF schedules relevant.

The Report and its inherent calculations were updated in 2013-14 after inflation made its impact on the numerous project estimates made in 2003-04 by making them no longer relevant.

City Council and staff, responsible for providing services to a continually expanding residential and business community, must recognize that the magnitude of the DIFs is a direct function of the nearly $334.0 million cost of the capital projects that are identified in the Master Facilities Plan (MFP). Approximately $94.9 million of the $334.0 million will be financed by SANBAG revenue sources. An additional $4.9 million will come from water rate receipts supporting water system projects not eligible for Development Impact Fee financing. Existing DIF fund balances will finance approximately $21.5 million of the total projects. There remains a shortfall of $3.6 million, also for General Fund supported projects not eligible for Development Impact Fee financing.

Page 2 ends

updated DIFs will enable this City Council, as well as succeeding Councils, to continue to ensure that the City will be able to meet the basic infrastructure needs of new growth, without unduly burdening the existing population and business community for these development-generated capital costs. Adoption of the maximum DIFs contained herein and imposition upon the remaining development opportunities in Loma Linda would generate approximately $208.9 million in a combination of public improvement dedications and revenues limited for use on the many development generated capital expansion projects.

A major element in this Report is the proportional analysis, or comparison of what is being asked of future residents and businesses, in the form of dedicated public improvements or in lieu impact fee payments, with the replacement cost of the City's existing infrastructure (land, improvement, facilities, and equipment), contributed by the existing population and business community. The dedications, taxes and assessments contributed to date by the existing community over numerous decades of development have generated just over $511.6 million (at current replacement costs) in infrastructure or capital improvements for the City. Be advised that the list is limited to spine infrastructure and does not include local distribution collection pipes which if included, would likely double the $511.6 for a total capital replacement cost of over $1.0 billion.

The following table identifies the existing spine infrastructure capital improvement equity, by infrastructure.
•.·· .. :?lnt,ra$,ttu�µte
· type
General Facilities
Public Use Facilities
Park Im rovements 3
Total I
•· ExiJtiog <=apital
··1mprovemenbf
$29,129,348
$129,344,894
$64,787,560
$145,425,293
$50,740,374
$35,643,060
$18,188,064
$38,395,796
$511,654,389
(1) NOTE: These infrastructure totals are limited to backbone systems and do not include "local" improvements.
(2) Does not include the cost of the ROW under the major arterials which would be in the area of $70.0 to $75.0 million.
(3) The figure does not include the roughly $29.8 million in park land owned by the City which does not depreciate. It also excludes the $58.6 million in opens space for the same reason.

The recommended DIF schedules will not address all of the City's capital needs, as identified on the various schedules in this Report. As per Government Code §66000 et. seq. and fairness, DIFs cannot address existing capital deficiencies. The proposed DIFs will recognize and accommodate the needs generated by the City's growing population and business community.

However, with the continued adoption of DIFs, other City discretionary revenue resources that may have been used to meet growth-generated needs for expanded services and facilities will remain available for those accumulating replacement and rehabilitation projects.

Page 3 ends

The DIFs contained herein calculate only the costs of infrastructure required to support seNices provided only by the City of Loma Linda. They do not include development impact fees imposed by the school district(s), the San Bernardino Sewer Treatment Agency or any other government agency.

The information required to develop the City's capital costs and equity data was generated by the Loma Linda staff, without whose help and cooperation, this Report would have been impossible to complete. In addition to your assistance in direction and in communicating to staff of the highest priority of this project, we wish to extend our appreciation to the management and technical personnel who were instrumental with RCS to generate the updated information and data so critically necessary for the legal support of the DIFs.

Without their hard work and willingness to provide the best data available, this Report could not have been completed to the degree of accuracy that it has. I would also like to highlight the efforts of Lorena Matarrita, Senior Planner, in compiling the critical land-use database information and for her timely responses to RCS's many requests for demographic information. The quality of information and resulting calculation were directly improved by her efforts.

The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and the Master Facilities Plan are submitted for your review and consideration. RCS is prepared to assist in increasing the Council's and community's understanding of this very significant part of the City's revenue structure.

Sincerely,
e.-.

Scott Thorp
Senior Vice President
��-
Gregory Brown
Associate

CITY OF LOMA LINDA

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - Background and Introduction .................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 - Demographics and Findings ................................................................................... 11 Proposed Development Impact Fees/Summary Schedules .......................................... 20-21 Chapter 3 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment ................................... 22 Chapter 4 - Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities ......... 33 Chapter 5 - Storm Drainage Collection Facilities ....................................................................... 48 Chapter 6 - Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities ................................................... 58 Chapter 7 - Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities ....................................................................... 72 Chapter 8 - General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment ........................................................... 81 Chapter 9 - Public Use (Community Center) Facilities .............................................................. 89 Chapter 10 - Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development .......... 94 Appendix A - Summary of Recommendations ......................................................................... 106 Appendix B - Expanded Land Use Database ......................................................................... 109 Appendix C -City Yard Improvements Cost Estimates and Distribution ................................. 114 Appendix D - Park Improvements Construction Cost Estimates . ............................................ 117 Appendix E - Percentage of Infrastructure to be Set aside for City YardNehicles Reserve ... 122 Appendix F -Application of Development Impact fees on Accessory Dwelling Units ............. 124 End of Report .......................................................................................................................... 126 Chapter 1
Background and Introduction
In late 2013 the City of Loma Linda retained Revenue & Cost Specialists to undertake a comprehensive calculation of the City's costs for additional infrastructure necessary to extend the City's General Plan defined Levels of Service (LOS) to the significant amount of anticipated new residential and business development. The resulting Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report documents were completed in September of 2014. The development impact cost calculations were intended to identify the cost of accommodating continued development in such a fashion as to not decrease the levels of service currently enjoyed by the City's existing residents and businesses. The development impact cost calculations were then formalized into a Development Impact Fee (henceforth referred to as DIFs) schedule by the City Council. The currently adopted set of DIFs has served the City well over the last eight years. However, the periodic review and adjustment of the DIFs is both appropriate and warranted in order to continue to ensure that the City continues to collect sufficient DIF receipts required to construct the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate the anticipated growth of new residents and businesses expected to be developed in the City. Due to the effect of inflation over older project cost estimates the City has expressed a need to recalculate the amount of the existing DIFs.

This Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report effort remains consistent with the original 2013-14 Report's intent to include a significant amount of detail such as a complete list of the over seventy-three remaining projects to be financed by the DIF schedules, by infrastructure. Each project has a corresponding detail information page in the supporting Master Facilities Plan, which in turn tells the reader where additional information can be found regarding each project. There were a total of 82 projects in the 2013-14 DIF Report, however nine of them have been completed.

The Master Facilities Plan is a separate document which includes expanded amounts of information about each of the remaining seventy-three projects for anyone wishing more, while allowing the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report to remain more focused on the allocation and distribution of capital costs to the remaining new development. A Master Facilities Plan with this level of detail is generally not offered by other DIF consultants and the City is to be commended for recognizing the importance of this information to the reader and being committed to the effort required to generate that detail. The combined Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and the Master Facilities Plan offer: greater information for the Council to make policy decisions, greater understanding by the development community, and an easier tracking system for the staff.

The Master Facilities Plan also serves to inform the users that collected DIFs are committed per §66000 of the Government Code. The DIF receipts that are collected over five years (and kept in fund balances during that period) may not necessarily reach the level necessary to construct a needed project per the Master Facilities Plan. This does not mean the projects are no longer needed. The inclusion of those projects in the Master Facilities Plan indicates the continued importance of that project over time, certainly over a five-year period.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 1 Chapter One Background and Introduction
The Importance of Capital Infrastructure. The Levels of Service (LOS) of any one City service is based upon (or limited by) the capacity of that infrastructure to support the City's residents or businesses. The design of any municipal project has a finite capacity, such as a four-lane road, a 30" storm drainage pipe or a 10,000 square foot library. Each is designed to meet the needs of a defined number of users. A street segment can only handle so many vehicles per hour, especially at a speed that makes it worth using for driving over longer distances. A storm drainage pipe that is 30" line simply cannot handle storm flows twice its capacity. A library can hold just so many collection items and serve only so many people. Doubling the number of librarians cannot make up for limited library space. A municipality with 0.40 square feet per resident of library space will be able to serve more residents than a municipality limited by a standard of 0.10 square feet of library space per resident. The following is a precise example using law enforcement (while fully recognizing that the City has a contract with the County for Sheriffs law enforcement services).

Consider the labor-intensive service of a law enforcement officer. Regardless of the quality and capabilities of an agency's law enforcement officers, a law enforcement department remains highly dependent upon its infrastructure capacity. A law enforcement station of 7,500 square feet will have capacity to support roughly thirty law enforcement officers at about 250 square feet per officer. If the station size remains the same at 7,500 square feet but the officer compliment doubles to sixty law enforcement officers, the station will become exceedingly dysfunctional. The same holds true for police response vehicles and police specialty equipment. If a City adds thirty additional officers but cannot add station space, vehicles and specialty equipment, the City has dealt with only one portion of the service equation. They have achieved little.

Further, if you add thirty law enforcement police officers:
• But do not add law enforcement response vehicles, the timeliness of calls-for-services responses will not improve.
• But do not increase the stations size, the calls-for-service response times will be highly unpredictable.
• But do not provide the sworn officers with the required personal and specialty equipment; the calls-for-services responses will be dangerous, certainly for the law enforcement officer.

On the opposite side, if you add all of the above capital needs, but do not add additional sworn officers, the result would probably be limited to a minor improvement in the service level.

Good municipal service takes a balance of staff and infrastructure. However, make no mistake about it, the amount of and complexity of any infrastructure defines (in part or all) of the level of service (LOS). This makes the one-time DIF financing of any City's infrastructure that much more important. It takes a balance of staff and support infrastructure to accommodate development with the law enforcement responses within the desired standard. It will take additional properly equipped officers, law enforcement station space, response and support vehicles and specialty equipment. The importance of having a properly calculated and documented DIF schedule in order to accommodate development-related demands cannot be City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 2 Chapter One Background and Introduction
over-stated. The same concept holds true for the infrastructure-intensive services such as circulation, storm drainage collection, potable and recycled water distribution and sanitary sewer collection. Of course, the DIFs can only be used for the capital acquisitions, the ongoing labor staffing costs will need to come from other sources.

PROPORTIONAL ANALYSIS
A helpful component of this Report is the proportional analysis of the infrastructure needs required to accommodate continued development of the City as compared to the existing infrastructure that has been generated through years of taxes and other contributions and currently serves the existing community. This proportional analysis is intended to recognize and reconcile the difference between the City's level of service required for new development, per statements in the various General Plan elements, with that of the de-facto, or actual, level of service provided to the existing community. The inclusion of the proportional analysis will assist the City Council in adopting a DIF structure that recognizes inter-generational equity and assists the Council in making the difficult policy decisions regarding the required capital additions needed to accommodate new development by increasing the lay-person's understanding of fairness.

The proportional analysis is important, if for no other reason, than for community intergenerational equity, i.e., fairness in the infrastructure investment that has been made by existing residents and businesses with those of new residents and businesses that wish to use the existing infrastructure. As an example, new development will be required to expand the number of arterial and collector lane miles in the City but new development benefits immediately from use of Barton Road constructed so many years ago just as an existing citizen can use a newly constructed arterial street segment. In short, previous generations of businesses and residents have contributed to the development of the City infrastructure and this fact should be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing a similar amount of capacity towards completing the various infrastructure systems.

It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build-out. It is an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects will be replacements of the existing infrastructure while others will be capacity increasing projects. Within the category of the latter, they may also be further classified into two categories;

1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless of whether there is additional development or not. An example would be a traffic intersection currently controlled by stop signs that currently meets traffic warrants for a traffic signal.

2. Projects required as a result of the need to accommodate future development. An example of this would be an intersection of two arterials that is currently controlled quite adequately by stop signs, but because of development in the near and/or downstream areas, will ultimately need to be signalized.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 3 Chapter One Background and Introduction
This Report provides the documentation of the City's costs which serve as the basis for calculating DIFs. The updated DIF Schedules and related information can be found in Chapters 3 through 10 and Appendices A, B, C, D and E of this Report.

RCS staff has worked with Administrative Services, Fire, Planning, and Public Works/Utilities Department staff to generate and review the supporting data which forms the foundation of the resulting Development Impact Fee schedules. The results of this review can be found on the schedules located at the end of each Chapter.

Development Impact Fee Structure. The General Plan provides a range of potential densities for residential development. As such, the DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a per dwelling unit basis to reflect more accurately the impacts from a specific development. For example, a property zoned as detached dwelling residential development may contain from three to six units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per acre will pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre.

Similarly, fees are calculated on a square footage basis for business (retail/service, office and industrial, etc.) parcels to reflect the impacts of different building intensities for these types of development. Some of the infrastructures have optional fee structures recommended for unusual developments, such as a parking structure, which in the structure itself does not create demand beyond additional storm drainage run-off.

A second reason for the proposed DIF fee structure recommended in this Report involves the issue of building expansion or intensification of retail, office, and industrial areas. For example, if a property owner of Retail/Service/Office zoned land or Industrial zoned property proposes an expansion to his building, the question exists about how to charge this proposed expansion for its impact on the City's streets, storm drainage system, and other infrastructures. A fee calculated on business-related building square footage basis simplifies this calculation.

CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of these fees. This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989.

Government Code §66000 requires documentation of projects to be financed by Development Impact Fees prior to their levy and collection, and that the monies collected actually be committed within five years to a project of direct benefit to the development which paid the fees.

Many states have such controlling statutes. Specifically, Government Code §66000 require the following process:

1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the fee.

2. Determination of the USE of the fee.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 4 Chapter One Background and Introduction

3. Determination of the RELATIONSHIP between the use of the fee and the type of development paying the fee.

4. Determination of the relationship between the NEED for the facility and the type of development project. NOTE: Numbers 2 & 4 will be reversed throughout the chapters in this Report because it is apparent that need should be identified before use.

5. Determination of the relationship between the AMOUNT of the fee and the COST of the portion of the facility attributed to the specific development project.

This Report, with some additions, utilizes the basic methodology consistent with the above requirements of Government Code §66000. Briefly, the following steps were undertaken in the calculation of DIFs for the City:

1. Define the level of service desired within the General Plan area for each project or acquisition identified as necessary. In some areas, certain statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an acceptable level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street intersections, for instance, are commonly rated based on a Level of Service scale of "A" to "F" developed by transportation engineers. Most agencies adopt a LOS of "C".

2. Review the Land use map and determine the existing mix of land uses and amount of undeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of growth and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land use data when planning needed infrastructure. This inventory can be found summarized in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 and expanded in Appendix B.

3. Identify all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then, determine the cost of those additions. An infrastructure Master Plan is the highest form of data.

4. Identify a level of responsibility, identifying, as termed in this Report, the relative need (or as referred to in the accompanying schedules as "PERCENT NEED") for the facility or equipment necessary to accommodate "growth" as defined, and as opposed to current needs.

5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on a basis of land use. Costs are distributed between each land use based on their relative use, or nexus, of the capital system. For example, future street costs were distributed to each land use based on their trip generation characteristics.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 5 Chapter One Background and Introduction

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other important assumptions of this study include the following:
"Normal" Subdivision Improvements Omitted. "Local" public improvements generally associated with and identified as being the sole responsibility of the developer through the subdivision or development review process are not included in either of the project lists or consequent calculations. This type of "on site" and immediately adjacent improvement would include all such capital construction within the boundaries of any development, such as streetlights, curb, gutter, sidewalks, neighborhood streets and all local utility pipes. These improvements would continue to be the direct responsibility of the developer, with or without the addition of DIFs.

Land Acquisition Costs. Land acquisition cost estimates have been developed after discussions with City officials over recent acquisitions or current negotiations. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made; however, the herein contained per acre amounts appear to be the most appropriate current figure for the purposes of this study.

Exclusion/Rejection of Any Type of "Credit" for Undeveloped Land. It has been argued by some that a credit for capital-related revenues, such as gas taxes, should be made against the DIFs calculated or imposed by a city. Using the state gas tax as an example, proponents of a DIF credit argue that a city will receive increased annual gas taxes because of the additional population generated by future residential development. It is therefore argued that a developer should receive a credit for any associated gas tax revenues collected as a result of the residents or businesses that occupy the new dwellings against any Circulation DIF imposed by the City based on either of two separate arguments.

The first argument for a gas tax credit supposes that the additional gas taxes created by residential development are used to pay for the maintenance of existing streets, which is the responsibility of existing development. Since the new streets constructed via DIFs will not require rehabilitation or reconstruction for another 10 to 20 years, the gas tax generated by new development is therefore a windfall to the City and should be credited against the DIF. What this argument fails to consider is that any new resident or business to the City will begin to contribute immediately to the use and deterioration of all City streets. A cursory review of City finances will reveal that the portion of the State gas tax received by cities falls far short of meeting the City's needed street improvements and repairs in any given year. The gas taxes generated by new development simply cannot meet the maintenance costs of either the new streets associated with the development or the maintenance of existing streets which the new resident uses on a daily basis.

The second argument proposes that the developer pays his full share of constructing new roads when he pays the City's Circulation System Development Impact Fee and that the gas taxes generated by the additional residents in a development are unfairly used to make improvements to the existing street system. Again, it is the experience of most cities that gas taxes are barely adequate to meet streets-related operational costs, and if they are sufficient to meet these costs, the remainder is used for capital-related maintenance projects.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 6 Chapter One Background and Introduction
For these reasons, credits of existing operational revenues are not considered for Circulation System DIFs in this Report. A similar discussion can be made for the other fees considered herein, and therefore no credits against any such fees are included in this calculation of development impact costs.

Appropriate Expansion. Debt service is a reasonable cost of construction of many, but not necessarily all, public facilities and infrastructure. The following example illustrates this. DIFs are collected in incremental amounts, but facilities are not expanded in those same incremental amounts. As an example, a community center fee, based upon a standard of 1.2 square feet per detached dwelling residence, may be collected for each residential dwelling in the City, but after collecting the fee for a 100-unit subdivision, it would be impractical to expand the community center 120 square feet. Fees are collected, placed in a separate fund, generating interest until such a time that a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot expansion is possible. During that build-up time, the community center will experience some temporary overcrowding as the standard drops from 1.2 S.F./dwelling to about 0.9 S.F./dwelling. This "temporary overcapacity" clearly may be an inconvenience, bringing about some crowding and an increased unavailability for rental or reservation until enough DIFs have been collected for a practical expansion to bring the community center facility back up to the original standard. In short, a development of 120 residences may be brought "on-line" (occupancy approved) and bring about a temporary reduction in community center facility standards without endangering the citizen's health and safety.

However, such a temporary overcapacity in storm water collection is not possible without the potential for damage to both private and public property. Capacity for the collection/removal of storm water must be available prior to the construction that increases the impervious surface (and thus storm water run-off) of the parcel. If the local storm collection line is currently at capacity (peak or otherwise), no additional units may be brought online until additional collection capacity can be created. Again, there is a practical size of an addition to construct, and it is not likely practical for developers to wait until there is enough added demand (and fees) to pay for the facility addition. As a result, financing through some type of debt instrument may be the only alternative. Circumstances vary from city to city as to what facility expansions are critical and which can absorb temporary overcapacity for limited periods of time.

Financing Costs. Since financing costs reflect an actual, and generally significant, outlay of funds for an agency, they would be included in the project costs where debt financing was required due to the immediacy of the need for the facility or infrastructure to show the full costs of such facility or infrastructure and insure that new development also pays its "fair share" of these costs. These costs, if any, would be referenced in the Master Facilities Plan project detail page. Financing should only be included for facilities where, based upon staff's estimate, the immediacy of need for the facility requires debt financing. Or in the alternative, should financing be entered into on a facility, the impact fees should be recalculated to reflect those actual costs.

In such cases, the debt service payments would be discounted to today's cost to account for the diminishing value of the dollar and would be in keeping with the cost methodology used in this study to show projects in current costs. To consider the face value of bond payments when determining costs, on the other hand, would be inaccurate as it would treat the value of a dollar City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 7 Chapter One Background and Introduction
today the same as the value of a dollar twenty years from now. Such an approach would tend to overvalue the costs of debt service requirements and therefore cause an agency to overcharge on its DIFs. However, no proposed project within this DIF Report contains additional debt service. The only remaining debt service in this Report relates to the Water Storage System Debt Service and is addressed in the appropriate infrastructure chapters. This debt service is not factored in to the DIF calculation

OTHER ISSUES
There are those who claim that the addition of DIFs unfairly creates an inflated resale price for existing residences. The argument is that if the full service public agency adopts a $25,000 to $30,000 development impact fee per detached dwelling, then the price for an existing dwelling is artificially increased by the same amount. We will use the example of a detached dwelling unit that cost the developer $250,000 to construct and complete to a point that the occupancy permit is approved.

Full Cost of a Residential Dwelling. The $250,000 represents only the above ground costs. The true and actual cost of a new dwelling is the cost of acquiring the parcel, necessary government approvals and permits, construction supplies, labor, debt service on the above, on-site (1) public improvements, and the cost of extending public services to that dwelling.

These public service extension costs include (but are not limited to) (2):
• Additional fire station, response vehicles and specialty rescue equipment. • Widening of road segment of traffic arterials, collectors, bridge, and additional signals. • Additional capacity/treatment in downstream storm drainage collection pipes. • Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage, and delivery. • Additions to the sanitary sewer collection system capability. • Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation yard and maintenance vehicles) necessary to maintain the above added infrastructure. • Additional public meeting and developed park space for recreational/social purposes as well as open space protection.
1 On-site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and gutters, sanitary sewer lines, water lines, street lights, storm gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines and all of the other requirements of the City's development code on privately-held developments, hence the reference of "On-site".
2 The City does not necessarily provide all of these services, they are only highlighted to make a point about the types of municipal services typically required to support a residential dwelling or business facility.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 8 Chapter One Background and Introduction
Thus, while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling unit may be $250,000, the previously identified "downstream" costs may be in the area of $25,000 to $30,000 per detached dwelling unit or in the area of 10% to 12% of the above ground cost.

If this argument is not clear, picture a 3,000 square foot detached dwelling, costing $250,000 to construct the above ground structure, located in the middle of an empty square mile, no roads, no utility service, no public safety response, no flood control, and no recreational facilities. What is the market value of such a detached dwelling? Probably not even the $250,000 that it cost to construct the structure. Suddenly, the $25,000 to $30,000 impact fee for the infrastructure needed to support that one residential unit seems like a bargain. In short, new development needs an existing system of infrastructure to hook up to and the City provides that service to hook up to. That, simply stated, is why there are cities and special districts.

Thus, the true and complete cost of a new detached dwelling unit is the cost of constructing the structure and the cost of extending the municipal services to the dwelling regardless of who pays for the actual costs of extending those services. To some degree these service-related infrastructure costs have been recognized, the only question remaining is who should for pay for the development-generated infrastructure needs, the existing residents/businesses and or new residents/businesses?
Effect on Market Price. Again, let us assume that a cumulative $25,000 to $30,000 impact fee imposed upon new detached dwelling construction increases the market price of an existing detached dwelling unit. Wouldn't this just be the recognition that the existing detached dwelling already has those physical links to the municipal services? A slightly different way of looking at this argument is that the existing family residences each have a "share" in a municipal corporation (3) and the share is valued at the cost of the connection to the various municipal utilities, circulation system, flood protection and public safety. It is a logical step then to require any newly constructed detached dwelling to contribute a proportionate share towards the infrastructure providing them with needed service.

CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
Within each "hard infrastructure" Chapter (Chapters Three through Eight) there will be three cost/fee tables. They will be:

The first schedule, the Allocation of Project Cost Estimates identifies the projects, their costs and the relationship, in an allocation percentage, to future development. These schedules will begin with the number X.1 as in 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 etc.).

General Plan Minimum Needs-based Impact Costs - This schedule will calculate the DIF cost/ schedule that would need to be adopted as a fee to meet the minimal capital needs identified in the Report (on the second schedule at the end of the Chapter, i.e., 3.2, 4.2, 5.2 etc.) for that infrastructure but limited to the General Plan needs. Strictly speaking this schedule is a calculation of the development impact costs, suitable to be adopted as development impact 3 Not unlike a private corporation.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 9 Chapter One Background and Introduction
fees, by the legislative body, in this case the Loma Linda City Council. With adoption of this level of DIFs, one could claim that new development is occurring without any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses. You could not, however, necessarily claim that new development has paid its fair share.

Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison This schedule, while not an impact fee calculation, identifies the cost (in current nominal dollar replacement cost) of the existing infrastructure, including land, physical improvements, and capital equipment. The distribution of this replacement cost total over the existing developed community identifies the average amount that has been invested by the current community of residents and businesses and is a good indication, or comparison, with what could be imposed upon new development. This financial commitment will be expressed in terms of the cost to construct or acquire the assets at current replacement costs. Significant differences between this schedule and the General Plan Minimum Needs-based DIF rate schedule would certainly be worth additional analysis. These Schedules would be numbered 3.3, 4.3, 5.3, etc.

If the average equity (for a detached dwelling for example) on this Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison Table is greater than the average cost on the previous Minimum Needs-based Table, then that would be evidence that the infrastructure system is front-ended with more of the system, say 80% of it has been constructed while only at 50% of General Plan build-out demand and it likely has excess capacity, certainly precise proportionality between all users is no longer possible. The excess capacity is the result of earlier residents and businesses of the community having financed more of the system than will be necessary by the remaining un-built portions of the community. The existing community has advanced money to build capacity into the infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and businesses not yet there. This table is intended to be instructive rather than legal.

Distribution of Existing Impact Fee Fund Balance. The existing City-wide DIFs have a combined Fund Balance of $21.5 million (reserved separately by) and each was created to finance various infrastructure needed as new residents and businesses locate in newly created residential dwellings and buildings. There are no specific restrictions on the monies, beyond the restriction that they be used on improvements within the Fund title and committed within a five-year time frame. The Master Facilities Plan, when adopted, suffices for that commitment.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 10 Chapter 2
Demographics and Findings
This Chapter represents the beginning and the conclusion of the DIF calculation process. It begins with an inventory of fully developed, undeveloped and under-developed units and acreage within the City and concludes with a summary of recommended DIF schedules with detailed infrastructure explanations in the following chapters of this Report.

LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Report contains an inventory of fully developed, undeveloped and underdeveloped land within the City limits of Loma Linda and is based upon the City's most recent General Plan update. The fully undeveloped and under-developed parcels combine to identify the City's Potential Development, combine to form the base for the distribution of the estimated costs of the service-expanding capital projects necessary to accommodate that same anticipated development. Without the expansion projects, the City would be unable to accommodate that new development, effectively halting it. The developed land inventory forms the base for distributing the replacement cost of the existing infrastructure. This action provides the basis for comparison with the proposed DIF schedules and for the de facto identification of the many existing Levels of Service (LOS) currently provided by the City's existing spine infrastructure (i.e. excludes "locals") which has a conservative replacement value of $570.0 million after $30.0 million in non-depreciable land is removed. Table 2-1, is the resulting inventory of all private land uses contained within the current City and are based on the General Plan's land use inventory. Table 2-1 follows:

Table 2-1
Detailed Land Use Inventory
I
L Total•Ge
neral Plan Build-out
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Total - Land-use Database I
Miscellaneous Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Rooms
Business Square Feet

78.00 78
760.50 3,046
372.90 4,979

34.50 552

20.58 494
1000 216

8.10 668,000
256.94 5,571,185

64.70 1,371,739

32.50 1,734,000

4.70 102,366
189.70 3,205,554
1,833.12 1 12,ss2,209 11
1,266.48 9,149

10.00 216
556.64 12,652,844
231.00 231
167.40 646
325.65 3,271

3.00 34

13.25 315

23.96 735

7.20 600,000
193.17 4,245,784
435.49 9,175,280

14.00 750,000

1.00 26,248
101.17 1,898,583
1,516.29 I 16,701,127 I I
740.30 4,497

23.96 735
752.03 16,695,895
·> ).Acres :, #of.Units
309.00 309
927.90 3,692
698.55 8,250

37.50 586

33.83 809

33.96 951

15.30 1,268,000
450.11 9,816,969
500.19 10,547,019

46.50 2,484,000

5.70 128,614
290.87 5,104,137
3,349.41 1 29,363,336.40 1
2,006.78 13,646

33.96 951
1,308.67 29,348,739
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 11 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
DIF Land-use Types Definitions. This Report classifies private development into one of five residential OIF Land-use Types or one of seven different business-based DIF Land-use Types.

For purposes of the Report, the term DIF Land-use Type will refer to one of the twelve broad types under which the City's specifically defined zoning code land-uses will fall into. These DIF Land-use types are defined following:

Residential Land Uses:
• Rural Detached Dwelling Units - This DIF Land-use Type is generally defined as a detached unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's landuse designations/zones Hillside Conservation (HR-CJ, Rural Estates (HR-RE), Ve,y Low Density Residential (HR-VL}, Low Density Hillside Preservation (HRLD) and Medium Density Hillside Preservation (HR-LO). • Detached Dwelling Units - This DIF Land-use Type is generally defined as a detached unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's land-use designations/zones of Low Density Residential (R1 }, Medium Density Residential (R2), High Density Residential (R3) and Planned Community (PC). This category would include the construction of the unusual detached condominium or detached townhome and a manufactured unit on an individual lot. • Attached Dwelling Units - This DIF category consists of apartments, townhomes, condominiums or any other living unit that is physically contiguous (i.e. attached) to any other residential unit within the High Density Residential (R3) category.
• Mobile Home Dwelling Units - This DIF category consists of the High Density Residential (R4) zone.
• Senior Restricted Dwelling Units - A unit from this DIF land-use category would also come from the High Density Residential (R3) category.

Business/Commerce Land Uses:
• Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units - This DIF Land-use Type while not a zone, corresponds to a limited portion (as an allowable use) generally within some business use designations such as General Commercial (C2) and Neighborhood Commercial (C1) and within other areas acceptable for the hospitality development.
• Assisted Care Facility Uses - This category is not considered to be a residential use. The rooms for the chronically ill or those needing full-time care is considered to be more of a business use and may coincide with the various commercial, medical or institutional zones.
• Retail/Service/Office Uses - As utilized in this Report, Retail/Service/Office uses include the general type of commercial services and thus includes outlets ranging from restaurants to auto repair shops to shopping centers. This category City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 12 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
includes the General Commercial (C2), Commercial Office (CO), and Neighborhood Commercial (C1).
• Medical/Healthcare Office Uses - This category corresponds with the City's Institutional-Healthcare (I-HG) zone.
• Hospital Uses - This DIF development category could be constructed in any number of the City's zone such but most likely would be constructed within Institutional-Healthcare (I-HG).
•
Industrial Uses - This DIF Land-use Type contains all businesses engaged in heavy manufacturing or industrial development in the Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zones.
•
Institutional Uses - These uses, mostly private schools, churches, fraternal organizations, would most likely fall within the Institutional-Healthcare (I-HG) category of the City's zones.

Definitions of DIF Application Categories Status. For each of the DIF land-use categories detailed above and on Table 2-2, acreage is categorized as either Existing Development or Potential Development. Definitions regarding the status of each land use are as follows:

Existing Development (in Acres/Units) - This column title reference identifies land in the City which is developed and land which has received a building permit but may not yet be constructed. Acreage in this category may include non-conforming use areas of the City which contain extensive development prior to an annexation or before changes to the General Plan were made.

Potential Development Opportunities (in Acres/Units) -The title refers to all non-public vacant acreage located within the City. This category includes the acreage from any underutilized parcel.

Table 2-2 provides a summary of the detailed land use inventory, limited to privately held property, provided on Table 2-1. Staffs land use inventory reveals that there are presently 1,833.12 acres of privately held developed land (about 54. 7% of all privately owned acreage in the City) within the City's current boundaries. Conversely, there remains 1,516.29 acres of vacant or under-developed land (or about 45.3% of all privately owned acres in the City).

Acreage designated for Medical/Healthcare office use development constitutes the greatest amount ( 13%) of vacant acreage of all the land uses. In short, the City of Loma Linda is only about half-way completed, and the following Chapters will demonstrate that. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 13 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Table 2-2
Summary of the City of Loma Linda's
Developed and Potential Development Acreage
..

DIF . Existing % of Total Potential
La'nd-t1se Deve!oped Private Development
. Tvrie. ·.Acres· Acres Acres . .

Rural Detached Dwelling Units 78.00 2.3% 231.00
Detached Dwelling Units 760.50 22.7% 167.40
Attached Dwelling Units 372.90 11.1 % 325.65
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 34.50 1.0% 3.00
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units 20.58 0.6% 13.25
Commercial Lodging Units 10.00 0.3% 23.96
Assisted Care Facility Uses 8.10 0.2% 7.20
Retail/Service/Office Uses 256.94 7.7% 193.17
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses 64.70 1.9% 435.49
Hospital Uses 32.50 1.0% 14.00
Industrial Uses 4.70 0.1% 1.00
Institutional Uses 189.70 5.7% 101.17
I••·· · c··· .. i TotalPrlva�ly tieh.:t.Acr;s 1,633.12 54:6o/°:
. 1,516.29

POPULATION PROJECTIONS
%ofTotat Total
Private Private
. Acres Acres . .

6.9% 309.00

5.0% 927.90

9.7% 698.55

0.1% 37.50

0.5% 33.83

0.7% 33.96

0.2% 15.30

5.8% 450.11

13.0% 500.19

0.5% 46.50

0.0% 5.70

3.0% 290.87
45,.4%·· 3,349.41
A second component in determining the magnitude of the impact of future development and the necessary facilities needed to mitigate that impact is a realistic assessment of the build-out population of the City. 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. Park land and recreation facilities and community center facilities are examples of cost areas which rely heavily on population projections to determine space and facility needs. Park standards are usually stated in terms of the number of acres of park land per 1,000 residents, for instance.

There are at least two generally accepted methods for projecting future population levels in a City: (A) past growth trends projected forward and (8) 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.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 14 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
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.

The methodology used in this Report to forecast the built-out population of Loma Linda 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 densWes found in theClty.

Holding Capacity Analysis. 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 of this 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.

The number of residents per unit for new residential units is based on the 2000 U.S. Census and ranges from 3.397 and 2.029 residents for detached dwellings and attached dwelling units respectively there are no mobile home parks in the City thus no per dwelling unit figure for the number of residents living in mobile home dwelling units. The 2000 Census data is used over the recently released 2020 Census due to an unfortunate change in reporting the housing/population data table eliminating the recognition of differing types of residential structures.

Based on these 2000 Census dwelling density data, future residential development can be expected to generate somewhere from 9,390 to 10,160 additional residents(4) to the City of Loma Linda, joining the 24,895 citizens already living in City, resulting in a total estimated population at build-out (based upon the inclusion of existing City limits) of approximately 35,055 residents. The higher number is based upon full occupancy of all new dwelling units and the lower figure is based upon the historical occupancy levels at the time of the census count. The 34,670 is the average of the two.

Table 2-3 following employs the additional housing projected in the Land-use Database and estimates the additional potential population for the City of Loma Linda through General Plan 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.
[This space left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page]. 4 Depending upon the vacancy factor based upon the average of 96.4% for all residences.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 15 Chapter 2
Existing Residential
Detached Dwelling Units
Table 2-3
Demographics and Findings
City of Loma Linda
Development Impact Fee Detail
Average Residential Dwelling Occupancy
2000 United States (Special) Census Data (1)
Total
Units
Vacant
Units
Occupied
Units
Total Average
Occupants Occupancy
Percentage
Occupied
.___D __ eta_c_he__dD__wel
_
li_ng-' =-s ___________ .____3, 1;_8_0_._oo__._ ___ 2_2__,8 .___ ___ 2,9'--5_2__,!._I __ 1_0.;.. ,02_9 __._! ___ 3_.39_ _7_.!___ 92._8_3_
°
__,1/o I
Attached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units 640.00 57
Duplex to Quadplex Units 1,277 55
Five to Forty-nine Units 1,583 171
Fifty or More Units 813 54
Average 4,313 337
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 552 I 3411
Other Dwelling Units
Other Dwelling Units 8 8
Existing - State Department of Finance 01/01/14 Population G.P. Build-out Population Anticipated Occupancy
At Historic Occupancy Rates Units Rate
Potential Detached Dwellings 877 92.83%
Potential Attached Dwellings 3,271 92.19%
Potential Mobile Dwellings 34 93.84%
Potential Senior Reestricted Dwellings 315 92.95%
Population to be Added Via Development at Historic Occupancy Rates I Current State of California Department of Finance Population Potential "Build-out" Population, at Historic Vacancy Rates.

G.P. Build-out Population Anticipated Occupancy
At 100% Occupancy Rate Units Rate
Potential Detached Dwellings 877 100.00%
Potential Attached Dwellings 3,271 100.00%
Potential Mobile Dwellings 34 100.00%
Potential Senior Restricted Dwellings 315 100.00%
Population to be Added Via Development at 100% Occupancy Current State of California Department of Finance Population Potential Maximum "Build-out" Population.

Population at General Plan Build-out@ Low per Dwelling Resident Densities Population at General Plan Build-out@ High per Dwelling Resident Densities Average Population at General Plan Build-out
583
1,222
1,412
759
3,976
518 II
o II
Probable
Occupancy
814
3,016
32 293
Probable
Occupancy
877
3,271
34 315
1,401
2,629
2,714
1,323
8,067
1,076 I
ol
Dwelling
Density

3.397

2.029

2.077

1.500
Dwelling
Density

3.397

2.029

2.077

1.500
I

2.403

2.151

1.922

1.743

2.029

2.077 I

0.0001
Anticipated
Population
2,765
6,119
66 440
9 .
390 I
Anticipated
Population
2,979
6,637
71 473
10,160
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 16

91.09%

95.69%

89.20%

93.36%

92.19%

93.84%!
NA! 24,8951
9 .
390 I 24,895
34,285
10,160
24,895
35,055
34,285
35,055
34,670
Chapter 2

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Demographics and Findings
City staff and RCS have identified over $333,988,470 million in needed and General Plan supported master planned capital improvement projects required through the City's General Plan including both projects related to existing deficiencies and those needed solely to support future growth. Roughly $230.5 million (69.0%) of the total capital needs listed are projects necessary to accommodate new development via a combination of $21.5 million in existing DIF fund balances, or a total of $209 million, in DIFs to be imposed and collected in the future.

SANBAG contributions amount to $94.9 million (28.4%) and water rates contribute $4.9 million (1.5%). The remaining $3.6 million (1.1 %) of the identified capital projects are the result of either being replacements of existing infrastructure or for debt service for facilities lacking excess capacity and thus need other financing sources.

Table 2-4
Total City-wide General Plan Build-out
Capital Requirements
Infrastructure Total -All
Type Projects
Fire Suppression/Medic System $14,962,216
Circulation (et. al.) System $142,081,230
Storm Drainage System $9,355,460
Water Delivery System $59,753,530
Sanitary Sewer Collection System $9,703,581
General Government Infrastructure $1,987,977
Public Meeting Space Facilities $11,170,198
Park Land and Park Improvements $35,565,012
Open Space Acquisition $49,409,266
Total -All Projects $333,988,470
The adoption of the recommended DIF schedule amounts supported by the calculations in this Report (Schedule 2.1) would finance a great deal of this areas development-generated capital facilities by raising upwards to $209.0 million in new DIF revenues to be combined with the existing DIF fund balances of $21.5 million. The two remaining regional SANBAG circulation projects will receive $94.9 million in SANBAG support to fund regional growth-related capital projects so as to not place an unnecessary draw on other City revenues. Water rate receipts will pay for $4.9 million of the projects that are not-development-related. There remains a shortfall of about $3. 7 million in projects that are currently unfunded. Most of this amount is due to a non-development expansion of public use facilities (see Chapter 9).

DIFs Summary. 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 City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 17 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
per unit basis for residential land uses and on a per square foot of pad basis for business land uses. Schedule 2.1, found at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary of the recommended DIF schedules for each type of infrastructure and land use category. The total recommended maximum DIFs for each of the twelve DIF Land Use Types within the General Plan area are summarized as following.
:

Table 2-5
Summary of Proposed Development Impact Fees
. '
: DIFLand UseType
Rural Detached Dwelling Unit
Detached Dwellin� Unit
Attached Dwelling Unit
..

Mobile Home Dwelling Unit (in a park)
Senior Restricted DwellinQ Unit
Commercial Lodging (keyed) Unit
Assisted Care Uses
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
· �ecommended
l)eveldl)ment
h:npact F.ees
$37,891/Unit
$34,494/Unit
$21,032/Unit
$21,375/Unit
$15, 186/Unit
$6,586/Unit
$4.097/S.F.
$4.807/S.F.
$6.979/S.F.
$3.469/S.F.
$3.446/S.F.
$4.841/S.F.

Specific DIF schedule rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to each infrastructure. Schedule 2.1 at the end of this Chapter also identifies the probable development impact fee revenue, the estimated capital cost total and the difference, by individual infrastructure type (e.g. fire).

Schedules 2. 1 requires two pages to summarize the many infrastructures, identify the individual Infrastructure DIFs and combined DIFs by DIF Land-use Type and provide a calculation of the potential collection through build-out at the proposed Minimum-Needs-based O/F schedules and the cost of the total infrastructure needs.

FORMAT OF THIS REPORT
The following chapters of this Report contain the 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 cost schedules, following, and five appendices, the first of which contains a summary of DIF recommendations.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 18 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
CHAPTER 3 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 4 - Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) System CHAPTER 5 - Storm Drainage Collection System Facilities CHAPTER 6 - Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities CHAPTER 7 - Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities
CHAPTER 8 - General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
CHAPTER 9 - Public Use (Community Center) Facilities
CHAPTER 1 O - Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development APPENDIX A - Summary of Recommendations
APPENDIX B - Expanded Land Use Database
APPENDIX C - City Yard Improvement Cost Estimates and Distribution APPENDIX D - Park Improvements Construction Cost Estimates APPENDIX E - Percentage of Infrastructure DIF to be set-aside for City Yard Improvements and Vehicles
NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMATICS: It is important to note that the use of a computer provides for calculations to a large number of decimal points. Such data, when included in text and supporting textual tables, has often been rounded to usually no more than two or three decimals for clarity and thus may not be replicated to the necessary degree of accuracy as the spreadsheet schedules at the end of each chapter.

If questions arise between the tables and schedules, the schedules at the end of the chapter will prevail as the more accurate. The schedules at the end of the Chapter are instructive to recommendations. The tables within each infrastructure text chapter are summaries of the schedule at the end of that chapter and are illustrative.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 19 N
0 Schedule 2.1
City of Loma Linda at General Plan Build-out Costs
Summary of Development Impact Fees By Type of Fee (continued on next page) (Costs/Fees per Residential Type Dwelling Unit, or Business Type Square Foot) Land-use Designation
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
. ,:Fire
Suppres�ipn
Fac'miies et: .al.
• S�hedule, :t2:,
$1,688
$1,476
$215
$966
$2,193
$64
$2.529
$0.084
$0.644
$0.664
$0.537
$0.812
Potential Collection with Recommended Impact Fee Schedule Rural Dwellinq Units $389,928
Detached Dwellinq Units $953,496
Attached Dwellinq Units $703,265
Mobile Homes Dwellinq Units $32,844
Senior Restricted Dwellnq Units $690,795
Commercial Lodqinq Units $47,040
Assisted Care Livinq Units $1,517,400
Retail/Service/Office Uses $356,646
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses $5,908,881
Hospital Uses $498,000
Industrial Uses $14,095
Institutional Uses $1,541,649
Total Potential DIF Receipts $12,654,039
Potential Impact Fee Receipts $12,654,039
Development Impact Fee Fund Balance $1,260,665
Other Revenue Sources $0
Contribution from SANBAG $0
Total Capital Resources $13,914,704
Required Capital Total ! $14,962,2161
Over or (Under) Collection I -$1,047,512{
Sircul�t�r
'�ysterq ·
·
:F!ibiUti�s ··,.•
. S�heaule 4,2
$1,337
$1,337
$770
$671
$265
$399
$0.464
$2.442
$2.106
$1.106
$0.452
$0.789
$308,847
$863,702
$2,518,670
$22,814
$83,475
$293,265
$278,400
$10,368,205
$19,323,141
$829,500
$11,864
$1,497,982
$36,399,865
$36,399,865
$10,786,898
0 $94,896,876
$142,083,639
$142,081,23_QI
$2,409J
Storm:;:.
o�in�ae :

F1{�m1:ieii :'.

S:Checlul.e.5.2 · ·
$4,436
$1,251
$520
$460
$220
$170
$0.063
$0.267
$0.279
$0.110
$0.236
$0.313
$1,024,716
$808,146
$1,700,920
$15,640
$69,300
$124,950
$37,800
$1,133,624
$2,559,903
$82,500
$6,195
$594,256
$8,157,950
$8,157,950
$1,202,964
$0
$0
$9,360,914
$9,355,460I
$5,454j
Water
Distriputioo
Facilities
Schedule 612
$7,650
$7,650
$5,654
$5,190
$2,507
$3,759
$0.512
$0.416
$2.027
$0.797
$0.597
$0.835
$1,767,150
$4,941,900
$18,494,234
$176,460
$789,705
$2,762,865
$307,200
$1,766,246
$18,598,293
$597,750
$15,670
$1,585,317
$51,802,790
$51,802,790
$3,035,776
$4,923,581
$0
$59,762,147
$59,753,530]
$8,61?I
(, Sewer
C Collection
�'Facilities
General
(:;o�ernment
Facilities
Schedule 7.2 ,, :;

1.:sc11edu1e s.2\
$1,380 $179
$1,380 $179
$1,021 $179
$935 $179
$452 $179
$678 $36
$0.092 $0.049
$0.075 $0.049
$0.366 $0.049
$0.144 $0.049
$0.107 $0.049
$0.151 $0.049
-
$318,780 $41,349
$891,480 $115,634
$3,339,691 $585,509
$31,790 $6,086
$142,380 $56,385
$498,330 $26,460
$55,200 $29,400
$318,434 $208,043
$3,358,153 $449,589
$108,000 $36,750
$2,809 $1,286
$286,686 $93,031
$9,351,733 $1,649,522
.
$9,351,733 $1,649,522
$357,345 $335,932
$0 $0
$0 $0
$9,709,078 $1,985,454
$9,703,581} $1,987,977J
$5,497{ -$2,5231
N __,_
Schedule 2.1
City of Loma Linda at General Plan Build-out Costs
Summary of Development Impact Fees By Type of Fee
(Costs/Fees per Residential Type Dwelling Unit, or Business Type Square Foot) Calculated Development Impact Costs
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Public<,
MeJting··
Fa,cilltl�$
.. $che(illlf�.;1{,•
$2,482
$2,482
$1,482
$1,517
$1,096
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
Potential Collection with Recommended Impact Fee Schedule Rural Dwelling Units $573,342
Detached Dwelling Units $1,603,372
Attached Dwelling Units $4,847,622
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units $51,578
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units $345,240
Commercial Lodging Units No Fee
Assisted Care Living Units No Fee
Retail/Service/Office Uses No Fee
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses No Fee
Hospital Uses No Fee
Industrial Uses No Fee
Institutional Uses No Fee
Total Potential DIF Receipts $7,421,154
Potential Impact Fee Receipts $7,421,154
Development Impact Fee Fund Balance $1,125,656
Other Revenue Sources $0
Contribution from SANBAG $0
Total Capital Resources $8,546,810
Required Capital Total I $11.170,19aI
Over or (Under) Collection! -$2,623,388 I
Park La!lq.

Jmd .Park .j;
J!!l.provement$L
':Schedule 10,1
$10,742
$10,742
$6,415
$6,568
$4,743
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$2,481,402
$6,939,332
$20,983,465
$223,312
$1,494,045
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$32,121,556
$32,121,556
$3,443,455
$0
$0
$35,565,011
$35,565,0121
-
$1 I
. ,Open
• Sp�ce
\Acquisitipn
Schedule''11.2
$7,997
$7,997
$4,776.0
$4,889.0
$3,531.0
$1,480.0
$0.388
$1.474
$1.508
$0.599
$1.468
$1.892
$1,847,307
$5,166,062
$15,622,296
$166,226
$1,112,265
$1,087,800
$232,800
$6,258,286
$13,836,323
$449,250
$38,532
$3,592,119
$49,409,266
$49,409,266
$0
$0
$0
$49,409,266
$49,409,2661
$OJ
.Oevelopme.nt · .

1.mpact Fee Tot.Ir
Per l.Joit<>r S.9-�arefFeet
$37,891 per Unit
$34,494 per Unit
$21,032 per Unit
$21,375 per Unit
$15,186 per Unit
$6,586 per Unit
$4.097 perS.F.
$4.807 per S.F.
$6.979 per S.F.
$3.469 perS.F.
$3.446 per S.F.
$4.841 per S.F.
$8,752,821
$22,283,124
$68,795,672
$726,750
$4,783,590
$4,840,710
$2,458,200
$20,409,484
$64,034,283
$2,601,750
$90,451
$9,191,040
$208,967,875
$208,967,875
$21,548,691
$4,923,581
$94,896,876
$330,337,023
$333,988,47QI
-$3,651,4471
Chapter 3
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment The Existing System. The City has invested in an extensive system of fire facilities, response vehicles and specialty equipment. The Fire Department responds to calls-for-service from two City-owned fire stations, Station #2 being a temporary facility. They are identified as follows:

The City's Fire Station headquarters is a 12,674 square foot residential style on 1.71 acres of the Civic Center parcel at 11325 Loma Linda Dr.

Station #2 is a 3,850 square foot combination steel-style building for the vehicles and a manufactured home for the living quarters located on Ohio Street at Redlands Boulevard and is a temporary facility.

The Emergency Operation Center is a 1,584 square foot facility on 0.21 acres adjacent to the Fire Headquarters.

The land acquisition and replacement construction costs for the two existing fire/rescue stations is approximately $19,780,214. The City also has a sizable fleet of equipped response and prevention units (with a replacement cost of $7,600,466) consisting of:
• Two Type I (standard) response Engines, one front line Engine and one back-up Engine.
• One Pierce Type Ill Engine.
•Two Aerial Ladder Trucks, one front line 105 foot TOA and one 75 foot Aerial Quint in reserve.
• Eight SUV or heavy pick-up truck command/inspection vehicles, and; • One medic squad response vehicle.

The City has an investment of approximately $120,000 in Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) equipment and an additional $180,000 invested in other specialty equipment including trenching and shoring equipment and hazardous waste response equipment. Additionally, the City's investment in equipment assigned to a fire fighter, at approximately $6,721 per fire fighter, is $188,003 for the compliment of twenty-eight existing fire fighters. Lastly, the Fire Suppression Facility, Vehicle and Equipment Impact Fee fund balance is $1,260,665.

The current financial commitment or investment, in fire station, emergency operations facilities, response fleet with specialty equipment and fund balance is a sizable net $29,129,348. This figure represents what it would cost to establish the existing Department response capability at current vehicle, equipment, land acquisition and construction costs were it not to exist. The relevance of this figure will be explained later in this Chapter.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 22 --------- --- ---�-----�------
Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped 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 fear of contradiction 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 affect, 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 fire companies out-of-service for greater periods of time.

The capacity of any fire station is finite and will reach practical limits (through call frequency and total 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 fire stations, the existing stations could be overwhelmed in terms of callsfor-service, making a timely response for emergency service a virtual coin flip. That is, will the existing fire companies be available to respond to your needs or will they most likely be out-ofservice on a call in a different part of the community? The Purpose of the Fee. The City has adequate response capacity to meet the needs of the existing community. However, in order to continue to be able to respond to an ever-increasing number of expected calls, the City staff has determined the need for an additional fire station located in the Northern area of the City along Redlands Boulevard. Having the right type, size and number of fire stations in the right locations will enable policy makers, the Chief and City Council to house fire fighters, apparatus, and equipment in a rational way for maximum use of capital resources at the lowest annual operations cost.

Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible for poor fire station location or a lack of one. Adverse effects are felt by the City staff, the council, and possibly by the existing taxpayers. With a poor location or no additional locations, response times via great distance or out-of-service due to a previous call can become excessive, and if a tragedy occurs, the incident would be well publicized.

Often, response time is mistakenly referred to for only the first-in unit, and this can be a grave error. Instead, response time must consider all the forces necessary to place the incident under control. If the 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 of response vehicles is also necessary to match and equip the needed additional staff. The following sections identify the manner in which the City plans to meet the demands of additional calls-for-service.

The Use of the Fee. The revenues generated from a properly calculated and legally-supported Fire Suppression 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 DIF receipts would not be used to repair any existing fire stations or replace any existing emergency response vehicles. Additional facilities are planned to come on-line, as needed, as development creates additional demands City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 23 ------� -- ---- --- -
Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment beyond the capability (volume or calls and distance) of the existing stations. The capital expansions include:

FS-001, Northerly Station (#253) - The project consists of land acquisition and construction of an 8,915 square foot station along Redlands Boulevard to replace the temporary steel-sided buildings currently in use at the corner of Ohio Street and Redland Boulevard. The temporary facility parcel is not large enough for the proposed final facility, but it would be located very nearby. The temporary facility will not meet the needs generated by the 4,148 detached and attached density dwelling units and 16.6 million square feet of business space (retail/service, office, industrial and Institutional) and 735 commercial lodging rooms expected to be constructed. The additional station would require just over an acre and would be a three-bay wide by two vehicles deep configuration and has an estimated land acquisition/construction cost of $11,510,219.

FS-003, Response Fleet for the Mission/Eastern Area Station - The previously referenced station would need a fully equipped basic front-line response engine at $1,020,000. Equipment is added at 20% of the $850,000 engine acquisition cost.

FS-004, Additional Fire Fighter Assigned Equipment - The additional nine fire-fighters will be needed for the Mission/Eastern Station and will require personally assigned equipment.

FS-005, USAR Specialty Response Vehicle - Acquisition of a specialty response apparatus, outfitted with specialty equipment and devices for various incidents requiring trench shoring, wild land fire response, miscellaneous rescue, HAZMAT, and other specialty equipment for special or unusual responses ($390,624).

FS-006, Training Tower/Training Facility - The facility would primarily consist of a training tower, 900 square feet of training classroom, and improvised fire situation apparatus. The facility would require an additional 4,500 square feet of land contiguous to the proposed southerly station ($1,980,947).

The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 4.1 and are detailed in the MFP.

The total cost of completing the required improvements is a net $13,701,551 after subtracting the existing $1,260,665 in current Fire et. al. DIF Fund balance from the full $14,962,216 in total capital needs. The net $13,701,551 cost of the proposed projects has been determined as necessary to accommodate the calls-for-service that will experience an 89% increase in the level of demand (calls-for-service).

The Relationship Between the Need for The Fee and The Type of Development Project. Fire service response standards to be 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 else the result will be in the deterioration of the level of service (LOS) provided both to the existing residents and future citizens and businesses within the City of Loma Linda. It follows that it is appropriate to assess future development to contribute additional fire facilities.

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, a determination of the City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 24 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment costs of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand was made. The following section illustrates the relative impact from each land use on fire services and facilities.

While the majority of these requests for service were made by Loma Linda citizens from their residences, a large percentage of requests were generated from new Retail/Service/Office and industrial uses within the City. A survey of each land use and its existing effect on requests for calls-for-service was conducted to project the impact of future development on fire services.

Only requests for fire 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 3-1 following, identifies the number of calls-for-service received by the Fire Department during the past calendar year by the previously identified DIF land-use categories. The number of requests for service received by the Department during the year was then divided by either the developed (1,000) square feet, the existing number of dwelling units to determine the number of requests generated per business square foot, per dwelling unit or commercial lodging unit.

Table 3-1
Fire Suppression Calls-for-Service Generated by Land Use {Over a 12 Month Period)
..
;
. ,: Developed I ActualCans. T�tafCallsper·
·., .· .. DW,ellings ;:. . •·· EorSe11t:it,�·/ <
<
. pwelling .
. , : .. ·9r:Squa,ri'Fece( . · '•O�erJ'l 2.;Month� !•or 1,0QQ .. SF,,(KSF) .. · '�A;. 'A� -
.
· .,
Rural Detached Dwelling Units 78 28 0.359/Unit
Detached Dwelling Units 3,046 960 0.315/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 4,979 227 0.046/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 552 121 0.219/Unit
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units 494 231 0.468/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 216 3 0.014/Unit
Assisted Care Living Units 668,000 360 0.539/KSF
Retail/Service/Office Uses 5,571,185 99 0.018/KSF
Medical /Healthcare Office Uses 1,371,739 188 0.137/KSF Hospital Uses 1,734,000 245 0.141/KSF
Industrial Uses 102,366 13 0.127/KSF
Institutional Uses 3,205,554 553 0.173/KSF
The greatest number of responses (31.7%) was expended upon the 960 calls-for-service to one of the 3,046 detached residential dwellings, generating a ratio of 0.315 annual calls-for-service per residential unit. The 4,979 attached dwelling units generated 227 calls-for-service for a lower 0.046 annual calls-for-service. Senior Restricted Apartment Units had the highest call City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 25 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment demand rates of any of the residential uses at 0.468 annual calls-for-service per dwelling unit.

Of the business-related uses, Assisted Care Facilities had the highest demand rate at 0.539 annual calls-for-service per 1,000 square feet. Retail/Service/Office uses are shown to generate a far lower rate at 0.018 calls-for-service per 1,000 square foot of building space, while industrial development generates a modest demand of about 0.127 calls/1,000 square feet of business space. Commercial lodging (hotels/motels) will generate a rate of 0.014 calls per year based upon three calls to the existing 216 commercial lodging units over the 12-month period.

Based upon these calls-for-service and the anticipated development future demands at General Plan build-out will nearly double (88.9% increase) from the existing 3,028 annual calls-forservice to privately-owned development, by 2,693 to 5,721 calls-for-service per year. Continued development will benefit from the existence of the current station and the fact that it has some, albeit temporary, existing capacity.

Resulting General Plan Area DIF Schedule. The collection of the resulting DIFs through buildout, along with the existing Fire Suppression/Medic DIF Fund balance, would allow the City to acquire or construct almost all (93.0%) of the proposed expansions, improvements and required equipment. This generally indicates that the City's expansion of the Fire capital has maintained pace with the increases in calls-for-service from new development and that there are very few if any deficiencies in the infrastructure dedicated to fire suppression/medic services. Table 3-2, on the following page, indicates the impact fee necessary to finance the cost to the additional stations, response equipment and fire-fighter equipment.

I·:

Table 3-2
Minimal Needs-based Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment Development Impact Costs
by DIF Land-use Type
;.
:
· OIF t.�rut-:use CafeJ,Jory,.
, ··:;·:.;., .. ,, .:,.,:, fa ·.·
·.·· .
,
Rural Detached Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
Retail/Service/Office uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
' ',
. Allocation
: ·•·of System
'Exp�nsi<>n .Costs;,,
,·�: j'
$389,976
$953,797
$704,776
$32,890
$690,681
$46,985
$1,517,618
$357,087
$5,906,023
$498,042
$14,096
$1,541,110
',•
Deve�opment Impact
. Cost PerUriit .·.
.
,, .. / _,," ,,, i :

Ot Square.F,,oot.
'
.
' .. .
$1,688/Unit
$1,476/Unit
$215/Unit
$966/Unit
$2, 193/Unit
$64/Unit
$2.529/S.F.
$0.084/S.F.
$0.644/S.F.
$0.664/S.F.
$0.537/S.F.
$0.812/S.F.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 26 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment 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 DIF would be collected as the development occurs (generally at building permit or some predetermined point in the process).

As the development occurs, the impact is generated. The collected DIF receipts would be put to use to acquire additional fire-fighters assigned and specialty equipment, emergency response vehicles and an additional fire station necessary to respond to those additional calls-for-service, without reducing the capability of responding 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 current community's commitment has been to establish the existing dual-station capacity and training facility capability paid for via past General Fund/impact fee receipts. To allow future residents to benefit by use of all of the capital needs without contributing additional assets, would be clearly unfair to the existing residents and would reduce their current level of service. Table 3-3, following, summarizes the distribution of the $29,129,348 in replacement costs to the existing residents and business owners (Schedule 3.3 details this distribution).

The replacement value of the existing fire infrastructure (stations, response fleet and related safety equipment) of $29,129,348 represents the current equity investment or financial commitment towards fire suppression capability by the existing community. When this figure is distributed over the existing community in the same manner as the future costs, by the land use demands, an investment, or financial "commitment" (or equity for that matter) per unit can be determined. As an example, each detached dwelling unit has invested about $3,453 into existing fire suppression/medic capital investment while the proposed DIF is 48% less at $1,688 per attached dwelling.
[This space left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 27 --------------- --
Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment .

Table 3-3
Existing Fire Suppression/Medic System
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
By Land-use Type
·.
. Allocation . Asset/E:guity
y E>IF Land-us,e Category; o
f System Investment Per Unit
· Assets or Square Foot
·, .. .. .

Rural Detached Dwelling Units $269,360 $3,453/Unit
Detached Dwelling Units $9,235,196 $3,032/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $2,183,739 $439/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $1,164,020 $2, 109/Unit
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units $2,222,219 $4,498/Unit Commercial Lodging Units $28,860 $134/Unit
Assisted Care Facility Uses $3,463,199 $5.184/S.F.

Retail/Service/Office Uses $952,380 $0.171/S.F.

Medical/Healthcare Office Uses $1,808,559 $1.318/S. F.

Hospital Uses $2,356,899 $1.359/S.F.

Industrial Uses $125,060 $1.222/S.F.

Institutional Uses $5,319,858 $1.660/S.F.

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
The Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data (Schedule 3.3) is greater than (by about 48%) the Minimum Needs-based Impact Costs (Schedule 3.2) would be adequate and sufficient to maintain the established fire suppression/medic system capabilities.

OTHER NOTES AND ISSUES

1. Newly constructed industrial developments, initially charged the lower industrial use impact fee, often end up being Retail/Service/Office uses and generate greater demands than those of the industrial land uses. If this trend is left unrecognized, the Department, as well as other City services, will be faced with the greater demand from Retail/Service/Office 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 Retail/Service/Office DIF and the previously paid industrial land-use impact fee when a CUP is approved and tenant improvement plans are submitted indicating a Retail/Service/Office use in an industrial zone.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 28 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles. and Equipment

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED FIRE SUPPRESSION IMPACT FEES
• Adopt Schedule 3.2, page 29, Minimal Capital Needs-based Impact Costs.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 29 Schedule 3.1
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
A/location of Project Cost Estimates
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment LlJj\','.½ �<. ;;;
FS-001
FS-002
FS-003
FS-004
FS-005
FS-006
Northerly Fire Station (#253)
Mission/Eastern Area Station (#252) (Completed)
Response Engine For Mission/Eastern Area Station #253 (Equipped) Additional (Nine) Fire Fighter Assigned Equipment
USAR Specialty Response Vehicle
Training Towerffraining Facility
.· V: Cpst l .. : .
.
&
.•
··
.
.
ti
.
mated
$11,510,219
$0
$1,020,000
$60,430
$390,620
$1,980,947
FS-007 Remaining Fire Department Portion Of Civic Center Bond Debt ComplE $0 Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs I $14,962,216J Total Mitigating Financial Resources
Existing (07/01122) Development Fee Fund Balance $1,260,665 Other Financial Resources $0
$1,260,665
CoiJstrucvon Needs
· .. $upporteil by
0ther Reso��s

0.00%

0.00%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

52.93% $1,048,472
100.00% $0

7.01%{ $1,048,472J

0.00% $0

0.00% $0
!Total Net General Plan Project Costs $13.701 .551 1 1 7.65%' $1.04� .472
.
1 <,.)
0 infrastructure·Needei:I
, t� A�cbmmod�lfi · lncreilsed. Qevetoiln.ent
Perc:en�.· .· ·I .. Appo[tion�9
Need ; · Dollar Cost
:( .. ' . ,
100.00% $11,510,219
100.00% $0
100.00% $1,020,000
100.00% $60,430
100.00% $390,620

47.07% $932,475

0.00% $0

92.99%{ $13,913,744 J
100.00% $1,260,665

0.00% $0
100.00% $1,260,665

92.35%1 $12,653,079
· ;Forward to Schedule 3.2
Schedule 3.2
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment [
•'-) <:,{ ,,, i · .; ,.l : ,i ','t:l:rtdevijl.Q.ped.> I.

I,, .. ' .·'' ' efd�'O��cfL�nd Use ..
. i i. A'c.res v > Ontts·1 ·
..
•••;r:••t;;.ri . ·. • ' • I . .
.
··• • ·.
!k , . '.';;)· , : ··•· , \I t}
Rural Dwelling Units 231 231
Detached Dwelling Units 167 646
Attached Dwelling Units 326 3,271
Mobile Homes Dwelling Un 3 34
Senior Restricted Dwellng 13 315
Commercial Lodging Units 24 735
Assisted Care Living Units 7 600,000
Retail/Service/Office Uses 193 4,245,784
Medical/Healthcare Office I 435 9,175,280
Hospital Uses 14 750,000
Industrial Uses 1 26,248
Institutional Uses 101 1,898,583
TOTAL!>.. 1:\516.29 I
(.,.) __,,.
t .· ' 1 ;Call
5 '�'�e�lratioh· ..
11jgat; \ . ·•.

0.359

0.315

0.046

0.219

0.468

0.014

0.539

0.018

0.137

0.141

0.127

0.173
��•··· TI
Ari�icip�ted ;: New.<;alls .,
· fQr Sel)l1ce,v
83 203
150
7 147
10 323
76 1,257
106
3 328
: 2,ijs31
�. Percentage JlJJocati.on of (
"
10, Jrddition�i• · •K. • .·,.
, f=)(#iinston, .
. · Ser;vtce C1tlls 1 ·::;:·ol>sts· ,\. ·

3.08% $389,976

7.54% $953,797

5.57% $704,776

0.26% $32,890

5.46% $690,681

0.37% $46,985

11.99% $1,517,618

2.82% $357,087

46.68% $5,906,023

3.94% $498,042

0.11% $14,096

12.18% $1,541,110
. Cost\; : . DistryjutioJ.'.i:,
Per.Acre"::
$1,688
$5,698
$2,164
$10,963
$52,127
$1,961
$210,780
$1,849
$13,562
$35,574
$14,096
$15,233
Av:e�
age lJniti;j Development
orsquar:e · ltilpaf?
t ·Fee,JJer>fJnit
fee't/Acre .. or Sqtit,t�1F.oot :, ·

1.00 $1,688 per Unit

3.86 $1,476 per Unit

10.04 $215 per Unit

11.33 $966 per Unit

23.77 $2,193 per Unit

30.68 $64 per Unit
83,333 $2.529 per S.F.
21,980 $0.084 per S.F.
21,069 $0.644 per S.F.
53,571 $0.664 per S.F.
26,248 $0.537 per S.F.
18,766 $0.812 per S.F.
100.00%! $12.653,079 jtiital ln�truciiire llllaster'Pfan Capital .Needs I
Schedule 3.3
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment -··
..,__.,.......,.,..._...,....._,_-""..,.,....,;'" • • 1 , pall •·• ~~Ex.
is6iig . . ':�er
centag�. Allocation
. �
f I !OistributiqI:J•• .Ayera{J� f!nfts ·········.c;yf'if!lnt Fiha,r,:cial�;. . G�nii:aJon · .. (;alls fof k • ·
•
•· oftsxfs�ng. lnfnistructiire of "Eqt1fty�'.;; r ord$:.quare .C<>mmitlnent j;,lirunJt F,>tqpd$.tiditJap�Use.. ' . Rtit�... Seivice .s'e�ice Calls;. "Equliy" . perAcie. . F.eetlA�� :prSquare)=oot /, Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Un
Senior Restricted Dwellng
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
I·
w
I\..)
·.rrorALj

78.00 760.50
372.90

34.50 20.58

10.00 8.10
256.94

64.70 32.50

4.70 189.70
•· . ·• 1 ,833:12 : I
78 3,046
4,979
552
494
216
668,000
5,571,185
1,371,739
1,734,000
102,366
3,205,554
,·�' .•. . ,·;
·,
.

0.359

0.315

0.046

0.219

0.468

0.014

0.539

0.018

0.137

0.141

0.127

0.173
i�"" I
28 960
227
121
231
3 360
99 188
245
13 553
•··s,02af••

0.92% $269,360 $3,453 1.00 $3,453 per Unit

31.70% $9,235,196 $12,144 4.01 $3,032 per Unit

7.50% $2,183,739 $5,856 13.35 $439 per Unit

4.00% $1,164,020 $33,740 16.00 $2,109 per Unit

7.63% $2,222,219 $107,962 24.00 $4,498 per Unit

0.10% $28,860 $2,886 21.60 $134 per Unit

11.89% $3,463,199 $427,555 82,469 $5. 184 per S.F.

3.27% $952,380 $3,707 21,683 $0.171 per S.F.

6.21% $1,808,559 $27,953 21,202 $1.318 per S.F.

8.09% $2,356,899 $72,520 53,354 $1.359 per S.F.

0.43% $125,060 $26,608 21,780 $1.222 per S.F.

18.26% $5,319,858 $28,044 16,898 $1.660 per S.F.
10Q.OO%i ... $29,129,348 TotaJlofrastrLicfu� Nla.s.ter PlanAss.ets ;, f
<. $1s;1ao.�14 i1f,Firesl.ii,r,�ession E"a.ciilties Assets · · $7�600,466 io Fire S4ppressioo \leh.icles Assets, .. . ·· "'$1 �0.000': t!'I .USAR'Spe�(alty E;quiptf1-ent Asset$;! · .·· $1�0,000 .. in Other:�pecialty Equipment·Asfiets�
< , $188,003 inFire. Fi.9.· -· N:er)\,ssjgnect EquiprrieriF ······ ················-····-· ···············- . "$1,2iio,ess · in Fi� suppress18rit>tF'Fund sa.1ariee1 I
Chapter 4
Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges
and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities
The following Chapter will discuss the Circulation System capital improvements which consists of the major street segments, signals, bridges, and access/egress ramps required for the City through General Plan build-out as identified in the Land-use Database Table in Chapter 2.

Initially, RCS recommends continuation of the calculation of a comprehensive DIF schedule covering all components of the circulation system within the General Plan area, those three components consisting of major street segments, signals, and bridge improvements. The reasons are practical in that combining this infrastructure will provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is essentially a singular circulation issue with a common nexus, a combination of trip-end (5) generation and average trip distance. It is not uncommon that a single circulation capital project involves both a street improvement and signal improvement.

The Existing System. The City currently has and maintains an extensive system of roadways available for transportation of goods and services, as well as for educational, recreational, and social purposes. Streets that fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Loma Linda are classified as one of six types of roadways for the purposes of this Report. Roads are defined in part (in the City's Loma Linda General Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.9) 2 as:

Freeway - Freeways are divided highways with full control of access and grade separations for all intersecting traffic flows. There are no intersection at-grade, traffic signals, pedestrians, or parking on freeways to interfere with the continuity of high-capacity, high-speed traffic flow. Freeways are designed to provide regional rather than local traffic movement.

Six-lane Divided Highway - A major arterial roadway with six lanes of through traffic (three in each direction) with a landscaped, raised median. This roadway serves large volumes of through traffic between different sections of the City and may provide access to freeways. The primary function of this arterial is to provide for through traffic movement. The six-lane divided highways have been proposed to provide sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Additional turning lanes are typically provided at intersections.

Six-lane Undivided Highway - A major arterial roadway with six lanes of through traffic (three in each direction) and no median: This roadway serves large volumes of through traffic between different sections of the City and may provide access to freeways. The primary function of this arterial is to provide for 5 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 along the way to drop children off at a school, buy gas, get a lunch, drop off laundry and the ultimate arrival at work or home is a trip-end. The term trip has no effect on the calculation and only means a drive.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 33 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities through traffic movement. The six-lane undivided highways have been proposed to provide sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Additional turning lanes are typically provided at intersections.

Four-lane Divided Highway - A four-lane (two in each direction) primary arterial highway with a landscaped, raised median. Direct access for individual uses along four lane divided highways is limited to intersecting streets and major driveways serving larger uses. Four-lane divided highways have been proposed to provide sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Additional turning lanes are typically provided at intersections.

Four-lane Undivided Highway - A secondary arterial highway with four lanes of roadway (two in each direction) and no median. Arterials need to have sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Four-lane undivided highways have been proposed to provide sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Left-turn lanes are typically provided at intersections.

Modified Four-lane Undivided Highway - A secondary arterial highway with four lanes of roadway (two in each direction) with a continuous two-way center turn lane: Arterials need to have sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Modified four-lane undivided highways have been proposed to provide sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Left-turn lanes are typically provided at intersections.

Two-lane Divided Highway - A collector street with relatively moderate-speed, moderate-volume, with two through lanes (one in each direction), designed for circulation within and between neighborhoods with a landscaped, raised median:

These roads serve relatively short trips, and are meant to collect and distribute traffic from local streets to the arterial network. Left-turn lanes are typically provided at major intersections.

Two-lane Undivided Highway - A collector street with relatively moderatespeed, moderate-volume, with two through lanes (one in each direction) designed for circulation within and between neighborhoods. These roads serve relatively short trips, and are meant to collect and distribute traffic from local streets to the arterial network. Left-turn lanes are typically provided at major intersections.

Local Streets - These streets are primarily used for access to individual abutting land uses. These streets are more pedestrian-oriented than collector or arterial roadways, and will also carry higher volumes of bicycle traffic. Through vehicular traffic is discouraged.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 34 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities Special Circumstances - Traffic volumes along certain roadways require special treatment and are identified on the Circulation Plan as having "Special Circumstances." These include the southern end of proposed Evans Street between University Avenue and Barton Road, which is to be designed as a twolane street, with a continuous two-way left turn lane in the median. Redlands Boulevard is to be provided with additional through lanes at its intersection with Anderson Street.

GENERALPLANDEVELOPM ENTIMPACTFEES
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 not 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 increase or decrease the number of trip-ends, i.e., the demolition of a low trip-generating insurance office into reconstruction as a new a 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 major street segment lane miles existing in General Plan area include the following:
• The construction of about 16. 7 million square feet of private business uses on nearly 7 40 undeveloped acres will generate about 835,819 additional daily tripmiles or about 88.8% of the total new trip-miles expected at General Plan buildout. This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of Retail/Service/Office uses constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued.
• An increase in the City's full-time population through the construction of about 4,497 additional dwelling units contributing approximately 98,220 new daily tripmiles or about 10.4% of the newly expected daily trip-miles. • The addition of about 735 commercial lodging units will generate about 7,585 daily trip-miles, or about one percent of the total new trip-miles.

When the available vacant land in the General Plan is developed, the City can expect an additional 941,624 daily trip-miles. For perspective, the City currently experiences an estimated 773,283 daily trip-miles from/to the existing residences and businesses. The roughly 941,624 newly anticipated trip-miles represent about a 121.8% increase over the current 773,283 daily trip-miles, or stated a different way, over a doubling over the exiting daily trip-mile demand.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 35 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities The Purpose of the Fee. In Loma Linda, most of the planned arterials and collectors exist in some form, perhaps not yet fully widened to allow for the full number of lanes. Stated another way, there are few if any opportunities to construct any completely new arterial/collectors even in light of a near doubling of trip-miles. Thus, the collection of Circulation System DIFs is imperative as a revenue source to finish off these existing, but, limited or incomplete, or not yet maximized roads. Additionally, the DIF revenues would be used to complete the system of signals that insures the smooth movement of vehicles through intersections. Efficient signalization (i.e. turn pockets and fully actuated left-turn signals) are also important to keep vehicular traffic moving at the optimum efficiency through major intersections.

Again, given the magnitude of growth projected in this Report, numerous intersection improvements and construction of new traffic signals will be needed to avoid congestion and gridlock in the future. Traffic planners have long known that the most critical constraint in typical circulation networks is the design of the intersections that require motorists or pedestrians to stop. 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 two major streets. While the City of Loma Linda will certainly undertake numerous major street widening projects, an equally important component of traffic circulation is the installation of ten traffic signals and lane reconfiguration at critical intersections in the City.

The importance of traffic signals is two-fold. First, the City can build only so many major collector/arterial streets and there are limits as to how many extra lanes they will have. Second, north-south collectors will by definition, intersect with east-west collectors assuring that someone will have to stop, either at a stop sign or a traffic signal. The traffic carrying capacity of each collector can only be maximized by assuring orderly flow of traffic by signalizing those intersecting collectors.

The collection of Circulation System DIFs is not intended to eliminate the time-honored practice of the developer constructing the full width roadway and being reimbursed for the portion greater than would otherwise be required of the developer. This impact fee calculation and resulting fee collection would simply improve the reimbursement capability.

The City's total MFP Circulation (streets, signals and bridges) System infrastructure section identifies twenty-three remaining circulation-related projects. They have an estimated cost of $142,081,230. Approximately 33.2% of this amount or $47,184,354 has been identified as the responsibility of General Plan development as these projects will increase the capacity of the City's General Plan circulation system necessary to accommodate these new developmentgenerated additional traffic demands. The $47,184,354 is further reduced by the existing $10,786,898 in existing Local and Regional Circulation System fund DIF balances. The remaining 66.8% of the total $142,081230, or $94,896,876, represents projects that are regionally development demand-generated and have other revenue sources. In this case the $94,896,876 will be financed by the County-wide SANBAG regional resources. The individual projects and costs are identified on Schedule 4.1 at the end of the Chapter and detailed in the MFP.

The two freeway access/egress interchange improvement projects represent 80.8% or $114,844,550 of the total $142,081,230 in Circulation system needs. There are ten signal City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 36 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities projects totaling $4,335,280 (3.1 %), seven roadway widenings, extension or lane modification projects totaling $12,491,270 (8.8%), one City-wide bike lane access project at $465,880 (0.3%), an inter-modal public transit facility at $7,733,660 (5.4%) and lastly $2,210,590 in maintenance yard improvements and additional maintenance vehicles (1.6%). Fortunately, the two freeway access/egress projects are regional projects that will receive SANBAG financial support to about 66.8% of the cost of the two projects.

The Use of the Fee. The collection of Circulation System DIF schedule receipts would be used to construct the projects (or portions of projects) identified in Schedule 4.1 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 941,624 daily trip-miles expected from further General Plan development.

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

Schedule 5.1 identifies the additional traffic to be 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 200-unit detached dwelling specific plan would generate about 6,918 daily trip-miles and a five-acre Retail/Service/Office development would generate 6,942 daily trip-miles. Each would pay its proportionate share of the total 941,624 newly created General Plan trip-miles expected at General Plan build-out. In the case of the detached dwelling residential development, the daily trip-miles generated by the 200 new residences represents about 0. 73% of the total 941,624 new daily trip-miles anticipated at build-out, thus they would be required to pay or construct projects on the list to an amount equal to 0.74% of the total development-related project costs. The four-acre Retail/Service/Office development would also finance about 0.74% of the capital project list.

New Trip Adjustment for Pass-by or Diverted Trios. Schedule 4.2 contains a sub-schedule that identifies adjustments to new total trip-ends. As an example, an acre of general Retail/Service/Office use would be expected, on average, to generate about 993 trip-ends daily (45.2 trip-ends multiplied by 21,980 SF of pad per gross acre divided by 1,000 S.F.). However, approximately 15% of those trip-ends, or about 149 trip-ends per day, are pass-by trip-ends.

The trip-end is not truly an end but is actually one in a series of stops, i.e. at various Retail/Service/Office establishments, with a different location such as a residence as the final trip-end or destination of the series of trip-ends. In order to be considered a pass-by trip, the location of the stop must be contiguous to the generator route (6), i.e. the route that would have been used even if the temporary stop had not been made. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) indicates that:
6 An example of a diverted trip-end would be a single trip-end where along the way from work, a motorists evening drive deviates from the normal route taken home at perhaps a preferred grocery store, mail drop, or to pick up a child from a piano lesson before continuing home. Each of these three stops would be considered diverted trip-ends.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 37 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities Thus when forecasted trips based upon the trip generation rates are distributed to the adjacent streets, some reduction is made to account for those trips already there that will be attracted to the proposed development. (7)
Pass-by trip-ends are fully adjusted (reduced at 100%) from the average trip-ends (per day) generated by the twelve basic land uses identified in Schedules 4.2 and 4.3.

A diverted trip is similar to a pass-by trip-end in that it is an extra stop between, as an example, a motorists' work site and his or her residence. The diverted trip differs slightly from the pass-by trip in that the latter requires 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 residence6
. These trips increase the traffic volume from the generator route, but only for brief distances. The ITE states that diverted trips:
are produced from traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator (route) and require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway with access to the site. These roadways could include streets or freeways adjacent to the generator but without access to the generator (8).

These diverted trips will be adjusted (reduced at 50%) from the full trip count for each of the land uses identified in Chapter 2.

Again, the sub-schedule at the bottom of Schedule 4.2 indicates the total trip-ends and the reduction due to the number pass-by trips (at 100%) and diverted trips (at 50%). The trip passby and diversion percentages were generated and are supported by a study conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in conjunction with various U.S. and California government agencies (9).

Additionally, the same SANDAG data schedule referenced above provides information for a trip distance factor component to the nexus. Based upon that data, a trip to an industrial work-site has the greatest distance at 9.0 miles. A trip to an office averages 8.8 miles, residential trips average 7.9 miles, a trip from a hotel or motel (once in residence) averages 7.6 miles, and an average trip to a Retail/Service/Office site is the shortest at 4.3 miles. This indicates that drivers generally appear willing 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 average trip frequency by average trip distance. Tripmile rates have been calculated for the twelve DIF land-use categories. They are demonstrated at the bottom of schedule 4.2 at the end of the Chapter. 7 Trip generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1099 14th Street, Suite 300 West, Washington D.C. 20004-3438. Definition of terms, page 147.
8 Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1099 14th Street NW, Suite 300 west, Washington D.C. 2004-3438, Definition of Terms, page 146.
9 Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101. Brief Guide to Traffic Generators 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 Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 38 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities 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 relationship to the total 941,624 total projected trip-miles at General Plan build-out. Any amount imposed as a Circulation System DIF will be placed in a separate fund (collecting interest) and is to be used only on the projects identified on Schedule 4.1 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 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 System DIF.

The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The calculation of the Circulation System DIFs based upon the recognition that differing types of developments generate differing amounts of tripmiles. The fee is based upon the projected number of trips generated by the proposed private development project. Circulation DIF 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 4-1 (summarized from Schedule 4.2) on the following page identifies the Minimal Needs-based Circulation System DIF schedule for General Plan. ':

Table 4-1
Minimal Needs-based Circulation System
Development Impact Costs
by DIF Land-use Type
.:
. DIF Land:-llse Cate9ory.
•' h ... .

Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
· Retail/Service/Office uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Allocation
of System.···'
E�p1nsion. Costs
.. :. .. ..
$308,845
$863,683
$2,517,916
$22,806
$83,338
$293,190
$278,308
$10,366,478
$19,324,175
$829,745
$11,867
$1,497,105
Development Impact
··· Cdst Per Unit
orSquctre F.oot
. ,, ,,, .·.
$1,337/Unit
$1,337/Unit
$770/Unit
$671/Unit
$265/Unit
$399/Unit
$0.464/S.F.
$2.442/S.F.
$2.106/S.F.
$1.106/S.F.
$0.452/S.F.
$0.789/S.F.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 39 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities This set of proposed fees would generate the Minimum needs amount of revenue necessary to construct the needed street, signal, bridge and access/egress construction projects. These figures will now be compared to the financial commitment demonstrated by the existing community.

Alternative Cost Methodology. A more precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses (i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent residences, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per trip of $38.65 by the applicable daily trip-mile rate. An example of this calculation can be found at the bottom of Schedule 4.2 and applied to Table 4-2, on the following page. These tables list trip rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial and Retail/Service/Office developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip rates theoretically provides more accuracy and therefore financial commitment 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 as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New York, NY. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 40 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities Table 4-2
Detail of Circulation System Minimal Needs-based Development (rounded) Impact Fees for Specific General Plan Area Retail/Service/Office Uses Detached Dwelling Unit
Apartment
Condominium/Townhome
High Density Dwelling
Mobile Home Dwelling
Hotel (multi-story)
All Suites Hotel
Motel
General Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Manufacturing
Warehousing
Office Park
Research Park
Business Park (Specific)
Building Material Store
Garden Center
Movie Theater
Church
Medical-Dental Office
General Office Building
Shopping Center
Hospital
Discount Center
High-Turnover Restaurant
Convenience Market
Walk-in Bank
/Acfjusted.
"TiiP:-ends

8.76 5.85

5.36 3.61

4.57 6.29

3.77 4.34

6.17 5.97

2.73 4.39
Av�r,age
Dis.lance
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit):

7.9 0.5 34.60

7.9 0.5 23.1

7.9 0.5 21.2

7.9 0.5 14.3

7.9 0.5 18.1
RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door):

7.6 0.5 23.9

7.6 0.5 14.3

7.6 0.5 16.5
INDUSTRIAL (per 1,000 SF):

9.0 0.5 27.8

9.0 0.5 26.9

9.0 0.5 12.3

9.0 0.5 19.8
.. Costper ·CtJstper,1,qooSquare
. '[rlp•niile< . .. Feet ort)wellihg Ur,Ji ·
$38.65 $1,336 /Unit
$38.65 $892 /Unit
$38.65 $819 /Unit
$38.65 $552 /Unit
$38.65 $721 /Unit
$38.65 $924 /Room
$38.65 $553 /Room
$38.65 $638 /Room
$38.65 $1,074 IKSF
$38.65 $1,040 IKSF
$38.65 $475 /KSF
$38.65 $765 IKSF
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS USES (per 1,000 SF):

9.08 8.8 0.5 40.0 $38.65 $1,546 /KSF

7.18 8.8 0.5 31.6 $38.65 $1,221 /KSF

11.29 8.8 0.5 49.7 $38.65 $1,921 IKSF
RETAIUSERVICE USES (per 1,000 SF):

29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $38.65 $2,439 /KSF

23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $38.65 $1,948 /KSF

2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $38.65 $205 IKSF

5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $38.65 $491 /KSF

22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $38.65 $3,776 IKSF

7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $38.65 $1,217 IKSF

30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 $38.65 $2,508 /KSF

11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $38.65 $951 IKSF

62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $38.65 $5,229 IKSF

8.90 4.3 0.5 19.1 $38.65 $738 IKSF

43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $38.65 $3,622 /KSF

13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $38.65 $1,160 IKSF
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 41 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities Table 4-3 following, (and summarized from Schedule 4.3) identifies the assets of the existing system (at current construction and acquisition costs). The $129,344,894 consists of the existing circulation plan arterial and collector lanes only (along with curb, gutter, and parkway improvements) at $76,514,700 and the City's bridges have an estimated replacement cost of $16,851,229. The twenty-two signalized intersection improvements total approximately $12,522,336 in replacement costs. The General Plan 1,503 safety light poles have a replacement value of $9,005,297. The City's 566 directional/stop sign inventory would cost some $307,247 to replace. The City yard improvements dedicated to circulation system maintenance has a replacement value of approximately $2,754,336 and the existing fleet of vehicles dedicated to circulation system would cost some $602,851 to replace. There is also a combined existing Local and Regional Circulation Systems DIF fund balance of $10,786,898.

This combined $129.3 million figure does not include the substantial cost of acquiring the arterial R.O.W. nor the many "local" streets. When distributed over the existing community, using the same nexus factor (e.g. trip-miles) used for distribution of future costs, the existing community has contributed the following, on average, by land use:

Table 4-3
Existing Circulation System
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
By Land-use Type
,.
. · ·.
.•• •· .
i''y Allocation of ·· . A$Set/Equity
, PIF Land"use caiegory ., EXi$ting System .. Investment Per Unit ·As�ets . or �quare Foot
',,,', .,,[ ""-'',· .... -,,",, '''"·--'·,
Rural Dwelling Units $451,287 $5, 785/Unit
Detached Dwelling Units $17,622,605 $5,785/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $16,585,213 $3,331/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $1,601,918 $2,902/Unit
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units $565,698 $1, 145/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $372,839 $1,726/Unit
Assisted Care Facility Uses $1,340,814 $2.007/S.F.

Retail/Service/Office uses $58,862,504 $10.566/S.F.

Medical/Healthcare Office Uses $12,501,719 $9.114/S.F.

Hospital Uses $8,301,472 $4.787/S.F.

Industrial Uses $200,553 $1.959/S.F.

Institutional Uses $10,938,272 $3.412/S. F.

It should be noted that the existing community has contributed, on average, just short of four times as much (433% greater) as what is being asked of future development to accommodate their circulation needs at build-out. While there is likely excess capacity in the existing system, it is usually the result of the existing community absorbing the initial street construction costs City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 42 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities including the costly right-of-way acquisition, the later part of the community often finances only the smaller segment length widening's which maximize the street segments capacity.

The Use of The Fee. This fee will be primarily used to construct additional or "extra" lane miles. "Extra" lane miles are defined as the outside two lanes of a four-lane road, the outside four lanes on a six-lane arterial, or the outside six lanes on an eight lane arterial. This calculation is intended to create greater equity among privately owned parcels with differing contiguous lane configurations. Consider that some private parcels could be contiguous to six lane streets and could be exacted to build one half of the six lanes, while other private parcels may be contiguous to a planned two-lane avenue and would only be exacted to construct one half of the two lanes, or two lanes with a reimbursement for one of the lanes when the parcel on the opposite side is developed. The inequity is obvious; those contiguous to the larger capacitycarrying road types quite often pay a greater amount.

Construction Responsibility vs. DIF Payment. This DIF assumes that each developer, contiguous to a planned Major Street would:
• Dedicate the needed right-of-way and would be responsible for last lane of asphalt concrete or PCC and the median area (approximately 40 feet wide); • Construct the parkway landscaping; and,
• Construct the curb, gutter, sidewalk, striping and street lights. • Dedicate the needed right-of-way;
• Construct all required public improvements to the City's satisfaction; or, • If the City so determines it is in their best interest may require cash-in lieu.

Recommended General Plan Circulation System DIF Schedule. The adoption of Schedule 4.2 at the end of the chapter (and as summarized in table 4-1 ), as the General Plan Circulation System DIF Schedule would generate enough capital to construct the facilities needed by the new development. In addition, the City should adopt the application of the per trip-mile fee from the bottom of Schedule 4.2 and multiplied by the specific use Table 4-2 or the more extensive listing of traffic generation by land use available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New York, N.Y.
[This space left vacant to place the Chapter recommendation summary on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 43 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges and Access/Egress Ramps) Facilities

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES • Adopt Schedule 4.2 for most land-uses and the per trip-end rate on Schedule 4.2 to be used in conjunction with the most current edition of ITE manual (and the trip length figures (via SANDAG) at the bottom of Schedule 4.2) for unusual land-uses (e.g. an amusement park).
• Create a DIF Fund (or a reserve within the Circulation DIF Fund) titled "Regional SANBAG Projects" and transfer 54.8% of all Circulation System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.
• Create a separate DIF Fund titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 6.1 % of all Circulation (et. al.) System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 44 Schedule 4.1
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Aflocation of Project Cost Estimates
Local Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridgesand Access/Egress) Facilities !line#·
ST-001
ST-002
ST-003
ST-004
ST-005
ST-006
ST-007
ST-008
ST-009
ST-010
ST-011
ST-012
ST-013
ST-014
ST-015
ST-016
ST-017
ST-018
ST-019
ST-020
ST-021
ST-022
ST-023
ST-024
ST-025
ST-026
�
01 Evans Street Freeway Access And Street
Tippecanoe Street Off-Ramp At 10 (Completed)
Mountain View lnterchanae At 1-10
Redlands/California Wideninq Over Mission Zania (Completed) California Street - Redland Boulevard To Barton Road Widenina Redlands Boulevard Median, Median Control/Landscaping
Traffic Signal Improvements - Anderson/Mound
Traffic Signal Improvements - California/Oranae
Traffic Signal Improvements - California/Park
Traffic Signal Improvements - California/Citrus
Traffic Signal Improvements - Ora nae/New Jersey
Traffic Signal Improvements - Campus/University
Traffic Sianal Improvements - Campus/Molnar
Traffic Signal Improvements - Van Leuvan/Poplar
Traffic Signal Improvements - Van Leuven/Oranae Grove
Traffic Signal Modification - Barton/Benton
Van Leuven Street Extension W/0 Oranae Grove Street
Poplar Street Bridae Widenino
Campus Street Widening, University/Alamitos
Beaumont Street Widening - Mountain View/UPRR
Mission Road Re-alianment - Solano/California
Modify Barton Road Medians - Left Turn Capacity (Completed) City -Wide Bike Lanes
Inter-Modal Public Transit Facilities
Share Of Common Maintenance Vehicles/Equipment
Share Of Common City Maintenance Yard Improvements
Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs
Other Financial Resources
Local Circulation System Fund Balance
Regional Circulation System Fund Balance
Contribution from SANBAG
Total Mitigating Financial Resources
!
Total Net General Plan Project Costs!
Estimated
C<>:st
$48,980,320
$0
$65,864,230
$0
$3,312,430
$1,048,240
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$45 2,940
$45 2,940
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$258,820
$776,470
$1,552,940
$621,180
$3,850,820
$1,329,190
$0
$465,880
$7,733,660
$726,430
$1,484,160
$142,081,230
$1,036,827
$9,750,071
$94,896,876
$105,683,774
--
Construction+Jeeds
Supp�rted by
Other Re$9urces
Percent
.. Need

66.67%

94.54%

94.50%

0.00%

66.79%

0.00%

0.00%
100.00%

89.79%
$32,655,179
$0
$62,241,697
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$94,896,876
$0
$0
$94,896,876
$94,896,876
$36.397,456 1 1 __ 0.00%1
> $? l
Infrastructure Needed
.. \to Accommodate . ·.

Increased Development ••
Percentc
;Need

33.33%

5.46%

5.50%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

33.21%
100.00%
100.00%

0.00%

10.21%
100.00%
1-PPOrticmed;i" •
·
Dollar Gost: •.
$16,325,141
$0
$3,622,533
$0
$3,312,430
$1,048,240
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$452,940
$258,820
$776,470
$1,552,940
$621,180
$3,850,820
$1,329,190
$0
$465,880
$7,733,660
$726,430
$1,484,160
$47,184,354
$1,036,827
$9,750,071
$0
$10,786,898
$36,397,456
Forward to Schedule 4.2
Schedule 4.2
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
Local Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridgesand Access/Egress) Facilities 1 . Un:ijeve/ooecl .
.
.. Trip�iid '.
1 Acres"<·

Piobosed Lind Use •:. :;:,. ..

Rural Dwelling Units 231.0
Detached Dwelling Units 167.4
Attached Dwelling Units 325.7
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 3.0
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units 13.3
Commercial Lodging Units 24.0
Assisted Care Living Units 7.2
Retail/Service/Office Uses 193.2
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses 435.5
Hospital Uses 14.0
Industrial Uses 1.0
Institutional Uses 101.2
TOTAL I 1,516.29
IALTERNA.TIVE�E METHblfOLOGY
Trip-ends Adjustment
Calculation
Land Use Title
Rural Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
�
(j)
Daily
Total
Trip-ends

9.57 5.51

4.99 3.48

6.23 6.10

45.20 33.79

15.57 6.16

12.57 ·:. Units •ad!.<
.... .. n e,Jg th. .· ..
.
1 i=actor
231 34.59
646 34.59
3,271 19.91
34 17.35
315 6.85
735 10.32
600,000 12.00
4,245,784 63.17
9,175,280 54.49
750,000 28.62
26,248 11.71
1,898,583 20.40
Percent of Diverted
Diverted Trip-end%
Trips Adjustment
11 0.50
11 0.50
11 0.50
11 0.50
38 0.50
11 0.50
40 0.50
30 0.50
25 0.50
19 0.50
25 0.50
Totaf ....

A.dditiof!a/
. Trio-mit�sit
7,990
22,344
65,140
590
2,156
7,585
7,200
268,187
499,928
21,466
307
38,731
941,624
941L§'24J
Diverted
Trip-end
Percent

5.5 5.5

19.0 5.5

20.0 15.0

12.5 9.5

12.5 \Perc�ntage; Aflocatlon,of.;' Q9st ,4ver�ge Uni� · Devel,{JJ;fpent, > ' �f/�cidltlonaf , Expan:sio'li' :i .. Distr/butio.n .. · · Jlr S/iufJr;e .\ lmpa;.c.t Fef)pe,:Uni� .. · Trio-miles .Costs'. ·. .:PerAcre ·. • i1Feet1Ahre · · or St,�are.7£:oof · .:

0.85% $308,845 $1,337 1.00 $1,337 per Unit

2.37% $863,683 $5,159 3.86 $1,337 per Unit

6.92% $2,517,916 $7,732 10.04 $770 per Unit

0.06% $22,806 $7,602 11.33 $671 per Unit

0.23% $83,338 $6,290 23.77 $265 1Jer Unit

0.81% $293,190 $12,237 30.68 $399 per Unit

0.76% $278,308 $38,654 83,333 $0.464 per S.F.

28.48% $10,366,478 $53,665 21,980 $2.442 per S.F.

53.09% $19,324,175 $44,373 21,069 $2. 106 per S.F.

2.28% $829,745 $59,267 53,571 $1.106 per S.F.

0.03% $11,867 $11,867 26,248 $0.452 per S.F.

4.11% $1,497,105 $14,798 18,766 $0. 789 per S.F.
100.00%1 $36,397,456 Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs I · · $$.6,,397,456 ! $38,65 per Da.ily Trip-mile::• I
Percent Combined Remaining Adjusted Trip Average Trip-ends of Pass-by Diverted and Trip% as Rate, Adjustmen Trip XLength Trips Pass-by Adjustment °/4 % X Total trips Length X50%

3.0 8.5 91.5% 8.76 7.9 34.6

3.0 8.5 91.5% 5.04 7.9 19.9

3.0 8.5 91.5% 4.57 7.6 17.4

3.0 8.5 91.5% 3.18 4.3 6.8

4.0 23.0 77.0% 4.80 4.3 10.3

3.0 8.5 91.5% 5.58 4.3 12.0

15.0 35.0 65.0% 29.38 4.3 63.2

10.0 25.0 75.0% 25.34 4.3 54.5

2.0 14.5 85.5% 13.31 4.3 28.6

2.0 11.5 88.5% 5.45 4.3 11.7

12.0 24.5 75.5% 9.49 4.3 20.4
Schedule 4.3
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Local Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridgesand Access/Egress) Facilities t•
1-----....;..;;;..;;;.;;..;;�=_..;---1 Trip.,end'!i, .-• Total Piircentage Allocation pf __ . -_ Cost _ _
Average Units . Pevet.opment;;.'
anJJ LtibQth · :.existing ot>4ddition;,f. Expa,:,sidn;' • .
_
- Q{strfbuticm. .r:?,' Square: lmpt,ctFe�P,rir ci�(t
Rural Dwellin11 Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Livin11 Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
i
�
"'-J
·- \ __ ' '.\:J01"ALL

78.00 78
760.50 3,046
372.90 4,979

34.50 552

20.58 494

10.00 216

8.10 668,000
256.94 5,571,185

64.70 1,371,739

32.50 1,734,000

4.70 102,366
189.70 3,205,554
.... _ - - . ·-: - >1 • --- .1 ��._1_2. - --
· Factot: Tri -miles Tri .-rmiles CQsts ''�t, · PerAcre ,. FeeflAcre • Qr s qare·#opt · .';

34.588 2,698 0.35%

34.588 105,356 13.62%

19.915 99,154 12.82%

17.350 9,577 1.24%

6.846 3,382 0.44%

10.319 2,229 0.29%

12.000 8,016 1.04%

63.166 351,907 45.51%

54.486 74,741 9.67%

28.622 49,630 6.42%

11.714 1,199 0.16%

20.400 65,394 8.46%
-- \--'. I_-' 773,?.83., · .100.00%
$5,786
$23,172
$44,476

1.00 I $5,785 p_er Unit

4.01 I $5,785 per Unit

13.35 I $3,331 p_er Unit
$46,432 -I 16.00 I $2,9Qg p_er Unit
$27,483
$37,284
$165,533
$229,090
$193,226
$255,430
$42,671
$57,661

24.00 I $1, 14§ p_er Unit

21.60 I $1,726 ()_er Unit
82,469 I $2.007 ()_er S.F.
21,683 I $10.566 ()_er S.F.
21,202 I $9.114 f.J_er S.F.
53,354 I $4. 787 e_er S.F.
21,780 I $1.959 _f.J_erS.F.
16,898 I $3.412 p_er S.F.
$129,34,,894 _ Total infrastructure Nlas�r PlariiAssets I ., ··
·. ·$76,514JOO�Geoera[Ptan Artetiarsl�<>iiectors (exclµding ROW) $16,851,22-s·.111 Seneral Plan Arterial Bridge'.Ass� • :\:' .$1.2,522',336 fo Gehera1:Plan2;? Siij�atize� rowrsect{on'As�etsL _ $9,005,29l in�ener4'11 Pl�n SafefyStree\Ligbt .Pe>le,.As�El!s.:L $30'1:,241)i} General,Difectional•and·�'.St<>p" Sign As�ets ,,J.· · $602;�51 :in 'Sharedtvlaintepan� Ve�lEqui�llt �s'�ts· 1 · $2;754,�36 •:in OQmn:ion City Yard lmpr�vemen� .
1, $10,7�;89!l 7nC1rcuiation5ystem oif�Fund Balance ,;l ' Chapter 5
Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
The Existing General Plan System. The City's existing storm drainage network is composed of street gutter facilities, inlets and a network of storm drain pipe-lines which convey run-off to larger pipelines and channels located throughout the City ultimately leading into the Santa Ana Riverbed. However, as the City continues to develop vacant parcels with rooftops, parking lots and driveways, the existing City-owned storm drainage lines will reach capacity and the ability of the existing drainage lines to collect additional run-off from developing areas will diminish regardless of the availability of a good system of wash channels. Additionally, there are areas in the City near safety facilities such as the City's maintenance yard, Contract Sheriff's entry/exit from the city as well as the existing and future fire stations that will require storm drainage improvements to ensure adequate safety response times from these public safety staff.

The City's arterial storm drainage system of collection pipe is defined as storm collection pipe that is 36" in diameter or larger as opposed to the storm drainage pipe serving local streets that are 12" to 33" in diameter. According to City records the arterial system consists of 72,250 linear feet of 36" and larger storm pipe, along with the 20,079 linear feet of concrete or earthen channel. The 72,250 linear feet of pipe incorporates approximately 129 manholes, 52 junction boxes and 208 inlets. The replacement value of the existing combined 36" or larger arterial pipe and channel system is approximately $47,607,315. There are 26.2 acres of storm drainage detention basins that would cost approximately $15,549,040 to replicate. There is approximately $98,027 in maintenance vehicles and $330,214 in City Maintenance Yard improvements dedicated for maintenance of the storm drainage system. Lastly there is $1,202,964 in the existing Storm Drainage DIF Fund balance for a total arterial storm drainage collection system value of $64,787,560.

Property-based Benefit Reasoning. Initially, the use of separate zones was reconsidered for each drainage basin within the City because each area has its own capital needs for stormwater collection. Storm-water run-off from the easterly Mission area may not directly impact homeowners along the westerly portion of Barton Road; similarly, a debris detention basin along Redlands Boulevard necessary to capture the run-off from the businesses in that area may provide little direct benefit to the businesses along Mountain View Avenue near Barton Road. In each case, there can be some distinct property-related areas of benefit for each drainage basin.

However, the owners and users of all developed and undeveloped parcels benefit, directly and indirectly, from all City-wide existing and future storm drainage improvements. As the various systems within the greater community of the City of Loma Linda develop, concurrent with development of private property, the benefits are generally recognized as:

1. Proposed development projects can only be approved by the City when precautions, generally in the form of infrastructure improvements, have been made that ensure that developed and undeveloped downstream parcels will not be adversely affected (i.e., inundated, flooded, cut off from access in and out), by storm 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.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 48 Chapter 5 Storm Drainage Collection Facilities

2. The private development being assessed a DIF will receive the same stormwater protection from other development projects upstream or up-zone from its own development.

3. Storm water must be adequately controlled and removed to large scale flood control channels or creeks to assure access by public safety vehicles to all parts of the City, regardless of which zone a call-for-service is in. Fire, law enforcement and other public safety rescue calls, as well as many animal control and public works responses, simply cannot wait for a heavy rainstorm to end. To 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 Loma Linda's citizens and business owners/employees must also be able to travel safely (and send/receive goods and services) in heavy rain through one zone to another. An adequate and sufficient storm drainage system will provide such protection.

5. Storm drainage collection pipes protect the integrity of the roadbed of the very important arterials and collectors.

RCS recommends continuation of a single zone storm drainage fee for the entire City as most rainfall will leave one area of the City and pass through other areas ultimately leading to the Santa Ana riverbed.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. The construction of flood control and storm drainage facilities is essential to the preservation of private property, public streets, curbs and other facilities. The county or a regional level of government is typically responsible for flood control r10J, and cities are generally responsible for storm drainage. The building of new residences and businesses on presently undeveloped land will increase the amount of run-off and thus accelerate the need for additional storm drainage facilities to handle increased run-off from these developing areas. As the vacant land is developed and open soil or turf is replaced with impervious rooftop, parking lots, driveways, pools, and sidewalks, greater amounts of the rainfall runs off of the developed parcel.

The amount of the run-off varies with differing types of development (i.e. land-use) and the varying amounts are referred to as the run-off coefficients. Approximately 0.74 (or 74.0%) of rainfall that falls on a parcel developed with detached dwelling residences, exits that developed parcel. The run-off rate for higher density dwelling development is not much higher than a detached dwelling at 0.800 (80.0%). Most business uses such as retail/service/office, medical and institutional uses have a run-off coefficient in excess of 0.900 or 90.0% with the exception of Industrial uses at a slightly higher 0.950 or 95.0%. 10 Projects of major importance generally involving the control of large quantities of flood water through numerous cities and unincorporated areas.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 49 Chapter 5 Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
Clearly, rainfall run-off increases with development, even with on-site capture requirements.

The cumulative effects of additional run-off 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 property that will end up with impervious coverage such as asphalt or cement-based concrete 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 costs of extending the same level of storm drainage protection to the newly developing residences 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 storm drainage facilities necessary to extend that same level of services. The City staff has identified a total of $9,355,460 in storm drainage collection projects required to complete the City's network of storm water collection pipes. This amount is mitigated by the existing Storm Drainage DIF Fund balance of $1,202,964 to reduce the total construction cost needs figure to $8,152,496. The City has received limited amounts of financial assistance from the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District thus no additional future financial support is anticipated to mitigate the net $8, 152,496 amount any further.

The Use of the Fee. The building of new residences and businesses on undeveloped land will require the installation of additional storm drains of sufficient capacity with an adequate number of inlets to handle increased rainwater run-off from these areas where development reduces natural absorption opportunities. This Chapter reviews the storm drainage collection facilities required to accommodate future development.

The revenues raised from a properly calculated and supported Storm Drainage Collection Facilities DIF would be limited to the capitalized costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to construct the additional or parallel storm drainage lines necessary to increase the drainage capacity of the system to accommodate the additional rainwater run-off generated by the continued development. Conversely, the Storm Drainage Collection System DIF receipts would not be used to repair, replace, or rehabilitate any existing storm drainage lines. The limited exceptions would be if the replacement or rehabilitation project creates additional capacity, in which case that proportional amount of additional capacity could be included as a DIF cost.

The Relationship Between the Need for The Fee and The Type of Development Project. Upon the identification of the costs of storm drainage facilities generated by future development, costs must be further distributed for each of the land uses (i.e., business and residential uses) based on their estimated rainwater run-off. Residential detached dwelling development leaves the greatest remaining turf percentage per parcel and thus the greatest percolation, and conversely the least run-off of rainwater. As such, the detached dwelling residential land use should not bear the same cost as the Industrial or industrial development, which generally have little or no turf area (or stated another way, a higher percentage of impervious area) and therefore generates a higher amount of rainwater run-off. For this Report, costs were distributed between land uses on established run-off coefficients. A listing of these run-off coefficients is provided in Table 5-1 following (11).
11 San Bernardino Hydrology Manual (1986). Williamson and Schmidt, Irvine, CA, Figure C-4., page D-15.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 50 Chapter 5 Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
Table 5-1
Storm Drainage Run-off Coefficients
(By Acre)
.
[)ff l,.and-4se Type
.. : ,.. ;;•·· •/: .

Rural Dwelling Units@ one acre lots
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
; , .·.�un-off
:.v Co�fficie11t:.
... ·: .

0.680

0.740

0.800

0.900

0.950

0.900
As stated earlier, the General Plan area requires a net $8,152,496 in storm drainage capital projects. Table 5-2, following, demonstrates the DIF schedule that would need to be imposed to fully fund the completion of the storm drainage system's collection of pipes and channels identified in the Master Facilities Plan as necessary for the City. It would not be unreasonable to require development, those generating greater amounts of rainwater run-off, to finance some portion of the identified storm drainage needs providing there is no violation of the proportionality requirement. Table 5-2 indicates the resulting fees required to fully fund all of the projects. Please note that the DIF, by land use, is in terms of units such as residential dwellings or business square feet of building pad.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 51 Chapter 5 Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
Table 5-2
Minimal Needs-based Storm Drainage System
Development Impact Costs
by DIF Land-use Type
··•. ,_;- ... -···
- ,.
·:.; < �If Larid-useCategory
. " -" --
Rural Detached Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
Retail/Service/Office uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
-- -
Allocation·
of Syster:n
Expansion posts
$1,024,638
$808,048
$1,699,389
$15,655
$69,144
$125,025
$37,573
$1,134,049
$2,556,645
$82,190
$6,197
$593,942
. ··- : - <" Qevelopr:nenf lmpacf
· Cost.PElrUnit'
or Square Foot
$4,436/Unit
$1,251/Unit
$520/Unit
$460/Unit
$220/Unit
$170/Unit
$0.063/S.F.
$0.267/S.F.
$0.279/S.F.
$0.110/S.F.
$0.236/S.F.
$0.313/S.F.

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

The Storm Drainage DIFs that are imposed and collected will be used to mitigate the storm water run-off generated by the type of development. If the development is a Retail/Service/Office or industrial property generating a significant amount of run-off, 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.

From time to time the City may require an applicant of a private project to construct an improvement (or portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of this Chapter. This is often done to expedite the project for the applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit for any money expended on this required improvement against their calculated storm drainage impact fee.

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 upon the projected amount of storm water that will need to be collected and safely transported to flood control channels or rivers. The downstream collection lines (lines further down from the proposed project but prior to the outfall into a river or flood control channel) 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 and thus the downstream system must be built City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 52 ----------- ---------------------------- --
Chapter 5 Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
increasingly larger (at increasing higher material and construction costs) the farther it gets away from its source.

Table 5-3, the following, distributes the total equity replacement value of the existing storm drainage system at $64,787,560 referenced earlier in the Chapter over the existing developed community. What was not mentioned was that the existing system represents some 88.8% of the General Plan system leaving a much smaller 11.2% of the total cost of the General Plan Storm Drainage Collection system to be financed by the remaining development that represents nearly 46% of the run-off at General Plan build-out. The $64,787,560 total consists of the actual existing storm drainage pipe and channel systems at $47,607,315 and $15,549,040 in the 26.2 acres of storm drainage basins, the existing storm drainage maintenance vehicle/City Yard combined allocation of $428,241 and existing Storm Drainage Collection System DIF fund balance of $1,202,964. The development impact costs figures represent the long-term financial commitment contributed by the existing community through dedications (from the developers of these established developments) and tax contributions.

Table 5-3
Existing Storm Drainage System
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
By Land-use Type
. ; .. ,
1··,/:,/ . '.

I· ' DI� Land-use Category . ·, <f;, .. ·
1-', :,;'.:, �;.;,:
.t <,,
•.• ..

Rural Detached Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
Retail/Service/Office uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
.. .
···· .... ·.·Anocc1tion
of System
Assets
.
$2,343,064
$24,860,598
$13,178,410
$1,219,241
$727,422
$353,403
$286,257
$10,215,388
$2,572,334
$1,292,131
$197,243
$7,542,069
'<"
' ''
..
i• Asset/Equity
Investment Per Unit
• or Square Foot
. . . .
$30,039/Unit
$8, 162/Unit
$2,647/Unit
$2,209/Unit
$1,473/Unit
$1,636/Unit
$0.429/S.F.
$1.834/S.F.
$1.875/S.F.
$0.745/S.F.
$1.927/S.F.
$2.353/S.F.

Of note is the fact that in Table 5-3, the investment "equity" of the current community is remarkably greater by roughly 795% indicating that the City has had great success in building the General Plan Storm Drainage Collection System far advance of actual demand.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 53 Chapter 5 Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
Recommended General Plan Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee Schedule. The adoption of Schedule 5.2 and summarized in Table 5-2 as the Storm Drainage Collection System DIF schedule would generate sufficient capital DIF receipts to finance the remaining

11.2% amount of the storm drainage collection system even though their proportional share of the build-out storm drainage run-off is closer to 46.0% of the total run-off.

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS DIFS
• Adopt Schedule 5.2 for the twelve land-uses and the Cost Distribution per Acre figure (from the third column from the right side of the Schedule 5.2) for developments that do not involve a building pad, (e.g. additional asphalt parking area). • Create a DIF Fund titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 3.8% of all Storm Drainage System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 54 Schedule 5.1
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
�-; LL:'"
SD-001
SD-002
SD-003
SD-004
SD-005
SD-006
SD-007
SD-008
SD-009
SD-010
(Jl
(Jl
Benton Street Storm Drainage Project - Phase 1 (Completed) Benton Street Storm Drainage Project - Phase II
Benton/Anderson Streets Open Ditch
Van Leuvan Street Storm Drain - UPRR/Orange Grove
New Jersey Street Storm Drain
California Street Storm Drain - Orange/Redlands
Mission Zanja Creek Channel
Barton Road Storm Drain
Share Of Common Maintenance Vehicles/Eauioment
Share Of Common City Maintenance Yard Improvements
I Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs
Other Financial Resources
Existing (07/01/22) Development Fee Fund Balance
San Bernardino County Flood Control District Assistances Total Mitigating Financial Resources
!Total Net General Plan Project Costs
$0
$427,060
$468,790
$160,540
$1,397,650
$3,004,380
$3,105,890
$485,290
$121,072
$184,788
$9,355,4601
$1,202,964
$0
$1,202,964
Constrnqtfon Needs
Suppbrte�b,Y ·•
0 Gther;Resouicesl
Pefi;,ei:,t•
:_ t1e,d

0.00%

0.00%{

0.00%

0.00%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 I
$0
$0
$0
$8,152,4961 1 __

0.00%1
.
.
$0 1
lnfratiJructure.Needed
to Abcommodat:t:i
Increased l)ev�Jopment
}:,ercent {; ··f. . Apport. _,_·o_ n_ ed
Need ' Dbllar,Cost '"' t ,;
100.00% $0
100.00% $427,060
100.00% $468,790
100.00% $160,540
100.00% $1,397,650
100.00% $3,004,380
100.00% $3,105,890
100.00% $485,290
100.00% $121,072
100.00% $184,788
100.00%{ $9,355,460 J
100.00% $1,202,964
100.00% $0
100.00% $1,202,964
100.00%1 $8,152,496
... _Forwar<I to Schedule 5;2 .•
Schedule 5.2
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
Ii :. ; :·
'\f;i =<<i
Pf<?r,e>s�dt.iind""$e ; .,
Rural Dwellinq Units
Detached Dwellin!l Units
Attached DwellinQ Units
Mobile Homes DwellinQ Un
Senior Restricted DwellnQ
Commercial LodQinQ Units
Assisted Care LivinQ Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office l
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
kJ:i::f\:; ,:lJndeveloped•····
. · '\
Hf 1 ;' Act� ;: , Uni�: ;;, ;;:,i .: i ; " . . . , .. . ,:· ! ·. :\,:; ·. . ,.\; l ·. 231.0 231
167.4 646
325.7 3,271

3.0 34

13.3 315

24.0 735

7.2 600,000
193.2 4,245,784
435.5 9,175,280

14.0 750,000

1.0 26,248
101.2 1,898,583
'.;: :'l:Run-off ;: cb�fficient
'.i /•f/1<.' ... '. .;_ ·,·, ;: ,
.. :Jndex:Rate

0.680

0.740

0.800

0.900

0.950

0.900
1 · .
.· TPTALF i�•1,5t6.29 I ·. TT_:_. Ll
01 0)
Total>A.dded ,: 'Rtin�off
· i111pkrviod�r} ,; (;oefflcient ..
, 'Attret\:; T,; : percentage ·,
157.08 12.57%
123.88 9.91%
260.52 20.85%

2.40 0.19%

10.60 0.85%

19.17 1.53%

5.76 0.46%
173.85 13.91%
391.94 31.36%

12.60 1.01%

0.95 0.08%

91.05 7.29%
I
1 • 1.�4�l�QI ;: : 100.00%1
A.llricatton of·
·;<&i;f:!PlllJSIOfl .
,; ; Co�ts i c1,
$1,024,638
$808,048
$1,699,389
$15,655
$69,144
$125,025
$37,573
$1,134,049
$2,556,645
$82,190
$6,197
$593,942
Cost.'. + 2c
. . • .....
..
... <; ' P;:J'J:'l'ii , . . :
$4,436
$4,827
$5,218
$5,218
$5,218
$5,218
$5,218
$5,871
$5,871
$5,871
$6,197
$5,871
;,:Average· 'qnits {.)ev�lppment
' )il:SquareJ., ; f:1J1PSCt Fije per Un/(
fa :;FeetiAcie;; . :·orSijuare"Foot '•·

1.00 $4,436 per Unit

3.86 $1,251 per Unit

10.04 $520 per Unit

11.33 $460 per Unit

23.77 $220 per Unit

30.68 $170 per Unit
83,333 $0.063 per S.F.
21,980 $0.267 per S.F.
21,069 $0.279 per S.F.
53,571 $0.110 per S.F.
26,248 $0.236 per S.F.
18,766 $0.313 per S.F.
$8,152,496 Total lnfrasfi':1.1cture Master,f)lan Capital Needs Schedule 5.3
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
.... ·, ... r:::.·h:::: :::;,:L'.1/I ji 1:
1 :i;;: i
Prodqsec,tl:anr:I t:l$e/ki. .·
Rural DwellinQ Units
Detached Dwellinq Units
Attached DwellinQ Units
Mobile Homes DwellinQ Un
Senior Restricted Dwellnq
Commercial LodQinQ Units
Assisted Care Livinq Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Ul
--J
1 : • · tJeveJoi
Jed ;
.
.
. ·
��t�s:i> . ;: ✓ Vnfcts::: \
.... .

78.00 78
760.50 3,046
372.90 4,979

34.50 552

20.58 494

10.00 216

8.10 668,000
256.94 5,571,185

64.70 1,371,739

32.50 1,734,000

4.70 102,366
189.70 3,205,554
1,833.1.2
1 ·.:; :R/in�dff
.: .. coefficient'
... ·. :·. :
· 'Jitdex:.Rate" ..

0.680

0.740

0.800

0.900

0.950

0.900
.. -
Total Existing
lmpervious
Acres.•••.r:i

53.04 562.77
298.32

27.60 16.47

8.00 6.48
231.25

58.23 29.25

4.47 170.73
1,466,60
Run•Qff Allocation; of · ·
\; Cpefficient ·. Expansign .
:C> Pcercentage . ,Cos�01 i •..

3.62% $2,343,064

38.37% $24,860,598

20.34% $13,178,410

1.88% $1,219,241

1.12% $727,422

0.55% $353,403

0.44% $286,257

15.77% $10,215,388

3.97% $2,572,334

1.99% $1,292,131

0.30% $197,243

11.64% $7,542,069
·' . Cost•, '
, Dlsttibutfo1 1}
..... P.er Acre ·
$30,039
$32,690
$35,340
$35,340
$35,340
$35,340
$35,340
$39,758
$39,758
$39,758
$41,967
$39,758
.•.Av�rag;a;{!.ni�:.
'drsq1r1.are
· ;H F;eet!A�fe ·

1.00 4.01

13.35 16.00

24.00 21.60
82,469
21,683
21,202
53,354
21,780
16,898
:
.

Dev�,oRrne,nt •
lmpi:tct,Fe�per Unit
• ors,N,a}�'Foot: •·
$30,039 per Unit
$8, 162 per Unit
$2,647 per Unit
$2,209 per Unit
$1,473 per Unit
$1,636 per Unit
$0.429 per S.F.
$1.834 per S.F.
$1.875 ,:,er S.F.
$0.745 ,:,erS.F.
$1.927 ,:,er S.F.
$2.353 ,:,er S.F.
1!)0;00%1 $64;781;�otal Infrastructure IYlasterPlanAssetsr ·· .. $41�6.0i..315 in GeneratPfan�DrainageSystemJ:,ipeAssets, $15;;54$,·!)40 .· in_��2_.6.�t��:'°!:S,<>rm Drainage Dete11�i(jl'l_��sins. i$98,027 .in $ha reel r.n,in(enan�� Vehicle�/�qUiPqt!Mlt Assets $330�2�4 •i11 Common)llai'
.
n .. ·.. te .......... nanr; .. ,.... e'Vard lmprQv ········-·······---ementi · $.
1,202,�St<irm braina�em"t>IF• Fund Balance
Chapter 6
Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities
Assuming that an adequate water supply with appropriate treatment facilities is available, the next critical component needed to accommodate development is an adequate water storage and distribution system. The City's water source, as presently constituted, cannot support the City's existing and future population, especially with the near doubling of water demand from the remaining private development opportunities. In order to meet all future water demands, the City will need to collect sufficient monies to maintain a continuously adequate and sufficient water supply via additional wells and additional water storage reservoirs along with the transmission lines and pump stations between the well fields and the needed reservoirs capacity. In order to meet increasing water demands the City must also construct a wastewater treatment plant in order to replace potable water use on landscaping with non-potable water.

The Purpose of the Fee. As additional businesses and residential structures are constructed, each one will generate a greater demand on the existing water system infrastructure. The existing system of distribution pipe, reservoirs, pumping stations and the source of water itself, will prove inadequate to meet all of the anticipated water demands. The impact fee is based upon the additional capital additions necessary to accommodate the water demands of development outlined on Table 6-1.

Impact fees are necessary for the construction of the remainder of the water system for one significant reason. Initially, the storage and delivery of water has, for many years, been recognized by most public agencies as a utility. Utilities differ from general tax-supported services in that they are similar to private sector utility businesses. Water rates are elastic, within reason, and can be set to meet water delivery costs whereas taxes cannot do the same.

Therefore, general taxes must be protected and reserved for services that do not have any such elastic revenue source. These services include public safety, park maintenance, storm drainage, and others.

The use of water (consumer benefit) can be measured, unlike many of the City's services water rates can, and should be, set to meet the Council's priorities and policies in terms of water use.

As a result of the above, the use of general taxes, where no relationship between the rate of taxation and benefit exists, in support of any utility service would be inappropriate.

The Use of the Fee. The revenues collected from the potentially adopted impact fees outlined and supported in this Chapter will be used to construct or acquire the list of projects identified on Schedule 6.1. A stronger statement would be that they are limited to the projects identified on that Schedule.

Existing General Plan System. In addition to the spine water system distribution pipes (consisting of distribution lines larger than 8" in diameter) with a replacement value of $46,509,713, treatment facilities with a replacement cost of $29,957,741, and reservoirs with a replacement value of $26,782,220 (less a remaining $4,923,581 in debt service). There are City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 58 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities also wells with a replacement value of $19,172,954. Since the City is built on a grade the system requires several booster stations ($11,368,963) to get water up to the reservoir tank fields as well as a number of PRV stations ($2,652,758) to get it back down safely to the transmission line level. The City's limited water shares would cost about $77,280 to replace were there any shares to be available. There is also a portion of the City Maintenance Yard assets ($8,768,833) and fleet of maintenance vehicles/equipment ($2,022,636) dedicated to the maintenance of the water system. The DIF fund balance is currently $3,035,776. The combined assets create a net water generation/treatment, storage, and distribution system replacement cost of $145,425,293. In short, that is the amount at current costs needed to buy/create such a water system were the City not to have it (12). The importance of this figure will be discussed later.

The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. Daily water demands will vary by category/type of development, however, use within a category/type tends to meet averages, thus making projection fairly accurate. The twelve land-uses identified for separate impact fees are used along with averages for each of those types of land-uses.

The service to be provided to the new users will mirror that the existing level of service.

Water use, for residential users was based (and planned for) upon a composite of water as a function, of wastewater demand per the City's Sewer Master Plan 1 , and the City's Finance
Department water records as reported to the State of California Department of Water Resources annual Public Water System Statistics Report.

General Plan Water Demands, by Land Use. Water use, for residential users was calculated (and planned for) on either a gallon per dwelling unit per day (GPO) basis for residential uses or gallons acre per day (GPAD) basis for business uses in the City's most recent Water Master Plan. Table 6-1 following, indicates the DIF Land-use Type averages that were used as the nexus in the DIF distribution model. The capital-needs costs will be distributed over new development based upon potable water demands at the meter and will not include any distributed recycled water demands as that process merely prevents potable water from being used for large scale irrigation uses.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. 12 The City's "local" 8" water pipeline serve neighborhoods, account for an additional $56,901,850 in replacement costs but are not included in this analysis as "spine" infrastructure.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 59 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities Table 6-1
General Plan Water Demand by DIF Land Use Type
Demand in GPO or GPAD
.
. DIF t,.and�u�e type
Rural Detached Dwellin Units
Detached Dwellin Units
Attached Dwellin Units
Assisted Care Facilit Uses
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hos ital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Gallons(per
Unit) perDay
541.37
541.37
400.00
367.18
177.38
266.07
Gallons per
Acre per Day
3,021.96
647.12
3,021.96
3,021.96
1,109.38
1,109.38
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. As the development occurs, the impact is generated. The collected fee would be put to use to acquire additional water generation, storage and distribution facilities, and additional equipment necessary to respond to those additional water demands, without reducing the capability of providing water to the existing community.

Table 6-2 following, indicates the demand for water (on average) for existing development within the City's water service area boundaries. The Table indicates that the City is called upon to generate, store and deliver approximately 4.73 million gallons daily. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 60 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities 1::

Table 6-2
Existing Community General Plan Water Demand
in Gallons per Day or Acres per Day (rounded)
..
. �If Lar,1d�use Type .. ;
' ,·:y,
Rural Detached Dwellings
Detached Dwellings
Attached Dwellings
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
Retail/Service/Office uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Total Gallons per Day
•Existing ...

Residential ..
... · Units
Existing
B.usiness
,, s, i"Acress•··
i;,
Water
•' Demand in
,, � '. ;.
.. GPD/GF>AQ
78 .. '. ::: ·.::: 541.37/Unit
:
....
.•
::•:
3,046
4,979
552
494
216
:,
,: ::•:: ;; :•
.. :
::
::
• .. ;
..
:
.. :
':.

8.10 256.94

64.70 32.50

4.70 189.70
•.•' "'·'
..... :: .f
541.37/Unit
400.00/Unit
367 .18/U nit
177.38/Unit
266.07/Unit
3,021.96/Acre
647.12/Acre
3,021.96/Acre
3,021.96/Acre
1, 109.38/Acre
1, 109.38/Acre
.,:, ..
:..:: .; :,·. ,.'.°' -'.!£
· Projected
GPO Water
,·.Demand
42,227
1,649,013
1,991,600
202,683
87,626
57,471
24,478
166,271
195,521
98,214
5,214
210,449
4,730,767
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Again, using the GPO demand data from Table 6-1 and the land use data base, the City will be asked to deliver an additional 3.67 million gallons per day (average) to anticipated users. This does not include the water demands from public institutions, other non-private uses and system loss. Obviously, this is an annual average and seasonal factors could be expected to affect use. This is consistent with overall City-wide daily statistical demand. Table 6-3, following, indicates the demand for water (on average) for future development within the City's boundaries.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 61 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities Table 6-3
Development-generated Additional Water Demand
in Gallons per Day or Acres per Day (rounded)
'',"
c
• ' Undevetoped. '{ ,
,.:·>
··· .. 7
f ·DIF Land-use Type Residential
.. .
..... Units
Rural Detached DwellinQs 231
Detached Dwellings 646
Attached DwellinQs 3,271
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 34
Senior Restricted Dwelling
Units 315
Commercial LodQing Units 735
Assisted Care Facility Uses .. •/.

Retail/Service/Office uses
Medical/Healthcare Office
Uses ,: ... . .. .

Hospital Uses , .. .

Industrial Uses \
··.•.

Institutional Uses
Total Gallons per Day
''c ·,,,
Undeveloped·
••.
...

Business,
Acres
•, •
C � •
..
.. /.,. ./·· .:

7.2 193.17
435.49

14.00 1.00
101.17
. .

Water>
· Demand•in
1i GPDIGPAD
541.37/Unit
541.37/Unit
400.00/Unit
367 .18/Unit
177.38/Unit
266.07/Unit
3,021.96/Acre
647.12/Acre
3,021.96/Acre
3,021.96/Acre
1, 109.38/Acre
1, 109.38/Acre
.
·, .. .;' - _, ...
iProjected.

GPDYVater
Demand
125,056
349,725
1,308,400
12,484
55,875
195,561
21,758
125,004
1,316,033
42,307
1,109
112,236
3,665,548
General Plan Build-out Total Daily Water Demand. The total average daily water need (existing and future) is 8.312 million gallons daily at General Plan build-out. Table 6-4 following demonstrates General Plan build-out demand by land-use type. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 62 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities Table 6-4
Total Existing Average Day Water Demand
at General Plan Build-out
in Gallons per Day or Acres per Day (rounded)
•.

Dl�.J:��nd�use Type
,,, ;' '
Rural Detached Dwellings
Detached Dwellings
Attached Dwellinqs
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellinq Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
Retail/Service/Office uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Total Gallons per Day (rounded)
Existing
. Residential
... :
.Uni�/
309
3,692
8,250
586
809
951
·;.,·•'.: ..
. "
. •,
'
' .. .
..

Existing
Business
Acres
.. .
.
y ,,
·• .

15.30 450.11
500.19

46.50 5.70
290.87
<'" � ',, «· '
·water
Demand in
GPD/�PAD
541.37/Unit
541.37 /Unit
400.00/Unit
367 .18/Unit
177.38/Unit
266.07/Unit
3,021.96/Acre
647.12/Acre
3,021.96/Acre
3,021.96/Acre
1, 109.38/Acre
1, 109.38/Acre
.. • . ·; :>·
...

Projected
GPO Water
Demand.
167,283
1,998,738
3,330,000
215,167
143,500
253,033
46,236
291,275
1,511,554
140,521
6,323
322,685
8,396,315
The total projected average daily demand from all General Plan Loma Linda privately held acreage at General Plan build-out is about 8.4 million gallons daily. Although conservation efforts are certainly encouraged, extreme measures are not currently mandated in the City.

However, build-out of all undeveloped property within the water basin may create water demands a little greater than the existing treatment and storages capacity. The expected increase in average daily demand may require the City to locate additional sources of water beyond the existing annual acre feet capacity or mandate water conservation efforts, including water recycling.

PROJECTS NEEDED FOR PROPER WATER DISTRIBUTION
Utility infrastructure such as water is unique among all City infrastructures. Water demand simply cannot be ignored for long periods of time as can be animal control, fire, streets and park levels of service (LOS). Residents could be asked to allow the number of animal control officers to remain static, or wait a little longer for fire fighters, or even put up with the more congested traffic or more crowded parks. However, a delivered water supply must be in evidence to even City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 63 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities consider additional growth. Even though Table 6-4 applies average daily use rates and creates a total demand difficult to imagine, it is apparent that additional water distribution capability is necessary to allow for additional growth. Without adequate water distribution capabilities, development will grind to a stop. It is a prerequisite system needed at building permit issuance.

Since a water distribution system is a prerequisite to development (i.e., there is no development without water), it tends to be a somewhat "front-ended" system, that is, the system develops earlier, and the existing community tends to have built more of the system at any point in time than does the remainder of development. That is precisely the case with Loma Linda's water utility; the City's water system appears to have been well front-ended by the existing community.

Schedule 6.1 identifies the water distribution system improvements needed to ensure the continued adequate flow of water as needed to proposed development projects. There are ten remaining capital projects necessary for extending service to new development while maintaining service to existing water users. These ten projects are estimated at just over $59.8 million fully attributed to accommodating the 77.5% increase in water demand. The remaining project is related to water debt service and has a balance of $3,035,776. The repayment of the debt service for existing reservoir capacity is allocated to the existing users. There is a Master Plan update project and a project for the expansion of the City's utility maintenance fleet and one for the expansion of the City maintenance yard expansion. There are approximately $54.8 million in project costs identified as benefitting (and accommodating) new development demands in the City. This figure was used to calculate the Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities DIF schedule.

CALCULATION OF IMPACT COSTS
This Report identifies two methods of calculating the water system et. al. delivery DIFs and imposing said fees. They are:
• Standard (Average) DIF Land-use Type DIFs, similar to the other fees in this Report. • An impact fee based upon the meter size needed to serve a development, if needed.

Standard Use Category DIFs. Table 6-5 the following lists the twelve major land uses based upon average water usage statistics, (see Schedule 6.2). Some $59.8 million in new water capital expansion is required to accommodate new development and maintain current service access and reserve levels within the City's water service area. Approximately $54.8 million of this cost has been identified for DIF funding as necessary to accommodate new development of which some $5.2 million is for new wells, $23.3 million for the construction of six - 2.0 million gallon reservoirs, $9.2 million for a Wastewater Reclamation and Treatment Plant, $7.0 million for a Non-Potable Reclaimed Water Distribution System, $2.4 million for construction of a second (redundant) facility equipped with SCADA, the construction of 28,000 linear feet of transmission pipe costing $1.8 million, and upgrading the capacity of the water billing/payment system at a cost of $129,410. The $51.7 million is distributed pro-rata over the remaining potential development in the City's water service area as demonstrated in Table 6-5 following.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 64 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities The $54,829,949 in expansion costs are mitigated by the $3,035,776 in the Water DIF Fund balance and $4,923,581 in rate receipts (for non-DIF projects) to a net $51,794,173.

Table 6-5
Minimal Needs-based Water Distribution System
Development Impact Costs
by DIF Land-use Type
'' •;;
,· ' ..

PIF Land-use Category
,'.

Expartsion Co�ts .
,
.,.
$1,767,041
$4,941,612
$18,487,685
$176,399
$789,513
$2,763,276
$307,440
$1,766,306
$18,595,539
$597,798
$15,670
$1,585,984
Development Impact
, •·· Cost Per ' Unit
' '. .,c\
<>[Square Foot·
$7,650/Unit
$7,650/Unit
$5,654/Unit
$5, 190/Unit
$2,507/Unit
$3,759/Unit
$0.512/S.F.
$0.416/S.F.
$2.027/S.F.
$0.797/S.F.
$0.597/S.F.
$0.835/S.F.

Cost and Financing of the Existing System. Typically, a water system is the oldest service provided by any City. The City's engineering staff has identified the cost of the existing "spine" system, consisting of distribution pipe, wells, valves, reservoirs, and shares of water rights to be $145,425,293. This figure does not include the 8" local (tract) water lines which are not part of the spine system as their benefit is very limited and are generally required as conditions of project approval. The system has been constructed from three sources, water user rates (more commonly known as monthly water bills), DIFs, and exactions/Conditions of Approval. A portion of that nearly $145.4 million figure is the existing fund balance in the Water System DIF Fund of $3,035,776.

When this nearly $145.4 million in equity is distributed to the existing community based upon the same nexus used to distribute future costs by land use, (see Schedule 7.3) the results indicate that an existing detached dwelling has contributed, on average, an astounding $16,642 towards the water system et. al... This distributed equity is clearly greater (by about 281 %) than the distributed Minimum Needs-based Impact Costs exemplified in Table 6-5 (and Schedule 7.2) indicating there are no proportionality issues. Table 6-6 following demonstrates the distribution of existing assets.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 65 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities Table 6-6
Existing Water Distribution System
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
By Land-use Type
. •/ .. .... .· '
.. . /7 ' .. . Allocation Assert/Equity •.. ·;fo1F.l;�nd-1J�e. Ca!Etg9fy ·•·· . '•'
,·,}: ot. existing : ·· investment Per Unit
System Assets or Square Fqot
..

Rural Detached Dwelling Units $1,294,285 $16,593/Unit
Detached Dwelling Units $50,695,257 $16,623/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $61,238,591 $12,301/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $6,2224,203 $11,276/Unit
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units $2,690,368 $5,446/Unit Commercial Lodging Units $1,759,646 $8, 147/Unit
Assisted Care Facility Uses $756,212 $1.132/S.F.

Retail/Service/Office Uses $5,104,428 $0.916/S.F.

Medical/Healthcare Office Uses $6,006,065 $4.378/S.F.

Hospital Uses $3,024,846 $1.744/S.F.

Industrial Uses $159,968 $1.563/S.F.

Institutional Uses $6,471,426 $2.019/S.F.

Necessity of DIF Financing. DIFs are necessary for the construction of the remainder of the water system for one significant reason. Initially, the storage and delivery of water has, for many years, been recognized by most public agencies as a utility. Utilities differ from general tax-supported services in that they are similar to private sector utility businesses. Potable water rates are elastic, within reason, and can be set to meet water delivery costs whereas taxes cannot. Therefore, general taxes must be protected and reserved for services that do not have any such an elastic revenue source such as public safety, park maintenance, storm drainage, and other municipal services.

The use of water (consumer benefit) can be measured, unlike many of the City's services.

Water rates can, and should be, set to meet the Council's priorities and policies in terms of water use. As a result of the above, the use of general taxes, where no relationship between the rate of taxation and benefit exists, in support of any utility service would be inappropriate.

Recommended DIF Schedule. The adoption of Table 6-5, based upon Schedule 6.2 at the end of the chapter, as the water distribution DIFs would generate enough capital to construct the facilities needed by the new development. The DIFs contained on Schedule 6.2 also contain accommodation costs far less than the Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison identified in Schedule 6.3 thus there is great support for the proportionality requirements.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 66 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities Credits Against Development Impact Fees. The City does not charge stand-by water rates.

Vacant parcels are not charged water rates and therefore they have not contributed to the capital development of the water system. As a result, there can be no credit for previous contributions to capital from vacant parcels, simply because there were none made.

Additionally, there have been no General Fund expenditures on water projects.

Credit for Developer Constructed Improvements. Similar to roadway and storm drainage construction, it will likely be advantageous to have the developer construct certain public improvements contiguous to the private development. The adoption of the DIF schedules encourages such agreements. It is recommended that the City continue the process of agreeing to allow developers to construct water system capital improvements, identified within the City's Capital Financing Plan and part of the DIF calculation and then calculating a credit for that project contribution amount. The net DIF would be the amount per the adopted schedules less the credit for the capital constructed by the developer.

ALTERNATIVE GENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGIES There are two alternatives to the twelve basic General Plan area DIF categories. They are primarily applicable to the more specific demands by the multitude of differing business uses.

Equivalent EDU Based on Meter Size. The standard detached dwelling residence has a 1" meter at 15 gallons per minute normal (minimum-maximum) flow (13) which is defined as the Equivalent Dwelling Unit, or EDU. Schedule 6.2 indicates that the smallest meter size, 1 ", would cost $7,650 per connection, at the Minimum Needs based DIF schedule rate. The following Table 6-7 indicates the cost for larger meters based upon the normal flow demands, with again, the detached dwelling (detached) residence as the standard. A two-inch meter is rated at 80 gallons per minute, which is 3.2 times larger than the 25 gallons per minute than is afforded by a one inch meter. Thus, the two inch meter fee would be 3.2 times higher ($24,480) than the $7,650 for the one inch meter. Other meter sizes are as follows:
[This space left vacant to exhibit the following table on a single page]. 13 Meter Flow Ranges, based upon Minimum Maximum Continuous Flow Rates, American Water Works Association.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 67 Chapter 6 Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities Table 6-7
Equivalent Water Meter Size Calculation
Based upon Minimum Needs-based Impact Fees
No.rmal Water Cost per
Water Meter ·•· Water Flow •. Demand E.D:lJ
. Si,zf: ··-·· (GPM) . Factor .(3/4'! Meter)· i .·•
1' Meter 25 1.000 $7,650
1 & ½" Meter 50 2.000 $7,650
2" Meter 80 3.200 $7,650
3" Meter 240 9.600 $7,650
4" Meter 420 16.800 $7,650
6" Meter 920 36.800 $7,650
8" Meter 1,600 64.000 $7,650
10" Meter 2,500 100.000 $7,650
12" Meter 3,300 132.000 $7,650
DIF,Cost
per Meter
·• .. Size.
$7,650
$15,300
$24,480
$73,440
$128,520
$281,520
$489,600
$765,000
$1,009,800

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEES • Adopt Schedule 6.2 for the twelve basic DIF categories and the per day rate of $14.130 per gallon (see Schedule 6.2) for private uses that do not fit easily within the other fee methodologies.
•Adopt Table 6-7, Equivalent Water Meter Size Calculation Based upon Minimum Needsbased Development Impact Fees. • Create a DIF (fund) titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 10.9% of all Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Facilities DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 68 -------------- --· -- ----
Schedule 6.1
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
Water Supply, Storage & Distribution Infrastructure
�,#' LJ>;
WT-001
WT-002
WT-003
WT-004
WT-005
WT-006
WT-007
WT-008
WT-009
WT-010
WT-011
WT-012
Wastewater Reclamation And Treatment Plant
Non-Potable Reclaimed Water Distribution System
Construct Six 2.0 Million Gallon Reservoirs
Construct Two Wells
Construct 28,000 Linear Feet Of Transmission Pipe
Facility for Redundant SCADA System
Conversion of AMR Meter Readinq to AMI System (Completed) Upgrade Water Billina/Payment System Capacity
Water Master Plan Update
Water Storaqe System Debt Service
Water System Maintenance Vehicles/Equipment
Share Of Common City Maintenance Yard Improvements
Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs
Other Financial Resources
Existing (07/01122) Development Fee Fund Balance
Utility Rate Receipts
.•.. · ..·.11 ..

Total Mitigating Financial Resources
0)
<D
I Total Net General E1an Project Costs
E�,;
.tii,ted.
·.··. '·.

Cost, •·· •. I
$9,213,230
$6,997,950
$23,294,160
$5,176,480
$1,811,770
$2,455,560
$0
$129,410
$116,470
$4,923,581
$882,366
$4,752,553
$59,753,530
$3,035,776
$4,923,581
$7,959,357
(;J>1�tructiort Ne,�qs
- :.;('.S(lpportedby
.
·
: :;(Q't,ti�r Resources

0.00%

0.00%
100.00%

0.00%

8.24%}

0.00%
100.00%

61.86%
:Apportione'(:I .•
. boilar Cost: "
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,923,581
$0
$0
$4,923,sa1 J
$0
$4,923,581
$4,923,581
$51,794,173' 1 0.00%' $01
infrastructu�J;leeded
..... to Accom11ic,8ate
lncre""�e<!>P!'>i{t!l�Pffl&,.nt.
100.00% $9,213,230
100.00% $6,997,950
100.00% $23,294,160
100.00% $5,176,480
100.00% $1,811,770
100.00% $2,455,560

0.00% $0
100.00% $129,410
100.00% $116,470

0.00% $0
100.00% $882,366
100.00% $4,752,553

91.76% I $54,829,949 J
100.00% $3,035,776

0.00% $0

38.14% $3,035,776
100.00%1 $51,794,173
Forwar!( to Schedult1 6.2
Schedule 6.2
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
Water Supply, Storage & Distribution Infrastructure
'i"s( -� ��,..,......,......�r--:-"�-,..,:----1 · ,: ·""''ter :. , Cumulati�c;, •1 ·• All®atlo,o of
I •.. ;::' ,; rL. . ·, ' .' ,4,Jfo'ea�ir:m New Water &pamilbn:

P!122Phd.4aod. Use' .
, ,.Rate. �lii:t;, Allocation; .·. . • . Co$ts
Rural Dwellinq Units 231.00 231 541.37 125,056 3.41%
Detached Dwellinq Units 167.40 646 541.37 349,725 9.54% Attached Dwellinq Units 325.65 3,271 400.00 1,308,400 35.69% Mobile Homes Dwellinq Unit 3.00 34 367.18 12,484 0.34%
Senior Restricted Dwellnq U 13.25 315 177.38 55,875 1.52% Commercial Lodqinq Units 23.96 735 266.07 195,561 5.34% Assisted Care Livinq Units 7.20 600,000 3,021.96 21,758 0.59%1 Retail/Service/Office Uses 193.17 4,245,784 647.12 125,004 3.41%1 Medical/Healthcare Office U 435.49 9,175,280 3,021.96 1,316,033 35.90%1 Hospital Uses 14.00 750,000 3,021.96 42,307 1.15%
Industrial Uses 1.00 26,248 1,109.38 1,109 0.03%
Institutional Uses 101.17 1,898,583 1,109.38 112,236 3.06% 1· "'T()TALI : 1,51�P�.I ;: -- +: C • .:,_ '<(,< , ·.·
·
-1 3,sss,54s I 100.00%1
I
-...J
0 i :: ALTERNATE Fee. MEl:l:fO.OOLOGY. I 3,sss,54s I . I Percerifage of 1•• . Cost , IA...-.ge umts
Added W•t�r; .. Distributidn . . , . or Square• .
' Alloi:atipn : � :eer lti;JJ! :_ ,: ' < FeeJAcre
$1,767,0411 $7,6501 1.00
$4,941,6121 $29,5201 3.86
$18,487,6851 $56,771 I 10.04
$176,3991 $58,8001 11.33
$789,5131 $59,5861 23.77
$2,763,2761 $115,3371 30.68
$307,4401 $42,7001 83,333
$1,766,3061 $9,1441 21,980
$18,595,5391 $42,7001 21,069
$597,7981 $4g,1001 53,571
$15,6701 $15,6701 26,248
$1,585,8941 $15,6761 18,766
Dey;f1J9Pf1J:ef1t •
lrneacfFee per:Un.it
. or ,Sfiu�e Foot<
$7!650 per Unit
$7!650 per Unit
$5!654 per Unit
$5! 190 per Unit
$2,507 per Unit
$3! 759 per Unit
$0.512 per S.F.
$0.416 per S.F.
$2.027 per S.F.
$0. 797 per S.F.
$0.597 per S.F.
$0.835 per S.F.
$51 ;'r94, 173 in7fqt.af Water System .General Alan Pron�ef.s $51,104,113 I $14�130 PerGalioh DernarifV
I
Schedule 6.3
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Water Supply, Storage & Distribution Infrastructure
:;;s.• .. • ;.:l ·":;;: , "): ,',f/, i' . ·,:. C '
I
I
.•11 •ii 1;;11J ••r I Pror:>0$9d'4andiOse..• 1 > •.. · • Rural Dwellinq Units
Detached Dwellinq Units
Attached Dwellinq Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Unit
Senior Restricted Dwellnq U
Commercial Lodqinq Units
Assisted Care Livinq Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office U
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
-.J .......
..• 1 /,; J)eveloimd ·
.
. > •··•
;1 ; ��Des < .· Uni�
.. · .. S

78.00 78
760.50 3,046
372.90 4,979

34.50 552

20.58 494

10.00 216

8.10 668,000
256.94 5,571,185

64.70 1,371,739

32.50 1,734,000

4.70 102,366
189.70 3,205,554
,,,..,.
f J1\Wat�f
A;Jlocation • •·.
:. �at, G:PD ·•
541.37
541.37
400.00
367.18
177.38
266.07
3,021.96
647.12
3,021.96
3,021.96
1,109.38
1,109.38
Cumulative·.

Exil�ng �ttt�r
Altocatlcn · ·
42,227
1,649,013
1,991,600
202,683
87,626
57,471
24,478
166,271
195,521
98,214
5,214
210,449
•• I '.4,730,?67
.. Allocatio�iqf
; . . l:xisting · ··
Svstem Costs

0.89%

34.86%

42.11%

4.28%

1.85%

1.21%

0.52%

3.51%

4.13%

2.08%

0.11%

4.45%
Perceqtage of
·EXis�ing Wat�t·
. Alfocation. ;1 .•
$1,294,285
$50,695,257
$61,238,591
$6,224,203
$2,690,368
$1,759,646
$756,212
$5,104,428
$6,006,065
$3,024,846
$159,968
$6,471,426
• .cost:.
• Dtstrit,u,tioi;, , .

PerAc.re • 111
$16,593
$66,660
$164,223
$180,412
$130,706
$175,965
$93,360
$19,866
$92,829
$93,072
$34,036
$34,114
:Avertige Units
. • i,rsctu,ts ·.·•·�
Fe.et/Acre

1.00 4.01

13.35 16.00

24.00 21.60
82,469
21,683
21,202
53,354
21,780
16,898
: :; Development >:• •·•1
. \,i:H-.r :·=t=<- . :t,t.·:
. . Impact Fe�:p�r un,f
. J>i Sat,iare Foot �·II
$16,593 per Unit
$16,623 per Unit
$12,301 per Unit
$11,276 per Unit
$5,446 per Unit
$8,147 per Unit
$1.132 per S.F.
$0.916 per S.F.
$4.378 per S.F.
$1.744 perS.F.
$1.563 per S.F.
$2.019 per S.F.
fi10:00%J ${45,425;2�3 J'Qtaf Water E>y�tern .Mp�ter·Pla'!p.ssets,} • · ·· Chapter 7
Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities
As was mentioned in the prior chapter and will be reiterated here, a city or public agency facing continual growth may put off the construction of needed parks, roads and even storm drainage projects and still function, perhaps with minimal dysfunction. However, nothing stops development in its tracks faster than the lack of a water distribution system and a sanitary sewer collection system. These two systems were some of the earliest calculated DIFs, although they were generally called "hook up" fees (14). In short, a residence or business cannot exist, in the modern age, without these important connections.

The Purpose of the Fee. Growth will continue to impact the City's sanitary sewage collection system in two ways. The first is development within areas already served by the sewer collection system which, if not properly sized at construction, could overwhelm the existing capacity of the pipe. The second way growth impacts the City is by development proposals in areas where the system improvements do not yet exist. Table 2-1 indicates the magnitude of private development the City can expect. A proper Utility Master Plan will eliminate the first problem, but it will take money to construct the additionally needed collection lines. It is a commonly accepted principle in both water and sewer expansion that impact fees would finance the expansions as needed and required. If a development wanted to connect and there were no close-by lines, the developer would finance the expansion under perhaps a reimbursement agreement if appropriate. While general tax-supported infrastructure (fire, circulation and storm drainage) are pressed into using impact fees to finance additional infrastructures required to accommodate the demands of new development, utilities are supported by rate structures.

However, the existing rate users have paid handsomely for the utility-based infrastructure that has been accumulated to date, and there would be little interest on behalf of existing sewer collection system users (and rate payers) to finance the required infrastructure required solely to accommodate new development demands.

The principle remains the same with impact fees from previous chapters. This Chapter will calculate a fee schedule that represents the proportional and reasonable cost per type of development unit of growth by land-use, such as the various types of residential units or per 1,000 square feet of business-related space.

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
The City's major line sanitary sewer collection system currently consists of an identified 83,725 linear feet of various sized (10" to 24") reinforced concrete pipe with over 83 junctions, 336 manholes and various backfill, road base and asphalt. The current cost of duplicating the entire system of 10" through 24" trunk sewage collectors would be approximately $45,750,206. There is also one large lift station with a replacement cost of $1,947,253 and $119,831 in electronic 14 Not to be confused with a "connection" fee which is a reimbursement for the actual costs of having a city-worker either set the water meter or connect the privately owned sanitary sewer pipe from the home to the City's later sanitary sewer pipe.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 72 Chapter 7 Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities
monitoring telemetry. The utility has approximately $367,752 invested in vehicles and/or specialty equipment and has an apportioned City Yard improvements asset of $2,197,987 dedicated to sanitary sewer collection system maintenance. Lastly, there is an existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System fund balance of $357,345. These individual assets create a combined sanitary sewer collection system replacement cost of $50,740,374. The City does not maintain a sewer treatment plant and City sanitary sewer users are referred to the City of San Bernardino for purchase of sewage treatment capacity from that agency. For replacement planning purposes only, the City's 8" sewer collection pipe system that serves local neighborhoods has a total replacement cost of $127,572,147 but these smaller "local" or tract collection pipes are not considered part of the spine collection system and are just provided as information.

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The Relationship Between the Need for the Facility (improvement) and the Type of Development Project. Schedule 7.1 identifies thirteen capital projects necessary to accommodate the increasing sewer collection demands resulting from the remaining growth in the City and also maintain the existing system. There are three additional projects related to the master planning and maintenance of the system. Additional development will be responsible for the costs of all sixteen of the projects as the existing system meets the need of the existing resident quite adequately and even has some excess capacity within the existing system.

Combined, the total project list will cost an estimated $9,703,581 to design, construct and inspect, or acquire. The DIF fund balance of $357,345 reduces that figure to a net $9,346,236.

The Schedule 7.1 projects were identified by the City's Engineering Staff, and they were based upon staff application of common engineering standards applied to the General Plan standards.

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

Differing land-uses generate differing amounts of wastewater, but the land-uses tend to meet averages within the twelve land-uses selected for separate impact fees. Table 7-1, following indicates the twelve impact fee land-use categories and determines the average amount of sanitary sewage generated. The project costs identified on Schedule 7 .1 have been distributed based upon typical sewer demand rates identified in the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.

The sewer design flow rates are based upon the Table 4-3, Calculated Existing Sewage Generation Rates on page 4-4 of the City's Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan ( 15>_
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Again, using the GPO and GPAD demand data from Table 7-1 and the land use data base, the City will be asked to collect and transport an additional 1.63 million gallons per day (average) from the anticipated users. Table 7-4, on the following page, indicates the demand for sanitary sewer collection (on average) for future development within the City's boundaries. The project costs related to General Plan growth needs were then distributed to the development categories within General Plan system design flows, or gallons per day/acre flow rates (GPAD) for business development or gallons per day (GPO) for residential construction are as follows in Table 7-1:
15 Sanitary Sewer Collection Master Plan, Montgomery - Watson, Pasadena, 04/98.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 73 Chapter 7 Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities
Table 7-1
General Plan Sanitary Sewer
Flow Rate Demand by Land Use,
in Residential GPD or Business GPAD
..

DIFLand-use. Type· ., .. :,
.

Rural Detached Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Unit
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses I
Hospital Uses . '
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Gallons (per
Unitfper Day.
..
:·:
..
•·
,,,,,
240.80
240.80
178.08
163.32

78.93 118.35
:;'/ . .
. ··
:
·.7.·
.·
·:.:
' ..
..
/'
.·.�adonsp�r
Acre per Day
. .
..
�
.
.::
1,344.17
287.84
1,344.17
1,344.17
493.45
493.45

DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ACCOMMODATION COSTS
.

The Use of the Fee. Table 7-2 on the following page is summarized from Schedule 7.2 at the end of the Chapter and demonstrates the results of distributing the net $9,346,236 in sewer system expansion costs over the remaining undeveloped parcels in the City using sewer flow rates identified in Table 7-1. The table shows that residential uses will generate the largest amount, a combined 50.5% of all the wastewater to be collected. As a result, residential uses are allocated 50.5% percent of the $9,346,236 in the sanitary sewer collection expansion costs.

This process was applied to each of the land uses Table 7-1, on the following page, indicates the land use averages that were used in the impact fee calculation model1. The land use sewer system demand rates are then based upon a roughly 44.48% water generation to sewer generation ratio.

Table 7-2 following is summarized from Schedule 7.2 and demonstrates the results of distributing the $9,346,236 in General Plan Sanitary Sewer System expansion/accommodation costs over the remaining undeveloped parcels in the General Plan area generating those same expansion costs.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 74 Chapter 7
Table 7-2
Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities
Minimal Needs-based Sanitary Sewer Collection System
Development Impact Costs
by DIF Land-use Type
Allocation of Development Impact
DIF .�and-use Category System .. . CostPer Unit
.•• . .. " ... ·
Expansion Costs c:>t Square Foot
...

Rural Detached Dwelling Units $318,800 $1,380/Unit
Detached Dwelling Units $891,444 $1,380/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $3,338,008 $1,021/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $31,777 $935/Unit
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units $142,437 $452/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $498,435 $678/Unit
Assisted Care Facility Uses $55,423 $0.092/S.F.

Retail/Service/Office Uses $318,613 $0.075/S.F.

Medical/Healthcare Office Uses $3,354,458 $0.366/S.F.

Hospital Uses $107,856 $0.144/S.F.

Industrial Uses $2,804 $0.107/S.F.

Institutional Uses $286,088 $0.151/S.F.

The results indicate that the varying types of residential dwellings will need to contribute anywhere from a low of $452 for a senior restricted attached dwelling unit to a high of $1,380 for a detached dwelling unit in either DIF payments or in contributed capital in the form of off-site sanitary sewer collection trunk lines (to an equal amount).

Existing System Contribution. Table 7-3, following and summarized from Schedule 7.3, apportions the current $50,740,374 total replacement cost of the existing system identified earlier in his Chapter distributed over those who have contributed financially to the accumulated sanitary sewer system assets, the current users and rate payers. This has been done in the same manner as the future costs were distributed against the future users, utilizing the same average demand statistics used for modeling master plans. The results indicate that the average attached dwelling unit has contributed $4,293 per unit and a detached dwelling unit has contributed about $5,799 per unit.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 75 Chapter 7
Table 7-3
Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities
Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
By Land-use Type
.

Rural Detached Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Facility Uses
Retail/Service/Office uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
, Allocation
of Existing
System.Assets
$452,604
$17,679,976
$21,372,353
$2,173,210
$939,712
$615,988
$262,328
$1,782,509
$2,096,085
$1,052,863
$55,814
$2,256,424
,•
Asset/E99ity
> lnvestmenf,Per U:nit . ,,orSq6ar� 'Poot>
" i; , "', ,, ·,
$5,801/Unit
$5,801/Unit
$4,293/Unit
$3,937/Unit
$1,902/Unit
$2,852/Unit
$0.393/S.F.
$0.320/S.F.
$1.528/S.F.
$0.607/S.F.
$0.545/S.F.
$0.704/S.F.

PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS
Necessity for DIFs. DIFs are necessary and appropriate for the construction of the remainder of the sanitary sewer collection system for one significant reason. Similar to the distribution of water, the collection of sanitary sewage has long since been recognized by most public agencies as a utility. Utilities differ from general tax-supported services in that they are similar to private sector utility businesses and are financed by utility rates. Sanitary sewer collection system rates are relatively elastic, within reason, and can be set to meet sanitary sewer collection costs whereas taxes for general municipal services cannot. As a result, general taxes must be protected and reserved for services that do not have any such elastic revenue source such as public safety, park maintenance, storm drainage, and others. Additionally, as long as the existing sanitary sewer users have an adequate system for their needs, they would have little interest in having sanitary sewer rates rise for any reason other than operating costs as opposed to meeting the cost of adding new users. Clearly, the cost of adding to the system infrastructure to accommodate additional private development demands should be imposed upon that same private development.

The contribution to the sanitary sewer collection system (benefit) can be measured, unlike many of the City's many services to its citizens and businesses. Sanitary sewer collection rates can, and should be, set to meet the Council's priorities and policies in terms of the sanitary sewer system use. The use of general taxes, where no relationship between the rate of taxation and benefit exists, in support of any utility service would be inappropriate.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 76 Chapter 7 Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities
Recommended DIF Schedule. The adoption of Schedule 7.2 at the end of the Chapter text (as summarized in Table 7-2), as the Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities DIF schedule is both reasonable and would generate enough capital to construct the infrastructure facilities needed by the new development. The DIFs contained in Schedules 7.2 also contain amounts lesser than the financial commitment fees identified in Schedule 7.3 thus Schedule 7.2 supports the proportionality requirements.

Gallon per Day Costing Method. Lastly, the cost per sanitary sewer gallon per day is $5. 730/gallon based upon a total cost of General Plan build-out sanitary sewer accommodation improvements of $9,346,236 divided by the 1,630,972 additional sanitary sewer gallons per day to be generated by the additional development generating that new 1.63 million gallons of sewage daily. This figure could be used for any unusual private proposal that does not easily fit within the standard DIF table costing method.

CREDITS AGAINST DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Like the water utility, there are no stand-by sanitary sewer collection rates. Vacant parcels are not charged sanitary sewer rates and therefore they have not contributed to the capital development of the sanitary sewer system. As a result there can be no credit for previous contributions to capital from vacant parcels, simply because there were none. Additionally, there have been no General Fund expenditures on sanitary sewer projects.

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT FEES
• Adopt Schedule 7.2 for the twelve basic land-uses categories and the per day rate of $5.730 per gallon (see the lower portion of Schedule 7.2) for private uses that do not fit easily within the standard Sanitary Sewer Collection System DIF methodology. • Create a DIF Fund titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 16.2% of all Sanitary Sewer Collection System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 77 Schedule 7.1
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
A/location of Project Cost Estimates
Sanitary Sewer Collection Infrastructure
SC-001
SC-002
SC-003
SC-004
SC-005
SC-006
SC-007
SC-008
SC-009
SC-010
SC-011
SC-012
SC-013
SC-014
SC-015
SC-016
--..J
00 Wastewater Reclamation And Treatment Plant
Rincon Easement - Stewart/University
Easement Pipeline - San Timoteo Creek/Redlands Boulevard Shepardson Street Pipeline - Richmond/Poplar
Easement Pipeline - GaQe Canal/Redlands Boulevard
Rosewood Drive Near Spade Street
Starr Street - Richardson/Anderson
Easement Pipeline - Anderson/Campus
University Street - Evans/San Juan
Easement Pipeline - UPRR/San Timoteo Creek
Juanita Street To Pumo Station
Juanita Street Pump Station
Miscellaneous Sewer Line Up-Sizina
Sewer Master Plan
Share Of Common Maintenance Vehicles/Equipment
Share Of Common Citv Maintenance Yard lmorovements
!Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs
Other Financial Resources
Existing (07/01/22) Development Fee Fund Balance
Utility Rate Receipts
Total Mitigating Financial Resources
Total Net General Plan Project Costs
$4,606,600
$479,540
$900,190
$230,640
$530,500
$74,490
$69,860
$48,270
$53,560
$93,990
$129,740
$41,930
$838,590
$93,180
$302,679
$1,209,822
$9,703,581 J
$357,345
$0
$357,345
$9,346,236
Coifstrnction N�eds
'iSftpported by"
Other Resources
• Peibi#*µ:;\
· Need

0.00%

0.00%
O.OO¾j

0.00%

0.00%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 I
$0
$0
$0
$0 I i
100.00% $4,606,600
100.00% $479,540
100.00% $900,190
100.00% $230,640
100.00% $530,500
100.00% $74,490
100.00% $69,860
100.00% $48,270
100.00% $53,560
100.00% $93,990
100.00% $129,740
100.00% $41,930
100.00% $838,590
100.00% $93,180
100.00% $302,679
100.00% $1,209,822
100.00¾j $9,703,581
100.00% $357,345

0.00% $0
100.00% $357,345
100.00%1 $9,346,236
· .. fQrwarctfo'Scti,<t�t�)!'l�i:i
Schedule 7.2
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
Sanitary Sewer Collection Infrastructure
. Ga}tpiufRfrJ-·· .. -C.Ulfltflad.ve :· ;; Percen,tage
. ..
.
..
. ; . .. • • . ·. , .. ·. .
.. D�y Sewer : ·. New Sewe'l•• r tJflA.dtlitionaJ. · .. ��ds�cj};;.and tJse,, , · "''· - ·Dem�[email protected]�. .. p�mafid, ., ·sewer Demand Rural Dwelling Units 231.0 231
Detached Dwelling Units 167.4 646
Attached Dwelling Units 325.7 3,271
Mobile Homes Dwelling U 3.0 34
Senior Restricted Dwellnf 13.3 315
Commercial Lodging Unit 24.0 735
Assisted Care Living Unit 7.2 600,000
Retail/Service/Office Usei 193.2 4,245,784
Medical/Healthcare Office 435.5 9,175,280
Hosi:>ital Uses 14.0 750,000
Industrial Uses 1.0 26,248
Institutional Uses 101.2 1,898,583
1 ·
. '. ,;::: .· T01'AL:.I . :4;516;29J' --

1.···· • .··. i:7.,; . 1
·: ��TERNATE •FEi:IIIIEfHbDOL:Q�� ·
-.J
<.O
240.80 I 55,625 I 3.41%
240.80 I 155,557 I 9.54%
178.08 I 582,500 I 35.72%
163.32 I 5,553 I 0.34%

78.93 I 24,863 I 1.52%
118.35 I 86,987 I 5.33%
1,344.17 I 9,678 I o.59%
287.84 I 55,602 I 3.41%
1,344.17 I 585,373 I 35.89%
1,344.17 I 18,818 I 1.15%
493.45 I 493 I 0.03%
493.45 I 49,922 I 3.06%
·"�; . l • J,,630,97:211: .• ; 1:00�DP%!
I 1,s30,e121 .
· I
Allocatiqmot• ·cost•;.:.·<•·· Average Units ,:1.,fDel{ijlp�ffJ�nt . �,,_ns,pn / ; Distribution') . ;.o,:�quare . �lf'f.1�� F��per Unit . ,<;os� :1i< PerA.<?cr�. • • F�ef/Acii · . fQr:/�qt:jJJ.te foot $318,800 $1,380 1.00 $1,380 per Unit
$891,444 $5,325 3.86 $1,380 per Unit
$3,338,008 $10,250 10.04 $1,021 per Unit
$31,777 $10,592 11.33 $935 per Unit
$142,437 $10,750 23.77 $452 per Unit
$498,435 $20,804 30.68 $678 per Unit
$55,423 $7,698 83,333 $0. 092 per S.F.
$318,613 $1,649 21,980 $0.075 per S.F.
$3,354,458 $7,703 21,069 $0.366 per S.F.
$107,856 $7,704 53,571 $0. 144 per S.F.
$2,804 $2,804 26,248 $0. 107 per S.F.
$286,088 $2,828 18,766 $0.151 ])_er S.F.
$9,346,236 in Total SeViferiSys.teni General Piao Projects • ; , �;: · • , • j $9,�6,2tJ.6 l · · $5. 730 Per Gall(iri [)ern�od
Schedule 7.3
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Sanitary Sewer Collection Infrastructure
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling U
Senior Restricted Dwelln�
Commercial Lodging Unit
Assisted Care Living Unit
Retail/Service/Office Usei
Medical/Healthcare Office
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
-.,.;,.... ....... .....,;.;;.....;;;.;;...;;..,;;;.;;..;;_..;;.,_____ Gaii�ns perc ; Cumulative·.· I ; 'f:>:'ercenuifiif"" ""JA1Jocatii1fQf; I .• • �C9st'.i?: ��erage Units • .; ••. Deyelop�ent:'
.. :'f�1n$ �i>JF 11 I i�t{ng;f �w, \ . .
1 ofJ;XJ$tlng . . . . ExpE1)lSion? . '''Distributio,l :' : t:i,�ir1$qµe,r�, i'. >;1/ttipa� F�,r»et: fl pit.';

78.00 78
760.50 3,046
372.90 4,979

34.50 552

20.58 494

10.00 216

8.10 668,000
256.94 5,571,185

64.70 1,371,739

32.50 1,734,000

4.70 102,366
189.70 3,205,554
. Dem�ndRate C,ijmand::,• &,welQema'hd:. 1 Cos.'(s;;/.'.;1 ' . (-?9:rAcre 1 •. • Feet/Acre, _ orSCltt.l!ie'Poo(;' . .
240.80 18,782 0.89%
240.80 733,477 34.84%
178.08 886,660 42.12%
163.32 90,153 4.28%

78.93 38,991 1.85%
118.35 25,564 1.21%
1,344.17 10,888 0.52%
287.84 73,958 3.51%
1,344.17 86,968 4.13%
1,344.17 43,686 2.08%
493.45 2,319 0.11%
493.45 93,607 4.45%
$452,6041 $5,803
$17,679,9761 $23,248
$21,372,3531 $57,314
$2,173,2101 $62,992
$939,7121 $45,654
$615,9881 $61,599
$262,3281 $32,386
$1,782,5091 $6,937
$2,096,0851 $32,397
$1,052,8631 $32,396
$55,8141 $11,875
$2,256,4241 $11,895

1.00 $5r801 per Unit

4.01 $5,801 per Unit

13.35 $4,293 B_er Unit

16.00 $3,937 p_er Unit

24.00 $1,902 _p_er Unit

21.60 $2,852 _p_er Unit
82,469 $0.393 _p_er S.F.
21,683 $0.320 per S.F.
21,202 $1.528 per S.F.
53,354 $0.607 per S.F.
21,780 $0.545 per S.F.
16,898 $0. 704 per S.F.
[JI ,f rotAUFI , 1,aa3�12 I , ., , +; •: ,,•.�r:·,, 2.1os.os2T · . 100.00°
/oj I • ·$50,'14.P,314 1l«;>tal1Sew�r S:y$tefll Master Pl�n As�E!tS l I (X)
0 1 $4�l�,;.2;0E> il'l $ewerCollEl<:��r:r.systernA�et�. ·
,$'i}941i�1tt;11:th� $1ngle•l.ift:$ta,tion·Asset
.
. j119;lii1Tn $ystem Electric: Monitoririg Eqµip,rrilmf rt t .
.. · $3,67, 7�2 .111. S�regJ/lalnterianci'Veliiclelt:quiprnentAssetit\� ;. $2,1?7,987 'irtlC()ll1
°
111()# �i\{Y�rd lr,-tprqve111ints .
$351�345. in Sewer :System Q�F Ftund Baliinc�
Chapter 8
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
The Existing System. General Facilities are generally limited to general office or work buildings and equipment used by City staff to undertake their daily duties. The City possesses (i.e., owns outright) a significant amount of general facilities square footage and general improvements.

The replacement costs are as follows:

City Hall Facilities and Land ............................................................... $31,647,758 Emergency Operation Center and Land ............................................... $1,897,478 Computer and Miscellaneous Equipment ............................................. $1, 107,744 Common Apportioned City Maintenance Yard Assets ............................ $286,396 General Fund Pool Vehicles .................................................................... $367,750 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fee Fund Balance . $335,932 The combined land acquisition and replacement cost of the structures and equipment is a net $35,643,060.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. The City Hall is of good size and given the amount currently un-used, will most likely be able meet the staffing needs of future additional employees and thus future development will not need to expand the facility but certainly can be expected to pay for the remaining debt service for that existing capacity which is far cheaper than having to incur additional land and construction. The existing Emergency Operations Center at about 1,584 square feet remains to be enlarged. Additional inspections such as in business license and code enforcement can be expected so some pool vehicle expansion would be expected as would a proportional expansion of the City's fleet/facilities maintenance capacity. Lastly, the City's centralized and desktop computer processing capability and storage space will also be impacted with greater amounts of data necessary to manage a nearly 40.8% increase in population and 132.0% increase in business square feet. City Hall parking may become an issue at some point but is not addressed in this Report.

The Purpose of the Fee. The costs of extending the same level of municipal service to the newly developing community as is provided to the existing community that has largely paid for the existing facilities can be calculated, a fee imposed and collected, and the fee used to expand the facilities necessary to extending that same level of services. Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 identifies the magnitude of the City's potential expansion, nearly doubling in demand for each separate infrastructure.

The Use of the Fee. The revenues that are raised from a properly calculated and supported General Facilities et. al. Development Impact Fee would be limited to capitalized costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to construct additional general facilities or reconfigure poorly used space generating more usable space eliminating the need to acquire more office space. Conversely, the General Facilities et. al. DIF receipts would not be used to repair or rehabilitate any existing general building. The limited improvements necessary to contend with increased demand resulting from additional residents and businesses would include the following:

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 81 Chapter 8 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
• Up-size and enhance of the existing centralized computer system capacity. • Complete the Civic Center Parkway improvements.
• Acquire two small pick-up trucks for various inspection and code compliance efforts • Assist in the expansion (by about 2.5%) of the maintenance capacity at the City Maintenance Yard.

The Relationship Between the Need for The Fee and The Type of Development Project. The need is based upon the recognition that additional developed parcels in the City will create more trips to the City Hall and greater attendance at Council meetings. The costs are distributed on an equal acreage basis as the most direct index of demand relating to access 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 type of land use and the use of the fee, as well as the need for the fee. Distribution will be based upon an equal benefit in terms of general management of the City.

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 upon 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. No developer will be required to construct any portion of any general facility as a condition of development.

Resulting DIF Schedule. Table 8-1 following, summarizes the Minimum Needs-based General Facilities DIFs. The fees identified following represent the fees necessary to construct or acquire the facilities identified on Schedule 9.1.

Table 8-1
Minimal Needs-based General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Development Impact Costs
Residential Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Business Use Square Feet
by DIF Land-use Type
Allocation
·•• .. ofSy�femy
····•·expan�ioriOrists
$806,582
$26,103
$819,360
QeveJopm�nt•·l,npact
Cost Perl:Jnit
...
,,
. {;�r ... $C1·t1"ar:iF:(}ni
,. ;p :;:;,., ,,, '. ,,, '. ,,,, ,,,,, '
$179/Unit
$36/Unit
$0.049/S.F.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 82 Chapter 8 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
It must be restated that the existing community has established the General Plan build-out City Hall facility. In short, the current community has created more than adequate staff facilities in the City Hall, so much so that no additional space need be acquired through General Plan buildout. The existing space merely needs to be reconfigured to eliminate wasted space. As a result, the current community has amassed a significant equity position vis-a-vis future need.

Table 8-2, following, identifies the average "equity" position or ownership per unit or square foot.

Table 8-2
Existing General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
Residential Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Business Use Square Feet
• .• All9cation of System Assets.
$24,625,371
$194,439
$10,823,250
Asset/Equity
Investment Per Unit<
or. squa:re F�ot
$2,692/Unit
$900/Unit
$0.855/S.F.

Common City Maintenance Yard Improvements. Of importance is the fact that the existing community's contribution has far outstripped the amount needed to meet the City's General Facilities build-out needs that would be imposed upon the future residents and business owners. In short, the existing community has contributed significantly more than its proportional share in City Hall office space and anyone building and benefitting from these facilities is, frankly, doing so at far less than the proportional cost. There is, however, no method to recover that amount short of findings, stating at the time the City Hall was acquired, that it was the General Plan build-out City Hall and that remaining development needed to pay their proportional share. Such a statement is rarely found.

Most of the following City Yard facilities are not included in this Chapter, but for want of a better location, or too many locations, the proposed City Maintenance Yard improvements, are parceled out to the many infrastructures requiring the maintenance space and will be explained here. The City's corporation maintenance yard is the first and best line of defense in maximizing the usable lifetimes of the various infrastructure improvements. Without proper capacity, the City would have little ability to maximize the life of its entire infrastructure inventory.

While some effectiveness improvements to the existing yard are possible, they are limited by space. There is no ability to acquire any parcels contiguous to the existing yard due to the contiguous railroad, Barton Avenue and private storage facility. Expanding the existing City maintenance yard is problematical if not impossible, thus the remaining option is to acquire a satellite yard in a part of the City away from the existing yard. Staff has estimated the need for the following City Yard improvements:

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 83 Chapter 8 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment

1. Construct a 6,000 SF workspace building in the existing yard ($4,364,712).

2. Construct a 1,600 SF expansion to the existing fleet maintenance shop ($1,045,440).

3. Acquire two acres of Land acquisition for a satellite yard ($1,097,712).

4. Construct a 5,000 SF workspace/storage building in the satellite yard ($2,510,000).

5. Construct Satellite improvements (asphalt, fencing/walls, gate, lighting, etc.) at $757,000 The $9,758,208 in improvement costs have been distributed to the various infrastructure users based upon their current demands upon the existing City Yard (see Appendix C for greater detail). Limited costs were apportioned to the General Facilities DIF calculation (1.6%) with the remainder (98.4%) distributed to the main infrastructure users, circulation, storm drainage, water, sewer, and parks maintenance. This small amount results from the vehicles maintained at the City yard for City Hall pool use and general facilities maintenance. The concept and apportionment is explained here rather than in each of the other five infrastructures. The City maintenance yard facilities capacity expansion costs have been distributed as follows:

Figure 8-3
Distribution of City Yard Expansion Costs
Circulation System Maintenance Chapter 4
Storm Drainage System Maintenance Chapter 5
Water System Maintenance Chapter 6
Sanitary Sewer System Maintenance Chapter 7
General Facilities Maintenance Chapter 8
Parks/Open Space Maintenance Chapter 10
Total Allocated Cost (rounded)
··11,}jpr�v�gjent
,;AI1ocation • ·:
.,,, . ,, , ' 'o'.:;·c•';:· ,
$1,484,160
$184,788
$4,752,553
$1,209,882
$1,891,374
$235,511
$9,758,208
The Fire Department has separate maintenance arrangements, generally contractual and thus has not been included in the distribution of these costs

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
The Minimum Needs-based Impact Costs should be adopted for the three broad land uses, per Schedule 8.2 and summarized in Table 8-2. The Existing Community Financial Commitment indicates that the existing community has generated a great deal more infrastructure than will be asked of future development.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 84 Chapter 8 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED GENERAL FACILITIES ET. AL. IMPACT FEES • Adopt Schedule 8.3 for the three basic combined land-uses. • Create a reserve within this DIF Fund for "City Maintenance Yard Improvements" and annually transfer the appropriate amounts from the Circulation, Storm Drainage, Water, Sanitary Sewer and Park Development Impact fee funds to be used for the improvements related to the title.
• Transfer 17.9% of all General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to the specialized account referenced above.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 85 Schedule 8.1
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
�rne#
CD
O')
GF-001
GF-002
GF-003
GF-004
GF-005
GF-006
Civic Center Emergency Operations Facility Expansion (complete) Computer, Cable, Electronic Capabilities Expansion
City Hall Portion Of RemaininQ Civic Center Bond Debt Completed Civic Center Parkway Improvements
Share Of Common Maintenance Vehicles/Equipment
Share Of Common City Maintenance Yard Improvements
I General Plan Build-out Average Infrastructure Costs
Other Financial Resources
Existing (07101/22) Development Fee Fund Balance
Other Revenue Sources (none)
Total Mitigating Financial Resources
I Total Net General Plan Project Costs
J;stimatea·
··cQst
$0
$1,294,1 20
$0
$397,810
$60,536
$235,511
$1,987,977J
$335,932
$0
$335,932
Construction Needs
Supptrted by
Qthe.r R,e$purces

0.00%

0.00%1

0.00%
100.00%

0.00%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 I
$0
$0
$0
$1,652.045' 1 _ _ 0.00%' $0 1
lnf;�!:1:;;;:i:�d
lncr�as�il Oevefdpmertt ...
100.00% $0
100.00% $1,294,120
100.00% $0
100.00% $397,81 0
100.00% $60,536
100.00% $235,511
100.00%1 $1,987,977 J
1 00.00% $335,932

0.00% $0
100.00% $335,932
100.00%1 $1,652,045
FciMtrd to .$c.hedule 8.2 •
Schedule 8.2
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
, ,: t1\{(1i�
Pr:opos;ac�md.wJ� � \i
All Dwellinq Units
Commercial Lodqinq Units
740.30

23.96 4,497
735
Business Uses 752.03 16,695,895
.. , :'4�i� !+ • : Acre · ,. �ri;ifnta{ltt Aito�aiiohifl �T < C�si> �:r ·· v�iai,e t]r,�,
• Devel�p,,,e:nt ·:

Dfst1bu�tin: 1 , : Demand o,!Addltlar,a{ JExpahsiar, ··. J;?l�trfbution, , ,°'t�quare ,. • tmpactFt� peirJ1lt t ··Fae.tor · Factor 'Demand _ 1 Co,st,s , .• ,� P!!r. Acre. , _ Feet/Acre r .. . .. or,s_qu_are 'Foo.tu

1.000 740.30 48.82% $806,582 $1,090 6.07 $179 per Unit

1.000 23.96 1.58% $26,103 $1,090 30.68 $36 perUnit

1.000 752.03 49.60% $819,360 $1,090 22,201 $0.049 per S.F. ;;::1
,.. JQT,4;Lj.

1.5il$.i� f .. • -- ·
.. I·· . . .., I . 1.s1s:29 I · 100.00%( $1,652,045 lin TotalEquity In �e,neral Facil.i!ies Capital•N�e5tf 0)
--...J
Schedule 8.3
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development fmpact Cost Calcufation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Business Uses
� t::::.;.;_
CX>
CX>
556.64
'Af(lt�Lj •· 1,833:1'2'.J
UA� . Aci!e l"""'enlli'!" ·1
··Atlo�a,tiqr,:0(··1
·· Disfiib.[!�011
,°:;�.·•· .i;,t1�Pn: · oe
.
m.
•a,nd ·•·: · \ofF:x.;st1ng ·.:.··. 1rrfi•ra.;iru.• · �tiire.' !1, <Jf iqu . 1ry7
:1�actof'P! • i . ServJce . �ervlce (;.alls>• < "�qu(ty"s: ; .. ; ; pef'Acr'J Curr.ent F?inancial
't¢ornmi,tm�tit piJr:Unit,
. >oiSq#are-Foot;,·:•.

1.000

1.000
12,652,844 I 1.000
•·, :.:...:: r ';>,:,i;..,. r·
1,266.48

10.00 556.64
1;s33.ttl

69.09%1 $24,625,371 I $19,444 I 7.22 I $2,692 per Unit
o.55%I $194,439 I $19,444 I 21.60 I $900 per Unit

30.37%1 $10,823,250 I $19,444 I 22,731 I $0.855 perS.F. 100,0,0%1· '$��.643,060 ]in Totat'.E�isting:GeneraJ lfapilitiesCapiµlfAss�'. ·. {$�;1,l:i47, 758 . in. City[Half Portlon.o1 Civi.c Centet:i..anttand'Facilitie� $1,897,478 'lh..J;.OCI Po.rtion ofCivie.Center,l,;and.and,Fa�iUtle� ..... •·• $1,107,744 .in Equ:IJV inExisting:,CompµtedE!ectrdnic l;quiprnent \t$286i3�1:i in ComJtlOn City/V�l'd Improvements v
'$367i752 · 1tlGeneratUse Vetii'.cles ···
. .
···
.
•:, 11
..
::;; •·
$33q,932 inQ�neral Facilities lmpacfi=e�•Furic:t,Balance; Chapter 9
Public Use (Community Centers) Facilities
This important component of the City's offerings to its citizens was removed from the Park Land and Park Improvements DIF category in the April 2004 Report as a separate DIF infrastructure category. This was undertaken for three reasons.

First, few parks contain a community public use center. Secondly, it is difficult to ensure that the cost for such a facility is properly included in the average park development cost per acre.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, it has been the experience of RCS staff, that when the cost for community centers is included as a cost of park development, these facilities simply do not get built. This is because the park impact fee revenues get used on the costly demand for turfed park acres with sports or passive-use park improvements.

The Existing System. The City has a number of facilities currently dedicated for public use facilities. Such facilities are available to community groups for meetings and other civic functions. This category of buildings differs from General Facilities, which are those used by the City staff to undertake their municipal service duties (City Hall as an example). The library facility capacity has been shifted to this category from its own impact fee category. A municipally owned library building, especially one that is operated by a county that owns the collection, is nothing more than a facility dedicated to use by the City's residents. The cost of constructing library space is similar to the cost of constructing a community center, thus there is no further need to have a separate Library DIF schedule. This change will also provide the City with greater flexibility.

Table 9-1 shows the City's existing Public Use Facilities offerings.

Table 9-1
Inventory of Existing (Owned) Public Meeting Facilities Senior Center 5,785
Future Facilities SF in DIF Fund Balance 1,522
Total - Public Use Square Feet 24,434
Based upon an existing State Department of Finance 2021 population of 24,895, the 24,434 square feet creates a standard of 0.981 square feet per resident. This standard indicates that the City has made a substantial commitment to providing social, educational and recreation space limited for use by public groups and individuals. Table 9-2, following, demonstrates the calculation establishing the square foot standard:

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 89 Chapter 9 Public Use (Community Centers) Facilities
Table 9-2
Calculation of Public Use Facilities
Square Foot Standard
Public Meeting Space Square Feet
Current City Population
Square Foot per Resident Standard
24,434
24,895

0.981
Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. Simply stated, additional residential dwelling units will increase the population, placing greater demands for use of the existing community centers. The construction of any detached dwelling unit will create, on average, 3.397 potential new community center users. The addition of a new attached dwelling will create on average 2.029 potential new users. Were a mobile home park to add a few pads they would increase the population by about 2.029 residents per unit. Senior Restricted Apartments, not identified in the Census data, will be defined as 1.5 residents per dwelling, or the average between the two possibilities of either one or two residents per unit.

The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to determine the cost of expanding the public-use facilities by some 9,967 square feet to meet the added demands created by the construction of additional residential dwelling units. It should be noted that 9,967 square feet of public use facilities may not fully meet the needs of the build-out community and that more square feet may be desired by the community. The reference to the 9,967 square feet indicates that the 9,967 square feet is the amount of additional public use facilities square feet that can be financed by DIFs. Table 9-3, following, demonstrates the calculation of the number of additional square feet required to maintain the existing Public Use facilities standard:

Table 9-3
Square Feet of Community Center Space
Required to Maintain Existing Standard
.. .

Rfsidenttaf
cue 1�.nd-use T.ype
,,. ,. ,,, ,,,, , '
231 3.397
646 3.397
3,271 2.029
34 2.077
Senior Restricted Dwellin Units 315 1.500
Square Foot per Person Existin Standard
Public Use Facilities S.F. Required to Maintain Standard . .
•·· ;P6pulation
Geperated
785
2,194
6,637
71 473
10,160

0.981
9,967
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 90 Chapter 9 Public Use (Community Centers) Facilities
The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, would be imposed, collected, and spent on the construction of additional public use space that benefits City of Loma Linda residents, not rehabilitation of any existing public use facility. The City has indicted the desire for a general use community center in the range of a modest 15,000 square feet facility. Impact fees could finance 9,967 square feet (or about 66.4%) of that facility with the remainder of the financing coming from non-development impact fee revenue resources.

It should be noted that in 2021 the City entitled a 3,287 square foot community center to be built in the "The Groves at Loma Linda" planned community. This community center, known as the Central Park Community Center, has not been included in the calculations of this report due to the project being fully funded by the developers of the "The Groves at Loma Linda" as a community center obligation for the 1,067 new dwellings being built in the new planned development.

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

Different types of residential dwellings generally have differing amounts of people dwelling in them. Census data indicates the following occupancy statistics for the City:

Detached Dwelling Units ......................................................... 3.397 Residents/Unit Attached Dwelling Units .......................................................... 2.029 Residents/Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units ................................................... 2.077 Residents/Unit Senior Restricted Dwelling Units ............................................. 1.500 Residents/Unit The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee.

The fee will be used to expand the amount of community center square feet in proportions consistent with the average residents per dwelling. Community centers would be expanded in the following amounts following, by type of residential dwelling:

Detached Dwelling Unit ........... 3.397 Residents per Unit X 0.981 Square Feet= 3.332 Square Feet Attached Dwelling Unit ............ 2.029 Residents per Unit X 0.981 Square Feet= 1.990 Square Feet Mobile Home Dwelling Unit ..... 2.077 Residents per Unit X 0.981 Square Feet= 2.038 Square Feet Senior Restricted Dwelling Unit1 .500 Residents per Unit X 0.981 Square Feet= 1.472 Square Feet The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The cost of adding 0.981 square feet of building space per person is roughly $730.53 based upon a $744.68 per square foot ($703.36 for construction, $41.32 for land acquisition) based upon a $10.33 per square foot cost and a floor area ratio of

0.25) and a standard of 0.981 square foot per person. A detached dwelling unit with 3.397 residents would require 3.332 square feet of public meeting space at a cost of $2,482 (3.332 square feet X $730.53 per square foot, rounded). An attached dwelling unit requires 1.990 square feet of public meeting space at a cost of about $1,482 (1.990 square feet X $730.53 per square foot). Table 10-4, following, indicates the proposed Public Meeting Facilities DIF. [This space left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 91 Chapter 9 Public Use (Community Centers) Facilities
Table 9-4
Summary of Public Meeting Facilities Impact Fee
.
. . . ',. '.'. . OIF L�r,U•u!Sei
Tvoe
' .•. h Utipilct>f ee . ·•,
,.. . . PerlJnit ·.

Rural Detached Dwelling Unit $2,482
Detached Dwelling Unit $2,482
Attached Dwelling Unit $1,482
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $1,517
Senior Restricted Dwelling Unit $1,096

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED PUBLIC USE FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
• Adopt Schedule 9.1 for the five basic residential dwelling categories. • Eliminate the existing Library Facility Impact Fee and transfer any existing fund balance to the broader Public Use Facilities Impact Fee fund.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 92 - -------- -------------
Schedule 9.1
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Public Use (Community Center) Facilities
Public Library
City Hall Community Room
Senior Center
Square Feet in Existing Fund Balance
Existing City-owned Public Use Facilities Square Feet
I Existing City-owned Public Use Facilities Square Feet !Current Population
!Square Foot per Resident Standard
Average Public Use Facility Construction Cost per Square Foot Land Cost @ $10.33/SF and 0.25 Floor Area Ratio
I Total Cost for a Single Square Foot of Public Use Space Total Cost for a Single Square Foot of Public Use Space Current Public Use Facilities Standard
Cost Per Addiitonal Resident
Select Backfill ..
,:1::�,l)hjlttR�ct;SaseL .

Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
>;.Density ,per ii•
· 7iLt)w�fJll\g:lJnj[

3.397

2.029

2.077

1.500
Land and·
. Building
15,000
2,127
5,785
1,512
24,424
24,424 !
24,895 !
o.981 I
$703.36
$41.32
$744.68 I
$744.68

0.981
$730.53
$2,482
$2,482
$1,482
$1,517
$1,096
93 Chapter 10
Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and
Park Infrastructure Development
This Chapter summarizes the City's existing inventory of parks and identifies the ratio of park land per resident allowable under the Quimby Act (§66477 of the Government Code) (16) for residential developments involving the subdivision of land and the Mitigation Fee Act (§66000 of the Government Code) 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
Intensive parks and park recreational facilities constitute one of the City of Loma Linda's greatest challenges both with respect to facilities for both current residents and future citizens.

The provision of 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 Loma Linda included. A mixture of passive and active uses and facilities and programs which appeal to a broad spectrum of potential park users is considered optimal in most urban cities. A city's park system is often a major factor in selection of a place to live. The current 71.266 park acres will serve well to meet the City's current needs. However, if the number of park acres remains static at

71.266 acres or even decline should Loma Linda University need the Elmer Digneo Park for University purposes, it would certainly prove difficult to continue to meet the recreational demands of the community in light of a potential 40.8% increase in the City's population.

Future residential development, by increasing the City's population, will 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 and other reports, the challenge facing the City will be to provide new facilities and park land to serve the recreational needs of these new residents. Without additional park land acquisition and continued development of currently owned but underutilized park land during the next twenty to thirty years, City parks will become overcrowded and overused, with the ultimate result becoming a negative experience for all.

Existing Parks. Currently, the City owns approximately 66.186 acres of park land, has an additional 15.988 acres through long term Edison easement agreements and the 5.080 acre Elmer Digneo Park via a lease with Loma Linda University. The total is 71.266 acres of maintained parks. Ball Park, Heritage Park, Hulda Crooks Park and Leonard Baily Park are the largest developed parks, representing a little over half of the total 71.266 acre park system acreage and provide the greatest variety of sports and active uses. The City also has the equivalent of 3.483 acres of acquired and developed park land in the existing Parks DIF fund balance.
16 Adoption of a Quimby Act Fee requires a park "plan".

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 94 Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development There are currently several parks under construction in the "Groves at Loma Linda" planned community. These include South Park at 4.0 acres and North Park at 13.9 acres. Both parks are currently under construction and are planned to be opened in mid-2022. Central Park (also the location of the Central Park Community Center as mentioned in the previous chapter) was entitled in 2021 and is scheduled to be opened in 2023. In addition to the parks there will also be a Pedestrian Paseo (counted as open space) consisting of 3.3 acres.

As was the case with the Central Park Community Center, all of the parks and Paseo have been fully funded by the developer as a park obligation; part of the agreement between the City and developer to build the 1,067 homes that will make up "The Groves in Loma Linda" planned community.

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

Table 10-1
Inventory of Owned and Developed Park Land
·Park or Space
· Name · .. ·.
'Lonif-tefm ' Qevflloped '"
..

Park.Acres Park Acres
Ball Park 6.388 6.388
Bryn Mawr Park 1.430 1.430
Cottonwood Park 0.916 0.916
Dog Park 3.000 3.000
Edison Easement - Barton/Lawton 8.905 8.905
Edison Easement - Lawton/Hinckley 5.045 5.045
Edison Easement - Hinckley/Beaumont 2.038 2.038
Elmer Digneo Park (Loma Linda University) 0.000 5.080
Heritage Park 9.000 9.000
Hulda Crooks Park 15.500 15.500
Leonard Baily Park 9.168 9.168
Seamont Park 0.203 0.203
Sun Park 0.165 0.165
Ted and Lila Dawson Park 0.175 0.175
Van Leuven Community Garden 0.770 0.770
Parks in Parks DIF Fund Balance 3.483 3.483
Total - Park Acres 66.186 71.266
City De Facto Park Standard. Table 10-2 following is a comparison of the acreage of parks to the City of Loma Linda's current population and indicates that the City presently possesses a City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 95 Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development standard of 2.863 acres of owned park land per 1,000 residents, (71.266 acres + [24,895 residents + 1,000], rounded). Again, 3.483 acres of the 71.266 total acres are represented in Park Acquisition and Park Improvements DIF fund balance (as yet to be built). This standard falls below the benchmark of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents contained in Section 66477 of the California Government Code relating to dedication of parks. It is the recommendation of RCS staff to use the minimum of 3 acres per 1,000 residents as the park standard, as described below in the detailed description of Section 66477 of the California Government Code.

Table 10-2
Calculation of Actual City-owned Park Acres Standard
Total Park Acres 66.186 71.266
Current City Population 24,895 24,895
Population Divided by 1,000 24.895 24.895
Park Acres per 1,000 Population 2.659 2.863
California's Quimby Act. Unlike the other facilities discussed in this Report, the California Government Code contains 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 is commonly referred to as the Quimby Act. The Act establishes criteria for charging new development for park facilities based on specific adopted park standards. This Report will recommend the adoption of Quimby-style park fees over an AB 1600-style DIF for developments requiring the subdivision of land and an AB 1600 DIF for non-subdivided land.

Allowable Park Standard Under §66477 of the Government Code, the City may charge new residential development based on a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents even if the City does not presently possess a ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 for the existing population as is the case with Loma Linda. 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 municipality can demonstrate that it currently exceeds the minimum benchmark ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The maximum standard, for Quimby Act application, is capped at 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.

The law states that "if the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area ... exceeds the [3 acres of park area per 1,000 person] limit ... the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons" (17). 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. 17 California Government Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 66447 (b).

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 96 Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space 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.

The City, with its 2.659 acres per 1,000 residents de facto standard is below the Quimby minimum of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents thus the 3.0 acres per 1,000 population, allowed under §66477 of the Government Code will be used in the remainder of the Chapter for park land acquisition as well as park improvement construction.

Planned Park Improvements. In addition to acquiring and improving the current 3.483 undeveloped park acres represented by existing fund balance as well the on-going additions to the existing 71.266 improved park acres (18), the City will need to acquire an additional 30.48 park acres, per Table 10-3, and develop these new parks to serve the additional 10,160 residents anticipated at General Plan build-out. City staff has not proposed any specific improvements to existing parks or any new park configurations.

Table 10-3
Calculation of Required
Park Acres per Allowable Standard
General Plan Anticipated Population Increase
Additional Population Divided by 1,000
Allowable Standard in Acres/1,000
Park Acres Required to Maintain Standard
10,160

10.160

3.00 30.48
These general improvements are outlined in the Master Facilities Plan. The 30.48 acres could be constructed in any of the following configurations:

Mini or "Pocket" Parks - This the smallest of the parks designations and though generally not planned due to higher maintenance costs, usually are the result of acquiring an unusual parcel of land sometimes with historical significance. Cottonwood Park, Seamont Park, Sun Park and Ted & Lila Dawson Park fit best into this category.

Local or Neighborhood Parks - These parks are generally two to three acres have no parking lots or restrooms as they are intended to serve local (1/4 mile walk-in distance) users.

Community or Sport Parks - These parks are most functional when they are ten to twenty acres and are designed to meet the needs of the entire community. Often, five to eight acre 18 The Quimby Act does allow for the use of receipts raised by the adoption of a Quimby Act park Impact Fee to be used for rehabilitation of existing park configurations.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 97 Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development parks are forced to act as community or sports parks. These needs include youth and adult sports organizations, clubs or associations and large-scale community events such as 4 th of July
celebrations or festivals. By definition alone, "Ball Park" is a good example of a sports park while Hulda Crooks and Leonard Baily parks are good examples of broad-based use community park.

Linear Parks - A linear park is typically longer than it is wide and tends to connect portions of the City with other parts or parks. They often provide trails for hiking, biking and equestrian riding or any combination of the three. Linear parks are often easements thus have limited improvements such as exercise pods, rest spots, and strategically placed drinking fountains and benches. The City's Edison easements best depict these types of linear parks.

Recreation Element of the General Plan. The City's de facto acres per 1,000 population standard speaks well for the City's commitment to an active community lifestyle as a less extensive three acre per 1,000 population standard is a more common but also more frequently unmet, target of municipalities the same size as Loma Linda.

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 completed as follows.

Park Land Acquisition Costs. Land costs will vary significantly from one park to another. The park land to be acquired must be suitable for park construction and is conservatively estimated at approximately $449,975 per acre ($10.33 per square foot) which is used in the park DIF calculation. This is consistent with the cost of land suitable for residential dwelling development in the City. 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 currently valued at less than the $449,975 acre figure. The fee recommendation at the end of the Chapter will recognize this challenge.

Park Improvements Construction Costs. Park improvement construction costs are estimated to be approximately $538,770 per acre. The City does not have any more recent park construction history thus an average park cost schedule is included as Appendix D. Public Use (community center) Facilities were not included in the cost calculation (see Chapter 9).

Additional Park Maintenance Infrastructure Impact Costs. The addition of park acres will increase maintenance costs, both in terms of demand upon the existing vehicles and then the maintenance of those vehicles and storage of park maintenance supplies. The City currently has $229,360 in existing park maintenance vehicles and equipment that are deemed as adequate and sufficient for maintaining the existing amount of park acres. Based upon the

71.266 acres of existing park acres maintained, the City has $3,218 in maintenance vehicles per acre of developed park. Table 10-4 following demonstrates this. [This space left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page].

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 98 Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 10-4
Calculation of Park Maintenance
Vehicles & Equipment Component
Existing Maintenance Vehicles Cost
Total Existing Park Acres Maintained
Maintenance Vehicle Cost per Acre Maintained
Acres/1,000 Park Acres/Resident Standard
Existing Vehicle Cost per 3.00 Park Acres
$229,360

71.266
$3,218

3.00 $9,654
Additional City Maintenance Yard Expansions. Roughly 21.4% of the $18,145,636 in proposed City maintenance yard expansions have been apportioned to the park's maintenance operation (see Appendix C. When divided by the 30.48 park acres to be acquired it results in a cost of $124,930 per added acre. Table 10-5 following calculates the cost per added park acre.

Table 10-5
Calculation of Park Maintenance
Vehicles & Equipment Component
Parks Apportioned City Yard Expansion Cost
Total Park Acres to be Added
Maintenance Vehicle Cost per Acre Maintained
Acres/1,000 Park Acres/Resident Standard
City Maintenance Yard Expansion Cost/3.0 Park Acres
$1,891,374

30.48 $62,053

3.0 $186,159
Average Park Acquisition, Development and Maintenance Vehicles and Facilities Cost per Capita. The combined park land acquisition, park improvements development and support facilities cost is $875,505 per acre resulting from $449.975/acre for land acquisition, $538,770 per acre for park improvements), the $3,218/acre for the required maintenance vehicles and $62,053/acre for maintenance yard expansions. 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 (and be able to maintain) 3.0 acres of new park land for every potential 1,000 new residents to the City. The 3.0 acres of land acquisition and improvement to 3.0 acres of developed acres per 1,000 residents would be $2,966,234 or about $2,966.23 per new resident plus $195.81 per resident for maintenance vehicles/yard expansion for a total of $3,162.04 per new resident. Schedule 10.1 calculates the cost to develop 3.00 acres, which again represents the required park land cost for 1,000 residents.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 99 --------------------- -----------------
Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Average Cost per Dwelling Unit. Schedule 10.1 further calculates the cost per dwelling unit based on the per person park land acquisition, development and maintenance vehicles cost of $3,162.04 (Schedule 10.1) and the average number of residents per unit for each category of housing. Detached dwelling residential housing has the highest number of residents per dwelling unit (@ 3.397 per unit) and consequently carries the highest impact fee, $10,742 per unit ($3,162.04 X 3.397 residents per unit, rounded).

Attached dwelling units have an average of 2.029 residents per unit and would need to be assessed $6,415 ($3,162.04 X 2.029, rounded). Table 10-6, following, summarizes the calculated and recommended fees for each of these three residential categories. Schedule 10.1 provides greater park calculation detail and a complete schedule of Park Land Acquisition and Park Improvements DIFs for each of the five residential dwelling unit types.

Table 10-6
Summary of Park Development Fees for
Residential Dwelling Construction
. •.
·.

PIFLand�use DeyE!fopm,,nt ;.
· .•.·•·Type oy
·:•·"···· · lrrtpac:t Cost
Rural Detached Dwelling Unit $10,742/Unit
Detached Dwelling Unit $10, 7 42/Unit
Attached Dwelling Unit $6,415Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $6,568/Unit
Senior Restricted Dwelling Unit $4, 7 43/Unit
..

The DIFs 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 Residential dwelling units not requiring the sub-division of a privately-owned parcel will need to be adopted as an Government Code§ 66000 supported DIF (19).

Land Acquisition Cost Adjustment Challenge. As mentioned previously, the use of $449,975 as the 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 project the park is intended to serve. However, if the developer or contractor of a dwelling can provide evidence (acceptable to the City) in the form of a recent appraisal of the property they will be developing that the current land value is worth less than the $449,975/acre or $10.33/square foot, the DIF could be adjusted downward accordingly by placing the actual cost of land acquisition into the calculation identified in Schedule 10.1. If the City desires to adopt such an adjustment, the terms under which the challenge may be made and proved should be included in the Impact Fee Ordinance. 19 This is required because the Quimby Act is referenced in the State Subdivision Code.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 100 Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development

OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE COMPONENT
Open Space Acquisition Standards and Costs. The City currently owns an extraordinary 1,724.8 acres of protected open space within the City's boundaries. Again, based upon the current population of 24,895, the standard is 69.282 acres per 1,000 population, (1,724.8 acres + [24,895+1,000]) = 69.282 acres per 1,000 residents). Table 10-8 following is summarized from Schedule 10.2.

Table 10-8
Inventory of Existing (Owned) Open Space
, .. ··. '
Open Space Are, .• Acres
.': ;' .
.
.. ..

South Hills - Open Space 1,689.8
Hulda Crooks Open Space 35.0
Total City-wide Open Space 1,724.8
City Population 24,895
City Population Divided by 1,000 24.895
Acres of Open Space per 1,000 Residents 69.282
Open Space Misconception. There is a significant amount of existing open space within the City's limits, some of it is publicly owned and will never be developed. However, some open space is privately owned and simply has not been considered for development. Some City residents and businesses do not fully understand that owners of private land have development rights. This calculation recognizes that open space, often at a steep grade or slope presupposing development, will be available at far less a cost per acre than park land. This Report uses a nominal $0.78 per square foot (or $33,977/acre) for open space acquisition. At $33,977 per acre and the 69.282/1,000 residents standard, the cost of maintaining the currently met open space standard is $2,353.98 per new resident, (or 69.282 acres X $33,977/acre = $2,353,981 +1,000 = $2,353.98). Table 10-9 indicates the fee per type of residential dwelling.

Business Use Open Space Impact Fees. The development of privately-owned parcels as business uses clearly does not generate demand for additional developed park facilities.

Residents need park facilities like swings and benches, businesses do not. Businesses do however, benefit from open space. The development of any currently vacant property or parcel reduces the amount of open space in the community, protected or otherwise and makes the City that much less desirable to locate a business. The development of any parcel as a business use (commercial lodging, retail/office or industrial) should have an open space impact fee imposed. Table 10-9 following indicates the standard for open space per developed acre in the City.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 101 Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 10-9
Establishment of Business Use Open Space Standard
Park Acres (per Schedule 10.1) 66.19
Open Space (per Schedule 10.2) 1,724.8
Total Park and Open Space Acres 1,790.97
Total Privately held Developed Acres (per Schedule 2.0) 1,833.12 Acres of Protected Space per Privately held Developed Acre 0.94 Cost of Open Space Land Acquisition(@ $0.78/S.F.) $33,977 Cost of Open Space Land Acquisition per Acre to be Developed $31,969 Any parcel developed as a business use should contribute approximately $31,969 per gross private acre of private development towards the acquisition and protection of open space. The Open Space DIF receipts would be used to acquire open space in the City in order to maintain that standard. Table 10-10, following, indicates the fee per type of business land-use.

Table 10-10
Open Space per Business Use Acre
'c ... 1mp�ctQ.ost , .. · . �v�rage .· IJnpactFee
1 Business :Land Use 1: 'per,�1.1sine��t , 1 Units/Acre <. •·· per Unit .i. ' •. i.' :c .. <i.,
,. :c .. \. •.. ;·, . ,.•· . ; .. ><Acre ... .. .,,,., ·.·· ;
·, .. .,_,_,:' ': ,.

Commercial Lodging Units per Acre $31,969 22 $1,480
S.F. per Assisted Care Use Acre $31,969 82,469 $0.388
S.F. per Retail/Service/Office Acre $31,969 21,683 $1.474 S.F. per Medical Office Acre $31,969 21,202 $1.508
S.F. per Hospital Acre $31,969 53,354 $0.599
S.F. per Industrial Acre $31,969 21,780 $1.468
S.F. per Institutional Acre $31,969 16,898 $1.892
The Park Land and Park Infrastructure Facilities Development Impact Fee component and the Open Space Acquisition components for residential development are summarized in Table 10- 11 following:

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 102 Chapter 10 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 10-11
Summary of Park Land et. al. Impact Fee, Maintenance Vehicles and Open Space Impact Fees
for Residential Dwelling Construction
· Resid,tntial ()pen
. .. Parkland · · ·
et. al.fmpact:Fee · Spa:cel!DPcict
·. ;· .Fee
Rural Detached Dwelling Unit $10,742 $7,996
Detached Dwelling Unit $10,742 $7,996
Attached Dwelling Unit $6,415 $4,776
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $6,568 $4,889
Senior Restricted Dwelling Unit $4,743 $3,531
. .
. Comnined J�pact
Fee(UQit
$18,738
$18,738
$11,191
$11,457
$8,274

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
• Residential Housing - Adopt Schedule 10.1 for Park Land and Park Improvements for the five basic residential land-uses. Adopt Schedule 10.1 on both a Quimby Act ordinance and Mitigation Fee Act basis.
• Create a DIF (fund) titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 6.0% of all Park Land Acquisition and Parks Improvements System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

Should the City determine that the current amount of open space is inadequate and that the resulting open space standards need to be maintained, than:
• Residential Housing - Adopt Schedule 10.2 for Open Space Acquisition for the five basic residential land-uses.
• Business Uses - Adopt Schedule 10.2 for Open Space Acquisition for the seven basic business land-uses.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 103 Schedule 10.1
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Park Land Acquisition and Facilities Improvements
(Quimby and Mitigation Act Calculation)
IC ...... . 0.c •,; ,;,_./'.,;;,;: <�,<,,
, • ; C • c• :-,� C
Aofes'
pwJ,dor
l!TLease
.. Oevelo,ped/1 :'' , _ ;,,.. Park '
.
.. Co#structe'ci\ I Mainten�:mce .. P.rktiame� .
. Acres . • Reqtii�ements .

Ball Park 6.388 6.388
Bryn Mawr Park 1.430 1.430
Cottonwood Park 0.916 0 .916
Dog Park 3.000 3.000
Edison Easement - Barton to Lawton 8.905 8.905
Edison Easement - Hinckley to Beaumont 5.045 5.045
Edison Easement - Lawton to Hinkley 2.038 2.038
Elmer Digneo Park (Loma Linda University) 0.000 5.080
Heritage Park 9.000 9.000
Hulda Crooks Park 15.500 15.500
Leonard Baily Park 9.168 9.168
Seamont Park 0.203 0.203
Sun Park 0.165 0.165
Ted and Lila Dawson Park 0.175 0.175
Van Leuven Community Gardens 0.770 0.770
Park Acres Represented bv DIF Fund Balance 3.483 3.483
To tal Park lnventorv 66.186 71.266
rrent Cu City Population 24,895 24,895
Population Divide d by 1,000 24.895 24.895
rrCu ent Standard of Acre/1,000 Population 2.659 2.863
1-
A_cre_ _s/1 _ __ ,0_ 0_0_....... Po ula__tio_n__S_ta_n_d_ard _ ________ --1 ..... ____ 2_.6_5_9--11 � ____ 2_.8'-6_3--11 1-1----2_ .6""'59;..;;--11
Quimb Act Recommendation Size ,__ _____ 3.000 _. 3.000 3.000 $3,218
$449,975 $538,770 $65,271
...

I oC_ _st_X_ 3_._ 0 _Acr_e/_1�, _ 00_ 0 _ _R _e s_id_e_n_ ts S_ _ta_n_dar_d _ ____ __,I I $1 ,349,924 I I $1,616,3101 1.-I ----'$c...;.1..:..95:...,_,8=-1:...::..J3 I I ... _Po..._p_ulat__ion__S_er_v_e d_b_.._y_S _tan_da__rd ________ __.ll ... ___ 1...:...,0_00_._o__,ol ._I ___ 1...:..,0;_;;0...;.o_ .o__,oll .... ___ 1..:...,0_0..;..o...;..o__,ol
._!A_c_.gui_si_tio__n/C __on__str_u_c_tion_C _ _o s_t_._per_ _ R
_
e'-s_
id_
ent.;__ _ ___ __,II $1,349.92 I! $1,616.31 I 1.-
l __ __;,$...;.195"'"' ;;.;..8.c.c1;...J
Cost er Additional Resident
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
.·· pcc�pa,its/
_:"c ,Dwe1nrig J·

3.397

2.029

2.077

1.500
104
Schedule 10.2
City of Loma Linda
2021-22 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Open Space Land Acquisition
I ::t:::�==·:t
=·�:::i=�:::;�=[=t=;'=l=;·=; =
:c· ==============;;=,;,=;· ===
·
·=: ·:
:::
';I :::=··==,\=�=�=!=:=,·:i:=•· :.=• ::::::

South Hills Open Space Preserve 1,689.8
Hulda Crooks Open Space 35.0
Total Acres 1,724.8
Current City Population 24,895
Population Divided by 1,000 24.895
::

Current
=========================:::========
Standard of OS Acres/1,000 Population
::::::::==========

69.282
::::::
::IA
=
c
=
re
=
s
=
/1
=
,0
=
0 =
0 =
P
=
o
=p
=
u
=
la
=
ti
=
o
=
n
=
S
=
ta
=
n
=
d
=
a
=
rd
=============:::::I :=I ======
6 =
9 =
.2
=
8 =
2 =:

I
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre $33,977
Open Space Improvements - None $0
:::==================================
Total Cost per Acre
::::::==========
$33,977 :::::

I ..... C_ost _...... P_er ___ 1,0_0_0_R_e_s_id_en_ts _________ __.l ..... I __ $2_,35__3,9__95_. 1 I :::· Standard
==================================:::: :::========== 1,000.00I ::::::· !Cost per person $2,353.991
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
I Business Use Open Space
····. Occupaois/
P"1�tlirt

3.397

2.029

2.077

1.500
Total Acres of Open Space (See Detail Above)
Total Acres of Park Land (per Schedule 10.1)
Total City-wide Preserved Open Space/Park Acres 11
!Total Privately-held Developed Acres (Schedule 2.0) 11 I Acres of Open Space per Privately-held Developed Acre I cost of an Acre of Open Space at $0.60 per Square Foot I Cost of 0.5972 Acres at $26, 136/acre
Op,nSpace.

A�quisition
$7,997
$7,997
$4,776
$4,889
$3,531
I Cost of Open Space per Developed Acre IAvg. Units/Acre Commercial Lodging Units In Keyed Units 21.6
Assisted Care Living Units In Square Feet 82,469
Retail/Service/Office Uses In Square Feet 21,683
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses In Square Feet 21,202
Hospital Uses In Square Feet 53,354
Industrial Uses In Square Feet 21,780
Institutional Uses In Square Feet 16,898
1,724.78

66.19 1,790.97
1,833.12 1

0.94091
$33,9771
$31,9691
Cost/Unit I
$1,480
$0.388
$1.474
$1.508
$0.599
$1.468
$1.892
105
Appendix A
Summary of Recommendations
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 106

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 3 - Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment • Adopt Schedule 3.2, Minimal Capital Needs-based Impact Costs.

Chapter 4 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System • Adopt Schedule 4.2 for most land-uses and the per trip-end rate on Schedule 4.2 to be used in conjunction with the most current edition of ITE manual (and the trip length figures (via SANDAG) at the bottom of Schedule 4.2) for unusual land-uses (e.g. an amusement park). • Create a DIF Fund (or a reserve within the Circulation DIF Fund) titled "Regional SANBAG Projects" and transfer 54.8% of all Circulation System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.
• Create a separate DIF Fund titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 6.1 % of all Circulation (et. al.) System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

Chapter 5 - Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
• Adopt Schedule 5.2 for the twelve land-uses and the Cost Distribution per Acre figure (from the third column from the right side of the Schedule 5.2) for developments that do not involve a building pad, (e.g. additional asphalt parking area).
• Create a DIF Fund titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 3.8% of all Storm Drainage System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

Chapter 6 - Water Source, Storage and Distribution Facilities •Adopt Schedule 6.2 for the twelve basic DIF categories and the per day rate of $14.130 per gallon (see Schedule 6.2) for private uses that do not fit easily within the other fee methodologies. •Adopt Table 6-7, Equivalent Water Meter Size Calculation Based upon Minimum Needs-based Development Impact Fees.
• Create a DIF (fund) titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 10.9% of all Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Facilities DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

Chapter 7 - Sanitary Sewer Collection Facilities
• Adopt Schedule 7.2 for the twelve basic land-uses categories and the per day rate of $5.730 per gallon (see the lower portion of Schedule 7.2) for private uses that do not fit easily within the standard Sanitary sewer DIF methodology.
• Create a DIF Fund titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 16.2% of all Sanitary Sewer Collection System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 107 Appendix A - Summary of DIF Recommendations (continued) Chapter 8 - General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
•Adopt Schedule 8.3 for the three basic combined land-uses. • Create a reserve within this DIF Fund for "City Maintenance Yard Improvements/Fleet Acquisitions" and annually transfer the appropriate amounts from the Circulation, Storm Drainage, Water, Sanitary Sewer and Park Development Impact fee funds to be used for the improvements related to the title. • Transfer 17.9% of all General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to the specialized account referenced above.

Chapter 9 - Public Meeting (Community Centers) Facilities • Adopt Schedule 9.1 for the five basic residential dwelling categories. • Eliminate the existing Library Facility Impact Fee and transfer any existing fund balance to the broader Public Use Facilities Impact Fee fund.

Chapter 10- Park Land Acquisition and Park Infrastructure Development • Residential Housing - Adopt Schedule 10.1 for Park Land and Park Improvements for the five basic residential land-uses. Adopt Schedule 10.1 on both a Quimby Act ordinance and Mitigation Fee Act basis.
• Create a DIF (fund) titled "City Maintenance Yard Expansion" and transfer 6.0 % of all Park Land Acquisition and Parks Improvements System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.

Should the City determine that the current amount of open space is sufficient and adequate and that the resulting open space standards need to be maintained, than:
• Residential Housing - Adopt Schedule 10.2 for Open Space Acquisition for the five basic residential land-uses.
• Business Uses -Adopt Schedule 10.2 for Open Space Acquisition for the seven basic business land-uses.

NOTES:
(1 ). Separate Park Land Acquisition and Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allows use of receipts for rehabilitation of existing facilities whereas the AB1600 requirements prevent such expenditures.

City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 108 Appendix B
Expanded Land Use Database
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 109 Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Total - Land-use Database I
Miscellaneous Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Rooms
Business Square Feet
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
>'Existin
':'Acres

78.00 78
760.50 3,046
372.90 4,979

34.50 552

20.58 494

10.00 216

8.10 668,000
256.94 5,571,185

64.70 1,371,739

32.50 1,734,000

4.70 102,366
189.70 3,205,554
1 ,833.12 1 12,662,209 11
1,266.48 9,149

10.00 216
556.64 12,652,844

78.00 78
665.50 2,662
372.90 4,979

34.50 552

20.58 494

10.00 216

8.10 668,000
253.70 5,511,185

64.70 1,371,739

32.50 1,734,000

4.70 102,366
141.20 3,075,554
· · '·PotentiaLDevelopment 1 •
'''Acres a, of.Qniti
231.00 231
167.40 646
325.65 3,271

3.00 34

13.25 315

23.96 735

7.20 600,000
193.17 4,245,784
435.49 9,175,280

14.00 750,000

1.00 26,248
101.17 1,898,583
Total Gjneral Plan Byild-out
#of Units
309.00 309
927.90 3,692
698.55 8,250

37.50 586

33.83 809

33.96 951

15.30 1,268,000
450.11 9,816,969
500.19 10,547,019

46.50 2,484,000

5.70 128,614
290.87 5,104,137
1,s16.29 1 1 6,101,1 21 1 �I __ 3_,3_4_9_.4_1 �1 __ 29, __36_3_,3_3_6._40�1 740.30 4,497 2,006.78 13,646

23.96 735 33.96 951
752.03 16,695,895 1,308.67 29,348,739
231.00 231 309.00 309
103.50 454 769.00 3,116
105.50 1,460 478.40 6,439

1.00 16 35.50 568

4.25 102 24.83 596

7.50 300 17.50 516

7.20 600,000 15.30 1,268,000
119.60 2,727,263 373.30 8,238,448
375.30 8,210,372 440.00 9,582,111

14.00 750,000 46.50 2,484,000

1.00 26,248 5.70 128,614

40.10 870,982 181.30 3,946,536
.__ _________ s_ u_b_-t_ot_a
_,
1 ! � � L---...,;_---" 2,696.33

2. Lant.1�ui��base wi9ll11 tt1tfCity's sub�T'�it�ifornta,':$i�tEast Rural Dwelling Unit s
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwellina Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Indust rial Uses
Institu tional Uses
Sub-total I
-

40.00 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I 40.00
- -
160.00 33.90
- 12.50
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 0.43
- 0.14
- -
- -
- -
I 46.97
-
140
150
-
-
-
11,250
3,750
-
-
-
I
:::;Total General P,lan'Build-out
Acres . # oWnits
- -

73.90 300

12.50 150
- -
- -
- -
- -

0.43 11,250

0.14 3,750
- -
- -
- -

86.97 110

3. Land•use Data�e Within the Cii:y'�
.Sul:1-T<>,lal O SPA-A .

Rural Dwelling Units - - - -
Detached Dwelling Units - - - -
Attached Dwelling Units 24.96 412 24.96 412
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units - - - -
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units - - - -
Commercial Lodging Units - - - -
Assisted Care Living Units - - - -
Retail/Service/Office Uses 22.31 583,170 22.31 583,170
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses 13.39 349,902 13.39 349,902 Hospital Uses - - - -
Industrial Uses - - - -
Institutional Uses 8.93 233,268 8.93 233,268
.__ _________ su_b_-t_ota _ ___,
1 1 � � .__ ___ 69._5_9_

4. �n�..us8' DJtabasell!lithln th8'
City's . . • S1.d>,;TQlat:,
'.$i?AiB './ · -
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
-

26.25 -
-
-
-

12.24 6.12
-
-

2.04 -
525 26.25 525
-
-
-
-
319,965 12.24 319,965
159,983 6.12 159,983
-
-
53,328 2.04 53,328
�---------S_u_b_-to_t_a ..... 1 j � � ...._ __ 4_6._65_ Rural Dwelling Units -
Detached Dwelling Units -
Attached Dwelling Units 9.44
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units -
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units .

Commercial Lodging Units -
Assisted Care Living Units -
Retail/Service/Office Uses 6.16
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses 4.40
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses -
Institutional Uses 17.60
-
-
236
-
.
-
-
268,330
191,664
-
-
613,325
Totaf$eneral Plan _Build-out
· Acr@S #ofOnit!s

9.44 236

6.16 268,330

4.40 191,664

17.60 613,325
�---------su_b__-to_ta _..... 1 j � � .__ ___ 37._6_0_
111
- -- --------------------"-----------
----------------

6. l.a11q::,1,1�fl:)at,al>�s& vti(hin the City's
. .: ·· .. ·· <. S1;1b:Totaf .. ,sJi?A•D
.. ExiJiting. Qevelc,prnent F'oten_tiaJ Deyjlopment '.. Jofal 9erteral Plan Build-out Acres # of Units ;s Actes ·. ·,,;#elf Units Acres # of Units Rural Dwelling Units - - - - - -
Detached Dwelling Units 55.00 224.00 30.00 52 85.00 276 Attached Dwelling Units - - 27.00 328 27.00 328
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units - - - - - -
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units - - 9.00 213 9.00 213
Commercial Lodging Units - - 2.50 100 2.50 100
Assisted Care Living Units - - - - - -
Retail/Service/Office Uses - - 27.93 335,698 27.93 335,698 Medical/Healthcare Office Uses - - 11.97 100,709 11.97 100,709 Hospital Uses - - - - - -
Industrial Uses - - - - - -
Institutional Uses 48.50 130,000.00 27.50 - 76.00 130,000 ...._ _________ s_ub__-to_ta__,
I
I � � .__ __ 2_3_9._40_
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Sub-total I
$,. Land,,use o��,:�ithln,tne c1�·s
· ·· Sub�Toffit'.;;sPA-Gt·;,:� 1r ·
Rural Dwelling Units
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Assisted Care Living Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses
Hospital Uses
Industrial Uses
Institutional Uses
Poteritia!Developmecnt_··' Total G,erieral Plan Bui.Id-out · )fores

3.24 60,000.00 3.24 60,000
��---3.2 _4
�istin;g Development -•· · •·
- -
- -
- -
- -

13.96 335
- -
- -

4.17 108,900
- -
- -
- -
- -
,;;Total General Plan Build-out
Acres fl. of.Units

13.96 335

4.17 108,900
....,_ __________
Su_b__-
to_t_a,_,I � � ..__ 1 ___ 18_._13_
112
.. ••·. s, 41n(i•useP�tab,��tqr
·• can on, R•nctf'.'Anr1exat1bnArn
Rural Dwelling Units - -
Detached Dwelling Units 120.00 160 120.00 160
Attached Dwelling Units - - - -
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units - - - -
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units - -
Commercial Lodging Uni
t
s - -
Assisted Care Living Units - -
Retail/Service/Office Uses 20.00 50,000 20.00 50,000
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses - - - -
Hospital Uses - - - -
Industrial Uses - - - -
Institutional Uses - - - -
,__ _________ s_u_b_-to_
t
_
a_,I I � � .__ __ 1_40_._oo_
Rural Dwelling Units 0.00 0.0
Detached Dwelling Units 0.00 0.0
Attached Dwelling Units 2.00 18.0 2.00 18
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 0.00 00
Senior Restricted Dwellng Units 0.00 0.0
Commercial Lo dging Units 0 00 0.0
Assisted Care Living Units 4.50 108.0 4.50 108
Retail/Service/Office Uses 0.00 0.0
Medical/Healthcare Office Uses 0.00 0.0
Ho spital Uses 0.00 0.0
Industrial Uses 5.00 127,680.0 5.00 127,680
Institutional Uses 0.00 0.0
.__ __________
Su__b_-t_ota___,1I � � ,__ ___ 11_._50_
113
Appendix C
City Yard Improvement
Cost Estimates and Distribution
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 114 ---- ---- -- ------- - ---------------
[A -_E_xJsting Yard Improvements
Building #1 2,409 $502.00
Building #2 408 $502.00
Building #3 4,000 $502.00
Building #4 1,818 $502.00
Building #6 10,000 $502.00
Shop Building #7 3,500 $502.00
Building #9 2,178 $502.00
Sub-Total 24,313
Land Cost - SF 166,527 $15.00
Asphalt Lot - SF 122,764 $10.00
Covered Parking 4,200 $242.00
Aggregate Bays 10 $4,838.00
Fuel Station 1 $518,325.00
Block Wall 2,200 $138.00
Misc Imps. 1 $345,550.00
Total
I Needed City Maintenance Yard Improvements
Existing Yard
Satellite Yard
New Building
Shop Expansion
....>. ....>.
01 Units
5,000 $502.00
7,500 $502.00
2,500 $502.00
Total
$18, 162,9261
$1,209,318
$204,816
$2,008,000
$912,636
$5,020,000
$1,757,000
$1,093,356
$12,205,126
$2,497,905
$1,227,640
$1,016,400
$48,380
$518,325
$303,600
$345,550
$5,957,800
$4,364,712
$4,356,000
$1,045,440
$9,766,152
Circulation Storm Water Sewer
Drainage

15.2%1 $2,754,3361 1.8%1 $330,2141 48.3%1 $8,768,8331 12.1%1 $2,197,987!

0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0

90.0% $184,334 10.0% $20,482 0.0% $0 0.0% $0

0.0% $0 0.0% $0 100.0% $2,008,000 0.0% $0

0.0% $0 0.0% $0 50.0% $456,318 50.0% $456,318

18.0% $903,600 2.0% $100,400 50.0% $2,510,000 15.0% $753,000

15.3% $269,638 2.5% $43,845 51.5% $904,668 14.7% $257,943

45.0% $492,010 5.0% $54,668 0.0% $0 0.0% $0

15.2% $1,849,583 1.80% $219,394 48.2% $5,878,986 12.0% $1,467,261

15.2% $378,951 1.8% $44,950 48.2% $1,204,513 12.0% $300,619

15.2% $186,242 1.8% $22,092 48.2% $591,979 12.0% $147,745

15.2% $154,195 1.8% $18,290 48.2% $490,117 12.0% $122,322

15.2% $7,340 1.8% $871 48.2% $23,329 12.0% $5,822

15.3% $79,545 2.5% $12,934 51.5% $266,882 14.7% $76,095

15.2% $46,058 1.8% $5,463 48.2% $146,399 12.0% $36,538

15.2% $52,422 1.8% $6,218 48.2% $166,627 12.0% $41,586

15.2% $904,753 1.9% $110,819 48.5% $2,889,847 12.3% $730,727

15.2% $662,522 1.8% $79,428.96 48.3% $2,109,236 12.1% $528,699.03

15.2% $661,200 1.8% $79,270 48.3% $2,105,026 12.1% $527,644

15.3% $160,438 2.5% $26,088 51.5% $538,290 14.7% $153,479

15.2% $1,484,160 1.9% $184,788 48.7% $4,752,553 12.4% $1,209,822 Parks & General Total
Open Space Facilities City Yard
IA - Existing Yard Improvements $18,162,926] 21.0%] $3,807,8701 1.6%1 $286,3961 $18,145,6361 Building #1 2,409 $502.00 $1,209,318 100.0% $1,209,318 0.0% $0 $1,209,318 Building #2 408 $502.00 $204,816 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $204,816 Building #3 4,000 $502.00 $2,008,000 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $2,008,000 Building #4 1,818 $502.00 $912,636 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $912,636 Building #6 10,000 $502.00 $5,020,000 15.0% $753,000 0.0% $0 $5,020,000 Shop Building #7 3,500 $502.00 $1,757,000 5.9% $103,070 9.4% $164,485 $1,743,649 Building #9 2,178 $502.00 $1,093,356 50.0% $546,678 0.0% $0 $1,093,356 Sub-Total 24,313 $12,205,126 21.4% $2,612,066 1.3% $164,485 $12,191,775 Land Cost - SF 166,527 $15.00 $2,497,905 21.4% $535,172 1.3% $33,700 $1,962,733 Asphalt Lot - SF 122,764 $10.00 $1,227,640 21.4% $263,020 1.3% $16,563 $964,620 Covered Parking 4,200 $242.00 $1,016,400 21.4% $217,762 1.3% $13,713 $798,638 Aggregate Bays 10 $4,838.00 $48,380 21.4% $10,365 1.3% $653 $38,015 Fuel Station 1 $518,325.00 $518,325 5.9% $30,406 9.4% $48,524 $483,980 Block Wall 2,200 $138.00 $303,600 21.4% $65,046 1.3% $4,096 $238,554 Misc Imps. 1 $345,550.00 $345,550 21.4% $74,033 1.3% $4,662 $271,517 Total $5,957,800 20.1% $1,195,804 2.0% $121,911 $5,953,861 I Needed City �aintenance Yard Improvements
Existing Yard Units
Satellite Yard 5,000 $502.00 $4,364,712 21.0% $915,936.81 1.6% $68,889.07 $4,364,712 New Building 7,500 $502.00 $4,356,000 21.0% $914,109 1.6% $68,752 $4,356,000 Shop Expansion 2,500 $502.00 $1,045,440 5.9% $61,328 9.4% $97,871 $1,037,496 Total $9,766,152 19.4% $1,891,374 2.4% $235,512 $9,758,208 -'--'-
0)
Appendix D
Park Improvement Construction
Cost Estimates
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 117 IPark Construction Average Calculation
ENR at January 2003
Applied ENR Construction Cost Index
ENR Percent Increase
Public Imps, Road/curb, autter, etc.

Larae Park Gradina/lrriaationrrurf
Small Park Gradina/lrriaationrrurf
Plant Material:

Trees-5, 24 Gallon Box/Acre
Trees-15, 15 Gallon/Acre
Shrubs-10, Five Gallon
Shrubs-30, One Gallon
Play apparatus
Play Aooaratus - Larae
Larae Aooaratus Curbina, 450'
Play Aooaratus - Medium
M'edium Aooaratus Curbina, 375'
Play Aooaratus - Small
Small Aparatus Curbing, 225'
Apparatus Safety Surface
Buildinas:

Restroom - Small
Restroom - Larae
Electrical Service Extension
Equipment Storaae Facility
Combined Restroom/Concession
Parkina Lot
Parkina Space 4" A.C. W/6" Rock base
V-gutter
Drain Inlet
Drain Inlet Connector
Storm Drainaae Collection Line
Drive Approach
Perimeter Curbinq
Parking Lot Stripina
Exterior Street Liahtina Standards
Lot Sianaae
Storm Drainage Facilities (in park)
Inlets
Connections
Lateral (to arterial)
Sewer Facilities
Connection to Arterial
Line in Street
Line in Park
Fire Hydrant
Park Lighting
Walkway Lightina Standards
Duct Work/Wirina
Walkway Electical Wirina
Water Facilities
3" Meter
#" Backflow Device
Line in Street
Water Fountains
Fountain Lines in Park
6581
12555
190.78%
I·· <;yr�ht Co�t , IJqit·· .. ,J I . .. · .5'Acr& Neighborho9d ·' ·I $230.84 Linear Foot 1,680 $387,811
$48,650 Acre 0 $0
$58,380 Acre 5 $291,900
$381 .55 Each 25 $9,539
$190.78 Each 75 $14,309
$36.25 Each 50 $1,813
$13.35 Each 150 $2,003
$228,930 Lot 0 $0
$35.29 Linear Foot 0 $0
$152,620 Lot 1 $152,620
$35.29 Linear Foot 375 $13,234
$76,310 Lot 0 $0
$35.29 Linear Foot 0 $0
$4.77 Square Foot 8,789 $41,924
$115,320 Each 0 $0
$195,160 Each 0 $0
$28,620 Each 0 $0
$106,450 Each 0 $0
$319,360 Each 0 $0
$3,104.89 Sauare foot 8 $24,839
$14.19 Linear Foot 96 $1,362
$1,419.38 Each 1 $1,419
$2,306.49 Each 1 $2,306
$34.34 Linear Foot 144 $4,945
$3,194.00 Each 1 $3,194
$17.74 Linear Foot 490 $8,693
$0.53 Linear Foot 80 $42
$3,194.00 Each 4 $12,776
$354.84 Lot 1 $355
$1,420 Each 2 $2,840
$2,310 Each 2 $4,620
$34.34 Linear Foot 1,050 $36,057
$3,550 Lot 0 $0
$27.66 Linear Foot 0 $0
$23.85 Linear Foot 0 $0
$5,320 Each 1 $5,320
$2,400 Each
$1,460 Each
$30 Each
$3,550 Each 1 $3,550
$4,440 Each 1 $4,440
$20 Linear Foot 1,320 $26,400
$1,240 Each 1 $1,240
$20 Linear Foot 200 $4,000
118
!Park Construction Average Calculation
ENR at January 2003 6581
Applied ENR Construction Cost Index 12555
ENR Percent Increase 190.78%
Benches/Tables
Concrete Picnic Tables $1,430 Each 4 $5,720
7' x 10' Cement Table Pads $2,000 Each 4 $8,000
Individual BBQ Grills $621.93 Each 2 $1,244
Concrete Benches $620.02 Each 4 $2,480
3' x 6' Concrete Bench Pads $515.10 Each 4 $2,060
Bleachers $6,210 Each 0 $0
Large Covered Picnic Ramada $110,000 Each 0 $0
Individual Covered Picnic Pad $26,610 Each 4 $106,440
User Electrical Service $17,740 Each 0 $0
Electrical Service per Group area $2,220 Each 1 $2,220
Game Courts
Basketball Courts $96,060 Each 0 $0
Basketball Court Lighting $62,100 Each 0 $0
Fenced Tennis Courts $106,450 Each 0 $0
Tennis Court Lighting $62,100 Each 0 $0
Baseball Field - Competitive $88,710 Each 0 $0
Ballfield Lightinq $354,840 Per two fields 0 $0
Baseball Field - Recreational $26,610 Each 1 $26,610
Soccer Field (crowned) $31,940 Each 0 $0
Skatepark $29.60 Each 0 $0
Pedestrian Walkway
5'wide $38.16 Linear Foot 1,680 $64,109
6'wide $45.79 Linear Foot 1,680 $76,927
9'wide $68.68 Linear Foot 0 $0
Miscellaneous Flatwork $28.62 Linear Foot 500 $14,310
Small Park Signaae $8,870 Lot 1 $8,870
Large Park Signage $28,620 Lot 0 $0
Bike Rack/Pad $2,660 Each 2 $5,320
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, etc) $715,410 Each 0 $0 Small concrete staae $55,440 Each 1 $55,440
Medium Ampitheater/bandshell $266,130 Each 0 $0
Total Cost $1,447,681
Total Acres 5.00
Average Cost per Acre $289,536

71.90 12.81
$38,737,536 $3,708,959
$538,770 12.81
119
I Park Construction Average Calculation
ENR at January 2003 6581
Applied ENR Construction Cost Index 9516
ENR Percent Increase 144.60%
Public Imps, Road/curb, autter, etc. 3,360 $775,622 3,780 $872,575 Larae Park Gradina/lrriaation/Turf 15 $729,750 20 $973,000 Small Park Gradina/lrriaation/Turf 0 $0 0 $0
Plant Material:

Trees-5, 24 Gallon Box/Acre 75 $28,616 50 $19,078
Trees-15, 15 Gallon/Acre 225 $42,926 300 $57,234
Shrubs-10, Five Gallon 150 $5,438 100 $3,625
Shrubs-30, One Gallon 450 $6,008 300 $4,005
Play aooaratus
Play Aooaratus - Larae 1 $228,930 1 $228,930
Lar!le Aooaratus Curbinq, 450' 450 $15,881 450 $15,881
Play Aooaratus - Medium 2 $305,240 1 $152,620
M'edium Aooaratus Curbina, 375' 750 $26,468 375 $13,234 Plav Apparatus - Small 2 $152,620 1 $76,310
Small Aparatus Curbing, 225' 450 $15,881 225 $7,940
Apparatus Safety Surface 36,562 $174,401 24,609 $117,385 BuildinQs:

Restroom - Small 1 $115,320 1 $115,320
Restroom - Larae 1 $195,160 1 $195,160
Electrical Service Extension 2 $57,240 2 $57,240
Equipment Storaae Facility 0 $0 1 $106,450
Combined Restroom/Concession 1 $319,360 2 $638,720
ParkinQ Lot
Parking Space 4" A.C. W/6" Rock base 150 $465,734 400 $1,241,956 V-Qutter 1,800 $25,542 4,800 $68,112
Drain Inlet 8 $10,645 20 $28,388
Drain Inlet Connector 8 $17,299 20 $46,130
Storm Drainaae Collection Line 2,700 $92,718 7,200 $247,248 Drive Aooroach 4 $12,776 6 $19,164
Perimeter Curbinq 3,600 $63,864 9,600 $170,304
Parking Lot Striping 1,500 $795 4,000 $2,120
Exterior Street Lighting Standards 18 $57,492 20 $63,880 Lot Sianaae 3 $1,065 3 $1,065
Storm Drainaqe Facilities (in park)
Inlets 30 $42,600 40 $56,800
Connections 6 $13,860 8 $18,480
Lateral (to arterial) 4,725 $162,257 6,300 $216,342
Sewer Facilities
Connection to Arterial 2 $7,100 2 $7,100
Line in Street 120 $3,319 120 $3,319
Line in Park 630 $15,026 630 $15,026
Fire Hydrant 4 $21,280 5 $26,600
Park Li!lhtin!l
Walkway Lighting Standards 252 $604,800 235 $564,480
Duct Work/Wirina 12 $17,520 5 $7,300
Walkway Electical Wirinq 13,120 $393,600 8,830 $264,900 Water Facilities
3" Meter 1 $3,550 1 $3,550
#" Backflow Device 1 $4,440 1 $4,440
Line in Street 120 $2,400 120 $2,400
Water Fountains 8 $9,920 12 $14,880
Fountain Lines in Park 1,000 $20,000 1,000 $20,000
120
IPark Construction Average Calculation
ENR at January 2003
Applied ENR Construction Cost Index
ENR Percent Increase
Benches/Tables
Concrete Picnic Tables
7' x 10' Cement Table Pads
Individual BBQ Grills
Concrete Benches
3' x 6' Concrete Bench Pads
Bleachers
Lan:�e Covered Picnic Ramada
Individual Covered Picnic Pad
User Electrical Service
Electrical Service per Group area
Game Courts
Basketball Courts
Basketball Court Liohtino
Fenced Tennis Courts
Tennis Court Liohtino
Baseball Field - Competitive
Ballfield Liohtino
Baseball Field - Recreational
Soccer Field (crowned)
Skate park
Pedestrian Walkway
5'wide
6'wide
9'wide
Miscellaneous Flatwork
Small Park Signaae
Laroe Park Signaoe
Bike Rack/Pad
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, etc)
Small concrete stage
Medium Ampitheater/bandshell
6581
9516
144.60%
I £ �rs,Acre�Oll\Jn\mitycf>ark > I .. 1 ____ ;2_o_A_.:c_· r �_s_p_o_rt_s __ _;P_it,._.rk_-_: - 60 $85,800 30 $42,900
60 $120,000 30 $60,000
30 $18,658 10 $6,219
30 $18,601 15 $9,300
30 $15,453 15 $7,727
0 $0 14 $86,940
2 $220,000 0 $0
20 $532,200 4 $106,440
2 $35,480 1 $17,740
6 $13,320 4 $8,880
2 $192,120 4 $384,240
0 $0 4 $248,400
2 $212,900 6 $638,700
0 $0 6 $372,600
0 $0 6 $532,260
0 $0 3 $1,064,520
6 $159,660 0 $0
0 $0 4 $127,760
14,400 $426,240 21,600 $639,360
1,680 $64,109 1,050 $40,068
1,680 $76,927 1,050 $48,080
2,940 $201,919 3,780 $259,610
8,500 $243,270 4,000 $114,480
0 $0 0 $0
1 $28,620 1 $28,620
9 $23,940 12 $31,920
1 $715,410 0 $0
2 $110,880 1 $55,440
1 $266,130 0 $0
$9,046,100 $11,700,893

15.00 20.00
$603,073 $585,045

25.42 33.67
$15,330,124 $19,698,453

25.42 33.67
121
Appendix E
Percentage of Infrastructure DIF to be set-aside
for City Yard Improvements and Vehicles
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 122 N
w
Appendix E
Percentage of Infrastructure DIFs to be Set Aside for City Yard lmprovementsNehicles Development Impact Fee
Infrastructure
Local Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridgesand Access/Egress) Facilities Storm Drainage Collection Facilities
Water Supply, Storage & Distribution Infrastructure
Sanitary Sewer Collection Infrastructure
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Park Land Acquisition and Facilities Improvements
I
City Yard &
Vehicles
$2,210,590
$305,860
$5,634,919
$1,512,501
$296,047
$2,120,734
Total DIFs I As a Function of I
to be Collected Total Collection
$36,397,456 6.1%
$8,152,496 3.8%
$51,794,173 10.9%
$9,346,236 16.2%
$1,652,045 17.9%
$35,565,011 6.0%
Appendix F
Application of Development Impact Fees on Accessory
Dwelling Units
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 124 Application of Development Impact Fee on Accessory Dwelling Units The approach that is recommended for the calculation of DIFs for application to the construction of ADUs is to make it a function of the demand of one detached dwelling unit as is consistent with current State statutes. One can assume that the State identified them as function of a detached dwelling DIF as they more closely resemble detached dwellings, albeit smaller in size, as they are largely located within detached dwelling neighborhoods and will likely function as such.

The application of an ADU DIF as a function of a Detached Dwelling is consistent with the recently Chaptered Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 2 (attached as Attachments A to E).

Section 65852.2, (f) (1 ).
(3) (A) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

The following Table is an example of a proposed 750 square foot accessory dwelling unit to be constructed behind a 3,000 square foot primary dwelling unit. The 750 square feet ADU represents 25.0% of the 3,000 square foot primary unit (750 SF/3,000 SF = 25.0%). The City will also receive a spreadsheet application enabling staff to make other such calculations depending upon the facts presented within the ADU application.

Existing Mitigation Fee Act Findings. The five required Government Code §66000 findings within each chapter would apply to the imposition/collection of ADU DIFs. The fees collected would be used to finance the same projects limited for use in that DIF-defined area in each corresponding infrastructure chapter in the 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report.

Square Feet of Attached Dwelling Unit (ADU) 750
Square Feet of Primary Dwelling Unit 3,000
Ratio of ADU to Primary Unit 25.0%
Adopted Detached Dwelling Unit Impact Fee $34,494
ADU Impact Fee $8,623.50
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 125 End of Report
City of Loma Linda 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 126 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-30

AN URGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING

THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION

UPDATE AND NEXUS REPORT AND ESTABLISHING THE

UPDATED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LOMA LINDA
WHEREAS, the City of Loma Linda has conducted an extensive and exhaustive analysis of its potential development, anticipated capital improvements, the costs reasonably borne of providing those improvements, the beneficiaries of those improvements, current population and estimated growth; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to comply with AB 1600, now codified under the California Government Code, Sections 66000 through 66009; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to implement these increased development impact fees for every new development to install the necessary facilities, pay for future facilities or reimburse another developer or the City for installing facilities in the past; and WHEREAS, development impact fees can be used to fund only capital costs of new facilities, not facility maintenance or operations, nor capital improvements to serve existing infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention that the fees be allocated proportionally to new and existing development; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq. the specific fees to be charged for services must be adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution, after providing notice and holding a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 6062a, a general explanation of the hereinafter contained schedule of fees and charges has been published in the local newspaper on May 31, 2022 and June 5, 2022, as required; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance or resolution shall be effective no sooner than 60 days following the final action on the adoption of the increase in the fees and charges; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66017(b), the legislative body of a local agency may adopt an urgency measure as an interim authorization for an increase in a fee or charge, to protect the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, welfare and safety in that the City will be receiving applications for significant development projects in the next 60 days and the increased fees are necessary to provide infrastructure to support the projects and, without the infrastructure, the City will be unable to preserve the existing levels of service (public safety, circulation, storm drainage collection, utilities, refuse collection and disposal, public use facilities,

ATTACHMENT C
Resolution No. 2022-30

Page 2 of 3 ends

Loma Linda City CouncilJune 14, 2022

Loma Linda City Council
June 14, 2022